>>2815695>he was good for his time>Not an argumentIt certainly is. And I'd even say that he's good outside of his time. But yes, context is vital, especially when it comes to art. TPA spoke to a very specific culture in wartime and post-war America that looked to the intimacy of crooning and upbeat swing modes that were in stark contrast to war. In many ways, the generic songs he sung were powerful *because* of how universal those themes were. As dull as you may find love songs and songs about the weather, that's what's real, and especially at that time, those songs being sung by a very talented vocalist in a sharp suit and hat is exactly what America needed to see and hear.
>Popularity =! qualityNowhere did I actually say this. I said he pioneered crooning, which he did.
>Recognizability =! qualityYou don't think so? How many of your favourite bands and artists, or hell, even the most 'important' artists of our time aren't unique in some way, or even totally idiosyncratic?
I did misinterpret arrangements, though, my bad. I thought you were assuming he wrote his music. Anyway, why are you so condescending literally all of the time? I'm pretty sure we have very similar taste in music, assuming you're the Swans/Godflesh guy. Shame you don't like The Smiths though, man.
