• 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

How Smooth Jazz took over 90's radio

As I understand it, PPM showed more realistic listening patterns than the paper diary. That led to lower TSLs and a drop in AQH numbers and overall ratings. Still Smooth Jazz was a fairly low cost format that had listeners and made money. In the end, there were other format options that would produce greater income to service debt.
 
People like to blame PPM for the death of smooth jazz, but PPM just reflects how people listen. It doesn't explain why. The fact was that the music was getting repetitive and derivative. There are just so many ways you can do the same riffs before they become the same riffs. To put it bluntly, the music wasn't as good as it had been in the 70s or 80s. They were just going through the motions. It was a poorly conceived format that was neither jazz nor AC nor urban. It was hard to define. We knew that when it got too jazzy, it became too complicated for most listeners. When it got too urban, it lost the white audience. So it became a tough rope to walk. And listeners knew it. Kenny G was a big celebrity. Then he wasn't. No one replaced him. Hard to build a format around a sound. You need identifiable stars. That's what's hurting rock right now. The only identifiable stars are the legends. So when you try to figure out what happened to a music format, the problem may have been the music.
 
Good points. I have to admit the artist database was really small. I agree the sound became stale but no more so than some other music formats. Your point of hard to classify is certainly accurate. The music itself was likely the culprit. Even so, some smooth jazz stations saw big drops with the switch to PPM in the biggest markets. I suspect those that got a paper survey might have seen an opportunity to fudge a bit on times if they loved the station or they listed work hours because it stayed on in the workplace although PPM revealed the actual listening was not constant.
 
b-turner said:
Even so, some smooth jazz stations saw big drops with the switch to PPM in the biggest markets.
Click to expand...

True, but it was reflecting a lack of passion for the format that had begun a few years earlier. The diaries delayed the inevitable news that would come anyway.
 
I'm not sure I agree with these assessments, even if there is some validity in them. For adults, Classic Hits and Classic Rock are more repetitive than Smooth Jazz. And they show no signs of fatigue. And unlike those formats, Smooth Jazz stations added new artists and new CD releases, while still playing the favorites. It didn't matter.

The problem is Smooth Jazz is soft and it plays instrumentals. Young people today, even as they get older, don't want soft music and don't want instrumental music. After all, no soft or instrumental format took over as Smooth Jazz died. It just ended. When Classical became unpopular, Beautiful Music took over. When that became unpopular, stations moved to Easy Listening (which was a mix of Beautiful Music with some soft vocals). When that became unpopular, Smooth Jazz took over.

But when Smooth Jazz became unpopular, nothing took over. CD101.9 in NYC tried Chill music but that didn't work either. I can't explain why, but young adults just stopped being interested in any form of instrumental music or any soft music. As life gets more hectic, people no longer seek out a radio format to relax with. Well, Soft AC is making a bit of a comeback in a handful of cities. But we have no idea if it will become a commonplace format.

There was no way to ramp up Smooth Jazz or remove the instrumentals without ending the format altogether. And I think that's why it died. Many cities still have an HD Smooth Jazz station and it's available on line on many sites. But it skews too old to be a regular FM format.
 
Gregg. said:
But when Smooth Jazz became unpopular, nothing took over. CD101.9 in NYC tried Chill music but that didn't work either.
Click to expand...

Then again, Emmis was having internal problems, so doing an LMA was the best approach.

OTOH give credit to The Wave KTWV for morphing and reinventing themselves into a rhythmic AC. This wasn't a quick or easy process. They spent a few years struggling in the ratings, somewhere between smooth jazz and urban lite They figured it out, and came back to the Top 10.

I really put a lot of the blame on the lack of identifiable stars. I love Patrick Williams, I love Bob James, I love Dave Gruisin, but they're just not identifiable stars.
 
What really hurt "smooth jazz" was the inclusion of no-jazz songs in the playlists that most listeners wouldn't classify as jazz, or anything remotely sounding like jazz.

