Winter In America
Article 1697 of alt.fan.frank-zappa:
From: sweet@skat.usc.edu (Rob Sweet)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.frank-zappa
Subject: Option Magazine Interview
Date: 6 Jan 1993 23:45:34 -0800
As promised, here is the first of what I hope will be
a "plethora" of FZ interviews. (I hope I don't have to type
all of them.)
==================CUT HERE==========================================
Option Magazine JAN-FEB 1987
WINTER IN AMERICA
IT'S 1987 DO YOU KNOW WHERE YOUR CULTURE IS?
The Frank Zappa Interview Part I
Interview by Steve Lyons
and Batya Friedman
Several months ago, it seemed a refreshing and deliciously ironic
moment when Frank Zappa was spotted on television, testifying before a
Senate committee. He was dressed in a jacket and tie, much as he was
more than two decades ago for an appearance - in which he musically
played a bicycle - on the Steve Allen Show. Before the committee,
however, with the accumulated notoriety of the intervening years in
evidence only as subtext, the talkative, knowledgeable and apparently
incensed musician held forth as the most reasonable voice of the
afternoon.
Considering the urgent problems you'll find on the front pages of
even the lamest paper, the committee was holding hearings on the
non-issue of applying ratings to rock records. Zappa had come to
Washington to help nip this bit of proto- fascism in the bud.
Instigated by the Parents' Music Resource Center, a well-connected
group of Washington wives with kids in school and time on their hands,
the committee was examining the possibility of a casual link between
rock music and drug abuse, teenage pregnancy, Satanism, concert
violence and other things which no one could seem to recall having
existed before 1956.
Asked how something as trivial as record-rating became the
subject of a Senate inquiry, Zappa simply remarked, "A couple of
blow-jobs here and there and Bingo! - you get a hearing." He added
that Tipper Gore - wife of Senator Albert Gore and a key figure in the
PMRC - had recently demanded that MTV president Tom Freston go to
Washington to discuss the rating of music videos. While any
legislation against the various music media doesn't seem likely at
this point, Zappa notes that the current administration is doing what
it can to further its own ideology, such as reviewing all
documentaries being produced by both National Public Radio and the
Corporation for Public Broadcasting.
Zappa's interest in politics extends beyond those issues that are
music related, though his perspective occasionally tends toward the
bizarre ("For all those cowboys who think that Star Wars is gonna save
us from alien attack: does it ever occur to you that Star Wars doesn't
kill germs?"). He is a most vocal critic of the Reagan administration
and its fundamentalist supporters. Referring to items ranging from
government obfuscation to the bombing of abortion clinics, Zappa
concludes, "We're seeing the same terrorist techniques in the U.S. as
those used by Moslem fanatics in the Mideast - the difference is just
a matter of costume." He points out that although the fundamentalist
agitators may be a very small minority in the U.S., the Shiites of the
Islamic middle east also comprise a small part of the Islamic
community.
Going on about the Mideast (in a November 1986 conversation
during the turmoil of arms shipments to Iran), Zappa continues, "Where
was Bush during all this?" He refers to a recent trial of arms
dealers involved in a private, clandestine attempt to direct arms to
Iran: "They played a tape on CNN which went, `We just got the green
light - Bush says it's okay but Schultz doesn't like it.'" Zappa's
conclusion is that the cover-up is far more insidious than it looks,
with one object being to protect Bush's presidential aspirations.
"They're trying to make the front- runner look good."
Though Zappa faults the press for allowing things to go on as
they have been ("except for Sam Donaldson, the rest of the press has
been napping for the last five years"), he says he's "optimistic." He
feels the radical right is "on the run", and notes that their
contributions have been dropping. But since the right wing agenda is
still being pressed, Zappa vows, "So long as I can keep talking I'm
gonna do what I can to stop 'em from getting their way." - ed.
This interview took place in early '86 in Frank Zappa's home
studio, from 11 o'clock at night until sunrise the next morning.
Zappa is a disarmingly thoughtful, lucid and witty individual, and
rather warm in his own way. The following is an excerpt from that
conversation.
ART IN AMERICA
- In the past you have said that "art is dying in this country."
What do you mean by this?
