On Jul 6, 10:59 pm, "John P." <Jo...@nospam.com> wrote:
> "Flinstoneyerfired" <mmu...@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've gone looking for some stuff and haven't been able to find it- I
forget what-lol- you're right, though.
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.
I think the whole "get it/don't get it" scenario described by some is
more possible now than it was then- it now exists (for younger folk)
outside of the context that it once did.
>
> >> 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.
Well, I think that the controversy still exists as it did, but it's
somehow made more legitimate with the passage of time- more palatable.
>
> >> 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.
That really depends on how you view music. I say that it has value
since the person who wrote it was moved to write it. I know that this
is not always true, but people don't normally spend time creating
something that they think is crap, unless they're getting paid to make
a jingle or-lol- a Britney Spears song. The fact that it is unheard
does not mean it doesn't have value, IMHO. It may also have
therapeutic value to whoever wrote it.
>
> > 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.
Ah, yes, but there is maybe a reknown composer you haven't heard. Does
his music lack value? I say no, because other people value it. The
same goes for stuff I haven't heard- it doesn't lack value because you
haven't heard it! I know you don't think you are the arbiter of all
that is musical. I understand that you are saying that a person's
relationship with music is personal, but there is objective value
placed on it (usually historical, critical or popular).
>
> 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.
Can a piece of music have value if you are the only one who has heard
it? Can that have a benefit to others? I think so, especially if it
imparts a sensibility that is contemplative or infectious.
>
> > 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?
It was my attempt to step outside of the machine which is the music
industry. Rather than getting a recording contract, I mean. Rather far-
fetched.
>
> 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?
Actually, that's the point- we don't know what would have happened had
he not become popular- maybe he would have embraced Judaism and become
a rabbi.
>
> > 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).
Again, if you base that strictly on music that is within the
mainstream, that is true, sadly. What gives me pause about that idea
is that I have to ask myself of the music that is being created right
now, what will be remembered? It's kind of a crass way to look at it
that I find pretty revolting. The music in no way reflects popular
culture.
>
> >>> 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.
You think they're overrated, but you would agree that the music lives
on, right?
>
> 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.
I feel the same way about people who claim to like the (IMHO) garbage
that is being foisted off as music- autotuned, overproduced pablum
being spoon-fed to morons. That's MHO.
>
> 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.
I don't care what he was like as a person, to be honest. If you like a
wide variety of music, the music you like has it's share of assholes,
too as does mine.
>
> 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.
It took me a long time to be able to listen to music without drugs. I
listen to less psychedelic stuff and less really heavy stuff. Cheech
and Chong aren't the same straight.
>
> 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.
There's a lot of junk, yeah- but even that can teach or tell us
something.
>
> >> 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.
Yup, not bad at all.
>
> >> 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.
The revisionism is terrifying! The seventies being viewed as a great,
hip time to be alive- definitely doesn't jibe with my experience.
>
> >>> 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?
Yeah, but who's the one with the message? Not Britney! It's the record
company! People now buy whatever shit gets advertised and marketed the
most effective way. It renders any message irrelevant. the message is
"buy this shit".
>
> >>> 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?
It tells me that any music I make is about as relevant to the music
buying public as a 1954 DeSoto.
Mike
