New light on Miles Davis autobiography

[medjuck]

15 minutes ago, JSngry said:

IAs for On the Corner, it's long since become apparent that it either hooks you in from the first listen or it doesn't. It did me, although it was a total mystery why. After a few years, I got to hear it played loudly and clearly on a really good stereo system, and the fog began to lift. Now that it's been increasingly familiar and presented increasingly more cleanly (I don't think it can ever - or should ever - be made truly "clean"). I've been able to dissect, not just the elements, but the constructions that went into it. I think it's a landmark of both music and record-making, and in many ways (arguably) the most deeply personal music/record Miles ever made.

But hey, it got me from jump, and I can certainly understand why it might not do that for everybody..

The first time I heard it I thought it sounded like bad Santana.  By the time the box set came out I really liked it. 

[JSngry]

I've heard James Brown & Sly a few times (which I "get", but only at the most superficial level), but that's the first time I've heard Santana. Do tell!

[Rooster_Ties]

On The Corner made more 'sense' to me (or at least sooner), than Bitches Brew did, actually.

I'm not claiming OTC made perfect sense to me immediately -- but it never puzzled me like Bitches Brew did (until I heard a bunch of the BB material on all those Euro-boot CD's that were coming out in the early 90's).

I think my first exposure to both was around 1989, at the end of my sophomore year in college (barely 18 months after my first serious exposure to jazz).  I'd listened to *TONS* of Hendrix my last 2 years of high school (incl. 20+ bootlegs), so although the language of On The Corner wasn't the same (as Jimi), the onslaught of sound didn't bother me.

[Gheorghe]

On ‎28‎.‎06‎.‎2019 at 4:34 PM, Big Beat Steve said:

I don't know that book at all (but my Miles Davis record collection ends with Sketches of Spain and Seven Steps to Heaven anyway .. excepting an early pressing of Bitches Brew bought very cheaply at a fleamarket a couple of years ago but reserved for "later" more intense listening because the spins I have given it since buying it have not at all found me "in the mood" for that ... )

Anyway ... I can very well imagine books as the one above with such judgments (that may read odd to us later-borns) do exist (and I do have a few such jazz books too) but I'd very much advise against dismissing them outright just because we may consider us blessed with oh so much "hindsight knowledge". Despite their flaws, such "contemporary" books often do serve a purpose to some extent IMO even today in that they show first-hand how events in history were perceived at the time. This does help in understanding history too. If you rely only on latter-day re-writings of history you are beginning to see things through an increasing amount of glasses tinted by other peoples' perceptions that may never have been yours. So do take those earlier source materials with all the grain of salt that is called for but do not dismiss them lightly. Often what was written much later needs to be taken with a fair grain of salt too IMHO because over time certain historical facts tend to be assessed there by criteria of what is considered "commonly acquired wisdom" and/or by people who do have an "agenda" of their own that does not aid in presenting an even-handed picture of that history either.

You missing a lot if Seven Steps to Heaven is about the latest Miles stuff you listen to.

Well, with the exception of that remark on "On the Corner", the author wrote other "strange things" too:  About Paris 1949, that Miles was "bored" there, that the Paris stay was "boring" to him. Now, I think most people know that Miles was fond of Paris and the audience and you can hear it through his playing. This is fast stuff like only Diz and Fats could do it at that time I think.

 

[Big Beat Steve]

2 hours ago, Gheorghe said:

You missing a lot if Seven Steps to Heaven is about the latest Miles stuff you listen to.

 

It depends .... The later one is a different Miles altogether. As if it was a totally different musician in a totally different style (or different styleS, actually) - compared to the "Classic Quintet", for example.  And from what I have heard elsewhere up to now, I have no extreme desire to explore jazz-rock, for example, in any greater depth (though no doubt I will give that "Bitches Brew" chance purchase another try eventually when I feel in the mood). So I doubt that I will miss much, At least not more (much less, in fact ) than ANY of those who feel that jazz started with hard bop and bebop is already "old hat" to them. You know, people don't all explore the same styles of jazz in the SAME depth ...

