Miles Davis - Kind of Blue

darkshade wrote: thehallway wrote: jammun wrote: I would say both Kind of Blue and early Beatles albums absolutely belong here (given that the site, once accepting an artist, accepts all albums).  Nah, they're not prog, but just where do you think prog came from?  Agreed, Miles is better served on jazzarchives, but I'd argue much of Mile's later output is purely progressive. You must admit though, that when it is in the TOP 100 PROGRESSIVE ROCK ALBUMS, things are getting a bit silly. It's less of an issue if the album is hiding in some quiet corner of the site. I appreciate though, that's it's difficult to come up with a system that further categorises what is already the hardest thing to categorise: art. Yes. One has to wonder why so many members of this site gave out 5 star ratings for a Cool Jazz album on a Prog Rock site....

Slartibartfast wrote: Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: thehallway wrote: I think I've mentioned this before, but the album being in our top 100 is a perfect example of how our rating and categorising system is flawed here on PA. Don't get me wrong, it's a jazz classic....... but it has about as much relevance on this site as the early Beatles albums. And the CD of Kind of Blue is always cheap on Amazon. I think I paid about £3 for it. There was no Prog or Proto Prog or Psychedelia, not even Rock based Pop in 1958, as a fact even Blues based Rock was on diapers. It's absolutely misleading to have that album in Prog Archives, not to mention the top 100. No matter how good it is, send it to http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/ this is a Progressive Rock site. Iván Yeah, big oversight on our part not to have that album on jazzmusicarchives, oh wait... http://www.jazzmusicarchives.com/miles-davis--kind-of-blue.aspx Perhaps the best thing to do is just ignore albums you don't think belong in the top 100 that are there.  By the way is Kind Of Blue the only jazz album in it?

 

I admit to not being an expert in the top 100 especially with the bottom bits changing somewhat often, but I'm pretty confident that KOB is the only purejazz album in it yes. (Unless another Davis album [ or Hancock album, or etc] snuck in there when I wasn't looking.) However, If there is another, I would object to that as well.

Man With Hat wrote: Wow. And I thought I was the only one who felt KOB in the top 100 is absolutely inane! Glad to see I'm not.

I don't feel bad at all for giving Kind of Blue five stars here.

Wow. And I thought I was the only one who felt KOB in the top 100 is absolutely inane! Glad to see I'm not.

Sheavy wrote: What does it matter?  So it is not Prog but that fact that he went on to make true Prog albums justifies it being in the top hundred.

But not really. People who gave 5 stars to the album pretty much go against the guidelines for giving out a 5 star rating to an album. It's for albums that the reviewer feels is a masterpiece of Progressive Rock. Whether it was highly influential to the development of the genre is irregardless. It has nothing to do with the fact that he did eventually make some highly progressive jazz-fusion. Now if In A Silent Way or Bitches Brew were in the top 100, it'd be a different story.

What does it matter?  So it is not Prog but that fact that he went on to make true Prog albums justifies it being in the top hundred.

Ivan_Melgar_M wrote: jammun wrote:    Nah, they're not prog, but just where do you think prog came from?  . Then lets add Chubby Checker, Elvis  and Chuck Berry, they have more influence in Progressive ROCK than "A Kind of Blue", and if we want to go back, then add Mussorgsky, Bach, etc. There's a limit I believe. Iván

Might as well add James Brown, Sly and the Family Stone, and Karlheinz Stockhausen to this site, as that's who was influencing Miles Davis during the making of his late-60s and 70s albums.

Jazz had just as much influence on the development of 70s prog as The 50s and 60s rock idols did. The fact that prog rock and jazz-fusion started essentially at the time is no coincidence. You can't tell me 21st Century Schizoid Man doesn't have any jazz influence. However, there is no reason to start adding jazz artists with no fusion albums, or rock artists that didn't make some proggy albums.

The thing is Miles eventually started developing rock mixed with jazz (and eventually funk), which led to all sorts of development in jazz, rock, prog, etc. and actually made these progressive albums after 1967, whereas AFAIK, Elvis and all of them did not make eventually start making prog/fusion albums.

jammun wrote: I would say both Kind of Blue and early Beatles albums absolutely belong here (given that the site, once accepting an artist, accepts all albums).  Nah, they're not prog, but just where do you think prog came from?  Agreed, Miles is better served on jazzarchives, but I'd argue much of Mile's later output is purely progressive.

You must admit though, that when it is in the TOP 100 PROGRESSIVE ROCK ALBUMS, things are getting a bit silly. It's less of an issue if the album is hiding in some quiet corner of the site.

I appreciate though, that's it's difficult to come up with a system that further categorises what is already the hardest thing to categorise: art.

I would say both Kind of Blue and early Beatles albums absolutely belong here (given that the site, once accepting an artist, accepts all albums).  Nah, they're not prog, but just where do you think prog came from?  Agreed, Miles is better served on jazzarchives, but I'd argue much of Mile's later output is purely progressive.