This one is intended for Frank Zappa fans.
Zappa had a fascinating life that deserves to be scrutinized in detail. Alex Winter's documentary is the definitive study of the man and his work, but I'd love to see a fictionalized version of FZ's life. Watching Annette convinces me that Adam Driver would be ideal for the role.
There was a book by Frank himself, and several others about him. There are at least two full-fledged biographies out there. I've always meant to get to them, and I finally read Zappa: A Biography, by Barry Miles. What I found within was a very mixed bag.
Miles certainly did his research. There are numerous details that I, a longtime Zappa fanatic, was unaware of. The writing is crisp and professional, even if I found a few errors. For instance, he refers to one of Frank's drummers as "Ed Wackerman", a conglomeration of Ed Mann and Chad Wackerman, who were both percussionists in various bands. I blame Grove Press and their proofreaders for such mistakes.
Where I steer way away from Miles is in his loyalty to the original Mothers and his repeated insistence that everything following the breakup is inferior.
I like the first band and all the albums they did are fantastic. We're Only in it For the Money is certainly one of Frank's greatest and most important works. However, as cool as those players were, in reality they were an above average L.A. bar band. They were not equipped to play the things Zappa wrote. Could you imagine Jimmy Carl Black playing the material on Hot Rats? Black was no Terry Bozzio or Chad Wackerman. Roy Estrada couldn't hold a candle to Scott Thunes or Patrick O' Hearn. As wonderful a falsetto as Ray Collins was, Bob Martin is infinitely better.
Frank had to break up the group. He needed new, young players to challenge, and they in turn challenged him. He was a little like Roger Corman. He hired young talent, put them through the wringer, didn't pay them a lot, then cut them loose and on to greater success.
Other things grated on me. Miles was dismissive of many of Frank's lyrics, calling them dumbed down and childish. On the surface many of the songs seem to be wildly immature.
Zappa shared one thing with punk rock. His songs were a reflection of the nasty parts of society. The difference is, Zappa always wrote great music to accompany his scathing lyrics.
To Frank, the sexual revolution was as ridiculous as anything else in the world, and his lyrics lampooned the ludicrous extremes people practiced.
Even I, a Zappa devotee, have trouble with the Flo and Eddie/Vaudeville period. I think Frank's point in some of that was to show the dark underside of the music business. He didn't merely attack right wing conservatism. Rock music, the most sacred institute for most young people, was just as corrupt as politics, and Frank portrayed the rock and roll life and music business in broad, often sickening detail.
Many Zappa critics dismiss the 80's material, but I think it is among his greatest work. The bands were increasingly proficient, and targets like Republicans and TV evangelists are as vital as anything he wrote about in the sixties.
"Doctor" Miles uses the term, "clinically" twice in one paragraph to describe Zappa's obsessive work habits as mental illness. A man who does what makes him happy, is productive and widely respected seems ideal to me.
Miles is extremely judgemental about Zappa's home and family life. He makes some pretty wild speculations about what went on behind closed doors. I am highly skeptical about much of it.
The author makes the claim that many of his critics were more intelligent than Frank (Ha!) and that he was the loser in a lot of interview disagreements (double Ha!).
Miles states that all the edits FZ did for his songs were unnecessary and instead of culling ten or fifteen elements from live recordings. they could have been done in four or five. I won't even dignify that asinine criticism with a response.
I could go on and on with the trifling comments made by Barry Miles in the book.
The latter parts of Zappa: A Biography are filled with snipes and snide observations. Miles comes off as a stuffy, pompous English windbag. I can picture Michael Palen uttering the words with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
The entire book is an odd mix. The first half is almost slavering praise, but the rest is a blend of cheap shots at Frank and grudging admiration for his talent. None of it bothered me much. I'm used to people who are offended by Frank's lyrics and interviews, those who misunderstand his worldview, and those who simply can't stand his music.
My question is, why? Why bother to write such a biased biography? These things ought to be as objective as possible. I consider a nonfiction book I reviewed a few years ago called Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction. Author Alec Nevala-Lee doesn't neglect the negative aspects of his subjects, but he doesn't stoop to crass insults and smarmy character slurs.
Maybe I am a Zappa apologist. I'll own it. He has been an inspiration to me since I stumbled upon Burnt Weenie Sandwich in my older brother's bedroom when I was around twelve years old. Frank Zappa has continually challenged me, entertained me, and electrified me. I am not unaware of his faults, but after all these years those faults seem like strengths. The man was human. A complicated, talented, sometimes frustrating and infuriating human being who gave the world a body of uncompromising work that will continue to be discussed and analyzed for centuries.
There's another Zappa bio out called Electric Don Quixote, by Neil Slaven. I plan to read it soon. Let's hope it's a lot more even-handed and not as acrimonious as Zappa: A Biography.
If nothing else I found out that a repeated Zappa phrase, Toads of the Short Forest, is a euphemism for pubic lice. For that alone I am grateful to Barry Miles.
