Zappa.com

havent sat through all of it, but who wouldve thought that zappa would be sitting down giving an interview with a state trooper...and that that state trooper would be a huge fan.

interesting to say the least


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KFdJjVyKD8s

People often debate FZ's relationship with jazz. In that interview he clearly indicates that he has written and recorded orchestral and jazz music. "Both."

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

Wow, this really stirred up a major controversy. Thou dost protest too little.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

He made The Grand Wazoo, Waka/Jawaka, LSO, The Yellow Shark ++++++++ ad infinitum or environs - - so the jazz and orchestral thing isn't that controversial, is it, poly? Besides, nobody discusses anything much here. Look at the Early Mothers thread in Legends, Myths and Fantasies. Art Tripp III has some really interesting notes there, and you would think a living community would pick up on that, but what happens? Next to nothing.

_________________
We make a special art in an environment hostile to dreamers. Frank Zappa, 1971

im no zappologist so i gotta be missing something here

discuss what?

You can discuss anything if you have an opinion. For example: FZ is good because he rocks OR FZ is good because he has that jazz groove OR FZ is good because he understands composing OR All of the above OR FZ sucks OR None of the above, and so on.

_________________
We make a special art in an environment hostile to dreamers. Frank Zappa, 1971

hmmm, well i never doubted zappa's relationship with jazz...it was his jazzy stuff that got me into it in the first place! roxy and elsewhere (dont you ever wash that thing, bebop tango) and the trio of hot rats, wazoo, and wakka were what got me hooked on zappa.

hes got his own flavor of jazz, but then again, he has his own flavor of everything. he never did 'straight-ahead' jazz, but his style of compositions and arrangements weren't unique only to him.

listen to a big band, such as duke ellington's, or charles mingus, and you will find much more than the standard 'okay, lets do a lil introduction based off the head, then do the head, solo for about 15 minutes, trade 8s, and go back to the head'

so zappa isnt even a pioneer in that category, if thats what some people talk about when they say 'zappas relationship with jazz'

heck, a buncha serious jazz musicians ive read about and spoken too list zappa as a big influence, or somebody they just loved. my old guitar teacher, my friends brother who is a jazz guitarist, one of my favorite jazz geetar players bill frisell.

even this guy! : http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/article.php?id=27819

he was no straight ahead jazz musician, but he seemed to incorporate a lot of jazziness throughout his whole career.

i still seem to be missing something though...can somebody fill this in for between the

'People often debate FZ's relationship with jazz. In that interview he clearly indicates that he has written and recorded orchestral and jazz music. "Both."

and this in the article

'I would say that Zappa is my Duke Ellington, but I'm afraid it may result in physical violence the next time I go to the Village Vanguard' [i was there last week by the way...the place smells like a wet rug! but awesome otherwise]

Firstly I'm talking about the jazz part of the above quote here. The definition of classical is so wide open that it's not really a topic that's under question with FZ. It's pretty obvious that the guy wrote some sort of classical music.

However, many people have questioned, here and elsewhere, that FZ ever wrote actual jazz. FZ himself made various derogatory comments about jazz and that has led some people into an illusory contradiction that they had to try and extricate themselves from by redefining FZ's "jazz" music as something else. I can't be bothered finding an actual quote at the moment but I can remember many examples of this. It's always been obvious to me that he wrote jazz music. For heaven's sake, Blessed Relief was accepted into the US book of jazz standards.

The point is, that when FZ's comments about jazz were negative they were about certain aspects of it, and he himself avoided those aspects in his own jazz writing. So when he said "Jazz is not dead, it just smells funny" he was talking about what had become of jazz at a particular point in time, not what he felt about jazz period and his own jazz was actually quite inventive and mould breaking.

One of the main features about FZ's writing is that he often juxtaposed contrasting styles in single pieces and so having sometimes done this with jazz might lead a jazz purist to say it's not jazz, but some of the jazz greats of the twentieth century were already doing that before FZ came along.

NOTE for JOEFC: Zappa was asked if he wrote jazz or orchestral music and his answer was "both", meaning that he wrote both jazz and orchestral music in his own opinion.

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

This is getting interesting, because of your insights. I'm an ordinary listener and language man and can't go into musical terms with real understanding. But you guys who understand music - don't you think the whole "jazz noise" theme of 1988 is an example of Zappa's complex relationship with jazz? He used the sounds, but derided the mythology.

