[Dixielandjazz] When is a Messiah not a Messiah?

[Steve Barbone]

"Fr M J (Mike) Logsdon" <mjl at ix.netcom.com> wrote (polite snip)

> But on the Messiah example, I feel the need to remind you and others
> that there's a big difference between "interpretation" and "changed".
> The average conductor of the Messiah or any standard work brings his own
> special take to the piece, be that take good or bad.  But when things
> are changed beyond what the composer even could've imagined, you no
> longer have his work, but what it has been changed to.  A good or bad
> thing?  Totally up to the listener, as what he's listening to isn't what
> it actually was, so who cares, actually?  But don't call it what it was,
> because it no longer is what it was.  I once listened to a few nauseous
> minutes of a "rock Messiah", and accepted that for what it is, it was
> good, but it wasn't Handel's Messiah.  It was something new and deserved
> judgment on its own merits.  Just don't call it Handel's Messiah,
> because it's not.
> 
> Same goes for jazz.  If you present an old saw (say, Saints) based upon
> a fresh interpretation, okay.  If you substantially change it from what
> it had historically been known as, you've created a new thing, that can
> no longer be judged by the same criteria.  It would no longer be,
> legitimately, Saints.

Completely agree Mike. And so did the NY Times article as I remember it.
There is room for "interpretation", especially in tempo, and sometimes beat,
and sometimes chord substitutions. For example:

"After You've Gone" original, and then as done by Benny Goodman 3 times as
fast. Or the famous Peggy Lee Story. Something like she was singing her very
up tempo 4/4 version, some chord substitutions, of "Lover" in a club and
Richard Rodgers was in the audience. Afterwards she went over to his table
and asked how he liked it. Said Rodgers;

"Peggy dear, I wrote it as a waltz."

She changed Tempo, meter and feeling of the song. Should it still be
"Lover". Absolutely, just ask Rodger's heirs or ASCAP.

Jazz does, IMO, go a lot further in changing the songs these days, than it
did in the 1920s. Chord substitutions etc. Back then, the word jazz referred
to dance music with a lively beat. Band contractor Paul Whiteman was the
"King of Jazz." Today jazz means something else, and Paul Whiteman's title
today would be more like the "King of Pop". (IMO)

Cheers,
Steve Barbone