Ageing audience for jazz?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

I see Kenny G is still getting albums on the pop charts this year. Must be that the 40-50 year olds are having a nostalgia attack.

Jazz doesn't have to be creative to be jazz. It doesn't have to be good music, either. And it's allowed to be watered down, too. The Dorsey Brothers were watered down. Glenn Miller was VERY watered down. People liked it like that. And still do.

The 'jazz community's' insistence on quality is the curse of jazz.

MG

A whole lot of vintage (and popular)Tommy Dorsey recordings weren't "watered down" anything. As for Glenn Miller, if there was a "watered down" aspect to his band, that wasn't the main reason it was widely popular. There were lots of semi-polite but non-"sweet" bands around at that time; the Miller band was hugely popular because of its distinctive sound, the quality of its execution, and its large number of catchy originals. A latter-day partial comparison might be to the Brubeck-Desmond recording of "Take Five." It wasn't/isn't popular because it's "watered down," it was and is popular because it's catchy/infectious and, for those who care/notice, has a very nice Desmond solo.

Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway.

But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither).

MG

[Hot Ptah]

The Magnificent Goldberg actually raises a point which I find interesting. In rock and country, there is no orthodoxy of what the recorded performance needs to sound like, as there is in jazz. Anything goes There is no need to comply with what Chuck Berry/Fats Domino/Jerry Lee Lewis did in the 1950s, or what the Carter Family/Bob Wills/Hank Williams recorded. So something quite watered down or commercialized, or derivative, or divorced from all earlier tradition, or cheesy, or corny, can be a perfectly acceptable rock or country recording--and very, very popular. Hugely popular.

Nearly all rock or country artists of merit have released their share of these watered down recordings. Virtually no one seems to mind, or comment. So the Rolling Stones can have a massive disco hit with "Miss You", and it just becomes part of their greatest hits. Even the Grateful Dead recorded the disco-influenced "Shakedown Street".There might be an occasional mild critical comment like "the newest Eric Clapton album has some nods to contemporary pop, which his older blues fans might not care for as much"--but there is not the scathing condemnation that you get in jazz.

There seems to be an acceptable tradition within these other musical forms of adapting to what the mass audience wants, and trying to convey some of your musical personality, and to inject some musical quality, into the frankly commercialized efforts. Not so in jazz. So why is it surprising that these other genres are popular and have younger audiences?

I see Kenny G is still getting albums on the pop charts this year. Must be that the 40-50 year olds are having a nostalgia attack.

Jazz doesn't have to be creative to be jazz. It doesn't have to be good music, either. And it's allowed to be watered down, too. The Dorsey Brothers were watered down. Glenn Miller was VERY watered down. People liked it like that. And still do.

The 'jazz community's' insistence on quality is the curse of jazz.

MG

A whole lot of vintage (and popular)Tommy Dorsey recordings weren't "watered down" anything. As for Glenn Miller, if there was a "watered down" aspect to his band, that wasn't the main reason it was widely popular. There were lots of semi-polite but non-"sweet" bands around at that time; the Miller band was hugely popular because of its distinctive sound, the quality of its execution, and its large number of catchy originals. A latter-day partial comparison might be to the Brubeck-Desmond recording of "Take Five." It wasn't/isn't popular because it's "watered down," it was and is popular because it's catchy/infectious and, for those who care/notice, has a very nice Desmond solo.

Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway.

But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither).

MG

I don't see present day jazz bands with a large number of catchy originals. Some of the present day jazz bands have a distinctive sound and quality execution, but not catchy originals. Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"?

[Scott Dolan]

I think Hot Ptah sums it up perfectly. Very thoughtful post, brother.

Snarky Puppy is "tired", or they're a sellout because they don't sound like Albert Ayler.

Jazz musicians who are having a lot of fun and making their audience smile are verboten.

[A Lark Ascending]

Between this, the last shop standing thread, and the general necrophilia and nostalgia...

Not to mention the classical thread with people endlessly banging on about the latest remake of the Elgar Cello Concerto, Shostakovich symphonies (or Sibelius ones come to that!!!!) (one of those smileys denoting a gentle bit of ribbing). I won't even mention the Dead Maestro idolatry...oh dear, I did.

