Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Louis Armstrong - Britney Spears!

Expand Messages
  • Bryan Wright
    ... That s just one of those things I would never have imagined. Like many modern pop tunes, I don t think I had ever considered the song to have enough of a
    Message 1 of 2 , Apr 22, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      > http://www.supermasterpiece.com/music/oops/
      > Oops%20I%20Did%20It%20Again!.mp3
      >
      > http://www.supermasterpiece.com/music/oops.html
      >
      > Stoopid huh?
      > Scott Alexander

      That's just one of those things I would never have imagined. Like many
      modern pop tunes, I don't think I had ever considered the song to have
      enough of a melody to actually be played on a trumpet. The recording...
      well, I'll just be nice and say "an interesting effort," although the
      impersonation of Louis's gravelly voice started to wear thin after the
      first few lines.

      This is very silly, but I can't help pointing out a couple of other
      nit-picky observations...

      They say "newly remastered from the wax cylinder," but of course the
      commercial cylinder industry had collapsed, really by about 1910.
      Edison plugged on into the late 1920s, but nobody was making cylinders
      in 1932 (except for a select few ethnographers who may have been using
      them to make field recordings in the early '30s for research use).
      Furthermore, they say "wax cylinder," but then show a scan of a 78 rpm
      record label next to it.

      Not only does the label scan conflict with the statement about the
      recording coming from a wax cyliner, but they say that the record was
      made in 1932 but soon fell out of print. The label scan shows a
      mid-late 1940s Decca label supposedly of the song. Decca didn't begin
      producing records until 1934, so a Decca release of the recording would
      have been a reissue -- and a reissue from the late 1940s at that!
      Clearly then, this alleged "lost" recording really wasn't *that* lost
      if it was being reissued some 12-15 years after being recorded.

      The phony cover shot, while otherwise quite authentic-looking, mixes
      the Columbia "LP" logo with the Decca name. Columbia had trademarked
      that "LP" in a circle design, and it would not have appeared on another
      label's records.

      Of course, the whole thing is a joke--I realize that. I'm merely
      pointing out a few things that could have been fixed to make it look
      even more "authentic."

      Bryan
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.