I hate to contradict such an authority as Louis Armstrong, but as a general matter, he was wrong.

There are plenty of people who consider themselves to play jazz, but are told by others that they do not.

There are even a few people who don't consider themselves to play jazz, but are told by others that they do.

The nature of "what jazz is" is (and likely always will be) an ongoing debate, just like its corrollary "what is jazz".

If Louis had lived until the 2000s, I suspect he might have rephrased this: "If you care about what jazz is, you'll probably never know; you're not much likelier to know even if you don't care".

But that isn't the point he was making.

Some concepts are grounded in language and others are grounded in higher order ephemeral ideas.

It's like trying to plot an exponential curve with a polynomial equation. It's futile.

Jazz is one of those ideas. Jazz is felt. Jazz is expressed. Jazz is in the air. When Jazz happens, you know it. And that's enough. The second you put words to Jazz, you suffocate it, you put in a box.

It's like trying to explain the beauty of the Sagrada Familia by counting the number of minarets and sculptures on it. No, you take it in whole, with all your senses, and you 'get' it.

I'm sympathetic to this, but I ultimately think that it's wrong.

The Sagrada Familia is a thing, and everybody knows (who knows it) what that thing is. It has clear physical boundaries, and to paraphrase Soul Coughing, you can put your hands on it and then back on yourself and then back on it and say "Is Sagrada, is not Sagrada, is Sagrada ..."

The problem with things like jazz is that jazz isn't a thing. It doesn't have boundaries. You can't point to it, only to (nominal examples of) it. And people don't always agree that a given thing is an example of jazz. Some people want there to be something that unites all jazz at some level, so that "when jazz happens, you know it", but I really don't think that's true of the full spectrum of musical expression that is sometimes labelled "jazz".

What Sun Ra was doing is far from what the late 70s jazz-fusion guys were doing is so far from what Tord Gustavson is doing is so far from the Armstrong big band was doing is ...

To me, trying to say that there's some unitary idea that somehow connects all these things (and more) and that you know it or you don't ... well, maybe I don't know it.

My real point is that what ought to matter is whether you like the music. Whether it's jazz or not is really just a distraction.

That's a lot less quippy, though, and I think the essence of it is still contained in the original.

It's also pretty elitist. Reads like "you are not part of the club so you don't get it".

Not sure if mean you my version or Armstrong's original.

Mine was specifically intended to be anti-elitist, by making it clear that the problem comes from even feeling a need to define jazz.

Armstrong's does strike me as potentially elitist, though I don't know his actual intent (obviously).

Apologies for my negative assumption. And thanks for clarifying.

Jazz is a Duende - an act that can only be understood in its own terms.