bluemaker said:Look, Hendrix was good—exceptional, even. But if Miles had been him... loved it Maybe that's a bit too strong.
Maybe not...
The fundamental problem with music criticism isn't that people are wrong—it's that they're often boringly right. They follow the rules, cite the theory, and explain exactly why a certain chord progression works, yet they fail to capture why the music actually matters. It’s like reading a technical manual for a Ferrari instead of feeling the wind in your hair while driving it through the canyons. Take the way most critics approach jazz. They treat it like a math equation. They dissect the syncopation, analyze the modal shifts, and act as if they've solved some grand mystery by identifying a specific scale. But if you strip away the intellectual posturing, you're just left with someone describing the plumbing while everyone else is busy dancing in the living room. Real listening isn't an academic exercise. You don't need a degree to know when a solo hits you in the gut. When I first heard Dizzy Gillespie and Charlie Parker, I wasn't thinking about bebop structures or rhythmic displacement. I was just experiencing something massive. That's the gap. A critic can tell you what happened on the record, but they rarely tell you what happened to *you* while you were listening to it. If we want to talk about greatness, we have to stop hiding behind jargon. We need to talk about the soul of the thing. Whether it's the raw power of Jimi Hendrix or the sophisticated cool of Miles Davis, the impact is visceral. If your writing doesn't reflect that visceral reality, you aren't really talking about music; you're just talking about yourself.
http://www.furious.com/perfect/miles.htmlCheck out this breakdown of funk history: http://www.soul-patrol.com/funk/jhfunk.htm