Originally Posted by Frost
He earns a fortune and has very rich heritage. He helped a lot in the reconstruction of New Orleans and while he is arrogant, I'd say it's more pretentious than anything else. A lot of the time it is a case of he does actually know what he is talking about, I don't mean everyone should bow down and just agree with him on everything, but a lot of his critics have hardly read a thing he has wrote on jazz. He is a prestigious teacher at a very prestigious school.
He might be all the things he is, but for a jazzman to talk down other view points is quite.. how should I put it..unjazzy?
So I'd say he's a phenominal player and perhaps a significant jazz historian. Historians never agree with each other because everyone's got a different version.. like the music itself.
My issue with him is that he tries to come across like the high priest of jazz or something.... like the Chairman of Jazz Inc.. I dont like that. Jazz cant have a supreme leader. I dont think Parker, Coltrane or Miles ever thought of themselves in that way.
Conversly, I do appreciate his tremendous virtuosity and I admire the fierce passion he has for his music.