Author |
Topic Search Topic Options
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17370
|
Posted: February 21 2015 at 11:41 |
SteveG wrote:
CPicard wrote:
The art of enema in Zappa's works: how the lower-class received it. Discuss. You have two hours.
| One of Zappa's sickest songs that did not go down well with many feminist groups. Zappa also had an old school anti feminism streak which is surprising for someone as progressive leaning as he was.
(From the biography: Zappa by Barry Miles Published 2004.) |
I'm about to read that book ... I would think that it was not anti-feminism, but probably more militant than anything else. I find it hard to believe that he did not enjoy, or care for a woman, or her ... personal space! There is nothing wrong with having fun while at it, but it would be easy to mis-interpret frolics in the hay as ... not progressive!
I would think that the extreme side of it was the part that might have been ... a bit more far out ... I'll review the book when I'm done. Reading Pattie Boyd's right now.
Edited by moshkito - February 22 2015 at 10:38
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: February 21 2015 at 18:13 |
"Feminazism"... f**k, that's the most stupid word I ever read on this forum! And that's a lot to say!
|
|
timothy leary
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 29 2005
Location: Lilliwaup, Wa.
Status: Offline
Points: 5319
|
Posted: February 21 2015 at 19:11 |
A Rush Limbaugh word^very stupid
|
|
Toaster Mantis
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 12 2008
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 5898
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 03:27 |
I don't think I've ever heard people mention that term since at least 2007.
|
"The past is not some static being, it is not a previous present, nor a present that has passed away; the past has its own dynamic being which is constantly renewed and renewing." - Claire Colebrook
|
|
moshkito
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 04 2007
Location: Grok City
Status: Offline
Points: 17370
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 10:37 |
CPicard wrote:
"Feminazism"... f**k, that's the most stupid word I ever read on this forum! And that's a lot to say!
|
Changing the word, since the folks replying here are too feminazi to stay on course with the discussion instead of going sillyputty on a term that was used lightly and not meant to sound anything but "militant", or similar words that are not on my every day vocabulary.
Take your anti-foreign attitudes somewhere else and regurgitate them plz!
|
Music is not just for listening ... it is for LIVING ... you got to feel it to know what's it about! Not being told! www.pedrosena.com
|
|
Slartibartfast
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator / In Memoriam
Joined: April 29 2006
Location: Atlantais
Status: Offline
Points: 29630
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 11:37 |
You do know that feminazi was coined by a big fat idiot blowhard who has a radio show...
SteveG wrote:
I am a prog fan, after all. However, Zappa's political commentary and satires will always leave me cold. Was he laughing with us, or simply at us? Was he a man FOR the people or a man FAR from the people?
|
I like most of what Zappa has done and including the political commentary and satires. In fact if cut out all of that from the music in his discograpy, it would have some holes in it. Which leads me to the conclusion that you really don't like Zappa. As for your question, it depends on who us is. Zappa spoke truth to power in his lyrics.
Edited by Slartibartfast - February 22 2015 at 11:40
|
Released date are often when it it impacted you but recorded dates are when it really happened...
|
|
CPicard
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 03 2008
Location: Là, sui monti.
Status: Offline
Points: 10841
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 12:22 |
moshkito wrote:
CPicard wrote:
"Feminazism"... f**k, that's the most stupid word I ever read on this forum! And that's a lot to say!
|
Changing the word, since the folks replying here are too feminazi to stay on course with the discussion instead of going sillyputty on a term that was used lightly and not meant to sound anything but "militant", or similar words that are not on my every day vocabulary.
Take your anti-foreign attitudes somewhere else and regurgitate them plz! |
My "anti-foreign attitudes"?... Poor moron, I'm French (with Arabian-speaking grand-grand-parents, qui plus est). Sorry if I have some difficulties to think that "nazi" is a term that can be used "lightly". I guess having heard some jewish friends talking about grand-parents hiding in fear of being deportated in the death camps, having read Maus and that kind of stuff... make me lose my sense of humor. So, maybe it's that hour of the day when you have to take your pills, the ones which help you to keep in touch in the reality. Tsss, tsss.
|
|
SteveG
Forum Senior Member
Joined: April 11 2014
Location: Kyiv In Spirit
Status: Offline
Points: 20602
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 12:29 |
Slartibartfast wrote:
You do know that feminazi was coined by a big fat idiot blowhard who has a radio show...
SteveG wrote:
I am a prog fan, after all. However, Zappa's political commentary and satires will always leave me cold. Was he laughing with us, or simply at us? Was he a man FOR the people or a man FAR from the people?
| I like most of what Zappa has done and including the political commentary and satires. In fact if cut out all of that from the music in his discograpy, it would have some holes in it. Which leads me to the conclusion that you really don't like Zappa.
