Miles Davis question

[AllenLowe]

"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."

aside from Elvis, there really was little of what we consider to be "rock star" promotion in the 1950s. More likely he was being promoted like pop star, of which there were many, particuarly at Columbia - and without sales numbers, little of this is verifiable -

Edited January 27, 2006 by AllenLowe

[johnagrandy]

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

But that's not bop, or hard-bop , or post-hard-bop , or out , or any other style.... those are examples of harmonic dispersion that guide or reroute the music's direction. He was propelling the music and the band , not innovating a continual stream of iterrelated ideas that built on the preceding.

Just because his range popped way up in that period up doesn't mean anything. (BTW, leaned way over the mike to get the mouthpiece up over the upper lip so as to hit the highs).

Edited January 27, 2006 by johnagrandy

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

"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."

aside from Elvis, there really was little of what we consider to be "rock star" promotion in the 1950s. More likely he was being promoted like pop star, of which there were many, particuarly at Columbia - and without sales numbers, little of this is verifiable -

Yes, you're right about "pop star" rather than "rock star" in the fifties and early sixties. But whether we're talking pop stars or rock stars, then what we're talking about is hits and Miles had few in the top 100; fewer than Brubeck in the sixties and, over his career, the same number in the top 100 as Getz (but Getz put 4 into the top 30). Even Cannonball did better on the top 100 than Miles (3 in the top 30).

Now, if you look at sales for Johnny Mathis or Andy Williams, Brubeck, Getz and Cannon are smallish beer. In terms of hit records, Miles was way overpaid (and consequently overpromoted) for what he actually produced for Columbia. That surplus promotion made him something different from Brubeck, Getz or Cannon.

MG

[AllenLowe]

well, not overpaid if you consider shelf life, and that his records (CDs) will keep selling for probably another 100 years, at least -

as for his post-bop chops, listen to Live at Carnegie Hall, for one - and I heard Miles in 1969 and he was all over the horn, at all ranges - no faking here -

[AllenLowe]

as for Miles' technique, let's consider what Duke Ellington said about one of his trumpeters, Ray Nance -

"sure, Ray only plays maybe 40 percent of the horn - but he plays that 40 percent like no one else"

Edited January 27, 2006 by AllenLowe

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

well, not overpaid if you consider shelf life, and that his records (CDs) will keep selling for probably another 100 years, at least -

I agree. The longevity of some of those albums has been way over anything Columbia could have expected. "Kind of Blue" had gone over the two million mark and "Sketches of Spain" over half a million by 2001. But isn't that the result of his popularity as a result of the surplus publicity? It isn't what justified the payments in the first place.

MG

[AllenLowe]

well, I'm not sure - for Columbia, jazz and classical were the prestige divisions - the idea was that these were musics with permanence and for the long-term - so it's just possible that they conceived of the sales issue a bit differently (yes, the music business has changed a lot in 50 years) -

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

well, I'm not sure - for Columbia, jazz and classical were the prestige divisions - the idea was that these were musics with permanence and for the long-term - so it's just possible that they conceived of the sales issue a bit differently (yes, the music business has changed a lot in 50 years) -

Is that so? I never heard that before. So Brubeck would have been getting big bucks then, and Ellington and a few others?

MG

[JSngry]

Goddard Lieberson.

[jazzbo]

Draddog!

I'm with Allen on this. I listen to both Miles AND Ray Nance about ten times more than I listen to Lee Morgan. I like Lee. Phenomenal trumpeter! But his music isn't speaking to me the way that Miles' is.

Marketed? Yes, and he provoked the marketing in many ways. But Miles COMMUNICATED in ways that got him public adulation.

[clifford_thornton]

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.

Presenting Burton Greene was on Columbia, actually, and was balanced between free and somewhat filmic, almost 'pop' tunes.

[jazzbo]

I guess I was quite confused there. Haven't heard that one. Still doubt it would be as promotable as Miles' music. . . .

