Miles Davis: The Bootleg Series Vol. 3

[king ubu]

Good, I'll follow your example and make myself believe it will be easy.

Unless of course they offer "Big Band and Quartet". . . .

Complete, that is ... I'd be in for that, not for any of the others ... although having these in original shape (edits back in place) might be tempting (if there is any such option, I guess it would be Japanese?)

[jazzbo]

I bet the truly unedited tapes didn't get to Japan but I may be wrong.

Larry, yeah obessive. . . I just get that way though about core, pivotal things in my collection that see a lot of play. And in a large part that's Miles, Mingus, Monk, Coltrane and Duke. Those guys are always in the mix, always in a stack of cds just played and to be played. Plus. . . I can hear these mastering differences, and want the best. Wish I couldn't more often than not.

[Steve Reynolds]

Wish more people would be obsessive about the giants who still walk this earth playing to audiences of dozens and selling recordings in the hundreds

[jazzbo]

You know Steve, I hope so too. I don't collect the new music you esponse as much because when i do listen to it I don't feel that interested in it, not the way I do in the music I have been listening to for years AND other newer music. That's just how it is. I guess I don't want to take in the next step in the journey. It's come a long way from the OJDB and Kid Ory and many other early recorded bands.

[erwbol]

There is just so much of interest in the history of this music that I have to divide my attention and resources. Currently there is a golden opportunity to finally sort of get a core collection in superb sound quality in place of the pre-seventies era. And that at the end of the CD era. That's just the way it is.

I generally do not enjoy going to concert venues. I appreciate the difference between studio and live recordings, but am unable to concentrate on and connect with the music in a crowded venue. And an audience of mere dozens is a crowded plaza for someone with Asperger's.

[Clunky]

Wish more people would be obsessive about the giants who still walk this earth playing to audiences of dozens and selling recordings in the hundreds

Which living giants have you in mind. I find it a constant tension in resources both financial and time exploring jazz past and the future. Exploring the past is so much safer because so much of it has been critically review or become cult. It's harder work working out what's to follow of jazz/ improvised music produced today. So I'm all ears , what's new.

[JSngry]

How do you explore the future? You can't explore it if you're not there, and if you're there, then it's not the future, it's the present.

Maybe the best chance you have at making the future is to create the present, but that's not always as easy as it sounds. Other presents can come out of (seemingly, but not really) nowhere, collisions occur, and then it's like, wtf? has happened here, and now?

[Steve Reynolds]

Wish more people would be obsessive about the giants who still walk this earth playing to audiences of dozens and selling recordings in the hundreds

Which living giants have you in mind. I find it a constant tension in resources both financial and time exploring jazz past and the future. Exploring the past is so much safer because so much of it has been critically review or become cult. It's harder work working out what's to follow of jazz/ improvised music produced today. So I'm all ears , what's new.

Not the future and most are not new. It's simply that I refuse to treat jazz as a historical music despite it's wonderous history. The effect of doing so codifies it into an almost obsolete art form which is already the opinion of some and the actuality of most listeners in one form or another.

Clunky - I think you know most of who I believe are what I sometimes refer to as "Giants" and maybe I make the comment or use the descriptor to try to make a larger point.

But from my listening perspective we all mostly agree that the past greats range from Armstrong through Duke, Basie, Young, Hawkins, Eldridge, Dizzy, Clifford, Tatum, Coltrane, Mingus, Miles, Monk with maybe those and some others being considered the absolute pantheon of quote, unquote Giants of the Past of this music. So the thought process of most or many is that how could anything or anyone live up to them?

Or if we think of the greats of each instrument separately from that sort of group of musicians - for drums we often think of Klook, Max, Elvin etc or for tenor we think of Hawk, Trane or Sonny (yes I know he is still with us ) etc.

But as was once said when Miles died over 22 years ago, there are no more jazz stars - and maybe nothing more true has been spoken - but what I maintain is that when some others passed or have withdrawn from the scene did to age or whatever, that those musicians were creating EQUALLY viable and wonderous music as the past masters whose records could always be found at the stores that once were found in most every town.

The most recent passings of who I consider modern day or iconic musicians that belong in any pantheon have hardly had a record or CD to be found in a Barnes and Noble but the day they died resonated so much I can still feel it.

Joe Maneri and Fred Anderson

Before that the great pianist, composer and bandleader, Mal Waldron whose modern post 1960's work is still thoroughly unheard by the cognoscenti.

