>>i'm talking more about the niche and beyond. maybe not to
>the
>>scope of millions of sales, but what is a niche when it
>comes
>>to classical and jazz when those were the prevailing genres
>>for so long?
>
>subject line.

i was not talking about subgenres of jazz; as you framed the conversation around umbrella genres of classical (inclusive of nearly a millennium of music), jazz, and electronic, it's unfair to pick less popular movements within jazz to attempt to debunk what you know is a true general statement, that jazz was hugely popular and the main umbrella genre of choice for part of the 20th century.


>which is why
>there was the mass european exodus of jazz musicians.

a further parallel working in favor of your argument


>and lets not delude ourselves into believing that jazz is
>accepted in some open ended realm. you can play a records by
>the biggest names in jazz to the 'masses' which would cause
>them to turn of the stereo and proclaim it noise.

who and when?


>and yet
>there's a genius to it that is a part of the overall genius
>which the jazz umbrella.

i agree


>let's not wynotnize jazz into this beatuiful picture of music
>that everyone can get into and appreciate.

not what i said


>playing the ken
>burns 20 volume Jazz barely touches the surface.

yet it *is* jazz and represents music that was popular and made by talented musicians, whether to your taste or not