Zappa.com

Once upon a time the idea was good, if only he'd a done what he said he should...

Old story, but too bad. The ZFT could be such freakin' unifying heroes in all of Zappaland, but noooooooo......

Make all of the library available in mp3 or put it back on I tunes, that is if you truly want hundreds of millions of people to be exposed to the music !!!

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph

"Somebody goes out there, plays music — it's not played very well; it doesn't sound anything like what the composer intended," she says. "And they are telling the audience that's never heard it before that this is Frank Zappa's music. It's not. It's some wretched version of it."

please. if we wanna play his music and distort it, so be it. her statement reeeeeks of pretentiousness and arrogance.

theres also something called interpretation in music

There is also something called the Law and the Law says she owns it and is entitled to handle its distribution and rights as she sees fit...I wouldn't want anyone messing with my stuff and neither does she, it’s her right...period.

no its not. did you READ the article? if youre in a band and you feel like playing a zappa song in between yours, who is she to say you cant? and if you read the article, guess what? she CANT. she is overstepping her boundaries. its another thing if you record that cover onto a live album and then try to sell it. get it?

and speaking of the law, since when did the zappas ever care about the 'law'? unless it suits them i guess.

its not messing with his stuff either, its playing it and keeping it alive while she tries to squeeze every last penny out of it instead. zappalooza in germany, anyone?

I confess my own band has played two Zappa compositions on stage. And boy, did we ever play it wrong. At least we never got paid for it. Who knows though, we may have created a new fan or two. Definitely no more than four, though.

_________________
Let's hear it again for the London Philharmonic Orchestra!

As long as said tribute band (or venue) is paying music licensing fees to the proper music publishing company anybody is within their rights to play what they want. They don't need permission from Gail. It's no different than when an "established" or "star" act plays a cover song. IMO Gail (or the ZFT - aren't they one and the same) have indeed overstepped their bounds. I'm not a lawyer (and of course lawyers will keep arguing this stuff forever in the courts if you keep paying them) but I think any marketing expert (which I also am not - although I do some marketing in my job) would say that the Zappas (post-Frank) are terrible at self-promotion. They've alienated so many hard-core fans it's ridiculous.

I hear a little voice it says you are banned

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph

Are not the rights to perform or play the music a commodity like anything else and if you chooses for someone NOT to play it is her decisions as the owner of such?

I don't know what the legal position is here.

I do think that the ZFT trying to stop people performing Frank's music amounts to censorship and is self-defeating.
I doubt that tribute/cover acts doing Frank's music would impact at all on the ZFT's ability to make money from FZ's music.
If they perform the music badly, so what. Their audience (not Frank's/ ZPZ) would dwindle-punters wouldn't return if it was THAT bad.

In an era where there are a plethora of tribute acts for every band out there I have heard of no other situation where a ZFT-like entity has actively tried to prevent performances of music. (That's not to say that episodes such as this haven't happened, but I am not aware of them).

I am not going to argue the relative merits of The Beatles compared with Zappa, but I am not aware of McCartney or Ringo trying to stop the performance of Beatles music. If I see a dodgy Beatle tribute does it make me dislike the Beatles more then before? Would it stop me buying Beatles product?
Why does Gail think Frank's music is any different, in general philosophical terms?

I think most bands or owners of the rights to music are willing to take the money, I know that for years you did not hear much Beatle music in movies, could not find it on Jukeboxs, or performed live...not due the owners not wanting it played, but rather due to the price tag that had put on those rights. If one who controls the rights can effect its use due to its perceived value, they most certianly can say, I don't want you to play it at any price.

nope, its not. read what it says in the article

and ya, the ZFT is only hurting itself...'lets sue all of our fans that actually care enough to learn and play his difficult music because they love it so much. you know, because zappa was so popular even in his prime'

[/quote]
I hear a little voice it says you are banned[/quote]

banned for what, making sense?

In a word yes. ooops guess i'm next

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph

Dude of course you can play the shit at home if you want, but if the music is played in a business or for money you have to have the permission of the owner too the rights, usually requiring a fee...sweet mother of god, what a f#cking idiot...

wow thanks for the insult asshole! we're talking about cover bands or bands playing for money who may cover some of his tunes during a set!

for the last time, read the article and read what im actually writing! read what Ike Willis is quoted as saying!

sweet mother of god, what a f#cking idiot...!!!!!!!!!!! you really, really are. or are you just trollin along here?


here, ill even save you the time and critical thinking it takes to READ

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =102907874

'Gail Zappa is going after cover bands she accuses of "identity theft." Her lawyers have sent scores of cease-and-desist letters. But many of the people who continue to perform Frank Zappa's music say they don't need permission.