******************

Jazz fans like to portray their (our?) music as more sophisticated and innovative than rock/pop. But I tend to find jazz reconstructions of rock/pop songs actually more conservative. Rock/pop might be cursed by leaden rhythms at times but musicians there are not afraid to shift metres mid song, mix up the instrumentation etc. The harmonies might be more oblique in jazz but, more often than not, the irregularities of the pop song get squashed into a regular swing rhythm.

I was listening to David Kikoski's take on Brian Wilson's 'Surf's Up' last night. All very enjoyable but the jazz version was unable to breath with anything like the naturalness of the original.

Reminded me of my early days of trying to come to terms with jazz having been used to multi-coloured prog rock with shifting time signatures and then finding a music that, once it started, generally kept to the same tempo throughout, used a limited range of instruments who appeared on every track, often soloing in the same order (with the inevitable trading fours after the drum solo). I know that's a stereotype but if you are coming from pop/rock it's going to initially seem a bit monochrome.

Edited June 11, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[Larry Kart]

Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway.

But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither).

MG

Aside from Chu Berry's solos, I'd much rather listen to a swatch of T. Dorsey recordings than a swatch of C. Calloway recordings. Though there are exceptions, by and large Calloway's band -- both in terms of material and execution -- could be rather scrappy/woeful at times. Now if we're talking about Hines, or Basie, or Lunceford, or Ellington or Chick Webb, not to mention Goodman, Shaw or Bob Crosby....

[Larry Kart]

The Magnificent Goldberg actually raises a point which I find interesting. In rock and country, there is no orthodoxy of what the recorded performance needs to sound like, as there is in jazz. Anything goes There is no need to comply with what Chuck Berry/Fats Domino/Jerry Lee Lewis did in the 1950s, or what the Carter Family/Bob Wills/Hank Williams recorded. So something quite watered down or commercialized, or derivative, or divorced from all earlier tradition, or cheesy, or corny, can be a perfectly acceptable rock or country recording--and very, very popular. Hugely popular.

Nearly all rock or country artists of merit have released their share of these watered down recordings. Virtually no one seems to mind, or comment. So the Rolling Stones can have a massive disco hit with "Miss You", and it just becomes part of their greatest hits. Even the Grateful Dead recorded the disco-influenced "Shakedown Street".There might be an occasional mild critical comment like "the newest Eric Clapton album has some nods to contemporary pop, which his older blues fans might not care for as much"--but there is not the scathing condemnation that you get in jazz.

There seems to be an acceptable tradition within these other musical forms of adapting to what the mass audience wants, and trying to convey some of your musical personality, and to inject some musical quality, into the frankly commercialized efforts. Not so in jazz. So why is it surprising that these other genres are popular and have younger audiences?

I see Kenny G is still getting albums on the pop charts this year. Must be that the 40-50 year olds are having a nostalgia attack.

Jazz doesn't have to be creative to be jazz. It doesn't have to be good music, either. And it's allowed to be watered down, too. The Dorsey Brothers were watered down. Glenn Miller was VERY watered down. People liked it like that. And still do.

The 'jazz community's' insistence on quality is the curse of jazz.

MG

A whole lot of vintage (and popular)Tommy Dorsey recordings weren't "watered down" anything. As for Glenn Miller, if there was a "watered down" aspect to his band, that wasn't the main reason it was widely popular. There were lots of semi-polite but non-"sweet" bands around at that time; the Miller band was hugely popular because of its distinctive sound, the quality of its execution, and its large number of catchy originals. A latter-day partial comparison might be to the Brubeck-Desmond recording of "Take Five." It wasn't/isn't popular because it's "watered down," it was and is popular because it's catchy/infectious and, for those who care/notice, has a very nice Desmond solo.

Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway.

But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither).

MG

I don't see present day jazz bands with a large number of catchy originals. Some of the present day jazz bands have a distinctive sound and quality execution, but not catchy originals. Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"?

