Talk:Smooth jazz

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

To-do list for Smooth jazz: edit · history · watch · refresh

[edit] Draft

  • Expand the origins of smooth jazz, with references and in line with the main jazz article and adding more information regarding jazz fusion.
  • Fully describe the style that defines smooth jazz, with references.
  • Neutralise the criticism section, with arguments for and against jazz, with references and keeping with neutral point of view.
  • Neutralise the radio section, focusing on the history of the development of smooth jazz radio stations not just in the United States, but around the world. Remove all non-notable or spammy links to stations. And oh yes, with references!
  • Expand media examples beyond George Benson to get a more wider view of smooth jazz if possible, keeping within Wikipedia:WikiProject Composers#Guidelines for using sound excerpts.
  • An image or two focusing on smooth jazz, preferably with a free licence should be added to the article, particularly if it should get up towards good article status.

[edit] Main article

  • Once the draft has expanded to a good enough size to describe smooth jazz to a general readership and all the issues with the main article have been resolved in the draft, import the changes into the main namespace.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Jazz, set up to organize and expand entries on jazz and related subgenres, as well as other related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).
Consensus There is currently a debate about the future direction of this article. You can help by either adding to the draft of the article with verifiable third party sources or add your opinion to help reach consensus.
Cleanup Taskforce article This article is being improved by the Cleanup Taskforce to conform with a higher standard of article quality. It is likely to change frequently until completed. Please see its Cleanup Taskforce page for more details.

Cleanup Taskforce page → Edit | Purge

==Smooth jazz==

Numerous concerns of violations of:

  • WP:RS and WP:V - the article contains no reliable sources for any of the information on the page, which means it can't establish its notability that smooth jazz does have, ie. it is a major jazz genre with a lot of radio coverage, especially in the USA and on the Internet;
  • WP:NPOV - a number of editors have concerns over the criticism section, as well as peacock terms. To quote a few people on the talk page, it needs to be less editorial and less like "an impassioned talk show debate, on both sides";
  • WP:NOR - the "Smooth jazz albums generally considered to be genre-defining" section has no references to establish that they are genre-defining;
  • WP:NOT#DIR & WP:EL - the lists of smooth jazz radio stations as external links.

The whole article needs a major cleanup, if not rewrite. I have also asked for help from WikiProject Jazz to help. --tgheretford (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Added to User:Gronkmeister/Desk --tgheretford (talk) 19:02, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

This article has a draft used for proposing changes.

Information:

  • The draft can be found at Talk:Smooth jazz/Draft.
  • All categories are commented out at the bottom of the draft.
  • Do not edit the article tab of the draft as this can be found accidentally by Special:random. The draft is to be made in the talk namespace.

Contents


[edit] Issue

After numerous thinking, I think that this article may need somewhat of a rewrite. It talks too much about the controversy in the world of music whether it is a form of jazz or not.

The article should mention more what smooth jazz is by definition. It is a style of jazz blending in some elements of R&B. However, due to the controversy, it can be subject to POV. Does anyone have any ideas of what should be done? Andros 1337 21:29, 6 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I removed the disclaimer "not to be confused with Cool Jazz" from the top, because I really can't see why anybody would confuse these styles. 84.139.54.226 22:27, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed

This does need a rewrite with less editorializing. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.200.93.169 (talk • contribs) .

