[Dixielandjazz] Miles - John - Steve

[Stephen Barbone]

"John Farrell" <stridepiano@tesco.net> wrote

>Steve Barbone made this startling claim :

>"I already know more about both the music of Miles Davis and the
persona
>that was Miles Davis than all of the DJML combined"

>I do not recall Steve asking me what I know about Miles Davis and his
music
>nor, I suspect, has he addressed a similar enquiry to every other
member of
>DJML. Without collecting this information then comparing it with his
own how
>on earth can Steve arrive at such a conclusion and expect it to be
taken
>seriously?

Basically John, because I personally knew Miles Davis, and most of the
sidemen who worked with him from about 1950 onward. I doubt most folks
on the list with rare exception (which I noted) come close to the
knowledge gained through that experience.

>This too is a puzzler :

>"the other real jazz musicians on the list"

>What is the difference between a jazz musician and a "real jazz
musician"?
>How do listmates determine to which category they belong?

If you have to ask, you'll never know.

As for this :

"the article was about the man, not a treatise on English Literature."

>The article was written in artsy-fartsy pseudo-intellectual prose,
>presumably to impress the more gullible reader. There was no analysis
of
>Miles' music, or his playing style, or the influence he had on other
>musicians - in summary as a jazz musician, real or otherwise, I read
nothing
>of any interest at all to me. No, the article was not about Miles
Davis, it
>was the author's self-indulgent exercise in showing off his collection
of
>high-flown phrases.

My my, the above is an example of the very thing the writer claims to
abhor.  "A self-indulgent exercise in showing off his collection of high
flown phrases."  The article was a book review, about a book on Miles'
life. How can one expect "analysis of Miles's music, or his playing
style, or the influence he had on other musicians" to be discussed in a
one page book review?  As I read the Book Review, I find it very
different from your characterization.

You "read nothing of any interest to me (you) at all".  Musical content,
"You're So Vain, You Probably Think This Song Is About You."

>In the heading to his piece giving rise to this thread Steve warned
>"purists" to delete it but did not explain what he meant by that word.
I
>therefore assumed that a purist was a person who preferred one style of

>music to the exclusion of all others. As that definition did not apply
to me
>I went right ahead and read Steve's posting. I sent a very short
response to
>the list, Steve now indicates that I should have hit my delete key
thereby
>labelling me as a purist after all.

As soon as you realized you were not interested, you could have deleted.
Why be masochistic? Why then send a mean spirited shot to the list about
something that did not interest you?  Is the list supposed to be about
"you"?

>And all these years I have been unaware
>of the fact - can there anything that you don't know, Steve?

Come now, would you define yourself as everything? We are both
insignificant know nothings in the general scheme of things.

Cheers,
Steve Barbone