Just like I have never felt the urge to get all excited about 70s funk Johnny Guitar Watson just because I DO like his gutsy 50s R&B. Just because it is the same name does not mean it holds the same stylistic appeal to a given audience. Music enjoyment is not very often about academic name and career analyzing against your real listening preferences, you know. It is about styles and types of music that you prefer, and the field is a very wide one anyway.

Edited July 1, 2019 by Big Beat Steve

[Gheorghe]

45 minutes ago, Big Beat Steve said:

It depends .... The later one is a different Miles altogether. As if it was a totally different musician in a totally different style (or different styleS, actually) - compared to the "Classic Quintet", for example.  And from what I have heard elsewhere up to now, I have no extreme desire to explore jazz-rock, for example, in any greater depth (though no doubt I will give that "Bitches Brew" chance purchase another try eventually when I feel in the mood). So I doubt that I will miss much, At least not more (much less, in fact ) than ANY of those who feel that jazz started with hard bop and bebop is already "old hat" to them. You know, people don't all explore the same styles of jazz in the SAME depth ...

Just like I have never felt the urge to get all excited about 70s funk Johnny Guitar Watson just because I DO like his gutsy 50s R&B. Just because it is the same name does not mean it holds the same stylistic appeal to a given audience. Music enjoyment is not very often about academic name and career analyzing against your real listening preferences, you know. It is about styles and types of music that you prefer, and the field is a very wide one anyway.

Maybe you should give some of Miles´ 1981/82 recordings a try. Here you have Miles again playing acoustic trumpet withouth the "wah wah" which I think you don´t like from stuff of Miles in the 70´s. Here in 1981 you even have some moments when Miles looks back into the 50´s playing a quite new version of "My Man is Gone Now" where he alters funk with swing so it could be a link for fans of the "old Miles" to the Miles of the 80´s . On the album "We Want Miles" I think may of his old fans would find something thats more interesting for them than "Aghartha" or "Pangeea".

[Big Beat Steve]

I won't be excluding it ... BUT ... there is SO MUCH out there that merits listening (to me and to MY PRIMARY and PRIORITIZED tastes and preferences) that I cannot even nearly hope to be able to listen to it all, let alone buy all that music ... In short, stuff like that late Miles is bound to be way down on the to-do-list. Not least of all, because "We Want Miles", that's that yellow album with the huuuuge letters on the cover, right? You don't even begin to know how often I have passed up that one in the record bins (the last time because I had rather been searching for about the only "key" Classic Quintet album I am still missing on my shelves). In short, just like KOB this looks like one of the items that's going to be all over the place at ANY time you see fit to spring for it (contrary to many, many other items by other artists that you either grab NOW or will never see them again - ever - at least not at an affordable price ...).

Anyway .... we are getting off the topic of THIS thread ...

 

Edited July 1, 2019 by Big Beat Steve

[JSngry]

15 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Just like I have never felt the urge to get all excited about 70s funk Johnny Guitar Watson just because I DO like his gutsy 50s R&B.

Well see, that's jsut crazy - there are no bad Johnny guitar Watson records. Period. None. At all.

Period!

[AllenLowe]

the Troupe book is a disgrace; especially now as I peruse some of these corrections.

But the most significant and ironic thing is that if you read what Miles REALLY said, it's way more interesting, personal, and quirky than Troupe's fakery.

[Larry Kart]

One the book's mysteries (probably) solved. On p. 400 Miles refers to the "brilliant British composer Hernspach, who often wrote in minor modes." Almost certainly an error on the part of the inept transcriber of the interview, and an error that Troupe didn't catch, but who is "Hernspach"? Almost certainly, Miles was referring to the Swiss-American (not British) composer Ernest Bloch. Bloch was one of Gil Evans favorites; Gil even said that Schelomo was his favorite 20th Century work.

[Big Beat Steve]

On 1.7.2019 at 0:14 AM, JSngry said:

Well see, that's jsut crazy - there are no bad Johnny guitar Watson records. Period. None. At all.

Period!

