Originally Posted by
Ravine
Mallory, despite your sporting attempt to explain, to me, the reason for my perception, I'm going to do a better job of explaining it. Here goes:
Any time I hear music that is referred to as "smooth jazz," I hear music that does not sound like jazz, to me; it sounds like pop.
The term "smooth jazz" implies a sort of wrinkle-free jazz, jazz which does not have any rough edges. Wrinkles and rough edges are part of what jazz, in my view, is all about.
It isn't all about Kepler and his machinations. Many folks just, mistakenly, associate certain instruments with "jazz." If they enjoy soft, dreamy-landscaped tunes played on those instruments, they will say that they like jazz, even if the music is less adventurous than the unwrapping of a Clark bar. For the same reason, if I was to drive by them with John McLaughlin's electric guitar solo from "The Noonward Race" ripping through my car speakers, they might not know what to call it, but I don't believe that they would regard it as jazz.
I think a lot of people just want to get into that which was once called "easy listening," and that's fine; in fact, some really good jazz makes for some really easy listening. Coltrane's "Naima," anyone?
The thing is, if the music was produced with "easy listening" in mind, as a goal, then I am forced to conclude that the intention was to produce something easily accessible to the general public... And, to me, that spells P-O-P.