Any article that starts off by stating that “Every artform, and every genre within a given artform, needs its Frank Zappa” is sure to provide an interesting read. Another quote:
Even when attempting to encompass the whole world in a single work of art, and then trying it again from a radically different angle within six months of the first effort, the Zappas are comic. They see the futility of trying to take it all in at once, but do it anyway. They’re prolific and protean because they understand that a single lens only gives us one view of the world, but a multiplicity of viewpoints might show us the full spectrum of life.
Eat that, Justin Timberfake.
Yes, for sure.
The question is: what’s the meaning of ” every genre…”? Egghead Bernard is talking right now.
For Musical History Books.
FZ, ahead of his time as proven, was an iconoclast, merging genres: “high & low” culture, etc. . OK, you know them ( = genres) all ( = those present in western culture).
What’s left? Let’s tell the truth: not that much up to now.
Some classical music commentators ( for instance the very good Bob Singleton, from the blog http://theovergrownpath.blogspot.com/ ) believe that the future of their music is world music.
Might be true against the backdrop of globilisation.
However ….
Interesting concept, but the article is really quite flawed logically.
Anyone who puts Phish before Primus or Faith No More, in my opinion, is defiantly logically flawed.
What the fuck. Primus = Bad? I they had said “Primus sucks”, that would have made my day. This is article is just plain inaccurate.
It is hard to recognize nonsense in an article that is so overtly complimenteous about FZ. I’d love to agree with him. But I only get headaches with this guy.