Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

Article outline

A few recent edits suggested that material from the lead is moved to two independent sections at the end of the article: "Honours and Awards" (suggested by User:Abeer.ag ) and "Personal life" (suggested by User:Tree Biting Conspiracy). I have somewhat daringly reverted these suggestions. I, however, agree that something needs to be done. I just don't believe moving the last paragraphs of the lead to indepedent sections is the best thing. I would instead suggest that a section on "Legacy" is considered, as that is common for many biographies of late musicians (the awards things could then be a part of such a section). An independent section on personal life just covering his political stance and children's names is, I think, also to little in tiself. Most aspects of Zappa's life is already covered in the aricle, so the present material in the lead is in my opinion fine. Perhaps the details on children could go into the main body of the article? Any comments? --HJensen, talk 22:36, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal life

I don't necessarily agree with the FAC complaint about the failure of the article to include enough detail about Zappa's personal life. However, I noticed in http://mixonline.com/recording/business/audio_mothers_sound/ a rather poignant quote from Zappa's autobiography (which you might have access to) about his marriage falling apart due to his excess work. This makes sense as I do wonder how he did it all! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:14, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes it is amazing. Whether his first marriage fell apart due to work, or opened up for the possibility for lots of work in the studio, is, however, difficult to assess from his book. In any case, his second marriage survived his working habits, which never seemed to change. BTVW thanks for all your edits to the article! I will address more of the FA concerns tomorrow. --HJensen, talk 23:21, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I just finished watching Zappa on the Steve Allen show in 1963. A wonderful piece, but is a myspace link allowed on Wikipedia FA? I know that youtube is not allowed on Wikipedia because of copyright issues. —Mattisse (Talk) 23:43, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

I actually don't know. But it is not a big issue here; I can easily dig up a written reference for this particular event.--HJensen, talk 23:54, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Good to see some serious work going into this article at last. Yes it needs more on his personal life - we have tried including it before but have always been dismissed by the clique of controlling editors here - the discussions were conveniently archived away prior to the FAC proposal.

Please - no more references based on Zappa talking about himself - he was a marketing guy who could spin things his way. It was mostly, to quote Don Preston, "bullshit".

We know very little about the first marriage. His sister said that he phoned his mother and asked her to come and pick him up but why it fell apart we do not know other than the quote on the Freak Out! cover - "Got married when I was 20... a lovely girl: almost ruined her life, filed for divorce." Lame Name (talk) 06:54, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

"have always been dismissed by the clique of controlling editors here". That is not very WP:CIVIL. And who is "we"? --HJensen, talk 16:14, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that "archiving" can be a strategic tactic at Wikipedia to try unfairly to squelch dissent, but the notion that this article "needs more on [Zappa's] personal life" strikes me as very strange. In the first place, Zappa is not notable for his personal life. In the second place, Zappa's personal life was his own affair. The purpose of Wikipedia is not to satiate the voraciously voyeuristic. It can tolerate a few general remarks about a subject's personal life, but it doesn't need any at all. TheScotch (talk) 07:32, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I may note that I find any accusations of "strategic archiving" completely off the mark and paranoid.--HJensen, talk 08:21, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

You may, I suppose, but that sounds to me a bit "paranoid" itself, if you'll forgive the term (and I think you're obliged to, having just used it fairly wantonly yourself). In any case, I don't really know the history of this particular article, but I do know two instances of pretty clear strategic "archiving" at Wikipedia (at two completely separate and distinct articles, involving two different editors "archiving" for different and distinct unscrupulous and disingenuous purposes). It happens. TheScotch (talk) 09:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok; I got paranoid seing myself being associated with strategic archiving. Of course I did; I simply couldn't help feeling a hurt about it. Can't help it. In any case, archives are not deleted; they can be accessed and referenced very easily, so I actually cannot see much scope for any strategic movements here. The editor mentioning archiving could easily link to whatever discussion he/she felt was missing. That would be productive. BTW: what does "wantonly" mean (I am not being sarcastic, I simply ask out of interest. :-) ). Regards, --HJensen, talk 23:07, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

"Archiving" effectively buries discussion. The potential for abuse is great. Various fairly objective tests are available: When, for instance, an editor "archives" material to which he has contributed little and then proceeds to dominate his newly created discussion page, we have prima facie evidence that there has been abuse. TheScotch (talk) 21:16, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have looked through all three archives more than once and found nothing particularly controversial or surprising. And I should add, nothing about his personal life other than he doesn't like drugs. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:25, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I am also very relieved by learning about this "fairly objective test", as I have contributed to more or less every subject on the talk pages. (But I still don't agree with the statement that " 'Archiving' effectively buries discussion"; see my remarks above.).--HJensen, talk 21:30, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Archiving is the only way to keep order over time when a talk page is busy. I have more of a problem when editors take it upon themselves to "refactor" talk pages, thereby at times significantly changing the order and accessibility of the information. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:46, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not saying never archive; I'm saying proceed to with caution and respect for others's contributions. Also proceed with caution when undertaking what you call (Matisse calls) "refractor"-ing. TheScotch (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

A Personal life section may be too limiting: Ann Patty, publisher of TRFZB said - I think of Frank as truly an extraordinarily intelligent man with really far-ranging interests. If you're gonna do a biography of a rock star, you probably can't get one more interesting than this one.

I think we do him a disservice if we ignore aspects of the man not related to his music career. I am not suggesting anything intrusive or voyeuristic just to add a bit of flesh and colour (or color if you must ;-) to the article with what is generally known. Some aspects are alluded to in the article - his peripatetic youth - an outsider at each new school - contrasts with his own sole family home. He was a "notable" smoker all his life. When challenged to justify his addiction against his anti-drugs stance he would explain that tobacco was a vegetable and so he considered cigarettes as food. His sense of humour could be mentioned in the article - Moon's quote as a nervous 13 year old recording Valley Girl - Once she had made him laugh she knew she was doing it right. See also Billy Connoly's biography. He was due to make an appearance on The Simpsons but his failing health prevented it. The article mentions his Saturday Night Live appearances but could mention that he ranged from Faerie Tale Theatre to Miami Vice. I think the article needs to expand on his intellectual capacities. Surely his proposal for distributing music down telephone wires - long before the Internet, mp3s, iTunes etc. - is worthy of a mention. Lame Name (talk) 11:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will incorporate as many of these things that I can manage, tomorrow.--HJensen, talk 21:52, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Smoking now mentioned in conjunction with this drug attitudes. --HJensen, talk 12:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

His 1980s proposal of digital-to-digital transfer of music is now mentioned (with his own book as reference). Good idea; it is a stunning read actually. --HJensen, talk 13:22, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

