who's the most overrated jazz artist
Rick T. Benjamin
kenny g
Tom Brown
ADAM BENJAMIN SCHNEIT
: I nominate Jackie McLean, Frank Morgan, and Chick Corea. Please be gentle.
I agree entirely that Frank Morgan is way overrated. Some of the stuff he
plays just sounds silly to me, and definetely not original. I agree partially
about Jackie McLean. I think his Blue Notes are really overrated. I was told
that "Let Freedom Ring" was some sort of landmark album. The music, aside
from some interesting compositional techniques and the swinging rhythm section,
didn't really impress me. Jackie's solos, far from a "departure", sounded to
me like a combination of standard bebop and modal licks and what sounded like
Jackie biting the reed to hit high notes. How did this pass as "new",
"adventurous" music? On the other hand, I am impressed with some of the music
he's playing today. It's nothing particularly new, but he has a passion in his
sound these days you just can't ignore. It's relentless music. But I think,
on the whole, he's been overrated. I can't agree with you on Chick Corea,
though. To my ears, Chick is a genius, one of the piano "originals" in jazz
history. If you don't believe it, check out "Now he Sings, Now he Sobs." He
uses contemporary harmonic and melodic devices to create astoundingly
original lines and solos. The critics have dealt harshly with his recent
albums, which are admittedly not as good. But "Now he Sings.." seems to me
to be one of the definitive trio albums, and his solo and trio stuff in the
early 70's (Dave Holland, Barry Atschul) is also great. I think you are
absolutely right about Jackie McLean and Frank Morgan, though. Was that gentle
enough?
Straight Ahead
>I nominate Jackie McLean, Frank Morgan, and Chick Corea. Please be gentle.
>
considered a musical genius by many of his peers. Which of his works have you
been exposed to? His RTF period? His early recordings (ie. Inner Space)?
Peace.
Idris
Helge Gundersen
(ADAM BENJAMIN SCHNEIT) wrote:
> Tom Brown (tbr...@jhunix.hcf.jhu.edu) wrote:
> : I nominate Jackie McLean, Frank Morgan, and Chick Corea. Please be gentle.
> [...] I agree partially
> about Jackie McLean. I think his Blue Notes are really overrated. I was told
> that "Let Freedom Ring" was some sort of landmark album. The music, aside
> from some interesting compositional techniques and the swinging rhythm
section,
> didn't really impress me. Jackie's solos, far from a "departure", sounded to
> me like a combination of standard bebop and modal licks and what sounded like
> Jackie biting the reed to hit high notes. How did this pass as "new",
> "adventurous" music? On the other hand, I am impressed with some of the music
> he's playing today. It's nothing particularly new, but he has a passion in his
> sound these days you just can't ignore. It's relentless music. But I think,
> on the whole, he's been overrated. [...] I think you are
> absolutely right about Jackie McLean and Frank Morgan, though. [..]
Jackie McLean isn't overrated, IMO. *Maybe* some of his adventurous Blue
Notes is overrated by some people ("New and old [old and new?] gospel"
never really takes off), but have you heard his more straight ahead Blue
Notes like e.g. "Consequence" from 1965? And McLean is a very individual,
easily recognizeable player (even if that can be said about David Sanborn,
too...).
------------------
Helge Gundersen (Oslo, Norway)
helge.g...@inl.uio.no
Machine: Macintosh. Newsreader: NewsWatcher
Ed Bride
Of course, he's a great finger acrobat, but a melodic idiot. He's a great
improvisor, but that does'n necessarily make him a Jazz musician. Maybe
nobody else nominated him because nobody else considers him a Jazz
musician; actually, I'm in that category.
MDHolland
overrated JAZZ artist. I'd nominate the entire genre of New-Age
flotation-tank music, which opens the list to just about everyone on GRP
these days.
"Smooth Jazz" is like tofu. Fills up the space, but rarely garners
praising over its texture.
Mark D. Holland
Audio Wizards
3104 San Lucas
Dallas, TX 75228
(214) 270-1700
Kenz William
ron santen/sarah livingstone
a run - then there is Les McCann - and what about Stan Kenton -
the real problem is that when you try to nominate the worst or most
overrated jazz artist - they inevitably didn't really play jazz - just
bad music that they called jazz.
David Rhoades
--
d...@ix.netcom.com
David G Rhoades
(415)665-9082
I live in San Francisco because
of the weather not inspite of it.
rdou...@hoasys.isd1.tafensw.edu.au
No, the real problem is that for many people overrated = popular = bad.
Benson, Brubeck and others, arguably, limited the scope of their playing to
something well within their true capabilities to achieve a broad popular appeal.
I'm not sure this makes them overrated. Perhaps the opposite in a sense, in
that their true talents (maybe) are not recognised by the more discerning jazz
enthusiasts. (How can a guy in a white tuxedo be playing good jazz?)
I'm afraid this touches on the old "selling out" argument again: are we
entitled to expect musicians to be constantly walking a tightrope and
pushing forward the boundaries of their music. (Nice mixed metaphor!)
I guess some people would say the overrated artists are the ones who play all
that way-out weird stuff to conceal their lack of talent.
Roger
=====
Leo Scanlon
: >It has to be Dave Brubeck -but I think George Benson gives him
Ah, *excuse* me? How much Brubeck have you listened to? His quartet's
albums of the 50s and 60s are considered classics, mainly due to the
presence of the great Paul Desmond. For starters, listen to "Jazz
Goes to College," which features superb solos from Desmond and some
sublime interplay between him and Brubeck. They "inevitably didn't play
real jazz," huh? You could have fooled me!
Leo Scanlon
Jim Kuemmerle
Cecil Taylor.
Not because he's bad or anything like that,
I just have trouble considering it as jazz
rather than classical music a la Stockhausen et al
Jim "Oscar Peterson has eleven hands with eight fingers each" Kuemmerle
jkue...@weird.biol.trinity.edu
Glyphix
list. When he joined the Paul Desmond Quartet, it was Brubeck's dynamism
va. Desmond's laid back personality that elevated him as the leader. As I
understand it, the group became the Dave Brubeck Quartet because Dave was
a better showman and businessman.
While growing up listening to the Dave Brubeck Quartet ("Jazz Goes to
College," "..to Junior College," "Time Out," etc.), I found my interest
drawn exclusively to Desmond's solos and noticed that I was irritated by
Brubeck's bombast. I formed the opinion then, as a young teenager that
Brubeck couldn't find the swing in a child's playground.
Dave was a damn good composer, though. "The Duke" is a jazz classic by any
measure.
Bright Moments;
George Bailey
The Sax-Man
> Kenny Grolnick played some pretty nice stuff when he was with Jeff
Lorber. I think his best stuff is on the tenor. I really don't like his
soprano sound at all. Way too "nasal". I will admit honestly, I don't
like much of his "pop" work. It is very evident that he has created a
formula over the past few years, meaning, he keeps his playing simple to
appeal to the masses. Hence, the huge success of a tune like "Songbird"
and its clone "Silhouette". The level he's attained is BIG BUSINESS, and
I would bank on it that producers pressure him to craft things a certain
way. It would be nice to hear Kenny do something challenging, like maybe
an album of standards or something to show what he's made of. But as it
stands now, I have no reason to feel like I couldn't walk onto his stage
anytime and pop these myths about him like a balloon. And one day I hope
to get the chance.
John LaTemple
Bop Cop
>> Ed Bride (edb...@aol.com) wrote:
>> : New nominee: Kenny G
>>
>> : Of course, he's a great finger acrobat, but a melodic idiot. He's a great
>> : improvisor, but that does'n necessarily make him a Jazz musician. Maybe
>> : nobody else nominated him because nobody else considers him a Jazz
>> : musician; actually, I'm in that category.
>>
>>
>> Kenny Grolnick played some pretty nice stuff when he was with Jeff
not trying to be funny here, but I thought it was "Gorlick".
>way. It would be nice to hear Kenny do something challenging, like maybe
>an album of standards or something to show what he's made of. But as it
I can see it now... I have an album, 'Stitt Plays Bird'. Maybe he'll put out
one called "'Lick Plays Bird" on Blue Note, of course. I imagine Kenny playing
such standards as:
"Konfirmation"
"Ko-Ko"
"Kin"
"A Grammy for Kenny"
"Ghi-Ghi"
"Gust Friends"
"Kenny's Square"
"Love-a Man"
"Donna G"
"Ornitholo G" and of course...
"Anthr Apolo G" (using "I ain't got no Rythym changes")
"GeBop"
"Kenny's Bounce"
"Gbird Suite"
and lastly,
"Kenny's Mood"
B/C
Genie Baker
>I'm afraid I have to agree with those who put Dave Brubeck high on this
Is this the way it really happened?
I heard Brubeck interviewed on some NPR program a few months ago,
and while I was pretty sure he was sort of taking swipes at Desmond, I
didn't realize quite how bad it was.
Anyway, he explained that DESMOND was very anxious to join the BRUBECK
quartet, but that they weren't sure they really wanted to put up with
him. But he kept crashing practices, and eventually they decided to start
paying him.
In the same interview, he downplayed Desmond's role in writing Take 5.
