Jazz for aficionados

**** The "influence lineage" is something that has been missing here IMO*****

Well, first of all, we need to define 'influence'. I think of it, as it's used in astrophysics.. A thing exist and has certain properties. Then another thing, causes the first thing to change.

Example: The orbit of an asteroid is changed because it travels too close to a Star. The presence of the Star, and it's gravity, 'influenced', or changed, the orbit of the asteroid.

So in Jazz, we have Jazz, and then something or someone comes along and changes the way that pre-existing Jazz is played. That's 'influence'.

There are few people that have 'influenced' Jazz. Armstrong, Parker, are the obvious and quick answers. I am sure you aficionados can name many others.

BTW, if a player does change direction and no one else follows, he has not 'influenced' anything.

Cheers

Important vs Great:

The answer to this lies with the unwashed masses. So, as you stated it, a player can be great and not important, and important, but not great. And of course, both and neither.

How could that be? Easy, the art community does not seperate the wheat, the public does. THINK about it.

Cheers

New Cuban Music:

Does New Cuban music have to originate in Cuba? Should the music played and composed by a player of Cuban ethnicity, living in another country, be considered 'Cuban' music?

We need to answer these questions before we can begin the search for NEW Cuban music. If there is any New Cuban Jazz.

Cheers

****What makes an artist an important artist? ****

I thought I answered that question in the paragraph that followed. Put simply, it's an artist who was influential in shaping the direction of the art. I think that the Tatum/Scott example is a good one. Scott was an extremely accomplished player and worth listening to. Tatum was a master who influenced not only Scott, but the direction of piano playing style as a whole; he's an important artist.

Rok, you shouldn't short change yourself too readily. I'm not quite sure what a "true aficionado" is, but you clearly love the music.

****So in Jazz, we have Jazz, and then something or someone comes along and changes the way that pre-existing Jazz is played. That's 'influence'.****

Rok, you have it exactly backwards; or, at least, only partially (a small part) correct. Yes, someone like Bird comes along and changes the direction of jazz, but the impetus for that change is everything that came before Bird; THAT is the influence (on Bird). And the process continues: Bird was one of Trane's main influences (by Trane's own admission). Of course each player brings new and unique things to the table; but, of there had been no Bird, there would not have been a a Coltrane. And that is the reason that there is always worthwhile jazz including presently; it is an extension of what came before it.

Actually, there have been many who, even if not revolutionizing jazz in a sweeping way the way that Bird and Trane did, certainly influenced the change in the overall direction of jazz; it is a matter of degree.

****The answer to this lies with the unwashed masses. So, as you stated it, a player can be great and not important, and important, but not great. And of course, both and neither.****

We have been here before and the answer is the same: nonesense. I have asked for a more in depth explanation of your stance previously and I have never gotten one. Perhaps that is why you like to consider part of the unwashed masses. Hate to break it to you, you are not part of the unwashed masses. The unwashed don't listen to Mingus nor Beethoven :-) As I have said before, by your definition the best art is The Beatles (I like them btw), Michael Jackson, Kenny G, Madonna etc.

You also misread my comment re important/great. To clarify: an important artist is always great (even if one doesn't like his art), a great artist is not always important.

Cheers