Frank Zappa in the Wire (article by Ian Penman)
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
> Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
> The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
>
> http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
>
> "Don't do that on stage anymore"
> by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
>
> Pretty harsh, don't you think??
I didn't make it past the first paragraph, but I think the author's stance
(for this article anyway) was summed up in the first phrase: "For the pop
life of me...."
-Sam
--
Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
FZ Concert Tales:
http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/
Jason Catena
> In article <78ltpa$uae$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cyphe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
> > The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
> >
> > http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
> >
> > "Don't do that on stage anymore"
> > by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
> >
> > Pretty harsh, don't you think??
>
> I didn't make it past the first paragraph, but I think the author's
> stance (for this article anyway) was summed up in the first phrase:
> "For the pop life of me...."
Well, I did read the whole thing, and it left me wondering what made
him hate Zappa so much in the first place, and why the editors of the
Wire chose someone with such an obviously bad attitude to review
Zappa's work.
I mean, we know it's not about the lyrics. The lyrics for the most
part are just fun, meant to get people to listen to the music. And I
think he misses entirely the point of the assemblage technique, which
in and of itself is a step past the single-musical-genre music-as-a-
business requirements of popular culture, where if it doesn't fit into
a single narrow category, it has No Commercial Potential, 'cause
people's musical tastes are so narrow.
I'd say the writer is exactly the kind of person record companies and
radio stations target in their demographic studies.
--
Jason David Catena Save the whales... collect the whole set.
cat...@xnet.com http://www.xnet.com/~catena
John Brower
can't remember where. The writer went on at length about how tedious it
all was and what a waste of time. The review finished with the thought:
"Gee, if only they would do this for a band that mattered, like the New
York Dolls."
Another extreme case of "to each his own".
I have never understood why writers who obviously hate something persist
in writing about it. Why not spend valuable space extolling the merits
of some unknown artist, instead of displaying your inadequacies opining
on something you don't understand? The honest critic admits to boredom;
the self-important one whines and complains.
Besides, if you are going to trash something, at least be entertaining!
John Brower
Lewis Saul
>Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
>The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
>
>http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
>
>"Don't do that on stage anymore"
>by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
>
>Pretty harsh, don't you think??
>
Pretty stupid. Here's my rebuttal, four years later:
>Ian Penman sits down with Zappa's newly reissued back
catalogue and takes sides.
For the pop life of me, I cannot see why anyone past the age of
17 would want to listen to Frank Zappa again,
**
Uh, because it's fun, educational and can exhilarate your spirit -- unless
your mind is already closed to such things and/or unable to make the
required effort, generally requiring moderate intelligence and the ability
to sit without having the pencil go even further up....
**
>never mind revere
him as a deep and important artist,
**
who's deep and important to you, Ian? Donovan? The Sex Pistols?
**
>never mind worship at the
tottering edifice
**
seems pretty sturdy to meeeee...
**
>of his recollected, remastered and repackaged
works.
**
Oh what great alliteration, Ian. Where are the 67 CDs of your rr&r works?
**
<snipped shit>
>while simultaneously pretending it's all being held
suspended daintily between gilded quotation marks.
**
Who's pretending? You may not agree that this is "serious shit" -- but you
are you to tell *us* that we're just "pretending" that it's really that
great? What a bunch of horseshit...
**
>At the beginning of his career, Zappa may have perceived one or
two truths, whose pure toxicity proved too much for him. Not
being someone whose genius was innately, genetically wild and
crazy (no Beefheart, Iggy or Reed/Cale he),
**
omygawd. as Frank used to say in such situations:
"nevermind."
**
>Then, why not just jack in all this rock culture bullshit he had such
obvious
contempt for from the very off, and stick to the
Berlioz/Varèse beat, where he could carve out a
respectable career as a 'modern composer'? Well, no, he wasn't
quite good or brave enough for that, either.
**
This guy truly requires the cosmic utensil way way up there. Two incredibly
stupid statements in ONE sentence. "obvious contempt." Yeah, Ian, you
really went through those rereleases carefully to come up with that.
And I can almost live with your opinion that he "wasn't quite good enough
[to be a "modern" composer] -- after all, that's your opinion...
But to say he wasn't "brave" enough? You're obviously implying that he
didn't have the "guts" to completely abandon his rock personna (for which,
of course, according to you, he had "obvious contempt") to pursue a career
as a "classical composer." Unless you're even dumber than you think, you
know DAMN WELL that just wasn't a realistic option, even assuming he desired
to do so. Not brave enough -- why don't you quit your job and ghostwrite
Larry King's next book?
**
Ian dribbles on:
>Zappalytes say things like [...] check out the modal declension in the
five
minute solo on "Limburger Corporation Wowser",
"modal declension" sucks, but "LCW" was good. One point for you.
it's about the
third best version on record so far! Hot poop!" No, they really
do say things like that. Even (or especially) the intelligent,
grown-up ones.
**
Now we're really being insulted, boys and girls...
**
>Even the ones who have an otherwise coherent
grasp of the adult world and all its politics and evasions and
lies claim him to be the author of some kind of on-going modern
Leviathan - a splenetic contemporary satire, withering in its
attack, all-encompassing in its range. Then you (and they)
search for the actual targets of this piercing worldview, and
what do they (and you) find? Satires on porn, wanking, dope,
more porn, cocktail jazz, teenage girls, disco music, more
porn, TV evangelist s (always a favourite stop-off for the more
intellectual rock star), um... session musicians... um, hello?
**
And your "deep and important" artist would satirize what? The food in
England? Frank did it perfectly in ten bars of 3/4...
**
I've been saying some of this stuff about Zappa for years, so
when the staff here at The Ire (sic) sat me down with the first
batch of Frank releases from the first stage of Rykodisc's
all-embracing reissue programme (there are, naturally, lots of
double and triple CD treats herein), I thought what a great
chance to fire poison darts at the Emperor's pimply bod. I
really would like to present you with a monumental,
work-by-work deconstruction of the Zappa canon (I even started
to write one: honest),
**
Oh, I believe you. You *started.* Just like I *started* on my website.
I'm 5 for 78 on my site. But at least I admit it's because the canon is so
overwhelmingly deep and mysteroius. You probably got to Absolutely Free and
said to yourself, "oh what the hell, this stuff is all crap anyways, I don't
really have to do this [work-by-work deconstruction] to write this stupid
article. I'll just sit on my pencil..."
**
>"Dinah Moe Hum". I mean, this is the sort of stuff you play
real quiet so the neighbours don't think you're the sort of
person who listens to this sort of stuff.
**
And I'm sure you sneak Ms. Pinky in the back door at night so the wife (or
mummy) doesn't see it...
**
The classical pieces?
About as desiccated as bourgeois formalism gets. (The only time
I got a genuine laugh out of these reissues was reading an
exasperated Zappa-penned sleeve note about how one of his
'ground-breaking' pop/classical crossover performances had to
be curtailed when The LSO went off to the pub to get drunk
halfway through and never returned: Y-e-s! Let's hear it for
that Dunkirk spirit!)
**
hahahahahaha
Perhaps you think you're Joey Stalin. That's exactly what he called
Shostakovich after listening to some challenging music -- "bourgeois
formalist."
**
>serious' Zappa ultimately operates on the same double-bevel as
the scabrous stuff. It's so laced with his flashily
dissimulated self-doubt and Other-hatred that it points
continually to itself as a parody of its form, so that if the
world catches on to what a big con trick is being pulled, he
can then turn around and say: "It's all just a parody." Or:
"You either get it or you don't."
**What a cop out. You never really *listened* to any music, obviously...
>(Except colour-coded Boy's Own Record Collecting.)
Now, that *is* a nasty, dirty Ryko trick! The new 105.. series have that
nice color scheme going -- but if all of a sudden you run into your old
Uncle Meat from the 100.. series -- *it looks terrible* -- not to mention
the jarring clash with the Barking Pumpkin spines...
>>>if you were
stuck on the proverbial desert island, which disc(s) would you
rather have - one solitary song by Brian Wilson or the entire
Zappa back catalogue?
**
DUUUUHHHHHH
**
the rest just proves what an asshole this guy is/was...
just
forget it...
cyphe...@hotmail.com
The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
"Don't do that on stage anymore"
by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
Pretty harsh, don't you think??
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
It Never Entered My Mind
>Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
>The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
"For some, was a musical iconoclast, capsizing the barriers
between high and low culture. For others, he was a reactionary
force, vilifying anything that didn't fit his cynical
worldview."
Ian Penman sits down with Zappa's newly reissued back
catalogue and takes sides.
Don't Do That On Stage Anymore
-------------------------------
For the pop life of me, I cannot see why anyone past the age of
17 would want to listen to Frank Zappa again, never mind revere
him as a deep and important artist, never mind worship at the
tottering edifice of his recollected, remastered and repackaged
works. Surely the only pertinent use for Zappa was as an
interim stage for young lads - scared witless by what they
suddenly perceive as the transience or hollowness of popular
culture - for whom Zappa represents a gi-normous prefab sneer
of self-importance behind which they can shelter for a while.
(And, lest we forget: in the pre-Viz, pre-Mayall and Edmondson
1970s, he was the only legitimate supplier of fart and bum and
willy jokes).
When you're a Zappa fan, you're supplied with a number of
get-out clauses from the idea of simple plain fun most of us
plain simple folks get from popular culture. If you're still
slightly nervous about the idea of worshipping some geeky,
greasy-hair, guitar-stranglin' guy, there is Zappa's obeisance
to notions of Western cultural fidelity (as witness his
attempts at More Serious Works) to buoy up your sense of
engagement with something bigger, something... Beyond. If
you're just an average Bill 'n' Ted kinda guy, looking to gross
out on guitars 'n' guffaws, then there is Zappa's blanket
cynicism, misogyny, Catch 22 smutty humour (supposedly a parody
of smutty attitudes - yeah, and Are You Being Served is Hegel
in hiding). And finally - and perhaps most important of all for
Frank's fan-boy club - is the fact that all this would-be
cultural iconoclasm is served up with its outsize Guitar
Worship intact. So Frank's boys can genuflect at the feet of a
Real Musician; they can collate and c ollect and fanzine-date
each and every guitar solo into hermetic, cultural, slo-death
oblivion - while simultaneously pretending it's all being held
suspended daintily between gilded quotation marks. Just like
Frank did for most of his life. Instead of having to come out
and face the difficult adult world of belief, lust, dirt, pain,
you can instead strike ironic poses about belief, lust, dirt,
pain; you can string ironic distancing effects like so many
fairy lights, finally, around everything you do. Even unto your
own aspirations.
At the beginning of his career, Zappa may have perceived one or
two truths, whose pure toxicity proved too much for him. Not
being someone whose genius was innately, genetically wild and
crazy (no Beefheart, Iggy or Reed/Cale he), but who still
wanted to be somehow, someway centre stage all the same (and
all the time), he cast around. Could he be a leading edge
satirist like Lenny Bruce, say? (No, because he wasn't
innately... etc.) Could he be another Dylan, an irritant,
generational Voice? No, because the economic veracity of the
Song never was (and never would be) his forte. Then, why not
just jack in all this rock culture bullshit he had such obvious
contempt for from the very off, and stick to the
Berlioz/Varèse beat, where he could carve out a
respectable career as a 'modern composer'? Well, no, he wasn't
quite good or brave enough for that, either. So, let's recap:
can't sing, can't dance, not a pretty-boy or an intellectual,
contemptuous of both the academy and the Street. ...
