On Jul 6, 7:24 am, Renli <oliver.rich...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 6, 4:05 pm, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Renli wrote:
> > > On Jul 6, 10:22 am, Les Cargill <lcarg...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> > >> For example, I don't understand the game cricket. And I will
> > >> say "I don't understand cricket" if forced to comment on it. And
> > >> that is as far as it goes. If you'd said "I don't get it", I'd a'
> > >> chuckled - been there, done that. That's a perfectly reasonable
> > >> response.
>
> > > Oh? If I asked you to come play cricket with me this sunday, I take it
> > > you would likely decline. When pressed, I don't think the reason would
> > > be that you didn't want to play because you didn't understand it. Why
> > > aren't you on a cricket team? Why does your lifestyle not revolve
> > > around cricket? The truth is not because you've never tried it or you
> > > don't understand it. You don't play cricket regularly because you are
> > > not attracted to it. You simply don't like it.
>
> > I don't know anything about cricket.
>
> > See how this works? It's very simple.
>
> > <snip>
>
> > --
> > Les Cargill
>
> Yes Les - I know how it works. You can't see it.
>
> Why don't you go try some cricket then and tell us if you like it or
> not? Yes, this is a completely different question: I'm asking you to
> go learn something about it - go watch a cricket video. Now tell us if
> it appeals to you.
>
> I am willing to bet real money that not only does it not appeal to
> you, that you find you don't like it. Not even a little bit.
>
> That's how humans work, Les. All this subjectivity crap is low-
> grade...
>
> -
It can work that way- another way it can work is that you were brought
up in a culture that considers playing cricket a viable sport. In this
way, you may have played cricket in school and were thought of as a
good player- hence, you still play it. It may not work quite like that
if you were brought up in a culture that considers hockey or football
a viable sport.
The same can be said for music- maybe you hung with buddies who spun
some Zappa LPs and got stoned to them. You are far more likely to have
liked Zappa at that time, because your peers did. You may either still
spin them and feel some nostalgia, appreciate the music as the work of
a genius, think that "the drugs did it", that the music was crap that
stoners listened to, think that it's passe, or any other outcome you
can possibly think of.
However, if you listen to Zappa's work critically, what you think of
his stuff is totally up to you. You may think it's utter crap, you may
think it's genius, you may think it's humourous or stupid, etc. In a
case like Zappa's music (as with any other music, perhaps) it helps to
do some reading so you can get a kind of glimpse as to where he may
have been coming from.
I think Zappa will loom large as an important musical figure as
history begins (has begun already!) to write the book on Zappa. He
embodies the cynicism and rejection of a generation who grew up to
become disillusioned with the idealism present in the sixties. The
obtuse way that he expressed his frustration with mainstream society
in his music alienated and confused a lot of people.
That we are talking about his music in a passionate way tends to lend
credibility to his work- if the music wasn't substantial, there would
be nothing to discuss.
Mike
