This is right and more than right. A lot of regurgitated crap on a stick with the arrognace to parade under the banner "creative music" is just as bad. Maybe even worse, because it purports to be experimental. There's as high a perecentage of crappy "progressive" music as there is of crappy pop music. On the other hand, there's as high a percentage of worthwhile pop as worthwhile jazz (or whatever you call it). And there are more chicks at a pop gig. skip h
What's best or worst? A young rock player trying to resurrect The Velvet or the Beatles or a young improviser that plays in late 60's non-idiomatic improv style without adding anything significantly new? Is there really a big difference? Aren't they just both exhibiting the same kind of morbid fascination for the founding fathers (Beatles/Stones on one side, Taylor/Bailey/Brotzmann/etc on the other)? At least the rocker might have more chances with girls :-).