Welcome to Zappaland! A strange world of negative values and
funhouse mirrors where acolytes spread out across the world, a
demented glare in their eye, determined to persuade us
non-believers of things that are manifestly not so. Just like
Scientologists, who will earnestly tell you what a rocket
scientist type guy L Ron really was (or still is), so the
Zappoids buttonhole you with what a political giant he was,
what a musicological genie, what a wit and a wag. But just
because a few poor East Europeans deprived of guitar solos and
anti-consumerist humour for a few decades made him Trade
Minister Without Portfolio or something, this does not a Noam
Chomsky make of the man who inflicted 200 Motels on the world.
Zappalytes say things like: "OK, by this point the humour was
getting a little oafish, and the endless tales of groupies and
on the road life is a little stale, and yes, perhaps we can
even detect a mouse-peep of misogyny here and there, but -
Wowee Zowee! - check out the modal declension in the five
minute solo on "Limburger Corporation Wowser", it's about the
third best version on record so far! Hot poop!" No, they really
do say things like that. Even (or especially) the intelligent,
grown-up ones. Even the ones who have an otherwise coherent
grasp of the adult world and all its politics and evasions and
lies claim him to be the author of some kind of on-going modern
Leviathan - a splenetic contemporary satire, withering in its
attack, all-encompassing in its range. Then you (and they)
search for the actual targets of this piercing worldview, and
what do they (and you) find? Satires on porn, wanking, dope,
more porn, cocktail jazz, teenage girls, disco music, more
porn, TV evangelist s (always a favourite stop-off for the more
intellectual rock star), um... session musicians... um, hello?
I've been saying some of this stuff about Zappa for years, so
when the staff here at The Ire (sic) sat me down with the first
batch of Frank releases from the first stage of Rykodisc's
all-embracing reissue programme (there are, naturally, lots of
double and triple CD treats herein), I thought what a great
chance to fire poison darts at the Emperor's pimply bod. I
really would like to present you with a monumental,
work-by-work deconstruction of the Zappa canon (I even started
to write one: honest), but all those 'pressing' questions about
matrix numbers and matching edits and how they differ from
semi-legal bootlegs and so on, crumble into dust when
confronted with just a few seconds of the globe-encircling
smugness of that Zappa-knows-best voice intoning "Stinkfoot" or
"Dinah Moe Hum". I mean, this is the sort of stuff you play
real quiet so the neighbours don't think you're the sort of
person who listens to this sort of stuff. The classical pieces?
About as desiccated as bourgeois formalism gets. (The only time
I got a genuine laugh out of these reissues was reading an
exasperated Zappa-penned sleeve note about how one of his
'ground-breaking' pop/classical crossover performances had to
be curtailed when The LSO went off to the pub to get drunk
halfway through and never returned: Y-e-s! Let's hear it for
that Dunkirk spirit!)
Doesn't even that supposed split between serious and workaday
popular idioms tell us something about him? You can tell a lot
by a person's language, and Zappa's - both musicological and
critical - is split between two poles: smut and seriousness,
both of which carry an overwhelming aura of anal retentiveness,
of shoring yourself up against an unmanageable world. The
'serious' Zappa ultimately operates on the same double-bevel as
the scabrous stuff. It's so laced with his flashily
dissimulated self-doubt and Other-hatred that it points
continually to itself as a parody of its form, so that if the
world catches on to what a big con trick is being pulled, he
can then turn around and say: "It's all just a parody." Or:
"You either get it or you don't."
Zappa albums valorise the idea of virtuoso instrumentalists and
guitar heroes (or rather, Jean Luc Ponty, Terry Bozzio and
Steve Vai) to a point which is beyond parody, however. We were
always meant to worship these people, make no mistake about it.
(You can never get through any piece on Zappa without certain
giveaway buzz phrases cropping up: "chops", "seamless
virtuosity", "modal run", "great studio sound", etc.) This is,
in essence, as un-rock or un-subversive as music can get, in a
way that Terry Riley or Morton Feldman or John Cage, say, never
were: this is all about how fast your fingers can go.
... And how low your sarcasm can dredge. Zappa takes the piss
out of some of the best things in the modern world (girls,
drugs, discos, S&M) without offering anything better in
their place. (Except colour-coded Boy's Own Record Collecting.)
He took the piss out of - or hitched a ride on (as with doowop)
- the transient world of Pop, but tell me this: if you were
stuck on the proverbial desert island, which disc(s) would you
rather have - one solitary song by Brian Wilson or the entire
Zappa back catalogue?
He had long hair but sneered at longhairs; he made a long and
lucrative career out of endless guitar solos but sneered at
other rock musicians; he constantly bumped his little
tugboatful of 'compositions' up against the prows of the
classical establishment, but he lambasted that, too. In stuff
like "The Torture Never Stops" and "Dancing Fool" he got some
of his biggest audiences by exploiting the very idea of
exploitation he was supposedly upbraiding. He sneered at people
who took drugs; he sneered at their parents who didn't. Most of
all, he sneered at women; girls trying to get by in a world of
hateful, mastery-obsessed fools like himself. He sneered at
anything which represented the mess and fun and confusion of
life. He sneered, in short, at anything/everything that wasn't
Frank Zappa.
And all through this long, lonely night of merciless Reason,
the only people who thought they weren't being sneered at were
the fans. Well, how deluded can you get? Go ahead -you buy
something called "Titties And Beer" and persuade yourself
you're not the asshole and butt of the joke, and that not only
are you not being sneered at but you're participating in a
revolutionary act. That takes some kinda tortuous contortion of
logic beyond most pop fans, so I guess maybe in the final
analysis Zappa fans are smarter than the rest of us poor
schlobs, at least as far as advanced sophistry goes.
As for the looming, monolithic, Mad King Ludwig shadow of this
reissue programme - think about it: there really isn't any
equivalent of this sort of monomaniacal, anally-retentive,
self-congratulatory madness in cinema or literature. (There is,
of course, in music: Zappa is nothing if not a kind of weird
'n' whacky Wagner for junior Ring-spotters). This is not
because Zappa's career in popular music represents some kind of
brave singularity - it's because elsewhere is real culture and
(t)his is ersatz. Compare him with anyone from George Clinton
to Can to Sun Ra to Miles Davis (some of whom have their own
reissue programmes underway) - genuine breakthrough artists who
didn't just reshuffle the given forms - and realise that
although Zappa built a career on purporting to despise the
facades of Western consumer culture, he could never actually
tear himself away from its value system (he just recycled it,
reflected it back in myriad 'negative' forms); he could never
step out of his circus -master role and plunge into the world
of the Other.
The strangest feeling I got from listening to all this
back-to-back, hyper-clean, remastered stuff is that Zappa -
supposedly the great arch-modernist, the man who lived inside a
studio console - was actually on some level scared witless of
technology; or that he could only approach it (like everything
else) as something to be mastered, a kind of aural vacuum
cleaner for his archives, and that any real mind-scrambling
interface with music-as-techne or techne-as-music was quite
beyond his scope; that any rending of the veil of the future
and away from his beloved twin antiquarian unreconstructed
poles of Guitar and Symphony would have sent him gibbering into
a permanent yesteryear.
Modern composer? Please. Like those poor fools who early on in
their careers get stuck in one pose of drug-taking Wild Man or
buffoon, Zappa early on got saddled with a job description of
iconoclast, and there is nothing more wearing than nearly 30
years of neat, tidy, conscientious, sniping iconoclasm. The
only way Zappa could ever wow anyone, finally, was through
quantity not quality. He was a jack-off of all trades, and
master of none.
This article first appeared in issue 137 (July 95). #169 1997
The Wire.
Collin Pruitt
>Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
>The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
>
>http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
>
>"Don't do that on stage anymore"
>by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
>
>Pretty harsh, don't you think??
That made me very mad. What an ignorant guy.
>
>-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
------------------------
Montana Guy Zappa Page
http://www.geocities.com/SouthBeach/Marina/5409/index.html
clock...@hotmail.com
AOL screen name: The Who555
Michael Pierry
> > > Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
> > > The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
> > >
> > > http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
> > >
> > > "Don't do that on stage anymore"
> > > by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
> > >
> > > Pretty harsh, don't you think??
> >
> > stance (for this article anyway) was summed up in the first phrase:
> > "For the pop life of me...."
>
> Well, I did read the whole thing, and it left me wondering what made
> him hate Zappa so much in the first place, and why the editors of the
> Wire chose someone with such an obviously bad attitude to review
> Zappa's work.
I can't stand reading negative reviews of albums I like (or conversely,
positive reviews of albums I hate). I just can't fucking stand it, it makes
me so damn mad! Aren't I silly?
>
> I mean, we know it's not about the lyrics. The lyrics for the most
> part are just fun, meant to get people to listen to the music. And I
> think he misses entirely the point of the assemblage technique, which
> in and of itself is a step past the single-musical-genre music-as-a-
> business requirements of popular culture, where if it doesn't fit into
> a single narrow category, it has No Commercial Potential, 'cause
> people's musical tastes are so narrow.
It's obvious: the guy just doesn't get it. I really hate British music
critics in particular, they tend to analyze the lyrics to death. For some
reason they just come up with the stupidest drivel. For rock/pop critics in
general, it's painfully obvious that reviewing albums was not their career of
choice. They all need to go suck a tailpipe.
Macabre sense of humor? Actual out-going message on my answering machine
(once upon a time): "Hi there! You've reached the Suicide Hotline. No one
is available to answer your desperate plea for help. So please, before you
jump off that bridge or swallow those pills, leave some final words, so we can
have a good chuckle about you later, you pathetic waste of life."
>
> I'd say the writer is exactly the kind of person record companies and
> radio stations target in their demographic studies.
And I'm the kind of person they put in a padded room.
Michael Pierry
>
> On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:31:06 GMT, cyphe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> >Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
> >The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
> >
> >http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
> >
> >"Don't do that on stage anymore"
> >by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
> >
> >Pretty harsh, don't you think??
>
That guy has never listened to the music of Frank Zappa. As a matter of fact,
that guy has never listened to a single note of music in his life. It was a
very revealing review-- I learned a lot about Ian Penman.
See, in a strange way, Ian is right. For a guy for whom the best things in
life are girls, drugs, and disco, where does Zappa's music fit in? It doesn't.
Ian is insanely, almost heart-breakingly jealous of Frank Zappa. Unlike him,
Zappa did what he wanted and was enormously successful. Meanwhile Penman is
writing snotty reviews in the Wire. Oh, is that too easy an argument? Yeah,
but it's fucking true, too. "Gee, I write reviews of albums. Oh boy, I'm
really living my dream now. I'm fulfilled as a person, spiritually." He
probably doesn't even like half the music he cites as examples of "genuine
breakthrough artists." He certainly doesn't have the ability to comprehend
it. Miles Davis? Sun Ra? I doubt he has any of their albums. Certainly he
wouldn't have the balls or the brains to listen to Varese.
And of course he takes Zappa's lyrics too seriously. He talks about "Titties
'n Beer", a pretty irrelevant song, but let's examine it, anyway. It's just a
silly song. Is it making fun of the audience? Do I care? It's a stupid
song, but it isn't worth discussing for a paragraph in an article which
purports to review the entire catalog of Zappa's released works.
