Frank Zappa: Classic or Dud?

I have mixed feelings about Zappa (and actively enjoy at least five or six albums out of his impressively large body of work) but the documentary gave me some more appreciation of him as a person. There’s no question he was a dedicated musician and serious about his work, and it was interesting to see how he responded to his daughter’s hints of his neglect, reading how much he meant to a band member, and also seeing him rehearse and conduct musicians at the tail end of his life. He wasn’t a guy who expressed his emotions in a sentimental way, but he had them.

Lol, Left.

Guys, even if we did have a hater-only thread, wouldn’t that only be doing exactly what Frank was doing…what we…hate about him? 🤔 🧐 🤨

🥸🎸🎶

He who fights with Zappa might take care lest he thereby become him

Guys, even if we did have a hater-only thread, wouldn’t that only be doing exactly what Frank was doing…what we…hate about him?

― Blecch’s POLLero (James Redd and the Blecchs), Sunday, December 10, 2023 11:32 AM

god fucking dammit, you're right.

nvm, zappa clearly the most soulful, compassionate music figure oat

The first Zappa I tried was Freak Out, which I liked. The more I explored, the less I enjoyed and it retroactively tainted that first album.

It’s the opposite of Ween for me. I initially didn’t like Ween, but the more I heard the more I liked them. What I initially took as smart ass bullshit gradually revealed a lot of heart and real emotion, and eventually the entire discography became a portrait of two best friends growing up together, through Jr High nonsense up to divorce and rehab.

Zappa has no real way for me to get in. I get off on emotional connection and so much of what he does is academic, even though he would probably hate that description. Even something like “Trouble Every Day,” which is a sincere song about something that had some real meaning to him, is remote in some way.

I can tolerate his earlier stuff, but the 70’s wocka wocka “Montana” is the fucking worst amalgamation of tones and textures, I just can not with all that.

I do like his later interviews on free speech.

FWIW, I once lent someone Hot Rats while at work study because they wanted something to listen to while working too. He didn't know any Zappa and he LOVED it - he immediately ripped a copy after he was done listening. (This was around 2007.) I haven't seen him since that year, but he comes to mind every time I put on that album.

listening to Freak Out - did he maybe peak on his first album?

Trouble Every Day is so great

Help I'm a Rock the vocalizations get grating but damn Can must have loved this song

Can's "Mother Upduff" reminds me of "Help I'm a Rock".

I don't think it's his best but it does kind of hit a sweet spot - as I mentioned earlier in this thread he was actually 25 when it was released, old enough to know what he was doing, but at the same time he wasn't quite *that* version of Zappa yet, and actually wasn't opposed to doing something in earnest ("Trouble Every Day" always stands out because it's so unlike everything else he ever did).

when he hired george duke, he couldn't understand half the shit george duke was playing.

always been pretty interested in this - is it true that Zappa didn't really get what his soloists were doing? I've often wondered that myself, because there is something unique to his approach there, in that on one hand he comes off like a total control freak who edits things in peculiar ways for no real reason, but on the other hand he's surprisingly cool with musicians taking really long solos on them.

sorry earl, dan, and others who are genuine fans. i promise i won't shit up this thread anymore with such flippant unsophistication.

lol I find the shitting on Zappa itt as entertaining as the occasional appreciation. Maybe moreso. Shit on, Austin!

is it true that Zappa didn't really get what his soloists were doing?

this is 100% not true lol

is it true that Zappa didn't really get what his soloists were doing?

He hired people who could do things he couldn't. But he was the one who knew what needed doing.

I mean what does it mean to "not get" what one's soloists are doing - that he couldn't have played that stuff himself, or played it as well? not surprising I think -- I mean the whole reason you bring in a guitarist who isn't you is either a) to play rhythm or b) to do stuff you wouldn't think of yourself, which might in turn inspire you and help you in your growth, which is always ongoing. would need to see some proof of "zappa was mystified by what george duke was putting down"

Considering that Zappa produced (and played pseudonymous guitar on) at least one of Duke's solo albums, I think they understood each other pretty well. (Other members of the extended Zappa company of players like Ruth Underwood, Bruce and Tom Fowler, and Johnny "Guitar" Watson showed up on other Duke records in the 70s.)

i mean there were plenty of players in miles davis' bands that he couldn't necessarily hang with technically

yeah - idk I'm into dishing plenty of hate on Zappa, I find him a confounding figure, but veering into "his musicians were great whereas he sucked and couldn't do what they did" ignores a lot of how band dynamics work. the whole point is bringing together people whose talents make something new happen and the bandleader's skill in bringing those people together is a big part of it, I think Zappa's vision in this is one of his better qualities, he knows how to let a band cook, he knows his authorial voice is so omnipresent that at least until the 80s he's able to allow the thing to happen and for people to play up to their capabilities, to give shine. those musicians weren't just there to draw a paycheck, at that level of expertise any one of them would have been turning down plenty of gigs to work the zappa gig.

well, Belew didn't :)

Interviews with George and Ruth show they both held Frank in high regard. Really don't think they would have stayed in a band where their contributions were not understood or valued.

xxxxxpost

wrt freak out maybe not his best so much as it's the one i'm most often in the mood for, like you said he's not fully formed yet and there's still a lot of a grimy LA weirdo garage rock band in there which helps (for me)

I do find it interesting that, as I think I saw mentioned in a Bozzio interview and perhaps at one point related here, for a time serving with either Miles Davis or Frank Zappa were gigs guaranteed to open doors. And yet if you think of Miles, so many people he worked with went on to equal greatness as bandleaders, or at least careers of note, whereas with Zappa, unless I'm missing something, few of them went on to do much on their own worth mentioning outside of studio work or hired gun gigs. I wonder why that is, it's not like they didn't have the skills.

well, Belew didn't :)

Or did he change it to Captain Tom?

xx post

jazz vs rock

Steve Vai, Lowell George and George Dude is probs the only ones that had real post-Zappa non sidemen careers

Bozzio too.

