ajejebrazorf

Anyway, to be more explicit, in addition to having listed about ten albums that I love madly, including one by Davis, I must say that, in my ignorance, he is the trumpeter whose style I like the most, for his sense of rhythm and phrasing. Many of his albums (including *Filles*, which I believe you reviewed, or am I mistaken? and which I commented on) seem splendid to me. *Kind of Blue* is very beautiful to me, but it’s certainly not an album that has changed my existence.

look happy: click on my nickname, so you realize that your attempt to throw me into that cliché makes no sense

hahaha!

No, look, no sport, I'm not being iconoclastic, I’m just saying what I think. I leave absolute values to you patrons.

Dear Pippo, clinging to "undeniable and that's it" means nothing; as an argument, it’s worthy of a mirror with no return, you can do better than this :)

>>>That "Kind of Blue" is a masterpiece is undeniable:<<< here I believe Moretti would have slapped you. What does it mean that it’s undeniable? Because many say so, or for musical reasons? It’s not a matter of genre; talking about genres is fine just to understand each other, not to create "cages" that make comparison impossible. Simply put, I like Kind of Blue less than many other albums. A small aside: recently, on a site for enthusiasts, there was a small poll, a little game, featuring about fifty of the most famous jazz albums, organized like a tournament, and there was (to the satisfaction of some and the dismay of many others) the elimination of Kind of Blue in the first round. Now, clearly it’s nonsense and means nothing, but it equally means nothing if someone brings up a transversal appreciation (I might be wrong, but I read this between the lines of your "undeniable") that could be due to many factors. If you tell me "it's a masterpiece because musically blah blah blah," okay, but "undeniable masterpiece," what does that mean?

Mister Gigi, I will always prefer Bitches Brew a thousand times over. They are two different worlds, as if they were music from different musicians of different genres. For purists (I wanted to use another adjective, but I fear it would be offensive), Bitches isn't even jazz. However, I've never shared all the enthusiasm for this album. I'm certainly not doubting that it's very beautiful; I clarify that I like it a lot too. But honestly, things like "the most beautiful album in jazz" seem a bit overblown. It's also a "simple" album compared to, for instance, the insane complexity of some of Mingus's records. Personally, I prefer much nastier things; I got hooked on jazz thanks to Ayler, not certainly because of Kind of Blue. My idea is that this album is so famous also because it is very accessible (unlike what the review says); it's recorded by a god and the tracks are formally impeccable, they barely seem like improvisations... and then I've heard several times (even here on DeBaser, in a historic discussion) that the story of "So What" as the principle of modal jazz is a bit of nonsense.

I’m a bit ignorant about this topic, but I know who Knuckles is, more or less… recommend me something worthwhile.

What cool stuff have you been listening to lately?

As for me, in Lorca, my favorite track is Anonymous proposition, and Driftin is also at very high levels (and if I had a talk seemed like a slightly lesser track to me at first, I've completely reassessed it now). Blue afternoon is beautiful and is better than Starsailor (especially Café and The River, which are very close to the spirit of Lorca), but for me it comes after this and Happy Sad, of which it plays the role of "younger" brother (relatively).