Dakryn's Batshit Theory of the Week

http://music.msn.com/miles-davis/story/review/?icid=MUSIC2&GT1=28102

Miles Davis' double album "Bitches Brew," released 40 years ago, was and is one of the most important records in jazz history. Initially greeted by older critics and fans as heresy, the set combined confident, forceful improvisation, rock rhythms and state-of-the-art studio technology alien to jazz loyalists. The iconic trumpeter's willingness to step right over any stylistic lines that listeners or critics might have drawn proved both shocking and prescient.

Davis and his collaborators were inventing an entirely new form of music—jazz-rock fusion—but nothing his band members did on their own, before or since, sounded anything like it. And its mysterious pull lingers. As writer Greg Tate put it in a 2007 essay, "'Bitches Brew' remains the undiscovered country today because you can still hear it anew every time."

A newly released 40th anniversary edition of the project reminds us just how powerful - and divisive - a "Brew" this was.

SELLING OUT

Miles' move toward electric music was as much about commerce as art—a fact even the trumpeter admitted. In partnership with Clive Davis, the head of Columbia Records at the time, he set out to win over young listeners, and in the process break into larger concert venues. And while an album featuring 26-minute instrumentals influenced by free jazz and avant-garde electronic music could hardly be considered a "concession" to anyone or anything, jazz critics scorned the electric instruments and the lack of swing, while rock fans flocked to see Miles' amped-up quintet at the Fillmores East and West. And upon its release, "Bitches Brew" (the sessions for which began the day after the Woodstock festival ended) went gold, and remains one of Davis' most popular albums to this day.

JAZZ FOR DEADHEADS

"Bitches Brew" is a swirling, psychedelic storm of sound. Davis' trumpet is definitely the lead instrument, but he's fighting for space alongside electric guitar, two bassists (one acoustic and one electric), multiple drummers and percussionists, several electric keyboardists, saxophone and bass clarinet. Songs arise gradually, building out of what sometimes sounds like unfocused jamming, and they end the same way. But when the band builds up a head of steam, as on "John McLaughlin," they muster all the power of the Grateful Dead, who were also peaking in 1969. Indeed, "Bitches Brew" is almost a jazz counterpart to the San Francisco band's pivotal "Live/Dead," with the title track serving as Miles' own equivalent to the Dead's shape-shifting "Dark Star." Jazz fans weren't ready for it, but neither were rock fans.

THE STUDIO AS INSTRUMENT

Traditionally, jazz albums featured complete takes of songs, recorded live in the studio. Miles and producer Teo Macero broke new ground on "Bitches Brew," having band members jam on minimalist motifs and harmonic sketches rather than full compositions, generating raw material that was chopped up and reshaped after the fact, creating rhythm loops and bringing instruments up and down in the mix. Nobody knew what they had until they were finished putting all the pieces together. This is especially true of "Pharaoh's Dance" and "Bitches Brew," the side-long tracks that make up the original first disc of the two-LP set issued in 1970. Another track, "John McLaughlin," is an excerpt from a take of "Bitches Brew" that earned its own spot on the final album. Davis biographer John Szwed would subsequently call the album Miles' "Sgt. Pepper."

THE FATHER OF FUSION

Though it was never truly imitated (and certainly never duplicated), "Bitches Brew" was the catalyst for a massive upheaval of the jazz landscape. In the years that followed its release, various players from the sessions (not all of whom were part of Miles' touring band) spun off into their own groups, taking some of his ideas about collective improvisation and the value of electronic— especially amplification—with them. Saxophonist Wayne Shorter and keyboardist Josef Zawinul formed Weather Report; guitarist John McLaughlin led the Mahavishnu Orchestra; and keyboardist Chick Corea put together Return to Forever. All these bands had hit albums and sold out concerts worldwide in the '70s, frequently outselling Davis himself.

