Marc Myers' fairly negative take on 'Kind of Blue'

[Larry Kart]

http://www.jazzwax.com./

[Dan Gould]

Thanks for that link, Larry, it was interesting. I couldn't find the complete article on the Jazziz site, while I disagree with Myers' opinion I'm curious how he expands on his points. I think though that we can all have our own takes on what the "best" recording by that group was, but what I thought was most intriguing was the assertion about the Columbia marketing department's effect on how Kind of Blue came to be viewed.

I for one can say that "So What" was one of the very first jazz tunes I heard, because it was on one of the first two jazz LPs I owned (I told Mom that I thought I might be interested in jazz one Christmas, my brother bought the Columbia Jazz Masterpieces Sampler volumes). So I am sure that I bought the full CD shortly thereafter so without much exposure to the Columbia Marketing Machine, my immediate, gut response was that this was a true classic recording.

But I think it would be interesting to know just how successful the LP was at the time, and how quickly it "crossed over" into non-jazz fan collections. Surely its impact on the music is unquestioned, but how did it come to have an impact on the wider music industry?

[JSngry]

To quote Mr. Costello, I used to get disgusted, now I only get amused.

So, here's another, "this "big thing" y'all see? It's really not that big after all" attack on reality. Of coursxe there are otehr albums of the time that might be "better", and of course the use of modaility on KOB was neither totally original nor the bulk of the album. Ane sure, the "marketing" of the album exists, to this day, just as it does with A Love Supreme.

But geez, Louise, you can only market something so much. You can't create such an enduring (if you can call a mere 50 years "enduring", but let's do it for the case of this argument) classic on hype alone. There's got to be something there. And that "something" is simple - mojo. "Better" music often has less of it, but that's irrelevant to anything, because mojo is one of those things that you either get or you don't.

Of course, there's always somebody who just doesn't get it, refuses to get it, and somebody whose subjective disengagement with an item gradually turns into a bow-tie-wearing-ish contrariness that delights in denying the existence of something that most people get without too much, if any, effort. That's the nature of mojo - it bypasses "reason" and "subjective analysis" and just goes straight to your own personal Point Of What Really Matters.

If somebody comes up and just says, "eh, I don't get it. That's just me" and stops there, hey, cool. Not necessarily right, but cool. It's the guys who go one step furhter and say, "I not only don't get it, but I think you've been duped if you do" that make me wonder if they don't have some misanthropic streak in them somewhere, some inabilty to not only understand what others feel that they themselves don't, but some need to disallow others to feel what they themselves don't.

You want to "blame" somthing fo this album's iconic status, try this - has there ever been any other album whose music has been so consistently, as in 100%, perfectly in sync in terms of timbre, tempo, texure, and space with its recorded sound? No, I think not. Has there been anything else quite like that seemingly eternal decay of Jimmy Cobb's "crash" (I use the term advisedly) cymbal coming out of the head of "So What" and the seamless emergence of his ride cymbal while Miles leaves the space for it to happen before riding back in to perfectly add yet another texture to the mix? No, I think not. And this is an album virtually full of such sonic moments, moments that would still ba as musically valid if recorded differently, but not as "magical". Reverb is an instrument unto itself, as is room sound, as is (as has long been noted about Miles) microphone technique. All are items to be "played" just as felicitously (or not) as any instrument. And all go a long ways towards creating mojo, since all are things which function (unless specifically directed otherwise) in the realm of the "extra-musical", even though when played right, they become as integral to, as much a part of, the music as "the music" itself.

There's more to this album than just the playing & the tunes. KOB is not just about "music". It's also about sound, environment, ambiance, experience beyond the subjective, all those "extra-musical" (although not really, not in my book) things that make the difference between a greeting card and a nice romantic note and a love letter that convinces you to pack up your bags and begin your life anew. That is mojo, and you either get it or you don't.

Mr. Myers is apparently one of the ones who doesn't get it. Many, many more do, and contrary to what he migh be hoping for, this proves nothing more than that he doesn't get it and that many, many more do.

Good for him, but excuse me if I pretty much give him a rousing, "so what?".

[Joe G]

My beef with Kind of Blue in general is that it's a relatively sterile work that dwells obsessively on icy modal riffs. These extended riffs offer plenty of cool and posturing but for me they've always come up short on heart and beauty.

On a technical note: I could be wrong, but as I understand it, the term "riff" generally refers to a short melodic theme, typically one that is repeated, and "modal" refers to the underlying harmonic structure. Two different realms;

I've never thought this recording lacked heart, and certainly not beauty. Posturing? Obsessing over icy riffs? Not as I hear it. Open, relaxed, and very melodic improvising? Yes.

And geez...

