Sinatra Jr: The Apple Doesn't Fall Far From The Tree

[sliderocker]

The following article on Frank Sinatra Jr. was on the Elvis Information Network's website, which took it from the Hollywood Reporter. Junior follows the lead of his late father in dissing rock and roll and in particular dissing Elvis. Junior has dissed the Beatles in the past as well. Junior was never a major player in the music biz, never on the same plateau as Elvis or the Beatles or even his own dad and sister Nancy. And I think that just eats away at him, knowing his talent wasn't enough to propel him into the big leagues. So, he disses those who were successful.

Curiously, a short time before this article, there had been an article/interview on Nancy in which she praised her dad and dissed Elvis. An Elvis fan in Australia who knew how to contact her emailed her about the diss. She answered back and said she had made no such comparisons. She and Elvis had been friends from 1960 up to his death in 1977. Given Junior's dissing, it seems all the more reasonable to assume the comments came from him all along, since his career seems to consist of putting down any artist who was successful.

www.elvisinfonet.com/

Sunday, May 3, 2015

"Elvis was mediocre" - Frank Sinatra Jr. comments show ignorance of rock 'n' roll as a musical form and likely to rile many Elvis fans: In an interview with Jordan Riefe from The Hollywood Reporter based around the 100th anniversary of the birth of Francis Albert Sinatra, his son Frank Jr. (who has led his own eventful life) made some disparaging remarks about rock 'n' roll, the popular music that followed, and Elvis. Here is an excerpt from the full article:

Frank Sinatra Jr. A gifted pianist, Frank Jr. sings many of the same songs as his father, from whom he inherited his smooth singing voice. Throughout his career, he struggled to distinguish himself, which some attribute to a kidnapping that occurred when he was 19 years old.

Abducted from a Lake Tahoe hotel room in 1963, Frank Jr. was held for four days by schizophrenic ex-businessman Barry Keenan and cohorts Joe Amsler and Johnny Irwin. His family paid $240,000 for his release and arrests soon followed. The defense maintained that the episode was a publicity stunt orchestrated by Sinatra in order to bolster his son’s career. It was a lie, but it stuck.

A more practical reason Frank Jr. never achieved the status of his father is that he chose a style that was on its way out in the sixties instead of rock and roll. It was a choice that cost him his contract with RCA Victor.

“I felt I could not sell something I didn’t believe in,” he says. “Rock 'n' roll, for me, is another award for underachievers. It is nothing but a testament to mediocrity. Elvis Presley was rock 'n' roll, I thought that was pretty mediocre. But since that time, the succeeding steps in music has been down, just more degradation. Then we got into punk rock, and now we are into rap music, which is a total oxymoron.”

With six albums produced between 1965 and 2006, and after decades of touring, at the age of 71, Frank Jr. doesn’t consider himself a success. “A person who qualifies for that word, is a person who’s been part of a hit movie a hit television show, or who has had hit records. And I have had none of the above.”

But he did adhere to the greatest lesson his father ever taught him, “What you believe in, stand by them and practice them devoutly,” which explains why rock 'n' roll was never really an option. In the end, he did it his way.

[Tony]

[sliderocker]

I don't have a problem with Frank Jr making music his way, but he takes the arguments of people who hated rock and roll, people like his dad, Steve Allen, Eddie Fisher and Tony Bennett, and tries to make it his own. Rock and roll is an award for underachievers and a testament to mediocrity? Oh, please! He is not just insulting Elvis but all the rock artists who were his peers and those who came after him and them. If the genre had truly been mediocre, it wouldn't have lasted. And I don't think he truly knows Linda's catalog as if he did, he would know that it includes the genre that he hates, rock and roll.

Ironically, if Frank Jr. doesn't consider himself a success, was the reason he wasn't a success because he himself was a very mediocre performer? And who can he blame that on? Not really the rock and rollers, not when you had artists like the Carpenters or Barry Manilow, who really weren't rock and roll and who made music that his dad wouldn't have had a problem with. His dad came to terms with the rock performers. He may not have liked them but the rock audience wasn't his audience to begin with anyway, and they didn't really cut into his audience. I think Frank Jr. wanted to be his dad but he should've hung around Hank Williams Jr. when his late mother, managers and record were trying to make him into a carbon copy of his dad instead of letting him find his own voice. That's why Frank Jr. was never a success: he wanted a voice that wasn't his.

[Guest]

Rockers are doing and saying the same things about Rap. And the beat goes on ...............

