Jazz for aficionados

As with music, "acquired taste" presumes open mindedness to the possibilities of the unfamiliar.  In part, its a mindset.  Is one going to be the type of individual who is always looking to the past for the coziness of the familiar or is one going to remain open to the possibility that there may be something just as good or better in the new.  There may be healthy skepticism toward the new, but when it blinds us to the potential of the new and puts the familiar on a pedestal without any skepticism, it's not a good thing, imo.  Example:

From my vantage point there has been as much "old" jazz (I dislike "jazz-jazz") posted here that I would consider mediocre or even sub-par as there has been "new" jazz that I can say the same about.  This goes to what I think is a key question that never receives a satisfactory answer in the endless debate about old vs. new jazz:

What purpose, exactly, does it serve to hold on to a stance that always looks back in time for the only "good" jazz?  Does this make the staunch old-jazz fan a better or more appreciative listener by being closed to the possibilities of the new?  No way, and certainly not if one considers ALL that gets posted here as "good".  Moreover, I don't read any particularly insightful comments or explanations as to why old jazz is always "better" other than "I say it is". "new jazz is noise", or "Wynton says it is".  Nobody is saying that The Jazz Pistols are on the same artistic level as Coltrane; that would be silly.  However, I don't think that this is the issue.  Importantly, I don't think that there is anyone here who likes new-jazz that doesn't also like quality old-jazz; it seems that the reverse is not true.  Why does it bother some that others find value in some new-jazz and can appreciate both new and old as long as it is of high quality?  Does it "protect" old jazz by being closed to what the new has to offer?  No way.  In fact, I would say that being so close-minded toward new jazz and insulting of those who like it only serves to sour the new jazz listeners to exploring the old.  

O-10, Lew Tabackin, with the possible exception of Hubert Laws is the most accomplished flute player in jazz today; accomplished as an instrumentalist.  Whether he is anyone's favorite jazz player on flute is up for debate, but he is certainly one of the very best.  Beautiful player and beautiful rendition of Duke's composition.  I don't know if it was intentional or accidental on your part, but posting that clip on the heels of a discussion about Duke and classical music was great; what in music is called a great "segue".  

Duke was a student of the great classical composers and while I have no way of knowing whether that composition was inspired by this other one or not, I have no doubt that Lew Tabackin, a devoted classical flute student, had this other piece in mind when he chose to play Duke's composition on flute instead of saxophone (his other instrument).  Claude Debussy's "Syrinx" for solo flute is, to classical flute players, like "Night In Tunisia" is to beboppers; a staple of the repertory.  Obviously two different styles of music, but I think that the similarities in the two melodies are striking.  I am posting "Pyramid" again for the sake of comparison:

"Syrinx"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=aw53VrbI4l0
"Pyramid"
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=rTp9mjI04kM

Why do so many of these 'new Jazz' groups feature guitar players so prominently?

Inquiring minds want to know.

Cheers

***** Moreover, I don't read any particularly insightful comments or explanations as to why old jazz is always "better" other than "I say it is". "new jazz is noise", or "Wynton says it is"*****

Wynton said that The stuff Miles and Metheny was playing,  was NOT JAZZ.  Had nothing to do with new or old Jazz.   It was not Jazz of any type.   He was / is right.

Do you think New Jazz is always better?   Do you think it is equal to the original?   Do you think there is no difference is artistic quality?

I say one era is light years ahead of the other in both quality and quantity.  Others may disagree.

I do think, that if there was not a constant attempt to keep real Jazz in the conversation, it would NEVER be talked about on this thread.

Cheers

BTW, by old and new, I do not refer to the date it was played, written or recorded, but to the type of 'Jazz' it is.   A lot of great Jazz being played today. A few examples are,  Dee Dee, JALC, Branford, Gregory porter, Christian MacBride, and a host of folks from the New Orleans scene.  There are many other recent greats, but I am not sure they are still with us.  It seems like never a day goes by that we don't lose someone.

Cheers

Emmanuel Pahud: Debussy/ Syrinx, is hauntingly beautiful.

Lew Tabackin's "Pyramid" is likewise, ever so beautiful.

Today is a good day for music;

  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fE0qBOhVsiM


Old versus New, is not the issue; what I like and don't like is the issue.


From my vantage point there has been as much "old" jazz (I dislike "jazz-jazz") posted here that I would consider mediocre or even sub-par as there has been "new" jazz that I can say the same about. This goes to what I think is a key question that never receives a satisfactory answer in the endless debate about old vs. new jazz:


While I agree with what you posted, it seems that I'm supposed to like jazz because it's new as opposed to "music" to my ears; whether it's new or old, either I like it or I don't like it.

I feel like I'm "short timin" and I don't have enough left to evaluate for any length  of time.

I don't recall being a fan of Wynton? Maybe part of your post applies to someone else who I refuse to name.


Enjoy the music.