Zappa or Beefheart - Who was the bigger genius?

This does raise an interesting question: Does someone who lacks a natural technical facility for music sometimes have the ability to generate more original ideas precisely because they are not hindered by the traditional rulebook? Of course, for all his skill, no one could accuse Zappa of being unoriginal, but I can think of other great musicians (from a technical perspective) who sometimes had trouble coloring outside the lines.

 

I'd say in Don's case it certainly did. Many Magic Band members said they had to practically relearn how to play their instruments to accomadate Don's ideas.

 

On his book about his days with Beefheart, John French compares Don playing the piano and inventing things on the spot and a monkey doing the same thing, suggesting many ideas were created by accident. I guess he's still pissed off (and rightly so) for working so hard with his band mates to make that music happen under really bad living conditions without being paid, and then, to make matters worse, not being even credited as a performer on the album (in many passages of the book he praises Don's immense talent as well, so it's not that he's denying Beefheart as a huge creative force and an incredible singer).

 

The weird thing is French kept going back to Don, time and time again. There's no denying, Drumbo did an incredible job of shaping Don's ideas.

 

Their genius manifested itself so differently that any comparison is akin to dancing about architecture.

 

Don't love throwing the word genius around but Frank's career was longer and his work had much greater depth and diversity.

I chose Frank but both guys had a lot of talent. I like them both.

 

I think that says it all. It's like walking through the modern art section in the museum saying, "well, a child could do THAT". I doubt a monkey would be capable of creating such a consistently brilliant output like Captain Beefheart. French should be grateful that his name is known in conjunction with rock and roll greatness.

 

Zappa gave him that name.

 

If I were going to use the word genius to describe one person in rock from a musical perspective it would be Frank.
If I were to use it to describe one person in rock from a lyrical perspective it would be Dylan.
That said, I personally prefer McCartney's overall body of work (Beatles included) to that of anyone else in rock.
He has the greatest melodic gift IMO, and I personally value a catalog of great melodies over evidence of musical or lyrical genius.

 

This is an excellent point.

 

Change my vote, they were both geniuses.

Zappa more musically and Beefheart lyrics and voice, but there was something cool about the way he would improvise a composition... When Big Joan Sets Up was almost punk-ish.

 

I actually think Beefheart outstrips both Dylan and Patti Smith as Rock's prime "beatnik" poet. Does Zappa do the same thing to Hendrix as a rock guitarist? I think he thought he did.

 

Musical genius?

Zappa. Exhibit 1: Hot Rats

 

^^ That's a pretty good argument... Zappa was a great guitarist and Beefheart was definitely more beatnik than Dylan and Patti...

 

Seems like we are generally having a constructive and positive celebration of a couple great musical figures here, apart from the topic cop. We do have gorts who can handle such roles as they see fit.

I believe he is. And Don should have perhaps shown more graciousness and generousity to his hard working dedicated collaborators who were also inspired and accomplished musicians.

 

I think he'd be more grateful if (a) Don had paid him for his work and (b) gave him the credit he'd promised. Still the quote does reek of sour grapes. Another common thread both Zappa and Villet share is there's no love lost between them and many of their ex employees.

 

Captain Beefheart, without question. I love Zappa & all, but I love Beefheart that much more. I prefer almost the whole Beefheart catalog over almost the whole Zappa catalog. I might dig the best Zappa over the weakest Beefheart, but that'd be all.

 

Yes we are, which was exactly my intent when I started the topic. That two of the world's most creative, genre busting true originals could grow up together in the same small, dustbowl town is astronomical.

 

I like a lot of Beefheart, but to say he was this great poet, is strictly a matter of taste, like anything else. I hardly ever know what the heck he's going on about, but that's me, I find the same thing true in a lot of poetry I have tried to read, just not my bag. I need the music!

 

As much as I love Zappa (and I really do), I have to give the nod to Beefheart.

The thing about Zappa is that he has the super genius creavity, but if you really examine it in total, it is all kinda snarky, and mocking, sarcastic, and he's very "me vs. them." With Zappa, everything comes from a place that's antagonistic towards the world, and he's even kind of a bit mean-spirited about it, sometimes. There is negativity there. Whereas with Beefheart, every note of his music and every stroke of his paintbrush, comes from a place of pure love and joy. It's more of a true "outsider" thing.

Zappa was a professional musician and a conventional businessman: he owned labels, ran a studio, he operated his bands like a conventional bandleader, he fought against censorship by engaging politically....Beefheart had no time for any of that. To me, Beefheart's genius was more like the genius of a Little Richard -- somebody who basically rejected everything so deeply, that they created an entirely different persona and artistic THING for themselves, that existed outside of reality, and he chose to live there inside of his creation, instead of in the boring everyday world with the rest of us. Little Richard and his music is a means for Richard Penniman to escape from the dreariness of being born Richard Penniman, so that he does not ever have to deal with anything in reality that he does not want to. Frank Zappa, I don't think he ever got anywhere near to that place, of making art so powerful that he was able to leave mundane reality completely behind, and just be free to soar away.

"My smile is stuck, I cannot go back to your Frownland." There's really nothing in Zappa that gets CLOSE to that. At least in my mind, it always seems like Zappa is there INSIDE Frownland, mocking people, battling Tipper Gore, doing snarky interviews and making musical puns or poking people irreverently in the eye or whatever. But Zappa's IN there, frowning, whereas Beefheart has escaped and is completely OUTSIDE of it -- he has put the fish thing on his head, he's closed the door on the world, and there's no turning back from that.

If they were both genius physicists, I think Zappa would be Oppenheimer, highly respected, warning the world about the dangers of nuclear destruction. And Beefheart would be Einstein, playing the violin or like in the famous picture where he's sticking his tongue out. Both genius, but two different levels or types of genius.

 

I think Zappa is on record as considering lyrics as an evil necessity required to sell his music.

 

I can understand what you're saying about Zappa and it can indeed be a turn off, particularly when it comes to some of his later vocal work (but even earlier on with stuff like WOIIFTM). This is why I often tend to prefer Frank's instrumental material. When I listen to Hot Rats or a live release like Imaginary Diseases, I'm never bothered by Zappa's rather jaundiced view of the world--I just hear the blissfulness of musical invention.

By the same token, stories that I've read about the way Beefheart treated his band make me seriously question this idealistic view of him as this pure hearted creator who was only in it for the art. Beefheart liked money and success as well and seems to have felt stymied by his inability to achieve it on a commercial level--and make no mistake, he certainly tried to streamline his sound for greater accessibility in the mid 70s. I suspect that while Don may have had his head in the clouds, the Magic Band had to live in Frownland while they were starving and enduring Beefheart's mind games. I don't think it's quite as black and white with Zappa and Beefheart as you're making it out to be.

 

This sounds about right, especially about Beefheart. I would say neither is a genius, though - Zappa probably comes closer, but IMHO his work (after the early '70s, that is) is often pretty drab in a fusiony manner and/or compromised by his high school locker room humour. It's the rigor with which he went about his work and his range that really impresses.

If you could've fused the two of them, though: then you might have a genius.

 

If it wasn't for locker room humor I wouldn't have listened listened to Frank Zappa at all. I think Sheik Yerbouti, Joe's Garage and You Are What You Is are some of his best works.

 

I like both but taking them as purely musical artists, Frank is the one. He was prolific in many forms, Jazz, Classical and Rock. The Captain had a mudicsl vision but others had to
make it happen