Talk:"Weird Al" Yankovic/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

"You're Pitiful"

This is a copy of an e-mail sent to me as 'A Message From Weird Al'

 Dear Close, Personal Friend Of Al,
 We're very sorry that the new "Weird Al" Yankovic album is taking a little longer than expected to make its way to a record store   
 near you.  We'll let you know as soon as we have a confirmed release date.
 In the meantime, we thought you might like to download a free mp3 of a brand new Weird Al song (which won't be on the album).  Our  
 gift to you, just for being so darn cool.
 You can download the mp3 at www.weirdal.com.  Hope you enjoy it!
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 This email was sent to *****************@gmail.com
 Replying to this email will not remove you from the mailing list.
 Click http://www.sonybmgemail.com/arch/Remove?msg=*********  if you no longer wish to receive this mailing.
 Click http://www.jiverecords.com/zombaprivacy/adultpriv.html to read our privacy policy.
 This email was sent by:
 Zomba Label Group, 137-139 W 25th Street, New York, NY 10001
 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------

209.33.17.220 02:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Licensing Issues?

In the Trivia section, we have:

"Licensing issues for Yankovic's works are some of the most complicated in the music industry. Largely because of his polka-medleys, he sometimes performs works by dozens of artists on a single album. Because of the potentially crippling amount of royalties required for this, his record labels are required to engage in much negotiation and diplomacy."

This doesn't sound right. One, it's the first I've heard of it and there are no references or any other evidence support this. Two, parody and satire are protected under copyright law, so no licensing should be required for Al's works. Three, he does get permission from the original artists for every song and video he releases, but only as a matter of courtesy and respect. He 'could' legally do parodies of all the Queen and Coolio songs ever made whether they want him to or not, but Al doesn't believe in using someone else's work without their permission even if it would be completely legal.

Any objections to removing/substantially editing the passage above?

From the "Ask Al" Q&As for August, 1999:

Luke Owen of West Byfleet, Surrey, UK asks: Which bit exactly is the “Ear Booker Polka”?

Every songwriter in the polka medley is paid based on the percentage of the medley where their song is heard. “The Ear Booker Polka,” basically, is the name given to every single part of the medley that is not directly attributable to another songwriter - that is, if somebody else didn’t write it, I get the credit (and the royalties). Recently the name was changed to “The Way Moby Polka” for accounting reasons.[1]

For the record, Al is a nice guy, and it's true that satire and parody are protected so he's not required to obtain permission, but if he was to record and release (on a commercially available album) a parody or song-portion in a polka without permission, the owner of the copyright of the original song would then be in their rights to sue for royalties. They wouldn't be able to sue to prevent the song from existing, but they'd still be able to demand a significant chunk of the profits. This is why the James Blunt parody got released for free, because he wasn't able to get permission, so he decided to "release" it in such a way as to prevent the whole royalties thing. So it is true the courtesy and respect is a big deal to Al, it's not the only reason he obtains permission, as he's admitted several times.

A bit of related trivia, Weezer denied Al permission to use "Buddy Holly" in one of his polkas, so he didn't use it, but it was too late to remove his "thank you" from that album's liner notes.[2] - Ugliness Man 07:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

No, they wouldn't. That's the whole point of parody being protected - Al (or anyone else) can parody another work all he wants and won't have to pay any sort of royalties. "You're Pitiful" got cut because Blunt's record company, Atlantic Records, disapproved of it (which explains Al editing Atlantic's Wikipedia entry to "YOU SUCK!" on the "White & Nerdy" video). Al could have released it anyway, but he didn't want to get his record company in a big fight with Atlantic. PaulGS 03:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Copyright kerfuffle

In this edit, the debate over which version of copyright law people choose to believe has risen again. This keeps coming up in various fan forums, and it always gets muddied up by perspectives and opinions and assumptions, and it makes me wonder if there really is a concrete answer. Some say that he absolutely must ask permission, always, and others say he doesn't have to ask permission before releasing the material, but if he does a parody without asking permission, the copyright holders can then sue him after-the-fact... but they can't "sue" to get the album recalled, they can only demand a signficiant portion of the royalties. In other words, there's nothing legally preventing him from doing parodies without permission, but if he did that, he'd have to pay for it dearly. As a point of comparison, does anyone know if Bob Rivers gets permission for his parodies? And if not, has he ever been sued? Anyway, the point is that I think we really need a final, concrete, absolute, legally correct and dependable answer, from a reliable sources. Then we can add a relevant reference to the article, and whever someone tries to make an edit which contradicts that, we simply point them to the reference. Anybody know any Wikipedians who've actually studied US copyright law in an actual university? - Ugliness Man 09:51, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

