==(John Steinmetz enters discussion on SP#9 photos:)

JS to DO -->>

I remember that time at Zappa's. It was, I believe, the first of two times I was there. I can't remember why we went, or why we had our instruments. The photographer was doing some shots of Frank--I can almost remember the photographer's name, because he later took pictures of the L.A. Chamber Orchestra for a wonderful brochure with individual shots of orchestra members in tails but in fun positions or with props. I forgot that Richard Emmet was there.

Anyway, Frank invited us over to the piano, with the photographer in tow, and showed us the transcription of the "The Dangerous Kitchen" that he had just received from the transcriber, and started playing it. We joined in, and I remember that Frank was impressed that we could sightread the stuff. I don't know if he told us that at the time or if he told you later. Anyway, it was a fun, weird sort of jam session.

The second visit was when you recorded the 4 clarinet parts and I recorded the 4 bassoon parts of Mo 'n Herb's Vacation.

DO -->>

(The photographer was John Livzey.) I do remember that he took some very excellent shots of me that day. The transcriber John refers to was, of course, Steve Vai.

THE LSO SESSIONS

affz -->> re: London Symphony Orchestra sessions from 1983:

I am amazed to hear the details of the drinking that went on in the recordings and at the concerts. Someone close my jaw! Is this is a cultural characteristic of British orchestras or something? I'm appalled. In all my experience as a symphonic,studio and theater musician in New York, I have never encountered any examples of open social drug consumption of any kind in working situations. And provided by management, no less!

==

DO -->>

I never saw anyone drink during rehearsal or concert, only before and after (and intermissions). I saw a back-stage bar in use before a concert at the Queen Elizabeth Hall as well as the Barbican so I concluded that must be a common thing. I suspect, however, that this is a cultural difference between Britain and the US, not something limited to orchestra life. I also remember being amazed that casual beer drinking was visible on television - like a talkshow host and guest sitting with beer on the table in front of them! And another thing I couldn't figure out: they drink beer warm!!!

Maybe there's someone around here with enough experience of both English and American society and orchestra life to shed some light on how alcohol is actually tolerated there. And whether the orchestra managements really do wink at it.

==

affz -->>

I now think that someone's "beer-drinking hooligans" remark has some validity. Regardless of whatever challenges, reasonable or not, imposed on them by Frank and his music, that's inexcusable.

==

DO -->>

"beer-drinking" for sure; "hooligans" I have trouble with. I only ever hear the world "hooligan" used in regard to English football fans who vandalize property after games. I'd simply say that in this case their toleration of drinking resulted in lower quality musical product than Frank might otherwise have gotten. If he'd hired an orchestra in the US he'd have gotten much less rehearsal for the same amount of money and therefore probably the same sort of result. And likely Frank would have had some "orchestral stupidity" story to tell about them too.

==

affz -->>

I'm considering buying the new Ryko release of the LSO 2CD (to replace my old single CD). Would you recommend it?

==

DO -->>

Hell if I know. I lost track of all the permutations of those recordings a long time ago. If you buy the new one you'll get extra tracks (Pedro's Dowry and Envelopes I think - at least if your single CD is the same as mine). Frank kept editing and editing those tapes hoping to make them better. He had the recordings transferred to hard disk and was tinkering with them on computer (I think the program is called Sound Tools). I couldn't say whether this new disk is edited differently than the previous ones. I doubt that any amount of editing could fix some of the problems with the performances.

It's kind of hard for me to listen to that album - I worked very hard on all that music - and I agree with Frank's attitude that it really doesn't sound as good as it should. Someday, somewhere, some orchestra will play this music really well and we'll all throw the LSO albums away and forget about them. Years after the London session Frank mentioned several possibilities about second performances of Mo 'n Herb with European orchestras -but all apparently fell through. I'd love to hear some other clarinetist play that solo part - I believe I'm the only one who's ever actually performed that music with an orchestra.

==

affz -->>

I just recently (yesterday) picked up the new LSO release. I think the sound quality, the music, and of course your clarinet solos, are wonderful. I was wondering if you recorded your parts on Jan 12, 13, 14 (1983) with the rest of the orchestra or if you, Chad, and Ed Mann were able to record your parts back in the U.S. afterwards? Also, I was wondering if you knew more about the new release and what was done in the remix.

==

DO -->>

Those recordings have no overdubs that I'm aware of. Everything was recorded in one big airplane-hanger studio. The whole orchestra took up only half of it. It was a big orchestra - with (as I remember) 9 percussionists (including Chad and Ed). The recordings were made in a sound truck parked outside. There were miles of cable, each section was miked every which way with PZM mikes attached to strangely shaped plexiglas baffles. Each section was recorded to a separate digital track - so it's no surprise that the recording sound have a kind of studio over-dub sound to it.

My strongest personal memory of those sessions is of 'jet-lag'. We had flown into London about a week earlier, there were lots of rehearsals at Hammersmith Odeon (but Frank wouldn't record there because he was bothered by transformer noise backstage) and a new studio was found at very, very short notice. Then the concert at the Barbican happened. That performance was the high point of my life, no question about it - my 20 minutes of fame. I distinctly remember standing on the little podium (in the middle of the string section) just before the performance and reminding myself "I'm playing with the London Symphony Orchestra". It was mind boggling for me. The next day the recordings were definitely anti-climactic for me (not for Frank of course -his entire focus was on getting the music recorded not on the live performance). All my energy seemed to disappear during the sessions and I couldn't keep my eyes open. I can remember sitting in my chair recording Mo 'n Herb and as soon as a take was completed I'd close my eyes and drift off. I had learned the music so well at that point I guess I could probably have played it sound asleep - I almost did.

Another personal story about London that sticks in my mind has to do with the music. Besides playing the clarinet I was in charge of producing all the scores and parts. That took years of course (and lots of other copyists worked on the music) but I did the last few months of intense work getting all the correct parts made up and shipped from LA to London in time. Then I got to London and finally the first rehearsal started. Kent Nagano (then an unknown conductor) decided to start the first rehearsal with Pedro's Dowry. Very early in Pedro is an exposed harp part - and the harpist didn't play it He stopped the rehearsal and asked her why she didn't play it She didn't have the correct part. The librarian of the orchestra had noticed that there was supposed to be a harp part and had given the harpist a copy of the piano part - a valiant effort but a foolish assumption that the parts would have any similarities. It turned out that I had made a mistake and omitted the harp part when the pile of music was shipped over. As they say "I felt a cold rush of shit in my veins" because of a missing part at the beginning of the first piece in the first rehearsal. I copied out a new harp part in the green room. Fortunately that was the only missing music for the entire project. Everything else went smoothly.

Orchestra seating is another subject. As soon as the project was confirmed Frank started redesigning the layout of the orchestra to achieve maximum recording separation. He made charts and graphs of who should sit where. Orchestra seating is very standardized and Frank was making radical changes. My advice against it was met with deaf ears. As soon as rehearsals started certain sections of the orchestra began complaining - each rehearsal had some different changes to the seating arrangement. It became a very chaotic issue which was complicated by the Barbican stage which wasn't really big enough for a 100 piece band. Changes were being made as late as the day of the concert. After the concert Frank gave up on the idea and had the recordings done in conventional setup. All in all, I think he did it backwards. The concert and rehearsals would have gone much better in standard setup while the recordings - in that huge room - could have been recorded in virtually any layout without much problem.

==

Frank started Mo 'n Herb's Vacation because I asked him to write a *solo* clarinet piece. He was dubious about the idea, but he did it - eventually it was called "Mo's Vacation" but he didn't like it so he added a simultaneous drum solo called "Herb's Vacation". He still wasn't happy so he added 3 more clarinets and 4 bassoons, bass and a few other audio events. (This is what John Steinmetz and I were recording at Frank's studio) I guess it was still not big enough so he added two more movements for huge orchestra - becoming the "Mo 'n Herb's Vacation" on the LSO album. He finally liked it at that stage, because it was only then that he expressed any thanks to me for asking him to write the piece. After the premiere in London I also got a big hug from him - a very unusual event!

(BTW - I paid him for that piece because I could have had a raise in my salary instead. I think I made the right choice.)

ORCHESTRA MUSIC

affz -->>

I had just purchased a record by the Chicago Symphony Orchestra doing"Arcana" by Edgar Varese as well as one other piece. I found it to be very similar to Zappa's "Bogus Pomp" -- any comments?

==

DO -->>

Franks admiration of Varese is well known - and his orchestra style showed it: big, sweeping gestures, blocks of sound, thick harmonies, lots of percussion, generally a lack of melody or historical musical forms. Bogus Pomp is probably not the best example of Franks debt to Varese - Pedro's Dowry is the first piece I'd think of. Bogus Pomp has a lot of "Zappa the Parodist" in it - a trait that definitely did not come from Varese. Someone trying to put Frank's abilities as an orchestral composer down would (and did) call his music "derivative Varese". I'd prefer to think of it as "evolutionary". If you can't tell the difference, you're not paying attention.

I'm not an expert on Varese recordings (or which was Frank's favorite), but I can recommend the Kent Nagano Complete Varese recordings with the French National Orchestra on Erato. I have heard rumors that the sessions with Ensemble Modern produced by Frank were somewhat 'unfocused' so I don't really know what to expect when they're released.

==

affz -->>

I think there are many Zappa oriented people who could thoroughly dig a program of his work coupled with say, Stravinsky or Ravel, even Beethoven. Symphony subscribers, on the other hand, are not likely to be any more bored or offended by Zappa than by a brain work by a Carter/Wuorinen/Babbitt or a Glass/Reich/Adams, or whatever style symphonies anoint as suitably heavy and important. They might like the funny titles, even.

==

DO -->>

I mostly do agree, but there's a long way to go before this happens. If I can draw some conclusions from the programming of my local orchestra (the Los Angeles Philharmonic), I'd say that orchestra audiences respond best to new music when they have a "great personality" to come out for, I mean a "star composer" - for some inexplicable reason in LA that usually means some old European guy who writes (in my opinion) ugly, incomprehensible music -Boulez and Lutoslawski get the greatest reverence here - since Wittold died the canonization has gone ballistic. Sure, a Zappa piece could replace Carter/Wourinen/Babbitt music any day on a concert - but he couldn't replace the hero composer image that seems so necessary to sell new music to the Brahms and Rachmaninoff fans. I disagree, however, about the funny titles (and I love Franks titles). I think the average non-Zappa-fan orchestra audience member will turn off to most of Frank's orchestra music just from hearing the title alone. Certainly they will after reading about the scenarios Frank put on them:

Here's some examples--

MO 'N HERB'S VACATION is about Herb Cohen spending money Frank thought wasn't Herbs. (Frank never actually used the word "theft" that I know of, but he was certainly writing music about getting shafted in shady business deals. How many big donors to the Philharmonic Society want to hear music about that?)

