You see, Miles Davis was selfish, cheating, lying, drug-addicted, entitled, woman-abusing and unhesitatingly cruel. But he was a musical genius who created great beauty and on balance gave much more than he took. He was ruthlessly committed to music, and within that framework he behaved very morally, kicking a heroin habit when it threatened his career and creativity, always judging his fellow musicians fairly, resisting the easy appeal of nostalgia or repeating himself, instead challenging himself and others to constantly move forward. It was always about the music. The man didn't even masturbate.
Chet Baker on the other hand festers with all the vices of Miles Davis, but without the moral center or redeeming devotion to his art. He values his art primarily as a tool for getting his way. Musical ability becomes interchangeable with celebrity. He liked playing music--sure, who wouldn't if they could?--but his commitment was shallow, and purely utilitarian--"How can it get me to my next score?" The art he achieved was minor and passing and without much intention.
Chet Baker's narcissism drove his life, whereas Miles' narcissism drove his commitment to music.
So my question is, do we have a financial system that's a Miles Davis system, or a Chet Baker system?
Sadly, we do not have a Louis Armstrong system....
enworld piece - I thought they forgot about me. color tonight