Talk:Bitches Brew

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Redirected from Talk:Bitches Brew/Comments)

Post-Production conclusion statement[edit]

The closing statements of the post production segment don't make real sense. The fact that jazz should be spontaneous does not contradict Armstrong's recording method in that he did not use studio edits. In any case that is how I understand the next two sentences, and so wonder why use "But decades earlier ..." This extensive editing was sometimes controversial in jazz circles as purists and detractors argued that jazz should be "spontaneous". But decades earlier trumpeter Louis Armstrong had quickly perceived the photographic nature of the audio recording, becoming the first musician to assemble a band solely for the purpose of recording it live in the studio.

Of course editing must have been a philosophical cunundrum for purists, and recording would have conservatively been used solely as "photographic". Maybe this section should be clarified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.177.236 (talk) 12:55, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It all sounds like POV to me. I don't think a wikipedia article should argue a point. TheScotch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:36, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever my feelings and points of view, I still believe this part to be confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.230.177.236 (talk) 14:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I mean the passage quoted sounds like POV. TheScotch (talk) 06:47, 3 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

<^>v!!This album is connected!!v<^>[edit]

does this actually work?

song titles don't link at all Plbowler 00:40, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone undid the changes in the meantime. Perhaps I missed something, but it seems like the point of that effort was so the entire listing would consist of blue links, wherever they happened to point, i.e. wikifying for its own sake. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 00:54, 9 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Silent Way[edit]

The previous album In a Silent Way is not mentioned on the page and page often speaks about innovations that already were present on that record as they had been introduced by Bitchew Brew -- 128.214.205.6 11:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just wanted to chime in agreement that you basically should not mention BB W/out mentioning In a Silent way. If either album should be considered the starting point for fusion, it is Silent Way (not denigrating BB, if I seem to be).Thaddeus Slamp (talk) 06:25, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, the article describes Bitches Brew as the beginning of Miles's electric period but In A Silent Way is earlier.BBO (talk) 12:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surprise at Miles as an aggressive player[edit]

Writer referred to Miles as a cool player & expressed surprise at his fiery style on most of this record. Had this writer ever heard his live recordings from 1958, 1963 or 1964? Dogru144, 02:37, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Poorly written[edit]

This article is full of speculation and opinion. Example: Some have criticized Bitches Brew by saying the album was more rock than jazz, and that it was overtly commercial. After listening to the album, the former statement seems rather absurd; as the music is full of psychedelic funk, furious solos howling like a nightmare is actually so avant garde, that it usually shocks rock fans who cannot get through it. Needs a rewrite badly, but I know little about the album. Cheers. DarkSideOfTheSpoon 05:42, 14 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think the terms or perspectives you present existed @ time of reviews in question, tho you have a point.

Thaddeus Slamp (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

External link[edit]

I'd like to add a video interview with Teo Macero to external links. He is talking about working with Miles Davis on Bitches Brew. Here is the interview. Ammosh11 18:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I added the link... but in the future, be bold! --Ultra Megatron 01:33, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the add. I did not to comply with Wikipedia etiquette. I'm glad you saw its value. Ammosh11 06:20, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bernard Purdie[edit]

The musician list here does not include Bernard Purdie, and I don't recall seeing Purdie on the liner notes of my copy of the record either, yet Purdie's web site maintains that Purdie played on Bitches Brew. Can someone shed some light on this? 71.90.26.140 11:56, 24 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think his website is mistaken ([1]). Note that it doesn't mention Miles Davis' Get up with It, on which Purdie does appear. Peter Losin's discography only indicates Purdie playing on "Red China Blues" (March 9, 1972 [2]). It might be worth noting that Purdie's website claims credit and that this could be a discrepancy. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:29, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Purdie's website does say that Purdie played on Get up with It--just not in the place you probably looked. Click on "Top 100".TheScotch 18:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Now I see "Get Up With It" ([3]). But I wonder what "Get Up With It, Part 2" is supposed to mean? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:23, 28 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Aftermath[edit]

Despite being looslely written I think the article captures the spirit of Bitches Brew fairly well.

