[Nancy]

Do you think you can pin point when Frank's voice began to change each time?
From Columbia to Capitol; from Capitol to Reprise? Assuming that peoples'
voices do not abruptly change overnight, which recordings represent the evolving
Sinatra?

Do you think these changes came about through conscious effort or just
growth spurts? Were the producers and arrangers responsible? If you think about it,
it is as though he had 3 voices. How, why and when did the second 2 begin?

AND, is this true of all singers?

[Adam]

Its very difficult, without reviewing a discography to pinpoint exact changes in vocals.

I dont think a conscious effort could make the dramatic change in style either.

The way the voice did change, just seems to be coincidental and dosent relate to specific recording labels.

People always contrast the different styles of each recording era, but i find that some of the later stages with each label sound like the next labels vocals.

Some of the late Capitol stuff sounds like his Reprise releases.

I think as he got older, cigarettes had a lot to do with the huskiness he obtained in style.

I believe some artists at the time actually believed smoking improved ones singing voice, i wonder if Frank believed that.

Adam

<I believe some artists at the time actually believed smoking improved one's singing voice>

Nat Cole believed that... and it killed him.

Thank you, Nancy, for posing such a thought-provoking question, and one that requires us to listen closely to the music. Alas, a heavy work schedule precludes much participation on my part -- but I look forward to some interesting comments from the other Sinatraphiles around here. (To quote Cagney -- dis must be da place... to discuss Frank's music!)

A couple thoughts:

I hear the first big changes in Sinatra's voice during his late Columbia years (1949 - 1952), a fascinating and underrated period. The voice deepened, of course -- and his ability to interpret a lyric took a giant leap forward. (Ava commented that she would come home and find him listening to Mabel Mercer, renowned for her diction and interpretive skill -- Frank later said Mercer taught him how to handle a lyric.) The earlier Columbia period was pretty, but what starts to develop here is much greater depth, any residual sweetness and sentimentality soon to be burned off and left behind.

One notable song from this period: "That Lucky Old Sun (Just Rolls Around Heaven All Day)." Recorded in Sept 1949, this powerful interpretation of an Armstrong classic presages all the great things to come.

I suspect the emotional turmoil Sinatra endured from 1950 on contributed to his maturing, both as singer and actor. John Rockwell writes:

"From a technical standpoint, Sinatra's voice had deepened and darkened slightly, coarsening the mellowness... At the same time, the slight insecurity in the area just above middle C became more pronounced, and Sinatra was masterful in exploiting that frailty for expressive purposes... His ballad singing had improved as well... lending him a new vulnerability that mirrored the cocky aggression of his upbeat material. Ava Gardner may have left scars, but as happens so often with great artists, personal pain translated into artistic achievement."

And not just Ava, but the sharp downturn of his career, the transition from adored idol to seeming has-been -- all this the crucible from which emerged, in the 1950s, a new Sinatra whose first flush of maturity and "experience... promises and often delivers rapport, understanding... [even] wisdom." (Gary Giddins, adapted)

I also think Sinatra sustained actual damage to his vocal cords around 1950 -- and yet, from that moment on, the singing only got better. Which brings us to the crux of Frank Sinatra's long career and how he sustained artistic excellence throughout so many changes -- both vocally and in the world around him. I call it "doing more with less" -- just that, for decades -- and it may be the most significant aspect of his legacy to those who follow him.

Once again -- thank you, Nancy. This thread I'm gonna enjoy.



Andrea

...but yes voices change, and so does technology like tape, amps, tubes, mikes, studios and venues.

I've often thought about this.

Frank Sinatra's "full" voice is only hinted at prior to Columbia's usage of magnetic tape around 1950. After this point, it's easier to hear him as a true baritone.

A classical voice teacher once explained this to me: in order to retain the voice's "highs" (usually the first to go) a vocalist must work the lowest part of the register continually and diligently -especially when warming up. The vocal cords become stronger, and therefore better able to produce ringing and resonant high notes. And the lower end of the register is consequently well-exercised, smoother and deeper.

