Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

It must be the lawyer in me, but can anyone define "contemporary jazz". I just thought any jazz recorded not long ago or as we speak was "contemporary jazz". I take the odd stab at recordings well received by Downbeat, depending on the comments made, not just the rating. Seldom do I buy newer stuff, however. Why? It just seems to me that jazz was more leading-edge in previous decades. I like the way the quality of performance and the quality of recording line bisected in the late fifties and in the sixties. The more recent stuff too often sounds like a hybrid to me. Yes more "product" than "music". When I want "rock", I go for rock, when I want "pop", I go for pop (thing is I never want pop, it seems)and how about "space music", is it jazz just because it sounds complex and phasy?. I have not listened to ECM stuff in a long while. Some I have enjoyed in the past Eberhard Weber, Kenny Wheeler, Jan Garbarek come to mind. I even listened to avant-garde stuff, and found it difficult to love (Art Ensemble of Chicago, Don Pullen). They get respect, as far as I know. Can anyone out there put names to those contemporary jazzers that have a Dangerfield complex? Are we dealing with fusion and other attempts at getting more people under the tent or at music that pushes the envelope without leaving emotional and spiritual content out?

Pbb. No ECM stuff in a long time? What can you mean? Charles LLoyd, Dave Holland (and more)... challenging and loveable. Charles Lloyd brings tears to my eyes.

Sincerely, I remain

I'm on the contemporary jazz side too but not smooth -- sounds tooo sentimental and naive and share the thought with Bobalool. Miles Davis is one of my favorite jazz musicians came through several generations of jazz and his last albums don't sound traditional rather than contemporary. The smoothest jazz(or maybe it's not jazz at all) I can listen to is Pat Metheny which I collect every album and always wait for the next one to come.

Albert: Check out jount album Pat Metheny and Ornette Coleman to listen some "smoothe jazz".
I believe and probably you too that Pat isn't from that pop kitchen described on that tread.

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!