Anatomy of a DISCOGRAPHY

[emdebe]

I usually get the answer after this that "everyone does what he/she wants to"...

Now you’re talking!  

[emdebe]

... So: it would be much better if you'd write: "My suggestions are: etc. etc. etc...."

My suggestions are:

1) Learn as much as possible from the mistakes made the last five months.

2) ZIP the whole lot, make it available as a download, and start with a clean sheet at wiki.killuglyradio.com.

3) Additionally, create a wiki.boots.killuglyradio.com.

4) Also create a wiki.tributes.killuglyradio.com.

5) Start working in a non-wiki fashion: instead of everybody running in every direction (like chickens without a head), implement some form of “project management”.

6) Make love, not war.

[emdebe]

Alternatively, Duncan, we could start wiki.duncanmoran.me.uk, where no such thing exist as "Stuff (The Album)", "Stuff (The Track)", or "Stuff (The Film)", and where people have names like "Zappa, Frank" instead of "Frank Zappa"...  

[Dunk]

Alternatively, Duncan, we could start wiki.duncanmoran.me.uk, where no such thing exist as "Stuff (The Album)", "Stuff (The Track)", or "Stuff (The Film)", and where people have names like "Zappa, Frank" instead of "Frank Zappa"...  

Now you're talking!  

[Bálint]

Emdebe:

5) Start working in a non-wiki fashion: instead of everybody running in every direction (like chickens without a head), implement some form of “project management”.

errr... You say that agreeing in one direction and doing THIS thing first and THAT one after it is against the philosophy of the wiki? Well, maybe, but it means that I was totally wrong till this time...

I think there must be some way between autocracy and total chaos - am I wrong?

[Dunk]

I am sorry! Was I not clear enough? The discography is crap! I suggest we stop and have a serious discussion about it.  

The Pink/Black Napkins thing is not so much a problem to be fixed as indicative of the flaws within the discography and the way it works.

Why are you adding numbers to the tracks? Did I mention how bizarre the whole thing is? We now have 200 Motels renamed as 1971 and numbered 1 - 34 with something called 1997 tacked on the end and numbered 1 - 6.    In the age of hyperlinks why do we need numbered listings?

Bootlegs come in ever changing versions: I have several 'Tis The Season/Electric Aunt with variations of tracks.  But I also have a lot of mp3s.  It seems to me that I will need to know a name of a bootleg that included the track that I have as an mp3 file before I can track down what it is and where it came from - of course I can't do that yet as all tracks just link back to some homogenous page that happens to have the same title but has no relevance to my search.

With the arrival of FZ on iTunes people can now buy individual tracks rather than entire albums.

I suggest that the entire discography is built upon a foundation of individual pages for each and every track/song/piece - we will have, at least, 12 pages of King Kongs - with the musicians/lyrics etc. attached to their own page.  Musicians are linked out to their own page.

This track page is then linked up a level to the album/concert that it came from with some form of cross referencing to other versions of that particular track.  There are also links to variations of the album - rare Russian pressings etc.

From the musicians page there are links back down to each track they performed on.

It is not a particularly simple or elegant solution but that is FZ's fault not mine  

[Barry]

I am sorry! Was I not clear enough? The discography is crap!

It's certainly far from perfect but I wouldn't call it crap.

Why are you adding numbers to the tracks? ... In the age of hyperlinks why do we need numbered listings?

Huh? It's the way tracks are listed on the artwork! Plus, call me anal, but I like to see at a glance how many tracks are on an album.

Bootlegs come in ever changing versions: I have several 'Tis The Season/Electric Aunt with variations of tracks.  But I also have a lot of mp3s.  It seems to me that I will need to know a name of a bootleg that included the track that I have as an mp3 file before I can track down what it is and where it came from - of course I can't do that yet as all tracks just link back to some homogenous page that happens to have the same title but has no relevance to my search.

Personally (as has been said by Balint numerous times), I would prefer if we focus on the "official" stuff first - it is after all stuff that FZ himself intended to put out there. Leave the bootlegs for later.

I suggest that the entire discography is built upon a foundation of individual pages for each and every track/song/piece - we will have, at least, 12 pages of King Kongs - with the musicians/lyrics etc. attached to their own page.

Agreed. However you don't think we'll need some sort of disambig page that groups/lists all the different versions for each track? If I want to know about "Trouble Every Day" (not knowing which version I've heard), I'll type in "Trouble Every Day" in the Go-box. When all track pages have titles like "Trouble Every Day (Roxy & Elsewhere)" etc; hitting Go will not give me a satisfying result - unless there is a general "Trouble Every Day" page that lists all the variations.

It is not a particularly simple or elegant solution but that is FZ's fault not mine  

I've been thinking the same lately...  

[emdebe]

Leave the bootlegs for later.

This will not solve the problem, only postpone it.

[maroual]

Not so easy to keep a constructive attitude.

