The electric Miles legacy

[Rooster_Ties]

I find some of the Yo Miles! material -- (as best I recall) particularly their new versions of tunes that were originally only every recorded live by Miles -- to be a little more focused, and/or maybe a little better planned out.

In some cases, I think the saxophone work (solos) on the Yo Miles! material is just a wee bit oriented more towards telling a story -- i.e., solos with more of a beginning, middle and end. This is as opposed to some of the original Miles material, where they (whomever was in the sax chair at the time) really just go for broke some or more of the time, and (I think) not always with the very best results (though I am still a fan of nearly all of the pre-retirement Miles electric era).

In their defense, though, it's not like Miles' original electric music was the least bit easy to carry off in the first place, especially live (and at those volume levels).

And on the last two Yo Miles! releases, I really appreciate the inclusion of sax players like Greg Osby, who are slightly more 'inside' players (tone-wise), while still being just as 'out' harmonically. Not (quite) as much "screaming", I guess, when you get down to it (though there certainly is still some -- just a more moderate dose, me thinks).

Edited June 22, 2009 by Rooster_Ties

[A Lark Ascending]

Interesting observations, Rooster_Ties, and not in any way disrespectful of the original musicians.

After all, acknowledging the sophistication of the farming methods of a once-frontier region in no way lessens the achievement of the pioneers who originally broke the ground.

I suspect one thing that divides listeners here is very much when they first heard this music; growing up with it as it was newly forged would have left such a powerful impact that hearing it any other way must be, at the least, a bit strange. Hearing it...or at least listening to it a bit more carefully...after the event leaves you with less of a commitment to the original, perhaps a greater openess to what later interpretations can bring to the music.

[fasstrack]

Tributes? Why bother? The originals are there, and the time, place, feelings in the air are spoken for. Musicians, you may make a little taste but it smells funny and you'll have to live with it the rest of your life on recordings and expectations of those who hire you. If you really believe in it, and it's from the heart that's something else. But take the high road. It's best for everyone, especially you.

Would you also advise not performing Shakespeare plays? After all, the definitive ones were performed 400 years ago! And even if we can't see those, we can always get copies of mid-20th C performances by the great actors of the time. Why bother putting them on now?

I would advise not copying Shakespeare's style, but learning from it and acknowledging the influence while forcing oneself into the waters. That's what artists do, that and reaching people, especially if they perform in front of them. If you don't take that plunge you're a coward or a thief, plain as that.

And, further addressing your comment, I play the standards. I'm proud that I know hundreds, if not thousands, of tunes. I said standards, meaning anything from Twinkle, Twinkle to Anniversary Waltz to Something to Once Upon a Summertime, etc. Bolivia is a hip tune, it's not a standard. (Not that anyone asked.....) Among jazz writers I lean toward Strayhorn, Ellington, Benny Carter, Fats Waller more than, say, Monk or the Blue Note stuff. Just my taste.

I can't be satisfied with copying myself, but my influences are evident to me, and very strong. Personally, I don't waste a second worrying about this stuff. I'm very secure that way. I know my voice and don't have to force anything. But I let the mentors in. They're there either way, plus I obviously believe in them, if they influenced me that much....I also know my limitations and weaknesses and don't hide from them.

What I do have big problems with is copycats making money off other people and acting all big, and, worse still, profiteers cashing in: unoriginal 'artists', bullshit 'tributes' which are only there as advertisements for players or a hook for the joint, etc. Shame, shame. It makes it hard for people trying to be themselves, be real, and make real and honest art.

[Hot Ptah]

Interesting observations, Rooster_Ties, and not in any way disrespectful of the original musicians.

After all, acknowledging the sophistication of the farming methods of a once-frontier region in no way lessens the achievement of the pioneers who originally broke the ground.

