Jump to content

Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

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Most talk was outdated or settled.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)

The Overview Section

It's been suggested below, and it's painfully true, the "Overview" as written reads like a news release written by Zappa's most ardent, fatuous admirer. This entry is in need of a major overhaul, starting with surgery on this Overview. I am willing to undertake this myself, but since it would constitute serious editing -- the kind that will restructure the article -- I thought I'd start a discussion of the entry's current state. Iconoclastodon 07:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the new overview section is too fan-ish. It was largely written by the user Dunks58 from Nov. 23rd onwards, before that the section was completely different. The new version does contain some good points though, I think perhaps we should go back to the older, more professionally written version while also including certain material from the new one. Either that or scrap it altogether and start again...203.167.235.136 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Some of the info in this section should really be used to expand the lead. ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
I've deleted all of the useless fan-ish info from the 'Overview' section and incorporated the section into the lead. ĤĶ51→Łalk 23:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Good attempt. Some useful info is missing now though. I would, as others have, suggest to go back to the intro that was here a few months ago that was pretty neutral. Maybe we should make a list of what is the central things to mention about Zappa in an overview, and then write from that? --HJ 01:20, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

This is a minor point, but I think a valid one. I cannot think of one album cover that FZ created. He clearly oversaw much of the artwork and made decisions about them, but as far as I can tell, always hired artists to create the artwork themselves? A little clarification might be needed here.

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)

Well, the photo has now been removed by the administrators due to copyrigth issues; see for the picture, if it is still there, or the edit diff. For lack of better alternatives, I have put in the Apostrophe cover as argued above. Those opposing, please see if you can upload a better picture, or somehow get permission to use the "zappa1.jpg" pic (strange that it has been removed after having been there for so long. Well, I am no copyright expert). In any case, please report progress here on the talk page.--HJ 11:22, 22 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)

[z0man] I'd like to include a viral video clip of Zappa discussing censorship (1986 CNN Crossfire) He does a good job at it. You see him talking with John Lofton (Washington Post) looks rather funny too. http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?docId=6526525473785351949

That is an excellent video that shows off not only Frank Zappa's high intelligence, but it also shows that he didn't make up things as he went along...he fully knew the subject and could refute ANY contrary dodge objection to the main issue.
It would be a great addition to the article, where that may be will need to be worked out with the contributors.
PS: Thanks, I had never seen or heard that video/exchange.
-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
The video is already linked in the article – see Footnote 6. However, the link is to a QuickTime video, so I think the GoogleVideo is more suitable. I have inserted it. Thanks for the link! HJ 10:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)


I don't know...the sound is all choppy on the google video version, which puts me right off watching it. On all the quicktime versions I've seen, this problem doesn't occur, so you might want to think about including it as an alternative.
Links to quicktime videos -
http://www.stat.pitt.edu/stoffer/dss_files/zappa_crossfire.html
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2658805
There's also a follow up, "Zappa on Crossfire II", which might also be of some interest, at ifilm:
http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2664570
81.156.56.13 20:21, 6 September 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. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 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! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.139.176.4 (talk • contribs)
It's cute in an odd-shaped malignant growth kind of way, but it makes the second half of the article an utter mess. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
Aggree. It is nice, and I can't really cut out anything based on it being completely irrelevant, but the article will never, ever get a chance as FA with this trivia section. So, I took the liberty of taggging it as "too much trivia". Does anyone knows whether one can make an independent article on the trivia info? (Just like one has an independent article for discography). Has that been done before? It could be a solution, as I see it.--HJ 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
At least within the confines of Zappa's "Conceptual Continuity" a separate page for the trivia fits nicely. Many of the pithy comments there can aid an aspiring fan of Zappa's music in understand the large number of subtle references in his body of work. --GregoryEvans01 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Dawkeye has edited the trivia section by introdcuing sub sections. It looks much better now! Still, it doesn't reduce the lenght of the contents (so I took the liberty of reinserting the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag), and as it looks now, it almost cries out for an independent page. Anybody has more comments one this?--HJ 10:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


