Contemporary/Smooth Jazz..just overprocessed?


There was a good thread a few days ago titled: "Why Doesn't Contemporary Jazz Get Any Respect?"..worth looking at before responding to this one...

It seems that there is the late night FM "mall" music type of "Smooth Jazz" (a title that makes it sound like mayonnaise)..and then there are many, many highly talented current Jazz artists...that I have still had a hard time enjoying as much as the older "Classic" Jazz performers. Why?

As my son and I were listening to a CD he gave me for Christmas
it became clear what might be a factor. The CD is Terence Blanchard's "Let's Get Lost", which includes vocals by Diana Krall, Cassandra Wilson..and others, and what makes this CD less enjoyable than it should be is the amount of reverb/processing that has been done to it. Mr. Blanchard is a superb trumpet player...why screw up his sound with an excessive amount of reverb? Perhaps the why is.. it is more likly to sell? Face it popular music has become more and more electronic/computer/synthetic/processed...it has just grew up with a generation that these companies feel that is how they want their Jazz.

I would love to hear this same album recorded by Doug Sax..or someone else...
whatjd

Showing 1 response by suretyguy

Jim Anderson's response is interesting given the concerns expressed about the amount of reverb and/or processing, especially since I own this CD and frankly had never noticed that its sound stood out for that or other reasons. In fact the only thing I had ever thought about is that it is not one of Mr. Anderson's best efforts, a comment that should be understood in context: I think he is one of the best out there and I am a long time fan, going back to the days when he did a lot of work for the Steeplechase label. A number of the LPs I have from that catalog are among my all time favorites, both musically and sonically.

He does bring up a fascinating topic: The amount of input from performers into the recording process and the ultimate "sound" that comes out of a session-and I'm not necessarily talking just about heavy processing, overdubs, equalization, etc. I've always thought this must vary widely from artist to artist, some of whom may care very little while others see it as extemely important. I don't know for sure, but, given the consistently high quality sound of their recordings, I'd be inclined to think that Joni Mitchell, James Taylor, and Paul Simon fall into the latter category. And in classical music Leopold Stokowski's fascination with recording quality and techniques was well known. In other cases it seems as though the labels are responsible, e.g., Harmonia Mundi, Telarc (which started, of course, as a specialty audiophile label) & lately perhaps Blue Note, which has used Mr. Anderson quite a bit in recent years.

I'd be interested in any thoughts, comments, or input anyone may have in this regard.

Oh, and by the way, I personally think that smooth jazz is hopeless no matter how it is recorded. Re Kenny G.: Remember the big fuss several years ago about his ability to hold a note for 45 minutes? John Coltrane used this circular breathing technique back in the 1960's and, as far as I know, got no notice at all for it in the major media.