I suspect one thing that divides listeners here is very much when they first heard this music; growing up with it as it was newly forged would have left such a powerful impact that hearing it any other way must be, at the least, a bit strange. Hearing it...or at least listening to it a bit more carefully...after the event leaves you with less of a commitment to the original, perhaps a greater openess to what later interpretations can bring to the music.

My experience may not be typical. I heard the electric Miles as it was being released and liked some of it, and found some of it to be rather dull. I thought he needed an editor. Funky bass lines with screechy electric guitars did not particularly impress me at the time. It was not an overwhelming listening experience. My reaction when a new Miles 2 LP set came out in the early to mid-1970s was "oh my, another one of those really long Miles Davis albums that is hard to listen to and has a lot of dead spots. He has released so many of them recently."

When I started reading amazon.com customer reviews of this music around 1999, I was quite surprised that these albums were considered masterpieces by some people. I became acquainted with the idea proposed by others, that these early to mid-1970s Miles electric albums were groundbreaking funk triumphs which were years ahead of their time. That had never occurred to me as I heard them as they were being released. Of course, I did not know then that they would seem to be "ahead of their time" in the future. For all I knew in 1971-75, they were going to be a unique dead end, a kind of music never heard from again.

When I hear Henry Kaiser and Leo Smith playing their Yo Miles stuff, I think that it is not as good as the original, and that the original was only sometimes successful to begin with. Unless they are taking the ideas from the Miles albums and moving beyond and creating something new, I don't really see the point of it.

[B. Clugston]

John Zorn's Electric Masada can have a similar vibe to Miles' 1970 band (with Corea).

I really like the Yo Miles Up River release (with a nice cameo from David Creamer, who played on On the Corner). The first Yo Miles disc was OK, but I much prefer the real thing. Heard live, Miles 1973-75 bands were endlessly fascinating. I wish more concerts would find there way into legitimate release.

[JSngry]

...Funky bass lines with screechy electric guitars...

That's all a lot of people heard, because that's how "we" have been conditioned to hear music - hear the top & feel the bottom, whatever is in between is...not for anybopdy to worry about except for the musicians. Think about it - that's how pop records were made, that's how big band music was (mostly) made, that's what "classical" music ultimately comes down to far more often than not, that's how most of us intuitive hear & think about what we hear. And with good reason - the brain can only process two separate audio stimuli simultaneously. So yeah, you grab the top and the bottom, and yunless you're really curious or else some kind of freak (and god bless you if you are) the middle is just...there. But this is where Miles fucked with people - he put the meat of his music smack dab in the middle. Mtume, Al Foster, Reggie Lucas, & Pete Cosey (when not playing lead) had a near-perpetual rhythmic and textural conversation going on.

Now the thing about that is this - the records are a little on the muddy side sometimes, and you reallyu gotta dig to get there from the original LPs. But the "thing" that I knew I was digging when I didn't have half a clue what it was was exactly that - the middle of the music. Miles more than once siad that he composed from the bass up, and most people took that to mean that the bass line was the "song". But what it really means is that the bass line was the axis around which the music - the middle, that chunky stew of "electric jungle" - revolved. The middle was the music. The top was color, an occasional "melody", but mostly either a bright primary-ish color or, in Miles' case, melodies that were really organic rhythmic extrapolations that came from the middle, bubble p from the middle, and then soon disappeared back into the middle.

This was not a new way to make music, hell, it's African like a mofo in concept, this notion of everything revolving around a central axis and the music being the sparks and coolings that come out of the frictions and resolutions thereof, but for a "western" mindset that overwhelmingly equates "music" with "melody", hey, this was...unfamiliar. and challenging. And coming as it did in the form of "jazz", more than a little off putting to many who were still feeling that America's Classical Music was getting royally reamed every which way.

Well, I can speak only for myself, but others have told me the same thing about themselves - there's two ways to "listen" to this stuff - at it, or in it. The first, subjective approach can be bewildering, or worse, becuase there the tendency is to listen in terms of "expectations", most of which are liable to most certainly not be met, often militantly so. But you get to listening in it, just taking it in as it comes, and it's like there's this whole other world of possibilities, of time and space and color and meter and just all kinds of things, and it's a pretty damn glorious place to be, at least if you like what you find there.

