The electric Miles legacy

[JSngry]

Oh please - Stitt's discography is full of sessions where he coasted - often blatantly so. Granted, his coasting was often at a level that most player's would feel blessed to reach once or twice, but still...let's call it what it is, which is cranking it out for a paycheck. Nothing wrong with it, but let's call it what it is, otherwise if it's all good, then what the hell does "good" really mean anyway?

OTOH, agree w/you completely about the realness of later Pepper. I'm on record here as favoring later over any other period, actually.

I don't begrudge either of those cats their direction, but please - you're supposed to be good. so excuse me if I don't get all excited about just that. Expert but "uninspired"...not a trend I'd like to encourage for anybody in any field, except maybe robotics.

[fasstrack]

....his coasting was often at a level that most player's would feel blessed to reach once or twice.....

Exactly. Thank you.....

[JSngry]

Hey, nobody's denying the advanced skill set...and that definitely commands respect, but as far as "admiration"....depends on to what use it's put, and about Stitt, I like to say that there's never any question about what he's going to play, just how he plays it. When he was fully fired up, he was a bad mofo. But, on record anyway, he was fully fired not that often. And he had a lower gear that was almost comical in just how obviously phoning it in he was.

Honestly, though, if you want to talk about being "creative" or "artistry" or some such, Sonny Stitt at his very best never went to that "zone" of magic that The True Giants did, which is ok, I don't think that was even his aim anyway, ever, I'm just saying, let's give respect not only where it is due, but for what it is due as well. I saw Stitt awake from slumber on a local gig once, and what he was all about was skills, hardcore, pure and simple skills. And he them in deep abundacne. But comparing him & Art Pepper is like comparing cake to pie, or something like that. Once you get past the fact that both are desserts and that both are baked...they rapidly become two equal yet different items.

[fasstrack]

Hey, nobody's denying the advanced skill set...and that definitely commands respect, but as far as "admiration"....depends on to what use it's put, and about Stitt, I like to say that there's never any question about what he's going to play, just how he plays it. When he was fully fired up, he was a bad mofo. But, on record anyway, he was fully fired not that often. And he had a lower gear that was almost comical in just how obviously phoning it in he was.

Honestly, though, if you want to talk about being "creative" or "artistry" or some such, Sonny Stitt at his very best never went to that "zone" of magic that The True Giants did, which is ok, I don't think that was even his aim anyway, ever, I'm just saying, let's give respect not only where it is due, but for what it is due as well. I saw Stitt awake from slumber on a local gig once, and what he was all about was skills, hardcore, pure and simple skills. And he them in deep abundacne. But comparing him & Art Pepper is like comparing cake to pie, or something like that. Once you get past the fact that both are desserts and that both are baked...they rapidly become two equal yet different items.

I hear the passion and the cry. Sorry you don't, but it's OK. I'm gonna duck out of this part of the discussion. No point in going in circles.

[JSngry]

I hear the passion and the cry. Sorry you don't, but it's OK. I

Oh please. I do hear it - when it's there. And to what degree it's there when it is there.

If you really think that, for example, the "All God's Children..." date w/Bud Powell (highest inspiration) & At The DJ Lounge (groovy, fine club date) & So Doggone Good (competent but bland)& Come Hither (comically, cynically uninvolved) are more or less interchangeable in terms of passion & cry, then...you can't be serious.

[papsrus]

Just watched the documentary "Miles Electric," which looks at Miles Davis' quick transformation to his early electric period. A little uneven, but a nice chunk of footage of his band at Isle of Wight. Pretty amazing. Comments from the likes of Crouch, Santana (a lot of Santana, which seemed odd at first but kind of makes sense), Holland, Corea, Hancock, Joni Mitchell, Airto Moreira, DeJohnette.

Interesting music, although not something I'm really drawn to. Like pretty much everything that happened late 60s, early 70s, very much of the period; saturated with early 70s hipness that doesn't translate all that well beyond the period. For me, anyways.

But I have no doubt the music was real. There's no way that music was contrived. It was new and uncharted, for the band members themselves. Keith Jarrett said he wasn't really interested in playing an organ, and felt he brought nothing "musical" to the band. What he brought, he said, was energy. Moreira was amazing. I hadn't realized how much he brought to that middle part of the music that was referred to earlier. And the look on Holland's face as they played at Isle of Wight was one of "I'm having the time of my life." They all looked that way, really. Except for Miles -- super cool.

btw, Crouch said in the documentary that listening to Bitches Brew was like have a nail pounded into his hand with every note Miles Davis played, sort of an oblique crucifixion reference, I guess.

