Week 12: 50 Albums That Changed Music

[Swish]

I'm on the road tomorrow thru Wednesday, so once again I find it necessary to post this before Monday. This week's entry is the first of its genre, and one that was somewhat expected, although I know it will garner some negative responses based on comments made about it on RR in the past. I happen to like it very much and believe it was quite influential in the world of jazz, and it would be Miles Davis - Kind of Blue (1959)

A rare example of revolutionary music that almost everyone liked from the moment they heard it. Its cool, spacey, open-textured approach marked a complete break with the prevalent 'hard bop' style. The effect, based on simple scales, called modes, was fresh, delicate, approachable but surprisingly expressive. Others picked up on it and 'modern jazz' has been part of the language ever since. The album also became the media's favourite source of mood music. Without this there would be no ominous, brooking, atmospheric trumpet behin a million radio plays and TV documentaries.

This one is still among my favorite jazz recordings, along with Giant Steps, Heavy Weather, the Wes Montgomery Trio, and a number of others, and will always find its way to my cd player.

Swish

[MasterCylinder]

I like this album.
Because of your thread, I found it in my stash of CDs and I am listening to it as I write this reply.
I understand this was a release that got a lot of attention and perhaps set some new rules in modern jazz but, I confess I don't know enough about the genre and the culture to provide an educated comment.
Good music.

[kexodusc]

With the possible exception of recent underground/punk music, I think it's safe to say that no other genre of music has as many snobs as Jazz. Anything that attracts attention to itself by "regular folk" gets crucified by the old guard.

I think that was the case this album, but TFB for Jazz snobs. It deserves to be in the list beyond a shadow of a doubt.

[Resident Loser]

...opening bass figure receives it's response...seemingly, a musical shrug of the shoulders in a two-chord inflection of the piece's title...small spots illuminate the stage...each one a miniature sunburst compared to the flickering candles hinting at the red checkered tablecloths...The tinkle of 'cubes and swizzle sticks fades into well deserved oblivion as the plumes of cigarette smoke rise like the key changes...My head tilts back as I swirl my tumbler of Kentucky's best (straight, no chaser) and the horn player reaches slightly beyond his grasp...but that's OK...What's the problem with a mis-step now and again when everything else is so right...maybe next time...perhaps a future avenue to explore...

Well into the second piece I'm abruptly pulled from that other time and place by another kind of horn as two miscreants and their vehicles vie for the same physical space amid bleats and blats and coarse language...after all I am in the Stop and Shop parking lot and my mission is, in reality, some chicken and a jar of salsa verde...

I happened on this recording some time ago...a novice at the genre...in of all places one of those PBS-oriented mail-order catalogs...Wireless or Signals, I forget which...but I wanted to expand my exposure beyond a meager sampling of jazz records I'd collected...They said it was must have and I believed them...They were right...

From that opening dialog to the Moorish tint of Flamenco Sketches it is a near-perfect album IMHO...best late at night and in dim lighting, even tho' my drink nowadays is sweetened iced-tea...looks like bourbon...

Nearly everyone who responds to online polls cites it as a fave...Why it is considered seminal? Other than it's popularity I don't have a clue...Seems to be the first where Davis is totally responsible for the material; maybe it's the sense of conceptual continuity it displays. Is it that it's stereo and from a mainstream record company as opposed to a niche label? And surprisingly, that despite it's modality it is still accessible and thoroughly listenable to those who swear they don't like jazz...Did it change everything that came thereafter? Was it responsible for the change from be-bop and simply reworking of pop standards? Again I plead ignorance...I know less about jazz than I do about classical, and I don't know much about that...just always trying to learn...

I've given it as a gift and recommended it to strangers who were floundering, looking through Jazz selections, quite confused as to what to buy as a baby-step...I've told them "...if you don't like this, you have no soul"...and after my revisit yesterday, I'd add to that "...and you have no business listening to music..."

jimHJJ(...so much music...so little time...)

[Stone]

I guess I can't dispute its influence, but I don't know enough about jazz to really know how big of an influence this was on the genre (so, please enlighten me). All I know is that I purchased it, played it once and it has been on the shelf since. It just doesn't do anything for me (and very little jazz does outside of some offbeat stuff such as Ornette Coleman).

[Troy]

I've told them "...if you don't like this, you have no soul"...and after my revisit yesterday, I'd add to that "...and you have no business listening to music..."

Well kiss my boil-covered can, ya loser!

Statements like these . . . well, how can you claim that this list wallows in a stew of misplaced hyperbole and then say stupid things like this?

Your soulless pal,

etc.

[3-LockBox]

I wasn't around when this came out. I did pick it up years ago when someone recommended it to me and I've always liked it. I haven't listened to enough of the jazz that came after to know how influential it is, but most every jazz artist from that era and beyond cites this album as influencial, so its a slamdunk for a list like this. If you pay any attention to movie theme music though, you'd definately hear this album's influence. A lot of film noir used this style of jazz to great effect. Quincy Jones dipped heavily into Davis' style for movie scores like In the Heat Of The Night.

[MindGoneHaywire]

You nailed it, Troy.

From someone who doesn't seem to know that it's far from accepted that Miles was 'totally responsible for the material.' Funny how a guy who's a pro in NYC would never have become acquainted with the reason why Bill Evans disputed this, and holds co-credit on some pressings...but not others. Many familiar with the issue saw him as the sole author of a tune Miles claims sole credit on.

The guy who tells other people they have no business listening to music...doesn't seem to know this.

This is certainly among my favorite jazz albums, and one I've listened to as much if not more than any other, possibly excepting Coltrane's Blue Train. But the self-righteous 'this is brilliant' schtick that's great when it's a record you can use to accuse a non-fan of not possessing a soul, but not so great when it's pretentious NYC artiness in rock music made in the same town only 8 years later is as laughable as any of the other garbage previously posted in any of the other threads.

Beyond the use of ambient music as background as is described here, and so forth, one could also make a case that its modal properties led directly to the experimentation of Coltrane, Coleman et al, much of which, it should be noted, has been dismissed with far more disdain than our pal here objected to the recs in this thread he doesn't like, or the people the recs influenced.

If you don't like this rec, I would say, it's quite possible you won't like jazz in general. But I wouldn't inject the stupidity into that comment by rendering it an absolute, or anything close. It's a good rec. I think it deserves to be listened to again & again. It certainly was influential. But you're just as likely to put up an obstacle to someone liking jazz by saying such things. I don't see the point.

[audiobill]

My friend Swish best expresses my sentiments on this one:

"This one is still among my favorite jazz recordings, along with Giant Steps, Heavy Weather, the Wes Montgomery Trio, and a number of others, and will always find its way to my cd player.

Swish"

Thanks for keeping this interesting & often controversial thread going, pal!

Cheers,
audiobill

[Resident Loser]

You nailed it, Troy.

From someone who doesn't seem to know that it's far from accepted that Miles was 'totally responsible for the material.' Funny how a guy who's a pro in NYC would never have become acquainted with the reason why Bill Evans disputed this, and holds co-credit on some pressings...but not others. Many familiar with the issue saw him as the sole author of a tune Miles claims sole credit on.

The guy who tells other people they have no business listening to music...doesn't seem to know this.

This is certainly among my favorite jazz albums, and one I've listened to as much if not more than any other, possibly excepting Coltrane's Blue Train. But the self-righteous 'this is brilliant' schtick that's great when it's a record you can use to accuse a non-fan of not possessing a soul, but not so great when it's pretentious NYC artiness in rock music made in the same town only 8 years later is as laughable as any of the other garbage previously posted in any of the other threads.

