Erik_Snow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> ....on your video?

In concert, BUFFOON!!

Thanks for sharing CindyC....Take Care



ROCKMAN

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2008-05-06 23:53 by Erik_Snow.

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I'll never forget the look on Frank's face when
> Dylan sang "Restless Farewell" (kind of a Dylan
> "My Way" song) to him at his 80th birthday bash -
> absolutely priceless. Might have been Bob's single
> best performance of any song in the 90's.


saw that.....to me, Sinatra's reaction looked like: what the F is this?...........hilarious....leave it to Dylan to do one of his own songs (at a Sinatra tribute)instead of a Sinatra tune

I could see how you could read that into it. My take was that the guy was seriously blown away by Bob...Frank wouldn't have done it any differntly had the roles been reversed....

recommended Sinatra listening: "September Of My Years" 1965 on reprise records.......Franks' reflecting back on his life......he's 100% behind every lyric.....and his voice was aged to perfection.....his phrasing cannot be beat.....my personal favorite

why have so many trolls invaded this board lately? IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM FUCK_OFF AND GO TO A BAND'S SITE YOU LIKE, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE TROLLING HERE? JUST LEAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Hi Ket. How are you today?

Leonard Keringer Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> recommended Sinatra listening: "September Of My
> Years" 1965 on reprise records.......Franks'
> reflecting back on his life......he's 100% behind
> every lyric.....and his voice was aged to
> perfection.....his phrasing cannot be beat.....my
> personal favorite


That's a good call. I'll go with Only the Lonely - chocked full of saloon songs, done to absolute perfection.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 02:50 by Beelyboy.

who the hell ever called him Frankie? LOL


There are some myths about Frank losing it, voicewise in later life. In the early, mid-70's that clearly happened and is given as the primary reason he went into retirement. He came out of it, though, still in his sixties with his pipes almost fully retored. I have shows from the early eighties that clearly demonstrate Frank had regained much of his former greatness.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 02:49 by Beelyboy.

"September" & the Jobim collaboration always seemed like the last real good Frank elpees, & it's been years so I'll give "Watertown" another spin. Frank btw was 50 when "September" came out, as described rather an autumnal work. Great stories Rockman & CindyC!

T&A Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------

>
>
> That's a good call. I'll go with Only the Lonely -
> chocked full of saloon songs, done to absolute
> perfection.
>
>


great one........as well as "No One Cares"

Ket Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> why have so many trolls invaded this board lately?
> IF YOU DON'T LIKE THEM FUCK_OFF AND GO TO A BAND'S
> SITE YOU LIKE, WHY DO YOU HAVE TO BE TROLLING
> HERE? JUST
> LEAVE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


you, Mr.Wind-up, need to dunk your dingus

yeah, he turned 50 in 65, so he was in his late fifties when he first retired....

I think that comparison stinks! Sinatra did NOT know when to quit and at the end he was stumbling around, couldn't read the que cards, forgot very basic lyrics, very off-kilter! No way Mick would ever get to that point! They all have alot more pride in their music and the comparison is actually very insulting to the band! Try another comparison!

Debra:

You really think Keith will ever retire - even if he lives as as long as Francis? I don't...I do think it's a very appropriate basis for comparison.

x



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-12-08 02:47 by Beelyboy.

Frank always made it sound so easy, almost like conversation. But.....just try singing like he did. A true original. Soooooo smoooooth.

Frank always made it sound so easy, almost like conversation. But.....just try singing like he did. A true original. No way. Soooooo smoooooth.

My fave Frank LP is "In The Wee Small Hours."

I bought it in '78 because I just loved the cover!

It changed my life.

Comparing Frank and the Stones is pointless. They exist in two different dimensions.

thats funny , never saw frank run around on stage with football pants and knee pads when he was 38, would have been hard to sing my way i guess

loog droog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> My fave Frank LP is "In The Wee Small Hours."
>
> I bought it in '78 because I just loved the
> cover!
>
> It changed my life.
>
> Comparing Frank and the Stones is pointless. They
> exist in two different dimensions.
>
>


Pointless? How so? I think some great points of comparison have been made on this thread....