I'd hazard a guess that FS (consciously or unconsciously) came to this realization after his vocal problems during the Copa engagement: it seems the real richness of his baritone then became a very comfortable thing for him - as were the magnificently sustained highs in stuff like "The Concert Sinatra".

Were Frank Sinatra to have kept "crooning" near the top of his register, his voice would probably have been shot by the beginning of the Reprise years. The opposite is however true IMO.
Only a vocalist truly "in charge" of his instrument would dare do playful things like those ultra-lows on the Jobim song. All the breathing technique in the world can't make neglected vocal cords improve with age.

(Say what you like about "My Way" & "NYNY", but they're not songs for singers over 30 who don't know EXACTLY what they're doing...)

So I'd say Frank was a man who upped the ante vocally with each new decade - which happened to coincide with label changes.

But now we need the details! Take by take! Phrase by phrase! Every darned matrix #! Any takers?

[steffen]

i can't say anything about the columbia period which io do not posess. there definitaly is a change between the dorsey and v-disc sinatra mid forties and the first capitol album early 50s.

sinatras' sound varied from album to album, that makes it difficult for me to draw a line.

3 voices? i think there were more.

think about his post retirement period.
when he returned in 1973, he had so much left from his late 60s sound. (it would be thrilling to listen to the earliest comeback engagement, at caesars i guess).

then, just one year later, at madison square garden, he had changed completely! both looks and sound (weight and hair).
i think this was the most evident change of his persona. yet he still had the strong vibrato/tremolo on 'my way' (what the heck is the right word?)

again, i'd say about a year later, the tremolo was gone.
and again, in 1977 he had changed again. looked different, sounded different.

... Columbia November 1950. FS cuts "Let It Snow!" on the 5th & "I Am Loved" on the 16th. Nice enough, but there's discomfort around A/B. (For an interesting sidebar we can compare the Siravo sessions from earlier in the year - "Sing & Dance With FS" - with the re-make: the stupendous "Swingin' Session" a decade later...)

Now, let's listen to "Hello Young Lovers" & "We Kiss In A Shadow" - recorded on March 2 1951. Wow! Sixteen weeks and the guy's smooth as butter right thru the baritone range...go figure?

All Stordahl arrangements.

This is fun! I'm thinking of re-inventing myself as a Serious Sinatra Scholar!

hno: hno: hno: hno:

[DOUGofOHIO]

Good morning from OHIO-USA:

Great topic, Nancy!! This is a subject I can get my teeth in to.

As a singer(oh well, in my opinion, anyway) I noticed the differece when I first heard "VIOLETS FOR YOUR FURS" where he took the word "where" and did that beautiful and romantic slide down.
Now, he may have done other things prior, but that's when it caught me here in OHIO...

I noticed another level during the "WEE SMALL HOURS" album, which demonstrated his incredible vibrato and amazing control of any note he wanted to play with..

Another observation was when I caught "THE CONCERT FOR THE AMERICAS" on THE A & E channel where things were going on with the low notes but I couldn't pinpoint what was going on..


Anyway, there's more and I'll try to put it in words, later.

Thanks for this thought-provoking subject...I don't there's been a day in my life that I haven't wondered about these things....As a singer it has been a nightmare not being able to sound like him......

[voice1]

I guess Nancy's still on California time in NYC so she's posting at 1:30am East Coast time. Glad to see it.

I think FAS had several pronounced vocal changes in his career. When he hit the scene with Harry James, his voice had such an innocent, scared kind of hue to it. It was very sweet and under control in the high register.

Tommy Dorsey made him think about breathing. He was able to stay high aqnd sweet but discovered he had a baritone voice waiting to break out.

I believe his voice changed again shortly after the end of the war. The musician's strike had been difficult for recording but he was appearing live all over the country and using his instrument constantly.