BOB IN DACRON & SAD JANE has sections like "Bob's Clothes" and "What Bob's Body Really Looks Like" "Bob Gets Drunk" "What Jane's Body Really Looks Like" A symphony concert with a piece about a pickup in a singles bar? Try again.

SINISTER FOOTWEAR has "Illegal Aliens Just Want To Go Home" as I remember and other stuff like that - Can you imagine that people who pay $45 or $50 per seat for a symphony concert would appreciate being reminded of Prop 187 during the concert? I don't wonder how *they* voted on 187. But I do wonder if their nannies have green cards.

BOGUS POMP (which in my opinion belongs on Symphonic Pops concerts everywhere) is about the bogus and pompous attitudes prevalent in the orchestra and how the individual members want to quit the group to become stars (the violist is singled out for the most abuse while the concertmaster gets the highest praise for the shoddiest work). This is a case of Frank taking dead aim at exactly the hero worship I was talking about above and skewering it unmercifully. And there's a lot of good 'attitude' about Hollywood in there as well.

And finally can you imagine what the Board of Directors of your average symphony would say when confronted with a piece for full orchestra called PENIS DIMENSION? (There is a full orchestra arrangement that's never been performed and I think it's going to be a long time before orchestra audiences are ready to hear the question "What's the size of your dork?".) If Frank didn't understand classical players, he also didn't understand classical audiences. That's fine because he wasn't writing for those audiences - he had his own audience. But the symphony orchestra scene is ultimately controlled by what the classical audience wants to buy tickets for and they don't want to spend their money being reminded of exactly the stuff they came there to forget. Lots of orchestras salivated over doing Zappa's music while he was alive - thinking they'd play down some easy charts for "rock band and orchestra" and fill the seats with paying customers who'd come back the next week to hear the B Minor Mass. And Frank just wanted to hear his music played well. Talk about your lose-lose situation.

==

affz -->>

Realistically though, it's going to be small, dedicated ensembles, like EM that are going to succeed in making really good performances of Zappa.

==

DO -->>

For the foreseeable future, yes that's true. (Sigh)

Frank really wanted to write for the symphony orchestra which he thought was the biggest and best instrument around (at least until he got his Synclavier). He did write smaller ensemble pieces but usually only when those ensembles came to him asking for music -Ensemble Modern, Ensemble Intercontemporain, Kronos Quartet, Aspen Quintet, the EAR Unit - but only EM really made it work.The real pity is that a lot of the full orchestra pieces - Pedro, Bogus Pomp, Bob and Jane, Envelopes, the first movement of Mo 'n Herb - existed in smaller versions before he expanded them for large ensemble, but those versions didn't get documented the way the big versions did: no final score or set of parts were ever made that I remember.

Those versions would be a lot easier to get decent performances of now. But someone would have to do a lot of work reconstructing them out of parts and sketches and scores piled away (who knows where at the moment) before they could be given to an ensemble. I think there's a Doctorate in Musicology and a position at a major School of Music waiting for the someone who sorts through that stack of music. Someday, maybe, but not soon.

And here's some tantalizing bits: I remember him saying to me once "There really *ought* to be a 'Music for Guitar and HIGH Budget Symphony Orchestra'." Also, at one point he had Steve Vai do some transcriptions of the bits of Greggery Peccary which had never been written down - so that a full orchestra live performance version could be made. Steve did the transcriptions - I saw them, he labeled it "The Peccary Project" - but it never went any farther.

ZAPPA AND OTHER COMPOSERS

BL -->>

You have mentioned the famous Varese quote Frank used that was talked about in Watson's Poodle Play.

==

DO -->>

Watson made a point in discussing Varese that I thought was fascinating and the ramifications of which have been bouncing around in my head since I read it. He said that Varese wrote in his manifesto: "Modern day composers refuse to die" but Frank quoted him in Freak Out (?) as saying "The modern day composer refuses to die". Plural versus singular.

Now you've got to remember that composers throughout this century have been bonding together into collectives for the purpose of getting their works performed - Varese did it, lots of others did it and I did it too: just after I got out of Cal Arts (where I got a graduate degree studying clarinet and composition) I was in a group of composers who founded a composers collective: the Independent Composers Association - known as the ICA. After a few years I became the President and I devoted a lot of time and attention to it - until I realized that being so involved in a composers organization was keeping me from doing any composing. ICA still exists, although it's kind of in a non-growth mode at the moment. Other composers collectives exist here in southern California and I know of them in other parts of the world as well. They seem to be useful but not completely successful method of letting a composer survive in a culture that gives no value to music composition.

Frank would never have been able to work in such a situation - he seemed to thrive on being totally alone while he wrote music or edited in the studio or with the Synclavier. Then he would come out of the studio and present his music to the performers. When given a performance opportunity - a commission, for example - he would expand his plans to include all possible resources (often going well beyond the capabilities of the commissioning organization to keep up). There was no room for sharing.

When I asked him to write a solo clarinet piece (the original Mo's Vacation) I premiered it at a small ICA concert at the Schoenberg Institute at USC. There were other composers pieces on the program, but we used the presence of a "Zappa" piece as a hook to get audience. Ultimately it sounded like just another new-music piece on just another new-music recital. It got a lousy review too.

Another time, Adam Stern and Richard Emmet (you know who Richard is, Adam worked briefly as a copyist for Frank and is now assistant conductor of the Seattle Symphony - and he won a grammy for best Classical music producer, all three of us were at Cal Arts simultaneously) - they arranged the Black Page for a small ensemble and played it at the beginning of another new music concert. Frank would never show up for such a thing but Gail actually did come that night. It's a common practice that short intense pieces like that get played twice on a concert - but when Adam turned to the audience and asked if people wanted to hear it again there was a small chorus of "No"s. I was very embarrassed because Gail was there.

The moral of all this? It would have been very easy to take a lot of Frank's music and make him sound like just another new music composer of no consequence. Maybe this means that his music is really no better than other composers? Maybe it means that no music can ever achieve greatness is a room filled by only a hundred people? I'm pretty sure that it means that Frank knew instinctively to stay away from the 'new music scene' and away from other composers. The misquoting of Varese's comment sums this up much better than my long discourse. (Sidenote about the letters ICA: while being President of the Independent Composers Association, I worked for Frank and received my checks from his production company -InterContinental Absurdities, Ltd: also know as ICA.

Thus, for a few years my entire life revolved around these two ICA's. There are lots of ICA's in the world: Institute of Contemporary Art (in Boston) and the International Carwash Association come immediately to mind. The first night I worked for Frank - my first day is another story for another time - I was driving home and I saw a van with the huge letters ICA on the side. Paranoia struck me - "what was this? Is he having me followed?". It turned out that Franks road manager (Al Santos?) lived in my neighborhood and drove the company "car' home from work. End of Sidenote)

==

BL -->>

Wow. That's quite a connection you've drawn. I read that manifesto also and noticed the misquote and didn't think twice about it. I will now. Frank definitely steered clear of the main stream socially acceptable norms of composition. Frank also knew he had an audience. He referred to us as a small underground following. He also always said that he composed music that amused himself and if somebody else liked it too, that was a bonus. I don't think he wanted mass appeal and composed music singularly for his own enjoyment. Perhaps it would have been different if he didn't have the luxury of performing Dinah Mo Humm once a night to keep his serious hobby afloat.

==

affz -->>

No flame intended, but was FZ really totally unexcited by Boulez' music? Comparing 'Naval Aviation in Art' (conducted by Boulez, admittedly) with Boulez' own 'Repons', I think I can hear certain similarities and I'd always assumed that Boulez was one of the composers that influenced FZ.

==

DO -->>

If the subject is "what 20th-century composers did Frank like?" - I think we can all agree Varese is top of the list in a class by himself. After that I remember Frank showing *real* excitement about Stravinsky, Nancarrow and Antheil at various times. Other people might want to add to that list. I personally would not put Boulez on such a list. I would not say Frank was "totally unexcited" - how 'bout "familiar and respectful"?

Naval Aviation is an interesting point. Once, when Frank had returned from Europe (possibly from the recording session of Perfect Stranger in Paris) he mentioned that someone had made a connection between Naval Aviation and one of Schoenberg's Five Orchestral Pieces - I don't remember which number it is but it has the "jumping fish" motive in it (you'll have to check with someone who's studied such things recently - but it's a well known music-history factoid.) The two pieces have theoretically similar textures - drawn out backgrounds with occasional sparse movements on top. Frank was totally mystified by this - he didn't hear the connection at all. Who knows what he would have said had you asked him to compare "Naval Aviation" and "Repons". BTW - the full title of Naval Aviation is "Naval Aviation in Art?" - note the question mark. Gail once showed me a clipping from Life (?) Magazine ca. 1945 which had inspired the title - it was an article about a gallery showing of artists during WWII who had used scenes from the U.S. Navy's aviation squadrons as themes for their artworks. One of the artists was the photographer Steiglitz as I remember. I think Frank found the juxtaposition of "naval aviation" and "art" strange enough for further comment - or maybe he just appropriated a bizarre title for a nameless piece of music. Franks notes on the record jacket say:

"NAVAL AVIATION IN ART? shows a sailor-artist, standing before his easel, squinting through a porthole for inspiration, while wiser men sleep in hammocks all around him."

==

affz -->>

The similarities I detect in Repons actually fit very well with the description you give, so maybe Zappa had just absorbed the idioms of modern orchestral music to such a degree that he could use some of the same devices employed by Schoenberg or Boulez without consciously trying to mimican specific piece.

==

DO -->>

I think he tended to stop doing something if he thought he was following someone else's rules or example. He had no trouble making up new rules for each situation. And mutating them so fast no one else could hope to keep up. Gail told me once that Frank had expressed this philosophy: "Always give them what they don't expect". I think that fits all his music. I betcha that if Frank had known Repons or the Schoenberg Orchestral Piece when he wrote Naval Aviation, NAIA? would have been a completely different piece. We can point out similarities between his music and other well-known composers from here to eternity, and we can speculate on how familiar Frank was with their music - but I'm unwilling to award the "Was Influenced By" title to anyone but the most obvious choices. Varese anyone?

==

While I was working for Frank a recording of the music of George Antheil performed by the Netherlands Wind Ensemble was released - making many people aware for the first time how insanely great his early works are. These include the Ballet Mechanique (for percussion, pianos, airplane propeller, various buzzers etc), a Jazz Symphony and several sonatas for violin and piano. Frank liked Antheil's music too. Once, in a discussion with Frank and someone else, I mentioned that I thought the Jazz Symphony was the best piece on the album. Frank disagreed and chose one of the violin sonatas as his favorite (I believe it was the one with the drum bit at the end). I was surprised by this but also pleased that he chose a small-scale chamber work instead of a large, colorful orchestra piece. (I've spent a lot of my life playing chamber music and regretted that Frank showed so little interest in small acoustic instrumental pieces. At that time he was writing many large, colorful orchestra pieces. I had assumed - wrongly - that he'd be more interested in Antheil's orchestra work.)

