"Congress Shall Make No Law . . . "

These are my personal observations and opinions. I speak on behalf of no group or professional organization.

These are my personal observations and opinions. I speak on behalf of no group or professional organization.

The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children and promises to keep the courts busy for years, dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal's design.

The PMRC proposal is an ill-conceived piece of nonsense which fails to deliver any real benefits to children, infringes the civil liberties of people who are not children, and promises to keep the courts busy for years dealing with the interpretational and enforcemental problems inherent in the proposal's design.

It is my understanding that, in law, First Amendment issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC's demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.

It's my understanding that in law First Amendment issues are decided with a preference for the least restrictive alternative. In this context, the PMRC demands are the equivalent of treating dandruff by decapitation.

No one has forced Mrs. Baker or Mrs. Gore to bring Prince or Sheena Easton into their homes. Thanks to the Constitution, they are free to buy other forms of music for their children. Apparently they insist on purchasing the works of contemporary recording artists in order to support a personal illusion of aerobic sophistication. Ladies, please be advised: the $8.98 purchase price does not entitle you to a kiss on the foot from the composer or performer in exchange for a spin on the family Victrola.

Taken as a whole, the complete list of PMRC demands reads like an instruction manual for some sinister kind of 'toilet training program' to housebreak ALL composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few. Ladies, how dare you?

No one has forced Mrs. Baker or Mrs. Gore to bring Prince or Sheena Easton into their homes. Thanks to the Constitution, they are free to buy other forms of music for their children. Apparently, they insist on purchasing the works of contemporary recording artists in order to support a personal illusion of aerobic sophistication. Ladies, please be advised: The $8.98 purchase price does not entitle you to a kiss on the foot from the composer or performer in exchange for a spin on the family Victrola.

Taken as a whole, the complete list of PMRC demands reads like an instruction manual for some sinister kind of toilet training program to house-break all composers and performers because of the lyrics of a few. Ladies, how dare you?

The ladies' shame must be shared by the bosses at the major labels who, through the RIAA, chose to bargain away the rights of composers, performers, and retailers in order to pass H.R. 2911, the blank tape tax: A PRIVATE TAX, LEVIED BY AN INDUSTRY ON CONSUMERS, FOR THE BENEFIT OF A SELECT GROUP WITHIN THAT INDUSTRY.

Is this a 'consumer issue'? You bet it is. PMRC spokesperson Kandy Stroud announced to millions of fascinated viewers on last Friday's ABC Nightline debate that Senator Gore, a man she described as "a friend of the music industry," is co-sponsor of something she referred to as 'anti-piracy legislation.' Is this the same tax bill with a nicer name?

The major record labels need to have H.R. 2911 whiz through a few committees before anybody smells a rat. One of them is chaired by Senator Thurmond. Is it a coincidence that Mrs. Thurmond is affiliated with the PMRC? I can't say she's a member, because the PMRC HAS NO MEMBERS. Their secretary told me on the phone last Friday that the PMRC has NO MEMBERS . . . only FOUNDERS. I asked how many other D.C. wives are NONMEMBERS of an organization that raises money by mail, has a tax-exempt status, and seems intent on running the Constitution of the United States through the family paper-shredder. I asked her if it was a cult. Finally, she said she couldn't give me an answer and that she had to call their lawyer.

While the wife of the Secretary of the Treasury recites "Gonna drive my love inside you . . .," and Senator Gore's wife talks about "BONDAGE!" and "Oral sex at gunpoint" on The CBS Evening News, people in high places work on a tax bill that is so ridiculous, the only way to sneak it through is to keep the public's mind on something else: 'PORN ROCK.'

The PMRC practices a curious double standard with these fervent recitations. Thanks to them, helpless young children all over America get to hear about oral sex at gunpoint on network TV several nights a week. Is there a secret FCC dispensation here? What sort of end justifies THESE means? PTA parents should keep an eye on these ladies if that's their idea of 'good taste.'

Is the basic issue morality? Is it mental health? Is it an issue at all? The PMRC has created a lot of confusion with improper comparisons between song lyrics, videos, record packaging, radio broadcasting and live performances. These are all different mediums, and the people who work in them have a right to conduct their business without trade-restraining legislation, whipped up like an instant pudding by The Wives Of Big Brother.