As my first post regarding the apparent lack of structure remained unanswered, I deduced then that somebody already had one precise idea about all this. Once I even thought I could find the basic editing rules in the project charter area. But now I realize I was wrong.

As Bálint suggested, I agree that a coordination work is mandatory. Believe it or not, but an internal audit in my company (of more than 75 000 people) showed that the international projects (America, Europe & Asia) which included an intensive and... permanent use of chat tools were by far the most successfull.

Barry's initiative was really a good idea, but I am not certain that a lot of people could be interested. Also the time shift might be another issue to solve. Maybe a permanent http chat room could be interesting, as this hypothetical thing has to be accessible from anybody's work place (behind a psychorigid firewall).

A chart screen of the most active contributors during the 60 last days would be helpful in order to establish the profile of the motivated ones. I'm astonished to see there are 118 registered users, while the only active names seems to be reduced to Bálint, Emdebe, Duncan, KillUglyRadio & Rdnzl.

In order to attract more people here (and so contributors), it is really needed to put essential & unique information. Solving the structural problems is of course necessary, but I don't feel like stopping adding content and restarting everything from scratch. Can you imagine how long it took me to find and check these mf japanese bar codes? Since my first updates you could check and see that some of this information is now almost only remaining in the Google cache and in this Wiki project.

In my opinion, a real & serious classification/versionning policy about FZ works has to be established. The chronologic or thematic way done by musicologists for Classical music (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opus_number) both seem to suck. The chronologic way is at least endangered every time someone unburries any piece of work and the thematic way will be subject to endless debates about conceptual continuity intentions vs coincidences.

Whatever any model should be capable of clearly naming, identifying & sorting the distinct presumed versions of the Thing-Fish Ryko RCD 10020/21 and the related cases.

mp3 is a bit more scaring, these iTunes/CDDB/Microsoft databases do not include the differences between the EMI and Ryko issues or the (re)mastering/(re)mix versions.

Regarding these ugly compilations such as Return of the son of Cheap Thrills and Zappa Picks by John Doe, please note I will never consider these are albums. These are non-events and should have never happened.

I just need to know one thing right know. Should I keep on updating the versions or wait for the end of this discussion?

Please enlighten me guys and please excuse my French and the length of this post  

[Barry]

Not so easy to keep a constructive attitude.

Hang in there anyway maroual! You've done great work at the wiki so far, as I'm sure the others will agree.

As Bálint suggested, I agree that a coordination work is mandatory.

I agree. How about if we focus on nothing but the (official) Discography starting right now?

Barry's initiative was really a good idea, but I am not certain that a lot of people could be interested. Also the time shift might be another issue to solve. Maybe a permanent http chat room could be interesting, as this hypothetical thing has to be accessible from anybody's work place (behind a psychorigid firewall).

Well I can only offer up chat-sessions... if no one wishes to attend, then the invitation becomes moot... I still believe that a lot of animousity and/or misunderstandings could get cleared out via a direct talk, using chat.

A chart screen of the most active contributors during the 60 last days would be helpful in order to establish the profile of the motivated ones. I'm astonished to see there are 118 registered users, while the only active names seems to be reduced to Bálint, Emdebe, Duncan, KillUglyRadio & Rdnzl.

Indeedy. I wonder why that is. Part of those registered users are probably dormant spammers; however: a significant part consists, I suspect, of people who want to contribute, but are intimidated by the current goings on. As for the Motivated Ones, yes that would be: Bálint, Emdebe, Duncan, KillUglyRadio & Rdnzl -  and yourself.

In order to attract more people here (and so contributors), it is really needed to put essential & unique information. Solving the structural problems is of course necessary, but I don't feel like stopping adding content and restarting everything from scratch.

We sure as hell are not going to restart from scratch. It's still my conviction that all of those contributing are doing a hell of a job. Since the FZ catalog is really a labyrinth of different versions, obviously it's not making our task any easier. But I do believe we'll get there in the end.

Whatever any model should be capable of clearly naming, identifying & sorting the distinct presumed versions of the Thing-Fish Ryko RCD 10020/21 and the related cases.

I just need to know one thing right know. Should I keep on updating the versions or wait for the end of this discussion?

Your table-based listing of versions is brilliant maroual, and not subject to discussion. So just keep on updating!

[maroual]

Thanks for the compliment man

Another suggestion, it could be interesting to put a "previous release" & "next release" links (in the ZFT "official" catalogue) on each album's page in order to facilitate navigation.

Could be nice with the tracks also

[maroual]

By the way. I noticed that many discographies seem not detail properly the following information regarding the vinyl records : Warner, Bizarre, Reprise and Steamboat are usually used in all the possible mixed ways.

As far as I can remember, all the Reprise records I own have printed mentions to the Warner Brothers and a steamboat on them which seems to make sense regarding the official Reprise records story http://www.bsnpubs.com/warner/reprise/reprisestory.html

Also it seems to me that all the FZ records edited with Reprise do at least contain a mention to a FZ production company like Bizarre or something else.