Depending on your viewpoint, Miles Davis' Kind of Blue either is the most significant jazz album ever recorded—or one of the most over-hyped

[AllenLowe]

technically a riff is a short motif of a rhythmic nature -

let me add that you have to speak to people who heard it closer to its issue date - I first heard it in 1968, and it came to me as just another Miles recording, but it was clearly a major and important work - not iconic, yet, not legendary, just a beautifully written and performed date.

Edited September 28, 2008 by AllenLowe

[7/4]

- could it be possible to have a short motif without rhythm?

.

[AllenLowe]

you got me -

[Jim Alfredson]

It's a recording that was and is very influential. Whether the bass is "muddy" or someone likes it or doesn't is really beside the point.

Context is everything.

Who is Marc Myers anyway? He speaks of the democratic nature of the internet, but that can be both a blessing and a curse.

[7/4]

Who is Marc Myers anyway? He speaks of the democratic nature of the internet, but that can be both a blessing and a curse.

Just another Jazz music critic on the internet...they're a self important dime-a-dozen, aren't they Jim? They're opinions are like...whatever...everybody's got one.

[BillF]

technically a riff is a short motif of a rhythmic nature -

let me add that you have to speak to people who heard it closer to its issue date - I first heard it in 1968, and it came to me as just another Miles recording, but it was clearly a major and important work - not iconic, yet, not legendary, just a beautifully written and performed date.

Allen's words exactly describe my reaction to it when I first heard it - and got hold of a copy - in 1960. When I read, thirty to forty years later, about it being the best selling jazz album ever, I was astonished. Milestones never got a mention and that was, if anything, bigger back then.

[JSngry]

let me add that you have to speak to people who heard it closer to its issue date - I first heard it in 1968, and it came to me as just another Miles recording, but it was clearly a major and important work - not iconic, yet, not legendary, just a beautifully written and performed date.

I first heard it in 1972, sophomore in high school, into jazz for a little over a year, lots of big band, "jazz-rock", Impulse! "avant-garde", and loud, bouncy combo music of various eras. It was in no way, to my knowledge in my admittedly isolated word, a "classic" like it is now. It was, however, something that people wanted to make sure you heard and knew about. My band director, otherwise a West Coast "cool" guy made sure I heard it, and a classmate with an older brother who was deep into jazz had a reel-to-reel dub courtesty of his brother that he would play in the band hall. In fact, it was this dubbed copy that I first heard. The band director brought in his copy after hearing us listening to the dub.

The thing stopped me dead in my tracks because of its sheer sparseness. It actally seemed weird to hear so much space in music. I remember going around all day trying to "get" all the space, just singing a wnote while walking, taking 5-6 steps, singing 2 or three more, and so on, trying to find the "core logic" to such sparseness. Obviously not something that a 16 year old is going to figure out immediately, but still, that's what the initial fascination was, the "novelty", if you will (and yeah, I had already heard a bunch of electric Miles and a little 50s Prestige Miles). But I kept listening because of it was obvious that there was substance here. The rest I worked out over time, but to my still inexperienced but not ignorant ears, it was obvious that this was one to keep coming back to, more than others. It wasn't tjhe only one, but it was definitely one.

Another way to look at it, maybe - I am "tired of it" in that, no, I hardly ever listen to it any more. No real need to, not at this juncture. But when I do hear it, I am never put off, and never fail to feel the mojo. So if I "stay away", its from the comfort of satisfaction, not the exhaustion of dissatisfaction.

[medjuck]

technically a riff is a short motif of a rhythmic nature -

let me add that you have to speak to people who heard it closer to its issue date - I first heard it in 1968, and it came to me as just another Miles recording, but it was clearly a major and important work - not iconic, yet, not legendary, just a beautifully written and performed date.

I bought it when it was first released. I owned about 10 Lps at the time and only 2 or 3 that could in any way be described as jazz. I loved it and didn't know there was anything radical about it. I thought all contemporary jazz would sound like that . As a result I was very disappointed in the next few records I bought.

[Larry Kart]

Who is Marc Myers anyway? He speaks of the democratic nature of the internet, but that can be both a blessing and a curse.

From Meyer's blog:

"Marc Myers is a journalist and corporate consultant in New York City who develops content and marketing/media solutions for magazines and global clients.

"He is author of three books, including "How to Make Luck: 7 Secrets Lucky People Use to Succeed," which has been published in 11 countries.

"He received his masters in history from Columbia University and wrote his thesis on the American Federation of Musicians' recording ban of 1942-44—which inadvertently accelerated the popularity of bebop and modern jazz. His thesis is part of the archives at the Institute of Jazz Studies at Rutgers University.

"He has been listening to jazz since 1971."

Take a look at Myers' blog, especially the archived roster of interviews he's done. Very impressive work IMO. He knows how to get people to talk and asks the right questions.

