Zappa


Michael Stuart Kelly

Recommended Posts

Billy,

Welcome (I hope).

:)

One point in style here (which you have not crossed, but since you brought it up) is that the respect-for-other-posters bar is far, far higher here than from whence you came. This is on purpose and, despite a certain flexibility, I try to keep it that way. Matters can go negative and feisty, but when they do, if you stay on point and off the person, you will do well.

As to the disagreements with me you laid out, I will not discuss them in the terms you laid out. If you try to meet me halfway, at least try to understand what on earth I am talking about, then I'm game. I am not adverse to changing an opinion if things get properly honed and explained, and I expect that from anyone. (I don't care for preachers.)

I tend to do well when attitudes come from good will. I believe this is true of anyone of good will. When things turn into a pissing contest, I'll just mention what I know: me. Let's say I don't do so well, but I hold my own.

My personal opinion is that you should lay the thin-skin stuff aside and shut up and learn when you read something like what I laid out about mixing sound. I left gold on the ground and you walked right by it. (I actually do know what I am talking about and I can prove it.) You know, take the value and not the BS. Take the sound and not the attitude. But we all look at what we find important.

Anyway, barring what I mentioned to the contrary, I love your spirit. I do.

I prefer to listen more to your work before I make any further judgments about your sound. I admit that judging solely from a video of a live performance in a night club is not fair.

Here's something more positive. From what little I examined, warts and all, my opinion is that you do have talent and your band is tighter rhythm-wise than my initial comments suggested. At least you guys respond to each other.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 121
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

(snip)

I will also make an observation about the Objectivist movement that I find puzzling to say the least. Why is it that many Objectivists can't attend a social or intellectual function where there are people in attendance or lecturing that they don't like or even that they find morally lacking in some way? In many cases, if you feel that way, you should attend to make sure you have as much information as you can gather so that you can make a more accurate determination of your estimate of the person, or much more importantly, they may have something to say that is of value. One of the things I have admired very much about TAS over the years is that they have a commitment to having a diverse array of speakers.

Jim

I know you're aware, but just for the record the whole concept of "sanction" has developed a thyroid condition. Consider the experience of David Kelley (the infamous "Libertarian Supper Club" incident) which was the pretext for him being thrown out of the Orthodox Objectivist community. Objectivists get it pretty close to the source, frankly. Clearly, Peikoff was a major practitioner of this sort of behavior.

However, think back a little further to Rand herself. She would, in response to a question at a speech, announce that she wouldn't think of reading a book (but would comment on that book based on having read a review of that book or a quote from it). She would condemn Libertarians in the most scathing terms - in a way which would make it clear that one just ought not associate with Libertarians if they wanted to stay in Rand's good graces.

So, Objectivists have been engaging in some forms of "shunning" and avoiding exposure to ideas they believe they will disagree for a very long time - at least as long as the term "Objectivist" has been used in the Randian sense.

Bill P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My personal opinion is that you should lay the thin-skin stuff aside and shut up and learn when you read something like what I laid out about mixing sound.

Michael? Please pay attention. I may be a lights guy, but I have spent enough time around real sound guys from studios around the country, to roadside-stomps up & down two-lane roads, to Madison Square Garden and every arena in the country and most of its stadiums, to know what I'm talking about when I'm talking about a gig and a recording that you weren't even present for but that I put together.

Please pay attention, sir. This is not a "thin skin". I'm telling you about the facts: when you say something like "They tried to compensate for this with sheer volume,...", you don't know what you're talking about. We don't do that. For one thing, we play loud just in our nature. We don't have to do it to "compensate" for anything. But you don't know anything about our gear on that deck, what it sounded like in the room or through the front-end, you don't know anything about the camera that gathered that audio or its terrible little microphone, and you don't know anything about countless details about that recording.

I'm telling you the facts. You were wrong about that. Now, then...

One point in style here (which you have not crossed, but since you brought it up) is that the respect-for-other-posters bar is far, far higher here than from whence you came.

Thank you, but I will quite make up my own mind about that, starting right after I hit the "Add Reply" button on this post.

From what little I examined, warts and all, my opinion is that you do have talent and your band is tighter rhythm-wise than my initial comments suggested.

Well, thank you, sir. I should bloody hope so. In that video frame, there is about 150 years of rock music experience in those four souls. The drummer and the bass player have been a rhythm-section together off & on since they were thirteen years old, and they're my age, now: fifty-two.