Beyond the use of ambient music as background as is described here, and so forth, one could also make a case that its modal properties led directly to the experimentation of Coltrane, Coleman et al, much of which, it should be noted, has been dismissed with far more disdain than our pal here objected to the recs in this thread he doesn't like, or the people the recs influenced.

If you don't like this rec, I would say, it's quite possible you won't like jazz in general. But I wouldn't inject the stupidity into that comment by rendering it an absolute, or anything close. It's a good rec. I think it deserves to be listened to again & again. It certainly was influential. But you're just as likely to put up an obstacle to someone liking jazz by saying such things. I don't see the point.

...you folks do get b!tchy don'cha...As I've said, my knowledge of the genre is sorely lacking...While I have a tenuous grasp of the periods in classical and who begat who musically, unfortunately I have little idea how WC Handy morphed into Scott Joplin into Louis Armstrong into Dizzie Gillespie and so on and so forth and shoobie-doobie-oobie...so friggin' shoot me, but I'm tryin'...And a BIG P.S. I was a rocker and jazz wasn't "...what they called rock'n'roll..." (with apologies to Mr. Knopfler)

Re: authorship...I'm goin' by some discographies who give songwriters names for Davis' other albums from Gershwin to Adderly to Cyndi Lauper et al...KOB don't...and yes, I've seen mention of some things (vamps and bridges) that were a product of others involved in the sessions...you yourself say it's hit-or-miss for proper credit...and in case you didn't get the overall gist of it, I posted most my remarks in the form of a question...or at least in an interrogative form...Don't have an answer...

Did the record influence anyone...don't know...honestly don't care...I do see a difference between Birth Of The Cool in '49-50 straddling the line of the big-band/be-bop eras...to '55-56s Relaxin' With The Miles Davis Quintet and the other titles of that last-of- Prestige series to '59s KOB with it's much more blues influenced tracks...

'Brilliant"??? Who said that? Not me baby? Obviously I failed in my little novella of sorts...This sound of this recording transports me to those dark, smokey places of the imagination and in doing that it is "near perfect"...Does it belong on this "influential" list? They (the compilers) said it, I didn't...but then again I don't think much of the list to begin with, as some of you may have gathered...


...If you don't like this rec, I would say, it's quite possible you won't like jazz in general...


...I've given it as a gift and recommended it to strangers who were floundering, looking through Jazz selections, quite confused as to what to buy as a baby-step...I've told them "...if you don't like this, you have no soul"...and after my revisit yesterday, I'd add to that "...and you have no business listening to music..."

Notice the above quotes...exactly what's the diff? I'm not proselytizing to the uninterested...simply opening up that "green door" and revealing some of the secrets it's keeping to those who are curious...Anyone get the ref?

No it doesn't speak of pimps, pushers and disease, but once you get in the groove IMNSHO it can speak to those who do have a musical soul and are willing to think and hear beyond banal lyrics and five note melodies...

And just in case it slipped by the sound-bite conditioned mind, the list still $uck$...this recording is cool...

jimHJJ(...Don't like my postings...write a strong letter to the Times...)

[Troy]

Oh come ON Loser! You trying to tell me that "If you don't like this you probably won't like jazz." and "...if you don't like this, you have no soul / have no business listening to music." are the same? Your quotes are so far over the top as to be ridiculous. Even MGH's comment is a big stretch.

Villify me for disliking "Kinda Blue" if you must, but I MUCH prefer the fusion like Weather Report, Return to Forever, Zappa etc. that was influenced by it. MGH saying I won't like jazz if I dislike Kinda Blue is just plain wrong. Your insinuation is just plain insulting.

And thanks for not addressing me directly. Thanks also for implying that I only like musical forms that "speak of pimps, pushers and disease" or "banal lyrics and five note melodies..." because I don't dig Miles. As if music or freekin LIFE was that black and white!

[MindGoneHaywire]

I think he was referring to me, with the 'pimps, pushers,' etc. remark seeming to refer to Lou Reed's songs. I guess leeches like Fred Tolbert get a free pass, because he finds the other records to be arty & pretentious, in a bad way.

We like to wear the 'my knowledge is sorely lacking' hat as well as the 'I tell people if they don't like this, they have no soul,' or 'they have no business listening to music hat.' Gee, that's strange, if someone whose knowledge was sorely lacking, I sure wouldn't trust such strong advice.

I'm not sure why this has to escalate to this level, but it's sure not because I want it that way. I find it difficult to not respond to these sorts of wildly divergent positions. I know that other record was criticized because of its NY-specific artiness & pretense, but somehow this one isn't any of those things. It's one thing to be a hipster who's into rock, another who's into jazz. It's almost beyond belief.

I'm still trying to figure out why someone who readily admits that their knowledge of the genre is sorely lacking, presumes to tell others if they don't like this one album, that they have no business listening to music?

Try Music Lane over at the Asylum. There's a downright beligerrent mofo over there who's a huge jazz aficionado, yet virulently anti-KOB & Miles & Coltrane in general. A week ago he put up a post saying how many sax players were superior & even more talented than Coltrane, including...Flip Phillips. You tell HIM he has no business listening to music if he doesn't like KOB. He may be incredibly wrongheaded, but since you don't seem interested in anything I have to say, you might as well deal with someone from whom you might actually learn something.

But he's not the only guy over there who's huge into jazz who feels that KOB is overrated & that its importance is well-overstated, that it's the sign of a jazz newbie. You might learn something from them as well, if you wanted to, that is. I have, even if I disagree with them (as do many, including folks who know a lot more about jazz than I do) on KOB. I would be quite curious to get a reaction from someone who was willing to admit they said these sorts of things to people who had never heard this album, or didn't like it. And you might well take their opinions seriously than you seem to take mine.

I'm not trying to steer any traffic over there, mind you. But there are some good jazz discussions over there, sometimes some very good ones. Hell, there's a pro over there who was calling me ignorant just a few days ago based on my mention things I've read in books he apparently hasn't, and is willing to dismiss (like, ya know, Miles' autobiography, which comes in handy if you get into disagreements with people who may have crossed paths with him over time & therefore think they hold the key to the psyche of the guy). There's also a guy who shared some insights to KOB, as he had the privilege to listen to the master tapes some time back, outtakes, false starts, chatter between takes, and all.

I find that to be far more productive than reading these blatherings from this genius who thinks that telling people they have no business listening to music...over this? Oh, brother. A guy who claims to know something about classical music says this. You mean you've never encountered a classical player who is so rooted into playing only what's written on the chart, that they simply do NOT enjoy anything resembling improvisation? Maybe you haven't. I have. You're going to tell THEM they have no business listening to music? I would anxiously await the results of that little experiment.

Troy, I chose my comment carefully, but, beyond that, I personally would consider Return To Forever and Weather Report to be fusion, not "jazz." So I stand by that. And I don't think it's off-base, because you have to remember how little jazz has changed in the past 50 years, with only one major offshoot that occurred not long after this here rec. Many, probably most, people who like the stuff do like this here rec, and vice versa. Those who like jazz, but not this rec, are certainly around, and I've seen some very interesting dissenting views on the topic, but it's far more the exception to the rule, so I'll stand by that. But I find it easy to refrain from issuing such silly advice--especially on topics I have to admit my knowledge is actually sorely lacking on. Good grief.

[Resident Loser]

Oh come ON Loser! You trying to tell me that "If you don't like this you probably won't like jazz." and "...if you don't like this, you have no soul / have no business listening to music." are the same? Your quotes are so far over the top as to be ridiculous. Even MGH's comment is a big stretch.

