InToned

Jerry Hey has spent more than five decades making great records sound even better. In this conversation, the Grammy-winning trumpeter and horn arranger traces his path from a musical childhood in Dixon, Illinois, through Indiana University, the Honolulu music scene, Seawind, and the Los Angeles recording studios.

Jerry recalls working with Quincy Jones, David Foster, Earth, Wind & Fire, and Michael Jackson, while explaining the discipline behind the celebrated Jerry Hey horn section.

At the center is a deceptively simple standard: surround yourself with the right people, listen carefully, and never settle when another take might make the music better.

Hey Horns

Jerry Hey’s official website, featuring his career, educational materials, arrangements, and reflections on more than fifty years as a trumpeter and arranger.

Jerry Hey at Conn Selmer

Artist profile covering Jerry’s career as a studio trumpet player and arranger, including his work with Quincy Jones and David Foster.

Jerry Hey at GRAMMY.com

Jerry Hey’s official Grammy artist profile, including his awards and nominations.

This conversation with Stephan Kinsella was recorded in 2022, but the principles behind it are timeless.

The tools change.

The technology changes.

The means of copying, distributing, remixing, and monetizing creative work change.

But the central question remains: can an idea really be owned in the same way a pencil, house, instrument, or piece of land can be owned?

Stephan is a retired patent attorney, author, and longtime critic of intellectual property law. In this episode we examine one of the most misunderstood assumptions in modern creative life: that copyrights and patents are simply another form of property.

From there, the discussion moves into the difference between scarce physical goods and infinitely reproducible ideas, the history of copyright as a tool of control, the Austrian economics framework behind Kinsella’s argument, and why he believes patents and copyrights ultimately restrict rather than protect creativity.

We also bring the conversation down to earth for musicians, writers, podcasters, and independent creators trying to make a living inside the world as it actually exists. How should creators think about exposure, piracy, licensing, trademarks, self-publishing, open-source models, and the real danger of obscurity?

Whether or not you agree with its conclusions, this episode offers a serious challenge to the way most of us have been taught to think about ownership, creativity, and the law.

Resources

Stephan Kinsella’s website: StephanKinsella.com

Stephan Kinsella on intellectual property: StephanKinsella.com/IP

Against Intellectual Property by Stephan Kinsella

Against Intellectual Monopoly by Michele Boldrin and David K. Levine

Center for the Study of Innovative Freedom

"On the field... From Madison, Wisconsin... The Madison Scouts!"

Back in the 1980s and 90s, when those words were spoken through the PA system at the local drum corps competition, the crowd knew exactly what was going to happen.

Precision. Discipline. Young males crossing the threshold into manhood in real time.

And that sound...

Hitting you as though you’re running into a brick wall at 70 miles an hour.

Seriously. It was an experience unlike any other, and it taught me the incredible power that brass instruments can have in invoking intense emotions in people.

Wherever they went, the Madison Scouts brought a distinct energy, a distinct voice that set them apart from the rest of the field.

This is not something that just happened. It was the result of years and years of building a system that was designed to make the most out of every ounce of human energy, financial resources, and musical and athletic ability of which members.

Many people were involved in planning and implementing this system. And at the helm of this entire program was a gentleman by the name of Scott Stewart.

Scott is, by his own admission, a dinosaur compared to the drum corps activity in its current form. In fact, you'll hear in this interview why Scott felt he was the lone hold out against innovations such as electronics, props, and the musical choices of the corps'.

But this interview is not an airing of grievances. It's just that 32 years after spending a summer on the road, going from town to town, playing my horn in tiny towns as well as NFL stadiums alongside 127 young men, I recall it very fondly. It is no exaggeration to say it is one of the most profound periods of personal growth in my life.

So I asked Scott if we could meet up at his home near Madison so I could pick his brain on what exactly went into making the Madison experience so memorable. Not just for the members and staff, but for the thousands of fans who for over two decades relished every performance.

