Why Are Certain Female Marketed Franchises So Disliked?

[Rad]

Actually, I meant what I said about punk music in all seriousness.


Now don't get me wrong. I fucking love punk. I could listen to Dead Kennedys and the Clash and Spiderbait and the Living End (their earlier stuff was punky, their later stuff has mellowed a bit) all day.

BUT.

The thing about a lot of the earlier examples of punk, especially the Sex Pistols (though Pretty Vacant is a fun song) is that it didn't necessarily require any actual skill with the instruments or singing to be a success. It was sold on performance and attitude, not musical skill.

Unfortunately the lesson learned here by producers was that you didn't need someone with actual skill, just "X factor" or "Star quality" or "Je ne sais qua" (or however you spell it) in order to make a LOT of money.

Click to shrink...

The problem with that argument is record producers learned that lesson long before punk was a thing. Look up the history of blues and jazz sometime, particularly the part where music labels would hire less talented white musicians to cover the work of black artists in order to make the songs they wrote sell better in a racially segregated America. Hell, if you want a good example of a famous "singer" whose success was more about charisma and marketability than musical skill, one need look no further than Frank Sinatra. Seriously, go back and actually listen to Frank's voice and explain to me why he's considered the face of Jazz even today. The man can't sing. His tracks sound more like a dedicated amateur on karaoke night. Not terrible, but arguably worse, on a technical level, than any of his contemporaries who nonetheless languish in relative obscurity--even members of his own "Rat Pack."

Ol' Blue Eyes was the spiritual precursor to acts like Bieber, where record labels picked an unskilled but marketable "face" to sell music he hadn't created and could only perform passably at best--more a mascot in an ad campaign than an artist. Though I will say the standards have declined considerably from Sinatra's day. He may have been a hack singer, but the lyrics were significantly better and at least he wasn't actually painful to listen to.

Nah, I think we have to blame Youtube for Bieber. Also pre-teen girls.

Click to shrink...

It's the record labels. Without their marketing and distribution networks Bieber wouldn't have a glimmer of the popularity he has. In fact, he didn't when he was just one more of five billion kids on youtube who's mother thought they were talented. He is quite literally a substandard product being pushed on his "target demographic" with all the subtlety of a saturation bombing. You don't blame the victims of an assault like that for not being able to withstand it, you blame the guys who planned the mission and dropped the napalm.

 

[Spartakrod]

But does anyone actually admit to liking Bays Transformers?

Click to shrink...

I unironically like them, but it takes a lot for a movie to completely disgust me and I'm very forgiving with Cinema.

 

[Citrakite]

Careful saying that near him, he's been known to get punchy.

Click to shrink...

I would knock him the fuck out. Clank right in the nerve cluster in the jaw.

I'm tool lazy to look it up but someone asked

Lot of other musicians and artists have acted badly, why is Bieber singled out?

Click to shrink...

Because Bieber treats his fans like shit. He treats staff like shit and treats every one else like shit in not just a conceited but rather malicious way that people like Ozzy, James Belushi, or RDJ even his coke days would have punched him right in his smug damn face for doing (which Keifer Sutherland has actually done).

There is a difference between being destructive coke monkey and being a douchebag. AC/DC may have thrown a TV out the window into the pool (or driven a caddy into it) but they were high as fuck, drunk, and no one was actually hurt. we know guys who fought with photographers but Beiber pulled a completely bitch move and start grappig at camera's when they not actually taking pictures of his ass because he's Beiber who else can they be shooting? Bieber fucks with people all the time while sober and is surprised if they fuck with him in return like he can do no harm. He also a massive tool who walks out on engagements or mid event because he's a tender little rosebud bitch or that empty bottle was too scary. He's not a particularly skilled singer or performer and he never been handsome (cute works on puppies and boy bands and both grow out of it really damn quick) yet you think he was Michael fucking Jackson by the way he acts. His skills are not even close to paying Michael's Bills and he's going to learn how quickly this ride comes to an end as his core fan base isn't pre-teen girls any more they actually know what good music is now and it's not him.

Hell, if you want a good example of a famous "singer" whose success was more about charisma and marketability than musical skill, one need look no further than Frank Sinatra. Seriously, go back and actually listen to Frank's voice and explain to me why he's considered the face of Jazz even today. The man can't sing. His tracks sound more like a dedicated amateur on karaoke night. Not terrible, but arguably worse, on a technical level, than any of his contemporaries who nonetheless languish in relative obscurity--even members of his own "Rat Pack."

