Prince Superbowl XLI

[stratman]

There was/is very little classical music written for electric guitar, bagpipe, synthesizer, percussion, saxophone...the list goes on. Are you saying that no one playing an instrument outside of what is considered "classical" (primarily strings, piano, brass & woodwinds) can be labeled a "genius" no matter how well they've mastered their instrument? I've always considered Jimi Hendrix to be a genius. Zappa too. We may disagree over who does and doesn't rate the label of genius, but to disqualify an artist based on the flavor of their music or the type of instrument they play doesn't wash. When I mentioned that Bach & Beethoven were dead, the point I was trying to make was that it's wrong to limit the envelope of musical evolution by linking musical excellence to one particular, and mostly historical, genre of music, not that they can't be geniuses because they are dead. Yes, Mozart, Brahms, Dvorek, Satie, Copeland et al. WERE geniuses in the style of the prevailing music of their eras. But do you really think that if Mozart was born in the 1960's he'd have written and played anything other than rock and roll? If John Lennon was born in the 1760's, today we'd probably be listening to "St. Lucielle In the Firmament Adorned with Precious Stones" on Deutchegrammophone...at least the harpsichord intro. would sound the same!

You are correct that not all things are taste driven, i.e. math, science, etc. My bad. But standards have everything to do with taste in such subjective realms as music, food, wine & art. Standards are set by those whose tastes develop and deepen through years of immersing themselves in a particular subject. To those just beginning their study of something, the tastes of more experienced practitioners would not be understood or agreed with; nevertheless, "standards" in these areas are merely the shared opinions of those who have gone the deepest, whether you agree with their tastes or not. The book "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" deals with this idea of what defines "quality" - which is a very slippery concept, but cool to think about.

Have you ever listened to the very rock and roll and also very dead Jerry Garcia improvise on his guitar? Jazz isn't the only medium that allows free form expression.

Btw...Stratman, I appreciate and respect your responses. These are the kind of dialogues I enjoy because they are well-reasoned and intelligent.

Hello Starmax,

I too enjoy well thought-out and presented posts like these, Please don't misunderstand me. I would never disqualify a musician based on his "flavor" of music or chosen instrument, I underscore this point: genius would be someone who masters the instrument (or music) to a level where no other has treaded. My issue was that the word genius is bantered about today as if it's a label to be applied at whim to anyone who might do something a little different. You might be too young, but if you remember back in the early eighties Michael Jackson was touted as a genius, time since has proven otherwise, talented without doubt, genius, I don't think that he is. Prince is an instrumental prodigy, is he genius, I'm not sure, how would he handle really tough material? I don't know, could that be a litmus test for his true abilities? Here's another oft argued point: Is pop music "real music", I think it depends on how you anylize music (I think it is, but it's not pure) rock is a straight descendant of the blues who also gave us rhythm n' blues, gospel, the roots of modern music. Interstingly there were a few metal guitar players that would study classical guitar and incorporate their new found technique into their "bag of tricks" you might say, these guys were amazing with the things they came up with (Malmsteen being one of them). Garcia, sorely missed............genius? Not sure.

 

[Starmax]

Hello Starmax,

I too enjoy well thought-out and presented posts like these, Please don't misunderstand me. I would never disqualify a musician based on his "flavor" of music or chosen instrument, I underscore this point: genius would be someone who masters the instrument (or music) to a level where no other has treaded. My issue was that the word genius is bantered about today as if it's a label to be applied at whim to anyone who might do something a little different. You might be too young, but if you remember back in the early eighties Michael Jackson was touted as a genius, time since has proven otherwise, talented without doubt, genius, I don't think that he is. Prince is an instrumental prodigy, is he genius, I'm not sure, how would he handle really tough material? I don't know, could that be a litmus test for his true abilities? Here's another oft argued point: Is pop music "real music", I think it depends on how you anylize music (I think it is, but it's not pure) rock is a straight descendant of the blues who also gave us rhythm n' blues, gospel, the roots of modern music. Interstingly there were a few metal guitar players that would study classical guitar and incorporate their new found technique into their "bag of tricks" you might say, these guys were amazing with the things they came up with (Malmsteen being one of them). Garcia, sorely missed............genius? Not sure.

Strat,
You're right. I AM too young (54-years chronologically, with all the maturity of a 19-year old!). I agree with you..."genius" is a term which has been trivialized and made meaningless by overuse. It's used nowadays as a relative term...the best in any particular category is by default called genius, meaning "top of the heap." But what IS genius, and unless you happen to be one, how would you recognize it? It's a bit like a human telling God "I know how ya feel, pal!" You are right in one respect about the classical masters...the term "genius" can only be bestowed by the test of time. It's the quality that endures.