FOR THOSE WHO THINK YOUNG

Miles' exploration of rock rhythms was part of a larger fascination with youth culture and style, inspired by his one-year marriage to Betty Mabry (Betty Davis), a singer-songwriter 20 years his junior. She dressed him in ultra-hip fashions and introduced him to Jimi Hendrix and Sly Stone; he tried to set up collaborations with both men, but Stone was too fried on drugs to make it happen, and Hendrix died before he and Davis could get into the studio together. Still, the influence of Hendrix, Stone and James Brown began to take root on the trumpeter's 1968 album "Filles de Kilimanjaro" on 1969's "In a Silent Way," and can be heard all over Miles' music between 1970 and his first retirement in 1975.

TURN IT UP TO 11

Onstage, Miles was still playing with a basic quintet in 1969 and 1970, occasionally adding percussionist Airto Moreira or guitarist John McLaughlin. In the studio, though, a track might have two drummers and as many as three keyboardists, creating an ocean of sound or a thunderous roar, as needed. And as he moved from jazz clubs like Chicago's Plugged Nickel to rock venues like the Fillmores in New York and San Francisco, he started employing major amplification, even playing his trumpet through a wah-wah pedal. If he was going to be opening for Neil Young and Crazy Horse, as he did in March 1970, he had no choice.

THE SUPERGROUP THAT NEVER WAS

When Jimi Hendrix's Band of Gypsys played their first show on New Year's Eve 1969/70, Miles was in the audience. But the trumpeter's eagerness to collaborate with rock stars never quite bore fruit. The planned session with Hendrix fell apart at the last minute, reportedly over money; a similar live collaboration with Eric Clapton and Jack Bruce never happened, either; and though Davis visited Sly Stone at home, nothing came of that, either. It wasn't until the end of 1987 that Davis' rock dreams came true, as he jammed onstage with Prince at a New Year's Eve concert at Paisley Park.

To celebrate the album's 40th Anniversary, Sony has repackaged it in several ways: There's a three-disc version that appends a 1970 concert from Tanglewood, Mass., as well as a deluxe box that includes that three-disc set, the original album on double vinyl, and a DVD of a November 1969 Copenhagen concert. The four-disc "Complete Bitches Brew Sessions," originally released in 1998, included many tracks from other 1969-70 studio dates; that's now also part of the "Genius of Miles Davis" box, which compiles eight such "complete sessions" boxes (43 discs of material in all) in a trumpet case, with a replica mouthpiece, a lithograph and a T-shirt, all for only $1,200.
 
Yup. Right down to enjoying a juicy, fatty, delicious cheeseburger or a real cigarette only in an underground market.
Utterly, utterly eerie.



Absolutely right.
Though I would say that there is also a 3rd camp(albeit smaller), who have read her works; but who did so too early or just didn't grasp it. They then go to college and get immersed in academia and somehow get brainwashed to believe in the whole "government is good, capitalism is bad" bullshit.
And then, sadly they consider themselves more educated and view Rand as just a "phase".
Sad.



Or they are more educated and realize her ideas are pretty sophomoric and her writing amateurish. "Like a community college dropout trying to do philosophy" is a great description.

I've read Atlas and Fountainhead. I think government is terrible, that no government should exist in fact, and still think Rand is a joke.

She's not taken seriously in philosophical circles because she's not a serious philosopher. She's taken seriously almost solely by people whose only experience reading "philosophy" is Rand and are totally unfamiliar with sound and well-expressed ideas by people far smarter, more rational, and accurate in their descriptions of the human condition than her.
 
Yeah, calling Ayn Rand ( a proven Russian-American novelist, philosopher, playwright and screenwriter ) a joke is a very intelligent first post.

Hooker with a penis, man!
 
Or they are more educated and realize her ideas are pretty sophomoric and her writing amateurish. "Like a community college dropout trying to do philosophy" is a great description.

I've read Atlas and Fountainhead. I think government is terrible, that no government should exist in fact, and still think Rand is a joke.

She's not taken seriously in philosophical circles because she's not a serious philosopher. She's taken seriously almost solely by people whose only experience reading "philosophy" is Rand and are totally unfamiliar with sound and well-expressed ideas by people far smarter, more rational, and accurate in their descriptions of the human condition than her.

