stratman said:
The word genius gets thrown around alot, the most difficult music to master is classical, whether its played on the piano or guitar. Someone being dead does not negate his status as genius. Classical music elicits the best performance possible from the musician if you're not up to par with your reading, practice and phrasing it'll show instantly, classical music is exacting and unforgiving, thus why it scares would be practioners. Grassroots music is relevant within the content it represents, simplistic, few chord changes, informal, easier to master and so forth. If it's elitist to say that classical music is the zenith of musical accomplishment and instrumental mastery, I would say it's naive and politically correct to put so-called "grassroots" (jazz, rock, etc)on the same plane as complex a style of music that requires years of hard practice to master. By the way, not all things are taste "driven" for instance math, science, technique, mechanics, practice and so on. Taste is what you personally find appealing, it's not universal. Standards have nothing to do with taste.
I happen to enjoy and play jazz, it's more of a challenge to play than straight-ahead rock, I't doesn't mean I don't like rock, jazz is infinitely harder to play and master, specifically the improvisational aspect.
Hi cavey
Damm fine post & i think its spot on, Im not a huge fan of classical music but i can appreciate its aspects especially the great skill required to play it(properly) let alone write a symphony or a 'piece' of music,franks ability to understand,compose,arrange & play classical music is a big part of what lead me to research his compositions & later lead me to the belief that he should be classified with the great composers as 'genius'.
The serious studies of the works of FZ have really just begun compared to legends like Bach, Beetoven,Vareese ect,below is a link to one of the studies of some of FZ'S compositions if anybody cares to look at it,being able to read & understand music in its written form is huge plus for those who will read it.
http://www.zappa-analysis.com/index.html
The conclusion of this study below.
CONCLUSION
This study has been looking at the musical component of Zappa's output through note examples, trying to find out what it's characteristics are. In it examples have been given that show that:
- Zappa uses all types of scales. He applies the normal major and minor scales, as well as their modal variants and pentatonic scales. He allows all kinds of chromatic passages.
- For his melodies he uses the regular 5th and 7th chords as well as larger unusual ones like 11th chords.
- The tonal structure ranges between easy continuingly repeated progressions and completely atonal music.
- A desire for rhythmic variation is very persistent in his music. Some of his music has complex figures with irregular groupings. Zappa himself described his rhythms as speech influenced.
- For his guitar solo's, contrary to his other compositions, he likes to keep using the notes of one scale, of which the key note is given by the accompaniment.
- He applies thematic structures as well as melodies that are through-composed.
Some preferences in his music have been commented on:
- A lot of his music is based upon the single melodic line. The chords can be derived from the subsequent notes of the melodic progression. Chords in the sense of notes played together don't have an important role.
- He doesn't apply a lot of counterpoint.
- He likes sudden changes.
- He prefers music on an emotionally abstract level, meaning not less emotional than other kinds, but difficult to translate into words.
- The instrumentation is functional for playing the notes of the music.
- Zappa uses different combinations of amplified and acoustical instruments.
Hardly any rules apply to his music and the preferences just mentioned have their exceptions:
- There are sections with an explicit role for chord progressions. They can be using regular chords as well as ignoring traditional harmony.
- Some examples have been given of different types of counterpoint.
- Some of his songs can be clearly emotionally identified.
So the picture we get is a very rich one, making it impossible to say what's typically Zappa. It is true that melodies that are rhythmically and harmonically irregular have the effect of sounding Zappa-esque, but in Zappa's music this can go into all directions without loosing coherence and it doesn't apply to all of his music. He refused to let any stylistic or technical bounderies play a role in his music, thus bringing together the different directions music has been taking in the last decades. Apperently this was a natural proces for him ( Zappa himself talked about a "conceptual continuity"). The early "Run home theme" of 1963 for instance already shows the combining of modern harmony with a jazz styled rhythm. It's not to say he has done everything: he has for instance never applied the classical sonata form with various movements.
Musical analysis in the last resort cannot serve as proof for the quality of music. It can only comment on someone's technical capacities and from this study can be concluded that Zappa's technical abilities are high. Quality also comprehends the creativity and uniqueness by which someone is applying his technical components. That is more a matter of common opinion among music lovers, that takes some time to crystallize. I have the impression that Zappa's doing okay in this process.