His other TV appearances (non musical) is mentioned now; as well as the Simpsons thing.--HJensen, talk 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I could not dig up the Moon quote, do you, Lame Name, know details about it? Otherwise, I think I am more or less done for now. --HJensen, talk 14:14, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I was just coming here to ask where the personal life section is. It's sorely needed. Aaron Bowen (talk) 14:42, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Paragraphs

It is good to break up long paragraphs, but FAC does not like short, stubby paragraphs either. They prefer them to be faithly similar in length, according to Tony. —Mattisse (Talk) 12:21, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Early reference to Black Page

The mention of Black Page has nothing to do with "Youth and beginning of career". It should not be there in a well written article. It does get mentioned again in the 1970s section and would be better placed there. The sound sample also breaks the sequence coming before Hungry Freaks. It is not a drum solo. Lame Name (talk) 12:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But it is a prime example of his work with percussion, and I don't think it is sign of a not well written article to explain some of his musical ideas early on (as they indeed initiated in youth). Never mind, it would be fine to move the sound sample towards the 1970s section. What do you mean by "It is not a drum solo"? The sample is from the track named as written on the album sleeve. --HJensen, talk 16:11, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

But the caption reads "The Black Page Drum Solo". This is not the album; a reader not familiar with the work would expect to hear a drum solo. Lame Name (talk) 18:53, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see you point. The caption reads "The Black Page Drum Solo/Black Page #1", but that is the title of the track from which the sample is taken. There is not much we can do about that. We can't rename the track to suit our needs.--HJensen, talk 20:45, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Frank Zappa Was Italo-American

I suggest removing "who was of Greek-Arab descent" because almost every Sicilian has Greek-Arab descent. This is like saying that George Bush has English descent. Frank Zappa was just a Sicilian man born in the U.S.A. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.116.166 (talk) 14:17, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

I must say I don't know much about his father's heritage (in the sense how far back his Greek-Arab descent goes). I only have the information from the source given. But at least, I will remove the category saying that Zappa was Arab-American. That is in any case too far out I think. --HJensen, talk 16:57, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

All we know is what Zappa wrote, so we can't just assume that he was "just a Sicilian", when we don't know at all. Greek-Arab can mean anything, it could man that his father was half Greek and half Arab, or it could mean that he was a Greek Orhodox/Catholic Arab. If he was "just Sicilian" there would be no reason for him to say otherwise. He didn't say his mother was of "Gaulish" ancestry either. FunkMonk (talk) 17:14, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Listen to me...Sicily is a big island...Arabs, Greeks, Spanish and other people lived there for hundred of years...You can say his genealogic tree has some relatives from France (because this is not a standard for a Sicilian Family) and so on but you cannot say he's not Sicilian...He wrote songs like "Tengo Na Minchia Tanta", that's not Italian language but Sicilian dialet and means "I've got a big dick". His father gave him the surname "Zappa" that is a tipical surname of Sicily and means "Hoe" (so his father was Sicilian too)... Have you ever heard about "Magna Graecia"? Just have a look on wiki and you'll realize people from South Italy belong to a very tangled ethnicity...Have a look also to "Kingdom of the Two Sicilies" and "History of Islam in southern Italy" on wikipedia. What I'm trying to say is that if you are Sicilian you have Arabs, Greek and Spanish relatives at 99,99%...Anyway we cannot write articles saying "Abc Def" was 1/16 French,3/16 Turkish,2/8 German and so on...Frank Zappa was a Sicilian and he was born in the U.S.A. so he was also American. I'm quite sure that if Frank Zappa said his father got Arab and Greek descent he was talking about his long genealogic tree...That page must be changed because if someone not from Italy wants to know about this guy must know he was Italo-American, he didn't spoke French, Arab and Greek language, just Italian and English. Everyone here in Italy knows he was 1/2 Sicilian and 1/2 American...everybody must know it without thinking he was Arab or Greek...what the hell?!?! This is wrong! XD —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.116.166 (talk) 21:18, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, we can't just speculate all we want. What we have is what Zappa said, and we're not supposed to interpret it. As for "Tengo Na Minchia Tanta", he made that song with an actual Italian who sang it, so it doesn't show much. FunkMonk (talk) 21:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's say every Sicilian is not Sicilian (delete the word Sicilian and replace it with 1/3 Greek 1/3 Spanish 1/3 Arab)! The father of Zappa was surely at least 50% Sicilian because of his surname...so he was surely more Sicilian than Greek or Arab... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.116.166 (talk) 21:46, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, it's not up to us to speculate, it won't lead to nowhere. But if we want to speculate, it isn't exactly unusual for people to change surnames to fit in new countries, by the way. FunkMonk (talk) 21:56, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Let's say this...Francis Zappa was born in Paternico, Sicily (May 7 1905)...his father was Vincenzo Zappa (1876) and her mother was Rosaria di Lorenzo (1874)...Let's say it was quite impossible to change surname in 1876...Anyway I can't see any Arab-Greek surname! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.116.166 (talk) 22:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Yet again, who knows? This discussion is futile, and is not the way Wikipedia works. If you can cite it, go ahead, if not, there's not much more for us to say here. FunkMonk (talk) 22:07, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

This is written on wikipedia...just search for Francis Zappa... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.116.166 (talk) 22:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I made a mistake...that was not wikipedia but this page http://wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/Francis_Zappa —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.145.116.166 (talk) 22:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this is can be used as a reliable source, but it's always accurate - this family tree site (Wargs.com) lists all of Zappa's grandparents as having been born in Italy (and his father, specifically, in Partinico, Sicily). So, for what it's worth - and it's not much - I, too, doubt that Zappa had any actual significant Greek or Arab ancestry. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 14:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Death

I suggest removing the sentence "In 1993 he completed Civilization, Phaze III,..." as it breaks up what otherwise reads very well... final concert, final record, declining health... leading to a final paragraph... "Frank Zappa died on 4 December 1993,...". I do not see a way to squeeze in a mention of Civilization without spoiling the flow of the rest of the text. Lame Name (talk) 19:03, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good idea. I have moved it up a bit.--HJensen, talk 09:24, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Article sections

Breaking down 1980s: Productive as ever into sections looks like it is helpful and I recommend that you consider do the same for the other long sections. I have been copy editing the 1960s: Early career: Studio Z and the Mothers of Invention and found it difficult to keep track of myself because of the length. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:32, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Definitely agree. This is something I highlighted at the FAC. Sub-section headings should be used to break up the different subjects of each career section. — Wackymacs (talk ~ edits) 19:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Good ideas. I will try to come up with suggestions tomorrow. Feel free to join in. Regards.--HJensen, talk 20:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I have now made a suggestion for some splits that should make the article less "overwhelming".--HJensen, talk 10:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks! They are very helpful and, I believe, enhance the article by providing guideposts through Zappa's complex career. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:22, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Detail