From the man himself: "Yes, I do get permission from the original songwriters. While the law supports my ability to parody without permission, it's very important to me to try to maintain the relationships I've built with artists and writers over the years. Thankfully, most artists seem genuinely flattered to get the "Weird Al treatment." Some groups (including Nirvana) have publicly stated that they didn't realize that they had really "made it" until they heard my parody!" --Brother William 06:34, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's the official line, and it's part of the evidence that he respects the wishes of songwriters and artists, but it still doesn't actually answer the question that I posed, it's only part of the story. - 11:24, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Given the rather murky nature of American copyright law you probably won't GET a final, concrete, absolute, legally correct and dependable answer until something is taken to Court - and even then it might be contested. Exactly what is "Fair Use" is still being interpreted by the courts and legal opinion differs from lawyer to lawyer. A perfect example is the JibJab#"This Land" parody. The lawyers for Ludlow Music said he needed permission to use the tune and threatened legal action. Lawyers for the ACLU said that use of the tune for the purposes of parody was perfectly permissible and were prepared to take it to court. The fact that further evidence showed the tune had already fallen into Public Domain doesn't make the ACLU's original arument less valid. But there you have two different legal opinions over the same issue. If you could get a concrete answere you wouldn't need lawyers. --Brother William 02:12, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

• As far as I know, the right to make the parody is protected, but the writers of the instrumental music would be entitled to royalties if he made profit off it. The writers of the lyrics from the polkas would be entitled to it also. Any parody that the parody-creator didn't make money off of doesn't have to pay anyone anything (ie- the Blunt one), they have the right to parody under free speech and they're not profiting so there's nothing to sue for. --TheTruthiness 02:54, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I am an intellectual property lawyer, so I can help clarify the law for you. The law completely protects Al's (and anyone else's) right to make parodies, as fair use. In order to qualify as a parody, it must technically be a critique of the original work. Satire that doesn't infringe the original work is not protected under fair use. Therefore, with or without permission, Al can never be sued by anyone he parodies, whether or not the songs turn a profit. As Al states, he gets permission because he has integrity and wants to maintain relationships. Although he would almost certainly win in a fight to keep the James Blunt parody on the album, he would still have to fight, which costs time and money. It be noted that for ordinary copyright infringement, an author has the right to sue for both damages and an injunction. Now, as for the polka medleys, Al does indeed need to pay a license for the music, or else it would be infringement. The reason is that these are not parodies because he doesn't change the words or the music. There is such a thing called a compulsory license. Under such a license, a singer can release a cover version of a song without permission, and must pay a license fee to the author of the song for a price that is determined by statute. The whole song must be recorded, or else it is sampling. In Al's case, since he only covers a portion of each song, it is considered a sample and he therefore must negotiate a license. Toddrunner 21:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

I'd think the polkas would be parody, since although he's not changing the words or the melody, he's changing the style of the music and thereby commenting on it. PaulGS 03:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, the statement "Satire that doesn't infringe the original work is not protected under fair use" is true, but might confuse people. Fair use is a defense to copyright infringement, just like self-defense is a defense to murder - you still committed the wrong in either case (i.e., the copying or the killing), but the law recognizes that you had a reason for doing so (and therefore does not punish you). In copyright, infringement (copying, at the most basic level) is illegal, but the copyright law specifically protects people who infringe but have a fair use justification. To sum up, nothing that doesn't infringe is protected by fair use because things that don't infringe don't need fair use protection (hence, the following statement is correct - "Satire that doesn't infringe the original work is not protected under fair use"). People often confuse satire and parody. Without going too deep into it, satire mocks an entire genre, while parody mocks individaul songs or artists. Furthermore, many satires have elements of parody, and vice versa. Scary Movie is a satire, but it parodies Scream and other horror movies. Satire is generally less likely to infringe because it is less likely to borrow extensively from one source. However, satire and parody get the exact same fair use analysis under copyright law. Lamont A Cranston 22:25, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Right you are. That particular sentence, as written, is true, but isn't particularly helpful. I'm not sure exactly what I was thinking when I wrote it, I think I may have started a new sentence before I finished the last one I started. Anyway, if it doesn't infringe it doesn't infringe, end of story, no need to reach the fair use issue (obviously). I think what I meant to say was that satire that infringes but doesn't critique the original work is not protected under fair use. But, like you said, it's not black or white, as satire can and often does have elements of parody, and vice versa. The point I wanted to make was that parody is protected, but satire is not (I guess I didn't clarify it very well). Toddrunner 14:49, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

