# Attn: Fredx2098 (and others interested in dissonance)



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Please listen to and comment on this improvised jam by one of my favorite Rock groups, Phish.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

That's pretty cool, thanks for sharing! It sounds like they're doing some free improv rather than a straight jam. Do you like that track? It reminds me of Bitches Brew. Did you imply that you don't like that album? I have Phish on my computer and I've listened to a bit of them but not a whole bunch. I don't have that track probably since I'm not a fan of the concept of bonus tracks.

If you like that track, you might like some jams that I've made. Here's the latest one made with two friends on guitar and synthesizer, and myself on drums: https://thepurplevoid.bandcamp.com/album/tpv-jams

Here's one from a few years ago with some friends playing guitar and a cymbal and a dog barking (which sounds pretty cool I think) and myself playing the piano and the zippo lighter: https://thepurplevoid.bandcamp.com/...-piano-guitar-cymbal-and-zippo-lighter-take-2

Free improv is a magical experience because music just flows out rather than having to think about what's going on, and you naturally play what sounds right along with what the others are playing if you "get into the groove". If you like jazz, you might like the group The Necks. They're like a minimalist jazz improvisation trio of drums, bass, and keyboards. Most of their songs go from half an hour to an hour. It's sort of "monothematic" but there's a lot of interesting variation with the improv (in my opinion). It's not dissonant though, except in a jazzy way. Most of their stuff is pretty relaxing I think. Here's their most "popular" album, Hanging Gardens, the drums are really complex on this one:


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> That's pretty cool, thanks for sharing! It sounds like they're doing some free improv rather than a straight jam. Do you like that track? It reminds me of Bitches Brew. Did you imply that you don't like that album? I have Phish on my computer and I've listened to a bit of them but not a whole bunch. I don't have that track probably since I'm not a fan of the concept of bonus tracks.
> 
> If you like that track, you might like some jams that I've made. Here's the latest one made with two friends on guitar and synthesizer, and myself on drums: https://thepurplevoid.bandcamp.com/album/tpv-jams
> 
> ...


I do love this track, I'm a rather big Phish fan in fact. How do you differentiate between free improv and jam? I love Bitches Brew; I think Feldman gets into a groove that extends for long periods like Miles does on this album, but Miles is a bit easier to listen to because of the catchy bass hooks that hold everything together, imo.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I'll check out some of your offerings tomorrow evening when I get home from work. I'm busy trying to finish up The Canterbury Tales tonight.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I do love this track, I'm a rather big Phish fan in fact. How do you differentiate between free improv and jam? I love Bitches Brew; I think Feldman gets into a groove that extends for long periods like Miles does on this album, but Miles is a bit easier to listen to because of the catchy bass hooks that hold everything together, imo.


A jam usually has some predetermined factors, like the key, a chord progression, a riff they start with and return to, how many times they should play the riff, who should play solos, how long people should play solos, etc. With free improv, everybody just goes wild and does whatever they want, and a structure can be formed without words by listening to what others are doing and being inspired by it. I'm not sure which one Bitches Brew is. I think it might have some structure. I'm not sure about all the semantics but I would say that free improv is a subtype of jam. I called the first link a jam, but it's free improv just to clarify, except for the two short tracks which were demos of song ideas for scary music. We would've been screaming but we didn't prepare any words to scream, so you're spared from that!

Here's a cool description of Bitches Brew from wikipedia: "Once in the recording studio, the players were typically given only a few instructions: a tempo count, a few chords or a hint of melody, and suggestions as to mood or tone. Davis liked to work this way; he thought it forced musicians to pay close attention to one another, to their own performances, or to Davis's cues, which could change at any moment."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> A jam usually has some predetermined factors, like the key, a chord progression, a riff they start with and return to, how many times they should play the riff, who should play solos, how long people should play solos, etc. With free improv, everybody just goes wild and does whatever they want, and a structure can be formed without words by listening to what others are doing and being inspired by it. I'm not sure which one Bitches Brew is. I think it might have some structure. I'm not sure about all the semantics but I would say that free improv is a subtype of jam. I called the first link a jam, but it's free improv just to clarify, except for the two short tracks which were demos of song ideas for scary music. We would've been screaming but we didn't prepare any words to scream, so you're spared from that!
> 
> Here's a cool description of Bitches Brew from wikipedia: "Once in the recording studio, the players were typically given only a few instructions: a tempo count, a few chords or a hint of melody, and suggestions as to mood or tone. Davis liked to work this way; he thought it forced musicians to pay close attention to one another, to their own performances, or to Davis's cues, which could change at any moment."


I understand your distinction. Ya, according to your terms, the track in the OP certainly sounds like free improv.

Nice words on Bitches Brew.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I used to jam a whole lot in college and was a part of a few jambands too. I know the experience and what it feels like to bond on that level.

I think LSD and open jamming are a match made in heaven, though not a requirement at all.

I like your jams, I think the synths tie it together nicely.

The first one reminds me of this one by Phish:


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I used to jam a whole lot in college and was a part of a few jambands too. I know the experience and what it feels like to bond on that level.
> 
> I think LSD and open jamming are a match made in heaven, though not a requirement at all.
> 
> ...