I am wondering about some of the detail. Is it important regarding the film that "It was photographed on video and transferred to 35mm film"? I ask because it seems hard to work the sentence with the ending: "It was photographed on video and transferred to 35mm film, and released to mixed reviews." The "mixed reviews" seems anticlimatic here. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point from the point of the sentence. I would think that it is important, as it was one of the first films that used such a technique (and it allowed a lot of editing possibilities). I will dig up a reference. Thanks!--HJensen, talk 06:14, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, and add information about its novelty and importance for those who don't know. Also, I was trying to vary the wording of filming, photographed etc. as I was worried that "shot" may be considered too informal. Maybe not, though. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:48, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I have not changed it as I do not know what the Ref says but "it was filmed in a week on a large sound stage outside London" could be anywhere that was not London. Would it be clearer to state that it was filmed at Pinewood Studios? Lame Name (talk) 19:36, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Good call! I'll mention Pinewood.--HJensen, talk 22:40, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ellipsis

My understanding is that an ellipsis with spaces (as you have in Zappa's senate testimony) is "strongly deprecated". See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Ellipses. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:13, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

You are completely right. I put in the three #nbsp; (there and in two other instances) at the request of an editor at the current FAC. But probably I misunderstood him/her. Your change is fine, and I'll notify him/her. Thanks for catching that! --HJensen, talk 16:39, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Verifiability and the truth

Whilst I appreciate the need for verifiability I find that there is a danger that Wikipedia articles can become a distorting mirror of the truth. I could rewrite the whole article from other perspectives and it would be a very different article, equally verifiable, and probably nearer the truth.

For example: (From 4.2 New York Period) "This proved successful and Herb Cohen managed to extend the booking, which eventually lasted half a year." What would the average reader make of this? People queuing round the block to get in and see them? Cohen desperately negotiating with the management to extend their booking?

The reality is that people were queuing to get into the Cafe Au Go Go downstairs. Cohen hired the small theatre space upstairs for the summer as nobody else wanted it - or it's faulty air conditioning. To quote Zappa himself.... "On our worst night we had three paying customers." and "On another occasion we had only ten or fifteen people."

Of course the New York period was a vital component of Zappa's career as it would lead him to Dick Kunc, Cal Schenkel, the Underwoods... all strangely missing from this section.

Lame Name (talk) 19:29, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Although I have always heard of Frank Zappa, as he was a very high profile musician, I knew almost nothing about him specifically until I read this article. The article gives the impression that he was rather less popular in the United States than I would have guessed, given his high profile. You seem to know a lot more about him. In what way do you think the article misrepresents him? Why not suggest changes to the material if you think it is fitting or if an important aspect of his career is omitted?

Regarding the statement you refer to: "This proved successful and Herb Cohen managed to extend the booking, which eventually lasted half a year." I interpret it to mean that it was difficult to get the booking extended, not that it was extended by popular request. On reading it again, I think that "this proved successful" is somewhat ambiguous as it is not clear exactly what was successful. Just getting the contract does not imply an extension of the booking. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:00, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The article does not misrepresent him. It is a verifiable article about him. There could be several articles about him all equally verifiable but all very different. We are not dealing with science or mathematics which is (mostly) verifiable as true. When it comes to people/music/art there are all manner of variables thrown into the mix. What we are verifying from the article are opinions and interpretations of other people who were not there at the time. Because there opinions and interpretations get published in a book they are deemed to be in some way valid or, even worse, factual. Lame Name (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

It is obvious that Zappa was a fascinating personality and that it is impossible to separate him from his work. In the end, with an artist, it is the work that remains, however it was conceived. You obviously know way more about Zappa than I do, but I think this article does a good job of giving a sense of what he was all about without going off the deep end. —Mattisse (Talk) 21:41, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

@ Lame Name: I completely agree with your general reservations. I could also start all over again and write a completely new, and verifiable, article on Zappa. Writing an article for an encyclopedia will entail choices, most of all choices of what not to mention due to space considerations. And I don't have any high hopes that there is one correct, truthful way of writing an encyclopedic article (so in a sense the "truth" is always distorted as an article reflect some degree of subjectivity in choices). I guess that is why Wikipedia is not about providing the truth, but about providing verifiable information. The truth is an empty concept, I think here. Sure, Dick Kunc is an important person. He could be mentioned. He was there, it is the truth. We could also write about Kenny's boogers. They were there. They were facts; truths. There are thousands of things that could be mentioned, but this is not a book. So this article will have to be a collection of verifiable information about Zappa that somehow give a ("a" not "the") balanced view of his career. Even if a variant of this article should pass the FA nomination, there is always room for improvement, and I think you have already come up with several excellent suggestions in the past days. Shouldn't be keep it up this way? Let me emphasize that I am not, and have never been trying to suppress any parts of Zappa's career. Anytime I edit on the article, I get sad that there is not room for mention of this and that and so forth. Best, --HJensen, talk 23:23, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Mention of Cal Schenkel added to New York section.--HJensen, talk 17:43, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I should state that it is not only this article that causes me concern. I find some articles are actually changing the way language is used. I am sure such imperialistic tendencies were not the intent of Wikipedia's founders. Ideally the selective use of verifiable sources would be balanced by the The neutral point of view where "all significant views" (my emphasis) would be included - which would probably render an article such as this one completely unreadable. So we are lieft informing the world, and future generations, that "Zappa therefore broke up the band due to the financial strain"..... Lame Name (talk) 06:50, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Not quite, I think (regarding the last part of your statement). We are currently informing the world that "Zappa therefore broke up the band due to the financial strain" is something that is attributable to Zappa'a autobiography. And immediately after, it is mentioned, backed by another reference, that band members did not like the decision. So, I think we are showing the readers a balanced account, and showing that different sources will provide different stories. And remember, it can always be improved: I doubt this version will survive many generations. --HJensen, talk 13:04, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

What would be other reasons? Conflict within the band? Hypothetically, the band could have stayed together unpaid. I am not sure what is being alluded to here. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:09, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I honestly don't know; I re-read some sources when responding to Lame Name. But I think, as mentioned, that the thing is balanced now: Some band members got annoyed after the fact, but I found no mention of any other "alternative hypothesis." Zappa even went on to say that they "were extremely angry at me for breaking up the band, not because they wanted to play the music but because I had been supporting them. Suddenly I had taken away their income." (Walley, 1980, p. 118). In Slaven (2003) there is some mention of disagreement between Zappa and band member Don Preston concerning how well audiences are appreciating their music (Don Preston would return working for Zappa in the 1970s). Also, Zappa is quoted as being dissatisfied with touring at that point as he felt audiences did not understand his music. But in the end, the explanation is listed as a matter of Zappa paying $ 250 per week per band member irrespective of a touring schedule. In Miles, 2004, several band members explain how they were hurt by the break up, and note that Zappa apparently liked money more than feelings. But I could not find any alternative explanations. So I think stating that this "caused some bitterness" and a remark that some returned to work for Zappa is fine. I am, of course, open for other perspectives or interpretations, but I think it is a fair representation as it is now.

