The definition of jazz is now so broad that it has essentially become meaningless.
This may be because the use of the word jazz is one of the most bastardized in English.
Admittedly, jazz is very hard to define. Still, one must try, and I maintain that some people have a very good idea of what jazz is. Who ARE these people, who have a good idea of what jazz is and where it belongs? The answer is surprising. Wait for it.

Here’s the basic problem with our lack of clarity about what jazz music IS.
As far as JAZZ festivals go, the label ‘jazz’ seems to INCLUDE everything. Music from all disciplines and locales is fair game. However the mainstream of jazz music itself is EXCLUDED from all manner of music festivals with labels like Mariposa, Caribana, Folk, Blues, Classical, Mozart, and so on. (I’ve never seen a BeBop band invited to play at The Mariposa Folk Festival or a BLUES festival for example, even though there may be as much blues in any Bebop band as there is in any bluesy blues band, and the be-bop band is made up of Folks!)

Therefore, it seems that the world’s non jazz-music festivals have no problem defining ‘jazz’ and understanding where it belongs, or more to the point, where it DOESN’T belong! Yes, THESE are the people who know what jazz is! And it sure as hell isn’t going to be in their festivals!

It would be wonderful if the Jazz impresarios had the same understanding and clear definition of jazz music as the non-jazz venues’ booking agents!

C

Answer is yes. cool cache. When someone (like, say Sade), describes their music as “Neuvo Jazz,” they’re reaching for a sophisticated, cosmopolitan affect that their music might not actually possess.

As for Jason’s rant, one thing you learn very quickly in New Orleans is that the Marsalis’s, father and sons, are not nearly as starchy and didactic as they sometimes come off in print. They also love polemics, which is really just a ten dollar white guy word for shit disturbing. Take it with a grain of salt.

It seems to me that there’s two sides to this issue. There’s the ‘appropriation’ of the term ‘jazz’ by popster arrivistes anxious to have their music taken more seriously, and there’s that section of the avant guard jazz community who insist that ‘jazz’ is pretty much any improvised music. These latter tend to be Europeans (or wanna be Europeans) who are working in forms not informed by a blues tradition. To quote another Marsalis (Wynton) blues in jazz is like roux in a gumbo. If it’s not present, it’s not gumbo, it’s a soup. It may be an excellent soup, but it’s not gumbo. East Indian classical music is all improvised within various forms, but it’s not jazz. It has it’s own vocabulary and traditions (HT to Morgan Childs for that one).

I honestly don’t see a problem with this, but it’s truly amazing the amount of hostility you can stir up in some circles by making a statement like that.