"RichL" <rpleavitt@yahoo.com> wrote in a message
> 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.
Which brings up another excellent topic for another thread...
There are some very talented musicians who never manage to achieve
popularity. There are some very untalented musicians who have achieved huge
levels of popularity. Why?
And yet another cool topic for discussion...
The concept of members of a band coming together to form a whole that is
larger than the sum of its parts. Consider a very talented musician - we can
use Slash as an example. In Guns & Roses, he managed a high level of success
and created music that will likely be considered some of the best among
those who like rock music. In later projects, that same talent did not lead
to similar results, in some cases, bombing terribly. What is the "magic"
that occurs among any given group of musicians which allows them to come
together in a way in which their creativity seems to be enhanced? On what
basis might a musician choose with whom he/she works in order to find this
"thing"?
Interestingly (to me, at least), is the fact that you can put together a
group of "superstars", and they, sometimes, cannot manage to make that magic
happen.
Anyway... back to our point of this thread...
>> 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).
True. I would add, having something to say is another factor in the
equation, but it's tied with whether or not that message speaks to anyone
else, in terms of determining popularity.
Some of Zappa's success would obviously be tied to the fact that his message
was relevant to a significant group of people at a given point in time. 30
or so years later, someone hearing that same message for the first time
might not readily relate to that same message because, to them, it may not
have the same relevance in relation to current society.
>> 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.
I don't, and I don't think I ever suggested I do.
> 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.
Whether on likes or dislikes Zappa's body of work, it would be difficult to
disagree he was an experimenter and his work covered a large body of styles.
> I think a mistake that you're making is focusing in on
> only one facet of Zappa. He's not one-dimensional.
The mistake here is only in your thinking my dislike of Zappa's music is
based on any single facet of his work.
Beyond that, more to the point of this particular thread, my initial
comments mentioned no dislike of Zappa, but rather, pointing out the
original poster was referencing comments Zappa made. It was clear to me,
based on some of the responses, some people hadn't bothered to watch the
entire video and had no concept of the basis for the original comments. I
have a low tolerance for ill informed arguments.Had the same comments been
made from a basis of knowledge, I wouldn't have said anything.
Even here, where the discussion has turned more civil ,you seem to be trying
to make assumptions about what I think or my basis for those thoughts. There
is no need to make assumptions - all you need do is ask.
>> 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"
Then, we need to understand why any given music or artist is considerable in
importance, value, degree, amount, or extent. "Extent" seems to clearly
indicate popularity, right?
> 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.
This speaks to my "Shit in a jar as art" comment. What counts as highly
creative? How is creativity measured? Is it simply doing what no one else
has thought to do? If so, someone shitting in a number of jars and arranging
them in a certain manner, having not been done before in the context of
sculpture or art, would be "highly creative". I chose this as an extreme,
real world example, because it is obviously controversial. Likewise, there
is and always has been some controversy to Zappa's work. The purpose of the
example is not to directly compare Zappa's work to shit in a jar as art, but
to compare the reality that how one views creative genius is not necessarily
the same as how others might view it. Additionally, an artist may choose to
create something with the knowledge it will be highly controversial as a
means of making his/her point, or attracting the greatest number of ears
and/or eyes, and of course, minds.
As noted in Zappa's comments, he created some of his music with this very
thought in mind. He said some of his music was intended to be annoying. I
think it is merely a semantics game to say it is incorrect he intended some
of his music to "suck". Creating "bad" music is certainly a legitimate
method of annoying, creating controversy, and attracting attention. It is a
method that has been used several times in the art community.
> Spears sold sex (didn't write her own material,
> couldn't sing without the aid of autotune, ....), i.e
>., she was *created*, not *creative*.
If sex sells and gets people's attention, who cares? Perhaps the better
answer would be that she had no message. ... but then, perhaps her message
was that sex sells. She was certainly "considerable in extent", right?
>> 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
> judgments 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).
Which is an incorrect analysis of my comments. Some posers wear designers
clothes. Some posers claim they "get" Zappa, and anyone who doesn't is
implied to be beneath them. Some posers wear designers clothes and claim to
be Zappa fans. Some posers do neither. Being a Zappa fan is not an
indication one is a poser. Being a poser is an indication of being a poser.
One of the clues is not that they say they "get it", but the further
implication that those who don't "get it" lack the intellect of the all
knowing poser.
We're doing very well in this discussion. Please do whatever you need to
understand the above paragraph so we can be done with it and continue with
relevant points.
> 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.
What millions of people think of a given artist has everything to do with an
artists musical legacy.
That Zappa created controversy is the guarantee he will continue to be
discussed for a very long time. I'm sure he would be very pleased to see
that. What would likely to displease him would be if the focus were only on
the controversy, while his message was lost.
