# Frank Zappa talking about composers and classical music



## PresenTense

_Taken from "The Real Frank Zappa Book" written by Frank Zappa himself. _








*"Hateful Practices"​*


> I find music of the classical period boring because it reminds me of 'painting by numbers.' There are certain things composers of that period were not allowed to do because they were considered to be outside the boundaries of the industrial regulations which determined whether the piece was a symphony, a sonata or a whatever.
> All of the norms, as practiced during the olden days, came into being because the guys who paid the bills wanted the 'tunes' they were buying to 'sound a certain way.'
> The king said: "I'll chop off your head unless it sounds like this." The pope said: "I'll rip out your fingernails unless it sounds like this." The duke or somebody else might have said it another way -- and it's the same today: "Your song won't get played on the radio unless it sounds like this." People who think that classical music is somehow more elevated than 'radio music' should take a look at the forms involved -- and at who's paying the bills. Once upon a time, it was the king or Pope So-and-so. Today we have broadcast license holders, radio programmers, disc jockeys and record company executives -- banal reincarnations of the ******** who shaped the music of the past.
> The contemporary 'harmony textbook' is the embodiment of those evils, in catalog form. When I was handed my first book and told to do the exercises, I hated the sound of the 'sample passages.' I studied them anyway. If something is hateful, you should at least know what it is you're hating so you can avoid it in the future.
> Many compositions that have been accepted as "GREAT ART" through the years reek of these hateful practices. For example, the rule of harmony that says: The second degree of the scale should go to the fifth degree of the scale, which should go to the first degree of the scale [II-V-I].
> Tin Pan Alley songs and jazz standards thrive on II-V-I. To me, this is a hateful progression. In jazz, they beef it up a little by adding extra partials into the chords to make them more luxurious, but it's still II-V-I. To me, II-V-I is the essence of bad 'white-person music.'
> (One of the most exciting things that ever happened in the world of 'white-person music' was when the Beach Boys used the progression V-II on "Little Deuce Coupe." An important step forward by going backward.)
> It's the instructor's job to make you learn how to do all the stuff in those books. To get a grade, you must write exercises proving that you are capable of accommodating the entertainment needs of deceased kings and popes, and, after you've proved it, you get a piece of paper that says you're a composer. Is that nauseating or what?
> It's worse in the graduate courses that teach students how to do 'modern' music. Even modern music has hateful practices -- like the twelve-tone business that says you can't play note one until you've cycled through the other eleven, theoretically thwarting tonality by giving each pitch equal importance.
> The Ultimate Rule ought to be: "If it sounds GOOD to YOU, it's bitchen; and if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's ******." The more varied your musical experience, the easier it is to define for yourself what you like and what you don't like.
> American radio listeners, raised on a diet of ________ (fill in the blank), have experienced a musical universe so small they cannot begin to know what they like.
> In radio music, timbre rules (the texture of the tune, i.e., "Purple Haze" played on accordion is very different from Hendrix playing it on a squealing feedback guitar).
> On a record, the overall timbre of the piece (determined by equalization of individual parts and their proportions in the mix) tells you, in a subtle way, WHAT the song is about. The orchestration provides important information about what the composition IS and, in some instances, assumes a greater importance than the composition itself.
> American listeners know very little about the ethnic music of other cultures, and the closest they get to contemporary orchestral composition is the latest film or TV background music.
> It's amazing that schools still offer courses in musical composition. What a useless thing to spend money on -- to take a course in college to learn how to be a modern composer! No matter how good the course is, when you get out, what the **** will you do for a living? (The easiest thing to do is become a composition teacher yourself, spreading 'the disease' to the next generation.)
> One of the things that determines the curriculum in music schools is: which of the current fashions in modern music gets the most grant money from the mysterious benefactors in Foundation-Land. For a while there, unless you were doing serial music (in which the pitches have numbers, the dynamics have numbers, the vertical densities have numbers, etc.) -- if it didn't have a pedigree like that, it wasn't a good piece of music. Critics and academicians stood by, waiting to tell you what a piece of **** your opus was if your numbers didn't add up. (Forget what it sounded like, or whether it moved anybody, or what it was about. The most important thing was the numbers.)
> The foundations that provide grant money for people engaged in these pursuits occasionally decide to stop funding one style of music after becoming entranced with another. For instance, it used to be that they would fund only boop-beep stuff (serial and/or electronic composition). Now they're funding only minimalism (simplistic, repetitive composition, easy to rehearse and, therefore, cost-effective). So what gets taught in school? Minimalism. Why? Because it can be FUNDED. Net cultural result? Monochromonotony.
> In order to gain status at the university, a professor or composer in residence has to be plugged into something that's really hot -- something FUNDABLE, and, as of this writing, the secret word is MINIMALISM. So, after a busy semester grading the papers of their minimalist trainees, they adjust their berets and fill out the request forms for 'foundation assistance.' Students and instructors alike compete annually for pieces of this pie.
> One day, these cultural institutions are going to stop funding minimalist music and fund something else, and the Serious Music Landscape will be littered with the shriveled remains of 'expert graduate minimalists.'





> One of the things I've said before in interviews is: "Without deviation (from the norm), 'progress' is not possible."
> In order for one to deviate successfully, one has to have at least a passing acquaintance with whatever norm one expects to deviate from.
> When a musician comes into my band, he already knows sets of musical norms. The drummers know all the drumbeat norms (how to play disco, how to play a shuffle, how to play fatback, etc., etc.). Bass players know all the bass player norms (thumb pops, walking lines, 'traditional' ostinatos, etc., etc.). Those are today's radio music norms. Part of the fun in preparing touring arrangements is nuking those norms.
> The place where one finds the least enthusiasm for norm-nuking is in the world of the symphony orchestra. If you hand an orchestral musician a piece of new music, his instant response is likely to be: "Feh! This was written by some guy who is still alive!"
> Players come into the orchestra already knowing what's 'good' -- because they've played it a million times in the conservatory. So, when a composer approaches an orchestra with a piece of music embodying techniques or ideas that weren't 'certified' during the musicians' conservatory days, he is likely to experience rejection at the molecular level -- as a defense mechanism of the entire orchestra.
> As soon as an orchestra attempts to play something they don't know, they run the risk of ******* up. There are only two ways for them to avoid this potential embarrassment. One is to rehearse -- but who will pay for this precious rehearsal time? The other is to avoid playing any new music.
> When a guest conductor comes to town, he is not usually giving a performance of something by a living composer. He's doing Brahms; he's doing Beethoven; he's doing Mozart -- because he can warm it up in one afternoon and make it sound okay. This makes the accountants happy, and allows the audience to concentrate on his choreography (which is really why they bought the tickets in the first place).
> Why is that any better than a bunch of guys in a bar band jamming on "Louie Louie" or "Midnight Hour"?


