A new issue of The Rondo Hatton Report is out, featuring the following contributions:
- The Origins Of IINK / Román García Albertos
- Cruisin’ For A Ruben / Sue Barashy
- Zappa’s Music Is A Time Machine / Guillaume Dauzou & Sabrina Bergamin
- Nostalgia For The Old Folks? / Tom Demonay
- I’m A Bandleader / Richard Hemmings
- Ten (Zen) Commendments / Simon Prentis
- Pourquoi Vouloir Mettre Un Caniche Dans Un Bocal? / John Raby
- A View From India / Mahesh Ramchandani
- There Is Such A Thing As Progress / Hugo Vanneck
- One More Time For The World / English Versions
The free download is available here for your reading pleasure.
It’s Bob Day here at KUR…
…just read the “■The Origins Of IINK / Román García Albertos” article. Fun stuff. I look forward to reading the rest of the “Report”.
Román’s article – great! Always loved that site – thanks for the work!
Nice reading.
Roman still haven’t made a page for Greasy Love Songs. I wonder what’s happening…
The Origins Of IINK / Román García Albertos” is by far the best article in this issue. I would have hoped for more critical analysis of Zappa and his music, though, before many of the articles descended into biased Zappa-speak. Why this constant comparison between The Grande Mothers and Zappa Plays Zappa as though ZPZ were the better band? Both are unique in their own right, in my opinion. One appealing to a newer generation (ZPZ), while the other appeals to a fans more familiar with the original Mothers. It’s an important distinction to remember that the original Mothers band (then the Soul Giants) was a band for which Zappa auditioned. All the other bands were his bands. This distinction tends to get muddled along the way in certain fans (and heirs) efforts to assassinate the characters, and the musicianship, of the original Mothers.
I especially liked one line from Mahesh’s piece: “[Zappa] was really thinking from his heart”. That is very perceptive and I totally agree. The George Szell aphorism always struck me as right: “Music is something you feel with your mind and think about with your heart”. In other words, music is a nexus – that’s why it’s The Best.
[quote comment=”11387″]I especially liked one line from Mahesh’s piece: “[Zappa] was really thinking from his heart”. That is very perceptive and I totally agree. The George Szell aphorism always struck me as right: “Music is something you feel with your mind and think about with your heart”. In other words, music is a nexus – that’s why it’s The Best.[/quote]
While I agree that music “is something you feel with your mind and think about with your heart” in terms of what one likes or dislikes – a very esoteric distinction at best – but hardly solely a mind/heart nexus when it comes to Zappa’s music, itself. To suggest that Zappa’s music cannot be studied, and appreciated, objectively does his collective work, and his influence on contemporary musical forms, an immense disservice.
[quote post=”3701″]To suggest that Zappa’s music cannot be studied, and appreciated, objectively does his collective work, and his influence on contemporary musical forms, an immense disservice.[/quote]
I agree. That’s why I didn’t ‘suggest’ what you said. The Szell quote is not about analysis – Szell himself was a super brainiac and hardly anti-intellectual. Don’t forget about the first part of the aphorism, the ‘feeling with your brain’ part. That means using your brain at such a high level that you are ‘feeling’ with it. I’d also say that that arrangement isn’t exclusive; for example, you also feel music in your BODY, something Zappa was at pains to demonstrate. The aphorism is a little deeper than ‘in terms of what one likes and dislikes’, too.
[quote comment=”11391″][quote post=”3701″]To suggest that Zappa’s music cannot be studied, and appreciated, objectively does his collective work, and his influence on contemporary musical forms, an immense disservice.[/quote]
I agree. That’s why I didn’t ‘suggest’ what you said. The Szell quote is not about analysis – Szell himself was a super brainiac and hardly anti-intellectual. Don’t forget about the first part of the aphorism, the ‘feeling with your brain’ part. That means using your brain at such a high level that you are ‘feeling’ with it. I’d also say that that arrangement isn’t exclusive; for example, you also feel music in your BODY, something Zappa was at pains to demonstrate. The aphorism is a little deeper than ‘in terms of what one likes and dislikes’, too.[/quote]
First of all, I wasn’t endeavoring to put any words in your mouth, jonnybutter. I apologize if it at all appeared that way to you.
