Miles - overrated?!?
el...@eli.zilker.net
I have been reading a thread that has been talking about
how overrated Miles is and also how overrated Kind of Blue is.
What's up with that? Miles was at the forefront of every musical
movement in jazz since be-bop. Even to the day he died, the man
epitomized the true jazz genius in every since of the word. How
anyone can dis Miles? How do we even have perspective on how many
players\poets\artists, etc. he influenced? A harmon muted trumpet is
almost synonymous with Miles Davis. Enough on that.
Concerning "Kind of Blue", 1959 is all I really have to say about that.
Who else (besides Bill Evans) was dealing with modalism and extended
harmonies at that time? I think what made this record so awesome was the
historical context in which it was released. Please tell me the recording
that I should check out prior to 1959 that is dealing with the same sounds
as KOB.
elias
Jeff Beer
aw let's face it. Miles' hard bop playing wasn't up to snuff, and if
your hard bop playing isn't up to snuff, then you aren't a great
jazz musician. :)
Jeff
Steve Robinson
On 29 Mar 1995, Jeff Beer wrote:
> aw let's face it. Miles' hard bop playing wasn't up to snuff, and if
> your hard bop playing isn't up to snuff, then you aren't are a great
> jazz musician. :)
>
> Jeff
>
>
Well, Jeff, it's true that Miles' hard bop playing wasn't up to snuff,
but that alone should not disqualify him from consideration as a great
jazz musician (even by someone like me who loves hard bop). Without
rehashing our lengthy prior discussions on
Miles, I'd just like to say, for the record, I think he WAS a great jazz
musician but not everything he did was great.
Are we still friends? :>
Steve
Todd Adamson
>Concerning "Kind of Blue", 1959 is all I really have to say about that.
>Who else (besides Bill Evans) was dealing with modalism and extended
>harmonies at that time? I think what made this record so awesome was the
>historical context in which it was released. Please tell me the recording
>that I should check out prior to 1959 that is dealing with the same sounds
>as KOB.
>
>elias
You might try Sun Ra's Jazz in Silhouette. It's just as revolutionary and was
recorded in 1958.
Todd
Girard D. Bowe
Guys, Miles' hard bop playing isn't "up to snuff?" Just listen to
"Miles Davis Volumes 1 & 2;" Miles does the peck-a-sec articulation
in best Clifford Brown fashion; he has great lines and ideas. What
he doesn't have is the hard-bop tone of Howard McGhee or Bill
Hardman. Miles was more than a Harmon-muted balladeer. Don't take
my word for it--go back and listen to CTA, Donna, Kelo, or Tempus
Fugit from Vols 1 & 2. Also listen to "Ascension to the Scaffold"
soundtrack, or "Milestones." Also, don't judge Miles' bop-ability by
his recordings with Charlie Parker; if those recordings were all we
had of Miles, nobody would know who he is today. I think Miles'
solos then are of mainly historical interest, and have little
intrinsic value. Let the flames begin!
ChuckL8899
Dissin' Miles is sacrilege
He may have had his flaws as a human being, but his musicianship and
status as an artist are beyond reproach.
cjl
R. Rex Denton
I used to play in a quintet, and try to play golf with a musician that
new the scene in New York during the "Birth of the Cool" phase that Miles gave
to the world. According to my friend who was/is extremely established Miles
realized there would be no
keeping up with the technical direction and "tour de Force" mindset that was
permeating the genre at this timepoint in Jazz history. Miles then, like Miles
always has done, created a genre that, I would say offered a new direction
to Jazz that was not as confining to his technical "limitations" (although
there are a few examples on some burnin' Miles BeBop) and superbly
showcased his soulful artistic side. The birth of Cool was
a beautiful example of what Miles was all about- namely moving Jazz to new
directions. He continued to do this the rest of his life, and when he had
nothing new to contribute, he would simply stay silent. It seems to me to
be around this time (the birth of the Cool) that the rest of "the Band"
(Trane, Cannonball, PC, Wynton Kelley)did the "live in Chicago" record.
Anyone else
have any thoughts?
Rex
Bop Cop
>
>A harmon muted trumpet is
>almost synonymous with Miles Davis.
That's very true. You can say a lot about Miles, but overrated is certainly
debatable.
