Bill Strother writes:

>In my opinion Duke Ellington has to be taken as seriously as any American
>composer.  In his body of work you will find all the hallmarks of modern
>music: dissonance, bitonality, etc.  except serial music, which I for one
>don't miss.

To which Steve Schwartz adds:

>I love the Ellington catalogue, but I've always been bothered a bit by the
>collaborative nature of much of his stuff.  What percent is Ellington,
>Strayhorn, Tizol, etc.?

I can't say I've been particularly bothered by this, but I know some (like
Steve) are.  However, I recently heard a comment about this that may help
a bit.  Remarking on the fact that some of the musicians were bothered by
Duke's using their riffs he pointed out that NONE of them were capable of
turning those riffs into the composed music that he created.  So, in a
sense, wasn't Ellington doing the same thing for Tizol that Beethoven did
for Diabelli, namely turning a nice tune into a work of art?

BTW, I recognize that my comment does not address the case of his
collaboration with Strayhorn--a fine composer in his own right.  But I'd
point out that Duke was always very open in acknowledging Strayhorn's
contributions.

Ed