I'm sorry it's just when people stick the word 'modern' in front of something it makes me feel ill. Whatever musicians get from playing the modern stuff, and it definitely feels narcissistic, it really doesn't really translate to the audience. Considering the ability of jazz to really reach people I find this kind of thing utterly cock blocking stuff..
It's not though and you still haven't replied back to my question. If it's not about the groove...and it sure as hell isn't about a crowd pleasing melody...then what's left of the music? Everything that made jazz such an infectious art form has been stripped from the music. It appears to be a in joke made by some musicians at the expense of the listeners.
Please explain what you get from solos that you can't tap your foot to or hum?
Jimi was certainly innovative but he didn't take the music so far that it was difficult to recognise what he wrote as music. Modern jazz is so easily parodied precisely because of this and because it deliberately stays away from the elements that make music so popular in the first place. The fact that you haven't dealt with that point despite me raising it three times suggests that you can't answer it.
America's infatuation with modernism/post-modernism absolutely ruined jazz imo.
I have this track by Hypnotic brass ensemble called spin, its not on youtube doe, i played it on my show a few times on mixlr, its amazing, maybe jazz/funk who cares, sirus liked it so thats all that matters to me
jaros is being strangely hostile in regards to this modern-jazz issue, not like you to spazz like that david, whats going on? bit of a heartfelt issue, is it? many a sunday dinner spent arguing the finer points of jazz in the jaros family residence? its music david, its subjective, there is no 'point', i wouldve thought that was obvious