Scott Stewart’s entry into drum corps: Scott recalls joining the Madison Scouts in 1968, when drum corps was still local, inexpensive, militaristic, and community-based.

How the activity changed in the early 1970s: The shift from short local seasons to longer tours, more rehearsal time, and a higher level of performance.

The old drum corps “ecosystem”: How smaller corps, feeder corps, and regional organizations once supported the larger activity, especially through Drum Corps Midwest.

Scott’s rise into leadership: Scott describes moving from marching member to staff member, director, program coordinator, and executive director.

The Madison Scouts system: Staff continuity, member-first leadership, rehearsal philosophy, and the culture that made Madison distinct.

Designing shows audiences remembered: Music selection, emotional pacing, impact moments, variety, climaxes, endings, and why Madison shows connected so deeply with crowds.

The golden age of drum corps: Scott identifies the mid-1980s through mid-1990s as the activity’s golden age and explains what made that period so powerful.

Changes in modern drum corps: Electronics, props, staging, uniforms, musical choices, rising costs, and the loss of melody and drill design.

The Madison experience a rite of passage: The interview closes with a personal reflection on the Madison Scouts as a formative experience for young men moving into adulthood.

Scott’s legacy of service: Scott reflects emotionally on his role as a servant-leader and the privilege of shaping generations of Madison Scouts.

What if Christianity is not primarily a moral code, a private belief system, or a set of religious customs, but a way of seeing reality?

In this episode, Dr. Zachary Porcu joins the podcast to discuss his book Journey to Reality: Sacramental Life in a Secular Age. The conversation begins with the origin of the book, which grew out of Zac’s work teaching theology to students who often knew the basic claims of Christianity but lacked the worldview that made those claims intelligible.

From there, we move into the deeper question: what is Christianity? Zac argues that “religion” may not be the most useful starting point. Christianity is better understood as a worldview, a way of answering the question, “What is the nature of reality?”

That question leads into one of the central concepts of the conversation: the arche. Zac uses the term to move beyond the flattened modern image of God as a distant old man in the sky. Instead, he describes God as the source of being itself, the one in whom all things live, move, and have their being.

The conversation then turns to the Incarnation, the claim that the source of being, life, and truth became man in Jesus Christ. Zac explains why that claim was shocking both to Jews and Greeks, and why it remains revolutionary today.

We also discuss the difference between modern Christianity as intellectual assent and ancient Christianity as sacramental participation. To become Christian is not merely to agree with Christian propositions. It is to be grafted into Christ through baptism, Eucharist, and the mysteries of the Church.

Later in the episode, we discuss the Reformation, the rise of the secular nation-state, the older idea of symphonia between church and empire, and the myth that public life can ever be religiously or metaphysically neutral.

This conversation was recorded near the beginning of my Orthodox life. In that sense, it captures not a finished statement, but a beginning: the attempt to understand a world that once was, and still is, even if many of us have forgotten how to see it.

Episode highlights:

00:28 — Knowing the “what” of Christianity without knowing the “why”

11:00 — Moving beyond the modern cartoon image of God

15:30 — The Arche, life, and the reality behind living things

24:00 — Why modern Christianity is different from Paul’s context

31:00 — The Reformation and the rise of modernity

35:45 — Symphonia and the Byzantine vision of church and empire

37:30 — The secular nation-state and the myth of neutrality

43:45 — Sacraments as mysteries entered, not merely explained

Resources mentioned:

Dr. Zachary Porcu’s Website zacharyporcu.com

Journey to Reality Substack zacharyporcu.substack.com

The Roots of Everything Hosted by Dr. Zac Porcu

Journey to Reality: Sacramental Life in a Secular Age by Dr. Zachary Porcu https://amzn.to/43FBWJ1

About the guest:

Dr. Zachary Porcu is an Orthodox Christian scholar, author, catechist, and host of The Roots of Everything. He is the author of Journey to Reality: Sacramental Life in a Secular Age, a book written to help modern readers understand Orthodox Christianity not merely as a set of doctrines or practices, but as a sacramental worldview. His work explores theology, history, philosophy, the Church Fathers, and the deep roots of the ideas that shape the modern world.