[Sloan]

I'm sorry--I've hated Sinatra ever since I first heard him (my dad always played his stuff and I found it so boring). So glad Elvis signaled the death knell to that era. And his son is no better. Interesting about his quote about selling something he didn't believe in. Don't worry Junior, no one believed in you to buy your outdated stuff! (I'm on the fence with Linda's nelson Riddle era. It's fine, but not my cup of tea.)

Like what robertaxel said in another post, Sinatra didn't write any of his songs unlike Elvis or the Beatles.

Thank whomever for Elvis, The Beatles and rock-n-roll.

[Guest]

I am surprised Robert thought Elvis wrote his own songs. He didn't actually write any and those he supposedly did were more deals from the Colonel.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker:

His dad came to terms with the rock performers. He may not have liked them but the rock audience wasn't his audience to begin with anyway, and they didn't really cut into his audience.

I think part of Sinatra's antipathy with rock and roll was not that the rock audience cut into his (because, as you rightly said, it didn't), but it may have cut into his own sense of self-worth which was as inflated as it was because he had no competition of any kind really until Elvis came along. But this isn't unique to Sinatra's generation (or his son) by any means; Elvis' own self-worth, exacerbated by the kinds of movies he did in the 1960s, was undercut (at least perhaps in Elvis' own mind) by the emergence of the Beatles in 1964. I don't know if John, Paul, George, and Ringo felt their superiority threatened by their other fellow British Invasion counterparts; but if so, it wouldn't come as a shock.

[Sloan]

May 11, 2015 14:45:07 GMT -5 Guest said:

I am surprised Robert thought Elvis wrote his own songs. He didn't actually write any and those he supposedly did were more deals from the Colonel.

Actually, robertaxel just said Sinatra didn't write his songs, what follows about The Beatles and Elvis is my own words. Just for clarification.

Also, I dislike highly the rat pack. Never got them and thought them so uncool when most thought otherwise. I'll never forgive what Dino said when introducing The Stones on that one Hollywood show he did in 1964. Sounded like the old fool he was at the time being highly usurped and left behind by better music.

[sliderocker]

May 11, 2015 14:45:07 GMT -5 Guest said:

I am surprised Robert thought Elvis wrote his own songs. He didn't actually write any and those he supposedly did were more deals from the Colonel.

Actually, he did co-write a couple of songs: "You'll Be Gone," with Red West and Charlie Hodge, and "That's Someone You Never Forget," also with Red. Both of those songs were written circa 1961-62 and represented an attempt by Elvis to actually write songs. Ironically, he played the songs for Priscilla, to gauge her opinion of the songs and she dissed them, saying she preferred his rock recordings. He lost interest in trying to write any songs after that.

The songwriting deals Parker made, insofar as cutting Elvis in for a share of the songwriting royalties took place in the 50s. And in reality, it was only three songs written by Otis Blackwell on which Elvis reworked some of the lyrics to those songs. The four songs from "Love Me Tender," were changed to crediting Elvis and Vera Matson, the wife of musical director Ken Darby, who (ahem) "wrote" the songs. The four LMT songs were all melodies that had been in the public domain, and Darby's wife was a lyricist. Darby was a member of ASCAP and Elvis at that time was licensed through BMI. And there was "Heartbreak Hotel," although that songwriting credit had been given to Elvis by composers Mae Axton Boren and Tommy Durden, both of whom actually met Elvis and who thought he wouldn't last. Mae recalled later if they had known Elvis was going to be a permanent fixture in the music business, they might have rethought their decision. But, they did it, not because Parker wanted a cut, but because they thought Elvis was a sweet kid who would have a short run. As for Parker's cutting Elvis in on songwriter's royalties, Elvis put a stop to the practice as soon as he realized what was going on. He didn't approve of Parker taking the little money the songwriters got in the way of royalties, especially as he was earning millions. Parker stopped taking from the writers but it didn't stop him from trying for a percentage of the publishers' shares on songs not published by Elvis's various publishing companies.

[sliderocker]

May 11, 2015 17:48:42 GMT -5 erik said:

I think part of Sinatra's antipathy with rock and roll was not that the rock audience cut into his (because, as you rightly said, it didn't), but it may have cut into his own sense of self-worth which was as inflated as it was because he had no competition of any kind really until Elvis came along. But this isn't unique to Sinatra's generation (or his son) by any means; Elvis' own self-worth, exacerbated by the kinds of movies he did in the 1960s, was undercut (at least perhaps in Elvis' own mind) by the emergence of the Beatles in 1964. I don't know if John, Paul, George, and Ringo felt their superiority threatened by their other fellow British Invasion counterparts; but if so, it wouldn't come as a shock.

