Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
A DISSERTATION
OF PRINCETON UNIVERSITY
OF DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
SEPTEMBER 2007
© Copyright by Nathan John Michel, 2007. All rights reserved.
iii
Abstract
This dissertation explores the relationship between creativity and control. How
can the creative process be controlled? When does too much control make the
creative process confining and predictable? When does lack of control dissolve
Feldman, Lars von Trier, and Frank Zappa—who struggle with these questions in
that follows any kind of pre-compositional design too closely. Yet his piece Why
the score itself; second, in structural parallels between Why Patterns? and the
Danish director Lars von Trier works within the confines of strict, self-imposed
rules; but his films push these rules to the breaking point—testing, along the way,
the limits of both his characters and his audience. In his film, The Five
Obstructions, von Trier tries testing the limits of his mentor, Jørgen Leth. Von
Trier asks Leth to remake five times Leth’s short 1967 film, The Perfect Human,
iv
devises. Chapter 2 examines the conflict between these two directors—a conflict
Chapter 3 examines Frank Zappa’s record Uncle Meat, which jumps at will
organic and mechanical, which, throughout Uncle Meat, serve as metaphors for
Two compositions of my own are also included with this dissertation: The Beast1
1
Nathan Michel, The Beast. Sonig Records, 2005.
v
Table of Contents
List of Tables vi
Acknowledgments vii
Introduction 1
Chapter 1 4
Chapter 2 44
Rules of the Game: Lars von Trier and The Five Obstructions
Chapter 3 63
Appendix 105
Bibliography 121
vi
List of Tables
Figure 12 Why Patterns?, piano part – page 11, system 3 – “Music” Theme
Acknowledgments
I would like to thank the following: Paul Lansky, my advisor, and Steve Mackey,
the writing of this dissertation; Greg Smith, for guiding me through the process of
setting up my defense; and Tom Myernick at the Princeton Record Exchange, for
his excellent musical recommendations. I’d also like to thank Marilyn Ham, Cindy
Introduction
This dissertation explores the relationship between creativity and control. How
can the creative process be controlled? When does too much control make the
creative process confining and predictable? When does lack of control dissolve
Feldman, Lars von Trier, and Frank Zappa—who struggle with these questions in
that follows any kind of pre-compositional design too closely. Yet his piece Why
the score itself; second, in structural parallels between Why Patterns? and the
Danish director Lars von Trier works within the confines of strict, self-imposed
rules; but his films push these rules to the breaking point—testing, along the way,
the limits of both his characters and his audience. In his film, The Five
Obstructions, von Trier tries testing the limits of his mentor, Jørgen Leth. Von
Trier asks Leth to remake five times Leth’s short 1967 film, The Perfect Human,
2
devises. Chapter 2 examines the conflict between these two directors—a conflict
Finally, Chapter 3 examines Frank Zappa’s record Uncle Meat, which jumps at
metaphors for Zappa’s own creative struggle between control and spontaneity.
My examination of these three wildly different artists is essentially a look into the
process of making art—what me might call the “creative process.” The creative
tells us about the creative process, and vice-versa. I use the term “creativity” to
sense, creativity is like a feedback network between an ongoing process and the
products it creates.
2
BC Education – Appendix F: Glossary.1999.<http://www.bced.gov.bc.ca/irp/dan11_12/apf.htm>
(accessed February 22, 2007)
3
own attempt to make music; when I see evidence of other artists grappling with
the same issues, I feel a certain kinship. This dissertation is, essentially, an
own creative process is a struggle between control and spontaneity, this is what I
Chapter 1
of Why Patterns?
When you are involved with a sound as a sound, as a limited yet infinite thought
to borrow Einstein’s phrase, new ideas suggest themselves, need defining,
exploring, need a mind that knows it is entering a living world not a dead one.
When you set out for a living world you don’t know what to take with you because
you don’t know where you’re going. You don’t know if the temperature will be
warm or cold; you have to buy your clothes when you get there. Wasn’t there a
renowned anthropologist who insisted one must go into the field alone,
unobtrusive, in order to enter the environment without disturbing it and discover
its true essence? That’s not quite the way the Princeton University Music
Department embarks on its expeditions into the new sound world. There are such
crowds of them, they take so much with them. All their equipment, all their
machines. They come to hear; but all they hear are their own machines.
Morton Feldman, “Conversations Without Stravinsky” (1967)
As an artist, Morton Feldman travels light. He doesn’t want the burden of fancy
These things interfere with what matters most to him: the physical reality of
mantra throughout Feldman’s writings and lectures. Yet in his 1978 piece Why
layout of the score itself; second, in structural parallels between Why Patterns?
and the Jasper Johns painting Scent; and third, in stretches of systematic,
5
referential gestures, and both try to construct meaning from the ground up, using
connection between Why Patterns? and the Jasper Johns painting Scent, paying
Feldman’s use of patterns to the use of patterns by Steve Reich. Unlike Reich,
Feldman refuses to let any single pattern create the dominant “grand narrative” of
a piece. This has radical implications on the discussion of form in Why Patterns?.
Since Feldman refuses to fix the piece with his own narrative, the listener is
Part I
Why Patterns? is scored for flute (doubling on alto and bass flute), glockenspiel,
and piano. It is approximately thirty minutes long. Typical of Feldman, the piece
6
Perhaps the most striking characteristic of Why Patterns? is that the instruments
are not synchronized with each other. Just as painters stretch a canvas before
painting, so Feldman clearly drew his barlines and grouped his systems before
committing any notes to paper. The score is 15 pages long. There are 4 systems
per page, with the exception of pages 12 and 13, which have 3 systems per
page—and page 15, which has 1 system. Each of the outer instruments, the flute
and glockenspiel, has 12 measures per system. The middle instrument, the
piano, has 17 measures per system. (Again, pages 12 and 13 are an exception
since all three lines have 12 measures per system.) The prime number 17 is
framework.
Perhaps Feldman saw narrative possibilities in this framework? Even before any
notes are filled in, Feldman’s page starts to tell a story (see figure 1).
Will the piano be more active because it has more barlines per system than the
flute and glockenspiel? Since they share the same number of measures per
system, will the outer instruments “gang up” against the piano? Will they exploit
their similarity with each other and their difference from the piano? Why are the
flute and glockenspiel separated by the piano and not grouped together? Why is
the glockenspiel—the instrument with the highest register—on the bottom, where
one might normally put a bass instrument? (My instinct would be to put the piano
on the bottom for this reason.) As you see, just these empty measures are
throughout the piece, its own time signature (see figure 2).
Note first that the barlines are not equivalent.3 For example, in the first measure,
the 2/2 in the alto flute and the 2/4 in the glockenspiel parts share a common
barline in spite of the fact that one measure (the flute) contains twice as many
beats as the other measure (2/2 has four quarter notes; 2/4 has 2 quarter notes).
3
In my examples, I have tried to preserve, as accurately as possible, the spacing of barlines in
the Universal edition of Why Patterns?, which is copied in Feldman’s own hand.
8
This supports the argument that Feldman drew his barlines and systems first,
These uniform barlines point to one of the most important aspects of Why
Patterns?: the parts are not coordinated; each line moves independently of the
others; there is no overall grid. Put yet another way, the parts are non-divisible,
i.e., no common metric unit exists to which all parts can equally be reduced. In
the first system, for example, the flute line has a total of 123 sixteenth notes; the
piano has 102 sixteenth notes; and the glockenspiel, 168 sixteenth notes. If there
polyphonic music, which was notated in score format. The shift during the
shares a common pulse. The presence of this shared abstract pulse coincided
4
Justin London, “Rhythm”. Grove Music Online, Ed. L. Macy (Accessed 6 December, 2006)
<http://www.grovemusic.com>
9
There is no such underlying, abstract pulse in Why Patterns?, and, like early
Western polyphony, there are no parts for the performers; they read from score.
changing time signatures in each part as well as the slow tempo make that
the performers stay together? How do they keep from completely drifting off into
their own orbit? Isn’t this notation highly impractical? To begin answering these
questions vis-a-vis Why Patterns?, we should first look at Feldman’s ideas about
notation in general.
Feldman’s Notation
In the fifties and sixties, greatly influenced by Abstract Expressionist painting and
John Cage, Feldman experimented with different kinds of graph notation, which
Projection II from 1951, for example, only register (high, medium, low), time
values, and dynamics (soft throughout) are indicated; choice of pitch is left to the
into time, free from a compositional rhetoric.”5 But graph notation did not satisfy
Feldman; he felt it gave the performer too much freedom to improvise, and he
didn’t always like the results. For Cage, “not liking the results” wasn’t a problem
with the results themselves; it was a problem with one’s own discriminating taste.
But Feldman doesn’t buy this; he is very concerned with results. Feldman once
5
Morton Feldman, Give My Regards to Eighth Street (Cambridge, MA: Exact Change, 2000), 6.
10
told Cage: “John, the difference between the both of us is that you opened up the
door and got pneumonia and I just opened up a window and got a cold”.6 For
questions, rather than answers. Ultimately, what matters most here is that
The notation for Why Patterns?, then, can be seen as a middle-ground between
these two positions. The piece primarily uses conventional notation, but lack of
Feldman’s desire to achieve “a more flexible pacing of three very distinct colors”.7
Indeed, if Why Patterns? were notated along a fixed grid, the piece would most
likely be very different; it would not achieve the “flexible pacing” that Feldman
the independence of parts. Before moving further, let’s look at how—in addition
best way to start this discussion is to jump right in and look closely at the first
6
Steven Johnson “Jasper Johns and Morton Feldman: What Patterns?,” in The New York
Schools of Music and Visual Arts, ed. Steven Johnson (New York: Routledge, 2002), 218.
7
Feldman, 139.
11
Like most of Feldman’s pieces, Why Patterns? begins in medias res, as if the
music exists before the piece actually starts. The alto flute part opens in its
lowest register with a chromatic line that wanders around a set of adjacent
semitones B, C, C#, D [0,1,2,E]. Each note is separated from its preceding note
connected line, in spite of the close chromatic pitch content (see figure 3).
wandering quality: not only does the opening flute line fail to establish a clear
melodic profile, it also seems uncommitted to a single register. With this octave
each have only 6 notes.8 All of these factors—the chromatic wandering, the
octave displacement, the decrease in density, as well as the rests that separate
each note—work together to give the impression that the flute line is trying, but
failing, to organize into some cohesive shape. Trying is the operative word at this
stage.
8
Refer to Appendix A for a look at density and register throughout Why Patterns?
12
If the flute’s opening music is meandering and searching, then the piano’s music
is stubborn and obsessive. As already noted, the piano maintains one time
signature throughout the first page—unlike the two outer instruments, which
change time signature every measure. In terms of pitch, throughout the first page
the piano plays an F#, G dyad, which alternates, somewhat irregularly, between
In the second half of the second system, this dyad is expanded for four measures
segment overlaps with the F#, G, G#, A segment used by the flute on page one.
In spite of these shared pitches and the shared decrease in density, the piano
line and the flute line seem worlds apart. The flute is characterized by
whereas the piano dyads oscillate between two poles. But just as the octave
displacements in the flute line give the illusion of motion to what is, in fact, a
reordering of the same set of pitches, so the piano oscillates not between
different dyads, but between the same pitches in different inversions. If the flute
13
lines (flute, system 3), the piano seems to be stuck in a kind of hall of
Another important difference between the flute part and the piano part is
resonance from natural instrumental decay: the piano has it; the flute does not.
