Talk:Greasy Love Songs

Reissue or not?

In order to solve this dispute without edit warring (there is a case about it here), let's discuss it on the talk page. Is "Greasy Love Songs" a reissue of Cruising with Ruben & the Jets or is it a separate album? In the former case, it should indeed redirect to the latter album; in the latter case, it should keep its own article.

Arguments in favor of merging:

• The majority of the material has been previously issued under the name "Cruising with Ruben & the Jets" in 1968, with the remainder of the material being labeled as "bonus material". Thus, it would constitute a reissue of "Cruising with Ruben & the Jets" with bonus material.
• All information on "Greasy Love Songs" could easily be integrated into the "Cruising with Ruben & the Jets" article without loss of information.

Arguments in favor of separate article:

• The aforementioned issue of "Cruising with Ruben & the Jets" is out of print and has been replaced with a significantly altered version of the same material in 1985. "Greasy Love Songs" is the only available version of the original mix of the album. Thus, it would constitute a compilation of otherwise unavailable material and therefore a stand-alone album.
• It is labeled as "An FZ Audio Documentary Project/Object", therefore relating it to The MOFO Project/Object and Lumpy Money. Under this viewpoint, the album would constitute a documentation project of another album and not a reissue.
• zappa.com lists it as an official release, unlike other reissues such as "London Symphony Orchestra, Volumes I & II".

I am in favor of the second viewpoint, but would not object to merging the two articles provided that both are still listed as separate albums on the discography page and template. Discuss. --Mystery Roach (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Black Sabbath's Black Sabbath Vol. 4 was reissued under the title Children of the Grave, with added live content. Under the supposed merit for having a Greasy Love Songs title, there should also be a Children of the Grave article. Instead, the Children of the Grave article is about the song of the same name. Having an article for Greasy Love Songs amounts to the same as having an article about the remixed We're Only in it for The Money, or any other reissue. This is a single disc release, whereas MOFO and Lumpy Money are box sets, thus constituting new articles for being separate albums. Whereas, Greasy Love Songs constitutes little more than a reissue of the vinyl mix with bonus tracks. It is not, as the spine claims, an audio documentary. Lastly, Zappa.com is SELLING the album. They have it listed as an official release for promotional purposes to get people to buy the album. You could make any number of claims for this reissue being its own release, but it's still a reissue. Please go through Allmusic and find any number of unique reissues of any particular album. You want to start an article on this? See how fast it stays up before AfD comes down on it. --WTF (talk) 19:42, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, The MOFO Project/Object is listed twice on the Zappa.com discography, but there's only one article. --WTF (talk) 20:01, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

The same is true for Joe's Garage. That doesn't mean there aren't two separate releases.

May I ask why you're editing this article to your viewpoint despite an attempt at establishing consensus here? This gives off the impression that you're not interested in consensus and instead present us with a fait accompli.

The difference between Children of the Grave and Greasy Love Songs is that Black Sabbath Vol. 4 is freely available whereas the original Cruising is not. The same is true for all the other reissues one might find on Allmusic: They're reissues because the majority of the material is available on an existing album. Greasy Love Songs, on the other hand, is a compilation of material you cannot find anywhere else. The remixed We're Only in It for the Money would also warrant a separate article if it hadn't been released under the same name. The difference here is the intent with which it was released: The remix was meant to replace the original WOIIFTM, whereas Greasy Love Songs was meant to complement the still existent Cruising and document its history, much like MOFO and Lumpy Money. In that sense, it's an archival release and as such a compilation and not a reissue. Stuff like The Complete Bitches Brew Sessions comes to mind. I fail to see the point of the single disc vs. box set comparison. Is the validity of an archival release dependent on how many discs it spans? --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:29, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there any reliable source that lists this as a simply a reissue? A source, mind you, that is strong enough to go against Zappa's official discography? Also consider that the current Greasy Love Songs CD and the current Ruben and the Jets CD have no mutual content. You could listen to them both and you wouldn't hear a single track repeated twice. Neither has material present on the other. Friginator (talk) 01:48, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Er, Friginator, just because the Rykodisc CD of Ruben and Greasy Love Songs have two different mixes of the original album does not mean that they're separate albums. As I mentioned earlier, we don't have an article on the 1984 remix, so why should Greasy Love Songs exist as a separate article for the vinyl version? Also, come on, really, you don't believe any source exists identifying this as the vinyl mix of Ruben? Allmusic says: "the original mix of Ruben remained a strictly analog artifact until 2010 and the release of Greasy Love Songs. [...] the original vinyl mix of Cruisin' with Ruben & the Jets has finally entered the digital age", clearly indicating that Greasy Love Songs is a reissue of the vinyl mix. WTF (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Friginator asked for a source that states that Greasy Love Songs is a reissue, not that it contains the original mix of Ruben. This is an important difference. --Mystery Roach (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the source clearly does state that this is a reissue. Re-read the excerpts. WTF (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You gave us one excerpt. That excerpt merely states that Greasy Love Songs is the first digital release of the original mix of Cruising. It doesn't even use the word "reissue", neither does it imply that it is one. --Mystery Roach (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