Another time: I was working on something at the house and Frank was nearby. I was whistling while I worked - as I often do - not really aware of what the tune was. Frank said "Oh, Antheil's greatest hits." and I realized that I was whistling the Ballet Mechanique theme. Highly recommended. I wonder if that album has been reissued on CD.

==

Other artists that I can remember Frank showing interest and excitement about: Stravinsky has already been mentioned - but I direct your attention to L'Histoire du Soldat, a chamber work for small ensemble and narrators. Frank did one of the narration parts at least once that I know of (at the Hollywood Bowl with LA Phil players). I'd say Frank had more interest in early Stravinsky (Firebird, Rite of Spring etc) than middle (neo-classic) or late (serial) Stravinsky. Also, Conlon Nancarrow - the player piano guy from Mexico City.

It's a short list but I'm sure that I'm allowing my own personal attitudes to filter it somewhat: What do I think of Boulez? (What follows is **my** own personal opinion only) Boulez as a composer: his music strikes me as old-fashioned, atonal neo-impressionism - often tending to meander about for far longer than I care to listen. Boulez as a conductor: too precise, uninterpretive, un-creative - often(to my ears) taking great music and making it seem like so many dots on a page. Boulez as cultural icon: how did this guy ever get to be the epitome of serious musical expression? Classical music is in a bad way, mate.

Frank held a high opinion of Boulez, as I remember, although I don't think he could be said to have been "Excited" about Pierre's music. But since Frank wanted the players to play exactly what he had written, there was a certain meeting of the minds between them as to "the composer is always right".

==

affz -->>

What lets FZ's orchestral music off the hook of being "old-fashioned, atonal neo-impressionism", apart from the disclaimer that it's for"entertainment purposes only..."?

==

DO -->>

Nothing - except the totally subjective responses of each of our ears and brains. If you wanted to put Franks music down you might well call it "old-fashioned atonal etc." - it's gotten much worse reviews from classical critics. I do believe that Boulez lives much more consciously in the shadow of the great French composers of the last 100 years - Debussy, Messiaen for example - than Frank lived in the shadow of Varese.

==

BL -->>

What about John Cage? What do you think about his influence on Frank? I've seen some amazing Cage documentaries and the vision he had reminds me of Zappa's.

==

DO -->>

I have had about all the Cage documentaries I can deal with for one lifetime - his music was a very important catalyst for me in my early years, but I sort of saw through it when I got older (and wiser?). I tend to have more interest in Cage's early works (pre- 1960) than in the later stuff. The Imaginary Landscape for radios was something I had organized a performance of - like a few other things from the same period. I can't think of **anything** having less to do with the music of Frank Zappa than the music of John Cage.

==

BL -->>

What/how do you think about the Poodle book? (The Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play by Ben Watson)

==

DO -->>

I've got the book now and am about 100 pages into it - it's achieved the ultimate low for my reading list: I keep it in the bathroom and read a few pages each time I take a shit. Some of the information is very interesting - remember that I don't know all that much about large periods of Frank's career, so reading about his early life and early work is news to me.

I suppose it's inevitable that Frank would be subjected to such an analytical history as this -but I was really depressed to discover that it had been completed even before he died. He described what he did as 'entertainment' and rejected every attempt to ascribe higher meaning to it that I was aware of. I was once at the house waiting for him to finish a phone interview and heard him use the phrase "I just like to write this stuff and stick it in my ear." I remember this vividly because such an attitude absolved him of having a higher purpose that us "serious" composers aspired to. In other words, he did what he did and we (the listeners) were supposed to have a good time with it.

Of course it all has some meaning, but I'd say it's too soon by far to spend much effort figuring out what that meaning really is (much less trying to express it in big books). On some level Frank and his music is still living in our minds and memories - we should strive to keep it that way. His music will survive of its own accord if it has any real content. It will turn into rigid 'classical' music soon enough and then let the musicologists and the Marxists write their revisionism. We still have a chance to enjoy this music, to celebrate the mystery of a natural creative artist - Watson is 50 years too early in my opinion.

Moreover - taking a Marxist perspective of Frank is scary and revisionist. Frank was a capitalist out to make a living by doing what was interesting to him and what he was good at. His music was (still is) a family business fighting against musical megaliths. The 'commodification of art' did not bother Frank. He worried more about keeping the inventory well stocked, not about the musicological underpinnings and cultural attitudes that colored other peoples attitudes about it.

==

BL -->>

David had this to say in response to a personal response regarding the Boulez thread:

==

DO -->>

Stockhausen and Boulez were mutually influential I believe. I'd have to think that Stockhausen was no more of an influence on Frank than Boulez was. Once Frank mentioned to me "I have written serial music" - but I never did figure out what music of his he was referring to and I never saw him compose using any techniques I would have called serial. I only remember talking to Frank about Stockhausen's music twice - both times after I heard performances of Stockhausen pieces and reported on them to Frank. He was curious but didn't seem particularly impressed or overly interested in either.

Of course, if someone could actually prove to me that Frank was at Darmstadt in the 50's (which I believe has about as much truth as the "he-ate-shit-on-stage" rumor), I have to reconsider my opinions about all of this.

==

BL -->>

He also always said that he composed music that amused himself and if somebody else liked it too, that was a bonus. I don't think he wanted mass appeal and composed music singularly for his own enjoyment. Perhaps it would have been different if he didn't have the luxury of performing Dinah Mo Humm once a night to keep his serious hobby afloat. Additional thoughts?

==

DO -->>

The LSO session was largely paid for by Valley Girl profits. At one point he was working on some album (don't remember which) and I heard him say to the engineer "We've got to get this to sound right. I don't want to put out another album that I don't like" Yes, I guess he had his own ears in mind all the time. Another time I heard him say which album was his favorite. Don't get your hopes up -- I can't remember which one he said.

SYNCLAVIER

affz -->> re: "Francesco Zappa".

I sometimes get the feeling FZ was operating the Synclavier with one hand and holding its instruction manual in the other, all the while recording the outcome. Or perhaps that's what he meant to do all the time?

==

DO -->>

Once the original "Francesco" trios were entered into the Synclavier, Frank's only creative input was deciding on which sounds would go with which musical lines. I never did understand what he was trying to do with it, but he picked some very rich synthetic sounds that served to obscure the 18th century music. Hmmm - maybe *that was* what he was trying to do. The music of Francesco Zappa was not what anyone would call inspired writing (sort of behind the times even then) - and it certainly wasn't the kind of thing Frank liked to listen to. In comparison to any other album I ever saw Frank working on, Francesco Zappa was tossed off super quickly - and maybe Frank was testing the limits of the Synclavier. The album, like Francesco himself, disappeared almost without trace. But how many composers discover an eponymously named composer who lived two-hundred years earlier than them? I'm sure glad he did something to honor the co-incidence.

If you're willing to ascribe a metaphysical significance to it (which Frank would haved rejected), Francesco Zappa does a lot to explain why Frank Zappa was such a unique musician. On the other hand, the album Francesco Zappa *isn't* very interesting, is it?

==

affz -->>

I went back and read the passage about you in Viva Zappa and it goes pretty much like this: "FZ has two permanently salaried electricians, David Ocker and David DeFuria, who help program the Synclavier."

==

DO -->>

Steve DeFuria - I wonder what became of him. He taught me a lot about the Synclavier - and he actually wrote software that we used. In fact, I got switched over from copying to Synclavier because Steve really wasn't available for as much work as Frank wanted done. Steve wrote a column in Keyboard magazine after that for a while.

affz -->>

I have always been blown away by this Varese quote from the New York Times 6 December 1936 (section 2 page 7) - "I am sure that the time will come when the composer, after he has graphically realized his score, will see this score automatically put on a machine that will faithfully transmit the musical content to the listener." Sounds like a vision of the Synclavier to me. I love the fact that Frank was able to realize Varese's vision in that regard.

==

DO -->>

Right - I think about this as I listen to CPIII - Frank always wanted a way of hearing his music just as he intended it and he FINALLY got that. Then he died. It's so sad but also wonderful that he had completed the cycle and fulfilled the dream. Had he lived on we might have seen great changes in him and his music - possibly he would have imagined and reached new heights. Possibly not - we'll never know.

==

BL -->>

Any more memories of the Francesco project?

==

DO -->>

A few years before I quit working for Frank a new edition of Groves Encyclopedia of Music and Musicians (which may actually have a slightly different name) was published. I saw it in the Theodore Front music store in LA and thought I'd check to see if Frank had gotten a listing. He hadn't but in his place was a listing about Francesco Zappa - unknown Italian cellist and composer. After briefly considering and rejecting the obvious explanation (that the listing was some sort of joke) I figured I'd have to get some of Francesco's music to show Frank. So I decided not to mention it to him till I had some music.

Not long after this he went on tour in Europe. When he returned he had been told by someone about the Francesco listing and he was quite excited by the notion that a musician with essentially the same name had exsisted 200 years earlier. Meanwhile, all I had done was find a person to tell me how to get the music - this was "Jim Lee who used RISM to point using the right direction" - Jim was a musician who did early music arrangements. I met him at Judy Green Music in Hollywood (where all the Zappa scores etc got reproduced - still do, actually) and RISM stands for four long German words which are books of lists of musty old scores in musty old libraries all over the world.

Franks secretary wrote away for xeroxes of some of the scores in US libraries and we soon had more trio sonatas that we could deal with. The music was hand copied manuscripts obviously from Francesco's own period - individual parts, not scores. They were hard to read - I don't really remember what they looked like but I knew enough about 18th century notation to enter them into the Synclavier. The music would not be readable by an average musician today. Frank set me to work on this and I did the most authentic job I could with them. Using genuine string-like synth sounds, adding crescendos and diminuendos. Frank liked playing them for anyone who came into the studio.

When it came to recording them the sound was far too staid and old-fashioned for Frank. He started substituting the most uproarious synthesizer sounds then available (this was before sampling) onto the three parts (two violin and one cello) - instantly obscuring all the nuances I'd added and blurring much of what Francesco himself had written. Some of the combinations he tried in the studio were even more outlandish than what ended up on the record. He must have liked what he came up with however.

Once I was in the studio while Frank was meeting with the designers of the album cover -two women. One of them started talking about reincarnation and how exciting it must be for "Frank Zappa" to discover "Francesco Zappa" who had such a similar career. Frank did not seem to want to entertain such metaphysical notions - he started twisting his neck and rolling his eyes. Everyone laughed and Frank avoided giving the notion any credence.

As the album was going into final production he asked me to write liner notes - this was probably the most original piece of creative work I ever did for Frank - every "Fact" in the liner notes is correct. Francesco did live in all those places and dedicate those trios twice (we had the same music manuscripts from two different sources with different dedications). The attitude about Francesco that I tried to convey was much more akin to FRANK Zappa's attitude than Francesco himself - actually I knew nothing of Francesco's attitude. It's also true that the steam-powered record player was never a commercial success (steam power would have been very high-tech during Francesco's lifetime) - hmm, I guess I made up the part about coal-burning cassettes - and maybe a few other obvious lies. When I finished the program notes Frank edited them somewhat (making improvements for the better - I can no longer remember which bits he edited) but most of it is my writing.

