From Zappa Wiki Jawaka
Refs to FZ's first wife refer to Kay Sherman, as does FZ in TRFZB. So is Kaye Sherman a typo on FO cover or someone else entirely?
FO is full of typos, so... --Emdebe 08:57, 30 May 2005 (PDT)
Table based Versions section = cool!
I don't know who came up with the idea for a table-based "Versions" section (was it Maroual?) but it's looking very very cool. Kudos! If possible, we should do it like this on all album pages, no? - KillUglyRadio 01:25, 16 Aug 2005 (PDT)
Release dates, ways to cite sources and External Links
Emdebe recently underlined that we need to cite our sources. I guess this might be a good opportunity in order to gain more credit.
However I also have to underline that:
- I do not particularly trust the release dates and numbers published in the ZFT Official Discography. And I do not think we need to discuss on every page about how they sometimes change the release dates/release order. Should we use the first observed shipping date or the deadlines the ZFT use in their past and future roadmaps ? In the last version (see last .pdf available at zappa.com - The Official Frank Zappa Website), they simply removed London Symphony Orchestra Vol. I which was previously release #38 and then they shifted (sometimes worse) the following numbers until #48. Also they are they only people in the world to say that WOIIFTM was released in September 1968...
- We need to follow consistent format and style, this is what I attempted to do with Anchors in the Article page Notes section. Any comment is welcome ;-) For any reason it was not possible to apply the Wikipedia guidelines described in Wikipedia:Citing sources & Wikipedia:Footnotes
- I always prefer to redirect to the External Links page rather than directly pointing to the site URL. So we have only one place to update in the case of any Internet address change.
Maroual 16:35, 6 Mar 2006 (PST)
Release Notes/Page Layout
Surely what we have under Release Notes are Credits for the album. Why do we have (for example) photographer listed at the top of the page while the musicians are buried lower down the page?
Duncan 10:54, 15 Apr 2006 (PDT)
Somebody started with this layout (Barry?). I'm not that happy with it either. I would like to see: Tracks / Players / Release Notes / Liner Notes / Background Information / Conceptual Continuity / Versions. --Emdebe 11:19, 15 Apr 2006 (PDT)
Mmmh. I guess the top of the page should focus on synthetic and visual information like the original cover picture, and why not a summary or the musical styles/genre. Emdebe, this new order proposal looks good.
Maroual 14:02, 15 Apr 2006 (PDT)
Cover on the right?
Can we move the cover image to the right and have the text flow down the left like at wikipedia:Freak Out!?
Duncan 22:58, 15 Apr 2006 (PDT)
Fine with me. --Emdebe 02:17, 16 Apr 2006 (PDT)
Eh eh eh. I have to confess this is exactly what I have been trying to do since weeks... but I just don't know how to put the cover on the right BEFORE the TOC! If anybody knows how to do this please go on, you are welcome ;-) Maroual 13:42, 16 Apr 2006 (PDT)
Do we need the TOC? It clutters the page, while being the same on each and every every page... --Emdebe 15:09, 16 Apr 2006 (PDT)
Album title & Next
The album title is displayed on the page, on the album picture, and in the image caption... Wouldn't it be better to put "Next" in the image caption? We know what album we're looking at, and it takes less real estate... --Emdebe 14:09, 17 Apr 2006 (PDT)
Forget it: we'll have trouble with Previous/Next entries (does not work in caption)... --Emdebe 14:25, 17 Apr 2006 (PDT)
Original comments from Ladoze:
- Some big differences (from 1 to 26 seconds !) in the tracks timing have to be noted between the First LP release "MGM Verve V6-5005-2" and the timing noted at the top of the page (also different from the MOFO CD#1 version). For example, the very first release of Freak Out always have the shortest timing except for Trouble Every Day. You'll see below the timing given by our Wiki jawaka page, the first LP version, and the MOFO CD#1 version...
