There was so much ambivalence in everything about the show, including Tony and our reaction to him, than anything I've ever seen on TV before. He's a murderous scumbag, he's a charmer; he's cold and ruthless, he's sentimental and tender; he's sexy, he's repulsive; etc. We must have been watching different shows.
[WS:] I did not see the show so obviously I cannot comment on its merits or demerits, but I will voice my opinion anyway :).
But more seriously - I do not understand why the presence of a well developed character (assuming your claim is true) - which normally would be a prerequisite of any literary work save the most trashy kitsch - is suddenly causing so much rave about the Sopranos. I mean, virtually every decent novel or film has characters with considerable depth and complexity, yet that hardly earns that novel or film the attention that Sopranos are getting.
That yields some validity to Brian's claim that the real reason of that attention is the identification with the characters rather than the aesthetic value of the show. Many people have gangster fantasies (just like they have sex fantasies) and that is what makes shows reenacting those fantasies popular, regardless of any aesthetic merits (or lack thereof) of the show. Look at porn - most of it is aesthetic kitsch, but that is not their appeal. Their appeal lies in the reenactment of the audience fantasies. Could it be the case of the Sopranos as well?
Wojtek