 

[stratman]

Strat,
You're right. I AM too young (54-years chronologically, with all the maturity of a 19-year old!). I agree with you..."genius" is a term which has been trivialized and made meaningless by overuse. It's used nowadays as a relative term...the best in any particular category is by default called genius, meaning "top of the heap." But what IS genius, and unless you happen to be one, how would you recognize it? It's a bit like a human telling God "I know how ya feel, pal!" You are right in one respect about the classical masters...the term "genius" can only be bestowed by the test of time. It's the quality that endures.

Remember my friend, age is state of mind! (I'm still trying to convince my wife of that ). From what I've read over the years most geniuses were sel-deprecating, depressed and very close to what today would be termed insane, which made their accomplishments even more remarkable. You hit the nail on the head "it's the quality that endures", I wonder how popular music will fare say in 200 to 300 years. My friend says "if you have money you're called an eccentric, if you don't have money you are called a nut."

 

[stratman]

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.

HH,

As Starmax queried. "what would Beethoven be composing if he was born in the 60s" I think we might have our answer: Frank Zappa's work might be an indication, I know its a far reach, but real genius has few boundaries.

Another way to describe him: He's the be-bopper of the guitar (as Miles to the trumpet and Parker to the sax.)

 

[Starmax]

Old Masters Reincarnated

I think it would be safe to say that a Mozart, Bach or Beethoven born in the late 20th century would be creating music that challenged them, and not pandering to the mass-consumer music industry. Most likely, their music would remain in obscurity.

 

[stratman]

I think it would be safe to say that a Mozart, Bach or Beethoven born in the late 20th century would be creating music that challenged them, and not pandering to the mass-consumer music industry. Most likely, their music would remain in obscurity.

That's so true,

 

[Jack Hammer]

I saw a quote from the Foo Fighters drummer (don't know his name) saying that he was surprised that Prince did a cover of one of their songs at the half-time show. He thought maybe it was in retalliation for them covering Darling Niki, which Prince thought was awfully done by them. He said Prince showed them up by doing the song better than they ever did.

I didn't see the show, but now I'm curious to see the cover, at least. I've never been a fan of Prince, but I'll give him credit, he is a very talented musician, pretty weird, but talented.

Jack

 

[darien87]

I am a HUGE Prince fan. His performance was the only part of the Super Bowl I watched, since my Chargers found a way to blow a playoff game that should have been a gimme. I've seen him in concert about 5 times now, and I was actually a little disappointed in the show. I thought his performance was a little lackluster. But I guess it's kind of hard to show your virtuosity in a little 10 minute performance. I would indeed call Prince a musical genius. I haven't liked everything he's ever done, but he keeps coming up with new and innovative music. He's got to be one of the most prolific song writers in history.

And what's with all the Frank Zappa love? That's the guy that sang, "Don't eat yellow snow", and named his kids Moon Unit and Dweezil right?

 

[highfihoney]

And what's with all the Frank Zappa love? That's the guy that sang, "Don't eat yellow snow", and named his kids Moon Unit and Dweezil right?

Yup,he wroteYellow snow,he also wrote Why does it hurt when i pee,The legend of the Illinois ennema bandit,Broken hearts are for **********, Titties and beer,Teenage prostitute,The clap,Baby take your teeth out, Harder than your husband,Goblin girl, He's so gay& other assorted fun type songs.

He also wrote a ton of serious hard core fusion jazz & other highly technical music not to mention the serious music he wrote like the peice titled "The yellow shark" & other peices written for "The orchestra of our time",his serious works have also been played & recorded by "The london symphony orchestra" & "The ensamble modern".

For all the music FZ wrote most americans only remember him for "yellow snow" & "dynamo hum" while most of europe remembers him for his orchestral works.

 

[Resident Loser]

Sorry...

...I didn't happen upon this thread earlier...

The SB show w/the artist formerly named or now named Prince: ZZZZzzzz...

FZ: Two thumbs up!!!!

jimHJJ(...that's all f-f-f-olks...)

 

[stratman]

FZ and Prince are in two different planes, Zappa I consider a musical genius, Prince an instrumental prodigy. Both extremely talented, but on different parts of the musical spectrum. If Prince is capable of composing the type of music ZP did, he's never shown it, he's strictly simplistic, melodic, pop.

 

[highfihoney]

Hey strat,if you ever get the chance to see Dweezils band do the Zappa plays Zappa tour jump on the tickets as soon as they are released,the show starts off with a video of FZ playing Chungas revenge on a screen as big as the stage & Dweezil plays along with his father (very emotional to see) while the band sit's & watches.

I went to this show with pretty low expectations,i was mainly interested in seeing bozzio play the black page & vai's normal stunt guitar antics but after the first half of the opening song i was off my seat like a 20 year old school kid,i figured this show would be all the fluff peices like dynamo hum & yellow snow but they instantly went into the hard stuff likeInca roads & The G-spot tornado,Damm was this band exciting & skilled plus the sound men did one of the best job's ive ever heard at any venue.

