More 5 Minutes Better Spent Without the NY Times - Herbie Hancock Edition!

[Dan Gould]

I realize it may be behind a paywall for most but:

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/03/arts/music/herbie-hancock-jazz-music.html

Discuss, if you wish ... but here is my main question. 

That would have been a fine enough existence, but in 1963, his life changed when the trumpeter Miles Davis — the world’s biggest jazz musician — brought Hancock into the fold to be a member of his band, the Second Great Quintet.

 

Is it truly proper English to call the group Second Great Quintet when that was never it's proper name and was only a colloquial name given in recognition, after the fact that Miles led not one but two great, distinctive, important Quintets? 

 

Also, when the 60s Quintet came into being, was Miles really the "world's biggest jazz musician" at that time?

Putting aside Duke and Armstrong, I would have guessed that Stan Getz was the biggest jazz musician after his recent major LP successes.  I would argue Miles wasn't "the world's biggest jazz musician" until he broke thru to the much younger audience, Bitches Brew and beyond ...

[Big Beat Steve]

13 minutes ago, Dan Gould said:

Also, when the 60s Quintet came into being, was Miles really the "world's biggest jazz musician" at that time?

Putting aside Duke and Armstrong, I would have guessed that Stan Getz was the biggest jazz musician after his recent major LP successes.  I would argue Miles wasn't "the world's biggest jazz musician" until he broke thru to the much younger audience, Bitches Brew and beyond ...

Going by the impression I've had of jazz from that period, I tend to agree with you. BUT ... "the world's biggest jazz musician" for whom?
For the general jazz public (and even those on the fringes of the jazz audience) - yes, I'd think as well it was Stan Getz. But for the "cognoscenti", including the self-appointed "true bearers of the jazz flame" (who might be suspicious of too much outright pop success)?? Not quite so sure ...

 

[Dan Gould]

Just now, Big Beat Steve said:

Going by the impression I've had of jazz from that period, I tend to agree with you. BUT ... "the world's biggest jazz musician" for whom?
For the general jazz public (and even those on the fringes of the jazz audience) - yes, I'd think as well it was Stan Getz. But for the "cognoscenti", including the self-appointed "true bearers of the jazz flame" (who might be suspicious of too much outright pop success)?? Not quite so sure ...

 

I think that "World's biggest jazz musician" implies a substantial amount of cross-over appeal, and has nothing to do with what the "cognoscenti" would say.  

[Big Beat Steve]

Well, if this is the way this is universally understood then the pendulum would swing even more in favor of Stan Getz for that period IMHO.
 

[danasgoodstuff]

In '63 joining Miles would have been seen as a good gig to be sure, but not necessarily as life altering, totally anachronistic statement.

[JSngry]

But...in 1963, Miles was at the then-peak of his popularity and already had a reputation as a "starmaker" (at least in jazz terms). It was a pretty high profile sideman gig, as opposed, say, Stan Getz.who was the star of the show, always.

 

[Rooster_Ties]

7 hours ago, Big Beat Steve said:

Well, if this is the way this is universally understood then the pendulum would swing even more in favor of Stan Getz for that period IMHO.
 

Brubeck maybe? But if so, not substantially bigger than Getz.

But maybe it is Getz, given the sheer number of albums in his catalog (virtually none of which I’ve ever heard — just Jazz Samba and Captain Marvel is all — plus random tracks on various Pandora stations here and there).

[Joe]

If we're talking the world for real/literally, I'd say Louis Armstrong was still the most famous jazz musician in a planetary sense in 1963.

On another topic, though... kind of conservative picks by the NYT panel, no. At least "Hornets" from SEXTANT got some love.

[T.D.]

Managed to read the story w/o paywall by some miracle.

Saw the survey, expected somebody to say Rockit. Got almost all the way through with no mention, but it finally got named. 😄

[Dan Gould]

Everyone wants to add their 2cents about who was "biggest" in 1963 but what about the whole proper noun-ification of "Second Great Quintet" ?

[Gheorghe]

I dont know what "biggest" in jazz terms should mean. 

I have heard that let´s say Stan Getz with his Bossa Nova stuff , and Dave Brubeck were more common names in the avarage households, but I doubt that they left such a legacy like Miles. There are some bossa things I like if they have tricky changes (the best bossa I ever heard was Hank Mobley´s "Boss Bossa" with Jackie McLean), but much of it is more background music, good for a late afternoon drink at the pool that´s how it sounds to me often..... fine and smooth, but nothing that might get me into extasis like some Miles Second Quintet, some Trane, some Mingus, Ornette Coleman from the same period. 
I don´t want to say that this is "better music" but God knows why those mentioned musicians  appeals to me and makes me feel good, and other stuff doesn´t move me that much, they sound good and you can enjoy it with a fine lady and have a dance, but if it´s strictly about music, I´m more the lowner guy....

