Talk:Studio Tan

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


Need to have verification of exactly what tapes FZ delivered to Warner Bros in 1976. His contract called for him to deliver 4 albums. He has claimed that what he actually delivered were Studio Tan, Sleep Dirt, Orchestral Favorites and Zappa in New York (2 LP's) for a total of 5 discs worth of material. There is no proof that FZ ever offered Lather to Warner. And besides that was only 1 album of 4 discs. Lather would not have fulfilled the contractual requirements. Thought both sets have unique material he actually created 4 discs out of 5, not the other way around. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:23, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to put back the info I added to this article about the individual albums. In spite of what Gail Zappa says, the truth is that the individual albums were created in 1976 BEFORE this material was edited into Leather in 1977. Then after Leather was created Warner suddenly decided to put out the individual albums anyway in 1978 and 1979. Sorry, but Gail does not know nearly as much about FZ history as the most devoted and fanatical fans.

While it is true that Leather was always a 4 album box, the material in Leather was finished and compiled into the individual albums over a year before Leather was created. So technically Gail is right, just mis-informed. Zappa delivered all the 4 individual albums to Warner all at once in an attempt to end his contract. Warner considered much of the material to be below his usual standard and refused to pay out a large lump sum for all of them at once. That is when things began to get really ugly. There are interviews FZ did at the time that confirm all of this. I just don't have them handy right now.

Dweezil has also stated in interviews that this issue changed the way all record contracts are written. These days an artist can't deliver all of the albums of their contract at once, as FZ tried to do. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Anon, you are wrong. It was an 8-sided album, then four individual albums. Zappa tried to get out of his contract because they wouldn't release Leather. WTF (talk) 05:31, 12 August 2011 (UTC)

Wrong. FZ tried to get out of his contract because they did not pay him a contractually obligated amount of money within a contractually obligated amount of time for the albums delivered to them, thus breaching the contract. It was only after WB breached the contract and FZ assumed he was then free to persue a relationship with another label that he created L(e)ather. Studio Tan was not "derived" from L(e)ather. Period. The 2012 CD reissue of Studio Tan contains the full complete ending to "Greggary Peccary" and it is NOT the same as the end of the same track on L(e)ather. Even if FZ had delivered L(e)ather to Warner Bros. (which he never did), it would not have counted as four albums towards fulfilling his contract. L(e)ather was simply not the source material for the four individual albums. Both L(e)ather and the four albums contain material that the other doesn't. And besides, FZ truly did not deliver four albums to Warner Bros. He delivered THREE albums to them after the disagreement with the label over wanting to censor the track "Punky's Whips" on the Zappa in New York album. They were afraid of a lawsuit from Punky Meadows, and though FZ had a release from Punky Meadows giving him permission to release the track, Warner Bros. persisted and removed the track anyway, along with a section of "Titties N' Beer". Notice how the original LP version of Zappa in New York contains full musician and production credits and FZ-approved artwork and liner notes that he wrote himself, while Sleep Dirt, Studio Tan and Orchestral Favorites do not? It's because he initially fully cooperated with WB on the release of Zappa in New York, and after the relationship went sour, he delivered the other three albums to fulfill the contract. For which WB did not pay him. After which he created L(e)ather. The idea that L(e)ather was constructed first really needs to be put to rest. (talk) 00:52, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

CD re-release track listings?[edit]

I had my edit, which documented the songs on the later CD release, reverted, for the stated reason "They're the same songs, and we can't list all the different LP, cassette and CD editions."

Yes of course they're the same songs - it's the same album. But the point is: they have (slightly) different names, and they are in a different order. There are basically two different versions of this album: the original LP release, and the later one which is at least on CD. As it stands, there have been times when the track listing has been changed to match the later CD release by people who have not realised that the original LP version was different.

I will acquiesce to the suggestion that "we can't list all the different LP etc. editions" (although the correct answer is "why not?") but insist that it is worth acknowledging that the ordering and names of the tracks on the later releases is worth documenting - at least for the one release. This is what is usually done on many similar pages.

