Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

The problem here is the insistence of some on calling this genre of music, Jazz; not the inherent value of the music. The great irony is that the PLAYERS of this music themselves would be the first to admit that this music is not Jazz. Call it fusion, instrumental pop, even pop-jazz; whatever!. But Jazz it ain't, and that's ok. Remember, the title "smooth-jazz" was not coined by the players ot even the listeners; it was coined by the radio stations who wanted to capitalize on the respect, credibility, and glamour that the term Jazz conjures up. This is a genre with it's own easthetic and for some to insist that it is something that it is not is kinda silly and does the genre a disservice, even if it does a pretty good job by itself. There is plenty of music in this genre that is played with sincerity, soul, and sometimes even virtuosity; unfortunately there is plenty that is pure zacharine. In fairness, we also know that there are plenty of "real" Jazz projects that leave a lot to be desired, and speaking for myself, I would rather listen to Dave Sanborn milk a melody, or to Michael Brecker astound with his incredible virtuosity, than to some of the real Jazz artists who can sometimes put out less than memorable work. At the same time there are many truly great Jazz artists who would sound out of place and just plain wrong trying to play in the "smooth-jazz" style. Just because it IS Jazz, does not make it good.

Now, if some insist on comparing the two genres and attaching relative value to each, in general terms; there's no contest folks. Excluding the work of artists such as Chick Corea, John Scofield, Pat Metheny, Brecker, and others who play what can legitimately be called electric-Jazz, the level of sophistication and craft in simply good, never mind great, Jazz is so far above that of most "smooth-jazz" that it almost feels ludicrous to bother with a comparison. And while I think that a group like The Yellowjackets can be very exciting and many of the tunes (especially since Bob Mintzer joined the group)are interesting and well crafted, there is nothing in this genre that compositionally, and to me for sheer beauty, comes close to a tune like "Lush Life" and countless others. As far as the craft goes, I assure the skeptics that if they could be a "fly on the wall" at the recording sessions of say, Kirk Whalum and Joe Lovano, they would be astounded. At the Lovano session you will hear performances, beginning to end, and maybe even some "first takes" of brilliant instrumental interplay and improvisation. As for the Whalum session, well you have to decide which day and which player you want to hear on any given day. Do you want to go on Tuesday morning and hear the drummer and bass player "lay down tracks", or Wednesday afternoon to hear the piano player rerecord the twenty-third bar of the tune for the tenth time; because in that spot the bass player dragged a tiny bit, and since it is already on tape, he has to adjust (play badly) his playing to make the music work? Or do you want to go on Friday to hear the star of the show play seven different versions of his tenor solo on "Groove Me"? Or lastly, do you want to go the following Monday and listen in the control booth while Whalum and the producers decide which piece of which solo they will patch to which piece of a different solo; and then plug it in over the existing rhythm tracks. Inspired music making happening here. Not!

The problem here is the insistence of some on calling this genre of music, Jazz; not the inherent value of the music. The great irony is that the PLAYERS of this music themselves would be the first to admit that this music is not Jazz. Call it fusion, instrumental pop, even pop-jazz; whatever!. But Jazz it ain't, and that's ok. Remember, the title "smooth-jazz" was not coined by the players ot even the listeners; it was coined by the radio stations who wanted to capitalize on the respect, credibility, and glamour that the term Jazz conjures up. This is a genre with it's own easthetic and for some to insist that it is something that it is not is kinda silly and does the genre a disservice, even if it does a pretty good job by itself. There is plenty of music in this genre that is played with sincerity, soul, and sometimes even virtuosity; unfortunately there is plenty that is pure zacharine. In fairness, we also know that there are plenty of "real" Jazz projects that leave a lot to be desired, and speaking for myself, I would rather listen to Dave Sanborn milk a melody, or to Michael Brecker astound with his incredible virtuosity, than to some of the real Jazz artists who can sometimes put out less than memorable work. At the same time there are many truly great Jazz artists who would sound out of place and just plain wrong trying to play in the "smooth-jazz" style. Just because it IS Jazz, does not make it good.