One thing that could be of interest is that Miles, 2004, writes that the break up demonstrates Zappa's lack of feelings, further demonstrated by the fact that he ended up alone with a computer (the synclavier). Also, that he failed to acknowledge the creative input from the band members. But that is Miles' interpretations on the events. I would still think that the way things are presented now is fairly neutral. --HJensen, talk 17:08, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Zappa also said that he broke them up because they had gone as far as they could musically - he suggested they go and work with other bands and then reform refreshed and full of new ideas. They never did reform. Another factor was that Roy Estrada had told him he was leaving to form Little Feat. The brutal answer is that he felt they had done enough to establish the "Zappa" brand and that he did not need them anymore. That Hot Rats was not such a huge success meant that he had to rethink this position and would recreate The Mothers (in various guises) as and when required. There are probably no references for this point of view though ;-) His lack of empathy opens up a whole new topic for debate but it should be noted that when touring he would stay at a different hotel to the rest of the band, and that his observations and recordings of them often looked more like an anthropological study than a friendship. Lame Name (talk) 09:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have reworked the part to hopefully take care of some of most of your concerns. I have emphazised what band members were dissatisfied with, and also mentioned Zappa's other sentiments. I have mentioned the "hotel business". I could not fit in the fact that he was not friends with band members, but I think that is evident from the text now that he was the leader type who did not hang out with the band. My edit is here. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 21:18, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Mixed media

Not to overload you, but reading about Zappa it seems like the use of mixed media characterized his work as a musician. You allude to his using aspects of plays in his performances and to his mixture of recorded and live music etc., as well as his experience in advertising and his interest in the visual aspects. But I wonder if you convey the full effect. Looking at some of the links to his work, I wondered if the mixed media aspect can be emphasized enough! —Mattisse (Talk) 23:15, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think the visual/theatrical side is mentioned in relation to the films 200 Motels and Baby Snakes (visuals), and the albums Joe's Garage and Thing Fish (theatrical). I have difficulties seeing how to put it more up front (as of time of this writing :-) ).--HJensen, talk 10:35, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you. Your effort is admirable. One idea to give a sense of his visual work would be to use the cover of one of the albums you talk about in the article as an illustration. That would be a fair use. —Mattisse (Talk) 14:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I would think so too, but at an earlier failed GA nomination, album covers were explicitly mentioned as a no-no (they are generally only considered as fair use on the album articles). Zappa's own cover for Absolutely Free was used in conjunction with the mention you refer to. Maybe the reluctance at that time was due to the fact that there was several other album covers used as well in the article at that point. Maybe just one will be permissible? But I think that The Beatles article could not include the Abbey Road cover, even though it was argued that it has special status. So, unfortunately, I doubt that it will be allowed.

Again, thanks for your thorough run through of the article! --HJensen, talk 16:15, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Not to argue, as I like the article photos. Was the Abbey Road cover created by The Beatles? Zappa's album covers are examples of his art. Oh, well. The Fair use image situation can be capricious. They allowed Image:RobertJohson.png to be in a generic article about the Blues, then gave me an argument that I could not use it in an article about a seminal Robert Johnson song, Hellhound on My Trail. (They gave in though). —Mattisse (Talk) 17:01, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

Sentence problem

"The latter soundtrack was recorded in 1963; it was commissioned by one of Zappa’s former high school teachers as early as 1959 and Zappa may have worked on it years before its recording." The problem I have is

• "as early as" - can you say in 1959 without "as early as" - it doesn't add anything - is there a question as to when?
• "may have worked on it years" - may have? Could you say "worked on it in the years before it was recorded" or else just strike the part after 1959. It is vague and I am not sure what it adds.

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:36, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I see your points. I have rephrased it to "The latter soundtrack was recorded in 1963 after the film was completed, but it was commissioned by one of Zappa’s former high school teachers in 1959 and Zappa may have worked on it before the film was shot." thereby leaving out "as early as" (unneeded), and clarified that he may have written main parts of the score before the film was shot (which is uncertain, but likely, according to the reference). Please fell free to edit, if it still appears unclear. ("The film was completed" is a definitely bit vague - and strictly incorrect if completion means "everything finished including music" but it is supposed to mean "principal photography ended", or "end of shooting".) --HJensen, talk 18:53, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

"Plastic People" and "Brown Shoes Don’t Make It", which contained lyrics critical of the hypocrisy and conformity of American society, but also of the people fighting it in the 1960s."

• "of the people fighting it in the 1960s" Is this referring to the hippies or counter culture? Could this sentence be clearer?

—Mattisse (Talk) 18:56, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed referring to the hippies and counterculture. I'll think of something--HJensen, talk 19:09, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I have made the following edit. --HJensen, talk 12:35, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

question

If Zappa dissolved the Mothers of Invention in 1969 due to financial strain, how is it that in the 1970s, "Zappa continued to compose music for symphony orchestra while playing and recording with the Mothers of Invention"? —Mattisse (Talk) 19:38, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe it reformed. Zazaban (talk) 19:44, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is an issue of controversy how the original Mothers disbanded. "Fiancial strain" is meant to be as objective as possible. Zappa himself says in his autobiography that he had all band members on the payroll irrespective of whether they had jobs or not. So he continuously lost money, as jobs were few he could not afford keeping the band together. Some members of the original band think Zappa is overreacting on that. In any case, with later versions of the Mothers, musicians were not on a daily pay, but paid when there were jobs to perform. I guess I will put in the explanation from Zappa's autobio, stressing that it is his view. Then, at least, it will not appear strange that he could suddenly reform the band.--HJensen, talk 10:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

The article makes no attempt to resolve the "controversy". Financial strain was one of the reasons Zappa gave but things are rarely that simple.Lame Name (talk) 07:00, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

(And I'll go over your other edits later today; impressive work you put into this!.)--HJensen, talk 10:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Nothing changed except clarifying the issue on disbanding the Mothers and having them reappear in the text immediately after (and reworindg and instances of Ray Collins and Pierre Boulez). See here --HJensen, talk 12:26, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Is this the correct reference:"the work is an extraordinary example of bricolage".

