"Flinstoneyerfired" <mmurph@onlink.net> wrote in a message
> 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.
There is no doubt Zappa intended, on many occasions, to create controversy.
Do we discuss him 30 years later because his work was "substantial", or
because it was controversial? Does the answer to that question matter, or
does it only matter that we do discuss him?
Zappa had a pretty clear message... is it a negative that people are more
apt to discuss the controversy rather than the message?
>> 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?
Yes. ... in the context we are simply having a discussion here.
> 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?"
How could it have validity or value if it was unknown?
> It's an interesting question, but since we can't rewrite history,
> it may be a pointless one.
Perhaps. But then, it's just Usenet and we're just talking here.
> 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?"
I'd prefer to give that some more thought before answering. In the mean
time, how would you answer that question?
> 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.
Which is one of the reasons I so much love the internet, and Usenet. Music
has moved into a new era where there isn't a small handful of people who
decide what we will hear. One has access to every type of music available
from every artist who chooses to put his/her stuff out there. There's almost
a downside to that, in that it has grown so large, one may miss something
for simple lack of clicking on a single link among the millions available.
Via Usenet, I found many artists, new and old, I hadn't hear before.
Internet sites such as Pandora open up the world of music beyond our
previously limited scope. On one hand, this is a great opportunity for
artists to be heard. On the other, it almost assures the days of
mulit-million dollar earnings as a musician are gone, which may or may not
be a bad thing.
>> 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?
Definitely.
> 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?
Most assuredly. I even believe by creating controversy, he was very
successful in getting that message to a large group of people who were not
like minded. One great example is when a very young Frank Zappa got Steve
Allen to jam along with him on a couple of bicycles. Steve obviously thinks
Frank is very "weird", yet, he had him on the show and gave him a forum.
Years later, Zappa was a fairly regular and rather respected guest of Johnny
Carson on the Tonight Show.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eCCGeHz06U4
> 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.
Objectionable? I wouldn't say there's anything. I just don't find it
enjoyable to listen to. There was a time when his message spoke to me, but
that time is gone. It would require a another tangent to explain why.
In brief - that message (the overall all message of the late 60's, early
70's - anti-war, anti-corporation, anti-greed, etc.) has proven to be, for
the most part, in most cases, a lie. The people who spread that message, the
people who supported that message, are now the "suits" and politicians. They
are doing the very things they spoke against at one point. To be clear, not
*all* of them - some of them, probably most of them.
> I think that substance does not equal popularity- especially these
> days- IMHO, it is the antithesis of popularity.
A message unheard is no message at all. Popularity is required.
>> 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.
In this case, you'd have to agree with my idea that substantial and popular
go hand in hand. In pondering this a bit further, perhaps it would be true
that not all popular music would be substantial, but all substantial music
would need to be popular.
>> 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.
I would think that would be true at all times, wouldn't it?