1. Hungry Freaks, Daddy (03:29)(03:27)(03:33) 2. I Ain't Got No Heart (02:35)(02:30)(02:35) 3. Who Are The Brain Police? (03:33)(03:22)(03:26) 4. Go Cry On Somebody Else's Shoulder (03:41)(03:31)(03:43) 5. Motherly Love (02:46)(02:45)(02:50) 6. How Could I Be Such A Fool (02:13)(02:12)(02:17) 7. Wowie Zowie (02:53)(02:45)(02:56) 8. You Didn't Try To Call Me (03:19)(03:17)(03:22) 9. Any Way The Wind Blows (02:56)(02:52)(02:56) 10. I'm Not Satisfied (02:39)(02:37)(02:42) 11. You're Probably Wondering Why I'm Here (03:38)(03:37)(03:42) 12. Trouble Every Day (05:50)(06:16)(05:53) 13. Help, I'm A Rock (Suite In Three Movements) (08:40)(08:37)'(04:43) 1. "Okay To Tap Dance" 2. "In Memoriam Edgar Varese" 3. "It Can't Happen Here" (03:59)> only on the MOFO CD#1 version 14. The Return Of The Son Of Monster Magnet (12:19)(12:17)(12:23)
You are completely right, and actually this implies a complete revision of the timings on every page.
Here is what I got (yes, I know I am a bit extremist sometimes):
|V6-5005-2||CDZAP 1||RCD 40062|| RCD 10501 /|
| ZR 20004 (CD1) /|
ZR 20005 (CD1)
|Hungry Freaks, Daddy|| 3:27|| n/a|| ?|| 3:29|
| ?|| 3:30|
| 3:27|| 3:29|
| 3:33|| 3:33|
|I Ain't Got No Heart|| 2:30|| n/a|| ?|| 2:35|
| ?|| 2:35|
| 2:33|| 2:35|
| 2:35|| 2:35|
|Who Are The Brain Police?|| 3:22|| n/a|| ?|| 3:33|
| ?|| 3:33|
| 3:33|| 3:33|
| 3:26|| 3:26|
|Go Cry On Somebody Else's Shoulder|| 3:31|| n/a|| ?|| 3:41|
| ?|| 3:40|
| 3:39|| 3:41|
| 3:43|| 3:43|
|Motherly Love|| 2:45|| n/a|| ?|| 2:45|
| ?|| 2:45|
| 2:43|| 2:45|
| 2:50|| 2:50|
|How Could I Be Such A Fool|| 2:12|| n/a|| ?|| 2:13|
| ?|| 2:13|
| 2:11|| 2:13|
| 2:17|| 2:16|
|Wowie Zowie|| 2:45|| n/a|| ?|| 2:53|
| ?|| 2:53|
| 2:51|| 2:53|
| 2:56|| 2:55|
|You Didn't Try To Call Me|| 3:17|| n/a|| ?|| 3:19|
| ?|| 3:19|
| 3:16|| 3:19|
| 3:22|| 3:21|
|Any Way The Wind Blows|| 2:52|| n/a|| ?|| 2:56|
| ?|| 2:56|
| 2:54|| 2:56|
| 2:56|| 2:55|
|I'm Not Satisfied|| 2:37|| n/a|| ?|| 2:39|
| ?|| 2:39|
| 2:38|| 2:39|
| 2:42|| 2:41|
|You're Probably Wondering Why I'm Here|| 3:37|| n/a|| ?|| 3:38|
| ?|| 3:38|
| 3:38|| 3:38|
| 3:42|| 3:41|
|Trouble Every Day|| 6:16|| n/a|| ?|| 5:50|
| ?|| 5:50|
| 5:49|| 5:50|
| 5:53|| 5:53|
|Help, I'm A Rock (Suite In Three Movements)|| 8:37|| n/a|| ?|| 8:39|
| ?|| 8:39|
| 4:43|| 4:43|
| 4:43|| 4:42|
|It Can't Happen Here|| n/a|| n/a|| n/a|| n/a|| n/a|| n/a|| 3:55|| 3:56|
| 3:59|| 3:59|
|The Return Of The Son Of Monster Magnet|| 12:17|| n/a|| ?|| 12:19|
| ?|| 12:19|
| 12:16|| 12:17|
| 12:23|| 12:22|
|Total time||None||n/a||?|| 60:30|
- The CDZAP 1 and RCD 40062 detailed cue sheets come from the excellent wolf's kompaktkiste.
- I obtained the other timings from my own records.
- The actual LP timings are not mentionned because they would be too hard to obtain.
- I did not sum up the timings written on the back covers in order to avoid summing up errors due to timings rounded to the second.
