Crouch benefits from having one very large bullet in his belt (to steal from brother James' analogy). The fact is that Miles' music post Bitches Brew sucked.
so Get Up With It sucked huh
I didn't agree with what J. Mtume said about instruments having technological limitations or whatever
musically speaking it's just not pertinent or relevant, a musical work's identity/value is not determined by the mere range of sounds it uses but by the purpose and effect their usage reveals
it's like saying no one can paint something no one had ever imagined just because all the elements of a certain group of colors have already been used and reused again and again before
Yes, Get Up With It and everything post Bitches Brew is mediocre at best. Crouch rightly points out that Miles' early 70 oeuvre has not aged well, nor is it terribly influential outside of Pat Metheny's house. I hardly think this is big news. Nor is it uncommon for someone in the late stages of their very brilliant career. For example, most of the Band's later work stinks too. Like I said, shit happens.
I think you are misunderstanding what Mtume is saying. He is saying that there's only so much innovation possible on a particular instrument, especially within a given genre. Innovation in sound or arrangement is the key to making new vibrant music. After a certain period it becomes very difficult to innovate without a shift in technology. I think this is a fairly reasonable assertion.
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
neil young
joni mitchell
woody herman
stan kenton
maurice jennings
isley brothers
george benson
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
Marvin?
Eh, the more I think about it, not really that drastic.
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
I'm not sure if it was a bid for popularity with the kids or what, but post-A Love Supreme, Coltrane just kept going further and further "out".
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
neil young
joni mitchell
woody herman
stan kenton
maurice jennings
isley brothers
george benson
Great list. I would contend that Young and Mitchell never took their audience or youth into consideration when making shifts.
Isley Bros are just a great example of an act that did this successfully. Repeatedly.
Add James Brown.
Fleetwood Mac?
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
neil young
joni mitchell
woody herman
stan kenton
maurice jennings
isley brothers
george benson
Great list. I would contend that Young and Mitchell never took their audience or youth into consideration when making shifts.
Isley Bros are just a great example of an act that did this successfully. Repeatedly.
Add James Brown.
Fleetwood Mac?
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
neil young
joni mitchell
woody herman
stan kenton
maurice jennings
isley brothers
george benson
Great list. I would contend that Young and Mitchell never took their audience or youth into consideration when making shifts.
Isley Bros are just a great example of an act that did this successfully. Repeatedly.
When did the Isley Brothers abandon their audience and aim for another one? What album?
Modernizing is the same as leaving your core audience?
Miles str8 up left the old guard.
The Isleys have a Bitches Brew or On the Corner equivalent?
When did the Isley Brothers abandon their audience and aim for another one?
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
batmon said:
LaserWolf said:
crabmongerfunk said:
batmon said:
Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion? And theyre not "underground"?
neil young
joni mitchell
woody herman
stan kenton
maurice jennings
isley brothers
george benson
Great list. I would contend that Young and Mitchell never took their audience or youth into consideration when making shifts.
Isley Bros are just a great example of an act that did this successfully. Repeatedly.
When did the Isley Brothers abandon their audience and aim for another one? What album?
Modernizing is the same as leaving your core audience?
Miles str8 up left the old guard.
The Isleys have a Bitches Brew or On the Corner equivalent?
This is kind of how I feel too. The Isleys stayed being progressive after they quit Motown, but it always seemed natural and never contrived. Even with all those rock covers and the occasional drifts into Funkadelic territory, they never came across as an r&b band trying to do rock. If they have anything in common with Miles, it's that they were both aware of what was going on outside their idiom, and weren't afraid to incorporate/assimilate elements of that shit into what they were already doing.
Someone (Dan?) mentioned Kool & the Gang. Now while bringing in James JT Taylor may have eventually brought them to the attention of a white pop audience, I always felt the initial motive for that was to get back on black radio at a point where their signature style had fallen out of favour somewhat. So, I'm calling that as an attempt to recapture their natural constituency, rather than going after a new one.
