Talk:Smooth jazz

There is currently a debate about the future direction of this article. You can help by either adding to the draft of the article with verifiable third party sources or add your opinion to help reach consensus.

Removal of "Description" contents

The following was removed from the "Smooth Jazz Description" on the basis of Wikipedia's policy on "No Original Research." The contents of this post do not reference an accepted scholarly source and at times does not reference a source at all. Further, at best the source that it does site is opinion based, and at worst it's derogatory. Continuation of this content undermines Wikipedia's position of achieving academic respectablitly:

In general, a smooth jazz track is downtempo (the most widely played tracks are in the 90–105 BPM range), layering a lead, melody-playing instrument (saxophones – especially soprano and tenor – are the most popular, with guitars a close second) over a backdrop that typically consists of programmed rhythms and various pads and/or samples. Though much of what is played under the banner of the "smooth jazz" radio format contains vocals, music recorded with the intent of categorization as smooth jazz would typically not contain such a vocal track. Rather, the stations in question pull their vocal tracks from the work of artists like Simply Red or Luther Vandross, who are normally considered "soul" or "R&B".

Although many listeners and record companies group smooth and contemporary jazz together, the genres are different. Smooth jazz is generally considered background music, whereas "straight-ahead" contemporary jazz is seen as demanding the listener's undivided attention.

Issue

After numerous thinking, I think that this article may need somewhat of a rewrite. It talks too much about the controversy in the world of music whether it is a form of jazz or not.

The article should mention more what smooth jazz is by definition. It is a style of jazz blending in some elements of R&B. However, due to the controversy, it can be subject to POV. Does anyone have any ideas of what should be done? Andros 1337 21:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the disclaimer "not to be confused with Cool Jazz" from the top, because I really can't see why anybody would confuse these styles. 84.139.54.226 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed

This does need a rewrite with less editorializing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.200.93.169 (talk • contribs) .

Much indeed. I hate it too, but seriously, this article is downright rude on both sides. I'm not sure how neutral it is to call smooth jazz critics "purists." I stuck {{POV}} on it, that'll learn ya'll a good'n. Dextrose 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I've also added a expert request tag to the page. I'm a bit busy at the moment, and I am supposed to be on a Wikibreak (hey, I can't keep away!), but there a lot of problems and violations of Wikipedia guidelines and policy within this article:

• There are no citations to anything within the article, violating WP:V and WP:RS, and because of that, the article cannot establish notability for a genre of music that I think we can all agree is notable. Adding citations after a rewrite would take a while to do however.
• Terrible POV problems, as above.

I would go as far to say it could have been ripe for articles for deletion, though the genre's notability and popularity should guarantee it a place in Wikipedia. It needs real attention and I shall raise it on the to do list for the Jazz WikiProject. --tgheretford (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

I am also going to say that the "Smooth jazz albums generally considered to be genre-defining" section, without any third party refereneces to back up the fact that any of the albums are genre-defining is also violating WP:NOR and should, if no reliable third party sources can be found to support their genre-defining claim, be removed from the article. --tgheretford (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

That sort of thing could be better discerned from places like AMG and Billboard. I'd prefer to see the information from both sides: the way fans see it, then the way people with taste (g) see it. Dextrose 08:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I found one reference from Digby Fairweather, commenting on the "rape" (his word) caused by Smooth jazz on UK radio: http://www.fly.co.uk/fly/archives/europe_features/new_jazz_station_goodbye_to_th.html Could be added sometime to the article as a verifiable source of criticism of Smooth jazz from a major UK jazz artist. --tgheretford (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

IMO "Purist" is a fairly neutral term. Smooth jazz critics refuse to accept smooth jazz as a valid jazz genre. However, by definition, smooth jazz is descended from previous styles of jazz. For example, one of the founding fathers of smooth jazz, George Benson, was primarily influenced by Wes Montgomery, and Wes Montgomery is not usually considered smooth jazz. Therefore, "purist" is a neutral and valid term to describe smooth jazz crtics. ANDROS¹³³⁷ 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed ++

"...one of the few stations that never drank the Kool-Aid brewed by leading radio consultants," while true, :-) does not belong in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.152.231.174 (talk • contribs) .

radio coverage

Is it really wise to include the statement about radio playing smooth jazz in most of the US? Outside of XM and major markets, there are relatively few "smooth jazz" format stations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asoundhound (talk • contribs) .