Villify me for disliking "Kinda Blue" if you must, but I MUCH prefer the fusion like Weather Report, Return to Forever, Zappa etc. that was influenced by it. MGH saying I won't like jazz if I dislike Kinda Blue is just plain wrong. Your insinuation is just plain insulting.

And thanks for not addressing me directly. Thanks also for implying that I only like musical forms that "speak of pimps, pushers and disease" or "banal lyrics and five note melodies..." because I don't dig Miles. As if music or freekin LIFE was that black and white!

...I was responding to MGH...you can read into my response anywhichway you wanna' and I've not yet said word one to you...however since you asked sooo nice...


...well, how can you claim that this list wallows in a stew of misplaced hyperbole and then say stupid things like this?...

Did I ever say the underlined?

Did I say this recording belongs on the list?

Did I say it was influential?

Did I ever say you have to like it?

Might the answer be definitive "no" to all the above?

I don't have the time to diagram sentences or coach you in any sort of remedial reading exercises...Of all the things you might be villified for, disliking this recording (or anything else for that matter) is the least of them to be concerned about...

Some time back there was a 7UP ad that was running on the east coast...In it the tag line was " make 7UP yours!..." I'll allow you to disregard the word "make" and the number "7" at a convenient time and place of your choosing to decode my special response...

jimHJJ(...was that direct enough for you?...)

[Resident Loser]

...I'm not sure why this has to escalate to this level, but it's sure not because I want it that way.

If that's the case, just ignore my posts....


...I find it difficult to not respond to these sorts of wildly divergent positions. It's one thing to be a hipster who's into rock, another who's into jazz. It's almost beyond belief.

Why? I also like Gregorian chant and Bill Monroe...


...I'm still trying to figure out why someone who readily admits that their knowledge of the genre is sorely lacking, presumes to tell others if they don't like this one album, that they have no business listening to music?

I'm a relative Jazz noob...Hampton, Harden, early Coltrane...some of the genre is not for the noob...If you can't dig this, don't bother...


...Try Music Lane over at the Asylum. There's a downright beligerrent mofo over there who's a huge jazz aficionado, yet virulently anti-KOB & Miles & Coltrane in general. A week ago he put up a post saying how many sax players were superior & even more talented than Coltrane, including...Flip Phillips. You tell HIM he has no business listening to music if he doesn't like KOB. He may be incredibly wrongheaded, but since you don't seem interested in anything I have to say, you might as well deal with someone from whom you might actually learn something.

AA ain't my cuppa, gov...Ain't sayin' MD and JC are the cat's @$$, besides early jazz guitar interests me more...the early horn stuff is accessible...B!tches Brew and A Love Supreme don't click right now...KOB and Blue Train does...And when did I say the above underlined...give me something to work with or that rings true and I'm all ears...


...I find that to be far more productive than reading these blatherings from this genius who thinks that telling people they have no business listening to music...over this? Oh, brother. A guy who claims to know something about classical music says this. You mean you've never encountered a classical player who is so rooted into playing only what's written on the chart, that they simply do NOT enjoy anything resembling improvisation? Maybe you haven't. I have. You're going to tell THEM they have no business listening to music? I would anxiously await the results of that little experiment.

Sorry you don't like my opinions, life's a b!tch, eh?

Classical player only interested in the score...gee, I thought that was what it's all about, particularly in ensemble performances...unless the notation/direction states ad libitum or the like...Perhaps an excellent technician with no creative skills?


...But I find it easy to refrain from issuing such silly advice--especially on topics I have to admit my knowledge is actually sorely lacking on. Good grief.

Is that due to an identity crisis or lack of self-assurance...perhaps you're just schizoid; you seem to have no problem telling me why I'm wrong...P.S. Lucy says the doctor is in...

jimHJJ(...care for an UnCola?...)

[Troy]

Did I ever say the underlined?

Not word for word, but yes, you have. We ALL have.


Did I say this recording belongs on the list?

It's certainly implied by your gushing review of it, but that was never my point. See below for a refresher.


Did I say it was influential?

Ditto.


Did I ever say you have to like it?

According to you, anyone that doesn't like it "has no soul" and "has no business listening to music." So I guess I'd BETTER like then, huh?


Might the answer be definitive "no" to all the above?

Nope. It's all in your implications.


I don't have the time to diagram sentences or coach you in any sort of remedial reading exercises...Of all the things you might be villified for, disliking this recording (or anything else for that matter) is the least of them to be concerned about...

Jesus, what a haughty little man.

As if my grasp of language and ability to make a point were in question . . .


Some time back there was a 7UP ad that was running on the east coast...In it the tag line was " make 7UP yours!..." I'll allow you to disregard the word "make" and the number "7" at a convenient time and place of your choosing to decode my special response...

jimHJJ(...was that direct enough for you?...)

No, not really. Why didn't you just say "Up Yours" and spare me the lecture on 7UP's marketing history while trying gussy up what is essentially a juvenile insult? What a windbag.

I stand by my original post that your broad insults to anyone that doesn't like Kinda Blue are unfounded and without merit. Your best retort thus far has been "Up Yours." Pretty sharp there, bub.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Ignoring you isn't bad policy, except that the thread then screams out for someone to challenge the crap you put into it. Especially since you seem to fancy yrself as someone who 'gets it,' what with all the witty sig quotes. Yet...my point flew completely over yr head. You like Gregorian Chant & Bill Monroe...and KOB. Lou Reed, ng. So, it's okay to adopt a hipster pose because you like all these different things...but those who adopt the hipster pose that goes along with the arty pretentiousness of Lou Reed, that you had some harsh words for.

Like similar words weren't spoken about the cats just a few years before. Oh, but you, you have the key to which hipsters have the correct taste, and which ones are a bunch of Manhattan-centric, black-clad nimrods.

What, you think there's that large a gap between the cultural & societal behaviors & trends, in fashion & elsewhere, between the scene north of 125th St. in the 40s & 50s, and the East Village hipster gang a few years later? Or, for that matter, the folkies a few blocks to the west, who populated the scene Dylan emerged from? Sorry, hard bop was castigated as Warhol & Reed, et al would be a decade or so later. Some compare it to other modern art they don't like, Jackson Pollock, et al. The emperor has no clothes, or some such. Hell, even Louis Jordan proclaimed that he wanted to play music for people, not musicians, following in the footsteps of Cab Calloway, who had fired Dizzy Gillespie from his big band, because the manifestation of what Gillespie would help craft into bebop in Calloway's outfit prompted him to denounce what Dizzy was doing as 'Chinese music.'

Meanwhile, the cats placed a high premium on who dressed more clean. KOB was an arty record that was built on a premise that some have found could be framed as involving pretense, especially given Evans' liner notes. This, we can agree, is great. What we will not agree on is the idea of telling people they have no soul because they don't like the rec, or that they have no business listening to music.

Oh, but it's just an opinion. Of course. Well, thanks for devaluing the concept for us. The thing about opinions is not so much that they share in common with the anus that everyone has one, but that their worth can be measured, to a point, according to the level of knowledge possessed by the individual offering it, relative to how extreme the tone may be, among other factors.

The argument about expressing the opinion makes sense, but only to a point, at which time you have to say, well, yr opinion may be worth commenting on, since you've laid it out here in this thread, but, ultimately, it's just not worth all that much.

Actually, I think it's more interesting than anything else that you seem to know more about Lou Reed & the music he made which you dislike intensely, as opposed to jazz, where you nonetheless offer these proclamations to people based on yr announcement that non-fans simply have no business listening to music.