Thanks! The guy on guitar was someone I've known pretty much my whole life, and the guy on synth was one of his friends from engineering school that I just met that day. We all clicked pretty well. I think the ideal size of a rock band is 4 people though, with at least one guitar, a bass, and drums. The 4th could be on keyboards or lead guitar, and I'm not a fan of singers who only sing. If there's a singer, ideally they would be playing rhythm guitar or something at the same time. I can accept someone who only _screams_ because that takes more physical energy and technique. In my band with screaming, I want to try to be on guitar and vocals though. I haven't been able to do any REAL stuff with that project because I don't know any drummers besides myself. I have some demos though, but there are also some instrumental tracks you might enjoy. I'm assuming you're not a fan of extremely intense metal and hardcore punk?

Wow, that does sound very similar. I'm not really familiar with their overall style, but that doesn't seem like a typical track, does it? That's like a stoner/noise rock vibe. Stoner rock is pretty sweet. It's like slow-ish psychedelic jam rock that just drones on one chord and it's all about the riffs man.

That's cool that you've experienced that. What did you play, keyboards? Do you have any recordings? Luckily I'm also a sound engineer and producer (I study pretty much every aspect of music from every angle). I think some drugs really enhance one's perception of music, sometimes in a permanent enlightening way. I don't think I've ever jammed on LSD, I'm usually just incapacitated, but maybe if I were to take a bit less... It usually agitates my pain as well unfortunately.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

The beginning has a lot of intentionally bad harmony on the trumpet. It gets kind of conventional to me afterwards and slow moving. Here is what I think is amazing use of dissonance


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The beginning has a lot of intentionally bad harmony on the trumpet. It gets kind of conventional to me afterwards and slow moving. Here is what I think is amazing use of dissonance


Well, you are comparing open improv to composition. Two different spirits.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Thanks! The guy on guitar was someone I've known pretty much my whole life, and the guy on synth was one of his friends from engineering school that I just met that day. We all clicked pretty well. I think the ideal size of a rock band is 4 people though, with at least one guitar, a bass, and drums. The 4th could be on keyboards or lead guitar, and I'm not a fan of singers who only sing. If there's a singer, ideally they would be playing rhythm guitar or something at the same time. I can accept someone who only _screams_ because that takes more physical energy and technique. In my band with screaming, I want to try to be on guitar and vocals though. I haven't been able to do any REAL stuff with that project because I don't know any drummers besides myself. I have some demos though, but there are also some instrumental tracks you might enjoy. I'm assuming you're not a fan of extremely intense metal and hardcore punk?
> 
> Wow, that does sound very similar. I'm not really familiar with their overall style, but that doesn't seem like a typical track, does it? That's like a stoner/noise rock vibe. Stoner rock is pretty sweet. It's like slow-ish psychedelic jam rock that just drones on one chord and it's all about the riffs man.
> 
> That's cool that you've experienced that. What did you play, keyboards? Do you have any recordings? Luckily I'm also a sound engineer and producer (I study pretty much every aspect of music from every angle). I think some drugs really enhance one's perception of music, sometimes in a permanent enlightening way. I don't think I've ever jammed on LSD, I'm usually just incapacitated, but maybe if I were to take a bit less... It usually agitates my pain as well unfortunately.


Phish is all over the place in terms of artistic vision. They are mostly noted for their live extended improvisation. There is a distinction in the Phish community between type 1 jams that stay within the chords of the song and type 2 where they abandon the initial chords and just go for it, more in the spirit of what you termed free improv. And yes, it's not the most typical track for the band's studio output, but very much in the spirit of what they do live.

They have an album of just instrumental jams they edited; they took mushrooms and just recorded what came out, it has a few cool tracks, one in particular is What's The Use, and it's incredible!






But they have compositions, jams, quirky songs, serious songs, ballads, cheesy stuff, silly stuff...but as I said, they are mostly known for their improv. The lead guitarist, Trey, is very inspired by Zappa in terms of the silliness and serious chops.

They are a very interesting band, and have one of the most intimate relationships with their fanbase I've ever seen from such a big act.

Yes, I played keys, but of course experimented with other instruments just for fun. I have some natural talent on the drums that I should really develop, but probably won't due to lack of interest.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Phish is all over the place in terms of artistic vision. They are mostly noted for their live extended improvisation. There is a distinction in the Phish community between type 1 jams that stay within the chords of the song and type 2 where they abandon the initial chords and just go for it, more in the spirit of what you termed free improv. And yes, it's not the most typical track for the band's studio output, but very much in the spirit of what they do live.
> 
> They have an album of just instrumental jams they edited; they took mushrooms and just recorded what came out, it has a few cool tracks, one in particular is What's The Use, and it's incredible!
> 
> ...


That's a pretty awesome track! Very psychedelic, in several ways I suppose. It's like an ambient jam, but I feel like they could've done a little more with it. That album is labeled with free improv as a secondary genre on RYM, so it seems that they do partake in some of that.

Have you heard Joe's Garage or the track "Watermelon in Easter Hay" by Frank Zappa? The guitar tone in the song you linked reminds me of his solos in that album, and "Watermelon in Easter Hay" is just a long, slow, mellow guitar solo. It's probably my favorite track of his, and it's definitely the most emotional one that I've heard (and I've heard most). I would link to it, but you don't get the full effect unless you listen to the whole album and pay close attention to the story. It's amazing besides the story, but if you haven't heard that album I would definitely recommend listening to the whole album rather than the one track.

