Zappa or Beefheart

Which one do you prefer?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=hxPsXPCR5MU
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

Zappa. Neither of them are all that great.

I prefer Beefheart's records, but I think from an objective point Zappa was the more talented one.

p.much this
Zappa was a more talented composer, but beefheart had the flare and originality.

Zappa. It's not even close.

Beefheart made my favourite album ever and his unfortunately pretty short discography is barely consistent because of his crappy soft rock period.
On the other side, Zappa has more good records (quantitatively) than Don but only because he published like 100 albums, and some of those aren't that great. It's pretty much a tie if you ask me.

Zappa is embarrassing Beef heart is based

It's not really a contest. Zappa was an excellent guitarist and composer and Beefheart basically just sang and wrote gibberish lyrics. I like some Captain Beefheart albums, but between the two of them as individuals, Zappa is clearly the better musician.
I would say that impressively enough, most of Zappa's albums are actually pretty good. There are a few that I've heard that I don't care for, but the majority of his material that came out while he was alive and his posthumous stuff is actually great.

I'd say that a 20% of his stuff is actually good (7 or above), 45% is average/listenable (5-6) and that finally 35% is fricking terrible (4 or below). Which isn't bad at all but not Jesus tier either.

Zappa's great at actually innovating. But I find his actual composition ability to be kinda weak despite being talented enough to essentially come up with full parts inside his head. Beefheart's the other way around. In his work you'll definitely hear some form of Blues and Jazz that's been done before, but the way he puts them together in his compositions leads to some brilliant results.

So yeah Zappa for being adventurous, Beefy for mastery.

Are you talking about Beefheart here?

I just could never get into Captain Beefheart so Zappa

Nah, apart from Unconditionally Guaranteed and Moonbeams and Blue Jeans is stuff is pretty fucking good. Talking about Zappa.

Beefheart, but Zappa was the better artist.

>Talking about Zappa.
Have you listened to all his albums?

Yes

What instrument do you play?

Keyboards. A bit of guitar as weel but certainly not at the level of playing Zappa stuff. Honestly though even though i appreciate virtuosity i don't see it as important as originality. Not like Zappa lacks any of those but oh well.

Faggots. I'm neither. I don't look up to mere men. I look up to meer men.

>A so far pretty civilized conversation
*POOOOOOOOOO
HERE I AM. POOP MAN
>Man: Holy shit it's poop man
>Women: I LUVV YOU POOP MAN
POOP MAN IS GOING TO TOWNNNN
FAST N BULLBO?us
Whacky cray cray memes trout alsbum
It's shit eating man who eats shit ewwwww

>taking it there
kek

Face it dude not every Zappa album was spectacular.

>plebs who listen to music for the lyrics only don't understand complex instrumentals

Zappa is ultimate pleb filter

Correct About 68% was.
>originality
Not relevant

If you think only 20% is actually good, you are musically illiterate.

>Correct About 68% was.
probably still pushing it

>If you think only 20% is actually good, you are musically illiterate.
>if you don't like it you just don't get it!
every Zappa diehard ever I swear

>Produced the best musical album of all time
>Composed the best musical album of all time
dream team desu

I'll sum up most Zappa songs

>woooooo yeeeeee I'm a crazy fag boy
>simple jazz rhythm for 10 minutes
>farts in mic
>guitar solo

Wow so complex

And still bongo fury wasn't that great

Ok pal. I certainly won't start arguing with you about Zappa considering i have a huge fucking poster of him on my wall. I'm just trying to be objective. Innovation is the key aspect in rating art forms in general and calling it not relevant uhhh in my opinion is quite wrong but do as you wish. Let's just love Zappa together, who gives a fuck anyway?

>probably still pushing it
Says someone who only listened to his 60s albums.
>you have to like it to admit it's good!
Stop pls
>I'm just trying to be objective
>Innovation is the key aspect in rating art forms
lol
>Let's just love Zappa together
>but only 1/5th of his music was good.
Wow.

>pompous jerk who made music just as an outlet to make fun of people
>wide-eyed nature mystic who presented a positive view of the world
not hard

If i love that 1/5 more than anything else why wouldn't i love him? Also even though only that 1/5 can be called masterpiece there's still another 2/5 that is quite fucking fun to hear even if not THAT good. Damn bro chill yo ass.

>Says someone who only listened to his 60s albums.
His 60s albums tend to be my least favorites of his actually but nice try.

