Scott Dolan

Parts = most.

The bolded part really tells the story, does it not? The underlined sections gave me a laugh. Though "recent" and "modern" shouldn't apply, they actually do. Unfortunately. And as the infamous Seinfeld line went, "there's nothing WRONG with that!" Really, there isn't. Which is a point that some folks in the Jazz circle of friends don't seem to get. If nobody else ever played a Jazz-related note and the genre officially died right here and right now, there'd still be a lifetime a wonderful music for someone to explore and enjoy. Unless mankind started living to be 200 years old. Master Reynolds, what's wrong with 'far-out, weird noises'?! Those of us who enjoy them should revel in the fact that they ARE "different". Does "popularity" really matter to any of us that much?

Wow, brother! That is incredibly cool! Good for him, and I'll bet you'll be watching with some serious pride.

Ah, yes I completely misread you. My apologies.

And this kind of statement plays right into the uppity attitude that too many people associate with Jazz. How do you know their cultural experience and pursuits don't outpace yours 2 to 1? Just because they have no interest in Jazz doesn't make them a bunch of troglodytes picking fleas off of each other. Also, who cares what their frame of reference is for Pop music?It's their frame of reference, not yours. Nobody should have to clear their frame of reference for anything with anyone else. Nor should they be judged on it. I don't hunt for my own food, but many folks I live around do. Are they to stand aghast because I'd rather go to the grocery store than learn how to hunt and fish? We all choose different paths in this world. It's time Jazz fans get a fucking grip.

Right. It's not on the radio, which is exactly what some,of,us have already stated previously. Your assessment got too close to crossing that "people are just too stupid to get Jazz" line for my tastes. Perhaps that's not what you meant, but that's how it came across to me. And I grew up in a household where my mother, father, brother, and sister all had different tastes in music. So I was exposed to a fairly wide variety, but none of it was Jazz. About the closest thing to it was my brother sometimes playing early Chicago or Chuck Mangione. Though, whenever he did I usually hightailed it for my sister's room to listen to some Elton John or Led Zepplin. But, I get your point. While I didn't really start to listening to Jazz until my mid 20's, I think being exposed to so many different genres as a child (Classical, old school Country, Smooth Jazz/Adult Contemporary, Classic Rock, Gospel, etc...) possibly me tuned me in to exploring more.

Sorry, but I think that's anecdotal nonsense. I have absolutely no musical training whatsoever. Most Jazz fans I've ever met don't have any either. Thinking that has something to do with the drop in popularity strikes me as quite a reach.

I would have to think it's presumptuous to try to determine whether or not someone takes it seriously. That's really not the job of the end user. It's either pleasant to the individuals ears, or it isn't. We'll leave the inside baseball stuff to you guys.

Bingo. +1,000,000,000 I could not agree more. This is 100% correct. And I consider anyone who truly holds that mindset to be sadly mistaken and walling themselves within their own misguided reality.

Agreed, BBSteve. This entire conversation reminds me of a conversation that took place between me and a buddy many years ago when I was deep in the throes of "Jazz as a higher intellectual arform" days. This friend had recently started listening to Najee. Now, he wasn't a fan of Jazz before that, but heard Najee and took to his music immediately. Well, me being the obviously higher life form as I was listening to Ornette and Coltrane daily, started making fun of Najee's music and wondering aloud why he didn't try to play "actual" Jazz. My buddy's reply still sticks with me to this day: "Maybe he's just playing what he likes to play." That one knocked me down a few notches...

More like why should those who find nothing of interest in genres like Jazz and Classical be looked upon with pity as being lesser, or less intelligent? And to the exact point you're addressing, why present Jazz as some transcedent art form instead of a musical genre you find immensely entertaining and enjoyable? The former is sure to make people a little nervous in approaching it.

But, that plays to the point I was trying to make there, Guy. Art still has to possess a level of entertainment. When all the fun and entertainment is wrung out of it by its proponants, then it will naturally begin to shrivel up and die. Jazz is presented by way too many as some kind of revered, next-level art form. Who has time for self self-aggrandized bullshit? Jazz may, or may not, have the power to stand on its own merits these days, but the pretentious comments from some of its biggest fans sure as hell doesn't help draw new fans in. Think about how Classical music is portrayed. A bunch of old white people in tuxedoes and evening gowns attending a performance ending in polite applause and hours sipping wine at a reception in the local art gallery afterwards. Yeah, baby! That's a really kickass Saturday night! You can hardly keep the college kids away!