I didn't agree with what J. Mtume said about instruments having technological limitations or whatever
musically speaking it's just not pertinent or relevant, a musical work's identity/value is not determined by the mere range of sounds it uses but by the purpose and effect their usage reveals
it's like saying no one can paint something no one had ever imagined just because all the elements of a certain group of colors have already been used and reused again and again before
I haven't watched all of this but Crouch's response to Mtume's point was a major fail from a linguist's perspective: English has NEVER EVER been a static language, it is always changing (some would say "evolving") which actually supports Mtume's claim (except that the comparison of language to instruments isn't very apt anyway).
Also, I cringed when Mtume said that shit about "those who can't..." too.
Sorry if I got it wrong.
I read the question:
"Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion?"
to mean a musician who changed styles (drastically) as an attempt to reach the youth.
[here let me say I would argue that reaching the youth was not what drove Miles, imo.]
Isleys; their first hit (Twist and Shout 1962) would not have gone over well with the youth of 1966. So, This Old Heart Of Mine. Perhaps not a drastic change, but still. TOHOM would not have gotten it in 1969, thus It's Your Thing, a drastic change mainly trying to reach the youth. The Isley continued to update their sound to stay current for another 2 decades.
I will gladly concede K&G.
Now, about leaving your core audience... that wasn't the question I was responding to... but,
Yeah, Miles really challenged his audience.
I think he was driven by artistic curiosity.
I am not denying the that Isleys were artistic, but the driving force behind their changes was commercial, and an attempt to reach an audence much younger than the one who made Twist and Shout a hit.
Today we are use to the Crusty Jazz Collector personified by Crouch. But a jazz lover who bought Kinda Blue in 1960 when they were 20 might have been thrilled by the new sounds of Bitches Brew in 1970. It's kinda like the Dylan plugs in myth, where all his old fans booed and he found a new audience. I doubt that either claim is demonstrable. I think that Dylans and Miles fan base changed little, even as their popularity grew, when they plugged in.
Herbie Hancock is a prime example I would say - i think on the liner notes of one of his albums he explicitly states wanting to make records that people could throw on and party to instead of releasing avant-garde music that was considered difficult. And he really did it well - rockit being his biggest pop outing. thrust and manchild were his first forays into jazz funk I guess.
Donald byrd would be another good example - also norman connors went from avant garde to pop/r&b.
I know a critic with a massive jazz collection who hates any jazz that is plugged in or amplified. finds it completely uninteresting.
Yes, Get Up With It and everything post Bitches Brew is mediocre at best.
Subjective, but I would have a hard time describing Dark Magus as 'mediocre'.
DrWu said:
Crouch rightly points out that Miles' early 70 oeuvre has not aged well, nor is it terribly influential outside of Pat Metheny's house.
This is straight up nonsense.
Of course my (and likewise your) opinion of the music is subjective. But my reading of whether or this music had any lasting impact in popular or jazz music is incontestable. By and large this music was critically panned within the popular and jazz music worIds at the time of its release. Nor were they commercially successful. At best there has been a little revisonism from today's collectro community. With some hipsters wearing On The Corner shirts in Billyburg But even there I wouldn't say there exists any kind of consensus that this is great music. Unlike say Skip Spence's Oar or Neil Young's On the Beach, both of which were critical and commercial failures upon their release which are viewed quite favorably today. Let's be honest, only the most die hardcore dudes are listening to Dark Magus right now. I believe this is explained because of the music's deep suckitude. You may choose to believe otherwise. I ain't mad at ya. But I patiently await your explanation of its utter critical and commercial failure on grounds other than it sucks.
I don't know where you're getting this idea from but I wholeheartedly disagree that people neither enjoy nor critically rate Miles' post-Brew output beyond the collectro community. That's just totally unfounded private mindgarden bullshit. It's not revisionist either - I find these records all the time in black music collections from the 70s and 80s. Half the time, quite worn. People jammed that shit. From a current perspective, I sell electric miles as easily, if not more so, than acoustic Miles. And these are layperson buyers 9 times out of 10.
