NO

What to you Is “real jazz” then? The spirit of jazz is freedom, and musicians like Michael Brecker are expressing their own art that while it doesn’t relate to the blues as much as older stuff, or even to the melody of softly as if in a morning sunrise, it is still expressive in its own right. This music split off from dance band music precisely because it’s hard to listen to. It’s musicians music that doesn’t relate to pop anymore. Jazz is just a label popular white critics put on popular white jazz as far back as the 1920s. Whether or not this music violated the original innovators of jazz depends who they are; The imitation popular dance band music or innovating artists that shape what these cats play now? Why would this ruin jazz? Isn’t this the same vocabulary expanded? I can hear dizzy and bird in their playing, but also jelly roll and bix beiderbecke. Someone or something’s worth isn’t dictated by its popularity. take jazz itself. If you love jazz so much as to defend it against the parody and abridging of it in this music, don’t you think it’s preposterous that the majority people shunned and disowned early jazz as black jungle music? Did jazz ruin ragtime and menstrual music? Did Michael Brecker ruin jazz, or ruin your view of jazz as a popular, desirable thing to be appealed to in order to make yourself seem respectable? Your view is valid in the sense that this recording goes against the rules of traditional jazz in many aspects. But where it doesn’t is in the acceptance of different viewpoints, and the freedom of expression that this music represents.

0:44

0:48

0:49

0:55

0:56