Guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 Why was Miles so popular. How did he go from Bird sideman to the star that he became. Why did he get so much press at first. Was "bird of the cool" the 1st instigator of this surge in his popularity, or did it come later. Were there certain key articles written about him, were were significant to his carreer? or was it just his noted over the top personality which attracted him such fame. I know after KIND OF BLUE it took of into the stratsphere- but how did his #1 level of popularity come in the time leading up to kind of blue. This question was not addressed for me in any of the miles books i've read- so i wanted to pose it here- thanks Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 excuse me i meant to say BIRTH of the cool there- please don't coyly point that out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I'm guessing that his solo on "'Round Midnight" at the 1955 Newport Jazz Festival helped generate a lot of buzz. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnagrandy Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 I think it was because he didn't empty the spit valve while playing ballads. I'm only joking man ! I love Miles ! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clifford_thornton Posted January 26, 2006 Report Share Posted January 26, 2006 (edited) I'd be interested in hearing the ways Columbia marketed Miles - that is, before they could market him to rock audiences. I mean, obviously he generated enough pull for Columbia to want him from Prestige, but not having "been there," it would be good to know just how this swell of interest was generated among the record-buying public during the '50s and early '60s. Edited January 26, 2006 by clifford_thornton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
montg Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Here's a thread related to this topic: why is miles popular ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan Songer Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Dude made some REALLY good records with some REALLY REALLY good bands and arrangers. I mean, just listen to the records! They are VERY appealing to a WIDE WIDE audience without being crap--and that's a really tough thing to achieve. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christiern Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 This a rather odd thread. If you have read numerous books on Miles, as you indicate, I have to wonder why you are asking so many elementary questions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bertrand Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Perhaps the question is a bit awkwardly phrased, but I don't think the question is all that elementary. Of course, he made some killer records, but so did a lot of people at the time. But what about Miles turned him into a household name way beyond the insular word of jazz? I don't think it's really addressed in the books. There is no clear-cut answer, of course. His charisma and self-confidence/arrogance are one factor, of course, but again, he's not the only one. Bertrand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rooster_Ties Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) I can't put my finger on exactly where, but I know I've read a bit about this topic (specifically about how Columbia marketed Miles in the late 50's, prior to KOB). Maybe John Szwed's recent Miles book?? (It would be the Miles tome I've read most recently.) Then again, I read so much here on this board (and back on the BNBB) - that there's no tellin' where I saw this topic discussed. Edited January 27, 2006 by Rooster_Ties Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 ive read his book and one of the main other bios but that was years ago. u may think its an elementary question, but after hearing all his records, dozens of live shows, a few videos-- i still dont get it. So for me its compilcated. When it comes to composition and instrument playing, i just dont see how it stacks up any better than say Morgan or Byrd. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clifford_thornton Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 I'd say there were a lot of bands as good or better than some of the Miles groups, especially of the '60s, so I think a lot of it would have to do with marketing and availability of the music. But why him? I mean, what if Columbia pushed the Burton Greene Quartet as much as it did Miles' records in '67 or '68? Presenting Burton Greene might be in some ways more interesting musically than Nefertiti - and the former does have some 'inside,' almost populist moments to it also (read: radio-friendly), so why not? Or, for that matter, Atlantic/Vortex could've pushed the hell out of Byard Lancaster, but they probably did not. Then there's Impulse and the Albert Ayler sides starting with Love Cry, on which there are a number of short, playlist-ready tunes that "anyone can hum." But I digress... I suppose Miles' popularity might've started with the Gil Evans sides, which certainly would've appealed to the fascination with big bands and orchestral jazz, as Allan implied earlier, but his appeal certainly has to go beyond that. Certainly there were pop and rock records selling well then, so the advent of "rock" certainly didn't have to be the reason behind the alienation of young audiences to jazz, did it? And I would think Miles sold hugely even with the boom in rock music factored in. Again, I