'old folks'

[wesbed]

I am not an age-sensitive person. I don't care how old a person is. At the same time, I realize that 'age' exists. I'm 38 years old and I have a very good friend who is 61 years.

I had some breakfast in a local Tucson eatery this morning. Tucson, due to its warm climate, often attracts those members of our society who are of the 'older' and retired group. I was eating breakfast alone, so, was spending my time observing others in the restaurant. I noticed that a few of the 'older' men were reading Louis L'Amour paperback novels. Not that Louis L'Amour's books are necessarily 'old' or 'dated,' however, I often notice older people reading his novels. These are the books that these people grew-up with, and are accustomed to. At the same time, it made me think of Louis L'Amour as being an 'old folks' interest.

My 'old folks' thought about Louis L'Amour lead me to another thought. That I, while not yet being an old folk, listen to old folks (jazz) music most of the time. The people I know, who are currently in their 20s and 30s, don't listen to the old folks music, don't care about it, never heard of it, and have no appreciation for it. Some of the old jazz (for example, the 'with strings' sessions on the Bud Shank Mosaic Select, some Lester Young, or Red Garland) may even sound like 'old folks easy listening music' to the un-trained ear. Not that the music sounds this way to me.

Most of the music I listen to was recorded sometime between 1940 and the 1960. The recent death of Elvin Jones reminded me of just how old the music and the people who made it have become. While I've never considered the music or Elvin Jones to be 'old,' he did live a good full life till he died, as an 'old folk,' at 76 years of age.

Next, I had the thought that Louis L'Amour is no more 'old folks' than the music that I listen to. Certain things are generational and people of that generation enjoy the things they are familiar/comfortable with. Those of us who listen to the old jazz music are the odd ones who cling to the old music and enjoy & discuss it as if it were the latest, in-style thing. The common tie between the old music, the old players, and myself caused me to believe that the music is not old and the players are not old (even though Elvin Jones died at an age old enough to be my grandfather). It's a nice thought that I can grab on and relate to something and certain people from the past, people who are now old enough to be a grandparent. Yet, it seems very normal and non-generational. As if the past is still speaking in the modern day, and all is well.

I was left with the question, in my own mind, as to what the next generation will think of my 'old folks' interests when I reach the 'old folks' age? What will the next generation of 'young folks' label as being an 'old folks' topic when I become an 'old folk?'

Edited May 21, 2004 by wesbed

[Jazzmoose]

Speaking as a 46 year old who read all of Louis L'amour's books about ten years ago at age 36, all I can say is...um...what's this thread about?

[jazzbo]

It's about Melville and Mahler, isn't it?

[jazzbo]

You know sometimes I think the generation gap is really interesting because what one generation doesn't get about the previous one sometimes the one after that or the one after THAT really gets it and there is a revival or relaunch of essential aspects. . . .

And sometimes you can read someone who seems to really be speaking for YOU to YOU about YOU at YOU etc. . . . I get that effect reading Henry Miller or Jack Kerouac or Philip K. Dick. Hell, I'm not a part of their generations, but they seem to be in my head or writing about my head or they at least have serious relevance for my life, my inner core. . . .

I read recently some Egyptian writings from way back when, possible 3500 years ago, the entreaties of a government official to Horus to help him to not be like the bad people that do dishonest things with the money that comes their way as part of their government work. . . it's freaky sometimes how nothing is any different really in the human condition from age to age.

[wesbed]

I believe, one of the very strong aspects of an art, topic, hobby, practice, or thought is if said subject becomes non-generational. If it can speak to several generations of people in the same way. I think Lon is correct when he writes that certain things can skip a generation, and appear in the next.

When I listen to jazz from my favorite period (which continues to encompass more and more years), 1925 to 1965, the music seems very non-generational. As if it was recorded just yesterday, by people of my own age group. To my ears, the Beatles sound much older and more dated than, say, John Coltrane, Miles Davis, or Thelonious Monk. Even Louis Armstrong's 1920's material sounds less dated, to me, than Elvis or Buck Owens or Tears for Fears. When I hear vintage Hank Williams, my thought is, "damn, that's old." When I hear Armstrong from the 1920s, however, my mind opens and the music appears very modern and stylish.