Edited July 18, 2009 by papsrus

[sidewinder]

Sandoval?

[papsrus]

sorry. brain fart. Airto Moreira

[JSngry]

Like pretty much everything that happened late 60s, early 70s, very much of the period; saturated with early 70s hipness that doesn't translate all that well beyond the period. For me, anyways.

What I'm finding out is that a lot of what "we" find "dated" is what a few generations on are often finding to be "substance".

And more power to them for that, as long as they treat it as such.

[A Lark Ascending]

Like pretty much everything that happened late 60s, early 70s, very much of the period; saturated with early 70s hipness that doesn't translate all that well beyond the period. For me, anyways.

What I'm finding out is that a lot of what "we" find "dated" is what a few generations on are often finding to be "substance".

Very true. Bach was considered 'dated' for decades.

What happens with time is that the 'hipness' that Papsrus talks about slips into the background. If the music has the power to engage, move, enthrall then it's that which comes to the front; the packaging is still there but it doesn't have the distracting effect it has at the time and in the immediate aftermath (especially in the immediate aftermath, when new packaging makes the old look out-dated).

I can enjoy Charlie Parker or Lester Young completely undistracted by the hipness that swirled around them at the time. What matters has endured regardless of changing fashions on the surface.

[papsrus]

Like pretty much everything that happened late 60s, early 70s, very much of the period; saturated with early 70s hipness that doesn't translate all that well beyond the period. For me, anyways.

What I'm finding out is that a lot of what "we" find "dated" is what a few generations on are often finding to be "substance".

Very true. Bach was considered 'dated' for decades.

What happens with time is that the 'hipness' that Papsrus talks about slips into the background. If the music has the power to engage, move, enthrall then it's that which comes to the front; the packaging is still there but it doesn't have the distracting effect it has at the time and in the immediate aftermath (especially in the immediate aftermath, when new packaging makes the old look out-dated).

I can enjoy Charlie Parker or Lester Young completely undistracted by the hipness that swirled around them at the time. What matters has endured regardless of changing fashions on the surface.

Yes. Part of my own filter. I overstated things when I said much of what was happening in the late 60s, early 70s doesn't translate well to today. That's clearly wrong. A friend's 9-year-old daughter was listening to the Beatles White Album last week. That album holds up very well, I think. And there is clearly a lot of music that was being created during that time that holds up today.

I think part of my own reaction to electric Miles stems from the fact that I was around and listening to music during that time, but I was listening to much less revolutionary music -- the White Album, for instance. So perhaps "dated" was the wrong sentiment. The music was "in the moment," and the "moment" was very much 1970, with all that implies. That might be a better way of saying it.

Whereas the White Album could have been made almost anytime post 1970, including today, electric Miles could only have happened when it did. I think that's a fair statement.

[AllenLowe]

well, funny that this comes up as I was thinking about that whole Miles era recently. I've always felt that when it comes to playing funk, jazz musicians are over-qualified - they kinda miss the feel. Problem is that many of them feel superior to the music, even as they play it. The attitude tends to be "I'll show those other guys how this can really sound."

Personally I'll take one '50s James Brown band over twenty '70s fusion outfits (or hollow groups like the Crusaders). I heard that era Miles in person on 4, 5 occasions, and I was at the Fillmore East on one of the nights they taped - as a matter of fact, I think I've told this before, I found myself (age 16) standing right next to Miles in the Fillmore lobby during intermission; my friend says "talk to him" but I froze up (he was quite small, and dressed like he was wearing some kind of Indian rug). One of the more terrifying moments of my life.

as to the music - well, I found (and I saw relatively early versions of the band, when Miles still had some chops) that there were moments of pure beauty followed by longer stretches of musical boredom, at least on my part. Even at age 16 I sensed that Miles had the right idea but was not completely able to separate trendiness from musicality. I only saw Hendrix once, also saw Sly and the Family Stone once (both at the Fillmore) but with both of those acts I got the sense that they knew where they were going and what they had to do, it just came naturally, as part of their background and musical DNA. Miles, I always thought, was working too hard. There was much more funk in the work of a later generation of players, when they got it right, as with Hemphill, who himself spoke of his time backing Ike and Tina Turner with great boredom - but who, on his own, took that idea to places that, IMHO, Miles never got near.