wasn't "there," so it's interesting to me how these cards were played during that time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 whats is: Presenting Burton Greene Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jazzbo Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) A rather wild lp on ESP Records by Burton Greene, his first as a leader I think. . . . There is no way that lp could have been as popular as Miles work with the same marketing behind it. Sorry. Edited January 27, 2006 by jazzbo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John L Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) ive read his book and one of the main other bios but that was years ago. u may think its an elementary question, but after hearing all his records, dozens of live shows, a few videos-- i still dont get it. So for me its compilcated. When it comes to composition and instrument playing, i just dont see how it stacks up any better than say Morgan or Byrd. Even separate from the mass popularity question, Miles had a much strong influence within the jazz world than did Morgan or Byrd. The latter may have had a strong influence on some trumpet players. But Miles' influence was much broader, and he was consistently at the cutting edge of new developments in jazz from the mid-50s to the mid-70s. I agree, however, that Miles' relative popularity in the music world may also have a lot to do with marketing. To the world, he became the personification of "coolness" in the same sense that Diz became the personification of bebop back in the 40s. As time goes on, that source of popularity will fade. Yet a whole lot of the music will stand forever. In "On the Corner: the Sellout of Miles Davis," Stanley Crouch offers his views on the source of Miles' enormous popularity even outside of the jazz world, arguing that he played some sort of modern-day equivalent of a minstrel to white audiences as the angry black man who turns his back to the public. But I don't buy it. Edited January 27, 2006 by John L Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) Miles is a marketer's dream - a guy with incredible charisma who is actually brilliantly talented - there is no comparison to Byrd or Morgan, particularly Byrd who never really got to a personal level of playing and who decided to opt for mass approval first (and than basically lost what minor talent he had) - Miles INVENTED several schools of jazz playing, on top of it all - and his playing, for all its complexity, is surprisingly accessible - I'm somewhat amazed that this is even an open question - Edited January 27, 2006 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Yes, as Allen says, do not underestimate the power of charisma. Miles had it in spades. That's not something that can be taught, you either have it or you don't. Further, like Art Blakey, he had almost a sixth sense in terms of how to put a band together. He was also a great "sensor" of moods. He could see change in the direction the jazz winds were blowing, before anyone else even felt a breeze. Up over and out. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnagrandy Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) Miles is a marketer's dream - a guy with incredible charisma who is actually brilliantly talented - there is no comparison to Byrd or Morgan, particularly Byrd who never really got to a personal level of playing and who decided to opt for mass approval first (and than basically lost what minor talent he had) - Miles INVENTED several schools of jazz playing, on top of it all - and his playing, for all its complexity, is surprisingly accessible - I'm somewhat amazed that this is even an open question - No comparison to Morgan ????? My jaw is dropping in disbelief. Talking about playing horn, Lee Morgan could incinerate Miles anytime anywhere. Miles was an great innovator , a great bandleader , a great judge of talent , a melodic player with a superior sense of time and space but he wasn't anywhere near the league of Diz or Fats or Clifford or Lee or Freddie or Woody in terms of ideas or execution on the horn. And charisma .... well I'm too young to have ever seen Lee live, but I heard he was something else in person. Edited January 27, 2006 by johnagrandy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllenLowe Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 (edited) Lee was great, and a major influence, but not like Miles - this might have changed if he'd lived longer, but who knows? As for execution, don't underestimate Miles - he could play anything he needed to play, and some of the early recordings which have led people to believe he had major technical prpblems are recordings made when he was having all kinds of drug problems - there are some live broadcases from the late 1940s, early 195os that will change your whole idea of Miles and execution - also, hear the record he made with Tadd Dameron in concert in Paris- there's a lot more to him than the studio records - Edited January 27, 2006 by AllenLowe Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Y'all gotta realize that Miles came from success, was raised to expect nothing less, and once, he got (ahem) "clean", insisted on it. And got it. He had a business acumen that went beyond mere dollars and cents, and he wasted none of it. "Marketing"? Yeah, he was marketed. But don't think for one second that it was against his will or that he didn't give the marketeeers something to market. His "image" was cultivated as much, if not