Strangers in the Night

[The Modernist]

And you only have to listen to the records he did with Dean Martin and Sammy Davis to see he was head and shoulders above the rest.

So they say, but I'd take Nat King Cole every time.

[GoogaMooga]

Sinatra was not the best singer, but the consensus says he was the best at phrasing and interpreting, and I'd agree there.

[GoogaMooga]

But I'm not sure many under 55 are actually listening to the music. Stuff from the pre-rock era speaks a language that I think many just don't get.

I've thought about it some more, you may be right, that it is the image and the lifestyle that have endured more than the Great American Songbook. If people under 55 don't know it or don't get it, that is worrying. IMO it was pop's finest period.

One way to measure popularity, at least here in Denmark, is to notice which MOR album appears most often in thrift shops. I cover a pretty large area, Northern Zealand (Sjælland), and it's Dino with that Capitol-Reprise comp vol.1. It sold truckloads and I think it may have been heavily TV advertised.

[The Modernist]

Sinatra was not the best singer, but the consensus says he was the best at phrasing and interpreting, and I'd agree there.

I couldn't care less about the consensus.

[GoogaMooga]

Sinatra was not the best singer, but the consensus says he was the best at phrasing and interpreting, and I'd agree there.

I couldn't care less about the consensus.

Who is better at phrasing, then?

[The Modernist]

I've no idea.
Look I get it to a degree, in that I understand the history. I understand how Sinatra broke from the previous generation of crooners, like Bing Crosby. But I find him a bit of a one- trick pony, I guess I just don't find him all that amazing as a vocalist.

[naughty boy]

One way to measure popularity, at least here in Denmark, is to notice which MOR album appears most often in thrift shops. I cover a pretty large area

AAAAAARRRGGHHHHHH!!!!!!!

[fange]

"Phrasing" really hasn't been an important part of how most music listeners measure or decide whether they like a singer since the late '50s/'60's, right? It was killed off by rock and roll and R&B, where the emphasis is more on depth of emotional content or the sound, rather than a singers technique and ability to phrase a lyric "just right".

[Diamond Dog]

I've just checked. I have 20 Sinatra albums, from "Songs For Young Lovers" from '54 throught to "Trilogy" from '80. That's 26 years - I don't have too many artists with that longevity in my collection.

The thing about Sinatra is because he was Sinatra he had the inestimable advantage of having the choice of the best songs. Presley was very much the same, but I think Sinatra generally chose better material. Songwriters wanted to have their songs covered by him - he always had a huge selection of material (new material) to work with. Because of that, it just naturally followed that he recorded some of the greatest songs too. There may be a debate about whether because he was a great vocalist, people gave him their best songs or whether the best songs made him the vocalist he was..... I'm firmly in the former camp there...but it is a debate.

What really isn't up for question is whether he was a schmaltzy old bugger who just wowed the grandmothers or whether he was a pioneering artist who changed how music was listened to and presented. "In The Wee Small Hours" was one of the first LP's (maybe the very first) that had a connected theme throughout - the first 'concept' album in many ways. Without question, that was groundbreaking - it ushered in the 'album' where the (relatively) new Long Player format was used to extend a linked theme. He continued to do that throughout - "Where Are You" "No One Cares" "For Only The Lonely" "A Man Alone" "Watertown" right up to the frankly bizarre "Trilogy" in 1980, are other examples. He also released albums of different genres (waltzes, swing, folk rock - his versions of those, admittedly) where he'd take a group of songs written in a particular style.

Did they all work? Of course not. But to suggest he was a stuffed shirt only out there to placate the blue rinse brigade is, quite seriously, absurd. Indeed, I'd say Sinatra took more chances, more left field diversions, more changes of strategy and more risks than many acts we consider to have been 'ground breaking'. That he managed to do that and maintain a massive core fan base is remarkable, in all honesty.

[GoogaMooga]

Great reply, thanks! I agree with every bit of it.

[ConnyOlivetti]

I think Coan and Googa are right.

Well, that is something you never thought would happen!

[Deebank]

When I was frequently in the US - just after the millennium, so a while ago now admittedly- ‘swing’ was the thing. I was taken to clubs where it was all the rage with the hipsters.

My step-grandfather had no time for Sinatra because he didn’t do his bit in the war and then had the temerity to play heroes in films afterwards.

Rotter!

[Deebank]

Oh, so not UFO then..

Saxon wasn’t it?

[`]

some of those I know by name only. Of course there will be easy that even I would sniff at. But some big names are among my heroes:

Percy Faith
James Last
Bert Kaempfert
Henry Mancini
Paul Mauriat
Ray Conniff
The Sandpipers
Herb Alpert & Tijuana Brass

there are more, of course...

Reads like a list of those in the dock at a trial prosecuting crimes against good taste

[`]

I've just checked. I have 20 Sinatra albums, from "Songs For Young Lovers" from '54 throught to "Trilogy" from '80. That's 26 years - I don't have too many artists with that longevity in my collection.

The thing about Sinatra is because he was Sinatra he had the inestimable advantage of having the choice of the best songs. Presley was very much the same, but I think Sinatra generally chose better material. Songwriters wanted to have their songs covered by him - he always had a huge selection of material (new material) to work with. Because of that, it just naturally followed that he recorded some of the greatest songs too. There may be a debate about whether because he was a great vocalist, people gave him their best songs or whether the best songs made him the vocalist he was..... I'm firmly in the former camp there...but it is a debate.

What really isn't up for question is whether he was a schmaltzy old bugger who just wowed the grandmothers or whether he was a pioneering artist who changed how music was listened to and presented. "In The Wee Small Hours" was one of the first LP's (maybe the very first) that had a connected theme throughout - the first 'concept' album in many ways. Without question, that was groundbreaking - it ushered in the 'album' where the (relatively) new Long Player format was used to extend a linked theme. He continued to do that throughout - "Where Are You" "No One Cares" "For Only The Lonely" "A Man Alone" "Watertown" right up to the frankly bizarre "Trilogy" in 1980, are other examples. He also released albums of different genres (waltzes, swing, folk rock - his versions of those, admittedly) where he'd take a group of songs written in a particular style.

Did they all work? Of course not. But to suggest he was a stuffed shirt only out there to placate the blue rinse brigade is, quite seriously, absurd. Indeed, I'd say Sinatra took more chances, more left field diversions, more changes of strategy and more risks than many acts we consider to have been 'ground breaking'. That he managed to do that and maintain a massive core fan base is remarkable, in all honesty.

He's dead now, Pete. He can't threaten or hurt you or your family any more.

[Belle Lettre]

Oh, so not UFO then..

Saxon wasn’t it?

[Diamond Dog]

Whatever one thinks of the title track (and I like it) the next three :

Summer Wind
All Or Nothing At All
Call Me

are absolutely top notch Sinatra. "Summer Wind" (particularly) is a truly magical tune.

[Diamond Dog]

He's dead now, Pete. He can't threaten or hurt you or your family any more.

[Deebank]

Oh, so not UFO then..

Saxon wasn’t it?

Fair enough - and the Saxon song is actually 747 (Strangers In The Night)