He explained that the drummer was playing around with 5/4 rhythms, and
Desmond started blowing over them. According to Brubeck, Desmond didn't
know what he had; he had played a number of melodies and Brubeck selected
the one that was to form the basis of Take 5.
I remember being sort of stunned while listening to the interview.
Brubeck seemed sort of resentful of the attention that Desmond has
gotten.
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Genie Baker gba...@umich.edu
Gary Herrigel
Ted Goia's account in _West Coast Jazz_ has Desmond
joining Brubeck's band. They were part of a San Franscisco
jazz scene centered around Mills College. Desmond played
with Brubeck in an earlier Octet recording and then went
off on his own for a while. The union with Brubeck later,
at leawst in Goia's account seemed amicable enough--I don't
have the book with me though so I can't check.
gh
Sam Hokin
|> >
|> I can see it now... I have an album, 'Stitt Plays Bird'. Maybe he'll put out
|> one called "'Lick Plays Bird" on Blue Note, of course. I imagine Kenny playing
|> such standards as:
|>
|> "Konfirmation"
|> "Ko-Ko"
|> "Kin"
|> "A Grammy for Kenny"
|> "Ghi-Ghi"
|> "Gust Friends"
|> "Kenny's Square"
|> "Love-a Man"
|> "Donna G"
|> "Ornitholo G" and of course...
|> "Anthr Apolo G" (using "I ain't got no Rythym changes")
|> "GeBop"
|> "Kenny's Bounce"
|> "Gbird Suite"
|> and lastly,
|> "Kenny's Mood"
|>
|>
|> B/C
|>
I hear that the the cd has a bonus track: "Chero G".
--
Sam Hokin ho...@juno.physics.wisc.edu
Frank Lepkowski
: In article <3kg5l7$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
: >I'm afraid I have to agree with those who put Dave Brubeck high on this
: >list. When he joined the Paul Desmond Quartet...
: Is this the way it really happened?
: I heard Brubeck interviewed on some NPR program a few months ago,
: and while I was pretty sure he was sort of taking swipes at Desmond, I
: didn't realize quite how bad it was.
: Anyway, he explained that DESMOND was very anxious to join the BRUBECK
: quartet, but that they weren't sure they really wanted to put up with
: him. But he kept crashing practices, and eventually they decided to start
: paying him.
In Ted Gioia's book West Coast Jazz, I believe he has Desmond actually
stealing Brubeck's band from him back in the early days, when it was a
challenge to put food on the table.
With regards to Brubeck's being "Overrated", my question is by whom. He
has demonstrated popularity with audiences, and ability to sell records,
true, but to mne "rating" implies a critical evaluation, which means what
do the critics and jazz cognoscenti say about him. And from this point of
view, IMO Brubeck has tended to be underrated--the knock on him has often
been doesn't swing, too bombastic too classical, not really jazzy. These
are critical commonplaces about him. Plus a nasty racist thing, about a
white guy having success before more deserving black artists, etc.
I've grown to appreciate him more over the years. Recently I picked up
the Jazz Goes to College disc that someone else mentioned on this
thread. I was amazed and delighted by the contrast between Desmond and
Brubeck; and the way Brubeck develops his solos. Sometimes he does
hammer too much for me, but less so on this album.
With regards to who truly is overrated, again, thinking about sheer
levels of critical hyperbole, both by the pros, and by the cognoscenti,
ie. here in RMB, there is no doubt in my mind that Miles Davis is the
single most stupendously overrated, overhyped, overadored artist in the
history of jazz music. Not that his gifts and contributions were not
great and distinctive. But the level of hyperbole that habitually
surrounds his work, in the jazz press and here on rmb, make him for me
the most overrated jazz artist.
Frank Lepkowski
Oakland University
Bop Cop
Damn! I can't believe I didn't think of that! Hey, if they threw a cymbal at
Bird when he played Cherokee, what do you think will happen to ol'Kenny? (Look
out! Here comes the bass!)
B/C
Marc Sabatella
> In article <3kg5l7$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>, Glyphix <gly...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I'm afraid I have to agree with those who put Dave Brubeck high on this
> >list. When he joined the Paul Desmond Quartet...
> Is this the way it really happened?
> I heard Brubeck interviewed on some NPR program a few months ago,
> and while I was pretty sure he was sort of taking swipes at Desmond, I
> didn't realize quite how bad it was.
I've lots of different stories on this, but I don't George's (that Brubeck took
over a Desmond group) holds much water. They had clearly played together under
Dave's leadership before, Dave definitely had his own group at the time, and
the group that called itself the Dave Brubeck Quartet sounds very much like
Dave's previous groups. It is certainly possible there was some particular gig
that Brubeck was called by Desmond for, but in all respects I can identify
musically, the sound of the quartet is entirely the sound of Brubeck's previous
groups.
I'm somewhat disappointed to hear Brubeck slighting Desmond, though. I don't
recall him sounding that way in other interviews, such as the one in Cadence a
few months ago. He definitely has an ego, though, and the Cadence interviewer
was feeding it well. The interview went basically like this:
CAD: Aren't you great?
Brubeck: Yes, I'm great.
CAD: Don't lots of other musicians, from Cecil Taylor to Gerry Mulligan, also
think you're great?
Brubeck: Yes, Cecil and Gerry and Bud and many others think I'm great.
CAD: Didn't you single-handedly reinvent modern jazz in the 1950's and 1960's?
Brubeck: Yes, I single-handedly reinvented modern jazz in the 1950's and
1960's.
(etc)
--
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.
Richard Bogle
not without talent but certainly is without much to say. I am proud of
Josh for all his academic achievements but they don't in and of
themselves cut it on the bandstand. I am not going to give up on him
though. As he matures as a person perhaps his music will also. His
stufff just seems sort of cosmetic to me.
-
RICHARD BOGLE DMR...@prodigy.com
-
RICHARD BOGLE DMR...@prodigy.com
Pete
: Genie Baker (gba...@econ.lsa.umich.edu) wrote:
: : In article <3kg5l7$j...@newsbf02.news.aol.com>,
: Glyphix <gly...@aol.com> wrote:
: : >I'm afraid I have to agree with those who put Dave Brubeck high on this
: : >list. When he joined the Paul Desmond Quartet...
: : Is this the way it really happened?
: : I heard Brubeck interviewed on some NPR program a few months ago,
: : and while I was pretty sure he was sort of taking swipes at Desmond, I
: : didn't realize quite how bad it was.
Some Brubeck thoughts.
I don't think anybody ever seriously regarded him as a cutting-edge
pianist. His foundation is clearly classical. I always felt that he
kept his playing within his own limits and did pretty well at it.
Comparing him with his contemporaries - like Oscar Peterson - is pretty
pointless: That's not what he was about. His strong points were as a
composer, bandleader, and bringing Jazz to the public. He never broke
any new ground; "Take 5" is a boring piece - lame compared to other
"odd-meter" playing going on at the time - but Dave got the single into
Jukeboxes in your local diner, and it was definitely Jazz: Kenny G gets
the records out there but he's not playing Jazz.
The group ... Paul Desomond was a flower in a pot of shit. As we
understood it at the time, towards the end of the quartet's heyday the
members weren't speaking to each other. They stayed together because
they were making a lot of bread. Its no wonder you can't get a straight
answer to questions like "who's idea was the group?"
: ie. here in RMB, there is no doubt in my mind that Miles Davis is the
: single most stupendously overrated, overhyped, overadored artist in the
Well he's certainly hyped. I think there are a few artists that you'd
have to excuse from this informal rating thing we're doing. Miles'
influence on music and other musicians is so tremendous that you can't
really compare him to the norm. If you did, I think you'd have to say
that the business and media savvy that had him performing to large
audiences that usually only successful pop acts can draw brought him the
fame and big bucks that also in a perfect world would have gone to
Coltrane, Bird, Tatum, Monk etc. No, I'd say rather that we've got Miles
right and some of the others were underadored.
Pete
Marc Sabatella
> With regards to Brubeck's being "Overrated", my question is by whom. He
> has demonstrated popularity with audiences, and ability to sell records,
> true, but to mne "rating" implies a critical evaluation, which means what
> do the critics and jazz cognoscenti say about him. And from this point of
> view, IMO Brubeck has tended to be underrated--the knock on him has often
> been doesn't swing, too bombastic too classical, not really jazzy. These
> are critical commonplaces about him. Plus a nasty racist thing, about a
> white guy having success before more deserving black artists, etc.
I agree; I think he is very underrated by these standards. I recall similar
arguments being made about (sorry for the context switch here) Reggie Jackson
in the late 1970's - because he was such a big media superstar, it became
fashionable to criticize him, to the point where eventually he started making
"most underrated" lists because he was being made out to be a complete zero
when in fact he was generally one of the better players in the game at that
point.
Also, I find the "doesn't swing", "bombastic", "classical", "not really jazzy"
comments silly; I don't see any of those as inherently bad. After all, most
people would say the same about Beethoven, Schumann, or Cecil Taylor as well.
> With regards to who truly is overrated, again, thinking about sheer
> levels of critical hyperbole, both by the pros, and by the cognoscenti,
> ie. here in RMB, there is no doubt in my mind that Miles Davis is the
> single most stupendously overrated, overhyped, overadored artist in the
> history of jazz music.
Agreed. He was an excellent improvisor, innovative at several key junctures,
and very influential, but hardly the demi-god he is made out to be be.
Steve Robinson
On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Pete wrote:
> Some Brubeck thoughts.
> I don't think anybody ever seriously regarded him as a cutting-edge
> pianist. His foundation is clearly classical. I always felt that he
> kept his playing within his own limits and did pretty well at it.
> Comparing him with his contemporaries - like Oscar Peterson - is pretty
> pointless: That's not what he was about. His strong points were as a
> composer, bandleader, and bringing Jazz to the public. He never broke
> any new ground; "Take 5" is a boring piece - lame compared to other
> "odd-meter" playing going on at the time - but Dave got the single into
> Jukeboxes in your local diner, and it was definitely Jazz: Kenny G gets
> the records out there but he's not playing Jazz.
> The group ... Paul Desomond was a flower in a pot of shit. As we
> understood it at the time, towards the end of the quartet's heyday the
> members weren't speaking to each other. They stayed together because
> they were making a lot of bread. Its no wonder you can't get a straight
> answer to questions like "who's idea was the group?"
There is an inconsistency in your argument: Paul Desmond, the "flower in
a pot of shit" you describe, wrote Take 5, not Dave Brubeck. I enjoyed
Desmond a lot, but I think the total package of that quartet is what
made it good. Also, to describe Desmond in that way denigrates Joe
Morello as well as Brubeck. To my mind, Morello is one of the greatest,
most inventive drummers who ever lived.
>
> : ie. here in RMB, there is no doubt in my mind that Miles Davis is the
> : single most stupendously overrated, overhyped, overadored artist in the
>
>
> Well he's certainly hyped. I think there are a few artists that you'd
> have to excuse from this informal rating thing we're doing. Miles'
> influence on music and other musicians is so tremendous that you can't
> really compare him to the norm. If you did, I think you'd have to say
> that the business and media savvy that had him performing to large
> audiences that usually only successful pop acts can draw brought him the
> fame and big bucks that also in a perfect world would have gone to
> Coltrane, Bird, Tatum, Monk etc. No, I'd say rather that we've got Miles
> right and some of the others were underadored.
>
> Pete
>
> pl...@netcom.com
>
>
I don't think there is any one take on r.m.b. about Miles. There are a
lot of people who hero worship, to be sure, but the reason so much
positive stuff about Miles has appeared is because some of us had the
audacity to suggest things like the reason he was able to fill those big
halls late in his career is because he sold out and he was not playing
jazz. Whenever that happens (and I'm bracing for it again), some people
go ballistic. Bottom line: how any given listener perceives any player,
Miles included, is up to the listener.
Steve Robinson
Seattle, WA
stev...@u.washington.edu
Jeff Beer
People might think he is over-rated, but there might also be some good reasons
for it. What do you think they are?
For instance, let's make an experiment that doesn't take into account one's
personal tastes about his music, pro or con. Let us take a
recording by Miles in each decade where he was a leader, then take a
recording of each of his sidemen, where they are _leaders_, and then a
recording of his sidemen's sidemen, as leaders.
Do this with other giants, and who is going to be able to cover as much
ground. In a lot of other cases, you will find their sidemen becoming
leaders, but they end up with people in their bands who are going to be
mostly known as sidemen.
Jeff
Glyphix
There are, however, some musicians who, technically, can play rings around
Miles Davis who are jealous and resentful of one of the few artists who
got his due while he was alive. Some of those musicians post to r.m.b.
I don't relate to this talk of demi-gods. What is that, anyhow? Yes, there
are some people who fawn over the slightest mention of Miles but there are
others who were genuinely moved by his music on terms that defy
description in words. There are those for whom Miles opened a new world of
musical experience by being their first palatable exposure to jazz (Miles,
a jazz evangelist. Whew!). There are many who had their listening habits
changed forever by Miles in any one of the many stages of his musical
development. Miles' wings cast a large shadow.
Yet, he was constantly put down by critics for his behavior toward
audiences and for leaving the stage in the late 1950s. Was that Hype?
Critics and musicians dissed Miles constantly for sloppy technique. This
was adoration? Miles cultivated a surly public demeaner, regularly cursing
out club owners and people in the audience who rubbed him the wrong way,
as almost everyone seemed to do. Was this pandering? He was assailed for
employing Coltrane and Philly Joe Jones who were considered loud,
overbearing and unmusical. He was criticized for employing Bill Evans for
reasons typically American. Was this selling out?
Miles was not universally loved or appreciated by his contemporaries and
is not universally loved today. People, however couldn't get enough of his
music and made him the highest paid jazz group in the country. From the
beginning, Miles made accessible music while he aggessively pushed the
boundaries of the art (Birth of the Cool, Kind of Blue, In a Silent Way,
etc.). He was rewarded with SUCCESS, something that, unfortunately, evades
most jazzmen. Is that what's bothering those who think Miles is overrated?
Bright Moments;
George Bailey
Glyphix
apprenticeship with Darius Milhaud but if he was going to be a jazz
musician he would have better spent his time with Bud Powell. A classical
background is not a good excuse for not being able to swing your way out
of a paper bag. Bud Powell had a classical background too.
Bright Moments;
George Bailey
Jim_daulton
virtuoso some people think, but his group helped teach lots of
people about what jazz playing is all about.
I started playing drums in '62, Morello was 'it' for me then. I
learned more about time signatures and counting from listening to
Brubeck albums than from any other source.
He is a major contributor to jazz.
Jim Daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Jim_daulton
Frank Lepkowski
: Miles Davis is NOT overrated!
[much of the standard hagiography of Miles and His Works deleted]
: etc.). He was rewarded with SUCCESS, something that, unfortunately, evades
: most jazzmen. Is that what's bothering those who think Miles is overrated?
Nobody's bothered except the defenders of the cult of St. Miles. The
point is merely that only the most hyperbolic and overheated praise will
do for Miles, apparently. This, in my view, goes to the core of the
subject for this thread. I do not deny his contributions, but they have
been overemphasized and distorted by his own mythification ("I changed
jazz music five times in history, ... etc.") and that of those fans for
whom he could do no wrong, which, your comments notwithstanding, includes
a large portion of the jazz press and fandom.
Frank Lepkowski
Oakland University
Marc Sabatella
> I don't think anybody ever seriously regarded him as a cutting-edge
> pianist.
Cecil Taylor certainly did.
> He never broke
> any new ground; "Take 5" is a boring piece
I don't think it is fair to summarize Dave Brubeck's career with a piece on
which he neither wrote nor took a solo.
Dave was indeed one of the very first pianists in the 50's to use percussive
techniques and to break from the linear Earl Hines / Bud Powell conventions in
a bebop context; ditto on his use of polyrhythms and polytonality. This, BTW,
predated "Take Five" by close to 10 years. You are of course free not to like
the sound of Brubeck's playing, but saying he was not ground-breaking is simply
misinformed.
Steve Robinson
Very well said, Frank.
Steve Robinson
It's interesting that you seem to think Dave's playing style reflects a
classical background. I always thought so as well. I was aware of the
Milhaud connection (he even named one son Darius) and I always considered
Brubeck to be well-trained classically. Then, I began to talk to a good
friend who is a classical pianist. She told me she felt Brubeck had
horrible technique and was not a very good pianist. My reaction was much
like yours when anyone says something negative about Miles, George. For
me, one of my major early jazz influences was Brubeck, and I took offense
(this happened a number of years ago).
When I listen to old Brubeck recordings now, though, I don't get quite as
turned on by them as I once did. As someone said, the odd-meter stuff
sounds pretty clunky in retrospect. Listen to "Unsquare Dance" and the
rather square way it handles 7. Then compare it to the Don Ellis
Orchestra's "Pussy Wiggle Stomp," which breaks the 7 up in exactly the
same way but eventually comes out swinging so hard you forget it's odd
meter unless you're trying to tap your foot. But you know what? I don't
think that matters a whole lot in evaluating Brubeck. He was highly
influential and he brought a lot of folks into jazz. I heard him in
person this summer and he wasn't playing odd meter pieces at all (except,
of course, he had to do "Take Five"). The guy plays beautifully to my
ear. I don't think he is at all overrated.
Todd Adamson
As a former worshipper at the shrine of Miles, I have an idea what you are
saying. While I still consider Miles to be one of the most figures in the
evolution of jazz, I no longer subscribe to the idea that he was one of it's most
influential. The music he did in the 50's and early 60's is without question
great, but to say he changed music 5 times in his life is a bit of a stretch.
Five years ago I would never have said this, but, yes, Miles is overrated.
Todd
Steve Robinson
On 26 Mar 1995, Marc Sabatella wrote:
> Pete wrote:
>
> > I don't think anybody ever seriously regarded him as a cutting-edge
> > pianist.
>
> Cecil Taylor certainly did.
>
> > He never broke
> > any new ground; "Take 5" is a boring piece
>
> I don't think it is fair to summarize Dave Brubeck's career with a piece on
> which he neither wrote nor took a solo.
