Kind of Blue

Fantastic musician, Pat Martino who had one of the most interesting personal life stories.  Thanks mahgister!

Yes, but rarely, if ever, does one hear music (Jazz) with even nearly this level of sophistication of execution and sense of purpose at a wedding or hotel lobby. A recording such as KOB takes on special meaning in the context of the evolution of Jazz over the decades and that of a relentlessly evolving artist like Miles. One could say that it is very very sophisticated simplicity, which in a way is precisely the thrust of the modal Jazz movement.

**** I see the act of describing a “genre” (and the subsequent stringent segregation and put-everything-in-a-box attitude) as being useful only to a person for whom doing so helps them maximize their profits (corporate marketing execs, radio station programming execs, etc.). ****

Couldn’t disagree more. It is useful to many avid listeners and doing so does not suggest that these listeners are incapable of talking about music in an insightful way. Quite the contrary. There is no “mongering” involved. You seem to have a deep aversion to classification. That works for you. Fine. However, as exemplified by your list of “acceptable” ways to talk about music and given how personal/subjective descriptions can be, there are times when it’s best to let the music do the talking. So, along those lines and to get back to the OP’s question, here is one of my very favorites. Sadly little known:

Btw, love KOB.  Great and important record.

@whart , great article.  Great record.  Thanks.

**** Jazz is not a "style" of music that has a certain sound. It is a way of thinking about music, using sophisticated musical vocabulary, spontaneous composition ability, amazing levels of musicianship, musical communication with musicians while playing, etc. 

Make no mistake, those early 70's Miles recordings and "Crossings", are most definitely jazz. The musicians are all using jazz techniques, the vocabulary of jazz, jazz improv, etc. **** - simonmoon

Pretty thoughtful,  I would say.

I agree entirely with simonmoon’s and sturartk’s comments and I see no need to react defensively. simon’s description of Jazz as a genre is pretty darn good. Seems to me that there is a lot of value in being able to accurately describe what it is that defines a genre.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with the classification of music by genre or sub genre, even when the lines get blurred and it has to be done in broad(er) terms. Classification does not, in any way, give any one genre ultimate “superiority” nor “inferiority” as an art form if there is respect for the idea that “there are are only two kinds of music, good and bad”. An idea that, interestingly enough, was promulgated by and is most commonly associated with a Jazz artist. Duke Ellington, one of the greatest.

I believe that sometimes there is confusion about what that idea actually means and was intended to mean. It does not suggest that music should not be classified (by genre), or that there is no value in doing so. Rather, it is about recognizing and respecting the simple fact that in any genre there can be good music, just as there can be bad. There is a tendency on the part of some to put an entire genre of music that is liked on a pedestal higher than that of music that is not liked (understood), as concerns artistic value and validity. Level of creativity and emotional impact are barometers that apply to all genres and keeping an open mind can only be a good thing.