As for your question, it depends on who us is. Zappa spoke truth to power in his lyrics.
|
Do you not know the difference between the words like and love, or devotion and appreciation? I used the word 'like' to describe my feeling towards Zappa's work. I can understand your confusion in this 'it's either black or white' only world we inhabit but I cannot my modify my descriptive to be any simpler. And from your post you sound like you fall into the love and devotion camp.
Edited by SteveG - February 22 2015 at 12:56
|
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 16:40 |
Zappa was not a conservative. Not even remotely conservative. He was a liberal libertarian. (A conservative libertarian pays lip service to individualism and such, but really only cares about economic issues). Zappa was always comfortable with the ACLU, for instance. If you call Zappa a conservative, you might as well call Noam Chomsky one too. Both are liberal libertarians. Now what Zappa was not was a collectivist liberal for sure.
SteveG wrote:
For politically active people of my generation, Zappa's anti hippie "you are nothing but sheep" stance did not go down well. In the sixties, it would have been impossible for a single individual to protest against social atrocities such as racism and an immoral and illegal war. |
Again, this is true. Zappa was not a collectivist liberal. He did, by the way, incorporate anti-war stances in his freak shows. In actuality, I think Zappa was mostly critical of the San Francisco version of the Hippies, kind of thought of them as something comparable to urban cowboys, if you'll allow that analogy.
SteveG wrote:
The idea of the counter culture was to NOT blindly follow people and ideologies like sheep. Was it fool proof and always successful? Of course not as nothing of this type ever is. |
I think Zappa would plainly disagree with you here. I have to concur with Zappa on this point. Culture or counter culture makes no difference. Cultures ALWAYS blindly follow people and ideologies like sheep. There is no other definition for culture that can make it otherwise. I should add that I'm not precisely aligned with Zappa politically. I make an effort to strike a balance between collectivist and libertarian approaches to liberalism. I never agreed with Zappa's stance on labor unions, for instance.
Edited by HackettFan - February 22 2015 at 16:50
|
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 16:53 |
It's something to check on certainly, but I do believe that Jimi Hendrix was to the right of Frank Zappa on the Viet Nam War.
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 19:26 |
HackettFan wrote:
Zappa was not a conservative. Not even remotely conservative. He was a liberal libertarian. (A conservative libertarian pays lip service to individualism and such, but really only cares about economic issues). Zappa was always comfortable with the ACLU, for instance. If you call Zappa a conservative, you might as well call Noam Chomsky one too. Both are liberal libertarians. Now what Zappa was not was a collectivist liberal for sure.
| "If you care about other people, that’s now a very dangerous idea. If
you care about other people, you might try to organize to undermine
power and authority. That’s not going to happen if you care only about
yourself. Maybe you can become rich, but you don’t care whether other
people’s kids can go to school, or can afford food to eat, or things
like that. In the United States, that’s called “libertarian” for some
wild reason. I mean, it’s actually highly authoritarian, but that
doctrine is extremely important for power systems as a way of atomizing
and undermining the public." Noam Chomsky giving anecdotal evidence that if Americans can confuse a conservative with a liberal, they could just as easily confuse an anarcho-syndicalist with garden furniture
|
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 20:23 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
HackettFan wrote:
Zappa was not a conservative. Not even remotely conservative. He was a liberal libertarian. (A conservative libertarian pays lip service to individualism and such, but really only cares about economic issues). Zappa was always comfortable with the ACLU, for instance. If you call Zappa a conservative, you might as well call Noam Chomsky one too. Both are liberal libertarians. Now what Zappa was not was a collectivist liberal for sure.
|
"If you care about other people, that’s now a very dangerous idea. If you care about other people, you might try to organize to undermine power and authority. That’s not going to happen if you care only about yourself. Maybe you can become rich, but you don’t care whether other people’s kids can go to school, or can afford food to eat, or things like that. In the United States, that’s called “libertarian” for some wild reason. I mean, it’s actually highly authoritarian, but that doctrine is extremely important for power systems as a way of atomizing and undermining the public." Noam Chomsky giving anecdotal evidence that if Americans can confuse a conservative with a liberal, they could just as easily confuse an anarcho-syndicalist with garden furniture
| I don't know, or might be mistaken as to what your point of using this quote is, because the use of libertarian here is the conservative American libertarianism that does not characterize Chomsky's personal views (e.g. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yxbeyn2xMQE). Possibly you are talking about Zappa caring only about himself, but I don't know where you would have gotten that from. Perhaps you are making a point about Chomsky being pro-collectivist and Zappa not, but I'm not sure to that Zappa was not in favor of volitional attempts to join forces for genuinely shared intellectual purposes. It seems to me that what he's critical of is people who simply fall into something, whatever it is, a movement maybe, for purely cultural reasons. I might also add that the hippie movement was not only not a successful political movement. It wasn't a political movement virtually at all. It was always a cultural movement. The advocates for liberal political change were the Politicos. There may have been occasional cross-membership (I use membership loosely), but these two groups should not be conflated.
