Onhwy61,
You stated, "To deny Dave Brubeck's importance in jazz history is silly." As we used to say in the 1960s, "Right On".
Rok2id,
With all due respect, I did not miss your point at all. Your point is that you do not care for Dave Brubeck. And you try to buttress your preference by saying that he did not play clubs, so he cannot qualify as a real jazz great, and the reviewers were not crazy about him so that reinforces the opinion you have about him. Personally, I like listening to jazz. My preferences are not influenced by what others say is worth listening to. In any case, regarding the criteria you have put forth for joining the playing field, you are not quite accurate.
For your edification, from this site:
http://www.davebrubeck.com/html/about.php
"The group played in jazz clubs in every major city and toured in package shows with such artists as Duke Ellington, Ella Fitzerald, Charlie Parker, Dizzy Gillespie and Stan Getz. The Dave Brubeck Quartet repeatedly won top honors in trade magazines and criticÂs and readerÂs polls. In 1954 Dave BrubeckÂs portrait appeared on the cover of Time Magazine with a story about the jazz renaissance and BrubeckÂs phenomenal ascendancy."
And from this site, from an interview with Dave Brubeck:
http://www.pbs.org/brubeck/talking/daveOnCritics.htm
"SMITH: Uh, huh. You did better with the public in a lot of ways than you did with some of the critics."
"DAVE: Maybe, but we had a lot of critics on our side. I mean all you have to do is go back and read the old Downbeats, Metronomes and reviews and you'll see how many people were behind us."
Well, it's all about image. Brubeck was not born in Mississippi and he did not move to Chicago. And he did not "swing" in the accepted manner. He was brought up on a farm. And he did his own thing. Which does not make him any less great. Just different.