18 June, 2007

The New York Times vs. Francis Albert Sinatra












Last year, Stephen Holden of the New York Times had this to say about Ol' Blue Eyes:

"... Sinatra’s journey from skinny, starry-eyed ‘Frankie,’ strewing hearts and flowers, to the imperious, volatile Chairman of the Board roughly parallels an American loss of innocence.... Following a similar arc, [the U.S. of A.] grew from a nation of hungry dreamers fleeing the Depression and fighting ‘the good war’ into an arrogant empire drunk on power and angry at the failure of the American dream to bring utopia.”

Well that stuff might fly at the Times, but those are fighting words 'round these parts. Fine, during the second half of the last century, America lost its innocence and turned into an arrogant, angry and drunken empire. But what's that got to do with Frank?


In response to our inquiries on the subject, representatives from the New York Times and the Sinatra estate have agreed (after much rather childish negotiation) upon the following three exhibits to submit to the Mudslinging Birds worldwide in order to help us come to a conclusion on the matter.

We put it to you:
Does Sinatra change over the years? Is there a recognizable difference in body language, subject matter and other intangibles - such as, say, number of people sharing the stage? Hell, even IF there is a difference (and that's a big IF) does it at all parallel the country's foreign policy? The Times says 'yes', Sinatra's people say 'no'.

Now it's time for the Truth.

No comments: