Jump to content

Talk:Frank Zappa/Archive 11

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Frank Zappa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 03:14, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

carry on . GangofOne (talk) 08:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Category:American conservative atheists

@JJARichardson: My edit was in the context of this category existing and being applied to this article alongside the existing category of "American atheists", under which the above category is already categorized. It's redundant. There being atheists of many different political viewpoints has nothing to do with it, as Zappa is one single person who described himself as conservative and has long been held to have been an atheist at the same time. Personally, I would suggest opening a CfD regarding "American conservative atheists" as the intersection of philosophies makes little sense to me and the definition can be quite nebulous, with this article about someone who wasn't entirely conservative but used the term to describe himself being a case in point. All I'm trying to do is get rid of redundant categorization. Zeke, the Mad Horrorist (Speak quickly) (Follow my trail) 20:12, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the category was redundant, so It can be removed. But then again, I think that all categories about people's thoughts —(or call them religions or philosophies)— should be removed from all articles about people. If you nominate that particularly horrible category for deletion, I'll support it wholeheartedly. - DVdm (talk) 20:40, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Suggested tangent on Frank and Carl

Suggested tangent: Explore Frank's relationship with his younger brother Carl and try to explain why Frank makes fun of him on Roxy & Elsewhere. Also, try to explain why Frank turned his back on his brother Carl, who applied for welfare after their mother died. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kwindish (talk • contribs) 00:49, 28 June 2016‎ (UTC)

Devin Townsend.

Devin Townsend was not influenced or inspired by Frank Zappa in any way. http://thequietus.com/articles/11006-devin-townsend-strapping-young-lad-favourite-albums?page=12 http://www.metalunderground.com/news/details.cfm?newsid=70515 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.33.33.216 (talk) 04:56, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~). Thanks.
Indeed, but on the other hand see the cited source:

MIKE SOS: Who are some of your musical influences?
DEVIN: I would say Judas Priest, Wasp, Frank Zappa, Broadway musicals, Abba, New Age music, Zoviet France, Kings X, Morbid Angel, Barkmarket, Grotus, Janes Addiction, Fear Factory, Meshuggah. I am influenced by anything that moves me.

In the sources that you gave, he says he doesn't like Zappa's music, but the article says that he was influenced by it. - DVdm (talk) 11:47, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Erm. He says " I am influenced by anything" and then goes on to elucidate: musical theater, new age, jane's addiction, abba, judas priest, etc... either this is just bogus posturing or he really is influenced by everything. Either way, to pick out Frank Zappa from that list (which Zappa is just an example taken apparently at random from the very large class "anything that moves me") isn't called for here. I wouldn't take the quote as having any use or meaning. To do so would mislead the reader I think.
Against this you have the one ref above "I was never interested in Frank Zappa's music" and the other ref where he he really rips Zappa in detail ("makes me feel nothing except for annoyed" for instance). It would be odd to be significantly influenced by a musician when you very much dislike his music. I don't believe it.
At the very least we can conclude that Devin Townsend is a not a good source for what influenced Devin Townsend. Herostratus (talk) 15:24, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Agreed. Thanks for dumping. - DVdm (talk) 15:30, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

re NPOV tag

An editor, User:Rms125a@hotmail.com, put a {{NPOV}} tag on the article. What is the problem? We've removed the tag, pending the editor coming here and making his case for it. Herostratus (talk) 19:19, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

If I were going to make a case for it I would have done so by now. I'm good. Quis separabit? 19:23, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Overly analytical text in biography

