ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/zorn-list/archive/v03.n274

Internet Message Format | 2001-02-08 | 21KB

From: [e-mail] (Zorn List Digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: Zorn List Digest V3 #274
Reply-To: zorn-list
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


Zorn List Digest       Friday, February 9 2001       Volume 03 : Number 274



In this issue:
-
       Re: now some pearls of wisdom from mr. ian penman (zappa)
       Re:  Re: now some pearls of wisdom from mr. ian penman (zappa)

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 15 Dec 2000 13:27:58 -0500
From: Steve Smith <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: now some pearls of wisdom from mr. ian penman (zappa)

Hi, Skip:

> It would seem to me that, if a critic is going to do an essay that purports
> to be in depth, you should care deeply for the work about which you're
> writing, and should have some kind of high regard for the work in question
> (the better to make your points about which are the highs, which are the
> lows).

But isn't it equally valid to write a strong in-depth negative criticism of a
work or body of art, as well?  Don't we render opinions both positive and
negative on this list every day?

> When I read a comment like "after reading this essay, I sold my collection of
> 40+ Zappa albums", I have to wonder about why somebody bought those albums in
> the first place.

Oh, that's simple, and I think I was clear about it.  Those records meant a
great deal to me for a lot of years, and then, eventually, they didn't.  I was a
huge fan, and then I wasn't.  The only point I'm continuing to try to make
regarding ME and the essay is that seeing such an opinion in print finally made
me feel that my discontent was valid.  At the time I was much more
impressionable, and definitely more concerned about being "in" on anything
construed to be important or significant, especially important with a whiff of
outsider appeal.  When I read the Penman essay, I felt as though it was okay for
me to have come to a similar conclusion, even if not quite as vitriolic.

>  And when I read a comment to the effect "I probably needed
> his music when I was seventeen, but now I'm past that", I find it even more
> objectionable.

That's a fair reaction to an inflammatory and extremely subjective assertion on
Penman's part.

>  Frank had his low periods just as anybody else has had when
> the make a ton of records over years.  And, believe me, I'll jump over ten
> "Titties And Beer"'s to get next to thirty seconds of a "REDNZL".  What made
> me laugh in jr high doesn't work so well anymore.

The only real difference I see between what you're saying and what I'm saying is
that for me the music itself holds little interest anymore, either.  It's not
just that the personal philosophy of the man turned me against the music.  It's
not that at all.  If the music still held any appeal to me, I'm sure I could do
exactly what you're suggesting - overlook the bad and continue to celebrate the
good.  Maybe I'd even have my old copy of 'Shut Up and Ply Your Guitar,' or I
could buy a CD burner and create my own custom compilations minus the jokey
stuff.  But eventually I personally found the music just didn't say anything to
me anymore.

> On the other hand, the musical imagination, depth of craft, and personal
> vision that governs the best parts of FZ's work -- and there are certainly a
> great many such moments -- has earned him a great deal of respect, and to
> dismiss the stuff outright is kind of crass.

It's crass, but it's a valid piece of criticism.  No matter how much you, I, we,
or the world may respect an artist and his/her work, there will always be
someone who does not.  And they are just as entitled to sound off.  And you are
equally entitled to say they're full of shit.  Further, the respect you posit
for Zappa's work is widely-held, but hardly universal.  It seems stronger here
than it is in the real world because we are a large closet entirely populated
with people who appreciate challenging music.  But even when you have such a
microcosm, there are bound to be schisms.  We see them every day in the subject
of Zorn and countless others.

> Can you transcribe "Inca Roads"? Can you
> deal with the times signature stuff hands-on? It's unwise to dismiss stuff
> you can't do.  Not liking something is one thing, but dismissal is another.

Here we're getting into the age old theory that those who can't do shouldn't
write about those who can.  It just doesn't work.  There have always been and
will always be those who cannot perform music or create art on a professional
level who nonetheless are able to write about such activities in a lucid,
informed, and deeply-invested way.  Penman leavens his diatribe with just enough
musical context to make me feel like he does know his subject and a body of
other music in which to form a context for critique.  And similarly, no matter
his originality and distinction, Zappa worked as a musician in a pop music
idiom, rendering what he sang as important in some ways as what he played.  The
music works on both levels, and so does the critique.

