Writers Turn a Tin Ear to Miles Davis’ Milestones

Miles Davis was arguably one of the most important artists in any medium of this century on the grounds of his own artistry, his capacity not only to influence but also to actively train younger musicians and the impact of his music on creative work in other fields. The gentle fury, the special timbre and the telling silences that issued from his horn epitomized the conflict and contradiction that have long characterized American society and its cultures.

The death of Davis was treated by The Times first (Sept. 29) as the passing of a celebrity in a front-page obituary by Burt A. Folkart that was sensationalistic and condescending. Next, “An Appreciation” by Leonard Feather (Calendar, Sept. 30) was ambiguous and self-serving. Where Folkart opened his piece with the hysterical assertion that “(Davis’) demonic habits sometimes overshadowed his genius for jazz,” Feather soberly assumed the cultural authority to explain why we should really love and respect the memory of Miles Davis.

In so doing, Feather first quoted the French minister of culture to the effect that Davis was “the Picasso of jazz.” In its European context, the analogy was indeed a compliment; but do we in the United States still need to legitimize genius solely by reference to European authority?

Feather went on to attack Quincy Troupe, who collaborated with Davis on the latter’s 1989 autobiography, decrying the language of the book as “foul mouthed” and “semi-illiterate.” Feather assures us that Davis “was capable of speaking standard English.” I certainly have no doubt that this is the case. It is also probably the case that Feather’s own long years of striving to mediate between a predominantly African-American music and a predominantly Euro-American audience may have prevented him from hearing what he didn’t wish to hear.

Davis contested the dominant culture mainly with his horn, but also by refusing the polite decorum of linguistic assimilation. The fact that he could speak “standard English” is not in question; the question is why his assumption of status in American cultural history should depend on this criterion, why the language transcribed in the autobiography he endorsed and the language he speaks in the recent PBS radio program that Troupe co-produced should have to be subject to cultural standards over which Feather claims authority.

Folkart’s shots and Feather’s easy familiarity to the exclusion of other friends of Davis were a disservice to The Times’ readership. Davis’ personality and the culture in which it took shape are subjects too complex to be treated adequately in an obituary or an “appreciation.”

The Times’ writers would have done more to establish the historic importance of Miles Davis by restricting themselves to a discussion of his music and its tremendous cultural impact.