Though initially I came by just to do a tidy-up job (I am not particularly a Zappa fan, though I know people who are), I would make the following suggestions for reducing the size of the Trivia section.
1. Promote the subsections on his TV appearances, things named after him, and references to him in songs and other media, to sections in their own right - surely these are important enough not to be "trivia", as they show the wide and continuing range of his influence on others?
2. Incorporate the Ann Landers list into the 80's section about Zappa's problems with censorship.
3. Move the info about Zappa's role as "cultural ambassador" and relationship with Vaclav Havel to the 90's section.
4. What's left is interesting, but can be left in as Trivia - apart from the reference to Matt Groening, he's a fan - so what? So are lots of people. Has this had any notable influence on his work? dawkeye 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

These are good suggestions (nice to have non-fan eyes on things sometimes!). If nobody objects, I will implement the suggestions in a week or so. Yes, the Matt Groening info is slightly minor. He is a little more than a fan, though. He was a friend of Zappa in Zappa's last years, and did a few of the last interviews with him. But in the big Zappa picture, he is not much more important than many others; if at all.--HJ 13:51, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

The incident at the Rainbow Theatre in London says "citation needed"; I don't know how to do it properly which means I probably shouldn't be editing this, but nevertheless the event is recounted in Zappa's autobiography, "The Real Frank Zappa Book" and is described as stated in this article.

I'll try and fix it. Don't worry. --HJ 05:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

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)
    • I see the point. The problem is (and I have seen with other artists that his can be a BIG problem), that many of the sites are not "just" fan sites where people write in amateur praises of their idols (I regret now, that I used the wording "fan-sites", as that apparantly carries a negative connotation; what I meant is that they are made by fans, which in itself should not be a disqualification). Some of the pages are for all practical purposes encyclopedic entities with, e.g., detailed info on every line-ups of Zappa's bands through time, detailed info on all concert dates, venues, etc. Neutral information that cannot be retrieved at the official site (or in published books). I would even say that some of the external links takes priority over some of the books listed in the "Further reading" section. My suggestion would be to go through the sites, and let those stay that includes relevant and neutral information. Moreover, in the list one should be more specific about the nature/contribution of each link (as of now this is not done consistently for all).--HJ 09:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All external links have now a brief explanation as to what information they provide (they are not merely fan-sites filled with Zappa praise). Hopefully, this provides a more consistent look (as well as relevant information).--HJ 16:56, 31 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)

Yeah, I got one. Zappa: A Biography, By Barry Miles on page 271 of the paperback version. Here's a quote. "Sheik Yerbouti, Zappa's first album on his own label, was released 3 March 1980. The title was taken from the current Number One hit, K.C. and the Sunshine Band's 'Shake Your Booty'..." Barry Miles was a close friend of Zappa's and his biography of Zappa is highly regarded so that is the end of this war. The Guilty Undertaker 2:56, 24 July 2006
This quote is not really convincing imo. The album was released in 1979, and the KC number was three years old in 1979. So some facts are not quite right. In the album article Sheik Yerbouti this is stated. In any case, maybe we should just leave the info there? On that page it is also written rather catiously (i.e., that the titles sounds the same, but not that it necessarily was Frank's intention).--HJ 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
The Barry Miles biography is NOT highly regarded. It is widely considered by Zappa fans to be a piece of shit. That book should not be used as a reference in any instance. (Ibaranoff24 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC))
A few examples (adding to the one given above) would be appropriate. Your statement is just your personal opinions. Please use arguments instead of just presenting strong conclusions (for what it is worth, I otherwise agree on these on this one).--HJ 23:15, 12 August 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)

This should be put back in..I've been looking everywhere for info on His very unique guitar playing and that about sums it up.

It is way too WP:POV to be in a Wiki entry. If you can find some appropriate sourced material about Zappa's guitar style please feel free to include it. --HJ 07:52, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

"See also: List of rock instrumentals"

Does anyone have strong feelings about this section being in the article? I think it is not needed.--HJ 16:11, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Deleted as of today. Anyone want it back?--HJ 23:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Johnny "Guitar" Watson influence

I inserted a blurb yesterday about FZ being inspired to become a guitarist when he heard Johnny "Guitar" Watson's song "Three Hours Past Midnight." (I was logged out when I wrote it--thought I was logged in.)