This is all well and good, but I thought I should point out that nothing that comes from discussion of a law at a talk page can go into the article - this is considered original research. We're limited to published reports and cases when discussing legal issues. --Maxamegalon2000 03:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Maxamegalon2000, you are correct, but there is an issue as to citation in the article. A legal assertion was made, and cited to a case that did not support it. I have removed the statement to accurately reflect the cite, and this conversation deals with the removal. The article used to say:

• Technically, under copyright law's "fair use" doctrine – affirmed by the United States Supreme Court — one does not need permission to record a parody, though one does need permission to record a satire. (Citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose) However, Yankovic has always requested permission before recording parodies, as a means of maintaining good relationships within the music community.

That statement is not correct. I removed the italicized portion, and the statement is correct as it stands in the current version of the article:

• Technically, under copyright law's "fair use" doctrine – affirmed by the United States Supreme Court — one does not need permission to record a parody. (Citing Campbell v. Acuff-Rose) However, Yankovic has always requested permission before recording parodies, as a means of maintaining good relationships within the music community.

The law is this: you do not need permission to record anything, but if you do not have permission, you may infringe (depending on how similar your work is to another). Therefore, the following statement is correct: "one does not need permission to record a parody." Standing alone however, the statement is incomplete. If you do not get permission to make a similar work, your work may infringe on the underlying work, if the two are similar enough. Fair use protects people who have infringed. Under Campbell, the court held that a particular parody infringed, but that it was protected by the statutory fair use defense. Campbell was not about satire, so its statements about satire are dicta.

I think the confusion comes from the following statement in Campbell:

• "Parody needs to mimic an original to make its point, and so has some claim to use the creation of its victim's (or collective victims') imagination, whereas satire can stand on its own two feet and so requires justification for the very act of borrowing."

The point is that borrowing is necessary for parody, and so is broadly excused. But the fact is that satire gets fair use protection to the extent that it meets the statutory criteria. I have never seen a case that holds that satire does not get fair use protection, and I will be shocked if I ever do see one. My point is that the original wording of the article was (IMO) confusing, inaccurate, and not correctly cited. I'll leave you with a quote from Campbell:

• "By contrast, when there is little or no risk of market substitution, whether because of the large extent of transformation of the earlier work, the new work's minimal distribution in the market, the small extent to which it borrows from an original, or other factors, taking parodic aim at an original is a less critical factor in the analysis, and looser forms of parody may be found to be fair use, as may satire with lesser justification for the borrowing than would otherwise be required." n. 14, emphasis added.

The point is that fair use is available for any work, but that some types of works get more leniency in applying fair use; parody needs little or no justification to borrow, satire needs some justification. Both, however, are protected by fair use. No one needs permission to do either satire or parody, but if there is an infringement claim made against a parody, it gets more robust fair use protection than a satire. Lamont A Cranston 13:24, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Accordion virtuoso

"Yankovic is considered to be one of the top accordionists in the world, having played at a virtuoso level since childhood."

Can someone verify this statement? I know Al is probably really good at accordion, but is there a reliable source around saying he's a top virtuoso? I'd appreciate if it was cited. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stapler 9 42 (talk • contribs) .

Singles

Recently the albums section was edited to indicate that no "singles" were released from Poodle Hat. I think the problem is the definition of the term "single". In the age of vinyl, there was little question. When a song was designated as a "single", it was in the record stores as a 7", 45 rpm record, and also sent to radio stations in the same format. These days, with widespread peer-to-peer use and official label sites offering free streams of current hits, the general public has little use for an actual consumer product featuring only 2 or 3 songs, so "CD singles" are getting less and less common. And indeed, the song "Couch Potato" was never released, in stores, as a CD single. It was, however, played on radio stations upon the release of the album, and it was considered by many, in whatever official or unofficial capacity you want to go with, to be the "lead single" from that album. The prime factor preventing it from being an obvious single was Eminem's reluctance to allow a video to be made. Since there was no video to give the song Mtv exposure, the label didn't bother putting a whole lot of promotion behind it.