FRANK ZAPPA - THE PERSON

affz -->>

Anyway, yeah, I understand that you as a symphony member might have a different perspective on his music, but you also knew him personally, and that is sort of what is interesting to me. I'd really just like to know what his demeanor offstage was like...I mean, was your relationship with Frank totally professional?

==

DO -->>

First, I'm not a symphony player - never was in an orchestra more than a couple concerts post college. I've played lots of chamber music though.

About his offstage demeanor - I remember when I first worked for him I was impressed that he was different than I expected him to be. Much less "crazy". I wasn't a Zappa fan before I went to work with him, but I'd heard 3 or 4 albums and heard a few stories. I asked him early on how he dealt with the fact that he was nothing like his public image and he testily replied that that didn't matter.

Yes, my relationship with him was totally professional. And most of my time with him I actually thought of him as being quite nice. But remember, he was my boss - and nobody likes their boss all the time. Also remember, that he ran a family business - a small one by comparison - but he's the only real "boss" I've ever had. Since then I've been freelancing and now I have "clients" - I think one of the reasons I left his employ was that I couldn't deal with the stress of knowing I could be fired at any time. Now, if I lose one client at least I have the others to fall back on. Also, I had proven that I could work for Frank Zappa - I wasn't a member of the family and there was no real future in the job for me (aside from doing the same things over and over).

affz -->>

You say you kept in touch with him after you left.... was this in a consultation type situation, or did he call to say hello?

DO -->>

He never called me - except once (more on that later) - if you wanted to be in touch with Frank you called him. I could usually get through the secretary if he was available and we'd usually have a phone conversation. Usually such phone conversations turned into an invitation to come over to his studio - where there would be more talk and he would play tapes of works in progress. I think he did that with certain people to get reactions.

I limited myself to calling Frank about once a year after I left his employment. I tried to pick times when I had lots of work but when I wasn't really under deadline so I would have some time to hang out. I didn't want to go over there when I was looking for work because I didn't really want to ask him for work - that would have meant going on salary again. Usually Frank would make it clear that I was welcome to call or come over - it was my idea to limit the visits to once a year or so. After a few years I had plenty of work but I still limited my "hits" of Frank. Once I ended up sitting in the studio with him for about 3 hours with NO ONE else around -it was very unusual to be there when things were so quiet. We talked about lots of stuff -music and politics mostly. I'd say we talked as equals - I wasn't afraid to tell him what I thought about things and we didn't always agree. If you knew him - even for a short while -you couldn't help but be aware what an incredibly intelligent man he was. Don't ask what we talked about - I don't really remember. Just that I was talking alone with him for a long while.

I've heard people who obviously knew Frank a lot less than I did describe themselves in public as his "friend". I am somewhat reticent to describe myself that way - although I'm sure if I did no one could complain. (He apparently thought of me as a friend - see the discussion of While You Were Art - below) Maybe I am reticent because I was an employee for so long. Many former employees left in various forms of disgrace or disagreement and couldn't have called/visited him like I did. I guess you can call it what you will.

The one phone call I got from Frank was at the beginning of the Yellow Shark project. I was invited over to meet people from Ensemble Modern and I took samples of my computer music engraving to show them. Frank wanted me hired as musical assistant and the EM people were willing to do that. There were some problems getting a contract signed between me and EM - but I started work and made it through the initial rehearsals. Then it was clear that I couldn't come to an agreement (purely monetary) with EM and I was replaced by Ali Askin. I guess if I had kept the job I'd have been one of the piano people on CPIII maybe instead of Ali. It's okay, though. I had my time with Frank. Working with him was like standing next to a whirlwind. Things were always going on. I did it for 7 years - enough was enough.

==

affz -->>

BTW, I am making the assumption that you are/were a member of the LA Philharmonic...sorry. well, just the fact that you did work for Frank speaks volumes about your proficiency in your field. one thing I have gathered is that he had little tolerance for fools.

==

DO -->>

No relationship with the Philharmonic at all - I'm just another freelance musician from LA - and I no longer play the clarinet (recent decision). I'm earning my living doing only computer music engraving. My current work is mostly for the composer John Adams (Nixon in China, Death of Klinghoffer are his two operas) and the composer William Kraft (now a professor, formerly timpanist, composer and conductor in that very same LA Phil). There's lots of music in LA beyond the Philharmonic. It may be an 800 pound gorilla - but there are plenty of 100 and 200 pound gorillas here too.

You're right, Frank didn't tolerate fools. When I quit from my 7 years with him, I talked with Bob Rice who replaced me as Synclavier operator. I told Bob "You can say anything to Frank, but make sure it's true or you'll get found out. And don't tell him you can doing anything unless you can actually deliver on it." Later I talked to Bob again (when he was on his way out) and he reminded me of that advice and that it had been very accurate.

==

affz -->>

I had read a couple of interviews with Ruth Underwood around the time of Frank Zappa's death regarding how she was flattered that Frank seemed to understand what her capabilities were and would compose things for her to do that, although initially challenging, she felt were tailored to the way she played. Did you feel the same way about "Mo 'n' Herb's Vacation"?

==

DO -->>

ABSOLUTELY!!!! I feel the same way about my entire time with Frank. He had a sixth sense about what he could ask people to do that they didn't think themselves capable of - and be right about it.

Basically, when he hired me to copy music he had seen some of my sample work - but he told me to do the best job I was capable of. There was no "hurry up this is costing too much" - or "can't you do it quicker". He wanted the best work possible. As a result I learned (taught myself) how to be a exceptionally good copyist - after I left Frank those same qualities have helped me get and keep!! my current clients.

As for performance stuff - he music was super-challenging - especially in the realm of rhythms and cross-rhythms. When I started with him I had some idea of how to play them. He got me playing things I never could have imagined previously. As for Mo 'n Herb - just thinking about it now - it's kind of frightening: I actually played a solo from memory with a professional symphony orchestra. I'd played a couple concertos in college. Never had played ANYTHING from memory before that day. Those minutes in the Barbican were the high point of my life - no question about it (I say that line a lot!).

I remember realizing that this quality of being able to exploit peoples talents worked on himself too. Some things Frank was not very good at - for example, playing written music on his guitar - and he managed to always put himself in positions where he didn't have to do that. Other people did it for him. Later, the Synclavier did it for him.

==

affz -->>

And do you think, before the Synclavier, Frank normally composed in this manner or altered his compositions to fit his band? (And I don't mean a change an arrangement from reggae to metal; more like bits and pieces rearranged, added or deleted ...).

==

DO -->>

Apparently all throughout his career - Frank was ready and willing to reuse anything he had composed previously. That's why there are so many different versions of the same tunes. Why little melodies pop up in totally different contexts. Once I remember I was sorting through a pile of music and found an unmarked piece of manuscript - "What's this?" I asked (Sorry I don't remember what it was - something from a very early album). It was something he hadn't seen in years. He immediately took it into the studio and started working with it as if he had just composed it that morning.

Ooops - I think I'm not answering your question ... here's another try. He always pushed the materials at hand to their limits. These things might be a Synclavier worth a king's ransom, the members of the band, some little electronic gizmo for altering guitar sound, a piece of manuscript paper, a drum box - anything. I guess I tend to think that everything (people or machines) he worked with he worked the same way - he pushed and pushed till he got something that he was excited about. Pretty amazing, huh?

==

affz -->> -->>

David said: He always pushed the materials at hand to their limits. These things might be a Synclavier worth a king's ransom, the members of the band, ...

==

affz -->>

Yeah, but how many people snapped by being pushed to their limit and being kep near that limit ?

==

DO -->>

A lot, I'd think. I survived for so long because most of my work was done at home on my own schedule - all the copyists provided their own work space at home. The one year I actually worked directly with Frank in the studio was my last year and I craved working at home on my own again. Also, I was never on tour with him and never had to give my entire life over to working for Frank. I don't believe I could have survived that for very long. Of course, I also never had the chance to find out.

Of course my life was best when he was on tour and he'd left me in LA with some large project to finish - score or parts or something.

When he was in town, during the 6 years I was working for him as a copyist I would often have to reach him by phone. To do this effectively I had to know something about his current schedule - was he getting up late in the day and working all night or the other way around. The most amazing thing was that I could have his schedule pegged one day and then call back 2 or 3 days later and be told that he was on a completely different schedule, it could change that fast. I once asked him about all the different schedules he got on and he just said "I've seen 'em all."

One of the things I learned from Frank was how to live irrespective of a 24 hour schedule - I can be awake or asleep just about any time during the day. For example, today I got up about 11 PM and it's now 1 p.m. the next day (I'm a little tired now and will probably go to bed soon but I've been working all night). I don't think I'd have ever learned to keep such a schedule if I hadn't had Frank as an example. I think of it as his "legacy" to me.

==

affz -->>

Do you think perhaps that the humor that's rampant in his work had the unintended effect of relieving that pressure of working near their limits, day after day, night after night?

==

DO -->>

I agree with this much less. Things could get pretty humorous around Frank - but they could also get kind of strange. There were times when he was angry about something and every third word he said was "fuck", that I was just plain uncomfortable being around him. Also, if you're sitting in the studio listening to the same track for the 90th time worrying about getting a clean punch-in somewhere or being in tune or playing the right notes or punching the right buttons on the Synclavier - the pressure gets pretty intense. The humor in the tune itself gets lost very easily under those circumstances. And, when you were with Frank - everything revolved around Frank - after all, he was the employer , the creative talent and the star.

I'm not eager to dwell on the negative aspects of working for him - but make no mistake: it wasn't all a good time. However it was usually exciting. I guess I quit working for him partly because I no longer needed those hits of excitement. And when I went to visit him every year or so after I quit I'd get enough of a reminder of what that was like that I felt okay about having moved on to other work.

==

affz -->>

Does Ryko send promo copies of each CD to all musicians who played on each release?! (I guess not, can you imagine them sending a copy to each member of the London Symphony orchestra? Like they would even know how to get in contact with them, except for maybe you, Chad, and Ed Mann)

==

DO -->>

Are you kidding? The recording industry has a residual program for musicians based on their most recent work - since I haven't worked in recordings at all for a long time I now get only about a $10 check sometime each summer. But my work for Frank isn't part of that 'cause most of what I did was for a regular salary. I was paid extra for each actual recording session - but I never saw a union contract. I sincerely hope the guys who played a lot on the albums (and who play solos) get something for their work which keeps getting released.

As for promos - I got a promo of LSO I (on vinyl) which became hopelessly warped so I bought my own copy of it on CD (my very first CD - years before I had a CD player). To get a promo from Frank you sort of had to be in the room when the box of new pressings was delivered - he'd give them gladly, but he wouldn't go out of his way to distribute them. I didn't get promos of Perfect Stranger or Francesco Zappa - because they were released just after I stopped working for Frank -- and I was the *only* musician on the Francesco album.