more, by himself as it was by anybody. Smart. Very smart. Besides being an incredibly gifted and unique artist, the cat was shrewd in the way that few "modern" jazz musicians have been smart. We're usually so caught up in our own subculture(s) that we can't even begin to think about anything resembling "mass appeal" as anything other than a fantasy or a one-shot deal. Miles, otoh, saw it as not just a distinct possibility, but as an entitlement (providing that he did the work to gt it), both for him as a person and as an artist. He was right, and he did what he saw would work to get all of it he could get on his terms. More power to him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnagrandy Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Lee was great, and a major influence, but not like Miles - this might have changed if he'd lived longer, but who knows? As for execution, don't underestimate Miles - he could play anything he needed to play, and some of the early recordings which have led people to believe he had major technical prpblems are recordings made when he was having all kinds of drug problems - there are some live broadcases from the late 1940s, early 195os that will change your whole idea of Miles and execution - also, hear the record he made with Tadd Dameron in concert in Paris- there's a lot more to this than the studio records - I started my jazz listening career as a Miles collector ("Milestones" = #1 LP I ever purchased) but I never put any Miles in my player anymore , except for the electric stuff when I'm trippin'. I listen to Lee every day. Miles was one of the greatest ever but he is vastly overrated by the general population and that is reason enough to listen to others. How many Miles tribute albums are there? It's ridiculous. Every guy who bought a latte at Starbucks knows all about Miles. BTW, what's this John Mayer thing ? Now Herbie pairing up with him , following Sco's lead ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Lee was great, and a major influence, but not like Miles - this might have changed if he'd lived longer, but who knows? As for execution, don't underestimate Miles - he could play anything he needed to play, and some of the early recordings which have led people to believe he had major technical prpblems are recordings made when he was having all kinds of drug problems - there are some live broadcases from the late 1940s, early 195os that will change your whole idea of Miles and execution - also, hear the record he made with Tadd Dameron in concert in Paris- there's a lot more to him than the studio records - The live recordings from 1967-1970 also put the lie to claims that Miles was a technically "limited" trumpet player. Guy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnagrandy Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 The live recordings from 1967-1970 also put the lie to claims that Miles was a technically "limited" trumpet player. Guy Specifically ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Magnificent Goldberg Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 Neither the other thread referred to, nor this one, seem to have identified that Miles' success began earlier than his signing with Columbia. I can't remember where I heard it but Prestige had their records pressed by Columbia. The manager of the Columbia plant told the people back in HQ that he was making a hell of a lot of Miles Davis records for Prestige. Zap! Columbia probably started off by having to pay more to get Miles away from Prestige than was normally the case with jazz musicians; Bob Weinstock knew how many Miles Davis records he was selling, too. They certainly had to pay Miles a bundle; I read somewhere that it was many years after Miles signed with Columbia that the cumulative royalties due to him exceeded the cumulative advances he'd been given. I seem to recollect that this was around the time of "Bitches brew". That album was Miles' only top 50 hit (only reaching #35). He only got 5 other albums onto the billboard top 100. What I think happened at Columbia was that Miles was being paid like a rock star; without a hit, Miles was rich, probably very rich, by 1960. To get their money back Columbia needed to promote him like a rock star. And there's no doubt that he was promotable in that way. Even so, he was only selling like a reasonably popular jazz musician, far below Brubeck or Getz for example, in the sixties. I think his extreme and perennial popularity is down to his getting what might be called "surplus promotion" over and above what might normally be justified. But the initial impetus came from his Prestige records. There's no doubt that those records were selling as well as they were on merit. MG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guy Berger Posted January 27, 2006 Report Share Posted January 27, 2006 The live recordings from 1967-1970 also put the lie to claims that Miles was a technically "limited" trumpet player. Guy Specifically ? Some specific examples (which include studio recordings): 1) His playing on "Directions" (March 7, 1970, second set). Particularly from 9:37-10:10. 2) His playing on "Right Off" (A Tribute to Jack Johnson) 3) His playing on "What I Say" (December 19, 1970) 4) His playing on "Miles Runs the Voodoo Down" (Bitches Brew). In particular the second solo. But listening to any of the recordings from that period, particularly live, gives the same general impression. Guy 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.