[Dixielandjazz] Is Miles Davis Jazz?

[Edgerton, Paul A]

Jim Beebe invites comment:
> Let me ask the gallery...how many people will be buying Miles Davis 
> recordings 50 years from today.  I'll venture to say, not many. 
I think there have been and will continue be reasonably good sales of
Miles' recordings. Remember that Jazz is a niche market, so while sales
overall will be dismal, Miles will continue to outsell most artists. 


> Many of them are trite and boring.
And many of them are stylistic milestones (pun intended). Miles Davis was
for better or worse a restless innovator. Like Stravinsky or Picasso, he had
several different stylistic periods. Perhaps you find less to enjoy in one
of these periods than the others... Me too. Modal jazz, for example, became
trite and boring as a result of the way it was imitated by so many others.
But Miles' explorations in that area broke new ground and were certainly not
trite, and in my opinion definitely not boring.


> One the other hand all of Louis Armstrong's recordings are out there and 
> available. More and more people are buying Armstrong's recordings.
Sure. Louis worked primarily in one style throughout his career and mastered
it thoroughly. Some might even say he defined it. In their respective
styles, both Louis and Miles top the most-frequently-recommended lists. Both
continue to sell recordings, and that's why they continue to be in the jazz
bins at the local CD shop. Guys who don't sell don't get space; It's really
as simple as that. (That's _part_ of the reason why Columbia has dropped
Wynton Marsalis -- but you can bet that his CDs will remain in their
catalog.)


> Take a look at the top selling records in general over the years. Most of
> them are horrid crap.  Especially so in the more recent years.
Okay, I'll agree that there's a lot of schlock, and some of it has sold very
well. Record sales are a poor indicator of artistic merit. Have you noticed
how often older folks hate what younger folks like? (You've seen at least a
couple of generations of this by now, Jim.)


> But the relentless promotion from Miles himself, his record company
> and the brainwashed jazz media have placed him on a pedestal he
> doesn't deserve.
Eh? Miles has been dead for years. He ain't promoting nuthin'. The record
companies, on the other hand, still have his recordings for sale, still sell
them in reasonable numbers and thus will naturally continue to promote them.
That's just economic reality. I'm not touching the issue about "the
brainwashed jazz media," but (again, in my opinion) Miles certainly does
deserve his pedestal, as does Louis, and Bix, and Brownie, and Bunny...

I guess you're saying you don't like Miles' music, and don't think it
deserves to be held in such high esteem. You think that Louis' music is
better, and that it deserves even more attention that it gets. That's fine,
you're entitled to your view, but it is also true that a lot of people who
vote with their wallet take the opposite view. There are even a few people
like me who buy recordings of both of those guys. 

I think it would be a poorer world if either artist were dropped from the
catalog.

Paul Edgerton, who also recommends a bunch of other trumpet players