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.

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. :-)

Nicotino, Excellent point I think!

A personal aside, FWIW. My introduction to jazz (and classical for that matter) was in the 60's and it came via live performances in clubs or symphony halls.

Hard Bop, then in vogue, was difficult and music echoing Davis, Coltrane, etc was just a lot of noise to me then. Had I been unduely influenced by this exposure I would have ignored jazz entirely and dismissed the possibility that I would ever enjoy it as a form.

If you haven't heard and understood what preceded this music then you are likely to just be lost in a field of noise and assume that that sound is what jazz is ALL about. I did until I discovered otherwise.

Had my introduction to classical music been similar, i.e. early Prokofiev, Stravinsky, etc, without the benefit of having heard Beethoven and Bach and the composers who straddled the modern and romantic periods, I would probably have passed on that form as well. Fortunately I didn't in either case.

While I may appreciate all that the greats did in both forms, interestingly I rarely listen to their music. I know it well and I've learned to save it for special occasions lest I begin to believe that it is all there is worthwhile and ignore the music of others. I enjoy spending most of my time exploring the music of others. You never know what you may find.

Aldavis, Jim FWIW my post had nothing personal for you in it, at least that was not my intention. It's just offensive to me that someone (NOT YOU) can describe (proclaim), rather arrogantly (as they often do) that anything can be definitive, especially when we are dealing with something as broad and complex as music.

It's one thing to say that one can appreciate the music of Davis, for example, as one could the music of Beethoven. But the music of these acknowledged 'greats' IMHO should influence the music which follows, as it did in Beethoven's case, but not so much in Davis' case I think.

I've said enuf I think...............

Foster and I suspect Orpheus 10 as well. Look carefully at Aldavis' sentence. It ends with a question mark. :-) So does the dispute I think.

Orpheus10, FWIW, if your so inclined.....There is an interesting discussion on Music Lane in the AudioAsylum site which is talking about HardBop, BeBob, Miles Davis/Kind of Blue and some other aspects of music in general as well. Some of the contributors appear to have something to say that you might appreciate.