>>you have to like it to admit it's good!
Oh just face it the man wrote plenty of shit. He had great albums too but everything he touched did not turn to gold and his attempts at comedy and satire often (usually) fell flat. Yeah he was a talented composer and all but just because a piece is well organized and structured does not make it a good song.

Which one is which?

I wouldn't call a Zappa a "nature mystic" though.
>If i love that 1/5 more than anything else why wouldn't i love him?
If you love that 1/5th, there is no reason you also wouldn't love another 2/5ths at least, since many of his albums are live recordings of the same pieces or conceptual continuity.
>Oh just face it the man wrote plenty of shit
Like what?

Almost every Mothers album for starters.

...

Zappa is the first, Beefheart the second.

Uhhh i don't think a live recording of already published stuff can be considered as important as a studio recording ya know, even if you apply some variations to the said stuff it's still that stuff

>live recording of already published stuff can be considered as important as a studio recording ya know
Wrong. Grateful Dead

Why?
Zappa thought otherwise, considering he counted them as official albums, with studio overdubs on it.

This.
Also, plenty of the best and most significant jazz recordings of all time have been live recordings.

>His 60s albums tend to be my least favorites of his actually
You either have some bizarre ass taste or are a contrarian hipster.

Zappa by far but Beefheart is a genius no doubt

If you must know, they're loaded with uninteresting songs whose themes hinge on try hard cultural critiques and satire which was neither all that clever nor poignant, at least certainly not as much as he seemed to think they were, added on by lousy attempts at humor, something that he didn't stop doing after TMoI either by the way. But to top it all off he managed to find a band of people who were even more obnoxious than he could be, against all odds.

And this is all coming from someone who loves a decent deal of his work. He could be great, but he could also be much less than that as well.

>tfw they're both dead

I dunno why, but it feels weird that they're both gone.

where were you when you realized the shaggs were what trout mask replica tried and failed to be

youtube.com/watch?v=hxPsXPCR5MU

>they're loaded with uninteresting songs
What's uninteresting about them? Like, Billy The Mountain, for example.
>themes
Oh do you listen only to lyrics?
>And this is all coming from someone who loves a decent deal of his work
The guy I was tlakign to only thought 20% was good. If you are that guy, then no.

>What's uninteresting about them? Like, Billy The Mountain, for example.
Most of them are just boring, nothing captivating about the melodies, nothing.

>Oh do you listen only to lyrics?
>well maybe he's just not listening to the whole song, that must be it
Of course not, I could just read them if that's all I was interested.

Your time would be better spent reading poetry if the lyrics of a song are the only thing you're actually engaging with.
Frank wrote pieces for The Mothers which featured some of the best musicianship and compositional complexity that had ever been seen in rock. Granted, monstrously difficult pieces like Brown Shoes Don't Make it were often made so unusal to serve comedic ends and if you find his humour in poor taste, no amount of interesting compositional features are gonna change your mind because the satire was pretty integral to his work with The Mothers.
Saying most of the songs from his early career were uninteresting is just ludicrous though. They were usually crude and juvenile but if you think Little House I Used to live in is uninteresting or bland, your standards for rock are so high that frankly you shouldn't even be bothering to listen to popular music at all.

What's boring/captivating about it specifically? Chart it out and show us

>Oh do you listen only to lyrics?
>idk but here's a strawman
If you say so
>I could just read them if that's all I was interested.
You have yet to show us you are musically intelligent in any way, that you could appreciate something that isn't lyrics.

I prefer Beefheart, but I've always thought it was foolish to try comparing them too much. Zappa was eccentric, but his music was a bit more grounded in standard foundations. With Beefheart, he didn't give a shit about any theory and just created. They are vastly different artists, despite commonly being associated with each other.

>Your time would be better spent reading poetry if the lyrics of a song are the only thing you're actually engaging with.
What kind of leap is that? It's funny that you assume that's the only thing I'm engaged in. Firstly, lyrics are a damn good reason to like/not like something, and not being keen on it doesn't mean it's the only thing being taken in. Unfortunately particularly early Zappa doesn't have much else to get engaged in, unless of course complex compositions alone do it for you, but then again very few of them are even actually all that complex anyway. Most MoI songs were actually pretty simple.

Also funny that you mention BSDMI. It's one of his early songs I actually like.

who would top in a sexual relationship between Beefheart and Zappa

>idk but here's a strawman
Oh give me a break. You made that leap in the first place. I mentioned the lyrics as one thing that's not so hot about early Zappa and you jumped to "oh that must be the only part you heard then."