Glyphix
>Also, don't judge Miles' bop-ability by
>his recordings with Charlie Parker; if those recordings were all we
>had of Miles, nobody would know who he is today.
How come every bopper I know can hum Miles' solo to "Now's the Time?"
I agree with everything else on his post. Miles always seemed to play with
more aggressive intent whenever he had no foil on saxophone that could
carry the load (Sorry, Hank Mobley). One exception was "Milestones," an
album that seems to have been conceived as a summing up for Miles and his
music. What was so wrong with Miles' technique on his solos and in the
ensemble work on that album?
I wouldn't characterize those who think Miles is *overrated* as Miles
bashers but I have to wonder what they are hearing that I can't hear.
Sure, I heard his flubs on many of his albums but I attribute it to
(failed) attempts to create a certain sound and attack that is not native
to traditional brass playing. To attempt is more important to fail to
attempt and, lets face it , he succeeded more often than he failed.
Bright Moments;
George Bailey
Marc Sabatella
> I have been reading a thread that has been talking about
> how overrated Miles is and also how overrated Kind of Blue is.
> ...
> How anyone can dis Miles?
You apparently missed the beginning of that thread. No one was claiming he
wasn't great, or indeed one of the greatest ever. Just that he does tend to be
*over*idolized, even considering his greatness. And your reaction to the
merest suggestion that he might be overrated is one possible example of this.
> Concerning "Kind of Blue", 1959 is all I really have to say about that.
Once again, no one has argued it wasn't historically important. But it is not
on my top 10 list of favorite jazz albums to listen to in 1995. It might have
been in 1959 were I around then.
--
Marc Sabatella
--
ma...@fc.hp.com
http://www.fortnet.org/~marc/
--
All opinions expressed herein are my personal ones
and do not necessarily reflect those of HP or anyone else.
Frank Lepkowski
: I'm with you there, Elias.
: Dissin' Miles is sacrilege
: He may have had his flaws as a human being, but his musicianship and
: status as an artist are beyond reproach.
This it seems to me is an excellent example of the attitude among fans
and critics that leads me to believe that Miles is overrated, in the
sense of attracting hyperbolic praise inimical to objective discussion.
Any questioning of his exalted status is "sacrilege?" Nothing could make
clearer the expectation that with Miles, folks are supposed to genuflect
at the shrine, and utter the prescribed alleluias. I think a lot of what
Miles did was great. I have probably 100 of his recordings in different
forms, some of which really send me. BUt if I'm going to worship at a
shrine, it will be that of St. Duke, or St. Count. Miles is not in their
class.
Frank Lepkowski
Oakland University
Girard D. Bowe
George B--I think Eddie Jefferson probably had a lot to do with
helping to make that solo familiar. What say ye?
Girard B
Marc Sabatella
> Guys, Miles' hard bop playing isn't "up to snuff?"
Now see what you've started, Jeff? :-)
(You *were* kidding, weren't you?):
Glyphix
Yep. That and maybe the Red Garland quote in "Straight No Chaser" on the
legendary "Milestones" album. Jefferson and Garland must have heard
something, n'es pas?
Bright Moments;
George Bailey
Jeff Beer
Marc Sabatella <ma...@sde.hp.com> wrote:
>Girard D. Bowe wrote:
>
>> Guys, Miles' hard bop playing isn't "up to snuff?"
>
>Now see what you've started, Jeff? :-)
>
>(You *were* kidding, weren't you?):
Sure. It is somewhat true though, for instance, if the music is hard
bop, there probably are better trumpet players in that sub-genre than
Miles. However, unlike those trumpet players, Miles' art was too big to
fit into the confines of hard bop, in fact, too big to fit into the
confines of jazz.
So while I was talking about nobody in particular ( did you think I was
talking about you Steve? I'm sorry to give you that impression ! ! :)
:) I was gently chiding the "hard bop is everything" school.
Jeff
Marc Sabatella
> I wouldn't characterize those who think Miles is *overrated* as Miles
> bashers but I have to wonder what they are hearing that I can't hear.
Lest I be written off as a Miles basher by anyone else, let me repeat ONE MORE
TIME that I think Miles is a great musician, the single most important figure
in jazz over the last half century, and when I agreed that he was in some sense
"overrated", it was in the respect meant when the comment was originally posted
- that some of Miles' fans feel that calling him the "single most important
figure in jazz" is not enough. That is, calling him "overrated" is not saying
"he is not good", but rather saying "some of his fans are overzealous".
