Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 8

Thing-Fish
Anyone want to give this a going over? It is a Good Article nomination. I suck at doing the citation templates. --WTF (talk) 21:55, 18 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Joe's Garage needs some touch-ups, too. --WTF (talk) 02:49, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Album Chronology
Looking at several articles for Zappa's albums, it seems that the album chronology (the part of the infobox that what albums come before and after that one) is messed up. Before I changed anything, I wanted to get some opinions on exactly what the order should be. I personally think we should follow the discography (official album by official album), though that still leaves things like the Birthday Bundles, Beat the Boots, Cheap Thrills, Strictly Commercial, etc out. Any thoughts? Friginator (talk) 20:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Following the release date chronology of the Frank Zappa discography seems to be the obvious choice. - DVdm (talk) 22:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Done, at least as far as the main albums are concerned. That still leaves Beat the Boots, though. Should that just have its own timeline? Friginator (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good job - phew. I dunno about BTB, can't they be just included in the main chronology? By the way, I noticed that Francesco Zappa (album) is followed by The Old Masters which is in turn followed by Beat the Boots, but The Old Masters has no predecessor. Even for Zappa, this chronology line is a tricky thing :-) - DVdm (talk) 11:32, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

No, the chronology should be kept as it was per WP:Album standards. --WTF (talk) 01:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Can you name what standards you're referring to? The page WP:Album says nothing to support your opinion. Friginator (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Template:Album_infobox says to separate albums from compilations, etc. When you have the "Type" listed for studio albums, compilations, live albums, etc. and the last album is not the same type as the current article, you're mixing chronologies, and that's against the rules. The live, studio, compilation, etc. albums should be separated, end of story, and the discography page and template should be organized the same way. You are acting against WP style guidelines. I don't CARE about your NON-EXISTENT consensus, this is how it's done. --WTF (talk) 02:31, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Stop saying "end of story" and similar things. There is no "end of story" until a consensus is reached. Template:Album_infobox and WP:Album are not WP style guidelines and neither do they even support what you say. Unless you can find me an actual WP style guideline that is violated, your point is moot. --Mystery Roach (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Template:Album_infobox specifically says "In general, all albums and EPs should be placed in a single, chronological chain in order of release date (singles have a separate infobox, and thus a separate chain)." Friginator (talk) 11:18, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Indeed, and although "exceptions may be appropriate for artists with very complex discographies which may warrant more than one chain", this clearly is not the case here, as we have just established that several chains cannot really be maintained for Zappa — remember, as just one example, SATLTSADW appearing both in the studio-chain and in the live-chain? Seems pretty straightforward. - DVdm (talk) 16:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So should all "other albums" not have a chronology in their infobox? Is there a rule that all albums have to have a chronology, or can it be removed from albums like Cheap Thrills, Strictly Commercial, Beat the Boots, etc? Removing it all together from those articles and leaving the chronology to the official albums seems like a better way of doing things.

Also, how should The Old Masters fit in? If all three boxes had their own articles (which they don't), the chronology would read:


 * 'Thing-Fish • Francesco Zappa • The Old Masters, Box I


 * 'Francesco Zappa • The Old Masters, Box I • Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention


 * 'The Old Masters, Box I • Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention • Does Humor Belong in Music?


 * 'Frank Zappa Meets the Mothers of Prevention • Does Humor Belong in Music? • The Old Masters, Box II


 * 'Does Humor Belong in Music? • The Old Masters, Box II • Jazz from Hell


 * 'The Old Masters, Box II • Jazz from Hell • London Symphony Orchestra, Vol. II


 * 'Jazz from Hell • London Symphony Orchestra, Vol. II • The Old Masters, Box III


 * 'London Symphony Orchestra, Vol. II • The Old Masters, Box III • Guitar


 * 'The Old Masters, Box III • Guitar • You Can't Do That on Stage Anymore, Vol. 1''

The problem is that without an article for each box, a reader going through all albums chronologically would end up stuck on the universal Old Masters page, which currently leads to Beat the Boots chronologically. Another reason getting rid of certain infobox chronologies would make sense.

