Jeff Tedford writes:

>Duke Ellington is IMHO sui generis.  He was blessed and cursed with
>economic conditions that required him to maintain an orchestra straddling
>the world of popular music and something more.  ...  As with CM
>re-listening pays dividends both within a given performance and over time.
>Ellington's compositions "evolved" in unexpected ways and his creative
>compositional life remained vital for nearly 5 decades.

I think these are very good points, and I want to point out also that
Ellington paid a price for his attempts to deepen his music and and
stretch his audience.  His 1943 first Carnegie Hall concert disappointed
some fans and critics because he provided the Black Brown and Beige suite:
a serious, extended work that was very different from the "dance music"
many demanded of him.  He had to simultaneously feed popular demand as a
way of keeping a large band employed over the years so he could also hear
the serious music he composed each night-- no Esterhazey being available
to a black man in mid twentieth century America.  But he persisted in his
efforts (some better than others) to write innovative, concert music right
through the Sacred Concerts of the 60's and Far East Suite of the 1970s.

Perhaps it would be helpful to introduce Ellington's own words into the
dialogue.  Writing in 1944 he said:

   "Ours is a country of two major types of music--the concert hall
   variety and what goes under the general heading of 'jazz.' [It seems
   to me he is excluding several here but that's a topic for another
   time--Ed] It wouldn't be right to draw too thick a line between them
   because nowadays we are beginning to see 'jazz' moving into the
   concert hall --into the scores played by symphony orchestras, and
   the other way around. My own Carnegie Hall concert, recently, is an
   example of what I mean."

There have been numerous articles written debating this question.
Interested listers might wish to look at The Duke Ellington Reader, edited
by Mark Tucker, which contains a number of discussions about Ellington in
relation to "art" music. My conclusion (other than to despair that we are
wasting a lot of energy on trying to fit things into boxes) is that his
music is every bit as classical as that of Gershwin and Bernstein to name
two, and by their own admission was  influential on Milhuad and Stravinsky
to name two others. Percy Grainger (discussed recently on the list) heard
the band and "compared some of his characeteristics with Bach and Haydn."

This is not an argument that can be "won," and we shouldn't extend it
indefinitely.  However, I wanted to second Jeff's comment by reiterating
that while some here are saying Ellington's music isn't classical,
contemporaries of his were criticizing it for being too "arty." I suppose
only time will tell how well it holds up.  My bet is that along with
Stravinsky, if not Grainger, Duke's music will stand the test of time
extremely well as serious, concert music.

Tongue in cheek, I would suggest that if Dave will consider a name change
for the list to "Moderated Concert Music List" we would have no argument
and could profitably discuss Ellington in the company of his coevals
Stravinsky et al.  [So then we could discuss the latest concerts by Nine
Inch Nails?  -Dave]

Ed