Apparently you think that writing 'something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"' is essentially a matter of will or intent. I think there are plenty of people who would like to write pieces that had that kind of effect on audiences if they could, but it ain't easy -- in particular, it's not a matter of simply putting aside one's supposedly snotty-complex "high art" habits of music-making.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

The Magnificent Goldberg actually raises a point which I find interesting. In rock and country, there is no orthodoxy of what the recorded performance needs to sound like, as there is in jazz. Anything goes There is no need to comply with what Chuck Berry/Fats Domino/Jerry Lee Lewis did in the 1950s, or what the Carter Family/Bob Wills/Hank Williams recorded. So something quite watered down or commercialized, or derivative, or divorced from all earlier tradition, or cheesy, or corny, can be a perfectly acceptable rock or country recording--and very, very popular. Hugely popular.

Nearly all rock or country artists of merit have released their share of these watered down recordings. Virtually no one seems to mind, or comment. So the Rolling Stones can have a massive disco hit with "Miss You", and it just becomes part of their greatest hits. Even the Grateful Dead recorded the disco-influenced "Shakedown Street".There might be an occasional mild critical comment like "the newest Eric Clapton album has some nods to contemporary pop, which his older blues fans might not care for as much"--but there is not the scathing condemnation that you get in jazz.

There seems to be an acceptable tradition within these other musical forms of adapting to what the mass audience wants, and trying to convey some of your musical personality, and to inject some musical quality, into the frankly commercialized efforts. Not so in jazz. So why is it surprising that these other genres are popular and have younger audiences?

I see Kenny G is still getting albums on the pop charts this year. Must be that the 40-50 year olds are having a nostalgia attack.

Jazz doesn't have to be creative to be jazz. It doesn't have to be good music, either. And it's allowed to be watered down, too. The Dorsey Brothers were watered down. Glenn Miller was VERY watered down. People liked it like that. And still do.

The 'jazz community's' insistence on quality is the curse of jazz.

MG

A whole lot of vintage (and popular)Tommy Dorsey recordings weren't "watered down" anything. As for Glenn Miller, if there was a "watered down" aspect to his band, that wasn't the main reason it was widely popular. There were lots of semi-polite but non-"sweet" bands around at that time; the Miller band was hugely popular because of its distinctive sound, the quality of its execution, and its large number of catchy originals. A latter-day partial comparison might be to the Brubeck-Desmond recording of "Take Five." It wasn't/isn't popular because it's "watered down," it was and is popular because it's catchy/infectious and, for those who care/notice, has a very nice Desmond solo.

Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway.

But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither).

MG

I don't see present day jazz bands with a large number of catchy originals. Some of the present day jazz bands have a distinctive sound and quality execution, but not catchy originals. Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"?

Apparently you think that writing 'something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"' is essentially a matter of will or

intent. I think there are plenty of people who would like to write pieces that had that kind of effect on audiences if they could, but it ain't easy -- in particular, it's not a matter of simply putting aside one's supposedly snotty-complex "high art" habits of music-making.

I'm not sure I believe that. Most jazz musicians can write melodies when they're soloing. Solos are mostly melody.

MG

Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway.

But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither).

MG

Aside from Chu Berry's solos, I'd much rather listen to a swatch of T. Dorsey recordings than a swatch of C. Calloway recordings. Though there are exceptions, by and large Calloway's band -- both in terms of material and execution -- could be rather scrappy/woeful at times. Now if we're talking about Hines, or Basie, or Lunceford, or Ellington or Chick Webb, not to mention Goodman, Shaw or Bob Crosby....

See, I vastly prefer Cab Calloway to any of those other bands you mentioned.

I guess it's because I'm a fan of black popular music, rather than a jazz fan per se.

MG

[AllenLowe]

1) I do think Snarky Puppy is tired, but not because they don't sound like Ayler.

2) anyone who knows not only what I write and record but what I write about knows I have no ideological preconceptions. The Snarky Puppy clip, to my ears, lacks any realt spirit or reason for being; that stuff wasn't current in the '80s; disagree with me, but be aware that I routinely listen to 90-year old music, so I have no prejudice in favor of any prevailing concept of modern-ness.

