Suggest New Bands and Artists - Should Miles Davis be in the archives

Print Page | Close Window

Should Miles Davis be in the archives

Printed From: Progarchives.com
Category: Progressive Music Lounges
Forum Name: Suggest New Bands and Artists
Forum Description: Suggest, create polls, and classify new bands you would like included on Prog Archives
URL: http://www.progarchives.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=23068
Printed Date: February 23 2025 at 03:39
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 11.01 - http://www.webwizforums.com

Topic: Should Miles Davis be in the archives

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Subject: Should Miles Davis be in the archives
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 08:44

Basically if there was no Miles Davis, there was no fusion as we know it today. 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)

Several 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?

So vote and discuss.

-------------

Replies:

Posted By: Chipiron
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 08:49

I don't think so, although I've only listened to "Kind of Blue", ayway, I didn't like it but I don't mind giving it another chance.

-------------
[IMG]http://www.belderrain.es/GIFs/tora.gif">

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 08:53

Chipiron wrote:

I don't think so, although I've only listened to "Kind of Blue", ayway, I didn't like it but I don't mind giving it another chance.

Kind of Blue, although pleasant, is not during his his crazed fusion period,Get his albums Bitches Brew or else Tribute to Jack Johnson, or pretty much anything from 1969-through the 70s, you won't believe its the same guy that performed A Kind of Blue

-------------

Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 09:22

YES! He's the creator of fusion: Bitches Brew, Big Fun, Pangaea, Agharta

-------------
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."

Charles Bukowski

Posted By: FragileDT
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 09:57

I think that Miles Davis should be in the archives as "Proto-Jazz/Fusion" if there would exist such a genre. He was VERY influential to the beginning of the Jazz/Fusion scene.

-------------
One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless Compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity

Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 10:14

On balance I dont think he should be listed here. (I have Bitches Brew, and some compilations of his earlier Jazz stuff.) Although BB is very similar to the work of some other bands which are listed here, eg his erstwhile collaborator, Chick Corea's, Return to Forever, its still recognizably a Jazz work - and his earlier stuff is clearly Jazz.

So I voted No - this is, after all, a progressive rock forum.

(If you let him in, I'll start agitating for Brubeck & Coltrane, & the worms will come flying out of the can....)

Posted By: Mandrakeroot
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 10:35

[QUOTE=Tuzvihar]YES! He's the creator of fusion: Bitches Brew, Big Fun, Pangaea, Agharta

Uhm... Uhm... Uhm... I voted No because Miles Davis is basically a Jazz artist and not a Prog artist.

-------------

Posted By: Phil
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 11:13

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

Chipiron wrote:

I don't think so, although I've only listened to "Kind of Blue", ayway, I didn't like it but I don't mind giving it another chance.

Bullseye with your comments - "Kind of Blue" is often voted as the "best" jazz album amongst those that vote in those sort of polls - but Bitches Brew is altogether a different beast. Look at the roll call of musicians he used - more impressive than even FZ's line ups: John McLaughlin, Tony Williams, Chick Corea, Herbie hancock, Joe Zawinul, Wayne Shorter, etc.........

Shoudl he be on this site? Well again I think this shows the limitations of the categories used - either an artist (& his entire catalogue) are "in" or "out" on PA; listen to Kind of Blue, and you say, of course not; listen to Bitches Brew, and you have to say, of course. So I vote yes - but in a selective way!

Posted By: memowakeman
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 11:32

Since proto prog and prog related exists, Miles Davis should beconsidered in one of that genres...FragilDT said that he was VERY influential of th Jazz/Fusion scene.. of course i agree, but it makes me think about a kind of sub genre called "Influential prog" or something...

-------------

Follow me on twitter @memowakeman

Posted By: mystic fred
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 11:41

i would have expected to see "Bitches Brew" on PA by now, in the jazz/rock fusion section.

-------------

Prog Archives Tour Van

Posted By: Dr. Occulator
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 12:18

Bitches Brew alone makes Miles progressive. He did alot of other great fusion prog as well.

-------------
My Doc Told Me I Have Doggie Head.