*Meeting Pierre Boulez​*


> I met Boulez after sending him some orchestral scores, hoping that he would be interested in conducting them. He wrote back saying that he couldn't because, although he did have a chamber orchestra of twenty-eight pieces, he did not have a full-size symphony orchestra at his disposal in France (and even if he did, he probably wouldn't have used it, as he later stated that he didn't care for 'The French Orchestral Tone,' preferring the BBC Symphony).
> I bought my first Boulez album when I was in the twelfth grade: a Columbia recording of "Le Marteau Sans Maître" (The Hammer Without a Master) conducted by Robert Craft, with "Zeitmasse" (Time-mass) by Stockhausen on the other side.
> Within a year or so of that, I managed to get hold of a score. I listened to the record while following the score, and I noticed that the performance was not very accurate. I later acquired a recording of "Le Marteau" on the Turnabout label, with Boulez conducting, and was surprised to find that he took the first movement much more slowly than the tempo marked in the score. I razzed him about it when we met.
> Boulez is, to use one of Thomas Nordegg's favorite phrases, "serious as cancer," but he can be funny too. He reminds me a little of the character that Herbert Lorn plays in the Pink Panther movies. He doesn't have the 'psychotic wink,' but he has some of that nervous quality about him, as if he might -- given the proper excuse -- start laughing uncontrollably.
> I went to lunch with him in Paris, prior to the Perfect Stranger recording. He ordered something called brebis du [fill in the blank] -- I didn't know what it was. It was some kind of meatlike material on weird lettuce with a translucent dressing. He looked like he was really enjoying it. He offered some to me. I asked him what it was. He said, "The sliced nose of the cow." I thanked him and went back to my pepper steak.
> I saw him conduct the New York Philharmonic with Phyllis Bryn-Julson as soloist at Lincoln Center in '86 or'87. The audience was extremely rude. The first half of the program had pieces by Stravinsky and Debussy; the second half was a piece by Boulez. After the intermission, the audience came back in and waited for him to begin his piece -- which was very quiet compared to the first two -- and then about half the audience got up -- noisily -- and walked out. He kept on conducting.
> I would have enjoyed the opportunity to grab a microphone and scream, "Sit down, ********! This is one of 'The Real Guys'!"














*Living composers and stupid teens listening to Pop Music​*
_The following section is excerpted from the keynote address I delivered at the 1984 convention of the American Society of University Composers (ASUC)._​


> I do not belong to your organization. I know nothing about it. I'm not even interested in it -- and yet, a request has been made for me to give what purports to be a keynote speech. Before I go on, let me warn you that I talk dirty, and that I will say things you will neither enjoy nor agree with. You shouldn't feel threatened, though, because I am a mere buffoon, and you are all Serious American Composers.
> 
> For those of you who don't know, I am also a composer. I taught myself how to do it by going to the library and listening to records. I started when I was fourteen and I've been doing it for thirty years. I don't like schools. I don't like teachers. I don't like most of the things that you believe in -- and if that weren't bad enough, I earn a living by playing the electric guitar.
> 
> For convenience, without wishing to offend your membership, I will use the word "WE" when discussing matters pertaining to composers. Some of the "WE" references will apply generally, some will not. And now: The Speech. . .
> 
> The most baffling aspect of the industrial-American-relevance question is: "Why do people continue to compose music, and even pretend to teach others how to do it, when they already know the answer? Nobody gives a ****." Is it really worth the trouble to write a new piece of music for an audience that doesn't care? The general consensus seems to be that music by living composers is not only irrelevant but also genuinely obnoxious to a society which concerns itself primarily with the consumption of disposable merchandise.
> 
> Surely "WE" must be punished for wasting everyone's precious time with an art form so unrequired and trivial in the general scheme of things. Ask your banker -- ask your loan officer at the bank, he'll tell you: "WE" are scum. "WE" are the scum of the earth. "WE" are bad people. "WE" are useless bums. No matter how much tenure "WE" manage to weasel out of the universities where "WE" manufacture our baffling, insipid packages of inconsequential poot, "WE" know deep down that "WE" are worthless.
> 
> Some of us smoke a pipe. Others have tweed sports coats with leather patches on the elbows. Some of us have mad scientists' eyebrows. Some of us engage in the shameless display of incredibly dramatic mufflers, dangling in the vicinity of a turtleneck sweater. These are only a few of the reasons why "WE" must be punished.
> 
> Today, just as in the glorious past, the composer has to accommodate the specific taste (no matter how bad) of THE KING -- reincarnated as a movie or TV producer, the head of the opera company, the lady with the frightening hair on the 'special committee' or her niece, Debbie.
> 
> Some of you don't know about Debbie, since you don't have to deal with radio stations and record companies the way the people from The Real World do, but you ought to find out about her, just in case you decide to visit later.Debbie is thirteen years old. Her parents like to think of themselves as Average, God-Fearing American White Folk. Her Dad belongs to a corrupt union of some sort and is, as we might suspect, a lazy, incompetent, overpaid, ignorant son-of-a-bitch. Her mother is a sexually maladjusted mercenary shrew who lives to spend her husband's paycheck on ridiculous clothes -- to make her look 'younger.'


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

The Real Frank Zappa Book, got two copies myself..................


----------



## David OByrne

Thank you for posting this PresenTense, it was very enlightening. I never thought about it that way before


----------



## Casebearer

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> The Real Frank Zappa Book, got two copies myself..................


I had one but gave it in loan to somebody.


----------



## tdc

As usual I find reading his views amusing and thought provoking though I don't always agree with him. His explanation of classical music and how it has evolved over time is simplified and inaccurate. But he seems to do this kind of thing for effect. 

Another thing I noticed is on one hand he seems to have an agenda of making music less elitist, and on the other he comes across as an elitist. 

For example when he says (in reference to crowd leaving at Boulez concert):

"I would have enjoyed the opportunity to grab a microphone and scream, "Sit down, ********! This is one of 'The Real Guys'!" 

That sounds just a touch elitist and condescending, no?

I still think it is enjoyable to read his views and worth while because he has an interesting way of framing everyday things people do in a different context. Thinking about things in these other ways can broaden perspectives.

I agree with much of what he says, but I think his inclination to distrust anything spiritual caused him to be blind to some things.


----------



## Nereffid

Zappa was almost always entertaining and/or thought-provoking (though some of it gets more embarrassing with every passing year), and I always got the impression that he could never quite work out how seriously to take himself.



> They're pretty good musicians
> But it don't make no difference
> If they're good musicians
> Because anybody who would buy this record
> Doesn't give a fk if there's good musicians on it
> Because this is a stupid song
> And that's the way I like it
> 
> ("Little Green Rosetta")


----------



## starthrower

tdc said:


> As usual I find reading his views amusing and thought provoking though I don't always agree with him. His explanation of classical music and how it has evolved over time is simplified and inaccurate. But he seems to do this kind of thing for effect.
> 
> Another thing I noticed is on one hand he seems to have an agenda of making music less elitist, and on the other he comes across as an elitist.
> 
> For example when he says (in reference to crowd leaving at Boulez concert):
> 
> "I would have enjoyed the opportunity to grab a microphone and scream, "Sit down, ********! This is one of 'The Real Guys'!"
> 
> That sounds just a touch elitist and condescending, no?
> 
> I still think it is enjoyable to read his views and worth while because he has an interesting way of framing everyday things people do in a different context. Thinking about things in these other ways can broaden perspectives.
> 
> I agree with much of what he says, but I think his inclination to distrust anything spiritual caused him to be blind to some things.