Edited by HackettFan - February 22 2015 at 20:42
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 21:05 |
Zappa described himself many times as a 'conservative' yet you would contradict this flatly:
HackettFan wrote:
Zappa was not a conservative. Not even remotely conservative. |
Does this mean that Zappa completely misunderstood the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' and required a relatively anonymous music fan on a discussion forum to correct him? I admit that in a country that has never had any credible left wing cultural lineage, the terms are maybe closer in the popular consciousness than Europeans are accustomed to.
HackettFan wrote:
I'm not precisely aligned with Zappa politically. |
You're not even remotely aligned with Zappa semantically. see above
HackettFan wrote:
Cultures ALWAYS blindly follow people and ideologies like sheep. There
is no other definition for culture that can make it otherwise. |
Just because passive conditioning is the relative norm in the 1st world doesn't impinge on the positive aspects of culture. Any widely acknowledged definition will suffice - Culture: shared indigenous beliefs and voluntary practices. We create our culture, so yep, without resistance, volition and choice everyone gets the one they ultimately deserve. (Yes, Post globalisation we are very limited in what we can do to prevent this by non violent means apart from boycotting products, services and media etc)
HackettFan wrote:
It seems to me that what he's critical of is people who simply fall
into something, whatever it is, a movement maybe, for purely cultural
reasons |
You've confused conditioning/brainwashing with culture again I think. I mean, adopting a view or practice purely for cultural reasons is worse than doing something purely for financial or personal gain? Get real matey
HackettFan wrote:
I might also add that the hippie movement was not
only not a successful political movement. It wasn't a political
movement virtually at all. It was always a cultural movement. The
advocates for liberal political change were the Politicos. There may
have been occasional cross-membership (I use membership loosely), but
these two groups should not be conflated. |
You continually misunderstand culture by denying it's pivotal role in making any social and political change possible at all. I'm at a loss as to why you restrict it's significance to the realm of ideas and aesthetics only. Everything we think, say or do is ultimately accepted or rejected within our culture. (every revolution started in the head) It should be self-evident that politics would be a non sequiter unless there were shared indigenous beliefs and voluntary practices already in place i.e. people. Culture begets politics and not vice versa.
Edited by ExittheLemming - February 22 2015 at 21:42
|
|
HackettFan
Forum Senior Member
Joined: June 20 2012
Location: Oklahoma
Status: Offline
Points: 7951
|
Posted: February 22 2015 at 22:23 |
ExittheLemming wrote:
Zappa described himself many times as a 'conservative' yet you would contradict this flatly:
HackettFan wrote:
Zappa was not a conservative. Not even remotely conservative. |
|
Yes, I do. I could be wrong because I've never seen these references, unless you include references to libertarianism. In the YouTube reference I offered Chomsky also describes himself as a conservative. A certain amount of nuance is needed with words that are used in different ways at different times. I am critical of the effect that constant software updates has on the effort to archive endangered languages. Perhaps I am a conservative.
ExittheLemming wrote:
Does this mean that Zappa completely misunderstood the terms 'liberal' and 'conservative' and required a relatively anonymous music fan on a discussion forum to correct him? I admit that in a country that has never had any credible left wing cultural lineage, the terms are maybe closer in the popular consciousness than Europeans are accustomed to. |
Addressed above.
HackettFan wrote:
I'm not precisely aligned with Zappa politically. |
ExittheLemming wrote:
You're not even remotely aligned with Zappa semantically. see above |
Addressed above.
HackettFan wrote:
Cultures ALWAYS blindly follow people and ideologies like sheep. There is no other definition for culture that can make it otherwise. |
ExittheLemming wrote:
Just because passive conditioning is the relative norm in the 1st world doesn't impinge on the positive aspects of culture. Any widely acknowledged definition will suffice - Culture: shared indigenous beliefs and voluntary practices. We create our culture, so yep, without resistance, volition and choice everyone gets the one they ultimately deserve. (Yes, Post globalisation we are very limited in what we can do to prevent this by non violent means apart from boycotting products, services and media etc) |
There is nothing necessarily or even predominantly volitional about culture. It is imposed on us by the culture, oftentimes as rather unwilling children. Also, shared indigenous beliefs do not happen of their own accord through some amazing coincidence of converging thought. We get common indigenous beliefs from culture. Common indigenous beliefs are manipulated by culture not the other way around.
