Do you think the quality of Jazz has gone down?

In/Casino/Out

Yeah quite a big question I know but still would be interesting to discuss! Sure alot has changed in Jazz since the golden era of the 20's and swing. But do you think the quality of Jazz being produced today has increased or decreased, or maybe even stayed the same great quality but for different reasons? I myself think the popularity of Jazz has decreased in young people so it might not be as hot as it was all those years ago, but alot of Jazz today is grrrrrreat!

andy1249

I have been listening to a lot of Diana krall lately , and this to me is really class music , She also seems quite popular among certain young groups ,also the interest in the Bray Jazz festival at work seems to be keen so going by this I would say jazz is as great as it ever was.

Jazz has always been on the verges though , popularity wise , in the cool zone , I guess this is where is should be.But invariably you lose touch with this as you get older unless you actively seek it , which can lead to an impression that the genre has lost it ,
But I dont think so , if you dont know Diana Krall , I suggest you get a CD, Girl in another room is excellent IMHO.

Setun

It's definitely a tough call, there probably isn't as much groundbreaking recordings as there was back then - most things have been done already so it's hard to be unique and stand out, so in that way it's probably not as good. There are great young players about I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they can come up with.

shatners basoon

andy1249 wrote:

Jazz has always been on the verges though , popularity wise , in the cool zone , I guess this is where is should be.But invariably you lose touch with this as you get older unless you actively seek it , which can lead to an impression that the genre has lost it,

Heh, well of course we'd all like to think we're cool, that its cooler than all the other genres.... and we're right too damn it!!!
What you don't think old people are cool? Saw Louis Stewart a while ago, thought he was still pretty cool

Do you think the quality of Jazz has gone down?

Hmmm.... its hard to say especially as there are so many different 'types' of jazz, alot of its been done already and is often replicated, alot of people seem to be learning how to play by stealing their idols licks and sounds, that said there is still alot of original stuff being played. Trios and quartets are as strong as ever in terms of quality, or at least anything i've seen live anyway.
however, I myself am still travelling back listening to all the great music that started it all (simply as its cheaper to buy!) it still sounds fresh!

There is still lots of great jazz being created all over the shop though, simply as to play jazz at the top level, you have to really love the music (this element is missing from most other genres IMO) and you've gotta be technically very good, so there'll always be plenty of musicians out there striving to create the best sounds and explore the realms of music.

The problem with Jazz today is as you put it - there's not enough of it!
Its popularity is probably at an all time low, simply as there are other forms of music used for dancing now and people are too impatient to give jazz a chance.
Often when you ask people if they like jazz they'll say yeah and they might of heard of say miles or billie holiday but that'll be it, no willingness to explore. The waning popularity of jazz certainly has an effect on the music created - there's less of it.
This is a shame but hey im happy to be part of the great secret that is jazz appreciation! Enjoy it while you can!!!

shatners basoon

Daddio wrote:

There are great young players about I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they can come up with.

Like me for instance?

noh showband

The one thing that jazz has in common with classical music and, arguably, the blues is it never gets replaced as time goes on and new fashions supplant the old. Pop music is bubble-gum, this week's number one is last week's distant memory (in a lot of cases). In only exceptional cases can a pop act sustain a career of more than about five years, but Beethoven's Fifth and Buddy Rich will always be out there. Because they're complex, because they demand understanding rather than mere toe-tapping acceptance and because as each successive generation comes to that understanding, they find a world of communication opening up for them that Shayne Ward, Gnarls Barkley and Pattt Shorttt probably couldn't even begin to engage in.

... in my very humble imho ...

shatners basoon

Agreed, to a certain extent.

There still was (and certainly still is) some rubbish jazz, of course it can depend on one's tastes but personally i think alot of the great greats went a bit off during the 80s (and by off i mean kick you in the crotch bad!), the 80s was terrible for alot of jazz, granted htere was still alot of good stuff but nowhere near the golden periods of before. The number of different types of jazz also make s it hard to judge its consistancy, personally i think alot of free jazz is a bit weird (some of it is great) but i still think can be considered a bit of a fad considering how prominent it was and how prominent it is now, same goes for fusion .