Another artwork that seems completely non-generational is the Lord Of The Rings trilogy.

Edited May 20, 2004 by wesbed

[Jazzmoose]

Hank Williams sounds old? Well, I guess it did to me once, but not now. I agree that most pop music is "of it's time", though. And that the late 50's stuff playing right now on my stereo certainly doesn't seem as dated as even grunge rock. I wonder if a lot of this is due to our own internal memory system though. I haven't listened to grunge rock, to use the example, on a regular basis since the mid nineties, so if I hear Nirvana or Alice in Chains, my brain automatically thinks "ah. nineties. yes, I remember then..." Where as I've discovered jazz from the hard bop era at various times, so my brain can't spot the period. For instance, I was listening to Blakey a lot earlier than I was listening to Donald Byrd, so my brain can't compress Freedom Riders and Byrd in Hand down to the same period. I don't know; just puzzling "out loud" here, if you know what I mean...

[Brad]

My only thought on this, as you correctly summarized it, is that this is not old folks music even though I'm 53. I've only been a fanatic for six years and what that means is that you need to attain a certain maturity to appreciate this music (even though you may not understand everything you're hearing). I don't think that I could have appreciated Elvin, Art, Bird, Coltrane, Duke, etc. at that age. Some, of course, can, but I think a lot can't. The closest that an inexperienced person could get to understanding jazz would be soul jazz because it's so guttural. If you can't appreciate Jimmy Smith or Groove Holmes, you ain't got no soul, whatever age you are. And at that age, I loved soul. At any rate, with maturity comes wisdom and I hope that some of the younger generation will appreciate this music, that we're desperately trying to keep alive in our collective memories.

[Dan Gould]

I agree with Brad, except that I fear that in addition to maturity, it takes an appreciation of beauty, passion, art. And that's why I expect that the people growing up with rap or any other genre of music over the past 20 years will never discover jazz.

When they are old, they will be going to shows where bands cover rap or the Britney Spears or Christina Aguilerra songbook, and jazz as we know it will not even muster 1% of total sales.

I see the same thing now at the concerts the south Florida jazz societies put on: the audience is 55+, and often more like 65+, white, and they're trying to relive their youth. In fact, one of the Jazz Societies even advertise with "songs you are likely to hear" and will list Dixieland or Swing standards, hoping that the old folks will be motivated by the memories to turn out.

Its sad really, but that's the way it is.

[wesbed]

I listen to 'old folks' music on a daily basis. I'm listening to some 1956 Johnny Hodges, from the Johhny Hodges Mosaic, as I type these words. Yeah, I've even read the 'old folks' Louis L'Amour books on occasion.

From a 'technology' perspective, I was born at a great time. From an 'art' perspective, I often get the feeling I was born too late. I do enjoy the 'link to the old folks' that I experience with jazz.

I was speaking to a guy at work. He is about 25 years old. I mentioned something about Miles Davis. The person at my work replied, "Oh, you like that old school crap?" I had the odd thought, "No, Miles Davis is more contemporary, actually. Jelly Roll Morton, he might be more old school." It just goes to show, how far out of the current musical loop you are, if you, like me, spend most of your listening time drenched in 'old folks' music.

Edited May 21, 2004 by wesbed

[bertrand]

I meet young folk all the time who are just getting into jazz and devouring it with a passion that I remember well from my younger days.

Bertrand.

[danasgoodstuff]

Far be it from me to sidetrack a thread, BUT I've long thought that although generation to generation misunderstanding obviously has a down side, that in practical terms it also has an up side, i.e. that misunderstanding what the peoples before you were doing is the engine driving stylistic change. to lokk at it through the other end of the telescope, in order to understand the 'old folks' stuff perfectly you'd have to be them and you ain't, so...

[SGUD missile]

Being one of the more senior types here i guess, ( 66 ) my experiences and tastes in music are faily wider ranging from so called classical music through jazz and a large portion of R&B (and it's gospel offshoots as well ..)

In addition , being a professional musician my entire working life, I've had to learn to at least undertand, perform, and create a lot of music not exactly to my personal taste for financial reasons .. including the many forms rock and roll and country music have taken over the year ..some of which I found I was able to relate to and accept at some level.