Can somebody please prove me the contrary?

[emdebe]

Suggestion: - let the "normal" discography be the first to reach when one clicks on the "discography"!! I think we all got used to the fact that after Freak Out! there's Absolutely Free - and so on... It's really hard to me to use the alphabetical and who knows which version. The "normal" one is so familiar, normal, well known... Do you agree?

When you click on “Discography”, in the Navigation Bar right next to the Main Page, it takes you to the ”Discography” Category, which, IMHO, is the right way to do it. There you can select “Original Albums”, which brings you to the "Original Albums" Category (no surprises here!).

The "Original Albums" Category presents you with an “alphabetical” overview, that no one really likes, because it’s not really alphabetical, since it lists “The Best Band You Never Heard In Your Life”, instead of “Best Band You Never Heard In Your Life, The” (the way we all neatly classify it on our shelves).

When you click on the “Albums” link on the Main Page, you go to the “Zappa Per Album” Category that nobody really likes, but Barry keeps insisting on keeping it (it has the same "alphabetical" issues, plus it lists too many albums that nobody cares about). When you click on the “Compilations” link on the Main Page, you go to the “Compilations” Category, which make more sense.

What you are asking is a direct link to the “Album History” page, which gives a “familiar” overview of the core FZ albums.

My suggestions:

1) Connect the "Original Albums" Category to the “Albums” link on the Main Page; while you’re at it, rename it “Original Albums”.

2) Get rid of the “Zappa Per Album” Category altogether.

3) Add a link to “Album History” (wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/Album_History) and “Album Chronology” (wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/Album_Chronology) to the Main Page.

The decision is not mine alone: so let’s hear it.

[SOFA]

1) Connect the "Original Albums" Category to the “Albums” link on the Main Page; while you’re at it, rename it “Original Albums”.

2) Get rid of the “Zappa Per Album” Category altogether.

3) Add a link to “Album History” (wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/Album_History) and “Album Chronology” (wiki.killuglyradio.com/index.php/Album_Chronology) to the Main Page.

I'm with emdebe here. Yet I question the need for a seperate "chronology" page. Balint and others have mentioned a "normal" discography; I believe they refer to the chronological type of Discography found (for example) at Don Lope's site.
The wiki is going to alphabetize the list no matter what we want to see. But, as proved with the 'Musicians' list, we can set up something if we deem it more accessible... Yes?
And why have a completely different page for album history (unless I'm misunderstanding here, which I probably am. Wouldn't an album's history be tied directly to the albums page?
If you present the releases chronologically, there's no need for a chronology page, and if keep historical elements tied to the release, there's no need for a history page... And a "Zappa per Album" category in a chronological listing of Zappa releases is totally unneeded.

[emdebe]

And why have a completely different page for album history (unless I'm misunderstanding here, which I probably am. Wouldn't an album's history be tied directly to the albums page?

Well, there's a bit of a misunderstanding, I think...

The "Album History" page looks like:

1966
Freak Out! (The Mothers Of Invention)
1967
Absolutely Free (The Mothers Of Invention)
1968
We're Only In It For The Money (The Mothers Of Invention)
Lumpy Gravy (Frank Zappa)
Cruising With Ruben & The Jets (The Mothers Of Invention)
1969
Uncle Meat (The Mothers Of Invention)
Hot Rats (Frank Zappa)
Burnt Weeny Sandwich (The Mothers of Invention)
...

This is what Bálint calls the "normal" one.

The "History" (from "Freak Out!" through "Joe’s Domage") takes into account the release dates of the albums.

If you present the releases chronologically, there's no need for a chronology page, and if keep historical elements tied to the release, there's no need for a history page... And a "Zappa per Album" category in a chronological listing of Zappa releases is totally unneeded.

The "Album Chronology" page looks like this:

Mystery Disc (1985, 1998, Zappa)
Joe's Corsage (2004, Zappa)
The Lost Episodes (1996, Frank Zappa)
Freak Out! (1966, The Mothers Of Invention)
Absolutely Free (1967, The Mothers Of Invention)
Lumpy Gravy (1968, Frank Zappa)
Civilization Phaze III (1994, Frank Zappa)
We're Only In It For The Money (1968, The Mothers Of Invention)
'Tis The Season To Be Jelly (1991, The Mothers Of Invention)
Cruising With Ruben & The Jets (1968, The Mothers Of Invention)
Uncle Meat (1969, The Mothers Of Invention)
Our Man In Nirvana (1992, Frank Zappa & The Mothers)
...

The "Chronology" (from "Mystery Disc" through "The Yellow Shark”) is an attempt to classify FZ's discography in a chronological way, i.e. based on the recording dates of the tracks.

Hey, what's in a name?