>>2815705>>2815729With regards to Swans, I would say that have a distinctive style despite the sheer versatility within their discography. The reformation records stand out hugely compared to most post-rock coming out in the 2010s, I'd very much say the baritone and heavy repitition is recognisable. I can't name any contemporary bands that sound like that. And if I did hear one, my first thought would be "This sounds like Swans." Going back to their early years, they still had a distinctive style even then. I'm aware they never considered themselves 'no wave', but they were still operating in that weird NYC melting pot alongside Mars, DNA, Lydia Lunch etc and lumped into that category, but in a blind test you would easily be able to pick out a song from Filth against one from that No New York compilation, which is a type of recognisability.
I see your point about recognisability as a bad thing and agree to some extent. But I don't think it's synonymous with a one-trick-pony kind of thing. I'd point to someone like Prurient who has ping-ponged between styles on his different projects like no one else, but is still very recognisable because he leaves a sonic signature that is unique to him. Even when White Eye Of Winter Watching came out, people speculated whether the Vatican Shadow track on there (the name's first appearance IIRC) was him.
Anyway to tie this back to Sinatra, his unique, characteristic voice and tone being instantly recognisable is, I think, a mark of quality. In any Rat Pack recording you'd be able to pick him out easily and alongside Dean Martin they both stood the test of time compared to other singers from that era.