I don't have a specific source for the quote, other than it is cited on a few websites--here's some:


www.rockabillyhall.com/JohnnyWatson1.html

wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/Johnny_%22Guitar%22_Watson

www.johnnyguitarwatson.net/quotes.htm


Zappa did cite Watson's "Three Hours Past Midnight" as his favorite record in a 1979 interview: http://www.killuglyradio.com/features/articles/frank_zappa_vs_the_world_part_three.php

Given it was his favorite record, and also that Zappa switched from drums to guitar at the time it was released in 1956, it's likely that the quote is authentic.

I'll dig around a few books and see if I can find more documentation.

If any Zappa collectors have interview articles, etc., at their disposal, please feel free to shout out!  :) Thanks,

John

--je 22:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

That's great! If you don't happen to find anything else, I believe a reference to the jgw.net is ok documentation. I think it is a fine thing to include.--HJ 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks a lot. I'm still new to the Wiki-world. I may check the books anyway... Can't be too careful.  :) I might also add to FZ's entry that "Three Hours Past Midnight" was also his favorite record, if that's okay... I'm a big JGW fellow. Possibly the only.  :) --je 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Neutrality, tone of article

It feels as if the article we're written by the Zappa Family. It should be more neutral. Though we all agree that Frank was a great composer, guitarist, and person we really should try to make the page sound less like an advertisement.--SW 22:18, August 19, 2006

Agreed. The problem arises from lack of references. The basic source for the article now, as I see it, is The Real FZ Book. That clearly gives a biased look at things (or as a minimum it neglects several things). The problem with other books (where some contains criticial stories), is that the err on facts so much that they are difficult to take seriously as source material. If you have some contributions, which could bring on some nuance to the article (based on sourced material), it would in my opinion be most welcome.--HJ 08:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
One book which might come in useful is Ben Watson's Frank Zappa and the Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play, which not only contains extracts from many Zappa interviews but which also gives citations for all of them. I believe a lot of Zappa fans didn't like the book, but it's properly sourced and referenced. If nobody else has a copy I volunteer to hunt through it for references. --Lexo 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The reason fans didn't like the book is that a fantastic number of facts are garbled. See [1] for an in-depth analysis by Mike Keneally, who would know.
Thanks for the link. I noticed, though, that a lot of the things Keneally objects to are not errors of fact, but expressions of Watson's own irrelevant but sometimes stimulating over-opinionatedness, if that's a real word - Watson's ego being almost as big as Zappa's. There are errors, all right, but Keneally doesn't say that Watson has falsified dates of newspaper interviews, etc. That was where I thought the book might come in useful. At least Watson bothers to give sources. --Lexo 11:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm a huge music fan, and I'm attempting to fill out some of my knowledge of history by reading biographies on here. I stumbled on Frank Zappa's bio and I have to say, the "Overview" section feels like it was written by a fart-catching sycophant. Obviously, he has had a real impact on music/culture but he wasn't bigger than the Beatles. I doubt if anyone below the age of 25 would know him (not that they shouldn't of course), but this makes him out to be be a god...
Ugh. Comparing that man to the Beatles is kind of like comparing Charles-Valentin Alkan to U2. I wouldn't be surprised if U2 had a more immediate impact on the music industry, but that is not what it is about. Frank Zappa was not only a talented composer and performer, he was also an intelligent and insightful man. Believe me, Frank Zappa is still very much alive in today's culture. He is a god in some subsets of the atheist and libertarian culture. I think you're missing the big picture. Bloodbeard 20:24, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Phrasing

Reading this selection in an attempt to get to know more about Zappa, I was thoroughly confused:

"The pivotal events leading to Zappa's engagement with modern classical music occurred after his reading of a LOOK magazine story on the Sam Goody record store chain that lauded its ability to sell an LP as obscure as The Complete Works of Edgard Varèse, Volume One. It further described Varèse's dissonant drum composition "Ionisation" as "a weird jumble of drums and other unpleasant sounds.""

