Bitches Brew Virgin No Mo!

[JSngry]

The interaction between all the keyboards, that's good for a few years just itself!

That little bit quoted above reminds me of something you once said to the effect that with this period of Miles-- The Music Is In The Middle. That one simple statement always rang true with me, and helped in my understanding, appreciation, and ultimate enjoyment of this era of Miles' music.

Appreciate that, thanks!

Try listening to it with some LSD and headphones.

Did you know that the whole album is a musical story about some guy who morphs into a merman and then goes on a voyage into the ocean (lots of waves at the beginning where he starts walking into/under the water, long, slowly cresting waves that crest on the shoreline), where he encounters all kids of squiqqly fish-people and multi-colored tentacled creatures, with Wayne Shorter being an inscrutable-type pan-sexual fishperson who occasionally drops in and speaks the words of the Sea Gods?

I only mention this because it's information not usually noted in the popular press...

[Big Beat Steve]

Have you ever met a person, especailly a woman, who either left you unmoved upon first meeting, or even rubbed you the wrong way, but who over timed turned out to be a fascinating individual, maybe even became a friend, lover, or spouse? It happens all the time, and it's one of the finer things in life. But it won't happen if the "trust your gut" approach is always followed without an informed modification along the way. Life is full of unxpectedly pleasant surpises, if we allow them the possibility of occurring.

As far as "essential listening" goes, I think you're confusing that concept with "essential liking". Like it or not, there are certain things in any general "cultural group" that one needs to check out if one wishes to not be perinially stuck in the same place at whch one started in regard to one's knowledge of that group. Of course, one may not wish such a thing for one's self, in fact there's booming business in rewarding people for not wishig such a thing, but... I feel totally comfortable in saying that if you are interested in the possibilities of improvisational music and/or the evolution of American jazz (and culture) at the mega-crucial juncture of the 60s into the 70s, the Bitches Brew is indeed essential listening, simply because it is so fundamentally relevant to those concern. Certainly not the only thing that is relevant in those regards, but to pretend it's not one of them is just not a very bright thing to try to claim.

OTOH, if one is not interested in those things, one should just say so, and if one has listened enough to have an informed dislike, then one has no reason to be ashamed of saying so.

OTOOH, if one just walks by an open door & sticks one's head inside for a few minutes and then walks away, then WTF do they know about what's really inside?

Point taken. Yet dealing with persons on the one hand and just indulging in a leisure activity or hobby such as listening to music are two entirely different pairs of shoes.

Even if your musical interest goes waaaay beyond simply absorbing current Top 40 fare (which I assume is the case with ANYBODY around here) there still is a difference - and at the same time a limit as you can only take in so much.

I agree with you that BB is urgently recommended for those wanting to explore this part of late 60s/early 70s jazz-cum-rock etc. IN DEPTH but what I object to (for the reason that it has been claimed elsewhere all too often) is that it is "essential listening" for jazz AT LARGE. You may see this differently because you have approached this entire spectrum from a totally different angle but yet this is how it came about to all too many of those getting started in jazz over here. Cultural difference? Probably ... but to be reckoned with at least by those directly concerned. And yes, I've done my share of listening to jazz(-rock) from the BB era, by forced exposure then (which left me mildly bewilderend, then unnerved), and more consciously in more recent times (but the feeling still was that this was just "not for me").

BTW, getting back to your "people" example, of course I've come across people too who really rubbed me the wrong way at first and later on turned out not be so bad at all, but OTOH there also are those who never even got around to rubbing me any way at all (or me rubbing them, for that matter) and therefore remained totally off the radar forever. Does this mean you or I (or anybody else) have to make the deep personal acquaintance of anybody we happen to bump into anywhere?

Happens all the time too. Life is a "hit and miss" game in more ways than one, I guess. But even if we clearly cannot cover the entire field we do gain a lot from those fields we ENJOY covering from the outset. So do we have to feeel guilty about metering our efforts in favor of those we feel MORE comfortable with?

