****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
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