I think part of the problem for any musical performer in any genre is that eventually you run up against the "new kid in town," and suddenly an older performer becomes yesterday's news. For Sinatra and his peers, the new kid's arrival was long overdue and I think there was a little to a lot of jealousy and insecurities about holding their own, whether they'd still manage to do well or whether their sales would tank. But, the fact was, Sinatra and his peers shouldn't have expected that they would appeal to the teen market. Sinatra was 20 years older than Elvis, in his 40s when Elvis was just starting out in his early 20s. Sinatra complained about rock but in his defense, he handled it a hell of a lot better than his peers. And he kept right on making music his way in the middle of the rock revolution whereas some of his peers threw in the towel and settled for the has-been status. They didn't have to. They could've followed Frank's lead.

With Elvis, I think he felt threatened not so much by the Beatles - the friends who worked for him all said the same thing regarding the Beatles: yes, he felt a little threatened but he also felt there was room for everybody and there was no need to be threatened or jealous. What he felt threatened by on the Beatles had to do with their songs versus the crappy movie songs he was making to fulfill the movie soundtrack obligations. The Beatles were making the kind of music he actually wanted to make. It was a no win situation for him because of the way Parker ran the business side.

As for the Beatles, I don't think they really gave much thought to their competition, at least not publicly. John Lennon said they used to schedule their album releases so it wouldn't cut into the sales of artists who were their friends or artists they liked. What the Beatles felt threatened by were each other: John complained Paul tried to turn every Beatles project into a Paul project, always calling a session and never giving him or George Harrison enough time to come up with some songs for a session. Paul was resentful of the fact John was considered the more artistic of the two as far as songwriting was concerned, whereas some of his songs were considered to be lightweight. George felt victimized by the Lennon-McCartney album carve-up on the songs, limited to one or two songs per album despite the fact he was writing as many songs as what John and Paul were writing. The Beatles' own little ego wars almost more than anything else contributed to their demise. More than Yoko Ono, whose presence did increase tensions. But, they didn't seem to be threatened by other groups whatsoever.

[Tony]

I've seen interviews with both Buffy Sainte-Marie and Dolly Parton in which they claim Elvis tried to strong-arm half their publishing and/or songwriting before he would agree to sing their songs. Neither agreed to the terms. I don't think Elvis ever recorded Dolly's "I Will Always Love You" but he did record Buffy's "Until It's Time For You to Go." I always assumed she agreed to record some songs that Elvis owned the publishing on because two or three songs appeared on her albums that were not written by Elvis but were published by Elvis Presley Music. Not that he would make a killing on getting a song on one of her albums-- she's an acquired taste, and most of the public has not bitten.

unrelated Buffy Sainte-Marie story

[sliderocker]

May 11, 2015 23:00:45 GMT -5 Tony said:

I've seen interviews with both Buffy Sainte-Marie and Dolly Parton in which they claim Elvis tried to strong-arm half their publishing and/or songwriting before he would agree to sing their songs. Neither agreed to the terms. I don't think Elvis ever recorded Dolly's "I Will Always Love You" but he did record Buffy's "Until It's Time For You to Go." I always assumed she agreed to record some songs that Elvis owned the publishing on because two or three songs appeared on her albums that were not written by Elvis but were published by Elvis Presley Music. Not that he would make a killing on getting a song on one of her albums-- she's an acquired taste, and most of the public has not bitten.

unrelated Buffy Sainte-Marie story

The music publishing on Elvis was his manager's domain and Parker and his subordinates were the ones who tried coercing the songwriters and music publishers into giving up a percentage of their royalties. It was more the music publishers rather than the songwriters since the songs Elvis recorded were rarely published by the songwriters themselves. As for Dolly's oft-told tale that she refused to give Parker any of the publishing on "I Will Always Love You," according to Elvis associates like Marty Lacker, that song was not the Parton song Elvis wanted to record. The song in question was Parton's song "Coat of Many Colors," which had special meaning to Elvis as it was about growing up poor. Elvis wanted to record the song circa 1971=72. Parton did not record "I Will Always Love You" until around 1973, I believe, but that is the song she seemed to be most proudest of, considering it was covered quite a bit and even she re-recorded it a couple of times. Parker's publishing grab ended any interest for Elvis in recording the song and really, Parker's antics in the studio trying to grab a piece of the publishing was the reason Elvis lost interest in even going to the recording studio to record songs for an album. There was nothing wrong with trying to get a percentage. It goes on much more than anyone knows but it was a practice done mostly outside the confines of a recording studio. Why Parker and his cohorts insisted on conducting that business inside the studio while Elvis recorded is a mystery.