But i do agree with what you're saying about the differences to the stated genres and pop music. Pop, Its easy on the ear, thats why its popular, it can go in one ear, stay for a while then go out the other but lack any sort of depth to sustain my interest.

i still love every jazz album i've ever bought, enjoy them even more so with every listen. When i hear people live i can feel the intensity of the musicians, i guess its a different sort of intensity than classical musicians who tend to be so focused and absorbed in performing the piece that moves them so, every note perfect and full of emotion.
I think jazz is more about the journey than the finished product but i probobly don't listen to as much classical as i should.

Setun

Shatners Bassoon wrote:

Like me for instance?

Yes, sure...

Nah just kidding, it is up to the younger generations to keep the interest alive and the music fresh. Keep experimenting, and find out what you can do with your music.

Who is the Davis, Coltrane or Parker equivalent today? Is there one?

shatners basoon

Hmmm....
Hard to say really, i don't think that there are many musicians out there who are revolutionising music in the same way as those mentioned, however im sure there are many at the same standard in terms of playing ability/virtuosity but there always will, just not revolutionaries!
One thing about these people is that its only over time that they've been truely accredited as greats (miles excluded) alot of people didn't get coltrane when he first came on the scene, same with thelonious monk and many others (parker was always a musicains man though, even then.) So there maybe some revolutionary musicians blowing some minds somewhere, we just won't hear about em til later

One could argue the fact that current musicians are only copying the past great but should they still be praised for keeping the music alive? Haven't made up my mind about that one, wynton marsalais comes to mind though in that respect.

I guess the most popular jazz nowaredays would be all the trios that blend jazz with good rock/pop music e.g. bad plus, est, brad mehldau trio etc. i'm not all too familiar with these groups though (their cds are more expensive!)

I think the time of renowned greats is over though, gone are the days of coltranes and parkers. Gone are the days of upcoming music ledgends, even in genres like rock, there'll never be another hendrix, page, clapton etc. I guess the revolution in media has attributed to this. Thats not to say there's nothing great out there though, there's more of it but its harder to find if you dont know the circles or something... im rambling!
Any thoughts?

Setun

Are all the good innovations taken?! Jazz has been taken so far out maybe it's time to kind of go back to the way it was originally, and look for innovations there.

Soweto Kinch seems to be doing something new with his music, and Nicolas Payton aswell. Soweto fuses up-tempo, energetic driving solos with rhythmic urban and jazzy hip-hop, and Payton uses electro influences and a wah-pedal on his trumpet in Sonic Trance, yet on an album about 2 years before that he was playing with a new Orleans swing band. Payton seems to be experimenting alot, and it'll be interesting to see how Soweto plays in the future (going to see him next weekend :cool: )

I don't know too much about the other modern groups yet, primarily, as you said, due to the price - €25? Are you havin a laugh?! I could get a few Columbia's for that!

In/Casino/Out

Well Jazz is ever changing and never gonna stay the same, that's one of the things I love about it! Right now the new thing seems to be fusing Jazz with other genres such as eletronica and urban but I really agree that its up to the younger generation of players to keep it alive. Where will Jazz go next? Wherever you want it to really! You may think all the good innovations are taken but I'm sure thats how everyone feels, even the greats back then.

shatners basoon

Daddio wrote:

Are all the good innovations taken?! Jazz has been taken so far out maybe it's time to kind of go back to the way it was originally, and look for innovations there.

Soweto Kinch seems to be doing something new with his music, and Nicolas Payton aswell. Soweto fuses up-tempo, energetic driving solos with rhythmic urban and jazzy hip-hop, and Payton uses electro influences and a wah-pedal on his trumpet in Sonic Trance, yet on an album about 2 years before that he was playing with a new Orleans swing band. Payton seems to be experimenting alot, and it'll be interesting to see how Soweto plays in the future (going to see him next weekend :cool: )

I've heard of payton alright, damn good trumpet player, might check some more of his stuff out on your recommendation. (though i'd hardly call wah trumpet innovative, just a little funky fun ) Haven't heard of Soweto though, as long as its not jazzed up hip hop similar to courtney pine (the Bastard!) it looks pretty interesting.

Well i never said all the good innovations are taken, how the hell could i know that?! I just haven't heard of any groundbreaking work realeased in the last decade or so, i could be wrong (and hopefully am!)
Well if you look at the way jazz has progressed, it all stems back to how it was originally hasn't it? I guess you could still take it off into a new direction (dont ask me how! ) I'd certainly like to see it!