Apart from the first sentence being unpleasantly long, I'm not sure if the author knows what the word 'laud' means. It means to praise, glorify or extol. I'm not sure why the magazine would praise Sam Goody for selling an obscure record and then go on to denigrate the record. Could anyone clarify what the intended meaning is? --24.250.176.89 06:53, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

In America, the ability to sell shit is a virtue. --GangofOne 06:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
Poetic and pungent, if somewhat snarky. Let me unpack that statement a little bit. The magazine author praises Sam Goody for having the salesmanship ability to offload the least popular item on the shelf. Not selling this item means that it was taking up shelf space real estate and invested capital. Selling this item means that he could then take that shelf space and put something else there that will sell faster. This is good business, and Sam Goody was a good salesman, at least in the eyes of LOOK employees. Hence, his "ability to sell" "shit" "is a virtue".
No, the author of the advertisement was bragging about the scope of music available in the store. In my home town the only music I can get was obviously sent here by computer to move product. I can only imagine that in the 50's the same was true (except replace computer with tone deaf executive), so owning a modernist classical work was (and as I stated above, is) a rare thing for a record store outside of a large city. The ad ran something like this: "Here at Sam Goody we have everything! Even unlistenable music!" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GolumTR (talk • contribs) 23:01, 25 April 2007 (UTC).

Truth to be told, "weird jumble of drums and other unpleasant sounds" pretty accurately sums up Ionisation. It's pretty wild stuff if you're unprepared for it. I think Frank wanted to find out if Sam Goody really was that good a salesman, or else maybe those "unpleasant sounds" might be worth listening to after all. And honestly sometimes unpleasant sounds provide the best music. 68.211.52.186 18:38, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Zappa and Black Sabbath

In the trivia section the following resides. The final boldfaced sentence was added and reverted, but frankly (no pun intended), the whole thing is a bit speculative. Does anyone have any references?

On December 6, 1976, Zappa introduced Black Sabbath at their Madison Square Garden concert. This announcement is featured on a Black Sabbath bootleg album. He once declared Sabbath's "Iron Man" (Paranoid, 1970) the greatest ever rock track, he would later change his choice of track to "Supernaut" from the group's Vol.4 Album (1972) A jam was once organised featuring Sabbath and Zappa, Sabbath however pulled out. Though technical difficulties were cited, it has been rumoured Sabbath lead guitarist Tony Iommi was not comfortable with sharing guitar duties with Zappa (rumored mostly by Zappa enthusiasts in an effort to sway attention away from Iommi).

If not, I would suggest that everything from "He once..." and out is deleted.--HJ 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Here is a transcript from a BBC program where FZ presented his favorite records, and he does in fact play "Iron Man" (though he doesn't say it's "the greatest ever"). I do think everything from "Though technical difficulties..." should go. 145.222.138.134 21:09, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

I call 'bullshit'

Added today: "In the waning months of 1982, Frank released a small collaboration of unfinished cuts and jams titled "Beef Furniture Collection, Works 1-2". The album was one of the few universal critical failures of his career, as it was characterized by strangely poor production values, due to the fact that many tracks were still in an unfinished state. Nevertheless, some of the songs achieved popularity through the imaginative guitar solos and lyrics, particularly the title track." SOrry, you're making it up. --GangofOne 23:18, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed... this is either made up, or mistakenly refers to a bootleg. Anon, 12 Oct 2006.

Guitar infobox ???

Someone has introduced a "Guitar Infobox" instead of the custom infobox that previously was on the page. Compare new with old. While Zappa was certainly a renowned guitarist, I feel this is a bit ackward nevertheless. He was so much more than "just" a guitarist, so I clearly prefer the old style of labelling him "American Composer" as well as having his quote on what a composer does. Cf. his autobiography where he spends little time on guitar playing, and lots of time om composing per se. Please leave you comments. If nothing is left here, I will revert to the old version, as the introduction of a Guitar infobox was not discussed here either. --HJ 16:25, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The guitarist infobox is used on a variety of articles for people that aren't even guitarists! It's just because it's a good infobox and gets more information across than the old one did. HK51 16:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