Hello, I am Pessimism. You're going to have to do better than that to dismiss adherents here - but that's ok, I like you :)
 
She's not taken seriously in philosophical circles because she's not a serious philosopher. She's taken seriously almost solely by people whose only experience reading "philosophy" is Rand and are totally unfamiliar with sound and well-expressed ideas by people far smarter, more rational, and accurate in their descriptions of the human condition than her.

Such as who? The Sex Pistols?

The more rational part I very highly doubt. Aristoteleans even acknowledge her as a valid expansion of his ideas.
 
So a recent offshoot of Aristotelian based thinkers based on an archaic school of philosophy that is completely wrong about the physical makeup of the world thinks Rand is grand.

Fucking sweet.
 
Essentially yes. Without going into deep specifics on why I believe so, I will say that the average American is a lazy voter. Furthermore they are spoon-fed from our crappy media which is typically biased towards one side or another during any form of election (this certainly doesn't help the lazy aspect). Since most people do not go and hunt for information about "offshoot" political parties/people, they tend to either vote out of habit or misinformation. There is the odd occurrence of an offshoot candidate popping up and garnering attention, but even then their chances of winning a large scale election are slim - and because their views somewhat overlap with other primary party candidates, the term "wasting your vote" became synonymous with essentially choosing to vote for the lesser evil in any given race.

I think you should always vote for who you believe would do a good job given their persona, track record, and core values. Sometimes though, you have to deal with what your given when a major enemy appears (Bush you mother fucker
Aaarrrghhh.gif
) and vote for the party that stands a chance.
 
Hey look, I'm quoting Atlas Shrugged!
Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt? I'm going to make a sandwich, but fir--Who is John Galt? Who is John Galt? Oh god, my factory! Who is John Galt?
 
And this is for anyone, is voting third party wasting a vote? I don't think so but others do.

Nope. Not at all. If you don't like where either of the "two" major parties are going, well then the choice is simple. You either vote for a third party or not at all(excepting of course when you get a rare maverick like Ron Paul).

If you don't want to settle for "the lesser of two evils" and if you don't like any of the third party candidates, then don't vote at all. Don't encourage the statist duopoly. For if you vote, you are outright condoning those whom you do not agree with; and I have no sympathy for you. They say that if you don't vote then you have no right to complain. This is piss poor reasoning. If you settle for "the lesser of two evils", then you have no right to complain.

The only wasted vote is a vote for the "lesser of two evils".
 
So a recent offshoot of Aristotelian based thinkers based on an archaic school of philosophy that is completely wrong about the physical makeup of the world thinks Rand is grand.

Fucking sweet.

No, it makes her just as legitimate a thinker as any of the Greek original three.

Hey look, I'm quoting Atlas Shrugged!

Hey look! I'm quoting the Communist Manifesto!

I don't know shit about economics or human nature and I have nothing but contempt for the truth, but hey I sure got me some humdingers.
 
Not voting at all is a trend I would like to stop in America. History has shown that it doesn't matter if you choose not to vote for one of the two major parties, because one of the major parties always wins. Even currently, with record low turnouts, the only parties that stand to win are either Democratic or Republican.

Not voting is not a valid option.

Granted, by not voting for a party you do not agree with, you are making a personal statement that you do not condone all of the practices a given candidate may hold (which is excellent in my opinion, and something I can personally respect). That uncast vote however does not help or hinder the system in any way though, as parties are still able to win by means of the votes that were cast.

The only way to stop a two party system is by means of spreading knowledge. This, in our current climate, is just not going to happen (statistically at least). Unless a rogue billionaire comes around and starts up an independent news network that rivals the 83% market that Fox news has globally, then it will take a lot of hard work. I do my part on this end, I direct people to credible new sources, teach people how to read between the lines and etc. There is a reason people don't like to follow politics :):cough:: they think it's bullshit ::cough:: ), it's up to those who want to help the world to change their minds. Whether they are going to be biased in their teaching or not I certainly cannot say.