Is it proper that the husband of a PMRC NON-MEMBER/FOUNDER/PERSON sits on any committee considering business pertaining to the blank tape tax or his wife's lobbying organization? Can any committee thus constituted 'find facts' in a fair and unbiased manner? This committee has three. A minor conflict of interest?

The PMRC promotes their program as a harmless type of consumer information service, providing 'guidelines' which will assist baffled parents in the determination of the 'suitability' of records listened to by 'very young children.' The methods they propose have several unfortunate side effects, not the least of which is the reduction of all American music, recorded and live, to the intellectual level of a Saturday morning cartoon show.

Teenagers with $8.98 in their pocket might go into a record store alone, but 'very young children' do not. Usually there is a parent in attendance. The $8.98 is in the parent's pocket. The parent can always suggest that the $8.98 be spent on a book.

If the parent is afraid to let the child read a book, perhaps the $8.98 can be spent on recordings of instrumental music. Why not bring jazz or classical music into your home instead of Blackie Lawless or Madonna? Great music with NO WORDS AT ALL is available to anyone with sense enough to look beyond this week's platinum-selling fashion plate.

Children in the 'vulnerable' age bracket have a natural love for music. If, as a parent, you believe they should be exposed to something more uplifting than "SUGAR WALLS," support Music Appreciation programs in schools. Why haven't you considered YOUR CHILD'S NEED FOR CONSUMER INFORMATION? Music Appreciation costs very little compared to sports expenditures. Your children have a right to know that something besides pop music exists.

It is unfortunate that the PMRC would rather dispense governmentally sanitized heavy metal music than something more 'uplifting.' Is this an indication of PMRC's personal taste, or just another manifestation of the low priority this administration has placed on education for the arts in America? The answer, of course, is NEITHER. You can't distract people from thinking about an unfair tax by talking about Music Appreciation. For that you need SEX . . . and LOTS OF IT.

Because of the subjective nature of the PMRC ratings, it is impossible to guarantee that some sort of 'despised concept' won't sneak through, tucked away in new slang or the overstressed pronunciation of an otherwise innocent word. If the goal here is TOTAL VERBAL/MORAL SAFETY, there is only one way to achieve it: watch no TV, read no books, see no movies, listen to only instrumental music or buy no music at all.

The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of Moral Quality Control Programs based on 'Things Certain Christians Don't Like.' What if the next bunch of Washington Wives demands a large yellow 'J' on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to 'concealed Zionist doctrine'?

Record ratings are frequently compared to film ratings. Apart from the quantitative difference, there is another that is more important: People who act in films are hired to 'pretend.' No matter how the film is rated, it won't hurt them personally. Since many musicians write and perform their own material and stand by it as their art (whether you like it or not), an imposed rating will stigmatize them as INDIVIDUALS. How long before composers and performers are told to wear a festive little PMRC ARMBAND with their Scarlet Letter on it?

The PMRC rating system restrains trade in one specific musical field: rock. No ratings have been requested for comedy records or country music. Is there anyone in the PMRC who can differentiate INFALLIBLY between rock and country music? Artists in both fields cross stylistic lines. Some artists include comedy material. If an album is part rock, part country, part comedy, what sort of label would it get? Shouldn't the ladies be warning everyone that inside those country albums with the American flags, the big trucks and the atomic pompadours there lurks a fascinating variety of songs about sex, violence, alcohol and THE DEVIL, recorded in a way that lets you hear EVERY WORD, sung for you by people who have been to prison and are PROUD OF IT?

If enacted, the PMRC program would have the effect of protectionist legislation for the country music industry, providing more security for cowboys than it does for children. One major retail outlet has already informed the Capitol Records sales staff that it would not purchase or display an album with ANY KIND OF STICKER ON IT.

Another chain with outlets in shopping malls has been told by the landlord that if it racked 'hard-rated albums' they would lose their lease. That opens up an awful lot of shelf space for somebody. Could it be that a certain Senatorial husband-and-wife team from Tennessee sees this as an 'affirmative action program' to benefit the suffering multitudes in Nashville?

