Home | Community | Message Board

Original Seeds Store - Cannabis Seeds
Please support our sponsors.

Community >> The Pub

Welcome to the Shroomery Message Board! You are experiencing a small sample of what the site has to offer. Please login or register to post messages and view our exclusive members-only content. You'll gain access to additional forums, file attachments, board customizations, encrypted private messages, and much more!

Amazon Shop: The Doors

Jump to first unread post. Pages: 1
Camp Pink Onion

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Dairyland
Posthumous Frank Zappa
    #3791142 - 02/17/05 02:12 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Bob Marshall: Greetings, Frank.

The Evergreens (a group of entities speaking through Michael Blake Read while he is in trance): He says "greetings".

Bob Marshall: Frank and I did a 3 1 /2-hour interview that was conducted in October of 1988, and a publisher in Ontario wants to print that interview. It's considered a great interview. As a matter of fact, Frank, it has been bootlegged in a collection called APOCRYPHA. It has been featured in the booklet that goes with the bootleg of your music. So I, too, have the honor that you've had in being bootlegged, Frank.

Evergreens: He says he feels he's in good company.

Bob Marshall: What does that mean?

Evergreens: He says they never bootleg the cheapies. It's the good ones that get bootlegged.

Bob Marshall: Alright. So I was thinking this publisher is going to publish the interview because they think it's really worth it, and because they thought the media, when you died, Frank, did not give a proper assessment or coverage of the details of your work. So, I thought later that to make the book complete, to make the book unique, and this is maybe the first time it's ever been done - why not have an interview with Frank Zappa now, between you and me, Frank, and have that as part of the book? I think this would continue to enhance the uniqueness of your career. Maybe your audience is not that inclined to think about life after death, or would not believe it. But, Frank, do you think this is a good idea?

Evergreens: He says, "You don't ask for anything simple, do you?"

Bob Marshall: (Laughs) Yes, maybe my first interview was probably a little too complex. Was I a little too complex, you mean?

Evergreens: Not at all. He says, "Under these circumstances, might as well."

Bob Marshall: But what do you mean when you say, "You don't ask for anything simple?" It's hard to do?

Evergreens: No, he's talking about the complexity of the situation as it exists at the present.

Bob Marshall: You mean, to ask those people to believe?

Evergreens: That, too.

Bob Marshall: What is the complexity of the situation at this moment?

Evergreens: The complexity is that he is here and he goes through us.

Bob Marshall: That will be an accurate translation, won't it?

Evergreens: As much as you want.

Bob Marshall: But I can talk to Frank directly, so to speak?

Evergreens: "So to speak", yes.

Bob Marshall: Frank, since you have passed over, have you met and talked to Edgard Varese?

Frank Zappa: Yes.

Bob Marshall: What did he think of your work?

Frank: He said, "Good enough." And then he was uncomplimentary. Then he was complimentary. It was a long discussion. It continues to be a long discussion. One's present work must show its linkage and its derivativeness, that from which it creates its own essence. Not that the music itself is derivative. It must have a certain root from which it springs and a certain emphasis. And when it follows, you know it creates an emphasis. Now, when one comes to any instrument untrained, there is the influence of the particular music that you like or frankly dislike. And rather than being pushed to the left or to the right by dislike, one's own direction is more important to the creative artist. And not necessarily the creativeness... (Tape malfunctions).

Bob Marshall: Can you remember what we were talking about before the tape got garbled?

Evergreens: Music is derivative in that some is obviously copied. The joke of "derivativeness" is - does a person as a composer go against a trend and, by that, establish a trend? There is then a break with a certain continuity that is being formed by a trend. Stravinsky was not following a trend. He was very much establishing a musical form that was within itself new, but still it was based upon a past. No composer is without a past. That was the joke of "derivativeness".

Bob Marshall: Have you, Frank, talked to Elvis Presley?

Frank: Yes, might as well say I talked with all of them when I get the opportunity.

Bob Marshall: John Lennon?

Frank: Same with that... get the opportunity, you will talk. And this is an opportunity. But, not to the extent of comparing what every person thinks would be talked of. Life is not only the music that was in it. It was the living of the music. It was the creation and the airing, and whether to keep at it. It was the decision to continue in the face of rejection. It is the desire to perform more than just the music alone. It's so much! What can be talked about is the tiredness of travelling in a bus for 27 days, the seemingly "no-difference" audiences from place to place, and the inadequacies of different sound systems. These things all add together. There is not just one area of discussion. Some of these are faded in importance. They were important. They are not that important once you "cast off clay". They're not as important. What is important is the thrust, the meaning behind what's done. Mark Twain said,
"Nobody but a fool wrote, but for money."

Money comes in when you are a performer. You get the recognition. You get the dates. You get the places you could not get before. You get the approval that was withheld before. Everyone tries to jump on the bandwagon and say, "Oh yes, we knew that you were gonna be this good all along". Where were they when there were days when it was difficult to pay for various "venues". But more now, it is important as to - it was a living, it was a life. And there is a difference between "it's a living" and "it's a life". That to complain of these things as we did, we did not choose to do other things. But we could have. We're not untalented. But we wanted to do it. And do it we did.

Bob Marshall: And that is what was discussed in common with John Lennon, Jim Morrison, all these musicians?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: And Varese? Or was that another era?

Frank: Another era, another time. But the same reason. You see, if you were to take Stravinsky as an example. He could have done other things. Why have your work denigrated and called "a cattle wailing"? This is not what you'd think would happen. Stravinsky had critics. I had critics. I am not saying that the value of the music is the same. It is and it isn't. But he was just the same. No, he did not spend 27 days on a bus, but he had the equivalent of it, had the equivalent of being in smaller venues. His work was not greeted with open arms all the time. I can understand his feelings about his music. But when you are trying to do something that is a value to yourself and that you're fortunate enough to find someone who also finds that value good, then that's why you do it.

Bob Marshall: So, considering that when we "cast off clay" we become aware of all the lives we have lived and will live, you're saying that you've talked to your fellow musicians who are now with you and discussed the meaning of being a musician. Is that what you are saying? That is the meaning of the life?