For two who are unseen and now not heard, Paul Bley and Misha Mengelberg

Then to the ones who play, who write or write and play or show up or don't and who improvise, the list of musicians who exude brilliance on multiple levels for me include this stream of conciousnesss list:

Evan Parker

Han Bennink

Tony Malaby

Oscar Noriega

Mat Maneri

Hamid Drake

Peter Brotzmann

Paul Dunmall

Tom Rainey

Andrew Cyrille

Michael Moore

Ellery Eskelin

John Hebert

Jeb Bishop

Wolter Wierbos

John Edwards

Mark Sanders

Ches Smith

Craig Taborn

Sylvie Courvoisier

William Parker

Rob Brown

Darius Jones

Cooper-Moore

Gerald Cleaver

RANDY PETERSON

Barry Guy

Ken Filiano

Joe McPhee

Keith Tippett

Steve Noble

Alexander Von Schlippenbach

Louis Moholo

Paul Lovens

Gerry Hemingway

A three minute list - yes my preference veers towards the off beat or that god awful avant-grade term but all of the above are masters of what they do and beyond reproach in their improvisatory abilities so for me to not be interested as much in them as in their peers from the past would kill the music in my heart.

Still.......

Coming Down the Mountain

[A Lark Ascending]

Well, I'd say that the path to enlightenment that will take you up the next mountain (having hopefully smashed the tablets of stone and recycled them for something useful) is to lose all the 'who is best?' and 'who is greatest?' stuff. My, we do like to rank!

I've enjoyed some of those names on Steve's list for a long time; dabbled in a few; and know very little about most. I'm always all ears for recommendations of the 'I really enjoyed this because...' variety - I think it was Steve's enthusiasm for some Italian jazz ten years ago that sent me off down that very lucrative path.

I'm less influenced when I'm told I ought to be listening to X rather than Y. I'm stubborn enough to want to listen to Y (old 70s Miles records) as well as explore X (one from the list). The whole ranking thing reminds me of those endless 'top 20' lists they fill up TV and magazines with now. Might be a bit of fun but ultimately the rankings are meaningless.

Recommend me things that you enjoyed or were excited by or that really intrigued you or were so puzzling you just had to listen again. Not because the performer in question is the 'greatest' this or that.

Edited February 9, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[David Ayers]

@steve: I guess if people aren't interested they aren't. I don't know whether record collectors are the audience for contemporary music. I just like a bit of life, myself. Chilly in there with the musty LP sleeves and the 'slightly worn' jewel cases. Brrrrrr.

@bev: music is all about judgement - that is how it is made - you still don't get it.....

[A Lark Ascending]

@bev: music is all about judgement - that is how it is made - you still don't get it.....

Oh, I get it. I just don't line up behind your choices and projections.

[David Ayers]

@bev: music is all about judgement - that is how it is made - you still don't get it.....

Oh, I get it. I just don't line up behind your choices and projections.

Good - because i want you to buy everything by York Bowen on Chandos, Hyperion and Naxos - get off the sofa and start downloading now...

[A Lark Ascending]

Too late. I've already bought them all already (with the exception of the Bowens - currently exploring them now).

Though, being one of those 'record collectors' you are endlessly contemptuous of, I suspect you already knew that.

[David Ayers]

Collecting records - which I do - does not influence much what music was, is, or can be. It does create an illusion of agency-in-consumption. Sociologically interesting. Curiously gender specific.

But why does Steve's (unranked) list of people who interest him earn a rebuke from you?

[A Lark Ascending]

Collecting records - which I do - does not influence much what music was, is, or can be. It does create an illusion of agency-in-consumption. Sociologically interesting. Curiously gender specific.

But why does Steve's (unranked) list of people who interest him earn a rebuke from you?

I'm not rebuking his list. As I said originally, I'm very fond of many on that list. And I think Steve does a fine job in championing those musicians - he influences me.

But this thread is about a particular set of recordings from the past; Steve's initial point about wishing people were more interested in living musicians than the recording in question strikes me as a bit irrelevant. I too wish people were more interested in living musicians (especially in the classical field!!!); but I'm not sure ticking people off for listening to old records rather than new will win many converts (any more than my bashing of dead maestro fetishism stops people from buying Schnabel records).

That the musicians on that list garner far less interest than Miles Davis or Grant Green is undoubtedly true. That they are deserving of attention - well of those I know, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But there's an elephant in the room. Why are they not as well known? I don't think it's down to lack of exposure or retromania alone. The nature of the music that most of them play lies well outside the traditional tonal approaches that most people find enjoyable. Telling people they ought to listen to Evan Parker because he's good for you isn't going to make a difference.

But I suspect this debate belongs in another thread. Why won't people listen to avant garde (or whatever you want to call it) music?

[The 'ranking' part refers to the use of 'great' and 'greatest' in the post]

Edited February 9, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[A Lark Ascending]

@bev: music is all about judgement - that is how it is made - you still don't get it.....

Another point here.

Having my car serviced is about judgement. The mechanic judges whether I need new break pads or not.

Now, one mechanic might consult the criteria carefully and then reach a 'judgement' as to how close my break pads are to the legal limit or for safety and advise me after balancing up the evidence.

Another might pay scant attention to the evidence and judge that I need new break pads because that way he'll make some money.

In my experience most 'judgement' about music falls into the latter category - it tends to be based on preconception, preference etc; rather than being a careful analysis based on objective criteria.

Which is all well and good in such a subjective area as musical value. The problem lies when the latter approach is given the veneer of the former.