- The timings shown today on the wiki jawaka page have no meaning, I suspect they could come from CDZAP 1 or RCD 40062 back cover. Only Barry know.
- It seems that MOFO (CD1) might have 24 seconds of extra sound material... or could be pitched a bit slower, err I dunno. But we definitely have to investigate more about this.
- We should define clear rules about which timing is to be shown on each album's page, keeping in mind that (1) the actual LP timings would be hard to obtain and (2) the printed timings are always wrong.
Maroual 15:59, 15 Apr 2007 (PDT)
Looking at the listings at...
they include an 8 track cartridge version! RCOA-33969-8
Never seen that listed anywhere else.
Duncan 07:32, 13 Jul 2007 (PDT)
That's cool, thanks.
The picture is very close to the RCOA-33969-C cassette.
Never seen it yet either.
I found a bunch of other 8-track tapes to report, I will do it asap ;)
Maroual 16:14, 15 Jul 2007 (PDT)
Table Version - Brilliant! How about a Label hypertext?
Hi Zappurists... this is my first (hopefully contributive) venture into the realms of your excellent site, so please excuse me if I blunder about a bit*.
I happened to be checking through the site discography to see how sadly incomplete my collection was. I personally found the 'Table Version' very informative- it certainly helps visitors to discover/ascertain if they have an original or a re-issue for example, or a US/UK variant. (Simply having an album photo obviously doesn't do this)
As I'm not yet feeling fully competent in tinkering/editing an entry, here's what I'd like to see happening in the Versions section. I'll do it, if someone can hold my hand and enough of you agree...
Example: I have a UK copy of 'Freak Out!'. It's a gatefold cover, double stereo album. The back of the cover indicates 'Verve' logo, followed by 'Marketed by Polydor'. The disc labels are the normal Verve logo style, with a small text addition 'Polydor Records Limited'. Publication date is 1966.
The above facts go against the info contained in 1.1 Original Stereo, line 2. Which says: "UK edition. Polydor reissued early albums having acquired the MGM/Verve label in 1972. 2352 023 & 2352 024 on labels.
It's been said that if you remember the 60's then you weren't there but, if I remember correctly, I purchased this album in the late 60s - well before the Polydor takeover of Verve.
Am I not correct in thinking that if Polydor issued this in 1972 within the UK then the label would read 'Polydor (logo) - published 1972 under licence to Verve records' or similar? There could be a whole raft of label variants in this Freak Out instance.
What I'm therefore suggesting is a visual aid to Labels/Covers.
Under the Comments column the Edition could be hypertexed to a photo of the cover (in most cases the same cover, but Japanese Edition would pictorially clarify a difference, for example).
Under the catalogue column the given Label Cat No ie Set No. 2683-004 could be hypertexed to a photo of a centre Label. Which would enable clarification and be ideal for anyone with an album and no sleeve... heaven forbid. (For my version of Freak Out! it's actually 2352 023 & 2352 024 with 'set no 2683-004' in parenthesis below it). Here's a sample of a label from my copy of Freak Out!
How does it compare to what others have? It's certainly not yelling "Hey we're Polydor and Verve is no more".
To add fuel to the fire, how about a sub-plot click-thru of pressings, where everyone goes through their sets and hands in (what becomes a subsequent thread of) Matrix Numbers from the run-out wax of their copies? A great way to overview the scope of pressings before deletion...? If you're interested, my Freak Out wax is
Side 1) A1 420 1 1 5. Side 2) B1 420 1 1 5. Side 3) A1 420 1 1 2. Side 4) B1 420 1 1 5.
All the above is probably only of worth to the vinyl period, I don't know how much variation might/did take place in CD centre disc labels.
Finally, my sleeve track list for Side 4 states tableaux 1 is "Ritual Dance of the Child Killer" rather than the plural "...Killers" which appears on the label. (he! he! I found a print error, but which is correct? What did Frank want to call it?). Does this happen on the US/other versions?
Meanwhile, a great site. Congrats to all concerned.
- If you don't edit me I promise I'll keep it shorter next time.