Posted By: FragileDT
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 12:37

memowakeman wrote:

Exactly, which is why Proto-Prog exists. As the definition reads:

"Rock Bands in existence prior to 1969 that influenced the development of progressive rock. The late 60's was a predominately experimental period for music. These bands were moving in a stream that eventually led to prog. The influence could have come from new sophisticated forms of writing and playing music, recording techniques, new instruments and vocal harmonies to name a few. Some of these bands became progressive rock bands themselves others did not."

Since Jazz/Fusion is a subgenre of progressive rock, Miles should be considered "Proto-Prog."

EDIT: And to Crimson thing: We know that this is a progressive
rock forum but do you think that "rock" is really the best term to describe the genre?

Bands like Gentle Giant and VDGG or almost any prog band for that matter, have just as much rock influence as classical music and jazz. Progressive rock is a term that has been used and excepted but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the bands in the genre have to be centralized around a "rock" sound.

-------------
One likes to believe
In the freedom of music
But glittering prizes
And endless Compromises
Shatter the illusion
Of integrity

Posted By: eugene
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 12:44

Why the hell not???

Of course he should - much more than many others.

As long as fusion is considered progressive music, of course.

-------------
carefulwiththataxe

Posted By: crimson thing
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 13:37

Hi Frag

Since Jazz/Fusion is a subgenre of progressive rock, Miles should be considered "Proto-Prog."

EDIT: And to Crimson thing: We know that this is a progressive
rock forum but do you think that "rock" is really the best term to describe the genre?

Bands like Gentle Giant and VDGG or almost any prog band for that matter, have just as much rock influence as classical music and jazz. Progressive rock is a term that has been used and excepted but that doesn't necessarily mean that all of the bands in the genre have to be centralized around a "rock" sound.

Well, I didnt name or brand this site, which presents itself as

http://www.progarchives.com/">

with the "R" word

I do think, though - and I accept that I'm a very new newbie here - that if you let MD in, it would be the thin end of the wedge, & that you could then have a clamour for any & every Jazz musician or band who ever recorded an even slightly prog-like track to be included. You will eventually have to draw a line somewhere - I personally would draw it between MD & the prog masses. But if you do decide to adopt him, I think you should first decide where in future you would draw the line.

I would also reckon (and I havent checked his entire discography, this is just a feeling) that for every album of MDs that would fit here, there is another which is clearly on the Jazz side of the divide.

A personal comment, not germane to the yea/nay MD argument - I rather like fusiony-jazz/rock stuff - eg nucleus, Return to Forever, Colosseum (I&II); and I like lots of Jazz, including MDs earlier stuff. But I tried to listen to Bitches Brew again a few days ago & I had to turn it off & put on a different CD as it didnt inspire me at all. Illogical.

Regards, CT (alias Steve)

Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 15:19

Listen to Miles Davis's CBS Years 4 CD boxset and you will believe this 
is
the guy who played bebop, post bop, the cool of Kind A Blue (apparently 
the
best selling jazz album ever), did Bitches Brew. Miles Davis 
continually
evolved not sitting still, unlike Wyntron Marsalis (who infact has gone
backwards IMHO). But as stated many times in PA, Miles Davis did not 
invent
jazz rock fusion - for goodnesssake do some reading and research, e.g a 
good
start point is Stuart Nicholson's Jazz Rock A History. Miles Davis's 
main
influence on this sub-genre is moving jazz rock fusion (indeed jazz 
funk
fusion) from the underground to become a mainstream musical force - but 
even
then the great Miles Davis Groups of the late 60's and early 70's often
didn't have lead billing at gigs - check out the other performers and 
their
comparative status for the famous Fillmore shows.

With a discography that goes back before 1945, (and all those 
compialtion
albums) Miles Davis would prove a real nightmare for inclusion in the
current set up of PA (i.e. inclusion means ever legit album may be 
listed
and reviewed), when perhaps we only want to list the post-1968 albums - 
and
then if you read the most recent Miles Davis biography covering his 
last 10
years of life, then you will discover Davis wanted to and did record 
with
Prince and rap artists.

