I have a couple friends who are jazz afficiandos, but whose musical
taste in jazz is limited to what used to be called "progressive" or
"modern" jazz, as evinced in the playing of Dave Brubeck, Miles Davis,
and their ilk. It does not extend to other sub-genres of American jazz
like dixieland, ragtime, swing (e.g. Benny Goodman), or the brassy
sounds of Louis Armstrong and Count Basie.

Why have the earlier forms of jazz dropped so far below the radar for
most jazz mavens of our era? Is it because today's jazz listeners
value improvisation over all other criteria in defining American jazz?
Is there something about jazz that is scored and then played to the
score (with periodic improvisational flights by individual
instrumentalists) that makes it less authentic as jazz?

---

Clarification of Question by nautico-ga on 24 May 2005 14:28 PDT

I had meant to include R&B as the other sub-genre that seems to share
current acceptability with progressive/modern. I have the sense that
today's jazz fans view all of the earlier forms as either corny or too
scripted.

Today's jazz fans do seem to appreciate blues artists, but dixieland,
ragtime and swing seem to have little appeal to many of the younger
folks. Damfino why.

My late poppa was a frustrated jazz musician, and I grew up on a diet
of classic jazz. The progressive stuff never really grabbed me.