Miles Davis quote

[pingu]

Genius isnt it ?

[wintermoon]

yeah, a total hack...

[Doctor Jeff]

Miles Davis would have been nothing without Dizzy Gillespie , he's pretty explicit about the debt in his autobiog .

Also , Picarso can do one , absolute emporers new clothes , battened on to the avant-garde to cover his paucity of visual imagination . Not even original but a genius self-publicist .

I'm going to stay away from Picasso...(that's what she said...)

As I recall from Miles' bio he did indicate his appreciation for Dizzy but was frustrated with Dizzy's "lack of seriousness" and his mugging for audiences--a similar complaint lodged against Louis Armstrong--because it smacked of minstrelsy.

I think it is true that Dizzy broke the mold with his virtual creation of bebop. Davis started out in bebop but left it ("pure" bebop anyway) for hard bop and then more experimental pursuits.

Here is an interesting discussion from 1960 comparing Miles to Diz. Ironic that the author says that Miles is unemotional and clearly not as accomplished as Diz.

Davis and Dizzy | 1960-1969 | Guardian Century

[Greentone]

Go see Guernica...not in a book. It will blow you away.

[neatomic]

always reticent to get involved in any debate about the value of any artist...to each his own..but to denigrate picasso!! wow...

be like kids saying all django music is the same..or all coltrane sux..i hate saxophone!

sad

picasso was great artist...worked as a master in many fields...paint. pottery. sculpture, book illustration. etc etc

and probably one the greatest improvising artists ever

witness- mystery of picasso-

as wm & gt mentioned-guernica!! as art and statement on mans inhumanity to man!! immediate and unparalleled

a true heavyweight

cheers

[Marinero]

yeah, a total hack...

No, he just never found himself as an artist. Technician: yes. Creative Artist: No--copyist. Good playing . . . Marinero

[neatomic]

and to steer this back to diz and miles...dizzy was not as one dimensional as intimated in this thread!..not only was he a founding father of be-bop...(which would be enough right there!)...but he was also one of the first jazzers to incorporate latin and afro-cuban rhythms into jazz...very early on!!

nor was he a bad electric diz-

as seen with a young rodney jones on guitar

and his manner, tho outwardly a bit more homespun than miles. was equally hip...

some would call it confidence!..with nothing to prove!



cheers

[Marinero]

In the Forties, it was Dizzy and Parker who most music historians credit with starting Bebop/Modern Jazz. Miles came along later.
Good playing . . . Marinero

Here's a 1945 recording of the duo. Enjoy!

[Doctor Jeff]

and to steer this back to diz and miles...dizzy was not as one dimensional as intimated in this thread!..not only was he a founding father of be-bop...(which would be enough right there!)...but he was also one of the first jazzers to incorporate latin and afro-cuban rhythms into jazz...very early on!!

nor was he a bad electric diz-

as seen with a young rodney jones on guitar

and his manner, tho outwardly a bit more homespun than miles. was equally hip...

some would call it confidence!..with nothing to prove!



cheers

I saw Dizzy in the early 80’s at an Atlanta jazz festival. I saw Miles near Vienna at a festival a couple of years later. They were both in the twilight of their careers, but both entertaining.

No one can denigrate Dizzy’s contributions to jazz. No doubt he was a better blower than Miles—I agree Miles CAN blow, but I think one reason he went in a different direction was the fact that he knew there were better technical players than him. Fortunately that worked out for the better!

I do think that Dizzy though exploring different styles did not stray too far from his bebop origins, nor push boundaries too much as times moved into the 60’s, whereas Miles was a constant explorer.

Hard to believe both these geniuses were alive at the same time as we fortunate humans.

