>"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.
It will be a great thing. Musicians will continuously find themselves
having to sing for their supper. They will be required to stay
starve. No more retiring on your one hit wonder.
