Miles Davis question

[md655321]

These debates sure do go ALOT either when jim is on your side. (atleast partially)

Excellent stuff!

[JSngry]

Tex-- I'm long past my Shoney's daze but let's hook up at Waffle House sometime, my treat!

Yuron!

[AllenLowe]

I'm not sure why we seem to be accepting Miles as only an inventor on a small level - as I said earlier, he basically invented the group setup for hard bop, re-designed the entire approach to bebop in the direction of modality, set an entirely new aesthetic for jazz (cool), brought Coltrane into the fold in such a way as to allow him to develop his skills and become the most important post-modern improvising influence, hired Bill Evans, who than became the most influential pianist of the post-1960 era, created a group that basically set a template for post-bop group design (thinking Shorter/Williams/Carter/Hancock), basically invented fusion - what more can we expect from any one musician?

Edited January 29, 2006 by AllenLowe

[marcello]

Right On ( or is it Right Off?), Allen!

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

These debates sure do go ALOT either when jim is on your side. (atleast partially)

Excellent stuff!

Don't matter whose side he's on. having something to say and the articulacy to say it is what this is all about.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

These debates sure do go ALOT either when jim is on your side. (atleast partially)

Excellent stuff!

Don't matter whose side he's on. having something to say and the articulacy to say it is what this is all about.

MG

No, that's wrong, because we're really all on the same side here.

MG

[jazzbo]

Damn straight!

[JSngry]

Bill Evans, who than became the most influential pianist of the post-1960 era,

Oh really?

One of the most influential I can see, but there sure seem to be a lot of pianists from the post-60s who were/are more influenced by McCoy and/or Cecil and hardly at all, if any, by Evans.

Or don't they count?

[AllenLowe]

they don't count...

actually I didn't say the ONLY influential pianist - but if we ran the numbers I am certain we would find more direct infuence of Evans than any other pianist from this period -

[JSngry]

Maybe, possibly, but I've got a hunch it would depend on where you did (or did not do) the counting.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Maybe, possibly, but I've got a hunch it would depend on where you did (or did not do) the counting.

Look them up in the 50 greatest jazz pianists book.

Hur hur

MG

[AllenLowe]

I was thinking we'd go down to the local music school with one of those Diebold paper-less voting machines -

[clifford_thornton]

to clarify on Ware, how a guy on Silkheart, DIW, Homestead & Columbia/Sony didn't have his chances... you wanna talk waaaay underrated: Frank Lowe...

I was just playing the Ware card for reaction - I actually have little interest in his playing. Frank Lowe, yes. Kalaparusha, yes. Noah Howard, sometimes. I think what I was trying to get at was whether major label support and artistic conviction were, in theory, enough to drive somebody's work into public consciousness and interest. Obviously, neither are "enough." Edit: Clem: Not sure if we were on the same page on Ware in the first place - I'm well aware of his lengthy and well-distributed discography, though it seems the Columbia thing could've played out a bit differently than it actually did.

Part of Miles' astuteness comes from being able to put together a band greater than the sum of its parts, and not relying wholly on his own approach as a soloist - even Lee Morgan or Woody Shaw couldn't, in my estimation, follow through in a similar trajectory. Like my comment in another thread, I really don't dig Noah Howard's playing all that much - solely on the whims of personal taste - but the guy could put together some great bands and wrote a number of wonderful compositions. Ditto on the bands operated by my namesake, though Thornton isn't always my first-choice soloist. Nevertheless, he put together some mean groups. So it seems on some level with Miles. Edit: Not to be confused with comparing Thornton and Howard to Miles on a grander scale.

Edited January 30, 2006 by clifford_thornton

[clifford_thornton]

I'm not sure why we seem to be accepting Miles as only an inventor on a small level - as I said earlier, he basically invented the group setup for hard bop, re-designed the entire approach to bebop in the direction of modality, set an entirely new aesthetic for jazz (cool), brought Coltrane into the fold in such a way as to allow him to develop his skills and become the most important post-modern improvising influence, hired Bill Evans, who than became the most influential pianist of the post-1960 era, created a group that basically set a template for post-bop group design (thinking Shorter/Williams/Carter/Hancock), basically invented fusion - what more can we expect from any one musician?