I'm the weakest player on that deck. It's privilege for me to get to play with them.

Finally, then:

As to the disagreements with me you laid out, I will not discuss them in the terms you laid out. If you try to meet me halfway, at least try to understand what on earth I am talking about, then I'm game.

That's pretty amorphous, but I will tell you this: there will be no meeting halfway or anywhere else on the two points that I addressed in my first comment. None. I'm the one who's right.

Beyond all that, it's nice to meet you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of all of the people voicing opposition to Lindsay, you know that only you and Jordan Zimmerman even attended the event.

Heh.

Here we go again on that accuracy thing...

Michael

Fair enough in this case, Michael. Sometimes I should measure before I type. There may have been a few more here who publicly had something to say about this, Judith maybe?. The amount of threads I would have to cover to verify that would be staggering. I also have no way of knowing who voiced their opposition in private. I also know that Robert Bidinotto was vehemently against Lindsay's inclusion. There are also many reasons why people people may be unable to attend events.

Suffice it to say, I disagree with the statement that Chris (who I like very much) made. I think there were a fair amount of people at TAS who would have enjoyed Lindsay's presentations and made him feel welcome.

I will also make an observation about the Objectivist movement that I find puzzling to say the least. Why is it that many Objectivists can't attend a social or intellectual function where there are people in attendance or lecturing that they don't like or even that they find morally lacking in some way? In many cases, if you feel that way, you should attend to make sure you have as much information as you can gather so that you can make a more accurate determination of your estimate of the person, or much more importantly, they may have something to say that is of value. One of the things I have admired very much about TAS over the years is that they have a commitment to having a diverse array of speakers.

Jim

Jim; I like you too. My only encounter with Lindsay was not a moment that I would want to repeat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy,

I may not know about all the historical stuff you mentioned, but I do know what I hear. And I know where the main problems are. And I know how to fix them. All the talk in the world about who did what and who knows who will not fix them and you know it.

We are just going to have to agree to disagree if you are not interested.

I am no longer active in music because I shrugged years ago (long story). This subject is very painful to me (setting modesty aside, I was very good) so I usually avoid it. But I still have a blues-pop record I produced laying around from my former days (one that did not get butchered by sound engineers and vanity problems). The singer (JJ Jackson, formerly Leo Robinsin) used to sing with Jimi Hendrix in the early years when they were in a band called The Rocking Kings.

One of the songs from that CD became the theme for a TV actress in Brazil on a prime time show. (I did several, but this one brought me great pleasure because it happened without hype. The TV producer was randomly listening to tracks from a lot of samples. My song came up and he chose it because he liked it.) I might put something together for you so you can see what I am talking about in terms of mixing.

I think I can do that nowadays without wanting to get wasted.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One point in style here (which you have not crossed, but since you brought it up) is that the respect-for-other-posters bar is far, far higher here than from whence you came.

Thank you, but I will quite make up my own mind about that, starting right after I hit the "Add Reply" button on this post.

Billy,

I probably expressed myself poorly. I was trying to be subtle. I meant to say please read the posting guidelines since the standard is different here than at other online sites where I have seen you post. Civility is a value here.

(And please do not take this an an indirect criticism of you. It isn't.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Billy...

Yeah, MSK has great production and music chops. I know exactly what he was talking about when he posited parametric eqs as a solution there; I hate those dang things but they work really tasty in situations like that because you can shelve out stuff real fine. You fool with the bandwidth, there's an art to it. Graphics are easier and more fun but that's how you do that. <---more blatant thread creep.

Anyway, trying to get closer to the bone here... my thoughts today have a different perspective, and I think it pertains to meanness, valuing life--this is the deeper stuff that I have surely talked with Michael about...

For instance, right when I got back on here, I had two things going on. One was that upon arrival, to no suprise, I caught wind of the same thing. Same ol same ol stuff over "there" (thread topic). This of course drew no suprise, I wrote on the boringly cyclical nature of that. Oh, the malevolence...the callous treatment rendered to and fro, ya know... That, while item number two went down: my closest comrade, business partner, songwriting partner died suddenly...last night, natural causes. Right in the middle of huge gains, musical projects going tornado. I am so grief-stricken now. But I have the thicker skin of the whole bunch here (he and his family and I set up shop together), so I have to maintain, be the bigger man. That, or I'm just numb after all the different tragedies I have seen. Whatever.