I once hear The Doobie Bros. (and this wasn't Takin' it to the Streets, which at least had a wailing sax in it. it was something like Real Love or What a Food Believes) and Mariah Carey -- a pop song, no sax, no jazz, just her boring pop.

Odd how I never heard that prominent "smooth jazz" FM in a major-medium market ever play Chicago, Blood, Sweat & Tears or any other group that regularly used horns (and were a heckuva lot closer to "jazz" than the others). But, Mariah Carey played. So did Santana.

I think radio's clueless programmers, once again, helped destroy the format.
 
Dondd said:
What really hurt "smooth jazz" was the inclusion of no-jazz songs in the playlists that most listeners wouldn't classify as jazz, or anything remotely sounding like jazz.
Click to expand...

Huh? The entire concept behind smooth jazz was to be different from traditional jazz. That meant anything from instrumentation to the use of vocals to the inclusion of music from other genres such as pop and R&B. Anita Baker, Donald Fagen, and yes, Michael McDonald were all smooth jazz. "What A Fool Believes" has a lot in common with Bob James "Theme From Taxi." Play them side by side.
 
The old KWJZ Seattle started including Chill music into their regular lineup around 2008. They dumped the 'jazz' from their IDs and it became 98.9 Smooth KWJZ. Previously, they had aired the syndicated Sunday night Chill with Mindi Abair (hosted by Chris Botti previously), and continued to until they flipped to KLCK 'Click' (they are now KNUC 98.9 the Bull).
I was shocked to hear Jeff Beck's 'Never Alone' one afternoon in 2010 on KWJZ, months before they flipped. They really jumped the gun on that...nowhere near smooth jazz whatsoever. But they also had Phil Collins' In the Air Tonight in the playlist which again, was NOWHERE near SJ.
I didn't mind the Doobie Brothers that much, especially since Michael McDonald went on his own and did a lot of smooth jazz vocal songs. Even the current KOAZ Albuquerque plays 'Minute by Minute' by them.
 
The death of Smooth Jazz (similar to BM/EZ) was the inability to define the genre. And worse, even within the genre, within each station, people couldn't understand the pulse of the audience and what they craved to hear. Ultimately, the genre died on radio because it never connected to an audience well enough to support itself.

Yeah, aging demos, right--heard it before. However, the people I knew that listened to Smooth Jazz were in their 20s-30s in the 80's-90's. Nowadays they are in their 50s. When the format raged on radio, it was generally for prime consumers. I never met older people that craved it.

Smooth Jazz was a kind of answer to the fading EZ/BM format. It wasn't an adequate format though! They tried to piece multiple formats together and slap on the name "jazz" to add sophistication within the minds of the listeners. Most stations began by playing adult contemporary with a leaning towards the Chuck Mangione/Grover Washington-type stuff (fusion, cross-over, etc). As the format aged (the moment it began), there was a plethora of formula and a dearth of originality. The appeal of fusion became a regression in semi-experimental jazz; more notes and less melody became "cool" and cooled the format. Add to that a problem of invasive annoyance as the saxophones pierced the ears in an endless parade of whining instruments jarring people from enjoyment of the music. It became a tiresome format which could be heard for 30 minutes or an hour, but it wasn't something a general audience would want to hear for hours. It shook off listeners as quickly as it dragged them in.

I think the other failing of smooth jazz was that it wanted to be the young, hip replacement for BM/EZ, but it narrowed scope so far while BM/EZ had a broad and enticing (near limitless) range of instruments, sounds, rhythms, melodies, and cross-genre music. BM/EZ could absorb and regurgitate almost anything with strong rhythm and melody. Smooth Jazz became an identical string of instruments played by a small group of accepted musicians. It has a lightly processed electric guitar, or an acoustic guitar, a sax, sometimes a flute if lucky, a drum kit, a synth/organ more often than piano, a bass... and rarely something additional to spice it up. They took BM/EZ and got rid of all those lush instruments and exotic touches. They took the AC format and got rid of most of the variety. And people wonder why it died?
 