I think your critique of Zappa is quite accurate. He could be dismissive due to a certain narrow mindedness, or simply because he didn't want to waste too much of his time during an interview. He seemed to have a tough time even appreciating quite a bit of modern music. He was probably just too busy to devote more time to repeated listening. But generally speaking, he had good taste, and I owe him a great debt for turning me onto Varese, Stravinsky, Bartok, and the Second Viennese School. And also Takemitsu.


----------



## Casebearer

I also agree with that. Nicely put tdc. On the other hand I've got no problems at all with his elitism or dismissiveness. First because it's backed up by him being a genius and second because it is totally impossible for a humanoid genius to not become a trifle elitist being confronted with all these ***holes in everyday live in every arena (audience, music industry, politics etc).


----------



## brianvds

Zappa was one of the funniest and cleverest people I have ever run into, and many of his points are perfectly valid, though perhaps he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater a bit. Just about all the great composers of the past went through precisely the kind of training he rails against, and it didn't prevent them from ending up hugely creative and original. A student is supposed to be learning techniques and improving his inner ear, not "express himself." 

There is an interesting parallel in the visual arts: for centuries, art students went through what can be argued was a boring and pointless curriculum of copying old master works, studying anatomy, drawing live models etc. But this was true not just of academic artists: just about every major artist that one can think of, including such iconoclasts as Picasso, went through that same training and not only did it not prevent them from being original, it was the main thing that enabled them to become highly creative and original. 

In the visual arts, the university academies eventually in effect followed Zappa's kind of thinking and threw out this traditional training and encouraged "originality" and "self-expression." It was an utter disaster for visual art from which art has not quite recovered yet. The fact that a music student is required to be able to write a string quartet in the style of Mozart does not mean in any way, shape or form that such a student will end up doing nothing else. 

Yes, it is true that the people holding the purse strings, whether they be kings and popes or Hollywood execs, will have some say in what kind of music will be composed. But that is not a bad thing. Why on earth should people be required to fund music they don't like? The system of patronage is really the only way one can have large scale orchestras in the first place, and looking over the history of music, it does not seem to me that it has ever prevented the greats from rising to the top. 

In short, you cannot express yourself in French poetry until you are quite fluent in French. You cannot express yourself in visual art until you are quite fluent in the language of visual art. And you cannot express yourself in music until you are quite fluent in the language of music. That is the whole point of getting a training in French, art or music.


----------



## dzc4627

Wretched. Reminds me of my younger "I only like dissonance" self.


----------



## starthrower

brianvds said:


> Zappa was one of the funniest and cleverest people I have ever run into, and many of his points are perfectly valid, though perhaps he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater a bit. Just about all the great composers of the past went through precisely the kind of training he rails against, and it didn't prevent them from ending up hugely creative and original. A student is supposed to be learning techniques and improving his inner ear, not "express himself."


He down played the conservatory training approach, but he obviously spent a lot of time studying in his formative years. Not the same as the traditional training you described, of course. I can't read orchestral scores, and I don't have a degree in music, so I don't know how much originality there is in Zappa's music? He definitely had an identifiable sound to his rock ensemble compositions. But his influences are quite obvious to anyone who's listened to Boulez, Varese, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, etc. You can hear all that stuff in his music. For example the voicings of the woodwinds in some of his pieces sounds a lot like Stravinsky, or Messiaen. And Varese's Ionization was a huge influence.


----------



## JAS

I have never heard anything by Zappa that I would care to hear a second time, and now I can add that I have never read anything by Zappa that I would care to read a second time.


----------



## Manxfeeder

starthrower said:


> He definitely had an identifiable sound to his rock ensemble compositions. But his influences are quite obvious to anyone who's listened to Boulez, Varese, Schoenberg, Stockhausen, etc. You can hear all that stuff in his music. For example the voicings of the woodwinds in some of his pieces sounds a lot like Stravinsky, or Messiaen. And Varese's Ionization was a huge influence.


Interesting observation. I haven't studied his "serious" pieces because back in the day I was turned off by his orchestrations for jazz ensemble in the Grand Wazoo album. Maybe he was being innovative, but to me, the voicings were clotted, and his part writing was clumsy, and it didn't sound idiomatic for the instruments. It sounded like someone who taught himself without the benefit of a teacher. Maybe his serious pieces are better.


----------



## starthrower

JAS said:


> I have never heard anything by Zappa that I would care to hear a second time, and now I can add that I have never read anything by Zappa that I would care to read a second time.


The cynical outlook can be tiresome, despite the fact that there's some truth to what he's saying. His music and orchestrations might get a C grade from the conservatory, but the music resonates with this listener. It's full of imagination, personality, humor, and beautiful melodies. I prefer the electric ensembles for the most part, because I enjoy listening to great rhythm sections and guitar solos. And some of the hybrid rock/chamber pieces like Bogus Pomp, and Music For Guitar and Low Budget Orchestra are the ones I enjoy the most.


----------



## Manxfeeder

starthrower said:


> His music and orchestrations might get a C grade from the conservatory, but the music resonates with this listener. It's full of imagination, personality, humor, and beautiful melodies.


I agree. Though I don't like how he did it, the album itself is a lot of fun and a lot of us jazz aficionados were into it. (I actually own a C melody sax, because that was the album's Mystery Horn).


----------



## sloth

Casebearer said:


> I also agree with that. Nicely put tdc. On the other hand I've got no problems at all with his elitism or dismissiveness. First because it's backed up by him being a genius and second because it is totally impossible for a humanoid genius to not become a trifle elitist being confronted with all these ***holes in everyday live in every arena (audience, music industry, politics etc).


he wasn't a "genius" (what is a genius? geniuses are like Santa or aliens---good for you if you believe in that). he just happened to have an open mind. To call someone a genius is just an excuse for one's narrow-mindedness. He was a pretty decent guitarist for sure, though.


----------



## Razumovskymas

Isn't it funny to see pop artists criticizing some 500 years of musical history. Although some of his views may touch some ground I still find what I read in these excerpts a bit "immature". He probably didn't realize how much of his own work is dependent on let's say the classical period (which he found very boring). He just saw it as music determined by the people who paid for it, I see it as music that evolved for 500 years and more to what it was in that day. An evolution that certainly didn't just take place because people wanted to change what they heard in that day but more importantly because people wanted to conserve and refine their music over several generations. I bet there still are some remnants of gregorian cantus-firmus in Zappa's own music and he probably was not aware of it.


