Jimmy Smith too polished?

[Jim Alfredson]

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:

true but man i wish the bass and drums were more R+B on those smith records.

I responded quizically:

I don't really understand that comment. Especially since Smith himself was kickin' bass most of the time.

To which he replied:

i'd like to hear more grease and less gloss on those sessions. like the stax sound...it would be nice to hear that type of thing going down instead of the polish...

What is this guy talking about? Is he saying the BN Jimmy Smith sides are not greasy? Is he on crack?

So I responded:

Considering that Jimmy Smith started recording for Blue Note in 1956 until about 1962 and that Stax wasn't even really formed until 1961, I don't see how Smith was supposed to emulate a Stax sound. Blue Note did do that later... even letting Jack McDuff record an album at Muscle Shoals that is very gritty and funky (Down Home Style). But that wasn't until 1969.

99.9% of those Jimmy Smith sessions consisted of him going in the studio with some guys, picking tunes on the spot, or those guys learning some originals by him on the spot (he does not read or write music) and playing them. No overdubs, no multi-tracking, no fixing of solos. Like RVG said in the interview, most sessions lasted about 3 hours. That doesn't sound like much "gloss" to me. What is documented are some extremely talented musicians doing what they do well, ie improvising. If it sounds "polished" to you, maybe you just don't like jazz?

I'm not trying to be a dick, honestly. I just really don't understand the comment.

Consider this as well: I was doing a rehearsal once with a start-up cover band and as I was waiting for the musicians to arrive at my crib, I had Jimmy Smith's "Back At The Chicken Shack" playing (Blue Note, 1961). The guitarist was the first to arrive. He is in his late 50s, so he was around when that record was released.

He said, "Aw man, I remember this record. You know, when this first came out, it was considered a wild, racy record."

I was taken aback by that statement. If you listen to that record now, it sounds completely tame and laid back. But what Jimmy Smith was doing with the organ was unlike anything anyone had ever done before. He was a phenom, a true innovator, creating an entire style of music in one fell swoop. Nobody had heard anything like it. And on that record in particular he was really fusing jazz and blues into a new sub-genre. Pretty incredible stuff.

What the hell? I really don't understand where this cat is coming from. Comments?

[Harold_Z]

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.

[jazzbo]

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. . . .

[7/4]

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.

I've got to laugh at that one!

Yes, I know a lot of people who don't dig anything that is straight ahead because it isn't raw enough. I dig it all...

[P.D.]

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.

[Soul Stream]

Jimmy Smith (he does not read or write music)

I haven't heard this before. Just wondered what was the source. I know I've seen pictures of him w/scores in front of him at recording sessions (the big band stuff I presume.) Of course, he could have been using that as a chord chart.

This seems strange to me, as both of his parents were music instructors from my understanding. And taught him piano in his youth.

I could be wrong on this information. Just curious.

As for the intent of the original thread.... Opinions like his are more the rule than the exception I believe. Sophistication is acquired.

[mikeweil]

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.

[Matthew]

Jimmy Smith (he does not read or write music)

I haven't heard this before. Just wondered what was the source. I know I've seen pictures of him w/scores in front of him at recording sessions (the big band stuff I presume.) Of course, he could have been using that as a chord chart.

This seems strange to me, as both of his parents were music instructors from my understanding. And taught him piano in his youth.

I could be wrong on this information. Just curious.

As for the intent of the original thread.... Opinions like his are more the rule than the exception I believe. Sophistication is acquired.

I've always been curious about that statement also, and I've heard it many times. This quote is straight from AMG: He attended the Hamilton School of Music in 1948, and Ornstein School of Music in 1949 and 1950 in Philadelphia. It always seemed to me that if someone spent three years in music school he would at least know the rudiments of sight reading.

[JSngry]

i'd like to hear more grease and less gloss on those sessions. like the stax sound...it would be nice to hear that type of thing going down instead of the polish...

And I'd like to hear "West End Blues" with bebop piano....

[Harold_Z]

... i dig Muddy Waters, Robert Nighthawk, Jimmy Rodgers, Hubert Sumlin, all of 'em more than Wes...but again, different greeeez.

I dig them too and didn't want to imply that I didn't. Those guys get their point across in their own way and chops and polish aren't a part of it - it wouldn't be the same any other way. You don't have to be a virtuoso to get your point across, but virtuosity shouldn't count against you either.

[JSngry]

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.

[Chuck Nessa]

... i dig Muddy Waters, Robert Nighthawk, Jimmy Rodgers, Hubert Sumlin,  all of 'em more than Wes...but again, different greeeez.

I dig them too and didn't want to imply that I didn't. Those guys get their point across in their own way and chops and polish aren't a part of it - it wouldn't be the same any other way. You don't have to be a virtuoso to get your point across, but virtuosity shouldn't count against you either.

For once Mister Z, I have a huge problem with something you said.

Those guys have more chops than needed for a "real" message. There are thousands of "faster/cleaner" players out there executing "empty nothings".

Being able to communicate is the ultimate "chops" - don't have much to do with tight lips, finger speed, etc.

This sounds like the "Monk wars" all over again.

[rockefeller center]

Tell me I'm wrong.

Ask him (bigtoe).

http://messageboard.tapeop.com/viewtopic.p...ght=jimmy+smith

[couw]

which is an interesting read...

[Harold_Z]

... i dig Muddy Waters, Robert Nighthawk, Jimmy Rodgers, Hubert Sumlin,  all of 'em more than Wes...but again, different greeeez.

I dig them too and didn't want to imply that I didn't. Those guys get their point across in their own way and chops and polish aren't a part of it - it wouldn't be the same any other way. You don't have to be a virtuoso to get your point across, but virtuosity shouldn't count against you either.

For once Mister Z, I have a huge problem with something you said.

Those guys have more chops than needed for a "real" message. There are thousands of "faster/cleaner" players out there executing "empty nothings".

Being able to communicate is the ultimate "chops" - don't have much to do with tight lips, finger speed, etc.

This sounds like the "Monk wars" all over again.

I love it when all these boxes start appearing inside of boxes !

Chuck...I don't disagree with anything you said there. I think I'm having trouble saying exactly what I mean, but it's pretty much along the lines of what you said about those guys having all the chops they need. I probably could have made my point better if I'd NOT used John Lee (who I dig) as an example. I don't want to put those guys down - I DIG THEM !! ....and I totally agree about guys who have chops and aren't saying anything (and guys with no chops who aren't saying anything) ...but the guy who bugged Jim was using polish as a negative adjective and I don't think that's valid. Polished and dull...yes.

And I dig STAX too! The funny thing is I don't necessarily think that Stax is not polished.

Edited October 4, 2004 by Harold_Z

[Jim Alfredson]

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!

[Jim Alfredson]

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.

[Jazzmoose]

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

Damn...I've never seen that particular problem described quite so well...I need to move to Texas!

[Michael Fitzgerald]

"What about Medeski?" That's funny.

Jimmy Smith taught us all.

Mike

[Brad]

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.

[Shrdlu]

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.

[pryan]

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.

[couw]

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

Tell me I'm wrong.

you're wrong

[JSngry]

I'm not convinced, though.

[JSngry]

You need to move to Texas.