I've been playing jazz most of my life and one of the most frustrating parts of it has been this idea that there should be some immediately obvious virtue in jazz as a musical style. If you're a musician who enjoys improvisation, chances are good that you'll be drawn to jazz, especially to recorded works from the era of albums like Kind of Blue. But you aren't some kind of philistine if it doesn't hook you.

For example, I have studied a lot of classical repertoire in order to get my technique together to improve my jazz playing, and while I appreciate those compositions, I don't really listen to them for pleasure. My opinion about their value as works of art is not based on whether I enjoy them or not. I don't enjoy many types of food but I recognize that they have enormous value to people who do enjoy them. We like what we like, and we shouldn't judge styles on the basis of whether we like them or not.

If you listen to a record like Kind of Blue and it doesn't do anything for you, don't sweat it. You wouldn't be a better person for liking it, and no true lover of jazz would judge you on the basis of whether you like that record or not. If you're genuinely curious, listen to other jazz records from the era, maybe you'll like those. If you don't, no big whoop. There's a lot of music to love. Listen to what you like.

Like many jazz albums of its era, this one uses a pretty typical standard jazz sort of formula, to wit, roughly[0]

- The whole ensemble plays an arrangement of the melody of the tune

- After playing the melody through, the group jumps into a series of alternating solos, in which each band member improvises new melodic ideas on top of the chord progression of the original melody

- After the solos are done, the original melody is returned to, either in full or an part, to recapitulate the initial theme and bring the performance to a conclusion

Do this (more or less) for each track on the album.

It's really not necessarily obvious at first. It can help to follow along with sheet music.

But what is the genius? Or, how is this particular jazz album more genius than another? Say, how is it more genius than "Relaxin' with the Miles Davis Quintet" which was recorded earlier (and also very good)? I think a lot of it is the particular ensemble on this record. Miles brought together a lot of truly exceptional musicians, and they all brought their own bit of genius to their own performance.

If you have a jazz performance with a great trumpeter, paired with an okay pianist, an okay drummer, and an okay bassist, then the whole performance likely won't be genius. But if you pair a genius trumpeter with a genius pianist, a genius drummer, etc., then you'll likely get better results. Especially if they are all kind of genius in the same direction.

On top of that, this particular album was exploring a new compositional style that emphasized modal composition rather than the more typical dominaint-tonic-oriented composition. There was a freshness to it, both for listeners at the time, and for the players themselves. They were exploring this sort of sound for the first time, and were enjoying it, bringing that mentality to how they performed.

[0] Roughly indeed! I don't remember offhand if every track on Kind of Blue follows this exactly.

This is a fascinating comment to me. I understand not really feeling jazz, but it doesn't even sound like a song to you? My only suggestion is to jump into the middle of a few songs and try to hear the rhythm and song structure. They can often be difficult to pick up when they start slow. All Blues might be the easiest. I sincerely wish you luck, because it's really incredible music.

If you listen to that kind of jazz long enough you start hearing things. Patterns. References to other songs or standards in a solo. Two players interacting and having a kind of conversation with each other. I’ve listened to this album so many times I can play it in my mind.

If you’re really interested then listen to it enough so that it becomes somewhat familiar. You’ll be able to distinguish the structure from the improv and hear the interaction between the two. Bill Evans was a classical pianist. Maybe just focus on the piano and try to see what it’s doing in the song.

My Favorite Things by John Coltrane may be a better place to start though. It really emphasizes a familiar melody.

Make sure you’re listening to kind of blue. Not any of the extended deluxe this and that. Just the original tracks.

All the extra stuff is great, but the original is the perfect album.

What music do you typically like? There will definitely be a gateway to jazz in there somewhere.

Local man listens to Kind of Blue, remarks “So What”

The best advice I can give anyone trying to appreciate jazz is to think of it like listening to a conversation in an unfamiliar foreign language. You don't have to understand the literal meaning of the words/notes to infer their emotional tone, pacing, and the ebb and flow of the conversation. Jazz in this way is an abstraction of spoken language. It communicates a vibe or general emotional landscape that you can interrupt for yourself in a personal way.

As a more accessible starting point I'd actually recommend Miles Davis's Porgy and Bess album. It's a hybrid of Gershwin's composed music and jazz. Being more structured than most jazz recordings it will give you some context/framework to enjoy the jazzy parts. Most of the songs are short and digestible.

You could try Dave Brubeck "time out" as an introduction to jazz, it is awesome in many ways and has quite a few catchier tunes. Also Bill Evans Trio and listen to that first. Only problem is that you'll be addicted for life afterward, but it's not that bad as a habit :-)

This is like grabbing a book from a Japanese store and complaining that it just seems like a mishmash of strokes. You don't just grab a Japanese book. You learn what it is first, the different writing systems, the grammar and then you start reading small sentences that build into paragraphs then groups of paragraphs. Then pages and then eventually books.

Familiarise yourself with the standards and then let the infinitude of variations of them be your journey to the PRACTICE of jazz

If you don't like So What without an explanation then I just don't think it is for you.

I love lamb vindaloo too but if you take a bite and don't like it..maybe a few repeated exposures might adjust your palette or it just might not be to your taste.

Nothing wrong with that. So What though was just instant love for me.

It certainly helps to be a musician though too. I can't really separate Coltrane's playing from the appreciation for his virtuosity.

People are acting all shocked, but I do feel that jazz is an acquired taste. Go listen to something like Jazz at the Pawnshop by Arne Domnérus - it's lighter and more playful. If you're into electronic music, you can also listen to nu jazz and acid jazz records to get some of the jazz "vocabulary" mixed into other genres.

Why do you want to listen to it if you don't like it? It's music that moves a lot of people, and gives an incredible depth if you want to also analyze it. If you don't even get touched emotionally then it's not for you.

Walk through New York City. You will hear a "mishmash of sounds", and perhaps begin to understand.

Yeah agreed, always thought it was an average album.

If you aren't used to the conversation it sounds too foreign to be appreciated. You'll likely have had the experience of being around foreign language speakers, some you'll be more comfortable with than others even though you don't understand a word that are saying. Think Manga with the subtitles on or Italian opera. So it is with musicians and their jazz conversation. It takes a lot of experience and listening to really feel the jam and synchronisation. It's very rewarding if you put the time in. Took me ten years or so mainly invested in just three lauded jazz albums.