While I appreciate what ‘The Rondo Hatton Report’ is trying to do – provide a vehicle for the views of Zappaphiles worldwide – I am not entirely sure what, if anything, they are accomplishing that a weblog does just as well (and sometimes better) considering the length and content of their essays are comparable to many of the lengthier posts here at KUR.
Getting back to the line from Mahesh’s piece: “[Zappa] was really thinking from his heart” – how does Mahesh support this conclusion? And I mean without the use of gratuitous Zappa-speak, the use of which, after 4 decades of Zappa freakdom makes me cringe, especially in a so-called essay about Zappa. Personal opinion is fine when talking about Zappa fandon from a sociological and anthropological perspective, yet once we begin speaking about Zappa’s music, its effect on popular culture, I believe it absolutely necessary to back up one’s thoughts and ideas with firm examples and relevant sources so that we can all speak from the same page. Otherwise, any attempt at objective collective discussion of Zappa is doomed to jibber-jabber.
I know what you mean about the jibber jabber, UG. And I don’t think the dichotomy between head and heart Mahesh mentions in his essay is really useful – it’s not ‘either-or’, which is the whole point, a point I hope he was synthesizing with the above mentioned quote. But I enjoyed a view from India, and liked the scene about hearing ‘Apostrophe’ playing in a carpet shop in Fez. He also hit upon some key aspects – e.g. the stupid idea that ‘good things must be boring’.
I searched the site and didn’t find a post for this. So this is off-topic. I just received Dweezil Zappa’s “Return of the son of…” double CD. It is not guitar compilation, but another live ZPZ compilation. If you like ZPZ, you will like this. The curious thing is why it is on another label and only advertised on Dweezil’s site. Is there a partying of the ways at ZFT? Maybe it’s a financial strategy that allows Dweezil more direct earnings..,post-divorce, child support and all. All the usual suspects are thanked in the liner notes. Sorry for the off-topic, but it seems this is topic-worthy on KUR.
[quote comment=”11395″]I know what you mean about the jibber jabber, UG. And I don’t think the dichotomy between head and heart Mahesh mentions in his essay is really useful – it’s not ‘either-or’, which is the whole point, a point I hope he was synthesizing with the above mentioned quote. But I enjoyed a view from India, and liked the scene about hearing ‘Apostrophe’ playing in a carpet shop in Fez. He also hit upon some key aspects – e.g. the stupid idea that ‘good things must be boring’.[/quote]
Certainly, as a personal essay, Mahesh’s essay is of interest for it’s “view from India” and how Zappa and his music is viewed internationally. I think any one of us can sympathize with his dilemma of being a sole Zappa fan in a crowd. I can still recall quite distinctly the refrain which came from the mouths of friends when I was a young Zappa freak, myself:
“Not that stinking fucking Zappaaaaaaaaahhhh!!!“
Indeed, that FZ is gaining increasing respect among listeners and musicians of my son’s generation (he’s 21 and a local campus radio DJ) gives me a certain satisfaction. While you cannot force excellent music on people, excellent music, such as Zappa’s, survives and gains acceptance over time (albeit still far from mainstream – that is one thing FZ could never be accused of being). I mean, only someone with a Sesame Street attention span would consider Zappa at all boring.
I know several musicologists who write about Zappa, among other artists, academically, but what they lack is a venue to publish their papers seriously. Frankly, what has been written about Zappa in the past, lacks a certain educated, academic authority. ‘The Rondo Hatton Report’ is a good start. I look forward to reading more essays with identifiable thesis.
For instance:
– Self-mythology in Zappa’s song’s, lyrics, and albums.
– The influence of Burroughs and Gysin’s cut-up method on the development of Zappa’s Xenocrony.
– Zappa and creative recycling in Lumpy Gravy.
My college thesis was “Chuck Berry’s My Ding-A-Ling: Novelty Song or Cry For Help?”
[quote comment=”11408″]My college thesis was “Chuck Berry’s My Ding-A-Ling: Novelty Song or Cry For Help?”[/quote]
and for that you are still paying off student loans? Your parents must be very proud!
