Jazz for aficionados

****Do you think New Jazz is always better?****

Read my comments and you will note that I have never said anything remotely like that.

**** Do you think it is equal to the original? ****

Some of it is not only the equal of "the original", some of it is better.  Now, please note the use of the word "some".

**** Do you think there is no difference in artistic quality?****

Sometimes there is.  Sometimes it's better.  Please read my comments again, and the previous answer and please note "sometimes".  

Why do you think that the type of jazz it is defines how good it is?  So, mediocre or bad old jazz is, by definition, better than any new jazz?  

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

Ok, so what?  If you can't find any value at all in music that is the product of and relevant to the time that you are living in, that is your issue, not mine.  The simple fact that it is jazz of today is something that, by definition, gives it relevance and validity as a vehicle for creative expression.  Whether you like it or not is a different matter.  As far as quantity goes there is no doubt that you are correct; plenty of reasons for that.  However, again, so what?  How does that fact automatically make all of what IS there "bad" (noise)?  

As always, no problem with not liking something, but why bother attempting discourse about music if there won't be a bare minimum of civility by, at least, not calling what someone else may like "noise"? 

****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.****

Not quite sure what you mean by that.  If you are suggesting that it is YOUR attempt only, you would be incorrect and aren't paying attention.  Speaking for myself, I have posted at least as much "real" (by your definition) jazz than new jazz.  Furthermore, who's stopping you from talking about it? Talk away.  If you are suggesting that we should not talk about new jazz at all, well, I think you know better.

Hey, today is Dolo Coker's birthday.   One of the truly unsung heroes of the piano.  Here's some "real" Jazz for you; enjoy:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=efyQylrJm3U

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M1adP_dhbfg

O - I listened to Tabackin’s "Pyramid" that you had posted. Also spent time with "Jazz at the Castle"...a live recording of the Lew Tabackin Quartet. This features him mainly on tenor sax but does include one piece of his flute music, "Return of Pan". His flute playing is very good and even to my ear seems to reflect classical training as noted by Frogman.

I was impressed with his sax playing on Jazz at the Castle. The style seems very modern as opposed to "old jazz" though I’m guessing the tunes are more old school. Not Free Jazz (that mostly does seem like noise to me) but his solos do have a more abstract less structured quality than the tight, well structured solos I associate with hard bop, be bop or cool jazz. Some of his playing reminded me of something I’d hear from one of Frank Zappa’s bands (Ian Underwood, specifically).

One of my realities is that the instrumental work and musicianship are NOT what I don’t get or like about old style jazz. It’s more that many (but not all) of old style jazz songs themselves just don’t grab me. They just aren’t interesting no matter how inventive the solos. And that’s said with all due respect to the thousands and thousands of jazz fans for whom the various well-regarded pieces DO make a big connection. I prefer a more contemporary sound song-structure-wise. That’s the best way I know how to describe my jazz tastes. Wish I could provide more music theory detail about what that means. I only recognize it when I hear it. Don’t know enough to predict it up front.

Some of Weather Report’s "oeuvre" represents what I like; Tony Williams Lifetime, too; the Pat Martino Joyous Lake that Frogman recommended works for me BUT absolutely NOT ALL his stuff (e.g., that work with Joey DeFrancesco); a good bit of Pat Metheny - but not his more traditional jazz recordings.

I didn’t bring up Jazz Pistols so they could be an object of ridicule (sorry for those that think that way) or even a touchstone of the best in modern jazz - I’m not that ignorant...there’s only going to be one Coltrane (or Miles or Evans). I do raise them (as well as Neil Cowley and Snarky Puppy) as examples of contemporary musicians - whether you call it jazz or not - whose compositions hold my interest AND who I also happen to think are, objectively, very good musicians.  

So, that’s my meditation triggered by Mr. Tabackin’s flute playing.

PS -
Further unsolicited comments...

I thought Frogman’s 4:50 & 9:18 PM posts from 11/16 well-reasoned, and moderate in tone. Very good job expressing views I share.

Classical music didn’t end at the start of the 20th century even though a work by Bartok is dramatically different than one by Mozart and even though I might loathe some 20th century "classical" music. In similar fashion, I don’t see a reason certain music can’t be called "jazz" just because it differs so much from what came before. Miles or Coltrane sure as heck were not simply recreating stuff they’d grown up with. It’s the constant growth and change that keeps art alive. Want to kill jazz? Put it under glass in a museum and don’t let it change.

On a happier note (for me anyway)....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k72QAvE3cP0&ab_channel=SnarkyPuppy-Topic

Music is a composite picture of everything about you; where you were born, when you were born, your life experiences, and your personality.

I see no reason to "cultivate" a taste for anything; just let it flow, and let everything find you, that's the natural order of things, and they work best that way.

As an example, I have a CD titled "The World's Best Classical Music", and I can hardly get past the first cut; that's the natural order of things, that's the way it's supposed to be.

Ghosthouse, when you expressed your disdain for the "standards" in jazz, that said it all. Enjoy whatever you find that's enjoyable, and leave the rest; go on life's merry journey with a song in your heart, and a smile on your face.

That's my advice for the day, and there is no charge, that was free.

O - Please, where did I express "disdain for the standards in jazz"?

From Merriam Webster -
Full Definition of disdain: a feeling of contempt for someone or something regarded as unworthy or inferior : scorn.

The fact I don’t find certain music interesting is way different than saying I regard it as inferior or with scorn! Unlike some around here, I’m not passing judgement on its merits in any objective way. I have too much respect for the genre and the opinions of many others to place myself in that falsely superior sort of position. It’s a case of brussel sprouts, beets, or liver and onions. Works for some, just not for me. Almost feel like I need to go compile a list of old jazz that I do find interesting. Well, no need. Here is something right at hand: Allen Toussaint’s "Bright Mississppi". That’s old stuff but it works for me in that album...wonderful arrangements and musicianship, great song selection and track sequencing. I do admit the fact such music held and holds my interest did surprise me. Could add to the list (e.g., that Blue Note Concert DVD; various Coltrane recordings; the Les McCann "On Time") but won’t. Just don’t want you to misunderstand what I was saying. I will continue to check out the various musics recommended here. Some will stick and some won’t. That’s more a comment about me since, to paraphrase you, the music we love is a composite picture of everything about us; where we were born, when we were born, our life experiences, and personalities. Well said. We’re happy for the stuff that sticks.

Peace.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KqBZetLqYFY&ab_channel=StefanoBrilli