And I can't speak for Penman here, obviously, but yeah, if you handed me the
sheet music for "Inca Roads" I could certainly read it, and if I hadn't stopped
playing seven years ago there's even a chance I could stumble my way badly
through a performance, although not anywhere close to the hyper-talented
musicians Zappa generally employed to deliver his material.  People still say
some very nice things about my criticism that makes me blush with happiness,
which makes me feel that the years of study and practice really do make a
difference.  But that's really beside the point, especially when you're dealing
with music in a pop context and with a sociological view rather than the view of
strict musicological analysis.

> But Zappa is a great target, because the way he has been painted as a
> musician and as a thinker is unfriendly to a lot of people who hold their
> favorite stuff as the True Grail Of Musical Progressivism.

Didn't Zappa do exactly the same thing as regards his own favorite stuff, from
Varese to doo-wop?  Don't we all, to a greater or lesser degree?  We admire and
defend what we see to be great, but we don't all have to agree.  I've got a
friend who's a classical composer of distinction as well as an outstanding
journalist, and he says that he has little use for Beethoven's symphonies.  I
find that frankly astonishing personally, but it doesn't make me change my
regard for him and it doesn't make me feel a need to change his mind ultimately,
either.  We can all agree to disagree.  There's room for everyone.

> I'm thirty-five and don't feel like I've outgrown Zappa, Tower Of Power, Uri
> Caine's quartet with Joel Levine, the Minutemen, Bill Evans, or any of the
> other stuff that got my rocks off when I was seventeen.  And there's probably
> no essay ever to be written by a critic that will make me think I was wrong
> for loving any music I love.

Once again, I personally never said I "outgrew" Zappa per se (in the sense of an
arbitrary cut off date after which he should be declared verboten).  And yes,
that does seem to be what "Poison" Penman's positing - but I read this as a
literary shorthand that reveals his take on the mental/emotional level of his
caricature Zappa fan.  It's rude, but it does get his point across succinctly,
and is bound to piss off fans while at the same time causing complete agreement
among others.  Me, I continue to say there's enough room for both views.

I don't, however, think there's anything necessarily wrong with moving beyond
music that once meant something to you and now doesn't.  I'm 35 and I still
listen to King Crimson, Bob Marley, the Clash, Black Flag, the Butthole Surfers,
and Ornette Coleman, as when I was 17 or 18.  But you won't catch me listening
to the Osmonds as when I was 7, Journey as when I was 13, or even ELP as when I
was 17.  Some things you do leave behind, but you do it for personal reasons,
not because someone said you should or had to.

I reiterate that the Penman essay was a sort of catalyst that helped me reach my
own conclusion and feel some validation for being out of step with countless
others - and remember, the essay is only five years old, which means I only
encountered it in my late 20s, a time at which my many Zappa albums were going
unlistened to while I strangely felt compelled to continue buying each and every
new one that came along, listen once, and shelve it.  Clearly there was already
something wrong for me.  My response was an entirely personal reaction and one
that I would never choose to impose on anyone else.  But it does speak to the
importance of having a diversity of opinion in print.  If all we saw was
officially-sanctioned and ratified "truth," where would that leave us?  And who
would we appoint to be arbiters of that truth?  Critics don't deliver the
gospel.  They state an opinion, back it up in argument, make a case, and then
leave us to decide for ourselves.  The most important function they can serve is
to cause us to reflect.  I'd say we've done plenty of that in the last twelve
hours as well as in the last however-many years.

I think I've said everything I can possibly say on the subject, and I've taken
up WAAAAYYY too much bandwidth.  So I'll let it go and promise to stay on the
sidelines in any future discussions of Zappa, and you can write me off as being
hopeless in that regard, which is okay.  But I hope this doesn't mean we can't
all be friends here anymore... :-)

Steve Smith
[e-mail]







- -

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Dec 2000 12:16:02 EST
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re:  Re: now some pearls of wisdom from mr. ian penman (zappa)

In a message dated 12/15/0 10:29:50 AM, you wrote:

<<Hi, Skip:

> It would seem to me that, if a critic is going to do an essay that purports
> to be in depth, you should care deeply for the work about which you're
> writing, and should have some kind of high regard for the work in question
> (the better to make your points about which are the highs, which are the
> lows).

But isn't it equally valid to write a strong in-depth negative criticism of a
work or body of art, as well?  Don't we render opinions both positive and
negative on this list every day?




In-depth criticism is not the same thing as in-depth-sounding verbiage used
to make yourself look smart when you're dismissing something out of hand.  I
have never been under the impression we were that careless on this list.