In the biographical sections, there is way too much detail on specific songs and albums reflecting his political views and musical style. I hope somebody can go through these paragraphs and move them to the appropriate sections below it.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:17, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I don' t agree that there is too much detail in the biographical sections, neither did the reviewers who agreed to list this as a featured article. I have undone your edits. DVdm (talk) 16:55, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
...The assessment from 9 years ago, where it was judged by completely different standards? How can you possibly rationalize the need to discuss the themes of Zappa's work in biographical sections when there is a designated section in the article for that specific subtopic?--Ilovetopaint (talk) 17:08, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Because the themes of Zappa's work are so relevant in the context of the biography. I don't think that much has changed since 9 years. - DVdm (talk) 17:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
If I wanted to learn about Zappa's views toward Catholicism, why would I have to skim through a section called "Early life"? If I wanted to learn about Zappa's response to critics who called for his censorship, why would I have to skim through a section called "Business breakups and touring"? WP:SURPRISE: "You should plan your page structure and links so that everything appears reasonable and makes sense. If a link takes readers to somewhere other than where they thought it would, it should at least take them somewhere that makes sense." These topics have everything to do with his "musical style and development" or "politics and religion" and are not particularly important in understanding how Zappa got from point A to point Z in his lifetime.
"Nasal imagery and references appear in his music and lyrics". Apparently, you consider this an insightful detail about his childhood? --Ilovetopaint (talk) 19:45, 13 March 2017 (UTC)
Another egregious example:

"Zappa also evolved a compositional approach he called "conceptual continuity", meaning that any project or album was part of a larger project. Everything was connected, and musical themes and lyrics reappeared in different form on later albums. Conceptual continuity clues are found throughout Zappa's entire œuvre."

This is something that (arguably?) began with Freak Out! and applies to his entire discography. Why am I stumbling upon it in a section about his late '60s New York period? This structure is awful.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 20:02, 13 March 2017 (UTC)

Actor?

The lede describes him as an "American musician, composer, songwriter, producer, guitarist, actor, and filmmaker". I don't see him as an "actor". IMDb gives him eight acting credits, some of which are quite marginal... in Head he was onscreen for what, 15 seconds? He was a performer, not an actor in the 1963 Steve Allen appearance... our article 200 Motels credits him as "Frank Zappa as himself", and if that's accurate that's not really acting... I'm not seeing a single big role as an actor in any production.

It's not that he never acted. But he also wrote or at least dictated an autobiography, so "author" is more notable than "actor", and "bandleader" much more than "actor", and so on. "Singer" much more than actor (he sang lead a reasonable amount IIRC). And we don't want eleven different things in the lede, the seven that're there is probably too much. He was a bandleader, the Mothers were not like the Beatles or the Stones or whatever: he hired and fired the musicians and told them what to play and this was totally key to what he accomplished. On this basis I've replaced "actor" with "bandleader". Herostratus (talk) 03:08, 20 March 2017 (UTC)

This is another example of role creep that happens too often on Wikipedia. Fans of the person will add more and more roles into the lead sentence in a misguided attempt to 'glorify' their hero until, who a person was, what a person did, or what he is known for, is completely obscured. This issue is specifically addressed in WP:LEAD: "The lead sentence should describe the person as he or she is commonly described in reliable sources" and "avoid overloading the lead paragraph with various sundry roles". LK (talk) 08:23, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

"Criticism of religion" template

I've recently been involved in a beginning edit war about whether or not to include the "Criticism of religion" template. Personally, I don't see why it should be included. Yes, religion was a major topic in his lyrics and the article mentions that. But thousands of notable people spoke out against religion and none of them are included in the template. Not even "professional atheists" like Richard Dawkins of Slavoj Žižek, let alone musicians who happened to write about religion. Of course not, it would make the template utterly unnavigable. And why include a template that doesn't even contain a link to the article?
Now you can say that Zappa didn't happen to write critically about religion, that it is a major theme reflecting his personal views. Fair enough, but many of his songs mention California, homosexuality, and scatological themes among other things. So why no include templates for all these? Or maybe we should put an obesity template in Elvis Presley? A deafness template in Beethoven? Notwithstanding his personal opinion, Zappa's criticism of religion is hardly his main attribute. He became known as a musician, not as a prominent atheist. Even a "Freedom of speech" template would be better suited here (though still out of place imo).
Last, and most importantly: what's the use of all this? How does this article need a "criticism of religion" template? Few links in the template are related to Zappa at all, and those that are bear only an oblique relationship. The main body mentions his views on religion and already gives the necessary links. Steinbach (talk) 10:31, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Frank Zappa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:31, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Frank Zappa. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Zappa/Archive_11&oldid=1136738383"