Written by Mark Sieber
Zappa had a fascinating life that deserves to be scrutinized in detail. Alex Winter's documentary is the definitive study of the man and his work, but I'd love to see a fictionalized version of FZ's life. Watching Annette convinces me that Adam Driver would be ideal for the role.
There was a book by Frank himself, and several others about him. There are at least two full-fledged biographies out there. I've always meant to get to them, and I finally read Zappa: A Biography, by Barry Miles. What I found within was a very mixed bag.
Miles certainly did his research. There are numerous details that I, a longtime Zappa fanatic, was unaware of. The writing is crisp and professional, even if I found a few errors. For instance, he refers to one of Frank's drummers as "Ed Wackerman", a conglomeration of Ed Mann and Chad Wackerman, who were both percussionists in various bands. I blame Grove Press and their proofreaders for such mistakes.
Where I steer way away from Miles is in his loyalty to the original Mothers and his repeated insistence that everything following the breakup is inferior.
I like the first band and all the albums they did are fantastic. We're Only in it For the Money is certainly one of Frank's greatest and most important works. However, as cool as those players were, in reality they were an above average L.A. bar band. They were not equipped to play the things Zappa wrote. Could you imagine Jimmy Carl Black playing the material on Hot Rats? Black was no Terry Bozzio or Chad Wackerman. Roy Estrada couldn't hold a candle to Scott Thunes or Patrick O' Hearn. As wonderful a falsetto as Ray Collins was, Bob Martin is infinitely better.
Frank had to break up the group. He needed new, young players to challenge, and they in turn challenged him. He was a little like Roger Corman. He hired young talent, put them through the wringer, didn't pay them a lot, then cut them loose and on to greater success.
Other things grated on me. Miles was dismissive of many of Frank's lyrics, calling them dumbed down and childish. On the surface many of the songs seem to be wildly immature.
Zappa shared one thing with punk rock. His songs were a reflection of the nasty parts of society. The difference is, Zappa always wrote great music to accompany his scathing lyrics. To Frank, the sexual revolution was as ridiculous as anything else in the world, and his lyrics lampooned the ludicrous extremes people practiced.
Even I, a Zappa devotee, have trouble with the Flo and Eddie/Vaudeville period. I think Frank's point in some of that was to show the dark underside of the music business. He didn't merely attack right wing conservatism. Rock music, the most sacred institute for most young people, was just as corrupt as politics, and Frank portrayed the rock and roll life and music business in broad, often sickening detail.
Many Zappa critics dismiss the 80's material, but I think it is among his greatest work. The bands were increasingly proficient, and targets like Republicans and TV evangelists are as vital as anything he wrote about in the sixties.
"Doctor" Miles uses the term, "clinically" twice in one paragraph to describe Zappa's obsessive work habits as mental illness. A man who does what makes him happy, is productive and widely respected seems ideal to me.
Miles is extremely judgemental about Zappa's home and family life. He makes some pretty wild speculations about what went on behind closed doors. I am highly skeptical about much of it.
The author makes the claim that many of his critics were more intelligent than Frank (Ha!) and that he was the loser in a lot of interview disagreements (double Ha!).
Miles states that all the edits FZ did for his songs were unnecessary and instead of culling ten or fifteen elements from live recordings. they could have been done in four or five. I won't even dignify that asinine criticism with a response.
I could go on and on with the trifling comments made by Barry Miles in the book.
The latter parts of Zappa: A Biography are filled with snipes and snide observations. Miles comes off as a stuffy, pompous English windbag. I can picture Michael Palen uttering the words with his tongue firmly in his cheek.
The entire book is an odd mix. The first half is almost slavering praise, but the rest is a blend of cheap shots at Frank and grudging admiration for his talent. None of it bothered me much. I'm used to people who are offended by Frank's lyrics and interviews, those who misunderstand his worldview, and those who simply can't stand his music.
My question is, why? Why bother to write such a biased biography? These things ought to be as objective as possible. I consider a nonfiction book I reviewed a few years ago called Astounding: John W. Campbell, Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, L. Ron Hubbard, and the Golden Age of Science Fiction. Author Alec Nevala-Lee doesn't neglect the negative aspects of his subjects, but he doesn't stoop to crass insults and smarmy character slurs.
Maybe I am a Zappa apologist. I'll own it. He has been an inspiration to me since I stumbled upon Burnt Weenie Sandwich in my older brother's bedroom when I was around twelve years old. Frank Zappa has continually challenged me, entertained me, and electrified me. I am not unaware of his faults, but after all these years those faults seem like strengths. The man was human. A complicated, talented, sometimes frustrating and infuriating human being who gave the world a body of uncompromising work that will continue to be discussed and analyzed for centuries.
There's another Zappa bio out called Electric Don Quixote, by Neil Slaven. I plan to read it soon. Let's hope it's a lot more even-handed and not as acrimonious as Zappa: A Biography.
If nothing else I found out that a repeated Zappa phrase, Toads of the Short Forest, is a euphemism for pubic lice. For that alone I am grateful to Barry Miles.
Written by Mark Sieber
The author does not allow comments to this entry
No comments