----------



## Clairvoyance Enough

Blegh. Had the classical era never occurred, the question would remain "what is the best possible music that can be written within these parameters?" It would be this glaring hole left in the possibilities of music and curiosity would have compelled another generation of composers to answer it anyway. If he dislikes it so much he should be glad it was taken care of before he came around. The exhaustion of those strict parameters was itself an exceptionally creative thing.

He seems to want to characterize the older music as objectively boring. Besides that I agree with much of what he said. If we're going to make blanket statements about large swaths of music because of our subjective reactions, then Zappa's entire catalogue is boring as f---.


----------



## Casebearer

sloth said:


> he wasn't a "genius" (what is a genius? geniuses are like Santa or aliens---good for you if you believe in that). he just happened to have an open mind. To call someone a genius is just an excuse for one's narrow-mindedness. He was a pretty decent guitarist for sure, though.


Don't know what to say to you. You seem to tell us that there are no geniuses in the real world, only in mythology or science fiction, as part of a belief system of narrow minded people. I don't know why you have a problem with the word. In my case it doesn't mean I hang up posters and tell people Zappa (or other geniuses like Charles Darwin, Leonardo da Vinci, Karl Marx, Jürgen Habermas, Johan Cruyff) is beyond criticism. In my book it just means original, innovative and outstanding in comparison to contemporaries.

I'd also say your description of Zappa - a pretty decent guitar player with an open mind - does not give us a full and fair account of his achievements.


----------



## brianvds

starthrower said:


> He down played the conservatory training approach, but he obviously spent a lot of time studying in his formative years.


Indeed. Either you study formally, or you put yourself through something which amounts to pretty much the same thing. I am not aware of many composers or visual artists who could get away with not doing either of those things. Zappa too had to learn about chords and stuff, however he went about doing it.

The Beatles reportedly couldn't read music, but even they had to get a thorough grounding in music theory, albeit one in which they presumably imagined their chords (or visualized them on a keyboard or fret board) rather than as dots on paper.

I have always been a bit mystified by this attitude of refusing to learn anything from anyone else. But then, I'm not a genius.


----------



## violadude

His point of view is interesting to read, but I disagree with a few things (I only read the first excerpt by the way).

Stravinsky once said that creativity can actually flow more freely when strict standards are imposed on a composition. Too much freedom in the process of composing can actually hamper creativity because if anything at all is possible then it is difficult to find a framework for your creativity. I have found this to be true in my own composition process. Maybe Zappa's mind is much different than mine, but I have found it's easier to find creativity within semi-rigid frameworks rather than pulling it out of thin air. 

I think if he had more time (he was probably a busy guy) and had a chance to listen closely to the works of Haydn or Mozart, he would eventually find that their music is far from being "paint by numbers music". Within the context of the Classical Period, their music is very exciting and unpredictable. 

Also, I don't think Classical Music "rules" were imposed on composers in quite the way he is thinking they were. It's true there were certain pressures to write a certain way when it came to music that paid the bills. But if you look at music that those composers wrote in their free time (not for any particular purpose or event), they don't tend to be so far outside the norm, at least not in retrospect (they might have seemed that way for the people living in that time). Even Beethoven, for all the revolutionary ways of writing music he came up with, still stayed within the basic framework of classical composition, those "hateful practices" are everywhere in his music, and as we all know he didn't give a ***** what people thought of his music. In other words, these standards weren't so much strictly imposed as they were just the accepted practice that all composers worked within, to varying degrees of freedom.


----------



## sloth

Casebearer said:


> Don't know what to say to you. You seem to tell us that there are no geniuses in the real world, only in mythology or science fiction, as part of a belief system of narrow minded people. I don't know why you have a problem with the word. In my case it doesn't mean I hang up posters and tell people Zappa (or other geniuses like Charles Darwin, Leonardo da Vinci, Karl Marx, Jürgen Habermas, Johan Cruyff) is beyond criticism. In my book it just means original, innovative and outstanding in comparison to contemporaries.
> 
> I'd also say your description of Zappa - a pretty decent guitar player with an open mind - does not give us a full and fair account of his achievements.


To me having an "open mind" is the most important achievement for a human being. There are a lot of highly skilled dull boring people around. Their work might be of some interest to someone but what they lack is a clear vision... it's like they are progressing inside a tunnel, they keep on doing things without any outer reference (don't know if that makes sense but it's difficult to put in other words). But I agree with your genius meaning, only most of the times it looks like the word implies some super-human gift. and that's silly imho.


----------



## brianvds

violadude said:


> Stravinsky once said that creativity can actually flow more freely when strict standards are imposed on a composition. Too much freedom in the process of composing can actually hamper creativity because if anything at all is possible then it is difficult to find a framework for your creativity. I have found this to be true in my own composition process. Maybe Zappa's mind is much different than mine, but I have found it's easier to find creativity within semi-rigid frameworks rather than pulling it out of thin air.


Yup, I am mistrustful of this newfangled "anything goes" thing. So now we have music that doesn't sound much like music, paintings that cannot be distinguished from random drippings, poems that don't rhyme and so on. Perhaps I am just old fashioned. I certainly don't want to come across as rejecting anything new.

A friend of mine writes poetry for a hobby; he tells me that nowadays he prefers to strictly stick within established frameworks (he's particularly fond of writing sonnets). Why? Because in some ways it is actually more challenging to mold your ideas to such a structure. It often requires _more_ creativity to do it this way than to just write whatever comes to mind. Force yourself to make your poem rhyme, and you have to think more deeply about it.

It requires tremendous talent to pull it off otherwise. As I understand it, one reason why Debussy wrote relatively little music is because he invented his own forms from scratch. He could do it, but not just everyone can. Not just every old heap of bricks is a building, and schools that do not teach students basic techniques on the grounds that it will smother their creativity are doing the students a disfavor. Technical knowledge does not prevent creativity; it sets it free.


----------



## JAS

There is a common problem for people who have strong reputations as iconoclasts and provocateurs. Once they embrace that image almost nothing they say has any value beyond being mildly entertaining . . . and sometimes not even that.


----------



## starthrower

brianvds said:


> Indeed. Either you study formally, or you put yourself through something which amounts to pretty much the same thing. I am not aware of many composers or visual artists who could get away with not doing either of those things. Zappa too had to learn about chords and stuff, however he went about doing it.


Zappa composed extremely complex orchestral scores for large orchestra. He obviously had to learn how to do this somehow. He took music classes for two years in college, and studied on his own by going to the library and reading books on composition and music theory.

He made his distaste known for earlier music, but it wasn't because he was entirely ignorant of the content. He just didn't like the sound of it. And I can relate to that. Sure, Mozart, Hadyn, and Schubert were musical geniuses, but I could never get into that music no matter how much I listened to it. I can't get into a lot of Bach either. I'm never going to sit around all day listening to cantatas and masses, and harpsichord concertos. Although I can enjoy the organ and keyboard music to a limited extent.