Does no one understand this, or am I doomed to be misrepresented on this
forever?
Lindel Holden
|> el...@eli.zilker.net wrote:
|>
|> You apparently missed the beginning of that thread. No one was claiming he
|> wasn't great, or indeed one of the greatest ever. Just that he does tend to be
|> *over*idolized, even considering his greatness. And your reaction to the
|> merest suggestion that he might be overrated is one possible example of this.
|>
I tried to start a thread about why Miles started playing fusion on the miles davis listserver,
and was beat up. Anyway is seemed to me that miles` motivation for fusion was that he wanted to stay
young and hip. From reading his autobiography and an biography it can be seen that he was receiving accolades
at a young age and when jazz was hip with a young intellectual following. In the 60's jazz lost it`s audience
to rock and guitar players like hendrix. Miles started playing wah wah and electronic stuff to compete with the rock
acts at the time. Not to say that miles hasn't made significant contributions, he definitely could
be considered great on only a few of his accomplishments and contributions to cool, bebop, modal.
I think he didn't understand Ornette or later Coltrane, I think they made more contributions to jazz in the mid and
late sixties then miles did. Miles went into fusion for popularity with rock grounds and because he
could handle free jazz.
--
Disclaimer:
This message was created by me. The content does not
reflect the opinions of my employer. If anyone takes offense
at the content of this message contact me directly via e-mail at
lho...@ccmail.nswc.navy.mil.
lindel holden
l24t
nswc
dahlgren, va. 22448
(703) 663-7909
Jeff Volkman
On 3 Apr 1995, Marc Sabatella wrote:
> Glyphix wrote:
>
> > I wouldn't characterize those who think Miles is *overrated* as Miles
> > bashers but I have to wonder what they are hearing that I can't hear.
>
> Lest I be written off as a Miles basher by anyone else, let me repeat ONE MORE
> TIME that I think Miles is a great musician, the single most important figure
> in jazz over the last half century, and when I agreed that he was in some sense
> "overrated", it was in the respect meant when the comment was originally posted
> - that some of Miles' fans feel that calling him the "single most important
> figure in jazz" is not enough. That is, calling him "overrated" is not saying
> "he is not good", but rather saying "some of his fans are overzealous".
>
> Does no one understand this, or am I doomed to be misrepresented on this
> forever?
>
Marc, why do you hate Miles so much? What did he ever do to you?
--Jeff
Bob Comarow
20th century. He led to new movements, first the cool movement.
A whole new style emerged. Then, Bitches Brew led another new
movement.
When someone had a worldwide impact on music, how can he be
over rated?
arm...@delphi.com
trumpet players......what do you think they would say......those who truly
know how difficult good playing truly is???????
Suzi
Rex Denton) wrote:
> In <Pine.PTX.3.91a.95032...@carson.u.washington.edu>
Steve writes:
>
> >
> >
> > On 29 Mar 1995, Jeff Beer wrote:
> >
> > > aw let's face it. Miles' hard bop playing wasn't up to snuff, and if
> > > your hard bop playing isn't up to snuff, then you aren't are a great
> > > jazz musician. :)
> > >
> > > Jeff
> > >
> > >
> > Well, Jeff, it's true that Miles' hard bop playing wasn't up to snuff,
> > but that alone should not disqualify him from consideration as a great
> > jazz musician (even by someone like me who loves hard bop). Without
> > rehashing our lengthy prior discussions on
> > Miles, I'd just like to say, for the record, I think he WAS a great jazz
> > musician but not everything he did was great.
> >
> Anyone else
> have any thoughts?
> Rex
Why concede to the comment on Miles' hard bop playing? Keep in mind that
he was playing with Bird & Diz when he was only 19 years old....they
didn't kick him off the bandstand....why should fans do so with blurred
hindsight? Chops are chops. I don't believe Miles' change in musical
direction was due to a lack of technical ability. He will always be the
best in my book.
(forgive me if this has already been addressed...I.m new to this group :)
...Suzi
--
"Which is it, is man one of God's blunders, or is God one of man's?"
Friedrich Nietzsche
"Nietzsche was stupid and abnormal."
