nUSEweb.com

>
> 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.
>
>