Frank: Yes, the meaning of the life. There is one musician. I talked to this man for a long time, a drummer, a man who used a talking drum to inform. This man had as much musicalness in himself as any known Western musician, and considerably more than many, because this man knew his instrument intimately. That is an important discussion. That's a pleasurable discussion. Is there a difference between the harpsichordist of the 1700's and a pianist of the 20th Century? Musical forms are different. Musical shapes are different. But the musician within is the same. Different instruments, different quality, different and different. But still that within is exactly the same. You could take an 18th-Century cellist and have this person play with a 20th-Century orchestra. He'd fit in. You see, the commonality of it, is that some would say that a long-haired rock player is a degenerate form of the nicely cuoiffed 19th-Century musician. And that a guitar fixed with flange and reverb is a step downwards from a Stradivarius. These arguments are wrong. If you take breaking glass and record it to get different tones and assemble them together, you can make music. It is not what you expect it to be. It does not mean it is not of worth. In the 16th, 17th and 18th Centuries, a considerable body of music was done. How much of it remains? A lot of it, and quite rightfully, has gone into the scrap pile. In fact, much more is being produced in the 20th Century, especially in these decades - quantity means nothing. Much of this that is being produced these days rightfully would be trashed. But within a few lifetimes, this will be seen, that which survives, as a core of a music-form that influenced the observer, and influences the observer two generations from now.

Bob Marshall: By "observer" you don't mean me, you mean the common listener?

Frank: Common listener.

Bob Marshall: Yes. So you are saying that it's trash, but it influences.

Frank: Not all of it's trash. Some of it's trash. Some of it's just plain copies of this group or that group, copies of mine. Fine, let it be. But it does not remain.

Bob Marshall: Are you saying the best does remain?

Frank: The best, that which is obviously across a test of time, is kept. That's best.

Bob Marshall: Will you be part of that future "best" category? Will your music be part of that?

Frank: Of course, it will. Not all of it. But much of that which we do and which we've been very proud of, yes.

Bob Marshall: When you say "we", who are you speaking of?

Frank: The entire group.

Bob Marshall: The various groups that you've worked with?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: So, looking at your life as a musician and comparing that life and the meaning of it to other lives that you have lived and will live, would you want to be a musician again, in another life?

Frank: Yes, as long as it's not staying on a bus for 27 days.

Bob Marshall: But you will not be a musician for the next few lives you can see?

Frank: Not for the next few.

Bob Marshall: Yes. Can we talk about some of the content of your ideas?

Frank: Please.

Bob Marshall: Re-reading the interview with you, that we did in 1988, you were still investigating the question, "Who are the brain police?" You then had some notions but you were not quite ready to say what they were. From the perspective of the existence you are in now, in spirit, who are the "brain police" on our dimension?

Frank: People who say that this is supposed to be and that's not supposed to be. Who gives the right to do this? Who is the arbiter of taste? Who says that this is acceptable? Who are these?

Bob Marshall: Are they the critics?

Frank: Critics, the good ones, recognize goodness. The bad ones couldn't recognize a wall if they were told what it is. It's the others, not the critics. You see, take the generic rock'n'roll. It was not what some expected. It was a new form. But go before that, get into jazz. That was considered bad music. Not bad because it was played badly or because it was configured badly, but it was too jovial for some people to like. Rock'n'roll is different from jazz, but suffered under the same derogatoriness that jazz did. Is rock'n'roll the Devil's music? Is Satan alive and well in that particular chord form? These people say that if you listen to this, you become not normal, or away from the norm. Then I say, listen to it more. To be normal is not always the preferable state.

Bob Marshall: You mentioned generic rock'n'roll - so in the Fifties that was the public discussion about it, being the Devil's music, but rock'n'roll by the '80s, or even by the '70s, was more widely accepted, wasn't it?

Frank: By brain police?

Bob Marshall: No (laughs), I mean the high-art critics.

Frank: Some of them sneered, but it is various religious groups, it is various Bible-holding people who say that the world is coming to an end because of this Devil-inspired, Satan-inspired music.

Bob Marshall: Aren't they a minority part of American culture?

Frank: Minority, but vocal. Often, extremely influential. Sometimes, destructive. But they are given credence. And what does that do until it's realized it falls down from it's own lack of proof? You see, if you take generic rock'n'roll, some of the early material was bright and lively. It was loud. It was often dissonant. But it had "fresh air" in itself. It pushed over the stale, not because it was replacing one generation's music with another. It's that music, to continue, must be alive, must have that breath of "fresh air" in it - that something that causes you to say, "Ah, now that is real". But if you were to institutionalize rock'n'roll, then it will be superseded by something that has the breath of life in it. Someone may not like how this breath is exhaled. They may say it's discordant. They may say it's different. Of course it is, that's the whole point, it's different. It does not mean it's wrong. It does not mean it's Devil-inspired. Talk of Stravinsky - see what happened to "The Rites Of Spring" (sic). See how that was received. How many punches were thrown? How many people demanded their money back because of this terrible music, this licentiousness, this foolishness? And wouldn't it be good when it gets back to the real music? What is real music? You can take Bach - you've got something there that was a breath of fresh air. That still, in its way, is full of fresh air. Cannot rock'n'roll, rock, and all of this be seen that it has fresh air in itself?

Bob Marshall: Now, was part of the freshness of rock in the Fifties due to the technology of electric amplification?

Frank: Yes, it gave you more control over your sound. It made it different from anything else, not only the amplification. You could slur it, you could blur it, you could shift it, you could shape it. It became a tool, a useable tool. Here is something for you. Go out and find a copy of Bill Haley's original "Rock Around The Clock". Play it. Listen to it. Hear the freshness that's in it. That record was banned from radio play. It was considered music that was, in one reviewer's words, "totally without any merit." So he wants to become famous for a day by saying that? Now, go a year before Haley produced that. Listen to some of the music that was being done then. Much of it good, but beginning to tire, beginning to lose its breath of fresh air. So, a new music was ready to come in.

Bob Marshall: As well as the technology was there to do it.

Frank: Of course. Now, why would it be that a musician would grasp technology? Why? Easy enough to just put microphones. They were good. Sound systems were mostly good. Not everything you wanted. But you got the sound out. The revolution was in the instruments themselves - in that the guitar became electrified. Not amplified - electrified. The bass became electrified, not necessarily amplified. Now with the equipment that the modern musician has, you can do so much with a sound as to make it anything you want. You can sample a breaking window pane and you've got a chorus of breaking window panes. You can make a tune out of it, as I said, breaking glass. Get a tone. Put it on digitizing equipment. Look what you've got. You have another sound. Now they're experimenting with sounds, they're experimenting with timings. And some of them are beginning to loose the breath of fresh air. Not through experimentation, but because of continuance of the older style. It must evolve. It's going to get replaced in any event.