Seriously, and it's not like there haven't been a whole bunch of people who have taken the post-Bitches Brew stuff and done something with it. Otherwise, what have Scofield, MMW, Dave Douglas, The Necks, etc. etc. been doing?
Yes, Get Up With It and everything post Bitches Brew is mediocre at best.
Subjective, but I would have a hard time describing Dark Magus as 'mediocre'.
DrWu said:
Crouch rightly points out that Miles' early 70 oeuvre has not aged well, nor is it terribly influential outside of Pat Metheny's house.
This is straight up nonsense.
Of course my (and likewise your) opinion of the music is subjective. But my reading of whether or this music had any lasting impact in popular or jazz music is incontestable. By and large this music was critically panned within the popular and jazz music worIds at the time of its release. Nor were they commercially successful. At best there has been a little revisonism from today's collectro community. With some hipsters wearing On The Corner shirts in Billyburg But even there I wouldn't say there exists any kind of consensus that this is great music. Unlike say Skip Spence's Oar or Neil Young's On the Beach, both of which were critical and commercial failures upon their release which are viewed quite favorably today. Let's be honest, only the most die hardcore dudes are listening to Dark Magus right now. I believe this is explained because of the music's deep suckitude. You may choose to believe otherwise. I ain't mad at ya. But I patiently await your explanation of its utter critical and commercial failure on grounds other than it sucks.
Sorry, this is just flat out incorrct.
Bitches Brew is one of the biggest selling jazz records of all time and the biggest selling record Miles aver did, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that this music was not successful, and it also received tons of positive critical reviews, so that doesn't make any sense either.
The BB band directly spawned Return To Forever, Mahavishnu Orchestra and Weather Report who combined to sell tens of millions of albums and win numerous Grammys and other awards. In addition BB was the touchstone for the entire 'fusion' movement which was huge globally.
Anyone who thinks that this music was inconsequential just doesn't know their history.
Yes, Get Up With It and everything post Bitches Brew is mediocre at best.
Subjective, but I would have a hard time describing Dark Magus as 'mediocre'.
DrWu said:
Crouch rightly points out that Miles' early 70 oeuvre has not aged well, nor is it terribly influential outside of Pat Metheny's house.
This is straight up nonsense.
Of course my (and likewise your) opinion of the music is subjective. But my reading of whether or this music had any lasting impact in popular or jazz music is incontestable. By and large this music was critically panned within the popular and jazz music worIds at the time of its release. Nor were they commercially successful. At best there has been a little revisonism from today's collectro community. With some hipsters wearing On The Corner shirts in Billyburg But even there I wouldn't say there exists any kind of consensus that this is great music. Unlike say Skip Spence's Oar or Neil Young's On the Beach, both of which were critical and commercial failures upon their release which are viewed quite favorably today. Let's be honest, only the most die hardcore dudes are listening to Dark Magus right now. I believe this is explained because of the music's deep suckitude. You may choose to believe otherwise. I ain't mad at ya. But I patiently await your explanation of its utter critical and commercial failure on grounds other than it sucks.
Sorry, this is just flat out incorrct.
Bitches Brew is one of the biggest selling jazz records of all time and the biggest selling record Miles aver did, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that this music was not successful, and it also received tons of positive critical reviews, so that doesn't make any sense either.
The BB band directly spawned Return To Forever, Mahavishnu Orchestra and Weather Report who combined to sell tens of millions of albums and win numerous Grammys and other awards. In addition BB was the touchstone for the entire 'fusion' movement which was huge globally.
Anyone who thinks that this music was inconsequential just doesn't know their history.
Which might explain why he said "post Bitches Brew". "Post" meaning after.
DocMcCoy"Go and laugh in your own country!" 5,917 Posts
Horseleech said:
DrWu said:
Horseleech said:
DrWu said:
Yes, Get Up With It and everything post Bitches Brew is mediocre at best.
