From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Frank Zappa is a former good article candidate. There are suggestions below for which areas need improvement to satisfy the good article criteria. Once the objections are addressed, the article can be renominated as a good article. If you disagree with the objections, you can seek a review. Date of review: 28 November 2006

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Frank Zappa article.
Please sign and date your posts using four tildes (~~~~). New discussion topics go at the bottom of the page; click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Frequently asked questions. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Talk page guidelines Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Don't bite the newcomers!

This article is a former featured article candidate. Please view its sub-page to see why the nomination failed. For older candidates, please check the archive.

Frank Zappa is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

This article is part of WikiProject Jazz, set up to organize and expand entries on Jazz and related subgenres, as well as other related subjects. If you would like to participate, you can choose to edit the article attached to this page (see Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information).

Music Portal

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. [FAQ]
	This article is supported by WikiProject Musicians, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed biographical guide to musicians and musical groups on Wikipedia.

	This article is part of WikiProject Guitarists, a group dedicated to improving Wikipedia's coverage of topics related to guitarists. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B	This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Archives
– July 3, 2006

Contents 1 Status as of July 3, 2006 1.1 The Overview Section 1.2 Main picture 1.3 The Läther sub section 1.4 Referencing 1.5 Trivia 1.6 External links 1.7 Basic structure of article: Chronology or not? 2 Sheik Yerbouti - title and KC & The Sunshine Band 3 Guitar playing style? 4 "See also: List of rock instrumentals" 5 Johnny "Guitar" Watson influence 6 Neutrality, tone of article 7 Phrasing 8 Zappa and Black Sabbath 9 I call 'bullshit' 10 Guitar infobox ??? 10.1 Frank on Miami Vice (video) 10.2 Zappa taken off the internet musicsites? 10.3 Failed GA

[edit] Status as of July 3, 2006

Most talk was outdated or settled. I therefore archived it. Below, I list some problems and suggestions I have regarding the article now. Most of it is mainly editorial stuff, but I would like some feedback, before I jump into something that would cause a stir. So please leave comments--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Overview Section

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

I agree, the new overview section is too fan-ish. It was largely written by the user Dunks58 from Nov. 23rd onwards, before that the section was completely different. The new version does contain some good points though, I think perhaps we should go back to the older, more professionally written version while also including certain material from the new one. Either that or scrap it altogether and start again...203.167.235.136 01:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Some of the info in this section should really be used to expand the lead. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 22:24, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Main picture

At the old talk page, it was suggested that the main picture for the article was "inappropriate." It was seen as emitting the signal of "Rock Star Turned Serious". I agree. Since copyright issues are serious here, I would suggest to use the cover of Apostrophe in lack of better alternatives. It is a nice picture of Frank, and provides a timeless and recognizable image. What do you think?--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think that whoever suggested this is a pretentious prick. The image stays as is. And whoever would refer to Zappa as a "rock star" obviously knows nothing of the man's music. Case closed. (Ibaranoff24 02:03, 5 July 2006 (UTC))

Please discuss, instead of just putting up several confrontational remarks. Cf., WP:NPA, WP:AGF or WP:EQ. Well, "rock star" or not (a term indeed in quotation marks), I think the image is a poor choice for a Zappa article. He was rarely seen in a tux writing dots on paper (when he did, he would wear anything but a tux). The irony surely featured during the particular photo session is likely to be lost on non-Zappa fans. --HJ 06:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

The current main pic with the piano and the score has to stay, IMO. Frank was serious about his music, what's wrong with that? He labored over scores his whole life... that has always been one of my favorite FZ photos. KEEP IT! --EmmSeeMusic 16:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the photo has now been removed by the administrators due to copyrigth issues; see for the picture, if it is still there, or the edit diff. For lack of better alternatives, I have put in the Apostrophe cover as argued above. Those opposing, please see if you can upload a better picture, or somehow get permission to use the "zappa1.jpg" pic (strange that it has been removed after having been there for so long. Well, I am no copyright expert). In any case, please report progress here on the talk page.--HJ 11:22, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Läther sub section

The article is already rather long. So I would suggest that the lengthy - but very good - discussion about Läther is moved to the page of the album. As of now, it breaks the flow of the article (and Zappa had many other projects that never materialized). I think it would suffice to mention the projected box set, refer to the album page, and then devote slightly more time to the four albums that actually came out of it. What do you think? --HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

User:172.164.238.186 ([History] made a lengthy revision on this subject, stating that "this is what really happened". See http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Zappa&diff=62108546&oldid=61937761 . It is a substantial shortening (which could have been discussed), but I think that the whole issue should be on the page of the album, and not in a subsection.--HJ 06:27, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Referencing

The article is not up to standards concerning referencing (it was one of the main arguments for its failure as Featured Article nominee). Most things are just stated, but without reference (I have, however, no quarrels with what is stated). Instead, there is a reference section of some books, and an additional section on "Further reading." I only think there should be mention of things that are actually used as reference. Hence, the latter section is redundant in this encyclopedic article. Opinions? --HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

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

That is an excellent video that shows off not only Frank Zappa's high intelligence, but it also shows that he didn't make up things as he went along...he fully knew the subject and could refute ANY contrary dodge objection to the main issue.

