The idea of the compositional insignificance of the "composition" in jazz arose reactively, as a way of explaining jazz to those who weren't familiar with improvisation, or of legitimizing jazz to those who saw it as an inferior brand of popular (non-serious) music.

The idea that compositions by song-writers such as Richard Rogers, Harold Arlen, Duke Ellington, and George Gershwin are of negligible or indifferent quality is clearly mistaken. The fact is that jazz improvisers gravitate toward songs that they admire and love.

Another, related idea is that the song provides only a series of chord changes, and that the original melody has no relevance. This is true of some improvisation, in which the players simply "blow" over the changes, but the melody is greatly significant to a great proportion of the more subtle improvisors. I've come to see melodic "paraphrase" as more satisfying that sheer improvisational "composition," when the latter is reduced to less structured arpeggios on the chords.

There are "ironical" treatments of standard material, it is true. Thelonious Monk playing "Lulu's Back in Town" in a campy way, for example. But "serious" treatments are in even more abundance: in Miles Davis's ballad playing, for example. Miles also plays the melody of the original song in paraphrase rather than a totally unrelated composition on the same changes.

The desire of jazz musicians to compose their own originals is also evidence in favor of my thesis. I could argue that Monk, Mingus, Ellington, Shorter, are more important as composers than as players. The traditional focus on improvisation might devalue these figures unjustly. If jazz were a pure "blower's" art, there might be no need to write new music.

Nothing in what I'm saying should be construed as a devaluation of improvisation. What I'm really saying is that that improvisation was promoted at the expense of composition, as though the two had to be put into opposition.