And as for peering into a room not long enough to grasp what's inside, sorry to disagree but if upon first sight it does not hold your attention enough to make you literally want to dig through the mess in that room then there is nothing wrong about that either as long as there are so many other rooms that you immediately find utterly fascinating and do not even tire of even after having turned everything inside out in those rooms (i.e. they are not only full of shallow superficial effects but of enough that satisfies your deeper interests on a lasting basis). Like I said, you can take in only so much ...

You know, trying to sum this up it all boils down to one basic issue IMHO: It seems there are all too many who claim that music can only be "deep" and "intense" and "permently gratifying" if upon first listening it is unintelligble, unapproachable, inaccessible - in short, "way out".

Apart from the fact what's way out to some isn't way out at all to others, I just do feel this is a skewed concept. Music can be immensely accessible so you immediately feel you like (or dislike) it for very accessible reaons and yet be of quite a deep and lasting quality.

And this seems to be a recurrent issue because one of the pervading sentiments in many posts here (including the thread starter's) and similar threads dealing with alleged "essentials" seems to be some feeling of "I don't like this masterpiece that much - what's wrong with me, do I have to make excuses for it?" Yet I still do not see any reason for any such excuses.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

And as for peering into a room not long enough to grasp what's inside, sorry to disagree but if upon first sight it does not hold your attention enough to make you literally want to dig through the mess in that room then there is nothing wrong about that either as long as there are so many other rooms that you immediately find utterly fascinating and do not even tire of even after having turned everything inside out in those rooms (i.e. they are not only full of shallow superficial effects but of enough that satisfies your deeper interests on a lasting basis). Like I said, you can take in only so much ...

Then one should just say that they looked in the room, didn't like what they saw, and walked away, not that there ain't nothing happeneing there or that they had heard how great a party was going down there, but they checked it out and there wasn't anything to get excited about, etc.

Just as there is often too much self-consciouness ego-boosting in the attempted buttressing of the conventional wisdom, there is often at least as much in the attempts to rebut it.

Either way, things are usually at once more and less complicated than they seem at first.

[mikeweil]

I was fascinated when it was released here in Germany - local radio played the title track twice within a week in full lenghth!!! That was unheard for a 27 minute track ...

I find it less fascinating now, and i feel a bit cheated knowing how much editing was involved. What appeared as a group improvisation on high level turns out to be a rather normal jam when heard unedited.

Very influential record, for sure ...

[Big Beat Steve]

Then one should just say that they looked in the room, didn't like what they saw, and walked away, not that there ain't nothing happeneing there or that they had heard how great a party was going down there, but they checked it out and there wasn't anything to get excited about, etc.

Just as there is often too much self-consciouness ego-boosting in the attempted buttressing of the conventional wisdom, there is often at least as much in the attempts to rebut it.

Either way, things are usually at once more and less complicated than they seem at first.

Agreed 100%.

But again, as for looking in that room, I think in most cases those who just peered wouldn't say "there ain't nothing happening there". What they do say (justifiably so according to their OWN yardsticks) is that what's happening there looks either of no interest at all to them or even repels them. In short, it just is "not for them".

Which tends to be misunderstood by ardent defenders of what is in there as meaning "ain't nothing happening". Because defending something that may repel others or leave them cold of course is something that requires you to be aloof enough to be able to handle it. Relativizing something that you put all your heart and soul into isn't always easy either ... Human nature, too...

[AllenLowe]

Miles was a creep, who seemed to prey sexually on insecure female singers (names provided privately upon request).

Brilliant guy, in spite of this, whose interviews are full of little gems of observation, even while revealing his schmuck-dom.

The one time I saw him up close (in the lobby of the Fillmore East, between sets on oen of the nights they recorded the live album) he was dressed like a Persian rug.

[jeffcrom]

You know, trying to sum this up it all boils down to one basic issue IMHO: It seems there are all too many who claim that music can only be "deep" and "intense" and "permently gratifying" if upon first listening it is unintelligble, unapproachable, inaccessible - in short, "way out".

Really? I've never met anyone who espouses this concept.

[Big Beat Steve]

You know, trying to sum this up it all boils down to one basic issue IMHO: It seems there are all too many who claim that music can only be "deep" and "intense" and "permently gratifying" if upon first listening it is unintelligble, unapproachable, inaccessible - in short, "way out".

Really? I've never met anyone who espouses this concept.

Lucky you.