Hence I am un-reverting the change I made. Please don't revert it back again without at least discussing it on here first. --Matt Westwood 23:41, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

First, I'd like to point out that you formatted the track listing incorrectly. In cases where a separate tack listing is included, it generally isn't given its own subsection and is usually collapsed. Also, you created duplicate wikilinks, which should be avoided.
But anyway, how is the version one would buy in a store today any different than the original vinyl? Yes, three of the tracks have slightly different names, but other than that, why should we count it as a second release? The music is exactly the same, the track order is exactly the same and the artwork is exactly the same. Second, can you name any albums from featured or good articles that give separate track listings for out-of-print CD transfers from the 90's? Or cassettes? Or 8-tracks?
And as for the "why not" question? Take into consideration that this album was distributed as a vinyl record in nine different countries over four different record labels. It was released the same year as an 8-track tape which contained a slightly different track indexing. From 1991 to 1995 it was released again on both CD and cassette formats over three additional record labels in at least three different countries. Then it was released yet again in Japan on a CD that was distributed by two labels at once and (on the packaging) listed the tracks in their original order with their original titles, yet contained the same track order as the CDs released between 1991 and 1995. Then, last year, it was reissued again, now distributed by yet another new label, with the track order was switched back to how it was on the vinyl. However, this reissue had the alternate track titles which first appeared in 1991. At the same time it was officially released on iTunes and other digital formats with a brand new track listing altogether.
So you're suggesting we list all of that in the article? How will this help the casual reader? How will it improve the article? Neither this article, nor any article on Wikipedia, should be written to include material that only appeals to die-hard fans of the subject. Friginator (talk) 02:33, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I think the more important question is: Why are we listing the track titles as they appeared on a long out-of-print vinyl edition that wasn't even overseen by Zappa (which is why the track titles are incorrect to begin with) rather than the track titles as they appear on the currently available version, with Zappa-approved track listing and titling? A casual reader wouldn't be interested in how the album appeared in 1978. A casual reader would be interested in the album as it can be bought in stores today. --Mystery Roach (talk) 07:20, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Because this article is about the original release. If you want to make an article entitled Studio Tan (1991 reissue), that's fine with me. The logical solution is simply to list the alternate titles next to the regular ones. No, it doesn't have the alternate track listing from the CDs made in 1991 and 1995 (Which is important, how)? So I've added the alternate titles to the track listing. Friginator (talk) 17:48, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Does the 2012 version have the old track titles (REDUNZEL, Greggery Peccary)? --Mystery Roach (talk) 18:07, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
No, but the music is the same. I'm pretty sure that all of the 2012 releases use the same track titles as the other CD's. So Freak Out, We're Only in It for the Money, Uncle Meat, Sheik Yerbouti and Joe's Garage all have the different titles/indexing from the original releases. Friginator (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
I expect you now to go through every single one of Zappa's releases and remove every indication of what the track listing for the CD releases. If not you are inconsistent. Start with Sleep Dirt. --Matt Westwood 22:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Sleep Dirt, as far as I know, has always had the same track order. Exactly what would you have me change? Friginator (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Sleep Dirt gives the full track listings on the LP and CD releases separately, even though those listings are identical. Studio Tan, OTOH, is being made deliberately to not show the full track listings, even though those track listings are different. Sorry, but that's appallingly illogical. --Matt Westwood 23:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Basically I'm not convinced by your argument as it is inconsistent with the way Wikipedia seems to work for most other album pages. "this article is about the original release." No it's not. This article is about the complete entity that is "Studio Tan" including in particular the 1991 CD release which is specifically mentioned in the first paragraph. Many, many other pages on Wikipedia list the track listings of the later releases when they are different - and many when they specifically are not - and especially when the names and track listings are as significantly different between releases as they are now. The fact that the actual musical content is apparently the same is immaterial. --Matt Westwood 22:30, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
"how is the version one would buy in a store today any different than the original vinyl?" The tracks are in a different order for a start. --Matt Westwood 22:32, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
Not, it's not. The CD is identical both in track listing and in content. Friginator (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
On the original LP: 1: Peccary, 2: Beach, 3: Guitar/Orch, 4: the R one. On the CD: 1: Peccary, 2: Guitar/Orch, 3: Beach, 4: the R one. The tracks are in a different order.
You're looking at an out-of-print CD from the 90s, if that's the track listing you see. Friginator (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
"First, I'd like to point out that you formatted the track listing incorrectly. In cases where a separate tack listing is included, it generally isn't given its own subsection and is usually collapsed. Also, you created duplicate wikilinks, which should be avoided." So rather than fix it the way it ought to be (me not being quite as regular a contributor to this appallingly-bureaucratically fascistic website as others, so I'm not so familiar with the picky rules), you'd rather just delete it? For shame. --Matt Westwood 22:36, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
