Joel Whitburn's Pop Memories: 1894-1954 - the limits of its authority
yougotl...@yahoo.com
value) in public or critical regard over the years, from the Swing Era
(narrowly: 1935-1945, more broadly: 1930 - 1950)
in many cases never had the impact you might have expected they would
have had on the national (American) sales charts back in the day you
might have otherwise expected them to have, included the following
which have gone on to be regarded as pop or jazz classics, or either
have become among the songs these artists are most known or revered
for, or form the core of an essential big band collection. That is,
if one goes by the charts found/collected in Joel Whitburn's "Pop
Memories: 1894-1954" (copywright 1986, Record Research, Inc.):
"Take The A Train" - Duke Ellington, charting 1941 - highest position:
# 11
Note: Ellington DID have other # 1 records, and other top 5
recordings, according to Whitburn,
which are accordingly listed
"Boogie Woogie Bugle Boy" - Andrews Sisters, charting 1941 - highest
position: # 6
"Cherokee" - Charlie Barnet (band), charting 1939 - peak position: #
15
"Skyliner" - Charlie Barnet (band), charting 1945 - peak position: #
19
"Ain't Misbehavin'" - Fats Waller, charting 1929 - peak position: # 17
"Do You Know What It Means To Miss New Orleans" - Louis Armstrong
(1946)
-
NO CHART POSITION LISTED!
listen to this version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXFFI9budNI
"Skylark" - Harry James (band) w/Helen Forrest, charted 1942, peak
position: # 11
"On The Sunny Side Of The Street" - Tommy Dorsey (band) w/Clark
Sisters:
- charted 1945,
peak position, # 16
Note: This song is most associated with Dorsey, and I have heard this
version of radio stations
that include swing and big band in its formats more than any other
version in 1000's of hours
of such radio listening, and most 1 or 2 disc collections of Dorsey
include it, while excluding
one of his key 1940 # 1 sellers, "All The Things You Are", and they
are correct to do so.
OTSSOTS is central to Dorsey's canon, but his version of the latter
(ATTYA) is hardly definitive,
and it has fallen out of favor to the lesser-selling (but superiorly-
arranged and executed) Artie Shaw version. For example, OTSSOTS is
found on RCA first major spait of big band reissues, "This Is Tommy
Dorsey" (1971), but his ATTYA is not, as just one example. I can
name a number of single or double-disc CD's since 1990 that have done
the same.
"T'Ain't What You Do (It's The Way That You Do It)" - Jimmie Lunceford
(band)
- charted 1939,
peak position: # 11
"Drum Boogie" - Gene Krupa (band) - charted 1941, peak position: # 26
"Artistry In Rhythm" - Stan Kenton (band) - charted 1944, peak
position: # 16
"Night And Day" - Frank Sinatra, w/Axel Stordahl Orchestra, charted
1944, peaked at # 15
listen to this version here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7RpOUAmzBaI
"Moonlight In Vermont" - Billy Butterfield Orchestra featuring
Margaret Whiting, charted 1945
peaked at # 15
Note: Now considered the definitive or classic reading of this song
Even some non-Swing (or "Hit Parade") famous or classic records didn't
do as well as you'd think, according to Whitburn's collected or
aggregate chart math:
"San Antonio Rose" - Bob Wills & Texas Playboys - charted 1939, peaked
at # 15
"New San Antonio Rose" - Bob Wills & Texas Playboys - charted 1949,
peaked at # 11
Note: Bob Wills was KING in Texas in case anyone doesn't know
I can also cite, if I had the time and wanted to bother, numerous
instances where startlingly inferior readings of great songs, such as
"Love Walked In" by Sammy Kaye, where this key
Gershwin song is given a really disappointing and irritating (if not
downright miserable)arrangement, outperform in sales (this peaked at
#1) salutory or exemplarycompeting versions (such as same Love Walked
In Song by Jimmy Dorsey w/Bob Eberly on the vocal); or how songs no
longer considered important to a notable artist's core or revered
catalog, charted especially well: for example, Duke Ellington's
reading of Cocktails For Two reaching # 1.