As time has passed, people have had time to figure this out about this music. that's why it's now "easier" to play it, and that's why seemingly continuously more people seem to be "liking" it now. Our synapses have gotten hipper (and our recordings have gotten clearer), and, yeah, what once seemed outrageous now makes a lot more sense. Just think about how much music now is more oriented towards sound (i.e. - de-emphasis of "melody" and instead putting various densities together with and against each other in a rhythmic boxing match). And "Maiysha", hell, that little beauty echoes in the textures and colors and notions of more nu-jazz, acid-jazz, trip-hop, deep house, broken beat,, etc. than any of us have time to list. But honestly, most "jazz" people are still looking at it as a different groove to solo over/on, and that is just...not the point, at least not in my estimation. The Wadada things do get it more often than not, even if, hell, everybody's had 20-25 years to more or less begin to figure it out.

No real point to any of this other than... if Message To Our Folks is the REAL New World Symphony (or one of them...), the Get Up With It is the after-party for Opening Night.

[jazzbo]

Nice analysis Jim.

I do find the Miles version of the music very African, and I think I responded strongly to that when it was released and I was fresh back from an adolescence in Africa.

I really love this music. I find very little of the music "like it" to be "like it" in ways that are important to me. For example, I see exactly what RT means, but the very things he applauds in the Yo Miles! material is the very stuff that makes me lose interest.

Ah well. Even more than the released material, the concerts on bootlegs, even ones in crappy sound, draw me in and have been a pleasure for me for years. And, I'm sure, will be.

[A Lark Ascending]

Funky bass lines with screechy electric guitars did not particularly impress me at the time. It was not an overwhelming listening experience.

I think that is what I've found hardest to get past over the years. It was certainly the major block for me in the 70s - I had no cultural/emotional connection with 'funky' and screechy electric guitars were what I was moving towards other musics besides rock to escape!

It was the shimmering semi-pastoral electric music of the IASW era that first made me think again when I dared to listen in the 90s. I find the later music increasingly interesting beyond that, though still in spite of the screechy guitars/funk, rather than because of it. Which probably means I miss the original point of the music!

But not having my past invested in this music probably makes me far less Romantic about it. Which makes the re-explorations of excellent musicians like Smith, Liebman etc much easier for me to find interesing.

Edited June 23, 2009 by Bev Stapleton

[sidewinder]

And "Maiysha", hell, that little beauty echoes in the textures and colors and notions of more nu-jazz, acid-jazz, trip-hop, deep house, broken beat,, etc. than any of us have time to list.

Reminds me of spinning this one back in the day on my trusty old Dual 604 deck with some colleagues listening in. Lots of head-noddin' and foot tapping through Fortune's pretty and bossa-ish flute solo (not out of place on an MOR album I guess) then perplexed looks of 'WTF is this??' when Pete Cosey's fireworks kicked in. For reasons such as this, I'll always prefer the original.

[mikeweil]

But honestly, most "jazz" people are still looking at it as a different groove to solo over/on, and that is just ... not the point, at least not in my estimation.

Same with musicians over here - they don't know sh... about the African core of jazz.

[danasgoodstuff]

Great thread, I too lived thru this in real time and it was definitely WTF (mostly in a good way) more often than not, esp'ly On the Corner. Big Fun was a return to normallacy after that. Because of this experience I too tend to discount the legacy recordings discussed herein (most of which I've heard, at least a little), not out of abstract principle but just because they mostly don't move me the same way. I was impressed that the Yo Miles guys had ferreted out the tunes from recordings and live performances that weren't played, edited or titled in ways that paid much mind to the whole concept of 'tune'... yes, they are radical but I find much of the traditional verities in there too, just in new and unexpected ways. The one criticism/cavil(sp?) I'd have is that we all speak of this period as if it was one thing, but it ain't - it's a whle bunch of quite different things happening in Mile's music '69-75 and that's what makes the lazy claim that he'd sold out so w-r-o-n-g, if that's what he ws doing he would have just done Bitches Brew over and over, since it sold well, and whatever the later shit is, it ain't that. thanks all, and esp'ly Jim S. for making me want to read the forums again!

