Context

["Siobhan Canty" <siocanty@cfpa.org>]

1)  Just as visual art is not judged by the brushes used to create it,
music should not be judged by the physical object from which it eminiates. 

2)  I think that the subject of context has gone largely undiscussed in
this conversation.  What makes a musician great - whether it be a
guitarist, singer, matchbook player, whatever - is a communicated
understanding of context.  An artist in any medium should possess a
historical knowledge of that genre and strive to make a statement within
that context.  That is why art communicates through time.

That is also why a "valid musician" is one who has studied his or her craft
well 
enough to understand the arsenal of techniques at his or her disposal and
who 
combines those with his own sensibilities to create a sound which stands 
the test of time simply by virtue of making an educated statement.  

Now, don't assume that the historical context of every genre is extensive. 

(ie: the age of a medium does not equal its worth)
Take, for instance, the DJ.  Social changes - in everything from technology

to the economy - had created a new voice that was not being expressed...
urban, high tech, frustrated, etc.  So a new language was created; one
which rightfully  reflects not only these qualities and more, but one that
also re-hashes elements of past music and sound bytes - just the way we all
live now 
(flower-power retro re-hash).  This process has happened throughout
history.  
Its just that now we are hearing a message from the last half of the 20th
century using the tools we now have available.  

This filtering of context through contemporary sensibilities
gives us the ability to recognize the DJ as being as valid as Ry Cooder as
valid
as Satie as valid as Bach.  The brushes they used may have been different
but the context in which each of them contributes is undeniable.