My point is simple--I don't care if you consider someone at the apex of the awesome, or a rat bastard--one way or another if you treated them mean, in most cases, it will come back to you if they drop dead. And that shit goes down, down, down.

Meaning, for example: As much as I loathe the Perigo Creature, I can only go so far with my skewing of him, because I guess I would feel rotten having said too much harshly even if that rat bastard piece of social metaphysical poo's soul got cast into the great beyond. There's just no good to be had from malice.

So I will continue to lampoon, poke at with a stick, run up the flagpole arrogant, smug blowbags the likes of Perigo, but I will not wish them dead. Like the Baptists and such say, "God didn't make no junk." Well, no, just sometimes stuff that really smells funny, is all.

It is hard to resist the harpy-like call that Perigo puts out. I see target, target, target...oh, if only he could eclipse the air conducting thing, which was, to my mind, his opus magnus, his pompous tribute to ego-gone-wrong and how shit in music actually doesn't work...I could go to my grave writing jokes about that moment alone, and surely he would deserve it. He is as contemptuous as Nixon, just less powerful.

But only so far can I go with that stuff. Moderation in all things, even when dealing with a blowbag, wine-swilling, air-conducting douche.

He's smart, he's never taken me on head to head. He tried once and spelled my name wrong. Oh, I only wish. It is a guilty pleasure to wish for such a vile, weak opponent, but in his case, part of me wants to make an exception. Call it my innate drive to eugenic-size ham and feet sandwich stinking tubs of goo for general hygiene reasons.

rde

Oops, maybe a touch too much there, but...hey, I'm grieving.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rich: "I was asking him what was the hardest about getting old, and he said it was losing people around you."

Rich, I once was talking with a woman well into her nineties, and she was commenting on the death of her last childhood friend,. She said, very sadly, "Now, there is no one left with whom I share memories of my youth." I am very fortunate in that I still have a number of friends whom I've known since childhood, but their ranks are thinning and those that remain are very precious to me; we have regular reunions, which are an enormous source of pleasure for us all. It is especially childhood friends that give one a sense of the continuity of one's life -- that who we were at 5 years old, at 15, at 21 and 41 and 79, is, at core, who we still are.

I'd be interested to know if others who read this share my conviction of this continuity of one's basic identity. (Michael, if readers want to comment, perhaps this should be a separate thread.)

Barbara

Barbara,

I started the thread here:

The gentle and death and loss and identity

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, guys. For me, this was one of the worst ever. It really feels like it shouldn't have happened. Not now. But your number comes up.

It came on the heels of a 2nd chance, a redeeming moment, which left me even more topsy-turvy.

A few months ago, my best friend of 38 years got into a bad motorcycle accident down in Florida. This was a person that knew more about me than anyone else in the world--we had known each other since we were kids. He suffered severe head trauma, and was clinically dead for a bit. He remained in a coma for some time, then stabilized into a vegetative state. He didn't recognize things, nothing. Fifty years old, like me, happened right after his birthday in August (we're a month apart). Since he had moved to FL, we had remained in daily contact, and at one point I was considering moving down there to start a business with him.

So, when that happened, I was under a lot of duress and I couldn't afford to really spend too much time dealing with it. But, and here's where I'm going with it...you start to miss that context. There was a whole piece of psychological visibility that was just gone...only to him could I speak to in certain ways, about certain things, and I started to notice it. For all practical purposes, he was dead, you know?

Well, the thing of it is, this crazy bastard pretty much stunned the whole medical community down there. He had been relinquished to hospice/ICU type care. And, the day before Thanksgiving, he woke up. And not just woke up, but all the damn way. The only memory loss he suffered was from the time his dad died (a couple months before the accident) to the present, and all that started coming back. So we got him back from the dead, literally.

That was a miracle unto itself. I guess the world counterbalanced itself, maybe...because now this. But seriously, this kind of stuff happens all the time, and it is sobering, and it makes you remember how you're supposed to treat people.

r

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks, Rich, but I am not looking for permission to enjoy myself, nor am I promoting ABBA. I am asking if Zappa, rather than having songs of technical skill, has songs that evoke strong emotional responses. I happen to love lots of RUSH's technical stuff, as well as I Can See Clearly Now, and Son of a Preacher Man. Does Zappa have any tiddly wink music, or is it all music for musicians?

Why the dichotomy?