Leo Tolstoy
PawprintBk
Perry Alan Werner
***********************************************************
PAWPRINT BOOKS
PERRY ALAN WERNER
259 CONTINENTAL AVENUE
RIVER EDGE, NEW JERSEY 07661
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
201/967-7306
Specialists in fine photographic literature. We are always interested in
your quotes and wants of books of any nature dealing with photography.
Please contact us at any time.
***********************************************************
Lindel Holden
|> In article <1995Apr3.1...@relay.nswc.navy.mil>,
|> Lindel Holden <lho...@l10server.nswc.navy.mil> wrote:
|> > I tried to start a thread about why Miles started playing fusion on the miles davis listserver,
|> >and was beat up. Anyway is seemed to me that miles` motivation for fusion
|> >was that he wanted to stay
|> >young and hip.
|>
|>
|> >I think he didn't understand Ornette or later Coltrane, I think they
|> >made more contributions to jazz in the mid and
|> >late sixties then miles did. Miles went into fusion for popularity with
|> > rock grounds and because he
|> >could handle free jazz.
|>
|> said about things being played three or four ways, independently of each
|> other, were true because Bach had also composed that way. And it could be
|> real funky and down" --Miles Davis
|> That's a Miles quote from the Miles on the Corner liner notes, which seems
|> to be origionally taken from this autobio.
|> Do you think Art Blakey or Dizzy made the music they did because they
|> couldn't handle free jazz? Perhaps these people just happend to like the
|> music they were making?
|> To some extent i think you are right in saying that Miles went into
|> fusion to say yong and hip, but i think there is another important
|> motivation --- he liked the music.
|> -sekhar
There are also some highly negative comments Miles made about Ornette in his autobiography
which I don't here. Specifically I recall he pinged on Coleman for playing the trumpet and violin
without having formal technical training on either. Sure subjective motivations are a large part
of why musicians do things at times. The point I was making was that Bitches Brew and fusion may no be
the result of greatness but merely an older artist trying to reach a younger crowd.
Frank Lepkowski
: I tried to start a thread about why Miles started playing fusion on
the miles davis listserver, : and was beat up. Anyway is seemed to me
that miles` motivation for fusion was that he wanted to stay : young and
hip. From reading his autobiography and an biography it can be seen that
he was receiving accolades : at a young age and when jazz was hip with a
young intellectual following. In the 60's jazz lost it`s audience : to
rock and guitar players like hendrix. Miles started playing wah wah and
electronic stuff to compete with the rock : acts at the time. Not to say
that miles hasn't made significant contributions, he definitely could : be
considered great on only a few of his accomplishments and contributions to
cool, bebop, modal.
I say:
This is my sense, too, of the thrust of Miles' later career. His ego
needed a larger stage on which to be cool than the less popular
subculture of jazz. One of the saddest things about his autobiography
and his later career, is that imperative to stay young and hip. He aged
very poorly.
Frank Lepkowski
Oakland University
Steve Robinson
That's easy: what if you don't like the impact?
Steve
Steve Robinson
On 5 Apr 1995, Jeff Beer wrote:
> Pardon me while I indulge in axiomatic thinking, but I think what it boils
> down to is that if you _dig_ his later music, you think he
> he is great. If you don't _dig_ his later music, then you don't think
> he is great.
>
> Jeff
>
>
I think you have cut directly to the chase here, Jeff. I agree with this
idea completely.
Steve
jacob...@msdisk.wustl.edu
arm...@delphi.com writes:
They would be the best judges of technical merit, but you are just as
good a judge of style and content as I am. It depends on whether you
are talking about him being overrated for technical skill or general
performance. So far the thread has focused on the latter.
I would argue that technical competence is only the means to the end.
You could argue that Ornette didn't play his instrument properly, but
that does not impair my appreciation of what he had to say _at all_.
-Nils
Michael Armstrong
lho...@l10server.nswc.navy.mil wrote:
> The point I was making was that Bitches Brew and fusion may no be
> the result of greatness but merely an older artist trying to reach a
younger crowd.
Not meant as a flame, but I don't care what Miles' motivations were for
making Bitches Brew. To me, it is great.
