O.F.F.S.

The sound of barrels being scraped reverberates around the archives!

BTW I like Miles Davis very much,but...

HE DOES NOT BELONG ON THIS ARCHIVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Velvetclown wrote: I have to agree with Reed !!!!!!!!!!

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOoooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If we are to include Miles and other Pre Prog music then their should be a Pre Prog or Prog roots section or catagory. Not so those albums are reviewed but maybe just a list of those artists that influenced those who did start Prog.  I also think the time line for these groups or artists should stop at 1969. That should satisfy that urge to include this or that artist.

Just food for thought.

Being of the inclusive nature, I vote yes on the strength of Bitches Brew alone.

...but I won't bully anyone about it...

Sweetnighter wrote: I'm sorry, I guess i just fail to see how you can have a fusion subgenre in the archives without miles davis .  As I said his pre-67 material is not worthy of inclusion as its not rock, but albums like In a Silent Way and Bitches Brew were crucial to the fusion movement!

If you look at the Criteria SN it states that the Majority of the artists material has to be in the prog rock category.  I understand about the two albums they are both great but is that the extent of Miles prog rock or fusion CD's?  I mean Jeff Beck has two great prog albums in Blow by Blow and Wired but they do not constitute a majority of his material so he should not be included.

IMHO

Sweetnighter wrote: Garion81 wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: I'm sorry, I guess i just fail to see how you can have a fusion subgenre in the archives without miles davis .  As I said his pre-67 material is not worthy of inclusion as its not rock, but albums like In a Silent Way and Bitches Brew were crucial to the fusion movement!    If you look at the Criteria SN it states that the Majority of the artists material has to be in the prog rock category.  I understand about the two albums they are both great but is that the extent of Miles prog rock or fusion CD's?  I mean Jeff Beck has two great prog albums in Blow by Blow and Wired but they do not constitute a majority of his material so he should not be included. IMHO   Yeah, I see what you're saying, and to an extent you're right... but how many artists have released as much material as miles davis? he released fifty years work of material, and that ten of those years were dedicated to rock oriented music is saying something. If Miles releases 8 fusion albums and some small group releases one fusion album and that one album only, is that small group more prog simply because more of their music was dedicated to prog music? That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. If Miles had miraculously popped up in the mid-1960s and died in 1980 and released only fusions albums, i bet he would be in here. I just think that a musician's contribution to prog rock music is more important than whether or not what he/she/they released was mostly in the style or not. Quality, not quantity!

Well Admins?  What say you?

Sweetnighter wrote: Garion81 wrote: Sweetnighter wrote: I'm sorry, I guess i just fail to see how you can have a fusion subgenre in the archives without miles davis .  As I said his pre-67 material is not worthy of inclusion as its not rock, but albums like In a Silent Way and Bitches Brew were crucial to the fusion movement!    If you look at the Criteria SN it states that the Majority of the artists material has to be in the prog rock category.  I understand about the two albums they are both great but is that the extent of Miles prog rock or fusion CD's?  I mean Jeff Beck has two great prog albums in Blow by Blow and Wired but they do not constitute a majority of his material so he should not be included. IMHO   Yeah, I see what you're saying, and to an extent you're right... but how many artists have released as much material as miles davis? he released fifty years work of material, and that ten of those years were dedicated to rock oriented music is saying something. If Miles releases 8 fusion albums and some small group releases one fusion album and that one album only, is that small group more prog simply because more of their music was dedicated to prog music? That doesn't seem to make a whole lot of sense to me. If Miles had miraculously popped up in the mid-1960s and died in 1980 and released only fusions albums, i bet he would be in here. I just think that a musician's contribution to prog rock music is more important than whether or not what he/she/they released was mostly in the style or not. Quality, not quantity!

Then The Beatles and The Beach Boys should be here as well.

Garion81 wrote: I mean Jeff Beck has two great prog albums in Blow by Blow and Wired but they do not constitute a majority of his material so he should not be included.

They also happen to be the ones the jazz fusion fans (with no or little interest in prog) would list as Jeff Beck's important contributions to that sub-genre.

Having had the opportunity to ask Hugh Hopper directly about Miles Davis's influence on Soft Machine, the answer is 'no' wrt to those early fusion albums, but more likely 'yes' to albums before '66; but then John Coltrane was a much bigger influence. Check my thread elsewhere on BBC 4 Jazz Britannia documentary, which has revealed a significant  amount  wrt jazz influences on 60's and 70's rock musicians. Further on Soft Machine, Graham Bennett's forthcoming biography on the group, will tell more.

In passing have you noticed how Ornette Coleman Group influenced Ian Drury & The Blockheads..................check the bass riff on Sex and Drugs and Rock'nRoll.

This just opens up a whole new can of worms.  I second the thought of including these influential bands such as Miles Davis in a second section of prog influences.  It would be a very good feature for this site since so many times the question of "what is the first prog album?" is posed.  Prog was an evolution, like every other genre in music, and not was not born.  I fully believe we should accept this fact and include "influentional groups" as a seperate function in the archives.  This would certainly create wonderful discussion and  presumably be a distinguising feature of the site. 

