Jump to content

Talk:Miles Davis/Archive 4

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4


Personal life

I'm very surprised that this article carries so little information about Davis's personal life and relationships. It says he "rekindled his relationship with Cicely Tyson" but doesn't say anything about the first phase of this relationship. There is one brief reference to his first marriage to Betty Mabry. More to the point, Davis was a well-known wife-beater. There must be numerous sources for this information, so I would be very grateful if someone with knowledge of the subject could add it. --Viennese Waltz 07:54, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

Like with the above, I expected to find some mention of his personality. I have heard radio DJs (such as Dick Buckley) mention his interactions with, and attitude towards others in graphic detail. This includes the audience during shows, people who might speak to him at shows and elsewhere. Since this is not Davis' site, or some other tribute site, this ought to be included. Or maybe it's better to say that this ought not be blocked from inclusion. Arbalest Mike (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2014 (UTC)

I've added information I've found from the IMDb website and created a personal life section with it, but its come up in a blue box - could someone tell me how to avoid/get rid of this? thanx. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buffalo mozzarella (talk • contribs) 23:21, 6 July 2015 (UTC)

I reverted your addition. IMDb is not considered a reliable source because its content is user-generated. See WP:USERGENERATED. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 03:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)
This needs to be attended to. Even with all that is here, the article is half-complete. The life story of the man is at as interesting, and is as important to recall accurately and preserve, as his music. 50.54.232.217 (talk) 05:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

i believe it is best to predominantly focus on miles davis artistic life in this wiki entry. there is an extensive biography (or autobiography) of miles davis which details much more of his personal, non-musical life. i believe that book is a more appropriate platform for detailed personal life information. Rcross2 (talk) 23:26, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Miles Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:02, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Dan56's addition to the lead