It would be a great addition to the article, where that may be will need to be worked out with the contributors.

PS: Thanks, I had never seen or heard that video/exchange.

-- That Guy, From That Show! 03:21, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The video is already linked in the article – see Footnote 6. However, the link is to a QuickTime video, so I think the GoogleVideo is more suitable. I have inserted it. Thanks for the link! HJ 10:12, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...the sound is all choppy on the google video version, which puts me right off watching it. On all the quicktime versions I've seen, this problem doesn't occur, so you might want to think about including it as an alternative.

Links to quicktime videos -

http://www.stat.pitt.edu/stoffer/dss_files/zappa_crossfire.html

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2658805

There's also a follow up, "Zappa on Crossfire II", which might also be of some interest, at ifilm:

http://www.ifilm.com/ifilmdetail/2664570

81.156.56.13 20:21, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Trivia

The trivia section is almost as large as decriptions of two decades of Zappa output (!). This seems way over the top. Any suggestions on how to cut in some of all this? Or could some trivia be incorporated into the main article? As of now, it looks as a "wasteground," where people have thrown in a lot of (good) info that perhaps could have been integrated into the article (and if not, maybe are not that relevant). Thougths?--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Move random TV appearances to Filmography, nuke the rumors, pop-culture references, and conjecture. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 00:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I personally think that the huge trivia section is Zappatastic and should be kept more or less intact. Here here! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.139.176.4 (talk • contribs).

It's cute in an odd-shaped malignant growth kind of way, but it makes the second half of the article an utter mess. ˉˉ^anetode╦╩ 15:42, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

Aggree. It is nice, and I can't really cut out anything based on it being completely irrelevant, but the article will never, ever get a chance as FA with this trivia section. So, I took the liberty of taggging it as "too much trivia". Does anyone knows whether one can make an independent article on the trivia info? (Just like one has an independent article for discography). Has that been done before? It could be a solution, as I see it.--HJ 23:37, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

At least within the confines of Zappa's "Conceptual Continuity" a separate page for the trivia fits nicely. Many of the pithy comments there can aid an aspiring fan of Zappa's music in understand the large number of subtle references in his body of work. --GregoryEvans01 16:06, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Dawkeye has edited the trivia section by introdcuing sub sections. It looks much better now! Still, it doesn't reduce the lenght of the contents (so I took the liberty of reinserting the {{toomuchtrivia}} tag), and as it looks now, it almost cries out for an independent page. Anybody has more comments one this?--HJ 10:14, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Though initially I came by just to do a tidy-up job (I am not particularly a Zappa fan, though I know people who are), I would make the following suggestions for reducing the size of the Trivia section.

1. Promote the subsections on his TV appearances, things named after him, and references to him in songs and other media, to sections in their own right - surely these are important enough not to be "trivia", as they show the wide and continuing range of his influence on others?

2. Incorporate the Ann Landers list into the 80's section about Zappa's problems with censorship.

3. Move the info about Zappa's role as "cultural ambassador" and relationship with Vaclav Havel to the 90's section.

4. What's left is interesting, but can be left in as Trivia - apart from the reference to Matt Groening, he's a fan - so what? So are lots of people. Has this had any notable influence on his work? dawkeye 13:43, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

[edit] External links

This is mostly a collection of various fan-sites. When one looks at them now, there seems to have been no idea behind which are linked or not. Should there be some requirements for when a site should be linked? It is a tricky issue, but the links section is simply a mess as of now. What should we do, if anything?--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• The External Links section definitely needs a clean-up. The fan sites should not even be listed at all per WP:EL guidelines. Official sites are all you need on a Wikipedia article. Anyone can search for Frank Zappa on google to get fan sites, etc. The Wiki EL section isn't meant to be a directory. --EmmSeeMusic 16:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
  • I see the point. The problem is (and I have seen with other artists that his can be a BIG problem), that many of the sites are not "just" fan sites where people write in amateur praises of their idols (I regret now, that I used the wording "fan-sites", as that apparantly carries a negative connotation; what I meant is that they are made by fans, which in itself should not be a disqualification). Some of the pages are for all practical purposes encyclopedic entities with, e.g., detailed info on every line-ups of Zappa's bands through time, detailed info on all concert dates, venues, etc. Neutral information that cannot be retrieved at the official site (or in published books). I would even say that some of the external links takes priority over some of the books listed in the "Further reading" section. My suggestion would be to go through the sites, and let those stay that includes relevant and neutral information. Moreover, in the list one should be more specific about the nature/contribution of each link (as of now this is not done consistently for all).--HJ 09:52, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

All external links have now a brief explanation as to what information they provide (they are not merely fan-sites filled with Zappa praise). Hopefully, this provides a more consistent look (as well as relevant information).--HJ 16:56, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Basic structure of article: Chronology or not?

