Whoever wrote it got the year wrong for Kind of Blue, that was 1959. And to my ear modal jazz sounded vastly different to third stream jazz even though they came under the heading cool or modern.

Bill Evans looked even more bookish! And not to compare but probably far advanced of Brubeck and massively sophisticated.

Robert Elms doesn't seem very popular round these parts. I quite enjoyed his book 'The Way We Wore'. Anyone read it?

That Elms line about "the look comes first" is a howler, too.

And Dylan Jones, GQ editor, hasn't done much research...

Yes, there's lots of hype in that trailer...

I suppose that's necessary for a project like this to get these media people in. They are just multiplicators. It doesn't really matter what they say. They just have to talk.

I've read Elms book, too, and it's very talkative. A bit of young fashion history from the sixties to the eighties, an autobiographical background story, a bit of chit chat and lots of pomp, yes, a few good lines here and there, but often the mix seemed to forced, maybe similar to Hewitt's plot or "thesis" in The Soul Stylists...

Hmm, in a way I can understand why one would snarl about the trailer. You always get the same people in these features. It's a bit like a very very small town and a very very small pub and it's only for the locals...

Elms, Hewitt, Weller and Rowland are always on the regular's table. Frown!

But for this film I think I can bear all of that, as I really appreciate this, and I hope it keeps the torch alive if that doesn't sound too full of pathos. I respect John Simons as a great retailer and a good businessman but I also think that's true what David Rosen says about his artistic sensibility and a point that Rosen doesn't make, probably because he takes that for granted, is that all of this is of course connected and not just coincidence for John Simons. The clothes, the furniture, all the functional design, objects of beauty, just like paintings and sculptures, books and films, photography, music. He really loves his clothes, just like his jazz and his art.

Of course, colourfields are not le dernier cri and cool jazz is not as popular as it was when Take Five was in heavy rotation, and Ivy, or being dressed well at all, is not en vogue, at least not as it was when Audrey Hepburn was a Hollywood hottie. Does that mean that John Simons is not modern, though? I don't think so. It's just his style.

I don't think it's static. It's just evolving within a certain frame. That's similar to Charlie Davidson at the Andover Shop, I guess. Zach might disagree about this. But I think that the old guys who grew up in the 1940s and 50s have kept that classic taste but never stood still. Of course, one could call that conservative, but this is neither throwback retro nor is it following the fads. It's an eye for style.

:-D

Yeah, i got lazy at the end of my rant.

An eye for beauty.

I suppose it also shows JS means different things to different people. Lots of garments cross over from rockabilly, mod or just London Styler. I image the most interesting thing would just be to hear John's thoughts on things. But of course a film like that would probably never get made. So we have to cope with people like Elms and his rather over excited and annoying voice.

The background music was very nice in the video.
Not quite sure what it was...anyone?

Yes Russell Street By Another Name to say the clothes came first is absurd, maybe 'together' at a push; John in my view was and is cool as is his shop and  his 'crowd' if it might put it that way; and I will say, since it meant a lot to me at the time, he is welcoming and lacking in pretention or cliquishness.  I am sure there will be lots of interest in a film on these lines.  Thanks for posting it.