Hey User:Binksternet, User:Greg Fasolino, User:Ilovetopaint, User:Myxomatosis57, User:OpenFuture, some help here would be great—I reverted an absurd edit to the lead made by User:Dan56, and predictably had it immediately reverted along with a block request and 'disruptive editing' warning. The lead (which is obviously quite brief, and doesn't even contain a biographical blurb as of now) provides a general overview of Davis's major phases and innovative periods, but Dan56 decided it made sense to add, of all things, one new lead paragraph about just his early 70s electric period (most likely because it appeals to his rock-fan sense of rock-oriented historical significance), including a rock critic's two cents, effectively marginalizing everything else about the man and his long, multifaceted career. As part of a comprehensive lead summary of Davis's career, a bit about the early 70s period would obviously be necessary, but this user seems uninterested in such completeness, so we have a blatantly preferential blurb with no surrounding context instead. Any consensus I could get to back me up on this would be appreciated, as Dan56 seems as ever intent on imposing his frame here. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 03:57, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I've yet to delve very deeply into Miles Davis but if these claims are true – "In the 1970s, Davis ... experimented with rock, funk, African rhythms, emerging electronic music technology, and an ever-changing lineup of musicians who played electric instruments. It alienated and challenged many in jazz. ... This electric period [began] with his 1969 studio album In a Silent Way and conclud[ed] with the 1975 concert recording Agharta" – I don't see why it can't be included. If he did more things that were especially notable or pioneering, then mention them as well. However, the wording is awkward. This immediately follows the first paragraph, which states he was an innovator between the 1940s and 1980s. What about the other decades?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 04:11, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
    • The claims are true. One could argue that the length of the paragraph is undue compared to the rest, but the better answer is to expand the others some and maybe trim this a bit. Drmies (talk) 04:14, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
      • Yes, it's true that Miles was a challenging/leading figure in jazz for 3+ decades. I agree that this series of edits by Dan56, dating from May 20 to May 22, put too much emphasis on the 1970s electric fusion period, but if the other influences were fleshed out, in a fully developed lead section, this quantity of 1970s text might be appropriate. I would remove the "according to Tingen" and "according to Christgau" bits from the lead section, which should be a summary of all the major published sources. Christgau is hardly the final arbiter of Miles' career. I would even go further and remove Gerald Early's name from the pre-existing lead section. Nobody argues against the idea that Miles was "one of the most influential and innovative musicians of the 20th century." Basically, the fix here is to have someone with a wide topic knowledge and a full bookshelf pore through the sources to make sure the article represents all the major points. Once that's done, the lead section deserves 3–4 paragraphs of summary, not just 2. Binksternet (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
      • I generally concur with Drmies and Binksternet. The paragraph seems fine and accurate per se, but does give undue weight to one period that is arguably NOT the most historically important. I cannot claim to be a Miles expert and jazz (while I dig it) is not my specialty; I own and enjoy albums from all of his periods. From a general music critic/fan perspective, certainly his most famous work is still "Kind of Blue" and while the electric period is very important, it does not deserve more space than his blue period. This would be like a David Bowie lead that emphasizes his '80s pop success to the detriment of his 1970s work, or a Johnny Cash lead that emphasizes his '90s collaborative comebacks over his 1950s-60s work, or a Radiohead lead that has a ton on the Kid A period and barely mentions the earlier work. I also agree with GentleCollapse16 that when working on an article lead, it's not a great idea to just add material related to one part of an artist's career, thus giving undue weight. Either flesh it all out, or leave it to someone who can. "If you want other periods of Davis' music represented, then add something." No, its the responsibility of the editor working on the article to not make the lead imbalanced. And if there's way more electric-period text in the article, then that should be addressed too, but it's not as problematic as the lead. Greg Fasolino (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Nonsense... not to you Binkersternet but the above editor. I added that paragraph almost a month ago, and this editor (as part of a series of incidents effectively shitting on my contributions, as I reported at WP:ANI recently) seemed to decide to remove it (with this uncivil edit summary, and again with this) just after I reverted their disruptive edits at another article ([1]). Otherwise, this paragraph has been here since May. Also I don't see how they object to quoting Robert Christgau when Gerald Early is also quoted. Like this article has numerous problems, even in the lead (which includes the certification level of Kind of Blue--big whoop), yet the editor singled out my contributions (sourced appropriately and neutral in wording)? Like WTF gives? If you want other periods of Davis' music represented, then add something. Don't just shit on my addition like you have a habit of doing elsewhere. The paragraph summarizes pretty well inarguably the artist's most controversial period. Two sentences summarizing a nine-paragraph section in the body covering "Electric Miles". You're in the wrong buddy. Dan56 (talk) 04:41, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"If you want other periods of Davis' music represented, then add something." This is nonsense—an editor has just as much a responsibility to remove overemphasized information that distorts the lead summary of the article's contents as they do to contribute sourced information. This is not just about adding information to a lead, but making sure that information isn't unjustifiably present while other equally pertinent information is left out, simply because "the editor wasn't interested in adding that stuff". In words you're more liable to grasp—it wouldn't make sense to include an entire individual paragraph about Band of Gypsys in the current Jimi Hendrix article lead relative to the amount of writing all his other work warrants in that lead. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
"remove overemphasized information that distorts the lead summary" - This is bullshit. There have been at least two books written completely devoted to this period, not including Davis biographies, while the section on it may be the longest in this whole article. How many books have been written about his "blue period" or his orchestral recordings with Gil Evans? Dan56 (talk) 07:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • How many books are devoted to each the Beatles' individual albums? It would make little sense to write, for example,
"The Beatles are the greatest band ever. They revolutionized the landscape of popular music with the albums Rubber Soul, Revolver, Sgt. Pepper, Magical Mystery Tour, The White Album, and Abbey Road. During the recording of Abbey Road, the band experimented with the Moog synthesizer, though critics were alienated by Ringo's contributions. Nonetheless, their body of work remains one of the most acclaimed and influential of all time. In 2016, Sgt. Pepper was awarded Triple Platinum certifications."
Sure does read awkwardly, doesn't it?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:07, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
@Ilovetopaint:, I don't see the comparison. Davis' electric period was "his most controversial", as the source I cited before says, which warrants what I wrote if you think the certification of Kind of Blue still belongs. Dan56 (talk) 08:12, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • My point is that the text about his electric period comes from nowhere and is gone just as fast. Nothing leads into it. It's just
"He did all these amazing things throughout his life - one of the really amazing things happened in the 1970s - his album from 1958 is his best-selling."