[quote comment=”11405″]
For instance:
– Self-mythology in Zappa’s song’s, lyrics, and albums.
– The influence of Burroughs and Gysin’s cut-up method on the development of Zappa’s Xenocrony.
– Zappa and creative recycling in Lumpy Gravy.[/quote]
Let me add to this list:
– Zappa lyrics from a linguistic POV
The folks over @zappateers have one of the longest (in terms of years maintained) discussion threads i have seen so far talking about FZ’s peculiarities in using US slang. A very interesting read indeed!
What i still need to find (and have already googled my ass off to) is a good essay about FZ’s use of “wrong” grammar, e.g. in “You Are What You Is”.
[quote comment=”11405″]I know several musicologists who write about Zappa, among other artists, academically, but what they lack is a venue to publish their papers seriously. Frankly, what has been written about Zappa in the past, lacks a certain educated, academic authority. ‘The Rondo Hatton Report’ is a good start. I look forward to reading more essays with identifiable thesis.[/quote]
The RH Report seems to be a platform for anyone who has something reasonably coherent and interesting to say about Zappa, so why don’t your musicologist friends send their essays their essays there? I agree with most of what you’re saying, but Rondo Hatton is a friendly institution, and will acquire the academic weight that you ask for, if they get enough solid contributions.
[quote comment=”11405″]I know several musicologists who write about Zappa, among other artists, academically, but what they lack is a venue to publish their papers seriously. Frankly, what has been written about Zappa in the past, lacks a certain educated, academic authority. ‘The Rondo Hatton Report’ is a good start. I look forward to reading more essays with identifiable thesis.[/quote]
The RH Report seems to be a platform for anyone who has something reasonably coherent and interesting to say about Zappa, so why don’t your musicologist friends send their essays there? I agree with most of what you’re saying, but Rondo Hatton is a friendly institution, and will acquire the academic weight that you ask for, if they get enough solid contributions.
[quote post=”3701″]The RH Report seems to be a platform for anyone who has something reasonably coherent and interesting to say about Zappa, so why don’t your musicologist friends send their essays there? I agree with most of what you’re saying, but Rondo Hatton is a friendly institution, and will acquire the academic weight that you ask for, if they get enough solid contributions.[/quote]
And isn’t it the truth. There ain’t no-one stopping you! “Be the change you wish to see…”
As is being suggested, why not encourage the musicologists to publish their Zappa papers in the RH Report.
I am aware of the dearth of academic, analytical writing on Zappa’s music, and I would like to see much more out there.
And surely these publications would consider publishing academic works on Mr Z.:
Leonardo Music Journal
Perspectives of New Music
Music Theory Spectrum
[quote comment=”11415″]The folks over @zappateers have one of the longest (in terms of years maintained) discussion threads i have seen so far talking about FZ’s peculiarities in using US slang. A very interesting read indeed!
What i still need to find (and have already googled my ass off to) is a good essay about FZ’s use of “wrong” grammar, e.g. in “You Are What You Is”.[/quote]
Is FZ actually “using” wrong grammar, or is he just repeating in his songs the grammar he hears other people using? (i.e. John Smothers in “Dong Work for Yuda”). Isn’t that the role of any good artist? They weren’t his peculiarities he was reporting, they were ours, our culture’s. Then again, having grown up in the 50s, FZ was well acquainted with the effect a excellent turn of phrase could have on the masses: for instance, Great Googly Moogly, Wowie Zowie are no stranger than Flower Power and Make Love Not War, and just as easily marketable to culture of brown shoes.
[quote comment=”11428″][quote comment=”11415″]
What i still need to find (and have already googled my ass off to) is a good essay about FZ’s use of “wrong” grammar[/quote]
Is FZ actually “using” wrong grammar, or is he just repeating in his songs the grammar he hears other people using?[/quote]
He definitely used it to achieve an intended effect. I’m pretty clear about what that effect is supposed to be, namely to document the linguistic peculiarities of a certain demographic. That’s a core goal of a huge portion of his lyrics. But i think that this must be too obvious to the US listener, so nobody clears this up for us euro folks.
