petebrunelli

Blog

  • Silence of the Wolves

    Less than two weeks ago you didn’t have to look far to hear the NRA squawk box holding forth on the relationship between a national tragedy and a national call for better gun regulation:

    Eleven days ago—since when two mass shootings have taken place, this one in Newtown and another earlier this week at a shopping mall in Oregon—the National Rifle Association’s (NRA) president, referring to yet another shooting, bemoaned the media “[seizing] on the back of this national tragedy to try to piggyback their anti-Second Amendment national agenda right on top of the back of the national tragedy and try to force it on Americans all over the country.” Mr LaPierre, like the NRA’s Twitter page, has been silent today.

    Read more: Here

    So, where is LaPierre and his rhetoric after two more “major” tragedies?   Uh, they shut down their Twitter and Facebook accounts is where they have been.  In addition to Clackamas and Newtown, buried in the newsfeed noise, have been a host of other gun-violence episodes in the past 72 hours, and a foiled plot to attack an Oklahoma school involving guns… and because we ‘murrikens loves us some ‘spolzhuns… bombs.
    I find LaPierre’s statement to be particularly disingenuous.  Note that the NRA will exploit virtually any piece of “evidence” that they can frame as supporting their positions.  I can’t remember the NRA failing to exploit tragedies in nations where there is strong gun control (Norway, anyone?) or at least the assumption of strong gun control, as evidence that gun control doesn’t stop tragedies.  Yet the NRA has the balls to tell others to remain silent on the same issues.  The NRA is simply on the wrong side of this argument.  Instead of using their supposed expertise and their very real and extensive membership base to craft sensible and effective gun legislation, they have chosen to be the Vatican of Firepower.  They got what they need, and plenty of tithers feeding their organization, and they aren’t going to listen to any outside information.  The occasionally venture out onto their balcony to issue directives at the masses, and then skulk back into the shadows.  Dialogue is for the losers.
    Much like the ramblings of halfwits like Mike Huckabee, LaPierre is answering a question that nobody asked, ever.  The NRA is a firearms industry protectionist lobbying group masquerading as a civil rights organization.  Real civil rights recognizes that justice is often a process of give and take, and that there are two sides to the process.  If your side is all “take” and no “give” then you get stasis, not progress.  Sadly the NRA is content to play for stasis because the chessboard is heavily weighted in their favor now.  Note that this is much like the GOP playing for stasis now that the wealthy and corporations are paying historically low taxes, if you were looking for a current events analogy.  They both use that current advantage to generate more and bigger donations from their respective bases.
    To wrap on a personal point of reflection: I used to think that the NRA was a 2nd Amendment organization, and my response on why I would be a member was “because I wish every part of the constitution has an organization of that size and power”.   And I really do have that ideal as an example of “things that would be good”.  As well I listened hard to the replies in those conversations and did a lot of research to see if the NRA was really about the Constitution.  I won’t say there was none, but what there was lacked any real substance beyond propagandizing.  I had to come around, though it isn’t that far, to the realization that the NRA’s attachment to the 2nd Amendment is purely window dressing.
    Extra Credit: the folks in Vegas might say that the odds are very high that when we do hear from the NRA it will be a brief nod to the victims, and then right back to the equivalent of a Papal Mass.  Any takers?

  • Each Tragedy is an Argument for Gun Control

    In what is becoming a kind of trend, Reason and Politics has written an entry in response to today’s tragedy in Newtown, Connecticut.  Josh wrote a piece that I could have written almost verbatim and it would be entirely accurate.  Please give it a read.

    I grew up around guns, was educated on their destructive power well before being educated about their use, and as a result did not grow up as a “gun nut” or even a “gun romantic”.  My father was involved in competitive target shooting with the US Army, and that was the tradition I was handed.  We weren’t hunters, plinkers, or military enthusiasts.  We were paper-punchers, specifically practicing the discipline of “bullseye” shooting.  Around here it is represented in the main by 50-foot indoor gallery competition with .22 caliber pistols.  It is the firearms equivalent of the chess club.  But even from that small bore tradition, I have had to do a lot of soul searching about my relationship with a sport, a technology, a government, and a group of psychotics called the NRA.

