easycure

They are good, but very very "pretentious"... refined and eclectic, but a bit empty. More skilled arrangers than a great band, in my opinion.

I agree. Great ep

happy you.. the world is beautiful because it's diverse ;-)

pretazzo, I notice that we’re getting more and more on the same page in terms of "mental gymnastics" .. :-D I agree with your point, even though for me the Popol Vuh are more rock than Zappa.. but the concept is there..

I think so too, pretazzo :-) ..in fact, you yourself said that his influence is more in other fields than in rock, as I mentioned.. as for the discussion about teaching to dare, to transcend, etc., I believe it's a discussion that can apply to about 70% of the most significant production of the '60s, so from this point of view, my reasoning doesn't change. Bye!

pretazzo, as above: the Dead Kennedys clearly have completely different foundations. If they drew from Zappa, they have taken superficial elements, one of many curiosities, or one of the many musical "attitudes." But then, to try at all costs to reaffirm his influence, isn't that a way to belittle him anyway? It seems contradictory to me to define Zappa as a creator so multi-faceted and at the same time claim he has influenced rock a lot. I see his influence as rather marginal, precisely because of the vastness, complexity, and heterogeneity of his approach (an approach which I repeat, for me is quite odious).

But for me, it's really in the approach that I don't see much legacy... apart from certainly progressive/jazz rock, I see little to nothing... in fact, I observe the opposite of your argument: for example, bands like Devo may have echoed that parodic and provocative attitude (I'm speaking strictly musically), Alice Cooper has clearly embraced the showmanship, and many other examples could be made, but his approach as such has been very little followed. This, in itself, reflects his essence as a musician who transcends (and denies) rock.

Well, even regarding the influence discussion, one could elaborate... in reality, it has had much less impact than one might expect from an avant-garde artist like him (which, at least for me, confirms the point I made earlier). If we go beyond '75, it seems to me that the course of rock has followed completely different influences, and in any case, there have certainly been groups and artists who have influenced rock in a much more significant way than Zappa. But this, mind you, does not diminish him in the slightest. It’s still, as I said, a matter of perspectives, which, when reasoning about Zappa, can only be many: if, I repeat, one considers him purely from a historical rock perspective, then Zappa has not been particularly influential. From another point of view, however, he is perhaps considered the greatest composer of classical music of the second half of the 20th century...

It is no coincidence, therefore, that his undeniable, immense avant-garde originality is rather self-referential; it is a metamusical discourse that almost entirely lacks interiority, true intimate expression. For this reason, from a rock perspective, I see him as a much less significant avant-gardist compared to many others, because, in addition to being barely "Dionysian," he consciously lacks simplicity in the sense of being "direct," which is perhaps the fundamental characteristic of rock as a new musical art. Thus, in denying rock, Zappa ultimately adopts an approach that is much more classical (even in the literal sense of the term) than many artists who do not deny rock. He is a bit the antithesis, for example, of how Tim Buckley can be considered avant-garde; but also, upon closer inspection, Robert Wyatt, or years later the Suicide, for instance, who were among the most innovative artists of the '70s while starting from and never forgetting to be, above all, an expression of a world. Here, while a group like Suicide (which I repeat, are an example of avant-garde) prioritizes expression, the communication of an urge, a feeling, a reality, Zappa, at best, arrives at this afterwards, with a studied, detached attitude. This, I repeat, makes him quite unbearable for me personally; however, I cannot deny the greatness of his work.

Dear Davejongilmour, you have been quite inattentive regarding my reviews: indeed, I wrote 2 scathing critiques about Franz Ferdinand ;-) so it comes to mind that you commented on the review of the DT without even a hint of understanding, even worse than I thought. Anyway, I want to point out that, unlike you, I wrote "we more or less agree," meaning I framed my discourse by stating that I was expressing an opinion, with no pretense of objectivity. As for the content, the more time passes, the more I can't stand Zappa... which is a very personal view, I would never dare critique him like I did the Dream Theater; here we are definitely in territories that deserve much more respect. Nevertheless, for me, Zappa, if considered from a historical/cultural perspective of rock, gives me the strong impression of an author with an extraordinary level of pretentiousness, an entomologist who has always explicitly positioned himself "above," as a sort of "sociologist" (a definition he recognizes openly, if I'm not mistaken) who looks down because he knows he is fundamentally superior to certain gender issues. This is an attitude I can't tolerate, especially because for this reason, Zappa is clearly an artist who does not believe in rock at all, which, for me who is passionate about rock (and believes in rock as an art form), is quite a deplorable characteristic.