I most passionately believe, something I might term the "retrospective
view" or "enduring regard" has to be weighed AT LEAST as much in
reaching final judgment about where such songs as above fit into the
artist(s)'s valuable achievements for posterity, and this cannot be
gleaned by merely gazing at chart positions of yore, and mixing in
ONLY one's own subjective opinion, but the opinions of people that
write and comment on jazz and popular music for a living, and the
radio announcers and jockeys that programmed this kind of music to
present to subsequent generations after the initial seasons of
"newness", most certainly be taken into consideration, and this
requires more than a cursory or superficial study of the surface
evidence available on record of records sales or radio or jukebox
popularity of back in the day. That's where the real scholarship
begins...such as listening to those that have had a real passion for
the music of the 30's and 40's; people like radio personality Chuck
Cecil, who has been broadcasting music of a broad spectrum (but heavy
on the big bands and major soloists of the day) of the music chiefly
between the years of 1935 and 1955 on his long-running (since 1956)
radio show out of Los Angeles entitled "The Swingin' Years" on KJAZZ
fm, with erstwhile syndication to other appreciative markets.
http://www.jazzandblues.org/programming/hosts/bios/?host=Chuck%20Cecil
Or broadcaster Don Kennedy's "Big Band Jump" program out of Atlanta,
Georgia:
Or going to the library and reading books by people like author George
Simon and his important work: "The Big Bands"
http://www.bigbandlibrary.com/georgetsimon.html
". . . one of the important figures among jazz's first generation of
informed opinion makers . . . His early writings helped build the
early canon of important jazz figures."
- John McDonough
"He was their reviewer, reporter, booster, adviser, confidant, critic,
and No.1 fan from their emergence in 1935 as heroes of the pop music
scene to well after their demise in 1946-47."
- Amy Lee, The Christian Science Monitor
"Though his criticism tended to be more eyewitness journalism than
musicology, his insight went beyond the surface."
- Ben Ratliff, The New York Times
....................................................................................................................................
Or other writers and critics like Will Friewald:
From Wikipedia:
Will Friedwald (born 1961) is an American author and music critic. He
has written for such newspapers as The New York Times, The Village
Voice, Newsday, The New York Observer, and The New York Sun, and for
such magazines as Entertainment Weekly, Oxford American, New York,
Mojo, BBC Music Magazine, Stereo Review, Fi(Delity), and other music
and film journals.
His books include Jazz Singing: America's Great Voices from Bessie
Smith to Bebop and Beyond, Sinatra! The Song is You: A Singer's Art,
Stardust Melodies: the Biography of Twelve of America's Most Popular
Songs
.........................................................................................................................................
Or Gunther Schuller's "The Swing Era: The Development of Jazz,
1930-1945".
Gunther Schuller (born November 22, 1925) is an American composer,
conductor, horn player, author, historian, and jazz musician.
His Wiki web page describing his many accomplishments in support of
jazz and other great music is located here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunther_Schuller
L.I. - In conclusion, only when one has undertaken more than a
superficial glance at sales charts, and done the "woodshed" work of
investigation and speak from 1000's of hours of listening and research
can one really begin to imagine one even has any authority to begin to
know what one is talking about, and be taken seriously on a subject
such as the music of the 1930's and 1940's.
Dean F.
<yougotlucky...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> L.I. - In conclusion, only when one has undertaken more than a
> superficial glance at sales charts, and done the "woodshed" work of
> investigation and speak from 1000's of hours of listening and research
> can one really begin to imagine one even has any authority to begin to
> know what one is talking about, and be taken seriously on a subject
> such as the music of the 1930's and 1940's.
Joel Whitburn has never claimed to be anything more (or less) than a
chart researcher. His books reflect one thing and one thing only: how
a record did on the Billboard chart(s) at the time it was new. For
over twenty-five years now, I have found Whitburn's work very useful
to that end. I would not, however, look to Whitburn for insight
regarding the music, nor would he expect me to.
D.F. - In conclusion, I'm at a loss to understand exactly what point
you thought you were making with this (latest) exercise in verbosity.
50s
He's trying to rationalize listing a non hit "Paper Moon" by Nat Cole
and refusing to list the hit version by Ella.