--Tonefish 05:22, 11 May 2008 (PDT)
What you have is the 1970's Polydor reissue of the Verve catalogue. The UK 60's (I was there and I do remember them ;-) issue was a single album (VLP or SVLP) with a Garrod & Lofthouse cover with the foldy over bits (is there a name for these - Tabs?) on the outside. Later sleeves were constructed with them folded into the sleeve - look no join. There is a website somewhere that lists all the label variations and matrix numbers - I shall try and track it down.Duncan
There you go. An update is needed. Was my album a release date of '70, '71 or '72?. The single albums you refer to of the '60s need to be seen in the top boxes of the chart too. Were they edited or shortened albums? (By the way, the 'foldy-over' bits are normally called 'mitered glue tabs', external [visible] or internal ['invisible']. Great if you can find that site, cheers. --Tonefish 12:23, 11 May 2008 (PDT)
Thanks for your help.
The catalog external link to the label picture is indeed a very good idea.
Regarding the different pressings sharing the same catalog numbers, I don't exactly know how to deal with these. It is a complex topic due to the lack of sources. However if you have purchased some records when they were initially released then your help is more than precious.
Sometimes I feel like moving the matrix numbers somewhere else because it makes the table uneasy to read. And a single cell is certainly too small in the case of many different matrix numbers.
Feel free to make very long comments, I enjoyed your post very much.
Maroual 16:27, 12 May 2008 (PDT)
This discussion is not over as IMO I have not completeley answered ;-)
Maroual 16:28, 12 May 2008 (PDT)
Civilized Chart Phase 2.... How about doing something like this?:
1) In the chart make the Comment box an Edition box. (No Comment Allowed).
2) The Edition then shown in the box (ie US Edition) could be highlighted when a picture of it is available (or any info is available).
3) Clicking on this link would take you to a NEW PAGE (I'll call it X for now) showing a US Edition 1st cover photo, plus any Comments regarding later versions, subtle print changes, stickers et al. This page could be shared by the CD version to keep things minimal in management terms.
4) Catalogue Nos would also be repeated below this cover photo & highlighted for the reason below:
5) (Back to the Catalogue box in the chart) When the Cat No is entered it can be highlighted when a Label picture is available. (which it will be if you've got a cover).
Thus, when either Cat No is clicked (in the Chart Cat box, pardon the pun, or on the new X page) it takes you to another NEW PAGE (I'll appropriately call it Z for now) showing ORIGINAL Label.
Below this label can go the Matrix for it. (which you've got if you've got a label).
6) Thus, anyone with a US Edition, same cover, DIFFERENT label can start to run a thread below the original label, including matrix.
7) Both Page X and Page Z can have a footer-list of Country Editions as click-thrus to save going back to the chart to get another Country's cover or label.
8) The core of what I'm suggesting means that what you've got doesn't change, only matrices get deleted, and visitors don't have to go through any new radical learning experience. Also, if you're not geeky about covers & labels and just need the facts you don't need to go behind the scenes. Your existing chart has done its job.
If you can do this then I think the 'different pressings' aspect will possibly begin to solve itself. Perhaps I was a bit rash in suggesting having every pressing number known to man. We just need to know what the number looks like, whether a number got changed 'cos the pressing plant/record company went bust or whatever. This is just a text thread thing that Them Out There Who Are Interested will take up...
--Tonefish 03:19, 13 May 2008 (PDT)
Yes Maroual, go on, go on!
I think it would now be helpful to the reader to explain the reason for highlighted Catalogue Numbers & what they will give you.
A single explanatory line of text just above the Freak Out! Version chart? Something like "Catalogue Numbers that are highlighted will take you to a photo-reference of the Center Label" (and any available variants?)??
I can now see my UK version & your UK version have text differences below the RPM area & the Cat No area. I'm Freaking Out already!
--Tonefish 20:42, 17 May 2008 (PDT)
Vinyl Gatefold - Data Differences
I've noticed various errata on early sleeves. Some of which may help establish 'order of release' in relation to various labels of the release. Still trying to establish what the 'order' is!!
Here's what I've noticed;
Early issues, of course, have the "Freak Out Hot Spots" map offer.
However, some have 'child killer' on label, 'child killers' on sleeve.
Some have "(Unfinished Ballet In Two Tableaus)", others "(Unfinished Ballet In Two Tableaux)"
Is one on the "Hot Spot" sleeve & the other on sleeve with the "hot spot" ad deleted?
Is one Canadian, the other US?
Any discovery info here please...
Tonefish 09:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)