The Beautiful voice of Frank Sinatra

I love Frankie too, DP...

He had perfect pitch, there is something about the timbre of his voice.

...and Etta James.

x

I think it was the sincerity. The honesty. Frank tended to put everything into his singing.


You might like this site.

Sinatra Memorial

It has some interesting stuff.

I've long been a Sinatra fan. I have at least a dozen of his albums, on tape and vinyl.

Songs For Swinging Lovers...

My favourite!

Best Sinatra track?

Torn between One for my Baby and Under my Skin.

x

on something I watched recently they mentioned how composers liked Fred Astaire singing their songs as he 'told the story' - I think that is part of Franks skill, along with great timing and voice.

I never considered Sinatra a pitch-perfect singer as much as a stylist.

I love his "Sinatra at the Sands" live album with Count Basie. That's the album that made me stop and listen to ol' blue eyes for the very first time. I was in my mid-twenties and had never paid much attention to him.

I never tire of listening to Frank Sinatra sing. He also made some memorable movies. Even own some Frank Sinatra CDs.

I think that it had something to do with his phrasing. He knew just how to maximize the most out of even trite songs.

I have XM radio in my car, and on my computer. They have a channel, 73, called "Frank's Place". They play Jazz, ballads, and a lot of Sinatra. I love that channel. You can get a free trial at:

http://xmro.xmradio.com/xstream/index.jsp

Re: The Beautiful voice of Frank Sinatra
Lack of pitch correctness and precision, a gruffness and sloppiness in both timbre and phrasing. He did not have a beautiful voice, but it was spontaneous and human.

He was far, far away from "technically perfect" nor did he have an "astonishing range".

I beg to differ, chum!

He had excellent pitch, phrasing and timing.

He most definately DID have a beautiful voice, not sloppy at all, just relaxed. IMO

Frank Sinatra made a lifelong study of the popular song. He recognised it as an art form, and worked closely with arrangers to get the effect he wanted. His technique and breath control was exemplary, allowing him to sing long sustained phrases, which were a trademark of his very musical performances.
Above all, he swung. Great phrasing.

Yes, I like him.

He re-invented his career several times, too.

Sure I understand, I play music on weekends and have sung most of my life and to me nope, it's clear he did not try and "nail" it, nor did he care much if he was off some; he actually preferred first takes, complete with warts and relatively minimal practice.

Get a set a very high quality headphones and listen very carefully, in particular to the beginning and end of each actual note, mind you, if you do not have good relative pitch, my point will fall on deaf ears (bad pun).

There is no way he had "excellent pitch" relative or perfect, in fact it drifted quite a bit! As to phrasing and timing those are more interpretive, so I'll pass on commenting for the time being.

Now as far as vocal ability, someone like Greg Lake or Shawn Philips could have knocked Blue Eyes out of the water, no contest!

If you like Blue Eyes (and I do a lot) it would be for the same type of reasons you would like Willy Nelson or Mick Jagger or to use pop-jazz vocal examples Satchmo or Lenny Breau.

Chumly, Like everything else on this planet, humans have subjective likes and dislikes. Your attempts to challenge Sinatra's singing skills doesn't matter, because his record sales and persohnal appearances show how much his singing was enjoyed by the masses.

I enjoyed his singing for all his "flaws."

Chumly never said that s/he didn't enjoy Sinatra. As a matter of fact, s/he makes it clear that s/he's part of the masses who do enjoy Sinatra.

To me, it was his casual, cavalier approach to a song, flaws and all, that was a very big part of his appeal. That was his style. That was Frank.

"Attempt to challenge" is not the correct working phrase here, if you are not willing to accept my views, go ask a classically trained singer if Sinatra was pitch accurate.

We all know record sales and popularity are not relevant to absolute vocal ability unless you are willing to argue that Bob Dylan, WIlly Nelson, Mick Jagger, Satchmo, Lenny Breau were/are pitch accurate!

Have you taken the headphone challenge as per the above?
Have you taken any singing lessons?
Do you understand how to apply relative pitch to the fundamental tone?

It's only a "flaw" if it's perceived to be, but from a vocal technical perspective, Sinatra was nothing special, and FWIW nor were the actual recordings any type of high-water mark on a purely technical basis. Again that in no way decreases my appreciation of the art, but that's not what I refer to here.

Recordings on a high-water mark purely technical basis would belong to the likes of Les Paul (early example) or Steely Dan (later example).

"Attempt to challenge" is not the correct working phrase here, if you are not willing to accept my views, go ask a classically trained singer if Sinatra was pitch accurate.

We all know record sales and popularity are not relevant to absolute vocal ability unless you are willing to argue that Bob Dylan, WIlly Nelson, Mick Jagger, Satchmo, Lenny Breau were/are pitch accurate!

Have you taken the headphone challenge as per the above?
Have you taken any singing lessons?
Do you understand how to apply relative pitch to the fundamental tone?

It's only a "flaw" if it's perceived to be, but from a vocal technical perspective, Sinatra was nothing special, and FWIW nor were the actual recordings any type of high-water mark on a purely technical basis. Again that in no way decreases my appreciation of the art, but that's not what I refer to here.

Recordings on a high-water mark purely technical basis would belong to the likes of Les Paul (early example) or Steely Dan (later example). I've already given some examples of singers with much higher technical skills than Sinatra, there are tons more I can give if you like.

"Attempt to challenge" is not the correct working phrase here, if you are not willing to accept my views, go ask a classically trained singer if Sinatra was pitch accurate.

We all know record sales and popularity are not relevant to absolute vocal ability unless you are willing to argue that Bob Dylan, WIlly Nelson, Mick Jagger, Satchmo, Lenny Breau were/are pitch accurate!

Have you taken the headphone challenge as per the above?
Have you taken any singing lessons?
Do you understand how to apply relative pitch to the fundamental tone?

It's only a "flaw" if it's perceived to be, but from a vocal technical perspective, Sinatra was nothing special, and FWIW nor were the actual recordings any type of high-water mark on a purely technical basis. Again that in no way decreases my appreciation of the art, but that's not what I refer to here.

Recordings on a high-water mark purely technical basis would belong to the likes of Les Paul (early example) or Steely Dan (later example). I've already given some examples of singers with much higher technical skills than Sinatra, there are tons more I can give if you like.

Sinatra had singing style which endeared him to his fans. It doesn't matter that his pitch or techincal skills were lacking. If the listener enjoys his singing, with all the flaws you care to identify, the person enjoying his singing just doesn't care. That's the bottom line.

I have to go, it's been fun! Too many multiple posts, too little time (A2K is slow) I must finish the bathroom reno's or I'll get shot!