Now, if some insist on comparing the two genres and attaching relative value to each, in general terms; there's no contest folks. Excluding the work of artists such as Chick Corea, John Scofield, Pat Metheny, Brecker, and others who play what can legitimately be called electric-Jazz, the level of sophistication and craft in simply good, never mind great, Jazz is so far above that of most "smooth-jazz" that it almost feels ludicrous to bother with a comparison. And while I think that a group like The Yellowjackets can be very exciting and many of the tunes (especially since Bob Mintzer joined the group)are interesting and well crafted, there is nothing in this genre that compositionally, and to me for sheer beauty, comes close to a tune like "Lush Life" and countless others. As far as the craft goes, I assure the skeptics that if they could be a "fly on the wall" at the recording sessions of say, Kirk Whalum and Joe Lovano, they would be astounded. At the Lovano session you will hear performances, beginning to end, and maybe even some "first takes" of brilliant instrumental interplay and improvisation. As for the Whalum session, well you have to decide which day and which player you want to hear on any given day. Do you want to go on Tuesday morning and hear the drummer and bass player "lay down tracks", or Wednesday afternoon to hear the piano player rerecord the twenty-third bar of the tune for the tenth time; because in that spot the bass player dragged a tiny bit, and since it is already on tape, he has to adjust (play badly) his playing to make the music work? Or do you want to go on Friday to hear the star of the show play seven different versions of his tenor solo on "Groove Me"? Or lastly, do you want to go the following Monday and listen in the control booth while Whalum and the producers decide which piece of which solo they will patch to which piece of a different solo; and then plug it in over the existing rhythm tracks. Inspired music making happening here. Not!

I agree that the race component is, if not entirely, mostly irrelevant to the debate about "contemporary" jazz. I say "mostly" irrelevant, because race has been a formidable force in the history of jazz; obviously. It is extremely difficult to discuss the subject in our politically-correct society.

Coltrane 1, I agree with much of what you say, but not all; and certainly not as concerns the relevance of race issues in the current music/jazz environment. I will try to express some thoughts/feelings in a way that, if they are to have any real significance at all, will surely rub some the wrong way. For my inability to express those thoughts in a way that is totally inoffensive to all, I apologize. But, I know where my heart lies. So, my apology only goes so far. Anyway, here goes:

The dirty little secret, and one that we white guys are too often unwilling to truly embrace, is that the greatest jazz artists have been black; end of story. There have been a few notable exceptions, but there is no question in my mind that the true innovators in jazz, and those that did the best job of expressing, through their music, the deepest depths of the human condition, were black artists. Not because blacks, as a group, have superior expressiveness ability, but because of the other part of the dirty little secret: the depth of the pain that blacks were submitted to by a predominantly white culture. Good art is always a reflection/expression of what is happening in a society, and we all know that there were some pretty terrible things going on in our society, leading up to the birth of jazz. But, and this is a big "but", that was then, and this is now.

Society evolves, race issues have evolved, and jazz has evolved. Contemporary (current) jazz, some of it clearly valid, simply doesn't have the relevance that music that expressed the social/racial turmoil at the turn of the 20th century, through the era of the civil-rights movement did. How could it? When we now live in a society which, in spite of all the cries of doom and gloom, is still one in which there is a tremendous amount of wealth, and the members in it's lowest economic strata are still able to have a lifestyle that is the envy of the vast majority of the rest of the world. We tend to lose perspective. Is it any wonder that much of the art expresses a kind of vapidness, and lack of true emotional complexity?

I don't buy that racism plays an adverse role in the success of black contemporary jazz artists. In fact, the opposite is sometimes true. I know several young white artists trying to establish themselves in the NYC jazz scene, who feel that black players get preferential treatment from producers/promoters. It wasn't long ago that Wynton Marsalis got some legal heat for trying to replace the white members of his band. Is racism dead? Of course not; probably never will be.

We are all racist. It is programmed into our genes. It is what we as individuals do with that fact that makes the difference. We strive to be more enlightened individuals by recognizing our flaws. But, losing perspective, and using race as justification for lack of self-reliance is as bad as active racism itself. We have a black president, and every ethnic color is well represented in every position of power in our society. I would prefer to celebrate that new reality, than keep looking back. And maybe then we can get to the point that we can freely state that we don't like a particular Obama policy, without fear of being called racist. Or that I prefer Tom Harrell's playing to Terrence Blanchard's without fear of the same.

Re the success of the likes of Kenny G, Chris Botti, etc. In the scheme of things, does it really matter?