From: rstump@itchy.geog.albany.edu (Roger Stump)
Newsgroups: rec.music.bluenote
Subject: Re: Miles and "commercialism" (was: Keith Jarrett in Sun [8/16] NYT)
Date: 23 Aug 92 23:56:01 GMT
Distribution: na
Organization: Syracuse University

mcgonig@eeserv.ee.umanitoba.ca (Gordon McGonigal) writes:
>jbart@oakhill.sps.mot.com (John Bartholomew) writes:
> >First, Davis was a complex character.  The man's accomplishments and 
> >contributions are beyond dispute, as is his insistence on dignified treatment
> >of black artists.  However, he clearly *was* interested in making his music
> >more palatable to the "wider audience" (whiter audience?) and for proof one
> >has merely to read the man's own words.  
  >[Details of "The Cool" sessions deleted for brevity]
> >...............................................  Davis puts an interesting
> >perspective on the foundations of this record and the reasons for its success.
  >[Miles' quotes explaining why The Cool recordings became so popular deleted]
> >The question is not, I submit, whether or not configuring ones art to appeal
> >to a wider audience makes it somehow "tainted," but rather whether or not the
> >end result (the music) stands critical scrutiny on its own merits.
> >John Bartholomew
>
>The quotes cited do not give any indication that Miles created The Cool with
>any intention of finding a wider (or "whiter" as you say) audience.   I find
>such a notion hard to believe.  I find it even harder to believe that Miles
>would admit it if it were his intention.   With respect to the time
>just a few years after those sessions Miles says:
>  Most white record producers just wanted to always make the shit sound
>  whiter, and so in order to keep it black, you had to fight them every
>  step of the way.
>In his autobiography Miles also talks about wanting to "get to young black
>kids with my music", but that is another time and story.
                          ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>Gord McGonigal                                  mcgonig@eeserv.ee.UManitoba.ca

I too remain unconvinced that Miles' main motivation in the "Birth of the
Cool" sessions was to make a whiter version of bebop, no matter what he 
(or Quincy Troupe) said in his autobiography.  Moreover, the "Birth of 
the Cool" sessions don't seem that relevant in a discussion of Miles and
commercialism; charges of the latter are most often directed at his post-60s
material (the other time and story to which Gord McGonigal alludes).  

A central issue with respect to these charges is one's definition of
commercialism.  I like the one suggested by Jarrett in his NYT article:  
a "commercial" artist is one who forsakes his own voice or vision in order 
to speak in cliches assumed to be palatable to a large "demographically-
correct" audience (i.e., one with lots of bucks to spend on CDs).  Simply 
selling lots of albums or appealing to a large audience doesn't make an 
artist "commercial."  Commercialism comes when the artist abandons his 
distinctive, personal voice.  Using this definition, I still think that 
Miles is an excellent example of an artist who did not sell out to 
commercialism -- that is, one who always maintained his own voice, even 
though he played in many different musical contexts, from bebop to doo-bop.
-- 
Roger W. Stump
University at Albany
rstump@itchy.geog.albany.edu