I think the big problem is that, since the definition of "single" in this context can be so vague these days, we won't be able to settle on one specific definition as the "official" meaning of the term for Wikipedia purposes. Sure, if a song has a video in heavy rotation, a CD single in the stores, and a presence in the Top 40 on mainstream radio, then obviously it's a single. Sometimes, as with "Couch Potato", it's not so obvious.

I'm not going to bother adding it back to the article right now, I'll just sit back and hope that my pondering prompts a bit of discussion on the term. - Ugliness Man 11:08, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Volcano released tangible (promo) singles for "The Saga Begins" and "It's All About The Pentiums" but nothing for "Couch Potato." Since Volcano continues to releases tangible singles to this day for other artists, I think that should be the criteria. -- Elvis 19:28, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Guys, We've Gotta Do Something About the External Links

There's far too many of them. The official site and MySpace, the WOWAY forum and the three directories are fine, but beyond that I think the rest are mostly linkcruft. Wikipedia isn't a link directory, and WeirdAl.com maintains its own list. So, I think it's time to start cutting, but I want to see that there's consensus first. --Maxamegalon2000 17:08, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

• Pfft, with 800 sitting there I don't think there's need for one. I agree removed a bunch, they can always be re-added if they're that important. I feel everything before the Onion article link should definitely stay, I wouldn't have much of a problem with any of the ones I left below that being removed as well. --TheTruthiness 02:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

First show anecdote

From the Biography section:

Yankovic's first show with his entire band (excluding Rubén Valtierra, who joined in 1991) was not successful at all. The audience threw items at Yankovic and his band and they were booed off the stage. After the show, a kid approached Yankovic and asked if he was Weird Al Yankovic. When Yankovic replied that he was, the kid said, "You suck!"

I added a "citation needed" to this anecdote for two reasons. First of all, it doesn't mention the date that this supposedly happened, not even the year. Second, even though a date isn't indicated I'm pretty sure that the first show with the full band would've happened in '81 or '82, maybe '83 at the very latest. That usage of the word "suck" was practically non-existant back then. I'm not saying I have my doubts that early Yankovic shows got negative responses, Al himself has confirmed that this is the case, but this story seems rather vague, and sounds like of something that somebody had a fuzzy memory of (maybe) reading somewhere. - Ugliness Man 10:57, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

This event was described in the Permanent Record booklet, page 22-23. --Happy 18:54, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Al also talked about the show on his Behind The Music. He opened up for the new wave act Missing Persons -- Doc Strange 13:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Wife

There should be something on this page about his wife and his daughter —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.2.234.66 (talk • contribs) .

The following appears in the biography section:

Yankovic married Suzanne Krajewski on February 10, 2001. Their daughter, Nina, was born February 11, 2003.

Seems fairly clear to me. - Ugliness Man 05:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Better picture?

Does anyone have a better picture they can post of Al? The image is sized so small that I wouldnt recognize him without the credit. A face or torso shot of him would be nice, or at least a full body image that will show significantly enlarged when clicked on —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mleinart (talk • contribs) .

I agree with that - I like the picture, but it's fairly low quality, and Al's face isn't very prominent, which is what I thought the point of an indicivual's picture should be - let you see what they look like. The picture there doesn't terribly do that very well; unfortunately I don't have a suitable replacement. Plus it should be his current look, not the old school "glasses" Al look. Dopefish 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a few pictures on Weird Al's site which probably could be used, one I like is this one. Dopefish 14:57, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

There! Gromreaper 06:21, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Two star wars songs

really not important but he did write "pretty fly for a jedi" but its not listed. or am i just nuts?

The latter. Weird Al did not write "Pretty Fly for a Jedi". He did write "Pretty Fly for a Rabbi", and the same album did include "The Saga Begins". --Maxamegalon2000 14:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Just heard a snipet of one song: "...soon I'm gonna be a Jedi."

