[TJ Elite]

 

   
I neglected to share the song I mentioned earlier in this thread.
 
For your listening pleasure, I present to you: "All Or Nothing"
 

 
Can anyone tell me what sub-genre of jazz this is?

I would say that this track is pretty much what is commonly called "smooth jazz". I'm not a fan of this particular sub-genre of jazz but there is plenty of smooth jazz and smooth jazz fans around so finding music similar to this track should not be all that difficult. Suggestions anyone?

I've never listened to smooth jazz myself so I would have simply called this jazz, for jazz is a very versatile genre and names are just names and don't define the music itself, but perhaps that term is applicable here, who knows. Besides, I've mentioned this in many a thread, but I loathe the fact that genres exist. They may be a convenience for conversing, but beyond that they are very much a hindrance and an inhibitor.

 

I haven't played XIII-2 since I found myself unable to stand any more of XIII after putting 35 hours into it. I'm not sure what happened to Square Enix, but Final Fantasy turned to s**t after FFX which was in my opinion quite phenomenal. FFXIII was better than FFXII, though, although it's difficult to sink much lower than that.

 

As for music recommendations, The Five Corners Quintet might be worth checking out, even though I would place them on the cool jazz side of things. They are "okay" in my book, but not necessarily anything to write home about.

 

 

Nicola Conte also sprang to mind for some reason. A lot of his work is in the realm of nu-jazz, vocal jazz, bossa nova and so forth but his music might be worth checking out.

 

 

Also, the Cowboy Bebop soundtracks might be up your alley, but I actually assume you are already familiar with them.

 

[ralphp@optonline]

 

I've never listened to smooth jazz myself so I would have simply called this jazz, for jazz is a very versatile genre and names are just names and don't define the music itself, but perhaps that term is applicable here, who knows. Besides, I've mentioned this in many a thread, but I loathe the fact that genres exist. They may be a convenience for conversing, but beyond that they are very much a hindrance and an inhibitor.

Genres are like women: you can't live with them and you can't live without them. (No offense to any particular woman intended.)
 
I quite agree that genres can be a bit confining at times but they are often helpful in getting to a starting point. So while I'm quite sure that there is some smooth jazz out there that I may find enjoyable, for the large part smooth jazz does nothing for me. Notice I'm not saying anything negative about the sub-genre only that I personally do not care for it or listen to it. There are plenty of people who like and listen to smooth jazz and I respect their right to listen to what they enjoy. Nonetheless the label of "smooth jazz" does help to give one some idea of what kind of music to expect to hear and says nothing good or bad about the music.

 

[Music Alchemist]

 
I would say that this track is pretty much what is commonly called "smooth jazz". I'm not a fan of this particular sub-genre of jazz but there is plenty of smooth jazz and smooth jazz fans around so finding music similar to this track should not be all that difficult. Suggestions anyone?

 

 

I've never listened to smooth jazz myself so I would have simply called this jazz, for jazz is a very versatile genre and names are just names and don't define the music itself, but perhaps that term is applicable here, who knows. Besides, I've mentioned this in many a thread, but I loathe the fact that genres exist. They may be a convenience for conversing, but beyond that they are very much a hindrance and an inhibitor.

 

I haven't played XIII-2 since I found myself unable to stand any more of XIII after putting 35 hours into it. I'm not sure what happened to Square Enix, but Final Fantasy turned to s**t after FFX which was in my opinion quite phenomenal. FFXIII was better than FFXII, though, although it's difficult to sink much lower than that.

 

As for music recommendations, The Five Corners Quintet might be worth checking out, even though I would place them on the cool jazz side of things. They are "okay" in my book, but not necessarily anything to write home about.

 

Nicola Conte also sprang to mind for some reason. A lot of his work is in the realm of nu-jazz, vocal jazz, bossa nova and so forth but his music might be worth checking out.

 

Also, the Cowboy Bebop soundtracks might be up your alley, but I actually assume you are already familiar with them.

 
Well, if this is smooth jazz, then it's in a more exciting sub-sub-genre. I've heard plenty of jazz that is far more laid-back than this!
 
The style I played in an advanced jazz ensemble was mostly fast, intricate, complex stuff. Not really into that type of jazz myself.
 
I prefer electronic, metal, and orchestral to jazz, but have almost no experience in the genre when it comes to listening. Heck, in the band, I would play songs I never even heard before! (Edit: I meant that I would start off that way at rehearsals, not performances.)
 
XIII-2 is so much better it would boggle your mind. I've played it for hundreds of hours. Then again, I enjoy just about any Final Fantasy game to a certain extent.
 
Gotta love Cowboy Bebop!
 

  Genres are like women: you can't live with them and you can't live without them. (No offense to any particular woman intended.)
 
