No.

Do I think there are other albums since that are better?

Yes.

But you can't deny that it still holds up. That's what makes a piece of art truly great. It holds up over time.

 

As in "it costs more than it's actually worth?" Or "people think it is more of a masterpiece than it actually is?"

I dunno, I just really like it


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

No, and I doubt anyone could compel me to believe that it is.

 

No. Masterpiece.

 

I don´t deny the unquestionable importance of "Kind of blue", but I don´t think that this album deserves the superlative relevance that most of jazz musicians give to it. IMHO.

 

If you don't deny it's unquestionable importance I struggle to comprehend how you cannot understand why it's revered by every jazz musician ever

 

I think Kind of Blue is a wonderful example of an album that's been distilled down to an essence. Each member of the group lends their personality and voice, which are obviously pretty well developed and distinct.

The other thing that makes Kind of Blue such an important album is that it's pretty accessible to most people, musician or not. The songs are framework for solos that are melodic--music that people can grab on to. If anyone I know expresses an interest in starting to listen to jazz, it's the album that I point them to as a good starting place.

 

Also, I heard it was the first crossover album to use extensive modal work/harmonies.

 

Of course it's good like a lot of other stuff. I can see why the thread, because of over the top admiration by some. If you have an emotional attachment to this record OK. But for me it's just one of many. I have an emotional attachment to the song Danny Boy. Don't ask me why, I'm not Irish, although my great Grandad was. LoL. Anyway I don't expect everybody to like Danny Boy.

 

obviously everyone has their own tastes, preferences, etc. But even if you don't particularly enjoy the music itself, the scope and influence of the album is very nearly unparalleled. That's why I don't think that there's an argument for it to be "overrated" - it's a remarkably important record in history.

 

It's currently in my car's player and exactly today I was thinking on how many things there are to listen and to learn in such melodies...

 

definitely a masterpiece

 

A masterpiece. Although it should not be described as a totally modal album since 40% of it is in blues form. It's only "Kind of Modal".

 

What amazes me is that, although I've listened to So What, Freddie Freeloader and All Blues an incalculable number of times -- a thousand? I've never tired of Julian Adderley's or John Coltrane's solos. They remain fresh to my ears, each time -- even as I sing or whistle along with them. That's why I have to say masterpiece.

Also, the album is to 20th century music what William Gibson would call a Nodal Point.

 

I agree, given the longevity and especially the influence of the album it certainly isn't overrated. Spooner really nailed it earlier, though, that the masterpiece is accessible even for wannabes like me, that is a big factor I think. Would jazz be different now if there had been no Kind of Blue? I think definitely.

 

i too think Spooner's observations are spot-on. The album sums up nicely all that had come before and at the same time gave a new direction to jazz. No small feat by any standard.

 

The album sums up nicely all that had come before and at the same time gave a new direction to jazz. No small feat by any standard.

Exactly. The question is about the album's "value". You either have to have a good sense of the history of jazz and/or have been there at the time of its release to fully understand its impact. This may be one of the most influential jazz recordings ever - hence its "value".

 

Many years ago, when I was taking lessons and getting serious about playing, it was introduced to me as THE standard for modal jazz. It is still one of my favourites, I'd put it in the masterpiece category.

 

Really? Have you listened to it? Its amazing!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

I don't believe in miracles, but this album is miraculous.

Miles, Coltrane, Adderley, Evans somehow met at exactly the right moment where they had their own voice, but was able and willing to blend their individual voices to the group intent. Not sure it would have been as great a collaboration even a month later. I don't know anything about production, but the sound recording and reproduction is incredible as well, to my "civilian" ears. Such a coming together correctly of so many factors. Miraculous, IMO.

 

Miles, Coltrane, Adderley, Evans somehow met at exactly the right moment where they had their own voice, but was able and willing to blend their individual voices to the group intent. Not sure it would have been as great a collaboration even a month later.

One thing that added to the dynamic is that, if I recall correctly, unlike many recordings when a band comes in and records well played-in tunes they've been playing on gigs and tours, I believe that Miles just gave them some broad guidelines once they showed up and left the rest up to intuition.

