[Phono-L] Charleston by Whiteman's O
The same voice made a four syllable reappearance on Charlestonette, 4 months later. I assume he was a band member. Here's Charleston, take 5, which has no vocal effects. There are a couple of overmodulated moments, so maybe that's why this take wasn't used. http://www.box.net/shared/m8niz5c5ml - Original Message - From: john9...@pacbell.net Yeah that is actually funny! -Original Message- From: William Zucca rochr...@gmail.com Personally, I never liked the Whiteman version because of the lame try at scat singing. I understand that there is a Whiteman version without vocal, but I have never heard it. Grnmountain Bill On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:38 PM, john9...@pacbell.net wrote: I still have a copy of the Whiteman version but I am not that impressed by it. I might sell it too. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Charleston by Whiteman's O
That attempt at scat just made me embarrassed for him! -Original Message- From: DanKj ediso...@verizon.net Sender: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:32:38 To: Antique Phonograph Listphono-l@oldcrank.org Reply-To: Antique Phonograph List phono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: [Phono-L] Charleston by Whiteman's O The same voice made a four syllable reappearance on Charlestonette, 4 months later. I assume he was a band member. Here's Charleston, take 5, which has no vocal effects. There are a couple of overmodulated moments, so maybe that's why this take wasn't used. http://www.box.net/shared/m8niz5c5ml - Original Message - From: john9...@pacbell.net Yeah that is actually funny! -Original Message- From: William Zucca rochr...@gmail.com Personally, I never liked the Whiteman version because of the lame try at scat singing. I understand that there is a Whiteman version without vocal, but I have never heard it. Grnmountain Bill On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:38 PM, john9...@pacbell.net wrote: I still have a copy of the Whiteman version but I am not that impressed by it. I might sell it too. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Charleston by Whiteman's O
Interesting. When I first started collecting I got a nice Victor 110. Then I said I need a Charleston record of course. It was so popular and iconic. It took 20 years before I was able to get one. I got the Edison DD of the Golden Gate Orchestra, great version. This from John was going to be my only later 78 of it, so I bid a ridiculous $$ to be sure to get it and still lost. -Barry On 1/19/2011 6:48 PM, john9...@pacbell.net wrote: That attempt at scat just made me embarrassed for him! -Original Message- From: DanKjediso...@verizon.net Sender: phono-l-boun...@oldcrank.org Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2011 18:32:38 To: Antique Phonograph Listphono-l@oldcrank.org Reply-To: Antique Phonograph Listphono-l@oldcrank.org Subject: [Phono-L] Charleston by Whiteman's O The same voice made a four syllable reappearance on Charlestonette, 4 months later. I assume he was a band member. Here's Charleston, take 5, which has no vocal effects. There are a couple of overmodulated moments, so maybe that's why this take wasn't used. http://www.box.net/shared/m8niz5c5ml - Original Message - From:john9...@pacbell.net Yeah that is actually funny! -Original Message- From: William Zuccarochr...@gmail.com Personally, I never liked the Whiteman version because of the lame try at scat singing. I understand that there is a Whiteman version without vocal, but I have never heard it. Grnmountain Bill On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:38 PM,john9...@pacbell.net wrote: I still have a copy of the Whiteman version but I am not that impressed by it. I might sell it too. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Charleston by Whiteman's O
Well, a friend once told me that it was actually BILLY MURRAY, but I can't verify this. Thank you very much for the chance to hear the non-vocal version. What is the source of that recording? Did Victor release this alternate take under the same catalog number? GrnMountainBill On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 6:32 PM, DanKj ediso...@verizon.net wrote: The same voice made a four syllable reappearance on Charlestonette, 4 months later. I assume he was a band member. Here's Charleston, take 5, which has no vocal effects. There are a couple of overmodulated moments, so maybe that's why this take wasn't used. http://www.box.net/shared/m8niz5c5ml - Original Message - From: john9...@pacbell.net Yeah that is actually funny! -Original Message- From: William Zucca rochr...@gmail.com Personally, I never liked the Whiteman version because of the lame try at scat singing. I understand that there is a Whiteman version without vocal, but I have never heard it. Grnmountain Bill On Wed, Jan 19, 2011 at 2:38 PM, john9...@pacbell.net wrote: I still have a copy of the Whiteman version but I am not that impressed by it. I might sell it too. ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
Re: [Phono-L] Charleston by Whiteman's O
- Original Message - From: William Zucca rochr...@gmail.com Thank you very much for the chance to hear the non-vocal version. What is the source of that recording? Did Victor release this alternate take under the same catalog number? The non-vocal take of Charleston is on the CD -- 20th CENTURY TIME CAPSULE, BMG/Buddha 74465996332, issued in 1999 ___ Phono-L mailing list http://phono-l.oldcrank.org