Quotable quotes:

“Christianity is not merely a set of rules. It is a way of answering the question: what is the nature of reality?”

“To become Christian is not merely to agree with Christian ideas. It is to be grafted into Christ.”

“The sacraments are not religious illustrations. They are mysteries we enter.”

“There is no neutral worldview. Every society answers the question of reality, whether it admits it or not.”

Composer Daniel Elder found himself at the center of intense public backlash after an Instagram post made during the unrest following George Floyd’s death. In this written interview, presented with AI-synthesized voices, Daniel gives his account of what happened, why he chose not to apologize, how institutions responded under pressure, and what the experience revealed about mob mentality, artistic conscience, and public fear.

This episode is produced from a written interview with composer Daniel Elder. Daniel agreed to answer questions in writing because he did not want an off-the-cuff remark in a live conversation to create further controversy. His responses are presented using an AI-synthesized voice, and the host questions are also produced with an AI-synthesized version of my own voice.

The conversation centers on Daniel’s account of the backlash that followed an Instagram post he made during the unrest after George Floyd’s death. Daniel describes his growing concern with social-media groupthink, the speed with which public discourse became accusatory, and his belief that the reaction to his post was shaped by a larger atmosphere of panic, moral certainty, and institutional fear. He also explains why he chose not to issue a public apology, arguing that doing so would have validated accusations he did not believe were true.

The interview also addresses the reaction of GIA Publications, the dynamics of online activism, and Daniel’s advice for people who feel compelled to speak in moments of public pressure. His counsel is simple: remain respectful, stay calm, be patient, and do not compromise foundational convictions merely to satisfy an angry crowd.

Find Daniel Elder on the web at danieleldermusic.com

Follow James Newcomb on the web at jamesdnewcomb.com

What does it mean to ask about “the role of history”? Is history its own entity with agency of its own, or is there more to the story?

In this episode, we reflect on how the past shapes the present through context, inheritance, memory, precedent, and constraint.

https://jamesdnewcomb.com/jeannie

“The Orthodox mind, the mind of the Church, is the mind of Christ.”

We welcome biblical scholar and author Dr. Jeannie Constantinou for a sweeping, heartfelt, and clarifying conversation on phronema—the ancient Christian mindset preserved in the Orthodox Church.

I open the conversation by sharing my own journey of transitioning into Orthodoxy, reflecting on how Western Christianity shaped my early worldview and how the discovery of the Orthodox Church revealed an entirely different way of understanding faith, thought, and spiritual life. As you'll hear, reframing an entire worldview and mindset does not happen overnight!

In this episode, you'll hear why Orthodoxy speaks so deeply to those seeking “something more” i.e. a fuller experience of Christ rather than a purely symbolic one. The discussion highlights the West’s long-standing reliance on human reason, logic, and systematic explanations, contrasted with the Orthodox emphasis on mystery, experience, sacrament, community, and the healing of the heart.

To put it another way: We can't possibly understand God in all His fullness, and we're perfectly okay with that!

Dr. Jeannie explains the ancient Greek concept of phronema. This goes beyond a mere “worldview.,” It is a mindset, disposition, and lived mentality that flows from the apostles and the early Church, unchanged for two millennia.

She also explains in detail how the Orthodox Church has maintained continuity with Christ’s original intent, what early Christian worship actually looked like, why tradition (and the dreaded ritual) matters, and how one begins to cultivate the mind of Christ through prayer, humility, sacramental life, and participation in the community.

Whether you’re new to Orthodoxy, curious about early Christianity, or simply wrestling with the limits of Western religious paradigms, this episode offers clarity, depth, and a pastoral invitation to encounter the reality of Christ via the fullness of His Church.

