Woody Herman's "Blues In The Night"
one click to listen to the most of the song for free (unfortunately,
the excellent/perfect/superb/unforeseen by satisfying ending is cut-
off):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zwsZkaxRG_o
Why is this version more essential than Jimmie Lunceford's (or Dinah
Shore's)?
Well, Herman sounds pretty soulful singing here, if you were blind and
other than the fact that the band's (trademark, that is the point)
sound is not that of Cab Calloway's, you could almost think that was
CC taking a serious turn with a ballad effort.
The Lunceford version, which somebody was questioning my judgement a
few months ago, in going for Herman version for my Digital Dream Door
list of top Swing Era Songs, instead of selecting the Lunceford, was
something to behold. Maybe they were only curious, as to my
thinking, but the tone sounded like they were questioning my
judgement.
Look, the Lunceford is a great version, at the instrumental part,
which is nice, bright, cool jazz. But the Herman arrangement is just
as ingenius, if not more so, and in the vocal part, wins hands down
without any question.
But furthermore, it (the Herman version) manifests the song in more
of the fulfillment, I think, of what the songwriter intended;
instead of the upbeat and bright version by Lunceford (which again I
think is great, and a bit a genius in itself, although it sidesteps or
eschews partially the more powerful Blues sentiment of the Herman, in
that regard) the Herman interpretation conveys more of the
wistfulness, and just enough of the downbeat feeling or sentiment the
song really needs, to have its full power and appropriate message
revealed; more of the feeling of bereftness, world-weary chagrin, a
"washed-ashore" feeling of beat-down resignation and/or bewilderment
in the way the concept for the song is parlayed (and so effectively
so) by Herman.
Lunceford, as great as his band was, had no vocal arrow in his quiver,
in terms of a top-shelf or first-rate vocalist in his outfit to
deliver the song, so that is why I think he compensated by having a
vocal chorus of bandmembers sing the song, to try to match the power
of other offerings of the song which did feature just an individual
lead vocalist like either Herman on his version, Dinah Shore on her
version, or even on the lesser version by Hot Lips Page with the Artie
Shaw Orchestra. Moreover, or maybe even worse, the Lunceford chorus
eschews or edits (shortens!) some of the lyrics, particularly, missing
in reading the lines or words of the song from the Lunceford version
are these lyrics: "From Natchez to Mobile, from Memphis to St. Joe,
Wherever the Four Winds Blow...(etc.)" - MIA, as I said. Therefore,
except for the fact that the Lunceford chorus doesn't go off-key, not
only is the vocal performance part far less impressive, you don't even
get all the words to the song with the Lunceford version, the happy
version of the song. But this song is supposed to be a little blue
and downbeat; and in the context of the war-time, the underlying tone
of separation and disillusionment is also better served by the
glorious Herman version that caught lightning in a bottle, something
that didn't always happen for that band, but it certainly did here.
The record-buying public also thought so. The Woody Herman version
was # 1 for FOUR (4) weeks in late 1941 and early 1942, according to
sources I've checked. The Lunceford version made it up to only # 4.
It is not always politically correct to say so, but sometimes the
white outfit out-does even a fine black effort on the same song.
Asking me to choose the less essential Lunceford in place of the
Herman, is like asking me to pick Otis Redding's "Satisfaction" (as
fine as it is) over the Stones' as the more essential historical
version. Or the Gladiola's "Little Darlin'" over the Diamonds. Nah-
uh-uh. Won't work. Can't do it.
-Larry
|
