Lumpy Money: The Playlist

Now that Lumpy Money orders are officially being shipped, I’ve added this 3 disc release to the discography pages. As ever, the Mighty Wiki has more background info. If anyone has had a chance to give this one a listen, feel free to leave a comment — here or at the discog page.

85 Responses to “Lumpy Money: The Playlist”

  1. abe says:

    disc 1 is great. though WOIIFTM isn’t “uncensored.” why disc 2? 84 remixes i don’t know. track one on disc 3 is superb. AHHHH, Frank!

  2. urbangraffito says:

    A quote from abe:

    disc 1 is great. though WOIIFTM isn’t “uncensored.” why disc 2? 84 remixes i don’t know. track one on disc 3 is superb. AHHHH, Frank!

    Kind of sounds like filler material, to me (I mean, why include versions that most Zappa collectors already have in their collection?). Or am I wrong?

  3. Norske says:

    The ’84 mix of LM has never been released.

    Overall, I am extremely happy with this release, especially the disc 1 LM and disc 3 (track one is amazing).

  4. Norske says:

    D’oh! LM was meant to be LG (lumpy gravy) in the post above. I’ve had LM on my mind…..brain virus.

  5. vince says:

    Just saw pic’s at the Zappa forum…….
    ….. uh, a little cheesey!

    How big is the booklet?

  6. the school of spock says:

    looks like they worked hard on the lumpy money cd truly as old ethel
    bannister is saying a pice of music history:)

  7. abe says:

    booklet is 34 pages pics and words. fricke’s liner notes are great. GZ’s are GZ’s. Disc 2 is a one listen wonder. Disc 1 and 3 are definitely repeat listens. it is very sad to know i will never hear “new” Frank music, only never heard before music. if that makes any sense. but none the less, I am happy with this release. the thing is to put a motor in yourself and get this release!

  8. vince says:

    Well, of course, once we get the DRY motor, we’re gonna want the WET motor, too!

  9. tim says:

    hey, any problems removing the discs from the package?!

  10. Rick Wood says:

    Tim, if there’s trouble, let’s hope we break different discs!

  11. tim says:

    you gotta deal.

  12. abe says:

    nope. no problem removing discs. easy peasy japenesy. rather, almost chinese.

  13. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from abe:

    why disc 2?

    Why not? They’re Frank’s work, take them or leave them. The LG remix has never been released and the WOIIFTM remix has been out of print.

  14. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    A quote from abe:

    disc 1 is great. though WOIIFTM isn’t “uncensored.” why disc 2? 84 remixes i don’t know. track one on disc 3 is superb. AHHHH, Frank!

    Kind of sounds like filler material, to me (I mean, why include versions that most Zappa collectors already have in their collection?). Or am I wrong?

    You must be wrong. I mean, since you asked. What filler are we talking about here?

    I disagree with the “some people are in possession of this because it was circulated amongst collectors, therefore it is stupid to release it on cd” mentality quite a bit. Do “most” Zappa collectors really own a mono WOIIFTM? It’s not like everyone who has bought or will buy Lumpy Money has already heard the original iteration of LG, either.

  15. jane23 says:

    Why would anyone want a mono version of anything???

  16. amicus says:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    Kind of sounds like filler material, to me (I mean, why include versions that most Zappa collectors already have in their collection?). Or am I wrong?

    “Filler Material”? What a fucking EMBARASSMENT this guy is…………….

  17. Paul Sempschi says:

    the 80′s mix of WOIIFTM is a bit of a shame… it is somewhat rare but surely there are more pertinent unreleased material they could have put on it. Not to mention it is pretty much universally loathed by the Zappa community.
    I guess the Lumpy Gravy 80′s edit is nice to have, for compleationists…

  18. brett says:

    A quote from Paul Sempschi:

    the 80′s mix of WOIIFTM is a bit of a shame… it is somewhat rare but surely there are more pertinent unreleased material they could have put on it. Not to mention it is pretty much universally loathed by the Zappa community.
    I guess the Lumpy Gravy 80′s edit is nice to have, for compleationists…

    I now enjoy the 80s remixes. I even think a couple of songs song better with the new bass and drums. The Lumpy Money remastering makes it sound much better than it did before. Of course, I wouldn’t want that to be the ONLY version of WOIIFTM available.

    As far as WOIIFTM goes, the ZFT is releasing whatever versions they can. They can’t do a remaster of the stereo version, since Ryko owns it (I’m guessing). That’s why they remastered a MONO version of WOIIFTM. And since they have the 80s remixes in their possession, why not release them? My only question is why the Lumpy Gravy orchestral version is in MONO.

  19. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from Paul Sempschi:

    the 80′s mix of WOIIFTM is a bit of a shame…

    I guess the Lumpy Gravy 80′s edit is nice to have, for compleationists…

    If one is, then they both are.

    No one really wants to take the 84 remix of WOIIFTM on it’s own merits; instead, it’s routinely dogged in comparisons to the original. Maybe I hear the remix a little differently, having heard it first and at a younger age, 3 or 4 years before knowing it was any different from the original (sure, maybe I should have thought “would a 1967 recording really sound like this”, but how much would that have occured to you at the age of 12?)

    As for why the Capitol LG is in mono on Lumpy Money, the explanation is probably pretty simple. I think had a stereo master been found, it would have been used. You have to think there’s a chance it doesn’t exist at this point.

    The liner notes *seem* to mention that Joe Travers got his hands on the 8 track masters of the WOIIFTM sessions. Whether that means that the complete and “uncensored” versions of all the songs from the album exists on said masters, I don’t know, but it certainly caught my eye when reading the notes.

  20. bubba-ho-tep says:

    There was a mention at some point of a companion release to Lumpy Money. Uncensored versions perhaps???

  21. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from bubba-ho-tep:

    There was a mention at some point of a companion release to Lumpy Money. Uncensored versions perhaps???

    I hope the follow-up release does have it. Frankly, I don’t care what’s on it, I’ll still buy it. But more variants of WOIIFTM tracks would be welcome.

    I don’t know what albums they are and are not planning to do these 4tieth anniv. editions of, but if they want to do Hot Rats, for example, they better get cracking. It’s already 2009. I’d love to see what they could pull out of their asses relating to Uncle Meat, as well.

  22. Virgil Proudfoot says:

    Be careful when talking about the “censoring” of WOIIFTM. The original release had some chunks cut out and backwards at MGM’s insistence, but these edits were done BY FZ HIMSELF. Subsequent releases had different bits chopped out entirely by some butcher at the record company, NOT BY FZ.

    So, although you could say the original release, which appears here in the mono version, is “censored” or not, depending on whether your definition of “censoring” includes something physically done by FZ himself (albeit at the record company’s insistence).