There are though issues with the Aftermath Section. aside from moving from undocumented history straight to undocumented opinion, the section states that this album "launched" the career of Wayne Shorter? Shorter had not only been playing with Miles for 6 years but had become the primary compoiser of the Second Great Quintet, I;m not sure how an album that features him in a cast of tens with almost no composition credits "launches" his career.

the same could be argued for Zawinul, although he hadn't played with Davis much, the entire In A Silent Way album is based on a Zawinul composition, how does an album that has him as one of several keyboardists (I forget if he is the right channel or left) "launch" his career.

as others have stated, this page needs revision (although I maintain the spirit is accurate) I just don't claim to be expert enough to attempt it.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Plbowler (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

oops fogot to sign!!! Plbowler 13:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've deleted the short paragraph in question, although the entire section has been flagged for over a year for its lack of attribution. Officially, any content lacking proper attribution may be deleted, though in this case we'd be talking about large segments of text. As for "launching careers," this version of history gives short shrift to Art Blakey (Shorter) and Cannonball Adderley (Zawinul). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and jettisoned the rest of the section. Looking back, the editor who added the information was asked for sources back in Feb. 2006; the section itself had been tagged since June 2006. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 06:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Original research[edit]

I've substantially rewritten the "New kind of jazz" section. While the new text doesn't necessarily "disagree" with the previous version, it does use a college textbook as its source. I have gone ahead and removed the {{original research}} tag, as I think it was placed due to concerns with this section and the (now deleted) "Aftermath" section. Thanks, -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:05, 4 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary citation request[edit]

The article reads: Very few jazz musicians, excepting Ornette Coleman and John Coltrane – a former Davis associate – had released such long recordings, in which the entire side of an LP disc would consist of a single track.

and somebody has added the code to request a citation, but one can look at their respective wiki entries (i.e. Ornette Colemane's Free Jazz and Coltrane's Ascension.) Should we just link to that?

Batula 04:21, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know if it's policy, but citing another Wikipedia article as a source is discouraged. I haven't looked; do those articles cite sources? -- Gyrofrog (talk) 13:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If the disputed issue are those albums, then I suggest merely citing a source that states the length of tracks on those respective albums, being that LPs have a time limit that can be sourced. However, if the 'very few jazz musicians' part is being disputed, then I have no clue how to back that up; it's almost like proving a negative. I still fail to see the necessity. Batula 00:57, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A link to another wikipedia article certainly does not count as a citation. Also: The sentence in question as it reads above is logically nonsensical. Either say, "Very few jazz musicians had released...." or say, "No jazz musicians except Ornette Coleman and John Coltrane had released...." (Better still, simply cite the recording's factual length and let the reader make his own comparisons.)TheScotch 13:17, 11 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Great Job[edit]

Record released 1969.
http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00000J7SS
http://www.amazon.co.uk/dp/B00000J7SS

But some Wikipedia dweeb got it wrong by a year and now it's all over the place, at YouTube, at East Jesus, every place.

Great job guys.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.249.141.14 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 23 March 2012‎ (UTC) [reply]

Most of the sources cited in the article have 1970 as the release date. Also, by most accounts in reliable sources (including some of which predate Wikipedia), the recording sessions for the album were completed in early 1970. Which means it couldn't have been released prior to 1970. So it appears WP has it right, and Amazon.com is mistaken about the year BB was released.--JayJasper (talk) 19:01, 25 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was released in 1970. If you have any doubts look at discographies from pre-Internet era. They make it clear that the album was not released until April 1970, in time for his spring touring.Dogru144 (talk) 04:00, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Post-production[edit]

I think a long-standing assumption is that Miles Davis assembled a group of musicians, let the tapes roll and handed the results over to Teo Macero for editing. Though maybe it isn't a widely-held assumption, after all - this article doesn't give that impression. Anyway, it turns out that Miles had pretty specific instructions about how he wanted to assemble the recordings; it's been cited in this dissertation: link. (Davis's note is on page 150 of the dissertation, although this is page 163 of the PDF itself.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Great quote[edit]

Some critics at the time characterized this music as simply obscure and "outside", which recalls Duke Ellington's description of Davis as "the Picasso of jazz."

