Frank Zappa

[Firetooth]

I think this is a pretty simple poll.
Now let me see if anybody besides me and Blood Wake know who this genius is.

[Shadow]

I don't wanna pickle, I just wanna ride my motorsickle...

[Firetooth]

I don't wanna pickle, I just wanna ride my motorsickle...

"There'll never be a nuclear war-there's too much real estate involved."

[Night Wolf]

"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"

[Gen. Volkov]

I know who he is.

[Firetooth]

"Watch out where the huskies go, and don't you eat that yellow snow"

:D

I know who he is.

But do you know the significance of who he is? :P

[Gen. Volkov]

But do you know the significance of who he is?

I know he was the inspiration for the most classic hard rock riff of all time. Smoke on the Water.

[Blood Wake]

Lame Volkov. Deep Purple is great but Zappa is way crazier and more ingenious.

[Gen. Volkov]

I disagree. Deep Purple had way more hits and classic songs than Zappa. Being crazy and ingenious is great, but crazy and ingenious with one gold record means you were too eccentric. Mass appeal does mean something in music. Jimi Hendrix was crazy and ingenious too, but he was also wildly popular. That's why Jimi is near the top of every list of great artists, and Zappa is closer to the bottom. If you make music and no one likes it, I don't care how inventive it is, it's not good music. One of the many reasons the Beatles are almost universally considered to be the greatest rock group of all time is because they had so many hits. The only act that even comes close to them is Elvis. Which is one of the reasons he is the King. The very fact that Firetooth had to make a poll to find out if people knew who Zappa was, is telling. You wouldn't have to make such a poll about Hendrix, or the Beatles, or Elvis, even though they all come from about the same time period or earlier than Zappa.

BTW, not saying Zappa is horrible or anything, but he's not better than Deep Purple.

[Blood Wake]

Your point means nothing to a musician, Frank Zappa made music that was opposite of what was popular, Zappa was different. Anyone who has actually listened to all of Zappa's albums, (which I haven't) will talk about how much they love Zappa. I have heard the first 7 or so Deep Purple and while they are good they eventually become predictable and don't offer much besides hard rock and metal like thousands of other mentionable rock bands. Most of my favorite artists are less heard of and most of them are way more interesting than most popular music. Of course everything is all just matter of opinion.

Also, Elvis couldn't write a hit and doesn't excite me.

[Shadow]

Zappa>Deep Purple, and I don't like very much that Elvis did. His voice just annoys me. Hits mean nothing to anyone capable of forming their own musical opinion - all hits do is get you on popular radio, and judging from the fact that almost everything on popular radio stations sounds the same and sucks, I would argue that hits = crappy music, at least today.

Just because you hear hits more than some of the more obscure stuff doesn't mean the obscure stuff isn't better ^_^

On the flip side, I don't think Zappa cares if anyone likes his music, it is his music. Which is at least part of why he is great.

[Blood Wake]

Exactly, I wanted to make the point that just about everything on the radio today is horrible but the music industry changed and is no longer about creativity and talent.

the music I've written is kinda bizzare and others have difficult playing along to it, but the fact that I like it, even if some people don't like it,  Proves that there can be an audience for it just like Zappa's music which was way too bizarre for me when I first listened 6 or so years ago. Nowadays I understand music much more and even though the two are entirely different, I still say Zappa > Deep Purple.

Zappa never even took drugs, that boggles my mind.

[Firetooth]

Zappa>Deep Purple, and I don't like very much that Elvis did. His voice just annoys me. Hits mean nothing to anyone capable of forming their own musical opinion - all hits do is get you on popular radio, and judging from the fact that almost everything on popular radio stations sounds the same and sucks, I would argue that hits = crappy music, at least today.

Just because you hear hits more than some of the more obscure stuff doesn't mean the obscure stuff isn't better ^_^

On the flip side, I don't think Zappa cares if anyone likes his music, it is his music. Which is at least part of why he is great.

Agree with this, paticularly the Elvis part. Elvis is dull. Zappa is not

[Gen. Volkov]

Your point means nothing to a musician, Frank Zappa made music that was opposite of what was popular, Zappa was different.

Bull. Musicians may say they don't want popularity and fame and are just doing it for the music. That's conceit though. Every musician wants to hit it big. Every musician wants the approval that a popular song brings. It's part of why you become a musician. Many won't admit it, but it's there. Part of that whole "sellout" thing is just jealousy.