Is the PMRC attempting to save future generations from SEX ITSELF? The type, the amount and the timing of sexual information given to a child should be determined by parents, not by people who are involved in a tax scheme cover-up.

The PMRC has concocted a Mythical Beast, and compounds the chicanery by demanding 'consumer guidelines' to keep it from inviting your children inside its SUGAR WALLS. Is the next step the adoption of a 'PMRC National Legal Age For COMPREHENSION Of Vaginal Arousal'? Many people in this room would gladly support such legislation, but, before they start drafting their bill, I urge them to consider these facts:

[1] There is no conclusive scientific evidence to support the claim that exposure to any form of music will cause the listener to commit a crime or damn his soul to hell.

[2] Masturbation is not illegal. If it is not illegal to do it, why should it be illegal to sing about it?

[3] No medical evidence of hairy palms, warts, or blindness has been linked to masturbation or vaginal arousal, nor has it been proven that hearing references to either topic automatically turns the listener into a social liability.

[4] Enforcement of antimasturbatory legislation could prove costly and time-consuming.

[5] There is not enough prison space to hold all the children who do it.

The PMRC's proposal is most offensive in its 'moral tone.' It seeks to enforce a set of implied religious values on its victims. Iran has a religious government. Good for them. I like having the capitol of the United States in Washington, D.C., in spite of recent efforts to move it to Lynchburg, Virginia.

Fundamentalism is not a state religion. The PMRC's request for labels regarding sexually explicit lyrics, violence, drugs, alcohol, and especially OCCULT CONTENT reads like a catalog of phenomena abhorrent to practitioners of that faith. How a person worships is a private matter, and should not be INFLICTED UPON or EXPLOITED BY others. Understanding the fundamentalist leanings of this organization, I think it is fair to wonder if their rating system will eventually be extended to inform parents as to whether a musical group has homosexuals in it. Will the PMRC permit musical groups to exist, but only if gay members don't sing, and are not depicted on the album cover?

The PMRC has demanded that record companies 'reevaluate' the contracts of those groups who do things on stage that THEY find offensive. I remind the PMRC that GROUPS are comprised of INDIVIDUALS. If one guy wiggles too much, does the whole band get an 'X'? If the group gets dropped from the label as a result of this 'reevaluation' process, do the other guys in the group who weren't wiggling get to sue the guy who wiggled because he ruined their careers? Do the FOUNDERS of this TAX-EXEMPT ORGANIZATION WITH NO MEMBERS plan to indemnify record companies for any losses incurred from unfavorably decided breach-of-contract suits, or is there a PMRC secret agent in the Justice Department?

Should individual musicians be rated? If so, who is qualified to determine if the GUITAR PLAYER is an 'X,' the VOCALIST is a 'D/A,' or the DRUMMER is a 'V'? If the BASS PLAYER (or his senator) belongs to a religious group that dances around with poisonous snakes, does he get an 'O'? What if he has an earring in one ear, wears an Italian horn around his neck, sings about his astrological sign, practices yoga, reads the Quaballah or owns a rosary? Will his 'occult content' rating go into an old CoIntelPro computer, emerging later as a 'FACT,' to determine if he qualifies for a homeowner loan? Will they tell you this is necessary to protect the folks next door from the possibility of 'devil-worship' lyrics creeping through the wall?

What hazards await the unfortunate retailer who accidentally sells an 'O' rated record to somebody's little Johnny? Nobody in Washington seemed to care when Christian terrorists bombed abortion clinics in the name of Jesus. Will you care when the 'FRIENDS OF THE WIVES OF BIG BROTHER' blow up the shopping mall?

The PMRC wants ratings to start as of the date of their enactment. That leaves the current crop of 'objectionable material' untouched. What will be the status of recordings from the Golden Era prior to censorship? Do they become collector's items . . . or will another 'fair and unbiased committee' order them destroyed in a public ceremony?

Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are, in my opinion, more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality. Freedom of speech, freedom of religious thought, and the right to due process for composers, performers and retailers are imperiled if the PMRC and the major labels consummate this nasty bargain. Are we expected to give up Article One so the big guys can collect an extra dollar on every blank tape and ten to twenty-five percent on tape recorders? What's going on here? Do WE get to vote on this tax? There's an awful lot of smoke pouring out of the legislative machinery used by the PMRC to inflate this issue. Try not to inhale it. Those responsible for the vandalism should pay for the damage by VOLUNTARILY RATING THEMSELVES. If they refuse, perhaps the voters could assist in awarding the Congressional 'X,' the Congressional 'D/A,' the Congressional 'V,' and the Congressional 'O.' Just like the ladies say: these ratings are necessary to protect our children. I hope it's not too late to put them where they REALLY belong.

