I accept your point.

My concern is to do with the difficulty Jazz has had in establishing itself as a legitimate artform in the same way that Genres of music under the "classical" umbrella are recognized.

When Stravinsky developed the idea of bi-tonality, there were of course the usual public arguments about whether his music sounded good or if it was really music or just a cacophony etc

These arguments dealt with the aesthetic appreciation of his work and as such were open to the views of any listener as in this respect music is entirely democratic so everyones point of view was of equal value.

But from the perspective of somebody who is aware of the development of tonal systems in European music, his ideas on how to escape from the theory of functional harmony and to develop a new or more advanced view of tonal relationships are recognizable as being well informed and genuinely innovative.

Jazz is a complex artform, and like the work of Stravinsky much of its aesthetic value is argued over. Some hate Jazz, some love certain types of Jazz etc

Again, music is the perfect democracy as everyones view is valid and one mans opinion is as good as anothers.

But recognition of the evolution of Jazz as a distinct complex artform has been hard fought for, and the knowledge and creative genius of thelonious monk for example can often be trivialised by the notion that authentic Jazz always has one foot in a romantic primitive root. The fact is that he was a very clever man who was creating a new sound from some very advanced ideas, based in turn on an advanced musical understanding.

Understanding the roots of music is important so we can understand how it has developed and therefore know what is going on today, but we need to be careful lest we accidentally diminish genuine milestones in the development of music or lest we find ourselves, through no maliicious intent, patronizing some great musical masters.

Jazz deserves to have its achievements recognized.