Subjective, but I would have a hard time describing Dark Magus as 'mediocre'.
DrWu said:
Crouch rightly points out that Miles' early 70 oeuvre has not aged well, nor is it terribly influential outside of Pat Metheny's house.
This is straight up nonsense.
Of course my (and likewise your) opinion of the music is subjective. But my reading of whether or this music had any lasting impact in popular or jazz music is incontestable. By and large this music was critically panned within the popular and jazz music worIds at the time of its release. Nor were they commercially successful. At best there has been a little revisonism from today's collectro community. With some hipsters wearing On The Corner shirts in Billyburg But even there I wouldn't say there exists any kind of consensus that this is great music. Unlike say Skip Spence's Oar or Neil Young's On the Beach, both of which were critical and commercial failures upon their release which are viewed quite favorably today. Let's be honest, only the most die hardcore dudes are listening to Dark Magus right now. I believe this is explained because of the music's deep suckitude. You may choose to believe otherwise. I ain't mad at ya. But I patiently await your explanation of its utter critical and commercial failure on grounds other than it sucks.
Sorry, this is just flat out incorrct.
Bitches Brew is one of the biggest selling jazz records of all time and the biggest selling record Miles aver did, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that this music was not successful, and it also received tons of positive critical reviews, so that doesn't make any sense either.
The BB band directly spawned Return To Forever, Mahavishnu Orchestra and Weather Report who combined to sell tens of millions of albums and win numerous Grammys and other awards. In addition BB was the touchstone for the entire 'fusion' movement which was huge globally.
Anyone who thinks that this music was inconsequential just doesn't know their history.
Whilst I would completely concur with everything else you say, I'd question whether Bitches Brew was Miles' biggest-ever seller. It may have been at the time, but surely Kind Of Blue has outstripped it by now?
Comments
Yes, Get Up With It and everything post Bitches Brew is mediocre at best. Crouch rightly points out that Miles' early 70 oeuvre has not aged well, nor is it terribly influential outside of Pat Metheny's house. I hardly think this is big news. Nor is it uncommon for someone in the late stages of their very brilliant career. For example, most of the Band's later work stinks too. Like I said, shit happens.
I think you are misunderstanding what Mtume is saying. He is saying that there's only so much innovation possible on a particular instrument, especially within a given genre. Innovation in sound or arrangement is the key to making new vibrant music. After a certain period it becomes very difficult to innovate without a shift in technology. I think this is a fairly reasonable assertion.
neil young
joni mitchell
woody herman
stan kenton
maurice jennings
isley brothers
george benson
I'm not sure if it was a bid for popularity with the kids or what, but post-A Love Supreme, Coltrane just kept going further and further "out".
Subjective, but I would have a hard time describing Dark Magus as 'mediocre'.
This is straight up nonsense.
Herbie Hancock?
Great list. I would contend that Young and Mitchell never took their audience or youth into consideration when making shifts.
Isley Bros are just a great example of an act that did this successfully. Repeatedly.
Add James Brown.
Fleetwood Mac?
U2 when they switched with Achtung Baby
Chi-Lites
O'jays
Beatles
Rolling Stones
I would add:
-Tina Turner
-Cher
-Earth, Wind, and Fire
-Paul McCartney
-Stevie Wonder
-The Crusaders (sort of)
Peace,
Big Stacks from Kakalak
When did the Isley Brothers abandon their audience and aim for another one? What album?
Modernizing is the same as leaving your core audience?
Miles str8 up left the old guard.
The Isleys have a Bitches Brew or On the Corner equivalent?
This is kind of how I feel too. The Isleys stayed being progressive after they quit Motown, but it always seemed natural and never contrived. Even with all those rock covers and the occasional drifts into Funkadelic territory, they never came across as an r&b band trying to do rock. If they have anything in common with Miles, it's that they were both aware of what was going on outside their idiom, and weren't afraid to incorporate/assimilate elements of that shit into what they were already doing.