Personally all for the inclusion of the late 60's and 70's albums, but 
they
only reflect a small fraction of Davis's output.

Posted By: salmacis
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 16:09

It's a tough one, imo. I don't see how albums like 'Bitches Brew', 'Jack Johnson' and 'On The Corner' CAN'T be here (when you consider the personnel and the bands they all formed are here, let alone the music), but I don't think having his whole discography here will work at all (if I'm honest, I'm not a huge pure jazz fan anyway but jazz rock I'm a big fan of). I don't think there's ever been a clearer case of having an artist with only selected albums included.

Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 16:48

I don't think so - the Prog-related part is but a very tiny fragment of his (amazing) output.

Even ABBA produced some prog-related material...

-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 16:53

I think the main argument against including him is that he is not really a rock artist. He is Jazz, much more so than Zappa (Bitches Brew/Hot Rats are always compared).

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: Certif1ed
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 17:08

MikeEnRegalia wrote:

I think the main argument against including him is that he is not really a rock artist. He is Jazz, much more so than Zappa (Bitches Brew/Hot Rats are always compared).

Was Zappa really a rock artist or a composer?

Tangerine Dream?

Just a thought.

-------------
The important thing is not to stop questioning.

Posted By: MikeEnRegalia
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 17:13

I know that Zappa originally wanted to make non-rock music ... but he ended up making mostly rock-related music. Indeed the perfect label for Zappa is "Avant-Garde Rock" IMO.

Tangerine Dream ... I don't know their entire discography, but what I've heard wasn't Rock-Related and therefore I say: Remove them!

-------------
https://awesomeprog.com/release-polls/pa" rel="nofollow - Release Polls

Listened to:

Posted By: Rorro
Date Posted: May 09 2006 at 17:53

I've got nothing against including miles davis, exept that if he is included then a lot of free Jazz musicians would have the same right to be here, why making a difference? , maybe i'm wrong, please someone correct me.

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: May 10 2006 at 06:54

Dick Heath wrote:

Listen to Miles Davis's CBS Years 4 CD boxset and you will believe this 
is
the guy who played bebop, post bop, the cool of Kind A Blue (apparently 
the
best selling jazz album ever), did Bitches Brew. Miles Davis 
continually
evolved not sitting still, unlike Wyntron Marsalis (who infact has gone
backwards IMHO). But as stated many times in PA, Miles Davis did not 
invent
jazz rock fusion - for goodnesssake do some reading and research, e.g a 
good
start point is Stuart Nicholson's Jazz Rock A History. Miles Davis's 
main
influence on this sub-genre is moving jazz rock fusion (indeed jazz 
funk
fusion) from the underground to become a mainstream musical force - but 
even
then the great Miles Davis Groups of the late 60's and early 70's often
didn't have lead billing at gigs - check out the other performers and 
their
comparative status for the famous Fillmore shows.

With a discography that goes back before 1945, (and all those 
compialtion
albums) Miles Davis would prove a real nightmare for inclusion in the
current set up of PA (i.e. inclusion means ever legit album may be 
listed Hey, you could list it under the line-up Miles worked with for his

prog albums, he had a different band/quartet etc, for each phase. Anyway

even b4 his fusion stuff he still experimented with non jazz styles,

check sketches in spain apparently it had a hug classical influence on

his Jazz. All in all I think we don't need to list Miles Davis but

rather Miles Davis and his band/quartet he was working with at the time.
and reviewed), when perhaps we only want to list the post-1968 albums - 
and
then if you read the most recent Miles Davis biography covering his 
last 10
years of life, then you will discover Davis wanted to and did record 
with
Prince and rap artists.Rush also did rap on roll the bones, Genesis's later

albums wern't exactly prog. So that is largely irrelevent.

Personally all for the inclusion of the late 60's and 70's albums, but 
they
only reflect a small fraction of Davis's output. Don't forget Davis

discography is vast and when you mean a small fraction you're still

talking about at least 7 albums not just a couple of prog like David Bowie.

-------------

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: May 11 2006 at 04:38

If anyone is curious about finding out more about Miles Davis and his electric period; the official website address is www.miles-davis.com

-------------

Posted By: Tuzvihar
Date Posted: October 29 2006 at 17:16

Just to put it on the surface again. Let the discussion continue!

