I've seen a few discussions on this board concerning this topic

and

from what I can sense, most of you all agree w/Miles.

I think there's legitimate points on both sides of the argument

but

there seems to be this disdain for Wynton because he, 1) takes the HipHop community to task over certain aspects of the culture and music that it indirectly and directly promotes.

2) he's viewed as being a self appointed gatekeeper on all things Jazz to which ppl think that attitude defeats the very purpose of Jazz itself which at its core represents artistic freedom.

Poll question: Who Was Right In The Argument Abt Jazz? Miles or Wynton?

Poll result (15 votes) Miles (11 votes) Vote Wynton (3 votes) Vote neither...it only deepened the chasm that already existed (1 votes) Vote

for the sake of commercialism - he actually said Miles was a sellout.

while Miles said Wynton was being too rigid in his stance on Jazz music

he nailed it for me

lol

fact that Miles went out of his way to proclaim that "jazz is dead" not just in words but w/the wild costumes and w/his music that became overly experimental to the detriment of his ability according to fellow jazz musicians and critics.

And they don't play the same instrument. Miles' music and group concepts (through '68) fathered Wynton's early style (along with some Freddie Hubbard and Woody Shaw). So I think he felt some disappointment, and over-corrected back to his hyper-emphasis on "swing" now (a product of his discipleship of Stanley Crouch, Albert Mosley, and (indirectly) Ralph Ellison).

Even at the height of fusion, he recorded records with vsop which was pretty much 60's post-bop and he has continuously returned to traditional jazz in his solo-carrer too; he criss-croosed between fusion and traditional.

Miles on the other hand never looked back, even when he should have done it IMO (his "comeback" albums from the 80's are lame IMO and not edgy either since fusion was out then; I guess you could argue that some songs have smooth-jazz tendencies like the cover of "Time after time" but it was still mainly fusion)...

>Miles on the other hand never looked back, even when he should
>have done it IMO (his "comeback" albums from the 80's are lame
>IMO and not edgy either since fusion was out then; I guess you
>could argue that some songs have smooth-jazz tendencies like
>the cover of "Time after time" but it was still mainly
>fusion)...

just made me want to revisit You're Under Arrest (one of the few Miles albums I actually own on CD. And the only reason I copped it was because Poppa Claw bought the tape... I don't think he repurchased that once he switched to buying music in CD format exclusively)

>for the sake of commercialism - he actually said Miles was a
>sellout.
>
>while Miles said Wynton was being too rigid in his stance on
>Jazz music

Miles was not a sellout. He just wanted to do something different. Some music artists like to try new things.

Check out NEW Soul music at: www.myspace.com/starbeing

Bumpin in the STEREO:
Gladys Knight&The Pips
RGE-Black Radio
Esperanza Spalding-RMS
Georgia Anne Muldrow-Seeds
Darryl Reeves-Mercury
Terri Lyne Carrington-TMP

that his motivation wasn't just to explore different styles of music for the purpose of expanding his music palate but more abt the fact that he was fearful of becoming irrevelent. He saw jazz as a dying artform as the british invasion and the funk era started to spread.

when he publicly declared that "jazz is dead" many other jazz artists and not just Wynton took offense to that inaccurate statement.


>>for the sake of commercialism - he actually said Miles was
>a
>>sellout.
>>
>>while Miles said Wynton was being too rigid in his stance on
>>Jazz music
>
>Miles was not a sellout. He just wanted to do something
>different. Some music artists like to try new things.
>
>Check out NEW Soul music at: www.myspace.com/starbeing
>
>Bumpin in the STEREO:
>Gladys Knight&The Pips
>RGE-Black Radio
>Esperanza Spalding-RMS
>Georgia Anne Muldrow-Seeds
>Darryl Reeves-Mercury
>Terri Lyne Carrington-TMP

with the exception of Miles being a sellout
in the words of James Mtume, 'like Miles wasn't already rich or something'

but

because of Miles' obsession to stay "relevant" at the expense of his musical abilities to a new audience that was trending more towards the newly british invasion and later the funkadelic movement.


>with the exception of Miles being a sellout
>in the words of James Mtume, 'like Miles wasn't already rich
>or something'

it wasn't really a put-on, that's what makes him not be a sellout

And there could be a number of reasons that don't have to do with NEEDING money. He wanted, or felt like he needed, other things (most notably relevancy).

And i don't think selling out is necessarily all-or-nothing. Miles could've been genuinely curious about new sounds while also engaging in some pandering in the 80s after he returned from the cocaine abyss.

Wynton is also on some bullshit when it comes to his opinions on contemporary popular music. I do like a number of his albums though.

HipHop music/culture?

Is he too critical or does he have it right in terms of the images, mysogynism, hedonism, and so on that he and others say HipHop promotes and celebrates?


>And there could be a number of reasons that don't have to do
>with NEEDING money. He wanted, or felt like he needed, other
>things (most notably relevancy).
>
>And i don't think selling out is necessarily all-or-nothing.
>Miles could've been genuinely curious about new sounds while
>also engaging in some pandering in the 80s after he returned
>from the cocaine abyss.
>
>Wynton is also on some bullshit when it comes to his opinions
>on contemporary popular music. I do like a number of his
>albums though.

on a few occasions (all 10+ years ago now, but still, I don't think the platform has changed much).

And I'd say that he is too critical mainly because he is so reductionist. The things you mention seem to be the only things he recognizes in hip-hop. And of course he considers the music to be sub-artistic. He seems to have crystallized his sense of hip-hop by like '91 -- everything to him is like NWA efil4zaggin content over the sparsest Rick Rubin beats. And the fact that he recognizes no nuance or artistry in it (hence doesn't listen much) is what allows him to focus in on content he considers reprehensible. So I disagree with him there.

but I never get that vibe from the music, nor his attitude concerning iy

w/those big rim glasses? That was his attempt to cater to the Sly and the family stone/funkadelic crowd...and it was at a jazz festival that featured Sly and Led Zeppellin that Miles first got the urge to switch up his music after he saw how much of a frenzy the crowd was in from Sly's performance...


>but I never get that vibe from the music, nor his attitude
>concerning iy

he seemed to find an outlet for his artistic change there, and that's totally fine since the idea of fusion was a pretty wild one for a jazz musician

I mean is this even debatable?

to do w/who makes better music LOL...