Sharx35
"50s" <Sav...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:466a094c-7b47-4c1a...@z41g2000yqz.googlegroups.com...
Cole's version dwarfed that of Ella.
>
yougotl...@yahoo.com
That's a blatant misrepresentation of what I said to you...I said I
would consider it for a separate entry lower down in the list (the top
1 to 250 #'s are what might be considered "essential or vital"
listening of what will eventually be a 500-entry list), but I cannot
put it right alongside the Cole Trio's version, at the same rank,
thereby "equating" the recording as being of equal value.
Another criterion or criteria I did neglect to reiterate for the Swing
List consideration, is that a recording gets what might be called
"affirmative action" if it actually is a real swing(in') record, or
uptempo, in some sense, and would get first dibs over any ballad or
"gently loping" version, or if a version is more definitive, or
remarkable. Had the Cole Trio's version never existed, it would be
much more in doubt then, if the Fitzgerald/DR Boys version would have
carried this song into Swing immortality, and accorded the great
memory it does have, at least with Swing fans of today.
Reproductions by big bands and swing combos of latter day live
performance of this song more closely follow the uptempo and panache
arrangements the Cole Trio gave it, than the bland arrangement
Fitzgerald used.
Hers is not a bad record, it is a good, pleasant record. But not
HIGHLY (emphasis) memorable. But it's a good record (the Fitzgerald
version), and would outrank so many boring and formulaic ballads by
say, Glenn Miller, that it will probably find a spot in the 350 to 500
range. I appreciate the reminder by way of this exercise, so I have
gone back and listened to it in my collection a few times, but it
never made a deep impression on me so it was on the top of my list
when drawing up the list or adding to it so far.
I can't for the life of me understand why you aren't pushing more
vital or important Fitzgerald recordings like "Goodnight My Love" with
Benny Goodman, which is excellent, or very good to excellent (and
remarkable) records like "Undecided" or "Have Mercy" with Chick Webb's
band, as I mentioned before, over the merely good "It's Only A Paper
Moon". For me, those 3 are more pressing concerns...
yougotl...@yahoo.com
in comparison to the Cole Trio version...here is his unedited reply
via cut and paste, with his confidential info (including full surname,
addresses, etc. ) edited out:
--- On Mon, 12/28/09, John BoZ B.........<> wrote:
From: John BoZ B(the rest of his last name) <his e-mail>
Subject: Re: Swingin' at Sugar Bowl!
To: "Tom Blumenthal" <tbph...@yahoo.com>
Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 8:06 PM
Tom ~
Ella Fitzgerald and Delta Rhythm Boys... you have it at #315 = Great
artist, Great song... pales in comparison to Nat King Cole's release.
What I like about your list is the subjectivity. It plays
wonderfully. Yes, I see Astaire's Somethings Gotta Give... unique
call, kudos. Also for Lew Stone's Lookie, Lookie. Some tasty tunes
between 300-390.... you have Mel Blanc's Woody Woodpecker on twice...
339 & 384... not your intent I'm sure...
BoZ
Fort Scott, Kansas
[end quote]
Bottom line...his opinion is very close to mine, in that the Fitz/DR
Boys version is a good (version) song, but it does, yes, pale in
comparison to the Cole Trio's version, so it can only be given a
separate entry further down the list (below 300, in this case, when
the rest of the list is implemented), and NOT equated with the Cole
Trio version is our list's architecture by placing in on the same
entry line.
Larry I.
50s
<yougotlucky...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> My partner in the list thinks it's a great (version) song, but pales
> in comparison to the Cole Trio version...here is his unedited reply
> via cut and paste, with his confidential info (including full surname,
> addresses, etc. ) edited out:
>
> --- On Mon, 12/28/09, John BoZ B.........<> wrote:
>
> From: John BoZ B(the rest of his last name) <his e-mail>
> Subject: Re: Swingin' at Sugar Bowl!
> To: "Tom Blumenthal" <tbphil...@yahoo.com>
> Date: Monday, December 28, 2009, 8:06 PM
>
> Tom ~
>
> Ella Fitzgerald and Delta Rhythm Boys... you have it at #315 = Great
> artist, Great song... pales in comparison to Nat King Cole's release.
