Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 3

Archives
– July 3, 2006

Status as of July 3, 2006

Most talk was outdated or settled. I therefore archived it. Below, I list some problems and suggestions I have regarding the article now. Most of it is mainly editorial stuff, but I would like some feedback, before I jump into something that would cause a stir. So please leave comments--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Main picture

At the old talk page, it was suggested that the main picture for the article was "inappropriate." It was seen as emitting the signal of "Rock Star Turned Serious". I agree. Since copyright issues are serious here, I would suggest to use the cover of Apostrophe in lack of better alternatives. It is a nice picture of Frank, and provides a timeless and recognizable image. What do you think?--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think that whoever suggested this is a pretentious prick. The image stays as is. And whoever would refer to Zappa as a "rock star" obviously knows nothing of the man's music. Case closed. (Ibaranoff24 02:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Please discuss, instead of just putting up several confrontational remarks. Cf., WP:NPA, WP:AGF or WP:EQ. Well, "rock star" or not (a term indeed in quotation marks), I think the image is a poor choice for a Zappa article. He was rarely seen in a tux writing dots on paper (when he did, he would wear anything but a tux). The irony surely featured during the particular photo session is likely to be lost on non-Zappa fans. --HJ 06:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The current main pic with the piano and the score has to stay, IMO. Frank was serious about his music, what's wrong with that? He labored over scores his whole life... that has always been one of my favorite FZ photos. KEEP IT! --EmmSeeMusic 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The Läther sub section

The article is already rather long. So I would suggest that the lengthy - but very good - discussion about Läther is moved to the page of the album. As of now, it breaks the flow of the article (and Zappa had many other projects that never materialized). I think it would suffice to mention the projected box set, refer to the album page, and then devote slightly more time to the four albums that actually came out of it. What do you think? --HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:172.164.238.186 ([History] made a lengthy revision on this subject, stating that "this is what really happened". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Zappa&diff=62108546&oldid=61937761 . It is a substantial shortening (which could have been discussed), but I think that the whole issue should be on the page of the album, and not in a subsection.--HJ 06:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Referencing

The article is not up to standards concerning referencing (it was one of the main arguments for its failure as Featured Article nominee). Most things are just stated, but without reference (I have, however, no quarrels with what is stated). Instead, there is a reference section of some books, and an additional section on "Further reading." I only think there should be mention of things that are actually used as reference. Hence, the latter section is redundant in this encyclopedic article. Opinions? --HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Trivia

The trivia section is almost as large as decriptions of two decades of Zappa output (!). This seems way over the top. Any suggestions on how to cut in some of all this? Or could some trivia be incorporated into the main article? As of now, it looks as a "wasteground," where people have thrown in a lot of (good) info that perhaps could have been integrated into the article (and if not, maybe are not that relevant). Thougths?--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Move random TV appearances to Filmography, nuke the rumors, pop-culture references, and conjecture. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that the huge trivia section is Zappatastic and should be kept more or less intact. Here here!

External links

This is mostly a collection of various fan-sites. When one looks at them now, there seems to have been no idea behind which are linked or not. Should there be some requirements for when a site should be linked? It is a tricky issue, but the links section is simply a mess as of now. What should we do, if anything?--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• The External Links section definitely needs a clean-up. The fan sites should not even be listed at all per WP:EL guidelines. Official sites are all you need on a Wikipedia article. Anyone can search for Frank Zappa on google to get fan sites, etc. The Wiki EL section isn't meant to be a directory. --EmmSeeMusic 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Basic structure of article: Chronology or not?

Has anybody had thoughts about the basic structure of the article? The adopted "chronological approach" has it advantages (where to put something time specific is self evident), but also disadvantages (where to put something of general interest about Zappa is rather difficult).

An example of the disadvantage is the treatment of Zappa's "classical" work, which could benefit from being presented in a single paragraph or two. As of now, reference to it is scattered all over the article (Early life and influences, 1980s, 1990s).

Another example of the disadvantage is when describing Zappa's use of musical quotations. This is mentioned in 1960s, but the examples span all of his career.

Could anybody think of another structure, or is the chronological approach unavoidable when presenting Zappa?--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheik Yerbouti - title and KC & The Sunshine Band

A user wrote today: "There's no proof that "Sheik Yerbouti" was in reference to the KC & The Sunshine Band song. Please stop adding this into the article". I did not add this, but just moved the sentence into a footnote (to tone down the prominence). The sentence has been around for a long time; see e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Zappa&diff=61937761&oldid=61937123

I did not know, however, that it was a matter of ongoing dispute ("stop adding (my emphasis) this"). Does anyone has good evidence for the popular notion that the album title indeed was a reference to the KC song? If not, it would, in my opinion, also be nice if solid proof against this popular perception could be put forward (as a good encyclopedic article should bury false and persistent rumors). Any references?--HJ 07:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Guitar playing style?

An IP user added this section to the article on July 19:

Frank zappa's guitar playing is undoubtedly influenced by him playing drums at an early age,

Which is shown through his strange and inventive rythmic passages.His legato phrasing can be be easily associated with a saxophone or violin and with pull offs, bending, trills and other Guitar techniques his guitar parts are filled with detail.His playing is influenced by many different genres such as Rock, Jazz and classical music and his experimentation with effects pedals such as wah wah and Overdrive is executed perfectly.With his high musical intelligence Frank zappa has been able to leave a vast legacy of over a thousand pieces of guitar work that is sure to last as outstanding music.

I think it could be interesting to expand to article with pieces going in more detail with various aspects of Zappa's work (his production techniques, his lyrics, his synclavier pieces, his horn arrangements, his orchestral compositions, and, of course, his guitar playing). This will, however, probably come at the cost of having to lose a lot of the plain information. I do think, in any case, that the description of his guitar playing style above does not add much to what is already in the article (e.g., that drums and percussion is important for all aspects of his music, hence also guitar playing, is already evident, as is the fact that his influences are from all over the place). Moreover, the last 2/3 of the edit is just POV praise (and the prose could be better). I therefore took the so-called bold step and deleted it. --HJ 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)