I hadn't read that comment before posting my little two cents, but I would suppose that is the main thing for his work in the 50s-60s. Funny, it does sorta sound business-like, when you put it in those terms (not a slag). Sometimes it's hard to separate astuteness from creative genius. But then, Miles is quite irreplicable, as Cecil, Mingus, the AEC in their prime, etc.

[AllenLowe]

for what it's worth, I think Ware is a great tenor saxophonist -

[medjuck]

Miles's records releases in the latter part of the 50's had an amazing impact, amongst other things establishing

what became-- for better or for worse-- the standard jazz repertoire and intoducing an all star cast of players to a wider audience. I've been trying to find out exactly when the Lps were released but can't get good data on the Prestiges. As s far as I can figure out:

In 1957 the first 12 inch release of Birth of the Cool (and I think the first time it was called that) along with 'Round Midnight and Cookin'.

In '58 Miles Ahead, Relaxin', Milestones, Something Else, LeGrande Jazz and Workin'

In '59 Porgy and Bess, Kind Of Blue and Jazztrack.

That's some release schedule.

[ep1str0phy]

In the end, what's relevant to you, as a thinking person and not a simple reflexive receptor (or reflexive rejector!) of hype is what you'll place the most value on. But it would behoove you to pay attention to what ends you ultimately put the power that comes with that value (and make no mistake - value is power). Use it to expand awareness, true awareness, deep (so deep you can't get under it) awareness, of yourself and those around you, enabling in both you and them the abiltiy to Travel The Spaceways From The Ancient To The Future, and yeah, that's a black thing.

Use it to smash one empiricism only to replace it with another, and that's just the same thing only different, which is a white thing.

A very white thing.

Can't say that I can (personally) add much to an intensely contentious (if fascinating) debate (and we truly are doing a disservice to Miles by propping him up as a sort of aesthetic straw man--regardless of others' merits--Woody included). And yes--the whole "one man against the canon" thing is admirable, if foolhardy. Nonetheless, it almost seems as if we're losing the original intent of the thread--to psychologize a difficult phenomenon, regardless of personal conception. And seriously, folks: subjective judgments are difficult to challenge, but attempting to foist our dogma upon objective (if unfortunate) phenomena is a fool's errand. We can't actively change the canon--it just is... which isn't to say that there isn't value in information, awareness, etc. Which is why the quote above gets my vote for post of the day.

--And I agree on Frank Lowe.

[clifford_thornton]

I agree that we're way beyond the scope of the origninal thread, which was how he was so popular. Not sure if that's to be conflated with why, or why he was who he was. I got it as more related to marketing (both his own and his record companies), than the caliber of his playing, or group assembly, or ideas w/r/t music.

Like it's been stated previously, conviction in the 'rightness' of one's art and the idea that it should be presented in a maximal way, combined with record company pockets, don't seem to quite get at how this phenomenon occurs. Hence my attempts to augment the topic with more left-field artists, but it seems that that isn't going to work here.

[ep1str0phy]

I agree that we're way beyond the scope of the origninal thread, which was how he was so popular. Not sure if that's to be conflated with why, or why he was who he was. I got it as more related to marketing (both his own and his record companies), than the caliber of his playing, or group assembly, or ideas w/r/t music.

Like it's been stated previously, conviction in the 'rightness' of one's art and the idea that it should be presented in a maximal way, combined with record company pockets, don't seem to quite get at how this phenomenon occurs. Hence my attempts to augment the topic with more left-field artists, but it seems that that isn't going to work here.

No, point taken. Personal opinion on the artistic merits (or lack thereof) of a particular artist (whether it be Ware or Shaw or whatever) isn't going to answer the initial question posed by this thread. I think it's fairly obvious that the members of this board don't speak for the better portion of the record buying public (let alone its specific sins/mindless apotheosizing).

[clifford_thornton]

I think it's fairly obvious that the members of this board don't speak for the better portion of the record buying public (let alone its specific sins/mindless apotheosizing).

Totally agree. Nor do board members speak for one another, though we often try to, it seems!

[clifford_thornton]

Derailment #xxx - a MAJOR difference between Miles and Bill Evans: Evans' tropes were copied in a way as to promote a certain 'style' of playing, rather than a notch in the music's continual refinement. Miles was about as far from a given 'style' as one could get. Granted, what Bill Evans did could probably not have been done without the references to Miles' work of a certain period.

