John P. <JohnP@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Flinstoneyerfired" <mmurph@onlink.net> wrote in a message
>
>> 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.
>
> That's an interesting point, with which I would agree. Upon
> reflecting your comments overall, and this particular point in
> detail, the word "substantial" jumps out at me. Substantial in what
> way? In another thread, the talents (or lack of) of Amy Winehouse is
> being discussed.
OK, now I think we're getting somewhere.
> On the one hand, that something provokes discussion would seem to
> indicate it must have some value, purpose or some other point of
> note. It would seem though, the only real point which invokes
> discussion, speaking in general terms, is popularity. To the point of
> Frank Zappa, we are discussing him because he achieved a level of
> popularity. The focus of the discussion seems to be a question of
> why. Was he popular because he created "good music" (a very
> subjective idea), or because his music was genius, or was it for his
> political and societal views, or...?
Popularity simply translates into sufficient awareness, so that when
someone starts a discussion a significant number of other posters can
intelligently add to the discussion. There are plenty of very famous
people who a substantial number of us would think are "bubble gum
fluff", and conversely plenty of excellent musicians that most of us
haven't heard of.
>
> I think all, or at least most, would agree, in the music industry,
> popularity doesn't necessarily suggest "quality" (however that might
> be defined). In terms of technical musical ability, there have been
> many popular artists with limited or no talent in that area. As an
> example, The Sex Pistols had never touched a musical instrument prior
> to forming the band. They were an "anti-band" and played
> "anti-music", so their lack of technical ability was not only not a
> hindrance, but the point to begin with.
Part of the point. The other part was that they thought they had
something significant to say (which they did, and which is partly why
they have stood the test of time).
>
> In many cases, Zappa seems to have worked from a similar position of
> "anti-music". His goal was to turn accepted views on their heads to
> make a statement and get his message out to other like minded people.
> In his comments in the linked video, he talks about making some
> tracks which he intended to be annoying, in an attempt to reach
> people who were not so like minded - those who had become apathetic
> to society.
Sure, that may have been his goal in some music, but I think you're
misunderstanding if you think that's all there was. Someone else posted
a clip of a very classically-oriented piece, where it was clear (to me,
at least) that "annoy" wasn't the point. It was very beautiful. I
think a mistake that you're making is focusing in on only one facet of
Zappa. He's not one-dimensional.
>
> So, getting back to where I started, I think it's important to
> discuss why a particular artist or song might be considered
> "substantial". We may better answer that question by simply asking
> why it is/was popular.
>
> To put this in another light, why was Britney Spear substantial
> (popular)?
As applied to music, the word "substantial" to me follows definition 5
from this dictionary entry:
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/substantial
"Considerable in importance, value, degree, amount, or extent"
Here's where Zappa passes the "substantial" test yet Spears fails (at
least in my opinion). Like it or not, Zappa was highly creative and
proficient in a number of genres. Spears sold sex (didn't write her own
material, couldn't sing without the aid of autotune, ....), i.e., she
was *created*, not *creative*.
>
> Perhaps in discussing any given artist, it is equally important to
> discuss their fans.
There's a danger here of falling into the trap of making value
judgements based on criteria that have nothing whatsoever to do with the
artist himself/herself and of making assumptions that cannot be
supported by factual information (i.e., Zappa fans wear designer
clothes).
Disclaimer: despite what you may think from earlier posts, I am
decidedly *not* a Zappa fan. It's not my thing. But I've realized that
*my* perception of a particular artist has nothing to do with that
artist's musical legacy.
