Kind of Blue

 I don't much like 'jazz', but I do like Miles Davis's early 70's stuff, as it doesn't sound to me like 'jazz' and it's really interesting music to me. Much of it reminds me of Grateful Dead space jams (and I've seen Branford Marsalis and Ornette Coleman jam with the GD a few times in Oakland). I got that Vinyl Me Please box set of 'Miles Davis - The Electric Years', and that is perfect for me. Herbie Hancock's 'Crossings' is like that too; doesn't sound like 'jazz', just 'music'. 

Some great examples, I had forgotten about, thanks for that.

I have been enjoying of late, Tord Gustaven Trio-The Other Side and Chet Baker-Chet.

@larsman 

 I don't much like 'jazz', but I do like Miles Davis's early 70's stuff, as it doesn't sound to me like 'jazz' and it's really interesting music to me. Much of it reminds me of Grateful Dead space jams (and I've seen Branford Marsalis and Ornette Coleman jam with the GD a few times in Oakland). I got that Vinyl Me Please box set of 'Miles Davis - The Electric Years', and that is perfect for me. Herbie Hancock's 'Crossings' is like that too; doesn't sound like 'jazz', just 'music'. 

I am gathering that the reason why you are saying you don't consider early 70's Miles and "Crossings" jazz, is because they don't sound like all those 50's post bop jazz recordings, that seem to have become the mainstream music listener's entire idea of what jazz sounds like. 

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.

There are subgenres of jazz, that sound even less like the jazz most people think of when they think of the "way jazz sounds", than those 70's Miles recordings or Crossings. 

Chamber-jazz, M-Base, avant-garde, fusion, jazz noir, just to name a few.

@simonmoon This, “No, no, no!”  business, this “(Tubular Bells) is firmly in the prog-rock genre, or progressive music genre” business, is all a bit much.  
Tubular Bells sounds like Steve Reich, Phillip Glass, Terry Riley, etc., stuff typically referred to as “contemporary classical,” “minimalist,” etc.  
When we get into the ‘60s and up to today, the whole thing of “avant-garde,” “classical,” and “jazz” gets pretty well intertwined to where I think we can just avoid this “No, no, no!” genre-mongering ideation.  
If someone thinks something sounds like jazz, so what?
It’s music.  
We can listen to music on it’s own terms without bending over backwards to pigeonhole something with generic, over-simplified label-mongering, “genre”-mongering (i.e. ‘No, no, no! Tubular Bells is firmly in the prog-rock genre, or progressive music genre.”). 
How is it constructive to do that? Is it helpful for either the artist or the listener to have someone from the peanut gallery “telling” everyone what a piece of music “is” via a generic label of “genre?”  
If you poured your heart, mind, body and soul, blood, sweat and tears into creating something, would you appreciate it being summarily reduced to some generic label?  
Or would you rather your creation was taken on it’s own terms for the thing it is?