Stop me if you've heard this one before: a case of style over substance

About every five years or so in the major music markets talk begins of a 'jazz revival'. Talk is all it ever is, because jazz never really makes a 'comeback' any more than it ever really goes away. It is a constant in popular music - and, arguably, now in serious music, too - but it isn't chart music any more, and it is just about inconceivable that it ever again will be.

What gets the rumour going is when music that people who don't listen to jazz think sounds like jazz, starts charting. As a rule this stuff has an aura of sophistication, but doesn't require the audience to listen terribly hard. It happened in the 1980s with Sade and again in the 90s with Harry Connick Jnr.

Now it's happening with Diana Krall, Norah Jones, Jamie Cullum, Michael Buble, Katie Melua, Jane Monheit, Peter Cincotti and quite a few others.

Jazz, we are told, 'is back', and these people - all, coincidentally, young and good looking - are the artists setting its new course. Are they jazz artists, though, and does it really matter?

For the most part, no, they're not, although Cullum has the chops and the respect of musicians who should know - including Guy Barker, from whom he poached his bassist and drummer. As to whether it matters or not - well it does and it doesn't.

In absolute terms, it isn't important which pigeonhole you choose to file any composition or performance in. It doesn't change the music itself, and as Duke Ellington, who disliked the word 'jazz' anyway, famously remarked, 'There are two kinds of music - good and bad.'