Once I’ve found this: Non-Standard English in FZ’s Zomby Woof (pdf)
In spite of what he used to say himself, Zappa was clearly much more than a reporter. His use of non-standard English often deviates from the deviations, and could be studied from many angles. In the 1993 conversation with Ben Watson, Zappa compared the language of Thing-Fish to Tolkien, to a rather horrified response by the Marxist Joycean, who would rather see Zappa in the light (dark) of Finnegans Wake. I’ve always perceived Zappa’s linguistic idiosyncracies more as a subversive strategy than as a report on dialectal idioms, even though you can often find a starting point for the elaborations in an actual dialect.
Dark Clothes, don’t you get the feeling that FZ was pulling Ben Watson’s leg? It’s obvious to anyone who has been interviewed by anyone at one time or other that whatever you say is filtered through the interviewer’s preconceptions. I’m certain Zappa knew this, and why he abhored rock media most of all. Furthermore, anyone who has read Ben Watson at any length has come to the same conclusion as I have that his work is more about Ben Watson than Frank Zappa. Linguistic idiosyncracies is just another form of poetic license that Zappa employed to great effect and entertainment. To suggest that he had any Marxist or Joycean intent in his use of language is absurd. I would look, first, to those making the suggestion. Isn’t it interesting that a lot of these assumptions are made by non musicians?
[quote comment=”11432″][quote comment=”11428″][quote comment=”11415″]
What i still need to find (and have already googled my ass off to) is a good essay about FZ’s use of “wrong” grammar[/quote]
Is FZ actually “using” wrong grammar, or is he just repeating in his songs the grammar he hears other people using?[/quote]
He definitely used it to achieve an intended effect. I’m pretty clear about what that effect is supposed to be, namely to document the linguistic peculiarities of a certain demographic. That’s a core goal of a huge portion of his lyrics. But i think that this must be too obvious to the US listener, so nobody clears this up for us euro folks.[/quote]
I recall Zappa being asked this very question on an early Mothers of Invention tour in Europe [Paris in 68, I think], and, to paraphrase, he couldn’t answer it then, either. Take songs about boys and girls and cars such as “Dog Breath, In The Year Of The Plague” from UNCLE MEAT:
Fuzzy Dice
Bongos in the back
My ship of love is
Ready to attack
Primer mi carucha (Chevy ’39)
Going to El Monte Legion Stadium
Pick up on my weesa (she is so divine)
Helps me stealing hub caps
Wasted all the time
Unlike the US at the time, Europe did not have the same culture surrounding the automobile. I’m sure these lyrics left many Europeans scratching their heads. What’s a weesa?
The lyrics of Dog Breath is actually a good example of idioms and themes that are elaborated beyond their original meaning to become something altogether absurd and different in Zappa’s tapestry. Remember how Zappa talked about Rembrandt’s brown as an esthetic continuum and how a theme (like blow-jobs) could have a similar purpose in his own work, a more abstract artistic function, rather than a direct pointing at the gesture as such.
Yes, it’s possible that Zappa pulled Watson’s leg, but still you obviously have to expand from the idea of the report when you construe and interpret something like Thing-Fish (and by extension the rest of Zappa’s work).
Sure, Watson flies off on the tangents, but his contribution was valuable in its time and broke new ground for Zappa studies. He’s the first to admit that his approach is preposterous – that was the exact word he used when he approached the Zappas to discuss the manuscript (although Watson seems to have forgotten this by the release of Academy Zappa, where he is saddened by Gail’s hostility and use of the same word to describe his work). Of course you risk your credibility when you try to construe and artist as something that he explicitly denies being. But among all the long-winded extensions and misinterpretations, Watson actually managed to unravel a subversive core in Zappa’s work that is important, and hard to get at with a conventional approach.
I don’t think Watson needs to be followed up to much, but he has opened some possibilities, and also shown many dead-ends, as a heeding for others. And he did make Frank characterize Joyce as a “real guy”, which most probably wouldn’t have happened in an interview with an ordinary common-sense reporter and interpreter.
[quote post=”3701″]don’t you get the feeling that FZ was pulling Ben Watson’s leg?[/quote]
I don’t think he was pulling Watson’s leg at all, and don’t know what indication you have that he was. I don’t have the book in front of me now, but I remember that part pretty well: Zappa said that Thing Fish is kind of like Tolkien inasmuch as it uses a completely invented language; I remember Zappa saying that it was like Tolkien ‘but not as good’, whereupon a ‘horrified’ Watson says something to the effect that it’s so much *better* than Tolkien.
