Talk:Smooth jazz/Archive 1

Archive 1

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 have attempted to write a short, referenced definition in the draft. Let me know what you guys think. Ultrauber (talk) 06:50, 28 November 2014 (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)

This page seems to contain fewer biases than it did a few years ago. Thank you to all who have helped clean it up. However, it is still overwhelmingly trolled by contributors who dislike the genre, which causes it to maintain an undertow of disdain for the genre. It seems that as a composite secondary source for a topic (in this case music), Wikipedia should be more concerned with presenting the features of the topic and allowing that genre to stand on its own merits rather by comparison. This type of page should not overwhelmingly present the criticisms of people who favor one sub-genre over another. A good analogy would be allowing a wiki page on Punk Rock to be overrun by Surf Rock lovers who feel that Punk didn't carry on the mantle of rock music with integrity and therefore should not be labeled rock, and perhaps be marginalized in the process. One could argue that one form of rock is no more valid than the other; they just have different approaches and have a different appeal to audiences. The same is true for the many different genres of jazz that have surfaced since in New Orleans in the 1800s.

This page still features clear cherry picking of published criticisms. For example, it cites a harsh rebuke of Michael Brecker by music critic Piero Scaruffi (who isn't solely a jazz critic, but also review rock, etc.). Now in fairness to Scaruffi, he only criticized certain Brecker albums, not his entire body of work. But the page doesn't bother to mention that Brecker garnered an abundance of critical acclaim for his complete body of work, including his work with McCoy Tyner, Pat Metheny, Herbie Hancock, to name a few (reference Jazz critic Howard Mandel). Brecker is an interesting point of reference in this dialogue because it's indeed true that he received hostile criticism for his approach of incorporating divergent influence, such as rock and dance rhythms [back], into jazz early on in his career. But what is clearly missing among the criticisms on this page is Miles Davis' name. In the 1970s Miles did the same merging of divergent elements of rock and R&B/dance music as Brecker did, in fact he was the catalyst for people like Brecker. But one should be weary of consistency. Bebop (Bird, Dizzy, early Miles and Coltrane) was not well received critically in its time. Many felt that it was a major departure from the Big Band Swing Jazz that had been the main staple in Jazz for the two decades prior. If you go to the Bebop Wiki page, they talk about the transition from Swing to Bebop and they say that fans loved Bebop. And while it's true that Bebop fans loved Bebop, the majority of swing fans did not. But we can give the writers of the Bebop Wike page a pass because it's the Bebop page, not the Swing page. Post WWII saw a decline in jazz appreciation among fans (as noted in the Ken Burns documentary), with Bebop taking the biggest economic hit. The fan base shrunk drastically, moving from large ballrooms to small clubs, and plummeting record sales. And there was criticism in the jazz ranks at that time for Bepob. For example, Tommy Dorsey hated Bebop. It seems that if the reigning jazz royalty of the 1930s and 1940s had chose to take ownership of the Jazz moniker, Bebop would never have been called Jazz. For that matter, anyone who does a modicum of research will discover that both Ellington and Coltrane were criticized early in their careers, where people argued that what they were playing was not true jazz.

There is a completely biased section in the DESCRIPTION which states: "Smooth jazz is generally considered background music, whereas "straight-ahead" contemporary jazz is seen as demanding the listener's undivided attention." It begs the question of who generally considers it to be background music? Is it the public who actively seeks out the art form, an segment of the public who have little interest in the genre, or is it the self-proclaimed Jazz-purists who have little interest in fully engaging these artists? As far as I know, there is no such scholarly paper purporting the claim that contemporary jazz is muzak. A more accurate statement would be "... is anecdotally considered..." I'm a bop player by training and by trade, and I don't know very many people, other than other jazz musicians and a handful of music critics who truly comprehend the complexity of solos, but how could they? These listeners do not know or care if I'm playing a melodic minor or a dorian minor over the changes, and it shouldn't matter as long as they appreciate what is played at whatever the intensity they choose. I'm well aware that many who listen to Bop do do mainly because it's the sort of thing that can impress others, but their understanding of the art form is minimal. As Frank Zappa once said (and I'm paraphrasing), any music that is not fully engaged by the listener, whether it's classical, jazz or CW, is muzak. Hence I submit, one would be in err to judge an entire genre by its listeners or by what one thinks a listener is experiencing.