[A Lark Ascending]

I never understood the claim that electric Miles was a sellout (except in as far as certain traditionalists were never going to accept any rock influences as other than a sell out).

Yes, BB had lots of rock elements. But it's far from 'easy' music - it all sounded monochromatic to me when I first listened properly in '76 (I recall hearing some of it on late night radio c. 1971).

If Miles had made courting the wider rock audience his priority he could have done it much more easily - vocalists, shorter tunes (no capital on the s), clearer song structures etc.

I've no doubt he was deadly serious.

[fasstrack]

I never understood the claim that electric Miles was a sellout (except in as far as certain traditionalists were never going to accept any rock influences as other than a sell out).

Yes, BB had lots of rock elements. But it's far from 'easy' music - it all sounded monochromatic to me when I first listened properly in '76 (I recall hearing some of it on late night radio c. 1971).

If Miles had made courting the wider rock audience his priority he could have done it much more easily - vocalists, shorter tunes (no capital on the s), clearer song structures etc.

I've no doubt he was deadly serious.

What's wrong with 'courting the wider rock audience'? Jazz is spelled p-o-v-e-r-t-y. After a while even the big names tire of that shit. Plus he arleady proved he could play, so why preach to the converted? That can be boring in a sense---though performers should always appreciate their audience. Why not get more people from other walks of life in the tent? Makes life more interesting. Anyway, 1945 is not 1968, etc. That is if he really did mean it. That's the argument I had with Mr. Crouch. His points were very well taken when we talked about this at length, but neither myself or Stanley have ever resided in Miles' head---far as I know.

My own feeling is that both are true: He wanted the bread, a wider audience and he meant it. Good for him on all three counts.

[JSngry]

Yeah, those three qualities are not mutually exclusive, at least not for some people.

But he meant it. Hell yeah he meant it. There's too much Miles in that music for him no to have meant it.

Miles Davis was a very proud man, remember.

The arguments of Crouch and others remind me of a lover who gets jilted when their partner decides they'd rather fuck somebody else. GOTTA be for the money. GOTTA be for the career, GOTTA be for the trophy. GOTTA be for ANYTHING besides they found somebody who they simply enjoyed fucking more than you.

When you make music that is ALIVE, it's like fucking. It connects you to the eternal and nothing feels better. The opposite happens when you play music that is not alive. Ching-Chinga-Ching & RappadappaWHOOOOOSHaleedada refused to accept that Miles felt better fucking Wocka-Wocka-Wocka-Wocka than he did them. And Crouch and all them others REFUSE to accept that theirs is not the best there is to be had. But there's always gonna be somebody who does it DIFFERENT than you, and sometimes different IS better, if you get different enough that gets you where you're living (of want to live). Then different DOES become better.

He meant it. Hell yeah he meant it.

[A Lark Ascending]

What's wrong with 'courting the wider rock audience'?

Nothing whatsoever. I was part of that wider rock audience (and didn't get courted at the time because it all sounded so strange).

All I'm saying is that if that was his primary motive for incorporating rock elements, electricity etc he could easily have produced a far more commercial sound. Others did.

[fasstrack]

Yeah, those three qualities are not mutually exclusive, at least not for some people.

But he meant it. Hell yeah he meant it. There's too much Miles in that music for him no to have meant it.

Miles Davis was a very proud man, remember.