[quote post=”3701″]What’s a weesa?[/quote]
It means ‘girlfriend’ in Pachuco. I think Zappa was really interested in what might be called ‘folk artifacts’ – folk music, slang, etc. because it is sincere – unsullied by both politics and advertising/marketing. It’s real – or ‘straight from the heart’. It almost doesn’t matter what the words mean so long as a.) they sound good or appropriate to the music (prosody), and b.) they’re made up of ‘real stuff’. You may not know why it tastes good, but it does.
While I agree, Dark Clothes, Watson “unraveled a subversive core in Zappa’s work that is important,” to suggest that this subversive core of Zappa’s work is “hard to get at with a conventional approach” is a perspective with which I completely disagree. I mean, any reading of Ben Watson – I would have his book [Frank Zappa: The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play] in front of me now if I hadn’t felt the need to give it away – it quickly becomes apparent, at least to me, that Watson’s Marxist perspective is the filter through which all his notions of Zappa is sifted. While from a literary perspective, this is somewhat interesting, it allows Watson to make the grand error: his books are not so much about Zappa than they are about how much Watson thinks he knows about Zappa, and how well he dazzles us with his critical and literary acumen.
The unique subversive qualities to be found in Zappa’s body of work doesn’t require a PHD to uncover and unravel for oneself. Certainly, a comprehension of musical notation is of much assistance, since that is where Zappa is the most subversive of all.
And armed with musical knowledge, Zappa’s words become more than just messages appropriate to the music, but counterpoints to the music, too.
When you know why it tastes good, it tastes even better.
So when FZ offers you an audio sandwich, eat it. (hold the Watson, please)
I thought you might think so, and I don’t disagree completely. But Watson managed to say in many tens of thousands word what Don Van Vliet said so succinctly in Low Yo Yo Stuff: “I only knew one Frank Zappa.” I mean to say that Watson made a point of seeking out the same subversive core in the later, more commercially viable releases that is so recognizable to anyone in the early stuff. And that’s just one of the good points about Poodle Play. I disagree with your suggestion that Watson is just an egomaniac who’s trying to dazzle us. I believe that his idiosyncracies are mostly constitutional to him, and that’s his way. Some like his style and find some insights in his writings, others just can’t be bothered. But he left a mark that can’t be ignored by any informed student of Zappa, if only to disagree with his views.
I’m with Dark Clothes here. There is no One and Only Way to analyze Zappa’s work – its multifariousness is one of its fundamental features – and by virtue of that multifariousness, the analyzer’s own personality is bound to get reflected in his end product. Watson is honest enough to just say that that is so, and he has his own particular context or point of view.
Speaking for just myself (a 40 year Zappa fan): If Poodle Play was about Watson only, I’m not sure I would’ve read the whole thing, thought provoking though it was. I was interested in the book for some of the very same reasons I was interested in Zappa in the first place.
[quote comment=”11467″]Speaking for just myself (a 40 year Zappa fan): If Poodle Play was about Watson only, I’m not sure I would’ve read the whole thing, thought provoking though it was. I was interested in the book for some of the very same reasons I was interested in Zappa in the first place.[/quote]
Agreed. What makes Watson’s “Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play” a worthy read is the sheer outrageousness of it. Regardless of wrong or right, it’s an honest, if flawed and biassed, attempt to steer right to the heart of FZ.
I think we can agree that Poodle Play was as much about Watson as it was about Zappa. To suggest that “the analyzer’s own personality is bound to get reflected” in any analysis of Zappa dooms any and all academic study of Zappa to this perpetual cult of personality (if anything, Watson has made a career out of his own particular, and peculiar, views of Zappa). Take Chanan Hanspal’s analysis of FZ’s “Be Bop Tango”, for instance, as well as “Sinister Footwear II” and “Moggio”. Compare the amount of Hanspal’s personality found in his analysis to Watson’s in Poodle Play. I find it increasingly interesting how many of these Zappologists falter when actual notes are involved in the analysis, which is, after all, the true heart of FZ.