Now we have the great vocal chord disaster. The voice deepened permanently. So did his mood. The demise of his marriage, the whole Ava thing. If there ever was a set of better "perfect storm" ingredients coming together for greatness, I'm not aware of it. The voice was actually better. He could still bang the tenor notes but got really comfortable with his baritone. This was true through the "Nice & Easy" period. I think his world tour took it's toll on his voice. He was tired and it showed. However, by 1965, he was cruising and laid down some of his best stuff.

The voice changed again in 1969. My Way, Cycles, etc. The voice was still powerful but he had lost his ability to control certain notes. The voice was all together deeper and different in post retirement but in many ways it was better. I especially like the stuff he did in the early 80's. I believe his story telling was perfected on Trilogy and She Shot me Down.

One of the last times we saw him was at The Sands in Atlantic City in March of 1992. He was in great voice for a man of 75. But he relied on his masterful storytelling of the lyric to get him through. I saw him last in Richmond. The night he collapsed on stage. Curiously, his voice was in good shape that night.

Well, I don't know how many changes I mentioned but there are more than the three most people recognize (IMHO). And he sold millions of records with each. Mick Jagger is still using his "scream" voice. I don't notice any changes, but, I'm not a stones guy so I demure to others there.

The many changes/faces/facets of Sinatra are the reason he is such a wonderful study and so difficult to emulate.........

[Duncan]

Steffen, you are right, at Madison Square Garden 1974 Sinatra's voice had a completely new sound. I think of 'Ol' Blue Eyes Is Back' as ushering a new era for Sinatra's voice, it would never be same again; for whatever his voice had lost, it had also gained something new, something that remained until Duets.

By the time Sinatra came to record 'Trilogy' he seemed to have developed a new way of using his voice, a style which takes advantage of the 'huskiness' and emphasises it, for example
in NY NY:
"Annnnnnnnnnd if I can make it there..."
Trilogy is really a great showcase of Sinatra's mature voice!

I just love Sinatra's rich, warm voice on 'Concert For The America's', it seems so versatile and as near to musical perfection as one voice can get!!!

Then comes 'L.A. Is My Lady', Frank's voice has changed slightly, but is still strong and has 'that' sound, the sound started in 1973 (in my opinion). However, by 1988 and 'The Ultimate Event' Frank seems to be different again, he keeps this sound right through until he records Duets in 1993/4. But right from 1973 to 1994 I feel there is something about Sinatra's voice that wasn't there before, what ever it is I like it!!

I don't know if I have made any sense here, I hope when you read this you could understand what I meant!!

Duncan

[Ronald Sarbo]

Nancy:It is good to be talking about something worthwhile. During his early years with Dorsey and on Columbia Sinatra sang using a very schooled almost conservatory approach. He told us in the Life article that he was approaching what the Italian's call Bel Canto. Obviously he had a deep interest and respect for classical music. He mentions Heifetz and thought of how Dorsey played his trombone for long periods where he did not seem to breathe. He swam to improve his breath control and learned when to breath and most important when not to so that his phrasing was unbroken.He sought to sing "more" than others like Crosby were doing.It was during this time that his ballad style was perfected. When we reach the early 50s popular music had begun to change. R&B and C&W were making inroads and Jazz began to go off in its own directions. This would culminate in the Rock and Roll revolution of the mid 50s and Elvis. However in the early 50s new pop singers emerged like Johnnie Ray, Frankie Laine and Tony Bennett who sang big in a loud and brash over the top style. Sinatra had to react and moved toward a more jazz and swing propelled style. He gave his voice a harder edge. The Birth of the Blues is usually cited as the start of the new sound. Of course age may have taken some of the sweetness out of his voice but his range vocally and dramatically and increased. On Capitol with Riddle and May and Jenkins this "new" voice found its fruition.If the Columbia Sinatra is the ballad Sinatra and Capitol is the swinging Sinatra I feel that the Reprise Sinatra is the maturation and synthesis of both. From 1961 on his own label he was free to utilize both styles and to collaborate with Basie and Ellington and explore other forms like the bossa nova with Jobim.

