Oh, like Bing Crosby and Perry Como… yeah, that bores me. But maybe it is just too far removed from my own era for e to appreciate.
Thanks for trying to explain it to me 
I respect Sinatra’s voice, but find his shoobie-do style off offputting. Some of his arrangements are awful, and his versions of Cold Porter are especially wrong. It’s all about shoehorning it into Sinatra’s style with no concern about the song.
Some of his songs do work – Usually when he’s the original artist – but his style Limits hiim.
All part of hanging out here.
Who do you think is the best singer from his era? I like Louis Prima and Louie Armstrong…
If you could ask these people if Sinatra was a brilliant singer, probably every one of them would agree that he was - such is his reputation among vocalists.
To me, his biggest asset is his rhythm. Sinatra swings like no one I can compare him to. Obviously, YMMV.
[QUOTE=Ascenray]
I’m confused as to why folks are suggesting recordings to listen to when his talent as a musician was stipulated to in my OP.
[/QUOTE]
I think it’s because - if this thread is any indication - you’ll find even fewer people who’ll dispute that Frank was an ass than you’ll find who disparage his singing.
Many people seem to agree that Woody Allen could use a good slapping around. The difference is that when Frank offered to break Woody’s legs, you know that he really meant it.
Yeah, I think he probably is a “singers” singer… and I’ve also heard he had an excellent ear for music, like when a musician was playing slightly off key or out of tune…
Both are brilliant. Bing Crosby’s persona was as an affable dad, but he had his own demons and damage. More importantly, he was a real jazz cat, and he was also a brilliant singer. Tony Bennett fucking rocks - the fact that he can still bring it to this day is a wonderful thing.
I tend to prefer women vocalists, so tend to start with the Big 3: Billie Holliday, Ella Fitzgerald, and Sarah Vaughn, depending on whether I want to dig into the song, skate on top of the melody or just enjoy brilliant version.
But that’s exactly the standard that it seems entire generations of men are doing. This is from the transcript of the “This American Life” episode:
Sinatra is held up as an example of manhood, of style, as a model for a lifetime, and, not it seems, just by the occasional misguided individual. Sinatra has also become this kind of icon for a new generation of hip-hop artists.
Ok, but how is he any more objectionable than any other similar figure? In fact, look at Lance Armstrong, Bill Cosby, or any number of preachers or politicians who get caught cheating on their spouse or embezzling funds. Role models who act/look perfect are rarely as perfect as they seem.
Dude, so? Folks want to emulate all of their heroes. Do you know how many people have literally died trying to keep up with Keith Richards? How many whiny twits we have put up with because KURT COBAIN UNDERSTOOD US, MAN!!!
There are always going to be Heroes that some idiots try to emulate and pick all the wrong shit to mimic. Folks got addicted to heroin simply because Charlie “Bird” Parker did it and he had a Direct Channel to God in his bebop playing, so it must be the cool thing to do. So it goes.
ETA: Now, the fact that Sinatra created such a huge shadow in his day and to this day, is an interesting discussion. It is not about questioning why such a thing exists - Sinatra represented a persona that some folks bought hook, line and sinker. Marilyn Monroe left a different shadow, but similar in its juxtaposition of some unattainable gender “ideal.”
That may just be a matter of differing styles. But I am reminded of the thread With A Little Help From My Friends - you prefer the Beatles, or Joe Cocker?, and the strong preferences people had to the different approaches to performing.
In that thread, I said
I’m no expert on Frank, and I haven’t listened to the NPR piece, but from what I’ve read about him, I get the impression Sinatra himself was in the first camp. He respected the song (assuming it was one he thought worth respect) and its inherent qualities.
I prefer the Cocker version.
I think there is merit to what you say, respecting the music, but there is ore to it than that. All the people I listed are greet singers. However, Willie Nelson, Bob Dylan and Kurt Cobain, lot’s of people say they are not good singers. I think they are, but, they are no Van Morrison or Ray Charles, not by any stretch of the imagination. But all 3 of those guys put - themself - into a song, in a way that Sinatra does not seem to do. Sure, he can sing great, but is he invested in the song? Beyond a technical level? IN other words, Sinatra seems to sing just to prove how great he can sing. Willie Nelson and Kurt Cobain have a pathological need to connect with other people via their music.
Talented singer, stylish guy, bravely anti-racist at a time when it might easily have hurt his career, but otherwise not a very nice human being at all.
“I have Scotch that’s older than Mia Farrow.” - Dean Martin
Since Sinatra’s reputation is 100% founded on his ability to get inside a song, I am once again struck by the fact that he is not the guy for you.
He inhabits a lyric in a way that you can’t identify with. It happens.
Dylan and Cobain wrote the songs they sang so, of course, they put themselves in the songs they sing/sang. Nelson also is a song writer, but also sings other people’s songs. They (and most of the other artists from the era after Sinatra) were singer/songwriters.
Sinatra was a singer, period. And IMHO, a great one. Not exactly my cup of tea, but the dude could sing and the audiences that came to see him and the people who bought his records and listened to him on the radio absolutely adored him. And these people surly would dispute your assertion the he didn’t invest himself in the songs he sang and didn’t connect with his fans.
BTW, I think all three of the artists you spoke of are excellent singers.
Agreed. Very early Sinatra recordings are very different from later tunes. In the very early days, he hadn’t found the brilliant phrasing of later years, and while he was an efficient crooner, his older songs to me were bland and no different from most other crooners of the day. After he left Harry James, his style started changing, and the songs he selected were far more lyrical and complicated. He was even fairly self-effacing in the early days and didn’t really become a self-absorbed asshole until after his comeback in the 50s. It’s amusing to me that he disliked singing “My Way”, as he felt it sounded like he was bragging and he “hate(s) people who talk about themselves all the time.”
As you noted, he ‘inhabits a lyric’. It was often noted by people who worked with him on a daily basis, that he had the ability to put as much heart and emotion into the 100th performance of a song as he did into the first performance.
He may sound boring to someone today when compared to many of today’s artists who seem to roam up and down the scale in search of a note or an emotion, but to me that sort of singing isn’t honest.
If I never hear his rendering of “Something” again, it’ll be too soon.
That said, when he was right for the song (99% of the time), he was brilliant.
And yes, I am using the word “rendering” in the sense of “tearing to pieces”…
I believe he said it was Lennon & McCartney’s best 
And probably fathered a child with her 20 years later. Her son Ronan was long believed to be the offspring of her and Woody Allen, but he looks EXACTLY like Frank.
To quote a line from an Eagles’ song, “Someone show me how to tell the dancer from the dance.”
In his niche, his own style of music, he was great. He reached a point where he could have arrangements written by professionals and producers who could work within his style, range, etc. and create great music of that kind.
And I feel a lot of the devotion toward him is due to a nostalgia effect also. How much of Elvis’s fame during his Las Vegas days was due to what he was currently doing versus what he had done on the way up and at the top? I always figured it was mostly nostalgia.