JSngry Posted July 8, 2005 Report Posted July 8, 2005 Yeah, even of I don't care for McDonough and have qualms about what he wrote, hey, I still enjoyed reading the article and appreciate having it posted here. If I gave the impression that I didn't, I apologize. My "dispute", such as it was, was in mild rebuttal to Dr. Rat's point, and then one thing led to another... ← Apparently your rebuttal was not so subtle. Good Thad Jones tune, BTW. ← Apparently not, and yes it is! Quote
Quincy Posted July 8, 2005 Report Posted July 8, 2005 I didn't think the responses were particularly angry or nasty. Just some regulars bein' themselves. Definitely don't take any of it personally though, clandy44. ← Another thanks to Clandy for posting the article. I used to subscribe to the WSJ, and always appreciated the Arts & Leisure section as a break from all of the business. I'm also happy to get a 3rd or 4th confirmation on this: September 'Miles Davis: The Cellar Door Sessions 1970' (6 CDs) I've now seen it in print enough that I'm just about ready to believe it will happen! Quote
Guy Berger Posted July 8, 2005 Report Posted July 8, 2005 I'm also happy to get a 3rd or 4th confirmation on this: September 'Miles Davis: The Cellar Door Sessions 1970' (6 CDs) I've now seen it in print enough that I'm just about ready to believe it will happen! ← It's gonna rock... I can't wait until the John McDonough review. Guy Quote
brownie Posted July 8, 2005 Report Posted July 8, 2005 Sorry I posted. Won't be doing that again. Sick of all the angry folks. Good luck to you. ← Clandy44, Please don't be upset by the reaction and discussion that followed. When you post an article you never know what way the discussion will go. I posted an article once and the discussion went in a completely different direction that what I thought would happen. That's just the way it goes sometimes. I appreciate you posting the article because I wouldn't have seen it otherwise. ← I'll join the silent majority on this one! Clandy, your posting the article was very much appreciated here. Would not have read this if you had not relayed it! Your thread went all sideways, a typical Organissimo happening! Please post more Quote
Dr. Rat Posted July 8, 2005 Report Posted July 8, 2005 Yeah, even of I don't care for McDonough and have qualms about what he wrote, hey, I still enjoyed reading the article and appreciate having it posted here. If I gave the impression that I didn't, I apologize. My "dispute", such as it was, was in mild rebuttal to Dr. Rat's point, and then one thing led to another... ← And point well taken. No anger there I shouldn't think. By this time we are all so used to each others contrariness we needn't get angry. The fact that people are "disputing" is testimony to the value of the post. Wait until you post something and NO ONE replies! That's when you feel like you've wasted your time. So your post inspired something--maybe not exactly what you wanted, but still, it's something, modest as may be. Anyhow, having worked in newspaper journalism, you would be amazed at what even editors don't know. For instance, who Miles Davis is and how anyone else might be expected to know who the hell you are talking about. So if you want to write about him and not do the "introducing Miles Davis" routine, you end up talking about him as a pop icon first and foremost. So Miles may have been considered to have been an innovator after Birth of the Cool, but by whom? Certainly not by your average WSJ reader. It's kind of like writing about Umberto Eco. Where do you start? Prominent semiotician and literary critic turned novelist? Or do you just start with the Name of the Rose and go from there? The answer for the vast majority of mass market editors is clear: no one gives a damn about his prominence in specialist fields, everyone cares about his fame. Not that you ignore the rest, but that the context you are writing about Eco in is a mass market context, and that's the primary frame of reference for the whole piece. There is a certain craft to this kind of writing which makes people comfortable with the scant knowledge they already have while at the same time making them feel they ought to know more about Miles Davis than they already do. One thing this means is that you don't shower readers with all kinds of accurate information they don't know yet and look upon as trivial. That's a sure way to make people stop reading. The context for this kind of writing is what is already between the ears of the reader, not truth as perceived by the mind of God. It doesn't really pay to get too nit-picky with the tactics used to get readers from a state of woeful ignorance to one of functional literacy and curiosity for more: if there are outrageous falsehoods, that's one thing. But when it's a matter of something as nebulous as when (and by whom) Miles Davis was considered to be an innovator . . . well, it doesn't much matter. I write this as someone who has gotten this lecture repeatedly from editors who may have been culturally illiterate, but who were very good at relating to their readers. And then there's the matter of what Davis's contributions to the Birth of the Cool sessions really were, but we'll leave that to the side. --eric Quote
JSngry Posted July 8, 2005 Report Posted July 8, 2005 Well now, ask yourself this - was the focus of the article supposed to be on Miles Davis or George Avakian? On what George Avakian did for Miles, or what Miles did for/on Columbia after Avakian got him there? Can't tell for sure? Neither can I! But that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy reading it anyway! Quote
Dr. Rat Posted July 8, 2005 Report Posted July 8, 2005 Well now, ask yourself this - was the focus of the article supposed to be on Miles Davis or George Avakian? On what George Avakian did for Miles, or what Miles did for/on Columbia after Avakian got him there? Can't tell for sure? Neither can I! But that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy reading it anyway! ← A short George Avakian tribute sliiping over the transom disguised as a record release notice? --eric Quote
AllenLowe Posted July 8, 2005 Report Posted July 8, 2005 (edited) well, I would argue that the early Columbia years were the innovative ones - the fusion stuff was more Miles the follower than Miles the leader - now, everbody, yell at me - Edited July 8, 2005 by AllenLowe Quote
CJ Shearn Posted July 8, 2005 Report Posted July 8, 2005 I sort of agree Allen, b/c the electric Miles was stuff he was doing that piqued his ear from other cats, just putting his signature on it. Quote
Jazzmoose Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 My first thought (in reaction to the sentence in question) was to Miles' second quintet, not his electric stuff. Quote
Guy Berger Posted July 9, 2005 Report Posted July 9, 2005 well, I would argue that the early Columbia years were the innovative ones - the fusion stuff was more Miles the follower than Miles the leader -← Who was Miles following on Agharta and Pangaea? Guy Quote
AllenLowe Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 (edited) oh, probably something he heard on the radio - at this point he was way behind the curve - Edited July 10, 2005 by AllenLowe Quote
AllenLowe Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 (edited) and note that I did not say he was ONLY a follower, not a leader, but MORE a follower than a leader - check out, eg, Allan Holdsworth's 1968 British recordings - Edited July 10, 2005 by AllenLowe Quote
Michael Fitzgerald Posted July 10, 2005 Report Posted July 10, 2005 Is there something earlier than the 'Igginbottom's Wrench band? I thought that was 1969. Mike Quote
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.