    An NRA membership was a requirement for membership in my local range, and I didn’t think much of it 15 years ago.  Then I started getting their political mailings, and I honestly looked for anything other than fear mongering in their propaganda.  I found nothing of any use.  I have engaged some NRA type folks on the topic and it was frighteningly like reading those mailings… a lot of hot air and fear-baiting and basically zero facts.  Also, zero tolerance for discussion. A hard line, no debate ideology.

    Like almost every other aspect of my life, I believe in voting with my voice, my wallet, my feet, etc… And with the NRA I voted with my wallet when two years ago I made the conscious decision to let my NRA membership lapse, and now my voice.  The spectre of an assault weapons ban is, and I don’t think this is breaking news, the prime motivator of many NRA members and the NRA leadership.  The main reason, I believe, is because they couldn’t win an honest debate on the issue.  Same for magazine capacity limitations and barrel length and automatic fire capability, and so on.  What the NRA is saying is that despite being powerful enough to snuff out all attempts at regulating guns in the United States, they fear that once they yield on any point it will cause a domino effect of regulation.  Their supposed show of strength is actually a show of weakness.

    Each individual needs to make their own path through this tragedy.  I make the choice to start walking the walk as well as talking the talk.  I hate to say that I am not even sure where to start on engaging a progressive and effective route toward gun control.  I know that it doesn’t mean a wholesale firearms ban.  I also know that in the US of A we are kinda stupid and everything ends up being some kind of “all or nothing” debate.  As long as both sides remain extreme on this issue there will be no effective legislation.  Sounds a lot like our fiscal cliff showdown, unfortunately.

  • Adios LIE-berman

    I’m pretty sure you won’t read many poison pen pieces on Joe Lieberman at this, the time of his retirement from the US Senate.  As well, I won’t write one at this time either.  But I would like to say that I don’t think he had a huge friend-base on both sides of the aisle.  I think he was masterful in hedging his bets on both sides of the aisle.

    Did you think I could keep away from this topic? PSYCH!

    Dana Milbank of the Washington Post gives Joe a teary send off, in what is, due to the sentimentality and lack of facts, thankfully an opinion piece.  It completely mishandles the reality of his 2006 primary loss, and how integral Dick Cheney and the RNC were in securing his re-election.  It whitewashes how forcefully he has repeatedly stabbed his supporters, his electorate, in the back in the name of “principle”.  It takes a pass on the depth of the sham of his “Independent Democrat” schtick.  It also ignores how little he has done, how small he has been, in the way of public discourse since 2006 while all of his hated “partisanship” has been ravaging the nation.  Much like his other Monday Morning Quarterback calls on issues like Monicagate and Iran, and Israel for that matter, his farewell speech is too little, too late, and poses no danger of changing anything.

    See ya, Joe.  I don’t think anyone will even notice your absence.

  • On Fracking…

    Over at Reason and Politics, there was a really nice post about the use of shale gas as a short-term solution to reducing GHG emissions.  You can see the really nice post for my initial comment.  As we are finding out in Connecticut, there is a concerted national effort to get shale gas (the kind of gas you get from hydaulic fracturing, or fracking, the Marcellus Shale, a rock formation that stretches from upstate New York to West Virginia) on tap as a way to displace, for instance, fuel oil for space heating and light industrial/commercial needs.  This approach does have the potential to reduce GHG emissions and other pollutants on a BTU basis.  It will also generate jobs, though they are likely to be gone in 10-15 years once the gas distribution expansion is finished.  Its success also depends on the long-term costs and availability of natural gas regardless of its source.  All said, it can be seen as a placeholder/transition program until renewable energy technology can step in.  And before we go too far down that road, I prefer to immediately cease all subsidies to the fossil fuel industry and move them directly to renewable energy R&D and manufacturing.  That said, and regardless of its merit, I don’t have a billion dollars worth of government subsidy money that I can now use to hire lobbyists to ensure I get billions more in government subsidies… alas… the subsidy merry-go-round is not meant for chumps like me.  If only I had a lobbyist…. oh, yeah, right, congress…

    So here, friends, is an open comment to R&P, instead of just posting another comment on their blog:

    First, I really enjoy your blog.  It is as advertised, and you do a great job of bringing reason to political discussion.  Second, the risks of fracking are what they are… drilling through aquifers to get to to deep shale gas is always going to create a potential for contamination of the aquifer.  There are parallels to the mechanics of the Deepwater Horizon disaster, but the potential disaster in a fracking scenario could make that look like a walk in the park.  The risks are made worse by the failings of the US legal and regulatory systems.  There is simply too much palm greasing going on (see the subsidy merry-g0-round above) to effectively address things like safety and legal responsibility.  The US EPA has done things like requiring/allowing MTBE as a gasoline additive, which had the predictable side-effect of massively increasing the area impacted by a leaking fuel tank, and making the spill much harder to remediate (has a lot to do with MTBE having a high solubility in water), and allowing much higher public exposure to the pollutants the EPA is supposed to regulate.  And when I say predictable, I mean Chem101 predictable, not Nobel Prize predictable.  So I think it is fair to say that in the big picture we can’t rely on US EPA for anything, and I deal with their programs every day as part of my job.  I think the problem with energy and environmental policy in the US, if not the world, is that to get the job done right you have to be really effective at integrated long-range planning, and have effective regulations, and effective enforcement, and effective interface with economic policies.  And as if it weren’t hard enough, those things simply will not happen when you are having a multi-decade political slap fight… as we are finding out in the good old U S of A.  A common sense approach would use sound science, and lead to a pricing method that didn’t give the fossil fuel, nuclear, automotive, etc… industries a free ride on their social costs, not to mention the massive subsidies that these companies receive on the front end.

    In short, we are screwed until we get adults in the room, and I don’t see that happening any time soon.

  • RIP Dave Brubeck

    brubeck_timeout

    News just in that Dave Brubeck passed away at 91

    My first exposure to the music I came to know as “jazz” was listening to my dad’s Dave Brubeck records.  I listened to them side-by-side with the soundtrack to South Pacific, Bill Cosby, Bluegrass, 60’s folkies, Bird with Strings, Jimmy Smith, etc… basically rummaging through my parent’s vinyl collection and taking it all in without much idea that it was all different.  And far from schlocky white-boy jazz, that Brubeck band with Joe Morello, Paul Desmond and Eugene Wright was fantastic.  Their work still holds up extremely well today.  I later learned that Dave Brubeck was pushing his idea that there was a frontier of modern music to be approached via rhythmic devices, as opposed to purely melodic/harmonic routes.  So you have all these Brubeck records with textbook examples of “odd meter” jazz, the most famous of which is Take Five.  Extra Credit: Most folks forget that Take Five has a killer drum sola in addition to that stunningly beautiful melody.  In a large way it was Dave Brubeck that set me up to be not the least bit disturbed by the rhythmic gymnastics of Frank Zappa, and his guiding light Edgard Varese, and Monk, and Cage, and Mingus, and Charles Ives, and a seemingly endless list of rhythmically interesting musicians and composers.  He truly did succeed at putting the time signature into the toolbox of modern 20th century music.  Listen to something as seemingly unrelated as Sting’s album “Mercury Falling” for a modern example.

    Dave Brubeck continued to make new and interesting music, often with his sons, and for no less reason than his failure to engage in faddish behavior, was often disregarded by modern jazz listeners.  I could say that it wasn’t fair, but that isn’t true.  The important part is knowing who you are and what you want to do, and to my knowledge Brubeck never wavered in his direction.  He was nobody but Dave Brubeck, ever.  RIP, Man.  You Rocked The Place.

