>>>>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;
>
>then why'd you ask what the niche's were? are the subgenres
>not niches? are the niches not jazz?

if i recall correctly, classical and jazz were being referred to as if they were niche genres themselves when they were in fact the dominant music for some time. maybe i misunderstood or am misrecollecting what was said.


>What years would you say that covers? 20's through what 50's?

at least the '20s, if not earlier, up to sinatra and the other crooners... basically before rock & roll.


>But the
>difference between 20's jazz and 50's jazz is incredible.

the difference between donna summer and justice is incredible, yet you can still plot the course.


>And
>of course that's leaving out sixties and seventies jazz which
>had some of the finest moments of jazz but happened 'after the
>hey day' and so as such wouldn't fit into the 'hugely popular'
>cannon of jazz.

still popular music even if no longer the dominant form of it. having not been alive, i'd still guess it was at least of equal popularity as the most talented electronic musicians are now, it probably had better media coverage, and i know it had way better stocking in stores.


>And I'm not trying to debunk the popularity of jazz, I'm
>merely stating that its musical (muse-ical) value doesn't lie
>in the popularity of it but its propensisity for muse-ings.

it doesn't lie in its popularity, but its popularity speaks to its artistic merits. although it became more difficult and less conventional, certain people still listened to and appreciated it. it wasn't abandoned, just like creative electronic music hasn't been.


>>yet it *is* jazz and represents music that was popular and
>>made by talented musicians, whether to your taste or not
>
>Who said it wasn't my taste. I love that stuff.

i'm saying for the sake of argument it's irrelevant what you feel.


>But I don't
>think it is anywhere near all that jazz has to offer

what boxed set or documentary program has it all?


>and its
>omissions are glaring in favor of a certain picture of jazz
>which I disprove of. Not the musicians or the music. But the
>history it attempts to write.

again, irrelevant to the point that those musicians and composers had talent, and that talent was embraced to varying degrees by the public.