Off Topic Messages

Re: re

Thu Dec 15, 2005 1:56 am

tcb4 wrote:Tonight, I don t have time to explain why, but it has always been obvious to me that FS was as much talented as EP :!:


Your entitled to your opinion, but talent wise, nobody compares to Elvis. That is not intended as a shot at Sinatra because his achievements stand on there own, it's that our boy was that good.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:13 am

It's just silly to get into an Elvis vs. Beatles or Elvis vs. Frank thing.

Give the guy his due and move on if you somehow "don't get it."

I personally have heard enough of the Beatles for a lifetime but
cannot take anything away from them.

The "All Elvis, All the Time mentality" makes us seem rather small-minded.

And I say that as someone who thinks Elvis was the best.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 2:18 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:Give the guy his due and move on if you somehow "don't get it."


ATTA BOY GREGORY :D

Thu Dec 15, 2005 3:19 am

Listen to Sinatra's version of 'Sunday Kind Of Love' and then listen to how it should be sung - by Willie Winfield & The Harptones. That's singing.

Yes, it's all down to personal taste, but far too many people get caught up in the whole hyped-up 'legend' thing when it comes to certain artists. Sinatra is a case in point. Dean Martin was a much better vocalist by a mile.

There's so much snobbery about Sinatra from so many arsehole critics that it makes me sick. No, he wasn't as great as they say. Don't believe the bullshit, folks.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:00 am

McGhee- Your example is a good one especially the way you phrased it- "the way it should be sung"- because I think it captures the essence of the difference. Willie Winfield was coming from an entirely different tradition of singing than Sinatra/Crosby etc. The fact that Winfield's tradition is the tradition that speaks to you doesn't mean that the Sinatra tradition is without worth.

I can see the chasm pop up if I play a Bob Dylan record for my nieces and nephews or even my mother who was a child of the 1950s. You should see the faces they make.

I agree that there is a degree of musical snobbery in the camp of Sinatra admirers but this thread has kind of turned into an example of a reverse form of that same snobbery. However, there's this kind of snobbery when you look at later rock acts. Dare to compare the artistry of Elvis Presley or Chuck Berry to many Led Zeppelin or the Beatles Rolling Stone magazine generation rock fans. To them, Elvis and Chuck Berry and Little Richard were little more than cavemen with a little talent.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:28 am

I never really "got" Sinatra until I saw a special on PBS. A scene in a bar with Frank's world-weary rendition of "One For My Baby" struck me like a bolt out of the blue. All of a sudden I "Git IT"..........

Thu Dec 15, 2005 5:11 am

likethebike wrote:McGhee- Your example is a good one especially the way you phrased it- "the way it should be sung"- because I think it captures the essence of the difference. Willie Winfield was coming from an entirely different tradition of singing than Sinatra/Crosby etc. The fact that Winfield's tradition is the tradition that speaks to you doesn't mean that the Sinatra tradition is without worth.

I can see the chasm pop up if I play a Bob Dylan record for my nieces and nephews or even my mother who was a child of the 1950s. You should see the faces they make.

I agree that there is a degree of musical snobbery in the camp of Sinatra admirers but this thread has kind of turned into an example of a reverse form of that same snobbery. However, there's this kind of snobbery when you look at later rock acts. Dare to compare the artistry of Elvis Presley or Chuck Berry to many Led Zeppelin or the Beatles Rolling Stone magazine generation rock fans. To them, Elvis and Chuck Berry and Little Richard were little more than cavemen with a little talent.


I dare say there has been a lot of snobbery from both Sinatra and Beatle fans and mostly towards Elvis I might add. That being said, I by no means ever want to diminish what those artists accomplished, it would be foolish to do so. However, I'm afraid when the shoe is on the other foot, a lot of times the same respect isn't given to Elvis.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:23 am

I agree Joe and this argument notwithstanding I have generally found Elvis first fans far more generous to the Beatles and Sinatra than vice versa.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:32 am

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:And I say that as someone who thinks Elvis was the best.


was the best :?:

You mean still is the best... :wink:

Thu Dec 15, 2005 9:39 am

I hear Kate Bush runs a close 2nd.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:00 am

Rob wrote:I hear Kate Bush runs a close 2nd.
Behave yourself :wink:
Image

"A History of Western Music". By Donald Jay Grout and Claude V. Palisca of Cornell, and Yale.
Sinatra is not mentioned in this book...but Elvis is.