Girard D. Bowe
Steve, you're making a big mistake if you base your judgment of
Miles' bop-ability strictly on the basis of his recordings with
Charlie Parker. You may have missed an earlier post where I stated
that if all we had to go on was Miles' recordings with Bird, nobody
would know who he was--George Bailey had a good argument against this
statement, though. Anyhow, we DO have more than that to go on, and
since you're not a Miles fan, you might be unaware of other bop
recordings by him.
I'm not trying to tell you to worship at Miles' mouthpiece, I'm just
saying if you express an opinion, it should be an informed opinion.
Listen to the Blue Note Volume One and Volume Two under Miles' name,
then tell me what you think--we'll then have a basis for discussion.
Girard
Marc Sabatella
> > When someone had a worldwide impact on music, how can he be
> > over rated?
> That's easy: what if you don't like the impact?
Or, if someone says that this impact makes him, and I quote, "god".
Chandrasekhar Ramakrishnan
Marc Sabatella <ma...@sde.hp.com> wrote:
[someone wrote]
>> > When someone had a worldwide impact on music, how can he be
>> > over rated?
>Or, if someone says that this impact makes him, and I quote, "god".
By these same standards, are Bird and Ellington overrated?
-sekhar
jacob...@msdisk.wustl.edu
:In the 60's jazz lost it`s audience to rock and guitar players like
:hendrix. Miles started playing wah wah and electronic stuff to compete
:with the rock acts at the time. Not to say that miles hasn't made
:significant contributions, he definitely could be considered great on
:only a few of his accomplishments and contributions to cool, bebop,
:modal.
lepk...@saturn.acs.oakland.edu (Frank Lepkowski) wrote:
>This is my sense, too, of the thrust of Miles' later career. His ego
>needed a larger stage on which to be cool than the less popular
>subculture of jazz. One of the saddest things about his autobiography
>and his later career, is that imperative to stay young and hip. He aged
>very poorly.
I could not disagree more with both posts about Miles' later period.
There are several issues at play here:
1) the personal (subjective) opinion of the listener to the electric
stuff Miles did
2) the sociocultural motivation of Miles to play electric music; and
3) the artistic drive which forced him to leave the well-trodden path
which all come together to generate the average listener's critical
review. I think part (1) is interfering with your objective assesment
of Miles the artist. You are perfectly justified in disliking whatever
sounds bad to you, but do not objectify it in terms of the personal
life of Miles Davis.
Certainly Miles felt the need to be hip to the younger generation, but
this did not interfere (in my judgement) with the critical attention
he focused on his own work. He felt just as strongly about the later
work as he did the earlier, and the music was equally interesting (MHO).
Perhaps Miles drove so many people away because he broke the mold they
had grown to accept. He changed and they were unwilling to change with
him. Certainly their choice, but in all fairness it is pretty closed-
minded to dismiss the electric music for that reason alone, as I think
most people do.
I got exactly the opposite impression that F.L. did from the autobiography.
While many people found Miles pathetic in his old age, I think they did
not understand his vision. Art, a'la Miles, is constituted by change.
If you do not evolve, you cease to make art. I entirely respect this
viewpoint. As he grew older, he refused to be set in his ways. If this
constitutes aging poorly, then my greatest hope is to age horribly.
Basically it boils down to people not liking the electric music because
it was so iconoclastic, and then justifying their decision based on all
kinds of unrelated data from Miles' life. As far as I can tell.
That's what I think.
-Nils
Marc Ettlinger
>On Tue, 4 Apr 1995, Bob Comarow wrote:
>> Miles was clearly one of the most influential musicians of the
>> 20th century. He led to new movements, first the cool movement.
>> A whole new style emerged. Then, Bitches Brew led another new
>> movement.
>>
>> When someone had a worldwide impact on music, how can he be
>> over rated?
>That's easy: what if you don't like the impact?
> Steve
Then that would not be very open-minded of you to at least accept its
importantce. I don't like socialism, but i am not going to deny the importance and therefore "greatness" of Marx.
--
Marc Ettlinger |
ettl...@birdland.dorm.rutgers.edu |
Frank Lepkowski
: In article <3m85s5$4...@tadpole.fc.hp.com>,: >> > When someone had a worldwide impact on music, how can he be
: >> > over rated?
: >Or, if someone says that this impact makes him, and I quote, "god".
: By these same standards, are Bird and Ellington overrated?