>I mean is this even debatable?

-------------------------
“The other dude after me didn’t help my case. It was just like…crazy nigga factory going on.”
Dre makes no apologies for his own eccentricities. “I was young, and searching, trying to find myself,” he says. “Never did.”-- Andre B

this 'discussion' is really laughable




~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"It is better to be silent and thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt"

because some of that music Miles recorded in his so-called "Sell Out" period was about as risky and progressive it got outside of the avant-garde scene. If the name "Miles Davis" wasn't attached to it I guarantee a lot more people would have been like "WTF?"

real sell-out jazz didn't really rear its head until the tail end of the 1970s, IMO.

in comparison, the early '60s hard-bop employed by groups such as the Jazz Crusaders and soul jazz would have been marked as "sell out" were Wynton of the same age and stature during that period.

and certainly not all of it was progressive

but

to the point of how much of a risk he was taking w/his later music, it didn't seem as if Miles was doing it for the purpose of (solely) advancing the music but moreso to gain an audience that was now abandoning straight ahead jazz for other more popular trending music



>because some of that music Miles recorded in his so-called
>"Sell Out" period was about as risky and progressive it got
>outside of the avant-garde scene. If the name "Miles Davis"
>wasn't attached to it I guarantee a lot more people would have
>been like "WTF?"
>
>real sell-out jazz didn't really rear its head until the tail
>end of the 1970s, IMO.
>
>in comparison, the early '60s hard-bop employed by groups such
>as the Jazz Crusaders and soul jazz would have been marked as
>"sell out" were Wynton of the same age and stature during that
>period.

Are you kidding?

~Austin

"Oh, I know that I shall never have an answer. But it gives me something to believe in. And that is peace."
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

and beyond were risky not from a music standpoint but from a reputation standpoint because of his well earned reputation for being the most important jazz artist of his era....and most of his critics/comtemporaries felt like the vast majority of the music from that period was beneath his ability.

I think the HipHop equivalent in this analysis would be a group like the Roots, for instance, who are well known for their innovations and experimentations in HipHop. Now imagine if they began incorporating autotunes in their music or this dance music that everyone seems to be singing or rapping over nowadays as an attempt to gain new fans? Using autotunes or whatever new trend in music wouldn't be so much of a risk sonically for them as it would in terms of their reputation and respect amongst their fans and fellow HipHop artists who have come to expect a certain musical standard from The Roots who are known to resist giving in to the popular trends for the sake of record sales and relevancy.

The same applies to Miles. The risk wasn't a musical one but a risk for his rep.


>Are you kidding?
>
>~Austin
>
>"Oh, I know that I shall never have an answer. But it gives
>me something to believe in. And that is peace."
>http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
>http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
>http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

Not risky from a musical standpoint? Have you even listened to these albums or just read about them? They're considerably less accessible than even his most out there stuff from the sixties. I mean listen to the recordings in "The Comple In A Silent Way", and then listen to the album. Was cutting up all the riffs with Macero a sop to the man on the street? Compare Bitch's Brew to Head Hunters. Head Hunters 's songs have a clear forward logic, they don't stop and start over, and there's no screeching involved! Oh, and it sold millions of copies, while Miles had all of one album of this period go gold--and that was a double album, which means only 250,000 people had to buy it. I mean just... what?

Granted, Pangaea was not released at the time and Agharta was not issued until '77 (I think; could be mistaken), and jeez, On the Corner is not exactly "easy" music.

~Austin

"Oh, I know that I shall never have an answer. But it gives me something to believe in. And that is peace."
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

Miles's "rock" and "funk" records were pretty fuckin' far from pop. They were difficult, the songs were extremely long, they would often lapse into prolonged periods of free-ish group improv with no rhythmic underpinning. Except for the static bass figures and fundamental modality, that music is hardly accessible even to the audience it was supposedly aimed at (i.e. fans of Hendrix and P-Funk). One needs only compare them to the OTHER fusion records of similar vintage (e.g. Mahavishnu, Weather Report, the Headhunters - all of which I love by the way), or (god help us) what happened to fusion in the 80s, to recognize just how out on a limb Miles insisted on standing.

He may have been interested in staying relevant, but he seldom seemed too interested in dumbing things down or adding hooks to his music. If he was chasing a rock audience, he still demanded to a large extent that they come to him rather than the other way around.

>
>
>in comparison, the early '60s hard-bop employed by groups such
>as the Jazz Crusaders and soul jazz would have been marked as
>"sell out" were Wynton of the same age and stature during that
>period.

He's a complainer and attention whore. If it wasn't Miles he went after, it would've been someone else. And look at him now, he still has a big mouth.

The thing about him that really bugs me is that he proceeded to criticize the hell out of Miles while simultaneously ripping him off. Just no integrity whatsoever.

~Austin

"Oh, I know that I shall never have an answer. But it gives me something to believe in. And that is peace."
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>He's a complainer and attention whore. If it wasn't Miles he
>went after, it would've been someone else. And look at him
>now, he still has a big mouth.

How is he an attention whore? Most ppl aren't even that familiar w/his dust up w/Davis or his criticism of HipHop. If anything, I think he's courageous for taking an unpopular position based on principle and not notoriety.
>
>The thing about him that really bugs me is that he proceeded
>to criticize the hell out of Miles while simultaneously
>ripping him off. Just no integrity whatsoever.

he's speaks highly of Miles as one of the greatest trumpeteers in the jazz pantheon and of his earlier material which is the music Wynton has covered and the techniques he's borrowed from, its Miles later stuff that he took issue with and critized him for (to his face)...all jazz artists borrow from their predecessors, that's not a crime nor does it mean he lacks integrity.
>
>~Austin
>
>"Oh, I know that I shall never have an answer. But it gives
>me something to believe in. And that is peace."
>http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
>http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
>http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>all jazz artists borrow from
>their predecessors, that's not a crime nor does it mean he
>lacks integrity.

Wynton would not exist if it weren't for Miles. Wynton is one of the biggest ripoff artists of all time. It just screams of poor scruples when someone tries so hard to discredit the person they stole all of their good ideas from.

