It's pretty pompous to think Brittney Spears has no talent don't you think? I mean, I don't like her, but she can sing and can dance. I think she fits rather well into pop culture--which is apparently what she wants. Just think, in ten/fifteen years, she'll be the next Madonna--steal what everybody's been doing for thirty/forty years, and pretend you invented it. Yes, it will be wonderful when she releases her first improvised album, and cites Derek Bailey as one of her favorites from way back.
Steve Spangler
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:32:44 -0800
From: "s~Z" <keith@pfmentum.com>
Subject: Re: Zappa vs. The Critics contd.
>>>I don't think that Zappa's catalog is beyond criticism<<<
As much as I grew tired of Zappa's attitude, the wonderful thing about
him was that he didn't give a fuck. He followed his internal vision
unscathed by his detractors.
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 16:35:57 +0100
From: "Franz Fuchs" <f.fuchs@gmx.net>
Subject: RE: Zappa and Penman: do we need critics
> [mailto:owner-zorn-list@lists.xmission.com]On Behalf Of Steve Spangler
> Didn't Zappa say something to the effect of: Critics are
> ignorant to music, and they're writing to an audience that's
> ignorant about music. I think it's in The Real Frank Zappa
> Book. I seem to remember his rant against critics as quite funny.
>
> He really hated these guys, and I think he realized early on
> that they were driven more by profits than opinions or
> "writing to inform."
Let me say, that I'm an admirer of Zappa's music, albeit a critical one,
*but*:
Couldn't it be possible that his dislike for critics was caused by their
dismissal of a good part of his music (especially the middle and later
period)? Despite declarations to the contrary, I think Zappa (as all
artists, IMO) did care what others said about his music and it's
understandable that you develope strategies to cope with rejection. I
hope this doesn't sound to much like pop psychology...
And couldn't it be possible that at least some of the criticism directed
at Zappa was well justified because he had moved his rock music into a
dead end street by the end of the 70s?
After all, you can boil this sort of conflict down to two essential
points: The heavily punk-influenced press believed it doesn't need
virtuosos and complex music to express relevant issues, whereas Zappa
moved away from his so-to-speak proto punk aesthetic with the original
Mothers of Invention to a more slick jazz-rock. He would say at every
opportunity how much his charts demanded from the muscians, a tic which
can be traced up to "The Yellow Shark" and which tempts me to once again
cite Robert Christgau's bonmot that "Zappa's music is as hard to play as
it is easy to forget". Is this unjust? Yes, but it's a good antidote to
Frank's point of view.
Remember that Zappa printed a favourable review from "Guitar World" in
the booklet of "Shut Up 'n Play Yer Guitar", which praised him, while
putting down Eno's music as "child's play". Though it's hardly
surprising that a guitar mag journalist doesn't like the latter, this
detail shows how seemingly incompatible the above mentioned aesthetics
are.*
Regards
Franz Fuchs
*Of course Eno's subtle sound manipulations are far from being simple.
It's just that Zappa seems to have defined complexity foremost through
densely layered polyrhythms - I don't think that conceptual art was his
forte, although there's a short passage on Cage in "The Real Frank Zappa
Book"
Regards
Franz Fuchs
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 07:50:17 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott Handley <thesubtlebody@yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: Patton: Under the influence
- --- Julian <jcurwin@hartingdale.com.au> wrote:
... and meanwhile,
> what's happening to the artists with actual talent?
> Well, nothing much...
Hopefully they're recording for the real labels: small
(in some cases, not so small), independent labels,
sometimes run out of music lovers' bedrooms. Or
they're not waiting in the kitchen for Major Label
Prince Charming, but going out and making things
happen DIY. In my hometown, the music sucks, but the
people who are waiting for major labels to snatch them
up, to legitimate their work, who aren't doing things
themselves....that's the most pathetic thing; usually
On Thu, 15 Feb 2001 10:13:54 -0500, Steve Spangler said:
> My problem with the critics: it's too much of a one-sided argument where other opinions are not input into the dialogue as
> possible answers to the question of "is this good/bad?"; but instead it's a means to strengthen one's own point of view. How
> often have you read criticism where it's acknowledged that other opinions exist on the matter, but these other opinions are
> glossed over or discounted as "piss-poor?"
Agree with you 100%. I think the main excuse for magazines/papers (which isn't entirely dismissable) is that they have a lack of space to print all the reviews they want to in the first place: need room for all those jeans ad, right? I cite this often but it's worth mentioning again that Downbeat would assign two reviewers to cover new Coltrane albums because they realized how polarizing his work was in the music world. Sadly, this trend is rarely, if ever, seen nowadays. The only recent instance I've seen was a spate of Radiohead reviews praising and damning their latest
(I'm in the latter group).