The quote doesn't seem to be there in the web version. —Mattisse (Talk) 22:07, 26 July 2008 (UTC)

It is indeed from that article. But since the link was put up there, the paper itself is not online anymore (only the abstract). I hadn't noticed that - I'll remove the hyperlink.--HJensen, talk 10:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

People do use info that is in an article but not in the online abstract, so you can use it, I'm sure. —Mattisse (Talk) 18:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the pdf of the article itself is restricted. I have, however, been able to access it today at Intellect, as the first issue of the journal is free access. However, one has to create a profile in order to obtain access to the article. So I don't think one can link to it per Wikipedia:External_links#Sites_requiring_registration. (A shame as it is a quite nice article imo.) --HJensen, talk 19:31, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

For articles on medical subjects, editors frequently use a whole article, say from PMID, for which only the abstract is accessible to the ordinary person. It is like using a book. The references are given so that someone with the ability, in this case is registered for an online source, can access it. The point is that it can be looked up. —Mattisse (Talk) 19:40, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

So, you suggest that I use the Intellect link (as that shows it is a free issue)? Is there some template that signals that it is not the article per se one is directed too? I am just afraid that some will see it as violation of policy.--HJensen, talk 20:17, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

I have been looking around for something written on the issue. I have seen references annotated with something like "Full article by subscription only" or similar note - just as some references are noted to be in a foreign language. Especially if it is free upon first sign up, it seems to me the veracity is available for checking if someone wants to question it. And especially if you are using the source for a statement that is not wildly improbable and out of character with the gist of the article. —Mattisse (Talk) 20:27, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I have put in the link and added a note to the ref that the full article is availble through free login.--HJensen, talk 20:43, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

More minor tweaks

My change was reverted but I will make one more stylistic plea for "In a career spanning more than 30 years" the 30 (numbers should be sharp and precise - how long was his career?) to be changed to "thirty" (words can be more wooly).

I can't believe Walley would actually say... "fans in Europe, England and elsewhere". Should it be Britain or UK rather than just England? But then we are part of Europe so the distinction is not clear but then the "elsewhere" renders the whole thing meaningless anyway.

The article mentions "Throughout the 1988 tour, he regularly encouraged his fans to register to vote, and had voter registration booths at his concerts' but should it not elaborate that this was a long term project with a "Don't forget to register to vote" plea included on album covers since... WOIIFTM (?)

Lame Name (talk) 07:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I have adressed these concerns in this edit. I was a bit uncertain about the "30" vs. "thirty". I see no policy going against "thirty", but I guess the editor that chose "30" meant that the prefix "more than" made it sufficiently wooly :-). BTW: Walley did actually distinguish between England and Europe! But you are right, it is nonsense. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 12:59, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

There is a general rule that numbers ten and over are spelled out, per User:Tony1, the grammar and stylistic guru of FAC. However, the are various exceptions, depending on the grammar of the sentence, e.g. you would never start a sentence with a number that is not spelled out. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers)#Numbers as figures or words. As far a writing out "thirty" in the text, my understanding is that would be O.K. if you write out all numbers over ten for consistency. To be sure about the nuances of the rule, you would have to ask User:Tony1. He hopefully will weigh in on the article before the FAC final determination. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry - I am not at home so can't help much with references. Would it be too picky to explain that Zappa took over the lease for Pal studio, rather than purchased it? As Zappa explains it the vice squad thing was set up as they wanted to drive out the tenants so the buildings could be demolished to make way for a new development - which is how he lost his material from the studio. Lame Name (talk) 08:44, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I will try to add the demolishment in the evening (I am at work now), as that indeed explains how material is physically lost. As for the ownership vs. lease I am a bit in doubt; it may be adding unnecessary detail, but if it is relevant for the demolishment story I'll certainly mention it. I'll read up on the issue.--HJensen, talk 09:06, 29 July 2008 (UTC) Add: Saw the link now; sorry to hear that you are a victim of nature. Hopefully things will turn out well! --HJensen, talk 09:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I have expanded on this issue now. From my sources, much of the lost materials is due to the police, not so much the demolishment. That, however, according to Slaven, was instrumental in getting Zappa out, although he was behind on rent. As to whether he bought the studio or overtook the lease, I have been catious and written "took over". Sources note that he bought lots of stuio equipment from Buff, and bought off some of Buff's debt (but clearly rented the location), but I think these financial details are, well to detailed to mention in the article.--HJensen, talk 18:38, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Doh! Does it need a mention of the imperial moustache? Which will mean including Johnny Otis - See quote at bottom of article. Lame Name (talk) 20:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I would say "Nice to have" but "not needed".--HJensen, talk 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The article suggests that it was the parents purchase of a record player that awoke his interest in music. It is implied that this happened 1955/56. But we have already heard that he had a drum at 12 (1952) and percussion classes in 1953. globalia chronology also puts The Ramblers at an earlier date - Grossmont High School rather than Mission Bay. Do the references supply a date for the record players arrival? Lame Name (talk) 20:24, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

The source (Miles) says that the record player came in 1954 in El Cajon; that is, when Zappa was 13. I have rephrased such that it should not be THE event triggering his music interest. But his percussion interests goes nice in hand with the Varese story, and purchase of that requires a record player. So I think writing strictly chronological is not necessary here. I hope it does not give false impressions now.--HJensen, talk 21:50, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

As for the Ramblers: Zappa writes 1956 which puts them at Mission Bay. Miles writes explicitly that he joined them at Mission Bay (albeit no date on p. 28). Watson writes only California and no date. Slaven also puts them at Mission Bay. Walley just put the Ramblers in San Diego; so it could be Mission Bay. I would say that in sum we can safely write Mission Bay. No source writes Grossmont High School. The globalia chronology is also somewhat cautious imo. It places the Ramblers in San Diego in 1955, but is not explicit about which of the San Diego schools Ramblers play. --HJensen, talk 22:35, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

New captions

The new captions for the audio samples have taken care of a problem that has bothered me: until the new captions, the text crowded in on the audio box, seeming close to going under it. The audio sample format seems to have taken care of that. Now there is a nice space separating the box from the text! —Mattisse (Talk) 19:53, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Happy you like it. I picked up the style from the Michael Jackson article (recently FA promoted ;-) ), and they sure work better. Sill a bit too large heigth/width ratio imo, but I think it is better to stick with an established template. --HJensen, talk 20:28, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Dead link

I think this link is dead:

—Mattisse (Talk) 15:32, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Never mind. Now it seems to be working. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:33, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

---

This is the one I meant. Sorry!