Called "The Saga Begins" [3] Sleigh 03:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Weird Al making fun of eminem on the AL TV

Have any of you seem This video? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vQfRskIIByQ&mode=related&search=

It's fucking hilarious. And it's also kind of notable, I think. Clearly Al was unhappy about being unable to do a video parody as well. I wonder what eminem though of this clip? lol. --Karafias 17:06, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

First of all, it's not from The Weird Al Show, it's from AL TV. Big difference. Second, he has done this fake interview thing with just about every artist that's refused him permission for a parody (most noteably Paul McCartney and Prince), as well as other artists he doesn't actually have a gripe with, so it's not a big surprise that he'd dig on Em after he refused the vid. - Ugliness Man 17:13, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Ahhhh, I see... Can we forget that I ever brought this up? :P

Lisp

I found out via the songs on Bad Hair Day that Weird Al has a slight lisp. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Master50 (talk • contribs) 22:05, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I suggest that you listen to "I'm So Sick of You" again! Gromreaper 13:27, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Al has stated that "I'm So Sick of You" was mostly a tribute to This Year's Model-era Elvis Costello, and Costello had a bit of a lisp in those days (it's nearly impossible to sing "Pump It Up" properly at karoke without spitting), so it was likely intentional. - Ugliness Man 14:03, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I was replying to the original post...I meant to say that I couldn't hear any lisp in ISSOY... I didn't know how to indent or put the whole "previous unsigned comment" thing there. Gromreaper 01:35, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Gotcha... I didn't notice any lisping, either, I just interjected that theory in case someone else thought there was some... and I fixed up the thread indenting and added one of those unsigned things (click here to check out the markups available for that if you wish). - Ugliness Man 13:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Rover's Morning Glory

Could someone revise this part? The mentions of Al's "curt" answers and Rover's attempt to ask unrelated questions seems to make it sound as though Al was being rude to HIM, and seems to want to defend Rover, who shouldn't be defended in this situation!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 162.51.152.80 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

How is that? Gromreaper 02:41, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I REALLY don't think this belongs here anyway. For one thing, the DJ's never really tried to make Al feel better. Quite the opposite really. They kept coming back to the subject, made jokes about the personal tragedy after the interview, and tried to justify their actions. And frankly, I don't see why it was even brought up at all here. --Happy 15:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

In response to this, I believe that Rover was unable to move on due to the fact that Weird Al's quick and unsatisfying answers. Al decided to dwell on this. Although I concur with the last post.. why are we discussing this here? Ccmolik 02:04, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of September 29, 2006, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Decent, but there could be improvements.

2. Factually accurate?: It would seem to be accurate, but there are not nearly enough references. For example, in section 2.1.1 (Positive, Reactions from original artists) none of the conversations with Cobain and Jackson are referenced.

3. Broad in coverage?: Very.

4. Neutral point of view?: Yes.

5. Article stability? Not at all. There have been over 50 edits in the past 24 hours.

6. Images?: None of the images' fair use rationale is explained.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far.

---

Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:18, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Work to be done

I added some references for the the sections in the Reactions part, but there are still some things like the Cobain journals that need referencing.Gromreaper 12:04, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Wait like two weeks after the new album hype (Straight Outta Lynwood) is over and the editing should go down. Michael Greiner 14:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Easter eggs, trivia, references, etc.

I think someone should add and refine such an area. It can address things such as the whole "027 only" thing. Just for fun at least. I see no harm in it. --MeridianiGusev 21:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Al's "handsome" new look

"In January 1998, Yankovic had LASIK eye surgery and shaved off his mustache, radically changing his trademark look. Yankovic, who was revealed to be rather handsome in this conventional look, commented that "Millions of girls actually found me hot for the first time!" "

At best this is completely subjective and seems inappropriate for an encyclopedia entry. If you're going to mention how attractive a person is, I would think it should be someone about whom the general consensus is that they're very attractive (like Brad Pitt or James Dean). I doubt Weird Al would define most people's view of what it is to be handsome. I like Weird Al, and nothing against his appearance, which is fine, but when I think handsome, I just don't think of Al first.

