Steve Schwartz has recently given us two reviews of contemporary
jazz/classical discs: All Rise by Wynton Marsalis and a compilation disc
by Jerome Moross. Setting the reviews side by side raises a broader
question that I am not sure can be answered without access to sound or
a piano, but I will probe anyway.

In the Moross review he praises the composer for: "com[ing] up with a
score that pays homage to the twelve-bar blues and to boogie-woogie."

In the earlier review, which is generally quite favorable, he criticized
one movement as follows:

" I do consider the finale a miscalculation - a fairly close reproduction
of New Orleans jazz and gospel.  To me, Marsalis should have talked as
much as possible in his own voice, rather than in the voice of somebody
else.  Musically, it's delightful.  Rhetorically, it's so lightweight,
it seems a mistake.

My question is how one hears the difference between "homage" and
"reproduction?" How might Marsalis have spoken in "his own voice" without
sacrificing the reference to the music of a specific time and place? Is
there a clear dividing line between reproduction and homage? And if so
(or if not) how does a listener decide which is which?

More broadly, I suppose this speaks to the issue of what is derivative
and was is creative. It seems this must get especially dicey when the
composer (or author or artist) proudly seeks to create within the framework
of an accepted tradition or style.

Perhaps Steve or others would like to open this up further.

Ed