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?

The reason the Pop Instrumental category in the Grammys was originally crated was that it more adequetely described pop instrumental music than the word "jazz" does. Bottom line is that it is not jazz. So why call it that. Jazz is improvisational, complex, and extended soloing is an integral part of it. Haven't the purists been telling us for years that this music (Contemporary pop instrumental) was not jazz. Well, it's not. So why call it something it is not. If you are paying Kenny G, Richard Elliot, Peter White, Norman Brown, Rick Braun, Dave Koz etc you aren't playing jazz you're playing pop instrumental. There are a lot of people who play both and a lot of in betweens but if what they are playing has a structured melody, a tight hook, clocks in at about 4 minutes and has no soloing then it's not jazz. Even these artists have said that in interviews. If you're playing Miles, Coltrane, Wynton Marsalis, etc then call it "jazz" but why call something jazz just because it's an instrumental. Pop instrumental music is awesome, but it's notjazz.

It tells me that Starbucks is slipping. Usually their music is pretty well curated, I think.

Though I heard the new song on MusicChoice and didn't hate it!

I agree with Shannon's comments, particularly with all the artists she names...definitely pop instrumental. Rippingtons as well and probably 75% of what Spyro Gyra does too. But the boundaries DO get blurry. (and I don't care to re-hash the definition of jazz).

What about, say, Mint Jam by the Yellowjackets? Or the last releases from Joshua Redman, Chris Potter or Antonio Sanchez. It would be wrong to classify it as pop instrumental or smooth. What about Christin McBride's "Live at Tonic"? Miles Davis puts out a record like that and it's embraced as "free jazz" but when a younger artist of today does it it is written off as world music. Tell me how or why John Coltrane is a better jazz artist than Bob Mintzer. What about Amy Wine(crack)house? Pop or Jazz? If she wasn't as popular would she be embraced more as a jazz artist than a pop artist?

I just wish more jazz afficionados (sp?) would give credit to recent jazz recordings that are undeniable jazz. (Off the soapbox)

Yeah, what Steve said.

This is good stuff but it is not what I'm talking about- it is not pop instrumental, and it is not going to get played on the type of station or brunch show that is affected by this imaging.

Public radio and internet programmers who are playing the above named artists are playing jazz and they call it that. It is improvisational, does not have pop song structure and is often abstract or acoustic. Those of us who advocate removing the "J" word are not talking about this type of music or even straightahead leaning CDs by "smooth jazz" artists. We are talking about not referring to pop instrumentals (pop song structure (short song-verse/hook/bridge) as jazz. Yes, the boundaries get vague sometimes..

The purists have wanted us to quit calling it jazz for years. So when we finally advocate doing just that why do they get disgruntled?

To me, it's about money, sales, and so forth, the bottom line. I don't think they really care less, as long as it sells, and that's sad. Understand that companies are now joining to become huge conglomerates(Like the Borg,resitstance is futile), and they're doin' whatever's neccesary by any means neccesary to flip a buck, no different than what a crack dealer does. What's amazing to me is that the word "Jazz" was a demeaning term originally created by the same societals/philanthropists that turned around and started using it 'cause it began making money for them, and now they wanna get rid of it 'cause it ain't bringin' enough revenue for them anymore(Putting the soapbox back under the kitchen sink).

Shannon's right, though. Jazz isn't even the music those folks play, so it shouldn't be part of their vocabulary. However, it must be part of ours.
Even in the rare cases they play Spyro Gyra, they're only going to play Morning Dance, Catching the Sun or Ariana.

If they want to drop the term "jazz" fine, just as long as radio creates a new term and radio format....electric comtemporary jazz.

I will resist any attempts to make us feel we have to be embarrassed that we listen to jazz.

By the way....this stodgy attitude about "what is jazz and what is a pop intrumental" bugs me as well.

Spyro Gyra and the Pat Metheny Group are JAZZ. That is the main thrust. That they allow many other musics to inform and influence their jazz should not penalize them. Much of Spyro Gyra and PMG's music has a stronger jazz element, and some of it has latin, brazil, african, blues, rock and other influences.

I think the word "pop" has a negative connotation...calling PMG's and Spyro's music "pop" instrumental is an insult and makes it sound as if the bands music is lightweight....like the Archies or the Monkees or Britany Spears.

Insofar as improvisation, maybe on PMG and Spyro studio stuff, there is less improv....but anyone who has seen these two bands live would laugh at you if you said they were not improvisational jazz bands, epseciallly live.