>
> Dave was indeed one of the very first pianists in the 50's to use percussive
> techniques and to break from the linear Earl Hines / Bud Powell conventions in
> a bebop context; ditto on his use of polyrhythms and polytonality. This, BTW,
> predated "Take Five" by close to 10 years. You are of course free not to like
> the sound of Brubeck's playing, but saying he was not ground-breaking is simply
> misinformed.
>
Well said. Thanks, Marc, for stating that so well.
John Nesteroff
In a previous article, late...@chuma.cas.usf.edu (The Sax-Man) says:
>On 13 Mar 1995, Kenz William wrote:
>
>> Ed Bride (edb...@aol.com) wrote:
>> : New nominee: Kenny G
>>
>> : Of course, he's a great finger acrobat, but a melodic idiot. He's a great
>> : improvisor, but that does'n necessarily make him a Jazz musician. Maybe
>> : nobody else nominated him because nobody else considers him a Jazz
>> : musician; actually, I'm in that category.
>>
>> =========then why nominate him?
>>
>> Bill
>>
>> Kenny Grolnick played some pretty nice stuff when he was with Jeff
>Lorber. I think his best stuff is on the tenor. I really don't like his
>soprano sound at all. Way too "nasal". I will admit honestly, I don't
>like much of his "pop" work. It is very evident that he has created a
>formula over the past few years, meaning, he keeps his playing simple to
>appeal to the masses. Hence, the huge success of a tune like "Songbird"
>and its clone "Silhouette". The level he's attained is BIG BUSINESS, and
>I would bank on it that producers pressure him to craft things a certain
>way. It would be nice to hear Kenny do something challenging, like maybe
>an album of standards or something to show what he's made of. But as it
>stands now, I have no reason to feel like I couldn't walk onto his stage
>anytime and pop these myths about him like a balloon. And one day I hope
>to get the chance.
>
>John LaTemple
>
>Wynton Marsalis. 'Nuff said.
Greg Nesteroff
bh...@njackn.com
Re: Dave Brubeck ...
> Dave was indeed one of the very first pianists in the 50's to use
> percussive
> techniques and to break from the linear Earl Hines / Bud Powell
> conventions in
> a bebop context; ditto on his use of polyrhythms and polytonality.
> This, BTW,
> predated "Take Five" by close to 10 years. You are of course free
> not to like
> the sound of Brubeck's playing, but saying he was not
> ground-breaking is simply
> misinformed.
>
> --
> Marc Sabatella
Basically, I agree, but don't you think Brubeck was working with concepts
already explored much more in depth by Lennie Tristano and his crew, especially
the Tristano/Konitz collaboration? I suspect that Brubeck and Desmond listened
to Tristano and Konitz a lot ... as a matter of fact, I seem to remember an
interview with or article about Tristano where he may have talked about this a
little.
I guess I hear a much more advanced concept of polyrhythm and polytonality in
the Tristano "school." As a matter of fact, the Tristano group was the first
to record and release freely improvised performances in the 40's ... on 78's,
if I'm not mistaken.
I'd be interested to hear your take on this, Marc.
Rog Broherhood
**************************************************************
+ I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure. +
**************************************************************
Marc Sabatella
> It's interesting that you seem to think Dave's playing style reflects a
> classical background. I always thought so as well. I was aware of the
> Milhaud connection (he even named one son Darius) and I always considered
> Brubeck to be well-trained classically. Then, I began to talk to a good
> friend who is a classical pianist. She told me she felt Brubeck had
> horrible technique and was not a very good pianist.
The classical influence I hear in Brubeck is mostly in his composition and
concept as opposed to his actual technique, which is indeed really awkward by
narrow-minded classical standards (as well as by narrow-minded jazz standards).
> As someone said, the odd-meter stuff
> sounds pretty clunky in retrospect.
Yeah; I would completely discount that in my evaluation of Brubeck, whose major
contribution to the music is in the way he dealt with 4/4 or 3/4. "Can't swing
his way out of a paper bag" is just a short sighted way of saying "has a unique
(and, yes, groundbreaking) approach to rhythm, as opposed to merely recycling
the same decades-old notion of 'swing'".
> I heard him in
> person this summer and he wasn't playing odd meter pieces at all (except,
> of course, he had to do "Take Five").
He must be even more sick of that than I am of "Cantaloupe Island".
W.Hery
Jeff Beer <uj...@uxa.ecn.bgu.edu> wrote:
>People might think he is over-rated, but there might also be some good reasons
>for it. What do you think they are?
>
>For instance, let's make an experiment that doesn't take into account one's
>personal tastes about his music, pro or con. Let us take a
>recording by Miles in each decade where he was a leader, then take a
>recording of each of his sidemen, where they are _leaders_, and then a
>recording of his sidemen's sidemen, as leaders.
>
>Do this with other giants, and who is going to be able to cover as much
>ground. In a lot of other cases, you will find their sidemen becoming
>leaders, but they end up with people in their bands who are going to be
>mostly known as sidemen.
Sounds like a good way to show that Miles was a great TALENT SCOUT,
but it doesn't necessarily say much about him as a musical influence.
For example, two of the most important musical infuleces in the
post bop/hard bop era are Ornette Coleman and John Coletrane. They
have each spawned a few who have gone on to be "leaders of leaders"
(Cherry, Haden, Tyner), but not an impressive number. Horace Silver,
on the other hand, has spawned many more "leaders of leaders" but
is not really that incluential a musician (although I do love his
music). Even Blakey, probably the most prolific talent scout, was
not one of the top few musicians in terms of influence on the MUSIC
that followed.
I'll side step the question of whether Miles is over-rated :-)
Bill Hery
AT&T Bell Labs, Whippany NJ
201-386-2362
w.h...@att.com
W.Hery
Marc Sabatella <ma...@sde.hp.com> wrote:
>....months ago. He definitely has an ego, though, and the Cadence interviewer
>was feeding it well. The interview went basically like this:
>
>CAD: Aren't you great?
>Brubeck: Yes, I'm great.
>CAD: Don't lots of other musicians, from Cecil Taylor to Gerry Mulligan, also
> think you're great?
>Brubeck: Yes, Cecil and Gerry and Bud and many others think I'm great.
>CAD: Didn't you single-handedly reinvent modern jazz in the 1950's and 1960's?
>Brubeck: Yes, I single-handedly reinvented modern jazz in the 1950's and
> 1960's.
I read the same interview with a very different impression of what
went on:
CAD: ...
Brubeck: I'm great. Cecil once said so.
...
CAD...
...
Brubeck. I'm great. Braxton once said so...
In other words, Brubeck sounded insecure about his place in jazz to
me, and felt like he had to justify it by mentioning other musicians
(who are likely to be approved by Cadence readers) that had positive
things to say about him. I found it rather sad that he felt he had to
defend himself from what he thought the Cadence readers thought of his
music (not that the interviewer led him to think that).
Interesting how two people with somewhat similar tastes in music (Marc
and myself) can read the same interview and get a very different idea
of what he was really like.
Walter Davis
ma...@sde.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) writes:
>> of course, he (Brubeck) had to do "Take Five").
>
>He must be even more sick of that than I am of "Cantaloupe Island".
>
at least one band didn't do "Sweet Home Chicago"? Saw Koko
Taylor recently and both the opening band and she did the
damn thing. Same when Koko and Buddy Guy did sets at
our local blues fest. I'm from Chicago, and even I don't
think it's that sweet.
-walt
Walter Davis WALTER...@UNC.EDU
Department of Sociology and ph: (919) 962-1019
Health Data Analyst at the fax: (919) 962-IRSS
Institute for Research in Social Science
UNC - Chapel Hill
Jeff Beer
At last. Someone took this up with some comment. I had been waiting
for some from the others. Blakey I think could compare to Miles in
quantity, but he always stayed in hard bop, not different styles
every 5 or 10 years.
Jeff
Marcel-Franck Simon
: Dave was indeed one of the very first pianists in the 50's to use percussive
: techniques and to break from the linear Earl Hines / Bud Powell conventions in
: a bebop context; ditto on his use of polyrhythms and polytonality. This, BTW,
: predated "Take Five" by close to 10 years. You are of course free not to like
: the sound of Brubeck's playing, but saying he was not ground-breaking is simply
: misinformed.
Come on Marc, there were lots of percussive pianists in the 50s: Monk, Ellington,
Basie, Garner, Nichols (to an extent -- he was kinda the middle point between the
Powellian linearists and the Monkian percussives), are five that jump to mind
immediately.
Beyond that, I have no opinion on the amount and quality of ground broken by
Brubeck.
--
Marcel-Franck Simon min...@summit.novell.com <-- NEW ADDRESS
min...@usl.com <-- will work for a while
" Papa Loko, ou se' van, ou-a pouse'-n ale'
Nou se' papiyon, n'a pote' nouvel bay Agwe' "
Steve Robinson
True enough about Blakey. God bless him!
Steve Robinson
Glyphix
>"Can't swing
>his way out of a paper bag" is just a short sighted way of saying "has a
>unique
>(and, yes, groundbreaking) approach to rhythm, as opposed to merely
>recycling
>the same decades-old notion of 'swing'".
