In no way was it my intention to be confrontational toward forum members...in fact just the opposite. If my comments appeared this way I certainly apologize for the clumsy way I must have expressed myself.

Good idea!

Well, Tony, that's sort of the point. It's not like Miles listening to Roy Eldridge or Bird listening to Prez or Trane listening to Bird or Leibman listening to Trane ad infinitum. It's not that he's building on the foundation of those that came before, it's that he's defining what jazz is in terms of how well it hews ONLY to the foundation of what came before. There doesn't seem to be any buidling involved.

Certainly everyone is entitled to their own likes and dislikes. The problem with using a word like opinion is that, for some, it is precisely and solely that - their public presentation of what they like or what they don't like. And those likes and dislikes are informed by their life experiences up to that point. That's as true for me as it is for you. Something I read somewhere; we each express the truth that is revealed to us by our own experiences, unfortunately we all have different experiences. And, it seems, some are unable to seperate their "self" from their opinions. So, if you disagree with their opinion, you are somehow invalidating them as a person.

But fundamentally, whether or not Dave likes or dilsikes Wynton's playing has absolutley nothing to do with whether or not Wynton is or is not a player who has an original voice. Matt may feel that Dave should be spending more time with Brownie or Freddie or Lee Morgan (or Dave Douglas or Don Cherry or Al freakin Hirt) but if Dave don't wanna, Dave don't gotta.

Now if Dave wanted to get into WHY Matt (and many others) feel the way they feel, there's plenty of objective, quantifiable substance that you can talk about. Transcription is a wonderful tool to get inside the head of another player (even dead ones), it just all depends on how deep you want to get into it.

For what its' worth, Matt's "carjacking" response didn't seem confrontational or hostile. It sounded like a viable analogy to communicate his thoughts and his question, Dave's response was one that seemed to consider the analogy as perhaps not the best one to cover the situation. Everyone's panties seemed to not be in a bundle.

Not every bright light is a fire.

Does Ferrari give credit to Ford?

is that not the case? i thought that was the backbone behind copyright and patent law.

not being flip -- just seems [all discussion of originality/non-originality aside] that all artists want to lay claim to their [intellectual] ideas.

i thought mattjazz's analogy was good. actually, there've been a lot of good points made throughout.

nah, you communicate fine. i was just thrown off by the notion that one can't 'own' an intellectual idea. i understand the point you're making, and basically am agreeing with most of the other points made, including those that didn't agree with each other.


how's that for political correctness?