Much of the creative work I find interesting and amusing has no basis
in economic reality. Most decisions relevant to expenditures for what
gets produced and distributed are made strictly on a bottom line
basis. Nobody makes a move without talking to their accountant first.
There will always be people who will take a chance, but their numbers
are dwindling. Those who are crazy enough to take the chance on
spending money to make some unusual object or event take place are an
endangered species. The spirit of adventurousness at any level of
American society has been pretty much legislatured away. In the
eighties, with a repressive Republican, yuppie-oriented administration
installed and ready to perpetuate itself with Supreme Court
appointments that will keep us in trouble for the next half century,
the prognosis is not good for things which differ from the viewpoint
of the conservative right.
- Do you think anything can be done to reverse the trend?
Perhaps. I tend to view the whole thing as a conspiracy. It is no
accident that the public schools in the United States are pure shit.
It is no accident that masses of drugs are available and openly used
at all levels of society. In a way, the real business of government
is the business of controlling the labor force.
Social pressure is placed on people to become a certain type of
individual, and then rewards are heaped on people who conform to that
stereotype. Take the pop music business, for example. Look at the
stereotypes held up by the media as great accomplishment. You see
guys who are making millions of dollars and selling millions of units.
And because they are making and selling millions they are stamped with
the seal of approval, and it is the millions which make their work
quality. Yet anyone can look at what is being done and say, "Jesus, I
can do that!" You celebrate mediocrity, you get mediocrity. People
who could have achieved more won't, because they know that all they
have to do is be "that" and they too can sell millions and make
millions and have people love them because they're merely mediocre.
And that is reinforced over and over and over.
Few people who do anything excellent are ever heard of. You know
why? Because excellence, pure excellence, terrifies the fuck out of
Americans because they have been bred to appreciate the success of the
mediocre. People don't like to be reminded that lurking somewhere
there are people who can do some shit that you can't do. They can
think a way you can't think, they can dance a way you can't dance.
They are excellent. You aren't excellent. Most Americans aren't
excellent, they're only OK. And so to keep them happy as a labor
force, you say, "OK, let's take this mediocre chump," and we say, "He
is terrific!" All the other mediocre chumps say, "Yeah, that's right
and that gives me hope, because one day as mediocre and chumpish as I
am I can..." It's smart labor relations. An MBA decision. That is
the orientation of most entertainment, politics, and religion. So
considering how firmly entrenched all that is right now, you think
it's going to turn around? Not without a genetic mutation it's not!
- If you would focus on the message of pop music for a moment, what do
you see as the issues of the 1980's that music can address today?
It can address anything it wants to, but it will only address those
topics that will sell. Musicians will not address topics that are
controversial if they want to have a hit. So music will continue to
address those things that really matter to people who buy records:
boy-girl relationships, boy-boy relationships, boy- car relationships,
girl-car relationships, boy-girl-food relationships, perhaps. But
safe. Every once in a while somebody will say "War is Hell" or "Save
the Whales" or something bland. But if you talk about pop music as a
medium for expressing social attitudes, the medium expresses the
social attitude perfectly by avoiding contact with things that are
really there. That is the telling point about the society that is
consuming the product. If society wanted to hear information of a
specific nature in songs, about controversial topics, they would buy
them. But they don't. You are talking about a record- buying
audience which is interested in their personal health and well-being,
their ability to earn a living, their ability to stay young at all
costs forever, and not much else.
- How about the role of music in society outside the pop music
industry? For example, Kent Nagano (conductor of the Berkeley
symphony) said in a recent interview that "a composer has a job to do
within a culture. Which is not to say a composer should write what
the public already wants to hear, but rather that the public is
employing the composer to lead them, to show them a direction." What
do you think of that?
I don't think a composer has any function in society at all,
especially in an industrial society, unless it is writing music
scores, advertising jingles, or stuff that is consumed by industry. I
respect Kent, however I think he takes a very optimistic and naive
attitude toward what it takes to be a composer. If you walk down the
street and ask anybody if a composer is of any use to society, what
kind of answer do you think you would get? I mean, nobody gives a
shit. If you decide to become a composer, you seriously run the risk
of becoming less than a human being. Who the fuck needs you?