The rests that interrupt the flute line create holes in the texture—holes filled in by
the piano’s resonance. This resonance acts as syntactical glue for the piano as
the decay of each dyad dissolves into the next attack. It is as if Feldman
rather than a percussive instrument. Feldman tries to make the piano into a kind
of Aeolian Harp—a steady flow of resonance. Each new articulation of the dyad
The third character in this little drama is, of course, the glockenspiel. Sounding
two octaves above the piano dyads, the glockenspiel opens with three
tetrachords, which encompass the entire aggregate and share the same
semitone-based intervallic profile as the pitches used by the flute and piano (see
figure 5).
separated by a tritone (G#/D/Eb/A [2, 3, 8,9]). While the piano chords are voiced
focus on smaller intervals, mostly minor seconds and tritones. Systems 1 and 2
build from these intervals a mix of dyads and tetrachords, while systems 2 and 3
Like the piano, the glockenspiel has natural resonance, but this resonance is
much thinner—more “tinny” sounding—than that of the piano. The close voicing
of the glockenspiel chords exaggerates this tinny quality since the faster
parameter, that distinguishes the three instruments from each other. I imagine
flute in its lowest register—is like a thick, round blot, while the resonance of the
piano provides a thin, transparent layer of background haze over which the
“overall hue”—in which the attacks of the instruments pop around, like fireflies.
15
Resonance as Syntax
This resonance or “unifying ether” could also be thought of in less tactile, more
Feldman’s desire—already quoted above—to “project sounds into time, free from
kind of glue that binds two or more isolated events into a larger semantic unit. It
allows us to make the leap from the materiality of language (musical or linguistic)
abstract shapes and sounds which are as much part of language as the meaning
those sounds produce. One comes face to face with this materiality when
Of course, these “pure, abstract sonic shapes” are not entirely without meaning.
We may appreciate the flow of their contours and rhythms; we may marvel at
their range of tonal variation; we may even get a kind of elemental, primitive
meaning from this foreign language. Someone yelling “Fire!” in Swahili, for
example, will at least convey a sense of urgency, even if we don’t know what has
caused this urgency. In many ways, I feel that Feldman wants to create this kind
like listening to someone speak a completely foreign language: you know they
are communicating something, you just don’t know what that something is; you
16
know they are conveying a sense of urgency, for example, but you don’t know
believe, what Feldman wishes to do by “project[ing] sounds into time, free from a
something learned and regulated by rules. Artificial and arbitrary, these rules are
part of culture. Sounds, on the other hand, are part of nature; they are material,
and behave according to their own rules. The resonance of the piano, for
vibrations. Feldman wants to allow this physical, acoustic reality to speak for
itself—to tell its own story. He doesn’t want to impose his story—his own
Perhaps then, the wandering and reticence of the flute line could be read as a
needed to bind isolated gestures into larger, coherent statements. Each gap
between flute notes could represent the absence of this glue, without which the
step in and push the flute this way or that. Perhaps that is why his pieces
became so long: he was waiting, within each piece, for his materials to organize
17
argues passionately that art should rely solely on this intuition and not hide
(Stravinsky), or anything else that stands between the composer’s ear and the
sounds of the instruments. For Feldman, there is no need for these middlemen;
sounds have to say. Systems, process, and historical models all create
noise—noise that prevents the composer from hearing what it is these sounds
are trying to tell him. Perhaps this is why Feldman’s music is so quiet and slow:
he is listening to what the sounds are saying, and he invites us to listen with him.
But what does this mean anyway? Sounds don’t really say anything. Without
This in fact sounds very much like the first page of Why Patterns?: the confusion
foreground and background; the wandering flute line can barely form itself into a
four-note chromatic scale, much less a musical “theme”; and the in medias res
that we are looking for this differentiation in the wrong places: we assume it is
hidden beneath the surface, in the structure of the music, but it is the surface
In a 1969 essay, “Between Categories”, Feldman investigates this search for the
surface in both painting and music. He notes a parallel between the development
both loud and soft sounds—in music of the time. Both techniques create an
kind of crossroad where such illusionistic techniques come into conflict with the
surface of the painting itself—a surface that must be ignored if the illusion of
music”.9 Feldman seems to feel the same way about Picasso and Schoenberg
as Debussy felt about Wagner—a glorious sunset that was mistaken for the
dawn.
Danto calls “the paintiness of paint, its fluidity, its viscosity, the way it forms a
skin, the way it wrinkles when it dries too quickly, the way it conceals and
reveals, the way it pours, spatters, splashes, holds the hair marks of
Guston, Rothko, and others—found their way to the “paintiness of paint”—to the
materials. Just as Feldman tries to listen to what sounds say to him, so the
Abstract Expressionists observe the behavior of their paint, and then act
accordingly.
painter and paint is what you might call the “verbification” of painting. Note how
9
Feldman, 86.
10
Johnson, 175.
20
music) are more usually reserved for what Roland Barthes calls “the poorest of
etc.11 The difference between the adjective and the verb is, of course: time.
“Blue” is not something that takes place over time; “pours” is. In other words—as
the discussion of painting out of purely spatial terms, toward temporal ones.
of an animal, the Abstract Expressionist painting is proof that the painter was
there, in the painting, for a period of time. This could of course be said about any
painting, regardless of period or style, but Pollock and crew make this being-with-
paint-in-time the subject of their work. The Abstract Expressionists then, take
great steps along the imposingly abstract trajectory of Space and Time—a
Picasso, who found Cubism in Cezanne, developed from this a system. He failed to see
Cezanne’s more far-reaching contribution. This was not how to make an object, not how
this object exists by way of Time, in Time or about Time, but how this object exists as
11
Roland Barthes, Image Music Text (New York: Hill and Wang, 1977), 179.
21
Time. Time regained, as Proust referred to his work. Time as an image, as Aristotle
suggested. This is the area which the visual arts later began to explore. This is the area
12
which music, deluded that is was counting out the seconds, has neglected. [emphasis
in the original]
Feldman further pursues this distinction between an object existing “in Time” or
Timing versus Time: what a great way to think about the difference between
balancing act, all illustrate an acute and precise sense of Timing. Like Dr. Seuss’
Cat in the Hat, with his acrobatic attempt to balance a fishbowl on top of an
verge of imminent collapse. But it captures the tension this threat of collapse
the creative process itself—a process that, even for the most rigid of artists,
One would think that music more than any other art would be exploratory about Time. But
is it? Timing—not Time, has been passed off as the real thing in music. Beethoven, in
such works as the Hammerklavier, illustrates this perfectly. All the mosaics, all the patch
12
Feldman, 86-87.
22
quilt juxtapositions of ideas happen at the right time. One feels one is being continually
saved. But from what? Boredom perhaps. My guess is that he is saving both himself and
13
ourselves from anxiety.
Feldman then asks, “what if Beethoven went on and on without any element of
would induce anxiety in any of us. In fact we cannot even imagine this kind of
Beethoven.”14
unstructured existence”, Feldman writes. “That is, I am interested in how this wild
beast lives in the jungle—not in the zoo. I am interested in how Time exists
before we put our paws on it—our minds, our imaginations, into it.”15 But, of
course, this moment before thought and imagination is inconceivable. The act of
unstructured existence”, since all art—all human thought even—must draw some
Feldman means when he says, “everything we use to make art is precisely what
13
Feldman, 87.
14
Feldman, 87.
15
Feldman, 87.
23
kills it”, and it is at the heart of his mistrust of systems and faith in intuition. 16
and music. Between music’s construction, and its surface.”17 Clearly, Feldman’s
constant experimenting with the length of his pieces, with notation, with
form, represents his attempt to occupy this in-between position. The introduction,
in the late 1970s, of patterns into this compositional palette can also be seen in
this light. If the title “Why Patterns?” indicates some ambivalence about this new
Part II
patterns in his own work: Middle Eastern rugs and Jasper Johns’ “cross-hatch”
paintings from the 1970s.18 I would like to focus on the latter influence because
16
Feldman, 23.
17
Feldman, 88.
18
Feldman, 138-139.
24
there are some fascinating parallels between Why Patterns? and Johns’ work
essay called “Jasper Johns and Morton Feldman: What Patterns?”. I will
general. Then I will see if the introduction of these patterns into Feldman’s work
in any way alters his desire to “project sounds into time free from a compositional
rhetoric”. Do the patterns provide precisely the kind of artificial, rhetorical syntax
that Feldman wishes to avoid—the kind of syntax that interferes with natural
properties of sound? Do the patterns interfere, for example, with what we called
Feldman’s work in a way that forces us to privilege one reading over another?
In an article entitled “On the Scent of Jasper Johns”, which appeared in the
February 9, 1976 issue of New York Magazine, Thomas B. Hess shows that
Johns’ painting, Scent, from 1974, although at first appearing to be a static, “all-
marks.19
19
Thomas B. Hess, “On the Scent of Jasper Johns,” New York Magazine 9 February 1976, 67,
cited in Mark Rosenthal, Jasper Johns Work Since 1974 (Philadelphia: Philadelphia Museum of
Art, 1988), 20.
25
The painting is divided into three equally sized panels, each made with different
materials: the left panel with encaustic, the middle in oil without varnish on
unsized canvas, and the right with varnish on sized canvas. This gives each
entirely uniform field. The cross-hatches are grouped into different sized bundles
and are themselves divided into three colors—red, green, and purple. These
bundles are arranged so that no bundle of the same color is ever adjacent. What
approximately 12, 171/2, and 12 inches wide. The arrangement of these vertical
subdivisions 3 and 4 share the exact same pattern (c), as do subdivisions 6 and
if the entire pattern repeats endlessly (see figure 6). Hess also discovered further
does not see every shape simultaneously but can move between shapes by
changing focus of the eye. (This is not unlike those computer-generated images
that appear at first glance to be a uniform field of dots, but, when looked at with a
recognizable shape.)
What attracted Feldman to this Johns painting was process—not the process of
construction, but the process of perception—the way our eye “reads” the patterns
of the painting without ever being able to understand, with one look, the overall
pattern.21 We sense system and process, but that process and system remains
perpetually one step ahead of our ability to comprehend it. Feldman writes:
Johns’ canvas is more a lens, where we are guided by his eye as it travels, where the
tide, somewhat different, somewhat the same—brings to mind Cage’s dictum of imitating
nature in the manner of its operation. These paintings create, on one hand, the
concreteness we associate with a patterned art and, on the other, an abstract poetry from
22
not knowing its origins.
20
Rosenthal, 20.
21
Johnson, 224.
22
Feldman, 139.
27
Scent was the first entirely non-objective painting that Johns made. In other
significant departure for Johns, who, in the 1950s, was busy painting targets and
American flags while the Abstract Expressionists were busy painting paint. It is
appropriate then, that Feldman took inspiration from this particular Johns painting
since Why Patterns? marks a significant shift in Feldman’s own work as well.
One final note about this painting: in spite of the rigorous structuring of the
quality. The catalog for the Philadelphia Museum of Art Jasper Johns
idiosyncratic: “armed with a ‘map’ of actions to be taken, [Johns] could then revel
Now that we have seen the role these systematized patterns play in both Scent
and the larger trajectory of Johns’ work, we can now ask this question: did
article came out in that publication’s February 1976 issue. As far as I can gather,
it was the first detailed, structural analysis of Johns’ painting. Why Patterns? was
start working with patterns? There is one tantalizing clue in particular that
23
Rosenthal, 20.