And then he continually sneers at Zappa's guitar solos. What is he, deaf?
Those are some great fucking guitar solos. Is it a crime to play great guitar
solos? What about Miles Davis. Gee, he sure did a lot of trumpet solos. Are
you SURE you like Miles, Ian? You don't seem to like solos. And did Frank
continually compare himself to other guitarists and put them down? No. Even
if he did, it would hardly matter, considering how great the music actually
is.
And he mostly avoids talking about the music, since he doesn't know anything
about it. "Bourgeois formalism", he labels it. What a fucking cop-out. But
there again, this is a good example of my theory. Penman hates Zappa, and
particularly despises us, the fans. Since a lot of us know about music theory
and can discuss the music in depth, and he is completely out of his league,
the only thing he can do is make fun of us. Dub us nerds. How pathetic.
The people he points to as the real geniuses of rock are pathetic, too. Iggy
Pop?? Okay, fun trashy punk rock type stuff, but genius? No way. Lou Reed?
A good songwriter, great lyrics, but a genius... no, I don't think so. It
might come down to a comparison of the figures each side reveres. If he
adores Iggy Pop, we could make fun of him for hours about that, but then we'd
just be snobs, wouldn't we? But if he puts US down for liking Zappa, that's
okay, because we're just a bunch of fucking dorks. Awright, rock 'n roll,
party on dudes!
He even tries to make fun of the fact that Zappa saw hypocrisy on all levels
of society. Holy shit, he compares Zappa fans to Scientologists! That's
pretty fucking rude.
This guy Ian Penman (is that a real name, or a "pen name"? haw haw) seems
pretty unhappy, if he actually bothers to drone on in paragraph after
paragraph about how Zappa is such a worthless pile of shit. I'm pretty
unhappy too, judging from the length of this post. And man, what a superior,
snooty, stereotypically British attitude... by comparison, he makes Zappa look
like the humblest man that ever lived.
I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to make myself even more
unhappy. Besides that, I have to get some sleep.
--
"Is that a wheel of cheese in your pocket or are you... um... some kind of
lumpy person?" - Matt Baume
Konrad
: I have never understood why writers who obviously hate something persist
: in writing about it. Why not spend valuable space extolling the merits
: of some unknown artist, instead of displaying your inadequacies opining
: on something you don't understand? The honest critic admits to boredom;
: the self-important one whines and complains.
True enough, but it makes me wonder if Zappa isn't just an easy
target for somebody who wants to sound righteous. He gets it from the
left and right, and people who think they need to boost themselves by
putting others down. As much satire as Zappa put into his music, he only
really put down those who would keep others down (and rock music writers
-- interesting that they still carry the grudge, eh?).
: Besides, if you are going to trash something, at least be entertaining!
I wonder if that's what he thought he was. Wanker.
konrad
--
^Z
ATHVAC2000
PAPA LIVES ON PATIO
ATHVAC2000
PAPA LIVES ON PATIO
Michael Pierry
>
> WHERE DO YOU GET SUICIDE PILLS ANYWAY
Some people kill themselves by deliberating taking too many pills. Like say
you have a prescription for Valium. Just swallow 20 or 30 of them at the same
time, and the idea is that you'll just slip quietly away as your body shuts
down. And you'll die a relatively painless death.
Th Alers
>
> In article <78ltpa$uae$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cyphe...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
> > Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
> > The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
> >
> > http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
> >
> > "Don't do that on stage anymore"
> > by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
> >
> > Pretty harsh, don't you think??
>
> (for this article anyway) was summed up in the first phrase: "For the pop
> life of me...."
>
>
> --
> Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
> FZ Concert Tales:
> http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/
In a way it is pretty nice to here some arguments like this
in a way the writer does have a point
in a way it is quite refressing to hear something different
something a little bit harder to listen to, it is food for thought and
there will be no progress without deviation, and it might encourage a
true yourney to the mere truth of the person Frank Zappa.
don't get me wrong, i like the guy
but lets please be critical about anything
(not meaning cynical)(nor sarcastic) but for finding and preserving the
truth ALL arguments have to be taken under consideration.
sorry boys...(and you girls to)
theo
--
feel free to visit the monastery
http://web.inter.NL.net/users/alers.fx
Geir Corneliussen
>
> THE GUY HAD SOME POINTS I GOT READ THAT AGAIN LATER
Yeah, it looked like one of yours.
Geir Corneliussen
Geir Corneliussen
>
> Sam and/or Karen Rouse wrote:
> >
> > In article <78ltpa$uae$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cyphe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
> > > The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
> > >
> > > http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
> > >
> > > "Don't do that on stage anymore"
> > > by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
> > >
> > > Pretty harsh, don't you think??
> >
> > I didn't make it past the first paragraph, but I think the author's stance
> > (for this article anyway) was summed up in the first phrase: "For the pop
> > life of me...."
> >
> > -Sam
> >
> > --
> > Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
> > FZ Concert Tales:
> > http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/
>
> In a way it is pretty nice to here some arguments like this
> in a way the writer does have a point
The point could also be he never got the point.
To me, the only point is, I like this music. If I visit someone enjoying
let's say, Tom Jones,
I don't start talkin' about how stupid it sounds. That's just annoying,
meaningless and unsosial.
And a completely waste of time. I respect they enjoy something different
than I do. And the stuff this guy wrote, can not be discussed. It's
simply to maniac, to complicated. It would have been like trying to
discuss Hubbard with a Scientologist. It's just to far from my reality.
Geir Corneliussen
Ron Spiegelhalter
> [Ian Penman quote:]
> I've been saying some of this stuff about Zappa for years, so
> when the staff here at The Ire (sic) sat me down with the first
> batch of Frank releases from the first stage of Rykodisc's
> all-embracing reissue programme (there are, naturally, lots of
> double and triple CD treats herein), I thought what a great
> chance to fire poison darts at the Emperor's pimply bod. I
> really would like to present you with a monumental,
> work-by-work deconstruction of the Zappa canon (I even started
> to write one: honest),
Well at least he's honest about his total lack of any intention of
approaching the catalog objectively. A serious journalist (is that a
contrdiction), even if he wasn't generally favorable towards FZ's music,
given a batch of Ryko reissues would have seen it as an opportunity to
*possibly* see Zappa in a new light, but at least to be confirmed in his
opinions. But this guy sees it as an excuse to vent his anti-Zappa
rhetoric using nothing more than his own pre-formed prejudices. Do you
really think he actually sat down and listened to ANY of it?
He should have done that work-by-work deconstruction; at least he would
have had to listen to the music to do so, and perhaps he would have found
himself somewhat less full of shit. Fucking limey wanker...Ian Penman,
the Anti-Watson.
--
ron <ron2112 at empire dot net>
"The more I see the more I like her,
The more I see the more I like,
She psyches me out, I'd like to psyche her,
I would like to be her bike."
-Mike Keneally, "Killer Fish"
www.moosenet.com/keneally.html
Geir Corneliussen
> This guy Ian Penman (is that a real name, or a "pen name"? haw haw) seems
> pretty unhappy, if he actually bothers to drone on in paragraph after
> paragraph about how Zappa is such a worthless pile of shit. I'm pretty
> unhappy too, judging from the length of this post. And man, what a superior,
> snooty, stereotypically British attitude... by comparison, he makes Zappa look
> like the humblest man that ever lived.
>
> I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to make myself even more
> unhappy. Besides that, I have to get some sleep.
Thankyou for that one, Michael. I would have bothered more if I weren't
such a lamer, but you say the rest of what's worth saying. And that
thing on comparing us with Scientology is interesting. To me, it looks
like an alibi. I bet a he is a Clamhead. It looks very psychotic, there
is something insane about it. You know they hate Zappa for his joke on
them (Appliantology.)
Geir Corneliussen
Ray Dittmeier
original Sanskrit text:
>That made me very mad. What an ignorant guy.
I think someone needs to explain to him that Frank Zappa's purpose in
life was NOT to live up to Ian Penman's expectations. Zappa made some
records. Take'em or leave'em. It's just that simple.
It's okay to like, or not to like, a musician for any reason you want,
even it it's just because the singer has Robert Plant hair. But if a
music review is to be of any use to the reader, the reviewer has to be
honest with his evaluation. Figure out what the artist is trying to
do and evaluate how well he succeeded. Penman, for some reason, is
too preoccupied with Zappa's image to even attempt this.
--
Mother Nature's a mad scientist, Jerry!
--Cosmo Kramer
It Never Entered My Mind
(Ray Dittmeier) wrote:
>But if a
>music review is to be of any use to the reader, the reviewer has to be
>honest with his evaluation. Figure out what the artist is trying to
>do and evaluate how well he succeeded. Penman, for some reason, is
>too preoccupied with Zappa's image to even attempt this.
Perlman had some valid points, and spoke some truths.
But clearly went overboard in his criticism. And that invalidated
the whole article, triggering a suspicion of jealously that Zappa
got the bucks rolling in, got famous and became an icon in American
culture. I'm sure Perlman stuggles on the dole every week, with
fantasies that he could have made it Big like Zappa ... yet has no
grasp or clue about why Zappa made it Big, and Perlman didn't.
Has Perlman never heard of the words hard work, dedication, talent
and luck ?
RDNZL88
you have a prescription for Valium. Just swallow 20 or 30 of them at the same
time, and the idea is that you'll just slip quietly away as your body shuts
down. And you'll die a relatively painless death.>>
Or, you could just read Penman.
-Randy
I'm petulent, and I'm having a frenzy.
-FZ
RDNZL88
you dislike the most", the answer was "none, all music was written with the
intention of entertaining somebody. How can you criticise anybody for that?"
Rap, country, pop, disco, metal,"alternative"...whatever. All of you who are
making music deserve a fucking medal!
let's say, Tom Jones,
I don't start talkin' about how stupid it sounds. That's just annoying,
meaningless and unsosial.
And a completely waste of time. I respect they enjoy something different
than I do. >>
Th Alers
>
> Th Alers wrote:
> >
> > Sam and/or Karen Rouse wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <78ltpa$uae$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>, cyphe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> > >
> > > > Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
> > > > The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
> > > >
> > > > http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
> > > >
> > > > "Don't do that on stage anymore"
> > > > by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
> > > >
> > > > Pretty harsh, don't you think??
> > >
> > > I didn't make it past the first paragraph, but I think the author's stance
> > > (for this article anyway) was summed up in the first phrase: "For the pop
> > > life of me...."
> > >
> > > -Sam
> > >
> > > --
> > > Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
> > > FZ Concert Tales:
> > > http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/
> >
> > In a way it is pretty nice to here some arguments like this
> > in a way the writer does have a point
>
> The point could also be he never got the point.
> let's say, Tom Jones,
> I don't start talkin' about how stupid it sounds. That's just annoying,
> meaningless and unsosial.
> And a completely waste of time. I respect they enjoy something different
> simply to maniac, to complicated. It would have been like trying to
> discuss Hubbard with a Scientologist. It's just to far from my reality.
>
> Geir Corneliussen
It is refreshing to hear somebody take the opposite opinion-position
when amongst worshippers of god...
god...did we see god?
