The Music News Thread

[Blooby]

Lonnie Mack just passed away. I really enjoyed his take on the blues.

The devastating year continues.

[Groundy]

Such a bad year for Musicians




https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IbfgBlkSoqc

Rest Easy...

Alex

[Blooby]

‘Zappa Plays Zappa’ Pits Zappa vs. Zappa

By BEN SISARIO APRIL 29, 2016

For a decade, Dweezil Zappa, a son of the rock star Frank Zappa and a noted guitarist in his own right, has been paying tribute to his father’s music under the name Zappa Plays Zappa. The project, which features exacting performances of Frank Zappa’s famously complex music, has toured the world and won a Grammy.

But when Dweezil Zappa takes the project on the road this summer, it will be with a far less catchy name: Dweezil Zappa Plays Frank Zappa.

“It doesn’t exactly roll off the tongue,” he said in an interview, “but this is being done under duress.”

The name change is the most visible sign of a rift that has grown within one of the rock world’s most famous families since the death last year of Gail Zappa, the widow of Frank Zappa, who had managed her husband’s musical legacy with a firm hand since his death in 1993.

This month, the Zappa Family Trust, which owns the rights to Mr. Zappa’s music, informed Dweezil that he did not have permission to tour as Zappa Plays Zappa — the name is a trademark owned by the trust — and that he risked copyright infringement damages of $150,000 each time he played a song without proper permission.

“My last name is Zappa; my father was Frank Zappa,” Dweezil said. “But I am not allowed to use the name on its own. I’m not allowed to use a picture of him. I’m not allowed to use my own connection with him without some sort of deal to be struck.”

Business disputes are familiar territory among celebrity siblings, and members of groups like the Doors and Creedence Clearwater Revival have also fought over the use of a valuable band name. As the 1960s rock generation ages, these types of disputes may become more common, music lawyers say.

After Gail Zappa’s death, control of the trust passed to two of the four Zappa children: Ahmet, a son, who controls the day-to-day operations of the business, and Diva, a daughter. Dweezil and his sister Moon are not trustees, but all four children are beneficiaries, and tensions have flared between the two sides over the Zappa Plays Zappa tours and a recent Kickstarter campaign for a documentary film.

Dweezil and Ahmet, who were once so close that they recorded two albums together and made regular appearances on late-night TV, now seem to communicate primarily through lawyers, with disputes over trademarks and music licensing.

In addition to changing the name of his tribute project, Dweezil Zappa said that he would not carry any of the trust’s official merchandise or use any images of his father — whose likeness is also controlled by the trust — in promoting the tour. He will, however, play the same songs from his father’s catalog that he always has.

In an interview, Ahmet Zappa said he was not feuding with his brother but rather maintaining the integrity of the estate and preserving Zappa Plays Zappa as a family enterprise, available to any of the four children.

“I am not standing in the way of Dweezil playing the music,” Ahmet said. “He would just have to be in accordance with the family trust.”

Dweezil Zappa said that changing the name of his tour would “emancipate” him from dealing with the family trust. His complaints in some ways resemble those of a disgruntled artist warring with a record company: lack of communication, inexplicable delays, disagreements over payments from merchandise sales. The dispute also spills over into the division of estate property, like a set of guitars that Dweezil said were given to him by his father but, he says, were “repossessed” by his mother.

But the most contentious part of the dispute is over the minutiae of music licensing, an area in which the Zappa estate has long taken controversial stances. The family trust argues that for a show consisting largely of Frank Zappa’s music, performers cannot rely on the standard performing-rights licenses that music venues typically get from agencies like Ascap or BMI, but instead need special permission from the estate for “grand rights,” a term that usually applies to theatrical presentations.

Gail Zappa and Ascap pursued a number of bands under this theory, with mixed success. Project/Object, a well-known Zappa tribute group, had some of its shows canceled by clubs that had received legal letters, but André Cholmondeley, a member of the band, said that the group was advised by a lawyer that it did not need a special license, and so has never gotten one. “We simply adhered to U.S.A. law,” Mr. Cholmondeley said in an email.

What makes a piece of music dramatic is not clearly stated in copyright law, but Conrad M. Rippy, a lawyer who has worked in both theater and music, said that it generally needed to meet several criteria.