I say we can learn more, far more, from those who DON'T like the record, provided they know something about the subject. From where I sit, here's a great rec. Yet there's a jazz aficionado who doesn't like it, and I'd like to know why, and he can point to recs he likes better, and why, and players whose skills he prefers, and he can articulate that, as well. Not to mention the old guard of music instructors for whom jazz was absolutely worthless.

Just yr opinion? Oh, boy, let me tell you, I'm just the sort who would gladly pay money to see a debate where you would get to provide this opinion for a music instructor who chooses to find no worth in jazz. As wrong, and wrong-headed as they would be, they'd tear ya a new one.

Which wouldn't matter, except you've done what you felt necessary to inform us that you are, shall we say, more than just a fan of music. But, hey, it's great when you think that pointing to dark subject matter you don't like on recs you don't like is then countered by considering an album to be 'near-perfect' that starts out with a title based on Miles' sneer, to be followed up with one based on a colorful parasite, with the one after that being, allegedly, a tune Miles stole from his piano player & refused to grant even a co-writing credit on. (There are some who have claimed they heard Miles admit that Evans' side of the story was actually true, even though he denies it completely in his autobio)


>I'm a relative Jazz noob...Hampton, Harden, early Coltrane...some of the genre is not for the noob...If you can't dig this, don't bother...

WHAT a load of crap. How elitist & uninformed. Jazz was around for decades prior to this rec, and all but one of the offshoots attributed solely to it had already sprouted by the time of this rec. So what you're saying is that if someone new to the stuff digs Ellington & Henderson, or Basie & Goodman, or Armstrong & Beiderbecke, or Hawkins & Young, or Parker & Tatum, or Monk & Mingus, but NOT this rec, they shouldn't bother with jazz?

No rec is for EVERYBODY. The chances that someone wouldn't like this, yet love the older stuff, in this day & age, may be slim, but they are far from nil, in spite of what you believe. As fluid & accomplished as the playing of Adderley was, some people just don't dig the tone of an alto. Others might find it a major flaw that Miles hits a clam a minute or so into the record, and gnash their teeth at what Clifford Brown might've done with the material, or even Lee Morgan. Others could have problems with the structure of Blue In Green, or the relative lack thereof in Flamenco Sketches. Actually, I've seen & heard people complain about ALL of these things. I couldn't care less, because I believe the record transcends any & all of those issues. But, as you have so helpfully informed us, you feel that people who don't like the rec...well, it's been said enough times already. I'm almost tempted to see if some of my music instructors are still alive, to rebut such a thought. See, in spite of how much or little they may have known about jazz (in some cases little other than they didn't like it, because classical music was inherently a superior form, according to them), they were also not shy about deciding who exactly shouldn't be in the business of listening to music. I think they would've found you interesting...and I think you wouldn't have liked their opinions, either. However, I believe they had the capacity to back up their point of view with a bit more knowledge than you seem to have.

But, hey, you know everything. Continue to shove this rec down people's throats, and congratulations for all the various reactions this sort of behavior may inspire. But for every person who didn't like the rec and decided jazz wasn't for them on the basis of yr insistence that this is THE jazz rec, assuming there has been even one, I declare you to be an enemy of music.

As for the underlined text, kindly direct yr attention to the two words immediately preceding the two you underlined. And I was referring to classical players who have been so indoctrinated into only considering strictly structured, charted music, that they have chosen to view anything containing improvisation to not jibe with their hijacked sensibilities. The sort who might allow that Ellington is the only sort of jazz they can listen to. I'm getting the idea you've never encountered such a person.

Lastly, if you're inferring that I don't know anything about music, or that there's something wrong with limiting the dispersal of advice on topics I admit to not knowing much about, all I can say is, wrong on both counts. And, once again, no surprise there.

[Dusty Chalk]

I don't know -- I can picture some people loving The Birth of the Cool, but disliking/not "getting" Kinda Blue (thanks, Troy, going to have to use that from now on). So I'd have to disagree even with that overgeneralization. There is a large contingent of old school boppers who don't "get" this modern jazz (read: Miles Davis Quintet I and beyond). And they're not necessarily octogenarians.

[Heywood Djahblomie]

whooaa nellie

lot a argument for a genre that sucked for over 40 years

Why? bunch of hacks took over

Miles Davis was sellin invisiable cloths

Quincy Jones had his way with jazz and snuck out the window and left a lousy 20 bucks on the nightstand

wouldbe torch carriers like Herbie Hancock, Bob James, George Benson, Dave Grusin and Grover Washington got fat on pablum and muzak

jazz was better when it was strung out on drugs

and I don't care if you are a musician or not, does not matter one whit
master carpenters can build crappy houses, but at least they have a crappy house to show for thier efforts. You 'musicians' are messageboard commandos. :lol:

[Troy]

LOL@Heywood. You pretty much nailed it buddy. I'll take Q over Miles or Trane any day of the week.

And MGH, if Weather Report isn't jazz, how can you say that GG Allin and Patty Smith are both punk? Why is one genre so narrow and one so wide, for you?

[MindGoneHaywire]

Okay, then, it's jazz fusion, how's that? I didn't create these labels, but while I agree that soundwise it's absurd to lump GG Allin & Patti Smith into the same subgenre, keep in mind that at one time GG's bass player in the Murder Junkies was Dee Dee Ramone, so sometimes these things end up making more sense than it appears on the surface.

I would offer that there's a bigger difference, musically speaking, between Return To Forever & Paul Whiteman, than there is between Patti Smith & GG Allin.

[BradH]

lot a argument for a genre that sucked for over 40 years

Why? bunch of hacks took over...jazz was better when it was strung out on drugs

So, Jaco Pastorius, Pat Metheny, John Scofield...all hacks, eh? Hmm, I thought Jaco did drugs. Yes, I'm certain of it because he didn't suck. But wait, all those fuzak smoothies in the 80's put a season's crop of blow up their nose and they still sucked. Ah, that's because jazz has sucked for 40 years. Oh yeah, you nailed it. Thanks for clearing that up.


I would offer that there's a bigger difference, musically speaking, between Return To Forever & Paul Whiteman, than there is between Patti Smith & GG Allin.

Actually, you might be surprised at the phases RTF went through. It started out rather cool & Latin flavored, moved into the heavy fusion phase w/ DiMeola then, in the late 70's, went into a....(wait for it)....big band phase. So, maybe Paul Whiteman isn't so far away after all. But I take your point, you're talking about Romantic Warrior, etc. Fine, but Weather Report was the jazziest of fusion bands. If you ban Shorter & Zawinul to the kid's table then you're going Wynton on me.

This gets into the whole B's Brew thing but we'll save that for later. I think it's on the list.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Did I ever tell you about Skunkbucket LeFunke?

[BradH]

Did I ever tell you about Skunkbucket LeFunke?

Dude, my uncle used to carve harmonicas for him out of pecan tree roots. He saved some of Skunk's spit in an ice cube, too. We used to play with it in the winter when we were kids before we had cable. My uncle said the Smithsonian wanted it but he was saving up to have it go up in the Space Shuttle but he died in a tragic accident involving panythose and a weed-eater.

[Resident Loser]

...for those who don't quite get it...

Don't like my opinion, etc. etc. etc.?

Don't like my attempt at painting a word picture on how this recording can transport a willing participant to a virtual, yet pleasantly "real", place and time...

Well, I'll validate your TFB card for the month of October...do you think I really care?