Collin Pruitt
>For the pop life of me, I cannot see why anyone past the age of
>17 would want to listen to Frank Zappa again,
>
Lightning Roy
> catalogue and takes sides.
>
> Don't Do That On Stage Anymore
> -------------------------------
<major r-r-r-r-r-rippage>
> if you were
> stuck on the proverbial desert island, which disc(s) would you
> rather have - one solitary song by Brian Wilson or the entire
> Zappa back catalogue?
This line says it all, doesn't it?
I think his article attacked the Zappa fan more than Zappa himself. There
are some universal truths I've learned in regards to those who listen to
Zappa (and even revere his music). Zappa fans tend to:
1. Be better educated,
2. Be more skeptical/critical of authority,
3. Have a better understanding and wider appreciation for art in all
mediums, not just music,
4. Be more politically aware,
5. Be more open minded in pursuing their own personal agendas.
The thing that troubles me the most is that somewhere in this world there
was someone probably sitting on the fence, about ready to plunge into the
World Of Frank Zappa, and read this article and used it as a validation
not to explore the music of the maestro. The fact that Mr. Penman
probably had a receptive audience for this drivel is probably my single
greatest fear.
---Doug
-----------------
macp...@pbsilink.com
macp...@inreach.com
Darkhop
>
> Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
> The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
>
> http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
>
> "Don't do that on stage anymore"
> by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
>
> Pretty harsh, don't you think??
Three words: what a dick.
Ok, a few more -- what a way to complain about someone with 'too much'
material: write a small book when two paragraphs would do.
Yers,
John
http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
Ray Dittmeier
the original Sanskrit text:
>On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 19:05:40 GMT, her...@NoCannedMeatProductska.net
>(Ray Dittmeier) wrote:
>
>>But if a
>>music review is to be of any use to the reader, the reviewer has to be
>>honest with his evaluation. Figure out what the artist is trying to
>>do and evaluate how well he succeeded. Penman, for some reason, is
>>too preoccupied with Zappa's image to even attempt this.
>
>Perlman had some valid points, and spoke some truths.
Maybe. There are fans who get into the behavior Penman complains
about. So what? That has nothing to do with Zappa himself or the CDs
that were supposed to be the subject of the article. It's not part of
the package when you walk into a store and buy a piece of plastic.
And Zappa certainly did a lot of sneering. But if Penman played any
of the music, he couldn't have done more than use it as background
while he read comic books. He completely failed to catch on that
Zappa attacked stupidity, closed-mindedness, pretentiousness,
hypocrisy, greed, and anything else that falls into that general
category. I'll admit he didn't always hit such specific targets. But
I would argue that he did often enough that an honest reviewer should
have caught on.
Penman says Zappa took all the piss out of this good stuff without
offering anything to take its place. Well, we don't need him to offer
us anything. He pointed out that each and every one of us has
something much better: "You Are What You Is."
Geir Corneliussen
> It is refreshing to hear somebody take the opposite opinion-position
> when amongst worshippers of god...
> god...did we see god?
Just a criminal.
Geir Corneliussen
CHRISTOPHER E. EKMAN
anything I've ever read about FZ- which is saying something. Don't get
me wrong, I can understand criticism of FZ- I should post J.D.
Considine's obituary of Frank for us all to chew over- but Penman is
just plain insufferable.
The sentence that gave away the game for me was this one:
"I mean, this is the sort of stuff you play real quiet so the neighbours
don't think you're the sort of person who listens to this sort of
stuff."
...he CARES what the neighbors think? And THEN he has the gall to call
FZ "bourgeois"! (In the sentence that, as Lewis noted, was as close as
he got to describing, or even acknowledging, the music.)
This is far from my area of expertise, but I think there are only two
kinds of rock critics; your Rolling-Stone type, who prefer grandiose
gestures that can embrace thousands of people in a hockey rink, and your
DYI type, who insist that the only legitimate music springs up from a
grassroots scene. Zappa gets a raw deal from both.
Penman seems to be a pretty textbook example of the latter type. He
rejects show-biz hype, sure, but he also rejects excellence in
performing- he mocks the notion of virtuosi and considers the very idea
of a guitar solo to be corrupt.
And he objects to Zappa's mocking of the youth scene- "the simple plain
fun most of us plain simple folks get from popular culture." After all,
the Valley Girl and the Disco Boy and the Dancin' Fool and the Playboy
Type and the Young Sophisticator and the Dead Girls of London and all
those kids were just trying to have FUN- why upbraid them for that?
Pretty paltry targets, Frank- where were YOU during your senior prom?
etc., etc., etc.
For the (ha ha) pop life of me, I don't understand this. The culture
industry caters almost exclusively to adolescents and adolescent
attitudes, and it ceased to be fun when it crowded absolutely everything
else out of the marketplace. Now, as Frank would say, can't you do
songs about that?
That's really more space than the article deserved, but I couldn't
resist a rant. In summary: BRITISH MUSIC CRITICS SUCK. Their
jargon-infested prose is typically as overthought as their favorite
music is underthought. PHOOEY ON THEM. Nyah.
Chris Ekman
cek...@pomona.edu
Jason Catena
> I think his article attacked the Zappa fan more than Zappa himself.
> There are some universal truths I've learned in regards to those who
> listen to Zappa (and even revere his music). Zappa fans tend to:
>
> 1. Be better educated,
> 2. Be more skeptical/critical of authority,
> 3. Have a better understanding and wider appreciation for art in
> all mediums, not just music,
> 4. Be more politically aware,
In other words, the type of person who would do well in the
establishment, but only if they got an establishment of their own
(e.g. Vaclav Havel).
--
Jason David Catena Save the whales... collect the whole set.
cat...@xnet.com http://www.xnet.com/~catena
Tal
...
>That's really more space than the article deserved, but I couldn't
>resist a rant. In summary: BRITISH MUSIC CRITICS SUCK. Their
>jargon-infested prose is typically as overthought as their favorite
>music is underthought. PHOOEY ON THEM. Nyah.
Although I think the article is one big pile of bullshit, I read through it,
smiled, put it aside and went on with my life. WHAT THE HELL DO ALL BRITISH
MUSIC CRITICS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ONE GUY?
That whole piece says more about that guy than about FZ, you, me, the
universe, whatever. And you all react like he's just announced WW3 on you.
And it's 4 years ago anyway.
Yours,
Tal
-------------------------------
e-mail: an...@cidanka.nl
web: www.cidanka.nl
The Unofficial MK-BFD Website: www.cidanka.nl/keneally/
Geir Corneliussen
>
> I read this article a long time ago, and it infuriated me more than
> anything I've ever read about FZ- which is saying something. Don't get
> me wrong, I can understand criticism of FZ- I should post J.D.
> Considine's obituary of Frank for us all to chew over- but Penman is
> just plain insufferable.
Penman wrote similar crap about David Bowie once and Bowie said he would
have been scared if he were around.
Penman is the sort of guy you try to avoid in that obscure London Pub,
the guy you feel could break your nose and suck yer eye out. He ain't a
serious journalist, he's more like a drunk english soccerfanatic looking
for trouble.
Geir Corneliussen
Geir Corneliussen
>
> CHRISTOPHER E. EKMAN heeft geschreven ...
> ...
> >That's really more space than the article deserved, but I couldn't
> >resist a rant. In summary: BRITISH MUSIC CRITICS SUCK. Their
> >jargon-infested prose is typically as overthought as their favorite
> >music is underthought. PHOOEY ON THEM. Nyah.
>
> Although I think the article is one big pile of bullshit, I read through it,
> smiled, put it aside and went on with my life. WHAT THE HELL DO ALL BRITISH
> MUSIC CRITICS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ONE GUY?
>
> That whole piece says more about that guy than about FZ, you, me, the
> universe, whatever. And you all react like he's just announced WW3 on you.
> And it's 4 years ago anyway.
4 years aint nuthin' for something like that.
I'll crack his face on my next UK trip.
Ha ha! Just kidding :)
Geir Corneliussen
It Never Entered My Mind
<cat...@typhoon.xnet.com> wrote:
(Lightning Roy) writes:
>> I think his article attacked the Zappa fan more than Zappa himself.
>> There are some universal truths I've learned in regards to those who
>> listen to Zappa (and even revere his music). Zappa fans tend to:
>>
>> 1. Be better educated,
>> 2. Be more skeptical/critical of authority,
>> 3. Have a better understanding and wider appreciation for art in
>> all mediums, not just music,
>> 4. Be more politically aware,
>> 5. Be more open minded in pursuing their own personal agendas.
>
>In other words, the type of person who would do well in the
>establishment, but only if they got an establishment of their own
>(e.g. Vaclav Havel).
Yeah, if only Zoogz created an Establishment of his own, a whole
slew of mystery roaches would immediately adopt the relevant
thinking of the creator. Only a Religion could achieve that, simply
because the bucks have to be rollin' in to support the thingie.
Basically, a carbon-copy of Scientology would be required. Take its
charter, re-write it with Zoogz thoughts, recruit members (who have
cash, assets and employment, of course ... those on the dole can
fuhget 'bout it ! ) ... and enjoy.
It Never Entered My Mind
(Ray Dittmeier) wrote:
> He completely failed to catch on that
>Zappa attacked stupidity, closed-mindedness, pretentiousness,
>hypocrisy, greed, and anything else that falls into that general
>category.
>Penman says Zappa took all the piss out of this good stuff without
>offering anything to take its place. Well, we don't need him to offer
>us anything. He pointed out that each and every one of us has
>something much better: "You Are What You Is."
That's one view, and not an invalid one, of life.
But, what Perlman said boils down to the following"
He criticizes Zappa for attacking "the community" .
Figuratively speaking, of course, since there is no "community" in
1999 per se - at least for most people...with globalization,
televisions all over the planet, exports of American culture and
total LACK of ANY real culture in the minds of millions of
Americans), and so on, and so forth.
And of course, it's a criticism that Zappa was incapable of giving
back to the "community" and enjoy its company. That there was an
inbalance in Zappa's attitude and personality in that vein.
Incapacity to be a member of the mainstream, regardless of whether
that mainstream made up stupidity, ignorance, bigotry and
intolerance, or greed for money, the MBA mentality, and so on. Zappa
was an oddball, and relentlessly celebrated that fact by his words
and attacks on the "community" at large. This isn't necessarily a
bad thing, of course.
Even former German Cancellor was an oddball in the Second World War,
when he denounced and fought against NAZI-ism and Hitler. When the
war ended, Kohl was no longer the oddball, but rather became the
Establishment, and the icon for the mainstream ... the symbol of all
Germans and the new post-war thinking.
Therefore, Zappa's attacks on society, its norms and mores might end
up validated in the event that society changes course and adopts
Zappa's thinking, attitudes and method of living. At that point,
Zappa would be the icon of the maintream. And Perlman's criticism
would prove to be a sham...proven false.
Until that time, Perlman's dislike for Zappa on account of Zappa's
oddball characteristics with regard to the mainstream, and the
community has some basis, IMO.
Jerry Hull
>Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
>The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
>
>http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
>
>"Don't do that on stage anymore"
>by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
>
>Pretty harsh, don't you think??