 

Well, no need to insult the guy. He obviously hasn't yet achieved enlightenment. :bluewink:

Fernando - sometime when you've got the time, sit down and think of (maybe even play some recordings of) what the state of jazz was before the fall of 1959. Then listen to "Blue" in that context and compared to what had gone before. See if you can then understand why it had such an impact as it did.

 

The drummers were more sophisticated.

 

One of the best musical collaborations ever.

I mean this in the sense that the whole turned out much greater than the sum of the parts. And those parts!

Miles Davis, at the absolute peak of his powers, both as a composer and a player...just past the cusp of a complete change in his approach to music. One of the greatest influences in 20th century music, having made the most radical move in a musically controversial career.

Coltrane, at the height of his melodic vision, also right at the tipping point, about to take flight as a bandleader and establish himself as (probably) the greatest tenor player ever. Propelled by a switch to modal music? By this album actually? He is *technically* better in the years that follow, but never *musically* better. Achingly good.

Cannonball, again right at the perfect place in his career. Surrounded by Miles and Coltrane on this date, he holds his own, adding to the picture quite nicely. Even more melodic than Coltrane? I know it is Cannonball's playing on Freddie Freeloader that I think of most often when I play the alto.

Evans, recalled from his emergence as a bandleader just for this date, shines.

Mr. PC and Jimmy Cobb provide terrific backing.

Add the uncertainty of recording when Miles gives the rest of the band little direction, and the result is just stunning.

Even ROCK CRITICS acknowledge its importance...#12 on their 500 greatest list, more than 40 years later.

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/lists/500-greatest-albums-of-all-time

Kind Of Blue was the cornerstone of a cultural shift in music, the kind that comes along very rarely and divides music into "before this" and "after this". It doesn't hit you in the head, or make you work hard to understand it. Never strained, or difficult, or harsh, it has a comfortable coolness to it that draws you in and keeps you there the whole way through.

And if you don't know, or care, about all of that historical stuff, it is still the kind of music that can be listened to over and over with becoming dated or tiresome. Even for listeners who are not bebop players, or jazz players, or even musicians.

Yes, I have been "introduced" to Kind Of Blue a dozen times by well-meaning friends who had just discovered it.

Overvalued? Not at all. Kind Of Blue is that good.

 

datasaxman, your post reminds me of a similar experience I had regarding getting hit right between the eyes, musically, and, again, it was Miles.

I was at a jazz festival early 60s and promoter George Wien came to the mike to announce that the scheduled Maynard Ferguson was not going to be able to appear but he grabbed Miles at the last moment as a replacement. Miles and his group came out and I was expecting to hear Kind of Blue material - to have my groovy inner-child thing happening- and the band blew my coolness right out of the water. He started with an explosion of sound that just totally disarmed me. It was his "new" "Second Great Quintet". And like the impact of "Blue" some years earlier, this new quintet just was overwhelming.

 

It's certainly a masterpiece. The whole album has such a cohesive band sound and a consistent intensity. And like many people have said above, it's to be valued for its incredible influence on the jazz that followed.

Please don't forget Wynton on Freddie Freeloader guys...

 

NO!
Isn't usage of the words "overvalued" and "jazz" in one sentence against SOTW rules?? :scratch:
It should be!

 

Great album.
I wouldn't say it's overvalued. I do know quite a few albums that are seriously undervalued though.

 

Aren't most jazz albums undervalued? ;-)

 

I consider "Kind of Blue" my favorite jazz album of all time. I agree with the other accolades shared here. I'll add that not only does it hold up to repeated listening and analysis, but is also accessible to people who don't know that much about jazz, and I often recommend it to people who want to start learning about jazz.

There is an analogy one can make to Mark Twain's book "Huckleberry Finn", which a young child can read and enjoy as a simple adventure story, but can read later as a deep social commentary.

 

I would love to be able to listen to it again for the first time.

 

is this like that overvalued club in the movie Manhattan where Diane Keaton and Michael Murphy start reeling off a list of unworthy artists like Van Gogh, Bertolt Brecht and Ingmar Bergman? maybe we should add Brilliant Corners, Out to Lunch, Black Saint and Sinner Lady and Saxophone Colossus.