I don't know jack shit about classical music.
^ walking around an orchestra while they are playing is a very odd experience,
you get to hear what the musicians hear when performing and it can be quite disorientating if you are used to listening as a spectator in the auditorium.
Just something as simple as the physical distance and positioning between some instruments in a conventional orchestral set-up means there can be stuff you just can't hear in some areas on-stage.
Last edited by Joey (2014-09-09 17:16:01)
Not once have I mentioned racism and I resent any implication of myself being racist so I'm not sure why your entire argument (directed at me) is predicated on race being the root of the conflict I have with Wynton or the conflict Wynton had with Miles.
You're either misinterpreting my statements unintentionally or putting words into my mouth to discredit my argument but I never said I don't think Wynton is a good musician. In fact, I believe I said he was a talented trumpet player and then I moved on because that's not the point of this discussion from any angle I can see.
Wynton's philosophies regarding jazz and jazz education are, in my opinion, detrimental to the growth (and ultimately, survival) of the music. This has nothing to do with his being black.
I don't mean this offensively, but if you don't understand why Wynton Marsalis is so controversial, you should expand your knowledge of modern jazz and the history of jazz pedagogy. There are indeed many people on his side of the argument, but they at least understand why there is an argument against him.
I'll reiterate once more: Wynton Marsalis is controversial because of his reactionary and close-minded views on what "is" or "isn't" jazz. There are many who see him as some sort of "jazz savior" because of his adherence to much older (pre-1960) styles of jazz. However, proponents of fusion and free jazz see his excluding their genres as insulting and dangerously counter-revolutionary.
This is the heart of the Wynton controversy in a nutshell. There are discussions that have been made about race and other factors, but that has nothing to do with our conversation. Initially, I was defending Miles' latest work to the members here: I never wanted to have the usually-inevitable "Wynton Argument." He's at the heart of dozens of arguments but in this thread, I only care to discuss the pedagogical controversy stemming from his disagreement with Miles' concept of jazz. But really, I would have preferred to avoid the topic altogether.
His dismissal of Miles is not, by the way, limited to the post-1980 era. Wynton is vague at best when it comes to discussing Miles (I guess because, as such a public figure, he can't afford to offend anybody) but based on his blanket dismissal of avant-garde and other similar styles, I imagine there are numerous Miles records even you enjoy that Wynton has discounted. In my opinion, Wynton's dismissal of Miles goes back as far as the Silent Way sessions. Maybe further.
Many (most, in fact) of the posters in this thread claimed to enjoy Miles through the 1970s, and only claimed to dislike his post-1981 recordings. With this in mind, many members here are in disagreement with Wynton and may not even realize it. This is why I feel it's important we all understand exactly what the conflicts here are. I prefer a loose interpretation of what exactly "jazz" is but I can definitely understand why many wouldn't consider Miles' post-1981 work jazz. But what is Filles de Kilimanjaro if not jazz?
I can indeed understand where you're coming from, 4F, but I think we're at the point where we're arguing about different things. I could possibly understand why you think late Miles is offensive to black Americans but I haven't really considered that as an element in my interpretation. I like Miles' late music regardless of its possible positive or negative artistic or social connotations. I enjoy listening to it, plain and simple. In much the opposite way, you simply don't enjoy his late music. I don't think I'd buy that you don't like late Miles' music because you thought his Miami Vice appearance was offensive, but it's perfectly okay if you don't enjoy the music.
I'd prefer if you at least respected his later music, but we don't all have to agree on everything.
As far as the sociological discussions regarding race and other cultural paradigms throughout the jazz ages, I'm simply unequipped for such discussions. I was born after Miles died, and I've spent most of my life studying music and almost none of it studying recent American history or sociology. And I'm certainly not the type to enter a discussion on a topic I don't fully understand.
Just in case anyone's interested ....
http://www.nme.com/news/miles-davis/92332
Rough Trade East are doing a special Record Store Day preview screening of the film on Monday - the wife and I are going, tickets (if any left) available from the store.
Only found out about this yesterday and managed to grab a pair.
Last edited by Tomiskinky (2016-04-15 05:06:23)
Ok, the film (rather than take this off thread onto WAYW)
I am in no way a total Miles buff, I don't know off the top of my head the time frames of all his albums - but imo I felt there was a lack of period styling, I only spotted 1 button down. That is not to say the styling was not good, I just figured there would be more of the ivy style jazz like the photos taken by Francis Wolff. Going by elements of the film time line (his marriage in 58 to Frances) I expected 'the look'.
As far as the story goes, it's a fictional account based on a series of events, it never drags, had humour and drama. There are nice touches relating to race issues, obviously drug issues etc, overall I enjoyed it for what it was, a great soundtrack and think Don Cheadle looks the part and put a lot of effort into getting a lot right.
Look forward to hearing others views when you see it.