“Is it performed in a place where you generally would perform a theatrical work? Are people wearing costumes? Does it advance a narrative story line?” Mr. Rippy said. “The closer you get to answer those questions ‘Yes,’ the more it looks like that’s a grand right. A tribute band playing a Frank Zappa song in a club meets none of those tests.”

Dweezil Zappa said that while his mother charged him an “exorbitant fee” to use the name Zappa Plays Zappa, he has never paid for a grand rights license.

For the Zappas, the dispute seems to have divided a once-tight-knit family, whose children were very much a part of their father’s musical career. Moon, the eldest child, sang as a teenager on Frank Zappa’s only Top 40 single, “Valley Girl,” in 1982.

Ahmet said he was perplexed by the claims by his brother, whom he praised as a supremely talented guitarist and “the funniest dude.” He added: “Maybe he’s grieving. For all of us it’s been superemotional.” (Dweezil’s answer: “There is obvious deceit in my brother’s response. His actions speak louder than words.”)

The Dweezil Zappa Plays Frank Zappa tour will begin in July, with what Dweezil said would be a crew of “highly skilled musicians” performing his father’s music faithfully.

Dweezil said he was eager to be free of the demands of the estate, but he was concerned that the name change might confuse fans or erode the good will he has built up with his audience over a decade of Zappa Plays Zappa shows.

“I just hope people will understand,” he said, “that the only thing I’m changing is the name.”

[Oldrottenhead]

that is so sad.

[fenderbender]

I wont say anything =except -what a load of Rolex-
The sniff of a Dollar/Euro/Sheckle controls the world.
Sad world we live in.

[Speed Demon]

We will be friends forever...or until your body temperature starts to drop...

[Geir]

Yeah. That's just sad.

[Blooby]

.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hug-o_2vCnk

[Johnny Robbo]

Looks like an amazing piece of kit... not sure how I'd use it though. I can imagine it being a really useful instrument for anyone busking.

[Blooby]

If you read the Zappa saga above on the same page, it gets weirder...



An Open Letter to My Brother
AHMET ZAPPA·WEDNESDAY, MAY 4, 2016
Dweezil,
Strange to be writing this in public, but I don't know how else to respond.

After reading the article in The New York Times, I'm not sure how else to reach you. If we talk through our lawyers, it's not because I want that. It's because you've refused to talk any other way. I've been reaching out to you for months. I even tried to set up a family meeting so we could discuss all of our family issues, but you repeatedly said you couldn't fit it into your schedule, and that you weren't available to attend without your lawyers present.

Instead, you've given this incomplete, misleading story to the NYT and the media, and invited the whole world to take sides about our family business. Now, we're becoming "that family" – the spoiled brats arguing in public about who deserves what.

I understand you're hurting and angry. We all are. But the more we fight about this in the press, the worse it gets for all of us. We're not gaining anything by doing this in public.

If you're not willing to talk to me, though, I don't know what else to do. The New York Times has a story about a version of me that isn't based on facts or reality, and I don't know how else to set the record straight – or get you to talk to me – except to write this here, where people can form opinions by reading what I said for themselves.

If you want to share private facts and legal documents, we can do that too, because honestly, we both know what'll happen: it will give everyone a complete picture of what's happening. Not the distorted one that's out there now, which makes it look like this is about business crushing art, or me being a greedy **** who wants to take away your rights.

I don't know how else to start, so I'll just respond to a few things I've read:
1. The article claims that you're no longer allowed to perform under the name Zappa Plays Zappa.

Not true, and we both know it. I have never asked you to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars to use the ZPZ name. You've only been told that you can't keep using the name without agreeing to a fee of $1 per year, which you're fully aware of, but never mentioned in your interviews. I'll come back to that in a second. But just so everyone is clear:
Fact: You can absolutely keep touring under the name Zappa Plays Zappa.

You could do it tomorrow, and honestly, I hope you will. You’re a **** ing guitar god and in my opinion one of the best guitar players in the world. You do an amazing job playing our father's music with total integrity. Your tours help keep Frank's name alive, just like the work Gail and I have done through the ZFT.

