• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

What killed Smooth Jazz?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Old story. Discussed at length before. No one in the industry is asking this question. We all know.

The music got old, boring, and predictable. It became wallpaper music, like beautiful music in the early 80s. At one time, that format was getting big ratings everywhere. Then it dropped off the face of the earth. That was a long time before PPM. It has nothing to do with Nielsen. It just happens.
 
I enjoyed the Smooth Jazz format when it was around but my complaint was the format seemed too narrow in scope. I especially noticed the very limited selection of crossover songs used to attempt to expand the listening base. You can only play Anita Baker, Peabo Bryson and Patti Austin so many times and it wears thin. A station in Waco that opted for the smooth jazz format had a much better variety. They expanded beyond songs that made both the R&B and Top 40 charts. I even heard Quiet Village by Martin Denny in the blend once. They mixed very minimally bossa nova, lite rock and even some lounge music to create a unique blend. While they had no great financial success with the Oasis from Dallas being tunable in Waco, Waco is only 125,000 people meaning the potential audience was not huge. Sales must have been tough with group owners owning all but two of the stations in town.

I wonder if Smooth Jazz could only last so long because the formula became stale. I acknowledge the demos for the format were getting older.

With that said, those that did well seemed to market themselves more like a classical station, selling clients that are after the more affluent and utilizing things like wine-tastings and more culture/arts tinged events as station involved events. I thought that was a wise angle for such a format trying to carve its niche. Then again, fast forward a decade and how many commercial classical stations survive? Maybe smooth jazz might be a niche public radio should look at in markets where NPR/Talk and maybe classical is covered.
 
b-turner said:
I wonder if Smooth Jazz could only last so long because the formula became stale.
Click to expand...

When you build a radio format around a narrow musical genre, you're dependent on the health and growth of that genre. Unfortunately, there was no real depth to the music, and it really became very boring and monotonous after a while. Radio stations did their best to add some life and texture to the dullness by adding some vocals and R&B. But the music itself was done a long time ago, way before PPM. Today, the format can't attract a crowd even in public radio.

I'm not saying the music has no fans. Based on this forum, at least a few still listen. But not enough to attract advertisers who would pay for it.
 
I agree that smooth jazz doesn't work commercially...skews too old. Public radio might be able to pull it off but the real catch is getting listeners to kick in which would take some real clever marketing...discount cards, concert discounts and things like wine tastings. The only thing that might be tougher is selling English language Christian ministries on a preaching/teaching format when almost all those paying national ministries no longer buy time.
 
TheBigA said:
When you build a radio format around a narrow musical genre, you're dependent on the health and growth of that genre. Unfortunately, there was no real depth to the music, and it really became very boring and monotonous after a while. .
Click to expand...

I don't know if I entirely agree with that assessment. After all, Country is a narrow genre with little depth. Many find it boring but it also has a lot of fans. Classical music is likewise narrow and let's face it we haven't been hearing many new compositions from dead composers. Besides, how many recordings of Beethoven's Fifth can you listen to before they all sound alike? But it too has it's fans and there are a few noncoms around the country that still program it (not to mention Saul Levine's AM station in L.A.). As for skewing old, well, Oldies skews old and yet it survives as a format.

I do think Smooth Jazz suffered from instrumental fatigue. I remember one critic called it "a parade of saxophone players." Of course, Smooth Jazz was far more diverse than that. But I think if the genre had develop its own brand of vocalists and did so from the start, SJ may have had more staying power. It's too bad because toward the end, there was quite a bit of experimentation going with Smooth Jazz Blues, Acid Jazz, etc--along with vocalists. But by then, the listening public had moved on.
 
Last edited:
Carmine5 said:
I don't know if I entirely agree with that assessment. After all, Country is a narrow genre with little depth. Many find it boring but it also has a lot of fans. Classical music is likewise narrow and let's face it we haven't been hearing many new compositions from dead composers. Besides, how many recordings of Beethoven's Fifth can you listen to before they all sound alike? But it too has it's fans and there are a few noncoms around the country that still program it (not to mention Saul Levine's AM station in L.A.). As for skewing old, well, Oldies skews old and yet it survives as a format.
Click to expand...