Zappa's insolent use of sounds and structures from other traditions is probably hard to accept for some purists. I should think that most jazz buffs would be both stimulated and put off by the Eric Dolphy Memorial Barbecue from 1988, the final nail in Zappa's jazz coffin being a Viennese Waltz to finish the insanity. How exquisitely square!

_________________
We make a special art in an environment hostile to dreamers. Frank Zappa, 1971

bingo. this is what i love about zappa the most. he takes stuff from here and there, comes up with his own oddities and puts it all together into something that is unclassifiable. some love it, some hate it, most dont wanna be bothered with it.

genre's are too restrictive and narrow-minded when it comes to 'classifying' something, as if this stuff needs to be classified to begin with...unless of course you work in marketing or the record industry.

i dont think any jazz purists would like most of his stuff, but then again, what PERIOD of jazz do they find to be so pure? surely not the fusion period of the late 60s-mid 70s, of which zappa had an influence ion it and then took a nice stroll through with his trio of fusion albums.

so i guess he never wrote anything that would be considered a classic american jazz 'standard' which may cause some to view it as not 'purely' jazz, but zappa's not purely anything aside from himself. though apparently peaches en regalia made it into one iteration of the ever-circulating 'fake' book (which escapes as to why, that one out of all, would make it)

besides, why would you wanna follow a formula thats been followed for ages anyways?

his jazz-y-ness is seen throughout a lot of his music, and that for me is enough to see him as somewhat of a jazz-y guy.

i have to hear this Viennese waltz



yea, classical is a bit too broad when ya think about it



and blessed relief is fucking extraordinary. that alone should put to bed any doubts that he never wrote 'jazz' music as a focus

Classical isn't, in the straight sense of the word. It refers to a very certain style that ran from mid 1700s to mid 1800s, roughly. The three main names for classical are Haydn, Mozart, and early Beethoven.

_________________

Join the PackardGoose forum! Send me a PM!

I hear what you're saying Bonny and I know about the original definition myself, but during the twentieth century many established music commentators broadened the definition. When FZ indicated he'd written classical music he was obviously using the broader sense of the word. For some people it simply means music written for an orchestra. Others distinguish the broader use of the term by calling it modern classical.

I suppose back when music seemed to be developing in fairly clear cut stages - baroque, classical, romantic etc - terms were a lot easier to define. On the other hand, how do you untangle what to call twentieth century music?

_________________
The way I see it Barry, this should be a very dynamite show.

probably in retrospect. its like when they separate periods of time into 'ages' one cant think of it when living in it, but many years later you can get a broader view

I'm not sure about how the English terminology works, but Dutchies use the terms "art music" and "light music".

_________________

Join the PackardGoose forum! Send me a PM!

I think what you are saying is over analyzing a bit, twentieth century music seems a little restrictive given international approaches, ie; varese or lombardo etc..

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph

With one problem. You are saying that to a rock audience that is not necessarily in step with that idea or possibly understand it well enough. I posted in the other thread ... how many of us even have a Varese album and can honestly say that we gave it a fair ear and can do a "review" of that album here?



Something hit me good on the previous groove ... and it is the problem with a lot of American tastes in music and their "definition" of music, that prevents new music from coming out.

It was stated with a joke, and it was a beautiful one ... but also a sad one. And I'm going to kinda have fun with it.

Jazz has to have a "groove"?

Rock has to have a "groove"?

Classical Music has to have a "groove"?

And then you hear someone busts up the groove perceptions about music, and this was what the majority of the 20th century music history was all about until it became a commercial beast and bastard that told people they couldn't do it anymore ... stoned, naked or not!

The European styles of jazz could be said to be more on the lines of Miles and his free forms ... but guess which jazz we're discussing? Not Miles' freedoms and famous trips to everywhere on stage! This is one of the things I really love about the ECM jazz label. It is not about the "jazz" at all, it's about the music and its desire to fly and fly and fly ... and yes, if my name was Frank, I would say that I do both ... you better believe I do, but the only issue is that a question like that is coming from someone that only knows the "styles" and does not know "music" ... which means the answer is ... quite zappaholic ... and could be considered very smart ass! A person that knows music and understood music would not have asked that question ... they might instead ask about some esoteric this and that in Varese and Penguins in Bondage instead, which we promptly would go ... what the fuck is he talking about? Like he didn't do this zillions of times!

what?

I have always thought of Frank as more of a Fusion guy, not really being strictly orchestral, Jazz, blues,Doo Wop, rock, alternative, or hip hop...although some works are more "pure" to their "style', in general he has mixed different "styles" to get his unique sound.