    In that respect, the 1984 version is in fact uncensored, featuring the previously backwards naughty bits, for example “Shut your fucking mouth about the length of my hair,” etc.) in “Mother People,” in place and running in the correct sequence. But then of course there are those awful drums and bass.

  23. Virgil Proudfoot says:

    In addition, I always thought Frank including those naughty bits backwards on the original release of WOIIFTM was really a sort of integral part of the whole album, being a creative response to what a tight-assed American record company in the late 1960s wanted to do with such an amazing burst of creative energy.

  24. Steve says:

    Backwards music probably didn’t start with “Rain” by the Beatles in the summer of 1965 but basically afterwards I always felt backwards stuff was a cue to the ’60′s. Put another way, when I first heard WOIIFTM in 1968 I just assumed the backwards stuff was a send up of the Beatles in the first place, not really self-censorship.

  25. xorg says:

    Being somewhat long in the tooth and having bought FZ stuff since 1966, I’ve already got the 1968 mono version on LP, and I’ve got the 1984 UMRK remixes too on CD. I have a bootleg of the Capitol LG, although in poor quality. So I’m trying to persuade myself that this release is worth it for disc 3. I would be grateful for your advice!

  26. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from xorg:

    Being somewhat long in the tooth and having bought FZ stuff since 1966, I’ve already got the 1968 mono version on LP, and I’ve got the 1984 UMRK remixes too on CD.

    Ah, but you don’t have the 1984 remix of LG ;c)

    A quote from Empire Hancock:

    I have a bootleg of the Capitol LG, although in poor quality. So I’m trying to persuade myself that this release is worth it for disc 3. I would be grateful for your advice!

    It’s worth it just for the Capitol LG in something much better than “poor quality”, IMHO. The third disc is pretty rad if you’re inclined to dig the whole outtakes and alternate versions things (which, you know, being a Zappa fan, you probably are!)

    The 1984 remix of WOIIFTM, remastered on LM, sounds a good bit better than the old Ryko cd, I have to say. But if you hated the new bass and drums before, you’re still gonna hate them now. :P

  27. Paul Sempschi says:

    A quote from Empire Hancock:

    If one is, then they both are.

    Granted, though the 80′s remix of ‘Money’ is still readily available and, IMHO serves better as a rarity than as something necessary to complete the ‘catalogue’.
    That being said (and to be completely contradict myself) I too sort of enjoyed the 80′s remix of ‘Money’ but that may of had to do with it being a weird misfit oddity within the oeuvre. I could see the ire in the community over having Frank jam this down people’s throats… but it’s all subjective, I would have preferred to hear the piano people in their entirety than put up with a remastered remix…
    And a 40th anniversary of “Absolutely Free” would have been better appreciated on this end… Lumpy Money is a tempting release though, almost worth breaking boycott for.

  28. urbangraffito says:

    A quote from amicus:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    Kind of sounds like filler material, to me (I mean, why include versions that most Zappa collectors already have in their collection?). Or am I wrong?

    “Filler Material”? What a fucking EMBARASSMENT this guy is…………….

    Go ahead. Buy the same versions you’ve already bought and heard before. It’s your right. Or are you the sort of collector that buys extra copies of compilations like Cheap Thrills to make them more rare? Use your brain (it’s the organ between your ears…)

  29. tim says:

    got mine, finally! fantastic disc removal system! (rick) they don’t even break! music’s ok too.

  30. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    A quote from amicus:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    Kind of sounds like filler material, to me (I mean, why include versions that most Zappa collectors already have in their collection?). Or am I wrong?

    “Filler Material”? What a fucking EMBARASSMENT this guy is…………….

    Go ahead. Buy the same versions you’ve already bought and heard before. It’s your right. Or are you the sort of collector that buys extra copies of compilations like Cheap Thrills to make them more rare? Use your brain (it’s the organ between your ears…)

    I’m sorry, are you kidding me right now? There’s a pretty big fucking difference between a Cheap Thrills or Strictly Commercial and this release. It’s cute that you want to put on your difficult shirt and be the dissenting voice and all, but this isn’t a valid comparison.

    You tell me where the filler is. I forgot every Zappa fan has an acetate-sourced recording of the Captiol Lumpy Gravy. The mono mix of WOIIFTM (do you own one? does everyone?) seriously sounds better and cleaner than the 1995 Rykodisc edition of the stereo mix. There’s a whole unreleased “new” mix of LG here. Whether it pleases your ears or not, it’s something no one owns or has heard. And there is the wealth of unheard material on the third disc, a few pieces of which have circulated unofficially, but does that make them not worth paying to hear? Again, not every person who would buy this set has heard these pieces before. If you’re not going to buy LM and don’t feel it’s worth your time, good for you. I guess that makes you more hardcore than the rest of us sheep, right? It wouldn’t make you a condescending weiner to tell everyone else is stupid for buying it, since “most Zappa collectors already have it in their collection.” Enjoy your pristine LG acetate and your LG and WOIIFTM 4- and 8-track session reels, champ! You’re better than the rest of the suckers!

  31. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from Paul Sempschi:

    A quote from Empire Hancock:

    If one is, then they both are.

    Granted, though the 80′s remix of ‘Money’ is still readily available and, IMHO serves better as a rarity than as something necessary to complete the ‘catalogue’.
    That being said (and to be completely contradict myself) I too sort of enjoyed the 80′s remix of ‘Money’ but that may of had to do with it being a weird misfit oddity within the oeuvre.

    As an iteration of a complete album that FZ worked on and released, I feel it’s worth making available and worth owning, but that’s me.

    A quote from Paul Sempschi:

    And a 40th anniversary of “Absolutely Free” would have been better appreciated on this end…

    Well, that was never gonna happen for apparent and oft-discussed reasons and we’re past AF and on to LG/WOIIFTM now ;c)

    Oh.. ermm.. what I mean is.. Yeah, don’t buy this filler material crap, you chump! Most Zappa collectors already have this stuff in their collection anyway, right!? XD

  32. Bubba-ho-Tep says:

    FZT needs to hurry up and get that 40th anniversary Ruben and the Jets Project/Object out. You know, the one with the original mix restored?

  33. epistrophy says:

    Frank Zappa had limitless capacity to surprise and perplex with each new release that he issued. Whenever I’ve parted with my hard-earned cash to buy even more of his music, I’ve always known that I can rely on Frank to surprise, or even pull the rug from under me. He spent many many hours working on Lumpy Gravy in 1967, only to do the same again in the early ’80s – just think of all those tiny edits needing to be done again! Especially when you consider that it was more a creative decision rather than “need”.

