>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.
1910 Fruitgum Company fans take note. 8-)