I agree, but I just want to make sure it's stated that the first sentence of that part should be left alone. There is a general consensus that the mustach and glasses was a very trademark look, something he acknowledged when he first got the surgery done. According to interviews, at first he had planned to keep the look using a pair of non-prescription glasses, but he decided against it after awhile (but he still has glasses when he does the song "Fat" in concert because they're built into the face prosthetic he uses). Okay, that was probably way too much trivia, but I wanted to make the point. - Ugliness Man 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely the first sentence should be kept, and the quote about the "Millions of girls" as well, since they are purely factual. But to describe him as "rather handsome" is is unwarranted, as it is just one writer's opinion.

Canadian Idiot

Apparantly lots of people believe that Canadian Idiot is Weird Al's latest single and this song has even made it to the 80-something spot on the Billboards singles 100. Despite this, this song is not a single in the physical manner that it can be bought from a physical store. As far as I can tell, this song is beings sold digitally and this is why it has made it to the charts. But as I've said it is not a physical single though it could be a de facto single. I've been deleting mentions of this song being a single but given that the song is in essence a "digital single", I do not know how it should be treated on this page. Gdo01 01:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

It's sold as part of Straight Outta Lynwood, which is sold in stores. --Mike 21:23, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I know that but for some reason people believe it is a single like White & Nerdy eventhough you cannot actually buy Canadian Idiot by itself. The only other way you can buy Canadian Idiot by itself is online and presumably it has been selling well online for it to warrant a top 100 spot on Billboard. Gdo01 22:26, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I say add it to the chart, then use a footnote to describe the situation. Michael Greiner 03:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Never Mind the Mock Rock

Regarding this edit: while it was poorly stated, the initial idea is something noteworthy, and should probably still be mentioned somewhere if someone can rephrase it more succinctly. You see, novelty artists are almost always a flash-in-the-pan. Nearly any novelty song that the general public could name off the top of their heads (two immediate examples that spring to mind are "Fish Heads" and "They're Coming to Take Me Away Ha-Haaa!") are one-hit-wonders. So the overall point is that Al has not only managed to make an impressively long-lasting career out of what is generally considered novelty music, but he has also managed to outlast a large portion of the artists which he has parodied. Both sides of that coin do deserve mention, it's just a matter of someone with the editing skills to work it in there in an encyclopedic manner. - Ugliness Man 23:19, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

I put the following into the biography section, before the autobiographical book sentence. Hope it sounds alright...

"It is often noted that Yankovic's career in novelty and comedy music has outlasted many of his "mainstream" parody targets, such as Toni Basil, Nirvana and Crash Test Dummies. Furthermore, most novelty artists are often one hit wonders, but Yankovic's continued success has enabled him to escape the "one hit wonder" stigma often associated with novelty music." Gromreaper 04:10, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Looks great to me, thanks for the help! - Ugliness Man 10:36, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

No confirming evidence

This is really silly:

Although he has claimed that he had been referred to as "Weird Al" during high school, there is no confirming evidence of this.

err, he's not saying "I invented Calculus". I think him saying so counts as "confirming" evidence in this case. I'm removing the completely misapropros skeptical language. Brentt 04:46, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Weird Al as a rapper

I'm going to add rapping to Weird Al's instruments, because he's proven being a pretty good rapper from such songs like "I Can't Watch This" and "White & Nerdy"... Litis 12:29, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I've removed "rapping" as singing is alreadylisted but I changed singing to vocalization. L0b0t 12:41, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yay. Litis 18:07, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Nirvana

In the second-last paragraph of the Biography section, is it really fair to mention Nirvana as an example of a parody target that Al's career has outlasted? I mean, if someone says that they probably wouldn't have lasted much longer than another album or two if Kurt hadn't died, I wouldn't argue, but it's pure speculation. The point of mentioning artists that Al has "outlasted" is to point out that their music careers basically fizzled and faded due to lack of popularity or other such things. Nirvana's music, however, continues to sell and get notice in the form of various retrospectives and demo collections that pop up now and then. Please believe that I'm not saying this from the perspective of a Nirvana fan (which I am), I just think that the comparison isn't quite accurate or fair. Also consider that there are at least a dozen other artists more suited for this comparison, such as Men Without Hats, [Milli Vanilli]] or Fine Young Cannibals to name but a few. - Ugliness Man 12:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And...done. ~ Gromreaper 06:51, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Peer Review