The arguments of Crouch and others remind me of a lover who gets jilted when their partner decides they'd rather fuck somebody else. GOTTA be for the money. GOTTA be for the career, GOTTA be for the trophy. GOTTA be for ANYTHING besides they found somebody who they simply enjoyed fucking more than you.

When you make music that is ALIVE, it's like fucking. It connects you to the eternal and nothing feels better. The opposite happens when you play music that is not alive. Ching-Chinga-Ching & RappadappaWHOOOOOSHaleedada refused to accept that Miles felt better fucking Wocka-Wocka-Wocka-Wocka than he did them. And Crouch and all them others REFUSE to accept that theirs is not the best there is to be had. But there's always gonna be somebody who does it DIFFERENT than you, and sometimes different IS better, if you get different enough that gets you where you're living (of want to live). Then different DOES become better.

He meant it. Hell yeah he meant it.quote]

You gotta sit down and talk to Stanley about it like I did before jumping to conclusions. I thought for years he (and Wynton) were involved in revisionist history re Miles, but after hours of talk (this was not the only subject, of course) Stanley at the time made pretty convincing arguments for his suppositions based on guys in the band he spoke to he claimed supported his conclusions. I still don't know entirely where he's coming from with this, and am not 100% sold, but he's my friend, fun to talk or even argue with, very smart, and I accept what he said as his truth, nothing more or less---and he would not expect more. I'm not inside Stanley's brain just as he's not in Miles' (in his current condition, and I'm sure he's grateful) In honest intellectual discourse it's a good idea to just let people come out, b/c it all will come out in the wash eventually. Cut 'em slack until there's reason not to.

[JSngry]

I had a nice conversation w/Dave Liebman about this back in the late 70s, and I stand by what I've said about Miles meaning it.

What needs to be understood is just what "it" is...it's more than just "music"...it's also about "place in society", which is a lot deeper than simple "money" & "materialism".

Miles Davis ended up a universally recognized Cultural Icon. Stanley Crouch is recognized as a Jazz Critic & Social Commentator. Miles aimed higher, Miles got higher (no pun intended...).

[fasstrack]

Miles Davis ended up a universally recognized Cultural Icon. Stanley Crouch is recognized as a Jazz Critic & Social Commentator. Miles aimed higher, Miles got higher (no pun intended...).

Go yell at Stanley. I ain't my brother's keeper. Shit, I'm not even a 'brother'.....(just in spirit)

And when did or would I confuse him with a musician, let alone a great one? You know me better than that.

I also said I disagreed. To read my actual brilliant dumbass statements, see above.

[A Lark Ascending]

Arrived this week and enjoyed the first play through. No, it's nothing new and probably suffers from too many musicians - would have been interesting to hear just the Indian musicians!

[jazzbo]

I forgot about this one

[mjzee]

I never understood the claim that electric Miles was a sellout (except in as far as certain traditionalists were never going to accept any rock influences as other than a sell out).

Yes, BB had lots of rock elements. But it's far from 'easy' music - it all sounded monochromatic to me when I first listened properly in '76 (I recall hearing some of it on late night radio c. 1971).

If Miles had made courting the wider rock audience his priority he could have done it much more easily - vocalists, shorter tunes (no capital on the s), clearer song structures etc.

I've no doubt he was deadly serious.

I agree. Listen to "On The Corner." If this is supposed to be a funk album, what's with that one percussionist resolutely playing off time? What's with the mix, not only being murky but bringing exactly the wrong instruments to the fore? Hell, where are the words? "Ooh, baby, I want to funk with you," etc.

It was when I heard "The Man With The Horn": "He's the man, he's the man, he's the man, he's the man with the horrrrrrnnn..." that I went "uh oh."

[Hot Ptah]

I never understood the claim that electric Miles was a sellout (except in as far as certain traditionalists were never going to accept any rock influences as other than a sell out).

Yes, BB had lots of rock elements. But it's far from 'easy' music - it all sounded monochromatic to me when I first listened properly in '76 (I recall hearing some of it on late night radio c. 1971).