I fully enjoy Miles Davis's music and it should be discussed on this site, but include him in the archives? No. Include him as an influnece as a seperate section? Yes. 

Sweetnighter wrote: How is anything that Jeff Beck, The Beatles or The Beach Boys  progressive or akin to Davis' late 60s work? I have Jeff Beck's Blow by Blow... sorry, I'm not hearing anything progressive. Now listen to Bitches Brew and then tell me its not progressive.

To quote Robert Coover: "When is a flea not a flea?"

"Pet Sounds" by the Beach Boys is "progressive" squared in comparison to what they did before. It's one of the first experimental rock albums, it even predates Zappa's "Freak Out" by about one month. As you may imagine the poor surfer dudes used to early Beach Boys' tunes ran around like headless chickens after hearing "Pet Sounds". So did all the Beach Boys themsleves, apart from Brian Wilson, the author of the material.

"Revolver" and "Sgt Pepper's..." are also "progressive" squared as compared to the early Beatles. Seriously experimental and highly influential. Mentioned and endorsed as candidates for the first progressive albums in the (ahem) "First Progressive Album" thread.

Other acts that influenced prog and just might be included in the archives? Hendrix, (helmet, kevlar vest, groin protection on)  The Doors and The Velvet Underground.

Yes, Davis created jazz rock, but I still think that "In a Silent Way" and "Bitches Brew" are as progressive as the aformentioned albums. Davis himself probably wouldn't have liked the term; progressive jazz was another name for cool jazz then, something Davis had dabbled in and distanced himself from, namely by recording the two albums. And speaking of Davis' albums, they were recorded with the help of John McLaughlin, Chick Corea, Joe Zawinul, Wayne Shorter and Benny Maupin among others. All of these musicians expanded upon Davis' vision. Mahavishnu and Return to Forever are in the archives - so why not Weather Report? No guitar? McLaughlin also recorded an outstanding jazz rock album with Tony Williams, Benny Maupin led jazz rock bands, and Billy Cobham continued to play jazz rock after he left Mahavishnu. I don't remember the names of those bands now, but they existed all right, and if Davis is included, no matter if in an "of interest" category (a very good suggestion, by the way) or in the archives themselves, then so should be all these bands.

But going that way we might end up including Son House, the first known proto-bluesman.

The bottom line: "Progressive" is a murky concept (nothing new here). If Davis is progressive, than so are all of these bands, and if they are included in the archives, the forum is running the risk of gradually losing its focus. Still, their influence on prog is undisputed, so if an "of interest" category is created, they should be placed there, they deserve it 100%. 

Hey, guys !

here is something totally revelatory for you:

Miles Davis, incredibly talented trumpet artist has made some very innovative recordings in many different styles.

However, and I know this is going to shock you,he was a Jazz  Artist/Musician performing jazz music.

As such he belongs in a Jazz Database.

Jim Are you feeling well? You just agreed with Reed!!!!!

Sorry Reed

http://www.bbc.co.uk/comedy/fastshow/characters/index.shtml">

Syncapated!!!

Love Bitches Brew, but lets keep Jazz musos out of the archives, along with pop sh!te like ELO etc..

Grrreeaaatt...!

Sweetnighter wrote: Yes or no? I think the dilemma in terms of submitting davis as an applicant to the archives is this: although he released such a diverse amount of fusion rock albums in the late 60s and 70s (not to mention basically inventing the genre), its such a small part of his repotoire because of the sheer amount of albums he released. Realistically, the entire fusion category in the archives as we know it, with groups like Return to Forever, Mahavishnu Orchestra, and groups that would be influenced by his music, such as Soft Machine and later Brand X, wouldn't even be here. I feel that some of his fusion releases are absolutely essential in the library of a true prog rocker that his not being in the archives is really a shame. Here are some of those albums that i think make his need to be in here essential. Agharta and Panagea 1975 On the Corner 1972 Live-Evil 1970 Bitches Brew 1969 In a Silent Way 1969 An interesting solution would be to include all of Davis' works post-1967, as nothing he did before had any relation to rock.

I agree completely Sweetnighter, MD was very influenced by Hendrix and the english fusion. In the records you mention he is mainly searching for a new sound :  electric guitar in theperson of John Mc Laughlin,  Electric bass, (Ron Carter left because he didn't liked playing Ebass),and electric keys( Fender Rhodes and Clavinet,Chick Corea and K.Jarrett) Like Zappa MD used the recording studio from then on as a tool. He taped whatever the musicians played (often just a simple harmonic guideline ) and than sliced the stuff and put it back together in his unique 's way. His approach is defenitely neither Jazz nor Rock so why not call it Prog.

What's this stuff about keeping out Jazz fans out anyway? I do not see many people begging for inclusion of Cannonball Adderley , Ornette Coleman , Louis Armstrong or John Coltrane in our Archives. Having Davis (and Hancock) on here would probably not change much. Don't get me wrong , I'm not making a case for them here but surely more progressive than Roxy Music.

I know many Jazz fans that respect prog .