The ladies' shame must be shared by the bosses at the major labels who, through the RIAA, chose to bargain away the rights of composers, performers, and retailers in order to pass H.R. 2911, The Blank Tape Tax, a private tax levied by an industry on consumers for the benefit of a select group within that industry.

Is this a consumer issue? You bet it is. The major record labels need to have H.R. 2911 whiz through a few committees before anybody smells a rat. One of them is chaired by Senator Thurmond. Is it a coincidence that Mrs. Thurmond is affiliated with the PMRC?

I can't say she's a member, because the PMRC has no members. Their secretary told me on the phone last Friday that the PMRC has no members, only founders. I asked how many other D.C. wives are nonmembers of an organization that raises money by mail, has a tax-exempt status, and seems intent on running the Constitution of the United States through the family paper-shredder. I asked her if it was a cult. Finally, she said she couldn't give me an answer and that she had to call their lawyer.

While the wife of the Secretary of the Treasury recites, "Gonna drive my love inside you" and Senator Gore's wife talks about "bondage" and "oral sex at gunpoint" on the CBS Evening News, people in high places work on a tax bill that is so ridiculous, the only way to sneak it through is to keep the public's mind on something else: Porn Rock.

Is the basic issue morality? Is it mental health? Is it an issue at all? The PMRC has created a lot of confusion with improper comparisons between song lyrics, videos, record packaging, radio broadcasting, and live performances. These are all different mediums and the people who work in them have the right to conduct their business without trade-restraining legislation, whipped up like an instant pudding by "The wives of Big Brother."

Is it proper that the husband of a PMRC nonmember/founder/person sits on any committee considering business pertaining to the blank tape tax or his wife's lobbying organization? Can any committee thus constituted find facts in a fair and unbiased manner? This committee has three that we know about: Senator Danforth, Senator Packwood, and Senator Gore. For some reason, they seem to feel there is no conflict of interest involved.

Children in the vulnerable age bracket have a natural love for music. If as a parent you believe they should be exposed to something more uplifting than "Sugar Walls," support music appreciation programs in schools. Why haven't you considered your child's need for consumer information? Music appreciation costs very little compared to sports expenditures. Your children have a right to know that something besides pop music exists.

lt is unfortunate that the PMRC would rather dispense governmentally sanitized heavy metal music than something more uplifting. Is this an indication of PMRC's personal taste or just another manifestation of the low priority this administration has placed on education for the arts in America?

The answer, of course, is neither. You can't distract people from thinking about an unfair tax by talking about music appreciation. For that you need sex, and lots of it.

The establishment of a rating system, voluntary or otherwise, opens the door to an endless parade of moral quality control programs based on things certain Christians don't like. What if the next bunch of Washington wives demands a large yellow "J" on all material written or performed by Jews, in order to save helpless children from exposure to concealed Zionist doctrine?

Record ratings are frequently compared to film ratings. Apart from the quantitative difference, there is another that is more important: People who act in films are hired to pretend. No matter how the film is rated, it won't hurt them personally.

Since many musicians write and perform their own material and stand by it as their art, whether you like it or not, an imposed rating will stigmatize them as individuals. How long before composers and performers are told to wear a festive little PMRC arm band with their scarlet letter on it?

Bad facts make bad law, and people who write bad laws are in my opinion more dangerous than songwriters who celebrate sexuality. Freedom of speech, freedom of religious thought, and the right to due process for composers, performers and retailers are imperiled if the PMRC and the major labels consummate this nasty bargain.

Are we expected to give up article 1 so the big guys can collect an extra dollar on every blank tape and 10 to 25 percent on tape recorders? What is going on here? Do we get to vote on this tax?

I think that this whole matter has gotten completely blown out of proportion, and I agree with Senator Exon that there is a very dubious reason for having this event. And I also agree with Senator Exon that you shouldn't be wasting time on stuff like this, because from the beginning I have sensed that it is somebody's hobby project.