Actually, the article is kinda interesting, in a clinical kind of way. This
is pretty much how Zappa would seem if you simply could not appreciate his
music. A lot of his lyrics, especially in the later years, are really kind of
dumb & adolescent -- I find it hard to listen to Broadway the Hard Way without
cringing. But usually the music is so outstanding that I'll forgive anything
else. Man, that bastard sure could RAWK when he wanted to. But take some
intellectual type, burn out his brain's music appreciation centers with a
laser, & you get something real close to Penman.
--
Jer
"If you meet the buddha, kill the buddha". Lin-chi
Michael Pierry
>
> CHRISTOPHER E. EKMAN heeft geschreven ...
> ...
> >That's really more space than the article deserved, but I couldn't
> >resist a rant. In summary: BRITISH MUSIC CRITICS SUCK. Their
> >jargon-infested prose is typically as overthought as their favorite
> >music is underthought. PHOOEY ON THEM. Nyah.
>
> Although I think the article is one big pile of bullshit, I read through it,
> smiled, put it aside and went on with my life. WHAT THE HELL DO ALL BRITISH
> MUSIC CRITICS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ONE GUY?
Here is the connection: most British critics have this similar know-it-all
attitude, at least the ones who review rock 'n roll albums. This has been my
experience, and I'm not the only one with this opinion. If we want to start
talking about racism, I don't think this has anything to do with genes. I
think it's just a cultural phenomenon. And this reflects both on the British
culture AND my own. For there are two sides to this equation: one side is
that British music critics are snotty pricks... and the other side is that I
PERCEIVE THEM AS SUCH. Thus for Chris or myself to say that British music
critics suck reflects back on both cultures. It isn't an indictment of, say,
the Anglo-Saxons as a race, but rather a subjective commentary on an aspect of
the culture. I don't think that Chris or myself believe that the British are
inherently inferior to us, so such commentary is not indicative of some kind
of racist viewpoint.
These are just my thoughts on it at this point in time. I am continually
revising and rethinking my beliefs, especially on such things as cultural
relativism and racism, as I go through "the incredibly serious bizness of
growin' up in Ermerica".
Adrian Clark
there was nothing about FZ in there. Maybe it was the previous issue.
Anyway... granted, this man has written a load of crap, but what the
hell is everyone doing reading the Wire in the first place? It's a heap
of pretentious crap, written by people who "listen" to music not for the
inexplicable joy and aesthetic fulfilment that music can provide, but
for some kind of intellectual by-product they get from "understanding"
certain types of music. Sod the lot of them, I say.
Adrian
--
____________________________________________
http://www.zappa.u-net.com/legends/
Technology and shite in perfect harmony
____________________________________________
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
> ...he CARES what the neighbors think? And THEN he has the gall to call
> FZ "bourgeois"! (In the sentence that, as Lewis noted, was as close as
> he got to describing, or even acknowledging, the music.)
Ever since reading Tom Wolfe's companion books "The Painted Word" and,
especially, "From Bauhaus to Our House," I've mistrusted anyone who uses
the word "bourgeois" - and that includes Ben Watson, but I cut him some
slack because I'm not convinced he was entirely serious.
SR Lewis
Lightning Roy wrote:
The thing that troubles me the most is that somewhere in this world there was
someone probably sitting on the fence, about ready to plunge into the
> World Of Frank Zappa, and read this article and used it as a validation
> not to explore the music of the maestro. The fact that Mr. Penman
> probably had a receptive audience for this drivel is probably my single
> greatest fear.
>
> ---Doug
I dunno- it would seem the Zappa fan is attracted as the moth to the flame...
and if the attraction is not there it can't much be forced! Ol' Ian is
reacting like he smelled something bad, maybe he got the scratch and sniff
version of Stinkfoot?
--
Best to all.
Steve
http://www.hyperindex.com/srl/
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
> On Fri, 29 Jan 1999 01:26:23 +0100, "Tal" <tal...@cidankaSPAM.nl>
> wrote:
>
> >Michael Pierry heeft geschreven ...
> >
> >And yes, you sure got me pissed off.
Why don't one of you guys get Miguel into a game of Questions? I'd much
rather be a spectator. Jason Arvey could be the referee.
Darkhop
>
> Well, I looked at a copy of the Wire in WH Smiths this morning, but
> there was nothing about FZ in there. Maybe it was the previous issue.
>
> Anyway... granted, this man has written a load of crap, but what the
> hell is everyone doing reading the Wire in the first place?
All I read was the article from the link that was posted here.
Yers,
John
http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
> On Thu, 28 Jan 1999 18:01:25 -0800, ro...@teleport.com (Sam and/or
> Karen Rouse) wrote:
>
> >Why don't one of you guys get Miguel into a game of Questions?
>
> You fitting the clothes of the Grand Inquisitor ? I think they're
> gonna look really baggy on ya ... heheh
That's OK, I like baggy clothes. (We both do.)
> >I'd much rather be a spectator. Jason Arvey could be the referee.
>
> Voyeurism....not my style, dude.
Coward :).
- Sam & Karen
drumz...@yahoo.com
still...@home.com wrote:
> Collin Pruitt wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, 27 Jan 1999 02:31:06 GMT, cyphe...@hotmail.com wrote:
> >
> > >Has anybody read this article by Ian Penman in
> > >The Wire (a music magazine from the UK) ?
> > >
> > >http://www.dfuse.com/the-wire/out/1097_5.htm
> > >
> > >"Don't do that on stage anymore"
> > >by Ian Penman, July 1995 issue of The Wire
> > >
> > >Pretty harsh, don't you think??
> >
>
> that guy has never listened to a single note of music in his life. It was a
> very revealing review-- I learned a lot about Ian Penman.
<SNIP>
>
> I could go on and on and on, but I don't want to make myself even more
> unhappy. Besides that, I have to get some sleep.
>
Well, Michael, you've said exactly what was on my mind...well done. There IS
one thing that I'm going to ponder aloud here...maybe some others can share
their opinions on this:
I wonder if Ian really "gets" Zappa. One would think that if he at least
understood what was going on he could cut down on the extreme negativity
about Zappa. His rant sounded like he was someone who didn't even know what
was going on in FZ's material, and was really PISSED OFF that all these
Zappaphiles (or whatever) were digging this huge catalog of varied material.
Almost a "sour grapes" attitude..."If I can't GET IT I'm going to bad mouth
it..."
On the other hand one could say he "got it" because he had a FEW (and notice,
FEW means more than two, less than a half dozen) valid criticisms regarding
FZ's body of work. Just because he doesn't like it, doesn't mean he's grossly
misinformed...FZ just might not be his cup of tea.
However- the fact that he attacked the fan base more than he attacked FZ's
material makes me believe that he has no fucking idea of what's going on.
Back to your Oasis bootlegs and a tube of Astro Glide, Mr. Penman,
.ben.
Soul Pagoda @ http://www.mp3.com/soulpagoda
Tape list @ http://www.napanet.net/~bguerard/tapes.html
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
Tal
>
>attitude, at least the ones who review rock 'n roll albums. This has been
my
>experience, and I'm not the only one with this opinion.
Well, I can say the same about American critics, Dutch critics, Swahili
critics and Marsian critics.
>If we want to start
>talking about racism, I don't think this has anything to do with genes. I
>think it's just a cultural phenomenon. And this reflects both on the
British
>culture AND my own. For there are two sides to this equation: one side is
>that British music critics are snotty pricks... and the other side is that
I
>PERCEIVE THEM AS SUCH. Thus for Chris or myself to say that British music
>critics suck reflects back on both cultures. It isn't an indictment of,
say,
>the Anglo-Saxons as a race, but rather a subjective commentary on an aspect
of
>the culture. I don't think that Chris or myself believe that the British
are
>inherently inferior to us, so such commentary is not indicative of some
kind
>of racist viewpoint.
BULLSHIT. *I* didn't bring racism into this! I have no idea where you get
this from. And to be honest, even your suggestion of me accusing anyone of
racism pisses me off big time. And I wonder who exactly is speaking here;
you or TRFZB.
BTW there is no such thing as an Anglo-Saxon race.
This is about a bunch of diehard (and mostly American) FZ fans who seem to
get VERY upset about what some English critic wrote 4 years ago in a shitty
magazine. And just to satisfy my curiosity; exactly which British magazines
do you read on a regular basis?
>These are just my thoughts on it at this point in time. I am continually
>revising and rethinking my beliefs, especially on such things as cultural
>relativism and racism, as I go through "the incredibly serious bizness of
>growin' up in Ermerica".
Well, if I were you, I would seriously revise and rethink this one, because
it smells like xenophobia to me.
And yes, you sure got me pissed off.
Yours,
--Tal
_______________________
e-mail: an...@cidanka.nl
website: http://www.cidanka.nl
The Unofficial MK-BFD Website: http://www.cidanka.nl/keneally/
Tal
>...
>Even former German Cancellor [Kohl] was an oddball in the Second World War,
>when he denounced and fought against NAZI-ism and Hitler. When the
>war ended, Kohl was no longer the oddball, but rather became the
>Establishment, and the icon for the mainstream ... the symbol of all
>Germans and the new post-war thinking.
Are you kidding? Kohl was born in 1930. What did he do, stick out his tongue
whenever Adolf was in town?
It Never Entered My Mind
wrote:
>>Even former German Cancellor [Kohl] was an oddball in the Second World War,
>>when he denounced and fought against NAZI-ism and Hitler. When the
>>war ended, Kohl was no longer the oddball, but rather became the
>>Establishment, and the icon for the mainstream ... the symbol of all
>>Germans and the new post-war thinking.
>
>
>Are you kidding? Kohl was born in 1930.
>What did he do, stick out his tongue whenever Adolf was in town?
I hope Chancellor Kohl is werkin' on his memoirs, 'cos you'll be
likely enlightened.
:-)
It Never Entered My Mind
wrote:
>Michael Pierry heeft geschreven ...
>
>And yes, you sure got me pissed off.
I think Pierry should research his recollection, and get back to us
on this.
I have a recollection that I posted some advice for MP's parents.
So, my recollection should prompt MP to search his records to
refresh his recollection on my advice, and make up a different
opinion on a freshened recollection. ;-)
It Never Entered My Mind
Karen Rouse) wrote:
>Why don't one of you guys get Miguel into a game of Questions?
You fitting the clothes of the Grand Inquisitor ? I think they're
gonna look really baggy on ya ... heheh
>I'd much rather be a spectator. Jason Arvey could be the referee.
Voyeurism....not my style, dude.
Michael Pierry
>
>
> BULLSHIT. *I* didn't bring racism into this! I have no idea where you get
> this from. And to be honest, even your suggestion of me accusing anyone of
> racism pisses me off big time. And I wonder who exactly is speaking here;
> you or TRFZB.
Um... I'm sorry. I wasn't trying to accuse anyone of anything. :( I just
thought that's what you were getting at. A thousand pardons, and stuff.
>
> BTW there is no such thing as an Anglo-Saxon race.
I know, I just don't know the term for whatever the heck you call the ethnic
background of people from the UK. There's Scottish, and English, and Welsh,
and Irish.. I dunno much more than that. It doesn't matter that much to me
because I think race is not that important when you're talking about someone's
style of writing. Culture, on the other hand, might have an effect.
>
> This is about a bunch of diehard (and mostly American) FZ fans who seem to
> get VERY upset about what some English critic wrote 4 years ago in a shitty
> magazine. And just to satisfy my curiosity; exactly which British magazines
> do you read on a regular basis?