And it loses some information as stated above. Information which I think more important than highlighting that he played the Les Paul, SG and Stratocaster. More information is not necessarily the same as getting across a better message.--HJ 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The guitarist infobox was added in as a part of the WikiProject:Guitarists "to-do" list. The box is currently being upgraded to include more information for guitarists such as FZ who have a wide resume to cover.(just no useless colour schemes). If you want to discuss any additions/alterations as far as the infobox is concerned there is an open invitation to all to come and join in at the projects talk page. As for now, if there is concensus to change it back to the old box then by all means do. The guitarists project will still try to focus on the "guitar related" portions of the article regardless of what box is there. FZ was certainly a genius and deserves a quality article covering all aspects of his career. And I liked the quote from the old box and meant to keep it on the new one but forgot. While on the topic...I don't think the album cover in either box is fair use? Covers are only for use in articles about the album itself...or in article sections where the text is specific to the album....aren't they? Cheers! Anger22 22:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with HJ on this one, as I think the infobox should emphasize the fact that Zappa was a composer first and foremost, which the new infobox doesn't indicate. It also appears to contain erroneous/incomplete information - it lists only four genres that Zappa used in his music, and there's certainly alot more. Also, I'd argue that psychadelic rock isn't even close to being one of the more prominent styles of music Zappa composed in, and when he did so it was usually to satirize it. The first sentence of the psychadelic rock article states:
"Psychedelic rock is a style of rock music inspired by or attempting to replicate the mind-altering experiences brought on by drugs such as cannabis, psilocybin, mescaline, salvia divinorum, and especially LSD."
..which was of course not Zappa's intention.
Another strange thing about the new infobox is that it lists Zappa's 'years active' as being from 1963 - 1993. 1963? I'm not sure what this refers to, the Studio Z recordings I guess, but is that legitimate? It might be correct in a way, but it sort of gives the wrong idea. The first 'proper' release was Freak Out in 1966, and this is what is usually cited when discussing the beginning of Zappa's professional career. If you were going to make a case for anything before this being the beginning of his 'years active', you might as well say that it was c.1952 when he began composing, or 1958 when he gigged with the blackouts.
So, I think that maybe on balance we should change it back to the first infobox, perhaps with a few changes. Is the quote, for example, really necessary? I don't really think it exemplifies Zappa's character or ideas...it's basically just his opinion of what a composer is. Perhaps it should be removed, or replaced with something more pertinent? RWhite 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I've switched it to the far more appropriate (IMO), and far higher quality (again, IMO) musical artist infobox. Y'all can take a look and see what you think, and if there's a concensus that this is wrong, it's easy to revert. But this infobox is widely used and a generally accepted standard. Note that the quote can go or stay, I don't care. I just left it there because it was already there. I think there's a wealth of good Zappa quotes that could go there, or no caption at all would be fine. I'm not trying to shove anything down anyone's throat, just showing off some options. (Remember, though, the infobox and the info in the infobox are two separate things, and can be edited separately. All this dispute about dates and genres really has nothing to do with the infoboxes per se.) Xtifr tälk 07:20, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

IMO, RWhite has valid points about the dates for Zappa's "activity". I have changed "years active" to "1950s - 1993". This is, I think in accordance with what RWhite is saying, and definitely in accordance with my view. I also agree with Xtifr that this is a matter beyond which particular infobox is used. I kind of like the present box now (definitely when compared to the guitar template that triggered this part of the talk page). And for the record, I LIKE the quote. To me it really pins down Zappa's attitude to music in general: It is serious, but not SERIOUS. But let's keep discussing. :-) --HJ 10:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Zappa was just as serious about his guitar playing as composing. The guitar was one of the most improtant parts in all of Zappa's original work unless there were no guitars at all. There needs to be MORE info on his Guitar playing as he is very unique and plays unlike everyone else..Who all play the same.

Frank on Miami Vice (video)

Payback episode

enjoy!

Quick minsinfo fix

The 1960s section asserts that "motherfucker" is a term which refers to "skilled musicians". I do not have a reference at hand, but am sure that this term is actually used to refer to musicians who are NOT skilled, but only regard themselves as such. The quote taken from Zappa which follows this assertion also clearly indicates this by defining the term as a reference to "SUPPOSEDLY good musicians". Whoever looks this up and fixes this problem could probably also add this information to the "motherfucker" article. If the term isnt given this meaning by the Oxford English Dictionary, then I am sure that it could be found in some kind of adult jazz reference book.