Paul

well said, Paul-

Agreed

TY

Don't wanna complicate things, but another term "fusion" to a degree is looked upon in a negative connotation.

Always interesting reading the range of feelings such threads promote.

I'm not sure that the struggle to find a radio format that will work will ever end. Bruce hit the nail on the head when he offered a thought about the driving force behind this struggle.

It's a no-brainer knowing that just about every other type of music has hi-jacked the elements and textures that have been part of jazz and blues music since the earliest years. Without jazz would there ever have been rock music? Or R&B? And for that matter, today's pop? It's incredible to me that ths fact is lost on today's industry.

A case-in-point is Herbie Hanc-ock's "River" winning Album of the year. The release has so many pop elements you have to wonder why it is acknowledged as a "jazz" album. I like the release but have to wonder if its being considered "jazz" is as much about the names "Herbie Hanc-ock" and "Wayne Shorter"?

The industry seems to cater more to "vocal" music and that is what appears to drive Grammy categories. You'll notice the percentages of vocals vs. instrumentals in certain categories. Mainstream music intends to be vocal-oriented, with instrumentals taking a back seat. In jazz it appears to be the opposite. The emphasis is on instrumentals, with vocal artists seemingly secondary.

Shannon is right in wondering why we are now so concerned with removing the j-word from music, the association of which we have long resented.

However, I feel that coming up with new radio formats that will attain any sort of longevity will be a never-ending exercise in futility.

On the other hand--jazz is an original. You can eliminate the j-word from "scaring" people. However, it will be around long after much of the music garbage we're subjected to on Grammy night and commercial radio is gone.

Actually pop instrumental was the term Dave Koz and Richard Elliot came up with in the mid 90s when people were slamming them for not improvising..their (and others') position being that jazz improvisation was not a requirement for this type of music.

All commercial radio formats are based on a rotation of a small group of "familiar songs that our research shows listeners are comfortable with" so the chances of any format that busts boundaries going on commercial radio is nil. The place for eclectic, contemporary, and straightahead jazz as far as traditional radio is concerned, is the non commercial stations. Unfortunately a lot of those are marginializing their music progamming and going for NPR talk.

Don't be alarmed. I'm only posting because this is a very interesting thread, plus, I feel that I have recently come to see an entirely new perspective on smooth jazz that I would like to share with the board. But other than that, I've bascially quit posting on the jazz boards for a variety of reasons. But getting back to the topic, I feel that there's a reason why mainstream music and the music industry caters more to vocal music than it does to instrumental music.

Actually, a while back ago there was a poster who used to post over on the ContemporaryJazz.com board named burden21, and in similar topics like this, I recall him trying to explain to us that the public at large just isn't interested in instrumental music and that primarily, they prefer music that has vocals or singing in it. But, back then at the time, I kind of heard what he was saying, but at the same time, I kind of didn't. But, instead, I believed in the idea that some of us posters advocated, which was that the reason why more of the public didn't like what many of us posters considered really good pop instrumental music(in contrast to the smooth and relaxing style of pop instrumental music) is because more of the public hasn't been given the opportunity to hear the music that us posters considered to be the really good pop instrumental music. But to make a long story short, not too long ago, I was given a reality check about this music that many of us hold so near and dear to our hearts. For the past several years, I have gotten into a habit of either purchasing or burning pop instrumental albums/CDs that I really enjoy and giving them as gifts to family members. Well, come to find out....well, actually as a result of one of those 'I'm really not happy with the Christmas present that you gave me' conversations that I'm sure that many of us have had before with a family member, I came to find out that the pop instrumental CDs that I had been giving to one family member wasn't entirely their cup of tea. Now that particular family member didn't say that they didn't like the CDs that I had been giving them, but that this wasn't the type of music that they would go out and purchase primarily because they said that they prefer hearing singing in their music rather than just hearing only instruments. Plus, this family member said that when they do listen to the CDs that I have given them as gifts, that they have to be in right mood to be able listen these CDs because a lot of the music on these CDs(even the CDs that have a good amount of uptempo and midtempo songs on them) makes them sleepy. Also, the reason why this was never told to me before was because the family member that I had been giving these CDs to said that she understood that I was trying to share and promote music that I thought was really good and which made me happy. However, as I mentioned before, because of the 'Christmas present' conversation that came up, all this other information about the pop instrumental CDs that I had been giving as gifts came out also. However, I'm glad that it did because it confirmed what the poster burden21 had said a long time ago, also, unfortunately, whether we realize it or not, we actually are a small minority in the world of music listeners.

