The article's author uses the term "jazz" very very loosely; absurdly so. From that standpoint, I would agree that the article is "nonsense" and what he describes as "jazz" bears little resemblance to what we consider jazz. The author concedes this point:
****Generally, African jazz is much more closely related to African folk/classical music than African American jazz is****
Personally, I am not very bothered by the appropriation of the name "jazz" because I understand that for many (especially outside America) the term jazz refers simply to a music that (just as American culture in general) is an amalgam of many cultural influences; and with a dose of the requisite element of improvisation. The main problem with this music ("African jazz") for me is that I just don't think it's very good; it's not very sophisticated nor developed. The farther it gets from the indigenous, the weaker it seems to be.
I think a key to understanding (at least conceptually) the previously discussed question of the African influence in American jazz may be found in some of this music and the search for the reverse: the influence of American jazz in African music ("jazz"?). The African influence in American jazz may be perceived as, at best, subtle to the point of insignificance if one doesn't understand cross-cultural influences in art at a very fundamental level. We tend to look for (listen) for obvious signs in order to say "aha! there's the influence"; ain't gonna happen that way.
When I listen to a clip like the one above by the South African "jazz legend" (give me a break!) what I hear is third rate or, at best, second rate "smooth jazz" as we know it here in America. BUT, there are subtle signs that let me hear a direct connection (influence) to indigenous African music and tell me these are not American musicians playing this music. There is a unique flavor to the rhythmic feel of the music as well as an "accent" in the harmonic vocabulary of the improvisations that are telltale and are obvious connections to the indigenous music of the players' culture. Unfortunately, the overall effect is, for me, not very convincing. If I were to HAVE to listen to this sort of thing there are far better examples on smooth jazz radio stations or elevators to be heard.
I don't think that "African jazz" is a good example of the state of jazz outside the USA. There is a lot of good (sophisticated and well developed) jazz happening outside America. Why there is not credible jazz happening in Africa may be the result of the overriding rhythm-centric nature of their indigenous music (almost devoid of sophisticated harmony or melody) while European music's main contribution to the amalgam of "jazz" is in the realm of harmony and melody while still containing a strong rhythmic element; although different in nature than that which was African music's main influence on jazz. So, it follows that in Europe there were fewer conceptual elements to overcome for American jazz to be a significant influence.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=06_uCl_Bovs
****Generally, African jazz is much more closely related to African folk/classical music than African American jazz is****
Personally, I am not very bothered by the appropriation of the name "jazz" because I understand that for many (especially outside America) the term jazz refers simply to a music that (just as American culture in general) is an amalgam of many cultural influences; and with a dose of the requisite element of improvisation. The main problem with this music ("African jazz") for me is that I just don't think it's very good; it's not very sophisticated nor developed. The farther it gets from the indigenous, the weaker it seems to be.
I think a key to understanding (at least conceptually) the previously discussed question of the African influence in American jazz may be found in some of this music and the search for the reverse: the influence of American jazz in African music ("jazz"?). The African influence in American jazz may be perceived as, at best, subtle to the point of insignificance if one doesn't understand cross-cultural influences in art at a very fundamental level. We tend to look for (listen) for obvious signs in order to say "aha! there's the influence"; ain't gonna happen that way.
When I listen to a clip like the one above by the South African "jazz legend" (give me a break!) what I hear is third rate or, at best, second rate "smooth jazz" as we know it here in America. BUT, there are subtle signs that let me hear a direct connection (influence) to indigenous African music and tell me these are not American musicians playing this music. There is a unique flavor to the rhythmic feel of the music as well as an "accent" in the harmonic vocabulary of the improvisations that are telltale and are obvious connections to the indigenous music of the players' culture. Unfortunately, the overall effect is, for me, not very convincing. If I were to HAVE to listen to this sort of thing there are far better examples on smooth jazz radio stations or elevators to be heard.
I don't think that "African jazz" is a good example of the state of jazz outside the USA. There is a lot of good (sophisticated and well developed) jazz happening outside America. Why there is not credible jazz happening in Africa may be the result of the overriding rhythm-centric nature of their indigenous music (almost devoid of sophisticated harmony or melody) while European music's main contribution to the amalgam of "jazz" is in the realm of harmony and melody while still containing a strong rhythmic element; although different in nature than that which was African music's main influence on jazz. So, it follows that in Europe there were fewer conceptual elements to overcome for American jazz to be a significant influence.
https://m.youtube.com/#/watch?v=06_uCl_Bovs