This may be tempting, because the author drew an analogy between the typical account of bebop’s origin and a view about classical music. However, the analogy was drawn by the author. We don’t know that the people who hold the typical view about bebop’s origin have any thoughts about classical music. We know what the author thinks about classical music, but not what the proponents of the typical account of bebop’s origin think.

We know that the proponents of the typical view believe that swing music became, at some point in time, artistically limited compared to bebop. And, we know that they believe swing dance involved commercial interests and was relatively popular. But, we don’t know that they think the popularity of swing music was primarily because of its lack of artistry. Maybe swing became popular because it was appealing to listeners, or because it was easy to dance to. The passage doesn’t suggest that these features of swing result from swing’s lack of artistry.

This is the author’s view in the first sentence of the last paragraph. But this isn’t the view of the proponents of the typical account of bebop’s origin.

Supported. Additional support. Swing, which was the type of jazz preceding bebop (see the first paragraph), wasn’t extended in musical directions plainly indicated by the music itself. In other words, swing music had certain directions that it could be developed, but musicians weren’t developing it. Why? Because they were “seduced” by the popular music industry into continuing to do the same thing.

This is the opposite of what the proponents of the typical view of bebop’s origin would think. In the last sentence of the third paragraph, we’re told that as it developed, jazz lost associations with dance, popular song, and entertainment. Bebop is the “logical culmination of this process.” So bebop would not embrace dance, popular song, and entertainment.