~Austin

"Oh, I know that I shall never have an answer. But it gives me something to believe in. And that is peace."
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>The thing about him that really bugs me is that he proceeded
>to criticize the hell out of Miles while simultaneously
>ripping him off. Just no integrity whatsoever.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0306810336/ref=as_li_ss_tl?ie=UTF8&tag=thisbosmu-20&linkCode=as2&camp=1789&creative=390957&creativeASIN=0306810336

I had a bit of a change of heart about Wynton, his outlook, and his music. In truth, his music has always been impressive, whether it's the traditional jazz or his trips into classical works. I never had problems with his music. But his views... I mean, if there was a jazz equivalent of The Lesson, I'm sure all of us could call out a person or two as being the Wynton of this place. There's a bit of bravado, attitude, elitism, and yes, a self-proclaimed gatekeeper, a responsibility that he arguably placed on himself but is also unneeded.

However, this book had him talking about his approach to his music and outlook on jazz, and that elitism isn't directly explained, but is said in so many words to where he makes a point. He simply wants to play what was passed on to him, and through his observations, he will continue on the path he created for himself. Yes, any and all musicians are competitive, for themselves, for one another, or for the power of music, but there is that common cause, the fight for the right to simply play. I think if you keep it to that, Wynton is an alright guy.

His views on hip-hop is not unlike those we may have heard from our elders, be it parents or grandparents. He is an elder, and as someone who isn't a fan of the music, he will never get it, nor does he want to. I tend to like Branford's playing more because, while I like the trumpet, I've always had a fascination with the sax, and managed to play it back in intermediate (middle) school before I gave it up. But that's my tastes and opinions, just like Wynton.

Anyway, what I liked about this Wynton book is when he talked about performing, and when he heard a train in the distance, he played as if he was answering to it. Then he spoke of seeing a woman with a summer dress, moving with the air and breeze. He played as if he was the breeze, or the flowers on the dress. There's a bit of poetic justice there, that while not explained directly, it's meant to be "between the lines".

Plus, with all the time used to hate someone for their views, you could've spent using it to listen to his actual music. THE MAGIC HOUR album is a great LP. So is FROM THE PLANTATION TO THE PENITENTIARY. Or go back to that debut album or even MARSALIS STANDARD TIME VOL. 1. There's that same expression that Prince had on his first few albums. You may question him, but the answer is in his music. If the answer isn't there, then don't fuck with him. Plain and simple.

As far as Miles being the gatekeeper, that's another level. But he had the attitude from day 1, all the way to the end. I will always remember that interview he did where a journalist (a lady) asked him about his playing. He told her to place her finger on her lips. Then he approached her mouth as if it was a trumpet. Boom.



THE HOME OF BOOK-NESS:
http://www.thisisbooksmusic.com/
http://twitter.com/thisisjohnbook
http://www.facebook.com/book1


http://i32.tinypic.com/kbewp4.gif

>Plus, with all the time used to hate someone for their views,
>you could've spent using it to listen to his actual music.

It's not an either/or situation. I've both listened to his music and paid attention to/argued against his views. He puts his views out there, loudly and publicly - what's wrong with responding to them?

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

was right. because we went from Louis Armstrong to Kenny G and Jazz got whitewased and Miles Davis did want to be with the flavor.

i take eception to Miles Davis getting a Pass and not Michael Jackson.

let me break this down Music is music and if a Artist is willing to cross over or hang or associate with whomeever or what style is popular of the day well if one gets criticized then all should as well.

Wynton is right for having standards all these Plantation hack turkeys like Jay Z,Kayne,Lil Wayne, etc.. have no musical standards and it shows.

turkeys nowadays are too happy to shuck and Grin and not speak out on the obvious watering down of it all.

Wynton is right because you have to take a stand on it.

nobody who knows about the Music is every gonna put Wynton on the same Musical page with Miles, Duke, Coltrane, etc.. however for him being successful and doing his thing and also taking a stand, I applaud the Brother and we need more like him.

these shiftless predictable tired turkeys have no standards and you need somebody to tell it like it is.

Miles pulled that Quincy Jones move a long time ago and needed to be called out on it.

however nothing wrong with it, however it was what it was.

Wynton is valid as well.

I laughed heartily.

~Austin

"Oh, I know that I shall never have an answer. But it gives me something to believe in. And that is peace."
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

nm

Kind of Blue is a brilliant and beautiful album that deserves its massive popularity.

It was a horrible influence on the jazz that followed, however. It programmed everyone into believing that jazz was only meant to be listened to, not danced to.

Jazz had faced that threat before, with bebop and with cool jazz. Hard bop managed to redeem jazz with the people, though. Made it popular again. It rescued the abandoned swing and found the balance between virtuosity and accessibility.

Kind of Blue destroyed hard bop, though. Kind of Blue opened the flood gates for more modal jazz, more free jazz, more avantgarde jazz, more post-bop, more jazz fusion. More boring jazz.

Jazz has been playing catch up with rock and r&b and pop ever since.

True, What'd I Say did as much to kill jazz as Kind of Blue, but Kind of Blue was betrayal from the inside.

All that said, I wouldn't call Miles a sellout, even though he told Clive Davis, "If you stop calling me a jazz man, I'll sell more." Even though he said "jazz is dead" in the same decade that he was making hideous smooth jazz remakes of "Time After Time."

Miles was just an innovator. A reckless, destructive innovator.

Personally, I don't care much for Miles' music beyond the mid-60s. And Wynton, for all his talent, hasn't been able to do much to resurrect jazz.

I guess I agree with Wynton, but I'd rather listen to Lee Morgan than either one of them niggas.

The idea of jazz losing its popularity and playing catch-up with R&B and rock due to albums like "Kind of blue" ignores the *fact* that fusion was the most commercially successful form of jazz since swing-jazz with several albums and artists selling albums and selling out big halls in a way jazz hadn't done in a major way for many decades.

Also, jazz was, as you said, already on its way out and most of the post-bop hits that crossed-over to the R&B and pop-charts were the ones that strongly incorporated contemporary soul and R&B.

If anything, I'd argue that (acoustic) jazz becoming a high-brow art genre (which had already started to happen long before "KOB") actually *saved* jazz. Why? Because the music didn't have to compete in a pop-context anymore and as a result survived rather than being yet another once popular style of afro american msuic incorporated into popular music and then being spit out and irrelevant to everyone outside of a nostalgia-context (see:50's rock'n'roll, doo wop, jump blues etc.)

than the collapse of jazz' popularity.

While true, jazz fusion sparked a revival of jazz interest in the '70s, I need some hard evidence to support jazz was charting more then than in the '50s.

Back to my point, in the decade before KOB, there were only two dominant schools of jazz: cool and hard (yeah, you had Dixieland and swing revival too). In the decade following? Jazz was all over the place. There probably wasn't even a dominant school.

Sure, The Shape of Jazz to Come and other records had something to do with that. But Kind of Blue, being the most popular jazz album of all time, holds the bulk of the responsibility.

I'd argue The Chronic had a similar effect on hip-hop.

Genius is cannibalistic sometimes.

...and the album-format wasn't as dominating then as it became later so it's hard to measure. However, "Headhunters" and "Bitches Brew" and the biggest Weather Report and Return to forever-albums were selling better than any previous jazz-albums. On the other hand, they didn't generate much in terms of classic singles/songs. Additionally, those acts were touring arenas or at least big concert halls whereas previous generation of jazz-artists were mainly playing in small clubs. I think it's safe to say that the music was at least more popular than all the bop-derived forms. I MAY be wrong regarding its popularity vs that of Stan getz, Brubeck, Baker and the other white dudes though... I'm fairly sure the cool jazz guys were bigger names in the sense that the average person had heard about them due to the 50's music scene being less fragmented but in terms of record-sales and tours etc.? Fusion was bigger...

>than the collapse of jazz' popularity.
>
>While true, jazz fusion sparked a revival of jazz interest in
>the '70s, I need some hard evidence to support jazz was
>charting more then than in the '50s.
>
>Back to my point, in the decade before KOB, there were only
>two dominant schools of jazz: cool and hard (yeah, you had
>Dixieland and swing revival too). In the decade following?
>Jazz was all over the place. There probably wasn't even a
>dominant school.
>Sure, The Shape of Jazz to Come and other records had
>something to do with that.

Uh, yeah, I'd say they had a little something to do with it. But without Coleman, free jazz was still getting out there. Sun Ra and Cecil Taylor were working on the same things at around the same time. And Miles had already made modal jazz on Milestones. If Miles hadn't kept pushing forward guys like Coltrane would have just pushed on without him. You think Coltrane would have stayed with Miles if he'd just wanted to keep making hard bop? That fragmentation was inevitable--Miles was as much a product of his time as an architect.

>But Kind of Blue, being the most
>popular jazz album of all time, holds the bulk of the
>responsibility.

Kind of Blue is the most popular jazz album of all time because it's the jazz album that music clubs and critics keep pointing people to. Time Out sold way more copies in the 50s and 60s. Jazz guys trying to cash in just made more inoffensive pap like it. Kind of Blue's influence isn't due to its popularity--if anything it's probably the other way around. People buy it because it's supposed to be important.

>Genius is cannibalistic sometimes.

>Uh, yeah, I'd say they had a little something to do with it.
>But without Coleman, free jazz was still getting out there.
>Sun Ra and Cecil Taylor were working on the same things at
>around the same time. And Miles had already made modal jazz on
>Milestones. If Miles hadn't kept pushing forward guys like
>Coltrane would have just pushed on without him. You think
>Coltrane would have stayed with Miles if he'd just wanted to
>keep making hard bop? That fragmentation was inevitable--Miles
>was as much a product of his time as an architect.

maybe the fragmentation was indeed inevitable. Miles had a knack for being ahead of inevitability, though. his modal experiments began a year or so before Kind of Blue, but KoB was an entirely modal album, not just a proof of concept.

it's like there was tablet computers before the iPad, but ever since the iPad dropped tablet computers have been trying to be the iPad.

>Kind of Blue is the most popular jazz album of all time
>because it's the jazz album that music clubs and critics keep
>pointing people to. Time Out sold way more copies in the 50s
>and 60s. Jazz guys trying to cash in just made more
>inoffensive pap like it. Kind of Blue's influence isn't due to
>its popularity--if anything it's probably the other way
>around. People buy it because it's supposed to be important.

i won't get into a chicken or egg argument about it. if KoB's influence came before its popularity, "So What." the fact remains that it's the most influential and most popular album of all time. it's an important document. it has a lot of responsibility.

>
>People buy it because it's supposed to be important.
>

But good point on Time Out. Great example of an album that was influenced by Kind of Blue that really showed how dead jazz wasn't.

**smirk**

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

Hm? I'm not saying people don't buy kind of blue because of its greatness too, but do you think all four million people who own it actually listened to it and just thought it was the best? People who only own one jazz album are largely buying it because, you know, it's the one everyone says to buy. It was the first jazz album I'd bought since I was a kid but I found every song a fraction as enjoyable as anything by Duke Ellington or Louie Armstrong. I had basically no idea what was going on. It was cool and classy but my engagement with it on a real musical level was basically nil until I listened to more bebop and the jazz Miles and Coltrane made leading up to it.

Not speaking to you specifically, but the direction this thread has taken. . .

For the album that "killed jazz" it's not a real gratuitous kill. It's actually pretty and beautiful, while still being subtly revolutionary.

It's not supposed to occur to the average person just how important it is. But then, when you actually dig into some theory and some deeper aspects of the music, you realize just how unique and groundbreaking it is.

Miles knew exactly what he was doing.

He knew it was new music, but he also knew that he needed to make it extremely listenable for people to understand why it was so unique.

God, I swear. The more popular something is, the more assholish people get about it on this board.

(and I'm guilty too, but come on, it's Miles Davis)

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>
>
>I guess I agree with Wynton, but I'd rather listen to Lee
>Morgan than either one of them niggas.

You mean the guy that was doing twenty minute long post-bop tunes (you know, the type that sounded like Miles' band in '62) for the last year (1970) before he died?

Yeah, he's really good too.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

And still relevant as hell.

Pretty good for somebody that had killed jazz three years previous.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

While Jakob over here making sense, I can't figure you out.

. . .of all time, criticizing its influence.

But then you turn around and praise people that were directly influenced by it.

I, as well, struggle to understand.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

i love Kind of Blue.

yes, i am criticizing its influence.

the emphasis of melody over swing post-KOB is something i deeply lament.

don't get it twisted, though. even in his later years, Lee Morgan was more Clifford than Miles.