I'd agree. I actually have something closer to a jazz station than anything close to being a smooth jazz station.--T. Anthony 08:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As of 02/05/2008 WQCD (CD101.9) in NY city is no longer available on regular radio. They cite declining listeners as the reason. The station is available only on HD radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.196.238 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Criticism

The criticism section currently reads like an impassioned talk show debate, on both sides. One offending line would be: "Others contend that smooth jazz is indeed a viable jazz subgenre, positing that attempts to maintain jazz music as a kind of museum exhibit are narrowminded, presenting over a century's continued cross-pollination between jazz and R&B as evidence."

Thats clearly a rebuttal, not a summary of fact. That and a few other passages gots to go... --relaxathon 03:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mostly I agree. I think if this is a controversy there is likely actual articles written about it which could maybe help.--T. Anthony 08:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Development

Recently removed from Para #2 position: "To sure remember for importance in the style development artists which Michael Lington, Brian Bromberg, Fattburger, Daniele Caprelli, Peter White from the techniques abilities that expressive indeed remarkable."

Must have been a non-native english contributor trying to say:

"The artists Michael Lington, Brian Bromberg, Fattburger, Daniele Caprelli and Peter White are notable for remarkably expressive syles".

This is a machine translation using someing like Google language tools, but forthe moment I can't quite put my finger on the original language. Kudpung (talk) 11:53, 24 December 2008 (UTC) Does anyone think we should put this sentence back in? I can think of other notable artists Like Larry Carlton, Bob James, Dave and Don Grusin, Joe Sample, Tom Grant, etc. who are also important in the development of the genre. I guess everyone has their favorites, and the list would probably go better in the Popular Artists section just above. Bob -  uriel8  (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The things you describe above are "peacock terms", and I believe reading through, there are such terms (as you have shown above) still in the article, alongside other concerns. I have tagged the article as such. --tgheretford (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Another artist on the CTI Records label (there is mention of the label in the article) that helped in the development of the style was Eumir Deodato. His surprise top-5 pop hit version of 'Also Sprach Zarathustra' off the 'Prelude' album is what gave alot of people their first taste of what would become smooth jazz. While more of a fusion record, two smaller hits he had would more shape the style, 'Rhapsody in Blue' and 'Moonlight Serenade'. Both failed to go top-40 but still were widely heard, and the latter of those two more closely fit what we today would refer to as 'smooth jazz'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.72.178.201 (talk) 21:44, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce

I have asked the Cleanup taskforce if anyone can help improve the article, citing the concerns (and a few I have also found) above. --tgheretford (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a POV check, as per comments I made to the cleanup taskforce and on this talk page from other editors to get the ball rolling and get a third opinion on this article. --tgheretford (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Streaming on the Web

I have noticed this section was added recently. Although I greatly respect and admire Jimi King for his work, the main text in the section does weigh heavily towards SKY.fm. There is a valid reason to have streaming smooth jazz stations on the Internet in this article, but at the moment it is too POV and too much like an advert for one station over the thousands available on the Internet.

Then again, it still doesn't change my mind that this whole article needs nuking with a large nuclear bomb and rewriting from scratch. --tgheretford (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

"What to do with an article beyond cleanup?" - the future of this article

I asked that question at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), specifically refering to this article. Billscottbob made three suggestions. First of all, we could start a draft as a separate page in talk namespace, tagging that draft with {{draft}}. Preferably, that is the way we need to go, considering the concerns in the article as well as discussion on this talk page. Frankly, I think the article is beyond cleanup with no chance of references being found, even though with a notable article as this, they will exist out there. It is just the immense effort of doing so would be too much for one editor and if no-one has the courage to do so, then it may be better to start afresh, especially with Andros 1337's issues at the top of this talk page.

The other two suggestions from Billscottbob involved WP:PNA and WP:ACID.

The best option I can think of is one that has been raised before, this article should be rewritten as a draft, and because of the controversial aspects of the genre within the jazz spectrum, I would insist, as per WP:V official policy that everything is thoroughly referenced with third party references. --tgheretford (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article definitely must stay, as it is a viable genre. Maybe bring it back down to a stub, removing everything unreferenced, and start over, with nothing added (or reverted) in the future unless it has a reliable source cited. I have very limited time these days, but I can help located refs, and help watch the article for unsourced material. I would also suggest that the current version be saved maybe under Smooth jazz/draft so that material can be added back in as it is referenced. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Better to create a draft at Talk:Smooth jazz/Draft as per WP:SP and {{draft}}. --tgheretford (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just found another issue, particularly the Radio section. There isn't much on the International front of smooth jazz. I can think of two stations in the UK and Belgium which broadcast (or did broadcast) on FM, but have no representation compared to the the US stations in the article. There are also the smooth jazz artists around the world which need to be incorporated. I will research and add something in due course. However, my suggestion for a complete rewrite and draft still stands, awaiting consensus. ----tgheretford (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Well, the article definitely must stay, as it is a viable genre.":

