Ruining the Joke: Discussing PDQ Bach's Use of the Aspects Of
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Ruining the Joke: Discussing PDQ Bach’s use of the Aspects of Humor in Oedipus Tex (S.150) Matthew A. Bardin, MM Louisiana State University School of Music MUS 7921, Spring 2021. Prof. J. Perry The purpose of this paper is to explore the character of PDQ Bach and break down their use of humor in the composition Oedipus Tex. Towards this goal I will break down the character of PDQ Bach and its relation to Professor Peter Schickele, discuss why humans tend to find certain events humorous, and review details of parody, satire and spoof. I will then move into a breakdown of some of the more noticeable instances of humorous content in Oedipus Tex. PDQ Bach is a pseudonym for Professor Peter Schickele under which he writes a large amount of music. Briefly speaking, the character of PDQ Bach is one large parody of Johann Sebastian Bach, and a spoof of Classical music composers in general. The character is a play on the naming tradition that JS Bach and his children are most often referred to in the musical community. PDQ himself is canonically the 21st son of the aforementioned JS Bach, born shortly before the composer’s death in 1750. The information surrounding PDQ is intentionally skewed in order to help listeners to pick up on the inherent humor in the character. PDQ’s lifespan is always listed as “(1807-1742)?” on musical scores which should be impossible. The pieces that PDQ Bach writes are often based on other compositions of the 17th, 18th and 19th century, which brings its own level of parody to the music1. Even the name, PDQ is a joke. While canonically, the letters are stated as having no meaning (Schickele, 2014) we, the modern listeners will recognize the initials as standing for the phrase “Pretty Damn Quick” rather than actual initials as is the custom when referring to actual members of the Bach family. 1 The canonic reason for this is that PDQ is described as being “exceptionally average”, lazy, and having a general distain towards music in general due to the nature of his family. The relationship between Professor Schickele and PDQ Bach is an interesting one compared to the majority of other artists who tend to create a pseudonym. Rather than assuming the identity of PDQ, Schickele is pretending to be a musicologist who is preserving, notating, and publishing the music of the fictional 19th century composer2. In the case of Oedipus Tex, Schickele is credited as shown in figure 1. (Bach, 1989) Figure 1. The cover to the piano score for Oedipus Tex. This persona and world-building goes a long way towards developing the humor of the character. Schickele has even gone as far as to publish a biography following the fictional life of PDQ Bach and the more exciting exploits of the fictional composer. (Schickele, 2014) These fictional characters and events are intermingled with elements from real world history in order to give them a sense of plausibility, however all of the ‘canon’ elements of PDQ’s history mentioned in this paper and Schickele’s book are as fictional as PDQ himself. 2 I want to clarify that Schickele is only pretending to study the music of PDQ Bach, who is a fictional persona. For Schickele to write these referential pieces requires a fair bit of musicological knowledge and research. As one might expect, defining exactly what makes something humorous, and why a person or group of people might laugh at an occurrence is no easy feat. There are several factors that go into this that are problematic, if not practically impossible, to accurately research within a normal human lifespan (Walton, 1993). Walton summarizes these points in his article, using the metaphor of a researcher trying to understand what makes members of a fictional Martian society laugh. To this effect, the argument boils down to two main elements the observer would have to identify: 1. What the event is that the observed population find humorous, and 2. Why this group finds the above even humorous. The first of these is relatively simple, if not potentially time consuming to determine. One would simply have to introduce an event to a group of subjects and determine if they found it amusing (Walton, 1993) To gain insight into the second element, let’s look into a lecture on humor in music by Leonard Bernstein. In his lecture (Bernstein, 1961) Bernstein hits on a few key elements that help to understand why people laugh at different things: 1. Jokes build on shared experiences that the audience can relate to, and 2. The punchline/delivery of that joke subverts the expectations brought on by those shared experiences. In the opening of the lecture, Bernstein references A Musical Joke by Mozart. As a listener who is familiar with the Western tradition of musical harmony, an average person listening to this piece in the 18th-19th century would expect a certain progression of melody and harmony. Simply put, this would be the shared experience by the audience that would allow them to have a similar context and respond in a similar fashion. However, in the Mozart composition3, Mozart defies the audience expectations and changes the harmonic resolution of the phrase. I feel that this, broadly speaking, is the key to identifying an instance of humor. In some way, jokes tend to subvert the expectations of the listener through a clever punchline. Take the one below for example: “Why did the chicken go to the séance? “To get to the other side.”4 Figure 2: an example joke This joke, while not particularly "elevated" or "sophisticated" plays on these elements discussed so far. It depends on the listener's shared experience of knowing what a séance is, and deviates from the expectations by referring to another style of joke, wherein the punchline is always "to get to the other side". Without these shared experiences by the audience, a listener would be unlikely to understand that what had just occurred was funny, or what the joke was about. (Walton, 1993) Understanding this, one could begin to make forward progress into what and why an audience might be able to find something, not even necessarily music, amusing. 3 Specifically, the portion referenced by Bernstein in the opening of the lecture. 4 As much as I would like to take credit for it, this joke came from https://www.rd.com/list/short-jokes/ Now that we have gone over the generalities of why something might be funny, lets briefly discuss some of the specific types of mimicking humor PDQ Bach uses in several of his compositions. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines Parody as: “a literary or musical work in which the style of an author or work is closely imitated for comic effect or in ridicule. (Merriam- Webster, “Parody”) Throughout history parody can be seen in art, literature, music, and almost every medium known to humans. A few examples include: 1. Monty Python’s Life of Brian (1979) parodies the Christian bible’s story of the life of Jesus and his crucifixion. 2. Michael Gerber’s Barry Trotter and the Unauthorized Parody (2001) parodies the book Harry Potter and the Philosopher’s Stone. 3. Any song by ‘Weird Al’ Yankovich is a parody of another popular song. What you may notice about the examples motioned thus far as well as other parodies are a direct reference to something specific: a song, a story, a person, etc. This is the key distinction between parody and spoof. A spoof is essentially a parody on a broader scale. These imitate an entire genre or field rather than one specific instance of it (Betts, 2014). We can see examples of spoofs in things such as: 1. The Onion: a television/internet network that spoofs news and reporters by creations outlandish headline titles and fake reports. 2. The film series Scary Movie: a 5-film series that parodies various other films in the horror genre rather than just one specific film. Lastly, let’s look at the idea of satire. A parody, spoof, or other humor becomes satirical when the new product is designed to create an often-ironic commentary on the original object or person being copied, rather than exist as its own entity independent of that original (Betts, 2014). We see this clearly in political cartoons which often twist one event or person in such a way as to either make them look good or bad depending on the bias of the author. Before diving into the details of musical content in Oedipus Tex, the listener should be familiar with what to expect in terms of content and form. Oedipus Tex is an oratorio, which can best be described as a relatively short, small scale opera without the theatre aspects. In fact, this composition is listed as a “Dramatic Oratorio or Opera in One Cathartic Act” on the cover of the score (see figure 1). All of the text in an oratorio is sung and is often dramatic or religious in nature. In terms of forces, an oratorio often utilized both an orchestra and choir, as well as assorted soloists; all of which are utilized in PDQ Bach’s orchestration. I would call this composition a spoof on the dramatic oratorio. It contains enough elements from the original genre, however as we will see it is completely irreverent in its nature and delivery. The absurd content is making fun of the sometimes overly serious nature of the original. In terms of topic, this oratorio is a telling of the Greek tragedy Oedipus Rex by Sophocles.