    Brubeck-Def-Cov

  • I Like A Bike

    Now for something much less serious… bikes!

    I have always had a love for bikes. Whether it was a sidewalk bike, my old Stingray, the 10 speed that my dad didn’t use (but I sure did), a freebie BMX crasher that I rode around the parking garage in college… all the way to the present where I can afford a “decent” road bike. I like the feeling of freedom, the uncomplicated nature, and the sights and smells that I am shielded from in a car. Back in the late 00’s I had not been riding as much because of some attitude and health issues. As usual that didn’t last long.  I always end up back in the habit of riding, one way or another. I decided to give the bicycle another shot as a part of a fitness program, and this time it was a program designed (by me) to not cause any injury and allow me to keep up a steady level of activity without burn-out.  FWIW, I’m in year three and so far, so good

    As many of the male persuasion are wont to do, I became somewhat “serious”. Ick. Clipless pedals, bike shorts, and other trappings of the “Spandex Mafia” ensued.  In my case I was lucky enough to have a few chance encounters that changed things for the better. The first was that while searching for some kind of accessory, maybe pedals or a rack, I stumbled upon Rivendell Bicycle Works of Walnut Creek, CA. The products were neat, and the attitude reminded me of the old Patagonia catalogs or The Zen of Motorcycle Maintenance. I kinda plugged the name “Grant Petersen” into the back of my mind and went on about grokking the website.  I started reading the articles, and they led me to a grand realization: I Like Riding Bikes. The articles on the Rivendell site are a collection of essays on thing like how to fit a bicycle to a rider, clothing, shoes, and so on. The common thread is one of keeping it simple and fun.

    I started to take a fresh look at bikes, and specifically *my* bikes. Why were they uncomfortable? Why was I having foot pain? Why was I worried about a one-pound tool kit when I was 30 pounds overweight? Why did I feel worse at the end of a moderate ride than when I started? All excellent questions, and they are all apparently akin to heresy in virtually every bike shop in North America. Aerodynamics, efficiency, and technological trickle down from the ranks of elite cycle racing are the themes that dominate most shops. All other forms of bike are pathetic and to be viewed askance, if at all. A mild exaggeration. Very mild.

    First order of business: Fun-ifying my Specialized Tricross. Flat pedals, fenders, better saddle, lights. The transformation was dramatic. A bike that I would only ride on sunny days and on bone-dry roads was now a suburban assault vehicle. Foot pain: gone. Back pain: less. Fun Factor: elevated. One problem still remained: the bike was on the small side for me, and the fit was never going to be great. Most bike shops will put a rider on a frame about 4-6cm shorter than the rider would like. This is because sport riders find the smaller frame to be stiffer, and quicker handling. For most riders what they actually get is a cramped “cockpit” and handlebars that are too low. In my case I am a 6-footer and something in the 58-61cm range would be a good starting point, hence, I took the shop advice and ended up on a 56cm cyclo-cross-over. FWIW, the Tricross is a great bike, and it can fit a wide range of riders and riding. If I had gone with my gut, put my foot down, and got it in a 58 or 60, it might very well be my main ride today.