Now, I've done a number of interviews on television and people keep saying, "Can't you take a few steps in their direction, can't you sympathize, can't you empathize?" I do more than that at this point. I've got an idea for a way to stop all this stuff and a way to give parents what they really want, which is information, accurate information as to what is inside the album, without providing a stigma for the musicians who have played on the album or the people who sing it or the people who wrote it. And I think that if you listen carefully to this idea that it might just get by all of the constitutional problems and everything else. As far as I am concerned.

I have no objection to having all of the lyrics placed on the album routinely, all the time. But there is a little problem. Record companies do not own the right automatically to take these lyrics, because they're owned by publishing companies.

So, just as all the rest of the PMRC proposals would cost money, this would cost money too, because the record companies would need—they shouldn't be forced to bear the cost, the extra expenditure to the publisher, to print those lyrics.

If you consider that the public needs to be warned about the contents of the records, what better way than to let them see exactly what the songs say? That way you don't have to put any kind of subjective rating on the record. You don't have to call it R, X, D/A, anything. You can read it for yourself.

But in order for it to work properly, the lyrics should be on a uniform kind of a sheet. Maybe even the Government could print those sheets. Maybe it should even be paid for by the Government, if the Government is interested in making sure that people have consumer information in this regard.

And you also have to realize that if a person buys the record and takes it out of the store, once it is out of the store you can't return it if you read the lyrics at home and decide that little Johnny is not supposed to have it.

I think that that should at least be considered, and the idea of imposing these ratings on live concerts, on the albums, asking record companies to reevaluate or drop or violate contracts that they already have with artists should be thrown out.

That's it all. That's what I have to say.

Chairman:

Thank you very much, Mr. Zappa. You understand that the previous witnesses were not asking for legislation. And I don't know, I can't speak for Senator Hollings, but I think the prevailing view here is that nobody is asking for legislation.

The question is just focusing on what a lot of people perceive to be a problem, and you have indicated that you at least understand that there is another point of view.

FZ:

Yeah, I do understand . . .

Chairman:

But there are people that think that parents should have some knowledge of what goes into their home.

FZ:

All along my objection has been with the tactics used by these people in order to achieve the goal. I just think the tactics have been really bad, and the whole premise of their proposal—they were badly advised in terms of record business law, they were badly advised in terms of practicality, or they would have known that certain things don't work mechanically with what they suggest.

Chairman:

Senator Gore.

Senator Gore:

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

I found your statement very interesting and, let me say although I disagree with some of the statements that you make and have made on other occasions, I have been a fan of your music, believe it or not, and I respect you as a true original and a tremendously talented musician.

Your suggestion on printing the lyrics on the album is a very interesting one. Because the PMRC at one point said they would propose either a rating or warning, or printing all the lyrics on the album. The record companies came back and said that they didn't want to do that.

But I think an awful lot of people agree with your suggestion that one easy way to solve this problem for parents would be to put the actual words there, so that parents could see them. In fact, the National Association of Broadcasters made exactly the same request of the record companies.

So I think your suggestion is an intriguing one and might really be a solution for the problem.

FZ:

But the problem— Well, you just have to understand that it does cost money, because you can't expect publishers to automatically give up that right, which is a money earning right for them. Somebody is going to have to reimburse the publishers, the record industry is going to— Without trying to mess up the album jacket art, and impose that lyrics only be printed on the back, it should be a sheet of paper that is slipped inside the shrink-wrap, that when you take it out you can still have a complete album package. So there is going to be some extra cost for printing it.

But as long as people realize that for this kind of consumer safety you're gonna spend some money and as long as you can find a way to pay for it, I think that would be the best way to let people know.

Senator Gore:

I do not disagree with that at all. And the separate sheet would also solve the problem with the cassettes as well, because you do not have the space for words on the cassette packs.

FZ:

Well, there would have to be a little accordion-fold in there.

Senator Gore:

Yeah. Something like that. And— Or just fold it. But, but a very large percentage of the albums that are sold are sold in cassette form.

I've listened to you a number of times on this issue, and I guess the question that I really want to get from you is, or the statement that I want to get from you is whether or not you feel that the concern is legitimate.

