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[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[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[reply]
I agree with "musician, composer, songwriter, bandleader" Dr.bobbs (talk) 14:54, 25 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[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[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[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[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[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[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 07:39, 5 January 2024 (UTC)Reply[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[reply]