It's not my job to fix your mistakes. It's your job, and only your job. No one has to do it for you. And if you dislike Wikipedia, don't respect "the picky rules" and truly see it as "appallingly-bureaucratically fascistic" as you say, then leave. And please be civil if you're going to stay. Friginator (talk) 22:55, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The point I'm making is that one of the reasons you revert an edit is because the presentational style does not measure up to standard. That's using rules-lawyering. Let me tell you, that puts severe pressure on the ability to stay civil.
Is this usual? Someone posts something up on a page, and because it's clumsy in presentation, or breaks one of the rules, that entire section is deleted? That's the sort of thing that happens in grade school. What's the general consensus on that?
But the bigger question I have is: why are you the authority on this page? Your decision to specifically disallow the listing of the CD re-release tracklist appears to be supported nowhere else (that I've found) on Wikipedia. So why is this disallowed here? The fact that there is a genuine source of confusion about the track names and orderings between the two versions suggests that it is "important" (I use the term in quotes because in the grand cosmic scheme of things we're arguing about a trivial piece of plastic from an overrated would-be comedian) to document both formats separately: the original un-Zappa-approved version released by Warner Bros. and the later one (apparently) as Zappa himself envisaged it. Your inclusion of the later-published titles goes some way towards a compromise, but it does not address the fact that the tracks are in a different order, which they are (despite your assertion in your original reply to this thread that they are not). The questions I raised above need to be answered.
Anyone else (apart from MysteryRoach, who has also contributed to this discussion) feel that this needs resolution? I can't express in any stronger terms just how wrong I believe Friginator to be, and how high-handed his behaviour is here. And I have no convincing arguments from him as to exactly why' my approach is wrong - and if it is wrong, then that means that many many other pages on Wikipedia are also wrong. Can someone help me here? The logical inconsistencies are doing my head in. --Matt Westwood 23:15, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────First, please calm down. This isn't anything worth getting worked up about. The idea of portraying an album as "how Frank Zappa envisioned it" seems irrelevant, considering we simply don't know how that is. Friginator (talk) 23:35, 12 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay I've calmed down. Now, "how Zappa envisioned it" is not irrelevant as it is documented that the later presentation was after he regained editorial control. That's clear enough, surely? --Matt Westwood 23:53, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
So you're alleging that he envisioned it with Gary Panter's artwork? Multiple accounts suggest that Zappa didn't even envision the album being released in any form whatsoever, since it appeared in full on the planned Läther album. Not to mention that the version of "The Adventures of Greggery Peccary" found on the old CDs was remixed in 1991 from the tapes that he originally created in 1976. A remix of the first track and switching the next two around isn't especially different. It should also be noted that Zappa absolutely loved to change things whenever new formats and technology came around. Freak Out, We're Only in it for the Money, Cruising with Ruben & the Jets, Hot Rats, Apostrophe, Zappa in New York, Studio Tan, Sleep Dirt, The Man From Utopia, Thing-Fish and Jazz From Hell were all completely remixed when he reissued them. I'd hardly say that all the remixes were "as originally envisioned", though.
Okay, so please consider me pwned on that point. Perhaps it's not that important. What is important though, is why we should not include, as a separate section, the track listing of the well-known and most widely available edition of this product - when many other pages do record the track listings of both the original LP and later CD releases. This is the fundamental point which I am trying to get my head round. The argument that "this page is specific to the original release" doesn't work, because then the same should apply to every other album on Wikipedia which describes various different versions of a given product. Besides, the page already specifically includes mention of the 1991 release. Or to put it another way: why should this page refer only to the original release? No other album page (that I can find) treats the original release and later re-releases on different pages.
So the question, which I still can't find the answer to, is: why should this particular page be treated differently from the majority of other Wikipedia pages? I note an argument that you (I believe, I may be wrong) have used in the past: "Just because a (technique, whatever) appears on many Wikipedia pages does not imply that this technique is correct", but I would reply with: "So where is the specification as to the exact format such a page needs to be presented in?" If this can be demonstrated, once and for all, then a) this page can be amended so as to adhere to that specification, and b) every other such page in Wikipedia would then need to be amended similarly. If, as I suspect, no such specification exists, then I suggest that you have no grounds for your view apart from the aesthetic one of that's how you, personally, like it. And I would further counter with: the fact that the number of pages on Wikipedia that you have edited runs into the millions ought not to be a factor as to whether your view is the prevailing one, unless this place is truly a (metaphorical) gerontocracy - i.e. those with the most stuff done get preference in a difference of opinion.
If, as you assert, "This isn't anything worth getting worked up about", then why did you insist on reverting my (apart from the incorrectness that you complain about, which can easily be fixed if only someone were to explain to me exactly where I went wrong) perfectly reasonable edit?
If the above questions can not be answered rationally, then I suggest that this matter go to a vote. However, as a relative n00b (and therefore ripe for biting), I have no idea as to how to go about this. --Matt Westwood 00:44, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
This page isn't being treated any differently than other pages. This article completely acknowledges that a different version exists. You've said that yourself multiple times. We're not talking about censoring any mention of the 90s reissue, or denying that it ever existed. The only question here is whether or not it should get its own track listing. You say that it should, yet can you name a featured article that contains a separate track listing for an out-of-print reissue that contains the very same tracks? Friginator (talk) 01:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

