Should Miles Davis be in the archives

Cheesecakemouse wrote: Basically if there was no Miles Davis, there was no fusion. Groups from Mahavishnu Orc to King Crimson owe a huge amount to Miles. KC'S album Starless and Bible Black  was heavily influenced by Miles Davis album "A Tribute to Jack Johnson." - (not the guitarist, but rather the boxer) Sveral sources classify his fusion albums are progressive rock, ie the Coloumbia music catalogue I recieved classified Bitches Brew as progressive Rock. On a Miles Davis dvd I watched that had a documentary about Bitchs Brew; the band memebers said that they were no longer playing jazz on Bitches Brew, that it was something else. Also a album sleeve book I read listed Miles Davis album On the Corner as prog. What more can I say? [IMG]height=17 alt="Thumbs Up" src="http://www.progarchives.com/forum/smileys/smiley20.gif" width=23 align=absMiddle>So vote and discuss.

Nobody denies his huge impact on jazz-rock/fusion, but he himself was a jazz artist not rock!    

What would we do with the majority of his albums that have absolutely nothing to do with rock in any way?

Chus wrote: Sasquamo wrote: What would we do with the majority of his albums that have absolutely nothing to do with rock in any way?      I know what you mean by rock... Return To Forever's first albums had little to do with rock either... they were latin jazz primarily... Gryphon's early albums neither were too much rock.. Genesis made little prog in the 80's; I know the vast majority of his work is pure jazz... But I think his direct influence on jazz fusion deserves to be recognized.. there must be a place for people like him here on the archives, perhaps not in a subgenre but in a special section like Dick recommended... I just can't imagine Bitches Brew or In A Silent Way not being here

Yes, but could you imagine Kind of Blue or Birth of the Cool on here too?

I was thinking arn't E.S.P, Miles Smiles, Sorceror etc proto-fusion, thus being proto- prog. That means every miles davis album from E.S.P onwards deserves to be considered here. After all if the Beatles are proto prog what about Davis's proto fusion albums. I'm not debating all prior Jazz albums are proto fusion I'm talking about his jazz in the 1960s alongside John Coltranes that took significant strides to develop fusion, they wern't electric but the embryo and structure (or lack of) was in place.

^^I forgot to mention that... good that you did

I love Miles and he did *bring together* the players that later invented jazz-rock fusion, but none of his records in the 60s present whole-heartedly the direction and sound that it would shortly take. Essentially I agree with Dick and in fact the first true jazz-rock band leader was Tony Williams, in particular the 'Emergency' LP. Sometimes it feels as if many have not thoroughly listened to these records in order to make the connections and comparisons so important to musical history. Miles Davis Proto-prog or Prog-related? No, I don't think so. When carefully examined, the music in context with the time it was recorded shows Miles did not create fusion though he did create an environment in which it later flourished. We owe him a great deal, but more as an *instigator* of jazz rock not a participant. Perhaps an honorary position with a bio and discog but no album reviews by members.

Miles Davis was progressive jazz, not jazz-rock. There is a huge difference.


    
    

Edited by Atavachron - January 04 2007 at 21:16

^^or Gryphon

Cheesecakemouse wrote: The T wrote: Let's not forget the ROCK part of the term progressive-rock. Even though Miles Davis' music is excellent, I think this is not an all-genre music website, it's a prog-rock website. I think, even though he may have done some work with rock elements, his music should not be part of the archives.   According to your logic then neither should Univers Zero, Art Zoyd Jean Michel Jarre, Mike Oldfield and Tangerine Dream be allowed on this website.

Actually there is an excellent argument to be made for just that. None of the artists you mention are rock except for maybe UZ. The exclusion of Jarre, Oldfield and Tangerine Dream would be entire logical and appropriate. I like all of them and am glad they are here, they made huge impacts. But if they were not here it would also make sense.
    

Atavachron wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: The T wrote: Let's not forget the ROCK part of the term progressive-rock. Even though Miles Davis' music is excellent, I think this is not an all-genre music website, it's a prog-rock website. I think, even though he may have done some work with rock elements, his music should not be part of the archives.   According to your logic then neither should Univers Zero, Art Zoyd Jean Michel Jarre, Mike Oldfield and Tangerine Dream be allowed on this website. Actually there is an excellent argument to be made for just that. None of the artists you mention are rock except for maybe UZ. The exclusion of Jarre, Oldfield and Tangerine Dream would be entire logical and appropriate. I like all of them and am glad they are here, they made huge impacts. But if they were not here it would also make sense.

Atavachron wrote: Cheesecakemouse wrote: Atavachron wrote: I love Miles and he did *bring together* the players that later invented jazz-rock fusion, but none of his records in the 60s present whole-heartedly the direction and sound that it would shortly take. Essentially I agree with Dick and in fact the first true jazz-rock band leader was Tony Williams, in particular the 'Emergency' LP. Sometimes it feels as if many have not thoroughly listened to these records in order to make the connections and comparisons so important to musical history. Miles Davis Proto-prog or Prog-related? No, I don't think so. When carefully examined, the music in context with the time it was recorded shows Miles did not create fusion though he did create an environment in which it later flourished. We owe him a great deal, but more as an *instigator* of jazz rock not a participant. Perhaps an honorary position with a bio and discog but no album reviews by members. Miles Davis was progressive jazz, not jazz-rock. There is a huge difference.             Sorry but yo're the first person I've heard state Davis fusion  was not fusion, all the magazines, films websites state his fusion as fusion, so in my eyes your argument carries very little weight. You take your cues from magazines, films and websites? Much information about these artists is gathered by people who are not musicologists or players in an effort to archive them with the best of intentions but questionable conclusions. An *independant* analysis is what is important, make up your *own* mind based on all available evidence, not on some writer or filmmaker.