So if I take your point correctly; that Jump is an original and authentic style of music that has as much validity as Blues or any other genre then I agree and can offer the example of South African developement of pop Jive as proof. The concept that one style of music is more authentic than another is; well to me irrellavent. I mean what does that mean? And why would it be important to assign a label of greater uniqeness?

Earlier we talked about how hard it was for people other than those who grew up in certain areas of the country and experienced the same circumstances to reproduce the exact timing and feel of a style. So I would guess that the Jump style that came out of the Latino Ghettos of Los Angeles in the 40's would qualify as unique and difficult to copy well. Is that so? Just to see we are on the same page.

But no; I would not have an opinion as to which musical style is more important. I don't see the point of musical snobbery. Some style may have a greater effect on the culture and some may be relagated to less of an impact but in musical terms they have effects that we can't determine over the long haul.

I am more interested in how the music does what it does than why it might be better or worse. Why does a twelve bar 1/4/5 progression grab people the way it does.
Ditto for the Jump styles.

You know it's incredibly difficult to play the most simplest music right. Becuase there is no room for mistakes. because it is so simple every little nuance becomes magnified and assume's tremendous signifigance. So some can listen for years to Sleepy John Estes and still never get his timing and inflection and tone exactly right.
Or Blind Willie; or Petey Wheatstraw. And the cultural divide is real and hard to overcome when you are trying to replicate a music indigenous to a time and place and people.