In addition to the fact that each generation will automatically want to stake out a new aesthetic claim for itself as a part of human nature ..we have to realize the reality that technology has increased the rate of these changes by a logarithmic rate ..in probably another generation ( or less ), the notion of acoustic music and live performances may be a matter for the museums and/or hard core preservationalists in all of the current genres : classical , folk,rock, and jazz.

To make matters even more bleak, this same technology has enabled the entertainment BUSINESS ( which doe not operate from any aesthetic mandate ) is accellaterating the gross amount of "stuff" out there ..while the educational system ( by removing almost all education in all the arts and humanities ) is grinding out flotillas of young people with absolutely no experience in determining the actual artistic worth of anything. They accept the ever increasing pile of swill punped out by the BUSINESS gleefully and with shorter and shorter attention spans.

Whats my point in all this old fart screed , you ask?

It's simply that music , drama, literature and art WILL continue to exist because of the types of people on these boards ..the small minoriity that chooses to think for itself and recognizes the beauty and value in these things ..

I'm done now

[Jim R]

I haven't listened to grunge rock, to use the example, on a regular basis since the mid nineties, so if I hear Nirvana or Alice in Chains, my brain automatically thinks "ah. nineties.

I thought you were 46...!? ..... Sorry. I know I'm stereotyping here, but being that I'm 48, this just does not compute for me. But then I pretty much turned my back on "rock" after about 1974... Anyway, at least you've got your head on straight now!

[Jazzmoose]

I know what you mean, Jim, but all I knew was rock. So, I was lured back in the late seventies when the "new wave" stuff hit (mainly by Elvis Costello, Talking Heads and Joe Jackson), then gave up again around '84. Then when I first heard Nirvana's Nevermind I signed up once again for a short ride with grunge. After that I finally discovered jazz and never looked back.

Some of us are slower than others...

[garthsj]

I am also one of the "older" members of this board.. 64 last March. I started listening to jazz in about 1949, to Benny Goodman 78's ... graduated to be-bop (Parker, Gillespie), and the early west coast stuff (Rogers, Mulligan, Pepper etc.) by the time I was 13. While others were digging Guy Mitchell, and Patti Page, I was listening to Mel Torme and Ella Fitzgerald. It was tough being a jazz fan in the emerging age of Elvis and rock & roll, but I never wavered, and I have maintained an avid interest in this music ever since then. I have mentioned this several times in various threads, but I have loved being on this board and watching so many of you 20 to 40 somethings being so knowledgeable and appreciative of what I always considered to be "my" music ... It brings a real smile of joy to my face when one of you suddenly "discovers" an album that I have grown old with. There was a time when I wanted to jealously guard my music from the infidels, but here, I just want to rave about all of the wonderful music that has been an integral part of my life for fifty years! (God! That sounds like a very long time!).

As someone else pointed out, as long as there are people like the members of this board, then an appreciation for this wonderful art form will survive.

Garth.

[wesbed]

While others were digging Guy Mitchell, and Patti Page, I was listening to Mel Torme and Ella Fitzgerald. It was tough being a jazz fan in the emerging age of Elvis and rock & roll, but I never wavered, and I have maintained an avid interest in this music ever since then.

This reminds me of... well, 'me.' garthsj and I are of different generations. 'What we were listening to jazz instead of' was different. Our habits, on the other hand, were the same.

For me, rather than listening to Hall & Oats and U2, I was grooving with Miles and Brubeck. Rather than listening to Phil Collins and Madonna, I was feeling content with Ella Fitzgerald and John Hendricks. Again, younger and older folks are 'linked' with this music we call jazz.

[Rooster_Ties]

I'm 35 (born in early 1969), but I'm fortunate to have friends who are anywhere from about 25, on up to about 55 or even closer to 60.

I was an only-child, and my parents were roughly old enough to be my grandparents (my mom was in her mid thirties when I was born (I think 36), and my dad was about 40). As a result, anybody 10 or 15 years younger than my parents didn't seem quite as 'adult-like' as I viewed my parents (as I was growing up). Thus, while I was growing up, 'young adults' (anyone in their 20's, even late 20's), didn't seem as different to me, as they might have otherwise.

