crap.

Yeah. I gotta say crap on zappa.

His music is almost exclusively for people who are trying to "get it."
Trying to figure out what that crazy zappa's gunna do next. Ohh, didn't think he'd hit that triangle there. Guess I'm an idiot.

Complexity never trumps bad taste.

Wow, almost 50/50!!

This shocks me, it really does. The man was perhaps the only real genius to have come out of the 60s american music scene.

Tell me, was Bartok "Crap"?

Was Varese "Crap"?

Is Boulez "Crap"?

I realize that he did a lot of not very funny songs like "Titties and Beer".
Does anyone realize that the guy had a family to support? And that millions of "crap" fans world wide loved these stupid songs?

Numerous people in this thread have made fun of the "You just don't understand it" statements of Zappa fans. What I want to know is why one of the great geniuses of american music is being talked about by people who don't even know what the fuck a polyrhythm is. You see, no other composers since Stravinsky have done polyrhythms more involved, interesting and groundbreaking. Not Ligeti. Not Nono. Not Stockhausen. Not Boulez. Not Xenakis. Not Elliot Carter. Not Robert Fripp.

This is important stuff. If it doesn't interest you, fine. If you don't 'get it', it doesn't make you stupid. I have nothing but respect for people who can write charming three chord pop songs. Zappa couldn't, thats for sure. But when a bunch of people make these really uninformed comments, and are really rude about a guy who broke boundaries that they don't even know exist, well.......

BTW, Slonimsky LOVED Zappas music.

Never heard of him? What a surprize.

And another

herodotus wrote:Is Boulez "Crap"?

Well, tomorrow night presents a unique opportunity to hear one of the last remaining giants of 20th century music speak in person.

Tuesday March 9th, 5:30 PM sharp, at Symphony Center.

This may be the last chance for a Chicago audience to witness the insights of a man who felt that Zappa was not crap enough to perform and promote his music. Perhaps there will even be a chance to present the question to him outright?

I find it impossible to dismiss Zappa's music. I have the feeling that those that do would likely dismiss Boulez's music as well. Perhaps it's easier with Zappa, since he wrote "comedy" music to raise the funds necessary to hire copyists to part out scores, hire orchestras to perform, and buy a remote truck to record it.

As a final word, I think Zappa's discipline and devotion to his art are remarkable. The rigor that he placed on his own perfection and that of his performers goes unmatched in most of today's rock groups who are largely "going through the motions".

herodotus wrote:Wow, almost 50/50!!

This shocks me, it really does. The man was perhaps the only real genius to have come out of the 60s american music scene.

Tell me, was Bartok "Crap"?

Was Varese "Crap"?

Is Boulez "Crap"?

I realize that he did a lot of not very funny songs like "Titties and Beer".
Does anyone realize that the guy had a family to support? And that millions of "crap" fans world wide loved these stupid songs?

Numerous people in this thread have made fun of the "You just don't understand it" statements of Zappa fans. What I want to know is why one of the great geniuses of american music is being talked about by people who don't even know what the fuck a polyrhythm is. You see, no other composers since Stravinsky have done polyrhythms more involved, interesting and groundbreaking. Not Ligeti. Not Nono. Not Stockhausen. Not Boulez. Not Xenakis. Not Elliot Carter. Not Robert Fripp.

This is important stuff. If it doesn't interest you, fine. If you don't 'get it', it doesn't make you stupid. I have nothing but respect for people who can write charming three chord pop songs. Zappa couldn't, thats for sure. But when a bunch of people make these really uninformed comments, and are really rude about a guy who broke boundaries that they don't even know exist, well.......

BTW, Slonimsky LOVED Zappas music.

Never heard of him? What a surprize.

And another

herodotus wrote:What I want to know is why one of the great geniuses of american music is being talked about by people who don't even know what the fuck a polyrhythm is.

I volunteer! I've never heard of polyrhythms in my life!! Really!!
Indeed!! What the fuck a polyrhythm is?!?

Mr. Chimp wrote:

herodotus wrote:What I want to know is why one of the great geniuses of american music is being talked about by people who don't even know what the fuck a polyrhythm is.

I volunteer! I've never heard of polyrhythms in my life!! Really!!
Indeed!! What the fuck a polyrhythm is?!?

It's what the keyboardist from Fugazi used to play, on the Candadian tour only. Don't you remember?