Phish seems pretty Zappa-esque in terms of eclecticism from what I've heard and from your description, but maybe a bit less wild and experimental. I should listen to some more. I have about 300 hours worth of scarier music to listen to though. 

I had a pretty natural ability to play the drums. I love playing drums, guitar, and bass pretty much equally. I wish I was better at piano though. I'm getting a little better each time I play one though I think.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> That's a pretty awesome track! Very psychedelic, in several ways I suppose. It's like an ambient jam, but I feel like they could've done a little more with it. That album is labeled with free improv as a secondary genre on RYM, so it seems that they do partake in some of that.
> 
> Have you heard Joe's Garage or the track "Watermelon in Easter Hay" by Frank Zappa? The guitar tone in the song you linked reminds me of his solos in that album, and "Watermelon in Easter Hay" is just a long, slow, mellow guitar solo. It's probably my favorite track of his, and it's definitely the most emotional one that I've heard (and I've heard most). I would link to it, but you don't get the full effect unless you listen to the whole album and pay close attention to the story. It's amazing besides the story, but if you haven't heard that album I would definitely recommend listening to the whole album rather than the one track.
> 
> ...


You do have to remember the track was an edited improvised Jam, so it wasn't composed at all. I think that requires a different pair of ears when listening/assessing. But I get wanting to assess it in the same way you would something composed!

I'll give Joe's Garage a listen tonight and try to pay close attention to everything, I've tried before and wasn't really paying attention to the story since I'm more of a melody person.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I tried to listen to Joe's Garage all the way through, but I really don't like all the Central Scrutinizer bits for the only reason that he's talking and there isn't a central melody.

I did skip to the specific Track you mentioned, it is certainly unlike any other Zappa lead guitar I've heard before, but I didn't love it. It comes off as too plain to me, my favorite Zappa album, that I've gotten to know well at least, is Waka/Jawaka as I stated in the favorite Rock Albums Thread.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> The beginning has a lot of intentionally bad harmony on the trumpet. It gets kind of conventional to me afterwards and slow moving. Here is what I think is amazing use of dissonance


I enjoyed both the pieces you posted though, dissonant/atonal/serialist works are growing on me more and more.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> You do have to remember the track was an edited improvised Jam, so it wasn't composed at all. I think that requires a different pair of ears when listening/assessing. But I get wanting to assess it in the same way you would something composed!


Definitely, but the guitar kind of just played the same thing over and over. It sounded awesome and wasn't boring, but I think he should've switched it up a bit. They were also impaired at the time. I love the track but it just could've been cooler.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I tried to listen to Joe's Garage all the way through, but I really don't like all the Central Scrutinizer bits for the only reason that he's talking and there isn't a central melody.
> 
> I did skip to the specific Track you mentioned, it is certainly unlike any other Zappa lead guitar I've heard before, but I didn't love it. It comes off as too plain to me, my favorite Zappa album, that I've gotten to know well at least, is Waka/Jawaka as I stated in the favorite Rock Albums Thread.


That's too bad. The Central Scrutinizer parts give the details of the story, but if you don't like avant-garde offensive comedy rock then you wouldn't like it. I personally love everything about the album. I love the childish offensive humor. Every single track is crucial in understanding the story though, and it gets more serious towards the end. Are you not an overall Zappa fan? Waka/Jawaka is pretty much a straight jazz fusion album rather than the usual avant-prog (also Wednesday Morning, 3 AM is pretty much straight folk). Perhaps you should give Uncle Meat a try if you haven't. You might just not be into anything too weird, but there's nothing wrong with that. I just like giving suggestions.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Definitely, but the guitar kind of just played the same thing over and over. It sounded awesome and wasn't boring, but I think he should've switched it up a bit. They were also impaired at the time. I love the track but it just could've been cooler.
> 
> That's too bad. The Central Scrutinizer parts give the details of the story, but if you don't like avant-garde offensive comedy rock then you wouldn't like it. I personally love everything about the album. I love the childish offensive humor. Every single track is crucial in understanding the story though, and it gets more serious towards the end. Are you not an overall Zappa fan? Waka/Jawaka is pretty much a straight jazz fusion album rather than the usual avant-prog (also Wednesday Morning, 3 AM is pretty much straight folk). Perhaps you should give Uncle Meat a try if you haven't. You might just not be into anything too weird, but there's nothing wrong with that. I just like giving suggestions.


I'm not sure being weird is the factor I'm not liking, I think for Joe's Garage, I get tired of hearing all the speaking points and just would prefer to hear songs with central melodies.

One Shot Deal and Your Mouth are fairly weird songs, I think, and I love both of them very much.

(I'm really fine tuning my taste in the Arts and attempting to figure out what is important to me in it, hence my constant changing of opinions on various music).

That being said, my mind has now changed it's criteria to being music I find to be highly artistic, which now does not include the S&G album, but keeps the FZ album Waka/Jawaka.