[Joe]

1 hour ago, Dan Gould said:

Everyone wants to add their 2cents about who was "biggest" in 1963 but what about the whole proper noun-ification of "Second Great Quintet" ?

It's canonization in action!

[JSngry]

Yep, fact devolving into Narrative devolving into Mythology. 

[Dan Gould]

Once upon a time, and I realize this time is fading fast in the rearview mirror, someone at the NYT would have asked "was the group promoted as the Second Great Quintet?  If not, then don't call it that."

[Big Beat Steve]

1 hour ago, Gheorghe said:

I dont know what "biggest" in jazz terms should mean. 

I have heard that let´s say Stan Getz with his Bossa Nova stuff , and Dave Brubeck were more common names in the avarage households, but I doubt that they left such a legacy like Miles.

But that's beside the point. The original question was if Miles Davis really was the "world's greatest jazz musician" in 1963 and could have been called that back then. At THAT time. In accordance with the broad appeal that any such "world's greatest jazz musician" could and would have had.
Not from the (hindsight-ish) vantage point of today. And not from the point of view of the "cognoscenti" of jazz and inside the hardcore jazz audience (then or now).

By that yardstick IMO it is reasonable to assume (as the thread starter stated) that Miles Davis only attained that position somewhat later on in the "Electric" period with his success in the jazz-rock field.

 

[Justin V]

2 hours ago, Dan Gould said:

Everyone wants to add their 2cents about who was "biggest" in 1963 but what about the whole proper noun-ification of "Second Great Quintet" ?

This anecdote is unrelated, but you reminded me of it, so here we go.  I once attended a Q&A with Jimmy Heath and an elderly man for some inexplicable reason asked Heath whatever happened to The World's Greatest Jazz Band.  Heath responded, 'Who, the Modern Jazz Quartet?' 

[Rooster_Ties]

7 hours ago, Dan Gould said:

Everyone wants to add their 2cents about who was "biggest" in 1963 but what about the whole proper noun-ification of "Second Great Quintet" ?

While I do not think it’s quite right to say “so-called ‘second great quintet’.” — and to be clear, it’s the “so-called” part that seems a bit harsh (as if that moniker is somehow suspect). But I do think something LIKE that is necessary.

Is there a better way to say “so-called”?

 I do think Second Great Quintet is generally alright to say in print, if preceded by something like “often-called” or something that rolls off the tongue better.

I was about to argue that “Second Great Quintet” should be in quotes too — but that’s arguable on both sides — and maybe would even depend on what precedes it (which I can’t decide on myself).

But something like… (but maybe with better wording than “often-termed” — but that functions in the same way):

…brought Hancock into the fold to be a member of his band, the often-termed Second Great Quintet.

Edited May 4, 2023 by Rooster_Ties

[JSngry]

What has come to be referred to as... 

[ghost of miles]

2 hours ago, JSngry said:

What has come to be referred to as... 

Bingo, exactly, etc.  This is how I phrase it whenever I refer to Miles' mid-1960s group in that way.  Same with Coltrane's "Classic Quartet." 

[Gheorghe]

On 5/4/2023 at 2:41 PM, Big Beat Steve said:

But that's beside the point. The original question was if Miles Davis really was the "world's greatest jazz musician" in 1963 and could have been called that back then. At THAT time. In accordance with the broad appeal that any such "world's greatest jazz musician" could and would have had.
Not from the (hindsight-ish) vantage point of today. And not from the point of view of the "cognoscenti" of jazz and inside the hardcore jazz audience (then or now).

By that yardstick IMO it is reasonable to assume (as the thread starter stated) that Miles Davis only attained that position somewhat later on in the "Electric" period with his success in the jazz-rock field.

 

Yeah, the Electric Period was what was goin´on when I got acquainted to jazz. Though the first listening experience on record when I was a kid was acoustic Miles with Trane, Garland, Paul and Philly J.J., soon everybody was talking about the electric period. It became so popular that groopies at school would buy huge sunglasses and so on. It was just the times, it was to be a nasty kid in that period, interested in other stuff than disco. Nasty boys, raunchy girls.....that was our bunch of teenies😄.

About how it was THEN, in the 60´s and not from point of today or from point of my youth or prime, I only know what older guys told me, those kind of "bigger brothas" who was let´s say 10-15 years older than me. Those who told me what the attended in the 60´s, many of them who went to Graz, then and now an important center of jazz in Austria, where they told me what they saw live, what I only heard later on record , like Rollins in Graz, the Max Roach Quintet with Hubbard and Spaulding and so on.....and of course Miles in bigger venues like Koncerthaus. 
My first Miles was 1973, and one friend who was 5 years older saw Miles in 1971 with that group with Steve Grossman and Keith Jarrett, he also saw the "Giants of Jazz" in 1972 in Viena. I was 14 only in 1973 so that´s were it started for me to go out and see concerts....