Lounge v. Jazz

"Before you can do something, you must do something else, first"

I set about reviewing my first CD, here, but realized that I'd get bogged down in exposition if I didn't first work through some background.

I've previously confessed my toughness on jazz vocalists; which is a slightly misleading way of putting it.

The Crux of the Biscuit: When did jazz go all soft and mushy and 'nice' and impotent?

Early on it was a music of raucous celebration... of daring... of subversion; a potent transformation and augmentation of various African musics.

Too often, nowadays, jazz is expected to be (or decried as being) nice and genteel, boring and bland. I maintain that the subjects of these criticisms are not actually jazz, but, rather, jazz off-shoots or jazz-wannabes such as "smooth jazz" or "lounge".

I'm not a purist. Seriously. Describe my tastes to any jazz purist and he'll agree.

I am very open to experimentation, evolution, even hybridization. And while it's not completely relevant that I should site my acceptance of styles such as fusion (as it already existed in the world by the time I heard my first jazz recording) I do; albeit with certain caveats.

Slapping 'fusion' on a project doesn't guarantee soul or virtuosity any more than doing likewise with 'free' or 'avant-garde'. But still... 'smooth jazz'... and 'lounge'? These are barely fortified brands of pop music, which have appropriated some of the trappings long-associated with jazz.

'Smooth jazz' has adopted some of jazz's instrumentation and arrangements (along with a sterilized vibe), while 'lounge' has tarted up its pillaged songbook. Appreciate these genres on their own terms (or don't) but please don't mistake them for jazz. And don't, upon learing that I listen to or program jazz, ask me if I like Boney James. Please.

So, I'm tough on jazz/pop vocalists... not because they're the worst offenders, necessarily, but because they're the easiest to spot. There are plenty of instrumentalists that warrant similarly harsh treatment. In fact, singers – even the ones whose singing I don't like – are, arguably braver (or more fearless... don't get me started on the distinction) than their instrumentalist counterparts. Even violinists have a small wooden mass behind which they can hide (if only figuratively). From there, we ascend to more and more instrumental bulk between performer and audience... flutes, clarinets, soprano and alto saxophones, guitars, tenors, baritones, upright basses, drums and, finally, pianos (I give pianos the edge if only for the reaon that, while both could protect a performer from hurled produce, a good piano (even an upright) could probably stop a bullet.

Now... my distaste for dilution/sterilization is in no way an indictment of all quiet or gentle compositions or performances; especially if they smoulder or are tinged with melancholy. " 'Round Midnight" is quiet and gentle for God's sake. Ditto several other compositions by Monk, Trane, Miles, Prez...

The value lies not in the glossy veneer, but in the soul beneath.

Don't be distracted, and try and keep up.