Much indeed. I hate it too, but seriously, this article is downright rude on both sides. I'm not sure how neutral it is to call smooth jazz critics "purists." I stuck {{POV}} on it, that'll learn ya'll a good'n. Dextrose 20:18, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I've also added a expert request tag to the page. I'm a bit busy at the moment, and I am supposed to be on a Wikibreak (hey, I can't keep away!), but there a lot of problems and violations of Wikipedia guidelines and policy within this article:
  • There are no citations to anything within the article, violating WP:V and WP:RS, and because of that, the article cannot establish notability for a genre of music that I think we can all agree is notable. Adding citations after a rewrite would take a while to do however.
  • Terrible POV problems, as above.
I would go as far to say it could have been ripe for articles for deletion, though the genre's notability and popularity should guarantee it a place in Wikipedia. It needs real attention and I shall raise it on the to do list for the Jazz WikiProject. --tgheretford (talk) 20:38, 17 May 2007 (UTC)
I am also going to say that the "Smooth jazz albums generally considered to be genre-defining" section, without any third party refereneces to back up the fact that any of the albums are genre-defining is also violating WP:NOR and should, if no reliable third party sources can be found to support their genre-defining claim, be removed from the article. --tgheretford (talk) 07:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
That sort of thing could be better discerned from places like AMG and Billboard. I'd prefer to see the information from both sides: the way fans see it, then the way people with taste (g) see it. Dextrose 08:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)
I found one reference from Digby Fairweather, commenting on the "rape" (his word) caused by Smooth jazz on UK radio: http://www.fly.co.uk/fly/archives/europe_features/new_jazz_station_goodbye_to_th.html Could be added sometime to the article as a verifiable source of criticism of Smooth jazz from a major UK jazz artist. --tgheretford (talk) 07:20, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
IMO "Purist" is a fairly neutral term. Smooth jazz critics refuse to accept smooth jazz as a valid jazz genre. However, by definition, smooth jazz is descended from previous styles of jazz. For example, one of the founding fathers of smooth jazz, George Benson, was primarily influenced by Wes Montgomery, and Wes Montgomery is not usually considered smooth jazz. Therefore, "purist" is a neutral and valid term to describe smooth jazz crtics. ANDROS1337 20:58, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Agreed ++

"...one of the few stations that never drank the Kool-Aid brewed by leading radio consultants," while true, :-) does not belong in an encyclopedia. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.152.231.174 (talk • contribs) .

[edit] radio coverage

Is it really wise to include the statement about radio playing smooth jazz in most of the US? Outside of XM and major markets, there are relatively few "smooth jazz" format stations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Asoundhound (talk • contribs) .

I'd agree. I actually have something closer to a jazz station than anything close to being a smooth jazz station.--T. Anthony 08:54, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

As of 02/05/2008 WQCD (CD101.9) in NY city is no longer available on regular radio. They cite declining listeners as the reason. The station is available only on HD radio. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.84.196.238 (talk) 23:01, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Criticism

The criticism section currently reads like an impassioned talk show debate, on both sides. One offending line would be: "Others contend that smooth jazz is indeed a viable jazz subgenre, positing that attempts to maintain jazz music as a kind of museum exhibit are narrowminded, presenting over a century's continued cross-pollination between jazz and R&B as evidence."

Thats clearly a rebuttal, not a summary of fact. That and a few other passages gots to go... --relaxathon 03:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Mostly I agree. I think if this is a controversy there is likely actual articles written about it which could maybe help.--T. Anthony 08:50, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Development

Recently removed from Para #2 position: "To sure remember for importance in the style development artists which Michael Lington, Brian Bromberg, Fattburger, Daniele Caprelli, Peter White from the techniques abilities that expressive indeed remarkable."

Must have been a non-native english contributor trying to say:

"The artists Michael Lington, Brian Bromberg, Fattburger, Daniele Caprelli and Peter White are notable for remarkably expressive syles".

Does anyone think we should put this sentence back in? I can think of other notable artists Like Larry Carlton, Bob James, Dave and Don Grusin, Joe Sample, Tom Grant, etc. who are also important in the development of the genre. I guess everyone has their favorites, and the list would probably go better in the Popular Artists section just above. Bob -  uriel8  (talk) 22:12, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

The things you describe above are "peacock terms", and I believe reading through, there are such terms (as you have shown above) still in the article, alongside other concerns. I have tagged the article as such. --tgheretford (talk) 19:22, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Cleanup taskforce

I have asked the Cleanup taskforce if anyone can help improve the article, citing the concerns (and a few I have also found) above. --tgheretford (talk) 16:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I have requested a POV check, as per comments I made to the cleanup taskforce and on this talk page from other editors to get the ball rolling and get a third opinion on this article. --tgheretford (talk) 18:55, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Streaming on the Web

I have noticed this section was added recently. Although I greatly respect and admire Jimi King for his work, the main text in the section does weigh heavily towards SKY.fm. There is a valid reason to have streaming smooth jazz stations on the Internet in this article, but at the moment it is too POV and too much like an advert for one station over the thousands available on the Internet.