-Jeremy

Mr. Chimp wrote:

herodotus wrote:What I want to know is why one of the great geniuses of american music is being talked about by people who don't even know what the fuck a polyrhythm is.

I volunteer! I've never heard of polyrhythms in my life!! Really!!
Indeed!! What the fuck a polyrhythm is?!?

Ok, its like this: A polyrhythm is any multiple metrical interpretation of a single timeline. That is, any underlying pulse that is given (by a composer, a group of performers or what have you) more than one metrical interpretation at the same time.

Polyrhythms can be articulated in a thousand different ways. The most well known examples are from the Rite of Spring, Although many, many other composers have also used them. They are also quite common in Indonesian Gamelan music and Indian Classical music.

This last was a large influence on Zappa, whose understanding of it far outstripped that of George Harrison. The "wanking" guitar solos (on e.g. "Shut up and play yer guitar") so hated by those of self-consciously punk sensibilities, were in fact sustained exercises in the creation of real-time improvised polyrhythmic constructions. The interaction between Zappa and the drummer Vinnie Colaiuta in particular is almost superhuman. The parallel between this sort of thing and Indian Classical music is exact.


Again I understand not finding this interesting. But I don't believe for a minute that those who are saying things like "I am glad he is dead" are doing so because of some greater understanding of music. It is the same knee jerk punk rock hatred of musical talent that drives Phish haters and Grateful Dead haters and Rush haters and Yes haters and King Crimson haters and Queen haters and (insert phenomenally talented band here) haters.

I have heard this stuff over and over again in my life. I was hearing it when my first band (the Blu Hippos) led off for Husker Du in 81. I am still hearing it today.

And it is more boring than a bad cover of "Louie Louie".

herodotus wrote:

Mr. Chimp wrote:

herodotus wrote:What I want to know is why one of the great geniuses of american music is being talked about by people who don't even know what the fuck a polyrhythm is.

I volunteer! I've never heard of polyrhythms in my life!! Really!!
Indeed!! What the fuck a polyrhythm is?!?

Ok, its like this: A polyrhythm is any multiple metrical interpretation of a single timeline. That is, any underlying pulse that is given (by a composer, a group of performers or what have you) more than one metrical interpretation at the same time.

Polyrhythms can be articulated in a thousand different ways. The most well known examples are from the Rite of Spring, Although many, many other composers have also used them. They are also quite common in Indonesian Gamelan music and Indian Classical music.

This last was a large influence on Zappa, whose understanding of it far outstripped that of George Harrison. The "wanking" guitar solos (on e.g. "Shut up and play yer guitar") so hated by those of self-consciously punk sensibilities, were in fact sustained exercises in the creation of real-time improvised polyrhythmic constructions. The interaction between Zappa and the drummer Vinnie Colaiuta in particular is almost superhuman. The parallel between this sort of thing and Indian Classical music is exact.

I'm seeing that maybe there's two schools of thought here. The "This music is good because it's difficult" school, and the "This music is lousy because it's difficult" school. I think you feel a lot of people who dislike Zappa belong to the latter group. Maybe a few do, but for the most part, I don't think so. I think some Zappa fans belong to the former group. I might be wrong about this. Either way, I disagree with both groups. I respect that Zappa was doing something difficult, and that it requires great talent and ability to do. Unfortunately, he used his undisputedly great talent and ability to make music that is, to me, boring and soulless. A bad cover of Louie Louie, done with heart and soul, can be very enjoyable - not something I would necessarily seek out, but enjoyable anyway. I haven't heard any Zappa that I really enjoy.

Again I understand not finding this interesting.

Good, that puts you well ahead of other Zappevangelists(TM).

But I don't believe for a minute that those who are saying things like "I am glad he is dead" are doing so because of some greater understanding of music. It is the same knee jerk punk rock hatred of musical talent that drives Phish haters and Grateful Dead haters and Rush haters and Yes haters and King Crimson haters and Queen haters and (insert phenomenally talented band here) haters.

I think people who are saying things like "I am glad he is dead" are mostly saying it for shock value. I'm not claiming that it's not an awful thing to say, but often people resort to hyperbole in order to get a reaction. Or maybe the person actually meant it... I don't know. Again, for a lot of "Zappa haters", it's not a hatred of musical talent, it's a hatred of misusing that talent to make boring music. For the record, I'm a Phish disliker, a Grateful Dead not carer, a Rush disliker, a Yes not really knower, a King Crimson kinda liker, and a Queen liker.