I believe I am right this time. Actually, some of the time it appears as a 404, others it seems to work. Perhaps I am nuts. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:37, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

In the actual article, reference number 134 (Hemmings, Richard (2006), Ever wonder why your daughter looked so sad? Non-danceable beats: getting to grips with rhythmical unpredictability in Project/Object, Working Paper) does not seem to work when I try it (404) but I can't seem to copy it here. Please just check the article. I am beginning to doubt my samity. —Mattisse (Talk) 15:51, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Sanity checked, Result: No problems! There was a innocent, but crucial "/" added after the *.html url, calling a browser to look for a nonexisisting directory, instead of an existing page. Sorry! Probably a result of lazy copy-pasting. What I don't understand is that in the above, the Studies in Musical Theatre reference comes up on my screen while it is not in the code seen in edit mode. --HJensen, talk 16:04, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I understand the last part, I think. You have a note to the SMT reference further above on the page, so maybe that conflicts with the use of reflist later on.--HJensen, talk 17:47, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

FAC nomination status

I have tried to address most of what have come up on the FAC page as well as on this page (aided by Mattisse's excellent help). Things here never stop, of course, but it is time to soon report back, on the nomination page, that a decision can be made. But before I do that, please state any immenent issues pending. Thanks for all the tireless input - the article is much improved! Cheers! --HJensen, talk 14:17, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Err... http://www.richardhemmings.co.uk/001/research/zappology/saddaughter.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.50.184.130 (talk) 13:16, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Odds and ends

• "He was found not guilty as charged, but sentenced to six months in jail on a misdemeanor, with all but ten days suspended."

If Zappa was found not guilty as charged, for what was he sentenced to six months in jail?

This is indeed hard to tell, as nothing is listed in Zappa's official records. The story was according to Zappa's bio that the original charge, formulated as a conspiracy, was a felony which could give up to 20 years in jail. When the judge heard the tape that was being made, he apparently laughed out loud and found the case ridiculuous. So apprarently the conspiracy part was downplayed, and the case resolved as a misdemenor case. But it is not stated in sources, what the precise "name" of the misdemenor was. --HJensen, talk 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Some of the hired session musicians were shocked that they should read from charts and have Zappa conducting them. This was not what they expected at a rock session."

This is from one of your foot notes. It is a great description of the disjunct between Zappa and typical rock musicians. I wish it could be in the article.

Good idea! I'll just put it up int the text and see if it fits.--HJensen, talk 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• Eric Dolphy's biography says he worked with Zappa. I wonder how many other jazz musicians could be listed.

Unlikely as Dolphy died in 1964 but he was an influence on his work. Rahsaan Roland Kirk did play with Zappa in 1968, and Archie Shepp in 1969 - but these were "one off" jams.Lame Name (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

(replying out of turn, but after the wall of text I dumped below, I figured this would be more readable than a back-thread) The two obvious jazz musicians who come to mind are George Duke (who toured with Zappa from 1973 until mid-1975) and Peter Wolf, who toured from September 1977 until April 1979. Other "clearly notable apart from Zappa" musicians who toured with Zappa, both covered in the article and not, would be Elliot Ingbar, Aynsley Dunbar, Flo n' Eddie of the Turtles, Jim Gordon, Terry Bozzio, Patrick O'Hearn, Warren Cuccurullo (the last three all of Missing Persons - Terry's wife Dale, the part of Missing Persons most people remember, also worked in a few studio sessions with FZ), Adrian Belew, and the legendary Steve Vai. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Shepp also guested with Zappa one night in 1984 (One could make an indepdent list of musicians having guested at Zappa concerts: List of musical guest appearances at Frank Zappa concerts – many comes to my mind right here: Nicolas Slonimsky, Al Di Meola, Sting....) --HJensen, talk 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix (rumored in the 60s), Sugarcane Harris during the Hot Rats sessions and at least one show in March 1970, John Lennon & Yoko Ono in June 1970, Ricky Lancelotti in a few 1973 shows, Barry Leef on the 1973 Australian leg, Tom Waits for two shows in 1974, Lance Loud on Halloween 1974, Jimmy Carl Black (of the original MOI) in Mary 1975 and again in October 1980, Darryl Dybka, Ralphe Armstrong, and Eddie Jobson in December 1975 (Jobson would later tour with Zappa from October 1976 until late February 1977), Norman Gunston in Janruary 1976 (who can be heard on the FZ:OZ album), Davey Moire in February 1976, Sugar Blue in February 1977, L. Shankar for one September 1978 show as well as the Halloween 1978 run and one show in May 1980, Craig "Twister" Stewart in April 1980 and again in December 1981, Joachim Kuhn in June 1980 (as well as a rumored audience visit by Pierre Boulez later on in June), Artis the Spoonman in October 1981, Lisa Popeil (daughter of Ron "Ronco Pocket Fisherman" Popeil) for two shows in December 1981 (Lisa was also originally going to tour with the band, until Zappa found that her skills were, to be charitable, not in rock music), Nicholas Slonimsky in December 1981, Dweezil Zappa for a handful of shows in 1982, 1984, and 1988, George Duke, Johnny Guitar Watson, Aynsley Dunbar, Denny Walley, and Bruce Fowler in July 1984 (all of whom, save for Watson, had toured with Zappa at some point in the past), Daniel Schorr of NPR fame in February 1988, Mats Oberg and Morgan Agren in early May 1988, and Fabio Treves for two shows in early June 1988. Whew. There may be a couple more, and some occasional roadies / audience members / dancers along the way. See Planet of My Dreams for more. --Badger Drink (talk) 17:40, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Great list! I think the Hendrix thing can be sourced. I am 99 percent sure that he sat in with the Mothers at Garrick in New York. This was where Hendrix learned about the wah-wah pedal from Zappa. Talk about a legaly! ;-) --HJensen, talk 10:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

• Zappa apparently has a wiki dedicated to him: [1] Cal Schenkel has a page: [2]. I wonder what the image licensing is there.

Very tolerant/ambiguous  ;-) Lame Name (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

• "Relentlessly experimental, Frank Zappa defies categorization. In a sly manner that recalls Warhol's odd fusion of parody and homage, he has worked at virtually all kinds of music—and, whether it's guised as a satirical rocker, jazz-rock fusionist, guitar virtuoso, electronics wiszard or orchestral innovator, his eccentric genius is undeniable." —Rollingstone Album Guide (1992) —Mattisse (Talk) 20:54, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

"Eccentric yes, genius maybe" (08:15) Lame Name (talk) 21:18, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Thank you so much for that! And for the associated links. People commenting on Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Frank Zappa can't seem to understand that Zappa doesn't fit into the usual slot of a rock guitarist in a rock band. —Mattisse (Talk) 00:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Seconded. I am slightly depressed over the late entry of the comment "Break the whole thing up into this and that format". Too much too late, unfortunately.--HJensen, talk 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) Do you want me to try and do it? The whole thing could be reverted if it were a mess, which I think it would be. (I am confused by the example musician articles they propose, as they seem to be missing the point on Zappa.) Here are the models they propose:

• John Frusciante - both reviewers suggested this one!
• Joy Division
• Radiohead
• R.E.M.
• Janet Jackson
• John Mayer