Well, I've read a few Mojos, and I've read a lot of interviews from British
journalists over the Internet. Specifically, I'm thinking of critiques of
Tori Amos, the Pixies, Henry Rollins, and Frank Zappa. I can't remember the
names of the journalists, but I learned to identify a general difference in
the styles of American and British critics. There are other things I've
noticed, too... like the difference between styles in different kinds of
magazines, etc. And depending on if it's an underground mag, or a fanzine, or
a big expensive glossy mag, or a newspaper (small-town or big city)... lotsa
stuff. I don't read any British magazines on a regular basis, because they're
too expensive and they're usually shrink-wrapped so I can't read 'em in
Borders. And I didn't say my opinion was the greatest, most considered
opinion in the world... it's just an opinion based on my limited experience.
>
> >These are just my thoughts on it at this point in time. I am continually
> >revising and rethinking my beliefs, especially on such things as cultural
> >relativism and racism, as I go through "the incredibly serious bizness of
> >growin' up in Ermerica".
>
> Well, if I were you, I would seriously revise and rethink this one, because
> it smells like xenophobia to me.
I don't see where you get that from. To say I don't like the British music
critics is one thing; but to extend that to being xenophobic... that's no
fair. I've read a similarly bad review of Frank that was from a decidely
American perspective/style. I think it's just as wrong-headed as the Penman
review, but it doesn't approach the outrageous snobbery of Penman (only the
British could be snobs in defending drugs and disco-- it's an ART!). There's
differences between the cultures, right? And I'm just saying I think there's
something about the perspective of the people who write for British music
magazines that rubs me the wrong way. Not all of 'em, but a bunch of 'em.
It's a special kind of style, it's very uniquely poisonous... you got your
American Rolling Stone kind of critic, you got your Maximum Rock 'n Roll Punk
Fundamentalist kind of critic, and you got your Brit-Pop kind of critic. And
I happen to have the least sympathy for the stylings and opinions of the
Brit-Pop guys. It doesn't go further than that, I mean there's no... I
wouldn't refuse to shake a British music critic's hand. I'd shake Ian
Penman's hand. But I don't like the way he writes, and I think he doesn't
have a clue about music.
I feel like I'm just digging myself a bigger hole with you.
>
> And yes, you sure got me pissed off.
>
Why, though? I wasn't trying to make a big deal out of this. Are you really
pissed off? I'm gonna go cry now. I'm too sensitive for this stuff. :~(
Jason Catena
> Yeah, if only Zoogz created an Establishment of his own, a whole
> slew of mystery roaches would immediately adopt the relevant
> thinking of the creator. Only a Religion could achieve that, simply
> because the bucks have to be rollin' in to support the thingie.
> Basically, a carbon-copy of Scientology would be required. Take its
> charter, re-write it with Zoogz thoughts, recruit members (who have
> cash, assets and employment, of course ... those on the dole can
> fuhget 'bout it ! ) ... and enjoy.
Hmmm. Religion as an income-redistribution plan, flowing from the
sheep to the wolves. Give enough to the poor to keep them dependent,
and save the rest to become the largest private landowner in the
world. Scientology's got a long way to go to catch up with
Christianity.
Of course we should tax the church, and the businesses owned by the
churches. Philanthropy is just a sideline business to their main goal
of getting richer, like everyone else on the planet. Altruism, my ass.
Tal
>> >These are just my thoughts on it at this point in time. I am
continually
>> >revising and rethinking my beliefs, especially on such things as
cultural
>> >relativism and racism, as I go through "the incredibly serious bizness
of
>> >growin' up in Ermerica".
>>
>> Well, if I were you, I would seriously revise and rethink this one,
because
>> it smells like xenophobia to me.
>
>I don't see where you get that from. To say I don't like the British music
>critics is one thing; but to extend that to being xenophobic... that's no
>fair.
I'm sorry about that, I think that was too strong a word for what I meant.
>I've read a similarly bad review of Frank that was from a decidely
>American perspective/style. I think it's just as wrong-headed as the
Penman
>review, but it doesn't approach the outrageous snobbery of Penman (only the
>British could be snobs in defending drugs and disco-- it's an ART!).
Come to Holland, read Muziekkrant Oor (learn Dutch first). You would be
amazed. Toiletpaper with print on it. That snobbery is a European thing,
more than just British, I think. It's a leftover from the anti-American
culture movements we had in the 70ies and early 80ies.
>There's
>differences between the cultures, right? And I'm just saying I think
there's
>something about the perspective of the people who write for British music
>magazines that rubs me the wrong way. Not all of 'em, but a bunch of 'em.
>It's a special kind of style, it's very uniquely poisonous... you got your
>American Rolling Stone kind of critic, you got your Maximum Rock 'n Roll
Punk
>Fundamentalist kind of critic, and you got your Brit-Pop kind of critic.
And
>I happen to have the least sympathy for the stylings and opinions of the
>Brit-Pop guys. It doesn't go further than that, I mean there's no... I
>wouldn't refuse to shake a British music critic's hand. I'd shake Ian
>Penman's hand. But I don't like the way he writes, and I think he doesn't
>have a clue about music.
Well, my impression from this thread is that many affz-ers feel that God was
attacked by a non-believer and that therefor Penman should get a one-way
ticket to Hell. Is if he attacked the True Religion. When all he did was
write a negative review about an American composer he loaths. Read it, spit
on it and forget about it. At least he didn't mention the shit-eating bit (I
think.)
>I feel like I'm just digging myself a bigger hole with you.
No, not at all, and I thank you very reacting in a serious way, because it
helped me understand your point of view. I don't agree with it, I think
British music press in general sucks no more or less than other music press
in the world, but that may have to do with me being Dutch/European. Maybe
it's not even a difference in culture as such, but just a difference in
journalistic cultures.
>> And yes, you sure got me pissed off.
>
>Why, though? I wasn't trying to make a big deal out of this. Are you
really
>pissed off? I'm gonna go cry now. I'm too sensitive for this stuff. :~(
Well it's that good old Drool Britannia routine again, and that keeps
popping up in affz on a regular basis. And this whole thread was pissing me
off. Your post just was the last push I needed. I'm back to my old self
again now. :-)
Adrian Clark
> That's really more space than the article deserved, but I couldn't
> resist a rant. In summary: BRITISH MUSIC CRITICS SUCK. Their
> jargon-infested prose is typically as overthought as their favorite
> music is underthought. PHOOEY ON THEM. Nyah.
I don't think you can say he's typical of British music journalists in
general. The ones I know are just like all of us here... into music for
all the right reasons. If Penman is typical of anything, he is typical
of the pretentious newspaper/magazine *columnist* who, having little of
any value to report, still manages to fill page after page of opinion
and bile, while equating their work to the word of God. And that
syndrome is not particular to music writers or, indeed, nationality.
Julie Burchill... wherefore art thou, oh Julie Burchill?
Adrian Clark
> Here is the connection: most British critics have this similar know-it-all
> attitude, at least the ones who review rock 'n roll albums. This has been my
> experience, and I'm not the only one with this opinion.
I think a lot of it may have to do with the slightly different shades of
the English language we use. The dry British humour is often
misinterpreted by non-British speakers of English, because (through no
fault of their own) they're not picking up on the little nuances that
are understood by native speakers.
Now, I'd agree with you about Penman, he's a pompous, pretentious little
fuck, but if you've really found this to be the case with every British
music journos, then maybe it's to do with the language.
Have you ever read Q magazine? There's a certain journalistic style to
their reviews (well, there *was* - I haven't read it for about a year)
which I'm sure would probably come across as being quite pompous and
snotty to non-British English speakers. To me, the Q reviews always
seemed warm, friendly and full of a very British type of humour.
I think you're definitely right when you say it's a cultural thing, but
it's also a cultural thing born out of language usage (dialect even). An
innocent, well-meaning statement in one type of English may well be
interpreted as something different by another set of users (we ought to
be on alt.english.usage for this one!) And that extends to journalists,
who, whatever the validity of their personal opinions, have their own
ways of using language, part of which will be due to nationality. I mean
I've read some of Lester Bangs' stuff, and I just went "Huh? This guy is
FAMOUS???"
Shit, sorry - didn't mean for this to be such a long ramble...
Alastair Mabbott
August Darnell/Kid Creole, whom he brown-nosed incessantly in the
early 80s, along with almost every single one of his cohorts on the
NME.
Reading the Wire piece again, after three or four years, was
distinctly unpleasant -- in one of those Kennedy/Lennon flashbacks, I
remember exactly where I was and what I was doing when I first read it
-- but at least the glaring holes in his argument are more obvious
second time around. As a serious essayist, Penman makes a pretty good
... um, rock critic.
And Penman is a real name, not a pseudonym. I should know; I live with
one. And she's infinitely sweeter and more reasonable than her
namesake could ever be.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• a l a s t a i r m a b b o t t •
[a British music writer who ISN'T obsessed with lyrics]
e-mail: a.ma...@edinburgh.almac.co.uk
world wide web: http://www.almac.co.uk/mabbott/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If replying over Usenet remove NOSPAM from address
"What's Townshend without Daltrey? Just another confused gay man on a
moped." - Greg Dulli, Afghan Whigs, 1998.
Adrian Clark
> Well, I can say the same about American critics, Dutch critics, Swahili
> critics and Marsian critics.
Being a fan of FZ's *music*, and therefore not the sort of person who
reels off quotations at every opportunity like a load of memorised
Python parrot sketches, I'm loathe to mention this, but there's that
very famous FZ quote about rock journalists... I think he meant *all* of
them, too.
Adrian Clark
> I know, I just don't know the term for whatever the heck you call the ethnic
> background of people from the UK. There's Scottish, and English, and Welsh,
> and Irish.
"British" is the name of the general nationality of all the little bits.
Although leave the Irish out of it - Ireland's a separate country, like
France or Israel. Apart from Northern Ireland, which *is* still a part
of the UK (official name: The United Kingdom of Great Britain and
Northern Ireland)
And as for the "ethnic" background... well, it's a lot more complex -
Pictish, Celtic, Scandinavian, Anglo-Saxon, Norman, plus Jamaican,
Bangladeshi, Pakistani, Nigerian and lots of others more recently... all
mixed up in varying quantities.
> too expensive and they're usually shrink-wrapped so I can't read 'em in
> Borders.
Hey, there's a similarity between us! We all do most of our reading in
shops. Mind you, it's the American ones that are shrinkwrapped over
here. And there's only a couple of branches of Borders (complete with
overpriced cafes and completely miserable CD selections) so it's usually
in WH Smith's.
Darkhop
> I think you're definitely right when you say it's a cultural thing, but
> it's also a cultural thing born out of language usage (dialect even). An
> innocent, well-meaning statement in one type of English may well be
> interpreted as something different by another set of users (we ought to
> be on alt.english.usage for this one!) And that extends to journalists,
> who, whatever the validity of their personal opinions, have their own
> ways of using language, part of which will be due to nationality. I mean
> I've read some of Lester Bangs' stuff, and I just went "Huh? This guy is
> FAMOUS???"