-------------
"Music is much like f**king, but some composers can't climax and others climax too often, leaving themselves and the listener jaded and spent."

Charles Bukowski

Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 06:48

Yes I bbelieve he shoould be but in prog-related and not jazz-rock.

Him and Herbie Hancock made some very progressive records in the 70's.

-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 08:13

Sean

If anywhere jazz rock fusion is the obvious place (although I'm hard pressed to identify a jazz rock as opposed a jazz funk or world fusion album - We Want Miles is perhaps the most obvious exception??? - rather than that ragbag of vagueries unfortunately labelled prog-related. If nothing else jazz rock fusion will be the most obvious place to look for Davis on this site.

Posted By: philippe
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 08:24

Sean Trane wrote:

Yes I bbelieve he shoould be but in prog-related and not jazz-rock.

I think about proto-prog better than prog related! His electric period with ("bitches brew" and others) had a major impact in the developement of fusion jazz.

-------------

Posted By: oliverstoned
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 08:28

Yes indeed, conSidering that we must include the whole discography, proto-prog fits better, it's not prog-related at all.

Posted By: Alucard
Date Posted: October 30 2006 at 08:37

Everything that Miles recorded between 1969 and 1975 is Jazz Rock at it's best and worth inbeing included. BTW I am working on a Prog coulured Miles Davis Bio for an eventual inclusion.

-------------
Tadpoles keep screaming in my ear
"Hey there! Rotter's Club!
Explain the meaning of this song and share it"

Posted By: Sean Trane
Date Posted: October 31 2006 at 06:10

proto-prog would also fit me fine

-------------
let's just stay above the moral melee
prefer the sink to the gutter
keep our sand-castle virtues
content to be a doer
as well as a thinker,
prefer lifting our pen
rather than un-sheath our sword

Posted By: Eetu Pellonpaa
Date Posted: October 31 2006 at 09:13

He should be included, but both proto prog and prog related definitions refer to "rock" bands. I think it would be good to just let him be presented as a jazz artists, not a rock musician. Thus jazz rock wouldn't be a good choice either IMO.

Posted By: Dick Heath
Date Posted: October 31 2006 at 09:24

May be there is a case to create a special category for very special musicians such as Miles Davis, which argubly don't fit into established categories. I would be very much against his inclusion in proto-prog and related. e.g. Extra special musician; any future addition would have to go through this type of debate/soul-searching and argued case before inclusion, before both "expert" and "lay" concensus is taken.

-------------
The best eclectic music on the Web,8-11pm BST/GMT THURS.
CLICK ON: http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php - http://www.lborosu.org.uk/media/lcr/live.php
Host by PA's Dick Heath.

Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: October 31 2006 at 11:47

I think he's too "progressive" for progressive rock hahaha.... he's mainly jazz for christ sake... maybe we could also include Coltrane (that would be nice hahaha)

-------------
Jesus Gabriel

Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: October 31 2006 at 11:52

FragileDT wrote:

memowakeman wrote:

I agree with that entirely

-------------
Jesus Gabriel

Posted By: S Lang
Date Posted: November 04 2006 at 06:51

MD belongs here IMO. He was a Jazz musician before '69, after which he not only created a different style that provided inspiration to Jazz-Rock legends trained under his guidance, but also released numerous albums that can only be seen as Jazz-Rock.

The Jazz fratenity chastised him for that and it should represent the time from which his albums should be included. "In a silent Way", "Bitches Brew", "Jack Johnson".

His previous Jazz output may not fit the site as it is today and a disclaimer to that effect should suffice. Prog-Related is not the place for someone who gave prominence to Jazz-Rock.

Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: November 07 2006 at 15:39

I just listened to some bitches brew and they surely blend some funk and rock.... unfortunately I found it too "free-style" to actually enjoy it... but surely it can sneak itself here among other jazz-fusion beasts

-------------
Jesus Gabriel

Posted By: S Lang
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 05:09

Chus wrote:

I just listened to some bitches brew and they surely blend some funk and rock.... unfortunately I found it too "free-style" to actually enjoy it... but surely it can sneak itself here among other jazz-fusion beasts

"Bitches Brew" is one of those albums that benefits from repeated listening, for there is so much depth to be found - eventually.

