Way Down In New Zealand - Revision history

Jason.Kreitzer at 21:44, 17 August 2021

2021-08-17T21:44:15Z

Jason.Kreitzer at 15:07, 4 August 2021

2021-08-04T15:07:16Z

Jason.Kreitzer at 02:46, 22 July 2021

2021-07-22T02:46:43Z

Jason.Kreitzer at 22:22, 21 July 2021

2021-07-21T22:22:56Z

Spider of Destiny at 21:21, 17 November 2020

2020-11-17T21:21:43Z

Spider of Destiny at 14:41, 2 April 2011

2011-04-02T14:41:45Z

Maroual at 22:48, 18 February 2007

2007-02-18T22:48:34Z

Show changes

Propellerkuh at 15:43, 7 February 2007

2007-02-07T15:43:36Z

Propellerkuh at 15:40, 7 February 2007

2007-02-07T15:40:13Z

Show changes

Propellerkuh at 15:12, 7 February 2007

2007-02-07T15:12:45Z

Show changes

@@ Line 132: / Line 132: @@
 '''There's been quite a bit of criticism about the way the CDs have been modified. Is that criticism justified, or are you happy with them?<br>
-First of all, there hasn't been quite a lot of criticism, and secondly there have only been a couple of tapes that have been modified. The main one under discussion has been '[[We're Only In It For The Money|We're Only In It for the Money]]'. The original tapes were rendered useless by the way [[MGM]] stored them. If I found, somewhere in the stack of tapes, any original useable version of 'Money', I'd remaster it and put it out just for those people who have harped about it to shut 'em up. But I don't have such a thing. The only albums that have been tweaked are 'Money' and '[[Cruising With Ruben & The Jets|Ruben and the Jets]]'. '[[Hot Rats]]' was remixed from the original sixteen-track master, and extra material from the sessions was added. Some of the cuts on '[[Freak Out!]]' were remixed from the original four-track, and some of '[[Absolutely Free]]' was remixed. Everything else has come from the two-track masters. All I did was add some equalisation and compression.
+First of all, there hasn't been quite a lot of criticism, and secondly there have only been a couple of tapes that have been modified. The main one under discussion has been '[[We're Only In It For The Money|We're Only In It for the Money]]'. The original tapes were rendered useless by the way [[MGM Records|MGM]] stored them. If I found, somewhere in the stack of tapes, any original useable version of 'Money', I'd remaster it and put it out just for those people who have harped about it to shut 'em up. But I don't have such a thing. The only albums that have been tweaked are 'Money' and '[[Cruising With Ruben & The Jets|Ruben and the Jets]]'. '[[Hot Rats]]' was remixed from the original sixteen-track master, and extra material from the sessions was added. Some of the cuts on '[[Freak Out!]]' were remixed from the original four-track, and some of '[[Absolutely Free]]' was remixed. Everything else has come from the two-track masters. All I did was add some equalisation and compression.
 '''In the book, you talk about using subliminal cliches, modules of material. Is that one of the techniques to engender a familiarity with the song that's being played?<br>

@@ Line 33: / Line 33: @@
 What would slow me down a lot is if I had to sit here and write music like everybody else's album, then I would do one album a year. When you listen to what comes out, most of it is so derivative of the other guy's album. In order for everything to be that bland and consistent, I would imagine that people doing those albums have to spend a lot of time copying other people's stuff. Now if you don't have to do that, you can work pretty good.
-'''The [[Barking Pumpkin]] set-up is a whole cottage industry. Is it going well?<br>
+'''The [[Barking Pumpkin Records|Barking Pumpkin]] set-up is a whole cottage industry. Is it going well?<br>
 I think it's about to expand. I would like to try and develop more of the international markets, because I have this problem with the United States. I'm virtually doomed here because you can't get a song played on the radio unless you do payola, and I refuse to do it. It's always a surprise to people from other countries. They've heard my records and have known the music for years, and they come to the US and nobody even knows about me. It's the best kept secret in the US. There are still some far flung markets where we don't have licensing deals yet, especially Eastern Europe. I've done one deal for Czechoslovakia, but there are still other deals that can be done for Hungary, Poland, Romania, Bulgaria and all the rest of that stuff. I know that a few products have been in there, but I've got fifty-two albums I think in my entire catalogue. I think that's definitely one of the directions the record business will expand. Also the book has been translated into Russian and the publisher just gave permission the other week to them to release it in the Soviet Union which should be interesting, especially my chapter on communism. And it's been translated into Czech, so it should be coming out there in 1991; and into Dutch, which is being released at the end of this month.

@@ Line 108: / Line 108: @@
 Well, let's say just twenty per cent. What I do is derived from a wide range of traditions from other cultures and different periods of time. I didn't think it up out of thin air. To some people, it sounds like the weirdest shit they've ever heard in their life, but if you know anything about musical history, then it becomes even more entertaining because you see how some of these traditions got mutated into what I do now. That's probably one of the reasons why there's an appreciation outside the US, because those listeners have been exposed to a wider range of musical expression than the US listeners, because there's so little variety in US radio broadcasts and there's no music education in schools any more. So how's a kid who's never heard an orchestra or a string quartet, an opera or a folk tune or a sea shanty to have the slightest comprehension of what's going on?
-'''Would it be fair to say that when you heard [[Edgar Varèse|Varèse]]'s '[[Ionisation]]' first, that you had little real technical understanding of that record?<br>
+'''Would it be fair to say that when you heard [[Edgard Varèse|Varèse]]'s '[[Ionisation]]' first, that you had little real technical understanding of that record?<br>
 Nothing. I just liked the way it sounded. It took me years to find out what was going on in there. Maybe I still don't know. On a technical level, I know more now than when I bought it, but I knew enough when I heard it to realise that I liked it, and I listened to it over and over again.