    I have the Ryko edition of Money, the two-fer with the Money remix, a bootleg of the Capitol Lumpy Gravy another of the Money demos…..and I STILL can’t wait to hear the remix of Lumpy Gravy, the mono Money, the Mono Primordial Gravy, the outtakes.

    When Frank Zappa made albums, they are always wonderfully unique, wonderfully specific to his oeuvre.
    Why would anybody be unhappy about the chance to hear this stuff in great sound?
    I am a fan of Frank Zappa’s music,
    Here is some new Frank Zappa music,
    therefore I am happy.

  34. urbangraffito says:

    Of course, I’m kidding. Zappa? Filler material? Of course we’re going to buy Lumpy Money if only for the Capitol version of Lumpy Gravy (I know I will). I’m only trying to encourage some objective discussion of the release by taking the position of the devil’s advocate. That said, is the burning of my effigy hereby postponed?

  35. mark says:

    IMO, this should have been either a two or a four disc release. I received my discs on Monday and had listened to 1 and 3 by yesterday morning. I have owned bootleg copies (tapes) of the original Capital LG, and a tape called WOIIFT Demo’s, which included most of the Money material on disc 3, for years. The old tapes were many generations down the line and sound quality was poor. In contrast, the new CD’s sound terrific and it is a thrill to finally hear this material in pristine condition. ZFT did a great job here and should be complimented for making this available. Perhaps this could be Phase III, the Kareoke disc…

    Anyway, disc 2…… Without going into the usual “What was he thinking…”, the only way I would have included this material is if the package had been expanded to a 4-disc set that included the later “accepted” reissue of Money and LG. I suspect that at best, most buyers will listen to disc 2 once, and they will decide, “ehhhh…” and never pull the disc out of the box again.

    Since they were able to include the “current” release of Freak Out in the first box, I do not understand why they could not include the current Money and LG. If they had, I feel most would accept disc 2 as part of the complete collection, not just filler that leaves you feeling half full…..

    Mark

  36. bubba-ho-tep says:

    Mark,

    The “current” release of Freak Out was not included in the first box. The original ’65 stereo mix was included. The current Ryko issue is an ’80′s remix.

    Unfortunately, the current releases of LG and Money weren’t included probably because the ZFT does not have the distribution rights for those (Ryko does). Aside from this, I agree that a 4-disc version containing the standard mixes would have been ideal.

  37. mark says:

    OK, good to know about FO. I haven’t been following this stuff in a few years and that seems to have slipped by me. I bought the 4-disc MOFO back when it came out but never compared to the original CD. It just sounded better to me.

    As for this release, it is very interesting to see how Frank tweezed and chopped snippets of the longer pieces included on disc 3 and used them as building blocks in the final releases of LG and Money. It makes you wonder how he viewed the original source material and how he went about deconstructing it for the final project. I guess we got a peak of this back when the Cucamonga Era material came out and you could here the source of the surf music (Grunion Run) found on side 2 of Money. Anyway, this is fun listening…

    Mark

  38. bubba-ho-tep says:

    Surprisingly enough, the Money remix doesn’t really sound that bad to these ears, especially if it’s seen more as a supplement to the original album as opposed to a stand-alone release. The LG remix is another story altogether. Just why in the hell FZ felt the need to slather all of that annoying vocal work over the beginning of Part One escapes me. Even more egregious are the Thing-Fish (his absolute worst work imho) references.

  39. Mark says:

    I could never get into the Money rerelease. I bought the Old Masters Box I and Freaked Out :-) when I heard Money and Ruben. I picked up the CD as an excuse to buy a CD player. Played it once and put it away. Actually, I guess that I did listen to Lumpy Gravy a few times since I never noticed any real difference from the LP….

    So, I gave the new Money about 5 minutes before I popped it out yesterday. Perhaps I’ll give it another listen tonite. Stay tuned

  40. ringeye says:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    Of course, I’m kidding. Zappa? Filler material? Of course we’re going to buy Lumpy Money if only for the Capitol version of Lumpy Gravy (I know I will). I’m only trying to encourage some objective discussion of the release by taking the position of the devil’s advocate. That said, is the burning of my effigy hereby postponed?

    Could a person that INVARIABLY takes a knee-jerk, antagonistic point of view to ANYTHING the ZFT does be considered an effigy of an actual human being?

    Yes. Especially if they take cover under the ruse of playing “devil’s advocate”.

    What was the other part? Oh, that’s right…”trying to encourage objective discussion”. Hey, no problem! Try harder.

  41. Paul Sempschi says:

    A quote from Empire Hancock:

    Well, that was never gonna happen for apparent and oft-discussed reasons and we’re past AF and on to LG/WOIIFTM now

    I missed have missed out on the AF discussions, mind filling me in? Though I wouldnt discount due dates… considering the material for Lumpy Money was recorded in 67 and the albums were released in 68 (it being 2009):

    ABSOLUTELY FREE deluxe edition (better late than never)

    Yeah, the Money remix may be worth owning but since it is readily available from other sources, I fail to see the need to include in this package. I’d sooner see other unreleased material ‘make it’ into the project.

    For those same reasons, I would also be against putting the Ryko mixes into this release as well… petty criticism, considering I’ll be downloading it for free and am thoroughly ecstatic, it looks like quite a wonderful listen!

    PS.: I’ve compared the vinyl Gravy with the 80′s twofer and the Ryko Gravy… there is a brief stereo glitch in the Ryko, otherwise it is the same mix…

  42. jane23 says:

    urbangraffito’s difficult shirt!!!
    i like it.

  43. urbangraffito says:

    A quote from ringeye:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    Of course, I’m kidding. Zappa? Filler material? Of course we’re going to buy Lumpy Money if only for the Capitol version of Lumpy Gravy (I know I will). I’m only trying to encourage some objective discussion of the release by taking the position of the devil’s advocate. That said, is the burning of my effigy hereby postponed?

    Could a person that INVARIABLY takes a knee-jerk, antagonistic point of view to ANYTHING the ZFT does be considered an effigy of an actual human being?

    Yes. Especially if they take cover under the ruse of playing “devil’s advocate”.

    What was the other part? Oh, that’s right…”trying to encourage objective discussion”. Hey, no problem! Try harder.

    I just got my first listen to 3 CD Lumpy Money box set. As I anticipated, the Capitol version of Lumpy Gravy was a real audio treat (now I can finally ditch that poor quality acetate). However, the mono version of Money was neither here nor there, no better and no worse than any other version in my collection. The same goes for the 1984 U.M.R.K. mix of Lumpy Gravy. Why are these in this set? Do they add anything new to the Zappa catalogue by being re-released here? And the 1984 U.M.R.K. re-mix of Money was absolute torture to me (and probably to anyone else over 40 who fondly remembers the original mix of Money): those new drums and bass just do not jive with the rest of the musical landscape (at least in my opinion). That said, that leaves the final disc, which possessed many unique instrumental and documentary tracks, very much akin to the MOFO set. In comparison, though, MOFO is a much stronger set than Lumpy Money. Still, disc one and disc three are well worth ordering the set for.