> What I like about your list is the subjectivity. It plays
> wonderfully. Yes, I see Astaire's Somethings Gotta Give... unique
> call, kudos. Also for Lew Stone's Lookie, Lookie. Some tasty tunes
> between 300-390.... you have Mel Blanc's Woody Woodpecker on twice...
> 339 & 384... not your intent I'm sure...
>
> BoZ
>
> Fort Scott, Kansas
>
> [end quote]
>
> Bottom line...his opinion is very close to mine, in that the Fitz/DR
> Boys version is a good (version) song, but it does, yes, pale in
> comparison to the Cole Trio's version,
So now we know for sure.
You and your Bozo friend are using your own personal taste to decide
where these songs belong, rather than an objective criteria.
That invalidates the entire list as far as I see it.
Scarlotti
Wikipedia shows that the tune dates from 1933 and cites both Cole and
Fitzgerald (and Paul Whiteman) as having had significant versions. It
lists a lot of other versions by other artists as well.
Hmm...
I've got 153 tracks by Ella, but no Paper Moon.
Here's my ranking of the versions I've got:
1: Bing's version is from his radio show (live), but he does a
beautiful job with it, taking it nice and slow. He's backed by a
small sounding group, with a particularly impressive piano
arrangement. My favorite of these versions.
2. Nat King Cole also does it as uptempo jazz, though a little slower
than the Four Frosh, and with more successful results.
3. Vaughn Monroe's version is done fairly slow but with an appropriate
bounce, but remains only a typical big band piece.
4. The Four Freshmen do it as uptempo jazz -- pleasant filler.
I wouldn't call any of these versions "definitive," so perhaps Ella
might take it after all.
50s
Check it out here:
http://www.last.fm/music/Ella+Fitzgerald/_/It's+Only+a+Paper+Moon
Hit play on the player in the upper right hand corner.
50s
Your Music:
http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/single/1940s
It's # 72.
No sign of the Cole version.
50s
The Ella is # 8 for the year for 1945:
http://rateyourmusic.com/charts/top/single/1945
The Cole is # 32 for the year for 1944:
Scarlotti
Nice. It's certainly as good as the Cole version. Maybe you and Tom
should call it a tie.
F R
You and your Bozo friend are using your own personal taste to decide
where these songs belong, rather than an objective criteria.
That invalidates the entire list as far as I see it.
'Tis true as far as it goes Bruce. But aren't ALL lists subjective?
How would you define "objective criteria"? Total record sales? Surely
not amount of air play, nor number of acts that recorded a certain song.
When people vote in one of the yearly contests, almost by definition
there can be no "objective opinion".
Even the site you mention, "Rate your Music" is only people's opinions
who partake, no?
You take a lot of time and care, as do other regular posters like Larry,
Dean, and Roger, but aren't they all in actuality, personal opinions?
Frank
50s
> Bruce>
> You and your Bozo friend are using your own personal taste to decide
> where these songs belong, rather than an objective criteria.
> That invalidates the entire list as far as I see it.
> -----------------------
> 'Tis true as far as it goes Bruce. But aren't ALL lists subjective?
There's a difference between subjectivity and personal taste.
Read the criteria on those lists. They don't say that the songs are
ranked according to the editor's personal taste in music, which Larry
has admitted is a big part of what he uses.
50s
That's what I said in the first place, both versions should be listed.
The Ella is at least as good, but more importantly, it was the biggest
hit version of the era, the Cole version was not a big hit.
When Larry has a valid point about one of my lists I will make
changes, as i did in adding "Summertime" by Sidney Bechet, but when
others tell Larry about an addition he should make, he refuses to do
so based upon his own personal taste.
yougotl...@yahoo.com
Each case (particular recording) has to be decided on its own merits.
On our list, admissions are not done in the manner of "political horse
trading", to use an analogy where politicians/legislator's agree to
vote for each other's legislation (law-changing bills) on a "QUID PRO
QUO" basis. That principle alone will not insure good law, and in
what we're discussing here, will not necessarily produce a good
selection.