Sorry, but "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" and Brubeck
ain't got it. Groundbreaking may be the act (in his case) of digging a big
hole for himself.
Yes his music was popular and his marketing of the quartet was on target,
however, I often noted that many in mainstream jazz audiences clap on one
and three. BTW, have you noticed that audiences on Brubeck's live
recordings always cheered his loudest, most bombastic and least swinging
passages?
Just let me hear "In Your Own Sweet Way" or "The Duke" and (almost) all is
forgiven.
Bright Moments
George Bailey
P.S. Marc, we'll just have to agree to disagree. You're one of my favorite
posters.
GB
Leo Scanlon
: Come on Marc, there were lots of percussive pianists in the 50s: Monk, Ellington,
: Basie, Garner, Nichols (to an extent -- he was kinda the middle point between the
: Powellian linearists and the Monkian percussives), are five that jump to mind
: immediately.
Nichols? Who he?
BTW, I wouldn't classify Basie as a percussive pianist -- quite the
opposite. However, I think Fats Waller belongs on the list.
Leo Scanlon
Marc Sabatella
I wrote:
> >He definitely has an ego, though, and the Cadence interviewer
> >was feeding it well.
Bill Hery wrote:
> In other words, Brubeck sounded insecure about his place in jazz to
> me, and felt like he had to justify it by mentioning other musicians
> ...
> Interesting how two people with somewhat similar tastes in music (Marc
> and myself) can read the same interview and get a very different idea
> of what he was really like.
Actually, I think your assessment is pretty compatible with mine, even though
I said it sounded like he has an ego and you said it sounded like he was
insecure. I didn't mean "ego" necessarily as a bad thing, especially given
that it seemed to me the interviewer was basically forcing Brubeck into
situations where he was having to proclaim his greatness. I didn't mean it in
the sense of annoyingly arrogant.
Marc Sabatella
> At last. Someone took this up with some comment. I had been waiting
> for some from the others. Blakey I think could compare to Miles in
> quantity, but he always stayed in hard bop, not different styles
> every 5 or 10 years.
Actualy, I thought I had as well, but in another thread. Anyhow, my feeling is
that your experiment shows *something*, but I don't think it is necessarily
either inherent musical ability or skill as a talent scout; I think it is
largely a reflection of his popularity. That is, you may have cause and effect
backwards. Aside from Coltrane, I suspect that much of the reason his
ex-sidemen did so well is that people said "oh, look, here's an album by
someone who used to play with *Miles Davis* - I think I'll buy it". That is,
this phenomenon may be an *example* of how Miles is in some sense "overrated"*,
not an *explanation* for why he is so highly regarded.
* I again remind everyone that the original sense in which the "overrated"
label was applied to Miles had to do with certain particular contexts in
which this was the case. "Overrated" implies someone doing the original
rating, and someone else then reviewing that rating. All it means to be
"overrated" is that two people's opinions differ.
Marc Sabatella
> Marc Sabatella (ma...@sde.hp.com) wrote:
> : Dave was indeed one of the very first pianists in the 50's to use percussive
> : techniques
> Come on Marc, there were lots of percussive pianists in the 50s: Monk, Ellington,
> Basie, Garner, Nichols (to an extent -- he was kinda the middle point between the
> Powellian linearists and the Monkian percussives), are five that jump to mind
> immediately.
I suppose I could have been more specific about what I meant by "percussive",
but what I had in mind is considerably different from what any of the pianists
you mention were doing. Perhaps it is the context in which the percussive
techniques are used that is the differentiator for me; entire improvisation in
dissonant block chords that do not fall on eighth-note boundaries versus a few
minor second clusters placed in the context of an otherwise linear
improvisation. Monk at times fit this category as well, but more more
sparsely; the effect Brubeck generated was quite different. And note I said
"one the the very first" - acknowledging that Monk did a little of something
similar a few years earlier doesn't really refute this.
Glyphix
>Nichols? Who he?
Herbie Nichols, my man. Look (him) up and live!
Bright Moments;
George Bailey
Glyphix
>this phenomenon may be an *example* of how Miles is in some sense
"overrated"*,
>not an *explanation* for why he is so highly regarded.
Actually, that phenomenon may be an *example* of how Miles is so highly
regarded.
Bright Moments;
George Bailey
Glyphix
that is interpreted differently by various posters. Actually, if this
thread is to have resolution, the term should be defined to everyone's
agreement. My vote would be not to attempt consensus of this kind.
Resolution is not necessary. The free flow of opinions is. Again, lets
agree to disagree and push our opinions as aggressively as we can within
the boundaries of mutual respect. All-in-all, for me, this thread has been
one of the most enjoyable in r.m.b.
That said, I think anyone who thinks Miles Davis is *overrated* is ALL
WET! ;-)
Marc Sabatella
> don't you think Brubeck was working with concepts
> already explored much more in depth by Lennie Tristano and his crew, especially
> the Tristano/Konitz collaboration?
There is that element too. Mostly in the polytonality (Tristano was ahead of
Brubeck there), not so much in polyrhythms (Brubeck was ahead of Tristano
there, from what I've heard), and certainly not in percussiveness (Tristano
hasn't even heard of this concept). I've never heard any Tristano from the
1940's, though. Is there some particular recording you think showcases the
rhythmic elements of Tristano, which predates Brubeck's rise to prominence?
Again, I'm not saying Brubeck suddenly appeared with something completely
different from anything that had gone before. "Groundbreaking" to me implies
he followed an existing path that lead in one direction, and then *extended*
that path either in the same direction or a new one.
Thomas F Brown
>Marc Sabatella (ma...@sde.hp.com) wrote:
>: Dave was indeed one of the very first pianists in the 50's to use percussive
>: techniques and to break from the linear Earl Hines / Bud Powell conventions in
>: a bebop context; ditto on his use of polyrhythms and polytonality. This, BTW,
>: predated "Take Five" by close to 10 years. You are of course free not to like
>: the sound of Brubeck's playing, but saying he was not ground-breaking is simply
>: misinformed.
>
>Come on Marc, there were lots of percussive pianists in the 50s: Monk, Ellington,
>Basie, Garner, Nichols (to an extent -- he was kinda the middle point between the
>Powellian linearists and the Monkian percussives), are five that jump to mind
>immediately.
>
>Beyond that, I have no opinion on the amount and quality of ground broken by
>Brubeck.
You want percussive, listen to Prokofiev way before the 50s.
Marc Sabatella
> Sorry, but "It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing"
You have, of course, just writeen off 99.99999% of all music ever played.
> P.S. Marc, we'll just have to agree to disagree.
Guess so.
Alfredo Santa Cruz
: As a former worshipper at the shrine of Miles, I have an idea what you
are : saying. While I still consider Miles to be one of the most figures
in the : evolution of jazz, I no longer subscribe to the idea that he was
one of it's most : influential. The music he did in the 50's and early
60's is without question : great, but to say he changed music 5 times in
his life is a bit of a stretch. : Five years ago I would never have said
this, but, yes, Miles is overrated.
Hmm.
I caught Miles in 1959 in L.A. The first time I ever heard All Blues live.
Cannonball on alto, Jimmy Heath sitting in for Coltrane, Philly Joe Jones,
Paul Chambers, Red Garland. You all, sitting here, 36 years later, can,
perhaps fashionably, say that "Miles is overrated." But, that night? No
way! He was God! As for all the silly quotes from his "autobiography," who
gives a shit what words a musican *speaks*? It's what he *plays*; and the
Miles Davis quintets, Relaxin', Cookin', Walkin', and the sextets with
Cannonball and Coltrane, of the late 50's were more than great. If he
"changed music" only once, that was enough.
Al Santa Cruz azsan...@ucdavis.edu
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Steve Robinson
On 1 Apr 1995, Alfredo Santa Cruz wrote:
> Todd Adamson (TO...@ins.infonet.net) wrote:
>
> : As a former worshipper at the shrine of Miles, I have an idea what you
> are : saying. While I still consider Miles to be one of the most figures
> in the : evolution of jazz, I no longer subscribe to the idea that he was
> one of it's most : influential. The music he did in the 50's and early
> 60's is without question : great, but to say he changed music 5 times in
> his life is a bit of a stretch. : Five years ago I would never have said
> this, but, yes, Miles is overrated.
>
>
> Hmm.
>
> I caught Miles in 1959 in L.A. The first time I ever heard All Blues live.
> Cannonball on alto, Jimmy Heath sitting in for Coltrane, Philly Joe Jones,
> Paul Chambers, Red Garland. You all, sitting here, 36 years later, can,
> perhaps fashionably, say that "Miles is overrated." But, that night? No
> way! He was God! As for all the silly quotes from his "autobiography," who
> gives a shit what words a musican *speaks*? It's what he *plays*; and the
> Miles Davis quintets, Relaxin', Cookin', Walkin', and the sextets with
> Cannonball and Coltrane, of the late 50's were more than great. If he
> "changed music" only once, that was enough.
>
> Al Santa Cruz azsan...@ucdavis.edu
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>
It seems to me you are backing up the point you dislike: what he did in
the 50's was pretty hot (even if we call it "cool"), and the original
poster said just that. You say "if he 'changed music' only once, that
was enough." Perhaps it would have been better if he hadn't tried to
change it that last time. I was able to catch him live 4 times, but
only during what I call his rock and roll period. I never had the same
kind of feeling you did, but had I been there in '59, I would probably
feel the way you do now.