Anyone who has actually listened to all of Zappa's albums, (which I haven't) will talk about how much they love Zappa. I have heard the first 7 or so Deep Purple and while they are good they eventually become predictable and don't offer much besides hard rock and metal like thousands of other mentionable rock bands. Most of my favorite artists are less heard of and most of them are way more interesting than most popular music. Of course everything is all just matter of opinion.

If you listened to all of Zappa's albums, you would HAVE to love Zappa. That's a rather silly point Wake. They listened to all the albums because they love Zappa, not the other way round. As for Deep Purple, yeah, they eventually ran dry of creativity, but that doesn't really take away from what they did achieve.

Also, Elvis couldn't write a hit and doesn't excite me.

Writing isn't everything. Performance counts just as much. Other singers performed some of the songs he sang before he did. They never got famous in the way he did because they couldn't sing like he could.

Zappa>Deep Purple, and I don't like very much that Elvis did. His voice just annoys me.

To each his own I suppose.

Hits mean nothing to anyone capable of forming their own musical opinion - all hits do is get you on popular radio, and judging from the fact that almost everything on popular radio stations sounds the same and sucks, I would argue that hits = crappy music, at least today.

Modern music is a bit different than the time period we are talking about. But I can disprove your statement with two simple words. The Beatles. More hits than any other artist or group of artists in history. You're going to sit there and tell me that the Beatles suck because they wrote songs that were popular? If you do say the Beatles suck, I will simply have to discount anything else you have to say about music, because it will be bloody obvious that you have no idea what good music is. I will say that  today hits are hits because multinational corporations push them and give incentives for radio airplay. But even in these times, there is still the occasional song that is a hit simply because it's a good song.

Just because you hear hits more than some of the more obscure stuff doesn't mean the obscure stuff isn't better ^_^

There are some obscure songs that are better than the hits you hear on the radio. That doesn't mean though, that all obscure songs are better. Many times stuff is obscure because it SUCKS.

On the flip side, I don't think Zappa cares if anyone likes his music, it is his music. Which is at least part of why he is great.

Maybe he didn't care. I doubt it though. Most of the time, when people say, "I don't care if anyone likes it", it's because few people do like it, and it's easier to say that than admit your music might not be as wonderful as you think it is. A hit, at least when Zappa was in his prime, meant that your music struck some chord with a lot of people, which is part of what makes music meaningful. That shared experience.

Exactly, I wanted to make the point that just about everything on the radio today is horrible but the music industry changed and is no longer about creativity and talent.

I wouldn't say EVERYTHING, but yeah, there has been a fundamental shift in the music industry, I will agree with that.

the music I've written is kinda bizzare and others have difficult playing along to it, but the fact that I like it, even if some people don't like it,  Proves that there can be an audience for it just like Zappa's music which was way too bizarre for me when I first listened 6 or so years ago. Nowadays I understand music much more and even though the two are entirely different, I still say Zappa > Deep Purple.

Well, I still say Deep Purple > Zappa.

Agree with this, paticularly the Elvis part. Elvis is dull. Zappa is not

Elvis is "dull" because everything he did has since been copied by other artists. That's what happens when you become mega-famous and help found an entirely new branch of music. People copy you. Elvis, when he first appeared, was something entirely new and different.

[Shadow]

Modern music is a bit different than the time period we are talking about. But I can disprove your statement with two simple words. The Beatles. More hits than any other artist or group of artists in history. You're going to sit there and tell me that the Beatles suck because they wrote songs that were popular? If you do say the Beatles suck, I will simply have to discount anything else you have to say about music, because it will be bloody obvious that you have no idea what good music is. I will say that  today hits are hits because multinational corporations push them and give incentives for radio airplay. But even in these times, there is still the occasional song that is a hit simply because it's a good song.


Quote
Just because you hear hits more than some of the more obscure stuff doesn't mean the obscure stuff isn't better ^_^

There are some obscure songs that are better than the hits you hear on the radio. That doesn't mean though, that all obscure songs are better. Many times stuff is obscure because it SUCKS.

Way to twist what I said. I did not say that all popular music was bad, nor did I say that all obscure music was good. I said that the majority of popular music sucks, and that some obscure music is not obscure for the reasson that it sucks, it is obscure because the industry passed over it becuase it didn't fit the mould. The fact that the beatles were popular and good doesn't disprove what I said, it simply gives an exception to the rule. Not even though, really, because I did specify TODAY in that statement. The beatles are not a current band.