So why not more post Zappa rock successes? There were so many talented people, dozens, you'd think they'd land somewhere visible. Besides Belew and I guess Vai (both from later eras) you get, what, Missing Persons?

Belew as well, iirc he was playing in a bar cover band until Zappa discovered him, on a tip from his driver no less. so maybe that's why he was so pissed at Bowie, must've felt like he was poaching his secret weapon.

So why not more post Zappa rock successes? There were so many talented people, dozens, you'd think they'd land somewhere visible. Besides Belew and I guess Vai (both from later eras) you get, what, Missing Persons?

― Josh in Chicago, Monday, December 11, 2023 4:25 PM (two minutes ago) bookmarkflaglink

i would say that in jazz there was a much more direct link from "being a really fucking great player" to "being a successful solo artist/bandleader" than there is in rock, in fact sometimes have belew/vai type skills could be a detriment to success. just seems like there's more factors, vocals, image, marketing, luck etc (not that those don't exist in jazz but you know, why were the hooters more popular than discipline era king crimson?)

also jazz had always had a very established apprentice system of sorts where it was pretty common to start as a sideman/woman to a well known jazz artist, get noticed, then graduate to leading your own band.

Less of those factors and also maybe a different set of skills and training.
(xpost)

you get, what, Missing Persons?

Little Feat, one of the greatest American rock bands!

Yeah, Little Feat is probably the best to come out of Zappa's circle. But perhaps a good example, because if Lowell George could hang with the Zappa crew and go on to form a band as distinct from Zappa as Little Feat, then why couldn't anyone else shift gears like that (high bar of Little Feat aside)?

the hooters

Tbf to the Hooters, they could write! Hits on their own, hits for Cyndi Lauper, big hit for Joan Osborne ...

oh yeah that's kind of what i meant! like their skills at writing hooky pop rock songs is more transferable to success than, say steve vai stunt guitar in rock music.

whereas, in a bebop setting guys like adderly or coltrane or many others could pretty easily springboard into their own groups

But how many people played with Zappa? 100? More? (Less?) It's just wild to me that even a modest percentage of these mutants didn't amount to much (imo) outside of his orbit.

Because the later bands in particular are just full of faceless conservatory trained musos perhaps? The opposite of Zappa himself in fact.

not sure why people who were in bands led by one of the most important jazz musicians of the 20th century went on to greater success than people who were in bands with...

i mean look other people here can put down zappa's stuff much better than i can, but it's kind of _niche_, you know? miles davis was a big fish in a medium-sized pond, and zappa was a pretty small fish in a stadium-sized pond.

rock also isn't a medium that puts a premium on instrumental virtuosity outside of, like... guitar solos to an extent. how many members of prog-rock bands (that aren't genesis) have had successful solo careers?

That's a good question/point! I guess one big difference is that a lot of those prog bands didn't break up, so there was no need for solo careers and whatnot, whereas Zappa (being a solo artist) couldn't break up, but he did churn through musicians at a prodigious clip.

Rick Wakeman the obvious exception, maybe Steve Hackett too. Although I suppose Bill Bruford considered himself successful leading a jazz group for a couple of decades, so success is relative.

Hackett was in Genesis, of course, but never achieved Phil or Mike levels of saturation.

Steve Vai, Lowell George and George Dude is probs the only ones that had real post-Zappa non sidemen careers

― kurt schwitterz, Monday, December 11, 2023 5:22 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink

Are we not including Ponty here? I guess technically he was doing just fine before Frank, right?

Don Preston and Ian Underwood have played with a bunch of people.

Chester Thompson, Vinnie Colaluta, & Chad Wackerman have had really big careers as drummers for hire.

Ponty and Peter Wolf both were able to take playing with Zappa into wider musical careers.

Zappa worked with quite a few studio musician ringers over his career too.

Lots of the other guys played on other bands especially the horn players.

Mike Keneally is in Dethklok!

if Lowell George could hang with the Zappa crew and go on to form a band as distinct from Zappa as Little Feat, then why couldn't anyone else shift gears like that

Zappa was inclined, as soon as he had the wherewithal, to hire the best technicians (players) he could; in other words, people whose musical skills could fit into a number of contexts but who weren't necessarily pursuing an individual musical "vision". When Lowell George played him his original songs, he told him to get his own group; it's hard to imagine a Little Feat song, bar a couple of early novelty oddities, played by the Mothers. So he was an exception.
Also, as people have suggested, the kind of technical mastery that Zappa demanded had limited commercial potential in rock as a whole, so there really wasn't room for all of these instrumentalists with their abstruse abilities to form groups of their own, even if they had wanted to.

A Ruth Underwood solo career would have had no commercial potential, but I would been interested.

I dunno, if Narada Michael Walden could go from playing drums in Mahavishnu to writing and producing pop hits for Aretha and Whitney, then anything is possible.

I don't know how many times different people are going to have to explain what is pretty obvious here

otm

Heh. I was thinking more of the application of virtuoso skills in a medium that does not showcase virtuosos.

I guess in the end working for Zappa was probably pretty self-selecting. Does Trader Joe's only employ friendly people, or do only friendly people apply for jobs at Trader Joe's?