3) and I tend to think that now, finally, jazz is dead. Or maybe not.

Edited June 11, 2014 by AllenLowe

[Steve Reynolds]

The Magnificent Goldberg actually raises a point which I find interesting. In rock and country, there is no orthodoxy of what the recorded performance needs to sound like, as there is in jazz. Anything goes There is no need to comply with what Chuck Berry/Fats Domino/Jerry Lee Lewis did in the 1950s, or what the Carter Family/Bob Wills/Hank Williams recorded. So something quite watered down or commercialized, or derivative, or divorced from all earlier tradition, or cheesy, or corny, can be a perfectly acceptable rock or country recording--and very, very popular. Hugely popular.

Nearly all rock or country artists of merit have released their share of these watered down recordings. Virtually no one seems to mind, or comment. So the Rolling Stones can have a massive disco hit with "Miss You", and it just becomes part of their greatest hits. Even the Grateful Dead recorded the disco-influenced "Shakedown Street".There might be an occasional mild critical comment like "the newest Eric Clapton album has some nods to contemporary pop, which his older blues fans might not care for as much"--but there is not the scathing condemnation that you get in jazz.

There seems to be an acceptable tradition within these other musical forms of adapting to what the mass audience wants, and trying to convey some of your musical personality, and to inject some musical quality, into the frankly commercialized efforts. Not so in jazz. So why is it surprising that these other genres are popular and have younger audiences?

I see Kenny G is still getting albums on the pop charts this year. Must be that the 40-50 year olds are having a nostalgia attack.

Jazz doesn't have to be creative to be jazz. It doesn't have to be good music, either. And it's allowed to be watered down, too. The Dorsey Brothers were watered down. Glenn Miller was VERY watered down. People liked it like that. And still do.

The 'jazz community's' insistence on quality is the curse of jazz.

MG

A whole lot of vintage (and popular)Tommy Dorsey recordings weren't "watered down" anything. As for Glenn Miller, if there was a "watered down" aspect to his band, that wasn't the main reason it was widely popular. There were lots of semi-polite but non-"sweet" bands around at that time; the Miller band was hugely popular because of its distinctive sound, the quality of its execution, and its large number of catchy originals. A latter-day partial comparison might be to the Brubeck-Desmond recording of "Take Five." It wasn't/isn't popular because it's "watered down," it was and is popular because it's catchy/infectious and, for those who care/notice, has a very nice Desmond solo.

Well, I reckon those bands were watered down in comparison to Cab Calloway.

But OK, where do we see the present day jazz bands with a distinctive sound, quality execution and a large number of catchy originals? Maybe that's nearer to Kenny G than to Vijay Iyer (though I've heard neither).

MG

I don't see present day jazz bands with a large number of catchy originals. Some of the present day jazz bands have a distinctive sound and quality execution, but not catchy originals. Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"?

Apparently you think that writing 'something like "Song For My Father" or "Watermelon Man"' is essentially a matter of will or intent. I think there are plenty of people who would like to write pieces that had that kind of effect on audiences if they could, but it ain't easy -- in particular, it's not a matter of simply putting aside one's supposedly snotty-complex "high art" habits of music-making.

Well put, Mr. Kart

Throughout the years, I have found a few new melodically brilliant nuggets within all the recordings I have listened to of post 1980 or 85 jazz. Not including improvisations for the point of this discussion. Catchy, exciting and memorable. The stuff that's a prerequisite for any sort of interest from anyone outside of us who are already listening.

A few new tunes buried within and around all the other good stuff that we like.

Michael Moore, Gerry Hemingway, Don Cherry, Jemeel Moondoc, Tony Malaby, Mat Maneri, Darius Jones, Mark Helias, Barry Altschul, Fred Anderson and I'm sure a bunch of other wonderful composers a bit more to the mainstream have written more than a few melodic, catchy, memorable gems.

So they exist buried within recorded sessions that are heard by the hundreds sometimes at the most.

Who the hell is gonna play these bedsides who has already heard them?

And where are they gonna play these besides on their stereo, I-pod, MP-3 or whatever?

