I agree that the diversity of jazz is really one of its strengths. In fact, I’m not sure if I could really give a definitive definition of jazz – to me, Louis Armstrong is just as much jazz as Ornette Coleman as Pat Methany. The music has splintered in so many different directions that a concrete definition is hard to nail down. That might be an interesting direction for a series of posts though . . .

As far as the general public, I’m not sure that many people would even make the distinction between classic jazz and smooth jazz. I think to most people instrumental music with a rhythm section and solos is jazz. So 1950s Miles Davis is just as “jazzy” as say . . . Steve Vai. I don’t mean to be pessimistic – my experience as a music educator and performer has really shown me that this is a misunderstood music. And you can see why – it’s hard to understand when you’re deep in it; if you are just a bystander, it’s totally confusing.