Click to shrink...

*puts on his hat*
Frank Sinatra is unskilled? What the fuck noise is that? He's not Freddy Mercury but unskilled is way too far.


Also Sinatra as the face of Jazz? I never heard of that. That not something I even associate with him.

I still prefer Dean Martin as a singer and actor.

 

[Rad]

*puts on his hat*
Frank Sinatra is unskilled? What the fuck noise is that? He's not Freddy Mercury but unskilled is way too far.


Also Sinatra as the face of Jazz? I never heard of that. That not something I even associate with him.

I still prefer Dean Martin as a singer and actor.

Click to shrink...

*dons his fedora and pinstriped zoot suit*

Well, if we're gonna' get silly about this then let's do it.

To start with, that track is one of the better examples of Frank's lack of skill as a vocalist. The song is great, the band is fantastic, but Frank himself is halfway between actually singing and talking the whole time and keeps dropping out of key. At one point I swore his voice was actually going to break, but he dropped the note rather than try to keep sustaining it. If you go and listen to an amateur who hasn't been trained to sing properly you'll notice all the same telltale signs--though usually more pronounced.

I'll give Sinatra credit for being better at covering his rough edges than your average Joe Karaoke Enthusiast who's practiced the song a thousand times but just doesn't have the technique to pull it off, but being a half-decent singer does not make him a good one--and certainly not on par with with his contemporaries. Sinatra was far from the best of his era--yet if you mention Jazz or Swing, Frank's name is often the first one to come up. Just look at what a place he has in popular culture--even somebody who knows nothing about jazz is likely to have at least heard of Frank Sinatra, and can probably reference one or two of his more popular songs. (From movies, if nothing else.) What other jazz musician has that kind of fame, even today?

Christ, even Louis Armstrong isn't as well known, and that's saying something.

 

[Mutton]

...since when do people bring up Sinatra for Jazz? He's Lounge or Swing with some Big Band Jazz (which is an entirely different beast from what is thought of as Jazz). Much of the purpose of the easy listening style of music is that the songs are vocalized rather than outright sung to give the appearance of a nice conversation, that "I could do this" feeling.

Yes, Sinatra has a range of maybe 3 notes. But that doesn't actually matter when his work was created so that he doesn't have to hit more than 3 notes.

 

[Rad]

...since when do people bring up Sinatra for Jazz? He's Lounge or Swing with some Big Band Jazz (which is an entirely different beast from what is thought of as Jazz). Much of the purpose of the easy listening style of music is that the songs are vocalized rather than outright sung to give the appearance of a nice conversation, that "I could do this" feeling.

Yes, Sinatra has a range of maybe 3 notes. But that doesn't actually matter when his work was created so that he doesn't have to hit more than 3 notes.

Click to shrink...

Since, forever?

Jazz is a huge freaking category, of which swing, big band, and the Rat Pack's "lounge swing" variety are all subcategories. Did you not know this?

Granted, some of the more modern stuff like Kenny G or Michael Buble are a very different animal, and might be more likely to be the first thing someone thinks of when they hear the word "Jazz" these days. But if we're talking about Jazz from, say, the 60's or earlier, Frank is the performer most likely to be known by the average person.

It is true that some artists have been able to pull off a more "conversational" vocal style, but even there Frank comes up short. He tries too hard to straddle the line and just doesn't have the technical skill or talent to pull off either, whereas Jazz vocalists like Eartha Kitt fucking mastered it. I can understand if some of Sinatra's appeal was the feeling of "hey, I could do this", but all that means is that Frank wasn't singing much better than the average Joe in his audience could. Kind of proves my point that he wasn't up to the professional level of his peers.

If you've ever heard a true jazz vocalist sing, you'd know it's plenty easy to listen to--in fact it's downright decadent. Frank falls far short of that expectation, which is why it boggles my mind when so many people hold him up as this great shining example of his genre when his talent was strictly bottom of the barrel. It's the same thing you see with boy bands and acts like Bieber--a low-talent "face" that get's marketed to hell and back until the sheer volume makes them popular.

 

[Mutton]

Since, forever?

Jazz is a huge freaking category, of which swing, big band, and the Rat Pack's "lounge swing" variety are all subcategories. Did you not know this?