Hot 888 or whatever gonna play Hemingway's gorgeous lilting Holler Up?!?!?

Much of it could labeled or described as post Ayler of free or avant-garde.

[Hot Ptah]

Actually my post of "Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like 'Song For My Father' or 'Watermelon Man'" was meant a bit tongue-in-cheek, which does not come over well in pixels, because those two songs are a once in a lifetime situation for even Horace Silver and Herbie Hancock. But I do think that it is not a priority at all for most contemporary jazz musicians to try to come up with a memorable, appealing composition that people will love and remember. I think there would be nothing wrong with musicians of today at least trying to do that.

[Steve Reynolds]

Actually my post of "Would it kill these present day musicians to write something like 'Song For My Father' or 'Watermelon Man'" was meant a bit tongue-in-cheek, which does not come over well in pixels, because those two songs are a once in a lifetime situation for even Horace Silver and Herbie Hancock. But I do think that it is not a priority at all for most contemporary jazz musicians to try to come up with a memorable, appealing composition that people will love and remember. I think there would be nothing wrong with musicians of today at least trying to do that.

I think anyone writing music where there is an interest in melodic materials, that a hope would be that something memorable might happen.

As you said, very hard to do. And some composers/jazz improvisors simply eschew melodic forms in some or even all their approaches.

Some deliberately decide to work towards a melodic pursuit at certain times. See Barry Guy's Harmos as compared to especially earlier works where melody was not considered

[AllenLowe]

geez I've been writing catchy tunes for years:

https://allenlowe.bandcamp.com/track/love-is-a-memory

https://allenlowe.bandcamp.com/track/if-i-cant-be-with-you

https://allenlowe.bandcamp.com/track/when-my-alarm-clock-rings-on-central-park-west

Edited June 11, 2014 by AllenLowe

[Scott Dolan]

1) I do think Snarky Puppy is tired, but not because they don't sound like Ayler.

2) anyone who knows not only what I write and record but what I write about knows I have no ideological preconceptions. The Snarky Puppy clip, to my ears, lacks any realt spirit or reason for being; that stuff wasn't current in the '80s; disagree with me, but be aware that I routinely listen to 90-year old music, so I have no prejudice in favor of any prevailing concept of modern-ness.

3) and I tend to think that now, finally, jazz is dead. Or maybe not.

Hahahaha...fair enough, my friend.

I've heard some of your stuff, so I know you have a wide range of likes and influences.

Normally, there would be no way I'd get into stuff like Snarky Puppy, but their enthusiasm just sucked me in. I dig the whole board fed audience thing, and there's no question that they are all talented musicians.

[xybert]

I think Ben Allison is a good example of someone doing catchy/poppy/accessible stuff while still having some substance. It took me a while to get my head around him and in the end it opened my mind quite a bit.

The Claudia Quintet is a bit more abstract and wilfully obscure at times but they are also accessible and catchy as hell a lot of the time.

Some of the tracks on Threadgill's This Brings Us To Vol.1 are so insanely catchy. One of the greatest albums EVER in my opinion.

Heaps of catchy Zorn... Chris Lightcap's Bigmouth Deluxe... Metheny of course...

[AllenLowe]

Ben is doing pop-oriented material? I haven't heard him in a long time, but this surprises me.

hmmm...listening now on itunes. I don't think I've listened to Ben since, maybe, the '90s.

Edited June 11, 2014 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

funny, I just went to ITUNEs and heard, in succession, some very silly pop-attempts by Ben, by Christian McBride, and Josh Rosenman, all great musicians, and all stuff I haven't heard before, but which makes me reiterate my belief that jazz is, indeed, dead, if people are buying this under that category. I find their attempts at such (and I have sworn to myself not to offer public opinions on my peers, but I can't help it, jeez) - just lame. I'm reminded of what Rick Nelson sang: I'd rather drive a truck.

now I gotta go wash my hands. These guys should all know better.

Edited June 11, 2014 by AllenLowe

[AllenLowe]

I'm gonna have nightmares now. How many have died so they can play this garbola and call it jazz? Let the jazz audience get old. Musicians, too.What else are we gonna do? I'd rather listen to hip hop; at least that's a direct reflection of someone's true consciousness; this is market-survey music.