>
>don't get it twisted, though. even in his later years, Lee
>Morgan was more Clifford than Miles.

And "melody over swing" = evolution.

Sorry. You can only play scales in so many different ways.

I mean, this is pretty sad. "I love this album, but it fucked everything up." I don't believe that you actually ever liked it or thought it was good with that sort of statement.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>And "melody over swing" = evolution.

funny how this evolution came right before the near extinction.

>I mean, this is pretty sad. "I love this album, but it fucked
>everything up."

that's my stance. i know it's not popular, but that's my stance.

>I don't believe that you actually ever liked
>it or thought it was good with that sort of statement.

am i supposed to give a fuck if you believe if my opinion is honest?

>
>funny how this evolution came right before the near
>extinction.
>

You're not a creationist, are you?

>
>am i supposed to give a fuck if you believe if my opinion is
>honest?

Honest to you. Hair-brained and unrealistic to everyone else. If you're "opinion" is that Lee was more Clifford than Miles on the Lighthouse album, you're not actually listening. You decided what it was, then pushed play.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>>funny how this evolution came right before the near
>>extinction.
>
>You're not a creationist, are you?

clearly, i don't believe in God. how could a man of God blaspheme Kind of Blue? anyway, my point is that not all change is for the better. keep straw-manning.

>>am i supposed to give a fuck if you believe if my opinion is
>>honest?
>
>Honest to you. Hair-brained and unrealistic to everyone else.
> If you're "opinion" is that Lee was more Clifford than Miles
>on the Lighthouse album, you're not actually listening. You
>decided what it was, then pushed play.

i like how you're jumping around, considering the point you were just disputing was whether or not i truly liked Kind of Blue.

and no, you're not going to convince me that Morgan's playing on "Beehive" live at the Lighthouse sounds more like Miles than Brownie.

keep reaching.

I'm just responding.

You don't like someone to call you out, don't post.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>my point is that not all
>change is for the better.
>

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

No need to take sidewinding shots at a universally loved album for what happened **AFTER** it was released.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

I'm not up here talking about Kind of Blue is trash.

I'm just saying the album irrevocably changed jazz, which everyone with a brain can agree it did.

My opinion about that change (that it was for the worse) is unpopular, I know.

I don't see how it's shocking, though.

I'm not even going full on Stanley Crouch on y'all niggas.

>
>I'm not even going full on Stanley Crouch on y'all niggas.

Therefore, you suck.

Until you learn how to articulate.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

i do tend to see jazz more his way these days.

Miles went over your head.

Was that so hard?

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

But if someone/something goes over your head, it means nothing about intelligence.

It simply means that you're a fan of the style, not the musician.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>It simply means that you're a fan of the style, not the
>musician.

Far be it from me to point out the obvious - that's a non-standard opinion.

I don't have much to add here though, really, because Jakob said a lot of what I wanted to say already. I just think your take is extremely reductive, biased and selective, to the degree that it's basically just incorrect.

i clearly showed respect and admiration for the album.

you think i'm placing undue weight and responsibility on Kind of Blue?

we're talking about the most pivotal album in jazz ever, released at one of the most pivotal moments in jazz history (1959; the only greater pivot is Before Bird and After Bird).

it's an important text, in music in general, not just jazz. i don't think i'm overstating its impact one bit.

if you want to convince me Kind of Blue wasn't that big of a deal, you gonna need a long ass essay, cuz.

now, i understand that my valuation of the album's impact is not standard.

a lot of people prefer the jazz that followed Kind of Blue to that which came before.

overall, i don't.

>i clearly showed respect and admiration for the album.

No, I get that - no argument on that point.

>you think i'm placing undue weight and responsibility on Kind
>of Blue?

Yes. I think jazz was headed there anyway - if it wasn't "Kind of Blue" it would have been some other album, or a few of them. Blaming "Kind of Blue" for modal, abstract jazz to me is kind of like blaming "Nevermind" for grunge.

I also think Jakob makes some good points, especially re: fusion. Jazz had a popularity heyday AFTER "Kind of Blue." It just couldn't hang on to it.

Also, I just fundamentally disagree that later jazz is "boring." That's just basic opinion stuff, of course, but when you conflate your personal opinion with the notion that the album "killed jazz," it's hard to bite my tongue on that. Personally I didn't get into jazz until about 1993, at which point I was given a thorough education in the whole genre from start to finish - but right away it was bop, post-bop and fusion that caught my ears. Never was too much about Louis Armstrong.

Jazz was definitely less popular as it got artier, but you seem to be imagining some alternate universe where jazz never got arty and just kept repeating itself and maintaining its popularity - and I don't believe that's a possible outcome, or even a desirable one.

>a lot of people prefer the jazz that followed Kind of Blue to
>that which came before.
>
>overall, i don't.

Fair enough. I think where you went overboard is with "it killed jazz." It killed jazz *for you*. For others, it prolonged jazz's natural lifespan, and perhaps gave them more to chew on mentally and audibly.

First of all, the album wasn't a blockbuster out the gate. It sold well of course since it was Miles Davis who was one of the big stars i modern jazz but the reason it's the best-selling jazz-album ever is because it has been selling consistently well since it came out (shit, it topped my local record-store's jazz-chart every month I checked in the 90's)-it actually took MANY years for it to reach platinum.

More importantly however is that you overstate it's initial impact. Ornette's innovation at the time were far more controversial and discussed in the jazz-press and many scholars have actually claimed that the more subtle innovation of "KOB" as well as the stuff Mingus was doing at the time was *initially* overshadowed by Ornette's more bluntly radical approach (they were more popular than Ornette of course but that's a different thing). Post-bop and so-called "modal jazz" (a bullshit term IMO but whatever, I use it as a catch-all term for jazz that's not free/avantgarde but still doesn't have preset, rigid chord-progressions) didn't really take off until 64-65 and I would argue that it was Coltrane rather than Davis that was the main instigator for that due to the massive (by jazz standards) popularity of "My favorite Things" (the song) and his music in general at that point.