28
Scent: the vertical dimensions of the subdivisions of 12, 171/2, 12 inches within
per system for the majority of Why Patterns?. As you will recall, the flute has 12
measures per system; the piano, 17 measures per system; and the glockenspiel,
seems entirely possible that he learned of these dimensions from Hess’ article.24
There are other parallels between Scent and Why Patterns?. Most obviously,
both works focus on three colors—red, green, and purple in the Johns painting
and the instrumental “colors” of flute, glockenspiel, and piano in the Feldman
Johns’ colors from Scent into musical colors? Does, for example, the flute
represent green; the glockenspiel, red; and the piano, purple? In terms of color
theory, purple is made from the combination of red and blue, green from the
made from the combination of other colors. Purple and red are therefore related
to each other because they both contain blue. Green is the anomaly in this
sense. The piano and glockenspiel are also related: both are percussion
instruments; both have resonance with natural decay. The flute is the anomaly in
24
While Johns and Feldman had been friends since the 1950s, they saw very little of each other
in the 1970s, and Johns claims to have never discussed his cross-hatch paintings with Feldman,
nor was Johns aware of Feldman’s interest in his work during this time. (Johnson, 247).
29
this case. Yet such analogies between visible color and instrumental color only
go so far. As I suggested earlier, the relative “thickness” of the sound of the flute,
in Why Patterns? and these specific colors, as if Feldman “hears” the piano as
purple and the flute as green. Instead, I see a more general motif of
a number of different levels: the primary color red is contrasted with two
secondary colors, purple and green; the similarly resonant glockenspiel and
piano are contrasted with the flute; and the symmetrical proportion of 12-17-12
provides a common structural framework for both Scent and Why Patterns?.
Perhaps Johns’ even imagined a parallel between the prime number 17 and the
There is also a recurrent diagonal motif in both Why Patterns? and Scent,
represented in the latter by angular cross-hatch marks, which provide the basis
for the painting. These marks dominate Scent, and they remain an important
theme throughout Johns’ work of the period. This diagonal motif is found at many
levels of Why Patterns? as well. Steven Johnson focuses on how the motif
30
appears in descending pitch class skeins.25 The descending chromatic line in the
This diagonal motif also appears in the “notational imagery” of Why Patterns?,
seen most clearly in repeated time signature patterns. On the first page, for
example, the flute line begins a 12 measure series that repeats three times (the
third repetition is slightly varied). Within this longer series, the glockenspiel
themselves weave between the unchanging 3/8 meter in the piano, creating a
visual effect that may be directly inspired by the interlocking of various sized
cross-hatch marks in Johns’ work as well as the weavings in rug patterns. It also
further suggests that Feldman drew his “frame” of measure numbers (12-17-12),
within which he overlayed further patterns of time signature groupings (figure 7).
25
Johnson, 233-235.
31
There are even more connections between Why Patterns? and Johns’ cross-
interesting is what he calls the “sixth piano segment”, a stretch from pages 4 to 5
of pitch in Why Patterns?. He suggests that the piece has four different kinds of
on one side, chords built from whole-tone scales on the other. Chord A includes
26
Johnson, 235-240.
32
is comprised of the semi-tone dyads and tri-tones of [23/17], [E0/T4], [01/28]; and
Chord D is made of the whole-tone dyads of [4T], [79], [1E], [06]. Johnson likens
continue the painting analogy—a palette in which Feldman can dip his brush at
will. Just as he chooses very specific instrumental colors, which he can then mix
In the essay “Crippled Symmetry”, Feldman writes the following about Why
Patterns?:
The most interesting aspect for me, composing exclusively with patterns, is that there is
not one organizational procedure more advantageous than another, perhaps because no
one pattern ever takes precedence over the others. The compositional concentration is
solely on which pattern should be reiterated and for how long, and on the character of its
28
inevitable change in to something else.
systems, at least to the extent that Feldman’s patterns remain completely local.
Unlike, say, Piano Phase, by Steve Reich, the patterns in Feldman’s late music
do not determine the large-scale form of the piece. In Piano Phase, the structure
of the piece is inseparable from tension between patterns that are “locked” and
Reich writes: “the distinctive thing about musical processes is that they determine
musical Minimalism—form and content exist at the same level; they are both
equally regulated by the same process. The process of “phasing”, for example,
determines both the form of Piano Phase—an A/B opposition between music that
is in phase and music that is out of phase—as well as the content of the
phase with each other and then lock-in at an increasingly staggered distance. For
The use of hidden structural devices in music never appealed to me. Even when all the
cards are on the table and everyone hears what is gradually happening in a musical
process, there are still enough mysteries to satisfy all. These mysteries are the
30
impersonal, unintended, psychoacoustic by-products of the intended processes.
On the one hand, we have Reich, who insists on working with “all the cards on
the table”; on the other hand, Feldman, who actually pursues the very “hidden
29
Steve Reich, Writings on Music 1965-2000 (New York: Oxford University Press, 2002), 34.
30
Reich, 35.
34
structural devices” that Reich avoids. Perhaps akin to the anecdote that Joyce
wrote Finnegans Wake “to keep the critics busy for the next three hundred
years”, Feldman seems to intentionally obscure his patterns, which at times are
regular and consistent, at other times random and unpredictable. These patterns
emerge, seeming to obey their own internal logic, but then Feldman comes along
and cuts them off without warning. It is as though Feldman toys with our desire to
find consistency—to find some overriding, grand narrative, in the work of art.
It is ironic then, that Reich speaks of the “impersonal mysteries” in his own
process pieces because it is Reich who does fix his pieces within a grand
psychoacoustic experiences of phasing and pick out our own patterns as the
process unfolds, but Reich is always right there, holding our hand, assuring us
that the process will inevitably work itself out. Reich’s process music is therefore
very much akin to observing a tiger in the zoo: it may be thrilling, but there are
Feldman is more interested in “how the wild beast lives in the jungle, not in the
zoo”, and it is precisely by refusing to impose any grand narrative on his work
boring—animal. But that is the risk Feldman is willing to take and Reich is
unwilling to take.
35
Babbitt. In fact, Feldman’s reluctance to let any single narrative dominate the
his difference from, and a similarity between, Reich and Babbitt—two composers
often seen as diametrically opposed. Both Reich and Babbitt value clarity and
order, and both work under the limits of their system—process for Reich,
narrative. With an eye towards concluding, I would now like to look at where this
refusal to provide a grand narrative has its most radical implications: large-scale
form.
Feldman’s music has a kind of indifference. It is indifferent to our desire for clarity
of form, for clear harmonic movement, for melodic development, and for rhythmic
strength of our memory, to our ability to grasp a musical “theme” and recognize
its return or transformation later in the piece. It is even indifferent to basic bodily
needs: sitting in a concert hall for a six-hour string quartet is physically taxing.
references other music in the way, say, Stravinsky’s Apollo plays on our
on our knowledge of English dance hall music. For artists like Stravinsky and The
can be shaped and reshaped in the same way colors can be combined and
Beatles do have a purely material—a purely acoustic—quality, but they also carry
with them this residual, cultural meaning. Feldman wants to strip his sounds of
this a priori, cultural meaning so other meaning can be allowed to form. Listening
into a larger organism, like an amoeba. I imagine four stages of this process in
The Meandering theme first occurs in the opening flute line and is a clear
As already discussed, the rests prevent us from hearing the close chromatic
these rests make each note seem like an isolated, self-contained entity without a
this passage—it goes on for over four minutes before changing to a different kind
37
are superimposed over changing time signature patterns, without any clear
Another instance of this isolated, monadic type gesture is what I call the Stuck
pitches is repeated, as if the instruments “forgot” what they were doing and so
Feldman writes that his own concentration is what guided his work. Perhaps
with the pen and that’s a very interesting phenomena because when I work with
the pen everything is crossed out. Some pages there is nothing crossed out and
it’s usually those pages when there is something in a continuity, you see.”31 Do
31
Feldman, 162-163.
38
Along these lines, it is interesting to note that the most static passage in Why
Patterns?—the music from page 4 to 5 in which the flute plays the note Db in the
rigorous, systematic writing. Feldman shows how strict control over his materials
actually prevents the music from “moving forward”, rather than enabling it to do
so. If such rigid systematization suffocates the music, perhaps this passage
the isolated gesture, the single-celled protozoa, the single letter. If there is any
compound gestures occurs in the flute part right after the long static stretch of
repeated Db. It is as if the flute “wakes up” from a long 2-page hibernation. There
is even a kind of birdcall quality to this passage, which is also the first time the
32
Feldman, 32.
39
flute (as opposed to the alto and bass flute) is used. Perhaps because of this
animal-like association, I call this type of compound gesture, Zoo (see figure 10).
In terms of pitch, this gesture is similar to the opening Meandering theme: both
use adjacent semitone segments and both frame musical events with silence.
The rests separating the isolated notes in the first theme become entire
measures of silence in the Zoo theme. And yet within each measure of the new
theme there is now a more complex musical figure, rather than a single pitch.
register, rhythm, and pitch. If the single notes of the Meandering theme are
analogous to single letters, then the compound figures of the Zoo theme are like
complete words. These words are trying to join together to make a sentence. At
this point, the discontinuity between these gestures suggests that this sentence
development from the seemingly endless line of single letters that opens the
The final theme, which I call “Music”, does in fact manage to at least hint at this
“commonly understood meaning”. First occurring in the flute part near the middle
40
of the piece, this theme uses the same adjacent semitone pitch relations as the
other themes, but unlike these previous themes, the pitches are not separated by
suggesting the gesture be played in a legato, cantabile manner, which marks this
The piano tries to play its own version of this “Music” theme, but it transposes the
line to the piano’s lowest register, turning the flute’s cantabile song into a murky
Figure 12 Why Patterns?, piano part – page 11, system 3 – “Music” Theme
Nevertheless, this line does manage to convey a sense of unity, which makes it
unconnected letters, and Zoo is like a string of unconnected words, then the
meaningful entity. I don’t mean to suggest, however, that this creation narrative
takes precedence over other narratives; it is simply one path through the piece.
Feldman’s music is like a vast landscape. Our goal as listeners is to find our
place in this landscape. But that doesn’t mean one path is better than another.
All activity in music reflects its process…But the question here is not predeterminate or
control. Control of the material is not really control. It is merely a device that brings us the
than the psychological benefits of a nonsystematic approach. In both cases, all we have
having arrived at a point of view. The question at hand, the real question, is whether we
33
will control the materials or choose instead to control the experience.
What does Feldman mean by making this distinction between controlling the
like what kind of chair you sit in or what kind of pen you use—but how you as an
artist choose to interact with the music you are writing, the ideas you are thinking
about.
Feldman seems to imagine two different kinds of artists in this respect. The first
33
Feldman, 65-66.
42
this composer tries to remain separate from the building blocks of his
systems absolve you from having to make decisions on the fly because the
view.” In short, they relieve what Feldman, in another essay, calls “the anxiety of
art.” But Feldman is clear about his thoughts on this matter: “Where in life we do
everything we can to avoid anxiety, in art we must pursue it.”34 Feldman seems
What this means, essentially, is that Feldman relies on his own instinct—and
part of a larger desire to avoid fixing meaning within any single controlling
34
Feldman, 32.
