"In Cheadle’s portrayal, Davis emerges as a sort of Don Draper of jazz: brooding, seductive, and radiantly opaque, a charismatic loner whose sometimes terrifying behavior, especially toward women, can be rationalized, if not forgiven, because it seems rooted in a history of suffering, and somehow connected to his mysterious powers as an innovator."
For me, personally, it doesn't take anything away from the music, but it certainly takes plenty from the man. And if we're going to discuss the history, it's just as important as any other trivia that colors the story.
It doesn't prevent me from enjoying his music though. I'm a proponent of decoupling the person and the ouvre. I can delight in his music and at the same time think he is a violent shitbag. It's not mutually exclusive.
If you appropriate the music you shouldn't call it his. And I agree to the extent that it was never his to begin with, standing on the shoulder of giants etc.
> It's not mutually exclusive.
Some would think it is. Death of the Author is a modern perspective. And again I agree, because concrete music is not as ephemeral as history, if that's the right word. I mean, history is unreliable, vague, abstracted, imaginary, indirect, something like that.
Fantastic, legendary musician, but a monster as a person; a man who turned some of his female fans into prostitutes and beat them when they didn't make enough money to sustain his heroin habit.
This is common with a lot of figures from the past, of course, from Picasso the wifebeater to Wagner the antisemite, Washington the slave owner, to Gary Glitter the child abuser.
To be fair to Washington, he was also the only slave-holding founding father to free his slave in his will and spoke against slavery. And this in an era when owning slave was considered normal.
It's different from Picasso for example who abused women in an era when it was not considered ok to do so by society.
Yet another reason to dispense with the idea of the 'self', which is illusory. No need to be conflicted about crediting the person with accomplishments like how talented, or tall, they are. You can simply appreciate their output on its own terms.
Anyone know of a reference for "The keyboardist Joe Zawinul was aghast at Davis’s ruthless arrangement of “In a Silent Way,”... " part?
It is difficult to prove a statement like "..he pioneered hard bop.." wrong, but it is definitely a new view on the history of jazz in the post bop era.
15 comments
[ 3.3 ms ] story [ 46.9 ms ] threadhttp://connectnyc.globat.com/documents/Mad%20At%20Miles%20by...
I wonder, if we were talking about Miles Davis being a particularly gifted accountant, would the same behaviour be written off so poetically?
I listen to Miles Davis a lot but was not aware of that part of his history. Should it change anything? I'm not sure.
> It's not mutually exclusive.
Some would think it is. Death of the Author is a modern perspective. And again I agree, because concrete music is not as ephemeral as history, if that's the right word. I mean, history is unreliable, vague, abstracted, imaginary, indirect, something like that.
This is common with a lot of figures from the past, of course, from Picasso the wifebeater to Wagner the antisemite, Washington the slave owner, to Gary Glitter the child abuser.
It's different from Picasso for example who abused women in an era when it was not considered ok to do so by society.
It is difficult to prove a statement like "..he pioneered hard bop.." wrong, but it is definitely a new view on the history of jazz in the post bop era.
NYRB might be sharpening the rhetoric a bit, but there's a good interview with the personnel where they go over this:
http://www.miles-beyond.com/iaswbitchesbrew.htm ('bout halfway down the page)
Amazing career. Can't wait to see the movie.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I73T9yLdoH0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6u8UdpVsKM