In/Casino/Out wrote:

Well Jazz is ever changing and never gonna stay the same, that's one of the things I love about it! Right now the new thing seems to be fusing Jazz with other genres such as eletronica and urban but I really agree that its up to the younger generation of players to keep it alive. Where will Jazz go next? Wherever you want it to really! You may think all the good innovations are taken but I'm sure thats how everyone feels, even the greats back then.

Naturally we have to keep it going, there's no fudging way we can let this fantastic music die, keep the dream alive!!!!

All the greats back then were breaking a whole lot of new ground though, lived their music, played 12 hours a day, slept with their horns, were never seen without their guitars etc. etc. i'm not sure if that level of dedication exists with most musicians nowaredays, maybe it didn't exist with most musicains those days and as Daddio said was left to the greats. I don't think they were worried about having to be innovative though, everyone was exploring new ideas then, even if alot of them were shared.

One thing i'm sure of though, is that musicians can form their own style, either through creating something completely new and bizarre (ala Monk) or fusing whats inspired them, so there is certainly plenty of innovation left, even if new genres are hard to come by (excluding the many many forms of fusion!)

Setun

shatners basoon wrote:

Well i never said all the good innovations are taken, how the hell could i know that?! I just haven't heard of any groundbreaking work realeased in the last decade or so, i could be wrong (and hopefully am!)
Well if you look at the way jazz has progressed, it all stems back to how it was originally hasn't it? I guess you could still take it off into a new direction (dont ask me how! ) I'd certainly like to see it!

I guess before anything is invented or thought of, it doesn't exist to anyone, therefore I suppose it is impossible to say if there is something somebody has yet to do that could change everything.

If you get me?! !

You yourself Shatner, could be the one who stumbles out of bed and hits the right notes, so to speak. :cool:

Killaqueen!!!

Of course, no doubt about it. Same for blues.

herbieflowers

Music is part of the postmodern disease - everything that's ever been created has been created.

shatners basoon

Well of course anything which has been created has been created, doesn't make sense otherwise

But as for things which have already been created - has anyone ever created this *does a funny dance that noone has ever done before*

Hmmm... whilst that can probably be said about most things, things that have been 'already created' can surely be twisted and battered into new things! Plus by the laws of probability creating an infinite number of possibilites within the realms of music i'd say that statement is just a tiny bit inaccurate.

Almost everything that is done has been done before yes but its impossible and a bit of a cop out to say that everything has been done before. Even things which have been created before should still be kept alive and going shouldn't they? Gotta keep the music alive!!!

herbieflowers

What I meant is the innovation that marked early eras of music will never be met again.

shatners basoon

Its been fairly spread out though in my opinion, plus its only in hindsight that we truely appreciate this innovation.

Plus i dont see how what we create now will never achieve the same hights of innovation = everything that you do has been done before. Please elaborate.

herbieflowers

In a nutshell, peaks of pure creativity will never be met again. Ok, so Parker and Monk took whatever from swing and turned into something new and dynamic ie bebop/bop. Now, there's a complete lack of originality. Take pop music, it's dominated by bands such as Franz, Killers who would be more comfortable in the 80s! So the point is, true creation and innovation a la Parker etc, in my opinion, will never be seen again.

shatners basoon

But pop during those days was rubbish too, pop is not jazz see some of the earlier posts about that. Plus Parker and Monk were never that popular back than with the common people, they were loved by fellow musicians, hated by critics (didn't understand them) and only now are truely appreciated.
Monk by the way played music completely differently than anyone else as opposed evolving a current form of music, he was quite detatched from what was going on elsewhere (was even banned from playin in clubs for about a year for narcotics and spent the time as a recluse forming his own music but thats off topic.

Music certainly didnt go from Monk - Killers though, theres still plenty of original musicians out there, maybe they're hermits too!

herbieflowers

The point I was making is that Monk made something original, yes despised by the general public but when did that ever matter? It's greatmusic now and was back then, eras don't change the quality of music.

shatners basoon

But what does popularity have to do with the quality of music?
You said, music back then = Parker & Monk
music now = Franz & Killers

But you're image of music now is pop music, jazz isn't dead yet! You can't compare jazz back then with pop today, well you can but not to convey a point of lack of originality, though the killers play a very different form of music than Charlie Parker, id like to see them keep up with him:p

Popular music is always going to be bland, and will always be repeated thought the tone might change slightly from decade to decade. We're talking about jazz though!

herbieflowers

I'm not comparing pop with jazz, I was simply using pop as an example of decadence due to postmodernism. The same is happening with jazz, that's the point I was trying to dictate.

shatners basoon

Fair enough, i'd see the progression of pop music in a totally different light than that of the progression of jazz music. I understand what you mean when you say decadence due to postmodernism but i wouldnt say it applies to jazz just yet, is still feel that there is alot to explore in the genre. I'd like to hear why you feel otherwise.

herbieflowers

Yeah I'd agree. It's easier to feel pessimistic though, I mean I think jazz is great but I don't think the Golden Era9ie up to the 1960s) can be bettered. Of course I want to be disproved, but I can't help think it's a social issue as well ("Postmodernism is incredulity towards metanarratives" Jean-Francois Lyotard). Would you sleep with your instrument?! Music was a lot more back then. They needed it. It was their oxygen, a way of surviving. They HAD to make the music. Nowadays, I feel that, certainly in western society, we're too comfortable socially etc. Music will always mean the same thing for people: the emotion, feeling etc. The poit I'm trying to make is that back in the days of Parker et al it was so much more than just a way of life. It WAS life.

shatners basoon

Heh, you share the same view as one of my closest friends
Agreed, it is earier to be pessimistic but if one feels that way than its for certain that they're not going to be the ones creating anything new. Its hard though, man all that pop music pisses me off!

I agree about the need for music back then ofr those musicians as well, that sort of dedication and need for something often crops up in poorer areas, one could say the same as why footballers are better in poorer areas e.g. Brazil, runners in african countries.

As for sleeping with an instrument seeing as i bought myself a nice jazz box a few months ago i'd say why not?

Question is - Can creativity and originality thrive without this mad form of dedication? Keith Jarrett was playing his own material at the age of 6 or thereabouts, this material was accompanying the works of beethoven in his concerts! The need for music doesn't equate to innovation in my book, it helps a **** load when it comes to ability and virtuosity but not necesarily creative ideas. Id consider them a natural thing, one is more likely to stumble across these ideas when playing all day and all night though.
Pity we're all so god damn lazy these days though!

herbieflowers

It's a natural ability, you either have it or you don't. It's n coincidence that those at the top end of the jazz scene got to where they were. They were geniuses - Miles, Monk, Coltrane, Parker, Herbie etc. Dedicaiton isn't enough. It's natural ability AND dedication in my view. Dedication wouldn't suffice. If it did then anyone could become a 'fgreat', for want of a better phrase. Basically, I see it as pop[ music now has become so exhausted it's resorted to taking from precious eras eg the Killers and the 80s. I think the same happens to every genre, scrap genre music in general.

herbieflowers

as for sharing a view with one of your closest friends...:D

noh showband

herbieflowers wrote:

What I meant is the innovation that marked early eras of music will never be met again.

Can we recognise innovation when it's happening? Isn't it a process? One person tries this, another hears it and adds that, until eventually somebody spots it and puts it on a record. I'll be very surprised if Black-Eyed Peas, for example, aren't the starting point for something we'll only start hearing in the next five or six years or so. And that something might even be in the jazz idiom ...

herbieflowers

See, I'm not sure if innovation is a process. I acknowledge the argument, but time doesn't transcend quality. If something is innovative it doesn't take 50 years or whatever to recgonise this fact imo.

shatners basoon

Ack, i hate those blasted black eyed peas, what they did to that Dick Dale song *shudder* thankfully they dont belong in jazz, phew! Of course pop music steals from itself, wouldnt call the 80s too precious tho! If you're going to keep mentioning the killers tho i may have to kill you
Well i believe that Radiohead are the most innovative 'popular' group to come from this decade whilst we're on about that.

herbieflowers wrote:

If something is innovative it doesn't take 50 years or whatever to recgonise this fact imo.

It often does, in hindsight these filler fad bands are forgotten, what was good emerges and is remembered, thats the glory of nostalgia, the good old days is always a myth, there was always lots of crap music that borrowed/stole from what was already done.
in terms of today im sure there are plenty of groups playing interesting inspiring jazz, you've gotta look for them tho. As i said before idont listen to much modern jazz, i always hear it on Lyric Fm whenever its on and thoroughly enjoy it (answering the original question has its quality decreased=no) what we've kept from the old days is the very very best, thats what stands out.

Its like comparing the best old footballers to average new ones. There is still great stuff but if simply you compare one thing to another you get a very distorted image of what is and what was.

