Jazz for aficionados

Old Music vs New Music:

Old and new do not refer to the date the music is created, played or recorded.  Old and new refer to a style of music.   As Jelly Roll said, Jazz is a way, or style, of playing music.   That's why tunes like 'Nature Boy' and 'When Johnny Comes Marching Home', can be Jazz tunes.

The notion / sense,  that Jazz must 'progress' or 'Improve' or move on to something Mo' Better is the major problem.   It is only in the Jazz genre that we have this situation.

Classical Orchestras all over the world play music hundreds of years old everyday.   The music is considered the heights of western civilization.   Country singers wish they could be like Hank Williams or Dottie West.   Folks in the mountains still worship Bill Monroe.

But in Jazz, we must have New Jazz.   Mo' better Jazz.   'Modern' Jazz.   And if you can't play a lick, 'Free' Jazz.

I listened to the Jazz music that I do, because it is the best created so far. On my rack,  Miles sits right next to Mozart.   Both, Giants in their genre.

I could junk Mozart in favor of Philip Glass.   After all, his music is 'Modern'.    Yeah right.

Cheers

**** you have no idea how sad current music is ****

Imo, the only sad thing is how this thread has managed, for three or four years, to return over and over again to the same tired themes that are competely off the wall and not based on the reality of all that is widely considered truth in and about music.  The "it's subjective" argument simply doesn't wash when it comes to very fundamental considerations about music and not simply preferred styles.  Don't you two guys have something new to say?  Needless to say, I don't agree with the comment about "how sad current music is" anymore than I agree with the idea that "most current music has no coherence or themes".  Where's the substance to back up those comments?  Now,  although it should be obvious, I should point out that had I not been included in O-10's diatribe in a way that is inappropriate and at least a little provocative, I would have ignored and not responded to the commentary in the last seven posts or so eventhough I consider most of it no more than bs.  Even worse, bs that ignores musical values and even a specific performance in order to make the commentary serve an e-social agenda.  

O-10, as OP, and as an OP that wants a leadership role in the thread, imo, your style of leadership leaves a lot to be desired.  Do you really think that I or anyone would be remotely interested in expressing an opinion about a performance that you have already panned without offering a single detail as to why you feel it needs to be panned.

**** Never the less, we continue to express our opinions and plod along. ****

And I just expressed mine.  If you would prefer a more polite version in the future please consider the above and don't speak for me.  "plod along"....exactly; sad.

Ghosthouse, if you're out there, check out the guitar player in the Blanchard clip; interesting player.

Professor Longhair

What happened to Detente?   Did I dream it all?   Fake Detente??

Cheers

Hello @frogman 
Coincidentally, I was checking in briefly this morning.  Been spending more time lately on Head-fi.org.  Anyway, I will check out that GITarr player on the Blanchard clip.  Still owe Alex a listen to his suggestions.  

In support of your position, I respect the heck out of Orpheus' and Rok's depth of knowledge about and enthusiasm for "old school jazz" but seems needlessly restrictive to draw a circle around that and dismiss content that falls outside it...regardless of wardrobe.  

I'd also suggest time has exerted a filtering effect making more obvious the great material produced "back in the day".  BUT I suspect, living in the moment back then, there would have been an equal amount of "sad stuff" cluttering up the musical landscape.  We don't have the perspective provided by the passage of time to accurately assess all contemporary jazz.  Let's talk about it again 50 years down the road.