We may as well turn the editing of the Swing Era list over to you, and
use your standards, which we actually won't do (as long as Lew allows
us to continue editing the list), which we've worked so hard on,
because we have too much innate and abiding love and respect for the
music of this era, to allow an inferior take on this great era of
music-making suffer from the narrow and the parochial.
We have to answer to Swing Fans, whether dancers or listeners, and
that part of the Jazz world fandom that has any particularly strong
interest in the Swing era of Jazz as well.
Swing and Jazz fans, to use one example, would probably be more
interested in Jimmy Dorsey's "Contrasts" collection on GRP/Decca,
which contains only one of hits ("Tangerine") than that Curb label
Greatest Hits collection. This is one example of how I would
illustrate the difference in what we're trying to get at.
I can't put Fitzgerald's good version, but merely and mainly only a
"pop" version of "It's Only A Paper Moon" alongside the Cole Trio's
version in the Top 50 section of the Swing Era list, which would
indicate it is one the 50 (or higher) best records of this era, which
it is hardly, and if you think it is, you are selling all of this
music way too short....even Les Brown's version "swings" more than
hers. Whenever I here a later day jazz combo or present day big band
reproduce "It's Only A Paper Moon" for their live audiences, whether
it's Pittsburgh's fabulous Boilermakers, or Delaware's Walt Wagner
Serenaders, or Melissa Martin & The Rhythm Kings, and so on...they
follow more closely and try to invoke the Cole Trio "swing" version,
rather than the ballady pace of the Fitzgerald. It is EXACTLY Cole
who is being invoked or recalled, and nobody else.
I already allowed that the Fitzgerald version is worthy of a place on
the list, and if you were patient and had some class, you could accept
the fact that we'll find a place for it in the Top 500 when the list
is eventually expanded, and accept an aesthetic disagreement in a more
gentlemenly manner. John B. - co-editor had a disagreement of where
Miller's "Little Brown Jug" belongs, but it is coming up in the
expansion as well, but he doesn't throw a tantrum when he doesn't "get
his way" (he's never sought to get his way, but he'll let me know if
he considers I'm making a mistake). We both have to agree on general
placement and ranking. However, if a 3rd party and he agree together
and want to place a record higher than where I think it belongs, I
will give way to that. We've both been REALLY INTO this music years
and years before you've even skimmed the surface of it.
When you give a record more prominent placement than it earned in
record sales, on your lists, is that personal "judgement" in your
case, but when we do it, it's personal "taste"? What was behind you
thinking in shunting aside the # 1 version of "I'm In The Mood For
Love" by Little Jack Little for Louis Armstrong's # 3 version, circa
1935 -1936?
Or the thinking that resulted in a place for Spike Jone's very dated
(and outdated) "Der Fuehrer's Face" when there are so many more great
records of the 40's that belong on any short (100 or so) list of 40's
great songs. "Der Fuehrer's Face" probably got some more airplay as
an oldie in the run up to D-Day invasion (May/June, 1944) as I
understand it, but that was probably pretty much the end of its shelf-
life. With its puerile farting sounds, its appeal probably only held
forth with teenage boys, say for example, born in 1930, and too late
for war participation before getting their puberty by war's end, and
amused them as something still in their parents' record collection or
hanging around the odd jukebox in the immediate post-war Victory
Era. At least "Cocktails For Two" has enjoyed much more airplay
since then, since getting drunk and stupid is a more timeless and
universally experienced theme of life, or The William Tell Overture
("Beetle Bomb"), for its horse-racing/gambling implications.
Better to include more vital and timeless records, like Johnny
Mercer's "Personality", or his duet with Jo Stafford, "Candy", or
Tommy Dorsey/Jo Stafford's "Yes Indeed!" (if you hadn't included that
one), or "My Heart Tells Me" by Eugenie Baird with Glen Gray's Casa
Lomans, or "Oh Look At Me Now" by Frank Sinatra w/Tommy Dorsey, or
Dick Haymes' "Little White Lies" than the juvenile and irrelevant "Der
Fuehrer's Face"...not personal taste, huh, though?