As a practical note, any debate on what constitutes jazz should be redirected to the main Jazz Wikipedia page under "Debates" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jazz#Debates), which gives a nice treatment of how the jazz status quo has historically resisted innovation. Apparently, this sort of debate is a tradition within the idiom as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.228 (talk) 13:07, 11 November 2010 (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)

Chloe moores articie Toy my cars Game kick ball Animal puppy/Dog Song i like to saing my own songs moive Fast and furious 7 i also like them all Book Amilea bdelia color blue/aqua sport soccor/baseball/baskitball food pizza by by afry body have a nice day by

                                      chloe moore

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)

I think "purists" might be a loaded term (as would be "self-described purists"). Perhaps "some jazz fans" would be better, though it sounds a bit weasel-ish. Unfortunately, from where I currently sit, I can't access the cited source for the sentence in question. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

April 2010

There was a commendable effort to improve this article, but it has been a couple of years, and the article is not really in better shape than it was in Feb. - Mar. 2008. I gather that there is no one out there (over the course of two years) who possesses all of the following:

1. Additional reliable sources about the subject;
2. A neutral attitude toward the subject; and
3. sufficient motivation to overhaul an article about the subject.

Admittedly, I am not one of those persons. Mainly, I am lacking the third attribute, even moreso after receiving comments like these. I think the biggest issue might be that many or most people with the motivation to work on this article have pretty strong feelings (read: non-neutral), one way or the other, about this subject. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:23, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Since I nominated the article for the cleanup taskforce back in 2007, the only thing that has been solved is the excessive number of external links. I agree that there are going to be problems getting people motivated, and from the looks of progress on this article, there has only been additional information added without references, even references removed in one instance. Talking on here is likely to get nothing done, and I may even suggest something more radical (tough love) to improve the article. From what I can see, we could consider the following options:

• Keep the status-quo - except nothing will get solved, we'll still have the issues with neutrality, sources, verifiability and motivation.
• Deletion - would allow us to start afresh, but as the subject article is going to be considered notable and worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia, its likely to be kept.
• developing the draft - has the benefits of deletion (starting afresh), but the same problems with motivation.
• seeking help from the community - either asking for other Jazz WikiProject members or the wider community to help come to a consensus as to what to do with this article.

It's going to be difficult to get this article back on track one way or another, but something has to be done - preferably sooner rather than later. --tgheretford (talk) 20:58, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

I know that you've previously raised the issue at WP:JAZZ (see talk archives). As another option (speaking of tough love), I'd even suggest simply replacing the current article with the current draft (minus the empty sections). By the way, none of this was meant to minimize your earlier efforts, which are appreciated. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:30, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

That could work - but some parts from the main article which have references added to them (oddly, the bits I did!) I think would need to be added to the draft first before we replaced the article with the draft. And of course, the draft would need to be approved before it replaced the main article. I think it may also be a good idea to alert significant editors of this article about this idea in case anyone attempts to revert the change, as well as to gather consensus from the wider community and to prevent any possible fallout from this idea from the aforementioned significant editors. --tgheretford (talk) 22:13, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

All sections from the main article which needed to be copied to the draft have now been done, except for one paragraph and quote, as the reference is now banned by Wikipedia and must not be used, paragraph is below:

Paragraph - In June 2009, San Francisco's KKSF radio station responded to tens of thousands of complaints about its station format change from smooth jazz to classic rock by responding with the reasons why they changed their format and where else to listen. The program director stated in his response that far more people would listen to classic rock according to research, acknowledged that smooth jazz stations changing formats was a national phenomenon, stated that the business decision was "obvious" and that people should use alternative internet or HD2 services.