(Also, at the risk of seeming rude, I'd like to point out that User:Wisdomtenacityfocus has been permanently blocked, so we shouldn't expect any responses from them.) Friginator (talk) 00:00, 22 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think I solved this little problem by simply adding two extra chronologies to the The Old Masters. Looks perfect to me :-) - DVdm (talk) 11:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yep, looks great. Thanks. Friginator (talk) 17:46, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The New Inca Roads Article
Check out the article, "Inca Roads" it's still missing a lot of important information and if possibly I hope by informing users here that anyone who knows the mechanics of the song will be able to expand to the "song structure" section to be as accurately as possibly as well as other parts of the article. Thank you. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 08:07, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

Lacking song articles
Recently I've made five new Zappa articles, One for the entire "Don't Eat the Yellow Snow Suite", "Inca Roads", "Advance Romance" the song "Joe's Garage", and "Dancin' Fool". I'll admit that Advance Romance maybe didn't deserve an article, but the other four did completely. I've also seen important songs "Who Are the Brain Police?" and "The Return of the Son of Monster Magnet" also have articles created. Sadly the person who created "Who Are the Brain Police" only made a stub that will probably be deleted. In my opinion stubs almost show that creator didn't care about making the article, so why do it? If you're going to make a song article make it have at least two paragraphs worth of information or why bother? I think this shouldn't be where Zappa's song project ends and that I'll be making many new relevant articles. ALTHOUGH, It'd be nice if other editors added to my work because I may not able to find all of the necessary facts to juice up the article and make it as complete as it can. If you do please make sure you have the citations before you add anything and please inform me of any new Zappa song articles made because I'd love to improve them. Thank You. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 01:35, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Wikiproject proposal
If a proposal for a Frank Zappa Wikiproject were made, are there any editors out there that would support it? This article in particular is very well written and maintained, but there are at least 100 other Zappa-related pages that could use the attention of more editors. Friginator (talk) 00:10, 15 September 2012 (UTC)

Yes and there are also plenty of Zappa related topics (mainly his singles and landmark songs) that still need pages. --Mrmoustache14 (talk) 06:28, 18 September 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Wikiproject (your name here)
A Frank Zappa Wikiproject has been proposed here. If you would in any way help support this project, please add your name to the list found on that page. Thank you. Friginator (talk) 23:05, 17 September 2012 (UTC)

Political views
As noted above, there's enough analysis and discussion of Zappa's politics among multiple sources to provide for a large-sized section which has been mostly merged with the rest of the article, except for cited statements from Zappa's biography and a LA Times article which were outright deleted. Later, a shorter section appeared solely cited from the biography and the LA Times, but was deleted for being "based entirely on a single source" (except, of course, the LA Times article, which was overlooked). If there's significant coverage and analysis of Zappa's political and philosophical views to create an entire section, why isn't this coverage a part of its own section, separated from his music career and general biography? The placement of the PMRC hearings was debated, but aside from needing to resolve that issue, there should not be an issue with having a problem on Zappa's views. --24.250.150.187 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The following seems to be the text OP added in a "Political views" section:
 * Describing his political views, Frank Zappa categorized himself as a "practical conservative." He favored limited government and low taxes; he also stated that he approved of national defense, social security and other federal programs, but only if recipients of such programs are willing and able to pay for them. He favored capitalism, entrepreneurship and independent business, stating that musicians could make more from owning their own businesses than from collecting royalties. He opposed communism, stating "A system that doesn't allow ownership [...] has–to put it mildly–a fatal design flaw."
 * While Zappa disapproved of drug use, he criticized the War on Drugs, comparing it to alcohol prohibition, and stated that the United States Treasury would benefit from the decriminalization and regulation of drugs. Describing his philosophical views, Zappa stated, "I believe that people have a right to decide their own destinies; people own themselves. I also believe that, in a democracy, government exists because (and only so long as) individual citizens give it a 'temporary license to exist'–in exchange for a promise that it will behave itself. In a democracy, you own the government–it doesn't own you."
 * I don't terribly mind having section like this. But I think, given that Zappa seems to have fairly typical libertarian views, I think a couple of sentences about it can be tucked away elsewhere in the article. Much like the way we mention how he encouraged his fans to vote. A separate section overemphasises his politics; Zappa was a musician, first and foremost.—indopug (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't terribly mind having section like this. But I think, given that Zappa seems to have fairly typical libertarian views, I think a couple of sentences about it can be tucked away elsewhere in the article. Much like the way we mention how he encouraged his fans to vote. A separate section overemphasises his politics; Zappa was a musician, first and foremost.—indopug (talk) 16:02, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

From a writing standpoint, I think it interrupts the flow of the biography to be discussing a part of his life and then jump to "he was opposed to raising taxes". Except where there's a major event, like testifying about the PMRC - that works as part of the biography flow. Randomly mentioning what he thought of the military or "assholes in action" drug users interrupts the story. --24.250.150.187 (talk) 16:48, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, the citations of Barry Miles' Zappa should be called into question, as Miles' writing is very much not neutral and attacks Zappa's personal life and politics. --24.250.150.187 (talk) 19:54, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree in regard to the idea that Zappa's political activity should not have its own section. I think that it should, as Zappa was very politically active, including the senate testimony and such. --24.250.150.187 (talk) 20:01, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Also, "fairly typical libertarian views" contradicts Zappa's statement that he was a conservative and he also stated that he met with the Libertarian Party, discussed the possibility of running for president on their ticket, and then decided not to run with that party because he thought that their platform didn't make any sense. --24.250.150.187 (talk) 20:12, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

Genres
He really played genres prog rock, protopunk and Comedy rock. You should not delete this genres. I citad source is Allmusic.com. Protopunk and alt rock are album Freak Out! prog rock are Absolutely free, Hot Rats, Zoot Allures, Apostrophe, Wakka Jawakka and Great Wazoo, One Size at all and other. Rock music - is The General Definition music genres, but not separate genre.