    This “fun” epiphany led me to take another look at bikes that I own, but were sitting unused. I made a few simple modifications to my old mountain bike, and created a bike that was amazingly fun to ride. Before that it had been a truly awful mountain bike. Dating to the mid-1980’s, this Peugeot “Orient Express” is basically a small touring frame with 26″ knobbies and a straight bar. If I wanted to buys a Japanese-made lugged steel frame bike today, which is what the Peugeot is, it would cost me about $2,000.  I bought it used back in 1989 from a co-worker who was leaving to man a fire lookout tower in Alaska. I rode it on trails back then, but it was a disaster waiting to happen. In fact, it was several disasters that actually did happen! The bike sat in my garage waiting for me to realize that it was a great bike in bad-MTB clothing.  One set of cruiser-bike slicks, one swept back handlebar, and the springer seat from my Specialized Expedition, and suddenly it was a great freakin’ bike. Currently dubbed the “sand panzer” it positively reeeeeeeks of fun. Floating over every obstacle, stable on loose terrain (including its namesake sand), and comfortable on my normal 15-20mi rides. Do I look like a bit of a dork on it? Yes, yes I do. Am I having a great time? Hell Yes.

    What the Peugeot taught me, again, is that I really enjoy riding a bike. Like the way a kid enjoys a bike. That I still enjoy the freedom, and I can still handle the physical nature of it, and maybe most important I am re-convinced that if it doesn’t feel good it probably isn’t good. This bike feels great.  Hence, the Tricross got a similar treatment: Clipless pedals, overboard. Racing posture, eliminated. Any excess gear, canned. I went back to riding flat pedals in sneakers* or hiking shoes, and keeping the technical clothing to a bare minimum.

    With that bloated premise it should come as no surprise that the writing and thinking of people like Eben Weiss (bike snob nyc) and Grant Petersen have resonated with me. I recently read both Peterson’s “Just Ride” and the Snob’s newest book “The Enlightened Cyclist”. I find a lot to recommend in both. I’ll put full reviews in separate posts, but know that “Just Ride” is retooled material from Petersen’s website and Rivendell Reader newsletters, and The Snob wrote a nice philosophical treatise while still remaining Snobby as all hell.

    Here in New England we are about to hit the best part of the bicycling season, and I thank Grant and Eben for helping me get back to the fun part of it, and re-engage the bicycle on my own terms.

    *(One of the few times a random fellow cyclist has struck up a full-fledged conversation with me, and I mean a total stranger who I was passing at the time, was a man who was dumbfounded that I wasn’t using clipless pedals.  He was similarly shocked that not only did I know of them, but I had use them and ditched them!  I even had the audacity to know why they were causing the freakin’ neuroma in my left foot and that going back to flats had solved the problem.  He gave me this weird lecture about how I should really stop riding in street shoes.  Honestly… WTF?)

  • Son of Bizarre Zappanale Rant!

    Another Zappanale has come and gone… and I wasn’t there.  It seems fair to say that I knew Zappanale during its adolescence.  It had grown beyond its humble beginnings, but hadn’t become a mature stop on the European Festival Circuit, which it what it is becoming, or has become.  That is not a problem.  I think big is good, and if this year is any indication, the festival is still bringing in a great mix of alumni, top shelf professionals, and the regular FZ-loving local bands that always seem to crank out the Frank with gusto (if not flawless intonation).  The last Zappanale I attended was Z20 in 2009, and it was a great time, and I love my Zappateer buddies, and the beer is excellent, and yet I still have a lot of mixed feelings about it.  In ’09 Terry Bozzio was paid a lot of dough to basically avoid all human contact, clog up the main stage with his drumiverse for a full day of other band’s performances, and then put on the same fucking clinic he would run at the fucking Modern Drummer wankfest.  Thanks, Terry.  You used to be an OK musician before you decided you were a Musician and not a drummer.  At least you didn’t pull out an acoustic guitar and try to sing “Angie”.  Mad Props for that.

    I hope to go back to Bad Doberan, enjoy Zappanale, and get tore up on Rostocker beer in the hot sun and then swin the the coldest damn water I have ever swam in.  But if I don’t, I can at least say that I did it already, multiple times, with elan.

