I don't understand Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue"

You mean that "Kind of Blue" was not an original title by Patricia Barber ??? : ) Sean
>

These are great posts about "Kind of Blue." It is ground breaking, beautiful, user friendly, jazz. Don't worry if you don't like it. Just keep plugging away at jazz, keep it on your shelf, and low and behold, one day it'll hit you. Jazz is kind of like sushi. I was told for years that uni is the greatest thing since sliced bread. I hated it and lost my stomach over it. Every once in a while I'd check it out. I love it like crazy now. Go figure. Try these Miles Davis ablums:
Relaxin With The Miles Davis Quintet
Milestones
Miles
Cookin' With the Mile Davis Quintet
Steamin'" " " " "
If these don't do it for you, you're just not ready for this guy. They should bring you back to the beauty of Kind of Blue.
happy listening,
warren

In my opinion, the beauty of an album like Kind of Blue, and that genre of expressive jazz, is the ability of the musicians to "lock" onto a flow that they all have in their minds. They are all improvising, yet they seem to know where each other is going, and where the music is going. It is an ethereal thing. Like all of them have "tuned in" to a wave, and are riding it with their improvisations. No matter what timing changes, or modes or rhythms that they move through, they don't "lose" each other. Many other jazz attempts at this result in gibberish. Alot of live jazz is done in an attempt at finding this "meshing" and sometimes it is successful, and sometimes not. When it happens, it is magic. This is a good example of what Kind of Blue is. It is the connection of the musicians on a different dimensional plane, expressed through the musical improvisations. Many improvisational musicians know that sometimes the music just flows out, without even thinking. It comes from somewhere else. When all the musicians are flowing from the same connected "somewhere else", music is created that is beyond the musicians themselves. That is the only way I know how to describe this.

I agree with the earlier poster who argued that jazz is something to be experienced, not dissected. Although there are some awfully intellectual treatises on jazz structure, etc., IMO it is primarily a visceral experience.

I am a classically trained musician with a number of years of symphonic and chamber music playing. I resisted and looked down on jazz for many years. Then I discovered Gigi Gryce and was instantly hooked. I'm still not a hard core jazzer, sitting motionless (except for a little side to side rocking of the head) peering through a pall of smoke and inhaling the aromas of room deodorant and stale beer. But I do love to listen at home, a pleasure I never thought I'd experience.

Listen around and find what you like. If you don't like any of it, that's OK, too.

Another opinion worth what you paid for it.

will

Hi
As lisa Simpson says
"You have to listen to the notes he's NOT playing".

Example Bartok's "Concerto for orchestra" I first heard it at about 12 years old and hated it. By 18 after hearing it dozens of times "I GOT IT". VERY AWESOME!

It is musicians who teach us about music

If at first you don't get it try..try.. again.

mike