Edited June 11, 2014 by AllenLowe

[xybert]

I'm not sure whether Ben Allison would call whatever he is doing these days jazz anymore but with the vast array of stuff out there i don't think you should let him singlehandedly kill jazz for you (or Snarky Puppy or whoever).

[AllenLowe]

I'm probably being over-dramatic; but I just don't get what, other than money (and that's probably enough) drives jazz musicians to intentionally make bad music while convincing themselves that it's good. I'm no purist, in terms of what I like to play and listen to, but there is a certain malleable termperament that I just don't get. i rarely say this is publc any more but I find things like a lot of what Ben is recording to be physically repulsive, meaning my skin crawls when I listen to it (and I don't, btw, include Snarky Puppy in this; whateve I think of their music, I can tell that it's a part of what they are; with a lot of Ben's latest it's feels just synthetic and foreign). And I am sincere about the musicians who have really given their whole lives to producing things that are, for better and worse, pieces of their being. If I am going to listen to pop I'll listen to it played by people who don't sound like they are trying to squeeze round pegs into square holes.

Edited June 11, 2014 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

Just get Gene Perez to lay down the bass. Then you can do whatever else you want. But "groove" music that doesn't have as much as half a clue as to what that really means (and these days it means drum machines, samples, digital uber-precision in timings, editing as much by what a waveform looks like as by what it sounds like), it's like those Glenn Miller bands you'd see in 19912 that were full of 20 year olds, they played it just fine (I guess) but they didn't get it. Not that they should have, or especially could have. The whole notion is kinda perverse, really, that old people dig young people lapping up their stuff, or that young people at heart want old people to do anything else other than represent with pride and dignity and then get the fuck outta the way, in that order if possible, but if not, then not. That's it's not like that so much these days is why so many grownass kids live at home and don't worry about it (and plenty them pups DO get snarky about it). We are in a digital mind now and we ain't going back. Pennsylvania 6-5 OH OH. Oh.

But as I was saying, get Gene Perez to lay down your bass track, and then, me myself, I don't give any kind of fuck what else is going on. YMMV.

[AllenLowe]

exactly; you put Ben Allison next to that and it's like a parody of how white people try to monetize black ideas.

[Steve Reynolds]

Fwiw, Lightcap's Big Mouth is a helluva jazz band with fine tunes. Poppy it isn't and Taborn, Cheek and Malaby wail.

Another fine example of living, breathing jazz without compromise that IF actually HEARD would be enjoyed by many.

However it would be enjoyed by many who like jazz.

Hard enough to convince many actual jazz fans to listen to jazz as played by living musicians.

Maybe that is why jazz smells funny to some

[AllenLowe]

rigor mortis.

[JSngry]

And not just "white people", really, just..."jazz people". I mean, everybody hated Disco and then people barfed at house and good god no PLEASE don't let my babies hear a drum machine and A TURNTABLE IS NOT A MUSICAL INSTRUMENT and all that, but...that's where the "groove" went, that's where the technology went, that's where "modern life" went, so...it ain't my world, ya' know, but I'll not bother to pretend that it is so's I can pick your pocket and/or win your moral approval, right? I might "do that", but not for those reasons, and it won't sound like that, because the only way to really sound like that is to BE that, and...do the math, right?

But I do love me some of that stuff, I really do. But love don't make it real, much less possible, it just makes it imaginable. Reality, that's a whole 'nother paradigm. Old folks think they like to know what it is to be young, and they do, but they don't know what it's like to be young NOW, just like our folks did know that and yet didn't know THAT. Shit stays the same, etc. But who got all the money? The freakin' Boomers (some, not all, but why run a good rant with facts?), that's who, and like all aging peoples with all the moneys and twice the vanity, they using it to buy all the whores they can to avoid moving it on and passing it on.

It is not death with honor, is surely is not.

[AllenLowe]

agreed, but there is something a little sillier than usual when very up-right white guys look for the groove and make it sound like a bad high school dance band.