Bangs could have been one of the greats if he'd lived past 33. Yeah,
there's a lot of things about him that won't translate well, and he
didn't like FZ either, but reading Psychotic Reactions And Carburetor
Dung for this first time was like entering another world. I didn't agree
with half his opinions either, just that there's something about his
style I found appealing.
And about FZ, there's only these couple of lines from a long "Untitled
Note" in his posthumously published book:
"This is the history of the human race, certainly the history of music,
and it don't matter whether it's Mom and Dad in 1955 listening to Perry
Como and telling you that Elvis was a no-'count hillbilly hollerawin'
raggedy nigger gooze, or all the kids I went to high school with who
thought they were so hip because they went out and bought Doors albums
but snickered down along with Uncle Frank Zappa (a despicable wretch
morons actually call "composer" instead of "rip-off artist," walking
human offal if such matter ever lived) on the Kingsmen and later Count
Five and Question Mark and the Mysterians."
So far, so repellent. But a couple of paragraphs later...
"...but y'know I think the real fly in the ointment probably was those
liner notes on Freak Out, where Zappa sneered that stuff about "having
to play 'Louie, Louie' in lousy bar bands" or sume such -- I think that
fucked up an enormous amount of people's thinking. All it really says,
of course (unless as I grant is possible in the light of Cruisin' with
Ruben and the Jets, Zappa really liked "Louie, Louie" and was
misunderstood) is that Frank and all the boys in the band had that Tired
Old Session Man/Bar Hack mentality, that drab mood Fogerty conjured so
well in "Lodi," which is a point at which the dues paid and final
pointlessness of it all render the musician unutterably tired, surly,
and above it all to the once-unthinkable point of actually hating music
itself of just about any kind. Now, the Mothers looked like a buncha
such cats in the first place -- a little older, balding here and there,
etc. -- and for every Jeff Beck there's ten million bitter old session
men who've finally stopped giving a damn and are just picking up a
check."
Unfortunately, one of the things that Bangs shared with the average
critic (at least critics of those days, dunno about now) is the odd
notion that a musician falling over himself and making mistakes is a lot
more charming than one who gets everything right -- that an unrehearsed
band is somehow 'vital' so long as it's energetic, but a well-oiled
unit, even if energetic, is ipso facto flat -- as if there were no
shades between these two extremes.
> Shit, sorry - didn't mean for this to be such a long ramble...
There's been much longer posts 'round these parts.
Yers,
John
http://www.darkhop.com/affz2.htm
Martin Gregorie
>...Kid Creole, whom he brown-nosed incessantly in the
This was one band that I could tell were rubbish on the first
listen/TV show. They were also the band that confirmed one judgemental
rule of thumb:
"Any band with a dancing girlie linup as part of the act is rubbish.
It needs them to distract attention from the music".
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Martin Gregorie |Logica UK Ltd
gregorie |+44 (0171) 637 9111
@ |
logica |
. |All opinions expressed are solely those
com |of the author and not of Logica
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Alastair Mabbott
<Cek...@pomona.edu> wrote:
>That's really more space than the article deserved, but I couldn't
>resist a rant. In summary: BRITISH MUSIC CRITICS SUCK. Their
>jargon-infested prose is typically as overthought as their favorite
>music is underthought.
'Scuse me, Chris, but the last time I looked, Rolling Stone, the apex
of rock'n'roll pomposity, was 100% American. Sorry to have to remind
you of that embarassing little point, but that description you just
made fits it like a glove.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• a l a s t a i r m a b b o t t •
Alastair Mabbott
Clark) wrote:
>Well, I looked at a copy of the Wire in WH Smiths this morning, but
>there was nothing about FZ in there. Maybe it was the previous issue.
>
>Anyway... granted, this man has written a load of crap, but what the
>hell is everyone doing reading the Wire in the first place? It's a heap
>of pretentious crap, written by people who "listen" to music not for the
>inexplicable joy and aesthetic fulfilment that music can provide, but
>for some kind of intellectual by-product they get from "understanding"
>certain types of music. Sod the lot of them, I say.
>
The Wire has its place. It's one of the very few publications that
devotes space to the more cutting-edge people around. If it hadn't
been for the fact that The Wire bandied around names like :Zoviet*
France: and Stock, Hausen & Walkman, I might not have bothered going
to their gig here last week, and I would have missed out on a terrific
experience. Plus, I'm usually interested in whatever Dele Fadele has
to say.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
• a l a s t a i r m a b b o t t •
e-mail: a.ma...@edinburgh.almac.co.uk
world wide web: http://www.almac.co.uk/mabbott/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If replying over Usenet remove NOSPAM from address
"Wine, Doctor Crane?" "Well, wouldn't YOU?"
John Henley
[quoting Lester Bangs]
> ...Uncle Frank Zappa (a despicable wretch
> morons actually call "composer" instead of "rip-off artist," walking
> human offal if such matter ever lived)....
This is exactly the kind of shit that Bangs' old Rolling
Stone writing colleague, Ed Ward, dished out in the
Austin paper when he "reviewed" FZ's performance here
in 1981. He not only slagged Zappa but he slagged all
of us in the audience as well, for being lamebrained
enough to think we were being "entertained."
The most aggravating thing about rock writers like
Ward and Penman - and all sorts of "pop culture
anaylysts" - is that they delude themselves into thinking
that what they have to say about a subject is more
important than the subject itself.
Lester Bangs had a way with words sometimes, but he
also had way too much attitude. I can't say that I
miss him any.
John Henley
Austin TX
Michael Gula
> "Any band with a dancing girlie linup as part of the act is rubbish.
> It needs them to distract attention from the music".
Not true with regard to the Zappa's Universe video.
Or would that be considered a "twirling" girlie lineup?
--
SIGNATURE FILE?! WHAT SIGNATURE FILE??
To reply remove MORESPAM from the address.
Tal
>
>Have you ever read Q magazine? There's a certain journalistic style to
>their reviews (well, there *was* - I haven't read it for about a year)
>which I'm sure would probably come across as being quite pompous and
>snotty to non-British English speakers. To me, the Q reviews always
>seemed warm, friendly and full of a very British type of humour.
Hehe, guess what magazine I just renewed my subscription for.:-)
It Never Entered My Mind
Clark) wrote:
>If Penman is typical of anything, he is typical
>of the pretentious newspaper/magazine *columnist* who, having little of
>any value to report, still manages to fill page after page of opinion
>and bile, while equating their work to the word of God. And that
>syndrome is not particular to music writers or, indeed, nationality.
"Incomprehensible jargon is the hallmark of a profession."
- Kingman Brewster
Martin Gregorie
>Martin Gregorie wrote:
>
>> "Any band with a dancing girlie linup as part of the act is rubbish.
>> It needs them to distract attention from the music".
>
>Not true with regard to the Zappa's Universe video.
>
>Or would that be considered a "twirling" girlie lineup?
>
I haven't seen it, but in any case I thought La La Human Steps were
there as a separate act rather than as a permanent part of any of the
bands' lineup. I should rephrase to:
"Any band with a dancing girlies as a usual part of the lineup is
rubbish. It needs them to distract attention from the music".
That better? Its what I *meant* anyway.
Martin
Martin Gregorie
>I have hated the braindead media whore Jon Carroll ever since. However, in a
>not too accurate way, Jon was right. Frank always was a counter culture media
>guru, always was a has-been (to some), always was a political activist (since
>'Hungry Freaks, Daddy'), and always was the grand old man of rock and roll.
>Too bad Mr. Carroll did not pick up on the fact that he was using
> the greatest composer that ever lived as grist for his word mill.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A little OTT methinks, but I agree with the sentiments.
Michael Gula
>
> Michael Gula <mike...@MORESPAMerols.com> wrote:
>
> >Martin Gregorie wrote:
> >
> >> "Any band with a dancing girlie linup as part of the act is rubbish.
> >> It needs them to distract attention from the music".
> >
> >Not true with regard to the Zappa's Universe video.
> >
> >Or would that be considered a "twirling" girlie lineup?
> >
> I haven't seen it, but in any case I thought La La Human Steps were
> there as a separate act rather than as a permanent part of any of the
> bands' lineup.
Wrong ladies.
Assuming you can play VHS tapes:
Send me your mailing address and I'll send it to you gratis.
It Never Entered My Mind
<anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
>Mr. Carroll used the occasion of Frank Zappa's death as
>grist for his word mill, a column in the San Francisco Examiner
[snipped for brevity]
>I have hated the braindead media whore Jon Carroll ever since.
"Why is propaganda so much more successful when it stirs up hatred
than when it tries to stir up friendly feelings?"
- Bertrand Russell
Michael Gula
That's strike two.
Michael Gula
>
That's strike one.
Decorous Garth
ex-Beatles...however, wasn't it Lester Bangs who wrote the titanic Captain
Beefheart cover feature for Musician magazine, circa 1980? I have been trying
to relocate this thoughtful interview / detailed story of Beefheart's successes
and trials with his music, for some time now. It amazed me that Bangs was such
a friend of Beefheart!
{8-{> in NY
Adrian Clark
> The Wire has its place. It's one of the very few publications that
> devotes space to the more cutting-edge people around.
Well, that's to be commended if they do that. I never really feel all
that comfortable with it - I sometimes wonder "are they talking about
music here, or something else". I'm probably too thick for it or
something.
> If it hadn't
> been for the fact that The Wire bandied around names like :Zoviet*
> France: and Stock, Hausen & Walkman,
You mean Stock, Aitken and Waterman; now they *were* good!
[And I do mean ;-)]
Adrian Clark
> The most aggravating thing about rock writers like
> Ward and Penman - and all sorts of "pop culture
> anaylysts" - is that they delude themselves into thinking
> that what they have to say about a subject is more
> important than the subject itself.
That's exactly the problem. It's what I was getting at when I wrote
about how Penman reminds me of the columnists you get in the "serious"
newspapers and magazines. Even if they're only talking about what they
did at the weekend, the attitude is that their work is quality
literature. Even worse (don't know if you have this sort of thing over
there, but it's rife over here) are the celebrity interviewers in the
Sunday Papers... the name of the journo is always printed larger than
the name of the celeb they're interviewing. Ugggg.
Kathryn Flett, watch out - I'm coming for you with a big stick.
Michael Gula
Which may explain why he considered Zappa a rip-off artist.
Ray Dittmeier
the original Sanskrit text:
[...snip snip...]
>Therefore, Zappa's attacks on society, its norms and mores might end
>up validated in the event that society changes course and adopts
>Zappa's thinking, attitudes and method of living. At that point,
>Zappa would be the icon of the maintream. And Perlman's criticism
>would prove to be a sham...proven false.
>
>Until that time, Perlman's dislike for Zappa on account of Zappa's
>oddball characteristics with regard to the mainstream, and the
>community has some basis, IMO.
Well, let's see... Zappa's big attack on society was that phoniness,
greed, stupidity, hypocrisy, etc. lower the "quality of life" (for
lack of a better description) for all concerned.
Okay, so a listener might not like the way Zappa said it. A listener
might be distracted by Zappa's weirdness. But I don't see how anyone
could deny that the opinion itself is valid -- regardless of whether
"society" adopts FZ's ideas or ignores them completely.
--
Mother Nature's a mad scientist, Jerry!
--Cosmo Kramer
Sam and/or Karen Rouse
wrote:
> This was one band that I could tell were rubbish on the first
> listen/TV show. They were also the band that confirmed one judgemental
> rule of thumb:
>
> "Any band with a dancing girlie linup as part of the act is rubbish.