> When I read a comment like "after reading this essay, I sold my collection
of
> 40+ Zappa albums", I have to wonder about why somebody bought those albums
in
> the first place.

Oh, that's simple, and I think I was clear about it.  Those records meant a
great deal to me for a lot of years, and then, eventually, they didn't.  I
was a
huge fan, and then I wasn't.  The only point I'm continuing to try to make
regarding ME and the essay is that seeing such an opinion in print finally
made
me feel that my discontent was valid.  At the time I was much more
impressionable, and definitely more concerned about being "in" on anything
construed to be important or significant, especially important with a whiff of
outsider appeal.  When I read the Penman essay, I felt as though it was okay
for
me to have come to a similar conclusion, even if not quite as vitriolic.




You shouldn't need a guy like Penman to justify your own feelings toghtful
mind.



>  And when I read a comment to the effect "I probably needed
> his music when I was seventeen, but now I'm past that", I find it even more
> objectionable.

That's a fair reaction to an inflammatory and extremely subjective assertion
on
Penman's part.

>  Frank had his low periods just as anybody else has had when
> the make a ton of records over years.  And, believe me, I'll jump over ten
> "Titties And Beer"'s to get next to thirty seconds of a "REDNZL".  What made
> me laugh in jr high doesn't work so well anymore.

The only real difference I see between what you're saying and what I'm saying
is
that for me the music itself holds little interest anymore, either.  It's not
just that the personal philosophy of the man turned me against the music.
It's
not that at all.  If the music still held any appeal to me, I'm sure I could
do
exactly what you're suggesting - overlook the bad and continue to celebrate
the
good.  Maybe I'd even have my old copy of 'Shut Up and Ply Your Guitar,' or I
could buy a CD burner and create my own custom compilations minus the jokey
stuff.  But eventually I personally found the music just didn't say anything
to
me anymore.

> On the other hand, the musical imagination, depth of craft, and personal
> vision that governs the best parts of FZ's work -- and there are certainly a
> great many such moments -- has earned him a great deal of respect, and to
> dismiss the stuff outright is kind of crass.

It's crass, but it's a valid piece of criticism.  No matter how much you, I,
we,
or the world may respect an artist and his/her work, there will always be
someone who does not.  And they are just as entitled to sound off.  And you
are
equally entitled to say they're full of shit.  Further, the respect you posit
for Zappa's work is widely-held, but hardly universal.  It seems stronger here
than it is in the real world because we are a large closet entirely populated
with people who appreciate challenging music.  But even when you have such a
microcosm, there are bound to be schisms.  We see them every day in the
subject
of Zorn and countless others.





Criticism, as a constructive, consumer advocate function, is a needed thing.
Disrespect is an affliction.  Whether respect is seemingly universal for
something or someone is hardly the point.  An enlightened consumership should
make it a point to respect anybody who goes out on a limb and makes something
truly their own.

> Can you transcribe "Inca Roads"? Can you
> deal with the times signature stuff hands-on? It's unwise to dismiss stuff
> you can't do.  Not liking something is one thing, but dismissal is another.

Here we're getting into the age old theory that those who can't do shouldn't
write about those who can.  It just doesn't work.  There have always been and
will always be those who cannot perform music or create art on a professional
level who nonetheless are able to write about such activities in a lucid,
informed, and deeply-invested way.  Penman leavens his diatribe with just
enough
musical context to make me feel like he does know his subject and a body of
other music in which to form a context for critique.  And similarly, no matter
his originality and distinction, Zappa worked as a musician in a pop music
idiom, rendering what he sang as important in some ways as what he played.
The
music works on both levels, and so does the critique.




The only time I can think of where it's alright to dismiss something is if
you can do it just as well and then even better.  But, again, Penman seemed
to me to go less the route of criticism than personal attack.  And, for the
record, I don't think that a critic really knows what time it is until he's
had to, even if not as a performer, go through the trouble of getting music
to actually happen in real life, whether by promoting a show, producing a
record, whatever.  It's easy to criticize when you're oblivious to how much
work goes into just getting the right guys to show up on time and play the
music.


And I can't speak for Penman here, obviously, but yeah, if you handed me the
sheet music for "Inca Roads" I could certainly read it, and if I hadn't
stopped
playing seven years ago there's even a chance I could stumble my way badly
through a performance, although not anywhere close to the hyper-talented
musicians Zappa generally employed to deliver his material.  People still say
some very nice things about my criticism that makes me blush with happiness,
which makes me feel that the years of study and practice really do make a
difference.  But that's really beside the point, especially when you're
dealing
with music in a pop context and with a sociological view rather than the view
of
strict musicological analysis.




