explain? (asking seriously!)
Taken on its own terms, sepearate from all the historical aftermath of itself, "Birdland" is indeed a marvellous piece of music, a compact little multi-sectioned gem worthy of late-30's/early 40s Ellington (and I do mean that!). It was hugely interesting and exciting when it first came out, at least in my circles.
But...
It's kinda like putting together a "straight ahead" jazz compilation for "general" educational purposes and including "Take Five" or some such. Why?
A) the artists in question have done meatier work elsewhere (and don't get me wrong, I like both cuts immensely, but still....)
B ) it's something that a lot of people have already heard, if only through osmosis
and
C) (following from B ), it's something that some people have heard so often in so many different versions (and contexts) that they've developed a distaste for it, and that might turn them off on whatever else they will hear in conjunction with it.
If I wanted to present a cut from HEAVY WEATHER (and why not?), I'd maybe go with "Palladium", every bit as catchy and "accessable", but significantly less familiar to the "civilian" population.
Just my opinion, and not a particularly strongly held one at that!