Also, to answer Phil's original question, I think it's hard to say whether or not dropping the word "jazz" will help the smooth jazz radio stations or not. And the reason why I say that is because from my own personal experience, people seem to associate the word "jazz" with instrumental music. Also, I've observed that when the phrase "smooth jazz" is used, people generally understand this phrase as meaning the more relaxing 'elevator' type of instrumental music in contrast to the more harsher, dissonant, or 'old fashioned' type of jazz that they are aware of. Therefore, I feel that the only thing that removing the word "jazz" will do for the format is lessen the idea of instrumental music being associated with the radio format. But for the bottom line or listenerhsip, this may be a good thing because one other thing that my one family member told me in our 'Christmas present' conversation is that another problem that she has with listening to smooth jazz or pop instrumental music is listening to instrumental songs continously, one right after another and that she prefers having vocal songs played in between the instrumental songs the way that the radio station does.

Hey, Greg. Nice to see you again.

Well, Markus, from the ominous tone of his prologue, I don't think he's back. I took that to mean we shouldn't expect more posts any time soon, although it would be wonderful if we could.

Well, you know that often times in the past when I've posted on this board, bar room brawls have broken out. But Woody is right. I'm not actually back. But I am peeking my head back in the door and I would at least like to know what you or even anyone else thought about what I said in my post. Does it make any sense? Does it provide any insight on this topic? Has anyone else ever had one of those 'I really didn't like the Christmas present that you gave me' conversations with a family member before?

Also, thanks for the welcome, Woody and Markus.

Greg . . .

I would never have taken you to be a "bar-room" brawler.

I believe experiences like the one you shared is not all that uncommon. And I would assume your motivation in giving such a "gift" was to open up this person to music you believe to be worth enjoying. Due to its personal touch, she should have recognized as a "special" gift.

Regardless, I believe that has more to with music perception than simply "vocals." The next thing that may have come up is the "genre" of vocals.

The "length" of music tracks seems to also be an area of concern when it comes to playing tracks. Recently, I was listening to one of our student DJ's on the air. He has a very good show providing an eclectic mix of pop, rock, and indie music. Of interest though is his comments about a certain track he wanted to spin for his listeners. When he realized the song was a little longer than five (5) minutes, he declined to use it.

Does this mean that the objective in a radio music show is to squeeze in as many songs as possible each hour? It almost appears to suggest that he believes his listeners are suffering from an "attention span" disorder. Or is this sort of a music ADHD problem?

However, Greg, it is good to see you are still in the area. Don't be a stranger.

What it comes down to is nobody is suggesting that the "J" word be dropped from shows like Phils, or like the one we have on our public station on Saturday night. The talk about dropping the word Jazz is in reference to stations that are in the corporate smooth jazz format where the majority of the playlist is people like Anita Baker, Eric Clapton, Phil Collins, Sade, BabyFae, Kelly Sweet, John Legend, The Eagles and Linda Ronstadt from the 70s, old Motown etc and ambient instrumentals by Paul Hardcastle and Soul Ballet with some Kenny G on the side. Is there anyone who really wants to call that Jazz?

Only the musically illiterate.

Guys, Greg is right about the brawls. I'm guilty of being one of the brawlers, but that was before I got to know him.
Anyway, about the five-minute DJ, I suspect a combination. He probably does presume his listeners have a short attention span. But he's also following the model of commercial radio.

Well, perhaps I've grown up a little bit more over the years and know how to better handle on-line skirmishes so that they don't get too ugly or to avoid them altogether.

Yes, you are right, Phil. That was my motivation in giving the gift, however, as I had mentioned in my one post, the person did recognize the CDs as "special" gifts, however, she had refrained from sharing her true feelings about the CDs up until "you know who" had brought up the 'I didn't like the Christmas present that you gave me' issue.

No, actually it had more to do with hearing singing in music than it did with music perception. And I don't know if you recall this(it's been several years now), but that's what our friend burden21 from the old ContemporaryJazz.com forum used to try to tell us...that the majority of music listeners just aren't that keen on listening to instrumental music and prefer listening to music that has vocals in it. And I got a reality check on this from the family member mentioned because all this time, I was thinking that she was enjoying the music that I gave her as much as I did, but came to find out she only likes intrumental music up to a point and that she prefers music with singing in it far more than she does music that is only instrumental.