The nature of his being "overrated" is not that what he did in 1959
wasn't great--it was. What he did from Bitches Brew on was not so great,
but many people on rmb seem to think it was. To me, the fact that all
his periods seem to get rated equally is what makes him overrated.
By the way, the recordings you mentioned are all from my favorite Miles
period. Given that you like them as much as you say you do, do you
really like the stuff he did from Bitches Brew on as much? I'll bet you
don't.
David Sage
<bulk of earlier text deleted>
: It seems to me you are backing up the point you dislike: what he did in
: the 50's was pretty hot (even if we call it "cool"), and the original
: poster said just that. You say "if he 'changed music' only once, that
: was enough." Perhaps it would have been better if he hadn't tried to
: change it that last time. I was able to catch him live 4 times, but
: only during what I call his rock and roll period. I never had the same
: kind of feeling you did, but had I been there in '59, I would probably
: feel the way you do now.
: The nature of his being "overrated" is not that what he did in 1959
: wasn't great--it was. What he did from Bitches Brew on was not so great,
: but many people on rmb seem to think it was. To me, the fact that all
: his periods seem to get rated equally is what makes him overrated.
: By the way, the recordings you mentioned are all from my favorite Miles
: period. Given that you like them as much as you say you do, do you
: really like the stuff he did from Bitches Brew on as much? I'll bet you
: don't.
I saw him only in what you quaintly refer to as his "rock'n'roll" period
too. What I though was best about those shows was that the audience was
truly a cross-section, his older fans were still coming out, as well as
all us little long-haired freax.
I consider what he did at that time every bit as important as what he did
all thro' the 50s AND into the 60s. There are many who still consider the
60s group, prior to _Bithces Brew_ the seminal group.
I have never tried to judge one period over another, anymore than I judge
Coltrane's development as an artist, and that IS what it's about,
artistic development and growth.
There...I feel much better now.
David.
------------------------------------------
w.o.t.s.
ds...@uoguelph.ca
Pete
: Basically, I agree, but don't you think Brubeck was working with concepts
: already explored much more in depth by Lennie Tristano and his crew, especially
: the Tristano/Konitz collaboration? I suspect that Brubeck and Desmond listened
: to Tristano and Konitz a lot ... as a matter of fact, I seem to remember an
: interview with or article about Tristano where he may have talked about this a
: little.
: I guess I hear a much more advanced concept of polyrhythm and polytonality in
: the Tristano "school." As a matter of fact, the Tristano group was the first
: to record and release freely improvised performances in the 40's ... on 78's,
: if I'm not mistaken.
: I'd be interested to hear your take on this, Marc.
: Rog Broherhood
If a Most-Underrated-Musician thread gets started, I'd hop in with a
Lennie Tristano vote. He was sadly under-recorded and his influence on
other musicians is much more widespread than the public is aware of.
Pete Levin
D.J. Toman
[snip]
> The nature of his being "overrated" is not that what he did in 1959
> wasn't great--it was. What he did from Bitches Brew on was not so
>great,but many people on rmb seem to think it was. To me, the fact
>that all his periods seem to get rated equally is what makes him
>overrated.
>
> By the way, the recordings you mentioned are all from my favorite
>Miles period. Given that you like them as much as you say you do,
>do you really like the stuff he did from Bitches Brew on as much?
>I'll bet you don't.
Doesn't anyone notice the divide between acoustic and electric, or
pre- and post-Bitches Brew Miles fans? As a subscriber to the MILES
list, it seems clear that there are many people (actually a majority
of current participants in the list, it seems) who get mostly into
his later period, beginning around BB or Live/Evil. Then, there
are those like me who love the pre-BB period (actually, up to Jack
Johnson for me), but buy the later stuff out of curiousity because
it's Miles. Maybe that's the myth at work. Still, there are moments
of excellence to be found in the later work, although certainly
nothing earth-shattering. Check out the Warsaw '83 concert on Poljazz
for really fine, open horn Miles and a really tight band.
I just don't see how anyone with a critical mind could be equally
passionate about the music from these two periods. Does anyone agree?
David
Taipei, Taiwan
Ilha Formosa
Marc Sabatella
> >backwards. Aside from Coltrane, I suspect that much of the reason his
> >ex-sidemen did so well is that people said "oh, look, here's an album by
> >someone who used to play with *Miles Davis* - I think I'll buy it". That is,
> >this phenomenon may be an *example* of how Miles is in some sense "overrated"*,
> >not an *explanation* for why he is so highly regarded.
> I don't think it is as superficial as that. Look at Herbie Hancock.
> Quite well regarded as a "star" in jazz. Was that from the music he
> made or just the fact he played with Miles?
Actually, I originally had listed Herbie as another exception, along with Chick
Corea, but took it out.
In any case, I don't see how Herbie's greatness reflects on Miles', except on
his greatness as talent scout.
I definitely wish I had never gotten involved in this discussion; it seems so
many people are unable to look past the word "overrated" to see what I am
actually saying; they see the word "overrated" and assume I am saying "Miles
is not good". Hopefully, the more careful readers have seen quite the
contrary; I have acknowledged several times that he is probably the most
important musican of the last half-decade. My saying that he is in some sense
"overrated" is not a reflection on Miles, but rather on some of his fans, who
feel that calling someone the most important musician of the last half decade
is not enough.
D.J. Toman
>
> [snip]
> Hopefully, the more careful readers have seen quite the
> contrary; I have acknowledged several times that he is probably
>the most important musican of the last half-decade. My saying
>that he is in some sense "overrated" is not a reflection on Miles,
>but rather on some of his
> fans, who feel that calling someone the most important musician of
>the last half decade is not enough.
Wow, the most important musician over the past half decade. Hmm, that
means that "Amandla" and "Miles and Quincy at Montreux" must really be
exerting a powerful influence on music today!
>
> --
> Marc Sabatella
Okay, I couldn't resist. We know you meant "half century." Your
points are well taken. Can we stop now?
Jeff Volkman
On 4 Apr 1995, D.J. Toman wrote:
> ma...@sde.hp.com (Marc Sabatella) wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> > contrary; I have acknowledged several times that he is probably
> >the most important musican of the last half-decade. My saying
> >that he is in some sense "overrated" is not a reflection on Miles,
> >but rather on some of his
> > fans, who feel that calling someone the most important musician of
> >the last half decade is not enough.
>
> Wow, the most important musician over the past half decade. Hmm, that
> means that "Amandla" and "Miles and Quincy at Montreux" must really be
> exerting a powerful influence on music today!
> >
I don't know about the impact of "Miles and Quincy at Montreux," but I
think "Man With The Horn" through "Amandla" were recordings that have had
a huge impact on popular music. I hear music that's obviously inspired by
Miles' post-retirement stuff constantly, especially on TV commercials and
soundtrack stuff. The stuff he was doing live during this period was IMO
influential too, and was often quite different from what was on his more
studio-oriented recordings. A lot of Miles' old fans have written this
stuff off as being "inferior," but I think Miles was doing some important
"fusing" and blending of ideas during this period, just like he was
always doing. Let's talk about it again in 20 years. I'll meet you guys here.
--Jeff
John F. Hyde
: As for Miles Davis, he was a more revolutionary composer than 'Trane or
: Diz, but not as good a tehnical muscian. The differences between them leave tons of roo: I don't think overrated implies one person doing an original rating and
You know the idea of Miles as a "revolutionary composer" is interesting.
At the risk of becoming flamebait I had always assumed that many of Miles
compositions where "band tunes" and Miles rightly or wrongly took credit
as he was the leader. For instance the tune Blue and Green, Miles takes
credit for it on KOB but B.Evans has his name as composer when he covers it.
I wonder how many other examples of tune "appropriations" are known.
John
Jeff Beer
He did a lot to them that whoever wrote them didn't plan.
Look at In A Silent Way. You can compare it to Zawinal's version of how
it is "supposed" to be played.
In another case, look at Sanctuary. Originally issued on Bitches Brew,
with I believe Miles credited as co-composer with Wayne. Then an
earlier recording of it shows up on Circle In The Round with only Wayne
listed as the composer. Quite a bit different arrangement, and the
difference I assume was brought in by Miles.
Jeff
ron santen / sarah livingstone
>
>Steve Robinson <stev...@u.washington.edu> wrote:
>
>
Like most out there I think Miles' greatest work was done between 1954 -62 up to BB.
I think the problem with most of his later work that he wasn't being pushed by
musicians of the quality of Coltrane or "the rhythm section"( Jones, Chambers and partic.
Garland) or even Gil Evans. All the later musicians he worked with seem to have held
Miles in awe and not challenged him, however good they were themselves - Jarrett, Shorter,
etc.
In the earlier years Miles had musicians around him that made him work to develop his ideas -
I think in the latter years he had great concepts of where he wanted his music to go and lots
of talented followers in his groups - but no one seemed to force him to prove himself.
Despite that I think there are some great moments on BB and his later stuff.
