Milestones (Jack Chambers)

[fasstrack]

I read the forward (had read sections of the book before). I thought Chambers was cool about low-keying Miles's and Throup's supposedy plagarism of his book. He seemed flattered, actually.

But what struck me in this well-written prelude with all the stuff about the estate division agonies, the references to Miles' diminished powers and interest in serious playing; wardrobe and hair weaves; the painting,---etc. is that Chambers seemed to be making a point that Miles had become famous for being famous. It was an unflattering portrait---but perhaps in part a true one. I had an amicible debate with Stanley Crouch (I mean informally, at my gig, not in any official way, and Stanley is a great guy I think) over a lot of this, especially the sell-out accusations. At the time I was sticking up for Miles and sort of telling Stanley 'after all, I'm not inside the guy's brain to know his motives' (I really meant he wasn't in Miles's brain, but was either being polite or chicken ). But over the years I've come to agree with both Mr. Crouch and other late Miles critics. He was an all-time great artist for whom vanity and the desire to stay in the spotlight---and perhaps not grow old gracefully---seemed to get the better of. But Star People showed he still had it. He never lost it, just sort of...

Y'all got it...

Edited September 5, 2012 by fasstrack

[colinmce]

I like the book, but Chambers comes from the hyper-critical school of musical analysis, and it's grating. He begrudges Miles a small handful of flawless performances, but his conclusions about everything else-- and he does a rundown of every recorded session the man did, plus the released live stuff (handy)-- are mixed at best, nitpicking endlessly about fingering, wrong notes, late entrances, fudged rhythms, repetition of ideas, ad nauseum.. He's also pretty stodgy in his approach the the electric material. But it's worth a read and is definitely the best Miles bio I've come across.

[medjuck]

I used to correspond with Jack Chambers. He told me he would have liked to have updated the book and correct some factual mistakes but gor budgetary reasons no publisher was willing to do any more than allow him the new introduction.

[JSngry]

I have no problem with either vanity or the need to stay in the spotlight. Somebody's going to do it, and I'd rather it be somebody for whose work towards which I feel an affinity.

Other than most of You're Under Arrest, I feel an affinity for Miles' work, so hey, go ahead and be famous, go ahead and get rich, go ahead and stake out turf in the Broader Mass Consciousness that for any number of reasons you're not "supposed" to have. Go ahead and do that. Nothing to apologize for in any of that.

Besides, there's a disconnect between the constant jazzfan whining about unworthy celebrities and then bitching some more about one who actually was worthy. Miles Davis understood music, and he understood celebrity and he understood that they were not the same thing and he understood that you gotta work for anything you get, be it musical or material.

Bottom line - people who find fame and fortune unbecoming shouldn't feel cheated when they don't get it.

Yeah, Miles was an often unscrupulous asshole,etcetcetc yadadingdangday, Miles also built brand-recognition that might survive the 21st Century longer than Chrysler or General Motors.

That's something else with which I have no problem, None whatsoever. Somebody's going to do that, too, and I'd rather it be somebody whose work for which I feel an affinity.

Perhaps we are just a little,,,disoriented when the ownership class changes in "type" yet still behaves as ownership. That's not how the program was written.

Oh well!

Edited September 5, 2012 by JSngry

[Guy Berger]

Chambers was the first Miles bio I read and turned me onto some great music as a budding listener (especially Miles Davis and the Modern Jazz Giants).

But it has serious shortcomings has a biography:

1) His judgment about Miles's music becomes dicier and dicier once you move past 1963. His cluelessness on the electric music is well-known but he does not really get the 60s quintet either.

2) No primary sources!!!! This is a real shame because a lot more of the principals were still alive when he wrote this book. Later biographers would not be as lucky.

3) Lots of factual errors.

I haven't read every Miles bio out there. I thought Carr was, if anything, more problematic. Szwed may be better but I am waiting for it to come out on ebook. But even if there is no acceptable substitute, this would be a very shaky bedrock on which to construct an understanding of the man and his music.