P.S. Help me I am bad know English. He is not the native language.--Mmlov (talk) 21:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

This is,       [ ] ,  ,  and other......[[User:Mmlov|Mmlov]] (talk) 16:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
 * Without looking too carefully at what you presented, two things: 1) More often than not, there is a tendency to insert genres into an infobox which may be appropriate or make sense today, but not within the context of the period when the album was released; 2) The overuse of AllMusic on Wikipedia amounts to borderline undue weight.  Other sources exist in abundance, even if the information doesn't automagically fall into your lap like it does with this one. RadioKAOS  –&#32; Talk to me, Billy  18:05, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * This is completely unnecessary. We have "Rock" listed. That includes Protopunk, Alternative Rock and Progressive Rock. And those sources you're citing? They don't list progressive rock, protopunk, or alternative rock as genres. All of those terms are found in a box marked "styles," which is completely separate from the "genres" box. So in other words, Allmusic doesn't list those as genres at all. So your sources don't work, your edits are unnecessary, and there seems to be consensus against you. And while I hate to say it, the fact that you claim not to be fully fluent in English doesn't help your argument. Friginator (talk) 18:39, 5 January 2013 (UTC)

I disagree! This styles he played in his band The Mothers of Invention as well as psychedelic rock (album We’re Only in It for the Money, 1968). Source (about psychedelic): .--Mmlov (talk) 20:49, 5 January 2013 (UTC)


 * First of all, to my knowledge, no one is saying Zappa didn't play psychedelic music. But it doesn't belong in the infobox. As for your source, I've never read that book all the way through, but as for the pages your link took me to, they don't list We're Only in It for the Money as psychedelic rock. The book is called "Four Decades of Great Psychedelic Rock", yet even with a title like that it STILL doesn't list the Mothers of Invention albums as psychedelic rock. In fact, the book you link to doesn't seem at all appropriate for use in an article on Frank Zappa. It uses (on multiple occasions) works by Ben Watson (a Zappa historian who's actually notable) as sources for its own quotes. But one of the things that really made me think to myself "Okay, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about" was the sentence stating "The cover of 1968's We're Only In It for the Money parodied Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band." Anyone who does a little fact-checking knows that isn't true. This, and alleging that "its lyrics mercilessly lampooned the hippies," while arguable, tend to make me think that Jim DeRogatis, the music critic who wrote the book, (and who I hadn't previously heard of), isn't a good source of info on Zappa. He also seems to be misinformed about the production of Lumpy Gravy. So it's not a reliable source and even if it were, there's no reason to add any more genres to the infobox. Friginator (talk) 02:42, 6 January 2013 (UTC)

Are you kidding me?--Mmlov (talk) 16:38, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Sounds psychedelic to me if nothing else..it`s pretty much how I would describe it. Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 18:02, 16 August 2013 (UTC)
 * @Friginator - how does this quote from the "We're Only It . . ." article here at Wikipedia square with your contention about that album? "Zappa decided to change the album's concept to parody the Beatles album, because he felt that the Beatles were insincere and "only in it for the money". I am, perhaps, missing your point on the album NOT being a parody as it certainly appears to be - at the very least the album artwork does. Could you help me understand your thoughts on the subject? Thanks!THX1136 (talk) 16:26, 26 February 2014 (UTC)
 * THX, I think your information is off. Do you know the original title for We're Only In It for the Money was to be Our Man in Nirvana?  It was changed later because Zappa thought it too topical and would lose the point quickly past the "fashon", and the title Zappa chose was due to the fact that a band that looked like The Mothers (ugly, uncommercial) with a title of We're Only In It For The Money was funny to him.  I don't know where your insincerity about the Beatles attitude of Frank's comes from - Frank was cynic about just about everyone with a few exceptions (such as Edgar Varese) and his problems with The Beatles were mostly due to business issues - McCartney wouldn't give permission to parody Pepper and referred Zappa to Apple management, and later, Zappa didn't like what John & Yoko did with the tapes of the concert they did together as far as credits went. 01:34, 4 October 2014 (UTC)