Granted, some of the more modern stuff like Kenny G or Michael Buble are a very different animal, and might be more likely to be the first thing someone thinks of when they hear the word "Jazz" these days. But if we're talking about Jazz from, say, the 60's or earlier, Frank is the performer most likely to be known by the average person.

It is true that some artists have been able to pull off a more "conversational" vocal style, but even there Frank comes up short. He tries too hard to straddle the line and just doesn't have the technical skill or talent to pull off either, whereas Jazz vocalists like Eartha Kitt fucking mastered it. I can understand if some of Sinatra's appeal was the feeling of "hey, I could do this", but all that means is that Frank wasn't singing much better than the average Joe in his audience could. Kind of proves my point that he wasn't up to the professional level of his peers.

If you've ever heard a true jazz vocalist sing, you'd know it's plenty easy to listen to--in fact it's downright decadent. Frank falls far short of that expectation, which is why it boggles my mind when so many people hold him up as this great shining example of his genre when his talent was strictly bottom of the barrel.

Click to shrink...

I'm not quite sure you understand the whole "I could do this" idea; the point is to feel everydayman in order to make the audience comfortable but actually doing something tough. It's the whole "play something that sounds hard while actually being easy" vs "Play something that sounds easy while actually being hard" dichotomy.

And no, in today's world "Jazz" has a connotation that's definitely different from standard swing or lounge; I'd bet you dollars to donuts that Louis Armstrong would come up more often with the idea of Jazz than Sinatra.

But most of all? Sinatra had incredible earbugs; his songs got stuck nice and deeplike inside your head and refused to let go. Combine that with extremely savvy marketing and you've got a big hitter on your hands. Go find someone over the age of 30 who can't hum Fly Me to the Moon.

 

[Rad]

I'm not quite sure you understand the whole "I could do this" idea; the point is to feel everydayman in order to make the audience comfortable but actually doing something tough. It's the whole "play something that sounds hard while actually being easy" vs "Play something that sounds easy while actually being hard" dichotomy.

And no, in today's world "Jazz" has a connotation that's definitely different from standard swing or lounge; I'd bet you dollars to donuts that Louis Armstrong would come up more often with the idea of Jazz than Sinatra.

But most of all? Sinatra had incredible earbugs; his songs got stuck nice and deeplike inside your head and refused to let go. Combine that with extremely savvy marketing and you've got a big hitter on your hands. Go find someone over the age of 30 who can't hum Fly Me to the Moon.

Click to shrink...

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about here either anymore. Are you trying to say that he deliberately dumbed down his performances to make them more rateable, and this this was somehow harder than using good vocal technique? If so I'd A) ask what proof you have and B) laugh my head off at the notion that it's more difficult to sing badly than to sing well, not necessarily in that order.

While it's true that it can be harder for, say, a professional actor to do a scene where they have to pretend to be terrible at acting, intentionally singing badly isn't all that hard--and I haven't seen any evidence that Sinatra possesses any hidden vocal talents.

Regarding the Jazz thing, I can only go by my own experience, and I have seen 50's era lounge swing and Sinatra specifically come up more often when a layperson references "Jazz" than any other style of artist. As a diehard Cab Calloway fan I find this rather sad. Armstrong is a close second, but still second, from what I've seen.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be proving my point: Earbugs and marketing may make you a star, but they don't make you a great artist--especially if you didn't write the music. Skimming through wikipedia's list of songs recorded by Frank Sinatra, only four actually credit him as a writer--and even then only a co-writer. So all those catchy earworms like Fly Me to The Moon or Witchcraft? Chances are...

...Frank had nothing to do with that. He was just the guy holding the mike when the studio decided to press "record" and honestly wasn't the best choice, from a musical standpoint.

 

[Mutton]

I'm not sure I understand what you're talking about here either anymore. Are you trying to say that he deliberately dumbed down his performances to make them more rateable, and this this was somehow harder than using good vocal technique? If so I'd A) ask what proof you have and B) laugh my head off at the notion that it's more difficult to sing badly than to sing well, not necessarily in that order.

While it's true that it can be harder for, say, a professional actor to do a scene where they have to pretend to be terrible at acting, intentionally singing badly isn't all that hard--and I haven't seen any evidence that Sinatra possesses any hidden vocal talents.

Regarding the Jazz thing, I can only go by my own experience, and I have seen 50's era lounge swing and Sinatra specifically come up more often when a layperson references "Jazz" than any other style of artist. As a diehard Cab Calloway fan I find this rather sad. Armstrong is a close second, but still second, from what I've seen.

