The Music Forum Paired Artist- Battle Dome-Please read 1st Post for Rules

CDfm

I don't know much about Zappa apart from his work with the early Alice Cooper as a producer-which didnt really work.

What were Zappa's high points and is there any popular stuff I might know.

thenakedanddead

Well his primary high point is surely his innovation. Nothing like him came before or has transpired since.

On a non-musical note, interviews with Frank Zappa surpass those with any other musician. Zappa had not only a sharp wit, and a penetrating cynicism, but also acute observation to the world around him.

Anyway, popular songs. I think the most accessible is probably "Montana" ("raising my lonely dental floss"). But check out Dirty Love, my favourite.

Cicero

On the basis that I want to be educated on Frank Zappa, I'm going with the beatles on this one so thenakedanddead can yearn the win and educate us all at the same time..:D

Beatles for the following reasons:

1. Ability to make a complex Melody appear simple
2. Song writing skills
3. Influence on a whole generation - pretty much brought the UK out of the depressing 50s and into a new way of thinking/acting/fashion/popular culture
4. Influence on a myriad of song writers and musicians that came after them right up to today.

OK thenakedandead...hit me with what you've got on Zappa...convince me to buy even one of his albums and I'll give you this win.:p

thenakedanddead

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w8y0JLPQl94
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d1S5wiquX
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lxB-ZePpS7E&feature=related


OK, here's why I think Zappa should get the nod


1. Ability to exceed his generation - Zappa was not a product of the happy hippy movement and he abhorred their values. His songs are much more adventurous.

2. He was not confined to the general song chorus format, nor in thinking in strictly musical terms. "Montana", for example, sounds like a kind of monologue. There's a science to his music.

3. Zappa was not afraid of his opinion, even when he went against the tide. For example (1968), or thereabouts, he released an album with the mothers called "We're only in it for the money". The cover was a parody of the Beatles sgt pepper.

4. The best reason, perhaps, for giving Zappa this accolade, is his sheer dedication to his work. Throughout his lifetime, he produced 80 + albums, some of which were comprised of classical music.

Cicero

OK..he had a prolific output of albums- so did Cliff Richard- not sure that's gonna earn you points in this battle- quantity most certainly doesn't equal quality.

..I've just sped read wiki on Zappa & the mothers of invention. I agree, he does appear different -avant guarde- rebellious against even the "rebellious" popular culture of the time- hell, Stravinsky is one of his influences- so certainly someone of interest that merits a footnote in R&R history- but how big a footnote? how influential was he really?- what did he do to revolutionize music?--- - would like to know before awarding you points for that one.

Don't think the Beatles cared too much about opinion either though or going against the tide so no points there IMO.

Dedication to work is what all serious musicians do-like I said, album proliferation doesn't equal quality- had he stayed in the studio a bit more at the editing desk, would he have had fewer, but better albums?

Can you give me a top 3 albums that, in your opinion really define Zappa or Zappa and the mothers of invention- that might help persuade me.

The Beatles certainly had the White Album & Srg. Pepper as defining moments in music history- what does Zappa have of this quality?

thenakedanddead

OK, Ok, maybe Zappa wasn't as influential as the Beatles in the limited, pedantic sense of the word. But he presented much more opportunities.

The Beatles were great too, and Revolver is one of my favourite albums of all time. But any praise toward "The White Album" is strictly unwarranted as that is a crock of shite

Cicero

Now you're just lookin for a fight!!!
To hell with my education on Zappa- if you want eclectic, then look no further than The White Album- yes, there are "b" sides, jam sessions and other such works that may have been better left out - left out, that is, if the album were to be perceived as a "mainstream" "commercially appealing" record- but you have just said that experimentation is Zappa's strong point- but yet you don't allow the Beatles to have the skill of experimentation as a string to their bow? To boot, it also gain number 10 place in Rolling Stones top 500 influential albums of all time- it is also the 10th best selling album of all time in the US. While commercial sales doesn't necessarily mean a good album, I think that your above statement is at the very least, ill -informed.

thenakedanddead

I meant experimentation with good results. And I'm not saying for a moment that it always worked in Zappa's favour. Freak out, Zappas debut, is a very experimental album, yet some of the songs are childish and awful.

Oh and BTW, I am most definitely not prohibiting The Beatles for experimenting. I mentioned that Revolver is one of my favourite albums. How more psychedelic and out-there is it possible to get? But The White Album is definitely a case of experimentation turned into pretension. Your argument about commercialism, while I agree in some respects is indicative of a "style over substance" attitude. Number 9. Number 9. Number 9. In a non pseudo-intellectual manner, please convince me, providing you think so, that that song is a work of genius. Sorry if I came across as abrupt.