To deny recognition in Jazz-Rock is akin to offer a Queen a toilet seat in place of the throne.... Proto/Related suggestions offend enormously.

Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 12:38

S Lang wrote:

"Bitches Brew" is one of those albums that benefits from repeated listening, for there is so much depth to be found - eventually.

To deny recognition in Jazz-Rock is akin to offer a Queen a toilet seat in place of the throne.... Proto/Related suggestions offend enormously.

Certainly.. I agree with that... his jazz-fusion work can't be denied.

-------------
Jesus Gabriel

Posted By: micky
Date Posted: November 09 2006 at 12:49

hmmm

a huge fan of his earler jazz works...

have noticed over the years though a big jazz fan I care little for fusion yet he belongs here in jazz-rock. A no brainer in my book.

-------------
The Pedro and Micky Experience - When one no longer requires psychotropics to trip

Posted By: S Lang
Date Posted: November 17 2006 at 04:55

Dick Heath wrote:

Sean

Totally agree with you Dick. I feel that at times Sean(Hugues) is completely off the planet, making comments on the run in order to review another artist(s) - and I don't mean to offend here. To suggest that Proto, or Related is suitable to MD is hard to digest.

BTW, We Want Miles is a fantastic double album and the tune "Jean-Pierre" was copied by McLaughlin, Jan Akkerman, Pat Metheny, John Scofield and perhaps many more.

Posted By: Seyo
Date Posted: November 19 2006 at 05:41

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!

Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: December 17 2006 at 13:05

let's bring this discussion up again.... I wholeheartly agree for his inclusion... since I learnt that people like Chick Corea, Lenny White, Billy Cobham, John McLaughin and others were Davis' alumnis, I understood his influence on fusion. At first i was familiar with his jazz work, but I got a hold of Bitches Brew (which strangely enough I dismissed before) and, although I found it still to be an acquired taste, deserves a place in the archives

-------------
Jesus Gabriel

Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: December 18 2006 at 22:49

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

Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: December 19 2006 at 11:29

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




-------------
Jesus Gabriel

Posted By: Sasquamo
Date Posted: December 19 2006 at 21:19

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?

Posted By: akin
Date Posted: December 27 2006 at 07:33

No, a Jazz artist with two or three Jazz-Rock albums

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 20:34

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.

-------------

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 20:53

akin wrote:

No, a Jazz artist with two or three Jazz-Rock albums

Your looking at least dozen Davis did fusion right up till his death. I only found this out recently his alums in the 80s are categorised as fusion and are electric although they nowhere as good as his 70s works. Also if you look at his albums in the 60s (E.S.P onwards) prior to In a Silent Way they are all proto-fusion therefore proto-prog meaning Miles davis career from 1965 onwards has relevance to this website - half of his career.

1949-1964 Jazz

1965-1990 Proto-prog/Prog

-------------

Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 20:55

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

-------------
Jesus Gabriel

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:02

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.

-------------

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:06

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.

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:15

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.

-------------

Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:19

^^or Gryphon

-------------
Jesus Gabriel

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:22

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.

-------------

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:22

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

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.

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:26

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.

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:30

Atavachron wrote:

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

According to your logic then neither should Univers Zero, Art Zoyd Jean Michel Jarre, Mike Oldfield and Tangerine Dream be allowed on this website.

No it wouldn't since books and websites that I read categorise them all as Prog rock. The word 'rock' in prog rock is a little inaccurate since it is so much more than that, but that is the problem when you start putting labels on music. But nevertheless your definition of prog needs to be re-examined, because you'll find many more prog artists out there that are not rock.

-------------

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:35

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

Atavachron wrote:

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

According to your logic then neither should Univers Zero, Art Zoyd Jean Michel Jarre, Mike Oldfield and Tangerine Dream be allowed on this website.