It's not unrelated to the mediocre music Sonny Rollins, in pursuit of a similar musical sound, has produced. There are musicians who can do it better than the guys Sonny works with (and I know this will piss people off, re-Miles, but there were funk drummers who, for example, could do it better than DeJohnette) - Miles would have done better to work with Hendrix and his rhythm section, who not only understood the time requirements but who also had a sense of how compact funk can be, from a musical and rhythmic sense. Too much time was spent watching Miles stand on the sidelines groovin' while the band played nothing of consequence.

Edited July 19, 2009 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

electric Miles could only have happened when it did. I think that's a fair statement.

Yeah, that's a fair statement, but so is saying that each of us could only have been born when we were born.

It would be wrong if something didn't get born at the only time it could have.

[papsrus]

electric Miles could only have happened when it did. I think that's a fair statement.

Yeah, that's a fair statement, but so is saying that each of us could only have been born when we were born.

It would be wrong if something didn't get born at the only time it could have.

Only you could have said that.

[JSngry]

well, funny that this comes up as I was thinking about that whole Miles era recently. I've always felt that when it comes to playing funk, jazz musicians are over-qualified - they kinda miss the feel. Problem is that many of them feel superior to the music, even as they play it. The attitude tends to be "I'll show those other guys how this can really sound."

Personally I'll take one '50s James Brown band over twenty '70s fusion outfits (or hollow groups like the Crusaders). I heard that era Miles in person on 4, 5 occasions, and I was at the Fillmore East on one of the nights they taped - as a matter of fact, I think I've told this before, I found myself (age 16) standing right next to Miles in the Fillmore lobby during intermission; my friend says "talk to him" but I froze up (he was quite small, and dressed like he was wearing some kind of Indian rug). One of the more terrifying moments of my life.

as to the music - well, I found (and I saw relatively early versions of the band, when Miles still had some chops) that there were moments of pure beauty followed by longer stretches of musical boredom, at least on my part. Even at age 16 I sensed that Miles had the right idea but was not completely able to separate trendiness from musicality. I only saw Hendrix once, also saw Sly and the Family Stone once (both at the Fillmore) but with both of those acts I got the sense that they knew where they were going and what they had to do, it just came naturally, as part of their background and musical DNA. Miles, I always thought, was working too hard. There was much more funk in the work of a later generation of players, when they got it right, as with Hemphill, who himself spoke of his time backing Ike and Tina Turner with great boredom - but who, on his own, took that idea to places that, IMHO, Miles never got near.

It's not unrelated to the mediocre music Sonny Rollins, in pursuit of a similar musical sound, has produced. There are musicians who can do it better than the guys Sonny works with (and I know this will piss people off, re-Miles, but there were funk drummers who, for example, could do it better than DeJohnette) - Miles would have done better to work with Hendrix and his rhythm section, who not only understood the time requirements but who also had a sense of how compact funk can be, from a musical and rhythmic sense. Too much time was spent watching Miles stand on the sidelines groovin' while the band played nothing of consequence.

If I thought that "jazz" was always/should always be "jazz" and that "funk"was always/should always be "funk" and that this rigid compartmentalization of music (i.e. life) was a good and/or necessary and/or inevitable thing, if I could only hear or think about music only in terms of what I knew (or thought I knew) , then I would have to agree with all of this, and enthusiastically so at that!

However, that is not how I feel.

[AllenLowe]

"if I could only hear or think about music only in terms of what I knew (or thought I knew) then I would have to agree with all of this"

you're right - time for me to start thinking about music in terms of what I don't know. Than I can come to certain decisions based on non-criteria. Or better still, maybe I should lobotomize myself for complete objectivity.

[JSngry]

"if I could only hear or think about music only in terms of what I knew (or thought I knew) then I would have to agree with all of this"

you're right - time for me to start thinking about music in terms of what I don't know. Than I can come to certain decisions based on non-criteria. Or better still, maybe I should lobotomize myself for complete objectivity.

You do what you want to do. If you need metrics uber alles, go for that. I need some, but not all the time and not for everything. But that's just me. We all do what we need to do.

I was just listing the only way that I could agree with what you said. That may or may not be what you meant, I was not interpreting that. But in order for me to agree with it, I would have to feel like I said I would have to feel.