  44. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from Paul Sempschi:

    A quote from Empire Hancock:

    Well, that was never gonna happen for apparent and oft-discussed reasons and we’re past AF and on to LG/WOIIFTM now

    A quote from Paul Sempschi:

    I missed have missed out on the AF discussions, mind filling me in?

    There’s nothing like a whole alternate mix of AF and there is very, very little if any material related to the album to be found in the vault. The Mothers had relatively little time to record the album. A deluxe AF reissue was just never gonna happen.

    A quote from Paul Sempschi:

    Yeah, the Money remix may be worth owning but since it is readily available from other sources, I fail to see the need to include in this package. I’d sooner see other unreleased material ‘make it’ into the project.

    It’s not about whether it’s readily available or not (though the WOIIFTM/LG two-fer with the remix of the latter has actually been out of print for about 15 years now). One could almost argue that there was no point in including the original vinyl mix of Freak Out! in the MOFO package because it could still be found used on vinyl, or somewhere on the internet, etc. if one wanted to look for it. You could technically apply that statement to the mono mix of WOIIFTM, too. It must exist for purchase (or even trade) somewhere, right?

    So, it’s not strictly about the availability. It’s about the ZFT’s goal of presenting the bigger picture of an album (or pair of albums, in this case). There are alternate iterations of WOIIFTM and LG that FZ spent time and money to work on, producing something he liked and theoretically wanted to share with an audience at some point (he created and intended the ’84 remix of LG to be released on cd under his agreement with Rykodisc), at least for some things.

    It’s about the fact that there is a bigger picture, that there is a life for this recorded material beyond what you may or may not have heard before. Not trying to sound like I’m licking their asses here, though they have done quality work AFAIC, but ZFT’s desire is to commemorate not only (the release of -slash-) the albums themselves, but to celebrate their lives as pieces of art and what went into creating them, and what other ideas or treatments FZ had for the material at other points in time. I think the work they’ve done is fantastic and have not a complaint regarding anything on MOFO or LM except for the annoying fact that they did the two-disc MOFO with little chunklets not found on the 4-disc box that I paid some retarded amount of money to own (even if I feel it was, in fact, worth every dime I shucked out for it, TBH).

    A quote from Paul Sempschi:

    For those same reasons, I would also be against putting the Ryko mixes into this release as well…

    A quote from Empire Hancock:

    Well, those versions that are available on Rykodisc CDs are from masters that are under exclusive license to them, which is why you won’t see those same masters appear on anything ZFT puts out.

    A quote from Paul Sempschi:

    PS.: I’ve compared the vinyl Gravy with the 80′s twofer and the Ryko Gravy… there is a brief stereo glitch in the Ryko, otherwise it is the same mix…

    Yes, the ’95 Ryko cd has the same mix as the vinyl, but when FZ created that master (for the ’95 edition), he went back to original tapes and reconstructed LG from raw material, and ended up using a piece from a MONO master during the “Oh No” section in Part One. I don’t even own the ’95 Ryko LG, so I’ve never heard what this actually sounds like, but it’s a fact that it’s there.

    ***Apologies if I screwed up the quoting anywhere in this comment, since I was trying to reply to multiple parts of your comment and may have lost track of the quote tags somewhere. Just thought I would add that before I post it in case I missed anything up :P

  45. Empire Hancock says:

    Wow, yeah, I did mung that up pretty good. Sheesh. Sorry!

  46. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    I just got my first listen to 3 CD Lumpy Money box set. As I anticipated, the Capitol version of Lumpy Gravy was a real audio treat (now I can finally ditch that poor quality acetate). However, the mono version of Money was neither here nor there, no better and no worse than any other version in my collection.

    My personal opinion it sounds a bit better and a fair bit cleaner than the stereo transfer of the original mix on the ’95 Ryko edition, but YMMV.

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    The same goes for the 1984 U.M.R.K. mix of Lumpy Gravy. Why are these in this set? Do they add anything new to the Zappa catalogue by being re-released here?

    For your first question, you may see my opinions offered in reply to Paul Sempschi above. As for the second question: short answer YES (see also above if desired.)

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    And the 1984 U.M.R.K. re-mix of Money was absolute torture to me (and probably to anyone else over 40 who fondly remembers the original mix of Money): those new drums and bass just do not jive with the rest of the musical landscape (at least in my opinion).

    While I understand the reasoning behind this opinion (it’s not like it’s an uncommon one), I feel it’s reasonable to treat the remix as a different beast, in a sense, to just take it on it’s own merits. If you’re not simply thinking about it in terms of “he took this old album and did this to it, and I feel this way about it”, examine it for what it is, almost as if it were not a revision, but an object unto itself. As a musical creature, as an album, as a statement, Does It Work? In my estimation, YES. Being someone who was actually exposed to the ’84 remix first, I ended up having mixed feelings about both versions. There came to be things I liked and disliked about both of them, but at this point I feel strongly positive about BOTH of them, I guess because I’ve just chosen to evaluate each on it’s own merits rather than in light of or in comparison to the other. I realize every listener may not be willing or even able to treat WOIIFTM that way, but I think it’s worth attempting.

    I can’t, at this point in time, treat the ’84 remix of LG as anything other than a revision — I heard the original first and have heard it many, many times. But for me, at least, as a revision, it WORKS. I LIKE it. I mean, there’s “Duodenum”, which was and is a total WTF and thrills me by virtue of being so.. WEIRD. So Not What It Was. I don’t expect a lot of people to be thrilled about it, but it is what it is. It’s on a shiny disc, and it is there because it’s something that FZ Wanted To Do. Good for him, I mean, it’s his work, and like damn near everything in his career, he did it because he damn well wanted to.

    Consider this: if FZ and Capitol Records had released the untainted, all-orchestral LG and then, let’s say, 5 or 10 or even 20 years later, he decided to inflict this “new” version Lumpy Gravy on the world, with all the crazy dialogue and bizarre musical twists and interludes (surf music? live Mothers?) — How would we feel about it?

