SINATRA SPOKEN HERE - Frank Sinatra Tribute Show

There was only one "Chairman of the Board". Most of the pop and jazz music authorities agree that Frank Sinatra was an innovator, a stylistic genius, a musical communicator, and hundreds of other "things". There is no shortage of essays and texts written about Sinatra, perhaps the most influential singer of the twentieth century. There is also no shortage of Frank Sinatra imitators and impersonators. It would seem obvious why so many would seek to emulate Frank Sinatra. Certainly it comes from the pure awe and respect of his legend, artistry and musical legacy, that they so frequently don the tux and fedora. It probably also doesn’t hurt  that being in costume aides in masking the musical shortcomings and inadequacies that most of the karaoke Sinatra’s possess. To be Sinatra for even a minute, is an impossible undertaking! Amateurish at it's most profound!

People in professional music circles understand the concept of creation and improvisation. A virtuoso pianist or any artist for that matter would probably not perform a note for note solo at the same musical passage, during every performance. It would become tiresome and after all, an artist needs to continue the creative process. An artist, worth his salt, must improve on his works by phrasing something slightly different or at times completely recreating the composition. This is the nature and definition of an artist and is especially relevant to the jazz musician. This is one of the reasons why jazz and music played in this vein (when played right) is special. It’s the unknown, the uncharted, the original, the moment. This is not possible by any means other than spontaneous performance (as opposed to prerecorded backgrounds). Anything else is imitation. The magic in Frank Sinatra’s choice recordings is there in the recordings. There were at times, numerous takes of a particular song, before the right combination of factors presented themselves. When, they all came together, a great recording was made. They never sounded quite the same when he sang them at his live performances. They weren’t supposed to. Not that there was anything wrong with the live versions (in fact some live performances undoubtably superceded the studio versions of the same songs) they were simply different versions.

The web is filled with men who think they can fill the shoes of Frank Sinatra by singing the songs to identical arrangements that Sinatra used (and in the identical manner). First of all, you'll agree that about 3 in 1000 has the voice. Therefore, 970 in 1000 don’t. Second, they are using prerecorded tracks (no band or orchestra). These tracks are often made with electronic instruments that don’t even come close to sounding like the instruments they were intended to substitute. How uninspiring and unexciting! There can be little spontaneity by the vocalist when he is locked into this framework. Lastly, there are few professionals out there. One becomes a professional with intensive study and from working regularly at his chosen profession. There are truly few performing opportunities for a singer to become proficient at commanding a band or a crowd of attentive listeners, aside from the karaoke bars that now dominate the landscape. And "that don't cut it!"
 
The bottom line is you generally wind up with a not-too-talented singer copying Sinatra's precise arrangements (however never equalling or superceding them) who does his best to exactly copy Frank Sinatra's phrasing, intentionally changed lyrics (as in that's why this chick is a champ), hand gestures, and out of date humor (broads, ring a ding ding) etc... But the voice?.....how is it? More often than not, mediocre to "under any circumstances, don't quit your day job!"