Rating: 
Summary: Mixed Bag, Racism May Bother People
Review: A 200+ page book about one album may seem like overkill, no matter how influential and good the album is. Which is one of the main problems with the book.So come prepared if you decide to read this book. It is not meant for the casual music fan. Also, you should listen to the CD several times, before, during and after reading this book. Nisenson does a good history on the musical background of the record. His bios of Evans, Adderly and Coltrane are well-researched and thoughtful. Nisenson goes into the race issue but in 2003, his ideas come across as stereotyping. His theories are bogus, as is all racism and stereotyping. You don't have to be white to be a great classical musician, why does jazz reflect being black. He tries to paint a balanced picture of Miles Davis, although he fawns way too much. Nisenson seems to fawn way too much, justifying Davis' pettiness and cruelty as part of his genius. Davis may have been wonderful in his music, but otherwise, he was a jerk. Nisenson says that Davis always tried to make his music accessible to the public, but never explains adequately why he ignored the audience in a performance. He says that Miles called that "minstrelsy", but other performers with similar talents and egos never saw it that way. Kind of Blue was revolutionary in its use of modes instead of chord changes. To understand this, you need a great proficiency in music theory. Nisenson writes about Adderly, Evans and Coltrane until their deaths (all of them passed away at a fairly early age). He drops Davis after the 60s. The writing here annoyed me for another reason, Nisenson constantly uses "I" throughout the book. This is totally unnecessary.
Rating:
Summary: Mixed Bag, Racism May Bother People
Review: A 200+ page book about one album may seem like overkill, no matter how influential and good the album is. Which is one of the main problems with the book. So come prepared if you decide to read this book. It is not meant for the casual music fan. Also, you should listen to the CD several times, before, during and after reading this book. Nisenson does a good history on the musical background of the record. His bios of Evans, Adderly and Coltrane are well-researched and thoughtful. Nisenson goes into the race issue but in 2003, his ideas come across as stereotyping. His theories are bogus, as is all racism and stereotyping. You don't have to be white to be a great classical musician, why does jazz reflect being black. He tries to paint a balanced picture of Miles Davis, although he fawns way too much. Nisenson seems to fawn way too much, justifying Davis' pettiness and cruelty as part of his genius. Davis may have been wonderful in his music, but otherwise, he was a jerk. Nisenson says that Davis always tried to make his music accessible to the public, but never explains adequately why he ignored the audience in a performance. He says that Miles called that "minstrelsy", but other performers with similar talents and egos never saw it that way. Kind of Blue was revolutionary in its use of modes instead of chord changes. To understand this, you need a great proficiency in music theory. Nisenson writes about Adderly, Evans and Coltrane until their deaths (all of them passed away at a fairly early age). He drops Davis after the 60s. The writing here annoyed me for another reason, Nisenson constantly uses "I" throughout the book. This is totally unnecessary.
Rating: 
Summary: Not quite what I thought, but still interesting
Review: Describes events leading up to the sessions, and backgrounds of the musicians more than the actual recording sessions.
Rating: 
Summary: A Missed Opportunity
Review: I looked forward to Eric Nisenson's version of the events that made one of the greatest pieces of art, an album that is not just music to me, but life itself. Unfortunately he misses his mark by a long way. I've enjoyed other Nisenson books quite a bit, he does repeat himself quite a bit, but he seems to get under the performers skin and captures their persona for the reader. He's even written a book (Blue, the murder of jazz) about the new establishment of jazz ignoring not only post 1960's jazz music with revisionist thinking but a discrimination against white contributors to jazz. But Nisenson himself seems to be a discriminator. The opening chapter of the book is great, detailing the mood of the album and the emotions it brings out (I thought I was the ony one who can hear a the air of death, particularly in Flamenco Sketches, on the album). From there Nisenson lists the four major contributors that brought the album from concept to completion. Obviously Miles and Bill Evans are part of this list, writing the songs and controlling the studio environment, they are the keys to what happens on these five songs. The third, George Russell, is important for putting the modal ideas into play before 1959, thus influencing what Davis and Evans heard, and the influence is obvious. The problem I have is with the fourth contributor Nisenson lists; John Coltrane. I have no knock on Coltrane at all, he is one of the most intense musician I have ever heard. But what does he have to do with the influence of Kind of Blue. He showed up at the session and played great, previously he had been playing with reharmonizations of standard chord progressions, but modally did he play anything like these songs before? Not from what I can see. In addition, Nisenson knocks around Cannonball Adderley, for playing too many notes and often being tasteless. But how can he theorize that his contribution is less than Coltrane's? Can anyone imagine the album without Cannonball, no more than any of the musicians who played these sessions. What did Coltrane add that Cannonball didn't? Nisenson's main theory seems flawed due to this thinking, which shows Nisenson's prejudice. Davis, Coltrane and Evans were all innovators in jazz music, as musicians, composers and performers , Adderley was not, he was just a great player. This seems to be a flaw to Nisenson, who finds only innovators important to jazz history. But to any jazz fan, it's the music being played, that brings out the feelings and soul. Something Cannonball had a lot of, but why knock him because he played the same kind of music throughout his career, without blazing a new path. This flaw really ruined the book for me, and the final nail in the coffin, was a poor chapter on the actual recording, which didn't tell me anything new. With all this complaining, I must say I'm reading Nisenson's book on Sonny Rollins and am enjoying that quite a bit, if you want to read a book about another innovator, Open Sky is for you, but this is not the book for fans of Miles Davis and Kind of Blue, and especially not for Cannonball Adderley fans.
Rating:
Summary: A Missed Opportunity
Review: I looked forward to Eric Nisenson's version of the events that made one of the greatest pieces of art, an album that is not just music to me, but life itself. Unfortunately he misses his mark by a long way. I've enjoyed other Nisenson books quite a bit, he does repeat himself quite a bit, but he seems to get under the performers skin and captures their persona for the reader. He's even written a book (Blue, the murder of jazz) about the new establishment of jazz ignoring not only post 1960's jazz music with revisionist thinking but a discrimination against white contributors to jazz. But Nisenson himself seems to be a discriminator. The opening chapter of the book is great, detailing the mood of the album and the emotions it brings out (I thought I was the ony one who can hear a the air of death, particularly in Flamenco Sketches, on the album). From there Nisenson lists the four major contributors that brought the album from concept to completion. Obviously Miles and Bill Evans are part of this list, writing the songs and controlling the studio environment, they are the keys to what happens on these five songs. The third, George Russell, is important for putting the modal ideas into play before 1959, thus influencing what Davis and Evans heard, and the influence is obvious. The problem I have is with the fourth contributor Nisenson lists; John Coltrane. I have no knock on Coltrane at all, he is one of the most intense musician I have ever heard. But what does he have to do with the influence of Kind of Blue. He showed up at the session and played great, previously he had been playing with reharmonizations of standard chord progressions, but modally did he play anything like these songs before? Not from what I can see. In addition, Nisenson knocks around Cannonball Adderley, for playing too many notes and often being tasteless. But how can he theorize that his contribution is less than Coltrane's? Can anyone imagine the album without Cannonball, no more than any of the musicians who played these sessions. What did Coltrane add that Cannonball didn't? Nisenson's main theory seems flawed due to this thinking, which shows Nisenson's prejudice. Davis, Coltrane and Evans were all innovators in jazz music, as musicians, composers and performers , Adderley was not, he was just a great player. This seems to be a flaw to Nisenson, who finds only innovators important to jazz history. But to any jazz fan, it's the music being played, that brings out the feelings and soul. Something Cannonball had a lot of, but why knock him because he played the same kind of music throughout his career, without blazing a new path. This flaw really ruined the book for me, and the final nail in the coffin, was a poor chapter on the actual recording, which didn't tell me anything new. With all this complaining, I must say I'm reading Nisenson's book on Sonny Rollins and am enjoying that quite a bit, if you want to read a book about another innovator, Open Sky is for you, but this is not the book for fans of Miles Davis and Kind of Blue, and especially not for Cannonball Adderley fans.
Rating:
Summary: Interesting Read
Review: Interesting read but it feels like the author skims by the information a bit too quickly. Deals a lot with the implications of Kind of Blue on later musicians and on how a lot on how the Kind of Blue sessions came about (both musically and physically). The book also includes a chapter on each of the musicans included in the sessions (there is a chapter on Trane, Cannonball, Davis and Evans. For some reason, Cobb, Chambers and Kelly don't warrant their own chapters). I was sort of disappointed with the book overall as there wasn't a lot on the actual sessions themselves. Good book for the general history of the sessions, but it if you want to dig deep you'll need something more.
Rating: 
Summary: And Very Nice Too.
Review: Miles Davis remains a legend. Few musicians are revered as much as he was both in life and death. Kind Of Blue, without a shadow of a doubt, towers over every jazz album ever released. Eric Nisenson's account of the Making of Kind Of Blue is gripping. The legend of Miles Davis continues in this book and we are made aware of how exactly an album as grand as this came about. Eric Nisenson takes us through every sinew from a neutral standpoint. Even though he remains an ardent fan of the man this does not stop him from giving an impartial view on the man. The Making of Kind Of Blue is an exciting read and I would encourage any one who has the opportunity to read it to do exactly that.
Rating:
Summary: Fawning with a vengeance
Review: Okay, there is some interesting information here, but there's also quite a bit of fiction. Too often, the author infers the state of mind of his subjects. So he was a friend of Miles. Was he also psychic? I agree with another reviewer that the book is fawning. While the author of this book ascribes much of Miles' anti-social behavior to principle, still another reviewer correctly points out that it actually reveals him to be a jerk. The author's adoration of Miles taints his objectivity. The result is an unwitting and failed attempt at a snow job. Ashley Kahn's book on the making of Kind of Blue (which see) is not as adulatory, but in attempting to include musical information Kahn makes many errors, and glosses over the numerous mistakes Columbia Records made in recording and releasing the album. Browse through this book for the fun of it, if you're amused by fairy tales and delight in the hype of a press release.
Rating:
Summary: an horrendous book with a misleading title.
Review: There are very few facts in this book. Most of the book is about the bio of the musicians and how miles discovered modal. Every chapter is filled with annoying opinions about this or that musician or this or that solo. We can listen for ourselves, don't tell me who's good and who's bad. I'll buy Downbeat for that. There is one small chapter about the actual session and it is very very very disappointing. My recommendation? do not buy this book, I could not finish it, I left in on the plane.
Rating:
Summary: an horrendous book with a misleading title.
Review: There are very few facts in this book. Most of the book is about the bio of the musicians and how miles discovered modal. Every chapter is filled with annoying opinions about this or that musician or this or that solo. We can listen for ourselves, don't tell me who's good and who's bad. I'll buy Downbeat for that. There is one small chapter about the actual session and it is very very very disappointing. My recommendation? do not buy this book, I could not finish it, I left in on the plane.
|
