Justin-Sinatra HATE MAIL

For the dozens of people who called and emailed yesterday, berating me for my essay comparing Timberlake and Sinatra, you'll be happy to know my computer's hard drive exploded while reviewing JT's show last night. I still managed to get a review into the paper, but it's a little rough. Well done, naysayers. Well done.

Anyway, here's some select hate mail regarding yesterday's story...

****
I have always liked your columns and reviews, but the comparison of Justin Timberlake to Frank Sinatra was the worst thing you have ever written. Mr. Timberlake’s talent is microscopic compared to Frank’s talent. What a bad idea the entire piece was, and a waste of paper too. There is no comparison to be made.

Unfortunately, I will not be able to read any more of your writings because that was such an adolescent piece of journalistic crap. Sorry to break the truth to you, but I’m sure you’ll be hearing that from everyone about that article.

Good Luck, and try to use your brain next time.

****
Sean, I respect your knowledge of music, so I'm going to -- with difficulty --get past the fact that you compared Justin Timberlake to Frank Sinatra. That's like comparing The Rock to Robert Dinero as actors. JT may be the biggest star around, but Duran Duran was once the biggest band in the world. JT can't sing, and his 'bumpin' boogie ttrack as you call it doesn't come from him at all, it comes from his producer Timbland. The guy defines the word 'mediocre, and that's being kind.

****
You do good work as a rule but todays column??? Whatever were you thinking? Justin and the chairman??? You are doubtless young but not everything can be attributed to immaturity. There is no one comparable to Frank...likely there will not be anyone in this era so regain your perspective and we'll overlook this one.

****
The comparison is a bit preposterous, maybe even blasphemous ... but I love that you have the balls to make the case. Nice work.

Comments

[sparky]

Sean,

Correct me if I am wrong, which I know you will, but what you were trying to say is at this point in their careers they are following the same path. Singers who are trying to get into acting and one day JT may be as adept at doing both as Frank was. JT doesn't have the body of work that Frank did but that work be pretty tough since JT is very young while Frank did it for what 60 some years. Give JT time and he may be this generations Frank, but not quite yet.

At least you made us think, nice work.

[Guy]

Robert Dinero? Never heard of him.

"Fan" is short for "fanatic"; the latter more aptly describes most of those who responded to your piece. Only fans of untalented American Idol rejects complain louded.

I think you missed another glaring difference in your piece -- one that could support the thesis that JT might eventually be more talented than Sinatra. After all, Sinatra for all intents and purposes was just an interpreter of songs. JT writes his own music. The best singer-songwriters are always more talented than singers -- it's like comparing a great hitter to a five-tool player. No one would argue that Tony Gwynn is better than Willie Mays, just like no one could argue that Sinatra is more talented than Springsteen, Dylan and, perhaps 30 years from now, JT.

[Sean Daly]

You know what, Sparky? At this point, and with calls and emails still coming in, I'm gonna let the piece speak for itself. Besides, Sinatra might have ties down here, and I don't want to find a manatee head in my bed.