>You have yet to show us you are musically intelligent in any way, that you could appreciate something that isn't lyrics.
kek and what have you done? Say those who don't like everything Zappa's ever done are musically illiterate? From what standpoint should I buy your musical literacy? Because you're a diehard Zappa fan? No.

Defiantly Zappa.

Zappa

That's pretty funny but you're wrong.

they're completely different

Like your mom tites.

good one

Thanks.

>I mentioned the lyrics as one thing that's not so hot about early Zappa and you jumped to "oh that must be the only part you heard then."
You never discussed the music seriously, so its a logical conclusion that you would just listen to lyrics.

I even gave you a chance to do it. So let's see if your following response intelligently addresses the music:
>kek and what have you done? Say those who don't like everything Zappa's ever done are musically illiterate? From what standpoint should I buy your musical literacy? Because you're a diehard Zappa fan? No.
Hmmmm didn't see it there. Isn't that interesting.

>You never discussed the music seriously, so its a logical conclusion that you would just listen to lyrics.
How is it not "serious discussion" to mention his lyrics, which is something he specifically emphasized as a focal point in his music throughout his career? Even most diehards stress the importance of that. I've already mentioned other aspects of his early music which you've conveniently ignored. But by all means continue to dismiss anything you disagree with or don't have a counter for as "unserious" discussion of the music.

>I even gave you a chance to do it. So let's see if your following response intelligently addresses the music:
Any time you want to quit pretending the ball is in my court to prove something for some reason that would be nice. Yeah it is interesting that you ignored the fact that you haven't given a single reason to assume you're musically literate yet you're incessantly calling on me to do so.

I've given perfectly logical criticisms of his early music and you dismiss them as unintelligent just because you disagree.

I like beefheart more but zappa's better in an objective sense

>which is something he specifically emphasized as a focal point in his music throughout his career?
lol
>I've already mentioned other aspects of his early music which you've conveniently ignored.
Quote me where you've charted out any of his songs in this thread
>But by all means continue to dismiss anything you disagree with
If you gave a valid rationale, maybe I'd take your "opinion" seriously
>Any time you want to quit pretending the ball is in my court to prove something for some reason that would be nice.
Stop posting any time if you don't want to discuss music on a music board
>I've given perfectly logical criticisms of his early music
"Ugh I just don't like it d00d" isn't really a logical criticism

Zappa. Beefheart was nothing without the first Magic Band.

Zappa has 15 + essential albums. Yet Beefheart was more "interesting". I like both there! It's like choosing between New Order and Depeche Mode, I can't do it!

Not the guy you are arguing with but you are clearly autistic.

>implying Shiny Beast/Bat Chain Puller, Doc at the Radar Station, and Ice Cream For Crow aren't essential

>a logical argument?
>wow what an autist!

Not really.

>lol
>no counter
Figured. They were by the way, any Zappa fan knows this. Even with his big fans. Point out lousy attempts at comedy and many Zappa fans will be quick to tell you it's actually satire, etc.
>Quote me where you've charted out any of his songs in this thread
I'm not about to map out his songs for you, besides, you've got no standards for what qualifies as "serious" anyway. I give a criticism, you dismiss it as trivial. What do you want? Time signatures? Not all that intricate in early Zappa and the meter changes are relatively pedestrian, ie not complex. Atypical chord or key changes? Sure, he had some, but not much that stands out compared to some of his peers at the time. I've mentioned boring melodies, simple song structures, and try hard lyrics (as much as you pretend it's not a criticism). What else do you want to measure it by? How easily you can dance to it? If you'd laid out a specific for a single thing, maybe you'd have gotten one.
>If you gave a valid rationale, maybe I'd take your "opinion" seriously
Once again, only an "invalid opinion" because you disagree.
>Stop posting any time if you don't want to discuss music on a music board
Oh that's what we've been doing, but let's not pretend you're not acting like we're supposed to assume you're musically literate for some arbitrary reason and that its up to me to prove I am too. And why exactly are we to assume this? Because you apparently love early Zappa and I don't. That's a bullshit way to try to tilt the tables from the start.
>"Ugh I just don't like it d00d" isn't really a logical criticism
In the end that's actually what all artistic criticism boils down to, but you won't claim what, by your standards, constitutes are "logical criticism" anyway because you'll still dismiss it so long as we disagree about whether or not Frank Zappa was perfect 100% of the time.

TL:DR

Interesting

who tf is shocker and porklung?

zappa because he's less of a meme than beefheart is.

...