Again with books and websites?...forget that stuff. Listen to the music, listen to other music of the same era, listen to who took from whom and what styles wre being imitated or expanded on. THAT"S music history, not the endless slew of media information, or some journalist or "expert" who heard that Miles invented fusion and so assumes it must be true.

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:35

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.

Sorry magazines films and websites written by musicologists. And if we just go by whats in our heads then this website will fall to pieces since each one of us would not have a consistent idea of prog.

And please don't get personal about me, were discussing Miles Davis here not mudslinging each other.

-------------

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 21:46

Atavachron wrote:

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

Atavachron wrote:

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

According to your logic then neither should Univers Zero, Art Zoyd Jean Michel Jarre, Mike Oldfield and Tangerine Dream be allowed on this website.

According to you I should 'think for myself' by just following your opinion even if its at odds with everyone. This isn't just some journalist who shaped my opinion, it was a consistent theme that was unanimous.Much like this website, why are you here, since all the styles of prog have been labelled by others according to you music should not be named because its all opinion, hey why stop there we could say the same with mathematics, physics, chemistry. According to you I shouldn't take my doctors advice even when I get a second opinion since I'm not 'thinking for myself'. There are informed and uninformed opinions, I listen to those with informed opinions not those who are uninformed.

Other musicians contributed to fusion sure Zappa, Tony Williams Soft Machine. But Davis is the one that gave its direction.

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 22:54

Atavachron wrote:

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

According to your logic then neither should Univers Zero, Art Zoyd Jean Michel Jarre, Mike Oldfield and Tangerine Dream be allowed on this website.

I agree completely with this last comment. It makes some sense for them to be inlcuded here (stretching it a little bit, specially with master Jarre whose music I love but it's not too "rocky")... but it would make even more sense not to have them on PA.

-------------

Posted By: The T
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 22:59

Sorry..... it's also then a matter of semantics (for the hundreth time)

We can't agree what "progressive" means... why would be agree on what "rock" means?

I guess this discussion has no end.... For some of us have some pre-conceived ideas of what prog and rock are, some think completely different. I have said it before: there are bands like ELP that have some pieces with absolutely no "rock" in them... but most of their output is rock, and prog rock at that, so it makes sense.. But when the artist's work is 80% jazz and less than 10% rock, I don't see any coherence in his inclusion in the archives. But that's me. Luckily, we disagree. If we didn't, this website would DIE.

-------------

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 23:02

Mind you I've read in some places prog rock being called progressive music.

But your right diversity of opinions is a healthy thing especially in this website.

-------------

Posted By: Atavachron
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 23:11

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

According to you I should 'think for myself' by just following your opinion even if its at odds with everyone. ]

We should all think for ourselves by following what *we believe* to be true or have found to be accurate based on the weight of evidence. But this evidence must come from your own listening and findings, not from anyone else-- not from me, him, her, PA, not anyone. If after this research, you happen to agree with a majority of writers that, indeed, an assertion is true, then more power to you. Otherwise, it's basically just hearsay

Posted By: Chus
Date Posted: January 04 2007 at 23:19

there's no doubt he is fusion.... although I admit that it's in a different vein from many other fusion bands listed here (taking more from funk rhythms and such)... I still have to listen to many of his albums but there's no doubt that Miles did fusion... and people should know there are no preconceived sounds in fusion

-------------
Jesus Gabriel

Posted By: Cheesecakemouse
Date Posted: January 05 2007 at 00:09

Atavachron wrote:

Cheesecakemouse wrote:

According to you I should 'think for myself' by just following your opinion even if its at odds with everyone. ]

Look I know how to think for myself I'm merely backing up my argument, you see I you can back it up it has weight if you do not have anything to back it up its pointless. You could sayanything about anything like Miles Davis is electroinca, or that its heavy metal, the only thing you'll convince people is that your a loon.

I'm not saying your a loon all I'm saying is you can't say random things without backing it up. Like you saying Miles Davis fusion is not fusion just because you think so, is not constructive.

-------------

Posted By: OGTL
Date Posted: January 06 2007 at 02:17

With bands included like "Iron Maiden" and "The Doors" I don't think ti would hurt at all.