Ron Santen
Chandrasekhar Ramakrishnan
D.J. Toman <mile...@pristine.com.tw> wrote:
>I just don't see how anyone with a critical mind could be equally
>passionate about the music from these two periods. Does anyone agree?
Why not? Kind of Blue AND Bitches Brew are both on my list of
10 most favorite jazz discs. I love most Miles from KOB all the
way through Pangea/Agartha. I'm not very familiar with his post
Pangea stuff, but at least up to there, it's all great stuff.
-sekhar
ChuckL8899
although there are individual pieces that I do enjoy, particularly from
Tutu. But I think that the greatness of Miles wasn't so much that he
accomplished much musically in his lifetime, but that he did so very
totally different things and crashed through so many doors.
Maybe I don't respond to his later period as much as his earlier ones, but
Miles seemed always to be someone who followed his muse, oblivious to what
I or a lot of other people thought. I'm just grateful he gave us such a
range of music; there's never a bad time to play Miles.
Alfredo Santa Cruz
: On 1 Apr 1995, Alfredo Santa Cruz wrote:
: > perhaps fashionably, say that "Miles is overrated." But, that night? No
: > way! He was God! As for all the silly quotes from his "autobiography," who
: > gives a shit what words a musican *speaks*? It's what he *plays*; and the
: > Miles Davis quintets, Relaxin', Cookin', Walkin', and the sextets with
: > Cannonball and Coltrane, of the late 50's were more than great. If he
: > "changed music" only once, that was enough.
: >
: It seems to me you are backing up the point you dislike: what he did in
: the 50's was pretty hot (even if we call it "cool"), and the original
: poster said just that. You say "if he 'changed music' only once, that
: was enough." Perhaps it would have been better if he hadn't tried to
: change it that last time. I was able to catch him live 4 times, but
: only during what I call his rock and roll period. I never had the same
: kind of feeling you did, but had I been there in '59, I would probably
: feel the way you do now.
Okay, I overreacted. I liked Miles' "fusion" period but not as much as the
50's stuff. It lacked, for me, the cool fire of his prime 50's recordings.
: The nature of his being "overrated" is not that what he did in 1959
: wasn't great--it was. What he did from Bitches Brew on was not so great,
: but many people on rmb seem to think it was. To me, the fact that all
: his periods seem to get rated equally is what makes him overrated.
Idol worship, perhaps; the god can do no wrong for some.
: By the way, the recordings you mentioned are all from my favorite Miles
: period. Given that you like them as much as you say you do, do you
: really like the stuff he did from Bitches Brew on as much? I'll bet you
: don't.
You are right. Not as much.
Pete
: On Thu, 23 Mar 1995, Pete wrote:
: > Some Brubeck thoughts.
: > I don't think anybody ever seriously regarded him as a cutting-edge
: > pianist. His foundation is clearly classical. I always felt that he
: > any new ground; "Take 5" is a boring piece - lame compared to other
: > "odd-meter" playing going on at the time - but Dave got the single into
: > Jukeboxes in your local diner, and it was definitely Jazz: Kenny G gets
: > The group ... Paul Desmond was a flower in a pot of shit. As we
Steve Robinson (stev...@u.washington.edu) wrote:
: There is an inconsistency in your argument: Paul Desmond, the "flower in
: a pot of shit" you describe, wrote Take 5, not Dave Brubeck. I enjoyed
: Desmond a lot, but I think the total package of that quartet is what
: made it good. Also, to describe Desmond in that way denigrates Joe
: Morello as well as Brubeck. To my mind, Morello is one of the greatest,
: most inventive drummers who ever lived.
Okay, I'll modify a bit. I know Paul wrote "Take 5" and I still think
that while its a pretty tune it was compositionally not as strong as the
stuff Brubeck wrote. All of their forays into "odd" meters were stilted
compared to stuff their jazz contemporaries were doing; they just made it
popular. As individual jazz players, Desmond was clearly a level above
the rest of the group. The music they did was a great setting for him,
but I think he would have been a standout in any situation. I don't see
that with Morello. Joe can play ... but if I made a list of greatest
drummers ever, it would have to get long before I could place him on
there. There have just been too many innovative drummers that had an
impact on the scene. I friend of mine - world class drummer - who has
studied with Joe for years, says that Joe has the greatest snare
technique of any drummmer ... ever. That's probably true. But I can't
think of him in the same way as Elvin or Buddy or Blakey or Tony Williams
or Lenny White or Paul Motian or Sonny Payne or Jimmy Cobb or Bernard
Purdie etc etc
So I retract the "flower in a pot of shit" description: It was meant
only to say that Paul was a great saxophonist who didn't seem to quite
belong where he was being heard. If he were around today, fronting Sypro
Gyra, I probably would have made the same comment. But the Brubeck 4 ...
in any case, I absolutely agree with you that it was the total package
that made it so good. Everything's relative - of course there was better
jazz being played at the time - but that was a great quartet.
Pete
Thomas F Brown
>At the risk of becoming flamebait I had always assumed that many of Miles
>compositions where "band tunes" and Miles rightly or wrongly took credit
>as he was the leader. For instance the tune Blue and Green, Miles takes
>credit for it on KOB but B.Evans has his name as composer when he covers it.
>I wonder how many other examples of tune "appropriations" are known.
I think we've been over this topic a few times. As I recall, the list
includes Blue In Green, Four and Tune Up (both by Eddie Vinson),
perhaps Nardis (disputed), and a few others. I'd guess that a lot of the
1969-75 stuff is basically organized jamming conducted by Miles--why
shouldn't he put his name on it?
Par lll
The reason Miles is cited as one of the most influential jazz artist of
all time is he single handedly, conceptually reshaped the music at least
three times. THis is his talent along with shaping a group of talented
but unfocused musicians. His recordings reflect a center, a bottom of the
heart form of expression not found in most jazz recordings. He began the
Birth of the Cool, the modal movement, and the fusion movement. He
changed the sound of the trumpet into something that was different,
although reminiscent of Roy Eldridge, and brought the eloquent art of
ballad playing with the close miked harmon mute into the forefront. His
music is intellectual, and therefore it takes a thorough study of the
entire repertoire, beginning to end, and a knowledge of the ever-changing
personnel in his grouup. (a life study) Although I know this, I have
emerged from my Miles period and am searching for a newer form of jazz
that hasn't come around yet.
Sincerely,
P Reichle
Brian Kelly
broadcasts, a friend mentioned a comment that was made on the program
that I found interesting. The documentors said that the reason some
people were questioning Miles' abilities was because of the breadth of
recorded material that is available. While Parker and Young, two of the
musicians that Miles is now being compared to, began their recording
careers only after they had reached the peak of the talents, Miles'
recordings began in his late teens when he was first began playing with
the "big guys".
jacob...@msdisk.wustl.edu
>Doesn't anyone notice the divide between acoustic and electric, or
>
>I just don't see how anyone with a critical mind could be equally
>passionate about the music from these two periods. Does anyone agree?
The gap you mention is vast. Unfortunately most people stand on the
pre-BB side of it.
There is no reason why you cannot appreciate both phases critically.
They are so different that you have to apply different standards,
but they are both outstanding. You cannot expect the degree of order
and "space" found on Kind of Blue to apply to On the Corner or Pangaea.
It is a totally different thing.
Perhaps it is open-mindedness that allows critical reception of the late
music. You have to be willing to accept that Miles chose a completely
different form of expression. It was his artistic evolution (never
pausing in one place) which made every performance so interesting.
It could be because the same people who like Miles might totally hate
Ornette or Cecil Taylor, they just divide their minds into two parts,
one of which appreciates modal jazz and one which hates the avant garde.
There is no reason these categories need to be mutually exclusive.
My $0.02.
-Nils
Lindel Holden
|>
|> Perhaps it is open-mindedness that allows critical reception of the late
|> music. You have to be willing to accept that Miles chose a completely
|> different form of expression. It was his artistic evolution (never
|> pausing in one place) which made every performance so interesting.
|>
|> It could be because the same people who like Miles might totally hate
|> Ornette or Cecil Taylor, they just divide their minds into two parts,
|> one of which appreciates modal jazz and one which hates the avant garde.
|> There is no reason these categories need to be mutually exclusive.
|>
|> My $0.02.
|>
|> -Nils
I have not ventured beyond Bitches Brew yet. I came to jazz later in life after
growing up listening to RnR like led zepplin, hendrix etc. I lost interest in rock in general
and discovered jazz. Jazz is pretty much "new music" for me. I have conciously put off Bitches Brew
until I have mined all the older 50's 60's and a little 40's jazz. BB seemed to me like it might leaning towards
the posturing and other elements of RnR that I become bored with. It's not that I think Miles later periods
are "bad" it's just that I am not interested yet in that direction for jazz. As soon as I exhaust the mine of older jazz
I'll probably get Bitches Brew and Tony Williams Lifeline. Mahavishnu etc.
I also agree with the points Marc Sabatella has made about miles being overated. Some of his fans seem to feel everything
he did was "great" and can`t accept someone saying that might be indications of being overrated. I love
Trane but I would say every period and recording are equally great.
