From: Pat Missin Date: Fri, 8 Nov 1996 21:27:28 GMT Subject: Apples and oranges
Actually, I don't see what is wrong with drawing comparisons (or contrasts) between apples and oranges. For example: they are both edible fruit that grow on trees - I think that is a valid comparison. Likewise, oranges prefer a warmer climate and contain more vitamin C (measure for measure) than apples - that would seem to me to be a valid contrast. What is not acceptable, is to say that oranges are *better* than apples, or to complain that oranges make terrible apple pies.
In the same way, Cahrlie Parker was criticised by his peers because he didn't play like Johnny Hodges, whereas John Popper gets criticised by his fellow harp players for not playing like Little Walter. OK, this is an oversimplification, but I still think it is a reasonable comparison. A contrast between the two, would be something like this - Charlie Parker revolutionised not only the musical styles of other alto saxists, but also players of other instruments and musicians and composers outside of the jazz tradition. John Popper, on the other hand, is unlikely to influence anyone, except maybe a very few harp players.
I would still rather listen to Howard Levy (or Roland Van Straaten, or Michel Herblin, etc.) than John Popper, but I thnk all of them should be praised for widening the range of contemporary harp styles.