Sorry, but I can't find any "definite" meaning in the phrase viable genre. Do you mean valid genre? Whether the actual stuff being labeled smooth jazz is artistically or musically valid would be entirely a matter of opinion--and a strong contingent would vehemently deny most of the stuff's claim for validity. Do you mean commercial genre? Undoubtably much commercial product has been moved more or less under this rubric, but that doesn't make the term itself (smooth jazz) appropriate. TheScotch (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, by definition of "viability" as "the property of being viable; the ability to live or to succeed", considering the amount of commercial stations in the US [1] as well as stations in Europe on FM, ie. 102.2 Jazz FM (sadly now defunct) in the UK, Crooze FM in Antwerp, Belgium[2], Arrow Jazz FM across 11 transmitters in the Netherlands and Radio MW 107.8 FM in Russia to name a few[3], all but a couple of stations have their own article on Wikipedia, it may be correct to suggest that the genre is (commerically) viable. ----tgheretford (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Draft

I started a draft at Talk:Smooth jazz/Draft. Let's make sure all the issues are kept out of it and everything is referenced. The only thing that has been kept in the draft is anything with a reference. --tgheretford (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Reorder

Did this on my own accord, but saw where the page needed some extensive editing. I moved the Radio segment to another section, mainly because the article serves as a knowledge base first, and I felt that the origins of the genre and it's information should come before "where to find it". I created an extra section here in the discussion page for anyone noticing the changes, if they search for a reason why they can find this.Sheeeeeeep (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Deleted section

The section "Smooth jazz albums generally considered to be genre-defining" had been tagged as original research since September 2007, and did not cite any reliable sources as criteria for inclusion. I've deleted the section, and accordingly updated the list of clean-up tasks. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:46, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Radio

After reading the article, I am left wondering - cynically - if it is not an orphaned contribution to Music Genre Radio Stations in the USA - even if Smooth Jazz is a radio and shopping mall friendly genre.Kudpung (talk) 11:58, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

Decline of Smooth Jazz & Smooth Jazz Today - contradicts itself?

I added an reference from the Washington Post about the decline of smooth jazz stations (on the back of yet another station changing format in a major market). I have read the Smooth Jazz Today section and it appears to contradict itself, going from stating that smooth jazz is continuing to grow then in the next paragraph that it is in decline. This needs someone with knowledge of the American radio market to go through the article and decide what it is (reading the sources online suggest the latter is sadly true). --tgheretford (talk) 17:20, 26 December 2008 (UTC)

Smooth jazz - jazz or not?

I reverted quite an contentious edit where an editor, I presume in good faith, removed any mention that smooth jazz is a subgenre of jazz to instrumental R'n'B without any verifiable sources to back it up, hence I reverted the edit. I however, don't wish to turn this into another debate on whether smooth jazz is a valid subgenre of jazz or not, but this does show that the article does need further cleanup and verifiable sources added to the article. --tgheretford (talk) 21:00, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

Smooth jazz is absolutely a type of jazz, a natural progression stylistically which resulted as a result of the propagation of the soprano saxophone and "smooth" jazz guitar style, as well as modern electronic and synthesized development of music. See the introduction. How can something called "smooth jazz" possibly not be a type of jazz? how could it instead be a type of R&B, a genre which is usually exclusive of jazz. Very confounding that anyone would think this. Smooth jazz and adult contemporary are too often confused and coalesced. They are completely separate genre. AC is more a radio format. Cosprings (talk) 01:54, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Comment: I think the problem stems (in part) from radio stations describing themselves as "smooth jazz" when, in fact, the format covers a relatively wide stylistic range, which can include R&B, Quiet Storm, pop songs et al. I, for one, would not describe Steely Dan, Sting (or the Police), or Sade as "jazz", even if they sound "jazzy" and are all played on "smooth jazz" radio stations. This suggests that "smooth jazz" refers to two different things: a musical genre and a radio programming format, and so perhaps two articles are warranted - which, in turn, suggests a sizable headache ;-). Where the radio format is concerned, I think someone simply decided that "smooth jazz" sounded snazzy. It think the "instrumental R&B" category is something that critics and writers came up with (e.g. in the Allmusic books), to describe instrumental (usually "jazzy" sounding) music that contains little, or no, improvisation (e.g. Kenny G; he is labeled as such in the first edition of the All Music Guide to Jazz); I would guess that there are few, if any, artists who'd actually place themselves in such a category. As for calling it "smooth jazz", well, it's a free country ;-) and I guess they can call it anything they want (for comparison's sake: I'm sure many people would call Glenn Miller jazz, but I was taught that his music had zero, or near-zero, improv) (and FWIW: I once had a pair of dress shoes that were labeled "Jazz Oxfords," though as far as I could tell they had little, if anything, to do with jazz). My $0.02, -- 65.222.244.66 (talk) 15:28, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