Bob Marshall: By new technology?

Frank: By new technology. By new bands. By new composers.

Bob Marshall: So, does technology create this evolution?

Frank: Technology creates a manipulable sound to the advantage of the musician. What comes up next? Anyone can buy a system that will give them an almost infinite number of voices. Everything from single violin to multiple violin, multiple cello, so on, french horns, every instrument in the orchestra. Plus any rhythm you want. Plus you can make your own rhythm. You can build an orchestra on a computer. You can build a rock band on a computer.

Bob Marshall: That's happening now. Are you going to tell us what's coming next? Is that what you are leading to?

Frank: What we are leading to is going to be those who compose for the music that comes after rock. Punk was just a derivative. It was just an off-shoot. Grunge is an off-shoot. There is and there will be a shift in music.

Bob Marshall: And you're saying it will be built on rock in general?

Frank: It will take from rock, but it will not be rock. Everyone's searching for what it's going to be. And when it comes, the first thing that's going to happen is somebody is going to say, "This is terrible". They are going to say, "Oh, this is not it. This is out of reality". But what reality are they talking about? They are talking about a reality that they're used to. Music is there for its enjoyment. You get used to it. But you do not play the same tune over and over. No matter how much you like it. You do not play it over and over and over. You enjoy it. What we say is, how you will recognize it: because it will be there as a breath of fresh air.

Bob Marshall: This is Frank talking?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: Was rap, what's called rap music the last few years, fresh air?

Frank: Some of it. Some of it is good. Most of it is a waste of time. But, you see, rap is more a political statement than it is music.

Bob Marshall: Would you consider it an offshoot like Grunge and Punk?

Frank: As what? Where are they? Where's Punk? Where did it go? It gave up. You can't give up on a music. Can't give up.

Bob Marshall: Has Grunge given up?

Frank: Yes. Look at it. What is it? Where is it? Not that it didn't break ground. Where's its fresh air? Where's its verve? Where's its causing a person to move?

Bob Marshall: Is that why Kurt Cobain killed himself? If he did?

Frank: Cobain, aah... Take a look at a performer. You'll find that through the dirt and the dust and the cold and the heat and the bad amplification, poor halls, terrible management of venues, problems with ticketing, problems with people movement, still you do it. If some knew what has to be done, they would never attempt it. Now, Cobain talked continually of being ready to die, that there was no reason to continue, no reason to work at what he did.

Bob Marshall: As a musical performer?

Frank: As a musical performer. And it became too much. It became too much.

Bob Marshall: The grind of professional musicianship?

Frank: The grind. That's a kind word for it. It's appalling. Anyone who thinks that they want to become a rock star should be taken out and tied to the wheels of a truck. And driven over for several miles. And if he still likes that feeling, then he can do it. It's not easy, but it's all you want to do. Through all of it, it's what you want to do.

Bob Marshall: But Cobain didn't have that want?

Frank: He did not have that.

Bob Marshall: Have you talked to Cobain? Communicated with him?

Frank: Yes. More of another aspect, another aspect of music.

Bob Marshall: The other question we talked about in our last interview was that you thought it was curious that when you would watch a movie, and it would be a bad movie, a dull movie, or even a bad Broadway musical, but you would cry. Tears would come out. And you wondered what was that situation - what was the chemistry involved?

Frank: Do you know how hard it is to put on a musical? And to smile all the time when your feet are hurting? When you have done a scene over and over and over, and the director says, "Cut. Do it again" - these people work. When you see that movie, some would say that's a bad movie. But they are not looking at it right. They are looking at it: does it match this picture or that picture? Take a picture by Speilberg - JAWS.

Bob Marshall: Yes.

Frank: There was no movie like that - the terror created by the movie. Look how they did it. Good staging. Good performance. Real. Some would say that's a bad movie. Some would say it's a good movie. But they both saw the same movie. Think of any picture you want. And you'll see that there's a "something" there. I've called it in music, "a breath of fresh air". You can see movies like this. Even potboiler movies, if done well, can cause the emotions to flip.

Bob Marshall: Why was that a puzzle then when you were alive?

Frank: Because I had not figured it out.

Bob Marshall: What is it that you hadn't figured out?

Frank: First, I had not figured out that these were designed to create a sentiment.

Bob Marshall: But you know that a composer works with effects.

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: What you mean is, that what you thought were bad movies, you missed some of the effects that were being made?

Frank: Subtly, I missed them.

Bob Marshall: Because you were judging it as a bad performance?

Frank: Not reflective of me.

Bob Marshall: What was not reflective of you?

Frank: A movie... a movie about...

Bob Marshall: Not part of your life?

Frank: Not a part of mine.

Bob Marshall: I'm reminded of Marshall McLuhan's phrase, "The user is the content".

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: You would agree with that?

Frank: If I was the content, then I was also the container in which the content resides. I did not realize how the content fit into the shape of the container. Now I know.

Bob Marshall: You did not realize how the content fit?

Frank: Of course, I did not. I still cried. I didn't know why. I do now.

Bob Marshall: Is it the case that the medium is the message?

Frank: The medium gave me a message and I received it, but I didn't know what it said. All I know is that the message-content affected me.

Bob Marshall: Are the "medium" and the "message", if they have equal meaning, the staging of the effects... the manipulation?

Frank: The manipulation?

Bob Marshall: Yes.

Frank: But these people work hard.

Bob Marshall: Yes.

Frank: That I could see.

Bob Marshall: You did see that?

Frank: Oh yes.

Bob Marshall: Now, I would like to go into some of your ideas that you had as Frank Zappa. I give you a quote from 1972 where you said,

"I believe the basic stuff of the universe is in the shape of waves, not subatomic particles. Then, if the two components of the universe, waves and time, are actually one, and if a wave equals a wave, all time equals all other time and you aren't going nowhere because you've already been there. Viewing this whole mechanism from a distance, it would just be a solid object".