[clifford_thornton]

This is an interesting debate. I mean, David Ware's music is pretty unequivocally 'out,' but he certainly has the personality to sell himself. Too bad that short-lived deal with Columbia didn't work; I mean, that music could have moved some units. Maybe not Miles units, but some units for sure. He just didn't get the right "push" on top of his own drive and charisma.

[jazzbo]

I don't think David S. Ware's music is going to reach the masses either. . . .Sorry, just how I hear that stuff.

[clifford_thornton]

I hear you, but I'm just playing the card. I will say that it could as much as a rock band like Sonic Youth does, or Zappa did, however.

Mingus, had he been treated a little better by companies like Columbia and Atlantic, probably could have been more of a household name than he is, don't you think?

I know I'm derailing this a bit, but it's interesting to think why someone who took as many chances as Miles did is _everywhere_ while a lot of similarly adventurous music with the chance to be on major labels, is not. I think the answer is probably in how mercurial a lot of artists are that they couldn't "get there," part of it anyway, but to me this question does lead us into that murky debate of "why isn't this music we love more popular?" If I heard "Ghosts" on cellphone ringtones, I'd be fired-up. Don't know about the rest of y'all, but...

Edited January 27, 2006 by clifford_thornton

[jazzbo]

Here's what I think about Miles: he had the marketable IMAGE, and important instances of the music he produced and especially his own playing had a universality that Mingus's, Ware's and Ayler's don't have.

In part here is my two cents: I feel Miles had a way of blending various elements out there already percolating and funneling it into a personal statement that reached outside the boundaries of the jazz cognoscenti and could be sampled and played again and again and mean something to those who don't normally dive deeply into jazz. And then he would work that "paradigm" or "new direction" until he was beyond the reach of this type of market, and somehow he would then pull another milestone out of his hat that would capture that attention and appeal and sales again. And again.

Mingus sure produced great music. I've got every bit of Mingus I've ever been able to get my hands on. But he didn't have the image. At all. And he was too VOCAL for his marketing good. Whereas Miles made his silence and the pauses speak for him in a market sense. Some of Mingus' music could have had that same ability to leap out and grab the unwashed. . . but . . . they didn't for the most part.

Ayler and other music that goes that far away from the popular and classical forms of jazz or American music in general just aren't going to capture the nonjazz market, don't fit into the social functions that music has for the general public, etc.

No complete and easy answers here I think, but that's about how I see it.

[AllenLowe]

yes - Goddard Liberson, George Avakian, John Hammond -

[AllenLowe]

and Irving Townsend -

[jazzbo]

Cal Lampley, since we're dropping names.

[AllenLowe]

who's that?

[jazzbo]

Producer. (Also musician). With Columbia at the time of some sessions with Evans.

Edited January 27, 2006 by jazzbo

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

who's that?

You can NOT be serious! He was a producer for Prestige in the mid sixties. Produced Freddie McCoy's albums, George Braith, Houston Person, Groove Holmes, etc etc. Not as great a producer as Bob Porter, but a lot of very good stuff came out.

MG

[clifford_thornton]

Jazzbo: those were some good two cents.

[jazzbo]

Thanks. I love a lot of things that have come out of "how it was" or "how it is." But like you I wish that in some fundamental ways it might have been different.

[Stereojack]

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.

How can "one of the greatest ever" be "vastly overrated"?

As for the Starbucks customer, he may know the name, but he certainly doesn't know "all about Miles".

I've been a jazz fan for over 40 years and this business about Miles' "lack of" technique is older than that. There may be trumpeters who can execute passages faster and cleaner, but nobody made music as compelling as Miles. I would liken Miles to a great actor, a dramatist, who can move audiences not by technical bravura, but with a great sense of drama and pacing.

Every time I hear his version of "Stella By Starlight" on "My Funny Valentine", I am reminded of what a brilliant musician he was!