Episode highlights:

01:10 – James’s transition (not conversion) from Protestant/Western Christianity into Orthodoxy

07:10 – The unfulfilled Protestant mindset: salvation as a “destination” vs. lifelong journey

10:10 – Western fixation on explanation vs. Orthodox acceptance of mystery

13:10 – What phronema is—and isn’t

14:10 – How Christ Himself taught “the mind of God” through His deeds and teachings

17:10 – The West’s attempt to reconstruct early Christianity through reason

21:10 – The problem of individualism and denominational fragmentation

24:10 – The Church is the physical body of Christ, not some invisible abstraction

28:10 – The Eastern Church didn’t “break off” from Rome

30:10 – Bishops, councils, and why the early Church rejected papal monarchy

34:10 – The sincere desire to rediscover early Christianity

37:10 – How the apostles taught—and preserved—Christ’s actual teachings

41:10 – Early Christian worship: sacred, communal, experiential

46:10 – Oral tradition and why Scripture was never meant to stand alon

49:10 – Understanding the much-maligned Constantine’s role in Church history

51:10 – Why ritual is natural, ancient, and thoroughly Christian

53:10 – How to acquire phronema through lived participation within community

01:03:10 – How to connect with Dr. Jeannie and closing remarks

About the guest:

Dr. Jeannie Constantinou is a biblical scholar, author, speaker, and longtime teacher of the New Testament and early Church. With academic training in Orthodox theology, patristics, biblical interpretation, and law, she brings both scholarly rigor and pastoral clarity to questions of Scripture, tradition, and the Orthodox Christian mind. Her books include Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind, The Crucifixion of the King of Glory, and Guiding to a Blessed End. Through her writing, teaching, and podcast work, Dr. Constantinou helps Christians encounter the Bible not merely as a text to be analyzed, but as the living witness of the Church.

Resources mentioned:

Thinking Orthodox: Understanding and Acquiring the Orthodox Christian Mind by Jeannie Constantinou

Honest speech requires the freedom to be wrong. In this episode, I reflect on students afraid to speak, a mob moment from my trumpet podcast days, and the difference between correction and public shaming.

When decent people are afraid to speak, fools fill the silence.

I’m James Newcomb, and that’s what I meant to say.

I was recently asked by Deacon Stephen Wehr at my home parish (St. Mary’s Greek Orthodox Church in Minneapolis) for a personal conversation about, well, me.

Steve asked me about my upbringing, my military service, my musical endeavors, marriage, faith, and how I discovered and was drawn to Orthodox Christianity.

This is not some tidy conversion story, but a life shaped by vocation, risk, patience, and the slow recognition of home.

Igor Stravinsky once remarked, “The more constraints one imposes, the more one frees one’s self. And the arbitrariness of the constraint serves only to obtain precision of execution.”

Stravinsky was known as one who would “push the boundaries of tolerance” for the listener of music in his time, so it is somewhat surprising to hear him say something like that. But when you think about it, it makes sense. But only if freedom is understood as the absence of limits.

For Stravinsky, freedom did not mean having endless options at his disposal. Quite the contrary. Freedom was the capacity to act meaningfully within a defined field. Stravinsky was not merely offering a clever aphorism about creativity. He was describing a practical discipline of artistic work. The composer does not become more creative by standing before infinite possibility. He becomes more creative when he establishes — and sticks to — boundaries. Form, instrumentation, rhythmic structure, a tonal language. And then discovers what can be made within it.

The constraint sharpens the act of creation. It removes ambiguity, and forces decision.

This runs contrary to one of the modern fantasy about creativity, namely, that the creative person is most alive when he is most unrestricted. This idea is not without its romantic appeal. We imagine the writer, composer, entrepreneur, or performer as someone who breaks free from all forms and simply produces out of pure inward force.