Quote - It's business... What research and ratings have definitively shown is there are a lot more people in the Bay Area who enjoy the kind of music that you hear on "The Band" compared to Smooth Jazz. Not thousands, not tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands more. From a business stand point, the decision was obvious. -- Michael Erickson, KKSF Program Director

History/formatting - [4] --tgheretford (talk) 22:43, 1 April 2010 (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, -- Gyrofrog (talk) (as 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. -- Gyrofrog (talk) (as 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)

Both Arabic music and Indian music largely rely on improvisation, much more so than smooth jazz does – by your logic, should we call it jazz as well? Hearfourmewesique (talk) 20:16, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View

Wider consensus for whether smooth jazz is a valid subgenre of not has been started at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view/Noticeboard#Smooth jazz. --tgheretford (talk) 22:40, 10 April 2011 (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)

Links

A link to the section "Non-Commercial FM stations" referring to "The Quiet Storm" program on WGDR and WGDH in Vermont has an outdated link to the program's page on the Fishbowl Radio Network website, but I was unable to update it. FBRN has redesigned its website and the link that is currently on the page is to the network's old site. Can whomever is in charge of links update it accordingly? Thanks. --SkeeterVT 16:25, 12 December 2012 (US EST)

Old Link: http://fbrn.us/storm.html New Link: http://fishbowlradionetwork.com/shows/the-quiet-storm-with-skeeter-sanders.

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.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.98.121.228 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 1 April 2010

Good call. Not only is that original research, but it lacks important detail, and where it does provide some detail, it is inaccurate. The main characteristics of smooth jazz are:

• Smoothness: few rhythmic, harmonic or melodic surprises. Very little dynamic variation and no abrupt dynamics. Many tracks have approximately the same volume throughout, possibly brought about by a volume leveling in the studio production. Instrumental tones are silky smooth, perfectly recorded and produced. This is the main value in smooth jazz: eliminating from the timbre of every instrument anything that may be objectionable to some listeners. Instrumentation in smooth jazz is perfectly executed or edited to perfection. There is a variation in tempos in smooth jazz but it does not stray far from moderate tempo. Largo or presto pieces or passages are not heard.
• Rhythmic simplicity: predominant rhythmic structure of smooth jazz is 4/4 time, with some syncopation or latin rhythmical devices. Drumming is usually borrowed from pop music genres. Odd time signatures or polyrhythms are strictly avoided.
• Clear separation of lead and backing tracks: no "equal time" given to instrumentalists. Drum solos and bass solos rarely heard.
• Heavy use of cliches: smooth jazz avoids extended themes. Tunes are based on some "hook" which is a cliche, or a small string of cliches, all expressed in a single diatonic or blues tonality. This theme is periodically repeated throughout. For instance, the theme often serves as a frequently repeated "call" with brief, improvised responses. Improvisation in smooth jazz is largely a string of cliches that appear repeatedly throughout the genre. Cliche turnarounds are frequently used, such as several downbeat strikes on a sharp ninth dominant chord followed by a pause, and a blues-based anacrusis introducing the tonic.
• Simplistic harmonic structure: pieces are often confined to a single key, or else follow very simple devices for modulation, such as parallel major/minor, or minor/myxolydian. As in pop music, abrupt, obvious upward modulation by a semitone or tone is sometimes used toward the end of a piece, which then continues with the structure otherwise intact, creating a sense of brightening. Downward modulations (down a half step or semitone) are sometimes concealed in smooth jazz by a crude trick, rather than by clever composing: an instrumental pause is introduced during which only the percussive track continues for a few bars. The instruments then resume in the original tonality.
• Modal improvisation: smooth jazz improvisation is extensively modal based on natural or melodic minor, blues, ionic (major), mixolydian and dorian modes. Altered scales are avoided: all alteration takes place via the blues scale. The music stays in a mode for extended periods spanning many bars, making it possible to easily improvise in a single key. Pieces often introduce a modulation pattern early (such as shifting between a minor mode and a parallel major mode) and then stick with this pattern, so that it is easy to improvise across these changes. A reasonably skilled, average musician can improvise accurately to a smooth jazz tune he has never heard before without requiring any sheet music, which is far from true of jazz.