43
possible narratives can coexist. We have seen how Feldman achieves this in
Why Patterns? by replacing conventional musical syntax with gestures that grow
other competing narratives, and therefore, do not threaten the polysemous form
of Why Patterns? Perhaps the best evidence of all for Feldman’s wish to keep
meaning open is found in the title—Why Patterns?—which, like the music itself,
Chapter 2
Obstructions
When life gets too threatening, you have to create some sort of fantasy existence, a life
where you can control the things you can’t control in real life. That’s a fairly good reason
for creating fictions, I think.
-Lars von Trier
In the film The Five Obstructions, Lars von Trier asks his mentor, Danish
filmmaker Jørgen Leth, to remake five times Leth’s short 1967 film, The Perfect
himself devises. The first obstruction, for example: no shot can last longer than
12 frames. Although at first certain such a severe restriction could only create a
“spastic film”, Leth turns the limitation to his advantage and creates a vibrant,
syncopated work that forces von Trier to concede: “the twelve frames was a gift”.
More obstructions follow. The second film must be made in what von Trier calls
“the worst place on earth” – the red light district in Bombay. The third obstruction
a cartoon; and the fifth, perhaps ultimate obstruction: von Trier makes the film,
although Leth is credited as director. The entire movie then, becomes a kind of
duel between the two directors, with von Trier essentially trying to force Leth to
45
trip up and make a bad film. Leth’s refusal to do so is at the heart of The Five
Obstructions.
Rules
Both Leth and von Trier make films using strict, self-imposed rules. Von Trier, as
leader of the Danish film collective Dogma95, eschews cinematic illusion in favor
of handheld cameras, natural lighting, and purely diegetic sound. The Perfect
Human by Leth, on the other hand, highlights artifice by using a completely white
set, uniform lighting, symmetrically framed shots, and voice-overs. Both directors
then, work under strict, self-imposed rules, but the rules are meant to create
opposite results: von Trier wishes to avoid artifice; Leth wishes to avoid realism.
As he explains in The Five Obstructions, von Trier, as a young film student, was
In my filmic upbringing what Jørgen calls the rules of the game have always been vital.
As a teacher, Leth did not force his own rules on von Trier; he inspired the young
film student to police himself. And while Dogma95 was a direct attack on what it
continued to privilege the self-regulating “rules of the game”. In short, the rules
The Five Obstructions then, represents von Trier’s attempt to confront these
rules head on, by going after their source, Jørgen Leth. Of course, Leth did not
invent the idea that art should be governed by rules; nor did he force von Trier to
self-regulate (or “self-flagellate”, as von Trier kinkily describes it). But he clearly
represents an authority figure to von Trier, and one the younger director feels
compelled to confront.
Yet von Trier and Leth also have enormous respect for each other. Just as von
Trier lashes out at his mentor, he also describes The Five Obstructions as “a
help Jørgen Leth project”. We learn in the film that Leth suffers from bouts of
depression, which inhibit his work. Von Trier’s obstructions were a way to get
Leth to snap out of his depression and make another film. The obvious affection
the two have for each other adds an entertaining, touching aspect to the film, just
as it complicates von Trier’s motives. On the one hand, von Trier wants to help
his mentor; on the other hand, he wants to attack his mentor—particularly that
characteristic of his mentor that von Trier himself inherited: the need to self-
regulate. By attacking Leth’s need for rules, von Trier is also attacking his own
need for rules. Ironically, the obstructions von Trier imposes on Leth reproduce
the very thing they seek to challenge: he tries to break free of rules by imposing
more rules.
47
Let’s look further at von Trier’s motivation for the project, which he states to Leth
My plan is to proceed from the perfect to the human, right? That’s my agenda. Actually I
The opposition between the “perfect” and the “human” is a crucial theme
throughout The Five Obstructions. The perfect is the world of artifice and
play of ideas. It is a world viewed from the security of objective distance. The
human, on the other hand, refers to needs of the body and the less quantifiable,
more subjective world of emotion. The perfect can be controlled; the human is
less predictable. Rules invoke the world of the perfect by drawing a line between
what is acceptable and what is unacceptable. In this sense, rules are instruments
of control: formal, orderly, and rational. That von Trier and Leth impose such
rules on their work suggests they both desire this sense of control.
Yet both directors know that too much control stifles spontaneity, yielding
between the perfect and the human. Von Trier’s obstructions seek to redistribute
48
this balance in Leth by taking some control away from his mentor and keeping it
for himself. But we must return to the question: is this a selfless or selfish act?
Let’s first imagine the former—that von Trier’s obstructions are motivated entirely
by a selfless wish to help his mentor make more films—part of the “help Jørgen
Leth project”. At times, von Trier portrays himself in this nurturing role. Near the
end of the film, for example, he casts himself as an almost Christ-like figure,
telling Leth: “all your guilt I have taken upon me. You are guiltless. You are like a
little child.” Both directors laugh at this statement; it is clearly not meant to be
taken at face value. Their laughter, though, reveals a poignancy in von Trier’s
purely selfless act, impossible. The rules they impose on their work may give the
illusion of a perfect, guiltless, innocent, ordered state, but they can never actually
On the other hand, von Trier’s obstructions could be viewed as selfishness born
out of a sadistic desire to dominate another artist whom he feels threatened by.
Perhaps von Trier identified so strongly with The Perfect Human as a young film
student, he could not bear the fact that somebody else had made it. His
obstructions are an attempt to write himself into the film—to hijack authorship of
the film. He comes closest to this position in the final obstruction when he forces
Leth to read a letter that he, von Trier, wrote as if written by Leth addressed to
von Trier. He literally puts his own words into Leth’s mouth.
49
It seems then, von Trier’s motives remain mixed: a genuine desire to help
other. Another way to think about this: are von Trier’s obstructions only targeting
Leth or are they in some sense directed at von Trier himself? Von Trier says he
wants to “proceed from the perfect to the human”. Ostensibly, the obstructions
are meant to humanize Leth—with von Trier in the role of passive, objective
final letter, von Trier concedes: “it’s the attacker who really exposes himself”,
acknowledging that his position in the obstructions was far from neutral or
objective.
Crucially, this blurring of lines between subject and object is an important theme
eating, and sleeping. The observer is not seen; we only hear his voice. Impartial
and objective, the observer represents the gaze of the anthropologist, director, or
Here is the human. Here is the human. Here is the perfect human. We will see the perfect
human functioning. How does such a number function? What kind of thing is it? We will
entire film, for example, is shot in front of a completely white background, and the
lighting casts little or no shadow, making it hard to see any lines. It is impossible
to tell, for example, where the floor ends and where the wall begins. Without
space—is avoided, and the subjects seem to float in the screen, as if under a
microscope.
Of course, this impartial and objective gaze is a bluff. The controlled, scientific,
unpredictable, “human” details. At the beginning of the film, for example, the
perfect man is shown lighting a pipe. His first match doesn’t ignite so he throws it
aside and fumbles for another match. Already, in the first 30 seconds of the film,
become suspect of the perfect man: is he really perfect? We ask the same
question of the narrator: is he truly objective? Clearly, Leth’s film adopts the
perspective of the objective, distant observer and at the same time critiques this
perspective.
Before proceeding, let’s summarize what we have discussed so far: both The
Perfect Human and The Five Obstructions deal with the relationship between
object and subject, observer and observed, perfect and human. In The Perfect
51
The Five Obstructions, Leth himself is observed. Von Trier makes the rules and
power—this split between subject and object, observer and observed, perfect
and human—is not really possible. It is not possible because the observer
himself has desire. That desire inevitably influences what he chooses to see and
what he chooses not to see. It makes true objectivity impossible. So far we have
been unable to pinpoint von Trier’s desire to undertake this project—he seems to
have conflicting motives. Perhaps then, we can look at the obstructions from
Leth’s perspective.
Quality Control
“Make something that’s crap”, von Trier tells Leth. “You always try and be too
good. That’s what you musn’t do. This is therapy not a film competition with
yourself.” Later in the film, Leth explains his objection to von Trier’s advice: “we
can’t help becoming involved instinctively and looking for a solution that
Let’s begin with these questions: Why does Leth resist being “banalized” by von
Trier throughout The Five Obstructions? Why does he resist making “something
that’s crap”? Is there not some resonance, regardless of motivation, in von Trier’s
desire to dirty up Leth’s aesthetic a bit? Judging from The Perfect Human and the
films he makes during The Five Obstructions, Leth does seem inclined towards a
52
controlled, clean aesthetic. So why not introduce a little dirt—a little bit of the
different from our own. We then write a piece in response to that perspective.
The assumption is that exposure to views different from our own is a good thing.
On the one hand, it can introduce fresh ideas into a closed creative universe. It
can also confirm and strengthen views already held. Von Trier’s obstructions are
similar to our Generals assignment. They pose a healthy challenge Leth should
throughout the film that Leth is unwilling to cross, in spite of von Trier’s constant
nudging. Where is this line and why won’t Leth cross it?
The following exchange, which occurs before von Trier sends Leth to India to
VON TRIER: The highly affected distance you maintain to the things you describe—that’s
VON TRIER: Not at all. But I’d like to put your ethics to the test. We talk so much about
the ethics of the observer. I’d like to move you on from there. To make you empathize.
Can you think of any places, any themes one cannot exploit?
VON TRIER: Would you film a dying child in a refugee camp and add the words to The
Perfect Human?
The line is clearly drawn between distance, on the one hand, and empathy, on
the other. Von Trier’s hope is this: if he were to film in a truly miserable
with compassion for the suffering of these children he would be forced to admit
that the “highly affected distance” he maintains between himself and his subjects
is not only artistically limited, but flat-out, ethically wrong. Unable to control the
between Leth and his subject would be forced shut—a triumph of emotion over
It would also be a triumph of von Trier’s rebellious desire to break “the rules of
his subject amounts to Von Trier committing the bloody deed. This is, of course,
Lars von Trier has this romantic notion that I’ll be so affected by being placed in a
situation where a social drama is going on beside you [sic]. He wants to quantify how
much it rubs off, how much it affects me. Will it be visible? Will it be quantifiable? But I
law that states that you can witness so much that you reach the limit where you break
down.
Here we have located a definite line between von Trier and Leth. Unlike Leth,
von Trier believes this “limit where you break down” does exist—that there is a
point, when confronted with intense human emotion, where objective distance
Breaking the Waves, Selma in Dancer in the Dark, and Grace in Dogville are all
forced to endure gratuitous, needless suffering. In all three films, this suffering is
longer solely dramatic, but ideological. We begin to feel manipulated by the film
and manipulated by von Trier. The film asserts an emotional control that runs
counter to what our reason tells us: we rationally know the suffering of the
55
nonetheless.
In the New York Times review of Dancer in the Dark, A.O. Scott writes that Lars
virtuosic brutality of his style can manipulate the audience into feeling what it
cannot believe”.35 In many ways, The Five Obstructions is von Trier’s attempt to
manipulated into “feeling what [he] cannot believe” von Trier’s experiment
ultimately fails. And yet the outcome of the experiment is not so important. What
remains after the movie ends, is a stalemate: two artists who, for whatever
reasons, have taken differing views on the limits of art. Leth refuses to cross the
line between art and “perversion”—as he calls it; von Trier yearns to cross this
line.
35
A.O. Scott. “Universe Without Happy Endings”. The New York Times. September 22, 2000.