    One Reporter’s Opinion ;D

  47. abe says:

    A quote from abe:

    Being someone who was actually exposed to the ‘84 remix first, I ended up having mixed feelings about both versions. There came to be things I liked and disliked about both of them, but at this point I feel strongly positive about BOTH of them, I guess because I’ve just chosen to evaluate each on it’s own merits rather than in light of or in comparison to the other.

    i agree in a sense. I have only been exposed to the remixed Reuben and the Jets, and once i hear the original i will have (im pretty sure) positive feelings for both. Because I heard the 84 version first. Now if i heard the original first, it might be harder to accept the 84 version. I think that has a lot to do with WOIIFTM remix vs. the original argument. Being that i heard the Ryko release first and just now this remix version, i am very much partial to the original bass and drums. But if you can accept them as different beasts….that’s great. A little hard for me to do though.

  48. abe says:

    oops, that is actually not a quote from abe but a quote from Empire Hancock. sorry.

  49. urbangraffito says:

    A quote from abe:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    Being someone who was actually exposed to the ‘84 remix first, I ended up having mixed feelings about both versions. There came to be things I liked and disliked about both of them, but at this point I feel strongly positive about BOTH of them, I guess because I’ve just chosen to evaluate each on it’s own merits rather than in light of or in comparison to the other.

    i agree in a sense. I have only been exposed to the remixed Reuben and the Jets, and once i hear the original i will have (im pretty sure) positive feelings for both. Because I heard the 84 version first. Now if i heard the original first, it might be harder to accept the 84 version. I think that has a lot to do with WOIIFTM remix vs. the original argument. Being that i heard the Ryko release first and just now this remix version, i am very much partial to the original bass and drums. But if you can accept them as different beasts….that’s great. A little hard for me to do though.

    Myself, I have no mixed feelings, having heard WOIIFTM and Reuben and the Jets in all their original glory. Frankly, I’ve never understood why Zappa re-mixed them in the first place. It’s not as though they needed to be re-mixed for any other reason besides Frank’s personal reasons:

    from lukpac.org:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    (Zappa clearly says that yes, the original tapes were damaged - that is, the mixed-down masters were damaged, but not the 8-tracks and 12-tracks. He had to remix them, but this has nothing to do with the infamous overdubs: he chose to do them because he didn’t like the original bass and drums. However, the 1995 CD of We’re Only In It for the Money was taken from original two-track masters, which proved that there were master tapes after all that were indeed usable.)

    From Jon Naurin:

    We’ve been through this many times, and the consensus, as I recall, has always been that Frank lied to us: He told us that the Wackerman/Barrow tracks were added because the original tape was damaged, while in fact the original 8-track tapes were fine, and Frank added new drums & bass because he didn’t like the sound of the old ones. I stumbled across an interview (Goldmine 1989), which shows that on at least one occasion, Zappa did tell the truth. [Warning - Zappa sounds like a total jerk in this interview, Ed.]

    GOLDMINE: There’s been some controversy about what you did with We’re Only In It for the Money for the Old Masters set and the Rykodisc CD, the bass and drum tracks that were added to it. Was that the only solution to this tape problem?

    ZAPPA: No, bass and drums added was not a solution to the tape problem. The tape problem had to be dealt with with a remix, no matter what. The idea of putting digitally recorded bass and drums onto those tracks was a creative decision that I made because I’ve always felt that this material in We’re Only In It for the Money was good material, but I hated the technical quality of the recording; we were just trapped into that level of of technical quality because that’s the way the world was then. I mean, we were virtually using a prototype eight-track machine when that album was done.
    [...] But I’ve always had a kind of fondness for the tunes that were in there, and I wanted to enhance that album above and beyond the level of 1967 technical development. So that’s why it was a creative decision, I decided to put it on. The problem with people who are collectors and purists and stuff like that is, their regard is not for the music, it is for some imaginary intrinsic value of vinyl and cardboard. People who demand to have the original release of this, that, and the other thing in the original wrapper and all that stuff, that’s fetishism. And I think that’s fine, if you want to be a fetishist, and have that kind of a hobby. But it is a type of attitude that I don’t share when it comes to re-releasing the material. I think that the material should have a chance to sound as good as you can make it sound, given the technical tools that are at your disposal. So when digital audio came along and you had the possibility of a 95-dB dynamic range, and, in 1967, it might have been, maybe 40 dB or something like that, the chance to make those tunes punchier, and the same thing on Ruben & the Jets, the chance to have some aspect of 1980s transience and top end on those tapes was something that I felt was worth the time and the money that I spent redoing it.
    [...] I don’t have any more plans for taking older material and adding stuff to it - those are the only two albums that it was done - and I would describe any criticism of the addition of drums and bass as something less than a tempest in a teapot. If you’ve got time to worry about that, you really must have too much time on your hands. There’s too many other important musical, social and intellectual problems floating around the country today to give a rat’s ass as to whether or not I swapped the bass and drums on We’re Only In It for the Money. [Zappa could be such a dickhead - JWB]

    GOLDMINE: Part of the way to look at that too, though, is to say, who are you reissuing them for? Are you reissuing them for people who heard them then and remember them in a certain way or are you reissuing them for potentially a new audience?

    ZAPPA: It’s for a new audience, because I think that a lot of the things that were said in those lyrics, like “Mom & Dad” and some of the other songs that are in there, they have a relevance today. And the problem with appealing to the younger audience today is thay have become accustomed to a level of audio excellence and would psychologically reject certain older recordings just because of the way they sound without ever stopping to listen to what the content was. The tone quality of the recording itself would turn them off or dissuade them from in-depth listening. So, in an attempt to meet those new customers halfway, I would like to spiff the stuff up as much as possible, so that they can tolerate the sound of it while they’re listening to the content that’s in there.

    I think we can all agree that FZ did have a penchant for doing whatever he wanted, musically, and the fans be damned. For instance, how many fans (myself included) fell in love with the first release of the fully instrumental Sleep Dirt album, only to be shocked and pleasantly surprised by the remix with accompanying Hunchentoot jazz vocals by Thana Harris on “Flambay”, “Spider of Destiny” and “Time is Money”?

  50. Steve says:

    I’m a big fan of classical music as well as Zappa and there were many times composers would re-write symphonies, operas, and so on. So that you have people who are fans of different versions of Symphony X, or even all 2, 3, or 4 versions. I think the same goes for Zappa. I grew up on the original LP’s in the ’60′s. And most of the time I heard them mono. Another version is a another version. I just got Lumpy Money AND the MOFO 4 disc set today. I plan to listen to them both. That means, among other things, I will be hearing the re-mix of “Money” for the first time. I will check back. Bottom line, and ahead of listening, Frank could do whatever he wanted. And sometimes, I didn’t like it.

