Positive Passion wrote:
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.
Positive Passion wrote:
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.
The Modernist wrote: 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.
GoogaMooga wrote:Sinatra was not the best singer, but the consensus says he was the best at phrasing and interpreting, and I'd agree there.
The Modernist wrote:GoogaMooga wrote: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 wrote: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
Matt 'interesting' Wilson wrote:So I went from looking at the "I'm a Man" riff, to showing how the rave up was popular for awhile.
Jonny Spencer wrote:fange wrote:I've got my quad pants on and i'm ready for some Cock.
By CHRIST you're a man after my own sideways sausage, Ange!
Charlie O. wrote:I think Coan and Googa are right.
Charlie O. wrote:I think Coan and Googa are right.
Belle Lettre wrote:Oh, so not UFO then..
GoogaMooga wrote:
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...
Diamond Dog wrote: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 wrote:
caramba wrote:He's dead now, Pete. He can't threaten or hurt you or your family any more.