Jazz from 1957 to 1967 was the most definitive.

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.

Orpeheus10 I love your way of thinking. Check my thread from 3-17-10 [http://forum.audiogon.com/cgi-bin/fr.pl?gmusi&1268857131&openmine&zzFoster_9&4&5#Foster_9]Who Are the Best Young Lions of Jazz Today?[/url]

In that thread I mention "I'm steeped in the past listening to Hard Bop like a mad man. The jazz I love, the musicians I love, the heroes and gods for me are guys like Miles, Monk,Coltrane, Sonny Rollins, Joe Henderson, Horace Silver, Herbie Hancock, Wayne Shorter, Freddie Hubbard, Dexter Gordon, Bill Evans, Lee Morgan, Hank Mobley and others." Orpheus10, I'm right with you brutha. For me this is the "definitive" period of jazz.

A definition of "Definitive" : "authoritative: of recognized authority or excellence"

For me the most creative and incredible period of jazz is the "Hard Bop" era. All you have to say is Miles, Coltrane, and Monk and you've said enough, but there are so many other greats to hear from that era. When was a higher level of jazz being produced if it was not during the Hard Bop era?

The only proviso I would add is that you could stretch back a bit earlier in the 50's than 1957 which would mean there is more than a decade to this period of Hard Bop and Definitive jazz. My 2 cents.

When you say someone is an "Audiophile", that conveys a certain type of person. In that decade, when you said "Jazz", you conveyed a certain type of music. Today, when you say "Jazz", that conveys a range of music so broad that it is not definitive, to say the least.
Before we get off on the wrong track, I am not comparing or making judgement, I am making two statements; one is in regard to definition, the other is that this decade was the most explosive and creative in the history of "Jazz"
I am going to give an example of this by discogrphy. Lee morgan "Candy", 1957: Cannonball Adderly "Something Else", 1958: Dave Bruebeck "Time Out", 1959: Art Blakey and the Jazz Messengers "A Night in Tunisia", 1960: Grant Green "Round Midnight" 1961. Each one of these albums contains sidemen who are stars in their own right.
Now that everyone can see where I am coming from, we can continue this conversation for the rest of the decade, as well as how it relates to today.

There are lots of great recordings from this period, to be sure. Most of Monk's most important recordings, as well as Miles, Trane, the bulk of the great Blue Note and Impulse catalogs... sure.

But it's too narrow a time frame. By limiting yourself to just those ten years you're cutting out Bird, Ellington at his peak, Louis Armstrong... I guess you can stay that narrow if you want - that era is exceptional - but you're missing an awful lot of good music.