==

affz -->>

It's interesting that you echo one of the "black spots" of Frank's personality, which all the musicians I've ever seen talk about him allude to him in some way. He seems to have completely loved to just powerhouse you on the spot. I can almost here him saying something like "so you can't play that, huh? Well try this!!" And of course it would be ten times harder. You're the first "member of the band"I've ever actually asked this of. Is it true?

==

DO -->>

Sort of - his intent (in my opinion) was to find the best players. Also, I think, he tried to find out just how good they were so he'd constantly ask for a little bit more from everyone. If they delivered, he'd ask for more yet. It wasn't a competition with the player or a putdown on those who didn't cut it. He was just looking for an "instrument" (in this case a band of 5 or 10 people) to play his most difficult music as efficiently and *accurately* as possible.

(Also, remember that different people in the band had to have different talents - for example, Frank needed good singers in the band. Often the featured singer was not asked to play any of the unison tuplet lines. Certain guitarists also.)

The unintentional (and wonderful) result of this process of harder and harder music was that the players (myself most DEFINITELY included) would discover that they could do things they never thought themselves capable of. He seemed to have a sixth sense about just what to ask for. In the few cases that I know of where he was wrong about someone and he had to let them go he always seemed (to me) just a little remorseful about it.

Another wonderful result is that he was also pushing players not in the band to higher achievements by publishing the music. I suppose we'll have to wait and see just how much effect his music has on the world of music in general -but the possibility is enormous. You could say the obfuscatory notation was just another way of weeding people out.

BTW - I was never a "member of the band" - I suppose you'd say I was support staff -Copying put me more in the category of a recording engineer than a band-member. I only played on albums in studio recording situations and I only ever appeared in public twice -once with the LSO and once with the Berkeley Symphony, both times playing only the clarinet 1 part of Mo 'n Herb's Vacation.

GETTING THE JOB

BL -->>

How exactly did you hook up with him in the first place?

==

DO -->>

I was a student at Cal Arts in Valencia CA. Ed Mann was a student at the same time. His teacher was John Bergamo (who I also worked with). John had been hired for some session work with Frank (I think he's one of the nameless musicians on Greggary Peccary) and had gotten Ed the chance to get in the band and Frank hired Ed. Frank was looking for someone to be his "musical secretary" and both Ed and John recommended me to him. Then they both told me that I would be getting a call from Frank Zappa. "Sure" I thought "when pigs have wings."

Bergamo had played the Black Page and had lost a copy of the music which Frank had given him. So John hired me to copy the Black Page to give it to Frank. I figured they had showed that to Frank.

One Sunday afternoon (this was June 1977 - as I was eating a pancake breakfast with my roommate) the phone rang and it was Ed Mann saying "Frank Zappa wants you to work for him." so I called Frank and he told me to come right over. I thought it was a job like all my other work at the time (i.e. "come right now we have music that needs to be recorded at 8 o clock tomorrow morning"). When I got there he took me in the house and showed me piles of music. He started handing me things from the piles and giving me instructions to work on stuff. I asked him if he had seen the copy of the Black Page - he hadn't.

So I had showed up to my interview without the one piece of music that was sure to get me the gig.

Obviously I got the gig anyway and left the house with 8 different projects. He told me which one to do first. I worked like a fiend - in the next 24 hours I probably worked 18 or 19 to finish the project. When I showed up the next day (with the completed project AND The Black Page) he was very impressed. I told him that I was working too hard (I was exhausted). Frank said "So don't work so hard." Funny, at the moment I don't remember what that first piece was, but later he gave me that score - sort of as a memento. A rare thing for him to do. I still have it - so I'll have to look up what I worked on that first day. But where is it? It was music for the new band he was putting together - that was the band with Adrian Belew.

OTHER PEOPLE WHO WORKED FOR FRANK

affz -->>

..."Zappa's staff includes Bruce Bickford, the animator of modeling clay, house copyist steve Vai who works as a transcriber, two permanently salaried electricians David Ocker and Steve DeFuria who work at programming the Synclavier computer, soundmen Mark Pinske, Bob Stone, and Thomas Nordegg."

==

DO -->>

I never met Bruce Bickford. I remember that he was working for Frank much earlier than the Synclavier years - when I would have been an "electrician"(weird choice of words) along with Steve de Furia.

Steve Vai was hired as a transcriber only - he sent in some transcriptions to Frank for free and Frank hired him as I remember. He wasn't a copyist. If you look in the Frank Zappa guitar book you can see an example of what Steve's manuscript looked like and how the copyists transformed it.

Once I was in the studio when something that Steve Vai had transcribed had been recorded or overdubbed to the original track. (This was long before Steve had become a star - he was just the new guitarist in Zappa's band.) I was sitting on a couch next to Steve. Someone said something about how much money Frank had spent getting this all recorded and Steve whispered to me "Yeah, and I got paid $10 a page for the transcription" - which was peanuts for the quality work he did. I whispered back "but now you have a job."

Steve was and is a very nice guy and super talented who (like Frank) deserves success because he works so hard. We talked about a year ago - he was considering hiring me to copy some orchestral music he had written. I guess it didn't happen or he decided I was too expensive. "Orchestra music" - talk about following in Frank's footsteps.

There were always several soundmen working at Franks studio (UMRK). Bob Stone lasted as engineer for a long, long time. Tom Nordegg was a kind of Jack of all Trades - I remember he used to run errands on a motor scooter. Plus people at the office. Plus a secretary - Susan Rubio was Franks secretary for a long longtime.

These were just the salaried people - then there were art designers, publicists etc who weren't full time. During tour time the number of employees shot way up of course. All of this revolved around Frank (and Gail) - quite a whirlwind sometimes.

==

BL -->>

David, I've been having a discussion on the newsgroup with someone who said that Steve doubled a lot of Frank's solos for the Shut Up and Play Yer Guitar series. Is this factual? I can hear 2 solos occasionally but never dreamed it was Steve. I knew Frank had a lot of gizmos on stage (dividers, envelopes, sequencers, way etc.) and figured he was punching in so to speak. Any idea?

==

DO -->>

Is possible - I don't remember any specific examples on the Shut Up...series. Doubling one of Frank's live solos was a common technique. The third movement from Sinister Footwear was an FZ solo which Steve transcribed and both he and I learned it and overdubbed it. Maybe someone else as well - Ed Mann? - sorry I don't remember. Steve also overdubbed the guitar in unison with with Frank's voice on Dangerous Kitchen and another tune (story about roadies/groupies impressing women and skinny-dipping in the pool -don't remember the title). So I guess any solo that got transcribed (check the FZ Guitar Book) was a candidate for overdubbing. Whether any specific title was actually overdubbed, I dunno - if you ever get a chance, I'd suggest you ask Steve. If he was on the recording doing something amazing like that, I'd expect Frank to give him a credit.

Frank had a huge pedal board with all his various guitar effects on it. I remember him fine tuning his guitar in the studio at times as well. I guess electric guitar sound is beyond my comprehension, because there were lots of times he'd tweak and tweak the sound and I couldn't hear any difference in what was coming out.

COMPOSITION & MUSIC THEORY

affz -->>

This leads me to some more questions that I would like to ask you since you obviously knew Zappa quite well and even tried to influence the direction of his compositions:

==

DO -->>

===TILT===

My job as copyist for 6 of my 7 years with Frank involved *technical* musical matters - mostly notational, sometimes orchestrational. I was the guy who had to remember what the bottom note on the piccolo or English Horn is, for example. However, when it came to the actual music he made all the decisions. He might play tapes for people and measure their reactions - but the music wasn't finished till HE liked it. In fact, to do my job (which I still do for other composers) I've learned not to make suggestions about how the music sounds.

Here's a example - early on I suggested that a certain cello line in (what became) the 2nd movement of Mo 'n Herb be pizzicato instead of arco. Frank asked me why and I had some reason for it. He actually okayed it and these two particular measures were marked "pizz." When I heard the piece played (by the LSO) those two measures immediately jumped out at me and I thought "That shouldn't have been pizz - they should have remained arco". I never mentioned this to Frank again however so I don't know if he was aware of it.

If you think that two bars of cello in one humongous orchestra piece is pretty insignificant = then you can get some idea of how much I (or anyone) might have been able to influence the direction of his music.

==

affz -->>

Do you think he was composing in accordance with some theory or was he just writing down the sounds that came into his head?

==

DO -->>

To be perfectly honest I'd have to answer "yes" and "yes". However, if by "theory" you mean a life-long, all-encompassing theory (like "serialism" or "12-tone") then the answers are "no" and "yes". There were some theoretical things that I saw him do - mostly to do with harmonies. He told me once that he had gotten his sense of harmony from playing the guitar - and I lamented that I never got much sense of harmony from playing the clarinet. For all the time I worked for him I never really understood all the nuances of his chord symbols. Of course I didn't have to - I just copied them for the guitarists to figure out.

Eventually some of his favorite chords got written down and categorized into what he called "the chord bible" - chords would get added to each note of a melody and the final result would be five to seven parallel voices with the melody on top. This was used for most of the large orchestra pieces I worked on. That's why Sinister Footwear has such huge wind sections - so he could have these thick chords played by individual instrumental colors. When the Synclavier arrived this system was soon forgotten. He did have some special Synclavier software created which combined music files in various ways. Steve DeFuria wrote it. Can this be considered theory? I think not - it was more of a "Lets try this and see what happens" - musical experimentations where he kept what he liked and tossed the rest of the tapes into the vault. Don't forget - he called his studio "Utility Muffin RESEARCH Kitchen". I believe he did that sort of stuff throughout his career.

==

affz -->>

I know that he always insisted that he wrote music only for his own amusement, but that doesn't seem to square with taking a man like Pierre Boulez seriously.

==

DO -->>

I think of Boulez (and lots of other serious composers) as writing in some tradition - Pierre probably thinks of himself as the continuation of a long line of French composers: Debussey, Messiaen, Boulez ... Another composer I once heard speak said that he wrote super-difficult music in order to "help human evolution along". Frank would have witheringly scorned such notions. He was a guy who wrote music for a living and because it gave him a thrill - and you could see that from the way he reacted to something that was coming out well. His attitude about why he composed might have changed somewhat after he learned of the cancer, but I wasn't around enough then to say exactly how.

==

affz -->>

Also, how do you think his orchestral compositions fit in with his more song-oriented output? Did he really hear music so abstractly as to perceive both Varese and doo-wop as mere sound patterns, or were the orchestral composing and the song-writing two different activities?

==

DO -->>

The orchestral music started with Frank sitting by himself in a room for hours and hours plunking things out on the piano and writing them down with a sharp felt-tip pen on manuscript paper. Some of the more difficult band-parts might start off the same way, but most of the songs seemed to evolve from simple ideas that he'd formulate in his mind and bring into a rehearsal. He'd keep trying things - if he liked them they were in, if he didn't he changed them. When he got his first drum box - Frank was mesmerized by it and started turning out rhythm tracks by the dozens. He spoke of each track as a future song - I asked him "what about the melodies" - his response was to the effect of "I'll have them." which I took to mean "Don't worry - they're inside of me but I'm not exactly sure what they are yet."