    The aftermath of the Zappanale holiday, alternately known as Zappadan, usually brings out the reflective side of the fans and the festival organizers.  Case in point: Recently Thomas Dippel, ARF Society honcho, and a guy I think of as a friend, wrote:

    If you want to stage a festival honoring Frank Zappa – you might have to reckon with the Zappa Trust, headed up by Frank Zappa’s widow, Gail. His widow should finally stop putting hurdles in our path and help us further promote this fantastic music. Frank would probably agree. He was all about freedom of expression and was opposed to censorship. I’m not sure he would dig the way his legacy is being micromanaged.

    I agree.  The ZFT should be able to tell the difference between sincere homage and scamming.  I don’t think that will happen, ever, and here is why: back in the early days after the tragic death of FZ, there was this official release called “Frank Zappa Plays the Music of Frank Zappa”, which despite the cute title and barely catchy packaging was really nothing more than an official bootleg released by Dweezil Zappa.  I get a vague sense of nausea every time I see the CD box.  Yes, it was a Zappa performance, and yes the sound quality was a cut above the audience-tape variety sound that hardcore enthusiasts were familiar with.  But there was no way in hell that it was a FZ project.  First, Frank would have done a load of editing because there is a lot of noodling on this particular gig.  He may have seen it as more than just a live recording, perhaps extracting a solo as a standalone composition, or done something asynchronous to add some texture to the otherwise uniform corduroy of the mobile truck recording.  Whatever it was to be, it would have had continuity with the FZ process.  None of that was in the cards.

    And this motif continues to this day, with Joe Travers afraid/unable to emulate FZ, Dweezil unable to emulate FZ, the guys who actually worked for FZ sent off to exile on some mysterious island for wanting to actually get paid, and the public getting regular doses of legal bootlegs in professional packaging in exchange for princely sums of legal tender.

    Anyhow, back to the friendly climes of northern “Yurrip”…

    To many FZ fans it is a bit odd that there is an independent festival in the former East Germany that showcases a lot of interesting music and has the audacity to invoke Zappa’s name in any sort of way, while there is no such festival in the composer’s home country.  Odd, that.  In a land where every jagoff stoner jamband rodeo becomes its own little bong-a-palooza empire, and modernist groups like Bang On A Can manage to run multiple concert series and feature the music of people like Conlan Nancarrow… the Trust in charge of a composer with one of the deepest and most varied catalogs in the whole of the 20th century manages to endorse a coverband, reeking of nepotism and cheap cologne, and not a tremendously good one (IMO) at that.

    Not exactly what I would call a harbinger of a bright future full of tolerance and creativity.

  • And in other news…

    The latest musical effort here at Rancho Frio Studios is an improvisational duo with drummer Peter Riccio.  There really isn’t an official name for this project.  There have been a few performances so far and they have all used different names.  We play at the Outer Space in Hamden, CT on April 1, and that performance will be under yet another name: Journey to the Twin Planet. That is the name of a track from the Jack Dejohnette record Special Edition (1980, ECM). There was a time when ECM was putting out some of the best and most unique recordings, and those recordings largely hold up very well.  So while I can guarantee that nobody will mistake JttTP for a Jack Dejohnette project, it is a tip of the hat to a man I consider to be one of the best ever to pick up the sticks.

    Peter and I go back a long way, and it is great to be playing some music together again.  A few years as bassist in his band the Sawtelles was a major turning point in my musical life.  Playing in an ensemble while being able to retain my own voice on the instrument is something I had never truly enjoyed, and playing in the Sawtelles opened a door to that process that I continue to develop today.

    Image

     

  • stupidity really is the most abundant element in the universe

    …and the Zappa Family Trust appears to be at the center of a galactic stupidity-aggregation-nexus.

    They want Gail Zappa, Dweezil Zappa, and Joe Travers to be the sole custodians of the legacy of Frank Zappa?  Really?  The “Three Stooges” are getting their way lately thanks to some witless co-conspirators.