Okay, I ask again. Regardless of the out-of-print 90s reissue, we should print the track listing as it is on the currently available version, not on the long out-of-print and irrelevant-except-for-collectors 1978 vinyl release. I think we can agree that Wikipedia should always display the information that is the most relevant to the readers. In this case, that is clearly the current track listing with "The Adventures of Greggery Peccary", "Lemme Take You to the Beach" and "RDNZL". Your whole argument for not having a separate track listing for the 90s reissue is that it's out of print. Well, the same is true for the original vinyl. --Mystery Roach (talk) 08:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)

The copy that is in print today has the same track order as the article. But as for the alternate titles, if someone were to go out and buy a copy of Pink Floyd's "The Dark Side of the Moon" album today, the second track would be called "Breathe (In the Air)". On the original vinyl, it was simply listed as "Breathe". Would you say that the track listing on the Dark Side of the Moon article needs to be changed to reflect this? Or would you say that a mere mention is enough? This article isn't about the CD. It's about the original release. All music-related articles on Wikipedia are based on the original release, whether it's in print or not. That's why this article listed in the infobox as being originally released in 1978 under the Discreet label, not in 1991 on the Barking Pumpkin label. The article mentions the alternate track titles. I don't see how it would confuse anyone.
"All music-related articles on Wikipedia are based on the original release, whether it's in print or not." Where does it say that? In the American constitution? In the Bible? In the Kama Sutra? In your ABC? --Matt Westwood 20:09, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
"Would you say that the track listing on the Dark Side of the Moon article needs to be changed to reflect this? Or would you say that a mere mention is enough?" As long as the existence of both titles is mentioned, either sounds fine to me. My initial objections arose when the current titles weren't mentioned at all in the article, which I see they are now. This is fine by me, although "on some reissues" should be changed to "on the CD release" or something to that effect, because the titles are used on all reissues (at least the 1991, 1995 and 2012 ones - I don't know if there were any prior ones), not just some. In fact, I can do that right now. --Mystery Roach (talk) 21:29, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Sounds fine with me. The only other issue with the original Warnos Bros titles is the 8-track that cam out the same year as the LP.
I understand now. There is some crucial information missing from this page. That information is that in 2012 there has been a further re-release of this album, with the tracks in the same order (but the names as for the 1991/1995 versions) as the 1977 release: see here. It is important for that information to be included on this page. I'd do it myself, but every time I post something up I get it reverted for breaking one of the formatting rules.
For exactly what reason this re-release has changed the order back to the original version is unclear to me (IMO it's suboptimal: LTYTTB fits beautifully as a contrastingly light intermission between the rather heavier flanking instrumentals, but on its own first its like eating a sandwich that goes cheese, bread, bread) - FZ himself has obviously no artistic input into this release.
So whatever. That's as maybe. It is still important to show the 1991/1995 release, because it is a major stage in the evolution of this monster: the stage in which the track names and track order were determined by FZ himself. Why is this such a controversial suggestion? I still want to take this point to a vote. How do I do that? --Matt Westwood 09:18, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Considering the 1991/1995 release is now a thing of the past, I think it would suffice to include this information in prose rather than have a second track listing, which takes up a relatively large amount of space for not much new information. --Mystery Roach (talk) 21:32, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
And who benefits from an extra track listing? And I'd also like to point out that iTunes has yet another alternate track order. Would you propose we add this as well? Friginator (talk) 22:28, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Enough with your patronising rhetoric. And don't you dare accuse me of incivility - you started it with your egregiously rude behaviour at reverting my original posting. IMO you deserve to be banned eternally from Wikipedia. --Matt Westwood 22:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Yeah, no incivility here, no sir. Do you have anything to add, though? Any further compromise you'd like to suggest? Like I said, there's another track listing currently up on iTunes. How is that different from the track listing you initially believed was on the CD? Friginator (talk) 23:05, 13 January 2013 (UTC)