When you take away the middle part, it flows acceptably. That I'm still wondering why his electric period was so important should be testament enough to the fact that the paragraph confuses more than it clarifies. If it read like

"He created a lot of music, but the 1970s were the most significant"

then that would make sense too. But it's not written like that. In the opening paragraph, equal weight is given to all of Davis' eras. Which means it makes no sense to a layman why there would be so many words focused on just one of them.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 08:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

  • I agree that the paragraph places undue weight on the 1970s. It must be expanded upon, otherwise it should not remain. I added an {{elucidate}} tag to acknowledge this. But it seems to have been reverted. Even a sentence or two to explain what he did in other decades would be enough to mend this issue. Again, I don't know much about Davis, and after reading the lead, I'm left wondering "what did he do in the '40s, '50s, '60s, and '80s?" It gives me the impression that what he did before and after was comparatively unremarkable, so much so that it's not really worth mentioning. I'm pretty sure that wasn't the case.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:27, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Note - The section in the body on Davis' electric period is one of, if not, the longest sections in the article on any of Davis' periods. Dan56 (talk) 04:44, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Agree with User:Binksternet and User:Ilovetopaint: My point isn't that Miles' early 70s isn't a profoundly important phase of his career—certainly it is, and as I said above: As part of a comprehensive lead summary of Davis's career, a bit about the early 70s period would obviously be necessary. My point is precisely that the lead requires a comprehensive summary of Davis's four decade career, not a glowing blurb about one 5 year period that happens to stand out to a particular editor. In the absence of that 1-2 large paragraph addition (and I'm not about to dive into that myself, any takers?), it's completely out of place and unrepresentative of the full contents in the article. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:23, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Neither of them agreed with your removing of it. The only thing that stands out is your disgusting attitude, baseless accusations, and constant shitting on my contributions. Like you're really offending me! I'm done being nice. Typing this is fairly easy, so I will: stop trolling my edits and forcing your own biases on the areas I improve! Dan56 (talk) 06:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Again, the only editor seemingly stalking the other's edits on a daily basis and altering them regardless of their merits is YOU. I have no personal interest in your editing history except insofar as you frequently frame articles and edits I happen to come across according to your preference while presenting them as objective fact and dismissing opposing arguments from other editors. I remind you, again, that Wiki is about democratic editor contributions. Get outside for a walk and fresh air sometime. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I have 13 featured articles and 55 good articles to my credit, so like you know, whatever helps you sleep at night buddy ;) Dan56 (talk) 06:38, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Like I said, you oughtta get outside for some fresh air. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
You're not going to win this argument. My paragraph stays. Better luck next time ;) Dan56 (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

An aside

You're both great editors with lots of credits, and both of you are not acting like it. Y'all please figure out how to get along. Thank you. Drmies (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Not interested in pursuing this immaturity any further, but:

"You're not going to win this argument. My paragraph stays. Better luck next time ;) Dan56 (talk) 06:42, 11 June 2016 (UTC)"