He never had any problems coming up with new ideas. They must have been burning inside him - because he worked so hard and so enthusiastically to get them out. I can't imagine ever meeting a more remarkable human being.

==

affz -->>

I get the feeling that FZ probably did not much like the music of pre-twentieth century composers. Was it just that they were old or did he specifically dislike the classical tradition. Did he ever express enthusiasm for any pre-20th c.music? (Apart from Francesco Zappa's, that is).

==

DO -->>

I can't remember even one instance when he and I discussed any pre-twentieth century music - apart from Francesco's. When I was entering those scores into the Synclavier he had absolutely no notion what all the little mordants and various classical notations meant - nor did he seem to care. I doubt he liked Francesco either. He was much more interested in getting the Synclavier to create something wonderful (to him) out of Francesco than in getting it to reproduce Francesco's intentions. He would describe the project to people as a "sort of Switched-On Bach album". That seemed sort of strange to me- maybe because I was such a fan of the original Switched-On albums when they came out. I'd have to say that Frank was simply not part of the classical tradition - he had none of the training and no real interest. Can you imagine him as a kid going to some sort of "Symphonies for Youth" concert, bused to the concert hall and forced to listen to a stuffed-shirt conductor describe The Sorcerer's Apprentice or the Pastoral Symphony? I think we should be thankful that as a kid he discovered the music of Varese and Webern and other classical-world outcasts, rather than listening to (say) Wilhelm Mengelberg conducting Bruckner or Toscanini leading a Schumann symphony or the Alfred Deller consort doing Purcell or Wanda Landowska playing anything or Hamilton-Hardy's Water Music or any opera by Donizetti or The Siegfried Idyll or Wellington's Victory ... (well, you get the idea). Do you think **anyone** who reads a.f.f-z owns a recording of Daughter of the Regiment? If someone does, I think they deserve an award of some sort.

==

BL -->>

You have mentioned that you have some insight into Frank's usage of xenochrony. What can you tell us about your memories of how FZ employed this technique?

==

DO -->>

I just read all the references to xenochrony in the Watson book. Frank, as far as I can tell, as always fascinated by the concept of combining different temporal objects in his music. It worked on both micro and macro levels. Let me describe each in turn: First macro - because this seems to be most similar to what xenochrony means. I remember when Frank was working on Sheik Yerbouti and there's a tune called Rubber Shirt which is a combination of three solos - guitar, bass and drums (Frank, O'Hearn and Bozzio I believe)which Frank combined in the studio using tape transfers. He was really excited about this -and he played it for me, saying something like "The solos just seem to work so well together." I doubt it was an accident - my guess is that he tried a variety of different combinations of those tracks till he found the one way he liked the best.

Another time, when we were working on some of the large orchestra pieces, he said something about making a mosaic out of various pieces - taking the scores, cutting them up in various ways and pasting them back together into some sort of composite score and then checking out the results. This never happened because it would have been such a cost-intensive project to combine the score into something playable, produce the parts, hire the orchestra etc. He could get the same effect more easily and with instant feedback to his ears by using tape machines. When he got the digital 24 track recorders he could really indulge this sort of thing because he could re-record and re-record without losing any fidelity.

Yet another time, I had learned the melody which would become part of Sinister Footwear(called at the time "C Instruments"). It had lots of cross-rhythms (the micro level stuff, see below), tuplets-galore plus lots of mixed meters. Playing 9 over 5 is no picnic, but it's a lot easier if you can keep your foot tapping quarter notes. You couldn't do that in this piece because there were all sorts of 5/8, 9/8 bars that required more attention to underlying beats. I really woodshedded this part a lot and could do it pretty well. When I got to the studio he wanted me to record it against an already recorded rhythm box which played steady 1/16ths but with **random accents**. So there were three levels of time confusion: tuplets, mixed meters and the silly accents. I guess I must have done okay at that -but I remember distinctly that my head was spinning trying to pay attention to the rhythm track just enough to keep the beat but not enough to let the accents throw me off. Now, the micro level: we call these things tuplets now (a word instigated by computer music programs) but when I first went to work for Frank they were called "cross rhythms". A triplet is the simplest tuplet - three notes in the time of two. When I went to work for Frank I was just learning to do quintuplets (5 in the space of 4) and septuplets (7 in the space of 4). I learned a lot about this stuff real fast because I was both playing and copying the stuff. At one point he told me that he thought I really understood cross-rhythms very well - definitely a high complement. Another time he told me that he had gotten interested in these cross-rhythms listening to jazz and he mentioned Gene Krupa drum solos and fills and said something like "it all just reduces to fives and sevens if you keep a steady beat going as he slows down"

Tuplets are musical ratios - heck, all music reduces to rational mathematics (except for computer programs which make us deal with decimal mathematics, but that's another rant of mine). Intervals, meters, rhythms, even formal structure eventually reduces to numbers like 4/4; 3/4; 5/8; 17/32 etc, etc.

The higher the numbers - especially prime numbers - the harder the music. The farther the numbers get from powers of 2, the harder the music.

The Black Page number 1 is a good place to look for tuplets. It has eleven tuplets and some tuplets within tuplets - for example a large triplet, with a quintuplet on the first part of the triplet and sextuplets on the second and third parts of the tuplets. The highest number ratios I ever worked on for him were in Mo 'n Herb's Vacation - 17 in the time of 16, or 17 notes in the time of 4 quarters (actually quite easy to play if you think of them as rushed 16th notes). In the first movement there's a place where 4 clarinets are playing 17 tuplets in parallel harmony - it's really the climax of the movement. Once I asked him why he didn't seem to write 13 tuplets - I was familiar with 11 tuplets and 15 and 17 tuplets at the time. Naturally, he pulled out a page that he had just been working on and there was a 13 tuplet (it's now in the last movement of Mo 'n Herb somewhere).

The addition of the Synclavier confused the issue of tuplets, because the software would take note event lists (resolved to the nearest 2-milliseconds) and try to make notation out of them, showing only standard power-of-two notation: 1/8s, 1/16ths, 1/32nds, 1/64ths. Naturally, what showed on the screen was a useless blur - even if the actual performance of the tuplet music would be absolutely perfect. The notation could then be edited to look like tuplets -but it was a real kludge operation. Frank spent hours and hours editing files at the Synclavier, but because it was so much more complicated than the notes-on-paper stuff and because Frank could do it all by himself, I know a lot less about what went on cross-rhythmically in the Synclavier. One thing does merit mentioning - that's the swap software. Steve DeFuria wrote some simple programs which took two note lists (each one representing a music file) and made two hybrid lists - one with the rhythm of the first file and the pitches of the second file, the other with the rhythm of the second file and the pitches of the first. There were some other software tricks that Steve wrote software for, but I can't remember exactly what. In this way Frank was using the Synclavier to create new combinations of old stuff which he could use or discard based totally on whether or not he like the way it sounded. To me, this seems exactly analogous to combining three different solos into one piece using tape techniques.

Finally - let me say something about Steve Vai's transcriptions of the guitar solos. I copied many of them and proofread the entire Frank Zappa Guitar book many times. In my opinion, the transcriptions were a lot more complicated than they needed to be - especially if they were intended to be used for anyone to play from. Often I would find places where Steve's notation could be reduced to something simpler, but Frank would always resolve the differences in favor of the most complicated notation. In Steve's preface to the book he says"on a few licks, where there are several ways to write them, I chose the way which accents the phrasing" Ultimately I never really believed that - no matter how precise the transcriptions got, a performer still has to add his own phrasing to a performance or listen to the tape of the original performance to get the little nuances that didn't get (or couldn't be) written down. In the Guitar Book there is a section of 25 over 24 - I found it in Pink Napkins - but there may be some other examples of similarly high ratio rhythms in there. You have to wonder what exactly was going on in his mind as he played it - I sincerely doubt that he was consciously trying to play 25 notes in the time of 24. He may have been trying to play in a slightly different tempo than the rhythm section - a sort of live xenochrony. More likely however he was either rushing slightly or the rhythm section was slowing down slightly. In that sense, I guess it's just like a Gene Krupa drum solo.

The notion of combining different times - on whatever level - is really, really essential to understanding Frank's music - and it's an element that sets his music apart from everything else. And someone could probably spend a lifetime trying to understand it all.

==

= affz -->>

Was listening to Mo and Herb's Vacation last night. Did Frank ever arrange bits of it for the band? The beginning sounds like an abstracted version of "I know you want someone to show you some tits."from Wet T-shirt Nite on Joe's Garage.

==

DO -->>

Yes. The music started as a solo clarinet piece "Mo's Vacation" then Frank added a drum part "Herb's Vacation" - when played together they became (you got it) "Mo 'n Herb's Vacation". I think Ed Mann learned some of the solo part and there was a bass part as well(emphasis on the "I think" in that sentence 'cause the bass part may have only arrived later). In any case, I remember going to a rehearsal once and playing the music for Frank with Vinnie Colaiuta. Gail was there taking pictures of me standing next to Frank in front of some microphones - I wish I had copies of those pictures now.

I do remember that the opening lick of Mo 'n Herb made it into Joe's Garage - I'll trust that you've picked the correct spot. Hey, if everything is just one Big Note then Frank had absolute power to borrow from himself at will, why should we be surprised.

==

affz -->>

Would it not be possible to compare what Frank did at the macro level with the sort of layering that Stravinsky does in his work? Stravinsky would frequently take lines that had a life of their own and combine them with other lines of similar independent character. In many cases the lines weren't in the same meter or key. For that matter, Ives did the same sort of thing with hymns, folk songs, and patriotic tunes. This comparison is not meant in the least to diminish Frank's achievements but is merely a speculation about the source of such ideas.

==

DO -->>

I don't think this diminishes Frank at all - on the contrary you have written a clue to why Frank has a chance at being remembered as a composer of the same level as Igor and Charles (although I'm sure had I met either Stravinsky or Ives I'd have called them "Mr. Stravinsky" and "Mr. Ives"). Musicians often reflect that theft is a perfectly acceptable concept in composition - as long as you add something new. The whole idea of "Variations on a Theme of _____" begins with the appropriation of someone elses work. The thing that is important is that you create something original based on the other persons ideas. Composers are put down for sounding derivative - that was not a problem for Frank.

==

affz -->>

The mosaic idea is a really neat one. Do you know of any pieces that were composed and released this way? My mind keeps turning to the notion that Frank was like Mozart in the sense that he was exposed to many different styles of music in a very short span of time. While Mozart toured Europe with his father and listened to many styles of music, Frank had a record player which permitted him to go places without ever leaving California. It is the same technology that would permit him freedom to experiment with this mosaic-like method of composition.

