Two by Stan Getz: Focus and Voices

Note: Each video links to the first selection in a play-list that links to the whole album, one cut after the other.

Focus

Wikipedia:

Focus is a jazz album recorded in 1961, featuring Stan Getz on tenor saxophone with a string orchestra, piano, bass, and drums. The album is a seven-part suite, which was originally commissioned by Getz from composer and arranger Eddie Sauter. Widely regarded as a high point in both men's careers, Focus was later described by Getz as his favorite among his own records. [...]

The Penguin Guide to Jazz selected this album as part of its suggested "Core Collection", stating: "Nobody ever arranged for Getz as well as this, and Sauter's luminous and shimmering scores continue to bewitch." Similarly, AllMusic critic Stephen Cook describes Focus as "admittedly Getz's most challenging date and arguably his finest moment".

Getz biographer Donald L. Maggin wrote that Getz and Sauter "had created the most fully realized third stream record ever made". Biographer Dave Gelly adds that the album "received hugely favorable notices in the music press" and that "[i]f anything qualifies Stan Getz for the title of genius, it's what he achieved on July 28th 1961".

There’s much more to the entry.

Voices

The Wikipedia entry for this album is rather terse:

Voices is a studio album by American saxophonist Stan Getz, recorded in 1966 and released the following year on Verve Records. It features a chorus singing a chromatic, wordless accompaniment in place of a traditional string-section orchestration.

That, I suspect, reflects that this album is all too-often dismessed as high-class elevator music. And perhaps that’s what it is, especially in contrast to the reception for Focus. I like both albums but, FWIW, I’ve listened to Voices more often.

What does Claude think?

I had the following brief conversation with Claude 4.5 about the two albums:

Consider two albums by Stan Getz, Focus and Voices. What did critics have to say about them?

Critics had vastly different reactions to these two Stan Getz albums.

Focus (1961) received enthusiastic critical acclaim and is widely considered a masterpiece. The Penguin Guide to Jazz selected it as part of its "Core Collection," praising how Sauter's arrangements "continue to bewitch." AllMusic critic Stephen Cook described it as "admittedly Getz's most challenging date and arguably his finest moment." Biographer Donald L. Maggin went further, writing that Getz and Sauter "had created the most fully realized third stream record ever made." Another biographer, Dave Gelly, noted that the album "received hugely favorable notices in the music press" and suggested that what Getz achieved on the recording qualified him for the title of genius. Getz himself reportedly considered it his favorite among all his recordings.

Voices (1966), by contrast, received much more tepid and sometimes harsh critical reception. AllMusic's Stephen Cook acknowledged it featured top arrangements and fine musicians, but concluded it "may not qualify as an essential Getz disc." Jazz Journal was particularly critical, dismissing both Voices and the similar album Reflections as "insignificant trifles" and stating that the arrangements were "as close as Stanley ever came to muzak."

In essence, Focus is celebrated as an innovative, challenging artistic achievement, while Voices is often seen as pleasant but lightweight—more commercial easy listening than essential jazz.

I am familiar with both albums and like them both, but I’ve listened to Voices more often. How should I go about making a case for it, if not as essential Getz, but as music worth listening to?

Here are some angles you might take in making a case for Voices:

1. Judge it by its own intentions, not Focus's shadow The comparison to Focus seems to haunt Voices unfairly. Focus was deliberately challenging and experimental—Getz's response to Coltrane and the avant-garde. Voices had different aims: it's more about creating a specific mood and texture with the wordless choir. Rather than defending it as equally innovative, you could argue it succeeds beautifully at what it set out to do—create an atmospheric, contemplative sound world.

2. The personnel alone deserves attention Herbie Hancock, Jim Hall, Ron Carter, Grady Tate—this is a remarkable rhythm section that any jazz fan would want to hear Getz play with. The "muzak" criticism overlooks the quality of the actual playing and interaction happening within Ogerman's arrangements.

3. The unique timbral palette The wordless choir creates something genuinely distinctive—it's not just strings (which every jazz artist did), but human voices used as texture. This is actually quite rare in jazz. The sonic experience is worth exploring for its own sake, regardless of whether it's pushing boundaries.

4. Context within Getz's career Between the bossa nova period and Sweet Rain, Voices shows Getz exploring different coloristic possibilities. It's a legitimate part of his artistic journey, not a misstep. Sometimes artists need to explore quieter, more introspective spaces.

5. Challenge the "essential" framework You could argue that the critical obsession with "essential" works creates a false hierarchy. Music that's beautiful, well-crafted, and emotionally resonant has value even if it's not revolutionary. Not every meal needs to be a Michelin-starred innovation—sometimes you want something perfectly prepared and satisfying on its own terms.

6. The accessibility question The Jazz Journal review's dismissiveness ("insignificant trifles") might actually reveal critical bias against accessibility. Why should approachability be a flaw? Voices might serve as a gateway for listeners new to Getz or jazz more broadly, and that's a legitimate artistic function.

What resonates with you personally about the album? Your own listening experience might reveal aspects that critics overlooked.