Yes, and the fragment makes no more sense in context. The full story is, I read, notable for style, in some way that fails to be very current; I'm sure that it was a big change from Cronkite. However, it meanders more slowly than a lazy river, and seems to have been padded by anecdote to disguise the author's failure to actually interview Sinatra. But, I could be mistaken, so I may as well ask about why other people consider this significant.

I very much appreciate your response, and I'm sure I hope my reasons for asking a question may meet with your approval.

>Yes, and the fragment makes no more sense in context.

What sense should it make? It's not some part of the plot in an epic saga, it's a random casual exchange between two patrons at a bar. The idea wasn't to mean something, but just to convey a part of Sinatra's personality -- which it does well.

>The full story is, I read, notable for style, in some way that fails to be very current; I'm sure that it was a big change from Cronkite.

The subject matter and wording might not be "current", 50 years on, but this work (and others, e.g. Tom Wolfe, and the like) is part of the basis of modern long form writing, and has many traits that modern journalists use.

Besides, if one is interested in learning about Sinatra, the person, and how thing were with his entourage, this story remains gold.