Results

• It needs more citations. Some paragraphs have no sources. DONE?
• In some sections there are some stubby sentences. They need fixing so that the article flow gets better. DONE?
• The "Trivia" section is short and listy. Get rid of it, incorporating the information there in the prose of the other sections. DONE
• I think the discography is long. For GA this may not be a problem, but in FAC you'll be asked to make a selection with his most important works and make a seperate article, if you want to have all his discography. DONE
• "Directing career" is stubby for me. I propose you merge it in some other section about his career. DONE?
• I also think the the "Notable Television Appearances" should go before "discography". Give us a full image of his whole career (songs, TV etc.) with the right structure of the relevant sections and then go to discography. DONE
• Alphabetize categories at the end of the article. DONE--Yannismarou 07:22, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Plans of action

How's about we get cracking ASAP? I'll start in a few days, when I get time. Anyone with free time before that can feel free to start now. ~ Gromreaper 11:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

Shows how bored I am...I used Elliott Smith and Elliott Smith discography as a guide for the discography section/article split...hopefully there's no objections? ~ Gromreaper 12:06, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Further comments

It is even better now. Just a few minor remarks for further improvement:

• Since the article got bigger, I think you should also expand a bit the lead per WP:LEAD.
• Throughout the article try not to have stubby paragraphs. They are not nice and, if you try to merge or expand them, you'll find out that not only the layout, the image of the article will be better, but the prose as well.
• Don't re-link is "See also" things you have already linked. For instance, I see that List of singles by "Weird Al" Yankovic and List of songs by "Weird Al" Yankovic are already linked. In general, have in mind that "See also" sections are not so trendy nowadays.--Yannismarou 08:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I think I've done all that...I'm removing "See also" as per above and placing the list here, just in case anyone wants to add it back. ~ Gromreaper 14:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I re-added it shortly after with some culling, plus the addition of Allan Sherman, who was curiously lacking from the list. ~ Gromreaper 14:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I just removed it again seeing a category for parody artists, Category:Parody musicians, making the see also section redundant. Michael Greiner 14:32, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Good thinking! Nominated for featured article status. ~ Gromreaper 14:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Work with Wendy Carlos

In 1988 Yankovic worked with Wendy Carlos (A Clockwork Orange) on a new interpretation of "Peter & the Wolf", released by CBS Records in 1988. The album also included a tribute to Saint-Saens' "Carnival of the Animals" with poems written by Yankovic.

Source: http://www.wendycarlos.com/+pwca2.html

Already mentioned in the full discography page. ~ Gromreaper 06:14, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I remove the editprotected tag. NCurse _work 06:34, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

American English

I'm going to suggest we use Americna Standard English on this article. Weird Al is American, and predominantly American in demographics; he isn't widely known outside of North America. Things such as rumour should be rumor, etc. I'm also suggesting American punctuation, where punctuation goes inside quotation marks. ~ UBeR 20:46, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Edit: It appears it was changed from American English to British Emerican, against Wiki policy, by a certain user (23:41, 26 October 2006). ~ UBeR 20:50, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, this one's a no-brainer. It was only "reluctantly" that Al's British label even agreed to release his new album. --Maxamegalon2000 21:20, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I noticed one day that someone changed from US to British spelling for some reason. Anyway, if you notice me using British spelling, just edit it...I'm an Aussie and use British spelling unconsciously, so apologies on my behalf. I'll try to be conscious of the fact it should be US spelling from now on. ~ Gromreaper 03:07, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

"Weird Al's" fans' devotion and petition

I saw the section about how some of his fans are trying to get him a star on the Hollywood Walk Of Fame when I remembered reading about how some of his fans have also petitoned to get him a MTV Video Vanguard Award amd an induction into the Rock N' Roll Hall Of Fame.

Maybe we can re-work that section into one about his loyal fanbase?

Sources

I noticed a reference to http://www.weirdalforum.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=4730&view=findpost&p=306317. Forums almost always non-encyclopedic and are listed under Wikipedia:External links as:

7. Links to blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace), or discussion forums unless mandated by the article itself.

I'd highly suggest that the link be replaced with another source. thadius856_talk 04:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

The post linked was by the guitarist of Weird Al's band...even with that knowledge, does it need to be taken down? ~ Gromreaper 05:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)