Quite probably. Hyperbole is pretty much the standard coin of the realm
when it comes to most jazz writing. Both Bird and Ellington have
occasioned much uncritical praise. But I would say, between the two there
is a great difference, in that a strange cult of personality grew up
around Bird, where his drug addiction, breakdowns, bizarre antics and such
became as saints' relics, to be prized, venerated, and all too often
imitated; in this, St. Bird is an excellent parallel to his protege, St.
Miles. The formation of a cult of personality for both of them adds a
whole new layer of overratedness to the discourse. On the other hand,
Ellington simply had a long and outstandingly productive career, and lived
a more or less respectable life without flamboyant depravity. Which makes
him a tad less celebrated as a person than Bird and Miles are, as examples
of the "jazz life."
Frank Lepkowski
Oakland University
Frank Lepkowski
: You are perfectly justified in disliking whatever
: sounds bad to you, but do not objectify it in terms of the personal
: life of Miles Davis.
: Certainly Miles felt the need to be hip to the younger generation, but
: this did not interfere (in my judgement) with the critical attention
: he focused on his own work. He felt just as strongly about the later
: work as he did the earlier, and the music was equally interesting (MHO).
It seems to me that you are liking what sounds good to you, and
objectifying it in terms of the personal life of Miles Davis.
: Perhaps Miles drove so many people away because he broke the mold they
: had grown to accept. He changed and they were unwilling to change with
: him. Certainly their choice, but in all fairness it is pretty closed-
: minded to dismiss the electric music for that reason alone, as I think
: most people do.
Miles hardly drove people away when he went electric. In fact he
attracted a greater audience than he ever had before and truly reached
the acme of his fame and influence. I think it not close-minded to trust
your ears. I and I'm sure many listeners who came to jazz from rock
music encountered early on the gospel of the great Works of Miles, and I
thought it was true. After awhile, the evidence of my ears told me that
the fellow who made the records from Birth of the Cool through Filles de
Kilimanjaro said a lot more to me than the funkster with the wah wah
pedal. The fact is, I reached my conclusions, such as they are, from
living with his music for awhile, and then realizing which parts of it
really sent me, and which gave me a headache. Thus my sense of beauty
makes its choices, but it is not from lack of encounter with the
electrick dreck.
: I got exactly the opposite impression that F.L. did from the autobiography.
: While many people found Miles pathetic in his old age, I think they did
: not understand his vision. Art, a'la Miles, is constituted by change.
: If you do not evolve, you cease to make art.
This line is a central part of the Way of St. Miles. Change is all, and
the direction of the change is essentially irrelevant, as is the quality
of the product. To me the beauty in the product is the important thing,
and it is decidedly lacking in his electric works, IMO. Moreover, to me,
Miles (in his book) seems pathetic, not because of his theory of art, but
because he shows himself to be vain and superficial and he delights in
regaling us with stories of personally despicable acts, because he wants
us to know how BADDDD he is. This kind of streetcorner bragging, and the
perverse ego it implies are what I find pathetic in a man in his sixties.
Isn't there something at least a little bit repellent about how proud he
is of spending 6 years of "retirement" doing drugs and kinky sex, and that
he was really proud of cheating on his wife within a week of their
marriage, because the artist is beyond good and evil? Pathetic may be
too kind a word for this. IMO.
Frank Lepkowski
Oakland University
el...@eli.zilker.net
In article <3mbea4$s...@oak.oakland.edu>, <lepk...@saturn.acs.oakland.edu>
writes:
> : By these same standards, are Bird and Ellington overrated?
>
> Quite probably. Hyperbole is pretty much the standard coin of the realm
> when it comes to most jazz writing. Both Bird and Ellington have
> occasioned much uncritical praise. But I would say, between the two there
> is a great difference, in that a strange cult of personality grew up
> around Bird, where his drug addiction, breakdowns, bizarre antics and such
> became as saints' relics, to be prized, venerated, and all too often
> imitated; in this, St. Bird is an excellent parallel to his protege, St.
> Miles. The formation of a cult of personality for both of them adds a
> whole new layer of overratedness to the discourse. On the other hand,
> Ellington simply had a long and outstandingly productive career, and lived
> a more or less respectable life without flamboyant depravity. Which makes
> him a tad less celebrated as a person than Bird and Miles are, as examples
> of the "jazz life."