Has anybody had thoughts about the basic structure of the article? The adopted "chronological approach" has it advantages (where to put something time specific is self evident), but also disadvantages (where to put something of general interest about Zappa is rather difficult).

An example of the disadvantage is the treatment of Zappa's "classical" work, which could benefit from being presented in a single paragraph or two. As of now, reference to it is scattered all over the article (Early life and influences, 1980s, 1990s).

Another example of the disadvantage is when describing Zappa's use of musical quotations. This is mentioned in 1960s, but the examples span all of his career.

Could anybody think of another structure, or is the chronological approach unavoidable when presenting Zappa?--HJ 21:36, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sheik Yerbouti - title and KC & The Sunshine Band

A user wrote today: "There's no proof that "Sheik Yerbouti" was in reference to the KC & The Sunshine Band song. Please stop adding this into the article". I did not add this, but just moved the sentence into a footnote (to tone down the prominence). The sentence has been around for a long time; see e.g.:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Frank_Zappa&diff=61937761&oldid=61937123

I did not know, however, that it was a matter of ongoing dispute ("stop adding (my emphasis) this"). Does anyone has good evidence for the popular notion that the album title indeed was a reference to the KC song? If not, it would, in my opinion, also be nice if solid proof against this popular perception could be put forward (as a good encyclopedic article should bury false and persistent rumors). Any references?--HJ 07:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I got one. Zappa: A Biography, By Barry Miles on page 271 of the paperback version. Here's a quote. "Sheik Yerbouti, Zappa's first album on his own label, was released 3 March 1980. The title was taken from the current Number One hit, K.C. and the Sunshine Band's 'Shake Your Booty'..." Barry Miles was a close friend of Zappa's and his biography of Zappa is highly regarded so that is the end of this war. The Guilty Undertaker 2:56, 24 July 2006

This quote is not really convincing imo. The album was released in 1979, and the KC number was three years old in 1979. So some facts are not quite right. In the album article Sheik Yerbouti this is stated. In any case, maybe we should just leave the info there? On that page it is also written rather catiously (i.e., that the titles sounds the same, but not that it necessarily was Frank's intention).--HJ 01:00, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

The Barry Miles biography is NOT highly regarded. It is widely considered by Zappa fans to be a piece of shit. That book should not be used as a reference in any instance. (Ibaranoff24 17:51, 26 July 2006 (UTC))

A few examples (adding to the one given above) would be appropriate. Your statement is just your personal opinions. Please use arguments instead of just presenting strong conclusions (for what it is worth, I otherwise agree on these on this one).--HJ 23:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Guitar playing style?

An IP user added this section to the article on July 19:

Frank zappa's guitar playing is undoubtedly influenced by him playing drums at an early age,

Which is shown through his strange and inventive rythmic passages.His legato phrasing can be be easily associated with a saxophone or violin and with pull offs, bending, trills and other Guitar techniques his guitar parts are filled with detail.His playing is influenced by many different genres such as Rock, Jazz and classical music and his experimentation with effects pedals such as wah wah and Overdrive is executed perfectly.With his high musical intelligence Frank zappa has been able to leave a vast legacy of over a thousand pieces of guitar work that is sure to last as outstanding music.

I think it could be interesting to expand to article with pieces going in more detail with various aspects of Zappa's work (his production techniques, his lyrics, his synclavier pieces, his horn arrangements, his orchestral compositions, and, of course, his guitar playing). This will, however, probably come at the cost of having to lose a lot of the plain information. I do think, in any case, that the description of his guitar playing style above does not add much to what is already in the article (e.g., that drums and percussion is important for all aspects of his music, hence also guitar playing, is already evident, as is the fact that his influences are from all over the place). Moreover, the last 2/3 of the edit is just POV praise (and the prose could be better). I therefore took the so-called bold step and deleted it. --HJ 20:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "See also: List of rock instrumentals"

