Bitches Brew

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Interesting you should mention Buckmaster, because he indentifies classical allusions and forms in the Macero editing and material! Macero was a musician and composer in his own right and knew his stuff. He said that Miles was reluctant to give anyone credit for anything. He asked Miles for a greater recognition (money) and Miles exploded "Why, anyone could do what you do!". Miles is the guy who told Nat Adderley he wasn't worth a hundred dollars, after Nat stood in and finished the week with the Trane era band after Miles had been brutally beaten by NYC's finest! As Coltrane said, "Miles can be a real Prick sometimes". Amen.

[Joseph K]

Hmm we seem to be going round in circles here but:

I don't think he was that concerned about the *detailed* final form providing Macero would give him one! He certainly did.

I think he was concerned about the detailed final form sounding good. If Teo hadn't managed that, he'd have to try again. And again, that mostly applies to the first disk rather than the second.

With Miles at this point I think we can overplay the higher motives.

No.

This is silly.

If one dislikes a music, it's 'all about the money'. If one loves a music it's apparently 'higher motives'. I suppose I fall into the latter category.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

I think you are carrying the "fandom" a little too far. All been there. But, it doesn't bother me anymore, and Miles is well buried.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

Btw, and I do NOT agree...Branford Marsalis.


From Organissimo, (US jazz web site, this April)..

"I had a look at the current Downbeat while at the library. Branford Marsalis gets the cover story, and in the interview he gets pretty controversial--to my mind. Specifically, he thinks Miles was already an old man in the 1960s and that Herbie, Tony, Wayne, and others were the innovators who brought in the exciting new stuff. The point here, ALL OF IT! He says this: "Miles didn't teach them anything. Nothing."

Those Marsalis guys eh?!

[Richard Barrett]

if music, and specifically Jazz for me, is centrally about self expression, personal above all

That's a big "if"! Personally I'm not interested in Miles's self, but in what the music expresses, which isn't quite the same thing, and obviously the music says what he wanted it to say or he wouldn't have released it... but even if it didn't, it expresses itself rather powerfully I think.

[Joseph K]

That's a big "if"! Personally I'm not interested in Miles's self, but in what the music expresses, which isn't quite the same thing, and obviously the music says what he wanted it to say or he wouldn't have released it... but even if it didn't, it expresses itself rather powerfully I think.

Agreed.

I'm not interested in Miles's self either, except his autobiography is pretty good.

[BLUESNIK'S REVOX]

So good, he claims he never read it himself! It's a joke.

[Joseph K]

Here's a short article that calls itself an analysis of Bitches Brew. In reality, not only could I have written it, I could have made a better job too.

https://www.ejectmusic.co.uk/post/album-analysis-miles-davis-bitches-brew

[Serial_Apologist]

Here's a short article that calls itself an analysis of Bitches Brew. In reality, not only could I have written it, I could have made a better job too.

https://www.ejectmusic.co.uk/post/al...s-bitches-brew

Then thank god I wasn't the author!

[Ian Thumwood]

So good, he claims he never read it himself! It's a joke.

When I first read the book I quite liked the fact that Miles was opinionated yet upon reflection I was less and less enamoured with it. There is no real artistic insight and it sheds no information whatsoever on the creative process. I respect Branford's opinion on some aspects and I would not be too critical of his assessment on Miles' 2nd quintet because the autobiography makes similar observations with Miles noting that he had to change his style of playing to suit the younger musicians. His sense of time and phrasing was fundamentally changed by the likes of Hancock and TOny Williams in particular. Unfortunately, this part of the autobiography was pretty weak and there is no real depth about his assessment of this band.

From recollection, Miles seemed to use the book to settle old scores and a lot of "idols" came in for criticism. I think the book needs to be judged against the state of jazz when it was written and the fact that Miles still wanted to be seen as a hipster. Paradoxically, the harder he tried, the less successful he came. Last year I was quite surprised by "My the man with the horn" which was slated at the time and I felt that this was pretty much still in a jazz idiom as opposed to the pop he was creating a few years later. A lot of the book reflects on the likes of Prince and Cameo and is really of it's time. Not too sure if many musicians now would want to be associated with Michael Jackson either! It is pretty hopeless as a tool to understanding what Miles was about musically but probably ok if you like the soap opera that goes with pop music. the book was co-written at a point where Miles wanted to be both the elder stateman of jazz as well as someone who had appeal to a younger generation both as a musician and in his pursuit of women. There is a great story about a 1980's encounter with the composer John Cage at an airport where Miles was ridiculed for trying to pass himself off as being much younger. It is difficult for me not to see this book in the light of his waning relevance in jazz or indeed indicative of the fact that it was written at a time when he was certainly not part of the then current jazz vanguard even if the likes of John Medeski have made the point that he was almost a precursor to the Jam Band scene of the 1990s/ 2000. It must have grated on him that , other than the Free Jazz movement, the 1980s was the first point at which he was not really involved in what was making jazz tick in the 1980's.

[Joseph K]

Some people might find this of interest.