[Dixielandjazz] Re: Climactic restorations

Stephen Barbone barbonestreet@earthlink.net
Sun, 18 Aug 2002 15:06:19 -0400

Dradjazz@aol.com wrote:

> In a message dated 8/18/02 6:54:45 AM, Steve Barbone:
> << PS. That's also a good argument for recreating the music on those old
> records with a contemporary band. An exact arrangement of "One Step" or
> "Livery Stable" or of those early King Oliver sides on Gennett, by a
> good band, is certainly worth listening to . . .
> Serious can of worms there, Steve.  Would you really want to see the Sistine
> Chapel as repainted by contemporary painters!?  I wouldn't.
> Also I should hope that the damage done to the murals over the years was due
> to CLIMATIC (pertaining to climate) rather than CLIMACTIC (pertaining to or
> coming to a climax).
> Dave Radlauer
> www.JAZZHOT.Bigstep.com

Dave & List Mates

I used the restoration analogy the other way which doesn't necesarily imply
that the reverse is true.

However, that is, in effect, what you have in the Sistine Chapel now, no?  Much
of the restoration there has been re-painted by contemporary painters, and by
prior restorers.  The original artwork was applied by a different process. And
frankly, if it was painted by contemporary artists, who among us on the list
could tell the difference?

For example, I have seen the original "Blue Boy" and several, hand painted
exact copies of "Blue Boy"  I cannot tell the difference and doubt that there
are 100 people in the world who can tell an original art work from an expert
forgery without carbon dating the paint or the canvas. Even then, the so called
"Experts" constantly disagree among themselves over "original", "forgery" or
painted by the master's students. Museums all over the world have been taken in
by forgers. If museums don't know what they are looking at, then I sure don't.

Same thing with music. I doubt there are 100 people in the world who could tell
the difference between a "King Oliver Original" and a good re-creation by a
contemporary band if the sound reproduction was similar. Remember the claims of
musos that they could tell the difference between "white" and "black" played
jazz?  When blindfold tested by "Downbeat Magazine" they ALL failed miserably.
These are the "knowledgeable" listeners. When you get down to John Q. Public,
they haven't a clue about King Oliver, or about Joe Copier re-creating King
Oliver. They'd probably relate more to Joe Copier.

Given enough time, I believe a good computer person could generate music in the
style of anyone we choose so that it would be indistinguishable from an
original by all of us. Including feel, tone, etc. The only missing ingredient
would be the "originality" of the piece and that is what's priceless.

Of course I want the "Original" rather than a forgery, in my collection because
it is worth much more money, but regarding art and most music, I, for one
admit, that I cannot tell the difference.

Regarding "Climatic", me too.  Give me a break. :-)