> Also, readers should learn to use the critics to their advantage. Readers should learn to recognize those critics who agree with
> their own opinions, and patronize the publications of these people. And, learn to use the opinions of those that one doesn't
> agree with--if you know you like everything this critic hates, then use that information to your advantage.
My experience is that most people form their opinion from a variety of sources and not just one writer. I see that esp. with movies where people say 'this got good reviews' or 'this got mixed reviews.'
Back to Zappa in particular, there's one good point he made about reviewers that sticks in my mind. A major complaint he had was that people who wrote about his albums never listened to all of them so that they couldn't form a valid opinion of his work. Admittedly, he released a slew of records, going from from '66 to '93 (and beyond now), but he does have a point that if you're going to discuss an artist's work, you should be cognizant of what they've done before, even if it is a huge oeuvre.
Best,
Jason
- --
Perfect Sound Forever
online music magazine
perfect-sound@furious.com
http://www.furious.com/perfect
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 11:38:56 EST
From: Nudeants@aol.com
Subject: Re: the validity of negative criticism
In a message dated 2/14/01 11:24:41 PM Eastern Standard Time,
JonAbbey2@aol.com writes:
<< well, I hope I'm not taking this out of context, but Matt said:
<< Essentially, I don't consider negative criticism, in a journalistic form,
of art, to be valid. >>
I'll number these for ease in answering:
>1) are you serious? some questions that come to mind are:
1) Most definitely serious. I posted something a while back that was a quote
from Glenn Gould that said something to the effect of the only worthwhile
journalism being advocacy journalism. I realized upon reading it for the
first time that I completely agreed with it.
> 2) how do you choose which records to buy?
2) I don't think it would be any less hard to find the records were are
destined to buy, and I think the whole process could be made even more
pleasurable if we could hear from people who had an intelligent means of
supporting what they liked, or even loved, in writing.
>3)are the opinions of journalists less
valid than those of people on mailing lists?
3) The opinions of ALL journalists are neither less or more valid than those
of people on mailing lists, and I don't think that I said that mailing lists
more 100% more valid in the absolute sense. The medium is different, though.
Mailing lists allow for discussions like these, an exchange. One poorly
conceived review that consists of nothing but negative, faux-intellectual
sputum does lots of damage, though, and the medium of print places a large
responsibility on the writer, a responsibility too ofte abused.
>4)what makes positive criticism
more valid than negative?
4) I guess this depends largely on personal disposition. My problem is that
at the root of negative reviews there lies a massive misprision regarding the
work he is reviewing. The reviewer often is made uncomfortable by his
inability to understand what's going on(whether or not he realizes it), or
perhaps his inability to simply explain WHY he doesn't like it is confounding
him and he turns to insulting music that brings joy and edification to many
other people. Now, someone disliking something I like is, in and of itself,
no skin off my nose, but the manner in which most negative reviews cause them
to read as mere petulance, and that's the particular bug up my bum here.
5)is Frank Zappa's entire catalog above criticism?
Certainly not, in the absolute sense. It IS above, however, the sort of
churlish drivel making up pat dismissals such as Penman's.
>>another question: is it a valid point of discussion that Penman, Steve and
myself all have had fairly similar reactions to Zappa's music as we got
older? why do you feel the need to so vehemently defend the music?
Well, I don't know how you all are. I'm 25, but I've been listening to the
music for 10 years, and I still find my pleasure curve regarding his music on
the upswing, actually. I thought for a while that I was done buying his
records, but my last Zappa phase prompted me to acquire about 10 more albums,
actually, so maybe my Zappa arc is just different. Maybe, also, that the arc
will take a downturn in ten years, as it has for you fellows.
Let me say, though, that its not Zappa-worship that prompted me to write, but
rather the music-criticism angle of it. Zappa music happened to be the
vessel in this particular case. One could substitute other music I like
that's received negative press over the years (Keith Jarrett, Ornette, '70's
Miles, etc.)
it would be nice if there was more worthwhile music criticism in the world,
but it would be similarly nice if there were more worthwhile music in the
world.
>>
Sure, both would be nice, but there certainly isn't a one-to-one ratio of
worthwhile pieces of music and worthwhile pieces of music criticism. There's
at least enough worthwhile music to keep busy for a few lifetimes, I think.