Now, in my own personal experience, I've met a man named Irving Dardik who is developing a whole theory of physics based on the idea that everything waves, that reality is waves waving. And my wife is involved in working with him. And when she read your quote, she said that is what Irving Dardik is saying. Would the Evergreens say that Dardik will have an influence on thinking about physics in the future?

Evergreens: It's a wave on a wave on a wave on a wave on a wave on a wave on a wave.

Bob Marshall: That's Dardik's view?

Evergreens: That's the view of Time. It's a wave on a wave on a wave.

Bob Marshall: That's a fact?

Evergreens: It's an S-curve. And you go closer to the S-curve and you find that there's another S-curve inside of that. There's another S-curve in that. There's another S-curve in that. It's a fractal time.

Bob Marshall: This is the Evergreens saying what is? You are describing what is?

Evergreens: We're describing.

Bob Marshall: Dardik is close to that idea, isn't he?

Evergreens: Yes.

Bob Marshall: Now, were you, Frank, thinking of that when you were talking about this twenty years ago?

Frank: I could claim it, but I cannot. I looked at Time as more a wave because it made more sense as a wave than a particle.

Bob Marshall: Made more sense as a musician?

Frank: Yes. It made Time more understandable. Of course, there's that phrase,

"Time was created to prevent all things from happening at once."

What travels along a wave? Another wave? But the wave is there. Does it take Time to go along a wave? Does a wave need to form itself? How fast is Time? Everything exists. Now that I found to be true. Everything exists.

Bob Marshall: When did you find that?

Frank: Now that I'm here.

Bob Marshall: Yes, but that's not what you were thinking?

Frank: No, not then. It was more that particles were too gritty, and waves were much neater. I could not see a universe made out of crumbs, but I could see it very easily made out of waves.

Bob Marshall: Is that what you meant when you said, "Music is the best"?

Frank: Yes, you see the wave in music and you understand what music is. When it loses that wave, it loses it's time. And once its lost its time, it's replaced.

Bob Marshall: By another kind of music or wave?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: Just an aside, will Dardik's theory gain acceptance over the next twenty, thirty years?

Frank: It's going to be linked to quantum physics to a greater degree than any other. And you'll find that this wave imprinted upon wave imprinted upon wave imprinted upon wave gives the answer in various areas of quantum physics that have not been found at this present time.

Bob Marshall: And that relates to the rediscovery of Atlantean resonance?

Frank: It does.

Bob Marshall: Yes. So it's inevitable that it will be appreciated in the future.

Frank: Yes, it will.

Bob Marshall: So, Frank, as a musician, were you biased toward having a wave theory?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: When did you, during your life, start thinking about music as waves? In the '50s or the '60s?

Frank: The '60s.

Bob Marshall: Was your thinking influenced by Pauline Oliveros?

Frank: To a degree.

Bob Marshall: Or were you already thinking about it before her?

Frank: More that our thinking coalesced much. It was more that the waves were neat, and particles were not.

Bob Marshall: And you were thinking that before you heard Oliveros' ideas?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: But she coalesced it and made a great picture of it...

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: ...to consolidate and then you worked with that confidence from that point on?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: In your book, THEM OR US, the book of your plays and transcripts, there's a point on page 172 where we've been reading about Frank Zappa as a character. And then your daughter in the script interacts with a person who is not named. It just says "Moon's Dad". Moon is obviously interacting with Frank, her father, but he is not named. Why didn't you name that person "Frank Zappa" along with the character, the Frank Zappa, that played a role in the rest of the script?

Frank: Because the interaction's different.

Bob Marshall: Was it personal? Was it because it was private family life?

Frank: It was her, and her interaction with the real as opposed to a character.

Bob Marshall: So it was a figure/ground relationship?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: With Moon?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: I read an interview with you in the late '80s where you say, "Investors in radio buy life". What did you mean by that statement?

Frank: This is not physics. Radio is a medium that seems almost was invented for music. Of course, it was invented for speeches. But it became a natural home for music. If you'll see that the advances in radio have been to improve the clarity of this, the reproduction of it, radio is that ingredient, that if removed, the dish is a very flat-tasting dish. So, it's a perfect medium.

Bob Marshall: How is it "life"? If investors in radio "buy life"?

Frank: They buy continuance. They buy life. If you invest in radio, it's a good investment. It buys life. Can you not see?

Bob Marshall: Yes, technology is "fresh air".

Frank: It is. It's that opportunity to have these new breaths of fresh air. Radio itself is nothing. It's what it broadcasts is what it is. And that through this, newness is found.

Bob Marshall: When we met on October 22, 1988 and had that interview, you thought it was a great interview and you wanted to release it. The next day you asked your publicist, Jim Nagle, some questions about me. How did the interview affect you? And why wasn't it put out? Not that that's a major concern. Maybe there were other things you were busy with. What did you make of me and what kind of thinking did you have privately, considering it was a good interview?

Frank: You should have been in a rock band.

Bob Marshall: Did you know that I asked you to be in your band in 1974 and I would read FINNEGANS WAKE? You did not know that then?

Frank: Not then. But you should have been in a rock band. You're a breath of fresh air.

Bob Marshall: What instrument would I play?

Frank: Whatever you want. Just be there on time. The point is that it was a breath-of-fresh-air interview.

Bob Marshall: I agree.

Frank: If you would see most of the interviews, you would see how predictable they were. There would be no exploration. "Tell me what you think about this. Tell me what you think about that." And they consider that an interview. You pushed.

Bob Marshall: We explored.

Frank: Exactly.

Bob Marshall: So, if I had an instrument and I had auditioned for your band in the '70s and if I was reasonably competent, not a genius at the instrument, my personality might have attracted you to put me in your band?

Frank: Because you are a breath of fresh air. In saying that you should have been a rock musician, what we're saying is that you're that temperament. That's a good temperament to have.

Bob Marshall: The temperament I have is appropriate for pop culture?

Frank: Exactly.

Bob Marshall: Also, I'm a private person, which you were, and so I might have found it a grind living the rock life.

Frank: Remember what I said. You do it because you do it and you do it because there's no other, and you do it because you want to. You get to a point where you want it. You wonder what life would be without it. Then again, you are so tired sometimes that you say to yourself, "I'll do anything than this." And then you put your foot down on the ground and say, "I'm going to stay here." Then after a while, you say, "Where's the bus?"

Bob Marshall: My life took a different direction and I probably was meant to do what I am doing now.

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: Which will create a fresh air?