[Guy Berger]

Let me also add that every minute wasted reading Chambers's commentary on the 80s music would be better reading Paul Tingen's writing on the same subject.

[JSngry]

Let me also add that every minute wasted reading Chambers's commentary on the 80s music would be better reading Paul Tingen's writing on the same subject.

This.

[fasstrack]

I like the book, but Chambers comes from the hyper-critical school of musical analysis, and it's grating. He begrudges Miles a small handful of flawless performances, but his conclusions about everything else-- and he does a rundown of every recorded session the man did, plus the released live stuff (handy)-- are mixed at best, nitpicking endlessly about fingering, wrong notes, late entrances, fudged rhythms, repetition of ideas, ad nauseum.. He's also pretty stodgy in his approach the the electric material. But it's worth a read and is definitely the best Miles bio I've come across.

Why, that...CRITIC!!...

[J.A.W.]

I like the book, but Chambers comes from the hyper-critical school of musical analysis, and it's grating. He begrudges Miles a small handful of flawless performances, but his conclusions about everything else-- and he does a rundown of every recorded session the man did, plus the released live stuff (handy)-- are mixed at best, nitpicking endlessly about fingering, wrong notes, late entrances, fudged rhythms, repetition of ideas, ad nauseum.. He's also pretty stodgy in his approach the the electric material. But it's worth a read and is definitely the best Miles bio I've come across.

Not to nitpick, but why do Americans always misspell the Latin expression ad nauseam?

Edited September 5, 2012 by J.A.W.

[Matthew]

I respectfully disagree with "He was an all-time great artist for whom vanity and the desire to stay in the spotlight---and perhaps not grow old gracefully---seemed to get the better of," I think that how he conducted his later career was the only way that Davis could create some space between himself and the public, a way to maintain this part of him that was just for him, outside anyone's control. He was very aware of fame, and the trappings thereof, but his later music is very powerful (a good example is his Montreux appearances, they are very good to my ears), but he needed this outer facade, not just for privacy, but to mess with people. He was one of those guys who needed to put on a front to protect this "inner Miles" that he cared very much about. Granted, Davis was a very messed-up person at times, and we all know the horror stories of his treatment of women, but there are other crosscurrents that are powerful, that get hidden by the Mr. Cool aspect.

I often feel a very good book could be written about how Columbia presented Miles & Brubeck to the public, because our outlooks on both these artists are heavily influenced by Columbia's marketing of these two figures, it would say a lot on how their backgrounds were presented.

Edited September 5, 2012 by Matthew

[colinmce]

I am doubly sorry for trying to contribute to this thread.

[JSngry]

The reality is Own or Be Owned.

The reality is that not everybody gets that.

The reality is that only some who do get that figure out that you can never own everything/everybody, so you play the games you need to play to strike a balance that works for you. Some people set the bar pretty high for what that means to them. Some people don't. There's a lot of room in there for that one.

The reality is that Miles was one of the ones who did get that, and that he played the games he played very well. Whether or not they were "good" games is but one point, not "the" point.

Now that he's dead, some people gonna bitch and degregate b/c that bothers them (then and/or now), but too late for that. Play our own games and worry about your own results.

Edited September 5, 2012 by JSngry

[Pete C]

Not to nitpick, but why do Americans always misspell the Latin expression ad nauseam?

I don't know why, but we definately do.

I've learned to accept Miles' '80s music on its own terms, and nobody could say that within those terms it wasn't well executed by some pretty heavy musicians. But that won't make me choose, say, Amandla over On the Corner in most situations.

[J.A.W.]

Not to nitpick, but why do Americans always misspell the Latin expression ad nauseam?

I don't know why, but we definately do.

I've learned to accept Miles' '80s music on its own terms, and nobody could say that within those terms it wasn't well executed by some pretty heavy musicians.

Same here. It took me a long time, though.

[jazzbo]

I think the word is often misspelled because it is most often mispronounced, with the "am" or "ahm" pronounced as "umh". . . .

Personally I feel that as long as I can read and understand the text, misspellings don't really bother me. Just my take.

