On Jul 6, 2:53 pm, "John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Flinstoneyerfired" <mmu...@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.
There's a few different ways to approach that question. What I meant
by substantial is that the music seems to have had resonance with
people in some way- intellectually or emotionally. The man has been
dead since 1993- he's had very little press (mind you the Zappa does
Zappa tour has had an impact)- why are we talking about a man whose
musical peak may have occurred some time in the seventies? Simply
because there's something there to talk about, don't you think? Much
different than Amy Winehouse- she has yet to make her mark- she's good
copy/press fodder. We all like to see a good car wreck.
>
> 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...?
Are you serious? I suppose that in the most basic way, you're right.
If FZ hadn't achieved a certain level of popularity, we wouldn't be
talking about this. I think that that could be debated, frankly- the
question essentially becomes "If FZ hadn't achieved a level of success/
popularity, would his music have seen the light of day or would it
still have validity or value?" It's an interesting question, but since
we can't rewrite history, it may be a pointless one. Maybe another way
to answer this is to ask another question "Why do we discuss the music
of the Beatles" "Why don't we discuss the music of Grand Funk Railroad
with the same kind of passion"
In terms of "good music"- I think history tends to sort out what is
"important" and what isn't. My answer would be "all of the above" that
you stated.
>
> 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.
Yes- most definitely- the most talented guys in the world often get no
recognition at all, and history often allows us a narrow scope with
which to view the past. I actually think that the SP album was well-
played by the musicians that played on it.
>
> 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.
Do you think that FZ was successful in communicating with other like-
minded individuals? Did he succeed in his goal of at least providing
some commentary about the world he lived in and the viewpoint of a
group of individuals who may not have felt any ownership in the social
or political agenda of he day? Loaded questions to be sure, but I
think you demonstrate a pretty good understanding of FZ's music and
I'm wondering what is it about that you would find objectionable.
> 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.
I think that substance does not equal popularity- especially these
days- IMHO, it is the antithesis of popularity.
>
> To put this in another light, why was Britney Spear substantial (popular)?
Marketing, music biz muscle, T&A- I don't consider her music to be
substantial but that is also a matter of debate, I think.
>
> Perhaps in discussing any given artist, it is equally important to discuss
> their fans.
Sometimes the fans of an artist tell us everything we need to know
about the music.
Mike