"Bad" (in objective terms)  or not is totally beside the point. 70s oomph-oomph Funk just does not. Do. Anything for me. Period.

14 minutes ago, Larry Kart said:

 Miles refers to the "brilliant British composer Hernspach, Almost certainly an error on the part of the inept transcriber of the interview, and an error that Troupe didn't catch, but who is "Hernspach"? Almost certainly, Miles was referring to the Swiss-American (not British) composer Ernest Bloch.

... ...   ROFL!

[danasgoodstuff]

FWIW, 'style' has little to do with why I enjoy any particular piece of music, personality worked out over different styles a little more, & all sorts  of other things peculiar to that particular piece/performance way more.

Edited July 4, 2019 by danasgoodstuff

[JSngry]

There are no bad Johnny Guitar Watson records. Period.

[Big Beat Steve]

52 minutes ago, danasgoodstuff said:

FWIW, 'style' has little to do with why I enjoy any particular piece of music, personality worked out over different styles a little more, & all sorts  of other things peculiar to that particular piece/performance way more.

In case you were referring to one of my posts - "style" was meant strictly in the sense of "style of music". Call it type of music, musical (sub-)genre, whatever ... You know what that means and what it implies, then, I guess ....
And I'd wager a guess this is what is the decisive factor for most of us with specific musical tastes (no matter how wide-ranging or not) who do not just turn the radio on or click on a playlist for some (more or less) melodic background noise for distraction.
So I still cannot see why these criteria should be a bone of contention for anyone at all. Some like music of the type (or style ) A and B much better than X, Y or Z. So this is what they go for. Differnt tastes, different strokes ... the most natural thing in the world. In ALL directions. And AGAIN - there is no '"objective" obligation to listen to styles (!) of music one does not enjoy. Except, of course, as an introductory sampling to see and decide if one likes a given type of music or not and maybe becomes curious enough to explore it further, or OTOH for an occasional (somewhat academic?) "excursion into history". In short, "to each his own ...."

 

[Big Beat Steve]

15 minutes ago, JSngry said:

There are no bad Johnny Guitar Watson records. Period.

You're stuck in an endless loop. "Bad" is not the point. Period. Stylistic preferences are.  Period.

[JSngry]

No, that there are no bad Johnny Guitar Watson records, period, is the point.

Your taste is your business, not mine. Mine is recognizing a bad records from a good records, and there are no bad Johnny Guitar Watson records, period. If you don't like them, hey. That just leaves more for all the other boys and girls who likes the GOOD records.

More for us, so thank you for your taste and the abundance of unspoiled riches it behooves.

[Big Beat Steve]

You're most welcome to the world of your tastes and to stating them (just like I state mine when I feel like it). Because in the end whatever you consider good or bad reflects just your TASTES so is YOUR business but not an OBJECTIVE criterion to those millions or billions of dedicated music listeners out there. Just a subjective opinion of yours that others may take up or not (FWIW, I DID take up your impressions of the Henry Jerome CD - ordered this morning and looking forward to it - but don't expect me nor anyone to take your impression of that CD to be the FINAL word about its "good" or "bad" qualities ).

[JSngry]

There are no bad Johnny guitar Watson records, period.

 

[danasgoodstuff]

1 hour ago, Big Beat Steve said:

In case you were referring to one of my posts - "style" was meant strictly in the sense of "style of music". Call it type of music, musical (sub-)genre, whatever ... You know what that means and what it implies, then, I guess ....
And I'd wager a guess this is what is the decisive factor for most of us with specific musical tastes (no matter how wide-ranging or not) who do not just turn the radio on or click on a playlist for some (more or less) melodic background noise for distraction.
So I still cannot see why these criteria should be a bone of contention for anyone at all. Some like music of the type (or style ) A and B much better than X, Y or Z. So this is what they go for. Differnt tastes, different strokes ... the most natural thing in the world. In ALL directions. And AGAIN - there is no '"objective" obligation to listen to styles (!) of music one does not enjoy. Except, of course, as an introductory sampling to see and decide if one likes a given type of music or not and maybe becomes curious enough to explore it further, or OTOH for an occasional (somewhat academic?) "excursion into history". In short, "to each his own ...."