This isn't about your tours, or art, or even about you. This is about the way the Trust was set up ages ago: if any of us use the "Zappa Plays Zappa" name for commercial purposes, a share of the profit goes back to the ZFT, to cover the high costs involved in maintaining the business and releasing more of Frank's content for the fans. Period.

The point is: No one is stopping you from using the name, as long as you follow the exact same rules as the rest of us.

And before anyone starts thinking that we're trying to screw you, let's talk about fees again.
2. The article claims that if you perform without paying the ZFT an "exorbitant fee," you'll be charged up to $150,000 for each song you play.

Again, not even close to true.

Honestly, this was the part that really hurt, because now a lot of Frank's fans think I'm some greedy dude who's just in this for the money. Can't blame them. It sounds like blackmail. Like I don't want you to be able to play Frank's music. If I read that article without knowing the rest of the facts, I'd think I was a greedy **** too.

It's just not true.

Personally, I don't think the fee Gail asked for was exorbitant. If you want, we can share the exact terms with the public, instead of just asking them to take our word for it. But even if the price was too high, it doesn't matter anymore, because I didn't want it to be an issue for you. That's why I suggested a workaround.

So, if you're going to share family business with the whole world, I wish you'd tell them the whole story:
Fact: The "exorbitant fee" you're now being asked to pay the ZFT, to keep using Frank's name and performing his songs, is $1 per year.

That's not because the ZFT needs that money. I think we can live without an extra buck every year. It's because that token payment handles the legal requirement. Even though I thought the original fee was reasonable, I wanted to find a way to get us past this.

And again, it's not just you: it's all four of us. If I want to perform Frank's music, I'll pay $1. So will Diva and Moon. That's just the deal, and I think it's a pretty reasonable solution.

One dollar, man. It doesn't seem like The New York Times knew that part.

And that's what hurts. If I was the greedy, deceitful **** I'm reading about, I wouldn't be working this hard to find a way to make everyone happy.
3. The article suggests that this is all happening suddenly, that I'm changing the terms of your deal with the ZFT, and that you're being singled out.

Again, none of this is true.

First, this isn't sudden or new. That was always the deal Gail put in place – not just for you, but all of us. Gail's decision was always that any of us who want to use the name – you, me, Moon, Diva – can perform under that name.

But be honest: Frank Zappa's legacy isn't something we built, and "Zappa Plays Zappa" isn't a name that any one of us "owns" or has special claim to. We all got the same name at birth, and as the four beneficiaries of the ZFT, we all have an equal right to benefit from that name.

That's why Gail decided that any Zappa using the name "Zappa Plays Zappa" would pay a percentage of profits to the ZFT, where it could keep the family business going.

That rule doesn't just apply to you. It's for all four of us.

A lot of people don't seem to realize this, but when you pay that fee – not even up front, but with a share of the profits you made performing our dad's music, and selling merchandise with his picture and name – it's not like it goes into my pocket. Most of it goes to the ZFT, so we can afford to keep remastering and releasing more of Frank's music to the fans, and building the business.

I know the business side of Frank's legacy is less romantic than going out and touring with the music, but it's pretty damn important to me, and to the fans. It's also pretty damn expensive – and takes a ton of work. That's why Gail told us we have to sell the house: because she knew how much it would cost to maintain the catalog, work out deals with distributors, and get more content out to fans. Gail spent most of what we had just fighting to make sure we'd keep the rights to Frank's catalog.

And when the ZFT does have profits, we split them between the four of us. I'm getting enough heat on social media that I'm betting a lot of people don't realize that you also receive funds from the ZFT. Even when you do pay fees to use the Zappa name, and sell Zappa merchandise, you receive a portion of the profits from it.

___________

I could say more, but it still feels weird to be saying all of this in public, especially when it feels like everyone is hoping for more drama. But, if I keep seeing inaccurate and misleading articles about what's happening, I don't know what you want me to do. Pretend it's true? Can't do that.
Again, if you won't talk to me about this, and want to work things out in public, we can. Privacy has always been important in our family, but that doesn't mean I have anything to hide. I just don't see how it helps anything to get the media and the public to take sides, especially when they don't have all the facts.
If you're willing to talk – and not just through a lawyer – I hope you'll call me.

Your Brother,
Ahmet