I quite agree that genres can be a bit confining at times but they are often helpful in getting to a starting point. So while I'm quite sure that there is some smooth jazz out there that I may find enjoyable, for the large part smooth jazz does nothing for me. Notice I'm not saying anything negative about the sub-genre only that I personally do not care for it or listen to it. There are plenty of people who like and listen to smooth jazz and I respect their right to listen to what they enjoy. Nonetheless the label of "smooth jazz" does help to give one some idea of what kind of music to expect to hear and says nothing good or bad about the music.

 
In other words, you didn't like the song. :'(

(But how can you not be seduced by that saxophone?)

 

[ralphp@optonline]

In other words, you didn't like the song. :'(

(But how can you not be seduced by that saxophone?)

I wouldn't put it that way. Let's just say it's a nice song with lots of good playing but just not my cup of tea.
 
That said I would still like to keep this thread positive so with that in mind here's a clip some really great saxophone from one of the true giants of the tenor sax - the late, great, long tall Dexter Gordon:
 

 

[Spyro]

The super huge trait that makes smooth jazz what it is is the fact that there are lots of pre-programmed drums and loops going on and that every note is wriitten.  Most traditional and even contemporary jazz is played "live" with additional solos lean on the improvational side.  Not saying it all cant be written but I hope you know what I mean.

 

[Hijodelbrx]

  The super huge trait that makes smooth jazz what it is is the fact that there are lots of pre-programmed drums and loops going on and that every note is wriitten.  Most traditional and even contemporary jazz is played "live" with additional solos lean on the improvational side.  Not saying it all cant be written but I hope you know what I mean.

Your description of smooth jazz is spot-on!  The biggest problem about this genre and labeling in general is that while your description is pretty much what the general public thinks when they hear the words 'smooth jazz', there's a gray area where a lot (too many) bands get lumped into this category.  This 'gray area' is the place between Fusion and smooth, 2 musics/genres that couldn't be further apart and yet more often than not, they're linked.  It would take a bit of a musical/Jazz history lesson to explain why this is so but I don't want to bore anyone.  For me, Fusion is a word that best describes a certain time in the history of Jazz much like Ragtime, Swing, & Bebop.  In 2014, there's really not many clear cut boundaries anymore.  If an instrumental group decides to 'plug in' and turn up the volume or use electronic instrumentation (NOT drums please! it doesn't automatically make them a smooth or fusion band.  A good recent example of a Jazz musician/band that comfortably plays without boundaries would be Theo Croker -'AfroPhysicist'- a tremendous debut album by a young trumpeter (he plays in Dee Dee Bridgewaters' band, he's the real deal!).  Too many times I've seen Pat Metheny or The Yellowjackets referred to as smooth jazz and that's just an out an out untruth! 

 

[Spyro]

Yellowjackets and Pat Metheny as "smooth jazz" is just pure ignorance.  I am the biggest Metheny fan on Head-Fi and (total bias of course) I think he's one of the greatest composers of our generation.  Never standing still always pushing the envelope and currently might have the most accomplished jazz band playing today.  Like Miles, Like Chick....he has discovered some of the greatest players in jazz (or brought them into the spotlight).
 
But yes, many bands straddle that line between smooth and contemp.  I love Spyro Gyra, early Rippingtons is excellent.  Ken Navarro's "Dreaming of Trains" and "Grace of Summer Light" are fantastic contemp jazz releases (not smooth).  When I think of smooth jazz I think of Dave Koz, Boney James, Rick Braun, Kenny G.  I don't like that kind of music at all.  Chuck Loeb made a couple fusion cd's with a band named METRO.  Check out "Metrocafe".  One of the greatest fusion albums I have ever heard and I am into fusion.

 

[Mortalcoil]

I think there is a tendency to compare or confuse "smooth jazz" or "fusion jazz" with what could be labeled "modern jazz" or perhaps "Avant Garde" derived from the be - bop movement (Dizzy Gillespie).
 
While groups such as Spyro Gyra and Pat Metheny are to some degree in the jazz category they still fail to push boundaries that the modern masters have.
 
Such musicians as Keith Jarrett , Bill Evans etc were and are able to dissect almost mathematically a piece of music and build upon it.  The level of mastery in this case exceeds what a "smooth jazz" artist is capable of.
 
Chord structures are far more complex, timings are far more intricate as well as an overall "thinking outside of the box" approach.  These are musicians with technique coming out of their wazzoo,  some classically trained.
 
I feel that when the term Jazz is coined it means many things, however for my tastes only non smooth jazz, Spyro Gyra, Pat Metheny types need apply.
 
A jazz musician is always learning and improving while in most other genres the musician remains stagnant playing the same old riffs or structures over the course of a career (lol... ala Rolling Stones).
 
A true Jazz Musician is always evolving in the pursuit of mastering the craft
 
Just my opinion, not to offend anyone (especially the Pat Metheny, Spyro Gyra, Rolling Stones and maybe Kenny G fans....lol)

 

[Mortalcoil]

  I wouldn't put it that way. Let's just say it's a nice song with lots of good playing but just not my cup of tea.
 