There are nearly no oldies stations left, and those that are still with us are AMs, suburban low power FM or small, unrated market stations. All the rest left the format or became "classic hits" stations focused on 25-54. For example, KRTH in LA just came in at 0.1 away from winning 25-54 and is third in 18-34.

Smooth Jazz tried all manner of refreshing and targeting younger, right down to the "chill" experiment in NYC. But the format aged rapidly with most listeners being over 55 and of no sales valuable in that highly transactional market.

You picked poor comparison formats. Classical has several centuries of music, ranging from modern classics to chamber music, baroque, piano, string quartet and full orchestra compositions to name a few. And there is a range of styles from Respighi to Ravel without even touching Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and the big name composers. Someone wrote that you could listen to different pieces of classical music for several months and never hear a repeat. The K index for Mozart alone has over 200 pieces.

Similarly, country has regional styles ranging from western to bluegrass and in the mainstream there are styles going from ballads to rockabilly sounding songs; few genres have such an ongoing change over the decades, either. Remember, country is older than the Opry, while smooth jazz really had a short time in the limelight and was never a mass appeal music.

I do think Smooth Jazz suffered from instrumental fatigue. I remember one critic called it "a parade of saxophone players." Of course, Smooth Jazz was far more diverse than that. But I think if the genre had develop its own brand of vocalists and did so from the start, SJ may have had more staying power. It's too bad because toward the end, there was quite a bit of experimentation going with Smooth Jazz Blues, Acid Jazz, etc--along with vocalists. But by then, the listening public had moved on.
Click to expand...

At the beginning, smooth jazz was called New Adult Contemporary in the trades and was considered the inheritor of the Beautiful Music and this was because the roots of the format, as introduced in 1987 by Frank Cody, Owen Leach and others at KTWV, was based on instrumentals with only a few spice vocals. As the format aged, vocals took more of a foreground in an attempt to stave off format death, but that did not work for long.
 
The thing I noticed about Smooth Jazz was there were very few new artists in the format. The various folks/groups had their own style and it seemed to become less exciting the more you listened. Adding some of the experimentation would have at least expanded what was a narrow group of artists.

It seemed like Smooth Jazz had a bumpy start, mostly termed New Age and heavily Windham Hill material before refining in to the smooth jazz format we knew.

I would disagree about country and classical being like smooth jazz. My reasoning is in country, the mainstream format has evolved considerably over the decades with new artists always coming forward. Even the same country formula gets a new life with different lyrics. In comparison, new smooth jazz artists were few and without lyrics to create a different feel, it sounded much like the selections already played.

As for classical, there is a base of commonly known classical material but most classical stations make their bread and butter by expanding way beyond that base. Simply put, the same known compositions don't bring in the revenue like the lesser heard composers from the numerous eras of classical music. Just as there are classical compositions composed today, many composer's works are being discovered for the first time and lots of composers are being recorded for the first time. The hardcore, I'll donate plenty, classical listener wants to hear seldom heard and new to them works in the mix. There's almost that 1970s 'coolness' of turning on to your friends to a band they never heard of only to have the rock stations playing the heck out of it a few months later. In fact, if the jock can add a bit on info on the work or the composer, all the better. Talking to a few classical PDs I was told the folks who want to hear just the familiar stuff don't donate but rather it might work best on a commercial station.

As for the death of beautiful music, it seems that in order to skew younger, the format learned they could not unite the younger and older demos under one format. Plus, there were so many custom recordings made, it suffered from a core artist problem too. Another aspect was how music was perceived. For the older beautiful music listener, the original artist was not important but to younger demographics, they'd prefer the original version or an orchestrated copy. That's when the lite rock format came about. And that didn't mean Andy Williams covering Here Comes The Sun by the Beatles or The Lettermen covering a top 40 hit.
 
b-turner said:
I agree that smooth jazz doesn't work commercially...skews too old.
Click to expand...