As for the rest of your post, you seem to be proving my point: Earbugs and marketing may make you a star, but they don't make you a great artist--especially if you didn't write the music. Skimming through wikipedia's list of songs recorded by Frank Sinatra, only four actually credit him as a writer--and even then only a co-writer. So all those catchy earworms like Fly Me to The Moon or Witchcraft? Chances are...

...Frank had nothing to do with that. He was just the guy holding the mike when the studio decided to press "record" and honestly wasn't the best choice, from a musical standpoint.

Click to shrink...

I'm not talking about dumbing down your talent, but rather being able to make a very particular type of sound. It's the whole idea behind "they makes it look easy;" it can be quite difficult to take something hard and convince your audience that if they put in a little elbow grease that they too could do it.

Also, catchiness is very much a product of the singer as well as the writer; it's Sinatra's almost casual style that just resonates with the listener. He's got the whole easy listening thing down pat, which makes it far easier to write a song for him.

As for what is referenced when referring to jazz, it may be due to being from different backgrounds (I played in a jazz band so I'm fully willing to admit I'm biased here), but whenever I was talking to someone who didn't know much about the subject and was thus giving me a chance to splurg on about it, the format of jazz that always got brought up were those that relied heavily on horn or sax solos. Free form playing made up on the spot was "jazz" while lounge and swing were a different beast, as Metal is to Rock.

 

[Citrakite]

*dons his fedora and pinstriped zoot suit*

Well, if we're gonna' get silly about this then let's do it.

To start with, that track is one of the better examples of Frank's lack of skill as a vocalist. The song is great, the band is fantastic, but Frank himself is halfway between actually singing and talking the whole time and keeps dropping out of key. At one point I swore his voice was actually going to break, but he dropped the note rather than try to keep sustaining it. If you go and listen to an amateur who hasn't been trained to sing properly you'll notice all the same telltale signs--though usually more pronounced.

I'll give Sinatra credit for being better at covering his rough edges than your average Joe Karaoke Enthusiast who's practiced the song a thousand times but just doesn't have the technique to pull it off, but being a half-decent singer does not make him a good one--and certainly not on par with with his contemporaries. Just look at what a place he has in popular culture--even somebody who knows nothing about jazz is likely to have at least heard of Frank Sinatra, and can probably reference one or two of his more popular songs. (From movies, if nothing else.) What other jazz musician has that kind of fame, even today?

Christ, even Louis Armstrong isn't as well known, and that's saying something.

Click to shrink...

Ok Louis is well known for What a wonderful world if nothing else. BB king...yeah that's lesser known.

Sinatra was far from the best of his era--yet if you mention Jazz or Swing, Frank's name is often the first one to come up.

Click to shrink...

and again. Who exactly says Sinatra was big in swing and Jazz because Pop culture I know NEVER referred to him as a blues, Jazz, or swing guy. I think of Jazz as Coltrain, BB king (soul, blues, jazz, rock, man gets around musically), Louis Armstrong. Hell the Blues Brothers pops into my head sooner then Sinatra.


Frank was never really a swinger (in the modern sense we have for what swing is at least) or a rocker and in fact hated it holding several long time grudges against popular Rock acts when the rest of the pack seemed to adapt far easier as both Sammy an Dean were still big until roughly the mid to late 60's or so, probably because they were also better actors then him. Yes I said it.

Eartha Kit...puuurfect.

 

[Rad]

I'm not talking about dumbing down your talent, but rather being able to make a very particular type of sound. It's the whole idea behind "they makes it look easy;" it can be quite difficult to take something hard and convince your audience that if they put in a little elbow grease that they too could do it.

Click to shrink...

But he's not doing that, he's just singing like an amateur who's never studied breath control or done pitch exercises.

Also, catchiness is very much a product of the singer as well as the writer; it's Sinatra's almost casual style that just resonates with the listener. He's got the whole easy listening thing down pat, which makes it far easier to write a song for him.

Click to shrink...

I'm going to go out an a limb and guess that you've never studied music theory? When you write a song, you don't just write down the words and then hand them to somebody and say "here, sing this." Like any other instrument, vocals are written with specific notes and rhythms in mind, which are written down using special notation. Everything from how long you should hold a note to the precise timing is there in the sheet music. Some vocalists may choose to improvise, (again, just like any other instrument) but the pitch and timing are largely dictated by the songwriter--not the singer. So if a song is catchy, it's most likely because it was written that way. That pattern of notes is going to be catchy no matter who sings them, as long as they don't screw it up. You can even play the vocal part on an instrument instead and guess what? Still catchy.