It's funny - if anyone here had said even five years ago that I would be remarking extensively on anything Miles-related, no matter how oblique the connection, I would've scoffed. Certainly not the biggest Miles nut around, but the discussion is interesting.

[johnagrandy]

Part of Miles' astuteness comes from being able to put together a band greater than the sum of its parts, and not relying wholly on his own approach as a soloist - even Lee Morgan or Woody Shaw couldn't, in my estimation, follow through in a similar trajectory.

You seem to have overall more knowledge of jazz than myself ... but you're so way way off on this one.

Woody didn't even have any money and look what bands he put together:

Cassandrite

Joe Henderson

Larry Young

Herbie Hancock

George Cables

Ron Carter

Cecil McBee

Paul Chambers

Joe Chambers

The Moontrane

Steve Turre

Azar Lawrence

Onaje Allen Gumbs

Buster Williams

Victor Lewis

Love Dance

Steve Turre

Rene McClean

Billy Harper

Joe Bonner

Cecil McBee

Victor Lewis

Little Red's Fantasy

Frank Strozier

Ronnie Mathews

Stafford James

Eddie Moore

Now's he's got a little money, and look at the monster late 70s / early 80s core Woody touring combo , considered the greatest in the jazz world at the time (Branford even says it on his website -- if you consider Branford an authority).

Why? 'Cause every player was a f'ing monster:

Carter Jefferson and/or Steve Turre

Larry Willis or Mulgrew Miller or Onaje Allen Gumbs (sometimes, I think, could be wrong)

Stafford James

Victor Lewis (I think Tony Reedus took over at some point in very early 80s)

And then you add Dex into the core quartet for a tour or two ??!!

Plus, on the Columbia studios, looks who else shows up:

Joe Henderson

Gary Bartz

Rene McClean

James Spaulding

Curtis Fuller

George Cables

Onaje Allen Gumbs

Tony Reedus

Buster Williams

Clint Houston

Then the more esoteric stuff:

Concert Ensemble

Rene McClean

Frank Foster

Slide Hampton

Ronnie Mathews

Stafford James

Louis Hayes

Iron Men

Arthur Blythe

Anthony Braxton

Muhal Richard Abrams

Cecil McBee

Joe Chambers

Victor Lewis

Woody did just as much if not more than Miles in terms of building highly synnergistic playing units.

Edited January 30, 2006 by johnagrandy

[ep1str0phy]

Woody did just as much if not more than Miles in terms of building playing units.

Point taken in the way of "names" on Woody recordings (although it should be stressed that some of the aforementioned personnel were broken up into smaller combos on some of the albums, as I'm sure you're aware). At the same time, Miles's most successful groups have very often been touring bands--well-honed, road-worn combos that lasted for years (or at least longer than a recording session or two)... the Jackie McLean groups, 1st great quintet, quintet + Cannonball, second great quintet, the Shorter/Corea/Holland/DeJohnette band, numerous electric combos of variable personnel... Woody's bands are nothing to scoff at, but he certainly had far fewer canonically "great" studio or (especially) touring units than Miles did. Woody's combos never wholly relied on his solo chops, but Woody the technician was probably more integral a component of the great Shaw bands than Miles the improviser was in any of his (check out the 70's electric combos). Again, Woody was a phenomenal musician and bandleader; Miles, however, is renowned in certain circles for his bandleading skills alone... even among those who aren't particularly fond of his trumpet stylings (which is indeed a unique role among great jazz figures, notwithstanding a couple of significant faces--e.g., Hemphill very, very late on).

Edited January 30, 2006 by ep1str0phy

[AllenLowe]

one difference is that Miles really created those bands from (many) relative unknowns, much more so than Shaw -

[JSngry]

Like it's been stated previously, conviction in the 'rightness' of one's art and the idea that it should be presented in a maximal way, combined with record company pockets, don't seem to quite get at how this phenomenon occurs.

I would suggests that this conviction of rightness extends far beyond the relatively simple confines of "one's art", but instead has everything to do with one's view of one's self as a human being and how one is able/willing to interact with/use the existing power structure in order to extract maximum gain (and not just financial) for one's self at minimal cost to one's true self.

Not a job for the faint of heart, the reluctant soul, somebody hellbent on destruction (of either self or of said system) or otherwise not willing/able to play the game on its own terms as well as on one's own.

A question - is there any icon in any area of Our Popular Culture, "deserving" or otherwise, who achieved iconic status entirely against their will?