And by the way, you're far from the only person who feels the way you about this music. Lots of people think it's an attempt at James Brown or Sly style "funk". I don't hear the music itself as anything even remotely resembling either JB of Sly in content or intent. Inspriation, sure, but a lot of things can inspire a lot of other things, and looking at results only in terms of inspiration is not necessarily accurate or advisable.

Imagination does not always yield easily to metric-ization, although metric-izers do. There's a omni-tentacled multi-gazillion dollar international economic structure built around doing exactly that

Edited July 19, 2009 by JSngry

[AllenLowe]

it is true, I do take a more cynical view of it - some musicians change because of certain pycho-artistic necessities; Hal Russell, John Coltrane, Gil Melle, Charles Mingus, Miles through most of his career - but I think Miles was finally just chasing the ultimate pussy of fame and broads, sometimes quite pathetically at this point in his life; it didn't cause him immediate problems because so much of the rock crowd craved the kind of hipness he conveyed by association, and knew so little about jazz that they assumed his word was gospel (hence Joni Mitchell's sincere but silly collaborations; her first idea of jazz was the LA Express). He just wanted their fame; his was just a much more sophisticated version of the same old thing I heard from many African American musicians in the 1970s and 1980s - pissed off that the kind of music they had developed (soul/blues/jazz) was being exploited in more commercially effective ways by white musicians, they decided they could do the same things themselves and score some cash. Most of the time they ended up sounding hopelessley dated. Miles did much better, he was a better and more creative musician, and he saw a real way to do it - he saw the ends, let us say, but the means was more problematic. Ultimately it did not matter much since musical deficiencies could be overcome with charisma and promotion.

Edited July 19, 2009 by AllenLowe

[JSngry]

Joni Mitchell with the LA Express produced an delightful synergy, I thought.

Miles with the LA Express, on the other hand, would have been and therein lies one of the many differences...

But really, what's wrong with "chasing the ultimate pussy of fame and broads"? Is it better to chase the ultimate sexlessness of obscurity & celibacy? Really?

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that to rail against the "status quo" from the outside without even trying to get in takes a lot less guts, imagination, and character than does subverting it from within. If you want to live a parallel life in a parallel universe, fine, do that. Been there, done that, might yet do it again. But to live on the outside while complaining that the inside is fucked up, well, DUH, what's the point? Either get out or get in, and don't bitch about what happens either way.

Personally, I think it was damn noble what Miles did (and alos vain, sure, but oh well, there's another one of the irresolvable contradictions that we find everywhere we look). He decided very early on in life that he was not going to be shut out of success, that he deserved sussess, and by god, he was going to get it the old fashioned way - by being to good, too interesting to resist. Even towards the end, when he was playing what could better be described as "instrumental pop" rather than "jazz", he was making it unlike anybody else, and far better than anybody else.

I wonder - how many of the people who really rail against the whole notion of Miles' "selling out" have some reservations within themselves about "stepping out" into a greater public profile? It's one thing to find a niche and preach to the choir, it's quite another to step out into the broader spotlight and dare people to dismiss you, especially when you're delivering your vision of what you want their terms to be. That takes some pretty massive guts/cojones/whatever.

Just my opinion, but I am getting tired of people (in all walks of life) who have no real ability or interest in belonging to the "bigger world" ranting and railing about their inability to do so. Like, if you got there, what would you do? Donald Byrd had some hits, and what did he do? Took the money and ran away. What did Miles do? Well, at first he ran away, but then he came and and dared the world to say that a middle-aged black jazz musician could be marginalized, ghettozied, and otherwise dismissed in terms of the culture "of the day". The world failed to do so.

More power to him, and more power to the music that he made in doing so. There's really no excuse for making all this piss-poor, redundant, limited (in every way) "lite jazz". Not after Miles.

[AllenLowe]

never said he shouldn't have done it - more power to him - just said I did not think, in general, that the music was very good.

though I do think he didn't need the extra fame, as there was probably no jazz musician more famous. I do think, however, that there was an ego thing involved that had little to do with musical considerations. If he wanted to indulge it, let him - I don't think there is any great principle involved. But I don't have to automatically jump on the bandwagon. And I do think it's appropriate for people to question his motives. Look, this is the guy who put down Ornette and Dolphy, and a hundred other muscians. He was as judgmental as they come, always questioning others' motives. So, judge not....

if he were a politician who changed his opinions in order to get elected, we would respond accordingly. Sure, someone can change their mind. Does not mean we suspend judgment. I think Miles was the musical equivalent of such.