One of the interesting smooth jazz stations to me was KBCT in Waco, Texas. They were unlike any other smooth jazz station I heard.

Musically, the station was about 75% Smooth Jazz, 25% Pop. The base library had such titles as "Take Five" by Dave Brubeck, "Quiet Village" by Martin Denny and some early semi-smooth jazz types like John Klemmer. Pop vocals I heard included the likes of Simply Red, Santana (Evil Ways) and the Doobie Brothers (Listen To The Music). You heard all the usual vocals from any other smooth jazz station as well. They did play some vocals like Nora Jones and traditional jazz vocalists that had current releases.

The odd duck part was how little the station identified itself. In a typical hour at the top of the hour was an unadorned "94.5, KBCT Waco's Spot For Jazz". Breaks were at :20, :35 and :50 with ample station liners in and out. Between these breaks there was no liner or ID the full 15 minutes. Mornings were about 50% smooth jazz ad 50% pop. Short features were added. Other hours were music and commercials. I fact they sold a number of commercial free workday hours. At :20, :35 and :50 the hour-long sponsor got about a 10 to 15 second spot briefly saying what they did and contact info, identifying them as making this commercial free hour of music possible. I suspect virtually all dollars were local dollars given the strength of well rounded clusters owned by the big boys. In morning drive they might run 8 to 12 units and non-sponsored music hours the rest of the day might have 6 units. So, I'm thinking they might have done okay. The question is how strictly they stuck with the rate card.

I suspect the station was never a cash cow. They went from live jocks 6am to midnight to a live morning show and voice tracking midday and afternoon drive. I don't think they voice tracked nights or weekends. In the final year it seemed they had lost their direction. They seemed to be trying to find that sweet spot they once had and never quite getting there.
 
Stress said:
The death of Smooth Jazz (similar to BM/EZ) was the inability to define the genre.
Click to expand...

On the contrary, I think that's exactly what led to its longevity. The format evolved over the years, adapting to changes in the music and the audience. That's exactly what a radio format SHOULD do. In fact, that's what beautiful music did in the 70s. It continued to evolve until it outlived its usefulness. The specific change that smooth jazz did was the gradual infusion of vocal and R&B music. Some of this may have been to the decline of commercial instrumental music from Bob James and people of that style. They noticed that breaking up the long instrumentals with occasional vocals was a good technique. Someone such as Anita Baker or Toni Braxton. That was how smooth jazz changed from a strictly instrumental format to the R&B format you now can hear on KTWV.

My point is it's not the job of radio to "define the genre." That's the job of musicians. It's the job of radio to select elements from a genre that can attract an audience and build a FORMAT. Those are two different things. For a time, smooth jazz was defined by the musicians. But the music became boring and predictable. That's when programmers added vocals. The vocals added texture. Then they found that the vocals were becoming the format.

Radio has to be willing to follow the audience as the music changes, otherwise things become stagnant. We see this now with country music. There are musicians who are making current country music that is based on the sound of the 60s and 70s country music. Today, they're mainly played on Americana stations, not current country music. The current country music has instead moved to a new sound that combines country lyrics with rhythmic or rock instruments. The programmers may include an occasional "throwback" traditional style song in the mix to provide variety. They might do it with a new George Strait song or Cody Johnson. But the overall sound of a country radio station is very different from what it was 25 or 40 years ago, and that sound has been influenced by the changes in all music.

Smooth jazz didn't completely die. There are some stations around the country that still play the music. They're not the big ratings getters they once were. The music isn't as commercial as it once was. That's fine, and the lovers of the music can find it if they look for it. Just as lovers of traditional 60s style country can still find it. But the format as we knew it has morphed into something different, and as we see with KTWV, it's still very popular.
 
TheBigA said:
My point is it's not the job of radio to "define the genre." That's the job of musicians. It's the job of radio to select elements from a genre that can attract an audience and build a FORMAT.
Click to expand...