If Miles had made courting the wider rock audience his priority he could have done it much more easily - vocalists, shorter tunes (no capital on the s), clearer song structures etc.

I've no doubt he was deadly serious.

I agree. Listen to "On The Corner." If this is supposed to be a funk album, what's with that one percussionist resolutely playing off time? What's with the mix, not only being murky but bringing exactly the wrong instruments to the fore? Hell, where are the words? "Ooh, baby, I want to funk with you," etc.

It was when I heard "The Man With The Horn": "He's the man, he's the man, he's the man, he's the man with the horrrrrrnnn..." that I went "uh oh."

Yeah, "The Man With The Horn" had the screechy electric guitars and funky bass lines, but much less Africa in the music.

[fasstrack]

It was when I heard "The Man With The Horn": "He's the man, he's the man, he's the man, he's the man with the horrrrrrnnn..." that I went "uh oh."

That last period was not his finest hour. Lotta editing required, I think. But it's cause his chops were in the shitter.

Branford Marsalis was trash-talking Miles from that period on his old wild-and-crazy website and I got bugged and called him on it b/c I felt it was disrespectful to a guy that helped launch him early on. (just like Miles himself calling Bird a greedly MF---it's just not classy to me) 'He didn't want cats to hear him", he said, meaning he was hiding behind the Harmon, etc. I gotta admit in retrospect Bran was right. Miles just was weak, musically and chops-wise. Trumpet is brutal after a layoff.

I thought Star People was the strongest. It's a good blues record. He definitely got it together for that one.

[Trumpet Guy]

It was when I heard "The Man With The Horn": "He's the man, he's the man, he's the man, he's the man with the horrrrrrnnn..." that I went "uh oh."

That last period was not his finest hour. Lotta editing required, I think. But it's cause his chops were in the shitter.

Branford Marsalis was trash-talking Miles from that period on his old wild-and-crazy website and I got bugged and called him on it b/c I felt it was disrespectful to a guy that helped launch him early on. (just like Miles himself calling Bird a greedly MF---it's just not classy to me) 'He didn't want cats to hear him", he said, meaning he was hiding behind the Harmon, etc. I gotta admit in retrospect Bran was right. Miles just was weak, musically and chops-wise. Trumpet is brutal after a layoff.

I thought Star People was the strongest. It's a good blues record. He definitely got it together for that one.

Enough dissin late Miles!

OK--Please listen to the track, Ursula, from that record "The Man With The Horn" and tell me Miles wasn't still with some of his charms...

[mjzee]

It was when I heard "The Man With The Horn": "He's the man, he's the man, he's the man, he's the man with the horrrrrrnnn..." that I went "uh oh."

That last period was not his finest hour. Lotta editing required, I think. But it's cause his chops were in the shitter.

Branford Marsalis was trash-talking Miles from that period on his old wild-and-crazy website and I got bugged and called him on it b/c I felt it was disrespectful to a guy that helped launch him early on. (just like Miles himself calling Bird a greedly MF---it's just not classy to me) 'He didn't want cats to hear him", he said, meaning he was hiding behind the Harmon, etc. I gotta admit in retrospect Bran was right. Miles just was weak, musically and chops-wise. Trumpet is brutal after a layoff.

I thought Star People was the strongest. It's a good blues record. He definitely got it together for that one.

Enough dissin late Miles!

OK--Please listen to the track, Ursula, from that record "The Man With The Horn" and tell me Miles wasn't still with some of his charms...

Don't get me wrong - I'm totally with you! I was fortunate enough to have an 8th row seat to Miles' comeback concert at Avery Fisher (part of We Want Miles), and it was great. He was really on, and had a great band too.

But Star People kinda bored me, and when I last saw him, at the Pier in NYC sometime in the mid-80's, I just found nothing compelling about the music or the performance. But I still come back to We Want Miles with great pleasure.