Problem is, where is this kind of information found that it can be externally referenced? 24.85.131.247 (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Renaming the article

I have spoken with other Contemporary jazz enthuastists, and I believe this article should really be renamed as Contemporary jazz, or another possibly but I doubt many people will agree is Contemporary instrumental music. Off-topic but certainly on the same line, I believe that the "List of performers" needs to be renamed "List of contemporary jazz artists or musicians (either one)." SwisterTwister (talk) 20:45, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Contemporary jazz" is currently a redirect to this article. I think the two terms are generally synonymous, although really "contemporary jazz" means "current jazz" which is (still) a pretty big umbrella. One issue with "Contemporary instrumental music" is that not all of the music is instrumental, and furthermore such a term is rather broad in scope (it would include e.g. Contemporary classical music). I always thought "instrumental pop" was a better term, although this could also refer to, say, The Ventures or Harold Faltermeyer. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 20:53, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

"Contemporary jazz" simply means jazz which is being produced today. Contemporary jazz is not the same thing smooth jazz. Smooth jazz isn't even jazz. It is more like instrumental pop with jazz elements. There is a recognizeable category of music as smooth jazz and has to be treated separately.24.85.131.247 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I agree with you regarding the literal meaning, but like it or not, it is used (though not universally) as a synonym for smooth jazz. See also Talk:Contemporary jazz#Disambiguation page for related discussion. But no, I don't think this article should be moved/renamed to "contemporary jazz" (and as it was originally brought up 2 years ago I'm not sure that's still on the table). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

But really this format originated as unique and new music, it definitely was NOT called "Smooth jazz." This music's majority is instruments. Vocals are tossed in to be different. Same thing with Classic jazz, the perspective was to saxophone and such. Vocals are at times played. We all have opinions on this format, to each th their own.....20:53, 2 July 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by SwisterTwister (talk • contribs)

Hell no!!! Contemporary jazz is pretty much the antidote to smooth jazz, including artists such as George Garzone, Marc Ducret, Kurt Rosenwinkel, Mark Turner, The Bad Plus etc. Hearfourmewesique (talk) 03:32, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

At one time this format was called "adult alternative". I put this defintion on Adult alternative, a disambiguation page, but until yesterday I didn't have any reliable sources backing this up. Someone with access to old Billboards couldn't find anything, so I thought I didn't have a chance. Then I decided to try looking in a library database and found something. Now, the term has fallen out of use and is more likely to refer to Adult album alternative or Triple-A. But I am trying to incorporate what I found into the radio section. I messed up and included part of it in the "Origins" section before I realized this was not an article about a radio format.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:49, 13 July 2011 (UTC)

I think I've done all I can with Billboard. The magazine was beginning to use "adult alternative" to refer to "album alternative" (Triple-A) at the end of the list I was looking at, and that should probably be incorporated somehow.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:41, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Oh, a couple of things. The origin of the term "smooth jazz" is unsourced. I found one source that said it began in the 90s, and it was Frank Cody who was involved, but it was nothing like what's here already. And searching for what's here already produces mostly Wikipedia articles and mirrors.Vchimpanzee · talk · contributions · 18:50, 14 July 2011 (UTC)

Terms like "adult alternative" are just labels used by the companies that pipe music to the audio channels on TV, into shopping malls and elevators. "Adult alternative" is not a type of music, just like "easy listening" is not a type of music, and just like "love songs" is not a type of music.24.85.131.247 (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if this citation regarding the Billboard Smooth Jazz Songs chart will be helpful, but I'm placing the citation here because the Wiki-Article specifically requests 'No more links'.

Under the citations note on 'How it works', Billboard states; "This week's most popular smooth jazz songs, ranked by radio airplay detections as measured by Nielsen Music", and Neilsen seems to concur with the 'Smooth Jazz' definition here.

Since most musical genre's can be open to debate, the Wiki-Article seems fairly well written to me. So, if there were a vote, I'd say the Article 'name' and its terminology are okay. -- Cheers! Curley Wolf (talk) 03:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Wayman Tisdale

Deleted reference to the late Wayman Tisdale as current peformer. Mr. Tisdale passed away in 2009. (talk) 20:35, 8 January 2011 (UTC)