Miles Davis to be added to the Prog Archives

this has been argued plenty on another thread and there seem to be more reasons why Miles Davis SHOULD be added to Prog Archives than shouldn't. And most of the reasons given for why he shouldnt be here are mostly technical problems in terms of part of his discography prior to 1967 is jazz, so there would be too many jazz albums added (thus why his albums after 1967 would be added) and this gets in the way of the "all-or-nothing" policy this site has. But there werent too many musical reasons why he couldnt be here. in fact, his large discography post-67 completely fits the guidelines for being able to be added to this site.

Im saying this "all-or-nothing" policy of having entire discographies added works for almost all bands and artists here because none of their careers started until after rock and roll was formed. Miles Davis was around before rock existed way back in the 40's, it's not his fault he was born in a different time. I know of no other progressive artist where this is a problem, in terms of discographies. He made more jazz-rock/fusion albums than almost ALL the bands and artists on this site.

i think he should be an exception to the rule, besides, how many artists or bands has this problem come up anyway? plenty of prog bands from the 70s keep releasing non-prog albums, yet they keep getting added to PA and flooding the site.

so you decide

I'm adding Miles Davis  this week when I get home from Rome...  too long overdue... not added for the most stupid of reasons.  Few have any quibble with his merits.. and some get the picture about how ridiculous it is to have a jazz-fusion section here and NOT have the man here.   

ehhhh... wrong answer....  Jazz-rock fusion is a sub-genre of these archives thus... prog.  Whether you agree or not.. .it is what it is.  

Well...I suppose its some improvement...at least he's progressive.

Easy Money wrote: When the brilliant bop guitarist Mike Stern joined Miles jazz-rock band in the early 80s, Miles pulled out a portable cassette player with Van Halen on it and said don't play that jazz sh*t, play this!

Good call. How about this being an opening for a new category: Progressive Jazz?

We're all for expanding barriers, are we not? Why this introvert and irrational "rock" straitjacket?

Desoc: I think this progressive jazz should have a relation to rock, like Herbie Hancock and his Mwandishi-sextet do (but midsixties soloalbums don't), since this is a prog rock rescource site. I don't think that approach would be irrational. 

Btw: Fortunate thing for PA that Tony Williams added Lifetime behind his name in ca 1969, otherwise they would have the same problem as they have with Miles. No one would disagree with Miles' inclusion if it started in 67-68 here. But if , as I suspect every album starting somewhere in the late 40's are added, its not hard to understand why some are strongly against.

Is Herbie's Mwandishi/Headhunters-era next, then? Or is the silly complete-discography-or-nothing rule gonna stand in the way?

Edit: Noticed Mickey's answer to some of what I wrote about, after I posted. 




Edited by Rocktopus - August 04 2008 at 05:29

I think the real problem with this inclusion is that there are different types of Jazz-Fusion. Some is very firmly rooted in Jazz, some is closer to Rock or Prog (I've even seen the term "Prog-Fusion").

I'm not an expert when it comes to Miles Davis - but if his Jazz Fusion albums are too firmly rooted in Jazz, then I don't think he should be added.


EDIT: We should also keep in mind that listing Jazz-Fusion as a sub genre of Prog Rock is already a bit of a stretch ... it mostly happens by chains of associations, like Yes -> Soft Machine -> Mahavishnu Orchestra. As interesting as Jazz-Fusion may be, even artists like Mahavishnu or Return to Forever are in the "outskirts" of prog, and including artists which reach even further into the realms of Jazz may be too much.

But *if* he is added then we should also add John Coltrane, and Ornette Coleman.


Edited by MikeEnRegalia - August 04 2008 at 06:39

Man With Hat and Pnoom! are both reasonable, and not thickheaded but intelligent guys, and I can see why they react in this thread. (I'm still all for, even if he got 250 albums with no fusion featured)

No ones probably thinking: God forbid if anyone reviews Scetches of Spain or Someday my Prince Will Come! I'm sure most of us loves a lot of the purely jazz Miles albums. I know I do.

... But the logic in choosing to add selected albums, or adding albums from a specific period of time, with some artists (like Miles and Herbie) are just so obvious. I know the owners disagree, but maybe they'll change their minds if they hear it suggested 1000 times or more.

Rocktopus wrote: ... But the logic in choosing to add selected albums, or adding albums from a specific period of time, with some artists (like Miles and Herbie) are just so obvious. I know the owners disagree, but maybe they'll change their minds if they hear it suggested 1000 times or more.

exactly as I said in the parallel thread to this.. it is common sense.. you add the albums that are the basis for his inclusion now.. upon his addition. If people want to add and review his earlier albums for example.. by M@X's policy.. they are free to do so.. but having such a large disography is not.. and shall not be an impediment to being added.  Again.. this is a prog site....  we spotlight the music....  let sites like Allmusic.com deal with the artist as a whole.  The problem that some have is thinking that Miles Davis is .. or is not prog. What the f**k does that mean... .really.   Like Genesis... many of these artists had phases went they put out prog albums.. and phases when they didn't.  Miles Davis was a significant factor  ...with essential albums in the realm of J-R fusion.. thus... he will added there.  No problem there is there... yet some will..  pffff...