And another thing: Most of "Frank's" songs? Not written for him. A lot of them are old Jazz standards that were popular long before Frank got ahold of them.

Ain't She Sweet? - Written in 1927, first recorded in 1927, first recorded by Frank in 1969
All of Me - Written in 1931, first performed by Belle Baker and first recorded by Ruth Etting in 1931, first recorded by Frank in 1946
The Best is Yet to Come - Originally written for and introduced by Tony Bennett
The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea - Originally Recorded by Cab Calloway 1931, first recorded by Frank in 1959
Blue Moon - Written in 1934 and recorded by Connie Boswell in 1935, first recorded by Frank in 1960
Fly Me to the Moon - (Original Title "In Other Words") Written 1954, first recorded by Kaye Ballard in 1954, first recorded by Frank in 1964
I Get a Kick Out of You - First performed by Ethel Merman 1934, first recorded by Frank 1953
Luck Be a Lady - First performed by Robert Alda 1950, first recorded by Frank 1963

I could keep going, but surely you see the pattern here?

As for what is referenced when referring to jazz, it may be due to being from different backgrounds (I played in a jazz band so I'm fully willing to admit I'm biased here), but whenever I was talking to someone who didn't know much about the subject and was thus giving me a chance to splurg on about it, the format of jazz that always got brought up were those that relied heavily on horn or sax solos. Free form playing made up on the spot was "jazz" while lounge and swing were a different beast, as Metal is to Rock.

Click to shrink...

Hmm, looks like you haven't studied music history either. You really played in a Jazz band? Lounge and Swing are exactly to Jazz what Metal is to Rock--a (relatively) more recent subgenre that developed from the older, broader category that encompasses it. It's like looking at a family tree: You have "The Jazz Family" up top and below you have branches going out into Dixie, Big Band, Swing, Lounge, Modern, etc. Some of the family members are newer and might not resemble their ancestors as much, but they're still part of the Jazz family of music.

As for common perception, yeah, alot of that will vary by personal experience. I can only say that I've personally seen Frank be alot more visible and well known than any other jazz/blues/big band/swing musician you'd care to name. The renewed interest in old school swing that's kicked up in the last decade or so, as well as the shift toward greater public recognition of the contributions black musicians made to the genre (They basically created it FFS!) have made some of those other performers a bit more visible--particularly old Satchmo. So YMMV on the "Face of Jazz" part, that's just been my (incredibly frustrating) experience as a longtime lover of the genre. It's like being a punk fan in the 90's and having everyone go "Oh, you mean like Green Day?"

@Citrakite Personally, I've never really associated the Blues Brothers with Jazz, despite the absolutely rockin performance of Minnie the Moocher towards the end. Man what I wouldn't give to have been an extra in that audience. You know Cab and the band kept everyone entertained between takes by just playing whatever came to mind? Like an extra gig with a free concert from one of THE greats.

But I digress, Blues Brothers always struck me as more, well, blues, and I never really discovered jazz and swing until years later. Honestly I never even made the connection of "hey, one of these songs is not like the others" until I went back and watched it again after getting into swing--though I positively flipped once I realized exactly who that "old guy in the white suit" was.

 

[Citrakite]

@Rad
So when you say he's unskilled you don't mean he can't sing it's that he's not a technically proficient singer like some others (Freddie Mercury).

Punk music. You mean the Ramones. Fuck Green day and linkin park. Not that they're punk they just generally shit that lazy or uninventive people use to make like 90% of the damn AMV's out there. In the end this song was played the fuck out when it was new and your efforts never really mattered.

 

[Rad]

@Rad
So when you say he's unskilled you don't mean he can't sing it's that he's not a technically proficient singer like some others (Freddie Mercury).

Click to shrink...

Pretty much. Very few people "can't sing," it's just that they can't sing well. Frank Sinatra sings very well for an amateur, but for a professional, well, he's an insult.

@RadPunk music. You mean the Ramones. Fuck Green day and linkin park. Not that they're punk they just generally shit that lazy or uninventive people use to make like 90% of the damn AMV's out there. In the end this song was played the fuck out when it was new and your efforts never really mattered.

Click to shrink...