As for free-jazz, it was largely missing in action between Ornette's Atlantic albums and the mid-60's scene, not even Cecil Taylor had a record deal in those years and it was mainly small european companies that released artists like Albert Ayler and the New York Contemporary Five (=Archie Shepp, Don Cherry etc.) prior to 64-65

Basically, the first couple of years of the 60's (=the years immediately following "Kind of Blue" )was still largely dominated by hard bop and the fact is that Horace Silver, Art Blakey, Lee Morgan etc. did several of their most popular *and* acclaimed records at that time... Shit, Miles himself didn't do much modal/post-bop stuff in those years as evidenced by "Someday my prince will come", "Seven Steps to heaven", "Quiet nights" etc. where only a few songs are "modern"...

In other words, I think you are using the impact of "Kind of blue" more as a symbolic thing-it definitely helped set things in motion even if it was far from alone in doing that-than as something more real or tangible or direct...
than

I don't think my comments necessitate that conclusion, but I suppose they don't exclude it either.

Of course, hard bop continued to be produced well into the mid '60s, and even today you have young bucks like the Curtis Brothers carrying on the tradition faithfully.

When I say Kind of Blue killed jazz, it wasn't an assassin's bullet. It was a cancer. A beautiful, brilliant cancer. There were plenty mutations forming in the body of jazz around 1959, but with time Kind of Blue has proven to be the most aggressive. There's gotta be a tipping point before the downfall. Kind of Blue was it.

>
>When I say Kind of Blue killed jazz, it wasn't an assassin's
>bullet. It was a cancer. A beautiful, brilliant cancer. There
>were plenty mutations forming in the body of jazz around 1959,
>but with time Kind of Blue has proven to be the most
>aggressive. There's gotta be a tipping point before the
>downfall. Kind of Blue was it.

Keep up the bad work.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

you have contributed absolutely nothing to this conversation. take your entitled ass the fuck on.

Mainly the emergence of Bill Evans and his subsequent influence and Kind of Blue influencing players who had established themselves well before it was released.

Instead, you'd rather get all airy fairy with imcvspl.

Which is fine.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>Jazz had faced that threat before, with bebop and with cool
>jazz. Hard bop managed to redeem jazz with the people, though.
>Made it popular again. It rescued the abandoned swing and
>found the balance between virtuosity and accessibility.

I would agree regarding "cool jazz" but bebop? did it really abandon the people, the instinct to dance like that? it was the doorstop that kept jazz music from becoming totally assimilated. there'd be no hard bop w/o bebop.

"Cool Jazz", with its focus on a grounding in classical music, and the technique behind jazz was more a diversion that led to more academic and formula-based pursuits of he music.

I don't think Kind of Blue would have had that impact were it not for it being the work of Miles Davis though. With his endorsement, it became the door that opened for jazz to go down more adventurous paths.

As Jakob said, the real winner was fusion -- even if it was mostly a '70s (and '80s) thing, the road to fusion (and its other predecessors like soul jazz) was paved by hard bop. Many post-boppers were hard boppers in previous incarnations.

Many of the big fusion artists remarked that their desire to adopt more rock and R&B-styled backdrops to their music was grounded in a desire to speak to a wider audience, and rather... to the music that they knew in their youth. Which does sound like selling out, though I would also argue that the best fusion artists were also heavily steeped in a jazz tradition and it shows in their compositions and actual records.

When I hear those same artists doing acoustic jazz, it has that swing, that feeling, that same sort of lively expression that you would see in hard bop jazz.

Regarding Wynton... I think he was very much an artist who tended to produce jazz music for the sake of "keeping it real"; adhering to a particular aesthetic for the sake of the "art". He was kind of the "Termanology" of jazz music.

is that so few could do it meaningfully.

everybody was trying to out-do Bird, Dizzy, and Bud. fools errand. lesser bebop acts focused on the instrumental wizardry without bothering to make music that moved people.

understand what i'm saying, though: bebop was a fucking breakthrough. Bird'nem discovered nuclear energy, but if bebop would have gotten out of hand it would have been mutually assured destruction.

cool and hard were both informed by bebop, but they just took it different directions.

cool heads decided to make pretty, mellow, classically informed easy listening.

hard boppers made hard swinging, blues informed jook tunes.

>I don't think Kind of Blue would have had that impact were it
>not for it being the work of Miles Davis though. With his
>endorsement, it became the door that opened for jazz to go
>down more adventurous paths.

it wasn't just emperor's new clothes, fam. modalism was almost as big a development as bebop's chord changes.

>As Jakob said, the real winner was fusion -- even if it was
>mostly a '70s (and '80s) thing, the road to fusion (and its
>other predecessors like soul jazz) was paved by hard bop. Many
>post-boppers were hard boppers in previous incarnations.
>
>I would also argue that
>the best fusion artists were also heavily steeped in a jazz
>tradition and it shows in their compositions and actual
>records.
>
>When I hear those same artists doing acoustic jazz, it has
>that swing, that feeling, that same sort of lively expression
>that you would see in hard bop jazz.

if more fusion sounded like Red Clay instead of Dark Magus, i would agree with this argument.

it's not like i'm just blinded by the electric instruments, man. jazz fusion lost its way, lost its swing. more often than not, it made compromises that resulted in something at once less than the hard bop of old and less than the rock and funk of the time it was trying so desperately to be.

>Regarding Wynton... I think he was very much an artist who
>tended to produce jazz music for the sake of "keeping it
>real"; adhering to a particular aesthetic for the sake of the
>"art". He was kind of the "Termanology" of jazz music.

that's hilarious. i don't think it's fair to Wynton. but it's hilarious.

>
>cool heads decided to make pretty, mellow, classically
>informed easy listening.
>

Bill Evans makes a mockery of this. You decide what it is before you even press play. I'm done.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

Wrong all around. Again.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

Enjoy voting Romney.

~Austin

"God is a concept by which we measure our pain."
— John Lennon
http://austintayeshus.blogspot.com
http://www.last.fm/user/Austintayeshus
http://twitter.com/Austintayeshus

>everybody was trying to out-do Bird, Dizzy, and Bud. fools
>errand. lesser bebop acts focused on the instrumental wizardry
>without bothering to make music that moved people.
>
>understand what i'm saying, though: bebop was a fucking
>breakthrough. Bird'nem discovered nuclear energy, but if bebop
>would have gotten out of hand it would have been mutually
>assured destruction.

that was also a problem with (some) fusion and certainly with free/avant-garde jazz. There was definitely more focus on virtuosity.



