Sorry for the delay in responding but it's been a pretty hectic week and hey, you've bitten off quite a bit here with your questions, Brian. I'll attempt to do them justice.

Several times this past week I've found myself typing a response, definitively answering one question only to find myself coming up with a stream of examples that immediately contradict my own claims. For example, to your first question,

"Why (or whether you agree) there appears to be a tendency in the "modern" world towards unfinished artistic careers?"

I've come around to the view that it's difficult to come up with an answer that covers all the different forms of media you referenced.

When it comes to popular music, I agree that there is definitely a tendency towards an 'unfinished career'. I think this is because pop musicians 1) really only have a handful of really good releases in them at best (the '3 albums and you're out rule') and 2) are at their creative peak when they are young, fairly ignorant of past trends and influences (and therefore more risk-taking and less contrived), and can honestly articulate the frustration, anger, and impatience with the world that is inherent in youth. That's not to say that someone over the age of 40 can't release a good pop album, it's just they probably would have released a better one in their youth.

I won't comment on classical or jazz musicians because I just don't know enough about either genre to make any intelligent contribution. [And to those who would suggest that I am equally out of my depth when it comes to pop music, my advice is that you attempt the anatomically impossible and let me define my own parameters of self-deprecation].

With literature, I think some authors actually produce work that gets better with age, or at the very least go through a middle-years slump that is overshadowed by later, more impressive work. Philip Roth may be best known for 'Portnoy's Complaint' but some of his recent work is excellent and I think John LeCarre's last two novels are better than anything he wrote in the past. While I'm the first to bemoan the recent efforts of perennial favourites like DeLillo and Rushdie, I still think they will surprise with better efforts in the future. Again, there may be a finite number of artistic points/statements about the state of humanity/reflections on socio-political-cultural phenomena that each writer can make before he or she runs out of steam. But age can bring perspective and there are probably countless other modern examples of writers whose crowning glory was achieved in their later years; okay, this is a bit of a copout for not providing examples here but I'm pressing on cause there's still a lot of ground to cover.

When it comes to filmmakers...well, let me answer here by referring to one of your other questions, namely,

Is it the necessary balance between money and art?

Here I think is a medium most affected by the demands of commerce and where money plays the biggest role in determining or denying artistic legacy.

Some very actors and directors consistently make great choices but along the way, all seem to make some really big stinkers (ie. recent Coen Brothers, Julianne Moore, Ben Kingsley) in the name of the almighty buck. Other directors attempt to keep making great films but no longer have anything relevant to say anymore, perhaps because the've said all they really wanted to say in the first place (ie. Oliver Stone, Hal Hartley, Whit Stillman, David Mamet). Others may have reached their apex years ago, still strike out occassionally but still hit a home run every once in awhile (ie. Spike Lee, Robert Altman, Woody Allen...okay maybe he should be in the Oliver Stone category...). And still others consistently churn out thought-provoking, intelligent work (ie. Mike Leigh, Michael Winterbottom, Pedro Almodovar).

What separates this latter group from the former groups mentioned? Is it a singular artistic vision or the inner strength required to resist materialistic overtures from Hollywood?

I remember a Q&A at the Festival a few year's back where Gary Oldman was answering questions about his very personal and difficult film "Nil By Mouth". He stated bluntly that he takes on roles in such unspectacular fare as 'Air Force One' and 'Lost in Space' so that he can raise enough cash to work on projects that he truly cares about. I'm sure he's not the only one cashing in from time to time, for noble reasons or not, but his revelation speaks to the reality that 1) putting together a film requires a hell of a lot more money and collaboration that most other artistic endeavours, certainly more than recording an album or writing a book, and 2) the temptation for to abandon their quest to push the boundaries of the medium in order to make more sellable fare is so great that only a select few artists are willing or able to resist.

So to summarize my answers:

Pop Music=small time window in which to express a limited amount of artistic energy
Fiction/Literature=disagree, art may improve with age
Jazz/Classical=i am a moron, requiring the purchase of a 'dummies' book or enrollment in a proper finishing school
Film=$$$$

To your question,
Are we too close to these events to see how history will judge them?

Pop Music=No.
Fiction/Literature=Yes
Jazz/Classical=i am a moron, requiring the purchase of a 'dummies' book or enrollment in a proper finishing school
Film=Let's discuss the next time we all have a pint in our hands

Derek, you asked,

"At a time when we have available to us more forms of entertainment than could ever have been imagined 100 years ago are we suffering because of this surfeit?"

I'm not sure that we are suffering any worse than anyone would have 100 or even 10 years ago. I think there's always been a tendency towards mediocrity in the mainstream. As much as I grumble about the ubiquity of such appalling untalented and bland celebrities like Ashlee Simpson, or the lack of any decent radio station in this city, at least I have access
I don't know if that was always the case.

Stuart, while I applaud your concession that Tony Bennett, while possessing the charisma and the pipes to do that one trick really well, isn’t still producing great work, I question your assertion that Mick Jagger is still producing great work. I think the Stones are one of the best examples of a group that 1) hasn’t produced a decent record in almost 25 years (1981’s Tattoo You was probably the last to qualify) and 2) should channel any artistic impulses into what they still do well, namely banging hot young women. And with the exceptions of a couple of non-terrible singles, the bulk of Mick’s solo/duo projects are egregiously pathetic ('Dancing in the Streets' w/ David Bowie and 'State of Shock' with Michael Jackson are two cringe-worthy examples). If you think Mick’s Golden Globe win this week bolsters your case, I’d say you only have to look at the list of recent winners (schmaltzy dreck from Sting, Elton, and Celine) to see what a non-achievement this really is.

Marc, every time I take the subway, I have to fight the urge to belt out 'I'm waiting on a subway line/I'm waiting for a train to arrive' from the Walkmen's 'Thinking of a Dream I Had'. I love the sort of rambling intensity in his voice and the swirling guitars. Very suited to standing on a platform in these frigid days.

Okay, enough rambling of my own for now.

What top 5 or 10 jazz albums should I rush out and buy immediately?