Then again, it still doesn't change my mind that this whole article needs nuking with a large nuclear bomb and rewriting from scratch. --tgheretford (talk) 23:57, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "What to do with an article beyond cleanup?" - the future of this article

I asked that question at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance), specifically refering to this article. Billscottbob made three suggestions. First of all, we could start a draft as a separate page in talk namespace, tagging that draft with {{draft}}. Preferably, that is the way we need to go, considering the concerns in the article as well as discussion on this talk page. Frankly, I think the article is beyond cleanup with no chance of references being found, even though with a notable article as this, they will exist out there. It is just the immense effort of doing so would be too much for one editor and if no-one has the courage to do so, then it may be better to start afresh, especially with Andros 1337's issues at the top of this talk page.

The other two suggestions from Billscottbob involved WP:PNA and WP:ACID.

The best option I can think of is one that has been raised before, this article should be rewritten as a draft, and because of the controversial aspects of the genre within the jazz spectrum, I would insist, as per WP:V official policy that everything is thoroughly referenced with third party references. --tgheretford (talk) 19:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Well, the article definitely must stay, as it is a viable genre. Maybe bring it back down to a stub, removing everything unreferenced, and start over, with nothing added (or reverted) in the future unless it has a reliable source cited. I have very limited time these days, but I can help located refs, and help watch the article for unsourced material. I would also suggest that the current version be saved maybe under Smooth jazz/draft so that material can be added back in as it is referenced. ♫ Cricket02 (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
Better to create a draft at Talk:Smooth jazz/Draft as per WP:SP and {{draft}}. --tgheretford (talk) 22:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Just found another issue, particularly the Radio section. There isn't much on the International front of smooth jazz. I can think of two stations in the UK and Belgium which broadcast (or did broadcast) on FM, but have no representation compared to the the US stations in the article. There are also the smooth jazz artists around the world which need to be incorporated. I will research and add something in due course. However, my suggestion for a complete rewrite and draft still stands, awaiting consensus. ----tgheretford (talk) 12:51, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Re: "Well, the article definitely must stay, as it is a viable genre.":
Sorry, but I can't find any "definite" meaning in the phrase viable genre. Do you mean valid genre? Whether the actual stuff being labeled smooth jazz is artistically or musically valid would be entirely a matter of opinion--and a strong contingent would vehemently deny most of the stuff's claim for validity. Do you mean commercial genre? Undoubtably much commercial product has been moved more or less under this rubric, but that doesn't make the term itself (smooth jazz) appropriate. TheScotch (talk) 07:11, 23 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, by definition of "viability" as "the property of being viable; the ability to live or to succeed", considering the amount of commercial stations in the US [1] as well as stations in Europe on FM, ie. 102.2 Jazz FM (sadly now defunct) in the UK, Crooze FM in Antwerp, Belgium[2], Arrow Jazz FM across 11 transmitters in the Netherlands and Radio MW 107.8 FM in Russia to name a few[3], all but a couple of stations have their own article on Wikipedia, it may be correct to suggest that the genre is (commerically) viable. ----tgheretford (talk) 10:37, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Draft

I started a draft at Talk:Smooth jazz/Draft. Let's make sure all the issues are kept out of it and everything is referenced. The only thing that has been kept in the draft is anything with a reference. --tgheretford (talk) 09:01, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reorder

Did this on my own accord, but saw where the page needed some extensive editing. I moved the Radio segment to another section, mainly because the article serves as a knowledge base first, and I felt that the origins of the genre and it's information should come before "where to find it". I created an extra section here in the discussion page for anyone noticing the changes, if they search for a reason why they can find this.Sheeeeeeep (talk) 23:22, 10 March 2008 (UTC)