Again, to those of us who make a lving in music, it's not beside the point.
I don't think a critic should neccessarily play, but he should know all the
components in the equaltion before he's allowed to check somebody else's
math.  Just like I don't want a guy who can't change spark plugs writing
product reviews for CAR & DRIVER.

> But Zappa is a great target, because the way he has been painted as a
> musician and as a thinker is unfriendly to a lot of people who hold their
> favorite stuff as the True Grail Of Musical Progressivism.

Didn't Zappa do exactly the same thing as regards his own favorite stuff, from
Varese to doo-wop?



Actually, FZ always made it a point to say the only person he spoke for was
himself.


\
  Don't we all, to a greater or lesser degree?  We admire and
defend what we see to be great, but we don't all have to agree.  I've got a
friend who's a classical composer of distinction as well as an outstanding
journalist, and he says that he has little use for Beethoven's symphonies.  I
find that frankly astonishing personally, but it doesn't make me change my
regard for him and it doesn't make me feel a need to change his mind
ultimately,
either.  We can all agree to disagree.  There's room for everyone.


But you don't feel a little bad for a guy that can't get his rocks off via
Beethoven?



> I'm thirty-five and don't feel like I've outgrown Zappa, Tower Of Power, Uri
> Caine's quartet with Joel Levine, the Minutemen, Bill Evans, or any of the
> other stuff that got my rocks off when I was seventeen.  And there's
probably
> no essay ever to be written by a critic that will make me think I was wrong
> for loving any music I love.

Once again, I personally never said I "outgrew" Zappa per se (in the sense of
an
arbitrary cut off date after which he should be declared verboten).  And yes,
that does seem to be what "Poison" Penman's positing - but I read this as a
literary shorthand that reveals his take on the mental/emotional level of his
caricature Zappa fan.  It's rude, but it does get his point across succinctue
to say there's enough room for both views.

I don't, however, think there's anything necessarily wrong with moving beyond
music that once meant something to you and now doesn't.  I'm 35 and I still
listen to King Crimson, Bob Marley, the Clash, Black Flag, the Butthole
Surfers,
and Ornette Coleman, as when I was 17 or 18.  But you won't catch me listening
to the Osmonds as when I was 7, Journey as when I was 13, or even ELP as when
I
was 17.  Some things you do leave behind, but you do it for personal reasons,
not because someone said youich means I only
encountered it in my late 20s, a time at which my many Zappa albums were going
unlistened to while I strangely felt compelled to continue buying each and
every
new one that came along, listen once, and shelve it.  Clearly there was
already
something wrong for me.  My response was an entirely personal reaction and one
that I would never choose to impose on anyone else.  But it does speak to the
importance of having a diversity of opinion in print.  If all we saw was
officially-sanctioned and ratified "truth," where would that'd say we've done
plenty of that in the last twelve
hours as well as in the last however-many years.




Personally, I think the job of a music critic is to observe some music, and
try to figure out who in the reading/listening world is going to benefit from
knowing that music.

I think I've said everything I can possibly say on the subject, and I've taken
up WAAAAYYY too much bandwidth.  So I'll let it go and promise to stay on the
sidelines in any future discussions of Zappa, and you can write me off as
being
hopeless in that regard, which is okay.  But I hope this doesn't mean we can't
all be friends here anymore... :-)

Steve Smith
ssmith36@sprynom he's writing.

skip h

NP: Aretha Franklin, SPARKLE (produced and composed by Curtis Mayfield)

www.geocities.com/skipheller



- -

------------------------------

End of Zorn List Digest V3 #274
*******************************


 To unsubscribe from zorn-list-digest, send an email to
       "[e-mail]"
 with
       "unsubscribe zorn-list-digest"
 in the body of the message.

 For information on digests or retrieving files and old messages send
 "help" to the same address.  Do not use quotes in your message.

 A non-digest (direct mail) version of this list is also available; to
 subscribe to that instead, replace all instances of "zorn-list-digest"
 in the commands above with "zorn-list".

 Back issues are available for anonymous FTP from ftp.xmission.com, in
 pub/lists/zorn-list/archive.  These are organized by date.

 Problems? Email the list owner at [e-mail]