But now we may be veering into a sociological discussion, rather than a musical one.

My enjoyment of Miles really wanes as The Second Great Quintet progresses, and I haven't heard much after that I really enjoy.  There's a concomitant relationship between his music and clothing style both spiraling off into realms that just don't do much for me.  But the same thing happened to countless other musicians and artists throughout the '60s and '70s.  And it's understandable.  As I've said before, those decades chewed up and spit out plenty of previously great artists.  But like you say Hep, what were they to do?  Some moved to Europe where the classic aesthetic was still appreciated by a large fan base and they were able to do their thing for a few more years.  But I think, Hep, you and I are of a like mind on this, in that we both have a real fondness for the "classic jazz aesthetic".  I could do fine just hearing Miles Ahead or Kind of Blue over and over.  But unlike you, I like Rock n' Roll. 

Eesh, there's a lot to respond to.

Action_Baby, I can see where you're coming from. As I mentioned in a disclaimer about a dozen posts ago, I haven't spent an extensive amount of time with the music of the 80s. I find live recordings are more telling for this type of music (well, really any type of music) and Miles' weakening chops are exceedingly more apparent in the live recordings from the 80s than on the souped-up studio recording of, say, Tutu. When I made the point about songs from Tutu fitting into a 1950s setlist with an acoustic arrangement, I didn't mean to imply that I wish they were so structured; I enjoy the development of the electric band. I simply hoped to illustrate that some of Miles' later music could be appreciated by the more conservative jazz crowd.

4F, I want to clarify I don't think 1981-1993 was the ultimate era for Miles' music. My favorite Miles is anywhere in the 1955-75 range: essentially the establishment and development of his modal music. I am only arguing that we not completely write out Miles after '81. The music is worth listening to, if sometimes for different reasons. Trumpet-wise, Miles is obviously no longer on point (more on that in a second), but his band was still full of young, talented musicians such as Mike Stern, George Duke, and Kenny Garrett who would all go on to establish great renown in the jazz and fusion communities.

Wynton Marsalis is a phenomenal trumpet player. His jazz playing is arguable and sometimes divisive, but no one can say he doesn't know his way around the horn. A discussion about Wynton is another topic that would take ages to resolve, and I don't intend or wish to start any such discussion. My first crack about Wynton was in reference to his educational and philosophical standpoint. He chooses to produce carbon copies of music from the likes of Ellington, and he is free to do so. Where I take issue is his dismissal of anything beyond this period as "not jazz." As the most prominent face of jazz music and jazz education, I find his close-mindedness quite disheartening.

I agree that art doesn't always have to push the boundaries, but it can't remain completely stagnant for too long, and Wynton often cranks out straight up transcriptions from Ellington's band, with the same solos and everything. Not sure I see the point in making something that already exists.

To touch briefly back on the establishment of different eras throughout western music history, I'll say that all prior musical eras (Renaissance, Baroque, etc.) all lasted at least around 100 years. I'm not saying it's impossible, but to me it seems a little hasty to rope off a 45 year period as the "definitive age of jazz" when the entire history of jazz music hardly spans a century. But in this particular paragraph I'm mainly just rambling in thought: I know there are numerous subcategories of modern music which are not directly translatable to the larger eras of Western Music.

To make a last note (no pun intended) as a trumpet player: Miles couldn't, even at his prime, play the trumpet as well as Wynton ever did. Wynton even performs classical music with greater success than jazz. But when I put on a record like Kind Of Blue, I'm not listening for good fundamentals. I prefer jazz to classical music because of the human element: jazz embraces it, while classical music far too often suppresses it. This is no excuse for Miles' later dip in trumpet playing, but when considering his entire body of work, the evolution of his playing techniques from inexperience to dominance to restrained to thoughtful but weak is extremely human. And sounding human was always Miles' goal.

Last edited by Joey (2014-09-09 06:22:47)

Yeah, I always liked the way Miles was prepared to leave mistakes in his recorded music. There's a real bum note at the the start of, I think, Freddy Freeloader and it's none the worse for it. As you say human.

I could never see what people get out of playing classical music. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm always overawed by people so accurately sight reading complex peices of music and playing them with complete accuracy (I can hardly read a note) - but it's just not what I play music for. It's like being a machine, and instrument for the composer.

In the right live venue, a good symphonic orchestra can create a powerful musical experience for the listener, and I'm sure being up on the stage and part of it can be a great experience in its own right.

Drinking is prevalent at any college but in my music school, I must say the classical majors go a lot harder than the jazz majors. My professor regularly employs zen exercises in improv class. Last year, he took all the jazz trumpet majors into a room and turned off the lights. One at a time, we all took turns playing ballads unaccompanied. It was very zen. But when it comes to drinking, only a few of my friends go crazy. Meanwhile, I regularly hear stories of some classical vocalist who got so drunk she tried to choke somebody or a violinist who hooked up with half a dozen masters students in one night.

I'd probably drink too if I had to sit through an hour long Shostakovich symphony only to play a dozen notes, all of which had to be finely tuned to the exact specifications of the conductor.