Eh, I don't mind Green Day, some of their songs are fun to listen to. But as a Dead Kennedys fan I have a bit of a problem when people hold them up as the epitome of punk music.

Actually haven't heard much by the Ramones. Kind of missed them the first time around and have been a bit leery of trying them out after seeing all merch they've got crowding the shelves in places like Forever 21. It's not a hard and fast rule, especially now days, but if you consider yourself a punk band and have that much mainstream popularity, you're probably doing it wrong.

 

[Citrakite]

The who?

Pretty much. Very few people "can't sing," it's just that they can't sing well. Frank Sinatra sings very well for an amateur, but for a professional, well, he's an insult.

Eh, I don't mind Green Day, some of their songs are fun to listen to. But as a Dead Kennedys fan I have a bit of a problem when people hold them up as the epitome of punk music.

Actually haven't heard much by the Ramones. Kind of missed them the first time around and have been a bit leery of trying them out after seeing all merch they've got crowding the shelves in places like Forever 21. It's not a hard and fast rule, especially now days, but if you consider yourself a punk band and have that much mainstream popularity, you're probably doing it wrong.

Click to shrink...

It's a hipster thing now so yeah if it' at Forever 21 it's for douchbags who think Hot topic is too main stream now.

 

[Mutton]

But he's not doing that, he's just singing like an amateur who's never studied breath control or done pitch exercises.



I'm going to go out an a limb and guess that you've never studied music theory? When you write a song, you don't just write down the words and then hand them to somebody and say "here, sing this." Like any other instrument, vocals are written with specific notes and rhythms in mind, which are written down using special notation. Everything from how long you should hold a note to the precise timing is there in the sheet music. Some vocalists may choose to improvise, (again, just like any other instrument) but the pitch and timing are largely dictated by the songwriter--not the singer. So if a song is catchy, it's most likely because it was written that way. That pattern of notes is going to be catchy no matter who sings them, as long as they don't screw it up. You can even play the vocal part on an instrument instead and guess what? Still catchy.

And another thing: Most of "Frank's" songs? Not written for him. A lot of them are old Jazz standards that were popular long before Frank got ahold of them.

Ain't She Sweet? - Written in 1927, first recorded in 1927, first recorded by Frank in 1969
All of Me - Written in 1931, first performed by Belle Baker and first recorded by Ruth Etting in 1931, first recorded by Frank in 1946
The Best is Yet to Come - Originally written for and introduced by Tony Bennett
The Devil and the Deep Blue Sea - Originally Recorded by Cab Calloway 1931, first recorded by Frank in 1959
Blue Moon - Written in 1934 and recorded by Connie Boswell in 1935, first recorded by Frank in 1960
Fly Me to the Moon - (Original Title "In Other Words") Written 1954, first recorded by Kaye Ballard in 1954, first recorded by Frank in 1964
I Get a Kick Out of You - First performed by Ethel Merman 1934, first recorded by Frank 1953
Luck Be a Lady - First performed by Robert Alda 1950, first recorded by Frank 1963

I could keep going, but surely you see the pattern here?



Hmm, looks like you haven't studied music history either. You really played in a Jazz band? Lounge and Swing are exactly to Jazz what Metal is to Rock--a (relatively) more recent subgenre that developed from the older, broader category that encompasses it. It's like looking at a family tree: You have "The Jazz Family" up top and below you have branches going out into Dixie, Big Band, Swing, Lounge, Modern, etc. Some of the family members are newer and might not resemble their ancestors as much, but they're still part of the Jazz family of music.

As for common perception, yeah, alot of that will vary by personal experience. I can only say that I've personally seen Frank be alot more visible and well known than any other jazz/blues/big band/swing musician you'd care to name. The renewed interest in old school swing that's kicked up in the last decade or so, as well as the shift toward greater public recognition of the contributions black musicians made to the genre (They basically created it FFS!) have made some of those other performers a bit more visible--particularly old Satchmo. So YMMV on the "Face of Jazz" part, that's just been my (incredibly frustrating) experience as a longtime lover of the genre. It's like being a punk fan in the 90's and having everyone go "Oh, you mean like Green Day?"

@Citrakite Personally, I've never really associated the Blues Brothers with Jazz, despite the absolutely rockin performance of Minnie the Moocher towards the end. Man what I wouldn't give to have been an extra in that audience. You know Cab and the band kept everyone entertained between takes by just playing whatever came to mind? Like an extra gig with a free concert from one of THE greats.

