Jazz from 1957 to 1967 was the most definitive.

It seems you are very knowledgeable about jazz. What exactly would you like to discuss?

BTW, I think some folks might just not agree with you that 1957 to 1967 was 'most' definitive (what ever that means) period although a lot of great jazz and performers were around in those years.

He may be refering to the introduction around this time of free jazz where the melody was lost in favor of harmonics and free expression. Louis Armstrong would agree. Following free jazz was the begining of pop instrumental masquerading as "light jazz" which to me really is a huge step backwords. It's true alot of great jazz was performed after 1967 but in my opinion it has not advanced stylisticaly since 1965-1967. Using Miles as a measure I would say it peaked with Miles Ahead and Miles Smiles. As an aside the best recordings sound wise were 1959-1965 with 1961 as peak. I can't tell you how many times I've heard a great recording and flipped it over to find 1961. This is jmho of course. - Jim

I liked the jazz period from 1940 up to Bitch's Brew ( The beginning of the end ), by Miles Davis. By the way - if I were forced to listen exclusively to any ten year period of jazz on an endless tape loop, I would choose the 1955 to 1965 period.

Aldavis, without taking exception to any of your observations I hate to isolate the form to that which existed in one narrow period of time and which if accepted as fact would then preclude having a mind set that would allow you to experience growth. To do otherwise would be to define what jazz is and when it died. Hell I could argue that Jazz died with Ellington....take your pick and name a composer/performer and a date and we can create a tombstone.

Review the history of classical music. I'm sure there are many folks who thought (and perhaps a few still do) that the death of the last 'romantic' composer precluded the introduction of anything meaningful. Then the music of the early modernists, now universally accepted, when accepted challenged succeeding componsers. Unfortunately they knew not how to take the form forward in a linear manner and went off in a totally different direction, producing atonal/dissonant music bereft of anything comprehensive to anyone other than a fellow composer or musicologist.
Neo-classicists and neo-romantics existed, wrote music, but could not get it played and were generally dismissed, by the 'experts'. The halls emptied and the classical format languished. From the 80's forward we have seen the emptiness of that time and have opened our minds to the music of not only neo-classicists and neo-romantics who are expanding on a form long established, but composers who are contemporary 'modernists' with something to say that is worth hearing (IMHO of course).

So while I would agree with you, to some degree, that we are certainly in a time where the music is so unlike what we grew up with and have learned to venerate, and it is fair to call it (smooth jazz) nothing more than elevator music, we should be careful not to close our mind to the possibility of the resurgence of a new form of 'jazz' should it be discovered and published/played or created by an unknown contemporary jazzist.

Anyway those are my thoughts on the subject. :-)

Can't say I agree that Jazz (or "Jass" as it was reportedly first called) from 1957 to 1967 was the most "definitive." I would agree that during that time period, Jazz morphed into something different than everything in the idiom that had come before it. What a lot of people don't get is: "new" and "radical" are hallmarks of Jazz. When it first came out, it was "new" and "radical." And since then, each decade sounded different than before. Therefore I don't agree that after such-and-such date Jazz lost its definition. As long as Jazz is constantly evolving it is alive and well. It's out there--seek and you shall find.