Napolean murphy Brock played & sang with the band for 9/10th's of the show with the same energy he had on stage when i saw him with FZ 20 years ago,Napolean had done so much vocal work with Frank over the years that it was like being in a time warp, missing from the show was the banter & antics that FZ used to keep going between himself,the band & the audience, in retrospect i was glad Dweezil didnt try to do this,it woulda been strange to see somebody other than Frank directing a rock band like an orchestra.

I cant say enough good things about that tour except i hope it comes around to Detroit or Chicago again & for anybody who likes FZ'S music but never got the chance to see him live before he died this is the closest they will ever come.

Man,im all worked up just remembering that show,im putting on some frank right now

I allmost forgot,if you didnt allready know Frank had a strat that Jimi Hendrix gave to him after he trashed it & set it on fire,Frank rebuilt it & played it for years,Dweezil broke it out & did some solo work on it which was real cool,i always wanted to see that guitar but every time i saw Frank he never played it.

 

[stratman]

Sadly the good shows never make it this far south (Miami), they usually stop at Tampa/Orlando or Palm Beach, I think it's got to do with the demographics, last show I saw at Palm Beach was Steely Dan. Needless to say the show was awfull, my wife paid 50.00 per seat, the view was horrible and the sound, oooh the sound, that was the clincher for me (worst sounding concert next to INXS that I've been too)I promised I'll never got ot Palm Beach for another concert. We have excellent venues down here,but my opinion is that promoters feel the demographics down here don't support rock concerts (being that the demo down here is mostly hispanic.)

I saw Steely Dan for the first time in the Miami Arena, excellent show, awesome sound, but outdoor venues (Palm Beach) don't cut it for me.

 

[Starmax]

Yeah, I saw Steely Dan with Michael McDonald last summer in Charlotte at the Verizon Outdoor Ampitheatre, and it was a snorefest due to the lack of focus both in sight and sound. I'm swearing off outdoor/arena type shows no matter who it is...unless the Beatles (with John and George) start touring again!

Hifihoney, don't forget John Luc Ponty's violin recording of FZ originals.

 

[highfihoney]

Yeah, I saw Steely Dan with Michael McDonald last summer in Charlotte at the Verizon Outdoor Ampitheatre, and it was a snorefest due to the lack of focus both in sight and sound. I'm swearing off outdoor/arena type shows no matter who it is...unless the Beatles (with John and George) start touring again!

Hifihoney, don't forget John Luc Ponty's violin recording of FZ originals.

Ha good call i listen to alot of FZ & anybody else who was talented enough to cover his work,The whole King Kong album by jean-luc ponty smokes,im listening to the Zoot Alures album right now but when its finished im poppin in King Kong,ponty's rendetion's of "The idiot ba$tard son" & "How'd you like to have a head like that" are two of my favorite cuts.

By any chance have you seen Zappa's universe yet? its only out on vhs but its still a great tribute concert.

 

[Seth=L]

Um, May I intrude? I watched the halftime show quite closely, and as far as my eye could tell he wasn't playing live. He stopped playing guitar a few times I noticed, and yet the guitar was still coming strong through the speakers. I also did not see a mini-mic attached to his person. He walked away from the stage mic a few times and you could still hear singing! He either has some mystical powers or my eyes deceived me, but I am pretty sure that it was all lipsync.

Note: It is near impossible to sound good singing when you are walking around, bending you diaphram, and dancing.

 

[stratman]

No Seth your eyes are fine, since inclement weather was expected, it's dangerous to have amplified devices under pouring rain, Prince would've looked like a piece of KFC . So they probably had everything on tape to begin with.

 

[Seth=L]

That would be the only reason that it sounded good. Lipsync sucks though, it is such a cheap way to perform! I am pretty sure Rolling Stones actually did their stuff on stage, they did a terrible job, but hey they did do it.

I would rather Phil Collins do the next half-time show, he is pretty darn good!

 

[stratman]

Can you say Milli-Vanilli?????

 

[Bigsilvs]

I saw a quote from the Foo Fighters drummer (don't know his name) saying that he was surprised that Prince did a cover of one of their songs at the half-time show. He thought maybe it was in retalliation for them covering Darling Niki, which Prince thought was awfully done by them. He said Prince showed them up by doing the song better than they ever did.

I didn't see the show, but now I'm curious to see the cover, at least. I've never been a fan of Prince, but I'll give him credit, he is a very talented musician, pretty weird, but talented.

Jack

I saw Prince's cover and the original version was better of course. I also heard on the radio about the Foo Fighters comments about the Halftime cover. The Foo Fighters should have trashed Prince performance just for his comments. I was surprised the Foo Fighters still had so much respect for Prince after his comments. I am not a big Foo Fighters fan (only liking a handful of there songs), but anytime an artist gets upset and makes remarks on a cover and then covers them back is really lame IMO. Maybe it's my age, but I have never really liked Prince.