If you want to talk about ignorance, it's someone referring to Zappa as "some pop artist criticizing 500 years of music". Zappa was a composer and arranger first. He composed a film score before any rock songs. The Mothers and rock music came later. And even if you focus on this Mothers albums alone, you'll hear a lot of sophisticated music on those records employing chamber, musique concrete, and other influences. And FZ didn't have a George Martin writing the parts for him. He did it himself. And he hired session and orchestra musicians to play the parts, and he conducted the sessions himself.

1967


----------



## Varick

tdc said:


> As usual I find reading his views amusing and thought provoking though I don't always agree with him. His explanation of classical music and how it has evolved over time is simplified and inaccurate. But he seems to do this kind of thing for effect.
> 
> Another thing I noticed is on one hand he seems to have an agenda of making music less elitist, and on the other he comes across as an elitist.
> 
> For example when he says (in reference to crowd leaving at Boulez concert):
> 
> "I would have enjoyed the opportunity to grab a microphone and scream, "Sit down, ********! This is one of 'The Real Guys'!"
> 
> That sounds just a touch elitist and condescending, no?
> 
> I still think it is enjoyable to read his views and worth while because he has an interesting way of framing everyday things people do in a different context. Thinking about things in these other ways can broaden perspectives.
> 
> I agree with much of what he says, but I think his inclination to distrust anything spiritual caused him to be blind to some things.


I would add to your line about distrusting anything spiritual. He also distrusted anything "traditional" or "normal." Unfortunately it seems more and more people (like Zappa) assume that "traditional" or "normal" are bad things. They can be bad things, but to automatically dismiss or distrust can (and does) cause an enormous amount of blindness.

Great Post!



brianvds said:


> Zappa was one of the funniest and cleverest people I have ever run into, and many of his points are perfectly valid, though perhaps he is throwing out the baby with the bathwater a bit. Just about all the great composers of the past went through precisely the kind of training he rails against, and it didn't prevent them from ending up hugely creative and original. A student is supposed to be learning techniques and improving his inner ear, not "express himself."
> 
> There is an interesting parallel in the visual arts: for centuries, art students went through what can be argued was a boring and pointless curriculum of copying old master works, studying anatomy, drawing live models etc. But this was true not just of academic artists: just about every major artist that one can think of, including such iconoclasts as Picasso, went through that same training and not only did it not prevent them from being original, it was the main thing that enabled them to become highly creative and original.
> 
> In the visual arts, the university academies eventually in effect followed Zappa's kind of thinking and threw out this traditional training and encouraged "originality" and "self-expression." It was an utter disaster for visual art from which art has not quite recovered yet. The fact that a music student is required to be able to write a string quartet in the style of Mozart does not mean in any way, shape or form that such a student will end up doing nothing else.
> 
> Yes, it is true that the people holding the purse strings, whether they be kings and popes or Hollywood execs, will have some say in what kind of music will be composed. But that is not a bad thing. Why on earth should people be required to fund music they don't like? The system of patronage is really the only way one can have large scale orchestras in the first place, and looking over the history of music, it does not seem to me that it has ever prevented the greats from rising to the top.
> 
> In short, you cannot express yourself in French poetry until you are quite fluent in French. You cannot express yourself in visual art until you are quite fluent in the language of visual art. And you cannot express yourself in music until you are quite fluent in the language of music. That is the whole point of getting a training in French, art or music.


Another GREAT post!!! Well said.



Casebearer said:


> Don't know what to say to you. You seem to tell us that there are no geniuses in the real world, only in mythology or science fiction, as part of a belief system of narrow minded people. I don't know why you have a problem with the word. In my case it doesn't mean I hang up posters and tell people Zappa (or other geniuses like Charles Darwin, Leonardo da Vinci, Karl Marx, Jürgen Habermas, Johan Cruyff) is beyond criticism. In my book it just means original, innovative and outstanding in comparison to contemporaries.


Karl Marx a genius. Hmmmm. Just because one is/was revolutionary and thought "outside" the box compared to one's contemporaries, doesn't necessarily make one a "genius." Creating an ideology that has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried and an ideology that directly created the most murderous regimes in all of human history (all within 100 years) is hardly the works of a "genius." I've always wondered what Marx would have thought had he been alive to see the waste, destruction, death, and outright squalor his ideas created in the world.

Again, I'll give him an "original thinker" label, but I cringe when I see and hear people give that man praises, given his legacy.



brianvds said:


> Yup, I am mistrustful of this newfangled "anything goes" thing. *So now we have music that doesn't sound much like music, paintings that cannot be distinguished from random drippings,* poems that don't rhyme and so on. Perhaps I am just old fashioned. I certainly don't want to come across as rejecting anything new.
> 
> A friend of mine writes poetry for a hobby; he tells me that nowadays he prefers to strictly stick within established frameworks (he's particularly fond of writing sonnets). Why? *Because in some ways it is actually more challenging to mold your ideas to such a structure. It often requires more creativity to do it this way than to just write whatever comes to mind*. Force yourself to make your poem rhyme, and you have to think more deeply about it.
> 
> It requires tremendous talent to pull it off otherwise. As I understand it, one reason why Debussy wrote relatively little music is because he invented his own forms from scratch. He could do it, but not just everyone can. Not just every old heap of bricks is a building, and schools that do not teach students basic techniques on the grounds that it will smother their creativity are doing the students a disfavor. Technical knowledge does not prevent creativity; it sets it free.


Great point and another great post.

As for Frank Zappa, I have always categorized his music in three ways (sometimes a combination): Brilliant, Funny, or utter [email protected]! I couldn't add anything to what's already been so eloquently said by many on this thread.

V


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

"Brilliant, Funny, or utter [email protected]!", think that puts its very well but there are reasons for his music being that way. 

Zappa definitely Dumbed down his rock music from the early seventies on, he quickly realised I think after commercial failures like 200 Motels etc that he had to play to his audience and the Burnt Weeny Sandwich and similar were not going to sell millions (not in his lifetime anyway), so he played up on his early Garrick theater antics with the original Mothers ala Flo and Eddie, which then continued into the Terry Bozzio era with Titties & Beer etc (a big concert goer fav and wicked pun at Warners Bros)- which kept the Zappa family in beer so to speak.

I think Zappa would have been a big South Park fan- very similar style of humour in his less serious music.........


----------



## JAS

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> [Zappa definitely Dumbed down his rock music from the early seventies on, he quickly realised I think after commercial failures like 200 Motels etc that he had to play to his audience and the Burnt Weeny Sandwich and similar were not going to sell millions (not in his lifetime anyway), so he played up on his early Garrick theater antics with the original Mothers ala Flo and Eddie, which then continued into the Terry Bozzio era with Titties & Beer etc (a big concert goer fav and wicked pun at Warners Bros)- which kept the Zappa family in beer so to speak.