Frank: Which creates a fresh air.

Bob Marshall: So my final question will be: You dedicated your autobiography to Stephen Hawking. Were you influenced by Hawking when you talked about the "Time idea" with me? I mean, we had the interview in October '88. The book was finished in August '88. Did you become aware of Hawking later in early '89 to dedicate the book?

Frank: He coalesces things too, doesn't he?

Bob Marshall: Yes.

Frank: Now there's a man on a 27-day bus ride. There's a man who's working at doing what he does. There's other things he could do. But he chooses to do the hard way and does it. Fine mind. Fine man. Yes, he influenced me. Of course, he influenced me.

Bob Marshall: You read his work before we did our interview in '88?

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: And in our interview, you say a scientist someday will prove your ideas about Time - that everything is happening all at once, at the same time.

Frank: Yes.

Bob Marshall: Is he the scientist proving it?

Frank: In part, but there's more to come.

Bob Marshall: But he helps, he moves it towards that?

Frank: He does. But look at him from another direction. Take a good look at him as a person on a 27-day bus ride. Think of it. And he still does not want to get off.

Bob Marshall: Alright, my final question. What is "latex solar beef"?

Frank: You find out.

Bob Marshall: Well, Frank, you've created great music and it'll live for me as long as I'm around to have a say in it.

Frank: Thanks for that. Some of it will. When you listen to it, listen for the fresh air. If it doesn't have the fresh air in it, I guarantee you, it's going to go down the tube. If it does, it keeps.

Bob Marshall: Thank you very much, Frank.

Michael Blake Read is the medium who channels the Evergreens. He is asleep during the interview with the Evergreens. However, the topics covered by Bob Marshall, while talking to Frank Zappa and the Evergreens, trigger impressions in Michael while he's in trance. When he comes out of trance (usually 60 minutes), Michael has impressions and memories of the covered topics that are immediately taped. The following are his impressions evoked by the session with Frank Zappa and Bob Marshall via the Evergreens.

Michael Blake Read: I was in a recording studio and there was Frank Zappa and, I think, there were 4 or 5 other musicians in there.

Bob Marshall: Famous musicians?

Michael: I don't know who they were. They were in the studio and it must have been somewhere in the States. And Frank Zappa looked quite young. They miked the band and they were getting sounds off them individually to get the meter levels. He said, "Okay", and cued them to start. They went into their first piece. They play at a slightly louder volume, so they adjust to that. And then he went, "Cut". These guys were not used to stopping in the middle of a song. They weren't used to it at all. They went, "What's wrong, what's wrong?" "No, this is a cut. We've got to start from the beginning again because of the levels." "Oh, we play it again. Okay."

Bob Marshall: Frank knew. They were asking Frank, "Why are we doing this?"

Michael: Yes. They're saying to Frank, "Why are we doing this?" And he said, "We've got to do this over again. They've got to get the sound levels." And they said, "Why didn't he get the sound levels right the first time?" He said, "They're working on it." Then they said, "Oh, everybody's working on it." So for the rest of the day, when anything ever happened , they'd say, "Oh, they're working on it." When somebody would say, "Can I go for coffee?", they'd say, "They're working on it".

Bob Marshall: That becomes the phrase of the day.

Michael: The phrase of the day - "They're working on it."

Bob Marshall: That's what Frank would do. He'd incorporate the phrase of the day into the performance that night.

Michael: Oh, is that right?

Bob Marshall: Yeah.

Michael: I saw these guys recording. They played a piece a number of times. And did it and did it and did it and did it. And they worked all day. Then the studio closes down. That night they get on a bus. The next day they are in Philadelphia. They've got many concerts across the next three days, all the buses and equipment. Riding on the bus is not a nice experience. It doesn't matter how luxurious you can make them. You are on a bus.

Bob Marshall: Is this Frank still when he was young?

Michael: Yes, this is younger. You know, on the bus.

Bob Marshall: This was a formative thing in Frank's life?

Michael: Oh, God - you know, you go on tour. You might as well say to yourself, "I don't have a life." You enjoy playing and have a great time with the fans. There's good interaction. That fuels it, if you're good. You know when you've given a good performance. And it's back on the bus again. Also, I saw Frank Zappa looking at all the electronic equipment and just becoming absolutely intrigued by the stuff, intrigued by the stuff.

Bob Marshall: In his life or now?

Michael: In his life, because now he has a different perspective. Then, all the stuff that was coming up. You'd have all the music set out. Somebody said, "There's gonna be a day when they don't need musicians." And he said, "Yeah, but who's gonna do the machinery. It doesn't matter how good it is, some guy's gonna have to come behind there and compose it.

Bob Marshall: How old was Frank? How old did he look when he talked to you?

Michael: He looked about 45.

Bob Marshall: Before he got grey from the cancer?

Michael: He lost a lot of weight when he died.

Bob Marshall: But when he was 45, which is many years ago, he was fit.

Michael: Yeah, he looked fit. He looked like a guy who could spend another trip on the road and not fall apart.

Bob Marshall: Did you see other musicians, Stravinsky or Varese?

Michael: What I saw was a hall, a very nice hall, nice music and beautiful acoustics for an orchestra, and they were playing some Stravinsky pieces. There was an introduction of his music to somewhere, and Stravinsky was doing what producers do, which is stay at the back of the theater and walk. He was on "tenderhooks" about his music.

Bob Marshall: Nervous?

Michael: Nervous. He should be because people threw their programs. They folded up their programs and threw them at the stage.

Bob Marshall: So you saw him on that famous day in 1913 preparing for "The Rite Of Spring" and being nervous?

Michael: They threw their programs. People were leaving. The musicians were faltering. Finally, the conductor stopped it. At that point, there were people throwing things.

Bob Marshall: What was the meaning of you seeing Stravinsky going through that?

