 |
 |
 |
|
|
|
|
|
[ Back to the listing ]
[ Post Reply ]
[ Help ]
[ Search ]
[ List All Forums ] |
 Posted By: Jim Liddane on: 06/11/2009 20:08:23 EDTSubject: RE: Pop Instrumentals - The Horse (1968) - Cliff Nobles |
|
John wrote.... Not sure I ever heard the ones you mentioned! Sounds like Big Band songs! Jim replies.... More or less. Riddle was Sinatra's arranger, so you get the picture. "Lisbon Antigua" is a nice track - it was used in the film "Lisbon" which was a minor success in 1955-56. Oddly enough, the tune came out under two titles - in the USA it was called "Lisbon Antigua" - in the UK, a different version by the Frank Chacksfield Orchestra was titled "Old Lisbon". How it got to the US was that Nat King Cole's manager was on holiday in Portugal, and brought back the record to LA intending that Nat should sing it. Nat gave it to Riddle, who promptly released an instrumental version. The second track "Poor People Of Paris was a hit vocal over here by Edith Piaf but Les Baxter's US version is purely instrumental. Funny thing is that the title in the USA was a misunderstanding. Apparently somebody in Paris phoned Capitol in LA to tell them about this great tune called "Pauvre Jean", which translates as "Poor John". However, whoever took down the French title in LA thought the second word was "Gens", which is pronounced the same as "Jean", but in fact means people, and so the LA Capitol people translated the title as "Poor People Of Paris". It made not one blind bit of difference - it actually sold better in the US than it did in Europe. A similar thing happened in 1963 with Kyu Sakamoto's Japanese Number 1 "Ue O Muite Aruko", which was considered too difficult a title - so somebody in New York re-named it as "Skuiyaki" which is some sort of steamed rice - and a dish seemingly well known to American GI's who had served in post-war Japan - even though the song had nothing to do with food, and the title is not once mentioned in the song! John also wrote... My answer? Oh, heck, I just saw it mentioned elsewhere! Jim replied... Well it's all the one, the answer is dead right. I can eee that your "era" is much later than mine - mine being 1955 to around 1967 - after that I get more than a bit hazy! |
|