Ron: I've long wondered about this...did FS "react", or did he have a vision i.e. refine and hone Pure Sinatra?

That was certainly the outcome, and almost from the beginning his Capitol singles were more Sinatra than anything else...

Hmmm...

[Jeffrey Simmons]

What a joy it is to be discussing this sort of question about her father with Nancy Sinatra.

I've long thought about this aspect and have wanted to discuss it with those in the know.

In reality, Frank, I think, probably had more than three voices, because I believe that he again changed his way of singing in the later years of his career, when the vocal chords were no longer as smooth and the vibrato had widened a little. He had mentioned how in his later years, in the 1970's and '80's how he had consulted famous opera singers like Robert Merrill and Luciano Pavarotti about how to use his voice.

With his changes in voice, due to age and use etc. he also very much changed his singing style and there are, it seems to me, some very definite dividing lines between his singing voice and style from the early years of the late 1930's right through the forties when he was with Harry James, Tommy Dorsey and then solo with Comlumbia Records - right up to 1953 when he moved to Capitol Records. Then again, there was a huge dividing line in style and vocal sound when Frank started recording with Reprise Records in 1960. Those changes, in my opinion, were definitely deliberate.

In those early years, the bel-canto singing style was very evident and Frank carried it with his beautiful light soft creamy melodious voice. That light voice was actually quite thin - so that when it came to the powerful end notes of songs like "Ol' Man River" or "Come Back To Sorrento" it was the microphone technique which helped to add the power. The depth and power was just developing towards the end of that period but, it was still less evident at the time. It was also true that much of the material was still sung in that soft, romantic - right up close to the mike - style, so the opportunity to stretch the voice and explore its reaches may have not existed.

In 1953, the earliest Capitol recordings, such as "My Lean Baby" were not too different in vocal sound to the last recordings with Columbia. With but a very few exceptions, however, even then, the style was changing. By the time Frank Recorded "I've Got The World On A String" that style change was complete and the voice was now harder, richer sounding and much stronger.

I just do not know what it was or how he did it, but the singing took on a whole different sound and style at that time. It could have been the chnage in orchestration - but in my opinion that was part of Frank's own redesign of his style. And this does not just apply to swinging style that Frank was then starting to adopt for his up tempo work. It also applied to the ballads. Look at "In The Wee Small Hours" and see how he had changed his whole singing style, his enunciation and pronounciation, completely from what it was all but a couple of years earlier. Cast the mind back to Frank's style and sound for his Columbia recordings of "I'm a Fool To Want You" and his pronouncement of the word "you" or even, more specifically, "This Love Of Mine and then look at the change in style to the torch songs of "In The wee Small Hours"album. The whole vocal reading is totally different. It could have been a different singer.

With the new Capitol Sinatra style evolving, there was, I think, a noticeable watershed in 1957/1958. At that time the Sinatra voice, in my view, had reached a peak. At this point his voice was at its richest, smoothest and most versatile. There was still some of the lightness of the early years coupled with a richness and strength and an absolute mastery of phrasing and breath control never before or since achieved by any other vocalist in my opinion. Look at and listen to the beautiful performances of the songs on the "Close To You Album" like "With Every Breath I Take" or those on the "Where Are You" album like "The Night We Called It A Day" and compare those songs with some of the Columbia recordings - there is a big difference. Listen also to the songs from "Only The Lonely" like "Goodbye" or "Ebb Tide" of "Gone With the Wind" or "The Blues In The Night" - they are unbeatable in quality of voice, phrasing and breath control.