This is the mentality I'm referring to: certainly these kinds of possessive ego games don't belong on Wikipedia—once the editing of information becomes a personal hobby and source of recognition ("hey look how many trophy—er, I mean featured article I have to my name!") the likelihood of measured and fair discussion amongst editors is not the person's primary motivation. We're trying to make this page better, not "win" an argument and get "my paragraph" included on a page, Dan56. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 06:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
So far you're the only one objecting to this paragraph's inclusion, yet (as usual) misrepresenting who's trying to do what or agreeing with who. your contributions to this article consistent of a little rearranging of text ([2]) and now removing some one else's sourced material. Like really, my adding that paragraph is more than what you've done to improve this article, so if you don't want to pursue any immaturity anymore, stop trolling articles I improve and expand (i.e. Maxinquaye, There's a Riot Goin' On, To Pimp a Butterfly) to spite me. Like what else am I to believe when you take perfectly valid and sourced information (in an article littered with unsourced material) and don't even make an attempt at moving it elsewhere or anything, just removing it completely! Dan56 (talk) 07:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
This discussion doesn't belong on this talk page, but I won't have my edits misconstrued so blatantly, so: every page you've listed include (or included, before you reverted them) positive and sourced contributions from me, many of which you reverted for exactly the reason you've accused me of. I helped put most of To Pimp a Butterfly's #Music and Lyrics section together, for example. You, on the other hand, did such positive things as continually revert my inclusion of an aggregate critical score in the ratings box without reason (because normal Wiki users arent smart enough to understand what an aggregate score means?) and getting a few genre tags included—I believe I got support from you on one, actually. On the Sly Stone article, I added/changed a few key sentences in the lead to more fully and accurately reflect the sourced contexts of the article, and received an immediate reversion from you without explanation, which you later allowed back on (because you realized you reverted them for no defensible reason?). On Maxinquaye, my initial edits seemingly provoked you to launch a full-scale project to turn the article into your next Featured, and complaints about your handling of the article from 2 or 3 other users were met with unflinching dismissal on your part. And on plenty of other articles you've never edited before, my initial contributions are met immediately with your reversions or modifications, which makes me wonder how you seem to authoritatively know where I'm editing all the time.GentleCollapse16 (talk) 07:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
And again, I'm not objecting to your paragraph, I'm objecting to its inclusion in the lead's current form. GentleCollapse16 (talk) 07:37, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • I share GentleCollapse's sentiment and I do object to the paragraph's inclusion (as it is currently written).--Ilovetopaint (talk) 07:36, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • GentleCollapse16, I hope you agree that this is better--and better than the version from before all this. Dan56 may be difficult to deal with when you ruffle their feathers, but they know a thing or two about article writing. And while we're all here (I exclude Ritchie333, whose favorite Davis album is...never mind, his favorite album is still London Calling), can we not turn this into a GA/FA? Certainly he deserves a good article. Thanks all, Drmies (talk) 16:24, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Dan56, one thing I'm missing a bit is that Davis wasn't just a musician--he always wanted more than that, being very outspoken on the topic of race, for instance. The "electric" period had everything to do with a kind of Afro-centrism, and even a half a sentence in your rewrite would help enlighten that. I could see an entire (short) paragraph on his politics in the lead, but that's also seriously underdeveloped in the article (with the exception on note 13, on Lee Konitz). Surely his playing with white, black, and other musicians should be tackled in the article as well. Never mind the fact that he was so incredibly goodlooking. Drmies (talk) 16:31, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I cant find anything that discusses those things in general (without resorting to opinion or musings by the writer, such as Martha Bayles on Davis' Afrocentrism in his electric period)), just specific album-by-album ideas, like Jack Johnson and blackness/masculinity. This has valuable information on how boxing culture or his own boxing influenced his concept of music during his electric period. Dan56 (talk) 16:55, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Well, that's not just opinion--it's opinion published in the NYT, plus there's a longer version published elsewhere. We don't want Miles to accuse us of whitewashing his biography. I'll be looking around as well. Malik Shabazz, what's on your bookshelves? Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:13, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Here it is. Bayles doesn't seem direct or explicit though, as far as Davis' connection with black politics; she does flat out say he was trying to connect with the youth (regarding his early 70s albums). Dan56 (talk) 17:17, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm not home right now, but Running the Voodoo Down: The Electric Music of Miles Davis may be helpful. — MShabazz Talk/Stalk 18:35, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Davis' or Davis's

Hello, User:JayJasper. Regarding your reversion, can you point me to where exactly "Davis'" is recommended over "Davis's"? It s a long section. Thanks! Rothorpe (talk) 13:48, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Miles Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:37, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miles Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:47, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Miles Davis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:34, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Miles_Davis/Archive_4&oldid=1027127195"