Re: Frank Sinatra dead at 82

[Douglas Broda <dougbroda@mindspring.com>]

I won't flame you, but I will disagree.

Sinatra: Best interpreter of others' work in popular music, IMO -- and he
maintained creative control more than his contemporaries, so he does get serious
credit for the generally great choice of material and collaborators. Extra
credit for acting skills. Remained a major figure in pop culture for fifty
years... which is very rare. His apparent neanderthal view of women and choice
of company, as well as his philanthropic efforts, can be counted or not, per
your preference.

Lennon and McCartney: Their music was groundbreaking, leading a wholesale change
in popular music and crossing over into changes in a generation's pop culture.
They get credit for writing and performing and for tons of innovation -- that
they managed with a deft understanding of what came before. And they get extra
credit for the film "A Hard Days' Night".... though McCartney loses all that
extra credit for "Magical Mystery Tour," which was his baby. :) Their use of
drugs can be counted or not counted as you deem fit, as can other aspects of
their lives.

(I think if you are going to get into morality, though, apply it equally to all,
and give them all credit for positive and negative contributions and life
aspects.)

IMO, all had fewer valuable musical contributions in their later years, which is
to be expected of all sorts of innovators, I suspect.

Frankly, I think there's room to call them giants and to recognize their massive
musical contribution as well as acknowledge their import to popular culture.
Sinatra was a great rarity in that he had a tremendous impact on popular culture
*and* had talent and skill in spades to back it up. That group, IMO, is very
select: Sinatra, the Beatles, and Elvis Presley, period. I don't see any reason
to debate which is better or best, for I think that falls largely to taste when
you're in this stratosphere.

Now, if you want to debate whether Richard Petty or Dale Earnhardt is the best
driver in NASCAR's 50 years, that I'd be glad to take on in another forum. :)

Stephen R. Low wrote:

> >But Lennon & McCartney, wrote, sang, played and scored their own
> >music....   MORE talent there.
>
> Now there's a bold statement!
>
> Sinatra's genius led him to understand that writing, playing and scoring his
> own music was a waste of his time. Instead, the guy "bought" those skills
> from the best in the business, complementing these purchased services with a
> voice and delivery that he knew to be of comparable quality.
>
> Lennon's and McCartney's inferior intellect is apparent from their failure
> to AVOID writing, playing and scoring their own material, let alone SING it.
> Even a moron knows that Lennon and McCartney's skills qualified them, at
> best, to be listeners, but given the dope-induced stupor of their so-called
> "creative" years, its doubtful that they would have done very well at that,
> either.
>
> There was a time in this country's musical history when a significant number
> of people (listeners and music industry execs) were capable of judging song
> quality and performance talent. Over the years the number of people with
> this level of education and judgment has sadly declined. Instead, we are
> left largely with music of very low quality, delivered by dreadful
> writers/performers, largely to the ignoramuses who listen. No one would
> argue that the crap that's played is POPULAR, but this is not the same as
> being of high (or top) quality. McDonald's hamburgers are popular, but we
> all know that they're fundamentally s__t. Just like most of the popular
> music of the day.
>
> Important warning to potential flamers: Your failure to agree wholeheartedly
> will identify you with the ignoramati (sp?) I referenced above. Flame me at
> your own risk!
>
> Steve Low



- --
Douglas J. Broda
Broda and Burnett
Attorneys at Law
80 Ferry Street
Troy, New York 12180
(518) 272-0580
Fax: (518) 272-0381
dougbroda@mindspring.com

------------------------------