Cultural divide again, maybe.

Maybe you would see things differently if you had "come of age" in your jazz and rock interests at a time AND IN A PLACE when according to "popular wisdom" both "jazz rock" and "free jazz/avantgarde" encompassed EVERYTHING there EVER was and could be in "jazz" per se and where Hard Rock, Psychedelic Rock (the tail end of it) etc. encommpassed everything in rock, the usual 40-ton amp equipment-laden suspects represented everything in "blues" and where OTOH both "acoustic jazz" (still around, not only on reissues), hand-made blues (not even down-home blues, though) and straightforward rockabilly were more or less equalled with MOR pop that just could not hold your attention because it was too "simple".

Blissfully unaware, these characters, for example, of the fact that Hendrix was not quite soooo sensational once you knew your T-Bone Walker and Johnny Guitar Watson, etc. etc.

Widespread attitude everywhere, still held by many decades thereafter, especially when it comes to the oh so deep divide about the fundamental question about whether jazz is allowed to be "for dancing" at all or whether you must always (though just barely perceptibly) nod your head in deep, deep, silent appreciation of some way-out happenings on stage in order to allow jazz to be any sort of musical "art" at all. Etc. etc.

See what I mean?

Edited January 6, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

But again, as for looking in that room, I think in most cases those who just peered wouldn't say "there ain't nothing happening there". What they do say (justifiably so according to their OWN yardsticks) is that what's happening there looks either of no interest at all to them or even repels them. In short, it just is "not for them".

No, I think most "challenging of the conventional wisdom" involves saying that there is in fact nothing happening. Otherwise it's just an expression of personal taste, and there's nothing there to challenge anybody.

[JSngry]

You know, trying to sum this up it all boils down to one basic issue IMHO: It seems there are all too many who claim that music can only be "deep" and "intense" and "permently gratifying" if upon first listening it is unintelligble, unapproachable, inaccessible - in short, "way out".

Really? I've never met anyone who espouses this concept.

I have, but they're not people I take seriously (when I take them at all, which is as rarely as possible...).

And i do have a problem with this perhaps implied notion that...well, hey - some music is complicated & not easily grasped upon early listenings and in fact does reveal itself only with time and repeated listenings. That is not to say that such music is intrinsically "better" or that people who enjoy delving into it are Superior Human Beings, but jeez louise, why does there always have to be this reflexive cry of FRAUD every time somebody suggests taking some time to get to know something? That just ain't right.

[Big Beat Steve]

No, I think most "challenging of the conventional wisdom" involves saying that there is in fact nothing happening. Otherwise it's just an expression of personal taste, and there's nothing there to challenge anybody.

Which probably comes from the fact that a lot of what is expressed in the name of "conventional wisdom" comes across (voluntarily or involuntarily) as "personal taste has to take a back step and is no longer justified as an overruling personal guideline for judgment where eternal musical truths and values - as perceived by us, the purveyors of conventional wisdom - come into play".

But this really is a debate of who or which was there first - the hen or the egg - and we are beginning to turn in circles so we'd better let it remain at that.

And of course I do agree with your statement that wherever it only is a matter of taste there is nothing to challenge.

[JSngry]

You know, trying to sum this up it all boils down to one basic issue IMHO: It seems there are all too many who claim that music can only be "deep" and "intense" and "permently gratifying" if upon first listening it is unintelligble, unapproachable, inaccessible - in short, "way out".

Really? I've never met anyone who espouses this concept.

Lucky you.

Cultural divide again, maybe.

Maybe you would see things differently if you had "come of age" in your jazz and rock interests at a time AND IN A PLACE when according to "popular wisdom" both "jazz rock" and "free jazz/avantgarde" encompassed EVERYTHING there EVER was and could be in "jazz" per se and where Hard Rock, Psychedelic Rock (the tail end of it) etc. encommpassed everything in rock, the usual 40-ton amp equipment-laden suspects represented everything in "blues" and where OTOH both "acoustic jazz" (still around, not only on reissues), hand-made blues (not even down-home blues, though) and straightforward rockabilly were more or less equalled with MOR pop that just could not hold your attention because it was too "simple".

Blissfully unaware, these characters, for example, of the fact that Hendrix was not quite soooo sensational once you knew your T-Bone Walker and Johnny Guitar Watson, etc. etc.

Widespread attitude everywhere, still held by many decades thereafter, especially when it comes to the oh so deep divide about the fundamental question about whether jazz is allowed to be "for dancing" at all or whether you must always (though just barely perceptibly) nod your head in deep, deep, silent appreciation of some way-out happenings on stage in order to allow jazz to be any sort of musical "art" at all. Etc. etc.

See what I mean?

Dude, it sounds like you grew up amongst a big group of dickheads.

Sorry, 'bout that, honestly, but really not my fault either.

And it's definitely not the music's fault.

Still and all, sorry you had to come up in that environment. Must've sucked to have been you then and there, seriously & sympathetically.

[Guy Berger]

The first time I heard this was after freshman year in college, when I told a jazz fan friend of mine that I was into fusion (=I'd heard Brand X's Product after really getting into Genesis). It sounded like noisy gibberish to me.

I eventually picked up the album and it was a struggle. In a Silent Way did, however, make sense, and after spending some time with that and the 60s quintet material I ended up liking the album a lot. The opening of "Pharaoh's Dance" still gives me goosebumps.

I connected with this album before I learned to appreciate the 50s quintet, for what it's worth.

[Big Beat Steve]

Dude, it sounds like you grew up amongst a big group of dickheads.

Sorry, 'bout that, honestly, but really not my fault either.

And it's definitely not the music's fault.

Still and all, sorry you had to come up in that environment. Must've sucked to have been you then and there, seriously & sympathetically.

Well, it wasn't THAT bad, really.

I took it (and still do) as a sign of the times and trends and it made me realize that - at least over here - jazz wans't immune from fashionable trends and from what was perceived as the latest word (to the detriment of other streams of jazz).

Maybe it was a reflection on what was happening in "major-league" jazz over here in the 70s and early 80s. If the major contributions to jazz you can actively make in this part of Europe are in the avantgarde and fusion fields and if you would have to IMPORT what might be called "mainstream" then what do you push everywhere and everytime, including the #1 jazz mag? (Except for reissue radio boadcasts and the reissue sections in the record stores) To give you an example about widely touted "home-grown" jazz talent: Compared to the styles of jazz commonly hailed in European jazz at the time Michel Petrucciani sounded extremely "conventional" to me (as to some extent I had become acquainted with late 50s U.S. hard bop and piano jazz by then) when I heard him live (TV jazz festival reports). Not disagreeably so but a bit of a welcome surprise amongst all those "avantgarde" weirdies or "jazz rock" mishmash acts.

I connected with this album before I learned to appreciate the 50s quintet, for what it's worth.

Just the opposite here. Partly for the reasons explained above, but it still surprises me to what extent the 50s quintet immediately clicked with me, though I'd say it is not "easy listening" background music either.

But maybe it really makes a decisive difference if you get into jazz via contemporary rock and jazz rock or if you get into (post-1945) jazz through "jazzy jazz" (if you know what I mean) or through older styles of jazz.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Big Beat Steve

[John Tapscott]

Had the 2 LP set once upon a time. Actually thought it was pretty good. But then a friend introuced me to 'Trane and Miles' earlier music and my tastes soon changed from fusion sounds to more swing-oriented sounds. I sold all my fusion records. If someone threw BB my way, I'd probably listen to it again. But I'm not going out of my way. I'm just not interested in that style of music anymore.

[Quincy]

Try listening to it with some LSD and headphones.

Just a thought.

Yes siree. I can still recall what I saw during "Pharoah's Dance" and "Bitches Brew" though it's just too hard to describe it. There's a lot of fine detail in there, mighty fine. :rsmile:

[A Lark Ascending]

BB was the first Miles record I bought and I didn't care for it at all. I think what really bugged me was the way the music seemed to be based on a single chord where I've always loved the varying contours of frequent chord (and key) changes. It actually delayed me exploring any more Miles until over a year later when I heard 'Blue in Green' and found my way in via the late-50s.

I didn't touch electric Miles again until the mid-90s. For some reason I bought 'In a Silent Way' and instantly loved it, following it with 'Files de K'. When I then went back to BB it suddenly opened up to me (nearly 20 years from that first purchase!).