Cicero

It's all part of the battle....you weren't abrupt...you gave me gilt edged reason to slam your argument and I went for it...I'm just in total battle mode now- attack "my" albums and I'll retaliate..:D

yea yea..number 9...number 9..point taken.. but there are too many other good songs on that album for me to even get into what is really still a non-argument - the White Album was experimental, it was successful, it was influential - I still haven't learnt anything about Zappa so far, except that he made a first album that had some childish and awful songs on it- is that what you are putting forward as an argument for Zappa? Already I can see Zappa fans all over the world cringing with sheer desperation and as we speak, are registering with boards.ie to right this perceived wrong..or are they?:p

thenakedanddead

Cicero wrote: »

It's all part of the battle....you weren't abrupt...you gave me gilt edged reason to slam your argument and I went for it...I'm just in total battle mode now- attack "my" albums and I'll retaliate..:D

yea yea..number 9...number 9..point taken.. but there are too many other good songs on that album for me to even get into what is really still a non-argument - the White Album was experimental, it was successful, it was influential - I still haven't learnt anything about Zappa so far, except that he made a first album that had some childish and awful songs on it- is that what you are putting forward as an argument for Zappa? Already I can see Zappa fans all over the world cringing with sheer desperation and as we speak, are registering with boards.ie to right this perceived wrong..or are they?:p

I'm not revoking my childish comment for a second, buts that a fault. All musicians have had them. To cite an example

"The futures coming and it's rushing in"

And other such disastrous attempts at poetry from his paulness. "Apostrophe" (seeing you asked) stands out to me as a significant Zappa album, as by this point, he had established himself as an artist.

Oh and yes. Granted, their are some fantastic songs on the white album.

Cicero

It was his 18th album release and from what the internet says, his most successful in the US, going gold- have listened to a number of tracks so far- bit Bowiesque - nothing earth shattering though- but good nevertheless.

But does this not sum-up Zappa- so flawed, so many albums to wade through in order to find the peaks of excellence that really, he can't be taken as a serious contender against the Beatles (of which you have pitched him against)- yes he's experimental, different, non mainstream- but I don't think he did himself favours by focusing on musical output over deep impact- he's a musician to be respected, probably the greatest experimental musician of his time- but it's like he's a scientist, continually getting flawed results and only occasionally finding something new that's of use to anyone, or indeed, that interests anyone.

thenakedanddead

^ Your argument, while it does raise some good points, seems to evoke that it's all about consistency. Some of the best musicians (IMHO) are notoriously inconsistent. Take Jackson Browne for example. I've already claimed that I hate some of his later work, but that does not distil weight from things like "Song for adam", "Late for the sky" or "The pretender". Likewise, Zappa had "peaches en regalia", which is very style over substance-ish, but that does not disqualify his good stuff.

Cicero

you mention Browne and his "later work"- but that is implying that he has a body of work up to some point in time, that you respect- a body of work- defined by a number of albums that were significantly influential/likable/could survive being played as an album without lifting the record needle every couple of songs to avoid the drivel- I would rank Bowie in the same way- early/mid 80s Bowie did nothing for me- nor did 80s Dylan- but 60s and 70s Dylan/Bowie had a whole lot happening for me-
Could it be that Zappa might come into his own at some point, with the ability of selective digital individual track selection - that his greatest, most respected, most influential body of work, could be compiled in one place- the accessibility of Zappa is his greatest flaw- he may well have a body of work that surpasses that of the Beatles- but someone has yet to assemble this in one place- in the meantime, we have 80 albums to trawl through, with very little guidance as to what we will find there, so most people don't bother.

thenakedanddead

Granted, your argument has some basis in fact. But if you're going to be a fine musician, which Zappa was, surely some inconsistency and unwarranted chances are necessary. The Beatles had "The White Album", which certainly does not remove their greatness. Bob had "Blonde on Blonde" - there goes my head. The issue which I think provides the most prevalent argument for Zappa victory is innovation, which was manifested throughout his career. The Beatles, granted, had some very innovative moments, but they were still largely proprietors of the catchy, pop-song format.

Your "coming into his own" comment implies he's something of a now-and-again guy. But that serves to imply that The Grateful came into their own with things like "Friend of the Devil" and "Rag Mama Rag". The difference is that the grateful dead did get lucky, but they were mostly ****. Zappa, by contrast, has a quantity of songs which qualifies against his lesser output.

Cicero

....the Beatles have "Catchy pop songs"....maybe today 40 years on...after countless bands and artists imitated them....that their music appears somewhat "of another era"..but what about when they were first released- at the time, they moved pop music forward to new horizons with each and every new album release- "pop" was the Beatles genre of music- I don't think they can be blamed for that, but they contributed to, influenced and developed that genre.
Here's Zappa doing something "experimental"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B89pSO5F-kg

Here's the Mahavishnu Orchestra doing something "experimental" so much better:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtSIEkPqVgk

Ok...that's me for tonight:)

thenakedanddead

The Beatles were terrific and I admire the work they did. My premise for the "pop" comment was to indicate the extent of the boundaries Zappa pushed.

thenakedanddead

Next battle:

Warren Zevon vs Bruce Springsteen.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H_bHp8-KI9Y

I think Bruce is a better person than Warren was, but when it comes to being a musician and an artist, then Warren, no contest.