It ain't the streets, it ain't drug-induced angst, it ain't the 'hood, it ain't Pepperland...You don't need those banal lyrics, the lyricism of the music is good enough and that IMO makes it timeless...hop aboard and take a ride!

The list is BS, not over-hyped or any other word that anyone chooses to erroneously attribute to me (and please don't include me in any collective)...most of the inclusions are likewise and I've limited my participation to recordings I am familiar with...and I don't recall saying anyone, anywhere has been influenced by any of the fifty...Luckily there are only a handful left of the remaining 30 or so...my highly-opinionated participation will be limited at best.

Even the concept of the thread is faulty (sorry Swish). While it has been an entertaining diversion, how can one possibly argue that a specific recording didn't influence anything or anybody? It's similar to the more techie debates in other forums on this site...The best you can hope for is a null result and that's based on empirical evidence backed with specific pertinent test procedures within defined parameters...This RR section is purely what we refer to as subjective and anecdotal...read: meaningless.

So, it can only devolve into a rah-rah session among glad-handers (which it seems from the outset I have single-handedly upset with regularity) or a simple statement of I do or don't like this record or, as I chose to do, provide a review that really isn't a review, more of a gut reaction based on purely empirical information...again read: meaningless...

Why should anyone care what I think? Why would anyone be insulted? Why is it so important to denigrate my opinion with faulty logic and reasoning or comments re: the self-admitted paucity of my experience with the genre? I have my suspicions, along the lines of shoot the messenger but hey...it's all anecdotal hogwash anywho...

jimHJJ(...and BTW what is a hipster? I'm a musician who loves music...my only criteria is that it must actually be music...IMNSHO most of the drivel contained in this list fails that litmus test...big time...)

[Stone]

Even the concept of the thread is faulty (sorry Swish). While it has been an entertaining diversion, how can one possibly argue that a specific recording didn't influence anything or anybody? It's similar to the more techie debates in other forums on this site...The best you can hope for is a null result and that's based on empirical evidence backed with specific pertinent test procedures within defined parameters...This RR section is purely what we refer to as subjective and anecdotal...read: meaningless.

Huh? Please post something that makes some sense.





I'm a musician who loves music...my only criteria is that it must actually be music...MNSHO most of the drivel contained in this list fails that litmus test...big time...)

In the language of YECH: bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! One thing about you: I do find you entertaining, even if you can't seem capable to make a point with something to back it up.

[MasterCylinder]

You guys are wrong about Troy and the pimp sound.
I mean, he digs RED STAR.





lol !

[BradH]

It ain't the streets...

That notion has already been dismissed in this thread. I noticed you didn't respond to it.

Think you can find it?

[Heywood Djahblomie]

Oh yeah, you nailed it. Thanks for clearing that up.

don't sweat it, its the least I can do

and to think I cleared it up without tossing in a bunch of obscure names and musical references to make myself look like some self appointed guru

[noddin0ff]

Could it be fair to say that KOB influenced listeners more that it influenced musicians? I would think most people (who were not into Jazz at the time and came later) got their introduction to Jazz via KOB. It's accessible. It's good. And it provides enough of everything for a curious listener to use as a base for exploration. I think its fair to say that most people who liked KOB found a world of jazz they also liked.

[nobody]

No rec is for EVERYBODY. The chances that someone wouldn't like this, yet love the older stuff, in this day & age, may be slim, but they are far from nil, in spite of what you believe.

Just thought I'd mention how true this is.

My wife is a great example...doesn't care for Miles Davis at all...can't stand most 50s and 60s jazz outside a little Chet Baker and the occasional jazz ballad when she's trying to relax or go to sleep, but she really does like some older New Orleans stuff, big band, swing and such. I think its the higher energy that she digs. Ya know, something made for people who wanna get up and move, not sit around nodding their head.


Oh yeah...and I personally do dig Kind of Blue alot; I still have fond memories of resting by an open wiondow with no Ac in the summer and an old transistor radio playing songs off it many years ago when I really did start to like jazz for the first time. But think its really lame how people make these lists and feel like they have to give some token nod to a jazz record and toss this one on the list. There are tons of influential jazz records, and I'd argue guys like Armstrong were more influential than Davis if you're gonna only pick one guy to hang it on anyway.

Really, I wish they'd either pick a more diverse list and truly make some sort of attempt at encompassing a well-rounded musical diet, or just stick to rock/pop/whatever rather than think they are being diverse by tossing out the token Miles Davis record for jazz, a Johnny cash or something for country, a Bob Marley for the rest of the planet and then feeling they've covered everything else just sticking with another 45 albums of rock/pop. Just seems stupid to me.

[3-LockBox]

Really, I wish they'd either pick a more diverse list and truly make some sort of attempt at encompassing a well-rounded musical diet, or just stick to rock/pop/whatever rather than think they are being diverse by tossing out the token Miles Davis record for jazz, a Johnny Cash or something for country, a Bob Marley for the rest of the planet and then feeling they've covered everything else just sticking with another 45 albums of rock/pop. Just seems stupid to me.

But that's the way some music afficianados are...I know people who have copies of Davis' Britches Brew, but when you look at it (and I do) it looks virtually un-touched. It's cool to own, and usually predominately displayed, but no one listens to it, at least to my experience anyway. Same with Cash. I never was a huge fan of his. Oh, I admire his career and his commitment to art but I find most of his attempts at modern rock unlistenable (Rusty Cage was ok I guess). But man did he ever hit it big with the hipster/snob college crowd. I don't own any Cash (but my parents did). I guess the biggest thing I like about the Cash story is how country music industry turns their back on him in the '80s/90s, he becomes uber hip, then they scramble (I imagine) to reclaim him.

As for Marley, I have to plead guilty. I own Legend (remastered) and thats it. I've heard a few of his albums, but Legend suits me fine. I've listened to other reggae acts and while most of them have something I like, I'm just not compelled to collect them. And lets face it, very few of them are all that fresh anymore. And I don't want to hear any rasta rap either.

[nobody]

I guess that's my point. if you're not into music outside the rock/pop realm just say so and go on. Don't be all actin' like you're mister music god across all genre lines just 'cause you can name check one or two albums deemed the cool ones to like from genres you don't really like or know much of anything about. Either find people to chime in who have the knowledge of and love for other genres and make the list truly inclusive or just stick to what you actually know.

And, for the record...*****es Brew never did a thing for me...bought it, listened a couple times, sold it back. Johnny Cash is fantastic, been listening since I was a kid and don't care how cool/uncool he is at any given time. Nice when other people jump on the wagon, but I won't miss 'em when they jump off. (although it is nice to be able to play his music without people running to put something else on) And, that Legend album really does have some great material on it and can serve as a wonderful introduction to Bob Marley, but he's got tons more good stuff out there if you like that...and only listening to Bob Marley for reggae is basically like only listeneing to the Beatles for rock...it's a big pool...jump on in.

[3-LockBox]

I guess that's my point. if you're not into music outside the rock/pop realm just say so and go on. Don't be all actin' like you're mister music god across all genre lines just 'cause you can name check one or two albums deemed the cool ones to like from genres you don't really like or know much of anything about.

Isn't that what music boards are for?

:lol:

[dean_martin]

Same with Cash. I never was a huge fan of his. Oh, I admire his career and his commitment to art but I find most of his attempts at modern rock unlistenable (Rusty Cage was ok I guess). But man did he ever hit it big with the hipster/snob college crowd. I don't own any Cash (but my parents did). I guess the biggest thing I like about the Cash story is how country music industry turns their back on him in the '80s/90s, he becomes uber hip, then they scramble (I imagine) to reclaim him.