For example there could be someone at home now playing music for themselves that is the sweetest sound you've ever heard. An album could be released, forgotten about and rediscovered 30 years later as a master piece. Thats not to say it wasnt great when it was made, but it could be that it wasnt known or appreciated, maybe because purists who only look back disregard it as they dont understand it, or that the cd costs too much (25 quid i could but 2 wayne shorter albums with that! ) This happens an awful lot more than you'd think with musicians, authors and artists, people dont always get the recognition they deserve, Anyway enough of that rant!



As for natural ability, Charlie Parker had very little of it, he didnt have a good ear for music and certainly was no genius in that regard. However he practiced like hell and played differently than anyone else. After being laughed off the stage at an open jam for playing in the wrong key he started to practice like hell! He learned so much from just constantly playing that he could let fly with it all, playing faster and more consistnatly than everybody else, took popular songs and revamped them by adding more notes and playing them faster and faster. Of course he had some natural talent, ive heard his playing on ballads and its brilliantly moving, i dont disput that but parker was made famous for his technique which was dynamic, new and created a whole new movement. He wasnt known for his compositions which he just borrowed from elsewhere and altered.

I think this innovation or praise can come from either natural ability in terms of creative composing or new techniques that create a new sound or a mix of both!

herbieflowers

Natural ability is what distinguishes great form average players. You can only learn and practise so much, you see it all the time with guitarists - Malmsteen etc. Replicas. Indistinguishable from the next, it's the natural ability that gives the player that bit extra that no one else has.

Back to the topic: of course it's decreased. It's no coincidence that Parker, Monk, Miles, Herbie, Jarrett, Shorter et al all emerged roughly around the same time. What has there been since the end of the 70s? A load of experimental tosh.

And it doesn't take an age to even appreciate music. you can appreciate at the time as well. Monk was appreciated by his peers and still is appreciated. Appreciation via the "posthumous/50 years later" method only serves as a comparison with the rubbish that followed that particular artist's music.

shatners basoon

We're not talking about being appreciated by peers, there are loads of great musicians now who are appreciated by their peers thats not answering my point. Im talking about the musicians we recognise as the "greats" or as the legends, they werent consided that by all the jazz listeners or critics etc. then.

Well Malsteem is awful because hes so cheesy, and the singing is awful and he uses power chords *shudder* as are most of those guitarists. What i was saying was that there are plenty of musicians who'd better natural ability than Parker but due to Parker mastering his instrument with all that time effort, making it as you said "his oxygen" that he became so bloody fantastic. Malsteem is an awful composer, but hes got bloody good technique, i dont dig that genre at all though, i like Al DiMeola though... anyway:p

To make my point clear, of course i agree with you that you can appreciate music when its made, naturally lots of people loved monk but that doesnt respond to my point that the music emerges to a wider audience later. What is considered quality must stand the test of time before be properly ascertained, you cant compare music with it now as a whole as you havent seen all of it. How do you know that its been all experimental tosh?
Hmmm.. a large list of artists is hard to make but ill make a few examples

Pat Metheny, John Scofield and Allan holdsworth are all incredibly original and fantastic musicians, as I said before i dont own that much new stuff but i have heard quite alot on the radio and online (names escape me) and to judge it all as rubbish is ridiculous and probably what all the purists did back in the day to Parker and Monk, experience what we have today, properly before judging. There wont be any artist who are as big as
miles, Coltrane etc. but thats because you need time to make a name for yourself, to be renowned. Theres a difference between being renowned as a great and just being great!

herbieflowers

The point is tohugh that we'll never see artists as astounding as Miles etc. Scofield etc. are good, I agree but nowhere near the ridiculous ability of Joe Pass or Wes or Christian or Django. The point is that musi has come so far, it can't progress without taking from what's gone before - sure Parker did it but he created a totally new type of music. I haven't seen that occur in jazz over the past 30 years. Yes Metyheny is great but new jazz will always be surpassed by the golden era. It will not get any better than that. Everything since then has been, imo, exhausted musically. There have been fads and that's as far as it goes.