[Marinero]

I don't want to offend my friend Neotomic . . .but, how about Miles/Picasso. No, that even doesn't work since Miles was one of many innovators in early-Mid Bebop. However, our friend Picasso . . . never an innovator . . . followed the popular trends in Modern Art with great technical skill and laudable business acumen. Isn't it great that everyone doesn't think the same! I'd hate to live in that world! Good playing . . . Marinero

[neatomic]

I don't want to offend my friend Neotomic . . .but, how about Miles/Picasso. No, that even doesn't work since Miles was one of many innovators in early-Mid Bebop. However, our friend Picasso . . . never an innovator . . . followed the popular trends in Modern Art with great technical skill and laudable business acumen. Isn't it great that everyone doesn't think the same! I'd hate to live in that world! Good playing . . . Marinero

no offense taken..as i writ ^ "to each his own"...we love our arts thru our own limited perspective...tho always trying to expand our vision at the same time!

however if you read my above (the ^) post clearly, i thought chagall to be the miles metaphor...less polished yet ethereal, spacious..etc..you supply your own adjectives...chagall floated...as did miles

all good here

cheers

[Gabor]

Well, I should have used an ironical emoticon on my post above, tongue-in-cheek - I just don't like reading texts (my own and others') that remind me on mouse cinema. Anyway, what I wanted to demonstrate is

1. that we all have our, sometimes very limited, own assessment horizon. Complexity theory and mathematical methods are valid, but can only explain some aspects of the complex and often irrational human personality. If you have a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
2. that we have to differentiate between the few original hipsters (authentic non-conformists or artists that find new ways almost completely independent of the prevailing opinion, or of their own public image and appreciation), and the mass of wanna-be or fake hipsters (self-explaining). So I think the author of that "hipster-effect" publication could have a point, though he doesn't extend to this.


One can think of Miles Davis personality and music whatever one likes. Personally, I don't think he was an original hipster, rather a driven personality, depending on public appreciation, or disregard. Possibly he created new styles only because of his technical-musical inadequacies that he suffered from first, and later - when he had overcome his drug addiction - he still showed some characteristic compulsive behavior of an addict, had always to get new kicks (sublimed not only in jazz and fusion), like any addict has to. Psychologically, it's usually the manifestation of a low level of self-esteem, which, in public, can sometimes increase to the contrary. In that sense, Miles could be called the first popstar of jazz.

Please, do not misunderstand, I greatly appreciate many of Miles compositions! Nevertheless, I'd prefer a player and composer like Charles Mingus, who mastered his instrument very early on, and who could offer different styles in one single concert rather than just serially over the years. Mingus was an authentic hothead who hated dishonesty, and, like Miles, also complained about the playing skills and the high income of rock musicians, but never opportunistically used stylistic devices or forms of rock.

For each language - and music is just an extension of language - Schopenhauer's word applies: "Use ordinary words and say unusual things". Viewed in this light Miles, at least after his hardbop years, was more the antithesis.

If there has been an original jazz hipster in the past 80 years, that honor should be due to Thelonious Monk. Stars like Bird, Dizzy and Miles would hardly be conceivable without Monk's preparatory work and hipster-ness. A second candidate for an original jazz hipster would be Lester Young, though not so much musically seen.

Very detailed and clearly explained thoughts. (I think "creating new styles" is overrated. I do not care if Miles created or not, so for me it is not lowers Miles musical contribution if there is a doubt how many times he "renew" jazz. I understand this is not your main point, just related to the topic, so I shared ) His music expression is very unique (hip) even if he plays a standard head and very disciplined according his extreme rule set always. (again 50s 60s, later stuff I may enjoy, but do not get it).

Interestingly when you quoted Schopenhauer, I thought you will continue Miles as example of that. For me, Miles uses ordinary words, and most of the time say very surprising, exciting, unordinary and hip.

[Marinero]

no offense taken..as i writ ^ "to each his own"...we love our arts thru our own limited perspective...tho always trying to expand our vision at the same time!

however if you read my above (the ^) post clearly, i thought chagall to be the miles metaphor...less polished yet ethereal, spacious..etc..you supply your own adjectives...chagall floated...as did miles

all good here

cheers

Hi, N,
I think Chagall was an originator and his wonderful paintings spoke metaphorically/poetically . . . something Picasso was never able to accomplish. My current wife and last wife are visual artists. And, in many academic Art circles and among practicing visual artists, my original comments about Picasso are quite common. We musicians also have the same distinctions in our "Art," namely, that there is a difference between a technician and an Artist. One can play fast, accurately and say nothing. And, popularity and public acceptance have no relevance to artistry(Herbie Mann,Herb Alpert, etc.). I could bore you with a list of great artists who died in poverty and without public acclaim. But, I would guess, most of us know them. Ergo, the Herd is never right about anything. Good playing . . . Marinero