I think that's a very accurate take on Cash for today, but what I find interesting is that I've not picked up one of the "American Recordings" albums, but I have most of the Sun recordings in one form or another and had my picture taken with every life-sized Cash photo/poster at Sun Studio in Memphis. I've got the vinyl version of Live at Folsom Prison on wish lists at Acoustic Sounds and Music Direct but the release date keeps getting pushed back. That Sun stuff has an underlying drive that gets me going. I even cover "Train of Love" for my friends and family. When I'm driving, I enevitably wind up listening to "Orange Blossom Special" at some point. Luv it! But, as for the American Recordings albums, I'll give an example: I'd much rather listen to Leonard Cohen singing "Bird on the Wire" than Cash.

And yes, I like Kind of Blue. It was my introduction to jazz and sent me off searching for Coltrane and Evans stuff which led to others as well.

[Swish]

.Even the concept of the thread is faulty (sorry Swish).
...this weekly thing to enliven the board, you sure have posted an awful lot. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I was going for, good, bad or indifferent. No need for an apology, I just want everyone to keep responding. If someone thinks you're full of crap, they'll let you know, and it appears they have done just that.

Swish

[nobody]

Isn't that what music boards are for?

:lol:


Exactly. I expect more from people who are actually getting paid though.

[Troy]

Hey wait . . . who's getting paid!?!

Yes, boards like this are for pontificating. I have no problem with that. It's when people feel the need to lay some kind of superiority trip on others because they think their taste is the only answer when most of us understand that music appreciation is a totally subjective . . . subject. There is no right or wrong, only opinions. So I was simply pissed because that Loser deemed anyone that doesn't like Kinda Blue to be less than human and undeserving of THEIR opinion. That is all.

Cash, ugh. Influential? Oh hell yes, and on many things that I really dig. But I think the artists that picked up his ball and ran with it are better than he was. Ditto Brian Wilson, Miles and dozens of others.

[MindGoneHaywire]

don't sweat it, its the least I can do

and to think I cleared it up without tossing in a bunch of obscure names and musical references to make myself look like some self appointed guru

You should try it sometime. No better way that I know of to bring out the inner Eric Cartman.

But I agree with you that the mention that one is a musician is meaningless. Knowing something about this or that from the perspective of a player rarely if ever amounts to much in discussions like this. And the posters who feel it necessary to let us all know that they're approaching a discussion from the standpoint of a musician rather than as a listener frequently think they've got the key to the universe because they possess a skill. I reject this, so I stoop to mentioning that I also know how to play an instrument; if someone's just spouting outright crap, I don't see anything wrong with them knowing that the poster calling them on it actually knows how to play one of these things also. And I like my crappy houses, and those of others I helped build. It don't mean squat here, and if Miles Davis' ghost took a look at this thread, whether he thought this one or that one or me or the other guy were right or wrong, it does still entitle each of us to our opinions. I won't deny that to anyone, but I'd be more likely to assign more validity to a poster that claims to be a player if they have an opinion that makes sense.

I agree with 3-Lock on B*tches Brew, and on the concept of hip, 'important' records in general (Lester Bangs touched on this nicely with a paragraph or two on the 2nd Velvet Underground album once). But I don't begrudge Johnny Cash the hipster cache his records with Rick Rubin brought him, mostly because I think they're good recs (except the 4th). I think there are far more deserving targets of ire, but if you want to aim yr cannon that way, have at it. I don't see it. Avoiding them because Leonard Cohen did a better Bird On A Wire? Then you'll never hear him do what I think is a better version of one of Beck's toons, or one of Nick Cave's. A great reading of a Tom Waits song, an even better rendition of a Loudon Wainwright ditty. In my view, artistically on a par with anything he did for 30 years prior.

But the intent of the list was to identify 50 records that influenced music (presumably the ones that influenced music the most). It was published in a newspaper in the UK, where they have some different ideas about music than we do (which will be reflected later on in the list). There will be choices that will once again be railed against because none of us liked them, while it will once again be ignored that this is not the criteria for why they're on the list. I'm not big on making predictions, but I'll stick by that one. And I'll be happy to be proved wrong, because if that happens, it will be because people actually understood the intent of the piece.

Anything other than pop and rock music is sorely underrepresented here, suggesting that that either the writers of the piece don't care about the first 40 or 50 years of the record industry, or they think their readers don't. Sadly, both of those are probably true. Anyone else think that if this had been a list in a newspaper in Paris that jazz records would've been far more prominent than they are on this list?

[dean_martin]

But I don't begrudge Johnny Cash the hipster cache his records with Rick Rubin brought him, mostly because I think they're good recs (except the 4th). I think there are far more deserving targets of ire, but if you want to aim yr cannon that way, have at it. I don't see it. Avoiding them because Leonard Cohen did a better Bird On A Wire? Then you'll never hear him do what I think is a better version of one of Beck's toons, or one of Nick Cave's. A great reading of a Tom Waits song, an even better rendition of a Loudon Wainwright ditty. In my view, artistically on a par with anything he did for 30 years prior.



I'm almost floored that I said something that could be construed as begrudging Johnny Cash anything, but I reckon I did. My intent was to display childish disdain for the Johnny-come-lately fans, but not for The Man in Black himself, and even that intent was off-the-cuff. I've heard tracks from the Rick Rubin-produced albums, but admittedly I haven't opened the door and walked in. I've peered through the key hole and didn't see/hear anything that made me jump. I've sampled tracks from all 4 albums (I think there's a 5th now) to determine which one to start with and couldn't decide. At least I know now that I shouldn't start with the 4th. (Thanks, MGH.) I'm not avoiding them. But if any of those albums have the Tennessee Two vibe (which is my personal preference) then I don't know about it. Music is a progressive thing with me. If I explore an artist's work, then move onto another artist or even another genre, I find it hard to derail the train and come back to that artist's subsequent output, even if the artist was/is a favorite based on previous output.

[MindGoneHaywire]

Sorry, that first part was in response to 3-Lock, I should have been more clear.

For the most part I wouldn't consider the American series to be reminiscent of Cash's early stuff. The first album is entirely solo acoustic, the second one has some of Tom Petty's Heartbreakers...but there are a lot of ballads. It's more Dylanesque than anything else, to my ears. The 4th album has performances that a lot of people seemed to love, but sounded tired & unnecessary to me; the 5th I like better.

What Rick Rubin did with Neil Diamond last year wasn't all that far off. Major difference being Diamond is known for writing his own stuff, of course, but otherwise there's a lot of similarity, especially with the first American album.

[3-LockBox]

But I don't begrudge Johnny Cash the hipster cache his records with Rick Rubin brought him, mostly because I think they're good recs (except the 4th). I think there are far more deserving targets of ire, but if you want to aim yr cannon that way, have at it. I don't see it. Avoiding them because Leonard Cohen did a better Bird On A Wire? Then you'll never hear him do what I think is a better version of one of Beck's toons, or one of Nick Cave's. A great reading of a Tom Waits song, an even better rendition of a Loudon Wainwright ditty. In my view, artistically on a par with anything he did for 30 years prior.

Oh, I don't begrudge Cash anything. Especially the success he enjoyed under Rubin, especially since the very genre Cash helped stay afloat in the '60s turned its back on him and wouldn't give him a contract. Its just not my cuppa joe. And I don't own any token Cash recs cuz well, there's just so much more I want to own.

[Resident Loser]

Huh? Please post something that makes some sense.

In the language of YECH: bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!! One thing about you: I do find you entertaining, even if you can't seem capable to make a point with something to back it up.

