The key to accessing jazz from rock is Blue Note, whose artists combined the best of blues, jazz and rock at a time when they were all a lot closer together. Most of it is nearly fifty years old and rocks harder and better than most of last week's Grammy nominees. Get "The Best of Blue Note" -- Trane's "Blue Train," Hancock's "Maiden Voyage," Lee Morgan's "Sidewinder," "Lou Donaldson's "Blues Walk" and Jimmy Smith's "Back at the Chicken Shack" are only half the classics on this album. From there, Art Blakey's Jazz Messengers with great Bobby Timmons tunes and Lee Morgan putting hot trumpet together with incredible control, the anti-Miles. Start with "Moanin'." Any Blue Note Jimmy Smith, especially with Kenny Burrell's guitar.

Any Miles from about 55-65, selectively before and after that. As Kamiya notes, both Hancock and Shorter were members of the second great Quintet from this period. Gil Evans, with or without Miles, but always with Burrell and Tony Williams or Philly Joe Jones on drums. And yes, Santana, at his best the greatest jazz-rock artist ever.

Most people who knew rock before the late 70s don't talk much about later periods because the best music was no longer the most popular, so lacks the universal references of the earlier periods. And, let's face it, it dumbed down. Punk split it one way, metal another, and the southern contingent, most influential of all, went to country. That left us with what, Madonna? There was a musical innovator. And even though Quincy Jones produced Michael Jackson's best, he never confused it with jazz. Same for Hancock, who turned to fusion (rock, really) after his first post-Miles band went bankrupt. He played it long enough to get rich, then returned to what he loved. He hasn't played "Rockit-"style for over twenty years.

Soloing isn't empty if it has meaning beyond just running changes. Jazz has suffered from empty technique more than once, but the best always join technique to emotion and insight, creating a transcendent understanding.

And definitely pick up "River --" it won simply because it is the best album of the year, joining one of American music's greatest songwriters with nearly a dozen of its greatest contemporary performers to make something that is arguably new, even if it never has much influence on pop music.

Any discussion about jazz invariably has people coming out and saying jazz is elitist and for snobs. Probably because _I_ don't like it, therefore there must be something elitist about it, therefore it is inferior to what _I_ like. There is something extremely self centered about this attitude. I ask, which ones are the snobs?

Try to at least understand what Gary was writing before the knee-jerk anti-snob rhetoric. Nobody has to like jazz or rock and any other kind of music. But don't assume what _you_ like is the standard for everybody else, or for what jazz music or rock music or any kind of music _should be_.

Remember this: everybody comes to this music or any other kind of music with a different background. So one person may be able to naturally hear one kind easier than another. What Gary suggests is that if you get past your cultural milieu, there are rewards waiting for you.

For jazz recommendations to people who haven't like jazz, probably the singers are the place to start, especially if most of what you listen to has singers.

How about films which have jazz music in their soundtrack? Then you can see dramatic and verbal cues to go with features of the music.

Jazz is a unique art form that makes your soul soar to unimaginable heights, just like the great impressionist art to which it's often compared. Two incredible jazz giants should've been mentioned here:the astonishing late bass clarinet, alto sax and flute player Eric Dolphy and the very much alive and well brazilian mad genius composer, band leader and multi-instrumentalist hermeto Pascoal, now widely acknowledged as possibly the greatest improvisationalist who ever lived.

One of the interviewees in Ken Burns' 2001 jazz documentary distilled the jazz vs. rock issue this way:

"Jazz GOES somewhere. Rock STAYS somewhere."

Discuss.

Or better yet, as a famous poet said in his poem "Jazz":

"Listen."

My own evolution with rock and jazz roughly parallels Gary's and I share his love of Miles Davis' "middle period" (and the work of Davis' contemporaries in this period). Like him, I started with the well-known/regarded and began learning about lesser known figures and more difficult genres of jazz. Part of jazz's decline was probably the rise of "serious minded" rock and rock's infilitration of highbrow hipsterism during the late 60s. The young sophisticates of the 50s and early 60s really looked down on rock music and were more likely to embrace serious folk music than rock. By the same token, the evolving imporvisiation of Ornette Coleman, John Coltrane and othere alientated many in the jazz fan base as did the often vapid "fusion" acts that emerged in the 1970s. I don't share Gary's admiration for Chick Corea (whom I saw at his peak and even then the music sounded like 70s kitsch) or Pat Metheny (who seems too middle of the road).

Jazz, at is best, is as layered and complex as classical music, but more obviously a mix of "art" and "science"--the structure of notes on the page given life by individual artistry. Jazz is moody and senusal in a way that rock has rarely been. Rock had its roots in "fucking music" for want of a better term and is the perfect accomanyment for a long drive on the open highway or an evening of athletic sex. Jazz is more about foreplay, sensual play, and afterglow at 2 in the morning--it's about a different kind of experience that also is more overtly personal.

Jazz probably got a reprieve of sorts from the decline of mass rock in the 70s and 80s. That period is a time capsule of absolute junk and non-creativity. Things bubbled up from the underground, like the new wave and from other genres like reggae, but the vast middle lacked the vitality and diversity of the late 60s and very early 70s. Ultimately, though, that era gave us smooth jazz, which is nice for background music but not very serious music.

It takes some doing, but there are interesting new artists emerging from local jazz scenes and often doing "fusion" with more real flair than their predecessors. Matt Jorgenson from seattle is a good example. The Grammy for Hancock is, in some respects, an exercise in nostalgia. Hancock's best days were long ago and his electric experiments in the 70s were dismissed by many as "phony" jazz. Mitchell's best work overlaps with Hancock's best days and her recent stuff is basically unlistenable and self-indulgent. Her collaboration with jazz musicians, though, has been a long-term interest of hers and she did much to show case people like Tom Scott. Maybe the Hancock Grammy will stimulate some new interest. Jazz isn't an easy way to make a living, but the same could be said of working actors, rock vocalists, etc. Many rock bands that continue to tour are doing it as a side job. Lamenting jazz is probably less helpful than to highlight how it's still very much alive.