  51. Michael Pierry says:

    A quote from Michael Pierry:

    ZAPPA: It’s for a new audience, because I think that a lot of the things that were said in those lyrics, like “Mom & Dad” and some of the other songs that are in there, they have a relevance today. And the problem with appealing to the younger audience today is thay have become accustomed to a level of audio excellence and would psychologically reject certain older recordings just because of the way they sound without ever stopping to listen to what the content was. The tone quality of the recording itself would turn them off or dissuade them from in-depth listening. So, in an attempt to meet those new customers halfway, I would like to spiff the stuff up as much as possible, so that they can tolerate the sound of it while they’re listening to the content that’s in there.

    I have to say that in my case, at least, he was completely right. I first started listening to FZ when I was 12 and at that age I distinctly remember hating the sound of any recording from the 60′s. It was a visceral reaction – the sound of anything on Freak Out and Absolutely Free in particular repulsed me. This was in 1991, so when I first heard We’re Only In It For the Money, it was the remix and I remember thinking it sounded WAY better than the other Zappa albums I’d heard from the 60′s. I also remember thinking that You Can’t Do That On Stage Anymore Volume 3 was awesome, especially disc one! Yes, I liked the 1984 band a lot back then. I don’t know if this was because it was 1991 and my ears were still used to the “sound” of the 80s or what.

  52. Steve says:

    Well, I just listened to the remix of “Money.” There’s a LOT more going on here than new bass and drums: the entire mix is different. Better, worse? Can’t talk about it that way. It’s like two different versions of the same thing.

    I heard the original “Money” played on an FM radio station on my little transistor clock radio in 1968. I knew the previous two albums. “Money” however struck me as a hilarious sendup of the entire Frisco scene and I am _from_ San Francisco. From the first song, “Peace Corps” it just got, to me, funnier and funnier such that genius was the only word to describe that kind of satirical insight. And, in all fairness, to get the rawness, the satire, and the punch, you need the first version.

    The remix is like a concert version by a guy who is ignoring the lyrics and concentrating on the music. Note how the voices are backgrounded. Notice how the sound is wider and fuller. The beats tend to be more rolling, not driven. The texture is fat, not lean and mean. The remix is about the music, not the words. I respect that. But it never should have been marketed under the same title. It is THAT different.

  53. jane23 says:

    A quote from jane23:

    I first started listening to FZ when I was 12 and at that age I distinctly remember hating the sound of any recording from the 60’s.

    I started listening to Zappa when I was 12 also. The difference being that the year was 1966. I didn’t know there was a ’60s sound then, cause that’s all there was. Sounded good to me.

  54. Michael Pierry says:

    A quote from Steve:

    The remix is like a concert version by a guy who is ignoring the lyrics and concentrating on the music. Note how the voices are backgrounded. Notice how the sound is wider and fuller. The beats tend to be more rolling, not driven. The texture is fat, not lean and mean. The remix is about the music, not the words. I respect that. But it never should have been marketed under the same title. It is THAT different.

    I don’t really agree about the vocals. They are front and center throughout in the ’84 remix just as much as in the original. There’s a heaping helping of digital reverb all over them, but they’re not what I’d call “backgrounded” at all.

  55. Paul Sempschi says:

    Emperor…

    Re:AF, there are plenty of overdubs that could be isolated and released as is… there may be no surviving outtakes (hard to believe considering what they found for MoFO) but for a work as complex and multi-spliced as AF, especially “Brown Shoes Dont Make It”, I find it hard to believe that they could put together a good double cd of isolated overdubs, audio verite’, the soundtrack they made for that CBC shortfilm that came out around that time… and if need be, some concert audio.

    AF has always been a marginalized work in the Zappa canon- IMHO. It is simply ignored, Zappa himself pretty much dismissed it by stating that they simply lacked the budget- and if no remixes are present, that just shows you his apathy for that release. I can understand why the ZFT would want to glide over it…

    It is a shame though, as I always thought AF had more in common with LG than WOIIFTM…

    And as far as comparing the rarity of the 80′s twofer with the original monos… yeah, you’re right, if it were so black and white. Though, the 80′s remix is not nearly as rare or as susceptible to degradation as the Verve pressings. For those who would want it, it can be found easily but a bit more pricey.

  56. urbangraffito says:

    A quote from Steve:

    The remix is like a concert version by a guy who is ignoring the lyrics and concentrating on the music. Note how the voices are backgrounded. Notice how the sound is wider and fuller. The beats tend to be more rolling, not driven. The texture is fat, not lean and mean. The remix is about the music, not the words. I respect that. But it never should have been marketed under the same title. It is THAT different.

    A quote from Michael Pierry:

    I don’t really agree about the vocals. They are front and center throughout in the ’84 remix just as much as in the original. There’s a heaping helping of digital reverb all over them, but they’re not what I’d call “backgrounded” at all.

    Steve and Michael Pierry, I think you are both right, but for different reasons. Given that I am biased towards the original version, for it’s consistency of sound and overall effect as an album (I am also partial to Jimmy Carl Black’s drumming and Roy Estrada’s bass) as a piece of audio history — I do understand how one can view the 1984 remix as an almost completely different album from the original. Does any 1980s music belong on what is essentially a classic 60s album? Imagine this being done to Big Brother and the Holding Company? Jefferson Airplane? The Doors? The Grateful Dead? Or perhaps even a remixed Trout Mask Replica by Captain Beefheart? These are classic 60 groups with classic albums. Would fans sit still for them being remixed and sold under the same titles? I think not. But, of course, Zappa thought he knew better. I’ve always wondered, though, if made available, side by side, both the original and the remixes, which ones would the fan’s ultimately choose?

  57. Steve says:

    I listened to the remix on my car stereo while driving home in my Lincoln. :-) The sound from the re-mix, to me, seemed to overpower the vocals, even, in some cases overpowering the attack of the voices. But different people, different tastes.

    I think FZ was looking at it as his composition, and he could do whatever he wanted. I think it was a mistake to sell this as “Money” when it more like “Money (Slight Return)”. But I think both versions — three versions, including the mono about which more in a second — have their merits. I do think the new remix is more “musical”, that is, there’s more going on musically and there’s obviously more of an attempt at getting a more blended, fat kind of ’80′s sound. On that score, it’s a pleasant experience. And I can understand the guy who liked that version, his first, more, since ’60′s music _does_ sound a little thin compared to the ’80′s.

    HOWEVER, it is precisely that opulence in sound that detracts from the satiric bite. I could imagine someone putting together a satirical revue of the ’60′s fifteen or twenty years later. Or even today. But to pull it off you need that sixties sound, which was thinner, more garage band in character. All the intricate bass and drum lines in the new mix, plus all the remixed or pulled out sounds blunt the satiric bite, or so it seems to me.

    As to the mono mix, I agree with the fellow who found it clean and bright. Doing a mono mix of a complex piece to bring out the balance and the voices is HARD, and this is very pleasing in its own right. But here again, it’s also BEAUTIFUL, something I don’t normally think of when I think of “Money.”

    Finally, yes, I would love to have a release of AF with the dubs, especially the multi-layered dubs in “America Drinks and Goes Home”.

  58. vince says:

    A quote from Michael Pierry:

    I have to say that in my case, at least, he was completely right. I first started listening to FZ when I was 12 and at that age I distinctly remember hating the sound of any recording from the 60′s. It was a visceral reaction – the sound of anything on Freak Out and Absolutely Free in particular repulsed me.

    Quite the opposite for me! I first heard “LG”, “Money” & “Mothermania” when I was 17, thanks to the Hofstra radio collection, back in ’85!
    Too me, the sound WAS the ’60′s, but I thought I could almost SMELL the past!
    Then again, I wasn’t listen to ‘em on the best stereo system.

  59. vince says:

    Oh, and MAN! That Disc 3 really KICKS ASS!!!!
    I guess the “Mothermania” version are NOT on here, ‘coz they’re actually gonna release it?????

  60. urbangraffito says:

    A quote from vince:

    A quote from Michael Pierry:

    I have to say that in my case, at least, he was completely right. I first started listening to FZ when I was 12 and at that age I distinctly remember hating the sound of any recording from the 60′s. It was a visceral reaction – the sound of anything on Freak Out and Absolutely Free in particular repulsed me.

    Quite the opposite for me! I first heard “LG”, “Money” & “Mothermania” when I was 17, thanks to the Hofstra radio collection, back in ’85!
    Too me, the sound WAS the ’60′s, but I thought I could almost SMELL the past!
    Then again, I wasn’t listen to ‘em on the best stereo system.

    I’m entirely in agreement with you, vince. I absolutely loved the sound of those early MOI albums when I first heard them. It was exactly their “60’s sound” that made them so endearing, warts and all. I mean, what made the satire in WOIIFTM so biting, was that is was a contemporary 60s band satirizing it’s own time as well as their contemporaries.

    I find it difficult to understand how someone can have a “visceral reaction” to the music of other musical eras (like the 60s, for instance). Do you have the same “visceral reaction” Michael Pierry when you listen to Zappa’s beloved doo wop? Or what about axemen like Johnny “Guitar” Watson and Clarence “Gatemouth” Brown who emerged from the 50s and so inspired Zappa’s own guitar playing? There is so much great music to be heard from all eras and genres. If you start pruning your musical tastes in that manner, what kind of musical landscape (or library) have you got? Just a suggestion to keep an open mind. You’ll be surprised what kind of “visceral reaction” you’ll have then…

  61. terje says:

    i enjoy discs 1 and 3 a lot. disc 2 i can live without. especially the repeat of woiiftm from the original ryko issue. the remixed lumpy gravy doesn’t do much for me either.

    highlights:
    orchestral lumpy gravy
    track 1 of disc 3

    overall, i think it is a quality release but $40 would have been a better price.

    A quote from jane23:

    Why would anyone want a mono version of anything???

    i am not a person who believes that a stereo mix is always better than the mono. i think the woiiftm mono mix sounds pretty good.

  62. Empire Hancock says:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    I find it difficult to understand how someone can have a “visceral reaction” to the music of other musical eras (like the 60s, for instance).

    Or 1980s bass and drums ;) ;) ;)

  63. urbangraffito says:

    A quote from Empire Hancock:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    I find it difficult to understand how someone can have a “visceral reaction” to the music of other musical eras (like the 60s, for instance).

    Or 1980s bass and drums ;) ;) ;)

    Your oblique point being? There is somewhat of a difference between cringing at the sound of 80s bass and drums on a 60s album, and having a “visceral reaction” to the sound of an entire musical era.

  64. Michael Pierry says:

    A quote from Michael Pierry:

    I find it difficult to understand how someone can have a “visceral reaction” to the music of other musical eras (like the 60s, for instance).

    To be clear, it was the sound of the recording that I was reacting to, not the music itself. And this was 17 years ago. It’s not like I feel that way now – I completely *love* the sound of those recordings now.

  65. Paul Sempschi says:

    Has anyone tried combining the remixes with Civilization Phaze 3? Which juxtaposes better? The original stereo mixes or the 80′s job? I was going through the subway today and pumped out both discs on my little rectangle, passing through the terminals gives that music a new feeling… interestingly enough the dialogue struck me harder than the music (while looking at the strangers sitting on the train).

  66. urbangraffito says:

    A quote from Michael Pierry:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    I find it difficult to understand how someone can have a “visceral reaction” to the music of other musical eras (like the 60s, for instance).

    To be clear, it was the sound of the recording that I was reacting to, not the music itself. And this was 17 years ago. It’s not like I feel that way now – I completely *love* the sound of those recordings now.

    Exactly how did your “visceral reaction” to the sound of anything on Freak Out and Absolutely Free in particular repulsing you 17 years ago transform into “complete love” now (if you don’t mind my asking)? I find such a transformation quite intriguing.

  67. vince says:

    So, if the track “Theme From Lumpy Gravy” was recorded at Studio Z, what was it’s original title? AND, was the ‘surf-version’ of “Take Your Chothes Off..” also a Studio Z track?

  68. brett says:

    A quote from vince:

    So, if the track “Theme From Lumpy Gravy” was recorded at Studio Z, what was it’s original title? AND, was the ‘surf-version’ of “Take Your Chothes Off..” also a Studio Z track?

    I believe Zappa said that it was originally the main theme to “Captain Beefheart and the Grunt People.”

  69. Michael Pierry says:

    A quote from Michael Pierry:

    Exactly how did your “visceral reaction” to the sound of anything on Freak Out and Absolutely Free in particular repulsing you 17 years ago transform into “complete love” now (if you don’t mind my asking)? I find such a transformation quite intriguing.

    Are you just egging me on or are you actually interested? I’ll go with the latter. I think it’s just a normal process of growing up, at least it was “normal” for me. I couldn’t count the number of things I used to be grossed out by or bored by or annoyed by, etc. that I now think are good/great/fantastic. Here’s a short list: 1. black & white films, 2. green and red peppers, 3. sushi, 4. jazz, 5. Beethoven, 6. grunge, 7. hip-hop. Over the years I’ve discovered that my gut-level reaction to things is often just a fear of the unknown, so I’ve learned to give stuff a chance to grow on me. I think children generally crave the familiar and comforting – growing up is at least partly about facing fears and trying new things, isn’t it? Cheesy as that sounds…

  70. Rob says:

    Disc 3 is the repeat mode! I’m still floored by “How did that get in There?” FZ mentions that Absolutely Free was delayed due to the cover– Anybody know why?

