Well I'm not looking for money - and I do Jazz - so I'm no outside observer.

My analogy with Science still stands.

Einstein and Newton were doing completely different things within the realms of their own contexts.

Einstein had to justify what he was doing as being worthwhile and not just Newtons work repackaged.

I accept of course that many other scientists may have rediscovered the same rules - and maybe courney pine is on that trail.

Likewise, Pat metheny would like I have no doubt to argue that his work is as valid in its own context as Charlie Christians was in his. And he would wish to be clear that the twwo contexts were exclusive to each other.

However, it is also true that without Christian there is no Metheny.

Without Newton there is no einstein.

Without Bach Rameau et al, there can be no polytonality or serialism as there can be no evolution from 7 notes to 12 and no intermediate discovery of and then movement away from functional harmony.

The 1954 definition is useful. But it is like a coastline drawn on a map.

The sea does not inhabit a fixed point on the edge of a fixed shoreline. In reality, waves go in and out - the tide goes in and out - the sea level rises and falls as the earth warms and cools - the rocks erode.

The grey areas leave room for manoevre.

And in music as well as science, we accept that our theory is comprehensive but not complete.

Why folk music should be exempt from that way of looking at things and governed by a rigid set of rules is beyond me.

Refusing to allow definitions and understandings to be flexible, updated or revised is akin to supressing scientific discoveries on religious grounds.