Thanks, Phil. And I won't. I'll stop in from time to time.

Well, if that's the case, then as I mentioned before in my one post, I think that it may end up being advantageous for stations like those to drop the word "Jazz" from their radio station names because I feel that it will lessen the idea of instrumental music being associated with those radio stations. And if my assement that the majority of music listeners aren't really that keen on listening to instrumental music(along with burden21's) is correct, then it looks like those stations are making the right move. BTW, we just recently got a new 24 hour smooth jazz radio station which is really quite good(depending on your preference of On-Air Personalities), and I'm not sure if it's in the corporate smooth jazz format(it's part of the Jones Radio Networks), however, the majority of their music is pop instrumental and they only throw in a few vocals songs occasionally. But I'm hoping that the Jones Radio Networks aren't part of the corporate smooth jazz format and that our smooth jazz radio station stays the way that it is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WCIN

P.S. BTW, it streams live if anyone is interested in listening to it.(It's link is provided in the wiki article.)

Yeah, but don't forget about the last time that I was here.

http://www.magicisland.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=8;t=001011

But I guess I shouldn't have given the ominous prologue, but I guess I was a little bit self-conscious.

Yeah, but that wasn't your fault.

Hey!!

When ya think about it, it would be absolutely strange NOT to have the occassional thread with some fire, some left turns and some weird time signatures, so to speak.....otherwise, this Island would be milktoast. watered down and unchallenging, and like much of the music that is played by the PD's at smooth jazz stations, right???

Not that nay of us is for those who post solely to inflame.

Still, my point is that I am proud to be a jazz fan, and I will resist any attempt to try to make me hide that fact.

True, I lean to the jazz that is played by those who are influenced by rock and other contemporary forms, but I am slowly filling in my collections with those classic artists of 60 or 70 years ago too!!

Paul

Well, but I wasn't trying to point a finger at anyone because - and I probably should put what I'm about to say next in the "Old Hat Cliches" thread - because whenever you point the finger at someone, there's always four more fingers pointing back at you. :rolleyes: But I probably shouldn't have posted that link. But anyway, I'm going to make my exit now, but I did want to say congratulations to Leslie for her new baby and I also wanted to tell Kat to keep up her sense of humor. Her Val Kilmer joke(and I saw how, um, chubby he's gotten in "Dejavu") and her high heels and giraffe joke made me laugh out loud.

Take care now everybody.

Even they know the game is up. My father in law has no musical gene at all, and listens to smooth jazz radio, but hit his BS threshold at hearing TLC right after the station ID ditty.

I do know this feeling of people not wanting to be turned onto this music-- as an overenthusiastic kid, I learned that people really aren't going to get it if they already don't get it. I learned this after a few mix tape missteps.

and confession: Sometimes I could use a vocal thrown into an instrumental mix. But a vocal that at least peripherally could be contemporary jazz. Not the pap that they attempt to pass through as such when it clearly is not.

hey, thanks!

Take care!

What Leslie said reminds me of another aspect of this.
How did The Great Experiment turn out>?
GRP, Warner Bros. and perhaps some others. I'm talking about the time when it seemed all the instrumental artists — including many who never had songs with words - had guest vocalists from pop or R&B contribute a song or two to their recordings.
Now the emphasis, supposedly, was to boost sales and increase crossover appeal - as if having a Jeffrey Osborn or Michael McDonald on your album would make their fans become your fans.
I always thought that was illogical if not downright stupid. What happens when their fans hear the other 8 or 9 songs that the singer is not on? I always thought they'd be turned off by the instrumentals. And as commentary in this and other forum shows, fans of the instrumental acts get pissed when there's a vocal that's straight R&B on a "jazz" album.
So, did anyone benefit from this?

I thought that I was out of here, but I came back to log out, but thought I'd read Woody's new post in this thread. And what I wanted to say about what Woody commented on was that I personally don't think that the emphasis ever was to boost sales. However, I do believe that the emphasis was to increase crossover appeal....but I believe that that's only pertaining to radio listeners. And if my assessment on that is correct, then perhaps "The Great Experiment" as you called it, turned out to be a success. ....From what I understand, smooth jazz radio stations do fairly well in the ratings for the most part. Also, as far as fans of instrumental acts getting pissed off, I really don't think that TPTB give a flying fart about how the fans of instrumental acts feel. I believe that it's all about radio appeal and increasing revenue from radio advertising based on radio ratings.