And those he is criticizing also had to keep food on the table, for themselves and their families. Perhaps Zappa is projecting his own sense of dissatisfaction, that he had sacrificed his true voice for commercial pragmatism. Unfortunately, that doesn't make his comments any more insightful or relevant, unless, perhaps, autobiographically.


----------



## chalkpie

Vai talks about why he thinks FZ was a genius - I agree 100%.


----------



## Casebearer

Varick said:


> Karl Marx a genius. Hmmmm. Just because one is/was revolutionary and thought "outside" the box compared to one's contemporaries, doesn't necessarily make one a "genius." Creating an ideology that has failed miserably everywhere it's been tried and an ideology that directly created the most murderous regimes in all of human history (all within 100 years) is hardly the works of a "genius." I've always wondered what Marx would have thought had he been alive to see the waste, destruction, death, and outright squalor his ideas created in the world.
> 
> Again, I'll give him an "original thinker" label, but I cringe when I see and hear people give that man praises, given his legacy.
> V


You should separate his legacy - brought about by other people's interpretations and wrong doings - from his achievements as one of the most original and innovative thinkers on political economy. He taught us how capitalism works to accumulate wealth. A few people get ridiculously wealthy and the masses are impoverished. And the earth is destroyed in the process. But of course 'Das real existierende Marxismus' was a total failure. He would certainly have agreed to that.

In your line of reasoning you could hold Darwin and Wagner responsible for extermination of Jews which they are not.


----------



## violadude

Casebearer said:


> You should separate his legacy - brought about by other people's interpretations and wrong doings - from his achievements as one of the most original and innovative thinkers on political economy. He taught us how capitalism works to accumulate wealth. A few people get ridiculously wealthy and the masses are impoverished. And the earth is destroyed in the process. But of course 'Das real existierende Marxismus' was a total failure. He would certainly have agreed to that.
> 
> In your line of reasoning you could hold Darwin and Wagner responsible for extermination of Jews which they are not.


Yes, some of the more toxic elements of Marxism that people object to were written by Stalin and Lenin and such, not by Marx himself.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

violadude said:


> Yes, some of the more toxic elements of Marxism that people object to were written by Stalin and Lenin and such, not by Marx himself.


Back on track boys or I'll start doing 4'33" jokes..............


----------



## yetti66

The context of the thread is focused on Zappa's views and formal composition. Regardless of one's view of his talent as a composer (or writer) it should be noted that Zappa was a superb improviser - a truly great guitar player, unscripted. Beyond his musical talents he was also incredibly prolific and productive as touring and recording artist.


----------



## starthrower

yetti66 said:


> The context of the thread is focused on Zappa's views and formal composition. Regardless of one's view of his talent as a composer (or writer) it should be noted that Zappa was a superb improviser - a truly great guitar player, unscripted. Beyond his musical talents he was also incredibly prolific and productive as touring and recording artist.


And he almost never gets the acknowledgement from the music writers. They have their lists of guitarists, producers, etc, and Zappa's name rarely comes up. FZ was also the first artist to shoot a feature film on video tape. He pioneered music video and the use of clay animation (see Baby Snakes movie) but most people would probably give the credit to Peter Gabriel for Sledgehammer produced in 1986. Frank did it in 1977. He was also one of the first electric guitarists to use the wah wah pedal before Clapton or Hendrix. He was also the first rock artist to release a double LP in 1966.


----------



## sloth

starthrower said:


> And he almost never gets the acknowledgement from the music writers. They have their lists of guitarists, producers, etc, and Zappa's name rarely comes up. FZ was also the first artist to shoot a feature film on video tape. He pioneered music video and the use of clay animation (see Baby Snakes movie) but most people would probably give the credit to Peter Gabriel for Sledgehammer produced in 1986. Frank did it in 1977. He was also one of the first electric guitarists to use the wah wah pedal before Clapton or Hendrix. He was also the first rock artist to release a double LP in 1966.


he also recorded works of proto-classical composer Francesco Zappa with a synclavier synth... 





but---wait! isn't that just boring classical music????  :lol:

by the way Atalanta fugiens (an early music ensamble from Milan) has recently made a hip recording of Francesco Zappa's symphonies


----------



## starthrower

sloth said:


> he also recorded works of proto-classical composer Francesco Zappa with a synclavier synth...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> but---wait! isn't that just boring classical music????  :lol:


A pretty boring album if you ask me. This was done before FZ had access to digital sampling, so it's devoid of instrumental colors and depth.


----------



## sloth

starthrower said:


> A pretty boring album if you ask me. This was done before FZ had access to digital sampling, so it's devoid of instrumental colors and depth.


I agree. nothing more than a joke...Zappa made this only for the composer's name (and in order to test his new synth perhaps).


----------



## Simon Moon

Casebearer said:


> You should separate his legacy - brought about by other people's interpretations and wrong doings - from his achievements as one of the most original and innovative thinkers on political economy. He taught us how capitalism works to accumulate wealth. A few people get ridiculously wealthy and the masses are impoverished. And the earth is destroyed in the process. But of course 'Das real existierende Marxismus' was a total failure. He would certainly have agreed to that.


I agree with this.

The fact that all of the best known modern implementations failed, was not due to Marx, but failed interpretations.



> In your line of reasoning you could hold Darwin and Wagner responsible for extermination of Jews which they are not.


Hitler did not base his extermination policies on Darwin. Hitler was a creationist.

It seems that his extermination policies were more based on the eugenics practices of Sparta, not evolution.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

How many Hitlers does it take to change a light bulb?

4'33"


----------



## SixFootScowl

Simon Moon said:


> Hitler was a creationist.


There are other opinions to the contrary, such as this article which provides quotes on Hitler's Darwinian views.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

How many Darwins does it take to change a light bulb?

4'33"


----------



## starthrower

"Years ago in Germany... Moo-ahh!!! Did you get any onya?"


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Just a fishy with the eyes hangin out


----------



## Manxfeeder

starthrower said:


> He was also the first rock artist to release a double LP in 1966.


Freak Out, right? Wasn't that one of the first concept albums? I don't think even the Beatles could match all the different styles on that album, ranging from the '50s to Edgard Varese. For 1966, it was, as Zappa would say, "so freaky, yeah, yeah, yeah."


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Manxfeeder said:


> Freak Out, right? Wasn't that one of the first concept albums? I don't think even the Beatles could match all the different styles on that album, ranging from the '50s to Edgard Varese. For 1966, it was, as Zappa would say, "so freaky, yeah, yeah, yeah."


Gotta it in one and often listed in the top 50 ROck albums of all time!


----------



## isorhythm

Kind of a tangent, but: somehow I find Zappa saying these things about old music infinitely less annoying than Elliott Carter saying pretty much all the same things.


----------



## brianvds

Florestan said:


> There are other opinions to the contrary, such as this article which provides quotes on Hitler's Darwinian views.


Well, trust a creationist website to tell us Hitler was a follower of Darwin... 

