Talk:Frank Zappa

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Featured articleFrank Zappa is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on December 4, 2008.
On this day... Article milestones
DateProcessResult
December 29, 2005Featured article candidateNot promoted
May 12, 2006Featured article candidateNot promoted
November 28, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
December 21, 2006Good article nomineeNot listed
May 5, 2007Good article nomineeNot listed
January 7, 2008Good article nomineeListed
August 12, 2008Featured article candidateNot promoted
September 11, 2008Peer reviewReviewed
September 24, 2008Featured article candidatePromoted
July 31, 2017Featured article reviewKept
On this day... A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on December 4, 2020.
Current status: Featured article

Musician, composer, songwriter, bandleader[edit]

Someone had turned "singer-songwriter, musician" into "musician, composer, songwriter, bandleader", which was accepted by myself and by user Justiyaya. This is was reverted ([1]) by user Wretchskull (talk · contribs) per wp:UNDUE. I don't think there's anything undue about the phrase musician, composer, songwriter, bandleader. On the contrary, these attributes are overwhelmingly supported by the article. So I undid the undo ([2]). Other comments welcome. - DVdm (talk) 16:52, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the ping DVdm, please note (for anyone joining the discussion) that there is a huge section up above saying why bandleader belongs in the lead (thank you Herostratus). Justiyaya 17:14, 24 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Mnmn, the noted singer-songwriter Frank Zappa... I honestly feel that if we try to put him in in with like Lobo (musician) and Neil Diamond and Christopher Cross etc. we'd risk calling forth a nameless shapeless wrath that might consume the universe. I can't think of a more misleading way to characterize Zappa... Heh I'm imagining him onstage alone on a stool in a spotlight and strumming away at "Time In A Bottle"... oof. Yes sure this is an accurate image to put in the reader's mind... I suppose "Frank Zappa was a musician, composer, guitarist, and potato ricer (a kitchen implement used to process potatoes by forcing them through a sheet of small holes)" would be a little more misleading. Sorry, this just gave me the giggles.
My thought remains that "musician, composer, songwriter, bandleader" works fine, not broke, don't fix. (But if we've got the hood open anyway, I'd prefer "guitarist, composer, songwriter, bandleader" because he really was a virtuoso guitarist I think. However, it's fine either way, don't worry about it. (My thought process being: whatever "musician" might mean, we've already spun off songwriter, bandleader, and composer, so what's left is his instruments and singing I guess?. But didn't he have other people do a fair amount of the singing? Even when not he just wasn't noted for his singing but he was for his playing. But whatever.) Herostratus (talk) 02:15, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with "musician, composer, songwriter, bandleader" Dr.bobbs (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"Composer, guitarist, bandleader" would be more accurate. For starters, Zappa considered himself a composer first and foremost (says so in his autobiography). He composed large symphonic works. And rock music. And jazz. And a few other things. But composition was central: everything else was to support his composition habit.
Once you have "composer", songwriter is implicit in that. True, not all composers are songwriters, necessarily, but all songwriters are composers.
"Musician" is both over-general, and redundant. Could one possible be a composer, a guitarist, and a bandleader, (and a songwriter), and NOT be a "musician"?
74.95.43.253 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, afaic, we can leave the musician aside. I'll make the change and we can keep it. After possible further discussion here, we can revert. - DVdm (talk) 14:19, 14 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
He was a composer first and foremost! 2A00:23C6:CC8B:9601:6176:3FA9:76CE:1C0C (talk) 06:15, 20 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe tours can be improved?[edit]

I'm trying to figure out if there's a more comprehensive way to list the tours. I know that there are different ways of breaking them up, i.e. Spring 74 vs Summer/fall 74, etc. but i feel like doing something like calling all of 74 the "10th anniversary" tour is a bit misleading. Also, for the chart, Ed Mann was not around in 84. 230am.cowboy (talk) 15:33, 10 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

1940–1965: Early life and career - mercury and prostate cancer[edit]