> It needs them to distract attention from the music".
...unless you're the Tubes or D'anse Combeau & His Orchestra.
--
Sam and/or Karen Rouse ro...@teleport.com
FZ Concert Tales:
http://www.teleport.com/~rouse/fz/
Rolf Maurer
>a.mabbo...@edinburgh.almac.co.uk (Alastair Mabbott) wrote:
>
>>...Kid Creole, whom he brown-nosed incessantly in the
>
>This was one band that I could tell were rubbish on the first
>listen/TV show.
I thought Kid Creole and the Coconuts were okay -- not great, but they
did have far more than the average number of moments. Of course, they
did not get much respect because they were doing a lot of that
homosexual-orientated disco-type music with lyrics that were
frequently sexist and/or pungently offensive. Their music and act
reflected a lot of August Darnell's personal weirdness, and I can't
off the top of my head think of a single other musical artist that
fits that description. But Kid Creole are far, far, far from the
bottom of the barrel.
On the other hand, you do have to wonder about a pop music critic that
would rave about them uncritically.
Rolf
_______________________________
If it screams, it's not food.
_______________________________
Rolf Maurer
>Well, I looked at a copy of the Wire in WH Smiths this morning, but
>there was nothing about FZ in there. Maybe it was the previous issue.
That's because it appeared in March(?) of 1994.
>Anyway... granted, this man has written a load of crap, but what the
>hell is everyone doing reading the Wire in the first place? It's a heap
>of pretentious crap, written by people who "listen" to music not for the
>inexplicable joy and aesthetic fulfilment that music can provide, but
>for some kind of intellectual by-product they get from "understanding"
>certain types of music. Sod the lot of them, I say.
Hysterical oversimplification. For those of you who don't know The
Wire, I'd suggest checking it out. They write about a lot of weird
music alright: in the past year they've had features on Captain
Beefheart and Clinton/Parliafunkadelicment, for instance, choices that
would meet with the approval of most AFFZers, I would think.
What distinguishes Wire writers by and large _is_ the fact that they
"listen" to music: it's not mere background stuff. Anybody who
appreciates Zappa's work (or play, if you prefer) ought to be able to
appreciate the Wire's approach to tunes, if not always the opinions
expressed. And who wants to just have their own prejudices confirmed
all the time anyway?
Rolf
________________________________
Quid Malmborg in Plano
________________________________
Lightning Roy
reading the wrong newspaper.
Also, I have corresponded with Mr. Carroll commending him for his frequent
and often insightful references to Zappa and his music in his column. I
think you misinterpreted Jon's article, as I, too read it the day after
Frank died, and I found it to be about the only descent thing the paper
published in the aftermath of his death. I've tried to locate a copy of
it for some time now, but the "gate" doesn't carry archives back that far.
Peace,
---Doug
In article <01HW.B2D75D860...@anonymous.com>, anonymous
<anon...@anonymous.com> wrote:
> The 'Ian Penman' controversy reminds me very little of an American Hack
by the
> name of Jon Carroll. Mr. Carroll used the occasion of Frank Zappa's death as
> grist for his word mill, a column in the San Francisco Examiner. As a
result,
> I have refused to ever read that newspaper again.
> The day after Frank died, Mr. Carroll dug thru his slightly used New
York Times
> factoids, and spooed forth the following opinion:
>
> (paraphrased):
> "Frank Zappa was a 1960's counter culture media guru, who mutated into a
> has-been during the 1970's, then a political activist during the 1980's, and
> then abruptly turned into the grand old man of rock and roll during the
1990's"
>
> Of course, Mr. Carroll was astute enough to mention "We're Only In It For the
> Money" as if it was the only thing Frank did in his entire life.
>
> I have hated the braindead media whore Jon Carroll ever since. However, in a
> not too accurate way, Jon was right. Frank always was a counter culture
media
> guru, always was a has-been (to some), always was a political activist (since
> 'Hungry Freaks, Daddy'), and always was the grand old man of rock and roll.
> Too bad Mr. Carroll did not pick up on the fact that he was using the
greatest
> composer that ever lived as grist for his word mill.
>
> {8-{> in New York
-----------------
macp...@pbsilink.com
macp...@inreach.com
JYOB
>than when it tries to stir up friendly feelings?"
Why is there never any POSITIVE grafitti on Men's Room walls? One never sees
"John Doe is the best boss I've ever worked for"...... it's always something to
the opposite.
TOG
Michael Gula
You've never read "[Name Deleted] gives good head"?
Biffyshrew
>That would be the San Francisco Chronicle, not the Examiner. You're not
>reading the wrong newspaper.
>
>Also, I have corresponded with Mr. Carroll commending him for his frequent
>and often insightful references to Zappa and his music in his column. I
>think you misinterpreted Jon's article, as I, too read it the day after
>Frank died, and I found it to be about the only descent thing the paper
>published in the aftermath of his death. I've tried to locate a copy of
>it for some time now, but the "gate" doesn't carry archives back that far.
But Biffy the Elephant Shrew does. I don't have time for this, but I do think
the record should be set straight, so here goes: Jon Carroll's entire column
for 12/7/93.
RITUAL DANCE OF THE OLD PUMPKIN
"The present-day composer refuses to die!"--Edgard Varese, 1921
Frank Zappa did so love San Francisco, that white and golden city by the bay
with its gentle and friendly citizens. As he wrote so movingly in the overtly
sentimental "Who Needs the Peace Corps?":
"I'll go to Frisco, buy a wig and sleep on Owsley's floor. I'll stay a week
and get the crabs and take a bus back home. I'm really just a phoney but
forgive me 'cause I'm stoned...GO TO SAN FRANCISCO!"
Kind of Tony Bennett only without the cable cars.
"Who Needs the Peace Corps?" is from the extremely uncommercial album "We're
Only in It for the Money," as scary and exhilarating a piece of music as has
appeared in the past 30 years. Speaking to his elders, Mr. Zappa remarked: "A
plague upon your ignorance that keeps the young from the truth they deserve."
That album asked the musical question: "What's the ugliest part of your body?"
His answer: The mind.
Zappa also wrote "Let's Make the Water Turn Black," "Invocation and Ritual
Dance of the Young Pumpkin," "Brown Shoes Don't Make It, "Who Are the Brain
Police?" and about a thousand other compositions you may not have heard.
He went from iconoclast to has-been to political activist to grand old man; his
influence has grown exponentially over the past decade. He expressed contempt
for his fame but used it to promote voter registration. His aphorisms were
more listened to than his music. He was not crazy about that either, but he
played the hand he was dealt; he kept writing music.
He hated boomers before they were boomers: He told the closing-night crowd at
the Whiskey-A-Go-Go in 1965, "If your children ever find out how lame you are,
they'll murder you in your sleep."
He also hated the government; he hated all presidents. He was probably the
first member of Generation X, a man ahead of his time.
I met Frank Zappa the day after Robert Kennedy was shot. We were in a dressing
room on the second floor of the old Fillmore Auditorium; his group, the Mothers
of Invention, was playing on one of those loony early Fillmore triple bills--I
think the two other acts were B. B. King and It's a Beautiful Day. [Actually
B. B. King and Booker T. & the M.G.s--BtES]
I was distracted, even distraught; I mentioned almost at random that Robert
Kennedy had died in the hospital I had been born in. Zappa looked at me.
"Well, *that's* significant, isn't it?"
Zappa did not suffer fools gladly, and assumed until evidence to the contrary
was presented that everyone he met was a fool and probably an enemy as well.
Usually he was right.
He was an idealist in that sense; he was eternally disappointed when people
failed to use their brains, which is to say: to agree with him. He was
prickly, impatient and sardonic; he was also direct and passionate.
He was making it up as he went along, as he always had. So was I, so the
interview was chaotic but amusing. He'd discovered Stravinsky when he was in
high school in the Antelope Valley (not a hotbed of Stravinsky fans); I'd
discovered Jack London in the same place in the same year. "Martin Eden"
didn't cut it in Palmdale either.
Like most autodidacts, Zappa used wit and sarcasm to cover the gaps in his
knowledge. He defended by attacking; it worked on the playground and, mostly,
it worked in life.
He was a mass of contradictions; he wrote resolutely uncommercial music and
then complained when radio wouldn't play it; he wrote lovely melodies and then
turned them inside out before they had a chance to seduce. He wrote brain
music and rage music; he didn't want anyone's listening to be easy.
Frank Zappa died Saturday at the age of 52; he was buried before the
information made the newspapers. No star-studded goodbys, no last conciliatory
words. He'd already said what he had to say: Wise up, people. Register to
vote. And turn the music up LOUD!
Your pal,
Biffy the Elephant Shrew @}-`--}----
Visit me at http://members.aol.com/biffyshrew/biffy.html
If your mother says don't chew it, do you swallow it in spite?
Kristian Kier
wrote:
>It Never Entered My Mind heeft geschreven ...
>>...
>>Even former German Cancellor [Kohl] was an oddball in the Second World War,
>>when he denounced and fought against NAZI-ism and Hitler. When the
>>war ended, Kohl was no longer the oddball, but rather became the
>>Establishment, and the icon for the mainstream ... the symbol of all
>>Germans and the new post-war thinking.
>
>
>Are you kidding? Kohl was born in 1930. What did he do, stick out his tongue
>whenever Adolf was in town?
ROTFL!
-Kristian
Lewis Saul
>Zappa did not suffer fools gladly, and assumed until evidence to the
contrary
>was presented that everyone he met was a fool and probably an enemy as
well.
>Usually he was right.
>
I think it's from a Tommy Mars interview, but I believe it is more
accurately stated that he gave everyone an EQUAL chance UNTIL they proved
themselves to be assholes...
Biffyshrew
As for that line about not suffering fools gladly, I've heard that cliché
applied many times to FZ, yet it seems to me that it often took his fancy to
suffer fools with strange enthusiasm. Take Al Malkin for example, or any
number of loonies allowed up onstage.
CHRISTOPHER E. EKMAN
>
> Although I think the article is one big pile of bullshit, I read
> through it, smiled, put it aside and went on with my life. WHAT THE
> HELL DO ALL BRITISH MUSIC CRITICS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ONE GUY?
I just tacked the slur towards the British on the end on account of it's
an FZ tradition. I really didn't mean anything by it.
As for the rant itself, it's just that Penman's piece is about the only
bit of bad press about FZ that's ever gotten under my skin, and I didn't
have anybody to commiserate with at the time.
Chris Ekman
cek...@pomona.edu
Tal
>Tal wrote:
>>
>> Although I think the article is one big pile of bullshit, I read
>> through it, smiled, put it aside and went on with my life. WHAT THE
>> HELL DO ALL BRITISH MUSIC CRITICS HAVE TO DO WITH THIS ONE GUY?
>
>I just tacked the slur towards the British on the end on account of it's
>an FZ tradition. I really didn't mean anything by it.
I sort of guessed that, but I wasn't sure whether you were serious or not,
more so because of the rest of the post was uhm, serious.
Yours,
--Tal
_______________________
e-mail: an...@cidanka.nl
website: http://www.cidanka.nl
The Unofficial MK-BFD Website: http://www.cidanka.nl/keneally/