What do jazz record producers actually do?

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

What do jazz record producers actually do?

Ever since I started buying records, I’ve found it interesting that some people are a good bit better than others at producing records I like. In terms of jazz, however, it’s not easy for me to see what there is for a producer to do, beyond what the musicians themselves are doing (and beyond pure logistics). But there is evidently some kind of value added being imparted by the producer, otherwise companies wouldn’t hire them, and you wouldn’t get systematic differences between the records produced by different people, even using substantially the same musicians (such as the records produced for Prestige by Cal Lampley, Don Schlitten & Bob Porter).

So, what does a jazz record producer actually do? And which of these activities is/are crucial in making a difference?

The second part of this is, assuming there are things that the producers are doing to make a difference and that I’m not making all this up, the number of jazz record producers is actually quite small – a lot smaller than the number of jazz musicians. So, here’s this small number of people and they seem to be having a disproportionate effect on what the public thinks jazz is. Am I making this up?

MG

[John Tapscott]

Well, seeing that most jazz releases (at least the ones I buy) are on small independent labels, I would say the producer has a most important role - namely, putting up the $$$$.

[aparxa]

Stefano di Battista with his italofrench language: "I don't know most of the titles tunes I play tonight, the great producer Michael Cuscuna who shared our latest album decided to changed them to appeal american audience. Consequently, the tune formerly named "Stupid Ballad" became ..[reading his notes].. "Under her Spell". See how easy it is to prononunce such a title for an Italian, my mother is still laughing at it."

[paul secor]

There have been a number discussions/comments about record producers in preveious threads.

Here's one: http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...mp;hl=producers

Edited November 23, 2007 by paul secor

[Christiern]

Well, seeing that most jazz releases (at least the ones I buy) are on small independent labels, I would say the producer has a most important role - namely, putting up the $$$$.

The very small labels, while operated by a producer, often had/have an investor who stays/stayed in the background. I don't think Harry Lim, who produced great sessions, put up the money. Bill Grauer did not produce sessions at Riverside, Prestige's Bob Weinstock gave it up fairly early, Atlantic often hired producers, etc. Blue Note was an exception, of course, but I would venture a guess and say that most jazz producers had little or nothing to do with putting up the money for their sessions--and when they did, it hardly was a determining factor in the artistic outcome.

Good producers gathered together good artists and gave them artistic freedom. Bad producers were often dictatorial or people--I won't name names--who focused on the bottom line. Some producers had the respect of the artists, others did not--the former usually won out, artistically. And then there were the stopwatch operators.

That said, a producer who is spending his own money is often doing so because he loves the music--that is an important factor.

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

There have been a number discussions/comments about record producers in preveious threads.

Here's one: http://www.organissimo.org/forum/index.php...mp;hl=producers

Thanks Paul - I wasn't aware of that thread.

MG

[The Magnificent Goldberg]

Well, seeing that most jazz releases (at least the ones I buy) are on small independent labels, I would say the producer has a most important role - namely, putting up the $$$$.

The very small labels, while operated by a producer, often had/have an investor who stays/stayed in the background. I don't think Harry Lim, who produced great sessions, put up the money. Bill Grauer did not produce sessions at Riverside, Prestige's Bob Weinstock gave it up fairly early, Atlantic often hired producers, etc. Blue Note was an exception, of course, but I would venture a guess and say that most jazz producers had little or nothing to do with putting up the money for their sessions--and when they did, it hardly was a determining factor in the artistic outcome.

Good producers gathered together good artists and gave them artistic freedom. Bad producers were often dictatorial or people--I won't name names--who focused on the bottom line. Some producers had the respect of the artists, others did not--the former usually won out, artistically. And then there were the stopwatch operators.

That said, a producer who is spending his own money is often doing so because he loves the music--that is an important factor.

Thanks Chris - I was going to say about the same thing to John

I perhaps didn't express what I was trying to get at very well. If you take as an example the recordings of Stanley Turentine & Shirley Scott, they were produced by Esmond Edwards and Ozzie Cadena (Prestige); Bob Thiele (Impulse); and Alfred Lion (with Ike Quebec then Duke Pearson doing a kind of supervision of rehearsal and perhaps contributing to arrangements job) and Francis Wolff for Blue Note. All were recorded by RVG. Now, the recordings sound different - they're stamped, somehow, with the personality of the various producers, as well as of the two main musicians. I can't believe that any of those producers was more or less dictatorial or inclined to stop-watch watch than any of the others - we're not, I think, talking about grossly different approaches in that sense. But there are those differences and (bearing in mind that Stan and Shirl are examples of something widespread) it doesn't sound to me as if it was (all?) coming from the musicians.

MG