This section looks like it contains WP:OR by strongly implying that playing with mercury gave him cancer. Unless there's source that says that, the sentence about his cancer belongs in the section about his later life and death. Rhejhect (talk) 09:57, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've just removed some more WP:OR about the radium pellets he was given as a child. this citation: http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/causes-prevention/risk/radiation/nasopharyngeal-radium-fact-sheet is NOT about Frank Zappa. If the citation is not about the subject, it's original research. Rhejhect (talk) 10:06, 31 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

phrasing, "uses conventions" versus "conventional"[edit]

@24.143.103.204, I asked you to please discuss your thoughts here before continuing to make changes. You're misunderstanding my point: Zappa did use existing conventions in unconventional ways. An artist can be unconventional in the way they use conventions. He wrote down his thoughts with (mostly) conventional music notation, for example.
I am worried that your particular phraseology is overly narrow, and may impact the meaning of the article in a way that's neither neutral nor represented by sources. Remsense留 07:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is absurd. I did not use my own opinion when I stated that the songs on Freak Out are unconventional. I was simply correctly stating what the rest of the article already correctly stated. My "particular phraseology" was chosen to make article non-contradictory. Using conventions in un-conventional ways is not conventional. It is UN-CONVENTIONAL. It is your opinion when you state that some one else's "phraseology" is "overly narrow". Next time you make an argument please try to make a logical one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.118.36 (talk) 02:16, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Structured improvisation not free-form improvisation[edit]

There is a good reason why there are two different articles on Wikipedia which differentiate between free-form improvisation and (structured) improvisation. Zappa's music was almost always HIGHLY structured. That is the reason why he spent weeks rehearsing with his band before he went out on tour. He left places for soloing inside his structured compositions. It is misleading to claim that Zappa regularly used free-form improvisation. It's just one of those myths that people like to believe Zappa. Some Jazz artists used it but Zappa did not consider himself to be a Jazz artist. He wrote his book to try to clear up these stories, but people want to believe them anyway even when there is little or no basis in fact. If the term "free-form improvisation" is going to stay in this article it needs a citation and some basis in fact. Even if it is cited would still be misleading to emphasize it at the beginning of the article or imply that Zappa regularly used it. "OK" is just not good enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.118.36 (talk) 22:40, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Zappa is currently referenced in the Wikipedia article on Musical Improvisation but NOT in the article on Free-Form Improvisation. This is because one term accurately describes his music and the other does not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.118.36 (talk) 00:58, 19 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List of references that accurately describe Zappa's music as highly structured works balanced with musical improvisation (not free-form improvisation):

1) Review of Burnt Weeny Sandwich "...the record is structured like a sandwich..." "...stylistically diverse songs that focus on structured and tightly arranged compositions..." No mention of free-form improvisation here: https://www.udiscovermusic.com/news/frank-zappa-burnt-weeny-sandwich-vinyl/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.118.36 (talk) 19:57, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2) Dweezil talks about FZ's improvisational techniques. He describes how the music allows for improvisation INSIDE a structured composition and cites Inca Roads and an example. Dweezil never mentions the words "free-form improvisation". Dweezil is a musician, so his opinions about FZ's music show insight and understanding. A non-musician like Gail, for example, could never match his expertise in this area. https://www.guitarworld.com/lessons/dweezil-zappa-teaches-frank-zappas-improvisation-techniques-and-riffs

3) Search on DuckDuckGo for "Frank Zappa Improvisation" shows this as the top result: FRANK ZAPPA - A REGGAE IMPROVISATION IN A-MAJOR, 1991 In this improvisation there is a predetermined rhythmic style called "reggae" and also a predetermined key signature of "A Major". This is an example of structured improvisation, not an example of "free-form improvisation". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CMVo9lWnhTU — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.118.36 (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

4) I just did a search for articles on free-form improvisation. Most of the articles did not mention Zappa at all. Here is one that did mention Zappa while at the same time carefully explaining the difference between "free improvisation" and "improvisation". This article correctly put Zappa in the latter category: https://www.makemag.com/review-a-listeners-guide-to-free-improvisation/

"Let us begin by noting that free improvisation is different from improvisation. The latter has almost certainly existed since the first musical performance. Hindustani and Carnatic music in India are improvisational arts, and European composers during the Baroque period were famous for the improvisational virtuosity. Contemporary improvisation is generally associated with soloing in jazz (Louis Armstrong, Charlie Parker, Thelonious Monk) or rock (Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa, The Grateful Dead). Note that in both cases – the “classical” and the contemporary – the improvisation is taken as part of a larger fixed framework—the song or the genre—that the improviser uses as the basis for their own gesture. In these examples, improvisation is a technique within a larger musical structure. This structure sets the scene, if you will, for the musician to expand their notions of the form while still staying within a largely recognizable framework. No matter how long a soloist in a raga or a jazz or pop song may play, one still recognizes the language – or idiom – in which they’re playing." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.118.36 (talk) 20:21, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

5) On the rare occasion that Zappa is known to have used something along the lines of "free-form improvisation" he did not use those words to describe it. He used the words "spontaneous composition" instead. So, it is still not accurate to say that this is a defining characteristic of Zappa's musical style. Frank Zappa - 1984 - Spontaneous Minimalist Composition - Zellerbach Auditorium, UC Berkeley. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YUq2WlinrXw — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.118.36 (talk) 00:45, 4 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

6) In this 1973 interview FZ says that half of the music in his concerts is written in advance including drum parts. Inside the written pieces there are improvisations as in a Jazz context. The rest of the show is either melodies that are so simple they do not need to be written down, or completely improvised on the spot. He said he tries to improvise "one piece of music per show." One song per concert is not a representative sample of the whole performance or of Zappa's entire work. It is the exception to the rule, not the rule itself. He is saying that the actual representative samples of his music are the structured parts that are rehearsed, Jazz-like solos, or simple rock songs. A lot of people like to look at the most unusual or extreme parts about Zappa's work and take them out of context. Better to listen to what FZ actually said about his music than to repeat unfounded rumors. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yUXZN6mKiS8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.109.40 (talk) 20:11, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Subpage time?[edit]

This article is getting very long, especially for a featured article. It was just a hair under 11k words upon FAR in 2017, and is now over my personal pigheaded bright line of 12k where I put my foot down and say "I don't care what the article is about, it's obviously too long". It seems to me that a lot of the detail regarding his work is notable enough to be viable as subpages—cf. Beethoven's musical style, Beethoven's compositional method. Thoughts? Remsense诉 20:54, 1 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

YES! Finally! This article is way too long. It still has parts that are poorly written, inaccurate, repetitive and or overly verbose. It can be tightened up. There is still a lot of trivial and or unsourced information that should be removed. Trivial info can be moved to other articles or deleted entirely.24.143.118.36 (talk) 19:53, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You've been doing a lot of work on it, do you have suggestions for what could be split out first? Remsense诉 20:05, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Could you explain what you mean by "split out"? Do you mean making new articles?

One thing that definitely needs to go is just about any quote about Zappa's music from Robert Christgau. He clearly is highly biased and has little or no understanding of FZ's music. He is one of those people who is responsible for spreading a lot of false impressions. He described Bongo Fury as "sentimental", which may the dumbest thing I have ever heard anyone say about FZ's music. The amount of sentimental FZ music is at or near zero. Kelly Fisher Lowe isn't exactly a widely recognized music expert as Christgau is (ha ha), but he is a musician who understands FZ's music. I would like to find other writers to quote who are similar to Kelly but more widely recognized.24.143.118.36 (talk) 20:31, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes—see WP:SPLIT into subpages, like History of music is from Music. Remsense诉 22:13, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

PS, I would support the idea of creating a new article which covers all of these things - FZ's compositional styles, his methods, and his influences on other musicians. It should include his often expressed disdain for love song lyrics and any type of sentimentality.24.143.118.36 (talk) 20:52, 3 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Chanan Hanspal is a musician who has done a lot of in depth study about Zappa's musical methods. He has some good videos on you Youtube here: https://www.youtube.com/@ChananHanspal — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.109.40 (talk) 22:14, 11 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussions of Zappa's style do not adequately explain his emphasis on percussion and rhythm. I recently added material about Zappa's first exposure to music education in drum rudiments at the age of 12. The importance has often been overlooked. It is a big part of what makes his music sound distinctive. As he said, The Black Page began as a written drum solo, and many of his other works also started that way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.143.109.40 (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Frank_Zappa&oldid=1218617616"