We might 'feel' that more people should be listening to Evan Parker than Miles Davis upgrades; but where is the evidential base that renders that 'judgement' any more than a subjective desire?

Edited February 9, 2014 by A Lark Ascending

[jazzbo]

That the musicians on that list garner far less interest than Miles Davis or Grant Green is undoubtedly true. That they are deserving of attention - well of those I know, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But there's an elephant in the room. Why are they not as well known? I don't think it's down to lack of exposure or retromania alone. The nature of the music that most of them play lies well outside the traditional tonal approaches that most people find enjoyable. Telling people they ought to listen to Evan Parker because he's good for you isn't going to make a difference.

I'd also like to say that. Well said Bev.

[Head Man]

That the musicians on that list garner far less interest than Miles Davis or Grant Green is undoubtedly true. That they are deserving of attention - well of those I know, I'd wholeheartedly agree. But there's an elephant in the room. Why are they not as well known? I don't think it's down to lack of exposure or retromania alone. The nature of the music that most of them play lies well outside the traditional tonal approaches that most people find enjoyable. Telling people they ought to listen to Evan Parker because he's good for you isn't going to make a difference.

I'd also like to say that. Well said Bev.

... and I DO like SOME of what the musicians on David's list play, just not ALL of it. However I like MOST of what Miles Davis, Grant Green et al play, just not ALL of it. All down to personal taste, I guess.

It's a contrary old world, isn't it.

Edited February 9, 2014 by Head Man

[David Ayers]

@bev: the judgement is in the making of music - it is all judgement - it is only judgement -

@lon: of course, people can listen to what they like - but so what? the people who sit outside a process will never shape or contribute to it. All Steve is suggesting is that there are living and unfolding arts which people could attend to - some people don't like modern art - that defines them, but not the art.

PS that wasn't my list - I chipped in to defend Steve

[erwbol]

This is the most annoying aspect of discussing an interest in this music. People telling you you should really be listening more to twenties Armstrong, Bird or at the other end of the spectrum Evan Parker and who knows else. I'll decide that for myself.

This kind of elitist preaching and disdain tainted my experiences with the music of Charlie Parker for some years.

[David Ayers]

This is the most annoying aspect of discussing an interest in this music. People telling you you should really be listening more to twenties Armstrong, Bird or at the other end of the spectrum Evan Parker and who knows else. I'll decide that for myself.

This kind of elitist preaching and disdain tainted my experiences with the music of Charlie Parker for some years.

Nobody has said any of that! Steve just thinks it is better to support living music. He was asked like what, so he answered.Who, now, defines themselves like a 60s teenager by musical taste? What really matters is what goes on in the art, not in the consumer. But art needs understanding, advocacy and audience. So let there be a little advocacy. If I could suggest one shift in the implicit framework it would be from the consumer as monadic judge and petty patron - king of the psychological world - to experience - to say no more about what and how this might mean.

In any case, the appearance of debate here is not about changing the mind of the discussants, it is about allowing other readers to shape a view. Be happy with old records and knowing better than those who differ - the 'elite' - others may choose to move on.

[jazzbo]

Okay David, I see that to a point. But if there is scant interest in a new offshoot of an established art for instance lack of interest in the market (listeners, buyers of tickets or recordings) does define it if that interest is so small that the offshoot cannot grow or disappears.

Anyway, I confess to respecting the artists on Steve's list but not feeling that interested in their music.

[David Ayers]

Steve's point is just that 'jazz' and improv is dominated in terms of record consumption by its past. Personally I don't care so much about that as I don't think that recordings make any money for contemporary artists - it is just much more about being out there. They are out there, audiences are often small, so we all carry on. Apart from anything else, when you see these people and get to know some of them your sense of wanting them to thrive grows.

[erwbol]

This is the most annoying aspect of discussing an interest in this music. People telling you you should really be listening more to twenties Armstrong, Bird or at the other end of the spectrum Evan Parker and who knows else. I'll decide that for myself.

This kind of elitist preaching and disdain tainted my experiences with the music of Charlie Parker for some years.

Nobody has said any of that! Steve just thinks it is better to support living music. He was asked like what, so he answered.Who, now, defines themselves like a 60s teenager by musical taste? What really matters is what goes on in the art, not in the consumer. But art needs understanding, advocacy and audience. So let there be a little advocacy. If I could suggest one shift in the implicit framework it would be from the consumer as monadic judge and petty patron - king of the psychological world - to experience - to say no more about what and how this might mean.

In any case, the appearance of debate here is not about changing the mind of the discussants, it is about allowing other readers to shape a view. Be happy with old records and knowing better than those who differ - the 'elite' - others may choose to move on.

I was not so much accusing Steve, but still. Past experience has made this a touchy issue.

[jazzbo]

Well I wish I could get out to see these guys. I can't even get out for a cup of coffee most days, just my situation. Plus, these guys are NOT playing anywhere near me.

Anyway best of luck to them all, and you and Steve.