I'm not the biggest overall Zappa fan, but I haven't heard even a 1/4 of his total discography. The albums I've listened to and given the most attention to are Waka, Overnite Sensation and Apostrophe, but have heard, at least once, several more like Francesco Zappa, Jazz From Hell, One Size, You Are What You Is, the guitar albums and etc.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Also, the two improvisations I posted above aren't exactly the most conventional works you'd hear.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I'm not sure being weird is the factor I'm not liking, I think for Joe's Garage, I get tired of hearing all the speaking points and just would prefer to hear songs with central melodies.
> 
> One Shot Deal and Your Mouth are fairly weird songs, I think, and I love both of them very much.
> 
> ...


Give Uncle Meat ago


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Give Uncle Meat ago


I will! 

Thanks for the recommendation.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

One song from Overnite that I know I don't like is 50/50, the Beefhart vocals are too much for me. There are a couple of guitar jams on Apostrophe that I don't like the sound of.

Otherwise, I really love those two albums. 

You Know What You Is is fun, but a bit poppy by Zappa standards at least.

Jazz From Hell has some neat ideas, but the tone of the Synclavier isn't to my taste.

I'll keep you all posted on my thoughts on Uncle Meat.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Give Uncle Meat ago


Do you like all of Joe's Garage? I love every moment of it. Contrary to popular opinion, I think it just keeps getting better. It and Uncle Meat are my favorite albums of his.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Do you like all of Joe's Garage? I love every moment of it. Contrary to popular opinion, I think it just keeps getting better. It and Uncle Meat are my favorite albums of his.


Most ppl I've talked to say JG is his best.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Most ppl I've talked to say JG is his best.


The whole thing? I'm judging the popular opinion by the rating trends on RYM. Act I has nearly twice the ratings as Acts II and III, and I feel the opposite way. The first part has some catchy, easily-accessible tunes, but the rest of it is much more interesting musically in my opinion. I would urge you to really try to listen to the whole album. Parts where the Central Scrutinizer is talking alone is like 1% of the album. Sometimes it's referenced in the music and there are parts where he talks during songs which sounds cool in my opinion. Perhaps if you at least listened from "Keep It Greasey" to "Watermelon in Easter Hay" you would get my favorite section of the album.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> The whole thing? I'm judging the popular opinion by the rating trends on RYM. Act I has nearly twice the ratings as Acts II and III, and I feel the opposite way. The first part has some catchy, easily-accessible tunes, but the rest of it is much more interesting musically in my opinion. I would urge you to really try to listen to the whole album. Parts where the Central Scrutinizer is talking alone is like 1% of the album. Sometimes it's referenced in the music and there are parts where he talks during songs which sounds cool in my opinion. Perhaps if you at least listened from "Keep It Greasey" to "Watermelon in Easter Hay" you would get my favorite section of the album.


Yes, the entire album. This is just from various message boards I visit, not websites or anything like that.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fred, I think a Phish album you may enjoy is "Junta", try giving it a listen sometime if you are interested!


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Captainnumber36 said:


> Also, the two improvisations I posted above aren't exactly the most conventional works you'd hear.


I find Phish quite conventional, they modify things a bit to sound different, but not really that original. I agree to try Uncle Meat. It is very refined and highly constructed music (Beefheart can't compare), also a level the Beatles can't hope to achieve, since they are based mainly on songs.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I find Phish quite conventional, they modify things a bit to sound different, but not really that original. I agree to try Uncle Meat. It is very refined and highly constructed music (Beefheart can't compare), also a level the Beatles can't hope to achieve, since they are based mainly on songs.


I think you are understating their unique sound, they do more than modify things just a bit to sound different. Trey Anastasio has a very unique voice as both a composer/songwriter and lead guitarist, composing and songwriting more so in the early days of Phish, but his leads have perhaps become even more original in terms of his tone utilized.

But, it's another thing to just not enjoy it.

Originality, like everything else, is relative and instead of identifying something as being original or unoriginal, the question to ask is, imo, does this work of Art engage me or not.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I just fired up Uncle Meat on Spotify, I will report back.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

So I got through about 10 minutes of the album and was enjoying a lot of the instrumental selections that I heard. I was not enjoying a lot of the lyrical content such as "Caress me aunt Jemimah" or the Suzy Creemcheese bits with all her profanity.

It was for those reasons that I knew I would not be wanting to add this album to my collection.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> So I got through about 10 minutes of the album and was enjoying a lot of the instrumental selections that I heard. I was not enjoying a lot of the lyrical content such as "Caress me aunt Jemimah" or the Suzy Creemcheese bits with all her profanity.
> 
> It was for those reasons that I knew I would not be wanting to add this album to my collection.


It seems like there's just a certain amount of weirdness that you don't like. It's too bad you can't look past it because that's a small fraction of each album.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> It seems like there's just a certain amount of weirdness that you don't like. It's too bad you can't look past it because that's a small fraction of each album.


It seems like you are adamant about thinking I am not open to the strange and weird which I disagree with, but perhaps we are seeing it differently.

For me, I have to enjoy every second of an album to add it to my collection. I don't know if I can make it much clearer to you that with Joe's Garage, I just don't like how much talking there is on it since I prefer to hear melodies and don't pay attention much to lyrical content and words; it has nothing to do with being too weird.

With Uncle Meat, I did not relate to the, what I find to be immature, potty mouth humor. All the "weird" musical passages were impressive, however, and I loved those.

Hopefully that clears some things up!


