Originally Posted by Pollyanna
Like others you're still missing the point, Doc. How can it be "desecration" or an unfitting "tribute to the dead" if Satchmo's estate gave KG the go-ahead? Why are people, especially Pat M, silent on the most important aspect of the "controversy"?
It's too easy to play cynical and ascribe the very worst of human nature to those in charge of Satchmo's estate ("oh, they only wanted the dollars") but it would be highly presumptuous. They might have been hugely chuffed that a bestselling modern musician wanted to bring their patriarch's memory to the forefront. Ever thought of that?
None of us know this, but to throw the whole thing on KG as though he did it all by himself with no input from Louis's nearest and dearest is clearly driven more by emotion than logic.
Suppose Van Gogh's or Monet's descendants gave permission to some commercial artist to dub over some of their classic paintings for a cut of the profits from the sale? Do you see my point? Even though they gave permission, the artist did not, and is nothing sacred anymore when it comes to making a friggin profit these days? Why do we as musicians stand around and go along with the prostitution of our trade the way we do? I just do not understand it.