That said I would still like to keep this thread positive so with that in mind here's a clip some really great saxophone from one of the true giants of the tenor sax - the late, great, long tall Dexter Gordon:
 

 Now that's Jazz !

 

[Spyro]

Mortalcoil: I totally understand what you are saying and would agree and put many contemp/modern bands in the category you want to box them into, but Pat Metheny is on a different level altogether. Coltrane, Monk, Jarret, Evans, etc. have nothing on him. His jazz pallete is so far more complex and beyond those guys it isn't funny. From his trio work with Larry Grenadier and Jeff Ballard to soundtracks to The Way Up to Orchestrion....he is a jazz trail blazer in every regard never standing still. An amazing musical mind. He is probably THE MOST highly respected musician in jazz today in jazz circles. But some jazz "purists" that vaguely know some of his music don't like him because he plays a non traditional jazz instrument. Really short sighted.

 

[Mortalcoil]

Mortalcoil: I totally understand what you are saying and would agree and put many contemp/modern bands in the category you want to box them into, but Pat Metheny is on a different level altogether. Coltrane, Monk, Jarret, Evans, etc. have nothing on him. His jazz pallete is so far more complex and beyond those guys it isn't funny. From his trio work with Larry Grenadier and Jeff Ballard to soundtracks to The Way Up to Orchestrion....he is a jazz trail blazer in every regard never standing still. An amazing musical mind. He is probably THE MOST highly respected musician in jazz today in jazz circles. But some jazz "purists" that vaguely know some of his music don't like him because he plays a non traditional jazz instrument. Really short sighted.

 Believe me Spyro I am trying to agree with you on this.  And you do make a valid point that in some cases perhaps "purists" do jump to hasty conclusions regarding Metheny, espescially (and I agree) with his almost non typical Jazz instrument.  Not that guitar is non traditional but you know what I mean (he gives off a Rock vibe to some ...lol)
 
And without being short sighted or at least trying to be I still cant wrap my head around Metheny being considered a master of the genre.  This is not to say I don't like his stuff because I do,  I just feel that he is not in the same league as an Evans or a Jarrett.
 
I have heard a fair amount of his stuff and while enjoyable I still find it lacking in true "genius".  Talented yes he is....Jazz genius he is not IMO.
 
PS : I think Monk is overrated .... lol

 

 

[Quinto]

Mortalcoil: I totally understand what you are saying and would agree and put many contemp/modern bands in the category you want to box them into, but Pat Metheny is on a different level altogether. Coltrane, Monk, Jarret, Evans, etc. have nothing on him. His jazz pallete is so far more complex and beyond those guys it isn't funny. From his trio work with Larry Grenadier and Jeff Ballard to soundtracks to The Way Up to Orchestrion....he is a jazz trail blazer in every regard never standing still. An amazing musical mind. He is probably THE MOST highly respected musician in jazz today in jazz circles. But some jazz "purists" that vaguely know some of his music don't like him because he plays a non traditional jazz instrument. Really short sighted.

I find Pat Metheny´s sound in general boring, it does nothing for me..like Robert Schumann I can´t help it, it goes in and out and doesn´t stick..   It´s a matter of taste, simple.
 
´Short sighted´ is a rather meaningless expression in this context because it is only an expressing of your admitted bias, with which I sympathise completely I might add..
 
Personally I can´t stand people who dislike Glenn Gould, I will have nothing to do with such people, they are dangerous people

 

[icebear]

... Personally I can´t stand people who dislike Glenn Gould, I will have nothing to do with such people, they are dangerous people

+1 , LOL.
 
As for Pat Metheny : My wife has almost every of his albums.
We have seen a couple of his live concerts together. She is a fan, I'm ok with him but nor a fan of any kind.
As I do indeed prefer the sound of acoustic instruments - anyone call me a purist for that ?

I don't particularly like his style and sound.
Some of his old stuff is very good but his latest work, especially his orchestrion project (also seen live) is not my cup of tea.

 

[Buddhahacker]

I'm learning to like most variants of jazz which is why I love this thread.  I'm getting exposed to artists and styles I didn't know about.   Regarding the fast approaching off topic discussion around smooth jazz versus "purist" jazz,  I feel that they all have their place.  I've found that some artists are fantastic when I have the time to sit down and concentrate on listening to their performance.  However, this can take effort and energy.  In the evening, I frequently want less energetic or demanding music so I listen to something different.  I don't place a value on one over the other.  
 
BTW, I like Glenn Gould 

.

 

[Mortalcoil]

 
 
Personally I can´t stand people who dislike Glenn Gould, I will have nothing to do with such people, they are dangerous people

 
 
Gould was a genius, a master for sure.  I will admit though that his taste in furniture was not his strong suit .... especially chairs