There is nothing new out there, otherwise it would've been done already (whatever's gonig to be created as been created).

herbieflowers

shatners basoon wrote:

experience what we have today, properly before judging

But it's not a musical point I'm making, it's a philosophical one that applies to everything - the postmodernist condition

herbieflowers

How can one say the quality hasn't deteriorated? Miles to Marsalis? No contest. Wes to Metheny? No contest. Is there a reason for this? Yes, postmodernism. That's all I'm going to say on the matter. End of.

shatners basoon

I wouldnt compare Scofield or Metheny to any of the oldies becuase they're entirely different musicians. Wes vs Metheny heh! how can you possibly compare the two?! Seriously? Its not postmodernism, its purism you're on about, that one genre is better than the other. You cancompare two hard bob guitarists, say Wes and Jim Hall, both brilliant but different but to compare Wes to Metheny is the funniest thing i've heard in a long time. Actually Metheny has probably had a bigger impact on jazz than Wes. Is still prefer Wes to Metheny but would still feel that way.

Its easy to say i prefer Wes more than Metheny, you cant say that one is the more better guitarist though as they're too different. Miles is probably better than Marsalis though, simply cause he's just trying to be miles to recreate the 60s buzz.

One has masters of their own field, the musicians you mentioned are playing a very different type of music than the innovators of today, otherwise they'd be pretendors not original musicians.

herbieflowers

Thepoint Im making is that both Metheny and Scofield take loads from Wes and those who've gone before them as has Marsalis with Miles. But the innovator reigns supreme

herbieflowers

and it's not purism either. The fact that there hasn't been any great up there with say, Monk, since he 70s is alarming - and is down to postmodernism. Metheny more of an influence than Wes? Please, if it wasn't for Wes ther'd be no Metheny

herbieflowers

shatners basoon wrote:

One has masters of their own field, the musicians you mentioned are playing a very different type of music than the innovators of today, otherwise they'd be pretendors not original musicians.

The type of music is irrelevant. It's the quality, the feeling even. It's deteriorated.

herbieflowers

Daddio wrote:

It's definitely a tough call, there probably isn't as much groundbreaking recordings as there was back then - most things have been done already so it's hard to be unique and stand out, so in that way it's probably not as good. There are great young players about I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they can come up with.

This is what I think. I'd be sceptical about the future judging form the last few years though.

herbieflowers

Daddio wrote:

Are all the good innovations taken?! Jazz has been taken so far out maybe it's time to kind of go back to the way it was originally, and look for innovations there.

And I'd definitely agree with that! I'm just gonna stop posting in this thread, we've had a one-on-one argument going nowhere for ages. I stick by what I've said though, jazz won't get any better or original that what's been done.

shatners basoon

Wouldnt call it an arguement, man take it easy. (You're must be a Bastard for not sharing my point of view!:p)

Wes inspired Pat Metheny therefore the innovator reins supreme? Wait a second!
Charlie Christian was the sole influence of Wes and Charlie was influenced by some one else etc. etc. etc. Music will always be influenced from somewhere, you might as well credit mother nature with everything if you're gonna carry on tlike that. Pat Metheny is completely different to Wes, which one is better is subjective. I guess thats why this makes this pointless but surely you must accept how different they are?

And yes id say that Metheny is more influential, id say there are no better hard bop guitarist than Wes but Wes plays music of a genre that many played at the time, the genre Metheny plays is competely original, its some sort of "mood music, new age crazy jazz!)

I dont see how the feeling has degenerated. If you go out there and listen to as many live acts as you can find you'll find the feeling, it still exists in the music today, existed back then and will continue to do so, if not... so help us god whats the point in playing anymore?

herbieflowers

Exactly, that's the depressing bit, we won't create something pure in our lifetimes!

herbieflowers

and an argument isn't necessarily intertwined with violence or heatedness, it's just another word for debate

shatners basoon

i prefer the word heated discussion

herbieflowers

not even heated, discussion...I'm not heated, I have my view you have yours

shatners basoon

was taking the piss:p

Abby D Cody

Uh, guys. Can somebody else get a word in?

If a dead music form can generate this much determined discourse then there's hope for a Frank Ifield retrospective yet.

I think jazz has always looked dead and only years later does anyone realise it's still around and, hey!, there were great players a decade ago, where are they now? In another decade people will be saying exactly the same things and wondering if jazz is on its way out.

Jazz, as far as I can tell, is a player's medium, first and foremost. Then come the musical afficionadi, the appreciators. Once they die out, jazz will just go underground again until it gets a new audience again. The music will never die. People will always come back to the greats of their favourite era. The influences will skip a generation or not as the innovations are recognised. And people will still be arguing over what made this musician great or that one an innovator till the sun goes black and time reverses its arrow.

This interlude has been brought to you by The Voice of Reason Ltd, purveyors of wisdom to the disenfranchised for over fifty years.

Seconds out, round two...