Because, occasionally you feel very strongly about your position, and I understand that. Very articulate and forceful.

But occasionally you give the impression that you think parents are just silly to be concerned at all.

FZ:

That's not an accurate impression.

Senator Gore:

Well, please clarify it, then.

FZ:

First of all, I think it is the parents' concern; it is not the Government's concern.

Senator Gore:

And they agree with you on that.

FZ:

Well, that doesn't come across in the way they have been speaking. The whole drift that I have gotten, based upon the media blitz that has attended the PMRC and its rise to infamy, is that they have a special plan, and it has smelled like legislation up until now.

There are too many things that look like hidden agendas involved with this. And I am a parent. I have got four children. Two of them are here. I want them to grow up in a country where they can think what they want to think, be what they want to be, and not what somebody's wife or somebody in Government makes them be.

I don't wanna have that and I don't think you do either.

Senator Gore:

OK. But now you're back on the, you're back on the other issue. Let me just say briefly on that that they say repeatedly no legislation, no regulation, no Government action. It certainly sounded pretty clear to me.

And as far as a hidden agenda, you know, I don't see one, hear one, or know of one.

FZ:

OK, let me tell you why I have drawn these conclusions. First of all, they may say, "We are not interested in legislation." But there are others who do, and because of their project bad things have happened in this country in the industry.

I believe there is actually some liability. Look at this. You have a situation where, even if you go for the lyric printed thing in the record, because of the tendency among Americans to be copycats—one guy commits a murder, you get a copycat murder—now you've got copycat censors.

You get a very bad situation in San Antonio, Texas, right now where they are trying to pass PMRC-type individual ratings and attach them to live concerts, with the mayor down there trying to make a national reputation by putting San Antonio on the map as the first city in the United States to have these regulations, against the suggestion of the city attorney, who says, "I don't think this is constitutional."

But you know, there is this fervor to get in and do even more, even more.

And the other thing, the PMRC starts off talking about lyrics, but when they take it over into other realms they start talking about the videos. In fact, you misspoke yourself at the beginning in your introduction when you were talking about the music does this, the music does that. There is a distinct difference between those notes and chords and the basseline and the rhythm that support the words and the lyrics.

I do not know whether you really are talking about controlling the type of music that gets heard.

So specifically we're talking about lyrics. It began with lyrics. But even looking at the PMRC fundraising letter, in the last paragraph at the bottom of the page it starts looking like it is branching into other areas, when it says: "We realize that this material has pervaded other aspects of society." And it is like what, you are going to fix it all for me?

Senator Gore:

No, I think what they're— I mean, I think they're acknowledging some of the statements by some of their critics who say: "Well, why single out the music industry."

But if I can have just a— have a minute more, Mr. Chairman . . . Before we got back into that, you were saying, yes, you do believe that there is a legitimate concern.

FZ:

But the legitimate concern is a matter of taste for the individual parent and how much sexual information that parent wants to give their child, at what age, at what time, in what quantity, OK. And I think that, because there is a tendency in the United States to hide sex, which I think is an unhealthy thing to do, and many parents do not give their children good sexual education, in spite of the fact that little books for kids are available, and other parents demand that sexual education be taken out of school, it makes the child vulnerable, because if you don't have something rational to compare it to when you see or hear about something that is aberrated you do not perceive it as an aberration. OK?

Senator Gore:

OK, I've run out of time. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman:

Senator Rockefeller.

Senator Gorton.

Senator Gorton:

Mr. Zappa, I am astounded at the courtesy and soft-voiced nature of the comments of my friend, the Senator from Tennessee. I can only say that I found your statement to be boorish, incredibly and insensitively insulting to the people that were here previously; that you could manage to give the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States a bad name, if I felt that you had the slightest understanding of it, which I do not.

You do not have the slightest understanding of the difference between Government action and private action, and you have certainly destroyed any case you might otherwise have had with this Senator.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

FZ:

Is this private action?

Chairman:

Senator Exon.

Senator Exon:

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Mr. Zappa, let me say that I was surprised that Senator Gore knew and liked your music. I must confess that I have never heard any of your music, to my knowledge.

