Why the “Rise and Fall” Narrative Fails Jazz

The dominant narrative imposed by Western institutions frames swing as jazz’s golden era, bebop as its artistic maturity, and the post-1960s period as a time of decline. The problem with this framing is that jazz isn’t in decline – it’s simply losing the popular audience. It’s not abandoning or disrespecting tradition – it’s evolving in ways that still honor its roots.

A core issue with this particular narrative is the idea of a rise and fall, instead of the simple reality that jazz, like all music, evolves. Jazz is relatively young compared to classical music, which has endured since the 1100s. Classical music is often divided into eras – Medieval, Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, Romantic, Modern, Postmodern – and most of these eras are still embraced by classical listeners (except perhaps Medieval, Renaissance, and Postmodern). Interestingly, even classical music from the 1990s onward is often dismissed as “contemporary trash,” yet it persists in the repertoire. 

By contrast, jazz seems to have lost its golden era after only about a century. Perhaps this is because there’s a different threshold for how the two genres are perceived: classical music depends on composition, which allows it to endure across generations, while jazz is heavily defined by improvisation, leaving fewer fixed reference points. Sure, there are many standards and tunes to improvise on, but it’s essentially reworking a base melody in different ways, and there are only so many directions it can take. Because of this, and the way it is typically portrayed, jazz often feels like something from the past. Its story is cast into a neat “rise and fall,” unfortunately reinforced by the fact that it is only a century old.

(Just to clarify: I introduce classical music only because it’s the other genre I know deeply; I love it, and it helps me frame jazz comparatively.)