This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of jazz on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is/was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Assigned student editor(s): Isabelroche19. Assigned peer reviews: Bedwards96.
I don't know if much can be added to this article as 'Crossover' artists tend to be a fairly diverse group.Many of the artists named have tended to go the way of Smooth Jazz and the term 'Crossover ' is largely redundant now Paul210 16:40, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
Broadly defined, "crossover jazz" is jazz that appeals to those outside the jazz audience; see also Crossover (music). This article currently specifies it as something akin to jazz fusion and/or smooth jazz. Fusion and smooth jazz can be (or are) crossover jazz, but they are not the only examples. Furthermore it goes on to say that crossover jazz is a fusion between jazz and some other kind of music, which isn't necessarily the case: it doesn't have to be any kind of fusion, it just have to have appeal outside of jazz circles. In other words, "crossover" isn't a "style" of jazz, but rather a description of its impact. Someone had cited the All Music Guide to indicate that Earl Klugh is a crossover jazz artist, but the book doesn't actually specify this (though the assertion may be correct). The book does, however, describe other artists as "crossover jazz" and many of them have little or nothing to do with smooth jazz. (I have updated the article to cite these individuals.) Thus, this article shouldn't define it as an offshoot of jazz fusion, or somehow parallel to smooth jazz, and in any case it doesn't provide any source for this description. Also note that while the All Music Guide does describe some artists as "crossover jazz" it does not actually define what that means. -- Gyrofrog(talk) 20:42, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
I've just reverted (diff) a couple of edits to the article, in part for the same issue that I've described in my previous comments. The editor describes crossover jazz as a type of fusion and/or parallel to smooth jazz. I've explained above why this usage is problematic. However, the editor's cited source doesn't actually mention the phrase "crossover jazz". In addition to these concerns, the editor wrote "Jazz music is traced back as early as the 1700's." The cited source actually specifies that "the roots of jazz" (my emphasis) can be traced back to this time period. (I think it's analogous to saying the automobile is traced back to the Neolithic era, while only the wheel itself dates back to that time.) But in any case, the history of jazz is already covered by the main jazz article, and with more reliable sources. Finally, please see MOS:NOTED regarding verbiage such as "it is important to understand…" Thanks, -- Gyrofrog(talk) 19:18, 15 October 2015 (UTC)