Also, my primary social outlet while I was in high-school, was a community-theater group where the typical ages were anywhere from mid-to-late 20's, on up to 30's and even early 40's (lots of early 40's, actually). THOSE were my "peers", so to speak, during my last three years of highschool (or so I thought). When I was 18, I thought I was 28, and acted a lot like it too.

Currently, one of my best friends (who I know through our mutual love of jazz), is a college professor who is in his mid 50's (and no, he didn't teach where I went to college). Another good friend of mine (we have a mutual interest in 20th-Century classical music) is also in his mid 50's.

I've also been lucky to have recently met some really great people who are a bit younger than me (in their mid-to-late 20's), who really seem like they're in their 30's.

Come to think of it, most of my friends are either older, or younger than me -- and only a few are about my age.

Edited May 21, 2004 by Rooster_Ties

[brownie]

I'm another veteran here (going to 65). Some may say I qualify to the 'Old Folk' status. I just can't

set my mind to the idea. I'm happy 'keeping my mind active', as Art Blakey used to say...

I was listening to (and enjoying) John Coltrane when I was still a teenager. Went through all the

various jazz developments and follow what the younger musicians bring to this art. Still enjoying the old

Coltrane but keeping the ears open for the new Coltranes...

I am happy to see the younger generations get their enthusiasm high about the same music I grooved

on and bring new and younger names to my attention. I share their passion for the new developments.

I may be more picky about this than the younger fans but I am delighted in watching their enthusiasm.

One thing I am sure of is that I will not join any of the old folks groups.

The old ones may know but the young ones are the doers.

[Saxophone__Vagina]

Wow, great theads, lots of interesting ideas being thrown around. I am a 19 year old jazz fan, and for the most part i do not look at the music as 'old,' Though my older brother, 23, does. Whenever i am listening to any sort of jazz whether it is armstrong or marsalis, he'll always ask me why i am listening to this 'old timey' music. To me it is not old timey because i am just now discovering it myself, so it is quite new to me. But when i listen to say the Beatles or the Beach Boys, the idea of old is in my mind right away. I guess it is because i was not raised anywhere close to jazz, but around rock, so i have heard a lot of the older rock music and know of its history. But when it comes to jazz, i only really know when the major names recorded, but for the most part i never pay attention at the recording date and just take the music for the music without even considering what specific year it was recorded.

Ok, i am done.

[PHILLYQ]

This is a very interesting and thought-provoking topic. Thanks for bringing it up.I guess I qualify as an almost 'old' person(48 next month), but as a previous poster mentioned, I keep my mind very active and I don't 'feel' old.

I started listening seriously to music when I was 10, thanks to two older sisters who loved folk, blues and rock. So I was exposed to lots of good music early on, but that music was contemporary music. Later on, at 16, I discovered Mahavishnu and fusion, which led me onto a voyage of discovery that went back to early(pre-1969)Miles, Keith Jarrett and many other players who were primarily acoustic. By that time, I was totally out of the contemporary loop, listening to music that hardly anyone, then or now, listens to. Sure, some of my friends joked about my radio being broken because it was always on the jazz station, but I felt such a passion for the music because it transported me to places that I had never been to and alleviated a dreary(at that time) existence. I still have that love and passion for music, and it still excites me to no end to hear something new, different, or old that's very well done. I consider myself extraordinarily lucky- I get to listen to music I love, and I don't care if was recorded 50 or 100 years ago- if it's good, it's good. As what Duke said about there's only two kinds of music, etc.

As for the future, people who love good music of whatever type and people who love to make good music will always be around. I don't think that that will disappear in jazz, either, so there is a future, however bleak the present economic situation appears. People will always find a way to produce good music, whether that's an almost 'underground' type of activity that hardly anyone subscribes to.

It is true that the Music Business is a wreck, peopled now not by music nuts but by suits that are interested in 'product', 'crossover', vidoes and the like. Thanks to things like the internet and its capabilities, artists can now be independent of major music companies, albeit on a much smaller scale. The possibility is there- we just have to now figure out the HOWS to ensure that the music stays alive.