just gonna say it. Hot Rats is a far superior album than Bitches Brew
 

my opinion only of course.
music is subjective....

in my circles at least hot rats and bitches brew are generally considered the first real jazz fusion albums.

hot rats came out in october of 69. bitches brew was march of 70 i believe.
that said i am pretty sure bitches brew was completed first.

i also need to say that i am a frank zappa freak. probably to the point of extreme. i also need to say that lately i have been getting heavy into miles davis. im a strings guy so it took a while to gravitate to the horns but i have. composition wise miles was on point. i still think zappa had that extra something special.
they both had killer musicians working with them. just amazing.

i do think unless you are more of a freaky/strange/odd person and/or devour all types of music frank(and most of his various band members) do not get the recognition they deserve.

might be a pointless thread but i have been thinking about this the past few days so i felt like sharing.

Might belong more in Unpopular Music Opinions

Don't really consider them to be comparable. Both certainly great albums.
I do listen to Hot Rats way more often than to BB though.

.

ive heard it a lot over the years when i get to talking about the early fusion stuff.
i start to rave about hot rats and then people have to tell me how it is inferior to bitches brew

When I first heard 'Bitches Brew' I have to admit it was a tough swallow. I didn't get into it until after the Mahavishnu Orchestra released 'The Inner Mounting Flame'. Then it was like the sun came out and I found I could listen to 'Bitches Brew' so much easier.

Yep, I also listen to Hot Rats way more than Bitches Brew, and this is why:-

I see Bitches Brew as the musical equivalent to a radical modern movement that happened across all the arts. Writers, painters, etc experimented with getting rid of the tried and trusted elements of their art form. Avant-garde authors threw out things like plot and character; painters threw out things like representation and canvas. Some interesting stuff was generated by this approach, but there are a lot of unreadable books out there that testify to the fact that a novel without a storyline is likely to be a chore rather than a pleasure to read.
IMO with Bitches Brew, Miles Davis threw out too many essentials; where's the melody, where's the hook, where's the rhythm? The result is a double album that only appeals when you are in some sort of exhalted existential mood. For me, that mood arrives for about ten minutes every year, so even if I put on Bitches Brew, it usually outstays its welcome by an excruciating 90 minutes....

In contrast, because Frank Zappa was more grounded in rock and was not snooty about sources or models, Hot Rats has a driving rhythm to each track. This is like the backbone, the spine, the plot of the novel. FZ then puts a bunch of crazy, intellectually-satisfying embellishments on top, but he's also not too proud to put in a sleazy lounge melody when he wants. He packs the tracks with fun, anger or funk; down-home emotions which make the album a great listen any day of the year.

I really can't get into Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charles Mingus, etc.

I've tried, but I always end up shrugging and wondering why people are so moved by their music.

I hated the best in jazz ten years ago. You'll see the light.

i was kind of the same way. i play a few strings so i was always interested in the fusion aspect of it. the improv.
it took me a while to really start getting into the huge names of like you mention and i usually get to them via frank somehow.

crossover stuff. i like jaco pastorius a lot so of course i got into wayne shorter and joe zinwhal or however you spell it.
then i went back and got to miles and coltraine.

i was always into ragtime.

seems like with jazz you just have to be ready for it and it takes some people a while.

there are different types of listeners too.

some people do not have a developed ear or no nothing of music theory. some dont care about musicianship which i have always been very big on.

i use frank as an example of this because if you are not a 'strange'(not in a bad way) and you really dont get music i doubt you will like it.
odd and shifting time signatures. things like that i think throw a lot of people off.

now i am no snob. i love, love, love people like zappa and joe pass and guthrie govan who had all the theory knowledge in the world and used it very tastefully. love it.

on the flip i love me some white stripes. some heavy, 'simple', to the point killer music. i still hear musicianship in that.

my wife listens to a lot of punk for example and i just do not hear what i want to hear in that music. i dont hear musicianship or any real knowledge of music or the instruments or the history for that matter when i listen to that stuff.

just an opinion