    There are real questions about what is and is not appropriate when it comes to performance rights.  We have seen the ZFT attempt to treat the FZ catalog as theater, so performing any piece would be like playing an excerpt from CATS.  They have also claimed to be unaffiliated with any of the performance-royalty agencies like BMI or ASCAP.  But missing is the fact that BMI and ASCAP are private enterprises and separate from actual copyright law.  They aren’t like the IRS, a government agency created to manage tax law enforcement.  Meaning: even if you are not under agreement with ASCAp or BMI you still have to play by the rules.  As I have said before, this means that you cannot say “no” to a performance.  Compulsory licensing and fair-use issues don’t evaporate because you claim to be self-published.  By the same token the ZFT can send cease-desist orders just like anyone else.  The band RUSH recently sent a letter asking walking-human-excrement Rush Limbaugh to cease using their music on his show.  That specific complaint involves the use of a RUSH recording, an actual published piece of recorded music.  If it was the use of a cover-version, or thematic material, they would be on shakier ground because there would be issues of substantiality, but if the version was clearly based on the original it would be a simple process to continue the C&D beyond the original injunction. The ZFT wants a level of control that goes beyond fair use, and into “no use”, which is monopolistic and not supported by US Copyright law.  They also will not engage in actual legal action because they don’t have the desire to lose in court again.  I’ll leave the details to the actual copyright lawyers, but I feel very strongly that the legal onus has to be on the ZFT at some point.  They have made many claims on a personal/subjective basis.  That is definitely not supported by the law.

    I write this as I listen to Dutch guitarist Corrie van Binsbergen, who has never made any bones about being a student of Zappa.  Her music is strikingly original, but she also works within the Zappa oeuvre.  When she plays an homage like Zoot Suite, is it “good”? Is it “sincere”? Is it “disrespectful”? Is it legal?  …and the list of what it is or is not goes on to the horizon. When Terry Bozzio gets paid handsomely to perform a 45 minute drum clinic at a festival, and performs The Black Page as a *solo*, just as he did with Zappa Plays Zappa, is he breaking the law?  Was he breaking the law when he played it with ZPZ?  Is the ZFT breaking the law by allowing Dweezil to perform Zappa music for free, while preventing others from playing his music *at all*?

    Most artists avoid this quagmire by just acknowledging that their music was performed and broadcast to a huge number of humans over a period of decades, and other people learned to play those songs and might play them in live performance.  Nobody is out there claiming to have written Zappa’s music… claiming his compositions as their own.  Similarly, Zappa did not claim to have written Whipping Post, or Stairway to Heaven, etc… which he performed with his band in 1988. Subjective as well is the possible decision by an artist that the world is better off with the music in the public eye, and if the cover version is horrible then it just makes the original that much more valuable/desirable.

    YouTube presents a very interesting case in “fair use”, because they don’t stop anyone from posting anything up front.  You want to put up a video of a still image of a goat with a rip of an album cut playing in the background?  Go for it.  Prove that it isn’t a post modern artistic commentary on the vapid nature of popular music and the media. Unless someone complains… which is kinda weird, really.  YouTube bears no burden in this process?  Where they facilitating the infraction?  That would require a legal decision, and legal costs.  As it stands they operate in a gray area.  What makes them any different than thepiratebay?

    Notice here that we aren’t talking about using original recordings as backgrounds in a beer commercial.  Rarely does a corporation appropriate content without the consent of the owner.  That may seem like an issue of scale, but it really is an issue of intent and fair-use.  Mos of the ZFT issue revolves around musicians who have performed music which is based on a Zappa composition, or purports to be derived from a Zappa recording.  Since nobody can replicate the recording exactly, it is an artistic interpretation.  Is it substantially derived from the original?  Again, that is for lawyers to decide.  And to date the ZFT has received zero legal judgements in their favor on this issue.

    If I am on stage in mid performance and quote a Lennon/McCartney composition, was I supposed to corral the instinct, even though it was rooted in a memory of hearing it in 1968?

