After a strangely delayed Barnes & Noble order (damn you, Barnes & Noble! :mad: ), I finally got Harry Connick, Jr.'s new CD, Only You.
Wow.
This is the CD I always waited/dreamed/wondered if he would record. And I was seriously surprised by his note inside the CD cover. Did he really never think to record 50s and 60s era songs? Could he possibly have not realized that his voice could swing with the best of the crooners??
It’s like listening to a new, and I might even say vastly improved, Frank Sinatra. I’m blown away by this CD and fascinated by his wonderfully smooth voice.
Vastly improved? Over Sinatra? I’m not sure what Frank Sinatra performances you’ve been listening to, but have you heard any of his recordings from the 40’s or early 50’s; “For Only The Lonely” (c.1953) in particular?
Connick himself has been quite forthcoming in his awe of Sinatra.
This is not to take anything away from Connick. I was hoping for great things from him myself a few years ago, and he is tremendously talented, but in today’s world…
Don’t get me wrong, I really love Frank. Especially his earlier stuff.
I’m not sure if it has to do with recording quality or something, but I may just like Connick’s deeper/richer/smoother tones a hair better than Frank’s, but I dunno. They are still different enough to be difficult to compare…
Anyway, vastly was probably the wrong word to use.
No problem. I just didn’t know if you were familiar with Frank’s earlier work. I was blown away by the smoothness of his voice during those recordings much like you have been with Connick’s voice now.
And I’m sure much of his (Connick’s) appeal for you is his hottie factor. My nephew looks a lot like him, and, jeez, the women…
Anyway, perhaps I overreacted. I’ve been a huge fan of Sinatra’s all my life, even as a small child. If so, my apologies.
I think that perhaps what you actually mean is something along the line of: “Will Harry Connick, Jr., as a singer, be the 21st century equivalent of Frank Sinatra?” At least this will narrow the scope of your responses to assessments of his singing. This is the area where he is most likely a rival to Sinatra. Otherwise, I’m afraid you’re going to be in for some unpleasant responses ala lissener and Dewey Cheatem Undhow. Sinatra was so remarkable, and in so many different areas of entertainment (not to mention his charisma and lifestyle) that I think the broader question your that OP suggests to some is just going to result in a lot of negative feedback from Sinatra’s admirers.
Personally, and like I said before, I like Connick quite a lot, but I don’t think that given today’s music audience, he has much of a chance at having more than a niche career as a singer. Perhaps his ultimate success will come as an actor.
Personally, I take this as a point in Mr. Connick’s favor, but I suspect you don’t.
I hate to compare them vocally, because much of it is subjective, and there is no reason why both men can’t be recognized as the great talents that they are. However, Connick will never have the impact that Sinatra had–the bobbysoxers were the precursers to the Beatles’ screaming fans and so the idolation heaped on pop stars today (yeah, Caruso had his die-hard fans, but they didn’t scream like the bobbysoxers, they quietly fainted mostly). Sinatra also influence the development of music–the type of songs written and the ones that became popular. Today’s music world is to diverse for Connick to have that kind of influence, although, like Sinatra, he sustains a type of songwriting by giving it a voice with an audience. 20 years from now, some kid will be singing similar stuff, and will be compared to Connick–so the beat goes on.
Anyway, now that I think about it (my motto: post first, think later), Frank Sinatra was hugely influential, and is one of the most important Godfathers of vocal jazz. Harry Connick has really changed or influenced nothing; he’s very much POST Sinatra. It would make more sense to think of someone like Bjork or Prince or Bowie as the “Sinatra of the 21st Century.” They’re far more likely to have an impact on the popular music of their century to compare to Sinatra’s influence than Harry Connick Jr.
I like Connick, really I do, but… I wish he’d stop doing the crooner shtick and go back to being a jazz pianist. He showed a lot of promise at one point, but it’s possible he’s already passed on the chance of being a first rate Harry Connick to be a second rate Sinatra instead.
Haha! Thanks, Dewey Cheatem Undhow. You made me laugh! I’ve been seeing weird images of Sinatra kissing Debra Messing while wearing a yarmulke.
Ok, ok. So, Ol’ Blue Eyes may not have been on Will and Grace. And sorta on that same note, I don’t think I would want to see Connick attempt to play Nathan Detroit or Sky Masterson.
But, **Starving Artist ** is right. That is really the gist of what I was trying to say. I love the songs of Sinatra’s era and he was amazing singing them.
What I think is so great about Connick is that he is a young, attractive, admired singer/actor, bravely bringing these songs new life. While a younger person may not flock to the Sinatra section and buy a CD, they may pick up Connick and find they can enjoy this type of music.
So let’s all say it together now: “We love Sinatra! Connick is good. We love Sinatra! Connick is good.”
Given the dreck that passes for sitcoms, you are damning with faint praise. The most well-polished turd in the toilet is still a turd.
Hell, Will & Grace isn’t even the best sitcom on NBC – that honor would go to Scrubs.
Yeah, but in those bad films, Sinatra (1) was the leading role, and (2) still managed to make the film cool. The original Ocean’s Eleven may be a terrible film, but I defy anyone to say the Rat Pack didn’t exude cool from start to finish.
Hey, I like Harry Connick, but a bad movie with Harry Connick is still just a bad movie. A bad movie with Sinatra manages to also be fashionably hip.
Ummm no. Harry Connick seems more like Bobby Darrin to me; slightly out of focus as he tries out genre after genre. Star Turtle anyone? Once he stops trying to do all things well (but not *quite * doing it) hopefully he’ll get more focus.
Sinatra started out as a talented kid with a great voice, but he matured into an artist at songstyling. Nobody comes close.
Not only does Connick have the blandest phrasing I’ve ever heard, (except maybe when Rod Stewart attempted standards), but his voice is weak and he can’t sing in key live. He has somewhat of a dulcet croon at times but his voice is inconsistent and I can’t get beyond his phrasing.
tones a hair better than Frank’s, but I dunno. They are still different enough to be difficult to compare…
This is bugging me still. Let me break it down: