By Jack Walrath

There is much moaning over the media hype that Wynton Marsalis and his like have come to personify "jazz," and even define the meaning of the word.

I say, let him.

I implore you to, without hoping to sound redundant, screw "jazz".

Let Marsalis define the word in the sense that it applies only to his music and only that music that is sanctioned by him----namely, attempted recreations and thefts of the accomplishments of others.

By his definition not only I, but my idols and indeed, most of the practitioners of this art form, don't play, nor have we ever played "jazz".

Parker, Mingus, Coltrane, Ellington, and yes, Armstrong, were at certain times in their careers either accused of not playing "jazz" or playing anti-jazz.

If they were to come on the "jazz" scene today not only would they be denied work in the top "jazz" clubs and be ignored by the "experts" at Lincoln Center, but they would also be accused of not playing "jazz.

Throughout the music's history, musicians who had something new and original to say were always dissed by Marsalis and Crouch types and other hateful old farts who thought that they understood the music better than even its practitioners. If one didn't continually repeat oneself and play things that "they heard before", then none of it was valid.

Marsalis, Crouch, and their cronies are just the latest examples of what was called the "moldy fig" mentality. Unfortunately, because of being empowered through hype and the chickenshittedness of the press, the public has come to believe the flatulence of the aforementioned "molds" and have even forgotten what the music previously called "jazz" sounded like.

The innovators mentioned and unmentioned above, themselves, generally detested and felt trapped by the label "jazz". Any one who was there for any part of history or read any historical statements by these folks would know that they preferred to be known simply as "American musicians/composers".

Of course, the Marsalis revision of history doesn't recognize this. How can it? Marsalis never heard any of these people, and judging by his perspective that is illustrated by his ravings doesn't know anything about their lives.

The point that I am trying to make is this: "jazz" has always been a bastardized term that referred to a music that was frankly traditional and safe. "Jazz" by this definition definitely applies to the music that is played and promoted by Marsalis and the "jazz" police and furthered by the popular press.

Again, let Marsalis, Crouch and their ilk lay claim to the term.

As for the rest of us who are trying to create something and further a music that is indeed a recognizable though ill-named genre---can't we be referred to as producing "American art music", or better yet "Adult American Music"? (There should be a contest for the purpose of coming up with a name----if we really need one!)

In the least, let us find another term and replace with something else the word "jazz", which we all know was originally a term for getting screwed; and basically, still is.

Visit Bird Lives weekly for web site reviews, our listening suggestions, and a new outrageous Diatribe from the Pariah. Comments/Questions to The Pariah