[porcy62]

"He is author of three books, including "How to Make Luck: 7 Secrets Lucky People Use to Succeed," which has been published in 11 countries.

Secret Eight: take an iconic masterpiece like KOB, Moby Dick or 'Guernica' and write down how stupid and overrated and mediocre is, you gain an instant attention from your friends and collegues.

[JSngry]

The tactic of citing how influential a work has been in the service of arguing its lack of influence is one which I do not understand.

[AllenLowe]

Marc's a good guy, and smart -

[porcy62]

Marc's a good guy, and smart -

You know, Allen, I am always suspiciouos about all those books that promise luck, happiness and richness in 12 lessons. Usually these books makes rich, happy and lucky only the author, if the publisher had a good marketing strategy.

Said that, it might well be that he's a good and smart, though I am with JSangy on the matter: no way to create a 50 years lasting icon if something didn't 'click', no matter how good were the marketing guys at Columbia.

[AllenLowe]

haven't read the book - so will withhold judgement -

I didn't say I agreed with him about Kind of Blue - just that I think he's a smart guy who doesn't just say things to shake things up - it's like any critic with whom I have a serious disagreement - I am most concerned about the honesty of the critique, even if it comes out on a different side than the one I'm on - (though since I may be an idiot - see other thread - please take my opinions with caution)

[Teasing the Korean]

The "simple" nature of the tunes on Kind of Blue - and I don't mean that in a negative way - makes the album more accessible than many other jazz albums. It was a touchstone jazz album for a lot of people in that regard.

[Shawn]

There are many others here who can post more informed judgments on Kind Of Blue (see Jim's post for instance). However, from my own experience it was the first Miles album I heard, also one of the first jazz albums in general (other than fusion).

It made an immediate impact...I knew I was hearing something different and something that spoke directly to me. I've spent my entire life listening and loving "drones" (whether Sabbath doom, Pink Floyd spaciness or Debussy's musings) so that aspect of KOB hit me immediately.

Had never heard of the album when I first listened to it, so no marketing reached me...just the music.

[Rooster_Ties]

(In about 1989, when I was a Sophomore in college), KOB was the first Miles album I really ever heard in its entirety.

...but, I also got Nefertiti* at the exact same time (KOB and Nefertiti were flip sides of a 90-minute cassette a friend made for me) -- so I listened intently to BOTH of them at the same time (just flipping the tape over each time each side was over). BOTH left an enormous impression on me, but KOB no more so than Nefertiti.

As such, I almost literally saw them as flip sides of the same coin, and each one informed my understanding of the other. Each one had lots of space, but with a little (or a lot) more going on in the background (during the space in the solos) in the case of the Nefertiti side.

KOB was iconic as all get-out by the late 80's, but even then, not quite to the degree I think it is today. AND I think that its continual rise in perceived importance can only be mostly based on its inherent worth.

Like Jim (and many others here), I don't need to hear it very often any more. But it's a little like 'scripture' when I do (and I say that as an atheistic leaning agnostic Unitarian). It's like scripture in that, like it or not, it is truly iconic. And it may be way overexposed (if not actually overplayed) -- but that's not the fault of the date itself. It is what it is because of what it is, and no measure of idolatry will change that a whole lot, one way or another -- no matter what any of us think of that idolatry.

I think I spin KOB about an average of once per year these days, if even that much. But I never mind hearing it, whether by choice or by chance.

*In this case, the side of the tape with Nefertiti on it was filled out with the individual Sorcerer track "Prince of Darkness" tacked on the end.

Edited September 28, 2008 by Rooster_Ties

[medjuck]

I finally read the article and have a couple of comments KOB wasn't always the best selling jazz recording of all time. IIRC it wasn't even the best selling Miles Davis record (that was Bitch's Brew). But it just kept selling for 50 years. And I don't know how old the writer of that column is but IIRC he's wrong about the amount of promotion it got. We were being flooded with Miles Lps around that time. The Prestige albums were still being released. And IIRC (I could get up and check) Giant Steps was recorded after KOB. And Jazztrack was much more readily available than the Elevator sound track. Those '58 sessions got a lot of airplay and recognition. Green Dolphin Street and Stella by Starlight each became as much of a jazz standard as So What. Every local and visiting group I heard in the early '60s had them in their repertoire.

[adhoc]

Anyone ever considered that KOB might be the 'best selling jazz album of all time' because there are so many people out there who simply must have every version of this album?

I mean, there aren't many albums floating around that inspire people sufficiently that they go out and purchase >5 copies of it.

[ghost of miles]

Marc is a friend and IMO probably the best blogger out there on the classic-jazz era. I think KOB deserves the status that it has, but it's nice to see some attention drawn to the '58 sessions (which, in my record-store-clerk days, I used to push on jazz customers as a "prequel" to KOB).

[Joe G]

LOVE the '58 Sessions recordings.