==

DO -->>

To my knowledge no "on paper" piece was every really done this way - it would have been just TOO expensive. It was done a lot on tape however. All the recordings of the 88 band "With No Studio Overdubs" were still edited a lot - although with the intent of sounding like a single performance. And anything that could be called a "tape collage" could also be thought of as a mosaic. The Synclavier would also have made this possible - but I'm not sure if Frank ever tried it. The analogy with Mozart is interesting - but remember Mozart was privileged in his time to travel around and hear the different musics. Today anyone with the money to buy CDs can hear almost anything - and if you don't have the money there are lending libraries and certain progressive radio stations that'll expose you to new stuff. The thing that unites Wolfgang ("Herr Mozart") and Frank is that they took what they heard and went with it.

==

affz -->>

Your description of cross rhythm is excellent! Do you teach?

==

DO -->>

Thanks - I've never taught (beyond a single guest lecture in someone elses class), I've never played in orchestras (beyond being hired for a single performance only) and I've never played commercial music in studios (no film scores or record dates). At this point I haven't played in over a year - and don't miss it. I'm still debating with myself whether I really have anything to say as a composer - and whether, in our society, anyone really cares.

==

affz -->>

The mention of Steve DeFuria's software is really interesting in the sense that it would permit (as you pointed out) easy recombinations of already existing material. In listening to Frank's work I get the impression that he hardly (if ever) threw anything (compositionally) away. Did you find that to be true when you worked for him?

==

DO -->>

Yes - this is an important point when you notice thematic similarities between (say) Mo 'n Herb and Joe's Garage. There was recent NPR piece about Frank (on Mother's Day) where Gail said that since all of Franks music was written by the same person it all had a certain unity in the way it sounded. She's absolutely right. Frank never threw anything away - compositionally or otherwise. If you ever saw the Zappa tape vault you'd never question this point again.

==

affz -->>

I agree that Vai's transcriptions are overly complicated. Why do you think Frank resolved differences in favor of the more complicated notation?

==

DO -->>

Lots of possibilities...

there's the "feeding Frank's ego" answer, there's the "weeding out the weak players" answer, there's the "lack of formal training" answer (both for Frank and Steve -please note: I do NOT think either of them were hampered by not studying these things in college - probably they were liberated by not having to reconcile some professorial attitudes), there's the "Frank never had to learn it off the page so it didn't matter" answer, there's the "Steve was trying to notate the un-notatable" answer, ... and, finally,... there's the "there really is a difference but I just can't hear it but Frank and Steve could" answer.

Maybe there are other answers. You pick.

GREGGERY PECCARY

BL -->>

Do you have any idea when and with whom Greggery Peccary was recorded?

==

DO -->>

I remember going through the folders (leatherette with gold lettering) which held the parts for the Abnuceals Emulkha Electric Orchestra (I never knew what that title meant - I'm probably not spelling it correctly) which played the famous Royce Hall concert. That was before my time. It was a very large big band, essentially - 4 or 5 winds (all multi-doublers), 4 or 5 each of trumpets and trombones, horns & tuba (maybe), 3 keyboards, an amplified string quartet, loads of percussion, plus guitar, bass and drums (of course). I used those parts when I reorchestrated Bogus Pomp for large orchestra. Also in the folders were the parts to Greggary Peccary - actually the G.P. music was in sections, a few of the titles were Big Swifty, Brown Clouds, something about Billy the Mountain.

Anyway, in one of the folders was a list of the players - all studio people, good ones. I remember only a few of the names - Pam Goldsmith was the violist (she had to play the fiendish viola solos in Bogus Pomp). Her part to that piece had been run over by a tire of some sort - like a car or motorcycle tire. I met her once and asked if the part had been run over intentionally. She denied it. Other names that I remember are Earle Dumler (an oboist who was also the contractor), Emil Richards (percussionist) and Malcomb McNabb (trumpet).

Chances are good that that list - and all those folders - are still sitting up at the house, maybe someone knows who to ask to get access to it.

Another way of going would be to look for the contracts filed at the Musicians Union here in LA - although I have absolutely no confidence that such a thing would still be accessible or be any easier to find than the list up at the Zappas. All I can do for you is promise to ask questions in case I ever run into some of these people - I have very little contact with studio types, many of whom are probably close to retirement by now.

I'm sure these people would have gotten appropriate credit on any album Frank was in charge of. They certainly deserve it.

Did I mention that Greggery Peccary is my FAVORITE FZ piece?

WHILE YOU WERE ART

DO -->>

Art Jarvinen is a composer and percussionist and sometime music copyist. He's also my friend and his company, Leisure Planet Music, currently publishes my music. He's a member of a well-known new-music ensemble called The California EAR Unit. He was one of Franks music copyists - he worked on extracting orchestra parts and also doing two-piano reductions of some of the large orchestra music. (His reductions are available from Barfko-Swill.)

The EAR Unit plays a regular series of concerts at the Los Angeles County Museum of Art -either part of the (unjustly) famous Monday Evening Concerts or a separate series of EAR Unit concerts which had sprung from their frequent Monday Evening performances. Sometime around 1983 Art asked Frank if he would compose a piece for the Ear Unit to perform at one of these concerts. Lots of groups were having the same idea - the pieces for Kronos and the Aspen Wind Quintet were happening about this time.

Frank was eager to use his new Synclavier to write the piece - and an agreement was made and a date set. I don't believe the Ear Unit could pay Frank anything for this, so Frank could do pretty much whatever he wanted. Frank wanted to arrange his piece While You Were Out - a transcribed Guitar Solo - he says that the Unit asked him for While You Were Out, so that's probably true. (Steve Vai's original transcription appears in the FZ Guitar Book.) This was when I was working as a Synclavier assistant and part of my job was to work on the computer files, entering and modifying them according to Franks instructions.

I remember asking Frank what the title meant. He said "While You Were Out" referred to someone who had gotten out of prison - I had the impression it was someone specific, but I'm not sure who. (ASIDE: Another time someone asked Frank what had happened to the other members of his first band in San Diego - "In prison" was his instant reply.) At some point the title was changed to "While You Were Art" - this had a double meaning - it referred to Art Jarvinen himself, who was motivating the project and acting as go-between between Frank and the ensemble - several of whom had to be convinced to go along with this project. "ART" also referred, I think, to the "ART" in worlds like "Art-world", "Art-music" or"High-art" - in other words, Frank was using it as a term of derision.

The Monday Evening Concert Series at the County Museum is known world-wide. It's decades old and has an exalted reputation in the new-music world based on the participation of such luminaries as Stravinsky, Schoenberg, and Boulez. I've performed it many times. Seen from close up, the programming is overly in-bred, academic, and boring. To make matters worse the concerts are given in the Museum's Bing Theater which has perfect acoustics for a movie theater - i.e. deader than a door-nail - lousy for music. It seats about 600 - but a MEC event rarely draws even 200. If it does, the regulars comment about the "good attendance" without realizing how silly they're being. If you look at the audience during a concert you'll see a lot of empty seats. Frank wanted to check these concerts out - something about checking the acoustics. So I accompanied him and (I think) Gail to a typical event. He arrived late and wanted to sit in the very last row because "there'd be less sound bouncing off the back wall". I remember sitting with him in the Museum's cafeteria during intermission. He was doing a good job of ignoring everyone - and the audience was doing a good job of ignoring Frank. I doubt Frank really learned anything useful about the acoustics -he probably learned a lot more about the Monday Evening Concerts. It didn't take long before it became clear that While You Were Art was going to be very difficult and that there was not going to be enough time for the players to learn the piece and be able to give it a decent performance. Frank's solution to this was to have the players pretend to play their parts while the Synclavier output was played on a PA system. This was before Milli-Vanilli, but the concept of a band miming to pre-recordings was well known. It was not unusual for there to be an amplified piece on an EAR Unit concert. The tape would be recorded on a video cassette in utmost digital high fidelity using the F-1 format. According to Frank's wishes the miming was to be a secret - the ensemble was to make every effort to make the performance look as though they were actually performing.

The instrumentation was close to this: flute, clarinet, violin, cello, multiple keyboards and percussion.

Each part was developed as a separate Synclavier track. The music was printed out for each player and a special analog cassette was recorded for them to practice along with. One side of the cassette had the final piece - as it was to be performed - and the other side had a practice recording with that players part brought forward in the mix. This was to make it easier to learn. One of the contributing factors to the difficulty of the learning the piece was the Synclavier's music-printing capabilities - which were (uh) "limited".

Finally a master tape to be used in performance was recorded on video cassette. A good deal of effort went into making this tape - and Frank and Bob Stone wanted to know what format the tape should be - Beta or VHS? After considerable checking with the members of the ensemble Art returned with the answer "Beta" - I remember that it was difficult to get a beta-max video recorder installed in Frank's studio for this purpose.

Frank chose not to attend the concert. No one in the (sparsely attended) hall knew of the deception - except me and a few close friends of members of the Unit. A lot of useless electronic equipment was brought on stage for the performance, keyboards were conveniently turned so that the players hands were not visible from the audience. Microphones(non-functional, of course) were everywhere. The players who knew their parts best were placed forward on stage. Art himself, who had learned his part on Marimba well enough that he could have actually played it, was front and center. Unlike a clarinet or flute, it's almost impossible to fake playing a marimba so he created some special mallets with huge puffy heads on them allowing him to actually hit the bars and make an insignificant sound.

As soon as they turned on the sound system I knew there was a problem. I described it as "a wall of hiss" and when the tape started to play it was instantly clear that the sound was coming from one of the practice cassettes, not off the digital beta-max tape. I slunk down in my seat, I was sure that every one in the audience would instantly know what was going on. I mentally prepared myself for a disaster. Of course you must remember that I'd heard this exact same tape countless times in Frank's studio where the sound quality was the best. Even so, the sound in the Bing Theater that night can only be described as "wretched". Much to my surprise the audience sat quietly throughout. And there was polite and extremely unenthusiastic applause afterwards. The Unit trudged out for an bow and then went right onto the next piece.

After the concert I went on-stage to talk to Art. He was standing in a small group - one of whom was the composer Morton Subotnick - a former teacher of mine whose music is frequently performed by the EAR Unit. I told Art "It sounded Awful!" Bad-mouthing a performance directly like that is a "no-no" in the chamber music world and this comment was greeted with some surprise. When it was explained that the "awful" comment referred to the quality of tape-reproduction, it became immediately clear that the audience had not understood the pantomime quality of the performance.

In fact, of the audience comments I heard or heard about, the closest to anyone figuring it out was a person who was sitting close to the stage. He said "I wondered why there wasn't more direct sound from the instruments themselves." In my opinion, most of the audience was not interested in Franks music at all - and had not paid attention. There were two reviews which didn't mention the deception.

