User talk:Pjamesbono

Although OnBeyondZebrax made some language clarifications which were appreciated, the user edited out many important points from the edited version of the history section (which was previously very weak). I did revert to the previous version and would request that OnBeyondZebrax confine their edits to language clarification and/or disputation of points which they feel are in error and which can be addressed individually, rather than throwing out whole passages of relevant information. I'm happy to defend and/or revisit any point which other users feel is inaccurate. Clarification is certainly appreciated. Unlike some, I don't have a great deal of time to mess with this entry, so unless contacted, I will not bother to update this entry anymore.

Edit the edit, don't just undo

You requested the I confine my edits to language clarification and/or disputation of points which they feel are in error. You are concerned about removing passages of relevant information. Put the info back that you feel is missing. Please edit the edits, rather than reverting. Doing an undo on the edits is best used for vandalism.

You stated that you do not wish passages to be removed. Removing passages is allowed in Wikipedia. I draw your attention to the reminder on the Editing page "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." ThanksOnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:44, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Please look back at the edit history, and you will see that most of the content you put in was preserved. Although at first glance, it looks like whole paragraphs were removed, because they are highlighted in RED, the Wiki program shows text as RED even if it is relocated. Now, as far as changes, I removed POV (Point of View) statements, in which performers are praised, in line with the NPOV policy. I removed unsourced claims about the "second wave" of fusion guitar. To make a claim like that, we need a source, such as a music critic or a jazz historian. I don't know if you are familiar with the amount of editing that goes on in some articles; in some articles, it is hard to get even a single new sentence in. It's not like I had an attitude like "NO CHANGES"...(this occurs when people think they "OWN" an article). Instead, I edited the new text and it is now part of the article. OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is a source that puts my argument about how sax players solo using chord and scale knowledge in far better words than I could hope to do...The Jazzology: The Encyclopedia of Jazz Theory for All Musicians, by Robert Rawlins, Nor Eddine Bahha, Barrett Tagliarino ( Hal Leonard Corporation, 2005 ISBN 0634086782, ISBN 9780634086786), on page 141 notes that "With the advent of bebop...improvisation clearly emerges as the central component of the music. The harmonic structure of the tune assumes more importance than the melody. Whereas many swing musiciancs had been accustomed to faking solos by ear, the demanding tempos and chord sequences of bebop made it necessary for musicians to learn thoroughly the chords to the tunes they improvised" on....."Jazz musicians before Charlie Parker had the option of simply reinterpreting the melody and making it "hot". [e.g., by adding ornaments, riffs, and scale licks]........"Jazz musicians after Charlie Parker were expected to create something new and original from the harmonic structure of the tune."OnBeyondZebrax (talk) 17:37, 23 September 2008 (UTC)