>
>
> Frank Lepkowski
> Oakland University
>
>
to do with how the laymen view the "jazz life" but any serious
scholar knows the impact of Bird and Miles goes far beyond any
romantic affair with the mystical jazz world of drugs, etc.
Regarding Ellington leading a respectable life without flamboyant
depravity, read some books on the man. You might be surprised.
Josh Montero
If Miles Davis was so overrated, how come Herbie Hancock (with Shorter, Roney,
etc.) made a tribute album last year? I mean, Herbie is supposedly so much
better than Miles ever was, why aren't they making tribute to Herbie records?
Miles Davis was a pioneer. He played in every style, and with the grace
and ability of anyone else. Miles Davis was on of the greatest and most
influential jazz composers ever... Ask Joe Henderson. Ask JJ Johnson. Need
I go on?
--
Lindel Holden
If someone started a thread discussing whether John Coltrane is overrated It wouldn't bother
big even though I am a big Coltrane fan. As someone else noted many miles davis fans
seem to be unable to handle the question being raised. Oh Well. I found some of the
discussion interesting. But the miles overrated thread has become about as interesting as the NEA quagmire.
lindel
--
Eric Nielsen
l> To me the beauty in the product is the important thing, and it is
decidedly
l> lacking in his electric works, IMO.
I find "SHHH" on In A Silent Way one of the most beautiful things Miles has
played.
l> Miles (in his book) seems pathetic, not because of his theory of art, but
l> because he shows himself to be vain and superficial and he delights in
l> regaling us with stories of personally despicable acts, because he wants
l> us to know how BADDDD he is. This kind of streetcorner bragging, and the
l> perverse ego it implies are what I find pathetic in a man in his sixties.
l> Isn't there something at least a little bit repellent about how proud he
l> is of spending 6 years of "retirement" doing drugs and kinky sex, and that
l> he was really proud of cheating on his wife within a week of their
l> marriage, because the artist is beyond good and evil? Pathetic may be
l> too kind a word for this. IMO.
Are we rating Miles as a personality or a musician? Let's stick to the music
- otherwise we would say Bird is overrated (which he certainly is not).
Eric
--
|Fidonet: Eric Nielsen 1:259/2
|Internet: e...@gryn.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Marc Sabatella
This is getting ridiculous. Will everyone who posts an objection to the "Miles
is overrated" claim PLEASE read the previous posts on the matter first, to
understand what the original claim was talking about? It is very clear from
the nature of the objections that most people have not bothered to do so, and
as a result are posting objections that have absolutely nothing to do with the
original claim.
jacob...@msdisk.wustl.edu
>If Miles Davis was so overrated, how come Herbie Hancock (with Shorter,
>Roney, etc.) made a tribute album last year? I mean, Herbie is supposedly
>so much better than Miles ever was, why aren't they making tribute to
>Herbie records?
Cuz Herbie hasn't died yet.
I think most people are debating specifically whether Miles deserves credit
for the electric work he did in the post-Bitches Brew period, whether that
period was as important, artistic, and influential as the critics claim.
Maybe we can move on to a new topic.
-Nils
Rolf Hanson
|> bi...@freenet.buffalo.edu (Josh Montero) wrote:
|>
|> >If Miles Davis was so overrated, how come Herbie Hancock (with Shorter,
|> >Roney, etc.) made a tribute album last year? I mean, Herbie is supposedly
|> >so much better than Miles ever was, why aren't they making tribute to
|> >Herbie records?
|>
|> Cuz Herbie hasn't died yet.
I think this is a good reason to HAVE a "tribute to Herbie" concert, ala the Ron
Carter tribute, to honor someone while they are still around to appreciate it.
After countless TV miniseries and pap novels about "some guy who felt bad
because he never got a chance to tell daddy he loved him" you would think that
society would wise up and have more pre-mortem tributes. Ahh, but alas, we are
not ones to learn anything from those who came before us. (even if "those who
came before us" were really just the cast of "family ties.")
Also: this Miles thread has been going nowhere for quite some time now.