That's funny because when the Coyote was SJ here in PHX it was my teenaged daughter, the youngest one, who was almost a constant listener. We always had to have KYOT-FM on in the car if she was aboard.
 
landtuna said:


That's funny because when the Coyote was SJ here in PHX it was my teenaged daughter, the youngest one, who was almost a constant listener. We always had to have KYOT-FM on in the car if she was aboard.
Click to expand...

There are exceptions to everything. But the fact was that the bulk of the audience was made up of persons over 55 in the final years of the format.
 
DavidEduardo said:


Classical has several centuries of music, ranging from modern classics to chamber music, baroque, piano, string quartet and full orchestra compositions to name a few. And there is a range of styles from Respighi to Ravel without even touching Beethoven, Mozart, Tchaikovsky and the big name composers. Someone wrote that you could listen to different pieces of classical music for several months and never hear a repeat. The K index for Mozart alone has over 200 pieces.
Click to expand...

At the first station I worked for, back in the mid-1970s, we had a four hour Classical program every night, and my original shift included being the board op/producer of the Saturday edition (the station owner voicetracked it). I later became the regular weeknight producer (and fill-in host) and my recollection was that the "major" works were repeated no more often than once per three months, with each night's program being at least one-third lesser works. We also used a different orchestra's rendition of the major pieces when we repeated. I don't remember our audience complaining about repetition and I don't remember being bored from listening to that music four hours a night, five nights a week.

I still have a copy of Grofe's "Grand Canyon Suite" by the New York Philharmonic that I pull out and play once in a while. My quirkiest affection from that era was Seiji Ozawa conducting the San Francisco Symphony, with the Siegel-Schwall Band, in a performance of William Russo's "Three Pieces for Blues Band and Orchestra", which we played about once a year. The audience didn't even complain about that, even though it borders on progressive rock.

But, of course, Smooth Jazz stations did not go three months to a year before repeating, and after a while it all either started to sound the same, or at least not varied enough to hold an audience's interest for long periods of time. Or, for some, hearing the same songs over and over did drive them away after the 24th playing of a Strunz & Farah or Ottmar Liebert track in a given week.

I think, as was said elsewhere in this thread, that SJ was seen as the inheritor of the BM audience ... at least to the radio stations that embraced it. But ultimately, it lost a lot of the audience that originally listened out of curiosity and became unsustainable as a format, except for a handful of markets where creative sales management continues to keep it viable.

Just as the Oldies format is becoming more and more relegated to lesser signals where it survives, the same will happen to Smooth Jazz. Let's face it, KOAZ, which is (rightfully) a favorite among SJ aficionados, is still on an AM station plus a 250-watt translator, and eventually that will probably go away too, just as Oldies, and Beautiful Music, and MOR, and ...
 
I have to chuckle when reading some of the comments regarding the "death" of smooth jazz. Many of you forget there are still local independent broadcasters out there (yes...on FM) still doing well with the smooth jazz format like WSBZ The Seabreeze. Listeners are still passionate about the music. Just look at the concert ticket sales for smooth jazz acts and jazz festival attendance around the nation. The Dave Koz Cruise is sold out already for 2017. And two new jazz festivals have popped up my neck of the woods in the Southeast USA including Steel City Jazz Fest in Birmingham, AL and the Music City Jazz Fest in Nashville, TN. Our station's event (Seabreeze Jazz Festival in Panama City Beach, FL) is now in its 18th year. The audience that smooth jazz appeals to is still intact --but yes small -- but nevertheless impactful. Smooth Jazz fans are what I call "Alpha Baby Boomers" -- the group of adults with the most discretionary income. Yes they may be over 50, but they have the dough, and the willingness to spend it.

Does Nielsen or Arbitron effectively measure this audience? No. But who cares? A smart local operator should learn how to reach the advertisers that smooth jazz appeals to --many disenfranchised by commercial radio in its current state anyway--and effectively bring them "to the party". Just think of the way most consumers buy cars --especially expensive ones. Not by rankings but how the car makes them feel. It's the sizzle vs. the steak argument.