 

Yes I get what you're saying, and I can hear it, but it has little to do with why I like what I like & I don't presume to speak for others.  "There's no dividing line to art" - Charlie Parker.  IMHO truer words were never spoken, YMMV.

[JSngry]

 

[AllenLowe]

listen to that solo at about 3:35; hippest thing from the '80s I ever heard.

[Gheorghe]

Maybe Johnny Guitar Watson is not exactly in my playing list. I have and know most of the jazz stuff from all those labels BN, Prestige, Impulse, Mileston, Columbia and what it is, all those artists from bop to 70´s electric, but maybe not those who not are exactly "jazz artists" , I know that´s not the right definition for it but maybe you can follow me and check out what I try to say:

For example: Once I heard a double concert Miles Davis/B.B.King, I don´t know why the combinated them, but I must admit that the B.B. King stuff after two three tunes was not anymore what I usually listen to. 

Back to Miles: on that 1986 concert he was in top form, anyway the band sounded much better than the only studio produced "Tutu", and to hear some of the tunes from the Tutu album live was a much more interesting experience than hearing the record. 

I don´t know what was the reason for combining Miles/B.B.King, I think that package toured U.S. AND Europe. 

[Larry Kart]

22 hours ago, JSngry said:

There are no bad Johnny guitar Watson records, period.

 

Two Watson albums are on the way to me. Many thanks.

[Gheorghe]

I still don´t know what is the connection between Miles and Johnny "Guitar" Watson, who anyway, as I said before is not familiar to me.....

[Big Beat Steve]

I will explain to you, Gheorghe:

I mentioned that name PURELY as an example of ANOTHER artist who had changed his style enough to become more or less a totally different act, Just like Miles Davis did when you compare his 50s quintet with his "Electric Miles" and jazz rock-era recordings.
If you are, say, into bebop or hard bop and stylistically related jazz recordnigs there is neither reason nor "objective" obligation (and certainly not much incentive) to get all excited about some totally different style of jazz if you do not happen to like that "other" style. Except as a dose of curiosity (that usually is quickly satisfied when you find it's not your cuppa). So if that "other" style of jazz doesn't move you you are likely to be turned off (or at least remain unimpressed) even if it is the same musician whose much earlier and much different recordings you like. Same for those who are into nothing but jazz rock or Electric Miles. They may be unmoved by the Classic 50s Quintet. The name doesn't mean much, then.

The same applies to Watson and his 50s/very early 60s R&B recordings on the one hand and his 70s funk. I for one do like his R&B recordings but would have been disappointed if I had grabbed one of his funk LPs (there were plenty), thinking I'd get something like his early stuff. (It occasionally happened to me in my early collecting days when, unaware of intervening changes of the musical styles of artists in question, I picked up recordings from differnt periods, e.g. 70s Bo Diddley).

At any rate, it is TOTALLY beside the point if those "other" recordings are fine or even first-class within THEIR genre - if that genre doesn't do much for you at the time you come across these records then why should you have much desire to DEEPLY explore that genre? They may be fine in their genre but that genre is just not for you. REGARDLESS of the name involved. And no doubt most listeners/collectors feel the same way when it comes to musical genres they do not like all that much. Some may think there is an OBLIGATION to listen anyway to these latter-day efforts (claiming this is "essential" listening, maybe) but this is B.S. IMHO because "evolution" does not necessarily mean "artistic superiority" (but just "artistic difference" in the sense of branching out in a different direction - sideways, not necessarily upwards at all, really). So arguments about "how can you not be moved by" (this or that artist) are nonsense again when the recording in question is outside the spectrum. No matter how eclectic or wide-ranging one's listening tastes are - there is a limit to everything, even with those who advance this "how can you not be moved by..." pseudo argument. Because they in turn have their own areas of lesser (or no) interest too. It's the most natural thing in the world and there is nothing wrong with it - in whatever direction.