So over on the TapeOp board, they are discussing the recent interview with Rudy Van Gelder (which I discuss here). I spoke about how RVG really captured the sound of the Hammond like no one else and then a member responded with this comment:

There are a LOT (unfortunately) of mistaken people, who THINK they like music, but really only dig one thing (and probably for the wrong reasons). For some of them, finesse, polish, slick are negative words - for me it's a positive.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, this would make John Lee Hooker a better guitarist than Wes Montgomery. It's ludicrous.

You mean. . . John Lee is NOT a better guitarist?

Yes. . . . Hey let's give him the benefit of the doubt, he'd rather hear the music recorded differently. He should just drink and smoke more before listening. . . .

This is one of the problems that we have discussing the innovators in Jazz to newcomers to the scene. Your " Chicken Shack" example is exactly what happens.

Someone creates something, others follow and to those who weren't in on the beginning, it all sounds relatively tame

Wes is a good example.. when he started those octave solos everyone did the "wow" thing.. now there's people pulling our octave licks in their bedrooms on $99.00 Suires that they got for Christmas. ( well yeah they're probably trying to be Jimi.. but similar argument)

I remember trying to play some Bird to a newcomer to jazz and express the importance of Bird in the scheme of things, but was told that nothing sounded original, He'd " heard it all before".. hell there's not many sax players not throwing in a bit of Bird somewhere.. even in TV commercials.. on top of which the recording quality just made the records ( probably a Dial or a Savoy) too hard to listen to.

Ask the guy how old he is.. and how deep he's into the music.. I suspect both will reflect low numbers.

This guy mistakenly thinks it was not Jimmy Smith's choice to play like that. As much as I love Donald Bailey, sometimes I want a meatier beat with organ - but then I put on someone else. It's not a matter of production or engineering, but of musical tastes.

He cannot "dig it all", that's about it.

I suspect that the person who made that comment has led such a life that his little or no understanding of and/or exposure to the cultural milieu from which Mr. Smith sprang. I also suspect that his empathy to the way that those recordings would have resonated within that milieu in terms of percieved "funkiness" and such is little or none.

In other words, he sounds like a dumbass white boy who thinks that "black" only comes in one shade.

Tell me I'm wrong.

which is an interesting read...

Yes, I have a little egg on my face now. It seems he was referring to the actual audio quality of the recordings, not the playing involved. To my mind the Blue Notes sound a lot better than a lot of the Stax recordings of the early 60s, from a purely audiophile point of view.

I guess I got riled up over nothing!

But there still is an interesting sub-current running through this thread. Taking Jimmy Smith out of context and putting him in today's world he doesn't seem like much. People ask me all the time, "How did you learn to play organ like that?" Jimmy Smith, Jimmy Smith, Jimmy Smith is my answer. They look at me perplexed. Especially the young kids. "What about Medeski?" Medeski is cool but if you want to learn the shit for real, you have to go to Jimmy Smith.

"What about Medeski?" That's funny.

Jimmy Smith taught us all.

Mike

I think clem and b3er state it well. When you hear Jimmy Smith in the milieu of other organists, it sounds like no big deal. That's why historical context is so important. I can appreciate what was going on back then and what a revelation he must have been, just like Bird must have been in his time. I know the first time I listened to Jimmy it blew me away. Same for Bird. I hadn't listened to a lot of organists so it was like he was unique for me. Unfortunately, I was only a toddler when Jimmy came on the scene and not even a glimpse when Bird came on his.

Well said, Jim (in your initial post, whether it was to the point or not).

Jimmy rules!

I well remember my first hearing. I was in a second-hand LP store, and I came across that very album. The cover looked like someone had spilled a whole pot of coffee over it - or maybe they had used it under a washer to level it - but the vinyl was 100%. $3.00 it was. I got it partly because I had already heard Stanley on the Duke Jordan date.

Well, as soon as track one started up, that was it! It's a masterpiece, and I still like it more than any of Jimmy's other albums. It just clicked that day in the studio. Those that don't have it need an RVG real soon (I have the JRVG, hee, hee).

Engineering too polished? What does he mean?? It sounds perfect. I wouldn't change a thing.

I think this guy is looking at things differently than B3er (obviously). BUT, he's trying to look at the past through a different lens, one that suits his level of knowledge, not necessarily in a purely "historical" way. Jim, I agree with your response to him totally, it's just that he (again, obviously) doesn't know as much as you do about jazz history and Jimmy Smith in particular.

I'm not convinced, though.

You need to move to Texas.

If we have room for mooses, we have room for couws.

I did. And I'm still not convinced.

But you do need to move to Texas.

I'm asking myself, "Why would anybody want a Jimmy Smith Blue Note record to sound like a Stax recording?", and all the answers eventualy reduce to that what he's like to hear is a direct result of what he thinks he's listening to. Ergo, summa cum loudly, some quietly, and sum not at all.

Q.E.D & H.E.B.

(you need to move to Texas)

We have good beer, and you'll love paying for it!

Meese in heat?



Ex posto vomito!

I wouldn't have considered Jimmy Smith "polished" in anything but a positive way. "Polished" technique for improvising raw, funky jazz.

Just got Home Cookin', and it cooks.

As Larry Clinton would say, "Ipso Doodle!"

Seems to me, the guy's expressing something like the regular critique of RVGs legendary recording techniques, especially when CDs are concerned. Your assesment must mean that anyone complaining about too much top end on those albums is "a dumbass white boy who thinks that "black" only comes in one shade."

I should make a note of that and throw it in a discussion every now and then to spice things up.

I think I'll leave it to Clem to detail the nuance, should he desire (or even agree).

Here's one Texas lover. And, it has Waffle House!

I even like the Panhandle area, though I can see why some don't. Never did take up the 80 oz steak challenge in Amarillo, though!

One day, I arrived at Dublin, TX, and asked why there were so many dead amarillos on the roads.

Bad bunch of Dr. Pepper, probably.

i see what rvg is saying here-- yes jimmy is by all means down home etc but his b3 sound in addition to rvgs rec. techniques make the lps sound very 'clean'-- if jimmy would get a little more babyface willette-ish it would be dirtier

I'm sure there's a thread here somewhere on Coltrane and Jimmy Smith playing together (a did they/didn't they type-thing). Just saw this, whilst not looking for anything in particular:

Odean Pope Saxophone Choir
Fiery post-bop tenor saxophonist Odean Pope got his start in the pit band of Philadelphia’s Uptown Theater, playing backup for people like Stevie Wonder, Marvin Gaye and Aretha Franklin. But when John Coltrane asked him to sub for him in the Jimmy Smith trio, his jazz chops came to the fore.

...clearly an excerpt from Odean Pope's bio. Does it suggest that Coltrane/Smith had a working engagement, of sorts..?

I believe they did. Donald Bailey, in an audio interview I heard on a site some years ago said he caught them at a club in Philly. Just caught this thread..... when I hear a Jimmy Smith BN, I don't focus on the sound quality, but the music. For "polished" recordings, musically and sonically, its got to be the Verve recordings.

Yes, Coltrane had started working with Smith and had been with him for 2 weeks. This was right before he got hired by Miles Davis.

Mike

Since the call from Coltrane came in 1955, the references to those 1960s pop people is bizarre. He wasn't working with Stevie Wonder before Jimmy Smith.

That's crazy talk! JOS is more "polished" musically after BN? Hmmmm.... I'll give you "Organ Grinder Swing" and "Jimmy and Wes, the Dynamic Duo," those are flat out musical masterpieces. But "Crazy Baby," "Plays Fats Waller," "I'm Movin' On," "Back At The Chicken Shack"...those are as sonically and musically perfect!

I find the organ sound on many of the JOS Verve's not as present as his BN sides. Obviously Rudy was doing some different things there. And musically, although I love ALL Jimmy Smith records....Respect, Sings Again, Hoochie Coochie Man and MANY of those Verve sides just don't match the artistic heights Jimmy achieved at BN.