But I digress, Blues Brothers always struck me as more, well, blues, and I never really discovered jazz and swing until years later. Honestly I never even made the connection of "hey, one of these songs is not like the others" until I went back and watched it again after getting into swing--though I positively flipped once I realized exactly who that "old guy in the white suit" was.

Click to shrink...

Are you arguing with some nega-version of me as opposed to my posts? I outright say how comparing metal and rock is like swing and jazz; that's the whole point there. Or how doing covers isn't just putting someone in front of a microphone and hitting record; you have to mess with the music to fit the singer, especially when dealing with someone who has a very limited range. Isn't that one of your main arguments anyways, that Sinatra doesn't really have a range? It's the same as getting someone who doesn't have a background in a genre to play it; you have to both adapt around it and around them to find a workable middleground. God knows I've had to do that enough both for myself and others.

I would ask that, even if you're not going to address my points, please don't run away with the goalposts. Yes, Sinatra is definitely more famous than most jazz musicians. He is, in my experience, nowhere near as famous as a jazz musician as Louis Armstrong or Miles Davis.

 

[Rad]

Are you arguing with some nega-version of me as opposed to my posts? I outright say how comparing metal and rock is like swing and jazz; that's the whole point there. Or how doing covers isn't just putting someone in front of a microphone and hitting record; you have to mess with the music to fit the singer, especially when dealing with someone who has a very limited range. Isn't that one of your main arguments anyways, that Sinatra doesn't really have a range? It's the same as getting someone who doesn't have a background in a genre to play it; you have to both adapt around it and around them to find a workable middleground. God knows I've had to do that enough both for myself and others.

I would ask that, even if you're not going to address my points, please don't run away with the goalposts. Yes, Sinatra is definitely more famous than most jazz musicians. He is, in my experience, nowhere near as famous as a jazz musician as Louis Armstrong or Miles Davis.

Click to shrink...

No, I'm arguing with what you said--not what you now claim you meant. You're the one that seems to be putting arguments into other people's mouths. Where did I say Sinatra doesn't have a good range? I said he has trouble staying on key, which makes no implications about the range of keys he can't-quite-hit. You are the one who claimed Sinatra had a limited vocal range, not me.

As for goalpost shifting, you implied that the songs Sinatra recorded were written for him--I proved otherwise. Now you're claiming you meant that the songs were re-written for him. Who's shifting goalposts again?

I'd take the time to call you out on this point as well, but:

A) As someone who claims to have been in a jazz band, I'd assume you already know that musicians rarely bother to re-write a song they're merely covering, unless they make substantial changes to the composition.

and

B) I don't really care to debate with people who use such bad-faith tactics.

[edit]

The who?

Click to shrink...

The Dead Kennedys? Only one of the foremost hardcore punk bands, or at least they used to be. I haven't really followed them after the breakup. I originally got introduced to their music through the former lead singer/songwriter Jello Biafra's spoken word albums. Apparently there was some big disagreement turned legal battle, with the band claiming that Biafra was cheating the rest of the band out of royalty payments, and Biafra claiming they were just pissed that he wouldn't agree to let Levi's use one of their (highly political) songs for a tv commercial.

If you're looking to check out their work, I'd recommend Chemical Warefare, Riot, Police Truck, Chickenshit Conformist, and Let's Kill the Landlord. Pull My Strings is pretty fucking funny too, especially if you know the history behind it.

It's a hipster thing now so yeah if it' at Forever 21 it's for douchbags who think Hot topic is too main stream now.

Click to shrink...

Hey, at least they're bringing spikes back into fashion.

 

[Mutton]

No, I'm arguing with what you said--not what you now claim you meant. You're the one that seems to be putting arguments into other people's mouths. Where did I say Sinatra doesn't have a good range? I said he has trouble staying on key, which makes no implications about the range of keys he can't-quite-hit. You are the one who claimed Sinatra had a limited vocal range, not me.

As for goalpost shifting, you implied that the songs Sinatra recorded were written for him--I proved otherwise. Now you're claiming you meant that the songs were re-written for him. Who's shifting goalposts again?

I'd take the time to call you out on this point as well, but:

A) As someone who claims to have been in a jazz band, I'd assume you already know that musicians rarely bother to re-write a song they're merely covering, unless they make substantial changes to the composition.

and

B) I don't really care to debate with people who use such bad-faith tactics.