The beta-max tape had not been used because (you guessed it) the tape player was actually a VHS machine. This was not discovered until late in the dress-rehearsal on the day of the concert. A few days later the LA Times published a story about "what really happened". They called up an EAR Unit member (cellist Erika Duke) who had a very contrite attitude about the affair- saying things like "We shouldn't have done this. We'll never do it again." Of course if the paper had interviewed someone else in the ensemble they might have gotten a more positive, tactful answer. And indeed, all the EAR Unit had done was what the composer had requested of them. Frank was amused by the story of what happened in the concert, but he was furious about the subsequent article and Erika's comments. He insisted that all the materials (tapes and music) be returned and that the EAR unit never perform the music again. I personally mark that concert as the beginning of my loss of faith in the chamber-music audience. Here was demonstrable proof that they don't listen and that opinions about performance are made up prior to concerts based on who the composer is and how "important" he is in that small musical sub-culture. Had anyone really been paying attention I firmly believe they would have at least suspected something was not quite right.

As a result of this affair there was discussion about Frank doing a benefit concert for the Monday Evening Concerts - he was discussing the possibility of playing some of his Synclavier tapes for a paying audience, with the profits going to MEC. I don't remember if this happened - I don't think so. Frank did tell me that when the director of the concerts, Dorrance Stalvey, visited his studio Frank played the tape of While You Were Art. Frank told me Dorrance said "That's interesting. What is it?"

The final result of all this is very personal for me. Frank told this story in the Real Frank Zappa Book - and it's the one place where my name is mentioned. It says on page 175"Nobody in the audience knew, except for David Ocker, my computer assistant, who had helped prepare the materials. Nobody knew that the musicians never played a note." Okay, so that's my claim to fame - I got mentioned in Frank's Autobiography.

But wait. I recently read an interview Frank did with Digital Audio Magazine in 1984 in which he told the same story. He said "I didn't go to the concert, but a friend of mine did. He said you could hardly make out the music; it was a wall of hiss. Nobody knew that they didn't play a note. Not the man who runs the Monday Evening Concerts, not Morton Subotnick, not either of the reviewers for the Los Angeles Times or the Herald Examiner....". The operative word here, of course, is "friend". Frank Zappa referred to me as "a friend of mine". It's not much, but it's something.

MISCELLANEOUS

A Few Obscure References in the Lyrics to "Yo Cats"

affz -->>

Re: Yo Cats

Below are the lyrics as best as I could get them, with little stars(*) around the four places I just can't decipher (Maybe I got some other things wrong too).

==

DO -->>

I can help with two of the spots by digging into my repertoire of 'studio talk'

==

affz -->>

Get your fiddle, get your bow Play some *cchootballs* on your hole Watch your watch, play a little flat Make the session go overtime, that's where it's at.

==

DO -->>

Play some "footballs" - slang for a "whole note" and by extension an "easy gig" as in "there was nothing to play but footballs". The suggestion that a player would intentionally play badly to send the session into overtime is, um, rather unkind.

==

affz -->> *Your Girl Arlens*, what's the diff

==

DO -->>

"Your Girl" and "Arlyns" were answering services particularly geared to service professional studio musicians - for example, a contractor, wanting to hire a list of people for a date, could simply give the list to the answering service who would then call all the musicians for him - or better yet, the service would keep a copy of the players schedule and accept or deny the job and then inform the player where and when to show up.

Staying in close contact with "the service" is important - the contractors won't wait for ever for a reply and calls for last minute jobs can be the most lucrative. Today it's important to bring your cell-phone to a session so you don't have to stand in line at the payphone during a 'ten' in order to 'call the service'.

Picking the 'right' service was very important - I suppose you could lose work if you listed with the 'wrong' service. But I just looked up the phone numbers in the Local 47 AFofM directory to discover that Arlyns seems to have swallowed all the other services. I don't know whether this is a sign of creeping capitalism or of the shrinking studio scene (probably both). In case you want to touch a part of Hollywood studio scene - Arlyn's phone number is 818-766-3851. Don't ask for me, I've never had or needed such a service.

Who was Fulcanelli?

affz -->>

Fulcanelli was the "last of the alchemists" - I believe he was immortal a la Comte St. Germain, and possibly also discovered the philosopher's stone. His true identity is obscure.

affz -->>

There is a little more to this story - Fulcanelli believed that the secrets of Christian hermeticsm were to be found in Bas Reliefs throughout Europe's cathedrals - after he bestowed this knowledge upon a trusted disciple in 1920 (whereupon "Le Mystere des Cathedrales" was published) he disappeared without a trace. Thirty years later he made a single appearance to his disciple, before disappearing again, and, according to his disciple, actually had grown younger by at least 20 years.

DO -->>

I've always wondered who Fulcanelli was since I heard Frank give that name as the answer to the question "Which character from history would you most like to meet." (At the time I wrote the name down on a post-it note so I wouldn't forget and the post it note still lives in my desk drawer). I don't presume to understand either of the above explanations or whether they might contradict one another or not.

Marine Creatures Named after Frank Zappa

BL -->>

Any truth to the rumor about a marine species being named after Frank?

==

DO -->>

On one visit to the Zappa household I noticed a small frame sitting on the downstairs fireplace mantle. It was a biological description of a newly discovered species of marine animal which some fan had named after Frank and then sent the description to him. If I were left to my own devices, this is *all* I'd remember about this little beastie - but this was the one time I was there with my wife who just happens to be a biologist - actually she's a Polychaetologist, also known as a Marine Invertebrate Taxonomist (huh? - er, well - she spends her time identifying and naming little critters from the ocean - her specialty is Polychaetes - sea worms).

She says this named-after-Zappa-creature was in the family Coelenterata which is also called Cnidaria (the "C" in "Cnidaria" is Csilent, in case you're wondering) - which means it is some sort of sea anemone or jelly fish.

This visit would have happened in 1991 - I think - around the time of the very first Yellow Shark rehearsals. Leslie claims she looked up the critter where such things get published and even xeroxed the reference for me - but I don't remember that at all. She said she'd look it up again when she gets the chance - but given her work load right now she might not be able to get that chance for a while.

So, I thought, I'll post this - maybe some zoologists read this group - possibly even the person who named that animal after Frank in the first place - and they can provide some more information. (DO's note: This did happen - and Onno Gross provided the rest of the story:

==

OG>

I was recently reading the mail by David Ocker, Los Angeles, on the naming of a marine creature named after Zappafrank.

Later following happened: A scientist colleg from Vienna, Michael Stachowitch, was visiting and by talking it turned out he is a Zappa-freak as well. It came to the point that he knew the man who had named the sea species after Frank and who also send a photo to Frankies home: it was Frank Boero, who as a scientist was working at that time in California. Michael told me that Frank was known to hardly miss ever any FZ concert. He published his work:

F. Boero (1987): Life cycles of Phialella zappai n. sp., Phialella fragilis and Phialella sp. (Cnidaria, Leptomedusae, Phialellidae) from Central California. - Journal of Natural Histors, 21, 465-480. and it says in the ending: "I have the pleasure in naming this species after the modern music composer Francis (Frank) Vincent Zappa.

I have a copy of his nice work on the new marine hydrozoan P. zappai and if your are interested send me an e-mail or directly contact Frank. His snail-mail address is: F.Boero Dept. di Biologia Univerita degli Studi di Lecce Via Provile Lecce-Monteroni 73100 Lecce, ITALIA

editor note: This was recently received from Francesco Gentile regarding the 6/9/88 Jelly Fish show from Genoa. It was printed in Italian in Debra Kadabra, an excellent Italian FZ Fan Magazine.

>

The double issue 14-15 of Debra Kadabra, the Italian fzine published by the Italian FZ Research Kitchen also called DK, will include the true story of "Lonsome Cowboy Nando". Nando is Fernando ("all my friends they call me DO" ... "Nan-Nan-Nan DO-DO-DO") Boero, a marine biologyst from Genoa, they Italian city where the 88 part of "Lonsome Cowboy Nando" was recorded. Nando wrote for us the story of his friendship with FZ, it's a very nice story, I hope I'll find someone from affz that will want to translate it in English. Meanwhile here is a rough translation of the begining of the article:

"There is nothing I'd like better than having a jellyfish named after me" (FZ).

In 1982, after becoming a researcher in the University of Genoa, I asked for a work fund that could allow me to be for a long time in the Bodega Marine Laboratory of the University of California, Berkeley. The purpose was to study the taxonomy and the ecology of the local jellyfish fauna (yes, there exist people who earn a living studing jellyfish). Actually the true purpose was another one: to meet Frank Zappa. My strategy was a simple one:

- that fauna was (and is) not well known; - I would find some new species for sure; - once I have found them I would have to give them a name; - I would dedicate one of them to FZ; - I would tell him about it; - He would invite me for a visit.

And that's how it went.

Zappa Family Pets

BL -->>

You also talked about the Zappa family dog on affz. What's the story of her name?

==

DO -->> I used to think that dog was named "Doggus" but I eventually learned her name is "Doggess" - you know - a girl dog. When she was a puppy she was super cute and friendly. She grew up to be a BIG dog.

The LA Times runs a comic strip called Ballard Street by Jerry Van Armerongen - the dog in that comic looks just like Doggess - huge body, little spindly legs. Frank also had a pet cat when I first went to work for him - I remember someone said that it was specifically "Frank's cat". The cat was a Siamese named Gorgo - whose tail had been broken in a number of places. It was old and feisty and I remember it curling up on amplifiers in the basement - probably to get warm.

Cigarettes

affz -->>

Here's a trivial yet curious question for you, David. How did Frank acquire his cigarettes? Did he buy them by the carton, by the case? Did he have a gopher at UMRK that would run and get the pizza, wings, butts, whatever? Did Gail stock up on them for him? Also, how many packs a day would he smoke?

==

DO -->>

The only question I can answer with any certainty here is that when I worked for Frank there was a gofer on staff - his name was Thomas Nordegg and he did lots and lots of different stuff - riding around town on a motor scooter! I assume fetching cigarettes was well within his job description. If you think of things in commercial terms, Frank was not only the CEO of the family business but also the source of all the raw material for the product. Other people were there to handle the details. Picking up cigarettes was way, way down the list of things Frank would ever attend to. Things were structured so that Frank could produce as much music as possible. As for how much he smoked, I can't say - my *opinion* would be that he smoked a lot. The studio maintenance person told me once that he had to change air filters much more frequently when Frank was there than when Frank was on tour. The studio was well air-conditioned (to my body "freezing" would not be a bad description) and well-ventilated so one never noticed smoke in the air.

Before the studio existed I remember sitting with Frank in front of a fireplace which contained a pile of sand and into which Frank threw his cigarette butts. The same fireplace where the picture of P.Zappai was. This was in a part of the house where Frank was working (editing film - Baby Snakes - I think ) and he spent a lot of time there. I turned around and saw hundreds (maybe thousands) of butts in the fireplace. I made a comment about them and Frank replied "Hey, it's my life."

Just take that as a sign that Frank was aware of the risks of smoking. I do NOT want to start more discussion on the effects of smoking on Frank's illness or as a comment about his opinions on drug use.

More from Art Jarvinen:

Thanks David and Art!