Jazz from 1957 to 1967 was the most definitive.

Elizabeth, a decade in music is fuzzy; one of my favorite "jams" is "Senior Blues" which was on "Six pieces of Silver", by Horace Silver, recorded in 1956.
This decade also included "West coast jazz", it came and it went. While I recall some of the musicians; Gerry Muligan, Shelly Mann, Bob Brookmeyer and others, I do not have the best examples of this genera in my collection.
I am defining this music by a certain sound. While I can not communicate this sound in words, we jazz lovers know it when we hear it.

ALL music from the 'past' seems definitive or, 'more important' than music that's created today or in the recent past. Of course I'm not arguing about the relevance of the music or the musicians as it's undisputably excellent. It just seems to me that currently, the modern music-lover can't help but be jaded due to exposure to ALL music from ALL time periods. Again, while the thread is about old Jazz (which I love and have hundreds of LP's & CD's) I'm making a really wide statement about music in general.

I would agree. I started into jazz in 1957, doing live concerts and recordings. I had the pleasure to hear in person Miles, Baker, Desmond, Brubeck and many others, all in New York City. I also was able to sit in on some of the Columbia recording sessions at the 30th Street studio. Clearly, a golden age.

Agree with Chazro. It is easily to glorify the past and call something a "Golden Age." Did anyone know it was a "Golden Age" when it was in real time? Probably not. There could be a Golden Age (in any genre) in the making right under our noses. The key is to keep exploring what's out there currently.

Nicotino, Excellent point I think!

A personal aside, FWIW. My introduction to jazz (and classical for that matter) was in the 60's and it came via live performances in clubs or symphony halls.

Hard Bop, then in vogue, was difficult and music echoing Davis, Coltrane, etc was just a lot of noise to me then. Had I been unduely influenced by this exposure I would have ignored jazz entirely and dismissed the possibility that I would ever enjoy it as a form.

If you haven't heard and understood what preceded this music then you are likely to just be lost in a field of noise and assume that that sound is what jazz is ALL about. I did until I discovered otherwise.

Had my introduction to classical music been similar, i.e. early Prokofiev, Stravinsky, etc, without the benefit of having heard Beethoven and Bach and the composers who straddled the modern and romantic periods, I would probably have passed on that form as well. Fortunately I didn't in either case.

While I may appreciate all that the greats did in both forms, interestingly I rarely listen to their music. I know it well and I've learned to save it for special occasions lest I begin to believe that it is all there is worthwhile and ignore the music of others. I enjoy spending most of my time exploring the music of others. You never know what you may find.

Aldavis, Jim FWIW my post had nothing personal for you in it, at least that was not my intention. It's just offensive to me that someone (NOT YOU) can describe (proclaim), rather arrogantly (as they often do) that anything can be definitive, especially when we are dealing with something as broad and complex as music.

It's one thing to say that one can appreciate the music of Davis, for example, as one could the music of Beethoven. But the music of these acknowledged 'greats' IMHO should influence the music which follows, as it did in Beethoven's case, but not so much in Davis' case I think.

I've said enuf I think...............