How come great American music of Armstrong & Coltrane dont get the respect given to European classical music?

Answer 1

I believe there are a few reasons.

1) Classical music was primarily sponsored by and created for the European upper class which assured its pervasiveness in the civilized modern world;

2) Classical music is hundreds of years old and is therefore entrenched in Europe and Europen-influenced cultures...conversely, Jazz is a relativley new musical idiom;

3) Because jazz is highly improvisational, it is not possible to distribute its sheet music as readily thereby limiting its distribution potential;

4) At the height of Jazz as a creative force (i.e. Armstrong's and Coltarne's era), it was primarily performed by African Americans who were not recognized as the geuniuses they truly were.

Answer 2

I have to take issue with the concept that jazz does not get respect that it is due. Jazz is, in some respects derived from classical music. It is however an "in the moment" art form and as such heavily dependent of live performance. Improvisation on a theme hooked up with specific rythmic devices is what makes jazz. [Classical music had great improvisors, Beethoven and Mozart for example.]
European classical music devised the whole system of musical theory that jazz depends on. The system of writing music, its notation etc. is the basis of all western music.
The music of Parker, Coltrane and other artists developed and took its place in musical history. The art is characterized by its lack of formal structure to the point that it is now difficult to even say what is and is not jazz. It think most listeners would agree that the music of Pat Metheny for example is most certainly jazz, but should it be categorized with Miles Davis or Bird, possibly not.
Art music is by its very nature fixed in time, in its own milieu. Classical music is very special because of this character of music in general. In some respects Jazz is one of the children of classical, but it is not an only child. Rather is only one branch on the western music tree (if you'll excuse the mixed metaphors), whereas classical is the roots of the tree.
The classical canon spans 300 years, jazz really less than 100 - only time will tell how music of the Coltrane / Parker / Davis era will be treated by history.

Answer 3

Sez who? A bunch of high-brow snobs who only listen to Mozart? They don't count!

On a whole, the world is very receptive to the contributions to jazz and its masters. Jazz is more popular in Europe than classical and has been for decades.

I think you may be confusing 'respect' with 'recognition'. Since jazz is a continually evolving art form and classical is somewhat stagnant, it is much easier to look retrospectively at classical music. Jazz will continue to evolve and excel beyond the contributions made so far. There is a reason why so many music departments at colleges and universities have jazz studies, performance and majors courses - it is an art form that is equal to and in some cases, greater than classical.

Answer 4

I'm one of the "high-brows", and I love Coltraine, Armstrong, Hanconck, Tyner, Miles Davis et al --

I am in awe of these guys and their ability to compose "on the spot". Coltraine understood counterpoint and melody as well as anybody in the classical idiom, and on an intuitional level. It was part of him.

From me he gets the respect he deserves. I can't speak for the other folks.