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

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

[edit] Johnny "Guitar" Watson influence

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

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

www.rockabillyhall.com/JohnnyWatson1.html

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

www.johnnyguitarwatson.net/quotes.htm

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

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

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

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

John

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

That's great! If you don't happen to find anything else, I believe a reference to the jgw.net is ok documentation. I think it is a fine thing to include.--HJ 22:36, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. I'm still new to the Wiki-world. I may check the books anyway... Can't be too careful.  :) I might also add to FZ's entry that "Three Hours Past Midnight" was also his favorite record, if that's okay... I'm a big JGW fellow. Possibly the only.  :) --je 23:05, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Neutrality, tone of article

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

Agreed. The problem arises from lack of references. The basic source for the article now, as I see it, is The Real FZ Book. That clearly gives a biased look at things (or as a minimum it neglects several things). The problem with other books (where some contains criticial stories), is that the err on facts so much that they are difficult to take seriously as source material. If you have some contributions, which could bring on some nuance to the article (based on sourced material), it would in my opinion be most welcome.--HJ 08:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

One book which might come in useful is Ben Watson's Frank Zappa and the Negative Dialectics of Poodle Play, which not only contains extracts from many Zappa interviews but which also gives citations for all of them. I believe a lot of Zappa fans didn't like the book, but it's properly sourced and referenced. If nobody else has a copy I volunteer to hunt through it for references. --Lexo 16:12, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason fans didn't like the book is that a fantastic number of facts are garbled. See [1] for an in-depth analysis by Mike Keneally, who would know.

Thanks for the link. I noticed, though, that a lot of the things Keneally objects to are not errors of fact, but expressions of Watson's own irrelevant but sometimes stimulating over-opinionatedness, if that's a real word - Watson's ego being almost as big as Zappa's. There are errors, all right, but Keneally doesn't say that Watson has falsified dates of newspaper interviews, etc. That was where I thought the book might come in useful. At least Watson bothers to give sources. --Lexo 11:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm a huge music fan, and I'm attempting to fill out some of my knowledge of history by reading biographies on here. I stumbled on Frank Zappa's bio and I have to say, the "Overview" section feels like it was written by a fart-catching sycophant. Obviously, he has had a real impact on music/culture but he wasn't bigger than the Beatles. I doubt if anyone below the age of 25 would know him (not that they shouldn't of course), but this makes him out to be be a god...

[edit] Phrasing

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

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

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

In America, the ability to sell shit is a virtue. --GangofOne 06:56, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Poetic and pungent, if somewhat snarky. Let me unpack that statement a little bit. The magazine author praises Sam Goody for having the salesmanship ability to offload the least popular item on the shelf. Not selling this item means that it was taking up shelf space real estate and invested capital. Selling this item means that he could then take that shelf space and put something else there that will sell faster. This is good business, and Sam Goody was a good salesman, at least in the eyes of LOOK employees. Hence, his "ability to sell" "shit" "is a virtue".

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

[edit] Zappa and Black Sabbath

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

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

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

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

[edit] I call 'bullshit'

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

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

• • No, it's definitely made up. There are no such recordings in existence. (Ibaranoff24 06:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

[edit] Guitar infobox ???

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

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

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

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

I tend to agree with HJ on this one, as I think the infobox should emphasize the fact that Zappa was a composer first and foremost, which the new infobox doesn't indicate. It also appears to contain erroneous/incomplete information - it lists only four genres that Zappa used in his music, and there's certainly alot more. Also, I'd argue that psychadelic rock isn't even close to being one of the more prominent styles of music Zappa composed in, and when he did so it was usually to satirize it. The first sentence of the psychadelic rock article states:

"Psychedelic rock is a style of rock music inspired by or attempting to replicate the mind-altering experiences brought on by drugs such as cannabis, psilocybin, mescaline, salvia divinorum, and especially LSD."

..which was of course not Zappa's intention.

Another strange thing about the new infobox is that it lists Zappa's 'years active' as being from 1963 - 1993. 1963? I'm not sure what this refers to, the Studio Z recordings I guess, but is that legitimate? It might be correct in a way, but it sort of gives the wrong idea. The first 'proper' release was Freak Out in 1966, and this is what is usually cited when discussing the beginning of Zappa's professional career. If you were going to make a case for anything before this being the beginning of his 'years active', you might as well say that it was c.1952 when he began composing, or 1958 when he gigged with the blackouts.

So, I think that maybe on balance we should change it back to the first infobox, perhaps with a few changes. Is the quote, for example, really necessary? I don't really think it exemplifies Zappa's character or ideas...it's basically just his opinion of what a composer is. Perhaps it should be removed, or replaced with something more pertinent? RWhite 18:40, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

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

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

[edit] Frank on Miami Vice (video)

Payback episode

enjoy!

[edit] Zappa taken off the internet musicsites?

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

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

[edit] Failed GA

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