>>Regarding Wynton... I think he was very much an artist who
>>tended to produce jazz music for the sake of "keeping it
>>real"; adhering to a particular aesthetic for the sake of
>the
>>"art". He was kind of the "Termanology" of jazz music.
>
>that's hilarious. i don't think it's fair to Wynton. but it's
>hilarious.

it's hard to make a lot of these comparisons and be fair, but everytime I read his comments on jazz music...that's the vibe he gives off.

>that was also a problem with (some) fusion and certainly with
>free/avant-garde jazz. There was definitely more focus on
>virtuosity.

In the broad context history of music (fuck jazz) do you know how important that focus on virtuosity was/is. Like seriously on the heels of the technology that would follow it. It's hard for me to articulate this so bear with me.

Think of all human instrumentation. Take the saxaphone. How long have we been playing that instrument. Little over a hundred years maybe. Trane was able to play every series of note combination possible on that instruent. EVERY FUCKING ONE (yes that's hyperbole but who gives a fuck). Shit Pres before him. And could keep up with whatever you through at them from previous eras of music. The instrument was dead from then on. Seriously.

Hendrix burned the guitar because the instrument was dead from that point on. Drums is another story but the kit which was pretty much defined by jazz.... psssshhhh.

These are evolutionary steps in the history of human relationships with instruments for music making. All of the instruments of the past are dead. They are archaic in form and fashion, but there is a multitude of possibilities laid out with them which we haven't even begun to duplicate with the instruments at our disposal today. That's the challenge. And where these new forms of instrumenting have even broader ranges of possibiities, the maps which those legacies lay out... shit man.

I know folk think its bad now but our grand kids gonna be doing some dope shit. And don't worry people still will want to dance. But if you don't go to the point of virtuosity you can't evolve because you haven't explored all possibilities. Miles understood that and that's why he was constantly changing. THank goodness for folk like him, because if music was full of Wynton's..... but I digress
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>In the broad context history of music (fuck jazz) do you know
>how important that focus on virtuosity was/is. Like seriously
>on the heels of the technology that would follow it. It's
>hard for me to articulate this so bear with me.

of course. After all, Herbie Hancock, Chick Corea, Stanley Clarke, George Duke, Marcus Miller, and so forth. these are my heroes.

At the same time, I understand (and they all understood) how they may have been straying a bit from the people (speaking mostly on Herbie in this case), but in retrospect, pushing the envelope was much needed just to show people what COULD be done. to put ideas forth for others to feed on them.

but in the context of Ike's argument ("innovation good, abandonment bad"), I understood his take on bebop after reading those lines.

>Hendrix burned the guitar because the instrument was dead from
>that point on. Drums is another story but the kit which was
>pretty much defined by jazz.... psssshhhh.
>
>These are evolutionary steps in the history of human
>relationships with instruments for music making. All of the
>instruments of the past are dead. They are archaic in form
>and fashion, but there is a multitude of possibilities laid
>out with them which we haven't even begun to duplicate with
>the instruments at our disposal today. That's the challenge.
>And where these new forms of instrumenting have even broader
>ranges of possibiities, the maps which those legacies lay
>out... shit man.
>
>I know folk think its bad now but our grand kids gonna be
>doing some dope shit. And don't worry people still will want
>to dance. But if you don't go to the point of virtuosity you
>can't evolve because you haven't explored all possibilities.
>Miles understood that and that's why he was constantly
>changing. THank goodness for folk like him, because if music
>was full of Wynton's..... but I digress

pretty much. which is why I generally support Miles in the Miles vs. Wynton argument on general principle. whatever his motivations, those blindfold tests, as biting as they could be sort of showed you where his head was at musically. he had a continual drive to be on the bleeding edge. unfortunately, he struggled to reach it in the 1980s.

mainly just to say that music like societies aren't stagnant. where music becomes staganat, whether for an artist, a label or a genre - they fall out of favor socially. you're assumption that the soul of the people was on the dancefloor and it was lost to jazz once it moved focus away from that is both on point and way off base.

it reminds me of the scene in bird (i know i've said this before), when bird rushes the stage of the r&b revue show and snatches the horn away and just goes off before getting his ass kicked. "i just wanted to see if this thing could still play more than two chords."

who was right in that? the people were having a blast dancing. the musicians on stage were doing their job of keeping them entertained. but bird was right too. the pandering doesn't move the music forward. and it's pandering to an interest that's already fulfilled. by the time you're speaking of there already was new dance music and it wasn't jazz. taking jazz to those audiences meant presenting something that was not quite jazz. and would continue to be less and less like jazz if other means weren't found to continue pushing.


________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

jazz should not have tried to compete with emerging forms of music (even though it did just that with fusion).

i lament the loss of jazz's danceability not because it made the music less popular, but because it was an unnecessary departure from what made the music distinctive, on an essential level.

"it don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing" is a jazz cliche because it's the goddamned truth about the music.

now, of course: change is inevitable.

but not all _changes_ are inevitable.

and they're certainly not all positive.

some changes can and should be prevented because they lead to something unsustainable. take global warming as an example.

the march jazz took toward abstraction and inaccessibility post-KOB can be seen as the intellectual growth of the music, but jazz was intellectual long before this Jackson Pollockification. long before the back-to-the-audience self-indulgence.

jazz is one of the few arenas of art left where an artist can get away with being convoluted and pointlessly opaque, because people have been programmed to believe that's how jazz is supposed to sound.

jazz doesn't need to noodle above the heads of the audience to be genius.

(I AM NOT CALLING KIND OF BLUE AN INACCESSIBLE AND INARTICULATE ALBUM. IT IS NOT.)

he had the heart of the people, and was given *ample* time to flash. it was perfect. as soon as he tried to break free into his own self indulgence he lost the people.

that's your argument right?

what about if the artist is just bored out of his mind. completely uninspired and feeling like they've hit a wall creatively. should they not break that wall down? should they back up and look at that wall from a safe distance knowing that they've got the people behind them?

at the time you're speaiking of jazz had already been on a FORTY+ year run. Think about that. For at least half of them swing was dominant. Countless classics were penned and performed. And the people ate it up. But think about this, there was barely electricity in those early years and definitely not for instruments. Radio was huge because there was no TV. The very mentality which went into taking that music to such heights and it being received so well was completely different than when you are talking about.