A songwriter is different. [in a facetious sing-song voice] You
write a nice song, then you're important. Because with a song, now we
have a car, now we have love, now we have a this ... but a composer?
What the fuck do they do? All the good music's already been written
by people with wigs and stuff on.
- So the public doesn't need composers. What about composers? Do
they need a public? For example [electronic music composer] Milton
Babbit, in an essay titled "Who cares if you listen?" has advocated
the virtual exclusion of the general public from modern music
concerts. What is your opinion on that ?
That's unnecessary, they're already excluded; they don't go! Have you
been to a modern music concert? Plenty of room, isn't there? Come on
Milton, give yourself a break. I hope you're not going to spend money
trying to exclude these people. What are you going to do, have it
legislated in Congress, like those assholes who wanted to make it a
law that you couldn't put anything backwards on a phonograph record?
- So, given all this, what do you think art will be like 20 years from
now?
Since I'm not in that business, it's hard for me to really care.
[Author's note: Zappa does not think that his work is perceived as
art.] I can lament its passing. I don't think anything that a
reasonable person would describe as art will be around. Not here.
I'm talking about art in terms of valued, beautiful stuff that is done
not because of your ego but just because it is beautiful, just because
it is the right thing to do. We will be told what is good and it will
be mediocre. There's always a possibility that an anomaly will appear
- some weird little twisted thing will happen and there will be
somebody who's doing it. But who's going to know? In the dark ages
there was art, but who knew?
THE MUSIC INDUSTRY
- How do unknown groups attract the attention of record companies?
Today record companies don't even listen to your tape. They look at
you publicity photo. They look at your hair. They look at your
zippers. How gay do you look? And if you've got the look then it
really doesn't make a fucking bit of difference what's on the tape -
they can always hire somebody to fix that. And they don't expect you
to be around for 20 years. The business is not interested in
developing artists. They want that fast buck because they realize
that next week there's going to be another hairdo and another zipper.
And they realize that the people are not listening, they're dancing,
or they're driving, or something else. The business is more geared to
expendability today. That's because merchandising is so tied to
"visuals" now.
- How is music selected to be heard on pop radio? Is it determined by
the taste of the listener or does the public listen to whatever the
industry feeds them?
A little of both. Radio is consumed like wallpaper is consumed. You
don't concentrate on the radio, you turn it on while you're working,
you turn it on while you're driving. It's not like the old days when
families sat around and looked at it. So the stations are formatted
to provide a certain texture and ambience that will be consumed by
people who view themselves in a certain way. Are you a yuppie? Well,
you're going to listen to a certain texture because that reinforces
the viewpoint you want to project to other people of who and what you
are. It's the same thing as what you leave on your coffee table for
people to discover when they come to your apartment. It's not a
musical medium, it's an advertising medium.
So if you have a nation of people who refuse to face reality
about themselves, about the rest of the world, about anything, they
want reinforcement for the fantasy that they're living in. And these
consulting services that format the station know that. Market
research will show that. So obviously you want to deliver to the
public things that will reinforce that. A station loses money when
somebody turns it off like the air. So as long as your station sounds
like the kind of swill that the yuppie needs to consume, you got it.
- Could you give us your view of the process whereby a record becomes
a hit?
It's simple. It's called "payola". You pay somebody to play your
record.
Hits are OK. I think they're wonderful for people who like to
listen to them. But then, hits shouldn't be the sum total of music
history. Let's face it. Mozart had hits. Beethoven had hits. Did
you ever look in the Grove's Dictionary of Music and Musicians? There
are thousands of names of people who wrote music throughout history,
yet we haven't heard one line they ever wrote. That doesn't mean it
is bad music. It just means they didn't have hits.
In the old days, if the king didn't like you, or the church
didn't like you or whatever,you didn't have a hit. As a matter of fact
you might even be dead. So now you can have a hit if you are willing
to pay. So who's the new king. Who's the new church?
THE PMRC
- Within the last year the Parents' Music Resource Center (PMRC) has
requested that record companies rate records they produce similar to
the current rating of films. You've been involved in this recent
controversy. What did the record industry finally agree to?