  71. Steve says:

    FWIW, when I started listening to classical, many years ago, I was totally unable to handle mono. Had to do with my two disabilities: attempting to get used to the timbre of classical music on the one hand, and differentiating among the voices, both instrumental and vocal. I can well understand s.o. from the ’80′s having a problem with ’60′s stuff at first acquaintance. What I do have a problem with is people who never learn to love B&W films. It’s amazing how many people will just turn off when you want to want watch a B&W classic, like, say, “Run Home Slow.”

  72. jane23 says:

    A quote from jane23:

    FZ mentions that Absolutely Free was delayed due to the cover– Anybody know why?

    onlyinitforthemoney was delayed because of the cover because of the sgt pepper parody that’s why it was released inside out

  73. jane23 says:

    Some movies are flimed in black and White.
    The opening footage for Run Home Slow was filmed in Black.

  74. Michael Pierry says:

    A quote from Michael Pierry:

    What I do have a problem with is people who never learn to love B&W films. It’s amazing how many people will just turn off when you want to want watch a B&W classic, like, say, “Run Home Slow.”

    I think it might have been the Marx Bros. films that were my gateway into B&W appreciation. And then Hitchcock a little while later. And then, eventually, Seven Samurai was my gateway into long, foreign films with subtitles.

  75. tim says:

    A quote from tim:

    FZ mentions that Absolutely Free was delayed due to the cover– Anybody know why?

    you got the big face, the collage & then the cartoon/illustration w/ the lttle blurbs. right along the edge of the flag you can just make out “war means work for all”. originally in bold black. that was the controversy. solved by putting it in half tone. i.e. making it gray. that’s what i read somewhere. sounds crazy right? remember, those were times when a guy like barack obama couldn’t even drink from a water fountain in some cities!

  76. abe says:

    tim, i don’t see it. but i do only have the cd. it might be too small. i thought it had to do with the collage because of the “666″ “drop out High School” “move your goods with patriotic sell friendly local draft board.” though all that was left on. wonder what else was left out. would love to see an unedited copy of the collage.

  77. urbangraffito says:

    A quote from Michael Pierry:

    A quote from urbangraffito:

    Exactly how did your “visceral reaction” to the sound of anything on Freak Out and Absolutely Free in particular repulsing you 17 years ago transform into “complete love” now (if you don’t mind my asking)? I find such a transformation quite intriguing.

    Are you just egging me on or are you actually interested? I’ll go with the latter. I think it’s just a normal process of growing up, at least it was “normal” for me. I couldn’t count the number of things I used to be grossed out by or bored by or annoyed by, etc. that I now think are good/great/fantastic. Here’s a short list: 1. black & white films, 2. green and red peppers, 3. sushi, 4. jazz, 5. Beethoven, 6. grunge, 7. hip-hop. Over the years I’ve discovered that my gut-level reaction to things is often just a fear of the unknown, so I’ve learned to give stuff a chance to grow on me. I think children generally crave the familiar and comforting – growing up is at least partly about facing fears and trying new things, isn’t it? Cheesy as that sounds…

    No, I’m not just egging you on. I’m actually interested. Like anyone else, I had my own peculiar reactions to things when I was younger (for instance, country, roots and classical music were very hard sells to my young ears more in tune to more familiar sounds). It took a while for me to learn not to always trust these first impressions (of food, of music, of people) and try new things (Zappa was definitely a great help in that department – one never knew what one would hear from album to album): the world too complex to fall so easily into black and white categories. Now while I love the original mixes of early MOI albums, these other versions are just as valid. If I got anything from listening to FZ for all these years, it’s that variation and diversity should be applauded and celebrated, not frowned upon, yes?

  78. tim says:

    A quote from tim:

    tim, i don’t see it. but i do only have the cd. it might be too small. i thought it had to do with the collage because of the “666″ “drop out High School” “move your goods with patriotic sell friendly local draft board.” though all that was left on. wonder what else was left out. would love to see an unedited copy of the collage.

    right, everything else left on! beleive me as a 13 year old kid who bought the album when it came out, that particular line (visible on the album cover, i could barely make it out on the cd cover & only because i knew it was there) was the last one i was worried about. i had to get the libretto so i could read all the words, even the little sneaky ones

  79. Rob says:

    Thanks, Tim! I checked out my old vinyl copy & had forgotten about all stuff at the bottom of the cover. It’s pretty amazing what was sometimes allowed and sometimes not on 60′s album covers. Take Blind Faith for example…

  80. ton says:

    A quote from ton:

    It’s pretty amazing what was sometimes allowed and sometimes not on 60’s album covers. Take Blind Faith for example…

    Indeed. While these days, in our Free World, cigarettes are photoshopped out of the picture on CD-re-releases of Wings and others.

  81. Michael Pabst says:

    I still don’t believe the stories about WOIIFTM and censorship. I think it was a marketing trick. Frank was good at that.

    M.

  82. ton says:

    A quote from ton:

    I still don’t believe the stories about WOIIFTM and censorship. I think it was a marketing trick. Frank was good at that.

    It’s definitely true. The original vynil release had some nasty cuts that were definitely not executed by Frank. That version has never been released on CD, though. Here in Holland FZ was awarded an award for the album, which he refused to accept as he felt it was not HIS album anymore (an act that is of course, apart from right as he was rightfully upset by the cuts, a clever marketing issue, because it meant more press coverage than when he would have accepted it).

    Having grown up with the censored version which I knew by heart it took me quite some listening sessions to go along with the complete version once it appeared on CD – it kept surprising me. Strange how these things seem to nail themselved down in your brain :O)

  83. jane23 says:

    listening
    the phoney drums and remix of the 84? woiiftm
    just as horrible as i remeber it
    and only in it for the money was always one of my favorite albums.
    678-9866
    same are code?
    is that vicki
    if he didn’t get you in laurel canyon he won’t get you here.

  84. charabel says:

    Lumpy Gravy,version 09 – from 3cd-set Lumpy Money take from cd1 tracks 1-9,add from cd3 tracks 1,3-6,8-11 – burn this on cd and you got 61min. absolutely wonderful a strong music – Lumpy Gravy v09.Enjoy it !!!

  85. vince says:

    A quote from jane23:

    listening
    the phoney drums and remix of the 84? woiiftm
    just as horrible as i remeber it
    and only in it for the money was always one of my favorite albums.
    678-9866
    same are code?
    is that vicki
    if he didn’t get you in laurel canyon he won’t get you here.

    Is Pamela Z. still alive?

Comments for this entry have been closed.