56
Chapter 3
I have my father’s original copy of Frank Zappa’s 1969 record, Uncle Meat. A few
years ago, I dusted it off and put it in a plastic sleeve. Before that, it lived in a box
at my dad’s house, unlistened to for at least fifteen years. When I was very
young, my dad played the record for me. He wasn’t a Zappa fanatic; it was
played alongside other records: Tommy by The Who; Copland: Billy the Kid;
Stravinsky: The Firebird; Holst: The Planets; Cream: Disraeli Gears; Wendy
Carlos: Switched on Bach—to name a few. Exposure to this eclectic mix of music
taste. Yet, once I got a bit older, bought my own copy of Thriller by Michael
Then in 2003, some reviews drew comparison between Zappa’s music and my
own record, Dear Bicycle. I decided to get Uncle Meat from my dad’s house and
give it a spin. I was astonished at the similarities between my interests and the
old Zappa record. Sped-up percussion workouts, cheap trumpet jingles, weird
improvisations, stylized pop songs: these are all present throughout my own
music; they also describe just the first side of Uncle Meat. What astonished me
was not just that so many of my own idées fixes were already present in the
57
Indeed, to his critics Zappa comes off as a smart-ass, cynical trickster who
Zappa for many years on similar grounds. But this re-examination of Uncle Meat
left me with the distinct impression that behind the sarcasm, cynicism and
juvenile humor lies a very serious work concerned, above all, with conventional
the relationship between art and society, art and commerce, and the process of
creativity itself.
own, personal theories of everything. Like a moth flickering from light to light, I
moved, almost daily, between such broad topics as “Music and Cultural Codes”
(the title of my dissertation proposal), “Music and Failure”, and “Music and
Control”. Failing to follow Paul Lansky’s advice to work from the inside, outward, I
filled two notebooks trying to create some framework that could contain the
Samuel Beckett, Glitch Music, Outsider Music, Louis Andriessen, and others. I
clinged to the idea of some unifying thread running through all this work, but that
Then it occurred to me that within the two LPs, booklet, and gatefold of Uncle
Meat itself, many of the ideas I was wrestling with were already contained:
even represents precisely that artistic stance against which Beckett and Feldman
carved their own reductive visions. Indeed, Uncle Meat is perhaps best
seeking resolution to these oppositions, Uncle Meat pits them against each other.
Yet this is not a purely formal concern. Zappa recognizes that a musical style
nationality, etc. By mixing musical styles, Zappa also seeks to counter the
homogeneity of the post-war suburb in which he was raised and which had
59
musical style is also a very deliberate mix of race and class. One example from
Uncle Meat to illustrate this point is the juxtaposition of American Rhythm and
Blues with European avant-garde: music of largely poor, black Americans sits
cultural dissonances, Zappa also challenges the authenticity of identity itself: who
has authority to speak from a certain subject position and who lacks that
authority? Zappa’s insistence on speaking from both black R&B and European
avant-garde introduces a fluidity that threatens to break down barriers that define
both categories: if a self-taught, long-haired rock guitar player from LA can write
Babbitt, is threatened. On the other hand, performing complex “new music” with
& Roll street credentials. Rather than avoiding such awkward, contradictory
existing formal structures, asking, for instance, where the line between a pop
song and avant-garde concert music lies. A song like “Dog Breath in the Year of
the Plague”, from Uncle Meat, asks just such a question: 50s Rock & Roll tropes
such as the “yeaahh” bass vocal line, the guttural saxophone solo, and the naïve,
Edgard Varése than Chuck Berry. More than pastiche or collage, such
60
techniques question the vicissitudes of the recorded medium itself, which had
become the conduit of the illusionism and escapism of 50s and 60s pop, on the
within Uncle Meat itself, but I am equally interested in using the album to discuss
larger conceptual issues important to Twentieth Century art in general. Take, for
what he calls the classical and the avant-garde. Bürger’s discussion of montage
as we remember that his records were distributed by the decidedly non avant-
This conflict between the commercial and the artistic permeates Zappa’s work.
specialist”, Zappa refused to separate his work from the reality of business and
money. Uncle Meat itself is full of mundane talk about money—often band
members complaining to Zappa that they aren’t making enough of it to live on;
and Zappa’s biography is full of lawsuits with record labels, managers, and band
61
along on your living room floor”, Zappa proclaims on his 1973 album Overnite
opposed to “serious artist”; and yet it is my sense that Zappa thought of himself
as the latter just as he felt compelled to play up his role as the former. Contrary
to popular belief, for example, Zappa never used drugs; yet his early albums,
such as Freak Out! and Absolutely Free, were closely associated with the LA
“freak” scene, whose free attitude toward drugs, sex, and personal expression
actually preceded the more famous San Francisco hippie scene. And though he
characteristics of the isolated artist, working late hours in his basement studio,
dubbed “The Utility Muffin Research Kitchen” (UMRK). With the creation of his
own record labels in the 60s and 70s and his unique distribution deal with
Rykodisc in the 80s, Zappa increasingly was able to control all aspects of his
music’s production and distribution. In his last decade, he wrote much of his
music using the Synclavier music computer, further increasing his creative
And yet, in spite of this tendency toward solitude, Zappa’s life was full of diverse
activity and full of diverse people. Crucially, his music reflects this diversity, and
his creative process frequently blurred the lines between his art and his life.
62
Zappa incorporated a wide range of activity: improvising on the guitar, writing out
recordings, using the studio to create electronic sounds—even writing out film
plots, complete with ideas for elaborate sets and costumes.36 Zappa also filled
his albums with “real life” recorded conversations between band members about
money and mundane details of touring. Essentially, anything within Zappa’s radar
was up for grabs and could be absorbed into whatever artistic project he was
This blurring of the lines between art and life draws comparisons to Joyce, as an
Finnegans Wake to Beckett. There is a knock at the door, and Joyce says, “come
in”. Thinking it is part of Joyce’s dictation, Beckett includes the words “come in” in
Finnegans Wake. Later that day, while rereading the section, Joyce asks Beckett
where the “come in” is from. Beckett explains; Joyce decides to leave it in.37
Zappa’s work clearly has this Joycean sense of sprawl between art and life, but
control and contain. “The most important thing in art is The Frame”, Zappa writes,
sounding very much like the composer of 4’33”. “Without [The Frame], you can’t
36
Steve Mackey, “Music as an Action Sport,” Current Musicology 67/68, 2002. 269–288.
37
Richard Ellman, James Joyce. Rev. Ed. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1982), 649.
63
know where The Art stops and The Real World begins.”38 So perhaps, for Zappa,
there is not complete fluidity between art and life, but rather an attempt to control
If, as seen in our discussion of Why Patterns?, Feldman compares his own
creative process to watching a large animal move slowly through its natural
chicken, a pig, a parrot, a fox, a shark, perhaps—into a cage and watching them
freak out. But the important thing is that they are freaking out within the confines
of a cage. In order to look closer at this freak out (which, appropriately, is the title
of Zappa’s first album), we will look at Uncle Meat from the perspective of these
track—the “Main Title Theme”. Like surrounding the cage with many stationary
cameras, rather than attempting to capture the action with a single camera, this
approach will work with the heterogeneous, ADD aspects of Uncle Meat, rather
The Mechanical
Uncle Meat opens with a jaunty, mechanical march for vibraphone and snare
drum that seems to move of its own accord, like a wind-up toy monkey playing
drums and cymbals. The presence of harpsichord also adds a mechanical quality
and gives the opening a pompous and official air that connotes the “classical”,
38
Frank Zappa, The Real Frank Zappa Book, with Peter Occhigrosso. New York: Poseidon,
1989, 140.
64
“quaint”, and “dainty”. But it also undercuts the march-like quality of the music:
how many marching bands have a harpsichord? The harpsichord itself is a very
piano. You can hear, for example, the mechanism of the keys plucking the
strings on a harpsichord, not on the piano. The oom-pa-pa bass line that begins
though it has to work very hard to keep up with the acrobatics of the crisp
vibraphone and snare. This bass line also enters a beat late, catching up to the
instrumentation: you sort of empathize with the big slow bass line trying to keep
In the liner notes to Uncle Meat, Zappa writes: “things that sound like trumpets
are actually clarinets played through an electric device called ‘Maestro’ with a
setting labeled ‘Oboe D’amore’ and sped up a minor third with a variable speed
oscillator”.39 This explains why the notation for the “Main Title Theme”, which
accompanies the LP, is a minor third lower than it sounds on recording. Zappa
minor third lower and at a proportionately slower speed and then raised the pitch
and tempo. The trills in the vibraphone and some of the rolls on the snare drum,
for example, are too even to have been played at the sounding tempo. At times
39
Liner notes to Uncle Meat, 1969.
65
they even sound like MIDI (a good ten years before MIDI, of course). Raising the
pitch gives the music a cheap quality that also suggests a toy instrument.
Another way Zappa calls attention to the artificial and mechanical is with
distinctive production techniques. The first section, for example, uses very little
reverb, creating a sterile, lab-like quality. This reminds me of Robert Craft’s 1958
the very recording Zappa listened to when he was in twelfth grade.40 Perhaps
Zappa got his fondness for vibraphone and xylophone from Le Marteau also? In
any event, the Craft recording is very closely miked— especially the xylophone,
violin pizzicato, and drum trio movement near the beginning, which also sounds
asked to make a long distance call to Varèse for their fifteenth birthday?41 Zappa
first became interested in Varèse when reading a Look magazine interview with
record store owner Sam Goody who bragged he could sell any record—even a
dissonant and terrible; the worst music in the world.” Zappa thought this sounded
40
Zappa, 195.
41
This was in 1955 and Varèse wasn’t home, although Zappa did speak to Mrs. Varèse who
explained that her husband was in Europe working on a project—the Poème électronique for the
Brussels World Fair. (Zappa, 33).
66
right up his alley. Shortly after this, the young Zappa was in a record store
flipping through the discount LP bin for R&B records: “I noticed a strange-looking
black-and-white album cover with a guy on it who had frizzy gray hair and looked
like a mad scientist. I thought it was great a mad scientist had finally made a
record, so I picked it up—and there it was, the record with Ionisation on it”.42
The taste for music beyond mainstream pop extended to the young Zappa’s
other primary musical diet: black R&B. Ben Watson suggests this interest grew,
the object of WASP racism.43 One of Zappa’s high school bands—“The Black
Outs”—included three black members and two Mexicans. Zappa claims his “ little
integrated band” received numerous threats from angry high school lettermen.44
Perhaps his fondness for the artificial and mechanical, which began with early
work like Uncle Meat and continued until his late pieces for Synclavier, stems
from this early sense of marginalization. This created, in turn, a life-long desire to
expose the inner-workings of both commodity culture, i.e. mainstream pop, and
42
Zappa, 31.
43
Ben Watson, Frank Zappa as Dadaist: Recording Technology and the Power to Repeat. In The
Frank Zappa Companion, Richard Kostelanetz, ed. New York: Schirmer, 1997, p. 177.
44
Zappa, 47.
