There's been a great deal of talk by radio types including our own Shannon about the wisdom of dropping the word "jazz" from radio formatting.

Many are promoting the idea that the J-word "scares" people away from radio stations and that it is now considered anathema to play more than four (4)instrumentals in any one hour of airplay.

Is there "wisdom" in this new way to win friends and influence people?

Well, to answer the question, I'm sure the people who support such a move believe there is a great deal of wisdom. Certainly, there is truth to the idea that the word "jazz" does scare people who are ignorant (whether by choice or by circumstances). And perhaps for those radio formats, not saying "jazz" will help. I can't argue about the 4-track maximum for consecutive instrumentals. I can't remember that last time I heard as many as 2 instrumentals back to back on radio - not counting the time I was a volunteer DJ who played them, or when I hear the college jazz station.
However, I'm afraid this strategy will further confound efforts to promote jazz - any kind of jazz - and make it more difficult for jazz artists to get airplay and, in turn, concert gigs.
We can't and shouldn't force people to like jazz, but I think we're hurting this music and the people who make it when we avoid saying the word because we don't want to offend anybody.

BA has already dropped it. Jones Network will be next...

Smooth FM or Smooth A/C is the genre.

Get ready for this generation's version of Perry Como on the airwaves...

I'd really rather they drop the "smooth" label than the "jazz" one....at least with jazz, you have a general idea or framework for expectation of what you may hear. With smooth, it's coming off negatively from the start. At least to me, smooth says dull, formula driven, all sounds the same just change who's playing. A lot of jazz (traditional, anyway) could have the same thing said about it; the only distinguishing characteristics sometimes are what instrument is in the lead. However, jazz says to me, here's something that will challenge you to listen more deeply, and maybe you'll be surprised by it. Smooth has few surprises anymore.

my 2 cents, off the soapbox

It's a sad day when most people's familiarity of the word "jazz" is associated with ads for Zatarain's.

I don't know how I feel about a hanging adjective becoming a word for music. Because you know that eventually the average layman will take it from radio lingo to a word describing a genre, like what was done with "smooth jazz". "I like rock, metal and smooth." That's way weird.

So little of smooth jazz radio resembles jazz anything anyway at this point, so it's a chance to reclaim the word in that equation that does mean something.

I don't know- but it may be worse that most people think jazz is Kenny G type stuff.

Now if they thought jazz was more Pat Metheny, that'd be different. And I think a very large number of people are aware of Metheny, Yellow Jackets, Spyro Gyra, etc.

Yeah, don't care for those commercials myself. Reminds me too much of the dancing silhouettes on the lowermybills flash ads on darn near every website you hit.

TY

But most jazz...Ahem..."experts" don't even think Pat Metheny (group) is jazz. LOL!

I think if you eliminate the word "Jazz" it only hurts the genre and keeps it in obscurity.

Kenny G is on the cover of this week's Billboard... he's teamed up with Starbucks..... released last week.

What does that tell you about marketing product in America?

http://www.starbucks.com/aboutus/pressdesc.asp?id=811

Forgive me if I snicker.
Or was it snooze that I was contemplating?