The problem is not snobbery per se, it is that peole too often willingly constrain themselves to a single genre, contending that it is superior to all others. A lot of the jazz fans I know own and listen to nothing but jazz (ditto classical fans), while you are much more likely to find jazz and classical material alongside rock and pop in the collections of those who identify as rock and pop fans.

Oh, wait, I guess that *is* snobbery.

Big subject; great article- and a great discussion. Let’s see more of this kind of thing here. Since it is such a big subject, here’s 10 more cents on it in 2 cent increments…

This subject seems to fall under the general heading of art vs entertainment- the difference here being that art is made for the artist, while entertainment might be made for the artist, but it is also made for an audience. As has been pointed out elsewhere, jazz lost its place in the pop-culture mainstream when its pursuit of experimental/artistic values- individual virtuosity, harmonic complexity- eclipsed its interest in what you might call the more accessible/commercial values of melody and structure. This transition occurred between big band swing- essentially dance music- and bop. In becoming self-consciously exploratory beyond the standard commercial constraints of accessible melody and structure jazz quit being entertaining to anyone not strongly interested in aggressively pursuing it. This occurred long before rock rose to its commercial hegemony, so the rise or rock had nothing to do with the marginalization of jazz.

If one were to define the difference between the current jazz and classic rock aesthetics, it is that in rock- as in any folk music- the musician serves the song. In virtually all post-swing jazz the opposite seems to be the case. Most jazz players seem to regard songs as mere springboards for improvisation. This is not a criticism- I am a musician that loves to improvise and will do so long after anyone with any good sense has long since given up hope that I am following anything but my own bliss- but I also understand that this isn’t inherently interesting to a general audience interested only in a good hook and a steady beat. Post-swing jazz is almost strictly musician’s music.

Interestingly enough rock is going through this transition as well. At my former job there were several young men rock guitar player/fans whose interest in music seemed pretty much limited to how fast and aggressively their guitar heroes play. The music they like is virtuosic in rock’s vision of the concept (fast, intricate and cleanly played), rather than in the jazz vision of harmonic sophistication. While the music these young guys like enjoys far greater marketplace endorsement than jazz, it has shrunk greatly from the days of Hendrix, Clapton, Page, and even Van Halen- even as the players have become technically better. And it will continue to shrink because when all’s said and done technical virtuosity means nothing to the casual mainstream listener.

Occasionally it serendipitously happens that the mainstream aligns with the cutting edge- the classic rock heyday of ’66-’75 or so was the last time- but this is rare and more technology driven than most art-oriented folks seem to want to own up to. The classic rock explosion was largely due to technology- multi-track recording and those mighty Marshall amps Gary referred to in the article. So, you might be wondering, why did rock, but not jazz benefit from this? It’s the nature of both the way these respective forms are approached and their respective sounds. Multi-track recording is nothing to a jazz artist. Kind of Blue was a jam recorded at a single session. Retakes and additions would more likely ruin the magic than enhance the results. And jazz- even jazz guitar- sucks through a fat Marshall amp because distortion- the sonic factor that gives guitar rock the drama Gary refers to makes the extended chords that define jazz sound like so much ugly mush. And there’s no way around this. Fusion- jazz’s attempt to reconcile itself to the sonic possibilities technology offers- has to orchestrate its way around the mush, in the process killing its sense of spontaneity. Its sophistication sounds self-conscious and stilted- organized mistakes if you will- rather than musical. Don’t take my word for it though- listen to Kind of Blue and Bitches Brew back to back; the former absolutely smokes the latter.

Rock has better approached jazz than vice versa. Someone mentioned Steely Dan. They aren't either strictly rock or jazz, but pieces like Aja approach both ideals pretty well. And for pure improvisation, I'd put the live Cream classics Spoonful and Crossroads up against any jazz pieces. There's no fancy chords, but the improvisation is top notch because everyone involved has the skills and they all know where they are in the music. This last factor is what separates the studs from the duds in jazz.

There are many elements of jazz in the 'jam' band format. Who can forget Wynton Marsalis playing with the Grateful Dead and saying in suprise, "You guys are jazz players!" or something to that effect? Jam bands dominate some festivals like Bonnaroo, and attract hundreds of thousands of youth.

As I get older, I listen to more straight live jazz, as it can sustain interest over the predictability of most rock. Young people, however, don't listen to straight jazz for the most part, perhaps because it is too cerebral. If you want to dance, jazz is not the place for you.

Rock 'n' Roll's parents are the Blues and Country. Jazz is/was a different genre entirely.

Far removed from the glitzy, glamorous big-city jazz clubs of the early-to-mid 20th century, Rock was born out of dirty blues riffs and country-fried harmonies in podunk dirt-floored Southern bar shacks. And to this day, jazz is automatically accorded a level of "establishment" respectability that rock & roll will never earn from the music aficionado.

And ya know what? That's absolutely fine. I like jazz well enough (and I can listen to Miles Davis for hours on end) but my musical passion will always be for rock. The ubiquitous theme of rebellion against the status quo which weaves through every generation in the genre - from Les Paul to the Stones to the Ramones to Green Day - ensures that rock & roll, like Neil Young said, will never die.

Jazz and rock - different? Sure. One better or worse than the other? Relativism, baby.