I don't think he was either a Darwinist or any kind of conventional Christian. More likely, he was (like a certain other politician I can think of), a complete and utter narcissist who used whatever ideas he could to justify his own. He simply had no coherent policy or philosophy other than that he should be in control of the process of, er, making Germany great again.

The really scary thing about Hitler is not that he was some sort of evil mastermind trying to take over the world. The scary thing is that he was an utterly vapid idiot, who somehow managed to dupe millions of supposedly civilized and well educated people to play along with his whims.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

How many creationist's does it take to change a light bulb?

4'33"


----------



## Varick

Casebearer said:


> You should separate his legacy - brought about by other people's interpretations and wrong doings - from his achievements as one of the most original and innovative thinkers on political economy. He taught us how capitalism works to accumulate wealth. A few people get ridiculously wealthy and the masses are impoverished. And the earth is destroyed in the process. But of course 'Das real existierende Marxismus' was a total failure. He would certainly have agreed to that.


Capitalism is the only system that creates wealth. There has been no other system that has raised more people out of poverty than Capitalism.

V


----------



## SixFootScowl

brianvds said:


> Well, trust a creationist website to tell us Hitler was a follower of Darwin...


Just for point of clarification. That website is of the Intelligent Design Movement. They distance themselves from creationism.


----------



## KenOC

Florestan said:


> Just for point of clarification. That website is of the Intelligent Design Movement. They distance themselves from creationism.


The website appears to be by the Discovery Institute, which is a creationist invention, historically trying to teach creationism as science in schools. That hasn't worked out too well.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute


----------



## Casebearer

Well, forget about these websites. Hitler was someone you could place in the social-darwinist movement that misinterpreted and put to ill use the enormous achievements of maybe the biggest genius that ever lived (Charles Darwin), in the same way Stalin and others misused the works of Karl Marx. I think both of them never changed a light bulb however.


----------



## Casebearer

Varick said:


> Capitalism is the only system that creates wealth. There has been no other system that has raised more people out of poverty than Capitalism.
> 
> V


How many capitalists does it take to change a light bulb?


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Damn
How many Intelligent Design Movementist's does it take to change a light bulb?

4'33"


----------



## KenOC

Casebearer said:


> How many capitalists does it take to change a light bulb?


Depends on the profit margin. I'll do it by myself if the price is right.


----------



## KenOC

Casebearer said:


> Hitler was someone you could place in the social-darwinist movement that misinterpreted and put to ill use the enormous achievements of maybe the biggest genius that ever lived (Charles Darwin), in the same way Stalin and others misused the works of Karl Marx.


I'd formulate social Darwinism in this way: "Societies best able to compete for resources will flourish and grow. Others will not." Actually that seems pretty self-apparent.

But before too much back-patting, we should ask ourselves: Which societies in the world are really flourishing today, population-wise? Why? Let's not forget, this is simple biology, nothing to do with value systems.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Call Any Vegetable Pick up your phone
Think of a vegetable Lonely at home


----------



## brianvds

Florestan said:


> Just for point of clarification. That website is of the Intelligent Design Movement. They distance themselves from creationism.


It's the same thing. To understand why would likely require more political discussion than would be welcome on this board.


----------



## PlaySalieri

I read the first two paragraphs of his "critique" and left it at that.

He's as entitled to his views as he is entitled to being a master of the art of clumsy generalisations.

Nothing further need be said.


----------



## starthrower

stomanek said:


> I read the first two paragraphs of his "critique" and left it at that.
> 
> He's as entitled to his views as he is entitled to being a master of the art of clumsy generalisations.
> 
> Nothing further need be said.


It's not as if his comments were meant to be taken as authoratative statements on the subject. It's a long established fact that he had very little interest or passion for pre-20th century music.


----------



## Manxfeeder

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Call Any Vegetable Pick up your phone
> Think of a vegetable Lonely at home


There was a food show on public radio back in the late '70s, and that was their theme song. Then Woody Herman's band did a cover of America Drinks and Goes Home. I remember thinking that Zappa had finally made it into the mainstream.


----------



## EdwardBast

KenOC said:


> The website appears to be by the Discovery Institute, which is a creationist invention, historically trying to teach creationism as science in schools. That hasn't worked out too well.
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discovery_Institute


If you want the final word on intelligent design and creationism, Lewis Black does it pretty well and with precisely the seriousness the subject deserves:


----------



## mmsbls

This thread has gotten way off topic to discussions of religion and politics without music. Please return to discussions of Frank Zappa and his comments on music.


----------



## PlaySalieri

starthrower said:


> It's not as if his comments were meant to be taken as authoratative statements on the subject. It's a long established fact that he had very little interest or passion for pre-20th century music.


That's fair enough - sometimes people cant accept that they just dislike types of music - they have to use b/s reasons why they dont like it. 
There are valild reasons for dismissing music - but Zappa seems to me to use poor arguments.


----------



## EdwardBast

stomanek said:


> That's fair enough - sometimes people cant accept that they just dislike types of music - they have to use b/s reasons why they dont like it.
> There are valild reasons for dismissing music - but Zappa seems to me to use poor arguments.


Poor arguments for why he finds classical era music uninteresting? First of all, one doesn't need arguments for this. Second, he was perfectly clear why he doesn't like it: the harmonic language is too simplistic to do anything for him. He understands harmony and this is about as clear as one can be.


----------



## TwoFlutesOneTrumpet

EdwardBast said:


> Poor arguments for why he finds classical era music uninteresting? First of all, one doesn't need arguments for this. Second, he was perfectly clear why he doesn't like it: the harmonic language is too simplistic to do anything for him. He understands harmony and this is about as clear as one can be.


He was also overly simplistic in his generalization of classical period harmony but I do get his point, even though I cannot agree with his view.


----------



## Casebearer

mmsbls said:


> This thread has gotten way off topic to discussions of religion and politics without music. Please return to discussions of Frank Zappa and his comments on music.


That's a shame. I think we all succeeded in having a discussion that went on and somewhat offtopic but alway stayed civilized. Also Zappa himself was very interested in and outspoken on several of these issues. Nevertheless I'll respect it.


----------



## mmsbls

Casebearer said:


> That's a shame. I think we all succeeded in having a discussion that went on and somewhat offtopic but alway stayed civilized. Also Zappa himself was very interested in and outspoken on several of these issues. Nevertheless I'll respect it.


You are right on both counts - it is a shame and the discussion stayed civilized. Our experience has been that even if political/religious discussions start off civilized, they almost always end poorly. We'd rather stop them before we have to delete posts, issue infractions, and end threads.


----------



## Torkelburger

I am a fan of Frank and own a copy of his autobiography. The only thing that rubs me a little bit the wrong way is saying II-V-I is 'white person music' and a 'hateful progression'. I love the progression in jazz and I seriously doubt if it was considered white person music you'd see any of these jazz greats playing it (especially Miles): The Miles track is entirely all "contiguous" ii-V-I's and the others incorporate them as well.