Do you see anything here that could serve as a model in serving up Zappa the way they want? The other articles seem stricly chronological with Legacy or some such tacked on the end or perhaps a middle section on drug addiction. John Mayer seems closest because at least he is a person and not a band, although he is 30 years younger and his music is very limited comparted to Zappa. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:09, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Not sure how the FA thing works but there must be other people that could be consulted and their opinions sought. Messing with the article because a couple of people have expressed doubts about it, despite everyone else trying to persuade them otherwise, seems a strange way of working. Lame Name (talk) 14:39, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

It would be great if others weighed in to the contrary, but unless they do, the "Opposes" will stand. I, of course, have weighed in, but because I have copy edited the article so much, I do not have the standing of a more disinterested observer. Of course, I will support the article. (But one support seemed to be discounted because the editor copy edited the article a while ago.) Also, editors weighing in are inappropriately (in my opinion) comparing the article to those on bands and to musicians far more limited in scope. Zappa doesn't have a Legacy in the same way someone like Michael Jackson does. I, like HJensen, feel "slightly depressed". —Mattisse (Talk) 15:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Actually, after having looked into these articles, I find the idea of sections on Legacy and Musical Influences even worse. As you note, most of the articles have such sections routinely tagged on at the end. In any case, the Zappa article has a musical influences section now! It may just reflect my disappointment about the FAC comments, but I really feel that these articles' legacy sections are poor. They are mostly just indiscriminate collections of some quotes from reviews. I genuinely feel that this is very uninterested reading. And as I implicitly mentioned on the FAC nomination page, the John Mayer page takes the prize for an irrelevant Personal Life section. Tatoos and public statements about possible non-sex with girl friends. Pure tabloid stuff. But I guess people understand that "Personal Life" is not a necessity. And now someone at the FAC think the Zappa article is too long. How long does these processes drag on? I think it is extremely unfair to demand that we should cater any heavy comment that may pop up after such long time.--HJensen, talk 10:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I am wondering if FAC requirements are lower for articles on rock musicians and rock bands, as I am generally disappointed in the quality of many of the articles suggested as models. They seem very superficial and, as you say, several have sections made up of gossipy trivia. I would prefer the Zappa article be considered a biography rather than a "rock biography" or "rock musician biography"—Zappa cannot be categorized as such anyway and it seems to be a lower standard. —Mattisse (Talk) 13:35, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Completely agree. I will check out some FA articles on classical composers if they exist. --HJensen, talk 14:39, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Arrest at Studio Z

Although the section ends noting that Zappa only received a portion of his tapes back from the police, the article never actually says the police ransacked Zappa's studio and seized tapes, which they must have done if they returned only a portion. —Mattisse (Talk) 17:55, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

This is the great thing about getting fresh eyes looking at things. The police indeed more or less cleared the place according to sources in the hope of finding stacks of porn tapes (they, of course, found nothing). I had thought it was obvious from the text, but surely if you find it odd, I can easily sneak in a half line on this. Cheers.--HJensen, talk 18:14, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Zappa @ wikipedia

There is a link to Zappa at wikipedia at the bottom of this page.[3] —Mattisse (Talk) 23:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Notes and quotes from The Rolling Stone Illustrated History of Rock and Roll(1992) - legacy?

Los Angeles was a place that left artists alone to go their own way creatively, allowing individuality to flourish and permitted the evolution of a low-cost "indie" productions that had no place in film or TV. "This is... the city that Frank Zappa, Captain Beefheart, Jim Morrison and Randy Newman called home."(p. 541)

The Mothers of Invention, led by Zappa, emphasized mixed-media performances called “freak-outs” which put together social satire, references to classical works, and parodies of rock and roll classics into improvisational avant-garde jazz. This collage of styles influenced such musicians as Jean-Luc Ponty and Paul McCartney. McCartney said Freak Out was a seminal inspiration for Sgt.Pepper.(p. 496)

Frank Zappa was one of the first to try tearing down the barriers between rock, jazz and classical music. In the late Sixties his Mothers of Invention would slip from Stravinsky's "Pentroushka" into The Dovells' "Bristol Stomp" before breaking down into saxophone squeals inspired by Albert Ayler. (p.497)

Influenced George Clinton's radical change in style (pp. 522-23)

• Anthony DeCurtis and James Henke with Holly George-Warren (eds.) (ed.). The RollingStone Illustrated History of Rock & Roll. Jim Miller (Original Editor) (3rd Edition ed.). New York: Random House. ISBN 0-679-73728-6. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); |editor= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

—Mattisse (Talk) 22:26, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Final FAC remarks

(copied from FAC page which was quickly archived before these could be read)

I meant there's no mention in the lead of his lyrical themes. There should be, given that this is the bit people are most likely to read. Zappa's lead currently gives a better summary of his politics than most politicians' articles do, so you could be forgiven for thinking he only wrote about politics. The lead hasn't been much altered over the last year, I notice, which means it doesn't really do justice to the rest of the article. Most of the second paragraph is a bit too specific for the lead too - I don't see how his placing #71 in a Rolling Stone poll in 2005 is one of the most important facts you could need to know about Zappa. Or even the grammy nominations, come to that. Perhaps some of that stuff could be moved to the legacy section. And yes, I don't mean to accuse anyone of playing fast and loose with citations, I just meant to point out that sentences like that one about the beautiful backing group performances read like fact rather than opinion - just wrapping the quoted text in speech marks doesn't clearly detach the writer's view from the view of the article, which of course must be neutral. Sorry for the confusion. I don't generally go in for MOS dogmatism but the attribution part here seems to apply (I know technically that says it only applies to full sentences, but I think the spirit of the thing is that views should be clearly attributed within the text - you shouldn't have to scroll down the page to find out who said it). Flowerparty^☀ 10:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

(*note: above comment made on same day as FAC closed)

General remark by nominator Thanks for all the comments and hard work from editors who have and are still stepping in with valueable copyediting. In order not to hide this between all the responses, I make the statement here: I am, in conformity with massive, and reasonable, requests, preparing a section on Zappa's legacy. Due to the general time pressures of having a regular life, as well as keeping track of the kind comments that come in regularly these days, I would like to make the unsual request to the handling editor of giving me a few days to complete it before making a final decision on the nomination. I will do my very best to finish it up this week. The only excuse I can come up with for this extraordinary request, is that it seems that due to holidays, many editors have first started commenting on the article lately, whereby the suggestion for a legacy section, did not come forth immediately. Kind regards, --HJensen, talk 09:34, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

