Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?

I have EVERY pre-80's McLaughlin album and love his tone! Les Paul's, ES-335's, ETC...always awesome.His new sound is weak.

At least Santana's tone is still good, although I can't stand the music.

Santana always manages to keep that great tone, whether its his early recordings done with a Gibson SG Standard, or the more contemporary stuff using a Paul Reed Smith. ANd of course the choice of amps and pedals affects tone as well.--Mrmitch

"The short answer is, we are protective of the word jazz- it's that simple.”

And that makes perfect sense. When a “word" defining a specific level of excellence broadens to encompass other levels, less excellent, those who do credit to the original standard are diminished.

jazz (jaz) noun 1.)foolishness; nonsense. 2.) wildly exciting or energetic.

Would that make smooth jazz: 1.)kinda foolish 2.)mildly exciting or lethargic?

Doesn't matter to me. I still like it. I don't think rap gets much respect, either. But I respect it for what it is. I don't care for it, but I have ninety 12 inch singles I play from time to time just because it's different. I'd bet the hardcore jazz fans would have a fit if rap was called something like urban jazz, just because of the word association.

Some rap shows a lot of vocal agility, comes from a real place / displays some originality ... and delivers impressively tight, complex clusters of syllables. I don't have much of an appetite for the stuff, but I respect it way more than most of the swill that's tagged as smooth jazz. As stated earlier there's a lot of music out there that functions very well as wallpaper without carrying around a load of stale corny cliches.