It appears you haven't been here very long, but it's extremely condescending to go into a forum where people spend at least half the time talking about music, and assume that anyone who doesn't like Zappa doesn't know what a polyrhythm is. Some of us know what a polyrhythm is, appreciate what it is, maybe even like polyrhythms, but still don't feel that any piece of music that uses polyrhythms is automatically good. To assume that we "don't even know what the fuck a polyrhythm is" - that's pretty low.

herodotus wrote:

Mr. Chimp wrote:

herodotus wrote:What I want to know is why one of the great geniuses of american music is being talked about by people who don't even know what the fuck a polyrhythm is.

I volunteer! I've never heard of polyrhythms in my life!! Really!!
Indeed!! What the fuck a polyrhythm is?!?

Ok, its like this: A polyrhythm is any multiple metrical interpretation of a single timeline. That is, any underlying pulse that is given (by a composer, a group of performers or what have you) more than one metrical interpretation at the same time.

Polyrhythms can be articulated in a thousand different ways. The most well known examples are from the Rite of Spring, Although many, many other composers have also used them. They are also quite common in Indonesian Gamelan music and Indian Classical music.

This last was a large influence on Zappa, whose understanding of it far outstripped that of George Harrison. The "wanking" guitar solos (on e.g. "Shut up and play yer guitar") so hated by those of self-consciously punk sensibilities, were in fact sustained exercises in the creation of real-time improvised polyrhythmic constructions. The interaction between Zappa and the drummer Vinnie Colaiuta in particular is almost superhuman. The parallel between this sort of thing and Indian Classical music is exact.


Again I understand not finding this interesting. But I don't believe for a minute that those who are saying things like "I am glad he is dead" are doing so because of some greater understanding of music. It is the same knee jerk punk rock hatred of musical talent that drives Phish haters and Grateful Dead haters and Rush haters and Yes haters and King Crimson haters and Queen haters and (insert phenomenally talented band here) haters.

I have heard this stuff over and over again in my life. I was hearing it when my first band (the Blu Hippos) led off for Husker Du in 81. I am still hearing it today.

And it is more boring than a bad cover of "Louie Louie".

All right, all right.

Yes, I was baiting you with that my last post, from last night, because I found it incredibly insulting.

Now, after a night of restful sleep, it's time to actually address this.

I have been fascinated by the rhythmic and tonal choices of composers and songwriters, and have spend years studying music, both formally and on my own.

Zappa's command of music and craft is exceptional. His challenging exercises in polyrhythms and polytones, in arrangements, in melding and fusing of a myriad of styles is unchallengeable. Yes.

This does not mean that people have to like or enjoy Zappa's music.
Please recognize that it has less to do with being ignorant or uneducated, and more to do with the simple fact that some people just don't like Zappa for exactly the same reasons that you like Zappa.

Have I listened to Zappa to enjoy polyrhythmic intricacy and exceptional arranging? Yes.

Do I need to only listen to Zappa in order to enjoy polyrhythms? No. I can very happily listen to other music (Gastr del Sol, the Jesus Lizard, Tortoise, Don Caballero, US Maple to name a few) and discern the rhythmic interactivity, and be happy.

---

Are the Shaggs polyrhythms any less interesting because they are the result of "ineptitude"? Not to me.

---

Is disdain for knee-jerk punk rock sensibilities truly any different than disdain for musical hypercraft?

The answer is no - they are both disdaining.

---

Let's be clear about Crap/Not Crap for a second. It's just a dividing line.

My take on Crap/Not Crap is more degrees of:

"I would rather listen to something else/I enjoy listening to this"

versus

"This is the worst shit ever/This is the best shit ever."


---

Crap/Not crap has evolved into an opinions page, where often very intelligent (academically and musically) discussions take place, including reference questions and storytelling.

However, the instant that someone breaks this by interjecting that a particular opinion is not valid - well, all hell can break loose.

As has happened with this thread. Jumping in and saying that so-and-so is figuratively a piece of shit for having a particular opinion will only rend this wider.

I can appreciate an overwhelming love for music, and for music created by particular artists. But to essentially label people as idiots that obviously can't understand something due to a "perceived" shortcoming....

...that just might deserve a second thought.