Give that man a big ceegar!!!

The second part of your post addresses the issue...

All of it...the list...this exercise (the series of threads)...this forum...it's all subjective and anecdotal...can't be proven or disproven...there is no way to measure it...Unless you want to bring sales figures into it, and that's not the point apparently and I (nor can anyone else) can't "back up" their opinion...

So each and every "debate" (for lack of better words) devolves into "is...isn't"...since there is no way to measure opinion (other than sales figures) the point is mo-o-o-o-o-t...You can either agree to disagree or have cheap shots taken e.g.:

"...except that the thread then screams out for someone to challenge the crap you put into it. Especially since you seem to fancy yrself as someone who 'gets it,' what with all the witty sig quotes..."

And the "hipster" references (whatever that means)...Hip I ain't..

But I sorta' kinda think had I not badmouthed the first recording and it's spawn...hmmm...but frigate! I'm up for the game...

jimHJJ(...and always will be...)

P.S. To whom it may concern: And it ain't because it's MD or JC or whoever...'coulda been Clarence Phlegm and his Phlegm-tones, it's the music and the mood it can set, so lose the history of jazz routine and who's who of hacks or the boppers vs. new jazz schtick...it's all just filler...

[Resident Loser]

That notion has already been dismissed in this thread. I noticed you didn't respond to it.

Think you can find it?

...can you kindly elaborate on WTF your point is?

jimHJJ(...I think you done tooken tings outa context...)

[Resident Loser]

Could it be fair to say that KOB influenced listeners more that it influenced musicians? I would think most people (who were not into Jazz at the time and came later) got their introduction to Jazz via KOB. It's accessible. It's good. And it provides enough of everything for a curious listener to use as a base for exploration. I think its fair to say that most people who liked KOB found a world of jazz they also liked.

...that's the ticket...a bit more PC than my overt and inadvertent "assault" on some of the sensibilities 'round here...Which BTW was taken as an assault or personal affront for what reason? I don't have a clue...I opined and folks got p!$$ed...

jimHJJ(...ain't that a b!tch...)

[Resident Loser]

. I have no problem with that. It's when people feel the need to lay some kind of superiority trip on others because they think their taste is the only answer when most of us understand that music appreciation is a totally subjective . . . subject. There is no right or wrong, only opinions. So I was simply pissed because that Loser deemed anyone that doesn't like Kinda Blue to be less than human and undeserving of THEIR opinion. That is all.



...and Troy boy, that's on you and your inferiority complex...lotta' baggage there...Like when I was addressing MGH...

jimHJJ(...nothing to do with me...)

[Resident Loser]

...this weekly thing to enliven the board, you sure have posted an awful lot. As a matter of fact, that's exactly what I was going for, good, bad or indifferent. No need for an apology, I just want everyone to keep responding. If someone thinks you're full of crap, they'll let you know, and it appears they have done just that.

Swish

...can't anyone read something without reading into it?

Numero uno: I continue posting my cr@p as a response to all the incoming cr@p...and ALL of it certainly belongs in a fecal container...

Next...I don't find fault with your concept of the thread, but if you care to take a look at my response to Stone, you should get the drift...although why it wasn't obvious from the outset (as that paragraph in post #24 says it all) concerns me...

And as an aside to nobody...if any of your remarks were directed at me, if you take the time to re-read all I've posted to this thread everyhing is there...some of that conceptual continuity...if you don't get it...well...I may be gross and perverted, obsessed and deranged but I never claimed omniscience...

jimHJJ(...as I see it, the list is giving me more time off for good behavior...)

[MindGoneHaywire]

...can you kindly elaborate on WTF your point is?

jimHJJ(...I think you done tooken tings outa context...)


You may find this difficult to believe, and I'm sure it won't take you long to let us all know how much you don't care, but I am glad that there is a rec that we agree on. I actually liked the 'mood' thing you scribbled about it. But then you go on & characterize it as something that...


...results in Troy's ire. I have to agree with him. Taking the stance you do, you create a perception that you are affecting a superior pose in how you relate what you think someone's supposed to get from this rec...not that you're not entitled to do so...but in talking about what should be for someone else if they DON'T like the rec, this is the sort of response you're going to receive on this board. There's not a lot of positivity in all this animosity & hostility, but there is at least the fact that we care enough about music to argue about it in this fashion. Seeing KOB esconced so close to the top of so many lists, well, you can contrast that to rock...where we've spent nearly 30 years now with lists from here or there that rank Led Zep IV or DSOTM or Sgt. Pepper or whatever as the 'best' this or that...this rec occupies a similar place in the perception of many people who don't scrutinize these lists as we would. And I've seen it said that if you don't like one of those exalted recs (which sometimes include hipper fare, punk et al, a Sex Pistols rec or something like that), then rock isn't for you. And that's just ridiculous.

If ya took a second & found a different way of saying it, then ya get a different reaction. Then again, sometimes it doesn't matter, since Troy took my statement that if you don't like this rec then 'quite possibly' jazz isn't something you'll enjoy, but left out the 'quite possibly in his interpretation of my meaning. You can view that any way you wish, but for me it's a matter of not overreaching. Now go back & take a look at yr first post again & tell me that that aspect of it isn't an overreach.

Beyond that, and I'm trying to be as civil as possible, what I was trying to say is that there are elements to this rec that encompass some, or quite a bit, of what you said you didn't like about the first rec. Continue to go ahead & like & dislike as you please, but when I don't like one rec for one reason yet like another even though the reason for disliking the other rec exists, even if not to an extent that could be considered obvious, then I think it's worth explaining. Better than you have. Jazz is okay to be arty & perhaps, even pretentious, but not rock? The cats are cool, but not the East Village hipsters? The differences, beyond the style of music, are far more a case of style than substance, and that's what makes it puzzling when the reason you give for not liking one thing is something that gets a free pass on a rec you pen a nice little tale about being transported to...wherever it brings you to.

If that's just a matter of being a jazz snob, that'd be one thing. And jazz snobs generally don't have a problem owning up to such. It's a position that seems odd for someone who's not. Again, like whatever ya want. But there are inconsistencies in yr posts that stand out given the tone of the posts, and I'm only bothering to put this up in an attempt to find out if you see them or not. Like Brad said, you haven't addressed one point that I brought up previously, so there it is. No need to prolong this further unless there's something to discuss.

"Just sayin." I'm off to Yankee Stadium. See y'all.

[Resident Loser]

...folks I've said it to (my seemingly objectionable phrase, that is ) in face-to-face situations, grin or chuckle and seem to get it...maybe when confronted with an endless array of possibilities, they are grateful for some input from someone other than the pimply-faced record store employees...And a big P.S. I never shoved it down anyone's throat...they've all approached me...

Whatever, no one I've said it to directly reacted badly or took it as some sort of insult, so when I relate my tale with no specific recipient, in this anonymous forum, and folks take it personal, it makes me wonder...and I'm sure this'll go over big too!!!

Along the lines of noddinOff's post...if you can't get next to this recording, which to me seems mellow, safe and accessible, maybe jazz ain't for you and you should stick with what you consider music...Lord knows one could do "worse"...like Kenny G or some fusion...;-)

jimHJJ(...imagine a neophyte takin' home Eric Dolphy or Sun Ra...might tend to put 'em off...)

[nobody]

And as an aside to nobody...if any of your remarks were directed at me

Not everyone around here is obsessed with you. I got bored pretty much after the first go round. If I wanna take a shot at you, I'll let ya know.