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-[[Frank Zappa|FZ]] talks to Gary Steel 5.12.90<br>
+[[Biography|FZ]] talks to Gary Steel 5.12.90<br>
 By Gary Steel<br>
 [[T'mershi Duween (The Magazine)|T'Mershi Duween]], #20-21, July-September 1991<br>
@@ Line 95: / Line 95: @@
 '''How did Rolling Stone magazine get it so wrong?<br>
-It's my theory that since the magazine was invented (sic), somebody came along and said 'The government would appreciate a certain spin being put on certain stories and these benefits will accrue to you'. The best example I can give you of this suspicion is the way in which they covered all the [[PMRC]] stuff in '85. The first major article they did about that was basically done in a way that made you think that the PMRC had a point, that there was such a thing as a dirty word, that maybe there oughta be all these labels, rituals attached rock and roll records. I was shocked that they had taken that position. I guess a lot of other people were too, and at the Congressional hearing in September 1985, they changed their stand a little bit. The line that they tow is the line that they need to tow in order to keep their advertsiers. The people who get big play in the magazine world, they're financed to a certain extent by record companies, but you've got entertainment appliance manufacturers, cars, beverages and all of this stuff, and none of these advertisers who buy a full page ad want any controversy. The same thing happens in every other newspaper where you have to sell advertising space and the advertiser wants to exert his esthetic influence on the editorial contents of the publication.
+It's my theory that since the magazine was invented (sic), somebody came along and said 'The government would appreciate a certain spin being put on certain stories and these benefits will accrue to you'. The best example I can give you of this suspicion is the way in which they covered all the [[Parents Music Resource Center|PMRC]] stuff in '85. The first major article they did about that was basically done in a way that made you think that the PMRC had a point, that there was such a thing as a dirty word, that maybe there oughta be all these labels, rituals attached rock and roll records. I was shocked that they had taken that position. I guess a lot of other people were too, and at the Congressional hearing in September 1985, they changed their stand a little bit. The line that they tow is the line that they need to tow in order to keep their advertsiers. The people who get big play in the magazine world, they're financed to a certain extent by record companies, but you've got entertainment appliance manufacturers, cars, beverages and all of this stuff, and none of these advertisers who buy a full page ad want any controversy. The same thing happens in every other newspaper where you have to sell advertising space and the advertiser wants to exert his esthetic influence on the editorial contents of the publication.
 The other thing is that the people ... I mean, everybody's entitled to their own opinion. Let's say a rock and roll writer is doing an article about such and such a period. If they're writing about the history of rock n roll, how many of them have the kind of historical perspective of that period of time, either from a political or musicological stand? How can they put any of this stuff in perspective in an academic way? So the result is that the views of the albums and personalities are pretty much on the level of a highschool newspaper. It's just a popularity contest. Some of that is shaded by whatever the journalist happens to be listening to today. At the end of the chain is the editor who will say 'Oh no, they really won't like this; let's modify it.'

@@ Line 145: / Line 145: @@
 Well, if it was a hit, then I'll sue them. I know one other case where someone had sampled some of my stuff and put it out, but they didn't make any money on it, so why should I chase 'em. But I think if it was a hit and they actually got money out of it, then just on principle I should go and kick their ass.
-'''Thankyou, blah blah ...
+'''Thank you, blah blah ...
 [[Category:Interviews with Zappa]]

@@ Line 13: / Line 13: @@
 Oh yeah. In fact, if I do the concert in Tokyo, I'll probably have a horn section.
-'''Presumably these albums from 1988 will include some of the [[Beatles]] songs you did?<br>
+'''Presumably these albums from 1988 will include some of [[The Beatles]] songs you did?<br>
 No, I don't have permission to release those. I don't have the permission from the publisher, even though the Beatles medley was one of the most popular things from the US tour. The publisher is [[Michael Jackson]], and since I wrote that song about him, I doubt that he would give me permission. I think it's kind of stupid to even approach him, a waste of time. It's funny that a lot of times if I have the urge to do a cover tune, the people who control the publishing are the writers. Ordinarily, let's say you're a songwriter and someone calls you up and says 'I wanna do your song', he says 'Fine, go ahead and do it' because you don't have to do anything and the other guy pays you. But in my case, if I want to do something like '[[Stairway To Heaven]]', everyone panics like what you gonna do to it?

@@ Line 142: / Line 142: @@
 Look at it from another perspective. Let's say I build a junk sculpture. You don't know what the pieces are or where they come from, but if the sculpture works when it's done, who gives a fuck? You don't have to know that that's Donny and Marie. I know that there are fans out there who call each other up when they figure these things out. So this is a very special form of entertainment because there are layers and layers and layers of it and depending on how much leisure time you have to dig into it, you can be pretty thoroughly entertained on all levels. The average music listener today, what are they looking for? Dance beats, some words that are pretty fucking easy to understand and maybe three notes that you can hum. And then of course, a real good hairdo and some nice clothes to look at, and maybe a dance step you can pick up. I flunk in every one of those categories.
-'''Have you heard the old Fleetwood Mac song that somebody covered and sampled a whole lot of your stuff? It was a hit in Europe earlier this year.<br>
+'''Have you heard the old [[wikipedia:Fleetwood Mac|Fleetwood Mac]] song that somebody covered and sampled a whole lot of your stuff? It was a hit in Europe earlier this year.<br>
 Well, if it was a hit, then I'll sue them. I know one other case where someone had sampled some of my stuff and put it out, but they didn't make any money on it, so why should I chase 'em. But I think if it was a hit and they actually got money out of it, then just on principle I should go and kick their ass.
-'''Thankyou, blah blah...
+'''Thankyou, blah blah ...
 [[Category:Interviews with Zappa]]