The love of Frank's life Ava Gardner but she dumped him...

So make it one for my baby
And one more for the road





ROCKMAN

One of my favorite alltime songs is "Over and Over the world we knew" by Frank. Just a great song.

"...no longer shall you trudge 'cross my peaceful mind."

i have to say, and i've been lurking around for about 6-8 weeks, that i think the stones are still kickin' it live.... and the new album has its moments.. is ABB comparable to sticky fingers? no but its pretty good....

but let me focus on this particular thread...

the idea that the stones can't hack it live is ludicrous... anyone who has listened to the copacabana or buenos aires show (both available as soundboards) would be hard pressed to say they are much worse than they were...they might be worse than the 72-73.. perhaps... but...

personally i think mick is singing better than ever.. comparing the buenos aires worried about you with the one on live licks i think his voice sounds BETTER in buenos aires a few weeks ago.... i also think charlie watts is playing the kits as well as ever.. keith and ronnie, to my ears, sound a bit more ragged but so what? its the stones..its rock'n' roll.... its not classical music..

the comparison with sinatra.. i know for a fact many people found much to enjoy and take pleasure in during frank's 80s soncerts..... could he sing the same as in the 40s no.. or the 50s (which were quite different from the 40s)....? no but so what.. musicians evolve! look at dylan... he sounds like a different man than he did in the 60s or 70s or even 80s but i caught 14 of his shows between 96 and 01 and you are not going to tell me he was not rocking out.. the shows were largely great and represented a live rebirth for bob...i took friends of mine who had become jaded on his live show in the early 90s and they agreed he sounded great.. he had a friend of mine practically in tears during don't think twice in boston area..

now to the current stones tour: shouldn't it mean something that people want to see them and enjoy seeing them? isn't it incredibly arrogant to abrogate for oneself the role of chief arbiter on wether they still can hack it or not? are you telling me the 60,000 largely kids who went to see the stones each night in argentina loved the show but it sucked.. isn't the true measure of the success of the stones live show wether the audience enjoys it?

i'm sorry.. i saw the baltimore show (my second after a largely forgettable b2b show at jack kent cooke where i had the worse seats in stadium and it was freezin') a few weeks ago and i have to tell you they rocked..it was truly great entertainment... my friend and i were in his words "like two high school kids" at the show!... it was a great show and i'm glad they still tour... chuck berry still tours but he's not the same chuck he was in 1955 but so what.. i'm not the same man i was in 1995 either.... i think it is peculiar to rock'n'roll to say it can only be done well by young people... maybe its peculiar to Americans view of what rock'n'roll should be...

i'm glad the stones keep rockin' .. i'm very glad i got a second opportunity to see them.. i'm just hoping they come back to the east coast after europe (and no i can't make the radio city show but boy do i wish i could..i just can't pay $500)....

Duane in Houston Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> The Rolling Stones of today are like Ole Blue Eyes
> in his waning years. People want to see the
> dinosaur before it's extinct. (I don't blame them)
> Like Sinatra (who's voice had deteriorated and who
> often forgot lyrics) the Stones charge much more
> money than ever before for performances of much
> less quality than when they were in their prime,
> they play less adventurous set lists and settle
> into the greatest hits to appease the masses. And,
> like Frank, the Stones intend to suck up every
> last dollar they can before the end it. I'm not
> complaining , I'm just bringing up an obvious
> comparison that I've not seen here before.


I think there are a lot of comparrisons you can draw on the surface, but what the stones do is COMPLETLEY different. At the heart of the matter, they have NOTHING in common with Sinatra. period.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 2006-03-14 06:39 by ryanpow.

ryanpow Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I think there are a lot of comparrisons you can
> draw on the surface, but what the stones do is
> COMPLETLEY different. At the heart of the matter,
> they have NOTHING in common with Sinatra. period.
>
>

Que? At the heart of the matter they have EVERYTHING in common with Sinatra. They were both ICONS for young generations of music fans, who grew old with them. Period.

Duane In Houston- You have the Stones confused with Rod Stewart. Goodnight Duane, it is past your bed time.