Actually the term jazz itself has been difficult to pin down where it actually
originated. One such truth is that "Jazz" or "Jas" was short
for jasmine or the smell of perfume lady's would wear "on the
street." The music at the time being performed in Storyville, and the slang
"jas" or would you like some "jazz" became synonymous. And yes, Jazz did develop and originate in New Orleans, not Chicago. It
however, did move up the Mississippi River to Chicago. Jazz music was developed
as a result of African ritual drum beats combined with European harmonic sounds.
Thus was born a new art form. Early jazz artists such as Buddy Bolden and
Louis Armstrong would disagree greatly that with you that jazz originated in
I like remorg's idea. Lets trade the Jazz name for some draft picks.
I'm more than happy to accommodate the Hornets request for the Jazz
nickname. You send us Eric Gordon and your first round pick and we'll send
you your nickname.
"The word "jazz" comes from New Orleans. Jazz music itself
originated in New Orleans" Actually, both of these statements
are false. The word "Jazz" originally had nothing to do with music, it
was a west coast slang term that meant "spunk." Also, Jazz music was
played in Chicago before it took over in New Orleans.While we're on
it, New Orleans stole the Mardi Gras celebration from Mobile, Alabama. So maybe
New Orleans needs to give back first.
"Utah Jazz" makes as much sense as "Los Angeles Lakers," who
moved from Minnesota where it did make sense.Now, "Utah
Lakers" or "Salt Lakers" makes sense. But that would require
persuading the Los Angeles team to change names. How about the "L.A.
No, no and no. Sports teams don't have to make sense. The name Lakers
doesn't fit in L.A. And how many 'Fighting Irish' are really in
Indiana? The Utah Saints would be lame. New Orleans should have supported
their team in the 70a and maybe they would still have the Jaxx. Too bad.
"According to Yahoo! Sports' Kelly Dwyer . . . 'The team was
originally named in tribute to North Carolina's steadfast, guerrilla-styled
defense of its soon-to-be-state during the Revolutionary War . . . Apparently
Louisiana gave no such defense. Way to go, guys.'"___Apparently Kelly forgot that the Revolutionary War was from 1775-1783, and the
Louisiana Purchase was in 1803. :-)
Not that I'm disagreeing about the "Jazz" making any sense in Utah,
but there's no way the league would side with New Orleans, or would the
Jazz give up the name. Just remember back to when Baltimore expanded in the
NFL, and they wanted the name "Colts" back, since they had it first, and
made it famous (e.g. - Johnny Unitas), and Indianapolis wouldn't have
it.Not that the Utah Saints doesn't have a nice, ironic ring to
it. Or maybe, the Stormin' Mormons? ;)
How many lakes are there in Los Angeles? Yet I don't see Minnesota bawling
about their name being taken by the Lakers. Franchises move all the time. The
bottom is, it's the right of the franchise and the city to keep the name of
the team it has acquired. It's no big deal. And after 33 years of the
Jazz being in Utah with its name, it would be pretty stupid of our team to give
up the name to some new owner who has barely been involved in the NBA for three
days. The new New Orleans owner needs to deal with it.
As old as the jazz has been in Utah, it still doesn't make sense. The word
"jazz" comes from New Orleans. Jazz music itself originated in New
Orleans. Why its only a mascot, it is curious why Larry wanted to keep the name
jazz.Maybe its time to think about a change to something more
relevant. Utah Avalanche, Utah Rattlesnakes, Salt Lake City Saints.
Change the name to "Utah Rocks"Calling Utah the Jazz is just
Dwyer wishes have as much of a chance as Rocky for president. Or as much of a
chance as the Lakers back to Minny. Larry Miller once answered that question
with a flat out "NO."
what about Utah Bears or Utah Avalanche or Utah Saints