Try

describing and then playing on the marimba a part of "St. Alphonso's Pancake Breakfast" (this is the "Rollo Interior"), from "Apostrophe", 1974. You can hear the entire original piece, including Ruth''s work in context,
. It ends abruptly when it runs into "Father Oblivion" with signature terror-tempo FZ guitar lick. (Pick it up on the very next beat,
.)

How 'bout the first (and only, I think) calliope solo in rock history? "Fifty-Fifty".

I really don't see how anyone can tell you what you're going to like, Ted, but I'll dig around for you if you want.

Thanks for the links. I suppose my now better considered opinion is that Zappa was a technically brilliant musician's musician whose style ranged from classical to jazz and which was much more postmodern than it ever was romantic. He seems to have been bored.

I myself prefer

, el condor pasa,
, I can see clearly now,
,
, get together,etc.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

(snip)

I will also make an observation about the Objectivist movement that I find puzzling to say the least. Why is it that many Objectivists can't attend a social or intellectual function where there are people in attendance or lecturing that they don't like or even that they find morally lacking in some way? In many cases, if you feel that way, you should attend to make sure you have as much information as you can gather so that you can make a more accurate determination of your estimate of the person, or much more importantly, they may have something to say that is of value. One of the things I have admired very much about TAS over the years is that they have a commitment to having a diverse array of speakers.

Jim

I know you're aware, but just for the record the whole concept of "sanction" has developed a thyroid condition. Consider the experience of David Kelley (the infamous "Libertarian Supper Club" incident) which was the pretext for him being thrown out of the Orthodox Objectivist community. Objectivists get it pretty close to the source, frankly. Clearly, Peikoff was a major practitioner of this sort of behavior.

However, think back a little further to Rand herself. She would, in response to a question at a speech, announce that she wouldn't think of reading a book (but would comment on that book based on having read a review of that book or a quote from it). She would condemn Libertarians in the most scathing terms - in a way which would make it clear that one just ought not associate with Libertarians if they wanted to stay in Rand's good graces.

So, Objectivists have been engaging in some forms of "shunning" and avoiding exposure to ideas they believe they will disagree for a very long time - at least as long as the term "Objectivist" has been used in the Randian sense.

Bill P

Bill,

I think there's two things at play here. One is standing. I think there has been a historical ego attachment that many people have placed on their place in the Objectivist movement. People earn "brownie points" by acting in advancement of and staying true to the cause.

The other is that there really are certain natural thinking styles that resonate well with the Objectivist philosophy and those that don't. Objectivists have tended to look at this along the analytic/empirical axis, but there are other styles like synthesist which mirrors some of the thinking tactics in the dialectic method, pragmatist for short-term, quick payoff type problems and idealist which tends to think about feelings, doing the right thing by people, etc.

Objectivism is dominantly analytical, with a dash of empirical. This is as it should because dialectic, pragmatic, and idealist methods are scope limited and lead to massive errors when applied universally. The problem is that Objectivism has not made enough room for people who accept the philosophy, but have another dominant cognitive style. The Objectivist movement thought ecosystem has become unbalanced. Objectivism has enough good answers. What it needs now are some very well thought out, well-framed questions which will serve as rapid prototype frameworks for developing the Objectivist school of thought.

Jim

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reprise:

Anyway, barring what I mentioned to the contrary, I love your spirit. I do.

Well, it just is what it is, you know?

"The world began when I was born."

Thank you for saying so, though.

I'm off to Tokyo early in the morning, and I'm on my way out to a local blues jam right now. I still have details to dispatch and I don't know if I'll get to some things that I'd like to say here before I jet tomorrow. I'll have time here & there once I have my feet under me across the sun. I'll be back when I can.

Y'all stay cool.

Edited by Billy Beck
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted wanted to know if Frank ever did stuff that stirred yer soul:

"Thanks, Rich, but I am not looking for permission to enjoy myself, nor am I promoting ABBA. I am asking if Zappa, rather than having songs of technical skill, has songs that evoke strong emotional responses. I happen to love lots of RUSH's technical stuff, as well as I Can See Clearly Now, and Son of a Preacher Man. Does Zappa have any tiddly wink music, or is it all music for musicians?"