P.S. For that matter, I would guess that few, if any, Smooth Jazz (i.e., the musical genre) artists actually describe their own music as "smooth jazz," they probably call it "jazz." David Sanborn has stated that he doesn't care for the term and that he doesn't think that's what he plays. -- 65.222.244.66 (talk) 15:30, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

essentially : smooth jazz is jazz with all the fangs and innovation forcibaly removed from it. thus, it is jazz, but not jazz at the same time. Shrodinger's Jazz. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 152.105.219.106 (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to reiterate what the anonymous commenter 65.222.244.66 said above: Smooth Jazz is not a genre of music, it is a radio programming format. Nobody plays smooth jazz, and no one teaches smooth jazz. Smooth jazz originated as some playlist created by some program director, and as songs are discovered that don't clash with this playlist, they are put into the rotation. And when I say 'songs' I mean it. There are plenty of 'smooth jazz artists' whose normal output would repulse a smooth jazz listener, but have had two or three songs in the rotation for the duration of the format, hence been labeled 'smooth jazz.' It definitely doesn't hurt their sales, but it probably hurts their feelings:) I think the focus of this article ought to be on the people who originated the format (programmers, stations and companies), and a representative sample of tracks from the playlist - or the complete playlist, which can't be more than fifty or sixty songs. To me, the format seems to be trying to capture the Chet Baker/Julie London/Pacific Club Jazz type feel, with a 70's Funk instrumentation, a somewhat faster tempo, and all improvisation removed, to target middle-class, middle-aged Black people. After about 35 years of it, those middle-aged black people have become seniors, and not a great advertising demo. As long as this article insists on trying to describe smooth jazz as a style of music, it will be a mess, because it will never nail it down. There is no style of music that contains Sade, Chuck Mangione, and Chic - the only reason they've been grouped is because they have recorded at least a couple of songs at the same general register, timbre, and tempo that could be faded into one another easily.99.31.153.163 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Whew! I am a college level jazz educator who would like to use articles on Wikipedia, but this article is not useful as it stands. It is clear to me that Smooth Jazz is a natural extension of all previous genres of jazz. In the way that Cool Jazz style was response to bebop, Smooth Jazz is a response to Jazz Fusion. The style contains improvisation, and absence of improvisation is a good indicator that a piece of music is not of the style but rather is of the radio format. Musicians who are active within the style do understand the difference, but they are trying to make a living and are hesitant to offend anyone. One cannot source businessmen as the Delphi of music styles, but the parts of this article concerning the radio format have value to me as an educator. One large problem in producing a Wikipedia article on the style is the hegemony of my own colleagues within the academic community. Jazz in education has as its genesis the GI Bill, enabling countless ex-servicemen to earn teaching certificates and grow the 'Stage Band' movement alongside traditional marching bands in US high schools. Graduates of these programs enrolled in colleges and began to form jazz programs within post-secondary education in the 1960's. These college programs were gradually institutionalized and produced college-level educators in significant numbers by the 1970's. Through this evolution, academic jazz circles are founded on the prominence of swing and bebop styles. All other styles which evolved after 1955 have been routinely marginalized by jazz educators and these are the majority of people who write the sources which could be cited for Wikipedia. Add to that the peculiar impact of Ken Burns "Jazz" on PBS, where a relatively small number of 'experts' were allowed to soapbox. Things are changing, at Indiana University where one of the first graduate-level programs was offered, the course on Swing bands is no longer a requirement but an elective. But the writers who like jazz after 1960 are still too small in number to build a Wikipedia article perhaps. Statistically, the bebop lovers/smooth jazz haters outnumber everyone else in academia by a large margin, falsely skewing the verifiability and reliable sources values we hold up for now. It reminds me of trying to write an encyclopedia article on bebop in the 1940's, when it was exploding in the after hours jam sessions and backstage areas of the remaining swing bands. Can we only present a properly balanced article well after the music has begun? If not, then how do we deal with the scores of 'moldy figs' who vilify smooth jazz right now? Jnoxon (talk) 21:53, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations

A lot of citations that I added in previous edits have been deleted, and need to be readded. Having said that, the article still needs a good few more citations across the whole article. --tgheretford (talk) 18:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)