couw Posted February 27, 2004 Author Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 What I do think is that those of us who DO like Miles do so for reasons that might be a lot more "complicated" than why we like a lot of other jazz artists. At least they can get complicated if we let them. Maybe it's best if we don't! maybe. sorry for starting this thread if anyone had to face demons that were rather left buried. way cool BTW, how a thread on WHY NOT, develops into being on WHY YES? the latter indeed seems way more complicated and believe it or not I find this fascinating stuff. I haven't finished getting drunk yet so I'll be off Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neveronfriday Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 I'm surprised this thread has lasted this long ... oh boy. I think it jumped the shark with the, (ahem), phallic analogy. Ok, guess I misread the room. My bad, and duly noted for future reference. But... The meat of that post (no pun intended) was in this paragraph: Thing is, tenor has a built in sensuality to it, and trumpet is a MANLY instrument. Archie Shepp might have called the horn a phallic symbol, and properly so, but the axe is intrinsically hermaphroditic in both shape, tonal potential, and social character. Not so the trumpet, the descendant of the bugle, and, further back, the ram's horn, the instrument used to issue clarion calls for MEN to go to battle, to signal MEN that it's time to spring into action or end the day, to let MEN know that royalty is approaching, etc. And men have been bred and conditioned for centuries to be MEN, with absolutely NO room for uncertainty, ambiguity, or anything even remotely intimating that one's grasp of/on EVERYTHING concrete is anything but enthusiastically firm. "Playing between the cracks" of manly timespacesound might lead somebody to think that you'll play between some other manly cracks, and sound for the sake of sound implies a passivity to "let it be" that goes contrary to the traditionally manly "making it happen". A brave man has the confidence to go there anyway, becasue the only truth is found in resolving ambiguities, either through action or internal digestion. Real men don't DO that, especially Gabriel(s). People had been asking how much of Miles' reputation was mystique, how much of it was purely musical, and what was the basis for the mystique. I'm of the opinion that the music and the mystique are at some fundamental level intrinsically intertwined. Few artists of any medium have allowed so many (seeming) contradictions to co-exist in their work and their persona as did Miles Davis. Name any "artistic attribute" and you can find both it and its opposite in both the music and the life of Miles Davis. Perhaps I misspoke when I used the phrase "truth is found in resolving ambiguities", because Miles never really set about resolving the ambiguities. He instead seemed more than content to let them coexist, not as battling forces, but instead as opposites that peacefully coexisted as a matter of fact, as if it was the most natural thing in the world to be equally yin and yang at the same time rahter than being one or the other at any given moment. Which is how most of us are. We all have our various "sides", but how many of us can display them all at once, and in a most natural manner at that? Very few people can do that, and Miles, both as a person and as a musician seems to have been one of those few. The implications of this are quite real - here is a man and a music who can more or less exemplify many different things to many different people without any of those people necessarily "getting it wrong". At the level of celebrety, this is called "charisma", but it goes deeper than celebrety - it goes to the very real possibility that Miles' appeal, both personal and musical, was based on providing us with "bonding" based on providing us with bonds of recognition of ourselves and recogniton of our "complimentary opposites". Miles' music was "masculine" AND "feminine". "sloppy" AND "tight", "tough" AND tender", yin AND yang, and not one or the other at any given moment, but everything all the time. Arguments about Miles inevitably take the tact of Point A being refuted by a "yeah, bit" Point B, as if one refutes the other by having greater weight in the overall appraisal of the situation. Although that works in a lot of instances, it just doesn't fly with Miles, I think, because both are inevitably correct. Was Miles an asshole or a warm human being? Both. Was he a trumpeter with great chops or one who found a way to make do with what he had? Both. Was he a genuine innovator or an opportunist who was not above outright theft? Both. And none of those qualities necessarily takes precedence over the other. In fact, they are often all true at the same time. How many jazz musicians, no, how many PEOPLE can you say that about? Very, VERY few, and I'll wager that those of whom you can are people with a "mystique" their ownselves. Which leads to the question - when we choose "what it is" about Miles that we like (those of us who do like him, anyway), are we choosing to ignore the very real OPPOSITE qualities that he also embodied? If we are, are we doing so because we honestly don't see them, or because it would bother us to admit being so attracted to the buzz from the positive that we are more than willing to overlook the negative? And if we are willing to admit the latter, does that not open up a whole other set of personal "quandaries" about who and what we ourselves REALLY are? What we are willing to accept in order to get what we want/need is a major defining element of our personal character, isn't it? So, placed in the context of the above sentiments, I thought that a Glory Hole analogy was not only appropriate, but genuinely relevant, especially considering Miles' rumored bisexuality, which in itself is a literal embodiment of what I'm talking about and might go a long way towards explaining his personal and musical essence. That is, if it doesn't make the "enigma" (as it appears to a hetereosexual white male SERIOUS lover of Miles Davis' music such as myself) even more complex. Because whether we like to admit it or not, it's impossible to get the "good" Miles without also getting the "bad". If we like it, he music is fellating us, to use a figure of speech, but we really don't KNOW just who or what is doing it, not completely. And for something like that, if you don't know completely, you really don't know at all. I thought it would make sense. I guess I thought wrong. Err, I think this calls for a drink. Or four. Cheers! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 maybe. sorry for starting this thread if anyone had to face demons that were rather left buried. Hey, it's cool. Some of my best friends are my demons! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 I DO think aside from ambiguity we perceive, Miles had an ambivalent relationship with "the establishment" as a public figure... I'm not too sure that he was ambivalent about asking Columbia for all thoise advances... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainyDay Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Did Miles become gay on this thread? Not there is anything wrong with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr. Rat Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Did Miles become gay on this thread? Not there is anything wrong with it. Wait for it now . . . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikeweil Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Perhaps I misspoke when I used the phrase "truth is found in resolving ambiguities", because Miles never really set about resolving the ambiguities. He instead seemed more than content to let them coexist, not as battling forces, but instead as opposites that peacefully coexisted as a matter of fact, as if it was the most natural thing in the world to be equally yin and yang at the same time rather than being one or the other at any given moment. Which is how most of us are. We all have our various "sides", but how many of us can display them all at once, and in a most natural manner at that? Very few people can do that, and Miles, both as a person and as a musician seems to have been one of those few. With all respect Jim, this reads impressively, but too many words ..... I'd say he never resolved, he couldn't! Maybe he even didn't want to, but only after he recognized he couldn't. (Very few people can, BTW, ever fewer try, but most do not face ambiguities as wide as Miles did.) This makes him (his music included) so fascinating - or we wouldn't discuss this at such length. And I don't see peace in him, no way - if he had been at peace with himself and his musical ideas he wouldn't have been driven to do all the things he did in his life. He probably would have sounded as dull as couw perceives him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 Gay? no. But there have been rumors about Miles being bisexual. The revised edition of the Ian Carr biography touches on this without stating anything definitively, and there's been "word on the street" (ALWAYS a reliable source, doncha' know... ) for as long as I can remember. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted February 27, 2004 Report Share Posted February 27, 2004 With all respect Jim, this reads impressively, but too many words ..... Tell me something I DON'T know! Economy of expression - another trait I admire so much in Miles. Oh, the irony... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 So I'm looking for an element of his personal style which appals some people - and wondering if you're picking that up in the music. "So What", as a title just about sums up the contemptuous attitude Miles was capable of. But then we'd be back to Miles and his personal demons. I think "contemptuous" is a bit too strong of a word in relation to "So What", though I know what you are getting at. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted February 29, 2004 Report Share Posted February 29, 2004 I think that view of how things went is accurate up to a point (i.e. to some degree and up to a certain time) but with "Filles" and especially "In a Silent Way." Miles has moved to the front seat and taken a tight hold on the reins. Yes, I know that much of this music sounds "loose," but it's loose within boundaries that Miles has drawn. Larry is right, but I think we can push the "Miles moves to the front seat" a little earlier to the recordings of late 1967 ("Water on the Pond", "Circle in the Round"). I think he became more and more assertive as 1968 wore on and he got a better idea of what sound he wanted. One thing that's interesting is that the dividing line (between the more group-driven July recordings and the December experiments) falls around the time as Coltrane's passing. Doesn't Tingen discuss this briefly? Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted March 1, 2004 Report Share Posted March 1, 2004 (edited) I just opened this thread up and sprayed the monitor with my drink...hate Miles Davis??? Wha-? Edited March 1, 2004 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ghost of miles Posted March 12, 2004 Report Share Posted March 12, 2004 I stumbled on this quote of Miles: "That was my gift - having the ability to put certain guys together that would create a chemistry and then letting them go; letting them play what they knew, and above it." don't know where, don't know when, but it fits with the discussion here. In some ways, a similarity with Ellington. I think Miles identified with Duke more than we might think, esp. if you take "He Loved Him Madly" into account. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RainyDay Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 I just opened this thread up and sprayed the monitor with my drink...hate Miles Davis??? Wha-? Lord, deliver us from Goodspeak, for he knows not what he says...and he spells REALLY, REALLY, badly and tortures syntax until it screams in agony. How's it shaking, Goody? B) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted March 13, 2004 Report Share Posted March 13, 2004 Lord, deliver us from Goodspeak, for he knows not what he says...and he spells REALLY, REALLY, badly and tortures syntax until it screams in agony. Quick! Lock the political forum!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted July 25, 2004 Report Share Posted July 25, 2004 Couw's link on another thread is forcing me to resurrect this one. I'm going through the 2nd quintet material (live and studio) chronologically over the past few weeks. And once you get to the 1966 and 1967 recordings, Miles's playing is commanding. I mean, if you don't like his tone, you don't like his tone (in the same way that some people might not enjoy what Trane played on Giant Steps or Interstellar Space), but there's no way anybody can convince me that the trumpet playing on Miles Smiles or Sorcerer isn't some of the most incredible ever laid down on tape. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EKE BBB Posted November 15, 2004 Report Share Posted November 15, 2004 Up! (I still have to go through all these posts... ) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_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.