COMPLETELY disagree. You can't possibly argue that radio has no culpability in the process of defining a genre of music. Yes, it defines a format, but the consumer generally heard the music on the radio under a format heading and accepts whatever comes under that heading (most times, when uncritical). I find the modern format designations almost totally irrelevant these days, because stations are almost arbitrary in many cases--you get everything jumbled up under a blanket heading of AC or Country, etc etc.

Radio is a solid definer of genre when it has a strong format title like Smooth Jazz. Most people would perhaps hear Metallica on the Smooth Jazz Station (facetious example) and begin saying, "OH! I didn't know Metallica is Smooth Jazz. Nice!" The average listener isn't an authority. The radio is a greater authority in their perception, and so they will roll with it.

TheBigA said:
Smooth jazz didn't completely die.
Click to expand...

https://radio-locator.com/cgi-bin/finder?format=smj&x=11&y=1&sr=Y&s=R

19 stations. 7 are LPFM. No, not completely. Just nearly completely.

It lived a shorter life, a lower impact and propagation, and died faster and more thoroughly than BM/EZ. Smooth Jazz was a fantastic vehicle to younger demographics, but never defined itself well enough, nor catered to a specific purpose for the listener, to last beyond the novelty of Kenny G.
 
Stress said:
COMPLETELY disagree. You can't possibly argue that radio has no culpability in the process of defining a genre of music.
Click to expand...

Maybe at one time. But certainly not in the current environment. Radio has no ownership in the music. Radio is a platform. The audience has more to say about a genre than any person in radio. The biggest mistake a radio programmer can make is to become too emotionally attached to a genre. Programmers have to be open enough to see where the mass audience is going, and make adjustments based on what they see from the audience.

I'll add this: If you believe that by naming a format that radio has a role in the genre, I might agree with that. No one grows up dreaming of becoming a smooth jazz artist. There is no genre known as adult contemporary. These are radio creations. So when radio creates a format, that becomes a platform for musicians and record labels to present and market their music. But that doesn't mean that radio stations in that format are required to follow certain rules or play certain artists. Even when you take a consensus format such as country, there are still outlier stations that will play songs that might not fit the format, but fit their market. We see that a lot in Texas.

If one is looking for "culpability," why not start with the Recording Academy? There is no Grammy for smooth jazz, just contemporary jazz, started in 1992. For years, they continued to give awards to traditional jazz artists, while completely ignoring smooth jazz.
 
Last edited:
People left the format. Just as they did with regular jazz, big band, blues, etc., and are now slowly doing with rock. Smooth Jazz appears to be a variety show niche format anymore. That's what happens when genres of music become less popular or so nichified that they can't make a station money.... Sadly enough.

I would hazard a guess that the only reason there are classical stations on the air is because of the nature of the music lends itself to well-heeled supporters who support the stations. It might be the same with some trad jazz stations. Money talks.
 
boombox4 said:
I would hazard a guess that the only reason there are classical stations on the air is because of the nature of the music lends itself to well-heeled supporters who support the stations. It might be the same with some trad jazz stations. Money talks.
Click to expand...

Fully agreed. How many commercial classical stations are there? That makes your point.

For Smooth Jazz, it was the format most widely known for being knocked out by the PPM era.

I always enjoyed the format for something different, and texture on the good old radio dial.

My favorite station in the format was 95.5 The Coyote/Phoenix.
 
Saladressing said:
For Smooth Jazz, it was the format most widely known for being knocked out by the PPM era.
Click to expand...
The issue was that nearly every other format wass shown to have a big number of secondary listeners. These are ones who did not mention them in the diary, but which represented additional bonus cume... called "phantom cume" in the industry.

So most stations grew in cume in the PPM. Smooth Jazz did not. The listeners it had were the ones who reported in the diary. They had little or no phantom cume. So they declined badly in the PPM.

And Smooth Jazz stations had long reported TSL in the diary. In the PPM, it was found to be shorter and more fragmented. Double whammy.

Aging demos, no phantom cume and lower TSL. Three strikes and you're out!
 
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom