Talk:Freak scene

It`s alive

The freak scene is still alive. there are much festivals with the modern followers of the freaks szene, a mix of goa/neohippies, punks, crustpunks, crusties, (ecological) leftwingpeople & other activists, freeteknomembers and much more...you can find them in squats, communes, special festivals like boomfestival in portugal or burning man in the usa or fusion festival in germany etc. the scene is more modern and more differnciatet, but its the same mixing of political people & subcultural freaks. freak is the umrellaterm for all alternative, very subcultural living people worldwide. the term is still used in this global scene. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.23.34.230 (talk) 08:19, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

in the fashion section its claimed that hair wasnt made too short because skinheads were thought to be neo-fascist at the time. However nazi skins did not arise untill the late 70's, after the freak scene had given way to punk

Phone Phreaks

They have no relevance to the article. I have removed it.

782 Naumova 11:53, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I disagree, so I put it back. The discussion is on how the term "freak" came to be commonplace usage in the 1970's; a different etymology may be claimed for "phone phreak", but it's still relevant.ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:33, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The title of the article is "Freak Scene" and that scene is described well enough in the first paragraph that one can get a fairly good idea what various editors have been getting at. However, the phreaking scene is in most ways entirely unrelated to this scene. The former scene is related to a lifestyle, philosophy, music, art, etc., whereas the latter is devoted to understanding and exploring telephone switching networks. Phones vs. philosophy; there is no overlap. At the same time, I do see your point. The word "freak" was gaining popularity at this time, and thus its various usages might seem reasonable to include in the article. However, I'm worried that by listing, for example, "dope freak, speed freak, sci-fi freak, jazz freak, health food freak and Jesus freak, [and phone phreak]" the article may be getting somewhat off-focus. This article is _not_ about the word "freak." There is already a separate article freak about the word, and that may be a more appropriate place to discuss etymology. _This_ article is about _the_ so-called freak scene (and as such not about any others). 65.183.135.166 02:03, 24 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Alice Cooper is certainly no freak hes a redneck in it for the money money

I would like to suggest that Alice Cooper be removed from this list. He has declared that he is a right wing Bush supporter, and while he is certainly free to make this choice, this fact discounts his inclusion as a freak. This all indicates that Alice Cooper protrayed this freak image throughout the 70's and 80's purely for the money. --203.45.145.238 13:15, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, we see what direction the exclusionism is coming from. So, you would even exclude people from the term "freak" -- as if you have determined that only certain people of a certain politics are entitled to be a "freak"...? I didn't think that's what it was all about, man! 70.105.27.234 16:04, 12 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It’s a matter of opinion dude. If you are talking about a freak scene in the true sense from which the word was originally created for in the 1960s and 70s then you are quite wrong, but if you want to generalise then why not add a new list of freaks such as Frankenstein and the likes. I heard Cooper on Australian TV gloating over and justifying the heinous crimes committed against civilians in Iraq. That’s not a freak in the true sense that the expression was originally created for, that’s a mindless psychopath. Get the drift?--203.45.145.238 10:41, 17 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

the early alice cooper was a freak. some people shouldn't stop drinking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That is an absolutely ridiculous statement. This is about freaks, not hippies. It talks about the connection to punks, who, while not right-wingers, were not liberal peace lovers like hippies. Alice Cooper is definitely a freak. He was going against the liberal attitudes that dominated sixties rock. I also wanted to say I deleted the part about anti-sexism, because there were no sources cited, and, with AC/DC on the list of artists, this does not seem particularly relevant to the freak scene as a whole. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gtbob12 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Man Hating

Andrea Dworkin's Man Hating chapter 5 pg 75-79 describes freaks and she also describers herself as so.

Article may be dubious (?)--needs way more clarity and sourcing...badly!!!

I just stumbled on this article today. Though I'd be fascinated with the concept, if there really was such a thing, the way the whole article expresses the phenomenon is dubious at best and, even if true, its wording is more confusing than helpful. I assume that the term is supposed to be a retronym describing something that was happening in the late 60s and early 70s, but that is still influential today(?). I wonder whether the ideas have been made up from thin air, or if some of this stuff is actually legit. Nothing that the article says will be ever deemed credible until the right factual credentials are established and better explanation given. Right now, there is almost no sourcing whatsoever, save for the Weathermen, and even that reference does not appear to be connected in any meaningful or relevant way. Even credible sources can be misused in an irresponsible way. I cannot find anything about this topic on the internet, except Dinosaur Jr.' use of the term, which seems to be unrelated.(?) This article has way too many problems that need to be rectified and soon, if its future Wiki existence is to be justified. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:56, 14 April 2015 (UTC) Garagepunk66 (talk) 00:32, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Essentially, the whole article has existed in this form since 2005 - originally something like this, when it was created by Wayland (who now seems pretty inactive) - and at that time was wholly unreferenced. Someone needs to make an attempt at re-creating the article from scratch, using reliable sources, and if that makes no progress the article should be deleted, or merged with a better one. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK if we remove the comment near the top about the Weathermen, as well as the contradictory (and unsourced) statements about freak scene being both politically radical, as well as apolitical at the same time. Although a source is listed for the Weathermen, it seems to be used in a completely irrelevant and irresponsible way, which detracts from the main premise of the article, which I take to be mainly concerned with music and culture. Perhaps, somewhere later in the article we could discuss how the term "freak" came to be used, perhaps showing early (sourced) examples of its use by Weathermen and others, without necessarily saying that the Weathermen were actually freak scene in the formal sense--they had their own agenda, after all. The comments about supposed political leanings render the whole article incomprehensible, as well as questionable. 66.0.163.107 (talk) 19:08, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that removing the only sourced statement in the entire article is the best way to start the process of improving it. One thing that can be done now, I think, is to include (merge?) the material such as that at Freak#Postmodern examples which is both sourced and directly relevant. As I recall it, the "freak scene" essentially emerged in California with people like Zappa and Vito Paulekas, and the term "freak" was then used much more loosely to describe elements of underground culture, such as in The Fabulous Furry Freak Brothers, and then people like the "Jesus freaks". There are sources available about this - for example [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. I'm not going to address this as a priority myself in the short term, but I'll monitor the article. The best way forward, it seems to me, is basically to try to expand the article based on reliable sources, before cutting out the material that is not relevant - the wholly unsourced and irrelevant material such as the references to Roy Wood's hair and to Chic. PS: Please try to remember to log in before editing! Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:55, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know who made that edit. But, you make perfect points--the direction you propose would be the best solution. It may be that the time frame outlined in the article (approx. 1970-1974, except for certain things such as Love, Janis Joplin, and Weathermen) may start too late. Perhaps it might be better to see if sources push back a few years it to start, maybe maybe in 1965(?), when first examples might be found, such as you mentioned. I have read that the Berkely free speech movement started around '65 and that "freak," even early on, was a common term to describe hippies and various other types of renegades of the time. I know that a lot of the things portrayed happening (circa '66 and'67) on Hollywood's Sunset Strip, as portrayed in Movies such as Mondo Mod and Riot on Sunset Strip fit into the descriptions given here (you see a sort of mod/hipster/miniskirt/early hippie/early flower power/politically radical/apolitically radical/prototypical punk/folk rock/psychedelic/__________________,...) thing going on--a kind of nexus or gathering of tribes--you see it again, but more "hippyfied" at Woodstock. The 60s often get clichéd and over-simplified, when in reality the youth movement was more multi-dimensional than usually portrayed. Perhaps the article could treat freak scene not as one separate subculture, but as a "rainbow" of 60s and early 70s freedom movements unified as a generation for change(?). I'm beginning to like the "concept." But, we certainly don't want to accidently create a new "category" via Wiki, unless sources have already defined it. Garagepunk66 (talk) 22:24, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I notice the improvements that Ghmyrtle has made. The article is now looking a lot better!Garagepunk66 (talk) 23:43, 18 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In the heading, do you think it would be better to say that freak scene was an "aspect of 60s and early 70s subculture" rather than an actual subculture itself? I live in America, have followed the 60s closely, and I have never heard of the term being used to designate an actual subculture, but if one was to use it to refer to an aspect of 60s/early 70s bohemianism, I have heard the word "freak" used often.
When the heading says: "The term became used more widely in the post-hippie and pre-punk period of the late 1960s and 1970s"... I am not so sure--there is no sourcing to confirm this statement. I would associate the word "freak" (i.e. when used to mean a bohemian) to be most often associated with the mid-late 60s and very early 70s. The so-called period between hippie and punk (i.e. what I take to mean circa. 1972-1976) seems less convincing. Obviously the late 60s were definitely not post-hippie, so the current statement cannot be reliable. We could change the wording to say: "The term can also be used to refer to the post-hippie and pre-punk period of the early to mid 70s. Garagepunk66 (talk) 01:32, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I modified the former wording in the heading to read:

The freak scene is a blanket term sometimes used to refer to the bohemian subculture which began in California in the mid-1960s, associated with (or part of) the hippie movement. It can also be used to refer to the post-hippie and pre-punk period of the early to mid-1970s. It overlaps between, hippies, pacifists, politicized radicals, non-political psychedelic music fans, and generally non-political progressive rock fans. The individuals to whom it pertains often moved between rock festivals, free festivals, happenings, and alternative society gatherings of various kinds.

The new wording is much more accurate, and conforms to what most people's perception would be. It also conforms to the sourced statements in the later pats of the text. Right after those words we could also add mention of something to the effect of "It has enjoyed various revivals over the years." I know that one commenter in a thread above said that "it is still alive." The popularity of the "Deadhead" movement in the 80s (following the Grateful Dead from show to show) and "neo-hippies could be considered examples of such revivals. Garagepunk66 (talk) 02:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Freak scene. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114020010/http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/21/1441247 to http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03/08/21/1441247

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 23:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freak scene. 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:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060621124240/http://www.scrammagazine.com/franzoni to http://www.scrammagazine.com/franzoni
Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=03%2F08%2F21%2F1441247

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) 23:59, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Freak scene. 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) 13:14, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]