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> It seems like you are adamant about thinking I am not open to the strange and weird which I disagree with, but perhaps we are seeing it differently.
> 
> For me, I have to enjoy every second of an album to add it to my collection. I don't know if I can make it much clearer to you that with Joe's Garage, I just don't like how much talking there is on it since I prefer to hear melodies and don't pay attention much to lyrical content and words; it has nothing to do with being too weird.
> 
> ...


But the wet tee short contest is ok ?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> One song from Overnite that I know I don't like is 50/50, the Beefhart vocals are too much for me. There are a couple of guitar jams on Apostrophe that I don't like the sound of.
> 
> Otherwise, I really love those two albums.
> 
> ...


PS Its not Beefheart on 50/50, its Ricky Lancelotti


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> But the wet tee short contest is ok ?


I don't get it Sir Eddie!


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

If a small amount of spoken word or lyrics makes you declare that you dislike an entire album, 10 minutes in, then something funny is going on. If you can't handle a bit of talking or if a bit of humor offends you, then it seems like it is "too weird". You haven't actually given these albums a try as far as I know. Giving something a try means listening to the entire thing. If you can't get through an archetypical Zappa album, then there's got to be something about him that you don't enjoy, namely the spoken word and humor, which are "weird" in comparison with other rock music. It seems like you enjoy a handful of his songs, but not his music in general.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> But the wet tee short contest is ok ?


I don't think he got that far  the wet t-shirt contest going into "On the Bus" is one of my favorite parts of the album.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> If a small amount of spoken word or lyrics makes you declare that you dislike an entire album, 10 minutes in, then something funny is going on. If you can't handle a bit of talking or if a bit of humor offends you, then it seems like it is "too weird". You haven't actually given these albums a try as far as I know. Giving something a try means listening to the entire thing. If you can't get through an archetypical Zappa album, then there's got to be something about him that you don't enjoy, namely the spoken word and humor, which are "weird" in comparison with other rock music. It seems like you enjoy a handful of his songs, but not his music in general.


I sympathize with the Capt'n on the jokes. I don't find them offensive, but not so super cool or funny. But just the "A Pound for A Brown on the Bus" which is only 1:30 long is more original and better quality than 30 minutes of Radiohead or the like. Plus you get others like "Project X".


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> If a small amount of spoken word or lyrics makes you declare that you dislike an entire album, 10 minutes in, then something funny is going on. If you can't handle a bit of talking or if a bit of humor offends you, then it seems like it is "too weird". You haven't actually given these albums a try as far as I know. Giving something a try means listening to the entire thing. If you can't get through an archetypical Zappa album, then there's got to be something about him that you don't enjoy, namely the spoken word and humor, which are "weird" in comparison with other rock music. It seems like you enjoy a handful of his songs, but not his music in general.


If you want to title my assessment/conclusion on those two albums you love very much as being "too weird" for me, that's fine. I wasn't offended by the humor, I just found it in bad taste.

I listen to albums to see if they are something I would want to add to my collection, and the only albums I add to my collection are ones I enjoy the whole way through.

If I find something that I don't like about it early on, I disregard it. I may miss something really neat, but I spend enough time on message boards to seek out those tracks and add them into my music knowledge bank as something I enjoy as a standalone from an album.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> I sympathize with the Capt'n on the jokes. I don't find them offensive, but not so super cool or funny. But just the "A Pound for A Brown on the Bus" which is only 1:30 long is more original and better quality than 30 minutes of Radiohead or the like. Plus you get others like "Project X".


I know you aren't big on Radiohead, I love three of their albums now: Amnesiac, Hail to the Thief and The King of Limbs. I also love SEVERAL standalone tracks from other albums throughout their discography.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> If you want to title my assessment/conclusion on those two albums you love very much as being "too weird" for me, that's fine. I wasn't offended by the humor, I just found it in bad taste.
> 
> I listen to albums to see if they are something I would want to add to my collection, and the only albums I add to my collection are ones I enjoy the whole way through.
> 
> If I find something that I don't like about it early on, I disregard it. I may miss something really neat, but I spend enough time on message boards to seek out those tracks and add them into my music knowledge bank as something I enjoy as a standalone from an album.


I'm pretty sure his intent was to make music with humor that seems "in bad taste". But it isn't "bad taste", it's just not your taste. It's his taste and my taste and many others' taste of humor. If you think his humor is in bad taste, then, again, it sounds like you're saying he's too weird for you, which there's no problem with. It's like saying that South Park is in bad taste. It isn't. It's *their* taste. I don't believe in "bad taste" unless someone actually doesn't try new things to develop their taste (not referring to you, because you at least gave a little effort). Zappa could have made music that was not "in bad taste" (which really just seems like a synonym for weird), and he does have some, but he wanted to make weird music, which includes the lyrics and spoken word and humor. If you said you don't like Frank Zappa in general, or you don't like his humor, or he's too weird for you, that would be a fine opinion, but I think it's rude to listen to little snippets of his albums and proclaim that he has a bad taste of humor.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> PS Its not Beefheart on 50/50, its Ricky Lancelotti


Oh, my mistake. I apologize to you Zappa fanatics!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm pretty sure his intent was to make music with humor that seems "in bad taste". But it isn't "bad taste", it's just not your taste. It's his taste and my taste and many others' taste of humor. If you think his humor is in bad taste, then, again, it sounds like you're saying he's too weird for you, which there's no problem with. It's like saying that South Park is in bad taste. It isn't. It's *their* taste. I don't believe in "bad taste" unless someone actually doesn't try new things to develop their taste (not referring to you, because you at least gave a little effort). Zappa could have made music that was not "in bad taste" (which really just seems like a synonym for weird), and he does have some, but he wanted to make weird music, which includes the lyrics and spoken word and humor. If you said you don't like Frank Zappa in general, or you don't like his humor, or he's too weird for you, that would be a fine opinion, but I think it's rude to listen to little snippets of his albums and proclaim that he has a bad taste of humor.