No sir, you wouldn't say, "He plays like a motherfucker" if he was bad, that usually reflects good playing. Bad would be, "He plays shit" JMIZ 02:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Zappa taken off the internet musicsites?

from what I've seen Zappa has been taken off of iTunes and other online music stores, perhaps the page should reflect this? (unsigned|66.56.145.43 (Talk)}

  • (sorry for my bad "registration of entry" by the anon IP; I didn't bother to seek the correct template for too long) I really can't see the need or this. Zappa is available through numerous outlets (e.g., CDs, and even vinyl) so whether he is currently not at iTtunes could reflect some temporary "issues" between his company and iTunes. No big deal for now for an encyclopedia entry. If it turns into involving something of basic music industry priciples, it could be mentioned, but not for now.--HJ 05:06, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Failed GA

Quick fail for being in Category:Articles with unsourced statements, having images without fair use rationale, and having too short of a lead. See WP:GA? and WP:LEAD. --SeizureDog 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2nd Failed GA

The article only has 14 cites, the first appearing in the middle of the article. Wiki-newbie 11:33, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalized

I've been trying to "undo" the vandalism, but it's not saving properly. Can someone else undo the last edit? --Snicker 23:39, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Done. IrishGuy talk 23:41, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Steve Allen show

Don't know if it was worth mentioning in the article, but Frank had a very interesting early appearance on the Steve Allen show "playing" a bicycle: [2] [3]

You losers don't know ANYTHING about Frank Zappa

Look Frank Zappa was the most alternative rock in the world.

+ HE did not want to be remembered

+He HATES the music industry

+I mean there are just SOOOOOOOOO many things you guys are leaving out of his article it's embarrsing. Zabrak 02:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I feel like I should point out at this point that not knowing anything about Frank Zappa is really the best qualification of all for writing a Wikipedia article about Frank Zappa. If you don't know anything about him, you won't be tempted to insert your personal knowledge, and will simply report what reliable sources say, which will ensure that the article meets Wikipedia's verifiability standards. In fact, that's probably why I haven't actually contributed much to the article. It's because I know too much about FZ—yeah, that's the ticket! :) Xtifr tälk 12:13, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Zappa on SNL: To be mentioned?

Somebody has written the follwing:

During the late 1970s Zappa made several celebrated appearances on the popular NBC series Saturday Night Live, both as guest host and as featured musical guest. His renowned SNL appearance in December 1976 included an impromptu musical collaboration with cast member John Belushi (playing his famous Samurai Futaba character) and a performance of "I'm The Slime" which featured a voice-over by SNL booth announcer Don Pardo, who also performed on stage with Zappa a few days later, reading the narration for "The Illinois Enema Bandit" (a performance which can be found on Zappa In New York and Läther).

I think it should be removed because: A) It is a minor thing in the big picture B) Most of the cast and producers of SNL hated Zappa, so it is not an example of some happy collaberation. --HJ 14:59, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


No way dude those were some of the funniest and most entertaining SNLs ever. Too bad Lorne Michaels doesn't think so and refuses to publish them. If you want to see a great example of Zappa just being Zappa, try to dig up those episodes. 66.177.44.81 17:22, 25 January 2007 (UTC) JP

I have seen these episodes several times "dude" (where "several" is strictly greater than "two", which is not the way the word is used in the entry I want to debate), and I absolutely love them. This, however, is not the issue here. The paragraph is complete POV, and labelling the stint with Belushi a "collaberation" is pushing it too far. The Don Pardo thing is also really going into details for an encyclopedic article; also it loses focus as it moves away from SNL description quite fast. That's why I think the whole thing should be removed. --HJ 11:01, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

Freak Out!

I'm trying to get Freak Out! promoted to featured article status. Feel free to help out. (Ibaranoff24 15:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC))

Wowie Zowie! (Ibaranoff24 22:29, 20 February 2007 (UTC))

Regarding "We're Only in it for the Money"

In the portion of the article that discusses the Mothers album "We're only in it for the money", a few short lines are devoted to the album's iconoclastic cover art. In these lines special attention is paid to the fact that an image of Jimi Hendrix appears on the album cover. No other individual is explicitley named even though other famous individuals appear on the cover, such as Lyndon Johnson. This leads me to beleive that the author of the article, or these few lines just seemed to like Jimi Hendrix. This I don't dispute, as I also enjoy Hendrix, however I don't believe he should get any special recognition for having his picture posted on the album. An album he made no creative contributions to. Therefore the list of people appearing on the album cover should be expanded or Hendrix's name should be removed.Bswartz 17:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I have removed it. --HJ 22:32, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Mention of instruments in infobox

