Jazz in the 21st century: Playing outside the box
I clearly know nothing about music, but why does it even have to be called &#x27;Jazz&#x27;?  Given those market numbers cited, it seems like it would be a very bad brand to be associated with your music.<p>Having a son who&#x27;s 12, and having recently had a bunch of pre-teens running around my house all going through the timeless ritual of identity crafting, I have gotten to listen to their music, watch their media, and hear their thoughts.  When I talk with them about music, it doesn&#x27;t surprise me that they view the music of my day (80s &#x2F; 90s) with as much boredom as I had viewed big band music in my day.  To them, rock and jazz are Baroque.  Guitars and Drums?  I might as well play them a harpsichord.<p>On the other hand, I know several highly skilled, expert musical technicians in their 20s and 30s.  They have spent the majority of their lives training to master the practice and theory of music.  They know so much about their instruments and their technique, it frankly astounds me.  In comparison to dedicated musicians of my day, they seem like masters.  Yet, for some reason, they spend their time playing Jazz derivatives and covers or as studio musicians.  Interestingly, they&#x27;re all playing Jazz - which to me is so puzzling.  It&#x27;s akin to being a master visual artist and being absorbed in re-creating Pollack or Rothko or Kadinsky.<p>Jazz had a moment, and it was a beautiful moment.  It can be admired and relished as such, and the music can help transport one to that moment in time.  But, does Jazz even make any sense in the modern world?  I love listening to some of it - Coltrane and Davis, of course.  But, if I went to a music venue today, and the band was playing Jazz, I&#x27;d be bored out of my mind.