Well, to quote you from the Associated Press Wire Report, dated
November 1, 1985, the basic points of the agreement between the Record
Industry Association of America (RIAA) and the PMRC are that "parents'
groups will have no role in determining what is explicit." Next, "the
record companies will determine what is explicit." When asked, "What
is explicit?," Stanley Gortikov (president of the RIAA) replied,
"What's explicit is explicit." Third, "those artists whose contracts
give them control over their packaging are free to ignore the
understanding." Does this sound like something you could enforce?
I think the record industry allowed the ladies to save a little
face (by making a formal agreement at all), which just encourages them
more. The PMRC has moved to new quarters in Virginia; they are no
longer in Washington D.C. They have a new printed fund-raising
package which heralds their victory while omitting those parts of the
agreement that render it inoperable. The fund-raising package says
that if you'll send them money, they will send you more examples of
the horrors of these lyrics. They are making an industry out of this
thing! Meanwhile, Reverend Jeff Ling, their consultant, has this new
slide show that he is taking around.
- Are there any legislative attempts to require record ratings?
Last year the state of Maryland considered a bill which would make it
illegal to sell a record declared "obscene" to a person under 18 years
of age. The text of the bill stated that its purpose was to keep
people from seeing or hearing references to illicit sex. And then it
had a definition of what constitutes illicit sex in the state of
Maryland. Sexual intercourse is the first thing on the list. What
the legislators did was take the existing visual pornography law and
just add the words "phonograph record, magnetic tape, compact disc" to
it. Since the existing law in Maryland is already a bit vague, adding
just those words isn't going to give you an enforceable regulation.
To give an example of how ridiculous this bill was, under this
bill you were not allowed to advertise pornography. So let's say that
somebody decided that a Motley Crue album was obscene. If you were
wearing a tee shirt that says Motley Crue on it you would be
advertising pornography. You could be fined $1000 and/or go to jail
for a year. If you wore the tee shirt twice, it is $5000 and three
years in jail.
- Did the bill pass in Maryland?
It passed the House of Delegates with a 96 to 3 vote. When it was
sent to the Maryland State Judiciary Committee, I went to testify.
The bill was eventually killed in that committee. But because the
issue was brought up, a number of other states have similar bills
which they are considering. Pennsylvania, Minnesota, Wisconsin, New
Jersey, and Mississippi have all considered similar bills.
- What interactions did you have with the Maryland legislators outside
of the judiciary hearings?
The night before I testified in the State Senate, I attended a
cocktail party that a bunch of legislators were invited to. The bill
had already passed in the House of Delegates. My objective in this
exercise was to keep the bill from going anyplace in the Senate
because if the Senate approves the bill it becomes law. But if you
kill the bill in the Senate, it's dead. Delegates and Senators were
coming to this cocktail party. Every time somebody would say, "Here's
Delegate So-and-So," I would say, "Which way did you vote?" And of
the ones who voted for the bill, I always asked them, "Why?" Most of
them were embarrassed that they had. And I would say, "Would you care
to apologize?," and hand them a piece of paper to get their apology in
writing. I've got slips of paper from at least five delegates who
voted for the thing with the most unbelievable quotes. I read the
apologies in the Senate the following day. Here's some quotes: "I was
swept away by the rhetoric." And "I had to vote that way because
that's the way my district is." That guy came from a district where
he might have had his legs badly mutilated if he hadn't done it.
- It seems reasonable for delegates to vote the way their districts
want them to vote. After all, shouldn't they attempt to represent the
viewpoint of their district?
Well, let's look at both sides of that. If you are representing the
economic interest of your district, I suppose you should fight for
that. But in terms of this piece of legislation, even if you agreed
with the premise, the design of the bill was a disaster. I think
elected officials have a certain amount of responsibility to the
people in their districts. I think that it is a cop-out not to inform
their districts of the dangers of any piece of stupid legislation.
=======End of Part 1=============================================
Well it did take more than an hour to crank this out, but hey,
I'm a slow typist. Anyone have the MAR/APR 1987 issue of OPTION?
/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\
\ Rob Sweet | /
/ University of Southern California | "Who are the brain police?" \
\ University Computing Services | /
/ sweet@skat.usc.edu | - FZ \
\ | /
/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\-/-\