On Jul 6, 5:39 pm, "John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Flinstoneyerfired" <mmu...@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?
I don't think that Zappa's work can be considered as controversial now
as it was back then. Some people thought he was the Antichrist. I
think if we were to rely on his music being controversial at this
time, we wouldn't be discussing it- it might be akin to a parlour
trick- the shock wears off and we forget. Zappa's music may be a
touchstone for many- however, do we know how many people are just
getting into it, having never heard it before. There's a hell of a lot
of stuff on Youtube, isn't there?
>
> Zappa had a pretty clear message... is it a negative that people are more
> apt to discuss the controversy rather than the message?
I think that the controversy (potty mouth, antiestablishmentarianism,
etc.) only involved those who may have missed the sixties, but
certainly cared about the way that society seemed to be eroding around
them in the seventies. There was a lot of uncertainty in the seventies
and a lot of fear. I think that he became the bogeyman to a lot of
people. I'm not so sure that this is what poeple here are talking
about.
>
> >> 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?
There are many musicians you have never heard of making the absolute
best music you've ever heard. Does the fact that you'll never hear it
make it any less valid or valuable? Have you heard ever piece of music
that Mozart has written? If not, does this mean that the music isn't
valid or valuable? How do we know that Zappa wouldn't have become a
composer and his works left for someone to discover decades later?
Popular success does not mean music has any kind of resonance
necessary to last even five years in someone's memory.
>
> > 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?
I don't pretend to know the answer, but I could posit a theory: The
Beatles' music was well-written, was a cultural statement of the time
it was created in, and was revolutionary in the way it was produced.
Grand Funk Railroad did not produce music that did that as
effectively.
>
> > 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.
Absolutely true, but it's great that there is always something to
check out. The quality of music people are able to make on their own
is just phenomenal. It really is impossible to keep up!
>
> 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.
I think that, in the long run, it's a good thing. It makes it a
listener's market. However, it seems that being a professional
musician could possibly be a thing of the past. I think that those who
thrive will be those who demonstrate the most creative adaptation of
new technology- we're seeing evidence of that now with Radiohead and
NIN.
>
> >> 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.
There's nothing at all wrong with that- strictly a personal choice
that I respect.
>
> 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.
Yes- there really has been a betrayal of those kinds of values and it
is sickening to see other embrace these ideals as if they were the
pinnacle of human achievement. However, we're all paying for it and
we've only begun to pay for it. Now, the cynicism exists on the home
team- global warming is just a lot of hype, gun laws are all about
taking away the rights everyone is entitled to, let's wipe out the
terrorist threat before they get us- anything to protect the way we
continue to live. That message is more relevant now than it ever was
then.
>
> > 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.
Yes, but how much- a megastar like Britney or a modest one like Amy
Grant?
>
> >> 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.
Nope, don't buy it- think of the word "substance". What message is
Britney trying to convey other than she's sex on a stick? Is that
really a message that has some kind of social import? Is it congruent
with reality? Let's see, she's been to rehab, had a few well-
publicized freak outs, is now currently with a photographer- hmm...
maybe it's the record companies who have the message "Buy this crap
now.. it's hip, it's fresh, it's happenin". Pffffffffttt- that really
isn't a message.
>
> >> 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?
More in the past, since sex symbols now constitute the majority of
music superstars. That just tells us that a twelve year old girl has
the prepubescent hots for th Jonas brothers.
Mike