I read Milestones when it first came out in paperback, and really haven't cracked it since except at times for a quick personnel or recording date check. It served its purpose for me fleshing out some information about the music and feeding the fire of collecting Miles Davis recordings that consumed me for some time.

[J.A.W.]

I think the word is often misspelled because it is most often mispronounced, with the "am" or "ahm" pronounced as "umh". . . .

Personally I feel that as long as I can read and understand the text, misspellings don't really bother me. Just my take.

I hear you, but I was "classically trained" (or whatever it's called in English) and it bothers me when people use Latin or Ancient Greek expressions the wrong way ("carpe diem", for instance) or misspell them - which happens a lot. I guess I'm a purist with a pet peeve...

Edited September 5, 2012 by J.A.W.

[Pete C]

Carpe Diem. Wasn't he the leader of Vietnam at some point?

[JSngry]

Carpe Diem. Wasn't he the leader of Vietnam at some point?

Yep. He had a chance and he carpe diemed.

One could say much the same about Miles.

[Pete C]

I hear you, but I was "classically trained" (or whatever it's called in English)

I think we say "I studied dead languages." I don't know if we have a term, actually. We normally just use classically trained for musicians.

I had this very histrionic and entertaining theatre history professor, Benito Ortolani, an Italian who was a specialist in Japanese theatre as well as classical theatre. A student once asked him, "Professor Ortolani, how many languages do you know?" He replied, "Seven living-a ones and two dead-a ones."

[jazzbo]

I wrote about my Latin teacher here:

[J.A.W.]

I hear you, but I was "classically trained" (or whatever it's called in English)

I think we say "I studied dead languages." I don't know if we have a term, actually. We normally just use classically trained for musicians.

I had this very histrionic and entertaining theatre history professor, Benito Ortolani, an Italian who was a specialist in Japanese theatre as well as classical theatre. A student once asked him, "Professor Ortolani, how many languages do you know?" He replied, "Seven living-a ones and two dead-a ones."

Ah, I see. Thanks. Actually, I went to "grammar school" (I don't know if there's an American equivalent) where they taught two dead (Ancient Greek and Latin) and four living (Dutch, German, English and French) languages plus lots of other stuff. In the Dutch system it's called a gymnasium and no, that's not a sports gym, on the contrary

[jazzbo]

It used to be "classically trained" here but you don't hear that (or receive the schooling) much at all for decades here.

It's a great thing that you were able to learn so many languages. Learning languages was probably my favorite part of my youth, but I only got to fully learn Latin, French and quite a bit of Amharic.

[Guy Berger]

By the way, aside from purely practical reasons, why does Miles's 80s music need to be "defended"? And from Stanley Crouch, of all people? If anything, it should be the reverse. The onus should be on SC to defend his silly assertions about the music.

[fasstrack]

He did a convincing job explaining his views to me. And like him or hate him one thing Stanley is NOT is silly. He's a big boy and doesn't need me to defend him-nor do I care to. But let's face it-he's an EFFECTIVE writer, or he wouldn't piss people off. Anyway I told him when we met I diragreed about Miles. A very civil discussion ensued wherein he not only backed up his views w/comments from Mile's band re his motives for playing that kind of music. Stanley was mainly drug about Miles' disingenuouessness. He said almost these exact words: 'I got no problem w/going for the money, just be HONEST about it'. He also listened very attentively to my views. We talked for hours after the gig (it was Deanna Kirk's-a singer, w/Tim Givens on bass and me, guitar) about all kinds of things, and I-once virulent Crouch and Marsalis hater-not only had a great time but came away w/real respect for his intellect. Even if his general conservativism gives me chuckles and I love Miles's music right up to almost the last.

[Pete C]

Actually, I went to "grammar school" (I don't know if there's an American equivalent)

In the U.S. we pretty much use the terms "grammar school," "elementary school," and "primary school," interchangeably to refer to grades 1 through 5 or 6. We don't have the same distinctions as Europe or even Canada.

and quite a bit of Amharic.

I take it you lived in Ethiopia at some point? Or was it Washington, D.C.?

Edited September 6, 2012 by Pete C