Jazz for aficionados

...further more...I've read that none studio recording of Johnny Griffin can represent how good actually he played as he was suffering from claustrophobia, so any studio session was discomfort was him...so,never he desplayed as same as live...

Its been said for Oscar Wilde that none of his plays was so brilliant as man himself, seen and heard in relaxed company.

Jazz, played and listened,when was on its peak, was in different historical and social times. Now, we can all agree, is not so relevant, present or popular among population.
The audience is now more 'passiv' element than before. (correct me if I am wrong)

My questions are...

Does the lack of interaction with 'public' and life itself on more intimate and every day level makes the todays jazz different than one from before?

Is it possible for an art form to grow without such relation and does that makes jazz 'dead' except as an form of expression of people who are practicing it ?

Could that be said for other music art forms as well?
Rock is also dead, isn it?

Is there any chance that we shall hear some 'new' Beethoven or Miles?

How about movies? Has anybody seen any new good western?
One in every ten years....if

That does not mean that there are not any good films any more.....that does not even mean that lots of movies are not basically westerns....because they share the same story concept....the good guy, the bad one and the duel at the end...

But, their form of expression is very different

Is it possible to apply the same analogy to jazz, because except for the same instrumets and similar conception in performance, we are looking/hearing at two very different types of music, but we are calling them by the same name?

orpheus10
SHOULD have said when frogman WRITES technically abut music

Now, having said that, I must also say that I am disappointed that you still feel the need to make unnecessary judgments and characterizations about what music may mean to someone other than yourself. Very presumptuous of you and quite off the mark. “....just a statement of fact”? Hardly. To be blunt, O-10, don’t think you know what you’re talking about. I hope I don’t have to explain why someone might find such unnecessarily personalized characterizations to be offensive. As always, hoping for healthier dialogue.

I would appreciate it if everyone came back to this, and explain what Frogman is saying, because I don't have a clue; there are so many alternate explanations, but he said it in reference to the following paragraph.


I have come to the conclusion that you and I (meaning me and Rok) agree more than we disagree on the definition of jazz, because your definition is more emotional, as opposed to Frogman's definition which is more intellectual. Jazz with an intellectual bent can be ever so good, but it lacks "Blacknuss".

For all you Coltrane fans, this should increase your interest in the "lost" recording -

https://www.stereophile.com/content/john-coltranes-both-directions-once-lost-album-debuts-englewood-...

Alex, you add equilibrium to this thread, but we don't need no stinkin books, we're writing one as we go; it's called "The Book of Hearts" and it's composed by the heart, meaning what is in each aficionados heart; the book we're writing is the truest book ever written.