Zappa, the Family Man?

It seems that these last few weeks I'm mainly focusing on Zappa's dark side rather than anything else he did.
I could talk about his musical creativity.
I could talk about the entrepreneur he was, investing all his earnings in other musical projects.
I could talk about his great sense of satire...
No.
Instead, I'm talking about the 'Man'. What seems to interest me the most is the 'Frank' rather than the 'Zappa', and I must say there are loads of material for discussion on that topic only.

Today, my concern is on his family. In interviews and in his own biography, he shouts to anyone willing to hear him that his only true friends were his family. Nobody else. Althought it needs to be taken as a rather radical comment not exactly reflecting the truth, Zappa was indeed not famous for his attendance at parties and his social abilities.
But further readings of Miles' biography leaves me, once again, quite perplex towards this statement. I'll throw my questions to the open.
How can a man consider himself as a 'family guy' if he works more than 14 hours a day locked up in a recording studio?
How can he be a 'family man' if he does not respect his wife and collects sexual adventures?
How can he see his kids grow if he's on tour for 6 months, then back in a studio for the rest of the year?...
Moon Unit and Gail have commented on the fact that nobody was aloud in Frank's office located in the basement (although that Lennon kid lived there for more than a month). Moon also adds that their biggest fear was to disturb their dad while he was working (which is... always!).
Maybe I'm not far enough in my reading of his biography to truly understand the 'family guy' he was. Maybe his cancer changed things. Maybe, as he grew older by the end of the 80's, he was more present in his children's life. But I'm not to that point of his biography now, and I must say that from what I've read so far, I have quite a negative view of Frank as a 'man'.

But this opinion is just like my blog: in constant evolution. In two weeks time I'll probably say just the opposite of what I've just written. Man, I love contradictions!

Infiltration.

During a guest lecture he was hosting at the London School of Economics, Frank gave his idea on how individuals should think of changing the world...

"The best way to achieve lasting results is to infiltrate where you can. People should go into the communications and the military and change them from the inside. I'm afraid that everyone will have a revolution and make a mess of it. (...) The only way to make changes that will last is to do it slowly. (...) You have to use the media. The media is the key and you have to use it."

Zappa, as written in Barry Miles' biography. (p. 191-192)

And Perplexity Continues!

I'm getting more and more confused, I must say.
Maybe I'm becoming a victim (as I wrote earlier) of Miles' 'negativism' in relation to whom he thought Zappa was as a man.
Or maybe, after all, Miles was right to write all these rather harsh, or at least direct comments towards him.
My father (who first introduced me to the Man) always depicted him as the Family Guy par excellence, loving his children and wife very much, respecting them and seeing them as his only true treasure in his life. I even wrote a short post about his relationship with Gail...
I already knew, when I wrote it a couple of weeks ago, that Frank cheated on her in many occasions while on tour. But I'm now seriously doubting of the true sincerity and integrity of Zappa towards his family, particularly towards his wife. I mean, how can you represent a perfect couple when the man is running around with any groupie he can find, or with any girls at all? His story with Nigey Lennon is quite disturbing, I must say, especially since Gail had already given birth to two kids, and that Nigey was more than 10 years younger than Zappa (oh, and as a minor side fact: a MINOR). What is even more intriguing is to read Nigey's comment on Frank sexual preferences... which, true or not, I'm not going to quote here.

I understand that a couple can be open-minded, that a guy (or a girl) can make mistakes and realize the importance of his family. I also know that Zappa always said that a healthy sex life would heal America of its impotence and depression and that his only true love was with music... But how far are you willing to go, really?
Miles writes that Gail seemed to be really annoyed by his husband running around. I wonder if something will make him change, will make him go back to his family for good.
I haven't read that part yet, and I'm really wondering what will come next.

Quote... Or Not.

I just read Miles' passage on the separation of the first Mothers of Invention band (p. 185 and later).

I must say that I am quite perplex regarding the situation. It seems that it left everyone bitter towards Zappa. I first wanted to quote the passage, since it is quite self-explanatory, but it would almost be a matter of copy/pasting 2 or 3 pages... Might as well read the whole thing from the book itself!

Anyhow, from what we know today, I think it is easy to understand the band's feelings regarding Zappa. But my comment will not be on these feelings per se. Because what I sense from the conflict is more than a question of "who did this to whom and for what motive"... 

Now this is just what I perceived from my readings and research (and is merely simply an opinion), but it feels that it is impossible to get an impartial view of the conflict, which gives it an even bigger dramatic proportion. On one side, you have Zappa, on the other, the frustrated band members. But there's also a third party: the writer. I will take Miles as an example since he's the primal reading material we have to do for the course. 

What I mean by a "third party" is that you can sense that Miles does not take an objective point of view when he writes about the conflict. But it is also impossible to know on what side he is truly on. 

The few pages relating the separation are filled with quotes of Zappa and Jimmy Carl Black. Miles (who I'm guessing chose the quotes) exposes the worst in both, creating an instant debate between everyone's argument. Why would he do such a thing? Why would he accentuate a conflict by purposely showing the selfish side of Zappa and the greediness of Black? Did he do that to highlight the conflict? To present it as a lost cause that was fated to end this way? Or does he rather want to make a "greater" comment on  the characters, like destroying a legend?

From what I've read so far, I think it is obvious that Miles is not trying to adulate the character of Zappa. Without saying he's constantly critical, he sure sees the good and the bad in everything he did, adding his little "grain de sel" to the persona. His thesis seems to be centered around this duality and he wants to prove it to the reader, at any cost. He accentuates the "dark side" of Zappa in situations relating his control freak attitude, his strict anti-drug policy, and his general lack of interest in interpersonal relationships. These rather negative views can be founded on true events, but do clash with the over-all biographical tone of the book. 

I'm not trying to say that Zappa was a perfect man, gifted with incredible musical talent... First, we all know perfection does not exist. Second, we also know that Zappa had the career he had mainly because of his focused (one could say authoritanist) attitude towards work. But my problem is not on the man himself. It is rather on who has the authority to judge another. I think you can relate the truth of an individual's life (the good and the bad) without imposing your judgement on the reader - or without subtly adding hidden opinions which could lead to such an interpretation... I think Miles is so focused on imposing the truth (or destroying the 'perfect' myth of Zappa) that it transcend too much in his book. 

The problem with that is the following: ultimately, instead on focusing on Zappa's true flaws, I tend to focus on Miles' opinions on such flaws...