> In a message dated 1/21/2003 9:39:44 PM Eastern Standard Time, > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Good points, Bob!
We were told in our literature class in college that what makes a classic a classic is the timelessness of the story, the passions evoked, etc. Maybe we can apply the same to a standard. After all, a standard is some kind of yardstick to gauge other people/song/idea/anything. > Good question, Deb...I have no pat answers but some thoughts. First I > would say that "Moon At The Window" has the potential to become a > standard. In the past year or so a couple of versions have been done. > Repetition is certainly a factor...look at the numbers of times that the > Rodgers/Hart, Gershwin, Bacharach, Hoagy Carmichael songbooks have been > raided. It would be silly to propose that songs like "Stardust", > "Summertime", "My Funny Valentine" are NOT standards, solely based on > the NUMBER of times they've been recorded. So what number makes a song a > standard, I dunno. There are Gershwin tunes that have not been over-recorded (like "Delish-yous") but are strangely referred to as standards by liner-notes writers. I don't know. Maybe its because it was written by a Gershwin (whose songs majority of which are now called standards) therefore its automatically a standard. I don't know the answer for that one. > For instance, how many standards use the > word "gay" in context of happiness as opposed to context of sexuality? Funny you mentioned this because yesterday while I was listening to Shirley Horn sing "He Was Too Good For Me" (from her live album "I Love You, Paris"), there was a line that says: "I was a queen to him; who would make me feel so gay now..." At the risk of sounding like someone with an automatic heterosexualist framework, but I always assumed that that song is being sung by a woman to another man. But now, I don't know. Joseph in Manila np: Joe Henderson "Big Band"