"You or I cannot record that material and sell it for money. But we can perform it," says guitarist Andre Cholmondeley, who plays in a long-running Zappa cover band called Project/Object. "I'm not a lawyer, but that is the opinion and direction I've been given by probably a dozen lawyers at this point."

Cholmondeley maintains that as long as the venues he plays have paid for a blanket license from the performance-rights organization ASCAP, he is not doing anything illegal. Music lawyers consulted for this story agreed. It seems that Gail Zappa has never actually sued a cover band, but she has sued a 20-year-old festival in Germany called the Zappanale for trademark infringement. She lost but plans to appeal. '

Q.E.D

I don't think so, if she does not have a contract with ASCAP to represent her, the one size fits all...lol...fee will not cover her property. This is why when you see a Juke Box with on-line music you can not get FZ music, they did have it on these Juke Boxs for a short period of time using the same theory. But later had to remove the music...do your home work.

well somebody lost all their cases in the courts, didnt they?

i think that says it all about her overstepping her boundaries

once again

"You or I cannot record that material and sell it for money. But we can perform it,"

also,

http://www.ascap.com/ace/search.cfm?req ... 30&start=1

does this mean they ARE in the ASCAP royalty thing? which if it does, goes to say, what the heck is she complaining about in the first place? and her reasoning for doing this in the article is because certain people 'wont play it the right way?' nonsense

and once again, to the original point after you had to go off on a name calling rant, ZFT is doing so much more harm than good to the image and legacy of Zappa. now we all know he doesnt care about being remembered, and fine who cares about HIM being remembered, but his music cannot be forgotten! which is why all they are doing is shooting themselves in the foot in the long term by looking for the quick buck in the long term, or just having no idea how to run a business.

put zappa back on itunes, endorse the zappa concert in germany, try and host one back here in america and stop attacking the people that go around bringing the music back to life .

long live zappa's music!

I am not saying what they are doing is right, personally I would let it be a free for all, the more its out there the better it can only be. But they live in the USA and if you own, it is yours to decide what to do with it.

And I no longer think you are a F#cking idiot, just an ordinary everyday idiot...lol...

Check ot Ed Palermo; eddy loves frank. very very good.

_________________
Confusion will be my epitaph

Frank Zappa Music is BMI. Munchkin Music is ASCAP. 98% of music released in the US is either BMI or ASCAP. I have to side with the F-ing idiot on this one Plook. Bands don't need permission to perform another artists music as long as they are paying the fees. I'd even question that they can't record it and sell it if they are paying the fees. Recording artists have been doing cover versions forever. Frank did alot of covers. I doubt that every time an artist does a cover they get permission. It doesn't make sense. Weird Al has said he doesn't need permission when he does his note-for-note parodies with different lyrics. It's his personal policy though to do so.

On an interesting side note I work for a local governmental agency (a Park and Recreation District). ASCAP has been sending us letters saying that we need to start paying them an annual licensing fee ($309.00 per year) which we will start doing. This is for any published ASCAP music that we play at any of our programs. Recorded music that we might play for a tiny tots class, an aerobics class, a dance class, or at a special event. Live music - like if a crappy teen band plays a White Stripes song at a teen concert or a crappy adult band plays a Marshall Tucker Band song at a free concert in the park. It also covers us if we are playing the radio. I understand that BMI will soon be following (another $309.00). Now that we're paying ASCAP fees if I want to have a crappy band butcher Watermelon In Easter Hay at a concert in the park or at a farmers market I can legally do it.

As for juke boxes, I believe that is a separate license.

Well then I guess I am confusing the two issues and must apologize...I read once were no one would use Beatle music or play their songs since the owners (Which one was M. Jackson) because the cost to do so was so high...it seems if something is for sale, that the owner would not need to allow it for use at any price. As a matter of fact I have read were artist could not perform or record a song since they could not get permission, last night on Idol a girl performed a Lady GaGa song and she spoke about how she contacted her to get permission. In these cases are we talking proffessional courtasy or is there some requirement by law?

All of this apparent greed of ZFT makes me wanna write a song, call it Watermelons In Easter Hay, have it be only 2 chords repeated over and over with the first chord in 4/4 and the second in 5/4 (2 different chords than Zappa's song, of course, but similar), have it be a guitar solo with a melody that is based on Zappa's melody (but different) and give myself the writing credit. I could then perform it legally any where I please. I would never do it because I respect Zappa too much but, damn, ZFT seems a bit harsh.

This is what I don't get, they own it, it is theirs to do as they see fit...how would you like your neighbor telling you what to do with your property?

i dont see a comparison between a form of art and land. completely different things, completely different sets of laws. you cant get shot for trespassing on a recording.