    This could go on ad-infinitum, but I believe that the overarching issue is not purely legal, or purely objective.  The issue at hand is one of an emotional turf-war.  After a career that began over 45 years ago, involving about 80 official audio releases, many video releases, public speaking appearances, collaborations with other artists, and thousands upon thousands of live performances, is the public supposed to sit on its collective hands and let one person decide how they will be influenced by that legacy?  Is one person allowed to dictate the actions of others to that degree?  As I stated in the previous post, this is the kind of control that was attempted under some of the most oppressive political regimes the world has ever known.  These regimes hoped to exact a level of social control so absolute that only their words were allowed to be considered “truth”.  All those who disagreed were punished, silenced, and worse.  Right now we are seeing a silencing of those with the audacity to perform this forbidden music.  Look ahead, if you can, into a future where this approach has been completely successful, and think about that landscape.

  • we know who the brain police are…

    Earlier today I received notice that a video of my band “DOOT” received a takedown notice on YouTube.  The requester was Zappa Family Trust.  I don’t even remember if the video had any Zappa content, but it was a performance at the Zappanale festival, and Andre Cholmondeley was part of the band for that gig.  Andre is the guy behind the band project/object, and his “project” has been a consistent “object” of scorn from Gail Zappa.  Gail is of the opinion that nobody gets to perform, interpret, or reference any of Frank Zappa’s compositions without her express authorization.  I have expressed my opinion on this subject before… it’s archived here somewhere.  I believe that while the Zappa Family Trust can protect Zappa’s actual works, and the products that they have released since Zappa’s death, they can not enforce a selective moratorium on his influence on contemporary music.  Zappa himself “cut his teeth” covering popular popular music, orchestral music, experimental music… all written by someone else… and specifically rubbed the music industry’s nose in it by pointing out that by changing one note in “Louie Louie” it was now an original composition (Plastic People, YCDTOSA 1).

    The past week or so has seen an uptick in the ZFT’s takedown notice activity.  To be clear, the media in question were not Zappa recordings, videos or performances.  They were live performances that involved thematic material from the Zappa catalog, references to the composer, homages to the composer, and lyrics based on Zappa’s lyrical concepts.  Gutless organizations like YouTube know it is far less expensive and less involved to take down videos at the drop of a hat and let the account owner and the takedown notifier deal with the particulars in a court of law.  So the ZFT gets what they want up front.  Gail couldn’t ask for more.  I have been witness to a decade where the ZFT went from non-participant in the Zappa legacy, to employing anti-democratic tactics that would make Goerbels blush.  The ZFT’s hypothesis that they can stuff Frank Zappa’s music legacy back into the bottle and dispense it on an ad-hoc basis MUST be challenged in a court of law, and challenged successfully.  Until then the musical world will be a poorer place, and the freedom of expression that Zappa himself enjoyed will be denied to generation after generation of artists and the public at large.

    This is my immediate reaction to the recent events:

    nobody can take away the importance that the man and his music have had on my life, but equally, i can not be compelled to participate in what his legacy has become. everything that has been done in his name since december of 1993 has been less than what the man himself did. no musician or composer has effectively enhanced the legacy that zappa created during his life. homage has been paid, some fine music has been made, souls have been stirred…. but none of it has moved the needle in comparison to the actual works that zappa oversaw during his lifetime. nothing that the zft ever does will enhance his legacy. nothing that his lox of a son tries to do with his cute little cover band. and frankly, nothing that *any* of the people playing zappa’s music since his death will *ever* do will matter one iota in comparison to the actual legacy of zappa’s own work. i’m content with that, and content with taking the odds that there is a chance that i might live to see zappa’s music set free to inspire the world in an active way. but ironically, in the 21st century, his widow has forced musicians around the world into the same situation endured by those living under the communist regimes of the soviet union, china, czechoslovakia, east germany, and other oppressive regimes where zappa’s music was spoken of in hushed tones and played out of earshot in secret locations. it is officially ILLEGAL to perform certain music without a dispensation from the authorities.