Ok, I see the FAC has been closed and the article was not promoted. I will try wo continue working on the legacy, and renew the nomination later. THANKS TO ALL WHO PUT TONS OF EFFORT INTO THIS!!!!!!--HJensen, talk 09:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I am so sorry to see this. I wonder that a little more time was not give as it is so very often for others. Especially as we almost had the legacy section done. Other than your resubmission of this article (or others by you) I will never work on an FAC article again. The rash of complaints at the very end of FAC were muddled and rediculous, from my point of view. I can only think there is an enormous generation gap (perhaps one of 40 years or so) and mature articles, unless they have there preformed clique ready to support (the FAR in-group where passage is guarrenteed), will not pass. I cannot express how screwed up this FAC process has been. To compare an article on a multimedia artist originating in the 1950s which a one-instrument musician in one band with careers of less than 10 or 20 years is a travesty. This is a farce. —Mattisse (Talk) 10:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

P.S. The comment on "lyrical themes" is an example of a particularly off-base criticism. But as good a reason as any to close the FAC. Has this person examined Zappa's work before commenting? Does this person not realize that Zappa was as important as a social critic and satirists as a percussionist, guitarist, composer, orchastra leader, film maker, TV personality and on and on? —Mattisse (Talk) 10:47, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I can but only agree with the above comments. I was going to add a comment about maintaining the NPOV as there seems to be a drift towards people with seemingly little knowledge of the subject suggesting that their own limited point of view be included within the article. Zappa once said "My job is extrapolating everything to its most absurd extreme." I guess he is still doing it. Lame Name (talk) 11:11, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I would like to ask why the when the Frusciante article (a much less ambitious and more superficial piece but which was repeatedly held up as a model for this one), has several non-free images, and no consistent citation style (something User_talk:HJensen had to spend a lot of time fixing because of constant complaints in the FAC) sailed through with no complaints on these issues for Frusciante, at least, none that anyone bothered to fix). And a huge section on his drug problem! There is something wrong with this whole FAC process. Very cliquish. —Mattisse (Talk) 11:02, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

Burnt, but free image

Frank Zappa at the Fillmore East. June 5, 1971 During recording of his Live at the Fillmore East album.

I looked for free images of Frank Zappa, and found this one on Flickr.

It's from Fillmore East in 1971, and therefore has quite some significance. The thing is, the image is badly burnt, so I don't know if other editors would "allow" the image to be added to the article due to this, but my own opinion is that it should be added, due to the scarcity of free Zappa images in general, and the sheer coolness of having a free image from that time. I'll do some clean up in Photoshop later. FunkMonk (talk) 15:23, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it is a free image. It is a derivative work, in the sense that it is a photo of another photo. (So photoshopping it won't help, unfortunately.) Thanks for your additions. At the FAC there were some question as to whether the Nporway 1977 was free. I have e-mail now from the author now where he confirms the license. As for the Buffalo pictures, I took the second one out. I think two from that show will put too much emphasis on the show. Why not add it (and the other) to the Buffalo (Frank Zappa album) article? It is indeed from that show. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 17:39, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The author writes a comment on the Flickr page saying "The negative is in even worse shape, so this is all that remains. It was an amazing show."[4], and he took the Buffalo photos too, so I think it's just a picture (or scan) of a picture that he took. Also, here's an image of the photographer himself which is in the same condition as the Zappa photo:[5] He seems to know Scott Thunes too, and has a bunch of recent pictures of him. As for the second Buffalo photo, yeah, I already added it to the article about the album. FunkMonk (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I see. I hadn't noticed that. Then it is "legit". I don't know what can be made by photoshop, but his missing hand is unfortunate. Also, the recently added 1973 Sydney picture somewhat makes up for the lack of free pictures from that period. Man, a free one from 66 or 67 would be GREAT! Cheers.--HJensen, talk 18:13, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I'll upload one if I find one. And I'll see what I can do in Photoshop, can't replace a hand, but some cropping would probably keep focus away from it. FunkMonk (talk) 18:18, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

By the way, works of the US government are in the public domain, so maybe there exists some free images or similar from the senate hearings? Who took the existing pictures from those hearings? FunkMonk (talk) 07:28, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Oh yeah, I see the hearing photo is already labeled as being in the public domain, I'll move it to Commons. And we could actually upload the video itself to Commons, that could be cool! Know where it can be obtained? FunkMonk (talk) 07:30, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

Changed image: [6] FunkMonk (talk) 00:02, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Nice work. I just don't think it fits to the Zappa article. The 1973 Sydney pic is a sufficiently close substitute. I think it is great to put it, as you have already done, on the Fillmore East Album article.

Thanks for uploading the Senate pic to the Commons. Well, the video from which I extracted the picture is circulating, but I would not know how to udload it (it takes up a copuple a gigas). The best thing would probably be to have the whole hearing (including Dee Snyder and John Denver), as it was not an exclusive Zappa event. But that I do not have.--HJensen, talk 20:19, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Legacy section following FAC

Following up on the recent failed FAC, I have inserted the promised section on "Legacy". This should cover what the FAC reviewers were missing (Zappa's influence on other musicians, recognition from critics, awards, etc.). As a consequence, some of the things from the lead (some awards) can be thrown out, and the lead has therefore been shortened to accommodate the Legacy section. Also, the lead now (as required of a FA) does not mention anything that is not mentioned in the articles. Hence, there are (as is common for FAs) no inline citations needed in the lead. Please feel free to comment and edit (as always! :-) ). I will put the article up for peer review in a week or so, before submitting it to FAC again. Again, thanks to all who helped out during the FAC!--HJensen, talk 06:45, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Frank Zappa Considered Himself a Conservative

There's a quote in the article, "Frank Zappa’s inventive and iconoclastic album presents a unique political stance, both anti-conservative..." but he actually considers his politics as conservative. See this Crossfire debate: http://www.eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=3079&title=Frank_Zappa_on_Crossfire&ref=Bodeedoe JettaMann (talk) 20:13, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Indeed. He consiedered himself a "practical conservative" (in his autobiography). But I don't think that this is inconsistent with the quote, as the album We're Only... indeed is both anti-conservative and anti-counterculture.--HJensen, talk 21:00, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Zappa may have been a small 'c' conservative, but he positively *hated* the big 'C' Conservatives associated with the Republican Party. Hated. Frunobulax (talk) 18:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Musical section?!

This article is missing a section about his music; his composong techniques, what's typical his music, his guitar playing, etc. You know what I mean... Both the german and swedish article have this, we can translate from there. I feel it is essential for this article 81.229.101.211 (talk) 20:21, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

See comment on FAC page.--HJensen, talk 21:36, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I concur, that would be a good addition. Zazaban (talk) 01:33, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

From what I can read from the German and Swedish version, I don't think it fits in. It is a very academic analysis of shifts in time signatures, which I don't think will help the general reader at all. Also, it appears to be adapted from one source only, so I don't think it is appropriate.--HJensen, talk 12:10, 27 September 2008 (UTC)