67
The metaphor of the toy monkey drummer I have used to describe Uncle Meat’s
listening to nothing but the Billboard Top Ten, or a composer writing in strict
accordance with academic trends, Zappa’s march parodies those who fall into
lock-step with received wisdom. This critique is built into the music of the Uncle
Meat “Main Title Theme” itself: in contrast to the peppy march material in the
vibes and snare drum, the underlying drone in the bass, played by pitched-down
clarinets, grounds the opening with a weight—a gravitas— that undermines the
peppy acrobatics of the vibes and snare. A musical equivalent to the Vanitas
perhaps, the drone here is a stark reminder that all wind-up toy marches will
come to an end, no matter how jaunty. I’d now like to explore further this link
between Uncle Meat and the theme of vanitas, as it points to a key opposition
The Organic
Vanitas is Latin for “vanity”. The term refers to paintings depicting a collection of
possessions. The most common vanitas symbol is a human skull. Other symbols
decay; and musical instruments, also symbolizing brevity and the fleeting nature
is an example of the vanitas in painting. Two men stand next to a table filled with
sundial, two lutes, a box of flutes, a Lutheran hymnal. These are instruments of
time and space; instruments used to make music and study acoustics. The men
proudly frame their hi-tech collection of gadgets, which are symbols of their
education and knowledge. The silk and fur clothes they wear also reveal wealth
and power.
Yet in the foreground of the painting, there is a strange object. At first it is difficult
What, then, before this display of the domain of appearance in all its most fascinating
forms, is this object, which from some angles appears to be flying through the air, at
know, for you turn away, thus escaping the fascination of the picture, You begin by
walking out of the room in which no doubt it has long held your attention. It is then that,
45
turning round as you leave…you apprehend in this form…What? A skull.
The strange object in the foreground is a skull, but it is painted in such a way that
the viewer only recognizes it as a skull when viewed from an indirect angle. If
viewed directly, the skull appears distorted, while the men and their instruments
are in focus; if viewed from a skewed angle, the skull takes a recognizable
shape, but the men and their instruments appear distorted. The skull is a typical
can only be achieved indirectly, in mysterious ways beyond our control. This is
45
Jacques Lacan, The Four Fundamental Concepts of Psychoanalysis. Trans. Alan Sheridan
(London: Penguin Books), 88.
70
There are elements of the vanitas theme throughout Uncle Meat. First, consider
the cover of the album itself, which is a collage made by artist Cal Schenkel. The
back shows a large skull—the classic vanitas symbol— with the date 1348
printed on it. This was the year of the Black Death in Europe. The skull is
embedded in the album design by a thick glob of paint and chewing gum. This
The paint is, therefore, a kind of metonymic substitution for dirt, drawing a link
back cover also shows the names and photos of Zappa and his band members.
Below three of the band members’ names are x-rays of teeth, instead of photos.
an x-ray of teeth.
On the front cover, this theme of teeth is more developed. The center image is a
crude collage of two hands prying open the lips of a disembodied mouth. We see
the teeth and gums, and we see hands prying the mouth open. The right hand
contraption and some string. As on the back cover, sploches of paint—and what
appears to be mold and blood—are eating away at the bottom of the image. Just
as the back cover suggests some relationship between paint and dirt, the front
the mouth open and the organic substances eating away at the bottom of the
image.
71
The teeth on the front cover form a kind of anti-smile. Just as the mechanical
music that opens Uncle Meat parodies the uncritical march of consumer culture,
these teeth parody the shiny white-toothed smile of pop—the smile of The
Beatles and Herman’s Hermits; the smile of the nice boy you would bring home
to mom; the smile of cookie-cutter, airbrushed 1950s America. The Uncle Meat
encroaching threat of decay and death: the globs of paint, glue, mold, and blood
are lurking just below. This theme of “looking behind the scenes”—of exposing
Uncle Meat. It is essential to Zappa’s aesthetic, and it is at the root of his social
are assembled to form a whole composition, with little attempt to hide the edits.
In fact, the edits themselves become part of the composition. On the Uncle Meat
cover, for example, there is a clear line demarking the two sets of teeth being
held up by hands. These images of teeth also have a flatness that contrasts the
textured look of the paint and mold. Just as we see “behind the scenes” of the
shiny white-tooth smile of pop, we also see “behind the scenes” of the
construction of the album design. We see where the scissors made their cuts,
The same thing happens in the music throughout Uncle Meat. In the opening
“Main Title Theme”, for example, there is an abrupt cut at 1:27 from the natural
visible edits on the cover of the album, Zappa makes no attempt at a smooth
transition between these very different sonic worlds. By making such an abrupt
cut, Zappa keeps the listener on their toes: at any moment, the rug can be pulled
73
out from under you by a radical change in musical mood and texture. By letting
us hear the sound of the edits, Zappa externalizes his own creative process, and
incorporates the doubt and anxiety of the creative process into the work itself.
Before looking further at the relationship between Uncle Meat and Zappa’s
creative process, let’s examine some of the more conventional musical issues
is that it is full of good notes. Here is the notation of the main theme, transposed
I have added dotted slurs and bar lines to show the asymmetrical phrase
structure of the main theme and how it deviates from the 3/4 time signature: it’s
more like 3/4, 3/4, 2/4, 4/4, 3/4, 3/4. Although Zappa doesn’t notate an accent on
the third beat of the third bar, it is played this way on the recording. There is also
something about the C on the third beat of the third measure that makes it seem
F major. It is also the lowest note of the main theme. The melody seems to fall to
that C and then turn around and rise back up to the highest note of the melody,
an E.
The high C on the second beat of the third measure is fantastic. A more standard
Another nice melodic feature of the main theme is the way the G to F in the third
beat of the fifth measure ends the penultimate phrase and then immediately
begins the final phrase. The melody is then elided with itself in the repeat. This
disorientation with very simple diatonic notes. Louis Andriessen and Elmer
Stravinsky’s melodies start off very hummable, but by the third bar lose the
listener in a maze of twists and turns. They call it “ordeals of the memory”.46 Try
and sing to yourself, for example, the opening fugue theme of the Second
Movement of the Symphony of Psalms. I think the Uncle Meat theme offers a
similar challenge.
Zappa wrote most of his melodies on the guitar.47 I tried playing the opening
theme on the guitar and it felt very natural, especially the classical turn in the
second measure. I could imagine, though, that the Uncle Meat theme was written
46
Louis Andriessen and Elmer Schönberger. The Apollonian Clockwork: On Stravinsky.
(Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press, 2006) 39.
47
Zappa, 97.
75
at a piano. For an untrained pianist like Zappa, plopping away at the same chord
with the weaker left hand and playing more complicated figures in the right hand
comes very naturally (I do it all the time). This way of writing could also explain
the abundance of parallel suspended chords: Zappa puts his hands in one
position and then moves it up and down the keyboard or guitar fretboard: voila,
parallel suspended chords. These chords compound the melodic ambiguity with
Although the March section of the “Main Title Theme” is brief, there is a clear
ABA form. After two statements of the main theme, the melody is extended up to
a Gb. Adding triplets and sixteenth-note rhythmic figures, the phrasing of the
vibes and snare drum melody increasingly gets out of step with the harpsichord,
which tries to keep things orderly by plodding out the same quarter notes from
the beginning. The oom-pa-pa bass that was discussed earlier gets tired and
moves down chromatically to sit on another pedal until dropping out all together,
leading the vibes and snare toward increasingly asymmetrical phrases. Although
reason the bass drops out: it would be too cumbersome for the bass to follow the
time the vibes and snare get to the most asymmetrical part of their melodic line,
the trumpet/oboe/clarinets jump in with a restatement of the main theme, and the
snare joins the harpsichord with regular quarter note rhythm. The vibes then shift
76
to steady eighth notes and fade out with the snare, leaving the harpsichord to
play a little imitative two-part solo beginning at 1:04. It cadences at 1:24, letting
the instrument resonate for two seconds (audio example 7, Main Theme,
harpsichord solo).
At 1:27 a purely electronic sound of filtered noise and pitched down percussion
bursts in. It ricochets around the stereo field, and is then extinguished,
concluding the opening track (audio example 8, Main Theme, electronic noise).
Because the harpsichord solo already introduces a flexible temporal field, which
lacks the regularity of the opening march, the cut to purely synthetic noise –a la
electronic music from WDR Cologne studios circa 1955 or perhaps the
seems. There is a clear break between “music” and abstract “noise”, but in terms
of pacing and density, there is a more natural, cadential transition between these
two poles. The relationship between the mechanical march, the harpsichord solo,
The Uncle Meat “Main Title Theme” exhibits Zappa’s acute sense of proportion:
solo, and thirty seconds of synthetic noise, with a decrease in density and weight
in the progression between these sections. In a section of The Real Frank Zappa
77
compositional balance:
releases…A large mass of any material will “balance” a smaller, denser mass of any
material, according to the length of the gizmo it’s dangling on, and the “balance point”
chosen to facilitate the danglement. The material being “balanced” includes stuff other
than the notes on the paper. If you can conceive of any material as a “weight” and any
idea-over-time as a “balance”, you are ready for the next step: the entertainment objects
48
that derive from those concepts.
Throughout Uncle Meat, Zappa indeed shows a real sensitivity to, and
terms of musical activity and tempo. Even the tape itself is sped up—literally
more tense. The harpsichord solo breaks with the steady rhythm and introduces
Finally, the electronic part enters with far less tension; it is sort of flopping
Zappa also creates tension and release through mixing and panning. In the
opening march, for example, the vibraphone is panned far left and far right; the
snare drum is panned directly in the middle. This makes the vibraphone sound
48
Zappa, 163.
78
not like a solo instrument, but like an impossibly accurate unison (this also recalls
octaves, is panned in the center. The octave drone provides a resonance and
depth that contrasts the dryer vibes, percussion, and harpsichord, which are
mixed more to the front. When the electronic noise enters, it moves freely around
the stereo field, contrasting the hard-left, hard-right panning of the mechanical
music section.
Perhaps the most radical way Zappa achieves formal balance, is by contrasting
itself—like a real chair—painted into the painting. The electronic sound that cuts
Rauschenberg’s chair. The electronic sound interrupts the world of the opening
balancing different levels of meaning and perception in much the same way he
Let’s now move from the opening track and consider the album as a whole. To
begin, I have identified nine “themes” in Uncle Meat. These are not musical
themes like the opening of Beethoven’s 5th Symphony. They are more like
different worlds. Think of them as sets for a play: each set has a different
absurd space with abstract colors and shapes that don’t reference the physical
world; still another set could depict the interior of an 18th Century parlor where
Keeping with Zappa’s concept of “Weights and Balances”, you could also think of
these themes in sculptural terms, as material objects: one theme is a cast iron
theme is a circuit board. By this account, Uncle Meat looks like a giant Rube
Goldberg machine, a junk sculpture, or that image at the end of Dr. Seuss’ The
Cat in the Hat, where the cat is trying to juggle a birthday cake on his head, a
bottle of milk with his toe, books and a goldfish jar with his thumbs. The
precariousness of the Cat in the Hat’s effort to balance all these objects is
present in Uncle Meat, which also conveys a sense of imminent collapse. But this
I have given each of the nine themes a name: Mechanical, Electronic, Speaking,
Percussion Solos. For a sequential analysis of where each theme occurs within
the record, refer to Appendix A. For now, let’s look at each theme in some detail.