[Litterick]

Picasso was the most important artist of the 20th century. As Robert Hughes wrote:

Moreover, he was the artist with whom virtually every other artist had to reckon, and there was scarcely a 20th century movement that he didn't inspire, contribute to or--in the case of Cubism, which, in one of art history's great collaborations, he co-invented with Georges Braque--beget. The exception, since Picasso never painted an abstract picture in his life, was abstract art; but even there his handprints lay everywhere--one obvious example being his effect on the early work of American Abstract Expressionist painters, Arshile Gorky, Jackson Pollock and Willem de Kooning, among others.

Chagall has his charms, but his work is neither as important nor as original.

[Litterick]

[citizenk74]

Hi, N,
I think Chagall was an originator and his wonderful paintings spoke metaphorically/poetically . . . something Picasso was never able to accomplish. My current wife and last wife are visual artists. And, in many academic Art circles and among practicing visual artists, my original comments about Picasso are quite common. We musicians also have the same distinctions in our "Art," namely, that there is a difference between a technician and an Artist. One can play fast, accurately and say nothing. And, popularity and public acceptance have no relevance to artistry(Herbie Mann,Herb Alpert, etc.). I could bore you with a list of great artists who died in poverty and without public acclaim. But, I would guess, most of us know them. Ergo, the Herd is never right about anything. Good playing . . . Marinero

My wife and I met in art school, and many of our friends are artists. I believe a great many of us admire Picasso for his art, and also for his uncanny ability to Not Starve to Death. Maybe it's a regional thing.

[cosmic gumbo]

America's favorite artist....

[ragman1]

When I was in Brighton I was good chums with Mike Tucker who was Professor of Poetics and Jazz Studies at the art college. We promoted a show together once which was popular. He let me sit in on his seminars and always put jazz and fine art together. One of his best seminars had Nana Vasconcelos as a performing guest. He was very keen on Garbarek and put him on more than once.

[ragman1]

I believe a great many of us admire Picasso for his art, and also for his uncanny ability to Not Starve to Death.

:-)

[mr. beaumont]

paradoxically, I agree. I recall once again that I spoke with Miles/Picasso only about changes of style in the work of an artist. And your Miles/Chagall parallel holds the road for me


as a gift for this topic, two paintings of me. When Miles died, I locked myself in my room for three days, and I did a tryptic, all I have left are these two



source 'Jazz' mes peintures 1973-1991



?as I explained in the topic "84...", the format is 7 x 12, like other elements in the composition

I like these.

[ragman1]

So do I.

[mr. beaumont]

Since we're talking painting now, I thought I might jump in. I did a lot of large abstracts some years ago, burned out on it a bit, but I still love big, non-representational stuff...it's an experience. This one is in my classroom now, my students like it, mostly for the size (about 4 by 6 feet)



These days, I'm working much smaller...I've become fascinated with the architecture of old Catholic churches around Chicago (we have a lot) so I've been photographing and doing some ink/watercolor type stuff.

[Doctor Jeff]

You guys are very talented. I gave up my paintbrushes a long time ago.

[acidskiffle]

Sorry guys for interrupting the colourful tangent this thread has taken!

With regards to Miles' quote, could anyone point me in the direction of the any quotes referencing the importance of individuality in jazz? I've found a few but often I can't find the original source of the quote, which I need.

Pat Metheny has an interesting one:

"I have to say that the quality of being different has much more value to me than it seems to have for others. When I hear someone who sounds like someone else, I kind of tune out. To me the whole area of individuality and at least attempting to come up with something that is original and not referenced to this or that is very important to me. It is the essence of what the jazz language implies as an responsibility of the artist. Oddly, as time has progressed, this seems to become less and less an issue with players. In fact, there are players that I hear where it seems that the thought of the pursuit of an original sound has never even crossed their mind. It appears to them it is just fine to try to sound like so and so or to try to play basically in the style of this or that general approach. To me and my aesthetic, my way of thinking about it, this is not cool, in fact, it is kind of an error. It is like playing bad notes, but bad notes on the aesthetic level."

[neatomic]

Jean-Michel Basquiat's- Trumpet




cheers