Oh Woww! This is good and great! Turnings around in a mood of good and great Fun! And then going for the Positive! At all it's Cost! But doing it. Getting there! Great Song! And great Sound!
Yes, but... this band arrangement doesn't actually reflect the original pianoforte score: it's a different thing: it's a later fox-trot version conceived for dancing, to make the tune more marketable. The original score, instead, wasn't intended as a dance tune. So of course they sound so different.
Well... You should know this isn't the way the composer intended it, at the very beginning. This a later fox-trot version of the tune, just to make it more marketable; but it's different, from the original score published by Mills Co. During the 1920s, it was very common to make dancing arrangements of composition not conceived for dancing: just to make you an example, it even exists a fox-trot version of Gershwin's "Rhapsody In Blue" recorded in 1928!
Early record(ing)s don't have mistakes: if so, they would be trashed. Also, «juke-box» is an improper term for the coin-operating instruments of Confrey's era. And... Most probably, you're mistaking Confrey's "Dizzy Fingers" with another composition by him, titled "Nickel In The Slot". "Dizzy Fingers" was a Novelty solo, originally conceived as a brilliant modern-style etude.
@BourgProductions «The way it is supposed to be played». Yes, but... as a fox-trot tune - as also stated on the disc label. This band arrangement, unlike the original pianoforte solo published by Mills Co., was clearly conceived for dancing. Notice the swung rhythm of the recording, which is opposed to the straight eights of the sheet music. The original score, as it is, isn't labeled "fox-trot" and is hardly danceable, considering the fact it's also marked «Presto» - which obviously means VVVERY fast! (minim = 160 bpm is perfect). I'm also Italian, from Italy: so I know what those Italian words really mean, being part of my own vocabulary. Just because you like this later fox-trot version, doesn't mean the original Mills Co. arrangement should be played swung and «Allegretto». It's like to say... you may prefer the "Monna Lisa With Moustaches" by M. Duchamp, but that doesn't mean that picture should be mistaken with the original Lionardo's "Monna Lisa". They are two different things. I could even perform "Dizzy Fingers" as a Bossa Nova tune; but of course that wouldn't be what Confrey intended in 1923 - even if my Bossa Nova orchestration would be groovier and more exciting than the original. Also, it was common, in 1920s, to make fox-trot arrangements of not-dancing compositions. It even exists a fox-trot version of Gershwin's "Rhapsody In Blue" recorded by Leroy Smith's Orchestra in 1928 with a Conga drums solo in the middle! But this doesn't make Smith's recording a reliable attestation of how the Rhapsody should be always performed. So, please! don't mistake your subjective feelings with objective reality.
@@davidelongo6438 I personally think people rush this far too much, if you've ever heard the roll recorded by Confrey himself for the QRS company which has a written tempo marker you'd know it plays about this speed and not at a breakneck tempo. Also on the subject of swing, I wouldn't play kitten on the keys swung the whole way, in fact, most of it sounds best fairly straight. Especially the trio.
What a wonderful recording. It’s nice to hear it played in such a manner. I really like the piano part. Marvellous
Oh Woww! This is good and great! Turnings around in a mood of good and great Fun! And then going for the Positive! At all it's Cost! But doing it. Getting there! Great Song! And great Sound!
Huh....I'd only ever heard this as a piano piece. Never knew a jazz orchestra version was official recorded. I think it works better like this!
Yes, but... this band arrangement doesn't actually reflect the original pianoforte score: it's a different thing: it's a later fox-trot version conceived for dancing, to make the tune more marketable. The original score, instead, wasn't intended as a dance tune. So of course they sound so different.
That was great, thanks.
You're welcome!
Super excellent
Stunning!
You can almost see the flappers dancing to this zippy number....👍🤗
Enjoy hearing this the way the composer intended. Paul Weston, as Jonthan Edwards, made a comedy version, struggling as he went.
Well... You should know this isn't the way the composer intended it, at the very beginning. This a later fox-trot version of the tune, just to make it more marketable; but it's different, from the original score published by Mills Co. During the 1920s, it was very common to make dancing arrangements of composition not conceived for dancing: just to make you an example, it even exists a fox-trot version of Gershwin's "Rhapsody In Blue" recorded in 1928!
I'll have a whiskey please bartender
Was it Winifred Atwell that also made a recording of this? Great shellac!!!
I think it may have been recorded by lots of people. Certainly there are several RUclips videos of Dizzy Fingers.
So you mean that this is not Zez Confrey and his orchestra, despite that is says so on the label?
This was Shilkret's "Victor Orchestra", released until Confrey's name.
When he composed it, he made sure there was some bad notes and repartition in it, to mimic the early records, and juke boxes.
Early record(ing)s don't have mistakes: if so, they would be trashed. Also, «juke-box» is an improper term for the coin-operating instruments of Confrey's era. And... Most probably, you're mistaking Confrey's "Dizzy Fingers" with another composition by him, titled "Nickel In The Slot". "Dizzy Fingers" was a Novelty solo, originally conceived as a brilliant modern-style etude.
Who came here from Piano tiles 2 umod?
me
Finally not played at 150 bpm!
@Bourg Productions I think this was composed in 1925 wasn't it?
@BourgProductions «The way it is supposed to be played». Yes, but... as a fox-trot tune - as also stated on the disc label. This band arrangement, unlike the original pianoforte solo published by Mills Co., was clearly conceived for dancing. Notice the swung rhythm of the recording, which is opposed to the straight eights of the sheet music. The original score, as it is, isn't labeled "fox-trot" and is hardly danceable, considering the fact it's also marked «Presto» - which obviously means VVVERY fast! (minim = 160 bpm is perfect). I'm also Italian, from Italy: so I know what those Italian words really mean, being part of my own vocabulary. Just because you like this later fox-trot version, doesn't mean the original Mills Co. arrangement should be played swung and «Allegretto». It's like to say... you may prefer the "Monna Lisa With Moustaches" by M. Duchamp, but that doesn't mean that picture should be mistaken with the original Lionardo's "Monna Lisa". They are two different things. I could even perform "Dizzy Fingers" as a Bossa Nova tune; but of course that wouldn't be what Confrey intended in 1923 - even if my Bossa Nova orchestration would be groovier and more exciting than the original. Also, it was common, in 1920s, to make fox-trot arrangements of not-dancing compositions. It even exists a fox-trot version of Gershwin's "Rhapsody In Blue" recorded by Leroy Smith's Orchestra in 1928 with a Conga drums solo in the middle! But this doesn't make Smith's recording a reliable attestation of how the Rhapsody should be always performed. So, please! don't mistake your subjective feelings with objective reality.
@@PiotrBarcz 1923
@@davidelongo6438 I personally think people rush this far too much, if you've ever heard the roll recorded by Confrey himself for the QRS company which has a written tempo marker you'd know it plays about this speed and not at a breakneck tempo.
Also on the subject of swing, I wouldn't play kitten on the keys swung the whole way, in fact, most of it sounds best fairly straight. Especially the trio.
@@davidelongo6438 I must've confused the 1925 piano roll of Dizzy Fingers with it something xD