The Sorcerer of Jazz | Hacker News Reader

The Sorcerer of Jazz

nybooks.com

47 pointstintinnabula15 comments

Fantastic, legendary musician, but a monster as a person; a man who turned some of his female fans into prostitutes and beat them when they didn't make enough money to sustain his heroin habit.

This is common with a lot of figures from the past, of course, from Picasso the wifebeater to Wagner the antisemite, Washington the slave owner, to Gary Glitter the child abuser.

To be fair to Washington, he was also the only slave-holding founding father to free his slave in his will and spoke against slavery. And this in an era when owning slave was considered normal.

It's different from Picasso for example who abused women in an era when it was not considered ok to do so by society.

Yet another reason to dispense with the idea of the 'self', which is illusory. No need to be conflicted about crediting the person with accomplishments like how talented, or tall, they are. You can simply appreciate their output on its own terms.

Washington was probably a lot more troubled by slavery and his culpability in it than most people are now.

'course, he beat women too...

http://connectnyc.globat.com/documents/Mad%20At%20Miles%20by...

"In Cheadle’s portrayal, Davis emerges as a sort of Don Draper of jazz: brooding, seductive, and radiantly opaque, a charismatic loner whose sometimes terrifying behavior, especially toward women, can be rationalized, if not forgiven, because it seems rooted in a history of suffering, and somehow connected to his mysterious powers as an innovator."

There's some implication of a relationship between genius, mystique, and abuse, that seems to let it slide somehow. "Rationalized".

I wonder, if we were talking about Miles Davis being a particularly gifted accountant, would the same behaviour be written off so poetically?

I listen to Miles Davis a lot but was not aware of that part of his history. Should it change anything? I'm not sure.

For me, personally, it doesn't take anything away from the music, but it certainly takes plenty from the man. And if we're going to discuss the history, it's just as important as any other trivia that colors the story.

It doesn't prevent me from enjoying his music though. I'm a proponent of decoupling the person and the ouvre. I can delight in his music and at the same time think he is a violent shitbag. It's not mutually exclusive.

If you appropriate the music you shouldn't call it his. And I agree to the extent that it was never his to begin with, standing on the shoulder of giants etc.

> It's not mutually exclusive.

Some would think it is. Death of the Author is a modern perspective. And again I agree, because concrete music is not as ephemeral as history, if that's the right word. I mean, history is unreliable, vague, abstracted, imaginary, indirect, something like that.

There are some purists left who are equated with Miles Davis. Christian Scott comes to mind as one of the modern greats for sure:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I73T9yLdoH0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m6u8UdpVsKM

Anyone know of a reference for "The keyboardist Joe Zawinul was aghast at Davis’s ruthless arrangement of “In a Silent Way,”... " part?

It is difficult to prove a statement like "..he pioneered hard bop.." wrong, but it is definitely a new view on the history of jazz in the post bop era.

Anyone know of a reference for "The keyboardist Joe Zawinul was aghast at Davis’s ruthless arrangement of “In a Silent Way,”... " part?

NYRB might be sharpening the rhetoric a bit, but there's a good interview with the personnel where they go over this:

http://www.miles-beyond.com/iaswbitchesbrew.htm ('bout halfway down the page)

I was drawn into electric Miles, much like Brian Eno, in the 80's. But ultimately became a bigger fan of his acoustic 1959-1963 sound.

Amazing career. Can't wait to see the movie.

I was just listening to Milestone when I found this as it happens.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com