Talk:Miles Davis/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Profile Image

Di-no source The profile image's url doesn't exist any more. Unless it is provided soon, it will be deleted — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sks7910 (talk • contribs)

Maybe - but this template shouldn't be here. pablo 15:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You need to bring up your concerns over at commons; http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Miles_Davis_by_Palumbo.jpg is where the image file lives. pablo 15:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Section "Sidemen"

Would anybody here object if this section were deleted? It is incomplete, inaccurate, and, in my humble opinion, completely superfluous. Regards. 81.83.130.171 (talk) 19:46, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Considering that none of the members of the ten (TEN !) WikiProjects to whom this article is of the "utmost importance" have raised any objections against (or even reacted to) the above proposal (which has been posted here a week ago), I will now delete this section. Regards. 81.83.136.17 (talk) 13:34, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

We might want to revisit this. I don't think that the section should be restored as it existed, but the information needs to be verified, expanded, and incorporated into the "Legacy" section. One of the reasons this was FA delisted was a lack of discussion of Miles' legacy, so it's counterproductive to delete information that relates to this. His ability to recognize and develop young talent has been a major shaper of jazz history. This needs to be addressed in the article, but referenced and in narrative form, not as the kind of non-informative list that existed previously. Dementia13 (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead blows. I'm talking chunks.

I'm reading detailed descriptions of a few random events which occurred a few years ago, while the actual life and accomplishments of Miles Davis are seemingly tacked on to one end of it as if it were an afterthought. My favorite Rudy Ray Moore quote comes to mind: "Bitch! Are you for real?"RadioKAOS (talk) 16:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

So fix it. --Pmsyyz (talk) 14:49, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

May be easier said than done: we seem to have a protective editor who undoes everyone else's revisions. Actually right now it's not horrible. It starts out fine, aside from a weasel phrase, but the last paragraph merely repeats a couple of the least interesting items from the body of the article. I suspect someone really, really wants them to be in the lede. Timothy Horrigan (talk) 01:29, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I undo everyone's unexplained "revisions". Dan56 (talk) 01:38, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree, the summary at the beginning of the article is way to short and doesn't convey much information at all. It's supposed to be concise and informative, but currently it's only concise. Señorsnazzypants (talk) 20:30, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Dan, do you simply delete "revisions" on principle when they're unexplained, or do you individually evaluate each revision? I do a lot of copy editing here, and I often do revisions a paragraph at a time, making several changes when I do so. This is much more efficient, because the page-loading times and the recent tendency of Wikipedia's servers to choke make it impractical to do single revisions with individual explanations. I revise in bulk, and I can't include a rationale when a single revision may include a dozen or more grammar, spelling, and stylistic corrections. This subject is far too important for its article to rate as "C"-class. Will you allow it to be improved, or not? Dementia13 (talk) 15:46, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Most edits on WP articles are unexplained, that is, not given an edit summary. If the edit seems plainly sensible, in line with the guidelines and includes a new ref when needed, there is no problem. RadioKAOS (above) does not seem to get the core concept that we all volunteer our time and contribute what we can. Whining about an article's standard gets us nowhere. Span (talk) 21:27, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed, but he wasn't just complaining, he was angry because someone removed the "lead too short" tag with no good reason. The tag was and still is justified. A subject this important needs to be at featured article status. I plan to help, but I've just found two other articles in similar straits, so I'll be juggling. Dementia13 (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

Downbeat or Ebony?

I believe the reference to Cab Calloway's "devastating interview" might be referring to a piece written by Calloway called "Is Dope Killing Our Musicians?" published in Ebony in Feb 1951, not anything in Downbeat. I hope someone else can verify this and make the necessary change. ChikeJ (talk) 19:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

First Great Quintet/Sextet section, Kind of Blue Section

The overlap on these two sections doesn't really make sense. I have a few points:

1) The first great quintet goes from 1955 when Coltrane joins, to 1957 when he leaves. The sextet is founded in 1958 when Cannonball joins, a lasts, obviously, until Kind of Blue is recorded in '59. Further, Kind of Blue is the milestone recording for the sextet, yet these appear to be covered in different sections.

2) Conceptually, there is not really a major departure from what was going on in 1955 until Miles rhythm section leaves in 1963. Eg., if you listen to the Prestige quintet recordings from 1956, and compare them to Someday My Prince Will Come (Miles Davis album), it is clear that Miles's over-all approach and concept are changing fairly gradually. Davis is improving and building on a concept and approach. Whereas, if you compare Someday My Prince to the Plugged Nickel recordings, there is a huge dramatic over-night difference.

3) The "Second Great Quintet" section should have the info about Hancock, Carter and Williams joining. This is the turning point.

I'm suggesting either:

a) combining these two sections, into "First Great Quintet and Kind of Blue"

OR

b) moving the sextet info, as well as the "modal" info, over to the Kind of Blue section. The album "Milestones" really should be included in the same section as "Kind of Blue". They have so much in common: recorded on Columbia, title track uses "modal" vamp harmony, Cannonball is present.

Maybe we need to drop the dates in the section headings, because its a little rigid and the evolution of the music doesn't conform exactly to the turn of a year.

My 2¢ BassHistory (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2013 (UTC)

The pioneer

In an earlier archived page a writer cites Larry Coryell's Eleventh House and Tony Williams' Lifetime as preceding Miles Davis' fusion era. This is chronologically incorrect. Miles began his transition toward funk in Filles de Kilimanjaro (recorded in 1968) and incorporation of rock elements in In a Silent Way (recorded in February, 1969). The Eleventh House began in 1973 and Lifetime began in 1969.Dogru144 (talk) 01:59, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Unanswered Question

"Davis' mother, Cleota Mae (Henry) Davis, wanted her son to learn the piano; she was a capable blues pianist but kept this fact hidden from her son. "

Without additional, or different, information, there is obviously a contradiction between his mother's desire for him to learn the piano, and her choice to conceal her abilities from him. Why did she conceal it from him? Can someone more knowledgeable than I please add a sentence to explain this? Pertinaxed (talk) 18:20, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Just watched an interview with Bill Boggs https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XnLblYNfIg where Miles states this fact again. He seems unable to give a reason either! -- ALGRIF talk 14:49, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Instruments

Most musician entries have a section about their preferred instruments, and particular designs built especially for them. Does anyone have any information of this type for Miles ? -- ALGRIF talk 14:51, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Genres in infobox

There are way too many genres in the infobox; Jazz subgenres. Genres in infobox should generally be limited to (a maximum of) four per Template:Infobox_musical_artist#genre. If all those genres are sourced in prose, then infobox should only have Jazz. --Lapadite (talk) 01:32, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

RIP Sir Miles

Whose idea was it to 'knight' him on his gravestone? Rothorpe (talk) 03:42, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Haven't seen this. However, my first thought would be that it was inspired by "Sir Duke". RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 17:39, 11 March 2015 (UTC)