Rolf
Thomas F Brown
>This line is a central part of the Way of St. Miles. Change is all, and
>the direction of the change is essentially irrelevant, as is the quality
>of the product. To me the beauty in the product is the important thing,
>and it is decidedly lacking in his electric works, IMO. Moreover, to me,
>Miles (in his book) seems pathetic, not because of his theory of art, but
>because he shows himself to be vain and superficial and he delights in
>regaling us with stories of personally despicable acts, because he wants
>us to know how BADDDD he is. This kind of streetcorner bragging, and the
>perverse ego it implies are what I find pathetic in a man in his sixties.
>Isn't there something at least a little bit repellent about how proud he
>is of spending 6 years of "retirement" doing drugs and kinky sex, and that
>he was really proud of cheating on his wife within a week of their
>marriage, because the artist is beyond good and evil? Pathetic may be
>too kind a word for this. IMO.
Could it be that his endless search for new musical settings in his
later life is connected with his apparent inability to mature as
an individual? Most musicians eventually learn what it is they
do well, and enjoy doing well, and then that's what they do.
It seems to be a normal part of the maturation process--how many
other musicians can you think of, besides Miles, that never settled
into a stylistic groove? Just as Miles never matured in his personal
life, he never matured in his artistic life.
I rather admire that sort of artistic adventurousness, although
I too am disturbed by the hedonism and unkindness that marked
his later years when he should have known better.
jacob...@msdisk.wustl.edu
> Miles was also a side man for Charlie Parker in the late 40s.
Really, you don't say.
>Miles Davis definitely did a great deal for the music. But did
>anyone else notice how he almost always takes just one too many
>choruses?
Not me. Could you give an example?
-Nils
Larry Lewicki
<:>TO: lepk...@saturn.acs.oakland.edu
<:>
<:> l> To me the beauty in the product is the important thing, and it is
<:>decidedly
<:> l> lacking in his electric works, IMO.
<:>
<:>I find "SHHH" on In A Silent Way one of the most beautiful things Miles has
<:>played.
I agree with this and also really like the song Sanctuary on Bitches Brew.
I listened to that many times late at night in the lab while debugging
a part....
---
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
*Larry Lewicki | National Semiconductor |Opinions are mine and in *NO* |
*l...@galaxy.nsc.com | Santa Clara, CA |way represent National Semi. |
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
jacob...@msdisk.wustl.edu
>Could it be that his endless search for new musical settings in his
>later life is connected with his apparent inability to mature as
>an individual? Most musicians eventually learn what it is they
>do well, and enjoy doing well, and then that's what they do.
>
>It seems to be a normal part of the maturation process--how many
>other musicians can you think of, besides Miles, that never settled
>into a stylistic groove? Just as Miles never matured in his personal
>life, he never matured in his artistic life.
>
>I rather admire that sort of artistic adventurousness, although
>I too am disturbed by the hedonism and unkindness that marked
>his later years when he should have known better.
Someone else posted something about Miles to the effect that he should
be judged by the musical work he did before being judged by anything else.
I completely agree. The rest (ie his personal life) is a matter of
curiosity and correlation and nothing else.
I think your concept of maturity is terribly simpleminded and naive.
Maturity is not exactly something one can easily define, I admit, but
it is something that has to do with understanding things a little better
and not needing to make mistakes to figure certain things out. In the
first paragraph, you claim that because Miles did not settle down he was
not mature. This is completely wrong (MHO). Settling down, in fact,
represents quiescence, complacence, and loss of artistic drive. Those
folks who got into a groove and kept doing the same thing over and over
again are simply "dead," artistically. They have ceased to produce
stylistically original and creative work. I won't name names here cuz
it will inflame too many afficianados, but you get the idea I think.
I can think of LOTS of artists who never settled down into a stylistic
groove (and "died" artistically). In fact, anyone I truly respect as
an artist (and remember here that personality is irrelevant) has the
attribute of continuing to progress without holding to one form. Picasso?
Max Roach? I will stop, cuz you can think of these yourself.
The people who complain about his hedonism and unkindness are carrying on
a conversation which is irrelevant to the art he did except as it affected
the musicians around him. He may have been an asshole at times, but that
really has nothing to do with his work as an artist. On the personal level
I have nothing wrong with hedonism (can you explain why this is wrong
without resorting to puritanist Christian values?) and unkindness is a
relative phenomenon.
Not to justify Miles or to claim that everything he did artistically and
personally was right,
(of course!)
-Nils