In a sense he is (though there is a certain 'jazz heritage industry' which grew up after that time - Marsalis's concerts in Lincoln Center are part of this phenomenon), but some would not necessarily see it as an indictment of artistic work when the wider public becomes alienated from it. And other movements in part grow out of jazz, including some free improvisation (not all, but some), though they also are very much minority interests. But we ask Member Grew whether or not he believes there is an important place for a minority consciousness within certain cultures, and whether that minority consciousness may not be on occasion more enlightened than that of the majority? We look at the re-election of one George W. Bush in the United States of America as an example of where the majority consciousness may be less than thoroughly enlightened, from a certain perspective. Which is not to deny the ultimate importance of democracy, but to believe that a sophisticated democracy makes room form minority consciousness and its expression as well (and in time this may impact upon the majority; even if it does not, the possibility should be left open if we are not to have total domination of individual subjects). With this in mind, the fact that jazz, free improvisation and contemporary classical music appeal primarily to small sub-sections of society should not necessarily be used as an argument against any of their possible merits.

Actually we recoil in horror from demo-cracy. The very thought of persons' of that kind presuming to govern us! What an ill-conceived notion it is (pace Mr. Pace)!

[As an aside to Member Grew, we draw attention to the fact that he often says 'What would Brahms have said?', and draw his attention to the following, from a letter he wrote to Clara Schumann on June 25th 1858: 'Art is a republic. You should accept this principle much more whole-heartedly than you do. You are much too aristocratic. I cannot deal with this fully now, but some time when we are together I shall do so. This struck me very forcibly in the matter of Henkel, and in another way with regard to Grimm. Do not confer a higher rank upon any artist, and do not expect the minor ones to look up to him as something higher, as consul. His ability will make him a beloved and respected citizen of the said republic, but no consul or emperor.']

There is a really nice bk by Frank Kofsky on Coltrane where at one point he is arguing for the significance of Coltrane's embrace of free jazz and how his death in the late 60s (and Ayler's at around the same time) seemed to be the beginning of an end for its...not so much commercial viability, but that something really crucial ws lost to the culture and could never be bought back.

I suppose the point might be how all kinds of things were embraced in the 60s and 70s, but the doors closed somewhat. And that the turning point can be one person's death or the rise of niche marketing or much else and not necessarily that the 'people' might not like it, etc.

Member Grew is wrong on this - there are still a very significant number of jazz lovers in many parts of the world - they may not quite be a majority (I am not sure), but I would imagine they compare in numbers to those who listen to classical music.

"Good news is no news".

We'll be on "Who murdered Mozart, the truth revealed, in the soaraway supersensational..." etc soon.