| Author |
 Topic Search  Topic Options
|
Evolver 
Special Collaborator
Crossover & JR/F/Canterbury Teams
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: The Idiocracy
Status: Offline
Points: 5482
|
 Topic: Should Zappa's Läther be listed as 1977 release?
Posted: December 15 2012 at 09:04 |
 darkshade wrote:
^ If it's true that there were some copies made from the Discreet label, then would that not be enough for it to have been considered "released" by our standards today of something being released on bandcamp, even though only 5 people may have heard it?
|
Test pressings are not made for official release. They are made for the label, band and affiliates to listen, and decide if the record is ready for release. Hence the term "test pressing". Zappa's intentions notwithstanding, the album wasn't officially released until 1996.
I think it would do the site a disservice if we list the earlier date. Since a few Discreet copies are said to exist, a note can be added to the album listing saying so. Mentioning Zappa's radio broadcast, with a plea to bootleg the album also could lend some clarity to the issue.
Edited by Evolver - December 15 2012 at 09:09
|
|
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
|
 |
HarbouringTheSoul
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199
|
Posted: December 15 2012 at 02:10 |
darkshade wrote:
^ If it's true that there were some copies made from the Discreet label, then would that not be enough for it to have been considered "released" by our standards today of something being released on bandcamp, even though only 5 people may have heard it? |
We shouldn't hold a 1977 album by 2012 standards. If you release something on Bandcamp today, it's available for everybody around the world, even though only a few people have heard of it. If you press five copies of an LP and don't even release them publicly, it's only available for the five people who managed to secure a copy.
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: December 15 2012 at 01:45 |
^ If it's true that there were some copies made from the Discreet label, then would that not be enough for it to have been considered "released" by our standards today of something being released on bandcamp, even though only 5 people may have heard it?
I agree, having further inquired at zappa.com, I did not realize the Edison records copies were bootlegs. My bad.
|
|
|
|
Evolver
Special Collaborator
Crossover & JR/F/Canterbury Teams
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: The Idiocracy
Status: Offline
Points: 5482
|
Posted: December 14 2012 at 14:01 |
A little Googling comes up with some info. It appears a test pressing on WB Discreet was run with a small number of albums. These were never released, although some may have gotten around via WB personnel. The Edison records were bootlegs, either cut from a copy of the test pressing, or from Zappa's radio broadcast.
Other, less reliable sources say the Edison LPs were a "personal pressing" (whatever that means).
Because of his contract with WB, Zappa could not have legally released the album at that time, lending credence to the bootleg label.
|
|
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
|
|
HarbouringTheSoul
Forum Senior Member
Joined: May 21 2010
Status: Offline
Points: 1199
|
Posted: December 14 2012 at 09:50 |
|
Why would a limited, unauthorized, only-a-few-copies-got-out-if-any-at-all release count? For all intents and purposes, the album became available in 1996. We don't list the release of Lumpy Gravy as 1967 either.
|
|
HolyMoly
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138
|
Posted: December 14 2012 at 09:09 |
|
Hmm. I'm having doubts now. I did some more research (discussions among people I know/respect on the Zappa forum, as well as a very definitive and reliable fan site) and found that the Edison LP is consistently referred to as a bootleg, and it wasn't "released" until the 1980s . From what I can gather, it was mastered from Zappa's original tapes (how?) and not from the radio broadcast, but I'm less inclined now to consider it an official release. Is this the same record we're talking about?
|
|
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
|
|
HolyMoly
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138
|
Posted: December 14 2012 at 08:48 |
Evolver wrote:
The record was pulled before the release date.
I believe the Edison release was a bootleg, recorded from the radio show where a pissed off Zappa played the entire album, expecting it to get out this way.
I would say leave the release date as when the album was released by the ZFT |
By Darkshade's account, the Edison release was official (albeit in very small quantities and very short lived) and was not a bootleg. But I agree that the whole issue hinges on whether this is true or not.
|
|
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
|
|
npjnpj
Forum Senior Member
Joined: December 05 2007
Location: Germany
Status: Offline
Points: 2720
|
Posted: December 14 2012 at 08:22 |
|
Being an advocate of FZ's Conceptional Continuity I would imagine he'd have wanted it filed under 1977.
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 14 2012 at 05:41 |
tamijo wrote:
Snow Dog wrote:
tamijo wrote:
I think we should always use the "intended release" (was recorded and meant for release),
|
I totally disagree. |
Why |
Because official release dates are used here.
|
|
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: December 14 2012 at 05:33 |
Snow Dog wrote:
tamijo wrote:
I think we should always use the "intended release" (was recorded and meant for release),
|
I totally disagree. |
Why
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
Snow Dog
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: March 23 2005
Location: Caerdydd
Status: Offline
Points: 32995
|
Posted: December 14 2012 at 04:25 |
tamijo wrote:
I think we should always use the "intended release" (was recorded and meant for release), |
I totally disagree.
|
|
|
|
tamijo
Forum Senior Member
Joined: January 06 2009
Location: Denmark
Status: Offline
Points: 4287
|
Posted: December 14 2012 at 03:10 |
I think we should always use the "intended release" (was recorded and meant for release), if we know for sure, it would bring a correct cronology in the band/artists music. I dont find it very interesting when the album hit the street, compared to when it was meant from an artist point of view, to be released.
|
|
Prog is whatevey you want it to be. So dont diss other peoples prog, and they wont diss yours
|
|
Evolver
Special Collaborator
Crossover & JR/F/Canterbury Teams
Joined: October 22 2005
Location: The Idiocracy
Status: Offline
Points: 5482
|
Posted: December 13 2012 at 13:49 |
The record was pulled before the release date.