----------



## Manxfeeder

Torkelburger said:


> I am a fan of Frank and own a copy of his autobiography. The only thing that rubs me a little bit the wrong way is saying II-V-I is 'white person music' and a 'hateful progression'. I love the progression in jazz and I seriously doubt if it was considered white person music you'd see any of these jazz greats playing it (especially Miles): The Miles track is entirely all "contiguous" ii-V-I's and the others incorporate them as well.


True. I have a book of nothing but licks for the II-V-I progression. It is pretty much at the heart of of a lot of jazz. Even Giant Steps is an expanded II-V-I progression.


----------



## norman bates

JAS said:


> There is a common problem for people who have strong reputations as iconoclasts and provocateurs. Once they embrace that image almost nothing they say has any value beyond being mildly entertaining . . . and sometimes not even that.


ok, but this is definitely not the case, Zappa was clearly a brilliant mind.


----------



## deprofundis

Mister Norman Bates on my Hexen! one of my dark ambient project there is frank Zappa infused humor and twisted geneous, please sir joins my groups,And yes Frank Zappa is mundo supremo!


----------



## Varick

mmsbls said:


> This thread has gotten way off topic to discussions of religion and politics without music. Please return to discussions of Frank Zappa and his comments on music.


But they started it!....

V


----------



## chalkpie

I think FZ had the same feeling about ii V I as he did about the classical era.....it was the cliche sound that rubbed him the wrong way. Nothing wrong with that point of view imo.


----------



## PlaySalieri

Having read through some of the comments - I dont know much about musical theory so obviously cant refute or confirm what Zappa says about the limitations of classical music. It would be interesting to read the responses of academics. 

But let's say much of what he says is true - on lack of harmonic invention for example - or painting by numbers - rigid rules etc. 

Why do I find the majority of jazz so limited, repetitive - basically uninteresting. why dont these harmony pioneers, sonic inventors and cutting edge musicians interest me?


----------



## millionrainbows

The most important thing to realize about Frank Zappa is that he went his own way. Also, he believed in himself. He worked very hard. He also had a heart, although this was not always apparent.

The closest thing you're going to see to him is his son Dweezil. First chance I get, I will see him play.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Second that, Dweezil is great to see live.


----------



## PlaySalieri

OK - I listened to some Zappa on youtube - I'm no great fan of electric guitar so I'm probably not the right person to comment. I liked pink floyd in my youth and this sounds sort of similar to the music they were pumping out in the 70s






it's nice - ok. Pretty good I suppose for what it is.

should I be listening to something else? there's a lot out there.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

stomanek said:


> OK - I listened to some Zappa on youtube - I'm no great fan of electric guitar so I'm probably not the right person to comment. I liked pink floyd in my youth and this sounds sort of similar to the music they were pumping out in the 70s
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's nice - ok. Pretty good I suppose for what it is.
> 
> should I be listening to something else? there's a lot out there.


Try this it should blow Pink Floyd away for you............


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

And a piece played by Frank himself


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Last one, Probably Zappa Fans favourite Band line up here from 1973, featuring Jean-Luc Ponty, George Duke, Ruth and Ian Underwood


----------



## starthrower

EddieRUKiddingVarese said:


> Try this it should blow Pink Floyd away for you............


According to Frank, there were others the bands had more trouble with. Namely, Drowning Witch, which is an incredibly complicated piece. Moggio doesn't sound too easy, either! But Dweezil deserves the credit for playing many of the difficult ensemble parts on guitar, which Frank's guitarists didn't do.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Good one "Drowning Witch", has always been a favourite of mine too, with quotes from The Rite of Spring and Dragnet thrown in is pretty complex........


----------



## Kjetil Heggelund

Did you guys hear that Zappa's 200 motels is nominated for a Grammy for "best classical compendium" with LA Philharmonic & Esa-Pekka Salonen? The Grammys are on Sunday! Wish 'em luck


----------



## starthrower

Do you have YCDTOSA Vol 3? There's a 24 minute composite version of King Kong that has a ton of musical quotes from Rossini to Coltrane.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

Kjetil Heggelund said:


> Did you guys hear that Zappa's 200 motels is nominated for a Grammy for "best classical compendium" with LA Philharmonic & Esa-Pekka Salonen? The Grammys are on Sunday! Wish 'em luck


Cool, I've gotta copy of that one and is very good.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

starthrower said:


> Do you have YCDTOSA Vol 3? There's a 24 minute composite version of King Kong that has a ton of musical quotes from Rossini to Coltrane.


Damn, I've got 2,4,5&6 oh and a vinyl copy of the sampler album but no Vol 3, so no beer for me. Zappa releases are very hard to find in Oz these days which is a big frustration, come on ZPT.............


----------



## starthrower

Here it is! The middle section when you hear Frank playing the Big Swifty riff is from '71. Other sections from early 80s.


----------



## EddieRUKiddingVarese

^ Cool playing it know - then I'm gunna out my Vinyl copy of Ship arriving too late (side 2) and play it according to Franks instructions "This album has been engineered to sound correct on JBL 4311 speakers or an equivalent. Best results will be achieved if you set your pre-amp tone controls to the flat position with the loudness control in the off position. Before adding any treble or bass to the sound of the album, it would be advisable to check it out this way first. F.Z."

I'll be using my AR93's speakers but it wont matter much once the vol goes past 12 noon............


----------



## chalkpie




----------



## starthrower

^^^
That is such a phenomenal concert! There should have been an official DVD release. FZ doesn't get any respect, and he does get respect, if you know what I mean. A famous name whose music is only known by a discriminating minority of progressive music fanatics.


----------



## PresenTense

I'm listening to this album right now and I'm loving it.


----------



## manicure

brianvds said:


> In the visual arts, the university academies eventually in effect followed Zappa's kind of thinking and threw out this traditional training and encouraged "originality" and "self-expression." It was an utter disaster for visual art from which art has not quite recovered yet.


Frank Zappa literally acknowledged the importance of formal training or at least some familiarity with the ''norm''.
Did you actually thoroughly read the first post of the thread?

''One of the things I've said before in interviews is: "Without deviation (from the norm), 'progress' is not possible."
In order for one to deviate successfully, *one has to have at least a passing acquaintance with whatever norm one expects to deviate from.
When a musician comes into my band, he already knows sets of musical norms.*''

And

''*I studied them anyway. If something is hateful, you should at least know what it is you're hating so you can avoid it in the future.*''


----------



## Larkenfield

chalkpie said:


>


Loved the spirit of the work and the performance. One doesn't just decide to write something like this. It can take a lifetime of listening, study and preparation just on learning skillful orchestration alone. Well done. Rhythmic, cheerful, joyous.


----------



## flamencosketches

Casebearer said:


> I had one but gave it in loan to somebody.


Yep... years ago now. I need to get it back before the borrower in question moves to China in a few months... Excellent book.


----------