Recently some has put in Harmonica and Harpsicord as instruments in the user box. Here, and here. The question is whether the infobox (which I think is supposed to provide concise and short information) should list every instrument Zappa has ever touched? In my opinion, only the ones he regularly recorded and performed with should be mentioned. I don't think Harmonica and Harpsicord are among these, so I have reverted their inclusion. --HJ 07:13, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

The instruments detailed in the infobox now are just fine. Anything else added in now would just be superfluity. Leave as is and rm any more that get added in. 156.34.142.110 13:06, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Two bones to pick

First, the intro as it currently reads would seem to suggest that Zappa was a conservative who hated hippies. I think it would be much more accurate to describe Zappa as a self-critical hippie who ironically identified as a conservative. I don't think that's a particularly encyclopedic phrasing, but the current intro leaves any reader who is not familiar with Zappa with an image that is entirely inaccurate. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.57.242 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 March 2007

Also, whaddup with this sentence: "his parents were affluent enough to afford a record player, records, a television, and musical instruments." Unless someone wants to throw down that most Americans in the 1960s could not afford a television and record player, and that this is how wikipedia normally approaches such biographical articles, this is POV. - Ethan Mitchell, forgetting to sign in. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.142.57.242 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 March 2007


The fact that many americans "were affluent enough" doesn't change the fact that zappa's "were affluent enough". How might we improve the precision of the statement if you feel it's nessesary? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.77.65.236 (talk • contribs) 04:03, 17 March 2007
The critical attitude on hippies, I removed from the lead. It is already mentioned in the article in relation to "We are only in it...." (where it is appropriate to mention). I don't feel it is a thing worth mentioning in a lead, as it presupposes that all readers have the prior that Frank was a hippie. Maybe that was the case decades ago, but in an encyclopedia one should report facts, not responses to perceived prejudices of readers.--HJ 22:22, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

Wrong Peter Wolf

There seem to be numerous links from the Peter Wolf of Zappa's bands to the Peter Wolf of J. Geils fame...they are two entirely different people. Here is a true link to the correct Peter Wolf: http://www.united-mutations.com/w/peter_wolf.htm


Hawk59 19:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Hawk59

I didn't find any mention of Peter Wolf in the article (?) --HJensen, talk 20:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

No Mention Of 'The Vault'

There is no mention in this article of 'The Vault', a large storage vault underneath the Utility Muffin Research Kitchen, it holds almost every live performance that Zappa did. Now action is being taken to release almost all of it. it would be much appreciated if somebody added this to the article. Thankyou, A Zappa Fan —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.212.223.251 (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 April 2007

It is mentioned that Zappa recorded almost all of his concerts and built up a vast archive. What is not mentioned is speculation about future releases. Let time show what will be released--HJensen, talk 21:48, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

"My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama" split

Should the MGWTKYM article be split into two articles, one for the song and one for the Dweezil Zappa album? Or is it better off left as it is? --Bongwarrior 00:08, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I would say that unless someone has subtantial interesting info to add to either of the articles, there are no need to create two one-line articles out of what is currently in the common article.--HJensen, talk 13:54, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Structure of article: Comments please

We should move on and try eventually to get FA status for the Zappa article. I therefore think that the article needs a slight restructuring (and some more sourcing, I have added some sources recently, and will continue to add). In terms of restructuring: Now, the article is essentially "just" a chronological bio. I think it would be better to have a slightly briefer bio, followed by independent paragraphs on Zappa as composer, guitarist, film director, political spokesman, etc. Most of the, imo, central things are already mentioned in the article, but they are now "hidden" various places in the bio. So a lot is "only" a matter of editing. Finally, I think some more catchy headings of the bio are in place (now it is just decades). Thoughts, comments or objections? --HJensen, talk 08:30, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Regardless, I think the Zappa article is GA at the moment.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 00:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

GA fail

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

This article needs a lot more references to qualify for GA-whole sections are missing them. As for images-album covers will pass fair use regulations only if they are used to illustrate the album itself (read:on the album page). They have to be deleted on this page. The infobox looks very cluttered-find a consensus on the genres listed-preferably no more than four. For ideas on how to improve this article further, see The Beatles, Kate Bush, or U2-all GA articles. ErleGrey 21:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Genres (and infobox)