Cicero

We've done Springsteen already, and the next pairing isn't due until tomorrow night after 7pm.

thenakedanddead

Cicero wrote: »

We've done Springsteen already, and the next pairing isn't due until tomorrow night after 7pm.

Ok, Yeah we've done Springsteen. Zappa-Beatles has been going on for two days and frankly, selfish as it sounds, I am genuinely interested in what arguments people will provide (if any) for this round.

Cicero

thenakedanddead wrote: »

Ok, Yeah we've done Springsteen. Zappa-Beatles has been going on for two days and frankly, selfish as it sounds, I am genuinely interested in what arguments people will provide (if any) for this round.

....and the fact that you lost the last battle.

thenakedanddead

Cicero wrote: »

....and the fact that you lost the last battle.

Will cause me many a night unrest :rolleyes: , plus Warren is my god , so I'll evoke that he saved the world if needs be

Cicero

well, if you want to ruin a thread by breaking the rules when it suits you, off you go...personally I think that is a somewhat childish approach, to what was, a thread to be enjoyed by all. Obviously this was not such a good idea afterall so I couldn't care less what happens to this thread at this point.

thenakedanddead

What's the contention for. It's only a bit of fun. I'm sorry if I upset you, but look at this way. All arguments thus far have been given two days. By right Zappa and Beatles (You can contest this and enhance your contention of Beatles, if you want - but, by right it should be two days) should be over by now.

I understand completely. Yes, the rules state that there is no battle to be begun on Tuesday. But we've given all arguments, whether big in debate like Lennon or Dylan or Zappa or Beatles or minimalistic in scope like Hendrix or Page or Newman or Cohen, two days. There's really not much point in receding a day which could be given to arguing.

Yes, this is a thread to be enjoyed by all. Hell, amn't I providing something which could provoke alot of debate if you are well-enough acquainted with the artists in question.

And don't abandon your thread because of something I did which happened to be of an arguable nature. Christ, it's minute.

CDfm

warren zevons werewolves for me is just fantastic and blows any of springsteens output out of the water as would spear of destiny's they'll never take me alive which is just perfect.

point of order -if i was to call frank zappa a jazz artist would that be taken as derision ???

thenakedanddead

CDfm wrote: »

warren zevons werewolves for me is just fantastic and blows any of springsteens output out of the water as would spear of destiny's they'll never take me alive which is just perfect.

point of order -if i was to call frank zappa a jazz artist would that be taken as derision ???

EEh. Probably not the correct term. I can sort-of see your perspective though.

CDfm

thenakedanddead wrote: »

EEh. Probably not the correct term. I can sort-of see your perspective though.

So we will not agree that glamrock was an artform then

Diamond Dogs rule OK.

thenakedanddead

CDfm wrote: »

So we will not agree that glamrock was an artform then

Diamond Dogs rule OK.

Glam rock is a fashion term, not a genre

CDfm

thenakedanddead wrote: »

Glam rock is a fashion term, not a genre

Country is a genre, heavy metal is a genre and glam was a genre and it owed a lot to musicals and musical theatre.

Hey even Tom Waits caught the bug with his cover of "Somewhere".

thenakedanddead

CDfm wrote: »

Country is a genre, heavy metal is a genre and glam was a genre and it owed a lot to musicals and musical theatre.

Hey even Tom Waits caught the bug with his cover of "Somewhere".

Then please explain the connection between Slade and David Bowie. Maybe I'm just not listening enough?

CDfm

thenakedanddead wrote: »

Then please explain the connection between Slade and David Bowie. Maybe I'm just not listening enough?

Prog rock they were not and neither were they heavy metal but both relied on a rock song format and had a strong live following.

Bowie particularily raided the music hall cupboard of Anthony Newley fairly early on with the fantastic "Laughing Gnome" from 1967 thru heavy metal to Ziggy Stardust.

Slade did the same "My Friend Stan" was electric vaudeville -the cover "Lets have a Party" could have been "Roll out the Barrell" amd the wonderful "Merry Xmas Everybody".

Bowie drew more on the European - cigerette dangling a la Jacques Brel in the Thin White Duke phase. But he also covered Alabama Song and Amsterdam from Weill & Brecht and Brel.

The connection between music hall and glam is more evident on Alice Coopers "Schools Out" LP which is positively West Side Story

I have often wondered what I liked about glam but it was the precursor to punk.

Its like Zappa vs the Beatles - I dont know if Zappa could do children songs but Octupus's Garden or songs that could be sung by children. Glamrock took the end of hippy flower power and stomped over it in platform boots accompanied by nice drums and bass.

Slade and Bowie were equally valid as part of a genre. If surf music was a genre glamrock was a genre too.