How many of us go straight to the index when purchasing a book dealing with music, classic and Pop :lol:

Why were Sinatra fans so dismissive of Elvis right from the beginning of his career, did they know deep in their hearts they were hearing a vastly superior voice?
Well the subject is sooo subjective I think I'll just leave it alone. We shall agree to differ.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 12:11 pm

As an original fan you should be able to appreciate that better anyone Maurice. The reason that Sinatra fans were so dismissive of Elvis right from the start was because the shift Elvis' early records created was seismic. It was greater than even the difference between classic rock and rap. It was as if everything that they had been taught was suddenly wrong. And I don't mean just in terms of Elvis' singing but his personality, his performance and dance style, his sexuality, his looks. He was just something that was for 90 percent of the people something completely new. For Southern audiences that had a connection with country and the blues, it was more of a natural transition but for everyone else it was a shock. People are always going to resist that type of shock. As primarily a rock fan, you might say people were used to hamburger and suddenly got steak and didn't know enough to make the difference. But the thing is that everyone recognized that it was something different.

And many Sinatra fans, who no matter what you or I think of it, preferred that type of pop music. They preferred that type of pop culture and they hated Elvis pushing the music they liked to the sidelines. In Ken Tucker's phrase they saw Elvis as the beginning of the end.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:03 pm

likethebike, Yes I know all about the shock to the sytem Elvis's Rock 'n' Roll songs were, and the astounding amount of records he sold, but I could not and still do not understand why people were so DISHONEST about his ballad singing.

It took the huge hit, "It's Now or Never", to silence a great many of his critics but still there are those who never got over being proven wrong :lol:

I'm naturally hype resistant having observed the music world for many decades. The amount of prejudice and snobbery is lamentable. But the sheer dishonesty (often by ommission) of rock journalists and some musicologists is the worst aspect of it all.

Did you know Frankie Laine is still doing the odd concert at 93! ?

Thu Dec 15, 2005 4:39 pm

Image
minkahed wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:And I say that as someone who thinks Elvis was the best.


was the best :?:

You mean still is the best... :wink:



Well, I was referring to the fact that he, like Sinatra, no longer is recording, i.e. he (and Frank) are deceased. :lol:

Presley's music (to us fans) may remain "the best" (present tense) but the man who recorded them? Dead since 1977. :wink:

Seeing how this thread has continued, I was also thinking that you might as well be comparing Elvis to Miles Davis ...or Bach. All great music but not comparable.

Elvis and Sinatra are, well, like "Night and Day" for all their similarities as single male vocalists who had girls screaming for them.

I, for one, am glad both existed.
Image

Thu Dec 15, 2005 6:05 pm

I remember celebrities resisting Elvis' music at the outset, and it wasn't solely because of the vocal delivery being raw. The instrumentation consisted of 3 instruments, later expanding to a full band.

Celerities like Sinatra and Gleason, and later, Petula Clark, bemoaned the loss of lush orchestrations performed by the big bands. The full orchestra sound definitely took a back seat on pop radio with the advent of rock & roll.

Ironic, in that the Dorsey band helped in launching Elvis' mass appeal via television.

Personally, I like the diversity of a Sinatra ballad with a killer arrangement, followed by a high energy Elvis ballad,ie, "You Don't Have To Say You Love Me".

If you're tastes are eclectic, there's room for more than one artist in your personal music library ... Elvis' own musical tastes were certainly eclectic.

Thu Dec 15, 2005 7:58 pm

Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I, for one, am glad both existed.


You couldn´t say better!

Thu Dec 15, 2005 8:18 pm

Renan wrote:
Gregory Nolan Jr. wrote:I, for one, am glad both existed.


You couldn´t say better!


Well said Greg!

Thu Dec 15, 2005 11:49 pm

Rob wrote:I hear Kate Bush runs a close 2nd.


Judging by her recent photos, Rob.............I doubt seriously Kate runs at all :wink:

Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:09 am

I remember, as a youngster, 'older' people like journalists, columnists, music critics etc would debate as to who was the best singer: Crosby or Sinatra ?

They'd come out with things like:

"Oh, Bing's voice is warmer, but Frank's phrasing is technically superior"

"I think he reached outer space with those altered chords"

Err....... no, scratch that last one.

Then along came Elvis and rock 'n' roll and the question [together with the answers] became totally irrelevant !

Fri Dec 16, 2005 12:12 am

People can be dishonest to themselves about a lot of things especially if they have an agenda. I got into an argument with a younger poster on another board who alleged that Elvis couldn't sing which to me is the most ridiculous argument anyone could ever make. You might not like his voice but that he could A) Carry a tune B) Hold and hit notes is indisputable. Yet people hear what they want to hear and some of those people that dismissed stuff like "It's Now or Never" wouldn't hear a good singing on a Presley record if Pavarotti somehow slipped into the studio and took Elvis' place. It's like the fat Elvis thing. I had some cousins come over and watch "That's the Way it is" and insist Elvis was fat in the movie. They were just so bound and determined and conditioned that way that they deceived their own eyes.