- -Matt Mitchell
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:42:08 -0800
From: Fred Heller <velaires@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Odp: Zappa and Penman: do we need critics
on 2/15/01 1:46 AM, Marcin Gokieli at marcingokieli@go2.pl wrote:
> From: Steve Spangler <stevespangler@mail.otterweb.alumlink.com>
>> Didn't Zappa say something to the effect of: Critics are ignorant to
> music, and they're writing to an audience that's ignorant about music. I
> think it's in The Real Frank Zappa Book.
>
> I think it was rather something like 'people who don't know to write write
> things about people who do not know to play for people who do not know to
> read'... if memory (and my retranslating skills) serves
>
> Marcin Gokieli
> marcin.gokieli@mospan.pl marcingokieli@go2.pl
> Generally speaking, if a philosopher offers to 'dissolve' the problem you
> are working on, tell him to go climb a tree - Jerry Fodor
>
>
> -
>
>
The quote is, "Rock journalism is people who can't write interviewing people
who can't talk for an audience that can't read."
a little extreme. mind you, only a little.
skip h
np: sun ra, the singles
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:46:27 -0800
From: Fred Heller <velaires@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: Zappa vs. The Critics contd.
on 2/15/01 7:13 AM, Steve Spangler at
stevespangler@mail.otterweb.alumlink.com wrote:
> I don't think that Zappa's catalog is beyond criticism, but it does deserve
> more than a glance; it doesn't deserve to be dismissed for its scatalogical
> content etc.
Agreed, largely on the idea that everybody has periods where their work is
not its strongest (if they stay in business long enough)
>
> My problem with the critics: it's too much of a one-sided argument where other
> opinions are not input into the dialogue as possible answers to the question
> of "is this good/bad?"; but instead it's a means to strengthen one's own point
> of view. How often have you read criticism where it's acknowledged that other
> opinions exist on the matter, but these other opinions are glossed over or
> discounted as "piss-poor?"
Even worse, it's considered poor form for an artist to answer criticism.
It's like bad sportsmanship.
>
> For this reason, I think the discussion group is a better means of
> understanding the value of a body or piece of work. I think it has some faults
> in that it's a little one-sided also, but there's a more hermeneutic process
> where the dialectic is kept alive.
>
> Also, readers should learn to use the critics to their advantage. Readers
> should learn to recognize those critics who agree with their own opinions, and
> patronize the publications of these people. And, learn to use the opinions of
> those that one doesn't agree with--if you know you like everything this critic
> hates, then use that information to your advantage.
Agreed, but few people do that kind of homework, and those who do are
usually the kinds of people prone that sort of activity anyway. Which is
why so many great artists wind up preaching to the converted.
skip h
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 08:58:19 -0800
From: Fred Heller <velaires@earthlink.net>
Subject: Re: the validity of negative criticism
on 2/15/01 8:38 AM, Nudeants@aol.com at Nudeants@aol.com wrote:
>> 1) are you serious? some questions that come to mind are:
>
> 1) Most definitely serious. I posted something a while back that was a quote
> from Glenn Gould that said something to the effect of the only worthwhile
> journalism being advocacy journalism. I realized upon reading it for the
> first time that I completely agreed with it.
I think -- more to the point -- a critic should be looking out for what
music comes across his desk and which audience it will serve well. Critics
generally do not get unlimited space in which to express themselves, and it
would be foolhardy to suggest that, with all the records that are coming
out, it's hard to find things that deserve encouragement.
>
>> 3)are the opinions of journalists less
> valid than those of people on mailing lists?
>
> 3) The opinions of ALL journalists are neither less or more valid than those
> of people on mailing lists, and I don't think that I said that mailing lists
> more 100% more valid in the absolute sense. The medium is different, though.
> Mailing lists allow for discussions like these, an exchange. One poorly
> conceived review that consists of nothing but negative, faux-intellectual
> sputum does lots of damage, though, and the medium of print places a large
> responsibility on the writer, a responsibility too ofte abused.
It depends on the journalist. The ones who really act responsibly, who
actually look into the stuff they're writing about, who try to put
themselves in the shoes of the artist, who really CARE ABOUT MUSIC -- are
great, and their words mean a great deal. Most people on music mailing
lists (the lists that scratch deeper, I mean) are definitely putting across
something more valid than some guy who decides whether the guy who wrote
"RDNZL" is "worth it".
>
>> 4)what makes positive criticism
> more valid than negative?