I believe the Edison release was a bootleg, recorded from the radio show where a pissed off Zappa played the entire album, expecting it to get out this way.
I would say leave the release date as when the album was released by the ZFT
|
|
Trust me. I know what I'm doing.
|
|
HolyMoly
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138
|
Posted: December 12 2012 at 08:02 |
darkshade wrote:
True that it wasn't "generally" available, but I've heard from many of the older members here, that after an album had been out for a while, record stores would stock new albums and finding older albums was very hard until CDs came along. It doesn't sound like that much of a difference in regards to Lather. |
Good point. I know that first hand too, because when I first got into Zappa (early 80s), none of his early albums were in print. Anything before Sheik Yerbouti was off the shelves. None of them were big sellers, and most of them didn't have the "classic" status they enjoy today.
Edited by HolyMoly - December 12 2012 at 08:03
|
|
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
|
|
HolyMoly
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138
|
Posted: December 12 2012 at 06:44 |
I had to go re-check the 1996 liner notes by Gail Zappa, to see if there's ever been any prior mention of the 1977 release. This is the closest I found:
"... FZ wanted to release it with another record company, as a special project. He asked for an assignment of his contract from his production deal to the record company direct in order to advance the possibility of being able to do "special projects" (like box sets would you believe). Briefly the record company agreed (one record appeared on this label), then reneged....."
"One record"?
|
|
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
|
|
DamoXt7942
Special Collaborator
Joined: October 15 2008
Location: Okayama, Japan
Status: Offline
Points: 17493
|
Posted: December 12 2012 at 03:57 |
Lemme say;
| The original (even if only small amount of copies had been released) was
released in 1977, so we should say this album was released in 1977. |
|
|
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: December 12 2012 at 00:46 |
That's true. Had something like that happened now, Frank could have just uploaded Lather to bandcamp, and everyone and their mother could download it, and this time it would be mp3s or whatever type of file it would be, and wouldn't be a bootleg.
True that it wasn't "generally" available, but I've heard from many of the older members here, that after an album had been out for a while, record stores would stock new albums and finding older albums was very hard until CDs came along. It doesn't sound like that much of a difference in regards to Lather.
|
|
|
|
HolyMoly
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138
|
Posted: December 11 2012 at 21:02 |
What's strange is I don't remember Gail mentioning the Edison pressing in the 1996 liner notes. Seems like a pretty important piece of information. All I remember is that he had the master tapes and the only way the public got to hear them was from his radio broadcast, recordings of which circulated among fans.
I'll look at the guidelines again, but I think you make a strong case. I think the strongest case against this change would be that it was never GENERALLY available in legitimate form until 1996, barring a handful of test pressings (which I wouldn't call a general release). But on the other hand, nowadays, an "official release" (i.e. generally available) can be as simple as a single person putting stuff up on Bandcamp, with no record company involvement at all, even if only 5 people have heard it -- and that's kind of what happened here. Zappa did a DIY release, and it was only halted because of legal details.
Maybe I'll bring it up at the ZART holiday picnic.
|
|
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
|
|
darkshade
Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator
Joined: November 19 2005
Location: New Jersey
Status: Offline
Points: 10964
|
Posted: December 11 2012 at 20:38 |
I just think that, even though Zappa told people on the radio to bootleg his album, and that copies circulated, I'm sure, those copies were still bootlegs of an actual Frank Zappa record, made in the 1970s. Sure it has a GIANT footnote, but it should be listed here as a 1977 release. I know how the guidlines are for PA, but just because the logistics behind getting the album in record store shelves around the world got screwed up, doesn't mean it should just represent the release year of when it was posthumously released. I don't think the PA guidelines cover the complexities of Lather's release.
Part of adding an album on PA is you have to use the original artwork that was used on the album originally, not artwork used for a re-issue or something like that. Technically, the Lather artwork with the cow (though I do like it) is the wrong art work for Lather, based on the PA guidelines.
Edited by darkshade - December 11 2012 at 20:41
|
|
|
|
HolyMoly
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin
Joined: April 01 2009
Location: Atlanta
Status: Offline
Points: 26138
|
Posted: December 11 2012 at 20:30 |
Bootlegging bootlegs is a classic example of two wrongs making a right. Somehow it's okay.
Point taken though, this could get messy if we over-think it.  |
|
My other avatar is a Porsche
It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle if it is lightly greased.
-Kehlog Albran
|
|
Donate monthly and keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage")
Should Zappa's Läther be listed as 1977 release?