The 1956 "Songs For Swinging Lovers" evidenced a much richer and more swingy style which was kept and worked on from then on. That album was such a trend setter that some of the recordings from that LP like "I've Got You Under My Skin" remained the trade-mark Sinatra recordings for the rest of Frank's musical career. The Sinatra voice then became stronger and deeper for the later "Come Fly with Me", Come Dance With Me and the other swinging capitol recordings. But they were all recogniseable as Sinatra's Capitol recordings.

Later in 1960, even the first Reprise album, "Ring A Ding Ding" evidenced a change in style and a further change in voice. The voice was still rich, smooth and powerful but it was somehow not the same as that on the Capitol recordings. The voice and the style and the man had matured and the next few albums such as "I Reember Tommy", "Sinatra & Strings", "All Alone" and "The Concert Sinatra" all beautifully evidenced this deliberate change.
The voice was still in great shape, but it was clearly differently sounding to that of the Capitol recordings. Even if you listen to "Nice 'N Easy" or "The Point Of No Return" which were recorded around the same time as one or two of the early Reprise albums, the voice and style is clearly Capitol, while the Reprise recordings are clearly part of the Reprise Sinatra.

To be continued..................

[Edwin]

This is a great thread with excellent posts from the members above and, I hope, from many more of you to follow.

Frank Sinatra continued to learn, evolve, grow and age from the 30's to the 90's, all making differences in how he sounded as did his choice of material and the changes in music. He did not stand still.

The most noticeable change to me was in the early '50's. There were all the wonderful Stordahl arranged ballads, then, when his career was at a low ebb, he recorded "Birth of the Blues" in June, 1952. This was a new and different Sinatra sound - grown up Frank Sinatra, no more Frankie. Sinatra with hormones and he was letting everbody know. There were some other indications around that time as well including Azure Te, Why Try to Change Me Now, even Bim Bam Baby and, a few months later, his first work with Riddle - "I've Got the World on a String."

The first signal, though, is "Birth of the Blues." There had never been anything llike it. As I've posted on this forum previously, the Columbia Records management actually heard that recording and still let him get away. It turned out for the best because if he'd stayed with Columbia, there would have been no Sinatra and Riddle.

Moving along, he was no "one trick pony" at anytime in his career. Listen to "New York, New York" and "It's Sunday," same guy, same period (about 3 years apart). Sinatra-Jobim and "That's Life" (a few months apart).

I could go on and on, but the early 50's and "Birth of the Blues' heralded the greatest change and one that was permanent. It's around the time, to paraphrase something he said later, "I changed my clothes, my arrangers and my record company." And that ain't all.

Ed S.

[Ronald Sarbo]

Rick: The reasons for his fall from popularity in the early 50s would be a whole other discussion but he was at odds with Mitch Miller over novelty,gimmick records. He did record with other arrangers,i.e. Hugo Winterhalter, but his loyalty to Axel kept his sound from radically changing. Capitol had to force the issue in 1953 but as Axel went to work for Eddie Fisher he became unavailable anyway.The decision to sing with a beat had occured to him as early as 1949 with Sing & Dance album but he had hits with 5 Minutes More and Saturday Night and the Coffee Song previously.The shifts in popular music made him shift to a more rhythmic style and the public had to catch up with him.I don't think they were following his later Columbia recordings and didn't begin to take notice until From Here To Eternity when the new Sinatra re-emerged on Capitol.

[Ronald Sarbo]

His third voice would have to be when he came out of retirement in 1973. That inactivity had made him rusty is evident on his comeback album but as time went on and he was singing with regularity he improved.

[George Bellefon]

Voice numbe one --- Columbia
Voice number two -- early Capitol
Voice number 3 ( and for me the earthiest) late Capitol, all Reprise

Now although I really came to love the raspiness of the later years, there isn't anything ( even the RCA time with Dorsey) that I didn't like.