I said, *I* found it to be in bad taste, as in, for me and my personal taste. I did not say it objectively bad music, I just find it immature and it doesn't speak to me.


----------



## Norman Gunston (Apr 21, 2018)

Oh and ele tric aunt jemima refers to Franks guitar amplifer nothing more nothing less
He is quoted as saying re this name that "I kinda get a laugh out of that fact that people are going to try an interpret that stuff and come up with some grotesque interpretations of it. It gives me a certain amount of satisfaction"


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

FWIW, I also find South Park and several of those current adult cartoons to be in bad taste.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I don't get it Sir Eddie!


bad typing - Wet T-Shirt Nite contest song "AKA Fembot In A Wet T-Shirt' on Joes Garage is ok ?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> bad typing - Wet T-Shirt Nite contest song "AKA Fembot In A Wet T-Shirt' on Joes Garage is ok ?


I need to give One Size Fits All another listen, I recall enjoying that one quite a bit. Zappa can be very hit or miss for me in terms of his guitar work. I'm not the biggest Hot Rats guy, but I LOVE The Gumbo Variations on there.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Why do you have to say that it's in bad taste? Why can't you just dislike it? Having bad/unrefined taste is not why I like that kind of humor.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Why do you have to say that it's in bad taste? Why can't you just dislike it? Having bad/unrefined taste is not why I like that kind of humor.


I dislike it b/c I think the Artistry is in bad taste; I don't like the artistic vision. I'm not saying someone who likes it has bad taste, though.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I dislike it b/c I think the Artistry is in bad taste; I don't like the artistic vision. I'm not saying someone who likes it has bad taste, though.


The artists like it, so how does that work?


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> The artists like it, so how does that work?


By my evaluation and standards, the artist is being crude and in bad taste, you shouldn't try to force me to change my wording because it offends you, that isn't in the spirit of art appreciation.

I'm sorry me finding it to be immature and in bad taste offends your enjoyment of it, I really am, but no matter how hard you try, you aren't going to change how I perceive the Art.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

There's nothing wrong with disliking it, but you can't say that an artist has bad taste or that their art is in bad taste just because you don't like it. Since you've clarified that you don't think it's offensive or weird, I don't know how to interpret what you're saying as anything but an insult to the artists and their art. Saying that you find something immature and that you don't like it is one thing, but saying that the art is in bad taste is another. Making insulting objective statements like that isn't very much in the spirit of art appreciation. Your wording could either mean that you think the art is offensive and weird, which you've denied, or that you think it's objectively tasteless and unrefined, which is insulting. I'm not a giant Zappa fan, so I'm not just taking offense that you don't like something that I like. I'm very used to people not liking what I like.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> There's nothing wrong with disliking it, but you can't say that an artist has bad taste or that their art is in bad taste just because you don't like it. Since you've clarified that you don't think it's offensive or weird, I don't know how to interpret what you're saying as anything but an insult to the artists and their art. Saying that you find something immature and that you don't like it is one thing, but saying that the art is in bad taste is another. Making insulting objective statements like that isn't very much in the spirit of art appreciation. Your wording could either mean that you think the art is offensive and weird, which you've denied, or that you think it's objectively tasteless and unrefined, which is insulting. I'm not a giant Zappa fan, so I'm not just taking offense that you don't like something that I like. I'm very used to people not liking what I like.


I absolutely can SUBJECTIVELY say I think it's in bad taste and nothing you say can FORCE me to change my SUBJECTIVE OPINION. In my viewpoint, potty mouth humor is crude and unrefined and a tasteless choice to include in art, MY *SUBJECTIVE* VIEWPOINT!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I actually feel you are attempting to insult me by stating I just don't like the obscure when I obviously have a flare for rather unconventional works as evidenced by this thread. Perhaps they don't match up with what you view as being weird and unconventional, though.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I just finished up One Size Fits All and LOVED it. The solo on Inca Roads, just as my memory recalled, really did it for me. This is a really fun album, silly, musically complex, unusual melodies, great singing and awesome execution.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I absolutely can SUBJECTIVELY say I think it's in bad taste and nothing you say can FORCE me to change my SUBJECTIVE OPINION. In my viewpoint, potty mouth humor is crude and unrefined and a tasteless choice to include in art, MY *SUBJECTIVE* VIEWPOINT!


Your opinion seems to be that you dislike the art being referred to, which is fine. Your opinion does not determine whether something is tasteless though. You can dislike the humor and be offended by it, but saying that the art itself is in bad taste or the artist has bad taste is an objective insult of the art/artist.



Captainnumber36 said:


> I actually feel you are attempting to insult me by stating I just don't like the obscure when I obviously have a flare for rather unconventional works as evidenced by this thread. Perhaps they don't match up with what you view as being weird and unconventional, though.


Frank Zappa and South Park are anything but obscure. Any pretentiousness you're perceiving from me isn't there. I keep saying that it's fine if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it tasteless. I'm definitely not trying to convince you of anything except not to say things that are directly insulting about art.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

We will have to agree to disagree on this one, Fred. We aren't getting anywhere, and are merely running in circles at this point. We aren't going to convince each other, so let's just move past this point.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Your opinion seems to be that you dislike the art being referred to, which is fine. Your opinion does not determine whether something is tasteless though. You can dislike the humor and be offended by it, but saying that the art itself is in bad taste or the artist has bad taste is an objective insult of the art/artist.
> 
> Frank Zappa and South Park are anything but obscure. Any pretentiousness you're perceiving from me isn't there. I keep saying that it's fine if you don't like it, but that doesn't make it tasteless. I'm definitely not trying to convince you of anything except not to say things that are directly insulting about art.


Obscurity cannot be objectively determined for it lays on a relative/comparative scale, and I'm not even bothered by that label. All that matters to me in Art is that I love it.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

What you fail to understand is that tastelessness is a subjective evaluation, not objective. Here is the definition of the term:

_Tasteless_ - Considered to be lacking in aesthetic judgment or to offend against what is regarded as appropriate behavior.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Think I'll go and get some sugarless Coke


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> What you fail to understand is that tastelessness is a subjective evaluation, not objective. Here is the definition of the term:
> 
> _Tasteless_ - Considered to be lacking in aesthetic judgment or to offend against what is regarded as appropriate behavior.


That sounds pretty objective to me. It's saying that there's something wrong with the art itself, not that the art doesn't appeal to one's self. Frank Zappa definitely does not lack in aesthetic judgment. He was extremely deliberate and precise with his music and style. Some of his music is offensive, yes, but I think the word "offensive" is better suited to describe that.

I just wish you would say that you don't like it and leave it at that, rather than comment on how lacking in taste it is.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

Fredx2098 said:


> That sounds pretty objective to me. It's saying that there's something wrong with the art itself, not that the art doesn't appeal to one's self. Frank Zappa definitely does not lack in aesthetic judgment. He was extremely deliberate and precise with his music and style. Some of his music is offensive, yes, but I think the word "offensive" is better suited to describe that.
> 
> I just wish you would say that you don't like it and leave it at that, rather than comment on how lacking in taste it is.


And it was done with Deliberate intent. Frank's big thing was free speech and the right to publish anything, anywhere, anytime for no reason at all ............. Think he was trying to get back at the system was putting him in Cell block D for recording "noises" in his original Studio Z, in an undercover Reagan 60's California era set up ...........


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> That sounds pretty objective to me. It's saying that there's something wrong with the art itself, not that the art doesn't appeal to one's self. Frank Zappa definitely does not lack in aesthetic judgment. He was extremely deliberate and precise with his music and style. Some of his music is offensive, yes, but I think the word "offensive" is better suited to describe that.
> 
> I just wish you would say that you don't like it and leave it at that, rather than comment on how lacking in taste it is.


The qualifiers "considered" and "regarded" imply opinion, not fact.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

I think it's immature, crude and obnoxious and it does not speak to me at all. I think Zappa's taste in lyrical content is bad, and I think the Art is bad, all by my subjective assessment.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> The qualifiers "considered" and "regarded" imply opinion, not fact.


I don't think they necessarily do. Calling something tasteless is akin to calling something/someone meaningless, talentless, pointless, etc. "Considering" and "regarding" can be objective. The word "tasteless" on the surface means lacking in taste. That's categorically untrue when it comes to Frank Zappa whether or not you like everything he does. From what I've heard of his music and from what I've read about his personality, he seems to have extremely refined tastes, refined to an affinity for offensive humor similar to my taste in comedy, combined with a genius ability to compose and play music.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese (Jan 8, 2013)

My response


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Captainnumber36 said:


> I think it's immature, crude and obnoxious and it does not speak to me at all. I think Zappa's taste in lyrical content is bad, and I think the Art is bad, all by my subjective assessment.


Man, those are not subjective statements. You're describing the art objectively. Something subjective would be "I hate Joe's Garage and Uncle Meat," not "Joe's Garage and Uncle Meat are bad art."


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I don't think they necessarily do. Calling something tasteless is akin to calling something/someone meaningless, talentless, pointless, etc. "Considering" and "regarding" can be objective. The word "tasteless" on the surface means lacking in taste. That's categorically untrue when it comes to Frank Zappa whether or not you like everything he does. From what I've heard of his music and from what I've read about his personality, he seems to have extremely refined tastes, refined to an affinity for offensive humor similar to my taste in comedy, combined with a genius ability to compose and play music.


And I'm allowed to personally find the Art meaningless, think it lacks in the lyrical content department and find it to be quite pointless.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

If you could turn anything into a subjective statement by saying "in my subjective opinion" at the end, I'd be going around saying "Beethoven is a talentless hack who composed nothing but boring meaningless music, in my opinion." But instead I just say that I'm personally not a fan of his music.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

I'm confused how you say that you like some of his albums/tracks, but then say that he's tasteless and obnoxious.