Edited July 19, 2009 by AllenLowe

[mjzee]

Joni Mitchell with the LA Express produced an delightful synergy, I thought.

Miles with the LA Express, on the other hand, would have been and therein lies one of the many differences...

But really, what's wrong with "chasing the ultimate pussy of fame and broads"? Is it better to chase the ultimate sexlessness of obscurity & celibacy? Really?

The more I think about it, the more I come to the conclusion that to rail against the "status quo" from the outside without even trying to get in takes a lot less guts, imagination, and character than does subverting it from within. If you want to live a parallel life in a parallel universe, fine, do that. Been there, done that, might yet do it again. But to live on the outside while complaining that the inside is fucked up, well, DUH, what's the point? Either get out or get in, and don't bitch about what happens either way.

Personally, I think it was damn noble what Miles did (and alos vain, sure, but oh well, there's another one of the irresolvable contradictions that we find everywhere we look). He decided very early on in life that he was not going to be shut out of success, that he deserved sussess, and by god, he was going to get it the old fashioned way - by being to good, too interesting to resist. Even towards the end, when he was playing what could better be described as "instrumental pop" rather than "jazz", he was making it unlike anybody else, and far better than anybody else.

I wonder - how many of the people who really rail against the whole notion of Miles' "selling out" have some reservations within themselves about "stepping out" into a greater public profile? It's one thing to find a niche and preach to the choir, it's quite another to step out into the broader spotlight and dare people to dismiss you, especially when you're delivering your vision of what you want their terms to be. That takes some pretty massive guts/cojones/whatever.

Just my opinion, but I am getting tired of people (in all walks of life) who have no real ability or interest in belonging to the "bigger world" ranting and railing about their inability to do so. Like, if you got there, what would you do? Donald Byrd had some hits, and what did he do? Took the money and ran away. What did Miles do? Well, at first he ran away, but then he came and and dared the world to say that a middle-aged black jazz musician could be marginalized, ghettozied, and otherwise dismissed in terms of the culture "of the day". The world failed to do so.

More power to him, and more power to the music that he made in doing so. There's really no excuse for making all this piss-poor, redundant, limited (in every way) "lite jazz". Not after Miles.

Well said, Jim.

I'm not sure that Miles ever really sold out. It's like his '60's albums stated: "Directions In Music By Miles Davis." Miles was one of those few people who directed the music where it would go. He didn't decide that Kind Of Blue, In A Silent Way, or Bitches Brew would be hugely influential; he simply went into the studio and created the music.

I'm thinking of a comparison with Lee Morgan, who was great, had wonderful chops, and made music that I love. But he didn't move the music in any particular direction (maybe once, with "The Sidewinder"). And Lee also did nod to the music of the day, whether it be show tunes (on "Standards"), modal, or Coltrane-esque. It's not just about being a musician and having to make bread; it's also about being in the music that's around at the time, and being happy with it.

[JSngry]

if he were a politician who changed his opinions in order to get elected, we would respond accordingly. Sure, someone can change their mind. Does not mean we suspend judgment. I think Miles was the musical equivalent of such.

Well see, I don't think he ever really did change his mind. The cliche that it wasn't Miles who changed but his surroundings is very much true, in my opinion.

[AllenLowe]

to me that's too easy - kinda like saying, it doesn't really make a difference, when it does. The music still has to stand on its own. If James Joyce had started writing Romances, a lot of people would have objected, would have made critical judgments that the work was not worthy of him. We can't suspend critical judgment just because someone has the right to do something - no one is questioning that. But we can be all over it in terms of artistic quality. We do this with other musicians, so why not Miles?

[JSngry]

I have been deeply moved and impressed by Miles' electric music - not just as sociology, but also as - especially as - music (truthfully, when I reach for Miles, it's as likely to be something electric as something not, sometimes even more likely). You haven't.

I can give reasons why, and so can you.

It's an honest difference of (in our cases) well-considered opinions, nothing more. You can't prove anything by "critical judgment" you can only form/hone an opinion.

Life goes on.

It really is that simple.

[jazzbo]

I love this music, I heard it when it was pretty new and watched it grow and deepen. I will always listen to it and marvel.

Thanks Miles.