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.