duchamp wrote:
DC Boogie wrote:
duchamp wrote:
I have a hard time believing any person puts any sort of entertainment out into the world for others to hear if they are not trying to impress someone. More to the point, how can you know the intent of the composers? Did they tell you that they don't write to impress people? Even if they did, I would have a hard time believing it of them, or any other producer of artistic output.
The work is there and says a lot about the intent. Ok, so Zavod's volcano solos were intended to impress a certain segment of the audience. I find a more timeless musical statement in Zappa's best solos and compositions, like Times Beach II. And yes, Zappa did say even in 1992 that he only wrote for his own pleasure, not for anyone else. You're welcome to believe that he was lying. Reductionism is kinda fun, and familiar to all Zappa fans.
Some of you seem incredulous that anyone can enjoy TYS merely as music. Well, I for one wouldn't continue listening to it for sentimental reasons or to be impressed once again. Why should I? That would be just stupid.
I am not sure why you have such a negative view of the word impress. If FZ, or any other musician, makes their music purely for themselves, and has NO interest in impressing other people with it, why on earth share with anyone? Why not play it only for themselves? Yes, I have also read quotes were Zappa makes such claims, but like all humans I doubt he meant he literally did not care if any other person on the planet cared for any of his work. That is simply part of being human. We want recognition from the world. Impress does not have to mean going out of your way to be pompous and brag about what you are doing. If an artist is NOT attempting to "gain the admiration or interest of" (the definition of the word impress as I mean it here) other people, what are they doing? Just sharing their joy with the world? Just trying to make money? I admit to being a cynic, but any person who claims they have NO interest in how anything they make is perceived by any other person is deluding themselves. Can't an artist make music because they love it at the same time they hope others will like it as well?
As long as the artist stays in his privacy, he can do whatever he wants, only limited by the tools he has (skills, equipment, man power, etc.). But as soon as the artist goes to the public, he is part of "the system" (media, entertainment industry, concert promoters, professional musicians, politics, etc. etc.). He has to interact with "the system" and make compromises to get his stuff going.
What interests me in this context is, how "the system" affects the art, good or bad. To what extent did the circumstances of "the system" affect the music of the YS project? For example: What were the reasons for having dancers during the performance? Whose idea was it? How free was Zappa to do what he wanted to do? How free can art be at all?
The dilemma is, without "the system" there would probably be no YS at all.
BTW: I think art should be as free as possible. The freedom of art is a good indication of how free a society really is. If everything is commercialized and economized, there will be no freedom (hi, Disco Boy!).
In any "system", the artist has to "impress" somebody first before he can get his art going: the king, the dictator, his parents, his wife, the record company, the bank, the concert promoter, the other members of the band … The audience comes last.
Th.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
