**** Art Blakey must be rolling over in his grave! ****
I kinda doubt it. Most musicians don’t think that way. Does the music project sincerity and show a high level of musicianship? Many of the great jazz players are known to have objected to strict genre classification. Some have even objected to the name "jazz" itself. There has always been musical fluff; every era has had it. A lot of "smooth jazz" is musical fluff. Personally, I can’t stand most of it; but some of it isn’t fluff and has some redeeming qualities. Moreover, the lines get blurred with some music that falls into the "fusion" category; and there’s certainly a lot of interesting stuff in that category.
Personally, I don’t feel anything is being "bastardized" by appropriating the term "jazz" for the name "smooth jazz". Truth is "smooth jazz" or whatever one wants to call it is characterized by having many of the elements of jazz (by any definition): harmonic changes more complex than most rock or pop tunes, incorporates improvisation that is decidedly an offshoot or extension of the vocabulary of classic jazz and often features a horn, usually saxophone which is practically emblematic of jazz. The idea that Classic Jazz was somehow hurt by modern jazz, fusion, smooth jazz or whatever is mistaken imo. As tablejockey wrote, the decline in interest in "straight ahead" jazz came first. What we know as Classic Jazz is the product of an era and reflects that time. As great as it was, and still is on record, that music is simply and sadly not as relevant in the context of the overall culture as it once was. Good news is that, as always, there is great new jazz being performed and recorded at a very high level of musicianship and creativity. Whether a particular listener likes it or not is a different matter.
My favorite "pre-fluff" George Benson album (1967):
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=3c6yArVkXgI