1. Mechanical
largely instrumental, the speed of the tape is often raised, giving the instruments
a tinny, high-pitched quality that makes them sound like mechanical toys. As
already discussed, I use the metaphor of a toy monkey drummer to describe this
assembly line. The assembly line could be a metaphor for capitalism and mass
production.
notated, rather than improvised, different sections are pieced together in the
2. Electronic
through filtering, pitch shifting, and other studio techniques. The electronic
sounds often have a cadential role, frequently occurring at the end of tracks as a
kind of punctuation to the preceding material. The electronic sounds are at once
calls “tunes and chords”; but they also recall the science fiction movie sound
effects familiar to anyone growing up with Star Trek and Forbidden Planet. It is
possible that Zappa is also playing with certain tropes from avant-garde tape
music in the same way he plays with tropes from doo-wop and psychedelic
music. “Avant-garde tape music” becomes another genre, just as “doo-wop” and
have a Foley effect function, as in the skidding sound that occurs at the end of
“Prelude to King Kong”. In this case, the electronic sound gives the impression of
3. Speaking
recordings seem like scripted skits, as in the tracks featuring Suzy Creamcheese,
who was a real-life friend of Zappa’s and a groupie of the band. Other recordings
passages seem more like interviews from a documentary film. An example of this
is when Ian Underwood recounts how he got to audition for The Mother of
Copenhagen). Finally, there are moments when Zappa is talking directly to the
audience during a live performance. He introduces the song “Louie Louie”, for
examples, the speaking theme introduces “reality fragments” into the collage of
Uncle Meat. The quality of these recordings often contrasts the highly artificial,
a control freak and notoriously strict bandleader, is recording his band members
and groupies in an attempt to monitor what they are saying. The theme of
surveillance also relates to Zappa’s own fear of authority—a fear that stems, in
part, from Zappa’s brush with the law when he was younger.49 As suggested
the dark, Orwellian, dystopian, paranoid side of Zappa and Uncle Meat. Indeed,
Zappa was paranoid from all sides: he mistrusted the pop-music industry, but he
to be viewed with as much skepticism as those hunting for gold records. The
49
As he explains in the Real Frank Zappa Book, when in his early 20s, Zappa was framed by an
undercover cop for making pornographic tapes. The cop asked him to make the tape, offered
Zappa money, Zappa made the tape as a joke with his friend, then Zappa was arrested, and
actually spent time in jail.
84
4. Snorks
sounds are made electronically; sometimes they are made vocally. What is
interesting about these sounds is that they are all pre-language. The sound of
bored; someone is thirsty, etc.), but it is not tied to language. Animal sounds are
similar.50 In Uncle Meat, these snores, snorks, and slurps are closely related to
the theme of electronic music: many of the sounds are themselves produced
electronically, as in the electronic noise that ends Zolar Czakl. Also, like the
at the end of a track or section. Finally, these snork sounds often offer
commentary on the music itself. At the end of “The Legend of the Golden
Arches”, for example, there is the sound of someone snoring. This sound
provides a cadence for the preceding motoric, mechanical music. But the snoring
sound also introduces a critical gloss on the record, as if the perspective of the
record is therefore incorporated back into the work itself, introducing a level of
5. Modal Improvisation
a pedal harmony. This harmonic pedal has a stabilizing effect, creating a plateau
that contrasts the faster harmonic rhythm of other themes. These passages of
modal improvisation are expansive, which also contrasts the concision and
tension of the mechanical music material. In this sense, the modal improvisation
organic way. These sections often feature Zappa’s guitar solos, providing a
side of Zappa’s creativity, which deals with precise notated music and studio
edits. Overall, the most important feature of the modal improvisation theme, is
that it allows for a more expansive, flexible temporal world that contrasts the
6. Songs
The songs theme is characterized by, well, songs. By “songs” I mean: music with
lyrics, a regular drumbeat, etc. Just as Uncle Meat plays with tropes from avant-
garde electronic music and free-jazz (as we will see), so the record plays with
various song genres, particularly “doo-wop” and “psychedelic” music. Zappa has
a knack for capturing the essence of a given style: the guttural saxophone solo
and the bass voice “yeeeeah” on “Dog Breath in the Year of the Plague” perfectly
captures the doo-wop style, while the plodding drumbeat of “Mr Green Genes”
recalls the psychedelic music of The Jefferson Airplane. The lyrics of these
songs also play with their respective genres: “Dog Breath in the Year of the
Plague” talks about teenage obsessions with cars (“Going to El Monte Legion
Stadium, Chevy 39”), while “Sleeping in a Jar” links psychedelic music and B-
horror movies: instead of Alice in Wonderland acid trips, Zappa’s song explores a
jar”. You can almost see the cheap sets and makeup in this song. Songs are
here:
7. Live Recordings
and distorted. This contrasts the clean, dry studio recordings of the mechanical
and electronic music. Just as these studio recordings show the Mothers of
music, the live recordings show the band as sloppy ruffians—a cover
band—belting out “God Bless America” at the Whiskey a Go-Go in LA, playing
“Louie Louie” on the “mighty and majestic” pipe organ at London’s Royal Albert
Hall—as if the kids broke into the church for the night to get drunk on wine. The
live recordings theme is related to the speaking theme. Both document slices of
real-time, which stand in direct contrast to the precisely pieced together studio-
trimmed, and perfected. The Live recordings theme occurs in the following
tracks:
reminiscent of Eric Dolphy’s playing and foreshadowing the playing of John Zorn.
These improvisations are recorded live (tracks 7 and 16), as well as in the studio
(track 13, 21, 25). Like the live recordings theme and the speaking theme, the
88
free jazz solos are a messy counterpart to the clean, dry studio recordings of
mechanical music. They are about the spontaneous release of creative energy.
They are the equivalent, perhaps, to a Jackson Pollock “drip” painting, while the
(7) Louie Louie (Live at the Royal Albert Hall in London) [1:27]
(13) Prelude to King Kong
(16) Ian Underwood Whips It Out (Live on Stage in Copenhagen) [0:35]
(21) Project X [3:48]
(25) King Kong III
9. Percussion Solos
Finally, the theme of percussion solos is related to mechanical music. Both are
The percussion solos are also the thematic inverse of the free jazz solos: if the
free jazz solos represent spontaneous release of creative energy, the percussion
solos represent a kind of controlled release of this energy. The percussion solos
By looking at each of these nine themes, two clear categories emerge: control
and spontaneity. The nine themes fall into the following two camps:
89
Control Spontaneity
Mechanical Live recordings
Electronic Snorks
Percussion solos Free-jazz solos
Songs Modal improvisation
Speaking
our analysis of the opening “Main Title Theme” how different types of material fit
harpsichord solo and electronic noise material. This issue of balance is a purely
formal and abstract concern, but it is, in my opinion, what saves Zappa’s work
from being mere cynical social commentary. As we have seen, Zappa is deeply
framework that Zappa’s thematic concerns are then allowed to play out.
90
Chief among these thematic concerns are opposing poles of the creative process
The controlling Zappa is the Zappa carefully splicing together the mechanical
attempt to surround their “real life” with his art. But Zappa is no fool. He knows
that art can’t be controlled entirely. That is why Uncle Meat is also full of sloppy
live recordings, expansive modal improvisations, and cathartic free jazz solos.
Like two rams locking horns, the record sets in motion a giant dialectical tension
between these profoundly different creative pulls. And just as formal balance
creative process oscillates between opposing needs for control and spontaneity.
91
Conclusion
Three Characters
In some ways, this dissertation sounds like a joke. Instead of a priest, rabbi, and
Buddhist monk we have Morton Feldman, Lars von Trier, and Frank Zappa. It’s
hard to imagine what this cast of characters is doing in the same story. But, as
we have seen, these artists are united by a struggle to find balance in their
creative process, and their work reflects this struggle. In Feldman’s work, the
primary struggle is between what we might call sound and composition. Feldman
wants sound itself to control the composition; he doesn’t want the act of
on the limits of art: Leth accepts certain boundaries that art should not cross; von
Trier refuses to accept these boundaries. This opposition between Leth and von
Let’s first look at Zappa and Feldman together. One would be hard-pressed to
find two composers more different. Zappa’s music is often fast, brittle,
92
quiet. His late pieces unfold over long spans of time with relatively little change.
Zappa’s music opens the window and lets the world in. It engages politics and
social trends and is full of references to other types of music: rock, avant-garde,
doo-wop, R&B. Feldman keeps art separate from politics, and he avoids
we have seen, is also interested in art with a capital A, but the persona he
But there are also curious similarities between Feldman and Zappa. First, both
was 15 Zappa first heard Ionisation and was so impressed, he wrote a fan letter
to Varèse. A few years later, Zappa famously included the Varèse quote “the
present day composer refuses to die” on the back of his first album cover,
Meat, these blocks are often distinguished, not by purely sonic features, but by
musical texture.
93
Feldman also deeply admired Varèse, whose music spoke with “its incredible
approach to sound. Feldman was also deeply concerned with the tactility of
Walking down the street one day, Varèse reminded Feldman to always consider
the time it takes for sound to travel from instrument to audience.52 Feldman took
This is the Beethoven model par excellence. Both Feldman and Zappa have
problems with this kind of conventional development, but they deal with this
problem in opposite ways. Zappa cuts and pastes fragments into a larger
compositional whole. The differentiation between parts is always “on view”; the
edits are visible; they are the main subject of the work. Feldman also juxtaposes
seeks to blur this differentiation, like colors in a Rothko painting. Indeed, this
notion of differentiation may be the fork in the road, with Zappa going one way
51
Morton Feldman, Give My Regards to Eighth Street (Cambridge, MA: Exact Change, 2000), 41.
52
Feldman, 170.
94
There is one final, curious similarity between Zappa and Feldman: in writing and
more formal and academic. Why is this? Again, Varèse may provide an answer.
maverick, rebel, and outsider. This image of the artist as maverick appealed to
Zappa and Feldman who—along with von Trier—had rebellious streaks. Each
saw his work as, above all, different from the mainstream—whether that was the
Utopian / Dystopian
ordered world out of the ashes of the Second World War. Feldman saw their
unbending faith in positivism and rationality as the very thing that sent everyone
to war in the first place. Feldman became attracted to the sensuality of the
created an abstract world of color, shapes, and textures—a world that for a short
time allowed an escape from a world poisoned by the Holocaust. Feldman, like
Holocaust time. He wants to create through his music another world without the
95
painful memories of the past. But Feldman knows this nostalgic, utopian project
head on, quietly tip-toeing around meaning and dismantling it at night, while it is
The ultimately affirming thing about Feldman—as well as Beckett—is that they
don’t just dismantle meaning and leave it undone. This is the procedure of the
existentialists. Beckett and Feldman go one stop further: they take baby steps
perhaps. Feldman and Beckett know their projects are fatally flawed, but they go
on—not for immortality, but to celebrate the nowness of mortality. That is why
materials are what they have left. Both Feldman and Beckett create a quiet
apotheosis. They accept their limitations and flaws and just do whatever they can
do, however compromised or rusty. This is Beckett’s “little block heart beating
face to endlessness.”.54
dystopian. For Zappa, meaning is like scraps of trash on the highway. It’s a dirty
53
Feldman, 35
54
Samuel Beckett, Lessness. In Gontarski, S. E., ed. The Complete Short Prose,
1929-1989. (New York: Grove Press) 197.