Michael: Frank says, "Any music that comes out, there's a continuity of other music. It's another stanza on the same poem." And he said, "Which is okay. But after a while, it's not that it gets boring, it begins to loose the fire that it had. By the time you got to the two-thousandth stanza of the poem, it's such an epic that you say to yourself, 'Well, how great. What next?' And then somebody comes along with a dirty little limerick. And you say, 'No, that's not poetry.' And you say, 'Well, it is different than what I've been reading for two thousand stanzas.' Somebody says, 'But, it hasn't got the rhyme and the meter of the great epic poem.' And he says, 'No, it doesn't, does it? I'll agree with you. Da da da da da da da...'" (Ed. - limerick rhythm) The epic poem is Bum bum bum bum bum... Then when you finish that stanza, you go into Da da da da da da da... That's Frank Zappa's addition to a limerick, to jazz up the limerick. And he says, "So it comes along. So, it's not the same as it was before." And he says, "A lot of it's crap, a lot of it. They're all gonna be curios." The band recorded this piece in 1969 and you listen to it and you say, "Well, why do we keep it for posterity because it's..."

Bob Marshall: Curios are not worthy antiques.

Michael: They're not worthy antiques. He says, "But there are some things that just will stay. Some people will say, 'This is good rock.' It is good rock. Some of the heavy metal stuff is good. Not all of it. But some of it." But the one thing he said, what I thought was very interesting to me, was, "Listen to Bill Haley's 'Rock Around the Clock'". Now we look at it and we say it's nice, and bright, and it's tame. Yet, he said, "Same thing as Stravinsky all over again. Corrupting youth. The objective of music - to corrupt youth".

Bob Marshall: Did you see anything of Hawking in the physics part? The waves and Dardik?

Michael: No, I didn't see that. What I did see was Zappa's fascination with it, which wasn't talked about that much, but his fascination with it was: For example, say the words "Frank Zappa", what do you think? Music. But do you see Frank Zappa the husband, the father, the guy who reads books, and the guy who has interests above and beyond this? The only thing he seemed to regret was that he wanted to take the music on to the next stage. And he didn't, because he wasn't able to.

Bob Marshall: You mean, because he died?

Michael: Yes, because he died. But, he said, "taking it on to the next stage".

Bob Marshall: He was ready to, he had an idea of what he wanted to do?

Michael: Yes. And he said, "One thing is: the pressure on a performer to stay the same way all the time is tremendous because..." He said he would have loved to just smash the mold and say, "That was Frank Zappa before. This is Frank Zappa now. But the record companies would say, "You piss off too many people if you do this. You won't sell that album. It will not sell because it's going back to square one again." He said he'd like to do it, but the record companies have incredible power. He said, "There's some music coming along that's gonna be around for ages". One thing he did say was, "Rap is political".

Bob Marshall: Yeah. It's almost not music. It had another agenda.

Michael: Well, it was more or less a soap box for people who can't get elected.

Bob Marshall: What about his private life that you didn't go into? You saw the private Frank?

Michael: Frank, the family man, was quite a devoted man. It was important to him, very important. His family was very important to him because that was not only the stability, but where he could say to a new life, "Go and do new music".

Bob Marshall: He could say to a "new life" - you mean, his children?

Michael: Yes, his children. "Go and do something different. You are gonna be Frank Zappa's kids, but be your own selves". That was the crucible. He thought that was the good thing about a family. And that's what he really, really, really was aiming towards.

Bob Marshall: That he could say that?

Michael: Yes, he could say that. The other thing is: I asked him one thing - "You had so many talents in so many areas. Why didn't you just put things under pseudonyms, just write plays and commentaries under a different name?" And he said there wasn't enough time. But it was something, if he had to do it again, he would have done that. He would have done a lot of things under different names.

Bob Marshall: In other words, there was enough time, maybe? He realized that now?

Michael: He realizes now what he should have done. He should have done a lot of stuff under different names, under George Smith, a play by George Smith. Because there was another area he was so interested in. And another thing, it was a bit of a privilege for me in one area. I've had this happen before, in a session for a guitarist. I was able to be in a teacher's mind, listening to a teacher's mind who was thoroughly conversant with a guitar. Being in Frank Zappa's mind for a while is interesting because you realize it's such a cavernous mind. Music was a part of him but it wasn't all of him. And the other thing was, the guy could hear music in traffic noises and say, "Hey, I like that. I could take that, I could make that into a song. Vroom da boom..." The other thing was, not many people have known this about him - how well he brought out the musicianship in other people.

Bob Marshall: That's been commented on, but maybe not that known in general. But that's true.

Michael: Yes, he brought it out of his musicians. I don't know Frank Zappa's music that much. Now, of course, from following this, I'll go out and buy some. I will. I've got some time off later in this trip to do that. I'll go buy a couple of discs.

"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here"

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 30,716
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 13 hours, 13 minutes
Re: Posthumous Frank Zappa [Re: LeastResistance]
    #3792516 - 02/17/05 11:11 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

If you were talking to a dead man who probably knows everything about the universe now, wouldn't you ask him more important questions than these???


Mp3 of the month: One Of Hours - Psychedelic Illusions

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Camp Pink Onion

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Dairyland
Re: Posthumous Frank Zappa [Re: Learyfan]
    #3793711 - 02/17/05 04:22 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

There are certain things the andriod meme doesnt want said in public, all I can tell is "turn off your TV". oh and you might be interested in a interveiw in which bob dobbs interveiws leary from the grave good stuff, man do I love The evergreens. Time is a stripper doing it just for you JUST FOR YOU!

"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here"

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Camp Pink Onion

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Dairyland
Re: Posthumous Frank Zappa [Re: LeastResistance]
    #3793715 - 02/17/05 04:24 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

oh and this is only part one of three. many more "important?" questions and answers to come? Whatever that means.

"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here"

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 30,716
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 13 hours, 13 minutes
Re: Posthumous Frank Zappa [Re: LeastResistance]
    #3793812 - 02/17/05 04:54 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)


LeastResistance said:
oh and this is only part one of three. many more "important?" questions and answers to come? Whatever that means.

By "important", I mean "What is the meaning of life?", "Who killed JFK?", "Was the US government complicit in the attacks on September 11th?". Not "What do you think about rap music?" Why couldn't the interviewer have him tell us something that no normal living person could possibly know?

I'd be interested to check out the Leary one, but also extremely skeptical.


Mp3 of the month: One Of Hours - Psychedelic Illusions

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Camp Pink Onion

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Dairyland
Re: Posthumous Frank Zappa [Re: Learyfan]
    #3793850 - 02/17/05 05:05 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Bob Dobbs: Can you locate Timothy Leary? He was born in 1920 and died in May 1996.

Evergreens: Oh yes, we have this one.

