Zappa: Was he For or Far from the People?

The Sloth wrote: Zappa's basic stance was that when people band together, there's trouble. The 60's movement was just another case of our group vs theirs, and I think it's smart that he didn't identify with the youth movement wholesale just because he was young. George Carlin said the same thing with different words. Something like: "If you sit down and talk with one person, you can see the universe in their eyes. Once people begin showing up in groups for a cause, I walk the other way." Obviously said for humor in part, and obviously group conformity is what the makes the world go 'round, but George and Frank were just pointing out that the person with the good heart is bringing his dumb friends to the rally.

SteveG wrote: The Sloth wrote: Zappa's basic stance was that when people band together, there's trouble. The 60's movement was just another case of our group vs theirs, and I think it's smart that he didn't identify with the youth movement wholesale just because he was young. George Carlin said the same thing with different words. Something like: "If you sit down and talk with one person, you can see the universe in their eyes. Once people begin showing up in groups for a cause, I walk the other way." Obviously said for humor in part, and obviously group conformity is what the makes the world go 'round, but George and Frank were just pointing out that the person with the good heart is bringing his dumb friends to the rally.  Spoken like a true champion of the people.

Hmm...although the thread has moved me some, I don't think I really get in your terms what is supposed to count as a champion of the people. Perhaps it's just because I was an only child or something.

Why did Zappa live in Laurel Canyon with the rest of the musicians? Lived next door to Joni Mitchell. He was part of the movement.He was not on the outside looking in, he was on the inside looking out. If he was not a hippie maybe he was a dental floss technician in Montana. Beats me, I really like his music and his use of comedy as satire is spot on for the time period.A giant.

I don't think Zappa is the Uber Genius that some make him out to be (I don't think some other ones are either that are called such by proggers).   I think he was just an above average rock musician who had a hyper vigilance to make music, and he made some "classical" music.  His comments on "they're just words" is pretty meaningless when you get into linguistic studies.  Words are very, very important, for what they symbolize, what they cause in human behavior.  I think the "good book" said a lot about that. 

HackettFan wrote: brainstormer wrote: I don't think Zappa is the Uber Genius that some make him out to be (I don't think some other ones are either that are called such by proggers).   I think he was just an above average rock musician who had a hyper vigilance to make music, and he made some "classical" music.  His comments on "they're just words" is pretty meaningless when you get into linguistic studies.  Words are very, very important, for what they symbolize, what they cause in human behavior.  I think the "good book" said a lot about that.  Actually, I am a linguist in real life. One of the first points in opening any intro course involves the idea of being able to deliberate on the structure of language while abstracting away from its sociological context, which is just as arbitrary as the structure. To me, the less government is in the business of enforcing arbitrary sociological conventions the better. I'm with Zappa on this.

timothy leary wrote: Why did Zappa live in Laurel Canyon with the rest of the musicians? Lived next door to Joni Mitchell. He was part of the movement.He was not on the outside looking in, he was on the inside looking out. If he was not a hippie maybe he was a dental floss technician in Montana. Beats me, I really like his music and his use of comedy as satire is spot on for the time period.A giant.

"You can tell a pioneer by the arrows in his back."-Peter Kember of Spacemen 3.

Edited by SteveG - February 27 2015 at 16:38

brainstormer wrote: HackettFan wrote: brainstormer wrote: I don't think Zappa is the Uber Genius that some make him out to be (I don't think some other ones are either that are called such by proggers).   I think he was just an above average rock musician who had a hyper vigilance to make music, and he made some "classical" music.  His comments on "they're just words" is pretty meaningless when you get into linguistic studies.  Words are very, very important, for what they symbolize, what they cause in human behavior.  I think the "good book" said a lot about that.  Actually, I am a linguist in real life. One of the first points in opening any intro course involves the idea of being able to deliberate on the structure of language while abstracting away from its sociological context, which is just as arbitrary as the structure. To me, the less government is in the business of enforcing arbitrary sociological conventions the better. I'm with Zappa on this.

ExittheLemming wrote: HackettFan wrote: Actually, I am a linguist in real life. One of the first points in opening any intro course involves the idea of being able to deliberate on the structure of language while abstracting away from its sociological context, which is just as arbitrary as the structure. Sorry to go way off topic (that's correct, I know squat about linguistics) but is onomatopoeia an exception to this arbitrariness? e.g. words like 'cuckoo' 'woof' 'meow' 'kerrang!' etc. Similarly, do terms of endearment or affection, persuasion etc tend to deploy softer mellifluous sounds than those used for curses, scolding, warning, admonishing etc in all languages?. (The first bit of any sound ain't called the attack portion by accident) If so, isn't this a deliberate choice by the speaker to imbue the words with the intent?

Words will have meaning no matter what. Words will be imbued with intent when they're used to communicate. It doesn't matter for that whether they're arbitrary or not. Communicative intent, however, has to be interpreted by hearer, and the interpretation can sometimes bear little relation to what a speaker intended. This is called perlocutionary force, which introduces another different sort of arbitrariness. For example, raising one's voice could be interpreted as anger, or misinterpreted as anger when it's really just an extra effort to be heard. Off color language can be used to antagonize someone, but not necessarily. It could be used to establish consolidarity, as anyone who's been out with their drinking buddies knows. If you think about it, probably very few artists who use off color language are not trying to piss their intended listeners off. So, I don't think referencing the intent of the communication advances any argument in favor of censorship. It gets even more complicated if a narrative is involved (which may well be the case with Prog), because how do you properly discern what the author's intent is when all you have to work with is a fictional world filled only with the thoughts of fictional characters?

Onomatopoeia is indeed generally spoken of as being partially non-arbitrary in that the onomatopoeic word bears a relationship to a characteristic of the thing it signifies (iconicity). It's also arbitrary too, because the representation of the sound differs by convention. We say cockledoodledoo for the sound of a rooster. The word for chicken in Comanche is also the sound they say is made by a rooster, but it comes out as kokoraa. So, it's still ultimately a matter of convention. There are some other word types, one of which you mentioned, that have some partial iconicity. The overall footprint that these sort of things have any lexicon is rather minor.

Arbitrariness in language structure is subject to some nuance based upon one's theoretical dispositions. I adhere to theories that claim that grammar is influenced by general cognitive processes. But even with this, the best one can normally say is that a given grammatical fact is "well motivated by" some other mental process, rather than being "determined by" it. And oftentimes there are multiple competing motivations.


Edited by HackettFan - February 28 2015 at 11:24

A buddy of mine once asked, frustrated, "why is it that you have to cut through so much bullsh*t when listening to Zappa?" I immediately snapped, "that bullsh*t is music! Why don't ya try it sometime!" It was a fairly heated moment. Some people can't take the unrelenting abuse of Frank's music, but it's also true that less people would adore the second side of Abbey Road if it were one track under one title. It's all about the size of the bites.