96
job, but the role of the artist is to pick up this trash and rearrange it—to make
junk sculpture out of the crap on the side of the road. Uncle Meat is a rickety,
modal improvisations, lo-fi live recordings, stylized pop songs, free-jazz freak-
His work just reflects his external environment, not his “inner-self”. In some ways,
Zappa even portrays himself as a victim of society. Through his work, he says:
“Hey it’s not my fault my music is full of clichés about teenagers, bathroom
humor, and making money; my art is just a reflection of the junk that’s around
me.” Zappa deals with his predicament through scatological jokes, sarcasm, and
good rhythm, orchestration, and an acute sense of timing and form. In Zappa’s
Both Feldman and Zappa, therefore, deal with a crisis of meaning: what do we do
after the horrors and injustice of the early Twentieth Century? Both see meaning
as contaminated, but neither buys the existentialist idea that meaning is dead.
making sonic sculptures out of the junk that surrounds him. Feldman’s response
is utopian. He seeks to undo meaning and begin the slow process of rebuilding,
97
but with awareness that this effort will never be finished. This sense of
continuation, in spite of the knowledge that an end will never arrive, contributes,
If Zappa’s work reflects the cultural junk that surrounds him, Lars von Trier’s work
him. Von Trier creates characters with utopian ideals—Selma in Dancer in The
systematically destroyed by the cruelty of the society in which they live. But the
key question becomes: are von Trier’s characters innocent martyrs, or is their
By asking this question, von Trier essentially corners the audience and forces us
martyrs for their ideals, then the possibility of utopia is sustained; if we see von
religious terms, as some form of God, but this is not the only way to conceive of
faith. Morton Feldman puts his faith in sound; Frank Zappa puts his faith in
98
compositional junk sculptures; Lars von Trier seems unwilling to put his faith in
Appendix A
100
101
102
Appendix B
NARRATOR: Here is the human. Here is the human. Here is the perfect human.
We will see the perfect human functioning. How does such a number function?
What kind of thing is it? We will look into that. We will investigate that. Now we
will see how the perfect human looks and what it can do. This is how an ear
looks. And here is a pair of knees. An here a foot. Another ear. Here is an eye.
Look at this humans eye. Then, a mouth, a mouth and another mouth. Look. The
perfect human moving in a room. The perfect human can move in a room. The
room is boundless and radiant with light. It is an empty room .here are no
boundaries. Here is nothing. Walking running jumping falling look now he falls.
How does he fall. This is how he falls. Look. Now she lies down. How does she
lie down? This is how she lies down. Like this. Yes there he is. Who is he? What
can he do? What does he want? Why does he move like that? How does he
move like that? Look at him. Look at him now. And now. Look at him all the time.
Now the music is gone. No music anymore. The perfect human in a room with
now boundaries and with nothing. And a voice saying a few words. This voice
saying a few words. Look at him now. Look at him all the time. Now the perfect
human undresses. The clothes come off. Bowtie. Coat shoes, trousers, boots,
socks, dress, nylons, bra, pants.The clothes come off. How is it to touch the
perfect human? How is the skin? Is it smooth is it warm? Is it soft is it dry? Is it
well cared for? How is the skin of the chin? How is it on the legs? The arms? The
throat? Here is the bed. Here is the bed. Fresh fragrant sheets. A soft spring
mattress. A bed in this room .the room is no longer empty. There is a bed in this
room. The bed in which the perfect human sleeps and makes love. Listen to the
human getting ready. Listen to the perfect human living listen to its sounds. What
is this human thinking?
103
NARRATOR: Now there is a table too in the room. And chairs and the human,
the music and the voice. The perfect human is going to eat and to drink. We will
see a meal./ how does the perfect human eat? We will see its eyes and its mouth
eating. We will hear the sound of knife and fork we will see the fish being carved.
And the wine being poured into the glasses. Dinner is served. Lovely boiled
salmon with boiled potatoes and sauce Hollandaise. With it, a bottle of Chablis.
Appendix C
Uncle Meat Notes and Analysis
SIDE 1
[0:00] Mechanical
• Toy monkey drummer
• Sped-up tape
• Cheap, “tinny” fidelity
• Inhuman accuracy
• Ostinato as metaphor for mass production, assembly line
• March as metaphor for fascism and rigid control (metaphor for
Zappa’s control of band)
[1:04] Harpsichord solo
• Contrasts busy ensemble playing of mechanical march
• Harpsichord is mechanical instrument, but has natural acoustic
resonance
• Referentiality of instrument as “classical”
[1:27 – 1:55] Electronic
• Contrasts natural resonance of harpsichord
• Abstract noise, contrasts referentiality of harpsichord
• But is itself referential: WDR or Forbidden Planet (“Sci-Fi” or
“avant-garde electronic music”)
• Structural consolidation – temporal flexibility balances rigidity of
previous mechanical section
[0:00] Speaking
• Introduces Suzy Creamcheese
• Ambiguity: is this a skit or an interview?
• “Hello Teenage America [chuckle]. I’m Suzy Creamcheese”
• Suzie Creamcheese as groupie, spokesperson, outsider,
character
[0:05] Snort
• Electronic or organic sound?
• Misogynistic?
[0:06] Suzy Creamcheese (continued)
[0:19] Snort (longer)
105
4. Zolar Czakl
[0:00] Mechanical
• Angular, atonal ensemble piece
• Mechanical March
• Regular rhythm recalls opening Theme
[0:45 – 0:54] Electronic
• Sounds organic, bodily
• Also recalls snort
• Cadential
[0:00] Song
• “Rock n’ Roll” song
• Traditional song form
• Plays with tropes from 50’s Rock n’ Roll: bass voice “yeaaaah”,
gutteral saxophone solo, voices pitched up chipmunk-like,
acoustic guitar
106
[0:00] Mechanical
• Ostinato bass in the harpsichord and Rhodes
• Stravinsky-like isorhythmic ostinato over steady drum-beat
recalls L’Histoire du Soldat
• New theme stated in winds
[0:42] Theme restated supported by harmony (harmony filled-in)
[1:00] Klezmer-like clarinet solo over ostinato, drums
[1:35] Return to theme (key returns)
[1:52] Snort, Snork, Snore
• Laugh, snore, celeste sounds (recalls Lumpy Gravy)
• Comments on music: as if the listener is obliviously sleeping
during the mechanical ostinato
• Music cadences into laugh
• Bridge between musical material and concrete material
[1:54] Celeste plays Uncle Meat theme (slower)
• Harpsichord continues solo passage from Main Title Theme
• Celeste/winds augment harpsichord solo; reharmonize it
• Provides formal recap, sense of recurring themes, sense of
structure
[3:16] Speaking
• Suzy Creamcheese
• Her monologue/conversation also returns after recap of Uncle
Meat theme
• She talks about music: “the first thing that attracted me to the
Mothers’ music…”
• “Everybody was hissing and booing…”
• Incorporates gloss, criticism into work
[3:27] “…Turn down their amplifiers…”
107
[0:00] Mechanical
• Acoustic guitar, electric guitar, synthesizer
• Melody expanded harmonically
[0:40] Marimba, vibraphone enters
• Further development
• Mix of avant-garde instrumentation with commercial, jingle-type
theme
• Theme as jingle
108
[1:46] Electronic
• Single electronic noise
• Acts as cadential figure, like end of previous track
SIDE 2
9. Sleeping in a Jar
[0:00] Song
• Links “Psychedelic” song genre to B-movie horror genre
• “Sleeping in a jar…mom and dad are sleeping” B-movie, horror
movie, twilight zone
• Zappa uses certain stylistic tropes—just enough the capture the
essence of a genre (drum beat, for example)
[00:49] Slurp/Snork/Snore
• Slurp/electronic sound
[0:00] Mechanical
• Slower than “Main Title Theme”
• Not as mechanical as opening? Or just different mechanism?
• Augments, stretches out Main Theme
• Harpsichord plodding and steady percussion out of sync (also
recalls L’Histoire ostinato)
[0:54]
• Winds return with main theme faster, but over new, plodding
background rhythm
• Instrumental variations: marimba, synthesizer, and harpsichord
take theme and develop it
• Great notes
[2:48] “ya ya ya ya ya” recalls “la la la la la” of “Dog Breath”
• “Fuzzy dice and bongos” sung by operatic soprano
[3:30]
• Eruption of “Rock n’ Roll” psych sound, a la Hendrix
• Hammond organ
109
[0:00] Song
• “Doo-wop” song
• Voices pitched up
• “Caress me Aunt Jemima”: sexualizes a brand
[1:35] Fade-out
[1:38 – 1:45] “I can’t tell when you’re telling the truth…I’m not…How
do I know anything you’ve said to me is true…you don’t”
[0:00] Mechanical
• Faster version of “Legend of the Golden Arches” and “Uncle
Meat Variations”
• Sped-up on tape
• Instruments have a chirping, birdlike quality: sounds very
electronic
[1:27] Speaking
• Voice says “fade”
• Semantics, structuralism, production conventions
• Meaning in music conventions
• Use word “fade” instead of fading instruments out
[0:00] Speaking
• Monologue or documentary-like interview about how Ian
Underwood got to be in Mothers of Invention
• Like Suzy Creamcheese’s talk about groupies: shows behind
the scenes of band
• Brings mechanism of production to surface (Marxist)
• Provides narrative context for music
• Phrase “whip it out” is juvenile, phallic joke
[0:35] Free Jazz Solo
• Eric Dolphy-like solo
• Live concert recording
• Drums and saxophone
[2:00] Bass and organ fade in to harmonize solo
[4:11] Drums stop
• Organ drone
• Sax still squawking in high register over slight organ sound
• Ligeti-like cluster (relates to feedback?)
[5:04] Ends (no electronic or spoken cadence)
SIDE 3
[0:00] Song
• Melody also has “Psychedelic” feel until chorus
111
[0:00] Speaking
• Zappa arguing with band members about money
• “To get your name in magazines he wants $500 a month!”
• Zappa as boss
[1:14] “This fucking band is starving!”
• Discontent among band members
• Like mechanism propping up Uncle Meat smile, we see the
reality of being in a band
• California as frontier
[0:00] Song
• “Doo-Wop” song
• “The air escaping from your mouth”
[2:57] Second verse becomes more surreal
• Also personal anecdotal: “I got busted” relates to Zappa’s arrest
112
21. Project X
[0:00] Song
• Song with many changes
• Recalls songs from Freak Out
[0:22] Zappa sings verse
[0:32] Chorus
[0:55] “My phony freedom card brings to me instantly, ecstasy”
• 6/8 theme
• Acoustic guitar
• Theme/jingle, ends on high note
[0:59 – 2:14] Theme
[0:33] Breakdown
• Out of tune synthesizer or harpsichord?
Bibliography
Barthes, Roland. Image Music Text. New York: Hill and Wang, 1977.
Beckett, Samuel. Lessness. In Gontarski, S. E., ed. The Complete Short Prose,
1929-1989. New York: Grove Press, 1996.
Ellman, Richard. James Joyce. Rev. Ed. New York: Oxford University Press,
1982.
Hess, Thomas B. “On the Scent of Jasper Johns,” New York Magazine 9
February 1976.
Johnson, Steve. “Jasper Johns and Morton Feldman: What Patterns?.” in The
New York Schools of Music and Visual Arts, ed. Steven Johnson. New
York: Routledge, 2002.
Reich, Steve. Writings on Music 1965-2000. New York: Oxford University Press,
2002.
Scott, A.O. “Universe Without Happy Endings”. New York Times. September 22,
2000.
Villars, Chris, ed. Morton Feldman Says: Selected Interviews and Lectures 1964-
1987. London: Hyphen Press, 2006.
Watson, Ben. Frank Zappa as Dadaist: Recording Technology and the Power to
Repeat. In The Frank Zappa Companion, Richard Kostelanetz, ed. New
York: Schirmer, 1997.
Watson, Ben. Frank Zappa: The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play. New York:
St. Martin’s Press, 1993.
Zappa, Frank. The Real Frank Zappa Book, with Peter Occhigrosso. New York:
Poseidon, 1989.