Smooth Jazz is far from dead. New artists are emerging into the format. The talent is there --though yes---many of the record labels for smooth jazz were bought out or shut down or conglomerated, leaving some artists to self-promote. The challenge now is finding an outlet to reach listeners. We have to resort to finding some new artists on SoundCloud.

I think some of the problems that led to the shift away from smooth jazz on FM was due to sloppy way some of the big operators ran the format. These stations did suffer from poor programming strategy, and little if any promotional dollars were spent on these stations in the later years. Many of the large corporate owners refused to spend any money promoting these stations at all....while the rock, country, urban, and hot hits had billboards, television, direct mail --the whole thing. Many of these stations simply were jukeboxes in an equipment rack --or were running Smooth Jazz Network (satellite feed) with very little local focus or connection to their core local audience in their markets. Remember -- "local" is one of the unique aspects of radio's competitive strength. This is what you get when you let investment bankers take over the broadcasting industry in most markets.

And for some operators --it was all about picking formats that you can air 8 minute long commercial breaks. Sadly--the smooth jazz audience will not stand for 8 minutes of commercials before going back into music. So because of that -- smooth jazz was "dead".

XM Sirius Watercolors has now become the only radio source for the format for much of the country along with internet streaming. It's very non-market specific, very generic --but all most listeners have.

But not all worth is measured by ratings. It only takes a handful of core paying customers to fill a Porche or BMW Dealer. Or a nice restaurant to make a local advertiser happy and ready to spend his advertising dollars again. And regarding missing out on national radio buys -- I rather like not hearing a GEICO ad every 15 minutes.
 
Last edited:
wsbzjazzkat said:
And for some operators --it was all about picking formats that you can air 8 minute long commercial breaks. Sadly--the smooth jazz audience will not stand for 8 minutes of commercials before going back into music. So because of that -- smooth jazz was "dead".
Click to expand...

I don't think that was the case at all. It has nothing to do with the length of the spot breaks. It's about picking formats that attract a mass audience, and a mass audience that major national advertisers want to reach. Now if some local stores or businesses want to reach that audience, that's a different thing. But it's not a factor of who owns the station. There are a few smooth jazz stations owned by some of the biggest broadcasters.

If the audience has a lot of discretionary income, as you say, then they can afford to pay to hear the format on Sirius or other sources, and don't have to count on others to pay the bills for the music they enjoy. That's really what this is about. Some music fans think nothing of paying $100 for a couple of concert tickets, but refuse to contribute $100 to a non-commercial radio station that plays jazz music. And that's why even non-commercial radio stations are dropping jazz as a format. How about contributing some of that Porsche money on a radio station that'll play what you like? Is that too much to ask?
 
wsbzjazzkat said:
I have to chuckle when reading some of the comments regarding the "death" of smooth jazz. Many of you forget there are still local independent broadcasters out there (yes...on FM) still doing well with the smooth jazz format like WSBZ The Seabreeze.
Click to expand...

There are 6 FM commercial smooth jazz FM stations that are not translators or LPFM operations. In other words, for about 99% of the country, there is no smooth jazz station.

Those remaining stations are among the lowest billers in their markets because this is a limited audience, ultra niche format with a predominantly senior audience.

Listeners are still passionate about the music. Just look at the concert ticket sales for smooth jazz acts and jazz festival attendance around the nation.
Click to expand...

You are confusing two things. First, concerts are based on single artists, not a genre. If the artist has appeal, they generally only have to draw a few thousand fans to a concert to do well. Radio stations have to draw far more users. Second, concerts are special occasions; I know folks who may go to an occasional classical concert but who would not regularly listen to a classical station.

Does Nielsen or Arbitron effectively measure this audience? No.
Click to expand...

Arbitron is Nielsen. And their measurement systems work just fine for that format, as its great success in the late 80's and 90's proved. The fact that the audience aged and diminished is a function of the format dying, not of the survey methodology.

As a former head of Arbitron told me, they have three types of clients: those that are happy with Arbitron because it proved their programming genius and the went up... those who are satisfied because the ratings showed that they maintained their audience and those who think Arbitron is terrible because they went down which could not possibly be their own fault.