This might not be for physical reasons, but I believe that when Frank S went to Reprise, his own label, he became much more uninhibited in his singing. The up tempo stuff was much better, with more life, in my opinion. Gone were the days of 'sweet singing' in the Columbia days. A lot of living in between. I think the Capitol years were very good, indeed, with some truly classic Sinatra recordings. But, to me, it's like he got to Reprise, un loosened his tie, breathed a sigh of relief and just went for it.
I own LPs from all the eras, and with a couple of exceptions, the Reprise years were his finest.
John

[Edwin]

Good question. It is probably true of all good singers. Ella was always great, but hit her peak from the mid-50's through the mid to late 60's when she cut out the novelties and went with Verve, the songbooks and other great albums such as "Like Someone in Love" and "Whisper Not." Listen to her with Chick Webb and then hear the songbook Ella, for example. Much later in the '80's when her health declined, the ideas, taste and musicality stayed till the end, but the physical ability was no longer there. I think of a double album of Jobim songs she made. What came out was painful to hear although one could tell that she knew what needed to be done, but could no longer bring it forth.

Torme grew and evolved tremendously from the early velvet fog days to the Marty Paich Dektette period and on to where he became a different kind of saloon singer. I prefer the Bethlehem-Verve period to the later Concord period. The voice was always great, but he seemed to be having more fun in the 50's and 60's while being a perfectionist at the same time. As he grew older, he was still fine, even more elegant, but sang as if he was taking himself more seriously.

Dick Haymes, with his 40's golden pure baritone was always good to listen to, but after some hard knocks, he began sounding like a singer who has lived. His 2 mid-fifties Capitol albums, Rain or Shine and Moondreams, are brilliant and moving as are some of his 60's and 70's recordings. An album from about '77 called "Keep it Simple" comes to mind. And on a British album from '69, he recorded the definitive version of "My Foolish Heart" plus a wonderful song that he wrote called "Did We Dance."

Tony Bennett has been great since he began. His first album with Chuck Wayne is as good or better than any album he ever made. I like him best from about '58-'68 when he "had voice to burn." I put that in quotes because it's a comment Nelson Riddle made about Frank Sinatra concerning, I think, Frank's Capitol recording of "Last Night When We Were Young."

Crosby's best singing was early, before he became the superstar icon. In the early 30's, he sang with a passion, power and feel for jazz that he dropped later in favor of the laid back, easy going Kraft Music Hall Crosby of his mega star days. Some of those early arrangements are a bit corny, but at the same time, have some fine jazz solo's. I refer to such as "Street of Dreams," "Dancing in the Dark," "Brother Can You Spare a Dime" and his first recording of "Home on the Range" among many others.

Ed S.

[Ronald Sarbo]

Let us also remember his great speaking voice and how it evolved from his early broadcasts thru his work in films. His enunciation and declamatory skill also improved with his acting skills. As a singer he was always sensitive to timbre,timing,pulse and when to retard a phrase and when to carry it over.This may account for musical people being great actors i.e, Crosby, Streisand,Doris Day, Dean etc. Remember that Sammy who was a great impressionist always said no one could do Sinatra.

[Fred F]

I agree with the premis that voices evolve over years, rather than change abruptly. So it's hard to pinpoint one particular album which marked a change. What I want to say is that each period reflected his genius, even the much later years.

To use a baseball analogy, he became a pitcher, rather than a thrower, in his later years. As with the older baseball pitcher, he lost a inch or so off his fastball, so he adapted, and became a better singer in the process. It wasn't effortless anymore, so he made effort. In the later years, you can hear him cutting of a note abruptly, here and there, to sort of save his breath for the next big note. But that technique just made the song sound crisper and sharper.

And there's simply no question that is experience and wisdom came out in the songs in the later years. When his voice strains in "You Will Be My Music" in 1973 as he sings: "And I'm afraid, as time goes by, that someday soon you'll go away"....you feel and hear the pain in his voice.

My last point... I enjoy the later music more than the earlier (though the earlier stuff is great too). The huskier, richer, voice lends itself so well to these mostly reflective, wistful songs.