FZ:

I would be more than happy to recite my lyrics to you.

Senator Exon:

Can we forgo that?

Senator Gore:

You, you've probably never heard of the Mothers Of Invention.

Senator Exon:

I have heard of Glenn Miller and Mitch Miller. Did you ever perform with them?

FZ:

As a matter of fact, I took music lessons in grade school from Mitch Miller's brother.

Senator Exon:

That's the first sign of hope we have had in this hearing.

Let us try and get down to a fundamental question here that I would like to ask you, Mr. Zappa. Do you believe that parents have the right and the obligation to mold the psychological development of their children?

FZ:

Yeah, I think they have that right, and I also think they have that obligation.

Senator Exon:

Do you see any extreme difficulty in carrying out those obligations for a parent by material falling into the hands of their children over which they have little or no control?

FZ:

Well, one of the things that has been brought up before is talking about very young children getting access to the material that they have been showing here today. And what I have said to that in the past is a teenager may go into a record store unescorted with $8.98 in his pocket, but very young children do not.

If they go into a record store, the $8.98 is in mom's pocket or dad's pocket, and they can always say, "Johnny, buy a book." They can say, "Johnny, buy instrumental music; there's some nice classical music here for you; why don't you listen to that."

The parent can ask or guide the child in another direction, away from Sheena Easton, Prince, or whoever else you have been complaining about. There is always that possibility.

Senator Exon:

As I understand it from your testimony—and once again, I want to emphasize that I see nothing wrong whatsoever; in fact, I salute the ladies for bringing this to the attention of the public as best they see fit. And I think you could tell from my testimony that I tend to agree with them.

But I want to be very careful that we do not overstep our bounds and try and—I emphasize once again—tell somebody else what they should see. So I am primarily worried about children.

It seems to me from your statement that you have no obligation—or no objection whatsoever to printing lyrics, if that would be legally possible, or from a standpoint of having the room to do that, on records or tapes. Is that not what you said?

FZ:

I think it would be advisable for two reasons. One, it gives people one of the things that they've been asking for. It gives them that type of consumer protection because, if you can read the English language and you can see the lyrics on the back, you have no excuse for complaning if you take the record out of the store.

And also, I think that the record industry has been damaged and it has been given a very bad rap by this whole situation because it's been indicated, or people have attempted to indicate, that there is so much of this kind of material that people object to in the industry, that that is what the industry is.

It is not bad at all. Some of the albums that have been selected for abuse here are obscure. Some of them are already several years old. And I think that a lot of deep digging was done in order to come up with the song about the anal vapors or whatever it was that they were talking about before.

Senator Exon:

If I understand you, you would be in support of printing the lyrics, but you are adamantly opposed to any kind of a rating system? Is that correct?

FZ:

I'm opposed to the rating system because, as I said, if you put a rating on the record it goes directly to the character of the person who made the record, whereas if you rate a film, a guy who is in the film has been hired as an actor. He is pretending. You rate the film, whatever it is, it doesn't hurt him.

But whether you like what is on the record or not, the guy who made it, that's his art and to stigmatize him is not fair.

Senator Exon:

Well, likewise, if you are primarily concerned about the artists, is it not true that for many many years, we have had ratings of movies with indications as to the sexual content of movies and that has been, as near as I can tell, a voluntary action on the part of the actors in the movies and the producers of the movies and the distributors?

That seems to have worked reasonably well. What is wrong with that?

FZ:

Well, first of all, it replaced something that was far more restrictive, which was the Hays Office. And as far as that being voluntary, there are people who wish they did not have to rate their films. They still object to rating their films, but the reason the ratings go on is because if they are not rated they won't get distributed or shown in theaters. So there is a little bit of pressure involved. But still there is no stigma on the person—

Senator Exon:

The Government does not require that. The point I am trying to make is—and while I think these hearings should not have been held if we are not considering legislation or regulations at this time, I emphasized earlier that they might follow.

I simply want to say to you that I suspect that, unless the industry "cleans up their act"—and I use that in quote words again—there is likely to be legislation. And it seems to me that it would not be too far removed from reality or too offensive to anyone if you could follow the general guidelines, right, wrong, or indifferent, that are now in place with regard to the movie industry.