HackettFan wrote:
It seems to me that what he's critical of is people who simply fall into something, whatever it is, a movement maybe, for purely cultural reasons |
ExittheLemming wrote:
You've confused conditioning/brainwashing with culture again I think. I mean, adopting a view or practice purely for cultural reasons is worse than doing something purely for financial or personal gain? Get real matey[IMG]smileys/smiley2.gif" alt="Wink" title="Wink[/IMG [QUOTE=ExittheLemming]] |
This was a representation of Zappa's views, and I think the representation is quite apt. As to which is worse, doing something for cultural reasons or for financial reasons, I have staked no claim. I would point out that Noam Chomsky's numerous federally funded grants came heavily from the military. I think he would say that he took their money without offering anything beyond pure theory. Zappa also got lots of money, but threw lots of that money into music gear, getting musical pieces scored and played and so on.
Edited by HackettFan - February 22 2015 at 22:30
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 00:34 |
HackettFan wrote:
There is nothing necessarily or even predominantly volitional about
culture. It is imposed on us by the culture, oftentimes as rather
unwilling children. Also, shared indigenous beliefs do not happen of
their own accord through some amazing coincidence of converging thought.
We get common indigenous beliefs from culture. Common indigenous
beliefs are manipulated by culture not the other way around. |
Now you're on the cusp of 'say what?'. How can a choice to share/disavow a belief or endorse/reject a practice not be voluntary? When you say culture is imposed on us by erm...culture what is it exactly that you think this second culture might conceivably be? Once again, I suspect you mean that when culture is manipulated and distorted for expedient ends by powerful industrial and economic players to control and stifle dissent amongst the populace, that is NOT culture. It's a control mechanism, pure and simple and we might at least both agree on that. It is not even an example of that modern misnomer: ' a culture of manipulation, distortion and expediency' (culture cannot be defined in terms of attributes that are injurious to its adherents e.g. 'a culture of genocide/suicide' would be reductio ad absurdum). The Germans likened culture/ bildung as being something like 'the shared fruits of independent thinking' I'm starting to think that the very notion of shared beliefs and practices being healthy is maybe anathema to libertarians? Me?, I'll just stick to being a right of centre hard-nosed Feminazi
Edited by ExittheLemming - February 23 2015 at 00:36
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 03:08 |
If you make hardcore satire, you will attack and offend everyone. Basicly because everyone is redicilous if you expose there "belives" to the extreme. Conservatives will think you are "left", Lefties would call you Conservative, and that is actualy the idear. You will attack systems and belives of any kind, Coverment, Religion, Military ect. ect Just like "Charli Hebdo"
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 03:26 |
tamijo wrote:
If you make hardcore satire, you will attack and offend everyone. Basicly because everyone is redicilous if you expose there "belives" to the extreme.Conservatives will think you are "left", Lefties would call you Conservative, and that is actualy the idear. You will attack systems and belives of any kind, Coverment, Religion, Military ect. ect Just like "Charli Hebdo" |
Hardcore satire, by your definition, makes sincerity impossible so why should we believe them?
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 03:39 |
Satire of not supposed to be belived. Its ment to expose certian (often problematic) aspects about something.
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
ExittheLemming
Forum Senior Member
Joined: October 19 2007
Location: Penal Colony
Status: Offline
Points: 11415
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 04:17 |
tamijo wrote:
Satire of not supposed to be belived. Its ment to expose certian (often problematic) aspects about something. |
I don't think you understand. If a hardcore satirist chooses to be sincere, no-one will ever believe him or her, ergo they can never claim an armistice from ridicule. If they would have us believe 'everything sucks' then the onus is on the artist to offer something in its place that they might deem worthy of respect. (otherwise you're just decorating the dung heap with your own scatological and prurient s.h.i.t ) Perhaps Zappas's more formal 'orchestral' instrumental music is as close to a sincere artistic expression he ever approached in his entire life?
|
|
Flight123
Forum Senior Member
Joined: September 01 2010
Location: Sohar, Oman
Status: Offline
Points: 1399
|
Posted: February 23 2015 at 05:24 |
Would agree with the latter statement. Has anybody read any Jonathan Swift? He was certainly the Zappa of his times, especially in his use of disgust as a satirical device.
|
|