----------



## Phil loves classical (Feb 8, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm confused how you say that you like some of his albums/tracks, but then say that he's tasteless and obnoxious.


Whoa. Give the guy his personal space. Debussy said Beethoven didn't have good taste, unlike Mozart. The Rite of Spring was not intended to be in good taste. I view Zappa as similar, going against accepted norms. I would say his humour is not in good taste either even though I think his music is great. You can argue his humour work artistically. But aesthetically it isn't in good taste. Swearing is intended to provoke, is aggressive language. It would be an insult to Zappa to say the language is in good taste. I think you're confusing good taste with good artistry. They don't always go together. In modern times they aren't supposed to.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> If you could turn anything into a subjective statement by saying "in my subjective opinion" at the end, I'd be going around saying "Beethoven is a talentless hack who composed nothing but boring meaningless music, in my opinion." But instead I just say that I'm personally not a fan of his music.


Saying something is in bad taste is not a rude way of stating something; stating that Beethoven is a talentless hack and wrote boring and meaningless music is rude and lacking in class, but can be a valid opinion.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> I'm confused how you say that you like some of his albums/tracks, but then say that he's tasteless and obnoxious.


You are having trouble with the concept that Zappa was diverse, and especially amongst diverse artists, some ppl are going to prefer certain sides more than others. Just like The Beatles early and late periods; some prefer one period over the other, and some enjoy it all, and no one is right or wrong.

And to stress again, to state Zappa was in bad taste with some of his lyrical choices, is not a rude way to state you don't like something.

I agree with you on the subjectivity of art and that it is all personal taste, and that taste is subjective, however, you can think someone else has bad taste without making an objective statement that what someone likes is objectively bad and allowing them to live and let live.

I wouldn't say you have bad taste by enjoying Uncle Meat and Joe's Garage, and I wouldn't even hold that opinion, but I would tell you that I thought Zappa was in bad taste with his lyrical choices in my opinion.

Taste is subjective, and you can subjectively think someone else has bad taste, that is the spirit of taste!


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Man, those are not subjective statements. You're describing the art objectively. Something subjective would be "I hate Joe's Garage and Uncle Meat," not "Joe's Garage and Uncle Meat are bad art."


So I'm not allowed to say I think something is bad art according to you? Just as ppl can say they enjoy art and think it's good, they can say they don't like it and think it's bad.

You are having a very difficult time with the fundamentals of the English language and the usage of qualifiers in statements that indicate opinion.

You are also having trouble identifying the difference between an objective and subjective statement.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Phil loves classical said:


> Whoa. Give the guy his personal space. Debussy said Beethoven didn't have good taste, unlike Mozart. The Rite of Spring was not intended to be in good taste. I view Zappa as similar, going against accepted norms. I would say his humour is not in good taste either even though I think his music is great. You can argue his humour work artistically. But aesthetically it isn't in good taste. Swearing is intended to provoke, is aggressive language. It would be an insult to Zappa to say the language is in good taste. I think you're confusing good taste with good artistry. They don't always go together. In modern times they aren't supposed to.


I agree with you for the most part, except I think identification of bad taste is completely subjective; so the only part I disagree with is that Zappa's lyrics are objectively in bad taste, even though I personally subjectively think so.


----------



## Fredx2098 (Jun 24, 2018)

Like the definition you gave earlier, when talking about an artist, "taste" refers to their aesthetic judgment, or it's too ambiguous to use in another way, which is why "offensive" works better if that's what you mean. In terms of aesthetic judgment, Zappa has very refined tastes. Calling an artist tasteless strikes me as one of the biggest insults possible to them, unlike saying that it doesn't suit your taste or just that you don't like it. What makes it worse is that you didn't even give the albums a full try, not that I want to get you to keep listening. There have been many times where I don't fully appreciate an album until after I hear it all, then I have to listen again to hear it properly. I definitely wouldn't pass judgment after listening to a fraction of something.


----------



## Captainnumber36 (Jan 19, 2017)

Fredx2098 said:


> Like the definition you gave earlier, when talking about an artist, "taste" refers to their aesthetic judgment, or it's too ambiguous to use in another way, which is why "offensive" works better if that's what you mean. In terms of aesthetic judgment, Zappa has very refined tastes. Calling an artist tasteless strikes me as one of the biggest insults possible to them, unlike saying that it doesn't suit your taste or just that you don't like it. What makes it worse is that you didn't even give the albums a full try, not that I want to get you to keep listening. There have been many times where I don't fully appreciate an album until after I hear it all, then I have to listen again to hear it properly. I definitely wouldn't pass judgment after listening to a fraction of something.


Read over some of these definitions of the idiom, "in bad taste".

https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/in+bad+taste

I don't think you quite understand what it means, and we disagree that utilizing this idiom is in bad taste, .

You also need to accept that qualifiers make a difference in determining the subjectivity or objectivity of a sentence, in it's essence of meaning.

I think you are attempting to stop ppl from saying any comments on Art that aren't positive, and you want ppl, if they don't like something, to just keep it at that. That is not fair, ppl have reasons for not liking something, just as they have reasons for liking something.

Saying I think some work is bad b/c I find it crude and obnoxious is fair game, and if stated politely, is not lacking in class.

I think Zappa, as Phil noted, would be happy his work came off as being in bad taste to some, he was TRYING to be offensive.


----------