I think some of the problems that led to the shift away from smooth jazz on FM was due to sloppy way some of the big operators ran the format. These stations did suffer from poor programming strategy, and little if any promotional dollars were spent on these stations in the later years. Many of the large corporate owners refused to spend any money promoting these stations at all....while the rock, country, urban, and hot hits had billboards, television, direct mail --the whole thing. Many of these stations simply were jukeboxes in an equipment rack --or were running Smooth Jazz Network (satellite feed) with very little local focus or connection to their core local audience in their markets. Remember -- "local" is one of the unique aspects of radio's competitive strength. This is what you get when you let investment bankers take over the broadcasting industry in most markets.
Click to expand...

Many operators ran Smooth Jazz that way because the listeners did not want intrusive announcers and lots of talk... much like Beautiful Music in the 70's. And the larger market Smooth Jazz stations did promote, but of course not as aggressively as stations with direct format competition might promote. Promotion is often allocated based on competitive situations.

And for some operators --it was all about picking formats that you can air 8 minute long commercial breaks. Sadly--the smooth jazz audience will not stand for 8 minutes of commercials before going back into music. So because of that -- smooth jazz was "dead".
Click to expand...

The two-break-per-hour format clock for ratings maximization started to be prevalent in the mid-90's and that was in the highest point in the Smooth Jazz format's history. And in general, major market FMs are doing around 6 minutes, twice an hour... the same as was common in the 90's

XM Sirius Watercolors has now become the only radio source for the format for much of the country along with internet streaming. It's very non-market specific, very generic --but all most listeners have.
Click to expand...

There is a reason for that. Low ratings and aging demos.

But not all worth is measured by ratings. It only takes a handful of core paying customers to fill a Porche or BMW Dealer. Or a nice restaurant to make a local advertiser happy and ready to spend his advertising dollars again. And regarding missing out on national radio buys -- I rather like not hearing a GEICO ad every 15 minutes.
Click to expand...

In the larger markets, the car dealers are agency accounts and they will tend to stay away from offerings with limited, old audiences.

As to restaurants, I've managed sales departments where we would not even call on restaurants as they are often slow pay or no pay.

The ideal situation for smooth jazz is the Albuquerque situation with a throw-away AM supporting a translator which is very low cost, requires little capital and can pick up the lesser accounts with not too much money to spend. But this is not generally for bigger signals in bigger markets.
 
TheBigA said:
I don't think that was the case at all. It has nothing to do with the length of the spot breaks. It's about picking formats that attract a mass audience, and a mass audience that major national advertisers want to reach. Now if some local stores or businesses want to reach that audience, that's a different thing. But it's not a factor of who owns the station. There are a few smooth jazz stations owned by some of the biggest broadcasters.

If the audience has a lot of discretionary income, as you say, then they can afford to pay to hear the format on Sirius or other sources, and don't have to count on others to pay the bills for the music they enjoy. That's really what this is about. Some music fans think nothing of paying $100 for a couple of concert tickets, but refuse to contribute $100 to a non-commercial radio station that plays jazz music. And that's why even non-commercial radio stations are dropping jazz as a format. How about contributing some of that Porsche money on a radio station that'll play what you like? Is that too much to ask?
Click to expand...


Spot break length is an issue for all listeners. Add the promos and dumb chatter into the mix...and it gets worse. Many listeners are simply turned completely off to all radio because of this. Public radio with their extended and more liberal underwriting policies is getting about just as bad. In my market, Cumulus is running 8 minute breaks. Smooth Jazz listeners will quickly migrate to satellite, Pandora, or their CD's before enduring this.

Radio is "narrowcasting" and not "broadcasting". And not every radio station can nor should target to the same mass appeal audience. It's like in any business --if all restaurants served nothing but sushi with no other choice because the masses all ask for sushi -- diners would stay home and not eat out. No matter how good something is perceived to be -- too much is overload --and we lose interest as consumers. This is why radio in the United States is such a sorrow shape right now. From market to market, you hear the same songs, same monikers, same sweepers, same jocks -- like a vast wasteland of defunct Taco Bell franchises.