Geez, Louise...I wasn't thinking about "permission" stuff at all (what with my authority figure issues and such), nor did I think "promote" vis-a-vis ABBA (Hell, for one thing, there was a time when ABBA was the largest selling band on the whole planet, which is kind of scary in a sense, but I understand, sort of...how can you not dig a band that's named after a basic songwriting structure?). I just mentioned Ambrosia because it's down that line, but very, very emotive stuff--I think "Somewhere I've Never Travelled" is one of the most beautiful, perfect albums ever recorded...I mean, if you're in the right frame of mind, that stuff can make you cry; I almost do just thinking about it. And "Life Beyond L.A." is simply an uber-single...oh!

Ok, so, Zappa, and feeling...well... I don't think it was subjective, because I wasn't the only one there, but I remember one concert in particular, later on...he had just started playing guitar again. Lights on, Zappa, back to audience, guitar strapped on his back, conducting the ensemble rock band. I forget what they launched into, it was some kind of wild amalgam of stuff he had put together. It was a moment of goddamn NOBLENESS. The highest values. The beauty, the precision...all of the music just pouring out of his baton. Then he turned, and spontaneously soloed over that. It was glory, beauty. It was Frank giving Aaron Copeland a good old down home backyard ass whuppin'. Love songs? Stuff that makes you feel squooshy inside? No. I mean, after this beautiful moment, I think he launched into The Illinois Enema Bandit, or something, but yes...beauty. The heights of glory, man. I miss Frank, more than just about any musician.

Edited by Rich Engle
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Billy, welcome to OL. I like your video and I also like Frank Zappa.

I saw Zappa in Chicago around 1980 and it was a great show. He is a great musician and quite the entertainer. At the show he had women throwing their bras and underthings up to the stage and he had them all hanging from the amps. He said he was going to go home and make a quilt. I also saw the movie 200 Motels ages ago because Ringo was in it... and I am a huge Beatles fan.

Here is a cartoon interpretation of one of my favorite Frank Zappa songs, Yellow Snow. Maybe some people will recognize this song. Sing along!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zsdyiCD3AMY

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I love the films of Pedro Almodovar. Or, I should say, I love the good films of Pedro Almodovar. He has a Randian sense of the dramatic, and his story telling skill are great. His use of color is better than any other filmmaker's that I know of. But his stories can be hit or miss. Rand could have written his film Tie Me Up, Tie Me Down, a great romantic love story. Flower of My Secret is one of the best films I've ever seen. But he also dramatizes excruciatingly disgusting people - like a creepy man with the aspeect of a mental retard who rapes a woman in a coma and then commits suicide so as to be able to "Talk to Her." The critics describe this as daring.

Zappa has great technical skill. His writing is interesting if one analyzes its structure. But does the melody evoke strong emotion? To me it seems very cold, like intellectualized Jazz and ornate but otherwise emotionally uninteresting classical music from the baroque or early classical music. And the worst part is that his lyrics, when he has them, seem to do nothing but undermine anything of value. I don't necessarily need sophistication. But neither am I interested in James Joyce or Ginsberg's Howl.

At this point, I've listened to maybe 18 of his songs. Is there anything non-instrumental worth listening too if you are not a Jazz musician?

Is there anything with sentiment?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

I don't see Zappa's lyrics undermining things of value. I see them as lampooning outright hypocrisy from a gross-out perspective (to use Robert C's colorful phrase).

Look at his targets to get the idea. Start with "Slime." He is not glorifying slime and saying non-slimey stuff is bad. He is calling most of the stuff coming out of TV intellectual slime that oozes into the viewers minds and brainwashes them. He pretends he is that slime for impact.

From some of the other stuff I have heard, I notice that he really goes after control-freaks, especially if they are of a prudish uptight nature. He gets in their faces with sex and hygiene. (This often prompts reactions that makes them become obvious about how much they want to control others. It essentially blows their smokescreen euphemisms away.)

And so on...

My reaction to the lampooning is mild amusement or indifference, or sometimes a bellylaugh. I admit to feeling pleasure at watching hypocrites squirm when they lose their control of others and have to allow for freedom of choice in matters they want to censor.

You ask, "Is there anything non-instrumental worth listening too if you are not a Jazz musician?"

All I can say is look at his public and the millions of records they bought and regularly consume. They happen to think there is plenty worth listening to. They are not jazz musicians for the most part.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

I don't see Zappa's lyrics undermining things of value. I see them as lampooning outright hypocrisy from a gross-out perspective (to use Robert C's colorful phrase).

Look at his targets to get the idea. Start with "Slime." He is not glorifying slime and saying non-slimey stuff is bad. He is calling most of the stuff coming out of TV intellectual slime that oozes into the viewers minds and brainwashes them. He pretends he is that slime for impact.