>
> 4) I guess this depends largely on personal disposition. My problem is that
> at the root of negative reviews there lies a massive misprision regarding the
> work he is reviewing. The reviewer often is made uncomfortable by his
> inability to understand what's going on(whether or not he realizes it), or
> perhaps his inability to simply explain WHY he doesn't like it is confounding
> him and he turns to insulting music that brings joy and edification to many
> other people. Now, someone disliking something I like is, in and of itself,
> no skin off my nose, but the manner in which most negative reviews cause them
> to read as mere petulance, and that's the particular bug up my bum here.
>
> 5)is Frank Zappa's entire catalog above criticism?
>
> Certainly not, in the absolute sense. It IS above, however, the sort of
> churlish drivel making up pat dismissals such as Penman's.
if Penman was all that smart, he'd know enough to respect a guy who can
write music like that, whether he liked the music in question or not.
I've been listening to FZ for about twenty-two years, and fully a third of
his output is not to my liking. But the key word there is "my". Lots of
folks like JOE'S GARAGE and "Jewish Princess". I'm glad it's all there for
them. Penman seems to think it shouldn't be there, and that's the problem.
skip heller
- -
------------------------------
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001 12:03:23 EST
From: Nudeants@aol.com
Subject: more Zappa/critics/stuff
In a message dated 2/15/01 10:37:23 AM Eastern Standard Time, f.fuchs@gmx.net
writes:
<< Let me say, that I'm an admirer of Zappa's music, albeit a critical one,
*but*:
Couldn't it be possible that his dislike for critics was caused by their
dismissal of a good part of his music (especially the middle and later
period)? Despite declarations to the contrary, I think Zappa (as all
artists, IMO) did care what others said about his music and it's
understandable that you develope strategies to cope with rejection. I
hope this doesn't sound to much like pop psychology...
And couldn't it be possible that at least some of the criticism directed
at Zappa was well justified because he had moved his rock music into a
dead end street by the end of the 70s?
Of course, I'd be surprised to find any musician who doesn't care at all what
anyone says about his music. One could hardly blame him for his attitude
when you read the wealth of critical sludge that purported to be about his
music. But your last assessment is assuming quite a lot there, my friend.
I'd be fairly loath to use a statement like that as a given. I mean, we
could actually discuss the music, but that's actually beside the point in
this particular discussion.
>>After all, you can boil this sort of conflict down to two essential
points: The heavily punk-influenced press believed it doesn't need
virtuosos and complex music to express relevant issues, whereas Zappa
moved away from his so-to-speak proto punk aesthetic with the original
Mothers of Invention to a more slick jazz-rock. He would say at every
opportunity how much his charts demanded from the muscians, a tic which
can be traced up to "The Yellow Shark" and which tempts me to once again
cite Robert Christgau's bonmot that "Zappa's music is as hard to play as
it is easy to forget". Is this unjust? Yes, but it's a good antidote to
Frank's point of view.
Maybe, but wouldn't it be more worthwhile for Christgau to attempt to comment
on what Zappa is trying to do, rather than his own knee-jerk assessment, a
statement which seems 'too clever by half?' (Christgau himself probably came
up with that beaut, one that critics seem to love) I seriously doubt that
Christgau ever took the time to check out Zappa's interests before writing
about him in pseudo-authoritarian manner.
*Of course Eno's subtle sound manipulations are far from being simple.
It's just that Zappa seems to have defined complexity foremost through
densely layered polyrhythms - I don't think that conceptual art was his
forte, although there's a short passage on Cage in "The Real Frank Zappa
Book"
Well, I'd disagree with that. Harmonically, theres a LOT going on,
texturally, there's a LOT going on, and lyrically, there's a LOT going on.
In fact, his music is complex in just about every way you could concieve,
even in the 'dead-end' rock music of the late 70's. Not all the complexities
manifested themselves 100% of the time in the same proportions, but they're
all there throughout his whole career. Furthermore, conceptual art WAS what
he did. Just because it didn't involve prepared pianos or 'happenings' all
the time (and it did even involve that sort of thing early on) and did
involve blowjobs, anal sex, humor, parody, etc., SOME of the time, it doesn't
mean that his art wasn't conceptual. His oeuvre is as tight as anybody's,
rife with cross associations, allusions, historical relevance,
self-reference. If that's not conceptual, then I don't know what is.
- -Matt
- -
------------------------------
End of Zorn List Digest V3 #288
*******************************
To unsubscribe from zorn-list-digest, send an email to
"majordomo@lists.xmission.com"
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 zorn-list-owner@lists.xmission.com