I now view it as an astounding record and have gone on to enjoy lots of the other pre-75 stuff (still only partly convinced by the 80s records).

It just reenforces my belief in the importance of context for listening to music. No amount of being told that X is a work of genius will have any impact if you lack some connection through your previous listening. It's also why I'm very reluctant to give up on music I currently find difficult.

Edited January 6, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[Rooster_Ties]

Hm. If it takes 20/40 years to 'get' how comes it was a (kind of) hit?

I have really wondered this too. HUGE "hit" in the jazz sense, and yet a tough nut to crack for quite a few (many of whom are used to quite thorny music). BB was about the last Miles album I feel like I really ever "got", and it took longer to "get" than literally dozens of other arguably thornier stuff. Even "On The Corner" I feel like I "got" long before BB.

What did it for me, finally, was 3-4 gray-market boots of the 2nd quintet performing the BB material live. That opened things up for me.

I find the more I have BB on in the background while doing other things, the more I like it. Especially menial stuff, like sorting paperwork, or folding laundry - when I'm often thinking about other things besides what my hands are doing.

I find it's great music to THINK to. It's thornier music to think ABOUT.

Edited January 6, 2011 by Rooster_Ties

[sidewinder]

I was fascinated when it was released here in Germany - local radio played the title track twice within a week in full lenghth!!! That was unheard for a 27 minute track ...

That's what I used to love about those German and Swiss FM stations. The chances of hearing a full BB track here at that time were about zero. Today, as a snippet over a lifestle advert - perhaps..

I remember tuning in with my transistor radio on long wave to a fading French station (Normandy?) just after 'Agharta' came out and they had the whole of side 1 played right through (faded in and out like crazy). It was almost like a wartime liberation broadcast to me. Needless to say I went out and bought the LPs ASAP.

Edited January 6, 2011 by sidewinder

[Rooster_Ties]

I remember tuning in with my transistor radio on long wave to a fading French station (Normandy?) just after 'Agharta' came out and they had the whole of side 1 played right through (faded in and out like crazy). It was almost like a wartime liberation broadcast to me. Needless to say I went out and bought the LPs ASAP.

What a great analogy, much appreciated reading that.

[A Lark Ascending]

I recall hearing Kid Jensen play a long stretch of it on Radio Luxembourg c. 1971. There used to be a long midnightish programme that played 'underground' rock at that time - I used to listen after an 8 hour stint washing dishes.

Made no sense to me at the time - but I can see it fitting into the listening of more Grateful Dead/lengthy jam-band type listeners.

****************

On the popularity thing, I don't know how accurate these statistics are and assume they refer to the US:

Bitches Brew

Miles Davis

Columbia 26 [2]

Released: April 1970

Chart Peak: #35

Weeks Charted: 29

Certified Gold: 5/13/76

http://www.superseventies.com/spdavismiles.html

Edited January 6, 2011 by A Lark Ascending

[Teasing the Korean]

... i feel a bit cheated knowing how much editing was involved. What appeared as a group improvisation on high level turns out to be a rather normal jam when heard unedited.

Interesting, but that kind of stuff doesn't bother me, although I'd just as soon NOT hear the full versions if this is the case. I'm less interested in the process than I am in the final result. That's just me.

[Man with the Golden Arm]

Try listening to it with some LSD and headphones.

these?

[JSngry]

... i feel a bit cheated knowing how much editing was involved. What appeared as a group improvisation on high level turns out to be a rather normal jam when heard unedited.

Interesting, but that kind of stuff doesn't bother me, although I'd just as soon NOT hear the full versions if this is the case. I'm less interested in the process than I am in the final result. That's just me.

On this we agree!

Although I do enjoy the unedited versions for "study" purposes, that's all after-the-fact information as it pertains to history, although not to the actual creation. An ironic situation, that is.

Edited January 6, 2011 by JSngry

[Matthew]

One thing that I always found amazing about BB, is the rhythm of the music. And I'm not talking just about the bass/drum/piano thing either, but when the various instruments come into the music, and leave the field. Very interesting when I pay attention to that aspect...