Contemplazione

From the titles you've mentioned, I think you might really like Live-Evil, In A Silent Way, and at least the first track of Miles In The Sky, "Stuff." You might also want to try Miles Smiles, even though it’s entirely acoustic. If you have the chance before deciding, listen to "Footprints," "Freedom Jazz Dance," and "Circle."

Dedoluz, go to the review of E.S.P.; among the comments (around the middle), there's plenty of discussion about it.

Sorry uxo, but why should the popularity of an album be a limit for the album? The limit is rather that of the listener who, out of conformism, convinces himself (or simply states) that the album in question is a masterpiece just because it is famous, due to psychological subordination to the majority. The opposite error is being snobbish or original at all costs, though! There are cases of people who secretly adore Jarrett's Koln Concert only to then (to avoid seeming mundane) publicly claim that Radiance is much better, for example! In your case, I believe you, nonetheless, and it's time to bring out the old and worn out "de gustibus".

@ajeje: I might be wrong, but I’ve noticed that most people are not “total” listeners, able to approach any musical source without preconceived notions, without haste in judging, and with the desire to understand. It often happens that if you play complex music, like architecture, or with an apparently chaotic architecture, to someone who until the day before has only listened to music easily “recognizable” in its underlying structure, it creates disorientation, boredom, and a sense of rejection. Then there’s the matter of sound quality, timbres, and registers; I put on Free Jazz by Ornette Coleman and they said: what is this noise? too shrill! etc.. etc.. and Bartók’s piano concertos, for example, can also be unpalatable to those not used to: sudden volume increases; sudden tempo changes; dissonances; little catchiness, and so on. Then there’s the issue of duration, for example; the same Free Jazz or its cousin Ascension by Coltrane is a single track of about forty minutes, and some of Cecil Taylor’s works similarly combine angularity with length. You are probably one of the total listeners I’m talking about, but not everyone is predisposed in the same way (and that’s not a fault), so when in doubt, if the goal is to spread mutual knowledge, I think it’s better to proceed from the more accessible to the more hermetic.

@pippo: I saw The Big Lebowski, and I didn't like it. I can't bring myself to enjoy the stories of a poor, clueless loser, not even in a metaphorical sense (don Quixote et similia idem), let alone recall a quote from the movie. Open Sesame, I said it's important, not beautiful, and I wouldn't say Tina Brooks was mediocre or that True Blue is bad. He has a very masculine style and a non-trivial sound. The album is an interesting mix also thanks to the presence of a senior like Duke Jordan on piano (who played in one of Parker's most important quintets), which is not bad at all (even though Miles had a lot to say about him). Regarding Kind, I tried to include some "cute" and engaging information for the NEOFITE, and the anecdote about Greg Allman, taken from the liner notes, fit perfectly! Just listen to the beautiful The Allman Brothers Band At Fillmore East (Deluxe Edition) to realize that it's not just Robert Palmer's chatter! In Mountain Jam (33'39''), Gregg Allman plays in a beautifully modal way. On the other hand, the non-review is expressly aimed at an audience that may only be familiar with rock and might feel a bit of reverential fear (who knows why) about approaching jazz. Highlighting points of contact between a musician "of their kind" and "of ours" can be useful to shorten cultural distances and thus facilitate mutual exchange! I will gladly read your reviews, and I am sure I will find expertise, passion, and interesting insights. Let's make peace, pippo.

@ghemison: I will definitely review the albums from '65-'68 with the QUINTET, but I wanted to include this one, which I don't even consider a proper review, because yesterday, in the comments on my review of E.S.P., someone was asking for recommendations on which albums were "suitable" for starting to get to know jazz. Since I started with Kind and thanks to that, I've understood many things—now I own several hundred jazz albums... and I'm happy about it! I reiterate that Miles does not only mean Kind and Bitches Brew, but I still believe that Kind is a good starting point. To approach a musical genre that one doesn't know, you need to start on the right foot, or you risk missing out on a great opportunity. What would happen if someone tried to approach classical music starting from Bartók or Schoenberg, instead of Mozart and Beethoven, for example? First the basics, then the necessary deep dives!

@pippo: "YOU DON'T JOKE WITH HAPPY"??? Show-off!! First of all, it wasn't your stuff because you went on Wikipedia and copied and pasted, anyone can do that. Second, YOU CAN JOKE WITH HAPPY, because Tina Brooks is A MAN, not a woman! 'gnuran... you should know that his name is Harold, but since he was very skinny as a kid, they gave him the nickname "Tiny," which later got twisted into "Tina," and it stuck with him. If you don't know who he is, it means, and it's serious, that you don't even know an important record like Open Sesame by Freddie Hubbard from '60, his debut for Blue Note, where our Tina participates as a second lead and composer, indeed. While you're at it, listen to his best work, recorded as a leader, also for Blue Note, just six days after Open Sesame. It's one of the forgotten masterpieces of the Blue Note catalog: True Blue, and unfortunately Tina is a forgotten artist too, as evidenced by the fact that not even you, who acts all high and mighty, know him. That's it, you no longer have the right to act big...(drop in style! at least you won't tell me I'm too precise anymore) Study! But not just on Wikipedia, on the records.

@pippo: I completely agree for once! However, you've slightly modified your original thought; before you were saying to 47 to trust the covers to guide them in choosing a record to buy, now you say that it's not a decisive element but can add value to it all. Basically, you’re now saying the same things I was saying a while ago when you were criticizing me... let's just say you've come to your senses! P.S: thanks for the drumming advice, that's actually what I'm trying to do too... by the way, I also kick the balenghe with the pedal, wow!!

@47: I have to tell you the truth, in my first year of high school I had such a deep dive into virtuoso guitarists that I might have had a bit of an overdose... I know he's an excellent musician, but prog-rock and/or testosterone-fueled fusion aren’t really my favorite territory. For example, regarding John McLaughlin, the first two albums of his Mahavishnu Orchestra are exceptional, but afterwards it’s just technique and decibels, technique and decibels... and Art? Who knows where, far away. However, if you feel like recommending an album by Allan, either solo or with the groups he’s had, I’d appreciate it and maybe I’ll re-evaluate him! What do you think of Scott Henderson or Wolfgang Muthspiel?

@pippo: what kind of dumb phrase is this?: "the school of jazz has always produced terrible results and I know it from experience." which school? what terrible results? what experience? the terrible result seems to be you... but I don't think it's jazz's fault.