124, I hope I didn't imply that one could not enjoy/appreciate 'jazz' without a certain 'requisite musical knowledge' (although I DO believe that helps). Ian used the term 'progressive jazz' and THAT is the specific form that I was referring to.......and therein lies the problem. The term 'JAZZ' has so many forms, from Dixieland to Swing to Bebop, and beyond, that it's hard to make ANY statement about jazz that would apply to all forms of it. Certainly the less complex forms are easier to digest than say a Ornette Coleman/Don Cherry 'free jazz' performance (even Miles had a hard time 'getting it' in the beginning). If any one thing unites all of the various forms, I would say it would be IMPROVISATION. The person that loves Dixieland may 'hate' some of the more 'so-called' progressive forms of jazz (and vice versa). But in my mind that is no different than in other types of music, as I'm sure that there are many who 'love' one type of Country music but 'hate' another. In the end, you're absolutely correct; it's whatever is pleasing to the ear that is important. Personally, I feel that cultural influences, early (and heavy) exposure, combined with an 'ear' for all the subtle nuances that seperate music from just noise, also go to shape our perception of what does and does not sound good.

Again, no elitism or jazz snobbery intended in my previous comments and I assure you that I love most musical forms IF the quality is good.

chas