Okay, I'm out of here...logging....off!

That may be true, but that's from a radio perspective. My question was based on the label/artist perspective. I apologize for not making that clear.
Did the labels/artists cell more CDs because of this attempt toward crossover appeal?

So Greg . . .

Before you get too far removed from this site, have you generally stopped posting on web boards or just this one? I seem to remember you being pretty active over at "contemporaryjazz.com." As you may know, John Hildebrand is back running that site these days. They had some really aggressive combatants there as you will remember and "burden21" was there as well. Haven't heard from him in quite a while.

There's little doubt that the online environment affords individuals the opportunity to speak to others in a way they probably never would in person. But I've always found most of the posters here to be reasonable and for the most part civil. Hopefully that would include yours truly. But think of the "up" side of such discussion. At times it improves our awareness of our own need to temper our words due to the effect they have on others feelings. Communication involves being a good "listener" [good reader???] as well and probably of vital importance in this environment. The "brawls" as they've been characterized here have usually occurred when posters get into the habit of doing a "finite" analysis of another's comments intent on finding any uncrossed "t's" and un-dotted "i's." That has always been a big part of any bbs I've visited.

Regardless, as a long-time poster here, I think that most doing so are primarily motivated to support the music they love while perhaps helping us all to "widen out" in our viewpoints. The site has always been educational and encouraging in spite of the occasional "barroom brawl."

And really Greg, aren't those Magic Island bbs juices beginning to tickle your fancy?

Jones has always played a lot more contemporary/pop instrumental songs that Broadcast Architecture. But when BA went to a syndicated national network they pretty much blew Jones out of the water. They specifically set out to get the Jones affiliates because they were already automated and their selling point was that Jones was "too progressive." and played"too much unfamiliar music." I get the Jones music panel music tests and they have been asking an awful lot of questions recently about pop vocalists and testing a lot of Phil Collins type stuff so I guess they feel like unless they imitate BA a little more BA will come in and steal more of their affiliates.

Pre BA there were some fine vocals being mixed in - Michael Franks, Al Jarreau (something other than Were in this love together and mornin') Kevyn Lettau, Marilyn Scott, Basia, Randy Crawford, etc. Even Anita Baker and Sade were fine back then because they were current. Problem is that "smooth Operator" is not a 3 year old song now, it's a 23 year old song. There's a big difference. It's the crossovvers from your local "Lite" or oldies station that I could do without, especially Vanessa Williams who is the most unbearably pleasant singer I've ever heard..totallly nondescript. And that song BabyFace did with that actress was just awful.
Here's a block of songs on WSMJ Baltimore. Note the set I italicized. 3 songs in a row that are all over 25 years old:

BABYFACE Fire And Rain
ANITA BAKER You're My Everything
BOOKER T & THE MG'S Green Onions
WHITNEY HOUSTON You Give Good Love
MARION MEADOWS Dressed To Chill
RUFUS/CHAKA KHAN Ain't Nobody Warner Bros.
ERIC MARIENTHAL Blue Water Peak/Concord
WHISPERS And The Beat Goes On Epic
BRIAN BROMBERG Cantaloupe Island
DIANA ROSS Missing You RCA
JAMES INGRAM W QUINCY JONES 100 Ways
PATRICE RUSHEN - Forget Me Nots

I'm just back from a trip to Denver... listened to 104.3 all week.... probably about 8 songs per hour, and depending upon the time of day the ratio of vocals to instrumental flip-flopped.

But I heard plenty of Luther, Anita Baker, Sade, Eric Clapton (tears in heaven and layla unplugged), Mariah Carey - and the usual new suspects - Corinne Bailey Rae, Kelly Sweet, etc.

Yes, Koz's show is on in the afternoon, but there does seem to be some interaction with the listeners. You can request a song online - and it gets played. Yesterday morning, they interviewed Steve Oliver during morning drive time and played his new tune with Warren Hill. Then they opened up the phone lines for 20 minutes for listener feedback.

All in all though - most of the music was pleasant to listen to, but it was background music. nothing to inspire devotion to the genre.... nothing like I felt the first time I heard Nocturnal Playground

That is, if it is already on the BA playlist.

I agree with this all the way. It is too bad that so many people call any instrumental music, which is sax or keyboard driven, jazz. My wife does not like any instrumental music. Thank God my son likes instrumental rock. Peace.