Zappa's post-modern lyrics

Hi everybody!

A thought that came to my mind when listening Zappa's
One size fits all recently, was the textual playing
with words in those songs (and also in Overnite Sensation
and Apostrophe), that one could call post-modern, held
against his overt socio-political statements in his
Sixties' lyrics.
Maybe this is also the reason why the left-wing Rock/Pop
critics of those days didn't follow his turn away from
political cynicism to a more subtle approach of saying
something about society or whatever.
Thing is, that with his fans and following exactly this
phase from, say, 1973 to 1975 is regarded very highly
in the last ten years (as a proof look at the polls for
his You can't do that on Stage anymore vol. II).
What, imho, doubles the quality of his output in that
particular phase of his work, is the hilarious funny group
he had gathered round him. I think they're technically
so good that they have the time for doin' fun on the stage
(just watch the A Token of his Extreme DVD!).
George Duke, Napoleon Murphy Brock, Ruth Underwood(!),
Tom Fowler and Chester Thompson imho did the best
jobs for FZ. This line-up is ultra-funky (maybe also because
of three Whites, three Blacks, but that's just a minor aspect)and
enlivens Zappa's stuff in a way no other formation
did (because of that, me and my former friends felt Zoot
Allures to be a big letdown).
What do you think?

Could you first give us a definition of "post-modern"?

Sorry to break it to you, but I'm pretty sure the words to songs like Florentine Pogen and Montana are just that: Nonsense. Zappa mentioned on several occasions that if it were up to him, all his songs would be instrumental. He only gave some of them lyrics because he felt that instrumental music is ignored by most listeners.

Alternatively, we could discuss the philosophical meaning of lyrics like "That's the kinda sound she makes when her crab cakes" (Arf arf arf!)

MagicMoo wrote: If there is a certain philosophical meaning it can only be expressed by words. Zappa makes fun of those kind of meanings that some suggest could underlie his lyrics. He so to say undermines this discourse. Same he did with those critics questions with regard to his 'conceptual continuity'. So this is not nonsense but irony, cause he reflects this questioning with bizarre lyrics. It's also a kind of humour (Does humour belong in music - get it?), just another one like that people were used to.

So his nonsense is not nonsense because he writes it out of spite? Whatever deeper motivation he had for writing lyrics that are nonsense (if any), Florentine Pogen is still nonsense. It seems silly to me to search for meaning in the lyrics of a song that is comprised of in-jokes and is titled after a type of cookie. You could say that the other song I mentioned, Montana, pokes fun at cowboys and people who sell useless products, but I really don't think there's anything deeper behind that either.

Zappa's lyrics were mostly either socio-political commentary (like Trouble Every Day), making fun of the silly habits of other people (Penguin in Bondage, Dancin' Fool etc etc etc) or nonsense. Call that nonsense post-modern if you like. I don't think it means anything.

MagicMoo wrote: He often cites this language-induced irony and I hope you don't take that serious: "Poodles serve as a convenient mechanism for conveying certain philosophical ideas that might otherwise be more difficult".

You said it yourself: Don't take it too seriously. There's not actually any deeper meaning behind poodles, they're just one of these things that will forever be mercilessly made fun of. You know, like British accents. And Republicans.

All this comes back to the same point: He deliberately wrote nonsense lyrics to make fun of his critics. That's nonsense with intention, but it's still nonsense. If there's anything more to it, then please explain to me the possible deeper meaning of Florentine Pogen,

I've always suspected that Frank's sincerity and seriousness was never allowed to manifest itself in any of his lyrics. That he was a highly articulate, deep thinking and passionate individual is probably undoubted but such sentiments would have laid him open to the types of verbal salvoes he reserved for those habitually captured in his sights.
It is also risibly ironic that he was a personification of so many things he held in complete contempt e.g. as a wealthy and successful independent musician and entrepreneur he personified precisely what is called 'living the American Dream'
As for Post Modern, you can make that dog-eared label stick to a bottle of vinegar and call it Chateaux de Sarsons.
I guess I have considerably more regard for sincerity debunked than a vainglorious manifesto of 'Everything Sucks (Apart From Me)'