Good work. Viriditas (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Bitches Brew/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)Press [show] to view →
A long time ago this article had a great deal more information in it. This information has apparently been removed, having presumably been labeled "full of speculation, speculation." (though I remember what it used to say, and do not personally find very much wrong with said information, but I digres.)

I should say I think it is in "very poor taste" to state the bit about "some jazz fans and critics" did not like Bitches Brew, etc. right at the beginning, especially BEFORE it says says ANYTHING positive about the album. I mean, come on, it makes a "bad first impression" to say that many people greatly disliked something right off.

Usually, when I read an article of this nature, it saves the "CRITICISM" for LATER. It will say what is controversial, or give list "things people do no like about it" later, down the page. When I first discovered (and was fascinated by) Bitches Brew, when I first looked it up here on wikipedia, I would have been a little bewildered and puzzled (and not in a good way) why something which seemed so amazing and incredible to me (and millions of others) was having some as negative as "Bob Rusch recalls, "this to me was not great Black music, but I cynically saw it as part and parcel of the commercial crap that was beginning to choke and bastardize the catalogs of such dependable companies as Blue Note and Prestige.… I hear it 'better' today because there is now so much music that is worse."-mentioned before the overview and general take on the subject.

true, after (I think) being removed from the page for some time, a lot of the information is now back, but I still think it would be in better taste to state criticisms and negative opinions after the overview; after some idea of what bitches brew is and what position it today occupies is.

can somebody rectify this situation please? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.67.69.63 (talk • contribs) June 13 2008

To meet the more rigorous criteria of the revised B class, this article needs improved sourcing. For example, "Bitches Brew is often called the best-selling jazz record." By whom? This needs to be attributed and sourced. Additional improvements may also be necessary. Please see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Assessment for additional information on B class in album articles. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:34, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please incorporate technical personnel into the personnel section. References meet B guidelines. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:25, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 16:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC). Substituted at 09:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bitches Brew. 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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 04:00, 21 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Term Bitches Brew[edit]

What does it mean? --178.197.230.175 (talk) 11:53, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wordplay on "Witches Brew". See, for example, this Guardian article by Neil Spencer:
"It was also Betty who named Bitches Brew: "Miles wanted to call it Witches Brew, but I suggested Bitches Brew and he said, 'I like that.' Contrary to what some people said, there was nothing derogatory about it.""
---Sluzzelin talk 12:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, so not named after the beer, then. And where's that possessive apostrophe?? Martinevans123 (talk) 12:24, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it could also be read as a sentence (Bitches brew. Studs concoct.) I guess the origin above isn't watertight. See "Miles Davis and the Making of Bitches Brew: Sorcerer’s Brew" by Paul Tingen. ---Sluzzelin talk 12:47, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The beer was named after the album, the website even says: "In honor of the 40th anniversary of the original release of Bitches Brew, Miles Davis' 1970 paradigm-shifting landmark fusion breakthrough, we've created our own Bitches Brew -- a dark beer that's a fusion of three threads of imperial stout and one thread of honey beer with gesho root. It's a gustatory analog to Miles' masterpiece."

Reference to Paul Buckmaster[edit]

The reference to Buckmaster seems out of place. He was a significant influence on On the Corner and Big Fun, but did not meet Miles Davis until November 2, 1969, after the recording sessions for Bitches Brew.

https://musicaficionado.blog/2019/02/27/the-artistry-of-paul-buckmaster/

https://www.eltonjohn.com/stories/paul-buckmaster:-in-his-own-words

Commercial tone[edit]

"In 1976, it became Davis' first gold album to be certified by the Recording Industry Association of America". Who cares in the long run? 86.192.110.239 (talk) 18:10, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Reference 17 is not freely accessible[edit]

It lays behind a paywall. Not sure that it is usable; in any case, it does not help at all. 86.192.110.239 (talk) 14:25, 6 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Bitches_Brew&oldid=1211156400"