It also doesn't seem to approximate the early history of jazz, when it was intended as entertainment, not "art". Right. Outstanding point. I hadn't even considered that particular angle. Music is supposed to be fun. Entertaining. Not some exercise in snottery like a bunch of old rich guys sitting around comparing their excruciatingly banal wine tasting notes. Only to look down their nose at others who simply drink wine without going through all the extremely silly ritualistic contortions before even taking a sip. Yes, what heathens... They'd rather simply drink wine and enjoy their company than sit around looking like a jackass staring at it from all angles, swirling it around in the glass, smelling corks... Jazz really lost its way when its fan base decided it had become a deified art form that had to be worshipped in ceremonial deference. Or that only those with I.Q.'s above 150 need apply. There's no more assured way to turn someone off to your product than to talk down to them as though they are ignorant children.

Oh man, Painter's Spring! Quite possibly the hardest swinging Free Jazz album of all time! Very, very highly recommended.

It wasn't a response, it was an avoidance.

There are musics that are not declining, and I would encourage you to seek them out. You may not like all of them - I certainly don't - but I acknowledge their existence. That sounds about as well thought out and informed as Bubbles Palin answering the question about what Paul Revere was famous for. "They are out there, shooting their guns and ringing their bells. They may not all be good, but we should acknowledge that they will not let us take away their guns! Seek them out, for they do exist and are riding out to meet the British!"

Clunky, are you sure? You need one or more $60.000 systems, Superman like super hearing, and incontinence diapers to make sense of the Atlantic Jazz catalogue on digital. But if the diaper fits ... Thanks for the insult! I'll return the favor one day. As rude as I can be when it comes to audiophilia, even I thought that comment was a bit over the line.

*thumbs up* Yes, I was being a bit facetious about it though. My point was that categories are always provisional and contingent, and if categorization were that definitive, a librarian could answer all questions hotly debated on this thread. But how good would that answer be? Case in point. And also *thumbs up* Check and mate, I suppose. Or at least a stalemate...

Anyone can be asked a question about a subject they are not familiar with. Though, I sense you're attempting to make a point.

Bingo. Nothing is "beyond categorization. If it were, then everything essentially would be. And if that were the case, we wouldn't have made it very far as a species since communication, in general, wouldn't have advanced very much.

Leeway, then where does it end? Jam bands are all about improvisation. Does that mean that they're Jazz? Ssems just as open-ended as saying any music involving electric guitar is Rock. Or any music using a violin is "classical". As I said before, you can draw a ton of parallels between Country and Rock. Does that mean there is no line of demarcation to be drawn between the two? I don't buy that. And the Marsalis crack is grade school. Nothing happened after 1959 in his opinion. That certainly is not my opinion. Not even close. But, if you're not willing to make distinctions, then why bother with genre labels at all?

Interesting, indeed. Perhaps I'm not remembering it correctly. I'll have to revisit my collection of Atlantic's and Columbia's from that period. I'll readily admit I haven't listened to much of either recently. Perhaps the tape hiss still present on Kind Of Blue is clouding my judgement…

Very nicely stated, Steve. I think after all these years (remember we first met on Freejazz.org??!!) that not only do we agree to disagree, but that we also somehow agree with each others disagreements to a certain degree! Do the math on that one! If I had to bottom line it, I'd say that just because it's improvisation, that doesn't automatically make it Jazz. On that I'm actually thinking we agree. I guess it's kinda like saying Symphony Pop is Classical. Is it really? Not to my ears. Yes, they do share a lot in common, but so does Country and Rock. Either way, each genre stands on its own. IMO, that should be honored. You're absolutely right about the crossover aspect, but that's a wormhole I'd rather not go down...

And that's where you and I part, Steve, and always has been. I don't hear even the slightest bit of Jazz. I hear Cardew and Stockhausen being played using small groupings and instruments traditionally associated with Jazz. It's classical European improv, just using an "updated" arrangement of instruments. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing wrong with that, but it's not Jazz.

Hmmm…that's certainly intriguing. But, I guess when it comes down to it, I'm very happy with the original masters. The clarity and depth was really a benchmark for the time period. Columbia's from that same time period sound inferior, IMO. (Time Out being a notable exception) You're an Ornette completist, so I can see why they would be very significant for you. I'm good for the time being, but who knows what the future holds? I may get a wild hair someday, and it's nice to know what's out there.