Someone (Dan?) mentioned Kool & the Gang. Now while bringing in James JT Taylor may have eventually brought them to the attention of a white pop audience, I always felt the initial motive for that was to get back on black radio at a point where their signature style had fallen out of favour somewhat. So, I'm calling that as an attempt to recapture their natural constituency, rather than going after a new one.
Kool & The Gang has a Bitches Brew - Stop the bullshit.
I haven't watched all of this but Crouch's response to Mtume's point was a major fail from a linguist's perspective: English has NEVER EVER been a static language, it is always changing (some would say "evolving") which actually supports Mtume's claim (except that the comparison of language to instruments isn't very apt anyway).
Also, I cringed when Mtume said that shit about "those who can't..." too.
Sucking out loud doesn't count as stylistic innovation.
I read the question:
"Is there another example of a musican who is a the "top" of their game making a drastic shift( mainly tryin to reach the youth) in music and fashion?"
to mean a musician who changed styles (drastically) as an attempt to reach the youth.
[here let me say I would argue that reaching the youth was not what drove Miles, imo.]
Isleys; their first hit (Twist and Shout 1962) would not have gone over well with the youth of 1966. So, This Old Heart Of Mine. Perhaps not a drastic change, but still. TOHOM would not have gotten it in 1969, thus It's Your Thing, a drastic change mainly trying to reach the youth. The Isley continued to update their sound to stay current for another 2 decades.
I will gladly concede K&G.
Now, about leaving your core audience... that wasn't the question I was responding to... but,
Yeah, Miles really challenged his audience.
I think he was driven by artistic curiosity.
I am not denying the that Isleys were artistic, but the driving force behind their changes was commercial, and an attempt to reach an audence much younger than the one who made Twist and Shout a hit.
Today we are use to the Crusty Jazz Collector personified by Crouch. But a jazz lover who bought Kinda Blue in 1960 when they were 20 might have been thrilled by the new sounds of Bitches Brew in 1970. It's kinda like the Dylan plugs in myth, where all his old fans booed and he found a new audience. I doubt that either claim is demonstrable. I think that Dylans and Miles fan base changed little, even as their popularity grew, when they plugged in.
Donald byrd would be another good example - also norman connors went from avant garde to pop/r&b.
I know a critic with a massive jazz collection who hates any jazz that is plugged in or amplified. finds it completely uninteresting.
Of course my (and likewise your) opinion of the music is subjective. But my reading of whether or this music had any lasting impact in popular or jazz music is incontestable. By and large this music was critically panned within the popular and jazz music worIds at the time of its release. Nor were they commercially successful. At best there has been a little revisonism from today's collectro community. With some hipsters wearing On The Corner shirts in Billyburg But even there I wouldn't say there exists any kind of consensus that this is great music. Unlike say Skip Spence's Oar or Neil Young's On the Beach, both of which were critical and commercial failures upon their release which are viewed quite favorably today. Let's be honest, only the most die hardcore dudes are listening to Dark Magus right now. I believe this is explained because of the music's deep suckitude. You may choose to believe otherwise. I ain't mad at ya. But I patiently await your explanation of its utter critical and commercial failure on grounds other than it sucks.
Sorry, this is just flat out incorrct.
Bitches Brew is one of the biggest selling jazz records of all time and the biggest selling record Miles aver did, so I'm not sure where you get the idea that this music was not successful, and it also received tons of positive critical reviews, so that doesn't make any sense either.
The BB band directly spawned Return To Forever, Mahavishnu Orchestra and Weather Report who combined to sell tens of millions of albums and win numerous Grammys and other awards. In addition BB was the touchstone for the entire 'fusion' movement which was huge globally.
Anyone who thinks that this music was inconsequential just doesn't know their history.
Which might explain why he said "post Bitches Brew". "Post" meaning after.
Whilst I would completely concur with everything else you say, I'd question whether Bitches Brew was Miles' biggest-ever seller. It may have been at the time, but surely Kind Of Blue has outstripped it by now?
Include those albums in my argument, it doesn't change anything at all.