--
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
Marc Sabatella
> I think the problem with most of his later work that he wasn't being pushed by
> musicians of the quality of Coltrane or "the rhythm section"( Jones, Chambers and partic.
> Garland) or even Gil Evans. All the later musicians he worked with seem to have held
> Miles in awe and not challenged him, however good they were themselves - Jarrett, Shorter,
I see this precisely the other way around: Miles basically carried an otherwise
ordinary-sounding trio in the 1950's, but was barely able to keep up with what
Wayne, Herbie, and Tony were up to!
Jeff Beer
Marc Sabatella <ma...@sde.hp.com> wrote:
>ron santen / sarah livingstone wrote:
>
>> I think the problem with most of his later work that he wasn't being pushed by
>> musicians of the quality of Coltrane or "the rhythm section"( Jones, Chambers and partic.
>> Garland) or even Gil Evans. All the later musicians he worked with seem to have held
>> Miles in awe and not challenged him, however good they were themselves - Jarrett, Shorter,
>
>I see this precisely the other way around: Miles basically carried an otherwise
>ordinary-sounding trio in the 1950's, but was barely able to keep up with what
>Wayne, Herbie, and Tony were up to!
Seriously?
Jeff
Steven Worshtil
about the John Tesh PBS special. "...so cool the way he moves his head
when the music gets jazzy," she said to her.
With this my evidence, I submit that John Tesh is the most overrated jazz
artist...though I did have a collie once that also played none too red hot.
Steve Worshtil, Dallas
Eric Nielsen
jn> Perhaps it is open-mindedness that allows critical reception of the late
jn> music. You have to be willing to accept that Miles chose a completely
jn> different form of expression. It was his artistic evolution (never
jn> pausing in one place) which made every performance so interesting.
From listening to all of Miles' music, it's noticeable that Miles was always
trying to discover new textures to play over. After establishing himself
playing with Bird, Miles experimented with a nonet and played melodic,
arranged cool jazz. In the fifties, he further developed the bop-concept.
Then, he dove into modalism as a new basis for improvisation, followed by
himself against an orchestra, with a post-bop group in the mid sixties, the
electronic textures and one-chord songs of In A Silent Way, the revolutionary
sounds of Bitches Brew, Miles on the Corner, the Agharta group, etc.
Miles' musical voice was always his own, but he changed the setting constantly
to allow for his own musical development, as well as the young musicians
around him. Improvisation was always the key ingredient, and as all jazz
musicians know, the musical setting in which you find yourself has a great
impact on the ideas you conceive.
To those who say Miles is overrated, I ask if you are speaking in terms of
Miles the trumpet player of Miles the musician. Sure, there were better
trumpet players throughout the years. But did any of them have the vision it
took to break down the endless line of musical boundaries in which many
musicians were simply playing a string of cliches? Miles was one of the
century's great musicians - with an incredible melodic and rhythmic sense, and
concerned not only with individual solos but an entire atmosphere. It's
fortunate that Miles was around to keep ideas flowing and keep jazz moving
forward.
Eric
--
|Fidonet: Eric Nielsen 1:259/2
|Internet: e...@gryn.org
|
| Standard disclaimer: The views of this user are strictly his own.
Paul Toliver
Worshtil) writes:
Even more than Kenny G(ee)?
Paul T., Seattle
Par lll
about Miles. I prefer the Sorcorer, E.S.P., Miles Smiles period. What
uncharted territory in the terms of what came before it. (and what came
after it) I also like Live Evil and am waitng for it to come out on CD.
Darryl Jones isnot my favorite bass player, but I appreciate the fusion
aspect of post jazz fusion and hip hop you are talking about. The Retern
of the Brecker Brothers is a slightly more commercialized version of the
same.
I don't know where television music or film music is going. What I hear
on TV these days, compared to the glory days is such crap. (due largely
to the home MIDI studio and economics so related) It would be glorious to
see a large big band or studio orchestra back on a sound state with
quality players for real. As much as I play jazz and commercial music, I
have come back to the conclusion that the instrumentation of the big band
(or jazz orchestra, per say) and the symphonic orchestra are still the
most widely diverse and musical organizations in exixtence. (and I have a
big home MIDI studio!!!)
Miles was an icon and my goal was to meet or play withhim before he died.
I failed, of course, but am gladedned to see Wallace Roney performing such
a realistic impersonation of him.
Sincerely,
Paul Reichle lll
Hope you are back online before 20 years!
Par lll
You're right about the misappropriation of tunes. But...Miles was
instrumental in reshaping the tunes to strip away the superfilous (sp?)
material and work them into his band concept. I always enjoy Herbies
playing much more with Miles because it is streamlined, more direct, and
focused. "Block chords" "Play only in this register with one hand."
etc.
It's all subjective, and all art has merit, whichever way it's performed.
Miles was cautious and because the record labels were taking advantage of
poor, strung out musicians, he was probably overlycautious of protecting
materail he wrote or collaborated.
I have to disagree with you precept that Diz has more technique. In Miles
later years, he has just as much command of the instrument, but chose to
play differently. Chech out the Metronome All Stars with Fatgirl. They
all play "4's" and he demonstrates his ability to play Dizzy licks.
I will admit in his early years, he was still struggling with the horn,
and his approach.
Sincerely,
Paul Reichle lll
Lindel Holden
|>
D.J. Toman
>the most important musican of the last half-decade. My saying
>that he is in some sense "overrated" is not a reflection on Miles,
>but rather on some of his
> fans, who feel that calling someone the most important musician of
>the last half decade is not enough.
Wow, the most important musician over the past half decade. Hmm, that
means that "Amandla" and "Miles and Quincy at Montreux" must really be
exerting a powerful influence on music today!
>
Marc Sabatella
> I think the problem with most of his later work that he wasn't being pushed by
> musicians of the quality of Coltrane or "the rhythm section"( Jones, Chambers and partic.
> Garland) or even Gil Evans. All the later musicians he worked with seem to have held
> Miles in awe and not challenged him, however good they were themselves - Jarrett, Shorter,
I see this precisely the other way around: Miles basically carried an otherwise
ordinary-sounding trio in the 1950's, but was barely able to keep up with what
Wayne, Herbie, and Tony were up to!
--
Frank Lepkowski
: To those who say Miles is overrated, I ask if you are speaking in terms
of : Miles the trumpet player of Miles the musician. Sure, there were
better : trumpet players throughout the years. But did any of them have
the vision it : took to break down the endless line of musical boundaries
in which many : musicians were simply playing a string of cliches? Miles
was one of the : century's great musicians - with an incredible melodic
and rhythmic sense, and : concerned not only with individual solos but an
entire atmosphere. It's : fortunate that Miles was around to keep ideas
flowing and keep jazz moving : forward.
I write:
Speaking for myself, I think Miles is overrated because he consistently
inspires fulsome praise for every little thing he did, which overstates
his importance to the development of the music and the actual quality of
his work. Sorry, but I don't believe that wihtout the leadership of St.
Miles to fearlessly break boundaries, jazz would have been left to
recycling cliches. After the last great quintet, his influence on jazz
was decidedly baneful. First he made jazzy rock an incredibly
remunerative and also "hip" genre which made for a lot of undistinguished
70s music as everybody tried to cop the trend. Then after his
"retirement" in his comeback period he went to out and out slick studio
fuzak, to these ears indistinguishable from many other things you hear on
your typical contempo jazz station.
Recently I discovered again how baneful that influence was, and how far
it reached. If you listen to Joe Henderson's Milestone Years
compilation, you can see how a fiery, creative inside/outside player
changed with the trends of the times to make such undistinguished
jazz-rock as Multiple, and attempted jacuzzi jazz on Canyon Lady and
sides with Flora Purim. I mean, yuck! This is really sorry stuff, and
it makes Henderson's own comeback the more welcome, since he's done it
playing real jazz music instead of this dreck.
It is precisely this Miles mystique of supposed unceasingly creative
searching along with the hype-machine driven image of hipness associated
with him that made his baleful influence on jazz so powerful. And so
enthusiastically celebrated by many fans and writers in the jazz press.
A pernicious myth.
Frank Lepkowski
Oakland University
Marc Sabatella
> >I see this precisely the other way around: Miles basically carried an otherwise
> >ordinary-sounding trio in the 1950's, but was barely able to keep up with what
> >Wayne, Herbie, and Tony were up to!
> Seriously?
Yes.
Of course, "barely able to keep up" means that he *did* in fact keep up, but
there is no doubt in my mind that the second great quintet sounded the way it
did *because* of its rhythm section, while the first sounded the way it did
*despite* its rhythm section.
el...@eli.zilker.net
In article <3mbdis$s...@oak.oakland.edu>, <lepk...@saturn.acs.oakland.edu>
writes:
> It is precisely this Miles mystique of supposed unceasingly creative
> searching along with the hype-machine driven image of hipness associated
> with him that made his baleful influence on jazz so powerful. And so
> enthusiastically celebrated by many fans and writers in the jazz press.
> A pernicious myth.
>
> Frank Lepkowski
> Oakland University
>
>
in the fog. How could I ever think Miles was so hip? I see
everything so clearly now I think I'll burn all my Miles records
and cleanse myself of his "baleful influence".
elias