[quote post=”3701″]I find it increasingly interesting how many of these Zappologists falter when actual notes are involved in the analysis, which is, after all, the true heart of FZ.[/quote]
I have nothing against formal analysis as an exercise, and agree with UG that Zappa best work – and there’s a ton of it – deserves that kind of attention if anybody’s does. But, a) I think, among ‘serious’ music thinkers and players, plenty DO take Zappa’s music quite seriously, and b.) the notes may be said to be the ‘true heart’ of FZ, but the music goes WAY beyond ‘the notes’, and a *total* appreciation of his work needs more than formal musical analysis.
In the Price analysis linked to in Hanspal’s, an interview with Zappa is quoted:
“Composition is a process whereby elements are organized into structure determined by the composer. This is the broadest, most general outline I can give you. If I make a film, that is a composition; it’s a matter of organizing visual elements, behavioral elements,
textural elements and space and time elements, the same way as I would organize notes on a piece of paper. I think of overall structure the same way. If I’m giving a performance with a band, the show itself is a composition involving sections, which are smaller compositions. An interview is also a composition.”
I’m glad people are trying to do rigorous formal musical analysis of Frank’s music. But there’s so much more to the work, and there’s room for the kind of analysis Watson does, too, IMO. His book isn’t the last word; maybe it’s the first word. But it’s not either/or, right?
[quote post=”3701″]To suggest that “the analyzer’s own personality is bound to get reflected” in any analysis of Zappa dooms any and all academic study of Zappa to this perpetual cult of personality [/quote]
I just can’t agree here, UG. The analyzer’s personality can’t help but be reflected, no matter how formal and rigorous the analyzer thinks s/he is. Better to admit it, at least to themselves. The work will be closer to some ideal of objectivity if you do. Zappa’s work – among a multitude of other things – gives the lie to the very conceit of an ‘unbiased’, completely abstract academic study. A key insight of Watson’s is how uncompromisingly *materialist* Zappa is, and this is of a piece with that. Frank said it over and over again in so many different ways (and Watson didn’t invent it): that he isn’t ‘pure’ and composes for the ear, and not to fulfill the ‘ole serial pedigree’; that only a very weird person eats the recipe rather than the food, etc.
Theory, analysis, ideology – these all attempts, *tools*, not ends in themselves. They can all be useful as tools, but when you start to take them too seriously – too literally – their usefulness is inversely proportional to how much you do that.
Yes, johnnybutter, it’s not either/or. I find the tools of rigorous musical analysis – theory, composition, history – useful, but hardly ends in and of themselves. They can hardly be taken too seriously, though (IMO).
True, only a very weird person eats the recipe rather than the food, still, we Zappa freaks aren’t known as the most normal of folks.
I guess we just have to agree to disagree, UG, which of course doesn’t lessen my appreciation for everything you do around here – especially, but not limited to, those fabulous mixtapes!
All rise for the flag salute (it’s almost Independence Day here in the ‘States)
[quote comment=”11484″]I guess we just have to agree to disagree, UG, which of course doesn’t lessen my appreciation for everything you do around here – especially, but not limited to, those fabulous mixtapes!
All rise for the flag salute (it’s almost Independence Day here in the ‘States)[/quote]
Indeed, we can, and do “agree to disagree”. As you suggested earlier, by FZ’s music’s own multifariousness being “one of its fundamental features” there are so many different points of entry for the fan of the maestro’s music – I certainly wouldn’t expect everyone to agree with everyone else.
I have often wondered what sort of “brown shoes” type I would have turned out to be had I not encountered Frank Zappa and The Mothers of Invention when I did. Zappa’s effect upon every author in The Rondo Hatton Report is commonly singular. FZ encouraged his fans, at all times, to think for themselves, think outside of the cultural box, so to speak – and perhaps that is Zappa’s most subversive, and lasting quality of all, and why his fans are so different from those run-of-the-mill music fans – there are depths to be found in Zappa and his music that one cannot find elsewhere. That we disagree on individual points of view and perspectives (like mine on Watson) only reveals the depth and breadth of Zappa as an overall focus of study.