"Flinstoneyerfired" <mmurph@onlink.net> wrote in a message
>> 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.
We're having this entire discussion over Zappa's music being crap or not,
sucking or not, genius or not... and you don't think it's as controversial
now as then? Perhaps you are right. There is still controversy, by not in
the same way there was then, nor on the same topics.
> There's a hell of a lot of stuff on Youtube, isn't there?
I think there's probably a hell off a lot of just about anything you can
imagine on Youtube. I have to wonder what it would be like listening to
Zappa now for the first time. It would seem much of it, out of its original
context of the times and society, would come across very differently.
>> 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 people here are talking
> about.
I don't think so either, thus my question. Here, the topic is just,
originally, was he overrated, and then, did his work "suck". I think it
would be disappointing to Frank that his message was lost and the
controversy had moved to an area I don't think concerned him much.
>> 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?
Yes. Maybe a bad analogy, but, the Millennium Star diamond is, possibly, the
most valuable in the world. There may be another diamond worth billions of
dollars, still buried deep within the earth. Buried there within the earth,
it has zero value. Similarly, music which is never known cannot have value
in any way.
> Have you heard ever piece of music that Mozart has written?
Yes. My wife and I are large supporters of a local symphony orchestra.
> If not, does this mean that the music isn't valid or valuable?
I get your point. Does music that *I* haven't heard lack value? Certainly.
If I have not heard it, it cannot have value to me. For example, one way in
which music may have value to me would be in teaching me something with
would further my own musical abilities. If I have not heard it, it is
impossible it would do that.
Does music that no one has heard lack value. Of course, like the still
buried diamond, it has to be shared to have value. Obviously, it would have
to have been heard by at least one person - the person who wrote it, so, it
could have value to that person, but, it cannot contribute in any greater
sense unless and until it is known.
> How do we know that Zappa wouldn't have become a
> composer and his works left for someone to discover
> decades later?
How is that relevant?
Might we similarly ask how we know Zappa might not have found a cure for
cancer if he had devoted himself to that field rather than music?
> Popular success does not mean music has any kind of resonance
> necessary to last even five years in someone's memory.
Being popular may not be the measure of relevance, but, relevance would
certainly hinge on some degree of popularity (going back to a buried diamond
cannot have value).
>>> 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.
I'm sure I risk incurring some wrath here in saying this, but I was never
much of a Beatles fan. I thought they were overrated. I especially thought
that of John Lennon.I think much of their success and acclaim was the result
of a right place, right time situation.
That isn't to say I didn't like a lot of their music. It tends more towards
something that is, again, fodder for another topic - I have a hard time
enjoying music which is created or performed by some for whom I have a
personal dislike. I don't think I could quantify why I like some people or
why I dislike others... but, some people just strike me the wrong way
somehow, and from that point, I have a dislike for them. Hearing their music
only reminds me of that dislike. Perhaps that isn't correct or fair or
whatever you want to call it, but it is how I am.
The same became true of Zappa. I had been somewhat of a Zappa fan for a
period of time, then, at some point, for some reason, perhaps something he
said in an interview, made me decide I didn't like him personally. Maybe it
was just that I quit using illicit drugs and saw him in a different light...
don't know.
There is no doubt that many things seemed different, maybe "better", when
stoned or tripping. I could listen to The Doors forever while tripping. The
song "The End" is about that long. Hearing it now, I think "Oh my god, this
is so extremely lame & boring." Similarly, I found Pink Floyd, Cheech &
Chong and other various artists, much more interesting when I was stoned.
Floyd still rocks, Cheech & Chong are still funny... just not the same as
they did back then.
>> 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!
On the flip side, there is some really, really, *really* bad stuff out
there. Some people seem so extremely tone deaf, they have no concept how bad
their stuff sucks. I am often reminded of the Blues Traveler song
"Runaround", where he is essentially complaining about people telling him
something he did was good, just because they were his friend, rather than
giving him honest feedback on which he could improve.
>> 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.
Interesting as well, there are some relatively unknown artists that are
making decent money (tall 6 figures) from 99 cent downloads of their music.
There was an article on this topic recently in one of the Chicago papers.
They offered a few examples, including on singer/songwriter who was pulling
in $200,000 a year, just from 99 cent downloads (and he's only getting a
percentage of that - 75 cents maybe).
Not too shabby.
>> 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.
Equally disturbing is the trend I see among some teens & twenty-somethings
where they have heard about the 60's and they try to pretend they are doing
something similar. In the 60's, most "hippies" were fairly well educated on
the topics they were protesting. Too many "kids" now, latch onto a slogan
they think makes them a radical, and cannot intelligently discuss even the
basics of the topic.
>>> 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?
How much? Enough. ;-)
>> 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.
Isn't it? How about the message being "This is what we've become" (as a
society)? Isn't the simple fact that she became hugely popular a message in
itself?
>>> 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 the Jonas brothers.
Which would seem to tell you something, eh?