Bob: Timothy Leary died at the end of May 1996, did he go to sleep when he died, or was he aware enough to go through the death process and not go through the sleeping/dreaming period?

Evergreens: He says, "What I'm expected to say is: I saw this as just another trip. It wasn't".

Bob: It was new?

Timothy Leary: It was new. It was not a compendia or an extension or a kaleidoscope of something else, it was new.

Bob: It was not like the TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD outline?

Tim: Nothing like it at all. Useful for Tibetans, not for this one.

Bob: What did you say about the Tibetans?

Tim: Useful for them to have a book of the dead, but if you notice, books of the dead are often written by the living.

Bob: But then, Tim Leary, you wrote a book making the LSD experience parallel to the TIBETAN BOOK OF THE DEAD. Was your death experience anything like the psychedelic trip outlined in that book?

Tim: Not a whit.

Bob: So it was surprising?

Tim: It was surprising.

Bob: Was it a challenge, does one go through anxiety in that experience?

Tim: There was not anxiety, there was not emotion.

Bob: Not emotion?

Tim: Not emotion other than a feeling of "Well?", a feeling of "So?", a feeling of "What's next?", a feeling of not anxiety but a feeling of "What now?". And so "what now" unfolds itself, but no, it was not a psychedelic experience nor would any experience of psychedelics have prepared me for this, nor was it what would be a traditional supposology. It was just new.

Bob: In the publicity about your death, many people are noting that you said "Why, why?", then "Why not?". Is that accurate that you died after saying "why not?" several times?

Tim: Yes.

Bob: And was that dying process videotaped by associates of yours?

Tim: Not that part, an earlier portion, yes.

Bob: But no one was around when you died?

Tim: No, not at that point.

Bob: Then how do they know you said "why not?", that was the last time that someone was near you?

Tim: Yes, last time.

Bob: And then you died half an hour later, maybe?

Tim: Approximately thirty (or thirteen?) minutes later.

Bob: And what did you mean by "why not?", what were you talking about and questioning?

Tim: You see, at that point, my mind was saying it's ending, there's an end to the physical, this is going to be the end of the physical, whether I wanted it or not was immaterial, had as much choice at that particular moment, so I believed, as a raindrop does in falling. There is an inevitability. And then I realized if it is an inevitability then why not, why not just let it be and let it happen, let it unfold as it should unfold if it were going to unfold or what it was going to do from the perspective of being one moment alive and the next moment not and yet still perceiving, yet not perceiving. It came with such newness that it intrigued by it's very self. So, to me death was an intriguing event.

Bob: And the period up to that acceptance, represented by the "why not?", you were still thinking in terms of surviving and maintaining physical existence.

Tim: Yes.

Bob: Up till five minutes before you were saying "why not?", so to speak?

Tim: Exactly.

Bob: I have a question from a friend who always wondered that when you were arrested around 1972-73, you were caught in Afghanistan, and this friend wondered if you knew that the CIA was waiting for you in Afghanistan and there was some kind of deal made or you went to Afghanistan to be caught so that you could come back into mainstream society and figure out a new situation. I guess the question is: did you make deals and did you know you would be caught in Afghanistan?

Tim: No deals, did not know, but could use it to advantage.

Bob: Did you know that by being in Afghanistan you would be vulnerable?

Tim: I was vulnerable anywhere.

Bob: So you were ready to get caught?

Tim: If it was to be, then was would be. But how could one use it? You see, if the CIA was going to be foolish enough to do it, then I could be smart enough to use that foolishness.

Bob: And you successfully did that while in captivity after that capture?

Tim: Yes.

Bob: And you got out of jail within a couple of years, I think?

Tim: Not long. But you see, still used it to my advantage.

Bob: Of course, the question among a lot of your associates in those days: did you betray anybody's involvement in drug dealing, or whatever information the Establishment would want? There always was a controversy whether you betrayed people.

Tim: If I had, then there would not have been a jail sentence, would there?

Bob: Well, how would that be? You would have still gone to jail.

Tim: Not necessarily.

Bob: Oh, you mean you would have gotten off completely?

Tim: Yes.

Bob: Because I remember reading an article where you looked quite beat-up when people saw you in jail. Were you beat up by the authorities?

Tim: Yes, "pushed around", "tripping over my own feet" it was described as. It's not official policy.

Bob: So they did try to beat confessions out of you?

Tim: They let it be known that if I didn't say something, it could get worse. And so, therefore, I said let it get worse. And it stopped.

Bob: So you maintained your integrity and it worked.

Tim: It worked. But if they are foolish enough to do that, then I'm smart enough to use it. And once that was over, I was almost, not quite, but almost untouchable.

Bob: And that's the kind of confidence you had when you came out of jail that inspired people like Robert Anton Wilson and your old friends?

Tim: Yes. No betrayal, because if there had been betrayal there would have been other events that would have followed that and I would have been out of that confinement PDQ. But no deals made, no names said. And then they realized they've made a mistake.

Bob: Because eventually you would get out and exude this confidence.

Tim: Yes.

Bob: So from that point on you knew you'd won?

Tim: And they knew it, too. So I was almost untouchable.

Bob: Now, do you remember meeting me in May'93 with Nelson Thall?

Tim: Yes.

Bob: What did you think of our encounter because in the middle of our interview with the TV personality, I can't remember her name, this was May 14-15, 1993, you left the room because you found Nelson and I rather intense or having quite a different view about McLuhan's knowledge than you did. Why did you run out of the room at that point?

Tim: I just wanted to. Have you ever been in a situation where you just want to leave it?

Bob: Did you need to get a better perspective on us, and you had to leave the room?

Tim: Yes, that helped. But also, if you will remember as it was, I was tired at the time.

Bob: Yes, it went on too long into the day.

Tim: And when you're tired sometimes you need to go somewhere just to think things over - unless you say something that you shouldn't do.

Bob: Say that again?

Tim: Unless you say something that you shouldn't say.

Bob: But your fatigue was aggravated by our intensity and our energy.

Tim: Yes, but realize the basis was the fatigue.

Bob: In other words, if you were rested you wouldn't have had to do that?

Tim: No, I may have chosen. But if there had been more rest, yes, it could have turned out different.

Bob: So, did you meet Marshall McLuhan yet on the spirit plane?

Tim: Oh yes.