But alas, that’s a mere fantasy; it is not aligned with reality.

Creativity does require a certain independence of mind, perhaps even a bit of rebellion against what is popular. But independence of mind is not the same thing as formlessness. An unlimited field produces not freedom, but paralysis. When everything is possible, nothing has priority. The blank page does not necessarily liberate the writer. More often, it exposes him to the burden of infinite choice.

This is why serious creative work nearly always begins with some kind of narrowing. A writer chooses a subject. A composer chooses an ensemble. A researcher chooses a question. A business chooses a niche market.

These initial decisions may feel restrictive, but they are actually essential to their success. Until the field is narrowed, the imagination has no object to engage. It can hover indefinitely in the realm of possibility, mistaking potential for progress.

The point is not that every limitation is good. Some constraints are suffocating. Others are imposed by cowardice, bureaucracy, financial necessity, fear of risk (or success), or pure laziness. There are limits that diminish the work because they arise from a refusal to confront the real demand of the task.

But here we’re speaking of a different kind of constraint. This constraint is not a cage. It is an instrument. The mind can stop wandering through abstractions and begin the real work with real potential.

Music makes this especially clear. A composer who chooses to write for solo trumpet is immediately confronted with limits: range, tone, dynamics, and the physical realities of the instrument. And as an active trumpeter myself, I will tell you there are plenty of composers who are not the least bit familiar with those limitations, often with hilarious results.

The same principle applies outside the arts. Academic writing, for example, depends heavily on constraint. The word-count maximum is more difficult to achieve than any minimum the professor may expect.

The dissertation is not improved by being “about” everything. Its strength lies in narrowing its object of inquiry.

A useful research question does not ask the writer to say something vaguely important about a large topic. It requires the writer to identify a specific problem, define terms, establish scope, choose a method, and submit the argument to evidence.

In that sense, scholarly work is disciplined creativity. The form does not weaken the thought. The form tests the thought.

This may explain why the most frustrating stage of any project is often not the work itself, but the period before the boundaries are clear. A vague project is exhausting because it requires constant renegotiation. What is this supposed to be? Who is it for? What belongs in it? What does not? What standard governs it?

Without answers to those questions, even the most talented artists, academics, musicians, etc. waste enormous energy circling the work rather than engaging with it.

Once the boundaries are set, however, a different kind of energy becomes available. The task is still difficult to be sure, but it is no longer ambiguous. It has real boundaries within which to work.

There is also a moral dimension to this. A life without boundaries is not necessarily a free life. It may simply be an undisciplined one. To commit to a vocation, a marriage, a tradition, a craft, a faith, or a serious body of work is to accept limits.

One cannot become excellent at everything. One cannot honor every possibility equally. One cannot build a coherent life while remaining indefinitely available to every competing impulse.

Choice always involves renunciation. To choose one path is to leave others untraveled. That loss is real, but it is also the condition of depth.

Modern culture often resists this because it tends to confuse openness with vitality. We are encouraged to keep options open, remain flexible, avoid labels, resist definition, and preserve the right to reinvent ourselves at any moment. There is a place for flexibility, but endless openness can become a subtle form of evasion.

If nothing is defined, nothing can be judged.

If nothing is committed to, nothing can fail. If nothing is finished, nothing has to bear the weight of public form.

The refusal of constraint protects the ego from criticism, but it also prevents the work from becoming real.

The boundary, then, should not be understood merely as a restriction. It is a site of incarnation. It is where the abstract becomes concrete. Before the boundary, there is only intention. After the boundary, there is material to work with.

The composer has notes. The writer has sentences. The scholar has evidence. The musician has breath, time, and sound. The craftsman has the dimensions of the object. The entrepreneur has a real audience rather than an imagined public.

In each case, the constraint gives the work a body.

This is the deeper wisdom in Stravinsky’s claim. Freedom is not found in the absence of form, but in mastery within form.