From some of the other stuff I have heard, I notice that he really goes after control-freaks, especially if they are of a prudish uptight nature. He gets in their faces with sex and hygiene. (This often prompts reactions that makes them become obvious about how much they want to control others. It essentially blows their smokescreen euphemisms away.)

And so on...

My reaction to the lampooning is mild amusement or indifference, or sometimes a bellylaugh. I admit to feeling pleasure at watching hypocrites squirm when they lose their control of others and have to allow for freedom of choice in matters they want to censor.

You ask, "Is there anything non-instrumental worth listening too if you are not a Jazz musician?"

All I can say is look at his public and the millions of records they bought and regularly consume. They happen to think there is plenty worth listening to. They are not jazz musicians for the most part.

Michael

You can say exactly the same thing about the piss crucifix, he's "doing it for impact", "pointing out hypocrisy", yadda, yadda, yadda. Fine. I'm not going to call that evil, and I'm not going to begrudge the joy (if that is what it is) of those who listen to that sort of thing. I do call it post-modernism, and decadent, but I reserve the word evil for those who intentionally harm others.

Making fun is very easy - it's like calling names. Celebrating value is much more difficult. Does Zappa ever celebrate value? So far, the closest I can see him coming to that musically is peaches en regalia - and even then he undermines himself with the title. Like a cold sore on a woman's portrait.

My point here is not to argue that Zappa has no value - I do see that he can create formally good music. And having listened to only twenty or so songs of his, I can imagine he's actually got a nice one hidden in there somewhere. Black Sabbath wrote one of the prettiest songs I know. They were so embarrassed they called it Fluff. But it is wonderful nonetheless. So, I am wondering if Zappa ever actually put his potential to good use. Did he ever actually write a simple lovely ballad good in itself? Beethoven, deaf, struggled to create the Ode to Joy. Zappa, blessed with all the advantages of the modern West, created...

.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TgyzoTrrN6s

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ted,

What little post-modern stuff I appreciate, I usually do so in a hypocrite-blaster mindset. I see nothing wrong with that (in small doses).

However, the intellectual message conveyed by the post-modern artists I have read in their interviews and nonfiction is not the same as Zappa, who defended individual rights and thinking for oneself.

I do not consider his art as post-modern. There are too many differences. I consider it vulgar satire set to music. A really vulgar Voltaire rather than a vulgar Dadaist.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is look at his public and the millions of records they bought and regularly consume. They happen to think there is plenty worth listening to.

Michael

Greetings Michael:

So I guess I should be listening to Ms. Spears and others of her ilk since her/their numbers are in the multi-millions(?) Do you really want to use a variant on the old chestnut 'Forty million Frenchmen can't be wrong' as an argument in defense of Zappa?

Best regards,

Ken

Edited by arete1952
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ken,

There are two elements being confused here: the cognitive and the normative. (On rereading my statement, I see that this was probably due to my wording.)

I wasn't saying anything about who should or should not listen to Zappa or for what reasons. I was identifying the fan base. Ted stated that only jazz musicians identify with Zappa's music. I find that statement incorrect when I look at Zappa's fan base. There are too many fans who are not jazz musicians to agree with that identification.

btw - If you want to listen to Britney, go right ahead. Just don't blame me for it. I'm indifferent to her work, but I won't hold it against you if you are not. :)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All I can say is look at his public and the millions of records they bought and regularly consume. They happen to think there is plenty worth listening to.

Michael

Greetings Michael:

So I guess I should be listening to Ms. Spears and others of her ilk since her/their numbers are in the multi-millions(?) Do you really want to use a variant on the old chestnut 'Forty million Frenchmen can't be wrong'?

Best,

Ken

I am not interested in 40 million opinions - just one good song. I happen to enjoy the decadent song Blister in the Sun by The Violent Femmes. I have no problem admitting that that group is decadent and post-modern and would not respond to someone asking me the specific question "do they have any heartening songs?" with the response that "lots of people like them" or that "they support freedom of speech." I am interested in an aesthetic judgment, not a moral one.

Please, keep enjoying Zappa if you do. I am all for irony in small doses. I think making a career of irony is a sign of some sort of cowardice. I just want to know if Zappa has one simply positive song with inspiring lyrics and an uplifting melody. At this point, I will assume the answer to my question is no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now