Let's face it. The Big Box Broadcasters are not (nor ever were) interested in filling any void, nor super-serving a niche audience with money, sophistication and influence. They were not interested in being "broadcasters" --it's all about controlling the money on the table -- like available seats at a poker game. The FCC Ownership Rule changes allowed these monopolies to happen --when eventually pushed out Independent broadcasters like myself. Today...it is virtually impossible to compete in most cities as a start up, because the major frequencies in each market are tied up but the big companies. Smooth Jazz will never return as a viable format until the a change in the FCC Ownership Rules is made. Even HD2 and HD3 programming has failed to attract a new audience for many full C major market stations due to the problems and perceptions with HD Radio. But...that is another discussion.

And why give $100 to a poorly programmed local public radio station? These listeners may have money --but they are more sophisticated than that. If the product is not up to par, they will go somewhere else. There are non-coms like WWOZ in New Orleans that serve the jazz community well --and get the listener support their programming deserves.

The appeal of smooth jazz...when done right....is an association and affirmation of a complete "lifestyle". Public radio may attempt smooth jazz as block programming but they rarely get the imaging right -- and the sound is static and septic. The right jingles work equally well on smooth jazz when well produced and placed appropriately in the music flow. Actually having the right commercials that associate to that lifestyle helps to perpetrate the listening. This is public radio with it's "the hour of smooth jazz is brought to you by...." misses the mark. XM Sirius does as well. Many smooth jazz listeners agree --it becomes boring....background instead of foreground music. When listening to smooth jazz...it helps to hear where the best wine is, what restaurants are offering am amazing gourmet meal, how dazzling that diamond necklace would look on your wife for your anniversary, and why and where you should buy your next Mercedes-Benz. It's all about the "good life" -- or the listeners strive to associate with it. The right type of well-produced commercials right type of retailers that appeal to the core demographic-- are part of the sound and strategy of a successful smooth jazz station.
 
XM's Smooth Jazz station isn't called "Watercolor" as a nod to The Seabreeze's 30-A audience?
Or is it? I suppose your audience wants something to listen to when the return to their primary homes.
 
wsbzjazzkat said:
When listening to smooth jazz...it helps to hear where the best wine is, what restaurants are offering am amazing gourmet meal, how dazzling that diamond necklace would look on your wife for your anniversary, and why and where you should buy your next Mercedes-Benz. It's all about the "good life" -- or the listeners strive to associate with it. The right type of well-produced commercials right type of retailers that appeal to the core demographic-- are part of the sound and strategy of a successful smooth jazz station.
Click to expand...

Urban legend.

I did a 4-book average of KTWV in LA for 1999 in Maximiser and here are a few items of interest:

25-54 is all I looked at as there is no money above 55.

25-54 Total #4
25-54 Black #2 with two times the Black audience of the closest general market station
25-54 Non-Hispanic white: 9th
Income over $50 k: Tie with KCBS (Arrow, sort of classic rock), KLOS (AOR), KFI (Talk) and KYSR (Alternative AC) and very close to KIIS (CHR) and KROQ (Alt) and KLSX (Hot Talk)

Except for KFI, it was had the highest concentration of 45-54's of any of the leading 25-54 station in any of the categories I listed.
 
wsbzjazzkat said:
Spot break length is an issue for all listeners. Add the promos and dumb chatter into the mix...and it gets worse. Many listeners are simply turned completely off to all radio because of this. Public radio with their extended and more liberal underwriting policies is getting about just as bad.
Click to expand...

You want what you want, the way you want it, and you want it for free. That simply not possible today. You complain about commercials, but the advertisers are the real reason smooth jazz is gone. The advertisers don't want to reach that audience. At least not with radio. They'll reach your crowd someplace else. That's really the end of the discussion. It has nothing to do with radio ownership, nothing to do with FCC laws, nothing to do with the smooth jazz lifestyle. If you have complaints, take it to the people who pay your bill: The advertisers. If you don't like what they pay for, pay for it yourself. Lots of options available to you, but they cost money, which shouldn't be a problem if what you say is true.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom