Interesting discussion. I "discovered" Ms. Krall just a couple of years ago and immediately took a liking to her work. In my view, having since acquired and become familiar with all of her releases a trend has seemingly emerged. I'm curious if anyone else sees it this way, so feel free to comment. Like I could stop any of you!
Diana Krall's earliest releases were, IMO, the best of the bunch because she was matched with excellent supporting musicians in small ensembles and the arrangements were built around her strengths. The direction and production were equally as good. The resulting products had a "small, smokey piano bar" flavor to them (without the second hand smoke, of course!). Listening to them leaves me with the feeling that the performers were having way too much fun making them. So while maybe not technically outstanding in some respects, they are entertaining and that's largely the name of the game.
Her early releases showed Ms. Krall to be a fairly good piano player with a decent singing voice with an added bonus of her being easy on the eyes. Unfortunately, once the music industry and associated markets' collective attentions were shone on Ms. Krall there has been an obvious attempt to turn her into what she is not: a glamorous, sexy singing star who can also play piano.
With the later releases the backup bands became larger and the arrangements more complex, sometimes to the point of being cumbersome. Lacking tremendous vocal range and articulation Ms. Krall is often nearly lost in the mix. That resulted in the use of overly close miking and studio enhancements to mask the deficiencies which, in turn, sucks the life out of the music. The music is still there, it's not exactly bad, but it seems a bit strained and contrived.
The end result is the later releases were not, IMO, as entertaining as the first two or three. Ms. Krall would do well to drop the marketing generated glamour queen facade and go back to her roots. Maybe not all the way back, but at least a few steps.
Fact is, I was coming close to writing her off as another rising talent lost to the recording industry "star making" machine which uses artists up, tosses them aside and moves on to the next phenom. But, if the "Live in Paris" release is anything like the PBS episode of her in concert it could prove to be a fun listen. Will's comment that it is "entertaining" is encouragment enough and I will invariably buy it.
On a side note, Ms. Krall is, probably more than anything else, an entertainer. In this respect she outshines singers like Tierney Sutton. Ms. Sutton's work graces my collection, too, and she is most certainly a much more talented singer. Especially in range, tone and articulation. Unfortunately, and again this is MO, she is far too technical and too little entertaining for my taste. She leaves me with the impression of someone focused on perfection and coming very close, but in doing so forgetting that it's OK to relax a little and have a little fun.
That's why I listen: For fun. Curses to any performer who gets in the way of that!
Diana Krall's earliest releases were, IMO, the best of the bunch because she was matched with excellent supporting musicians in small ensembles and the arrangements were built around her strengths. The direction and production were equally as good. The resulting products had a "small, smokey piano bar" flavor to them (without the second hand smoke, of course!). Listening to them leaves me with the feeling that the performers were having way too much fun making them. So while maybe not technically outstanding in some respects, they are entertaining and that's largely the name of the game.
Her early releases showed Ms. Krall to be a fairly good piano player with a decent singing voice with an added bonus of her being easy on the eyes. Unfortunately, once the music industry and associated markets' collective attentions were shone on Ms. Krall there has been an obvious attempt to turn her into what she is not: a glamorous, sexy singing star who can also play piano.
With the later releases the backup bands became larger and the arrangements more complex, sometimes to the point of being cumbersome. Lacking tremendous vocal range and articulation Ms. Krall is often nearly lost in the mix. That resulted in the use of overly close miking and studio enhancements to mask the deficiencies which, in turn, sucks the life out of the music. The music is still there, it's not exactly bad, but it seems a bit strained and contrived.
The end result is the later releases were not, IMO, as entertaining as the first two or three. Ms. Krall would do well to drop the marketing generated glamour queen facade and go back to her roots. Maybe not all the way back, but at least a few steps.
Fact is, I was coming close to writing her off as another rising talent lost to the recording industry "star making" machine which uses artists up, tosses them aside and moves on to the next phenom. But, if the "Live in Paris" release is anything like the PBS episode of her in concert it could prove to be a fun listen. Will's comment that it is "entertaining" is encouragment enough and I will invariably buy it.
On a side note, Ms. Krall is, probably more than anything else, an entertainer. In this respect she outshines singers like Tierney Sutton. Ms. Sutton's work graces my collection, too, and she is most certainly a much more talented singer. Especially in range, tone and articulation. Unfortunately, and again this is MO, she is far too technical and too little entertaining for my taste. She leaves me with the impression of someone focused on perfection and coming very close, but in doing so forgetting that it's OK to relax a little and have a little fun.
That's why I listen: For fun. Curses to any performer who gets in the way of that!