Bob: And I discussed this in May'93 with you: how you were a Johnnie-come-lately in realizing the value of McLuhan after the Berlin Wall went down and the events of the early Nineties. Did you discuss that with Marshall, did you discuss your belated understanding or appreciation of him?

Tim: It was not the understanding, it was the breadth, the implications across a number of events, across a number of disciplines, across a number of fields.

If you say briefly "the medium is the message" for which McLuhan was well known, then you start thinking media such as television, radio, newspapers, periodicals. But it also means billboards, it also means sunsets, it also means philosophies, it also means countries, it also means the beliefs within countries, and so on and so on.

"The medium is the message" is very interesting but it has not been applied to the fact that often the medium is a diplomat to represent his country. But it was the number of media that suddenly became known to me. It was not just "media" as in the conventional sense but the concept of everything as a medium and what it says and what it does and how it's perceived and how it affects the mind and how it affects the thinking and how it affects the life. It's not as simple as some people make it out to be, it's remarkably complex.

Bob: Did you have this insight after the Berlin Wall went down or in the early Nineties or earlier?

Tim: Beginning to get it, beginning to get it.

Bob: In '89-'90?

Tim: Yes. You see, what could be said made a change was when I realized that there is no such thing as carpet. Have you thought of that?

Bob: In some ways.


If you look at carpet, all that's necessary if you want to have carpet as a sound deadening, something soft to walk on, then why not just have a carpet factory and everybody get carpet and put it on their floors and that's it. But no, there is no such thing as carpet, there's blue carpet, red carpet, green carpet, high tufts, low tufts, there's Afghanistan, there's Indian. You see, carpets are carpet. Carpet is a choice and some people put carpeting on their floor that costs more than several hundred dollars a square yard. And some people put carpeting on their floor that they can buy for eleven dollars a square yard, but carpeting is a media, clothes are a media.

Why do certain teens wear their caps backwards, with the long baggy pants with the crotch about the knees, and a T-shirt, and they all look the same, but each one of them saying they're individual. But what do their clothes say, what does a suit say, what does a dress say, what do slacks say? You see, it moved into me realizing that media is everywhere around. Lampshade's a media.

If there is an intent behind an expression, then that means of expression is a media.

Bob: I see. For me, when you asked me if carpet exists, I thought of it in terms of what McLuhan said for years in the '60s when he was asked "Will there ever be silence?", he said

"Objects are unobservable, only relationships among objects are observable".

And I would say when you thought of the object as medium, you realized the multiplicity of relationships between and within media and they weren't just isolated nominalistic objects.

Tim: True. But also the definition of media is what expanded. What I say is that if a message is given through any object, then that object is of course media whether it's a carpet, a pair of pants, or a lampshade.

Bob: Media is communication per se.

Tim: Per se. Media is more of the concrete of the expression. But what shifted in me is realizing the wideness of what media constituted.

Bob: Yes, and I felt I understood that for many years, and that gave me an advantage in understanding McLuhan.

Tim: Yes. But me, I was still thinking at one time that this would be a cool medium, this would be a warm medium, which one was cool - the radio or the television? You see, it's not taking media by singularity but among media in it's totality and it's totality of ramifications.

Bob: Yes. Now, I want to move on so I appreciate you saying that and I think that's clear. I've heard through a friend that someone wants to interview you through a medium and I guess they probably want to do it on videotape and I thought I would present this dialogue through the Evergreens to them if I meet them, and I probably will. Would you like to come through the Evergreens in a videotaped interview or maybe the one that we've just had would be what you would like to be presented, or is there another medium you will take to speak through if these people are serious about documenting this?

Tim: Whoever they choose, it's up to them.

Bob: Okay, one last question, Mr. Leary, am I Bob Dobbs?

Tim: You are... you're not... you were... you will be... you are.

Bob: Thank you, it was good talking to you, Mr. Leary.

"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here"

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Camp Pink Onion

Registered: 09/27/04
Posts: 808
Loc: Dairyland
Re: Posthumous Frank Zappa [Re: LeastResistance]
    #3793864 - 02/17/05 05:08 PM (13 years, 4 months ago)

I really shouldnt be saying this hahaha, but the secret council of ten is behind JKF. Mae brussel was very very close. sorry thats all I can give you.

"Weaving Spiders Come Not Here"

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
It's the psychedelic movement!
Male User Gallery

Registered: 04/20/01
Posts: 30,716
Loc: High pride!
Last seen: 13 hours, 13 minutes
Re: Posthumous Frank Zappa [Re: LeastResistance]
    #3797594 - 02/18/05 10:43 AM (13 years, 4 months ago)

Dude, you don't really believe that this is real do you?


Mp3 of the month: One Of Hours - Psychedelic Illusions

Post Extras: Print Post  Remind Me! Notify Moderator
Jump to top. Pages: 1

Amazon Shop: The Doors

Community >> The Pub

Similar ThreadsPosterViewsRepliesLast post
* Frank Zappa
( 1 2 all )
Dreamer987 1,952 27 01/02/05 08:36 PM
by wrestler_az
* Wow, Frank Zappa
( 1 2 3 all )
Phishe 2,826 43 02/27/07 04:59 PM
by mr_kite
* Frank Zappa
( 1 2 all )
Iron_Hymen 1,950 31 04/24/07 05:31 PM
by Iron_Hymen
* Frank Zappa appreciation in the Pub.
( 1 2 all )
idiotek 2,187 26 05/03/10 04:33 PM
by wildchild68
* Best Frank Zappa Album Envix 878 11 07/14/10 07:54 PM
by Set
* So I tried to like Frank Zappa.
( 1 2 all )
Knifey Mcstab 2,841 21 04/19/09 01:48 AM
by Phish_Dude
* frank zappa
( 1 2 3 all )
wrestler_az 2,465 43 02/04/06 09:17 PM
by Mushit
* Frank Zappa on Cross Fire.
( 1 2 3 all )
RoastedPete 1,202 43 05/16/11 02:50 PM
by Rainman420

Extra information
You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics
HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled
Moderator: Entire Staff
884 topic views. 4 members, 61 guests and 12 web crawlers are browsing this forum.
[ Toggle Favorite | Print Topic | Stats ]
Search this thread:
SoulSpeciosa Kratom
Please support our sponsors.

Copyright 1997-2018 Mind Media. Some rights reserved.

Generated in 0.1 seconds spending 0.007 seconds on 19 queries.