Click to shrink...

You never sat down with your songs and figured out how to adapt the songs to your own style? That was one of the most fun things we did with the stuff; you always brought a pencil because things had to be changed.

My entire point about range was bringing forth a true statement (that he has a very limited range) and applying your critisism (that he isn't able to sing like a professional). If you can't sing like a professional, you have to adapt your stuff. Go listen to Kaye Ballard's version of Fly Me to the Moon and compare it to Sinatra's; they barely even have the same melody. She goes up into peaks and dropping down into valleys while Sinatra walks it slowly. Do you really think that version wasn't reworked (or, as is often said "written for him') so that he'd be able to sing it well?

I apologize if I came off as implying he did the first run of those songs, but I figured my meaning would be clear seeing as it was common knowledge that songs were almost always tossed around until someone got famous with them back before the rise of the big labels.

 

[Rad]

You never sat down with your songs and figured out how to adapt the songs to your own style? That was one of the most fun things we did with the stuff; you always brought a pencil because things had to be changed.

My entire point about range was bringing forth a true statement (that he has a very limited range) and applying your critisism (that he isn't able to sing like a professional). If you can't sing like a professional, you have to adapt your stuff. Go listen to Kaye Ballard's version of Fly Me to the Moon and compare it to Sinatra's; they barely even have the same melody. She goes up into peaks and dropping down into valleys while Sinatra walks it slowly. Do you really think that version wasn't reworked (or, as is often said "written for him') so that he'd be able to sing it well?

I apologize if I came off as implying he did the first run of those songs, but I figured my meaning would be clear seeing as it was common knowledge that songs were almost always tossed around until someone got famous with them back before the rise of the big labels.

Click to shrink...

Usually I, and other vocalists I've known, didn't bother to write down the changes. You just sing the damn thing, and improvise here and there to put a personal spin on it or dodge around the parts you can't do that well. Hell, most of the old blues and jazz singers were famous for never singing a song the same way twice. You used what was on the page as a guide, and went where the muse took you.

Also, just to nitpick that last sentence a bit--most of Sinatra's "hits" were already famous when he covered them.

 

[Mutton]

Usually I, and other vocalists I've known, didn't bother to write down the changes. You just sing the damn thing, and improvise here and there to put a personal spin on it or dodge around the parts you can't do that well. Hell, most of the old blues and jazz singers were famous for never singing a song the same way twice. You used what was on the page as a guide, and went where the muse took you.

Also, just to nitpick that last sentence a bit--most of Sinatra's "hits" were already famous when he covered them.

Click to shrink...

I played trumpet; you scribbled like a madman on the page when you practiced. That may be the source of some of the disagreement here

 

[Rad]

I played trumpet; you scribbled like a madman on the page when you practiced. That may be the source of some of the disagreement here

Click to shrink...

Yeah, vocals can be a bit different. Like the "face of jazz" thing, I suspect our disagreement here stems mostly from varying personal experience.

 

[Citrakite]

The Dead Kennedys? Only one of the foremost hardcore punk bands, or at least they used to be.

Click to shrink...

Was never a punk guy.

 

[Rad]

@Citrakite : Ah, got the impression from some of your earlier posts that you were.

 

[Citrakite]

@Citrakite : Ah, got the impression from some of your earlier posts that you were.

Click to shrink...

Seems a bit misleading but I listen to a lot of everything. When it came punk it was the Ramones and some others I've forgotten.

 

[sapphirenebula]

While discussing brands people buy just for the name, I think this is relevant.

"
Taylor Swift accidentally releases 8 seconds of white noise, tops Canadian iTunes chart


http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/yourcom...f-white-noise-tops-canadian-itunes-chart.html


Case in point: When a track containing nothing but eight seconds of white noise was accidentally released under the album's name on Tuesday morning, it shot to the top of Canada's iTunes chart almost immediately.

The release of the audio file, entitled "Track 3," was reportedly the result of an iTunes glitch — but that didn't stop eager fans from shelling out $1.29 to download the song.
"

Forget Hollywood Hype, media hyping things up in general and brand association are powerful and drive fandoms to associate various things with them when they come together.
Harmless fun, but some fans enjoyed the pieces and tried to find meaning behind it.
"It sounds like an ocean. Maybe"

 

[13th Bee]

The thing that gets me is the creepy obsessions that they tend to create. When fans fully deserve the word's origins it isn't good.