You want that change to hold to certain preinciples you valued from then, cool, eliminate television or prevent nuclear bombs from being developed. Because those are the factors that drove things forward in the way they did. For the music not to reflect those things...

It's like of course the music in 2002 sucked. Of course it did. There was no other musical possibility at that social time.

If jazz didn't set the seeds to fly in the wind and spawn off in many directions, then Wynton would be right and the music would be purely archival like the blues. Fortunately that's not how it happened and so so today it's influence continues to pave way for the new.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>he had the heart of the people, and was given *ample* time to
>flash. it was perfect. as soon as he tried to break free
>into his own self indulgence he lost the people.
>
>that's your argument right?

but i'm the reductive one in this post?

haha.

of course that's not my argument.

change happens and needs to happen, but not all changes need to happen.

i do not regret innovation. i don't know how many times i have to assert i'm not making a qualitative attack on KoB. that's not a mere disclaimer.

Kind of Blue's impact was not dangerous because it encouraged innovation. i condemn much of the music that followed KoB because it recklessly abandoned jazz essentials.

INNOVATION = OK
ABANDONMENT = NOT OK

>>he had the heart of the people, and was given *ample* time
>to
>>flash. it was perfect. as soon as he tried to break free
>>into his own self indulgence he lost the people.
>>
>>that's your argument right?
>
>but i'm the reductive one in this post?
>
>haha.
>
>of course that's not my argument.

It is though. it really is. Which is why you fall back to this meaningless line.

>change happens and needs to happen, but not all changes need
>to happen.

YOU CAN'T CONTROL CHANGE IKE!! NOT GONNA HAPPEN!!

I'm not really yelling at you but trying to make you mad so you'll back off the ropes where you keep hanging out with stuf like this

>i do not regret innovation. i don't know how many times i have
>to assert i'm not making a qualitative attack on KoB. that's
>not a mere disclaimer.

But why do you keep bringing it up? I haven't even talked about KoB. I read the rest of the thread and and see exactly the point you're trying to make and how it has no bearing on your view of the album. Let's move on.

>Kind of Blue's impact was not dangerous because it encouraged
>innovation. i condemn much of the music that followed KoB

Wait how do you condemn though? LOL!!

>because it recklessly abandoned jazz essentials.

No it didn't it transformed them. Calling them essentials makes it seem like they can't change. And if they can't change then it becomes dogmatic. If you don't understand how swing persisted even when it wasn't the focal point, you should play out more. When you have the chops there's two things you can do with swing. Literally just two. You can get everyone in sync swinging together. Or you can make sure everyone has a sense of it, but give them greater degrees of freedom to move with in it. That's it. Talk about reductionism, I just put your essential of jazz into two sentences. But seriously that's it.

Your 'the people' liked when everyone swung together. It was good but eventually them degrees of freedom kept calling. It's like the slave master trusts to run errands for em. Don't think that nigga ain't still plotting to get him free.

>INNOVATION = OK
>ABANDONMENT = NOT OK

meh... that's hyperbole and not a real position. hopefully you know it.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

and bird died. with the mark set so high what the fuck you gonna do? stay under that dark shadow or step to a different side where there's possibility to actually do something.
________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

our bodies experience atrophy and die.

we can indulge our impulses, abandon our discipline, and expedite our corporeal decay.

or we can maintain.

jazz could have maintained.

jazz wasn't maintained because the people didn't want it to, and that's really the hole in my argument.

nobody gives a fuck except me, Wynton, Grouch, and Zombie Art Blakey.

i accept my L on that end.

i take my L and pour our liquor for my dead homies, but i also got heat for the niggas who ran my crew off the block, cuz.

>our bodies experience atrophy and die.
>
>we can indulge our impulses, abandon our discipline, and
>expedite our corporeal decay.

No matter what we chose we'll still die. Can't stop death.

>or we can maintain.
>
>jazz could have maintained.
>
>jazz wasn't maintained because the people didn't want it to,
>and that's really the hole in my argument.

See I knew you knew it!!

>nobody gives a fuck except me, Wynton, Grouch, and Zombie Art
>Blakey.
>
>i accept my L on that end.
>
>i take my L and pour our liquor for my dead homies, but i also
>got heat for the niggas who ran my crew off the block, cuz.

CONDEMN DEM!!!

Stand by yours though, cause who knows what change has in store for you and your position in the future.

________
Big PEMFin H & z's
█▆▇▅▇█▇▆▄▁▃
"I ain't no entertainer, and ain't trying to be one. I am one thing, a musician." © Miles Davis

"When the music stops he falls back in the abyss."

>nobody gives a fuck except me, Wynton, Grouch, and Zombie Art
>Blakey.

What? Wynton and Crouch don't like bitches brew, when did they ever talk shit about kind of blue? The post bob Wynton got through Miles was just as cerebral as what Miles was doing. The people who want to claim jazz was killed by X usually go after Bird, Ornette, or the fusion stuff. I've literally never heard the argument you're making. I mean you say modal jazz opened the flood gates to other freer stuff, but if anything modal jazz provided a new framework for people chafing under the bop chord changes. They could do something new without completely abandoning jazz tradition. I mean do you think Coltrane would have just stuck with bop forever otherwise? If you hate free jazz maybe just be thankful Miles's influence meant we got "A Love Supreme" before "Ascension".

i'm just saying the album shifted the paradigm.

i don't even have a problem with modal jazz itself. there are many examples of hard swinging jazz in the modal framework.

KoB was the hare that caught our attention before jumping into the rabbit hole, though. yeah, you had Ornette and Mingus and Dolphy and Ra and Cecil. their radical departures didn't have as much sway as Miles' subtle one would.

I feel like I'm in the Twilight Zone reading this thread.

>KoB was the hare that caught our attention before jumping into
>the rabbit hole, though. yeah, you had Ornette and Mingus and
>Dolphy and Ra and Cecil. their radical departures didn't have
>as much sway as Miles' subtle one would.

and maybe my argument that a good thing had negative consequences would have been better understood, but it's an admittedly controversial stance that i'm still working through. there was bound to be knee jerk reactions.

nm

Miles was interested in propelling jazz forward and taking it into uncharted territory...Wynton's mind was stuck in the past.

he liked what he said privately however on the surface he had to act cool on tv, but deep down he knew Wynton was right and Wynton was right because look at how Horror and Ble things done got.