I don't know about Buffy's story but it wouldn't surprise me any if Parker tried to take a percentage of her song. Curiously, neither she nor any of the other artists who recorded the song before Elvis manage to chart the song in Billboard's Top 40. Elvis's version was the only one that made the Top 40. And that was just barely at number 40. It was one of those songs on which too many artists rushed to record their own versions, and it just wasn't that great of a song.

[Tony]

Not that great of a song? Possibly... I don't like any of the cover versions, especially the ones by men, and especially Helen Reddy's version, but I think Buffy's original recording is perfect, vibrato and all.

[sliderocker]

May 12, 2015 9:22:53 GMT -5 Tony said:

Not that great of a song? Possibly... I don't like any of the cover versions, especially the ones by men, and especially Helen Reddy's version, but I think Buffy's original recording is perfect, vibrato and all.

My distaste for the song is because of the too many cover versions. I don't think I've ever heard Buffy's original. I didn't especially care for Elvis's version because it was syruped with excessive strings, a fault of his producer, Felton Jarvis. I know that the first cover of the song was by, of all singers, Michael Nesmith before he was a member of the Monkees! He didn't have a hit with it at all and it was odd given he was a songwriter himself and had written a few interesting tunes. But, I don't know who started the rush to record the song as usually, the easy listening type of singers were the kind to record their version of a hit. And that song wasn't a hit until 1972. I'm surprised Linda didn't record a version. I might have been okay with her version but then again, it might not have been her kind of song at the time.

[erik]

Quote by sliderocker re. "Until It's Time For You To Go":

But, I don't know who started the rush to record the song as usually, the easy listening type of singers were the kind to record their version of a hit. And that song wasn't a hit until 1972. I'm surprised Linda didn't record a version. I might have been okay with her version but then again, it might not have been her kind of song at the time.

I think Neil Diamond was the one who had a minor hit (#51) with it in 1970; and Elvis was persuaded by Nashville session man Norbert Putnam, who also did work with Buffy Sainte-Marie, Joan Baez, and Linda herself, to record the song, which he did in May 1971. I tend to think that Elvis' version has a fair amount in common, at least arrangement-wise, to a couple of his 1969 Memphis sessions songs ("Don't Cry Daddy"; "Do You Know Who I Am?"); and that arrangement is less bothersome to me than I guess it is to others. It's a shame that it only peaked at #40 for one week (March 11, 1972).

If Linda had recorded it, I think her version would have been more of an acoustic folk/country/rock vein, but I also think she'd have pulled it off with a lot of heart and poignancy, as she is so often known for doing.

[sliderocker]

May 12, 2015 21:00:06 GMT -5 erik said:

I think Neil Diamond was the one who had a minor hit (#51) with it in 1970; and Elvis was persuaded by Nashville session man Norbert Putnam, who also did work with Buffy Sainte-Marie, Joan Baez, and Linda herself, to record the song, which he did in May 1971. I tend to think that Elvis' version has a fair amount in common, at least arrangement-wise, to a couple of his 1969 Memphis sessions songs ("Don't Cry Daddy"; "Do You Know Who I Am?"); and that arrangement is less bothersome to me than I guess it is to others. It's a shame that it only peaked at #40 for one week (March 11, 1972).

If Linda had recorded it, I think her version would have been more of an acoustic folk/country/rock vein, but I also think she'd have pulled it off with a lot of heart and poignancy, as she is so often known for doing.

There were already a few too many versions of the song by the time Neil Diamond recorded his 1969 version. I didn't know his version had been a single as when his record company released a single, both sides of the 45 were written by Neil himself. Given the run of luck he was having with his own songs around that time, it's remarkable his record company would've selected one of his rare covers as a single.

I hadn't really thought about Elvis's version of the song being comparable to some of his 1969 Memphis session songs but you're right, the arrangement does recall songs like "Don't Cry Daddy" and "Do You Know Who I Am." RCA was bothered however, by Felton Jarvis putting too much in the way of orchestrations and backing vocals. They would rather have had just Elvis and the band. There's a version of "It's a Matter of Time" on youtube with added strings. The original B-side to "Burning Love" had no such strings and it was far better. The strings didn't improve the song any great deal but it's likely that may have been the initial choice until someone listened to the song minust the strings and decided that sounded even better.

I've always wished Linda had recorded "It's a Matter of Time." The song just aches for a steel guitar and thought this was another song Linda could've done justice to, even if she wouldn't have thought so. Thinking about a Linda version of "Until It's Time for You to Go," had she done the song, it probably would've been in the country-rock vein if she had recorded pre-"You're No Good." But, I could hear her singing this song and giving it a touch of blues, much like her versions of "Crazy" and "Down So Low." That would've made her version - if she had recorded it - totally different to any version recorded prior. And it would've been fresh in contrast to the many m.o.r. versions that existed.