Few on this board would argue with Rolling Stone’s contention that “the modern era of popular music begins with Louis Armstrong.” He comes in at number 39. Surely, Bing deserves the spot right beside him, at the very least.
 
Then, at number 19, “the breath control, the careful study of every lyric, the relentless search for vocal perfection - Sinatra was a titan behind the microphone before he was anything.” True…perhaps…yet to my ears Sinatra’s attributes are often greatly over-hyped…the relaxed Crosby delivery, more meaningful and effective.
 
As David points out, these kinds of lists are often subjective, merely highlighting the ignorance of those who put them together. Or is there a ‘conspiracy’ to deny Bing’s achievements, to simply write him out of entertainment history…the relaxed Crosby delivery just not cutting it in today’s frenzied, social media driven, world. Just a thought…

Last edited by Rod Poynter (05/1/2023 12:41 am)

The author of this article states the facts of why Crosby should be included.

https://www.westernstandard.news/opinion/krayden-never-mind-celine-dion-why-isnt-bing-crosby-on-this-rolling-stone-list/article_ddc4b1ea-8fc9-11ed-84d4-0b61ce759304.html

 

I think David Krayden's article neatly sums up what we all feel about Bing's inexplicable neglect today, but I agree with Ron that he misses an essential point about Bing's unsurpassed influence on popular singing in the 20th century. 

I have always thought that one of the most significant examples of this sincerest form of flattery is that of Al Jolson, whose style of singing Bing single-handedly rendered obsolete, but who affected numerous Crosby vocal mannerisms in his later years.

Dean Martin summed it up nicely in his tribute at the time of Bing's death. 'Any singer who approaches a microphone has to pass through Bing Crosby's shadow first'.

Archiefit wrote:

Rolling Stone hasn't been worth reading for 30 years.  Why bother flattering them with attention. 
As for Al Jolson, his style was certainly more loud and brash and his voice higher when he started out.  But when he came back from his self-imposed exile from radio he had gone thru a lung removing operation from a disease he caught entertaining troops in WWII.  His voice had now deepened significantly.  

It's this '40's period of Al Jolson singing that I really much prefer over his earlier in your face manic high singing.   His singing changed due simply to his now deeper voice and also being older he seemed to have mellowed a bit in his style.  Was this all due to Bing?  I don't think so, maybe he was encouraged by Bing's style in the '40's and gave him confidence to return to radio.  In fact, even Bing has admitted Al was a great influence on his style that he would adopt in his career.   But let's face it, all singers influence other singers to some extent.  
 

There have been plenty of people who have commented on Rolling Stone having gone down hill and sharing your view, but I think the problem is Rolling Stone still generates a lot of buzz with lists like this and to ignore such a blatantly stupid omission just allows that omission to take on some air of legitimacy. 

If someone is going to compile a list like this, they should be willing to defend that list and justify the inclusion or exclusion of someone from the list.  

 

Rod referred to the 'frenzied, social media driven world' we live in which has little time for singers such as Bing. I'm a fellow-countryman (should I write person?) of Rod and am reminded of that new world when I watch the Australian Open tennis matches as players grunt and grimace (and worse) as they win or lose points.(I'm old enough to remember Ken Rosewall and Vic Seixas.) Except for Christmas and our community radio stations, Bing seems to be forgotten by our major media although The Sydney Morning Herald published a 'Zits' cartoon strip on 19 December on the subject of Christmas music which finished with the punch line' A month of Bing Crosby was enough'. I presume the strip originated in the USA.