And frankly, you have the right to complain about who you are voting for. Running for office in this day and age is incredibly expensive, and impossible for most (if not all). You can agree and disagree with the positions a candidate takes and still endorse them (or "settle" as you might say). To think otherwise is, well... foolish.



No, it makes her just as legitimate a thinker as any of the Greek original three.
No, it doesn't. Having people who share a root or two with Aristotle who consider her views as an expansion is not the same as being on par with "the main three". And frankly, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are not the whole of Greek philosophy. Plato's works are... god, so hard to swallow. And we must remember that modern Aristotelian's do not hold ideas that Aristotle himself would have held. They work not with transcribed idea's, but evolved ones that are rooted in the modern workings of psychology and physics - they are wildly different in application and text. Dare I say the only thing Aristotelian about said modern thinkers is their school's name. To say Rand is an expansion of modern Aristotelian idea's is to say that my toolshed is akin to my barn (which at one point was built with influences of Victorian architecture!); it's stupid.


Hey look! I'm quoting the Communist Manifesto!

Communists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of a classless and stateless society, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

In all seriousness I was just shitting on her ability to actually write fiction. She is in fact a terrible writer, I mean fuck were those books dragging.
 
No, it doesn't. Having people who share a root or two with Aristotle who consider her views as an expansion is not the same as being on par with "the main three". And frankly, Socrates, Plato and Aristotle are not the whole of Greek philosophy. Plato's works are... god, so hard to swallow. And we must remember that modern Aristotelian's do not hold ideas that Aristotle himself would have held. They work not with transcribed idea's, but evolved ones that are rooted in the modern workings of psychology and physics - they are wildly different in application and text. Dare I say the only thing Aristotelian about said modern thinkers is their school's name. To say Rand is an expansion of modern Aristotelian idea's is to say that my toolshed is akin to my barn (which at one point was built with influences of Victorian architecture!); it's stupid.

She wouldn't have formulated her ideas if not for his school of thought. She cites him as her main influence and she does acknowledge that her views are a pretty drastic offshoot, putting it mildly.
What's stupid would be to just dismiss that.

Communists! Fuck me. I mean, say what you like about the tenets of a classless and stateless society, Dude, at least it's an ethos.

No it is not. It's a surrender of will and individuality. Human beings and property are indivisible(since for starters you are your own property). Anything else is brainwashing bullshit with a regressive, slave-minded agenda.

In all seriousness I was just shitting on her ability to actually write fiction. She is in fact a terrible writer, I mean fuck were those books dragging.

That's all well and good then. Atlas Shrugged, like life, is not for everyone. I don't know how old you were when you read it but I found the story incredibly intriguing and suspenseful. Sure, she might get too preachy(like Tarantino X5) and she may repeat herself but you have to remember where she came from and what she DID NOT want to relive.

Regardless the impact of her philosophy cannot possibly be denied.

I'm just curious though; you seem like a pretty smart guy. And even though you don't like Rand's writings you seem pretty aware of how politics work. I'm just curious where you stand. You don't seem like the usual statist; and if you aren't a libertarian of sorts, where do you stand???
 
I see you didn't grab the Big Lebowski reference.

I've read Rand on four exact occasions: the 5th 9th and 12th grades, and then on and off for about a year straight of college. Each time it was... just, unbearable. Granted it may be personal preference, but after sloughing through all of it, I was left a bitter taste. Frankly her journal entries were the only things that kept my attention, what with her incorrect knowledge of Nietzsche and all that. She is really... well... I don't know how to put it. "Sociopathic" isn't the right word, but god damn some of her statements are ethically questionable (in my opinion).

As it stands, no two libertarians I have ever met have even come to an agreeable definition on what libertarianism is. If we are to agree that the basic tenet of the libertarian concept, I suppose that would equate strictly to an interpretation of the free will vs determinism argument. To that I say "I do not believe in total free will" (at least how it is classically defined - we've always got to remember our definitions).

Cyth, you want to jump in? You've got more info on the tenets of this stuff than I.