FZ:

Well, I would object to that. I think first of all, I believe it was you who asked the question of Mrs. Gore whether there was any other indication on the album as to the contents. And I would say that a buzzsaw blade between a guy's legs on the album cover is a good indication that it is not for little Johnny.

Senator Exon:

I don't believe I entered that question, but the point that you made is a good one, because if that should not go to little minds I think there should be at least some minimal activity or attempt on the part of the producers and distributors, and indeed possibly the performers, to see that that does not get to that little mind.

Mr. Chairman, thank you very much.

Chairman:

Hollings.

Senator Hollings:

Mr. Zappa, I apologize for coming back in late, but I am just hearing the latter part of it. I hear that you say that perhaps we could print the words, and I think that is a good suggestion, but it is unfair to have it rated.

Now, it is not considered unfair in the movie industry, and I want you to elaborate. I don't want to belabor you, but why is it unfair? I mean, it's accurate, isn't it? I mean . . .

FZ:

Well, I don't know whether it is accurate, because they sometimes have trouble deciding how a film gets to be an X or an R or whatever. And you have two problems. One is the quantity of material, 325 films per year versus 25,000 4-minute songs per year, OK.

You also have a problem that an album is a compilation of different types of cuts. If one song on the album is sexually explicit and all the rest of it sounds like Pat Boone, what do you get on the album? How are you going to rate it?

There are little technical difficulties here, and also you have the problem of having somebody in the position of deciding what's good, what's bad, what's talking about the devil, what is too violent, and you know, and the rest of that stuff.

But the point that I made before is that when you rate the album you are rating the individual, because he takes personal responsibility for the music; and in the movies, the actors who are performing in the movie, it doesn't hurt them.

Senator Hollings:

Well, very good. I think the actual printing of the content itself is perhaps even better than the rating. Let everyone else decide.

FZ:

I think you should leave it up to the parents, because not all parents want to keep their children totally ignorant.

Senator Hollings:

Well, what— Yeah, you and I would differ on what is ignorance and educated, I can see that. But . . .

FZ:

No, I happen to think that you are very educated.

Senator Hollings:

I can't complain if it was there, they could see what they were buying and I think that would be a step in the right direction.

But as Senator Exon has pointed out, whereby the primary movers in this particular regard are not looking for legislation or regulations, that's our function. And to be perfectly candid with you, I would look for regulations or some kind of legislation, if it could be constitutionally accomplished, unless of course we have these initiatives from the industry itself.

I think your suggestion is a good one. If you print those words, that would go a long way toward satisfying everyone's objections.

FZ:

All we have to do is find out how it is going to be paid for.

Senator Hollings:

Good enough. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman:

Senator Hawkins.

Senator Hawkins:

Mr. Zappa.

FZ:

Yes.

Senator Hawkins:

You say you have four children?

FZ:

Yes.

Senator Hawkins:

Pardon me . . .

FZ:

Four children.

Senator Hawkins:

Four children.

Have you ever purchased toys for those children?

FZ:

No; my wife does.

Senator Hawkins:

Well, I might tell you that if you were to go in a toy store—which is very educational for fathers, by the way; it is not a maternal responsibility to buy toys for children—that you may look on the box and the box says, this is suitable for 5 to 7 years of age, or 8 to 15, or 15 and above, to give you some guidance for a toy for a child.

Do you object to that?

FZ:

In a way I do, because that means that somebody in an office someplace is making a decision about how smart my child is.

Senator Hawkins:

I'd be interested to see what toys your kids ever had.

FZ:

Why would you be interested?

Senator Hawkins:

Just as a point of interest in this . . .

FZ:

Well, come on over to the house. I'll show 'em to you.

Really!

Senator Hawkins:

I might do that.

Have you ever made— Do you make a profit from sales of rock records?

FZ:

Yes.

Senator Hawkins:

So you do make a profit from the sales of rock records?

FZ:

Yes.

Senator Hawkins:

Thank you. I think that statement tells the story to this committee. Thank you.

Chairman:

Mr. Zappa, thank you very much for your testimony.

FZ:

Thank you.

Chairman:

Next witness is John Denver.

Senator Hollings:

We haven't got 'em whipped on this one yet. You got a bear by the tail here, uh? Jeezis!