Re: the genres in the infobox, as mentioned at the GA review above. Zappa really only did one Doo-Wop album in his career (Cruising with Reuben & the Jets), but he performed experimental music of various sorts throughout his career. I tend to think that Experimental music is much more defining than Doo-Wop. As for blues, I can't really think of any that isn't incidental and at a level that would be expected of a typical rock musician of the era. But rather than risk starting an edit war, I thought I'd try to start a discussion. If we're going to limit it to four genres, I would think that rock, jazz, classical and experimental would be the most accurate and precise. Comments? Opinions? Xtifr tälk 19:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree to a certain extent. While he only did one full Doo-wop album, doo-wop songs are all over his albums from Freak Out! to songs from the 1988 tour. But I guess this is the 'problem' in a nutshell. Zappa's music transcended so many genres that it is hard to restrict oneself here. But to already try to reach some agreement, I guess that everybody can agree on "Rock", "Classical" and "Jazz"? If we should restrict to a fourth, I can see the argument for "Experimental" as that covers his contributions in all areas in the sense that he was rarely conventional. Let's collect more responses!--HJensen, talk 21:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

The only monument of Frank Zappa in the world is in VIlnius, capital of Lithuania

There is no informatiion about that in the article. But you can find it on the internet. Karolis.narbutas 09:58, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

It's covered in the Cultural references to Frank Zappa article, which is linked from this one. Xtifr tälk 11:23, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The Real Frank Zappa Book

His book definetly deserves an article (The Real Frank Zappa Book). It's not mentioned anywhere on Wikipedia as far as I can see... 217.211.211.182 00:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

The books article on Wiki Jawaka. 217.211.211.182 00:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Explicit instrumentals

I remember hearing that one of his albums was labeled by the RIAA as having "Explicit Lyrics" - even though it was a completely instrumental album. Does anyone remember which one? And should it be mentioned in the article as part of his battles against the organization? Lurlock 19:12, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Frank himself added his own infamous "Warning/Guarantee" to at least one of his instrumental albums. I do not believe this was done because of the direct actions of the PMRC or RIAA or any other external organization; it was a voluntary (and presumably somewhat tongue-in-cheek) action by Frank himself. Xtifr tälk 21:36, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
Actually, I think it was Jazz from Hell, an entirely instrumental album, which - quite ironically - got a warning sticker. I will see if I can dig up a source.--HJensen, talk 16:07, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Maybe. The claim is certainly made at the article. On the other hand, the claim is also unsupported by any citations or reliable sources, so I'll reserve judgment (I've owned my own copy too long to be sure--if there was a sticker, it's long since been lost). In any case, if that's the only album, then I think a mention of it at the album article is probably sufficient. If there are more, then maybe it would be worth mentioning here. Xtifr tälk 02:47, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
I remember it being mentioned in some made-for-TV movie that played on VH1. Of course it was all reenactments, but it's supposed to all be based on actual events. Don't remember the name of it, but that might help for those looking for the source for this info. Lurlock 03:35, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I found a good source, I hope, and have inserted the fact into the part on the censorship hearings. --HJensen, talk 16:58, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Proliferation of ethnic categories

An anonymous contributor has twice added the categories Category:Arab Americans and Category:Greek-Americans to the article. I have a problem with multiplying these categories like this; I would say unless the subject of the article identified as being an Arab American and a Greek-American, and we the editors of the article think it is significant enough to include in the article, these should be omitted. What do others think? --John 14:23, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, entirely irrelevant and perhaps even misleading. Zappa was an American - period. I have removed the categories. DVdm 15:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I don't insist it being there, but his diverse ethnic heritage did have (as mentioned and sourced in the article) some impact on his openness to all types of music and people. But surely he was foremost an American. So I have no problems leaving them out as categories.--HJensen, talk 17:24, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Entirely with you on this. And of course, if the ethnic heritage indeed had some notable impact, we could create a little section on that subject in the article itself, provided some relevant citations/references can be found. But I don't recall having read anything by Zappa (or anyone else) that would point in that direction.
Cheers & keep up the good work! DVdm 17:42, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Zappa/Archive_2&oldid=1248762727"