[Resident Loser]

Not everyone around here is obsessed with you. I got bored pretty much after the first go round. If I wanna take a shot at you, I'll let ya know.

...for your response and candor...

jimHJJ(...now that's an understanding I can live with...)

[bobsticks]

I love this album and own it in four versions. Hell, I still own the original cassette format given to me as a kid, and I don't own a cassette player. I agree that it is evocative of warm, dark times in the mind's eye, although I suppose in my case art informed life after my youth.
I have always gotten curious when I hear that KOB spawned "modal" jazz, as if the seven modes didn't exist before this. The half-step progression of the rolling bass line within the first several measures tells the whole tale. Because MD felt saucy and left the Lydian mode for some flourishes does not a theoretical revolution make. It does, however, constitute a significant evolution in the genre away from the aformentioned austerity of previous incarnations.
I can easily see how one might prefer a more complex form or performance within the confines of "jazz". I also see no reason why either path need be mutually exclusive but that again leads to subjectivism. At the end of the day I would argue against comparing KOB to "A Love Supreme" or even "*****es Brew". Kind of like implying that within the pantheon of rock early VanHalen begat Rush; In a phrase apples and oranges...

Cheers, IMO,YMMV, and all that claptrap

[BradH]

...can you kindly elaborate on WTF your point is?

Sure. Jay said this:


What, you think there's that large a gap between the cultural & societal behaviors & trends, in fashion & elsewhere, between the scene north of 125th St. in the 40s & 50s, and the East Village hipster gang a few years later? Or, for that matter, the folkies a few blocks to the west, who populated the scene Dylan emerged from?

Seems like an interesting topic of debate to me. You're only response to this point, if it was a response, was to basically repeat yourself by saying, "It ain't from the streets".

[Resident Loser]

Sure. Jay said this:



Seems like an interesting topic of debate to me. You're only response to this point, if it was a response, was to basically repeat yourself by saying, "It ain't from the streets".

...and I promise to respond...Probably next week...

jimHJJ(...sorry gotta' go...)

[3-LockBox]

Taking the stance you do, you create a perception that you are affecting a superior pose in how you relate what you think someone's supposed to get from this rec...not that you're not entitled to do so...

Well, if that were all that big of a buggaboo, there'd a whole lot mo playa-hatin' goin on, cuz we all do it, just in different ways and tact. Some don't like that I dismiss an album as unimportant, simply based on whether or not I liked the album/group. I too dismiss the 'list' because of its narrow focus, albeit with a few tangents thrown in to look more diverse (when it really isn't). But it ain't makin me lose sleep...this board don't pay me enough to rent space in my head.;)

[Swish]

.
Numero uno: I continue posting my cr@p as a response to all the incoming cr@p...and ALL of it certainly belongs in a fecal container...
jimHJJ(...as I see it, the list is giving me more time off for good behavior...)

...when I stated that "If someone thinks you're full of crap, they'll let you know, and it appears they have done just that", "you're" wasn't referring to only you, but to anyone who chooses to post something here. Yes, I've been on the board a long time and have posted plenty of crap, and nobody is shy about pointing out just how full of crap I was.

Swish

[MindGoneHaywire]

That's a load of crap.

[Dusty Chalk]

I feel the urge to purge. The power of suggestion?

[tin ear]

Gettin' deep in here...

[Swish]

That's a load of crap.

...I could use the word 'crap' in a sentence. Holy crap on a crap cracker! I was just showin' off my superior vocabulary.

Swish

[tin ear]

Holy crap on a crap cracker!
You are a poet -- a master of alliterative verse. 3181 lines of crap to go and you will have produced a modern Beowulf.

:D

Hey... wait a minute. Is that your work or did you steal it from Frank Barrone?

[MindGoneHaywire]

There are a lot of things that are popular where I get a little skeptical, or at least get the idea something is overhyped. I find that with a lot of the sorts of hip token nods that are offered on 'best-of' lists. It also gets wearying hearing about how this or that is 'brilliant' by critics just regurtitating the same unimaginative platitudes about the same friggin' recs that have already attained a certain place in the popular imagination from the first time they were reviewed (a long time ago, with this particular rec). When I started seeing documentaries about genres of music, and bands, that I'd long felt had been sorely underappreciated & overlooked, I thought it was great. You see the same praise lavished on a band that never sold squat--the VU is an example--3 or 4 different yet similar ways on 3 or 4 docus, ya get tired of it after awhile. Sometimes it comes across with a condescending superiority that boldly assumes that you don't, can't know how important this or that artist or genre was. When you've heard the person's music & been a fan & maybe even have a whisper of an insight because you're familiar with the stuff for a long time, it's downright irritating. The Brian Wilson docu from 10 years ago borders on this, but the assembled guests never quite get to the point where they're talking down to you, though some come close. Some of the remarks in the docu on the Funk Brothers turned me off to it.

Back on point, then there's plenty where I can see why the hype exists, whether or not I think it's entirely justified. It gets a little tough to keep things in perspective sometimes. You get a little sick of this assumed place that something holds this or that place in pop music history because we've been conditioned to accept 'conventional wisdom.' Which sometimes shares commonality with peer pressure.

But KOB is a record that I've always felt deserved its mythic status. When a rec is revered as much as this one is, it can be tough to remember that...it's just an album. But after all the crap upthread, I did want to say something positive about this album.

I've always liked it, and I continue to. And it's one I'll never stop listening to. I wouldn't go on a vacation or even a long road trip without it. And while I'd scoff at the idea for just about any other record, and many artists for that matter, there have actually been books written about this one album. And in fact I have one of them, and recommend it to anyone big on the rec. There's some backstory, there's some musical analysis, there are some anecdotes, and observations.

I can hear Troy groaning from 3,000 miles away.

Just wanted to try to add something other than petty argument to the thread. I don't get caught up in the characterization of it as modal, although of course it is, the meaning of the word sort of gets lost when it's carelessly tossed around in so many paint-by-numbers pieces on it here & there; there's a tune or two on Milestones that display the characteristics in a much more in-yr-face fashion than this rec, to my way of thinking--which is that the modal aspect is overshadowed by the vibe, how the songs flow so well, and how much work it is for me to take the time to identify the technical differences from recs that evoke similar vibes, yet are characterized as being completely different forms or subsets of jazz. I try to forget about that & not get hung up on it & instead focus on how it occupies a timeline relative to Miles' catalog that just makes a lot of sense. The progression, the growth, what he did from one record to the next is more important to me. And I actually heard 'The '58 Sessions' before I heard Kind Of Blue.

In the past I felt like he lost me after E.S.P., but I have reconsidered & found Miles Smiles & In A Silent Way (introduced to me by our apparently departed Mad Rhetorik) to tickle my fancy. However, Nefertiti & Filles do not. Nor does B*tches Brew, On The Corner (influential though this one may have been on funk, etc.), or Jack Johnson. Or anything that came later that I've heard (except Doo-Bop).

Anyway, I do like quite a bt of the backstory involving the 30th St. Studio (once a church). But there's this part that always seemed kinda funny even though it did sorta make sense. It referred to the 'aphrodisiac properties' of the rec. And that might sound ridiculous on its face, but there's a feel to this record I think is, well, something that ya can't necessarily put into words. Someone else did put some of those sorts of feelings into words, and some of 'em ain't half bad. If this rec intrigues you as it does me, then I recommend. Highly.

http://www.amazon.com/Kind-Blue-Making-Davis-Masterpiece/dp/0306810670/sr=1-1/qid=1160096703/ref=pd_bbs_1/002-2334172-7736059?ie=UTF8&s=books