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


I'm new to Jazz. While I enjoy Amstrong and Fitzgerald duo and some of Amstrong's Hot Five and Hot Seven pieces, I fail to appreciate "Kind of Blue" which is praised by many as cornerstone CD in jazz. What I hear from the CD is background music that is repetitous throughout the song and seemingly random saxo, or similar instrument - pardon my ignorance of instruments, in the front. The background music bothers me because it's simple and repetitive. Perhaps this is not my type of music. Or should I listen to other CDs before appreciate this one?

Can someone educate me what is great about this CD?
jlc993nc9cf
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
As I can understand almost any music and any musical taste I can point out that in general this album is too bluesy and quiet. I would not recommend to listen to it in the car especially if you have a long-way ride:) Audiofiles love this album due to its original live recording without overdubbing with noise from the blues bar. Those who likes dynamic music it's definitely not the album. I personally love Miles Davis later on post-Kind-Of-Blue period when he started to excersise fussion("Do Bop", "Decoy", "Tutu", "Amandla") and elements of flamenco("Scetches of Spain", "Siesta")
I listened to both versions CD and vinyl. CD sounds poor. Vinyl is superb.
Great response! Thanks everyone. Now, at least I know a bit of history behind KOB (see, I learned the acronym :). Okay, I'll listen to it with my mid hifi system instead of in my car. Read jazz books or take courses. Listen to more jazz music, live and recorded. And not worry about figuring out KOB or not.

Again, thank you all.