[Dixielandjazz] Down in Jungle Town

[Ken Mathieson]

Hi Sheik et al,

You're right about jazzers omitting verses because they were "hard (or less 
fun) to jazz." Many verses work in a vocal context to set up the story line 
for the main theme, but on their own, they are frequently very inferior to 
the chorus in terms of melody and harmonic development, so instrumental 
recordings often trend to omit them. The other factor was the 3-minute span 
of 78 rpm recordings, which left the musicians with the choice of playing 
the verse or omitting one or more solos. If the verse was musically less 
interesting than the chorus, that would be a no-brainer.

Cheers,

Ken Mathieson
www.classicjazzorchestra.org.uk



----- Original Message ----- 
From: <dwlit at cpcug.org>
To: "Ken Mathieson" <ken at kenmath.free-online.co.uk>
Cc: <dwlit at cpcug.org>; "john p" <birchall1 at btinternet.com>; 
<lherault at bu.edu>; "Dixieland Jazz Mailing List" 
<dixielandjazz at ml.islandnet.com>
Sent: Tuesday, December 14, 2010 2:49 AM
Subject: Re: [Dixielandjazz] Down in Jungle Town


>I think that some of these verses add much to the "Down in..." tunes, even
> sans vocals.
>
> I suspect that Allen omitted it for the same reason Artie Shaw, Benny
> Goodman and others omitted the verse to "Stardust", and the 40s jazzbos
> rarely included verses: it was too hard, or certainly less fun, to jazz
> 'em...
>
> --Sheik
>
>> Hi All,
>>
>> Many thanks to Ron, Ingemar and the two Johns for their speedy supply of
>> the verse (and chorus). Having played the verse through, I think I can
>> understand why Red Allen dispensed with it and just played the chorus! I
>> suspect my chart will do likewise, although I'll keep playing the verse 
>> in
>> case it grows on me.
>>
>> Ken Mathieson
>
>
>
>
> -----
> No virus found in this message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 10.0.1170 / Virus Database: 426/3315 - Release Date: 12/14/10
>