I don't understand Miles Davis' "Kind of Blue"


I'm new to Jazz. While I enjoy Amstrong and Fitzgerald duo and some of Amstrong's Hot Five and Hot Seven pieces, I fail to appreciate "Kind of Blue" which is praised by many as cornerstone CD in jazz. What I hear from the CD is background music that is repetitous throughout the song and seemingly random saxo, or similar instrument - pardon my ignorance of instruments, in the front. The background music bothers me because it's simple and repetitive. Perhaps this is not my type of music. Or should I listen to other CDs before appreciate this one?

Can someone educate me what is great about this CD?
jlc993nc9cf
I have not read through all the responses, but there is also the issue of the sound Miles had on this LP. He was praised at the time for having a unique sound which upon further inspection turned out to be due to a tape speed issue. Before this discovery many jazz musicians were trying unsuccessfully to duplicate the sound he had.
jlc, "understanding" Miles Davis and Kind of Blue may take some more time. You say you are new to jazz so maybe before you develop such a viewpoint you need to learn more, much more, about jazz, about music and how KOB changed jazz and, in so many ways, is what jazz is all about. Listen to some more of his music and other jazz music since KOB. His influence is there.
Kind OF Blue is a CD or LP that grows on you.Try out Cumbia and Jazz Fusion by Mingus.The reason why its groundbreaking is that it was way ahead of it's time...Cheers....
I have the opposite problem with KOB - I love it, but have been so overexposed to it that I don't put it on too often myself. The exposure level is probably due to the fact that this record is frequently considered to be an 'easy' entry point into modern jazz for folks who aren't necessarily big jazz buffs, and it has the sales record to back up that assertion.

But just because something is popular doesn't mean one ought to like it, and in truth, I would be surprised if you didn't have approximately the same reaction to about 1,000 other equally, or almost equally, deserving recordings representing the overall movement in jazz at that time, away from the more frantic be-bop style which preceeded the 'cooler' wave KOB was archetypical of. In fact, given your stated preference for Armstrong et al, I'd be surprised if you were even a big be-bop fan. Not everyone who likes Renior is going to like Picasso, even though they were both a part of of the evolution of modern painting; not everyone who likes art deco is going to like danish modern - you get the idea.

Fair enough; a lot of 'hot' jazz and swing fans never liked be-bop when it came in during the 40's and 50's, and many of those same fans never got into the later styles either. I myself don't care for Davis' work after he 'went electric' - or most 'fusion' mucic for that matter. Nothing anybody could say to me would make me like that particular style, and nothing anybody says to you is going to make you like something which you find that you really don't.

I applaud you for giving it a shot, and being open-minded enough to come here seeking insight, instead of just dismissing it as crap. But as you say, you are new to jazz, so take your time. It's a big leap from Ella and Louis to KOB, and you might just grow into it over time. My advise would be to try and broaden out from your base, both chronologically and stylistically, in a more incremental fashion, maybe getting yourself some good books on the subject to help you figure out what you might like along the way. Watching the Ken Burns "Jazz" programs he did for PBS on VHS or DVD could also give some prespective. Another useful introduction to different sounds which can be helpful to a newcomer is to take advantage of the radio, provided you have a good true jazz station in your area; just listen and follow up on whatever catches your ear.