That is wrong. It clearly states that it is a reissue, and this is clearly a reissue, so now you are intentionally ignoring sources and facts. --WTF (talk) 19:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

If that's true (which I doubt) where, in the source, is the term "reissue" used? Because I certainly don't see it. Also, I'd like to point out that the Allmusic source lists this as "An FZ Audio Documentary Project/Object" in the title. Friginator (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

• Again, that is the promotional title of the reissue. It's the original album with bonus tracks. Stop ignoring the sources and facts. --WTF (talk) 19:33, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

The difference between The Complete Bitches Brew Sessions and Greasy is that one is a box set, this is a single disc reissue, but also that Complete Bitches Brew contains hours of recordings not included on the original album, and, as some fans critique, weren't actually a part of the Bitches Brew sessions, despite the title. The argument that Greasy compliments the remix is invalid, because this is simply the original mix, which spawned off the remix, and bonus tracks added. Now, MOFO and Lumpy Money clearly distinguish themselves as audio documentaries due to having the original albums on their own discs, followed by audio documentary material on a separate disc. This is the original Ruben album, plus bonus tracks. Years ago, Ozzy Osbourne did something similar to what Frank did in having the bass guitar and drum tracks re-recorded on a few of his early albums and reissuing them on CD. Last year or so, he reissued the original versions of the albums, without the overdubs, because there was a market for the original versions being reissued due to the fans strongly disliking the remix. But there is no article for Diary of a Madman (Archival Release), so why should other artists' albums be treated differently? I'm really tired of Zappa's discography being treated worse off because he's not a mega-platinum selling artist. Just because he didn't sell as much as the big rock guys or the big jazz guys or the big composer guys doesn't make his work less noteworthy, or that he should be disregarded because he didn't sell as many copies as Herbie Hancock or Led Zeppelin. --WTF (talk) 11:14, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

So you differentiate this from MOFO simply on the basis that the vinyl mix and the bonus material are on the same disc? And none of the Project/Object releases count as box sets. There's no precedent for calling it a box set if it doesn't come in a box. They all come in one CD case. And no one is treating Zappa in a way that's "worse off" than anyone else. Friginator (talk) 15:03, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know what versions of MOFO and Lumpy Money you have, but mine come in things that would most definitely qualify them as box set releases. MOFO comes in a huge plastic digipack with the multiple disc format qualifying it as a box, and Lumpy Money comes in a large cardboard digipack, and, again, qualifies as a box. --WTF (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

And Greasy Love songs comes in a folded silver digipack. What's your point? If a digipack constitutes a "box set", then there are an awful lot of box set albums out there. If it's only one item in one piece, and it doesn't come in a box, how is it a box set? Friginator (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You have a very dated perception. If it has three or more discs, it's a box set. Both MOFO and Lumpy Money come in things that are clearly boxing multiple discs. Greasy is a reissue on one disc. --WTF (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, let's end the "box set" debate right here: Box set - "a compilation of various musical recordings, films, television programs, or other collection of related items that are contained in a box." MOFO and Lumpy Money are box sets, end of story.--WTF (talk) 19:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

First of all, other Wikipedia pages are not reliable sources when it comes to editing. Second, even if they were, you're citing a quote that contradicts your opinion. That quote clearly says "contained in a box" Neither MOFO, Lumpy Money and Greasy Love Songs are contained in a box, unless you count a cardboard or plastic digipack as being a "box". Friginator (talk) 19:55, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

"The argument that Greasy compliments the remix is invalid, because this is simply the original mix". I fail to see how this makes the argument invalid. The remix was meant (and still is meant) to replace the original mix, the remix is Cruising with Ruben & the Jets. Greasy Love Songs is an archival release that shows how Cruising used to be, quite like Lumpy Money. The fact that the latter has more bonus material than the former doesn't change that.

And now for Diary of a Madman. The difference here lies purely in the way the release is marketed. Greasy is marketed as an archival release, Diary is marketed as a reissue. It is purely up to the artist (or in this case, the artist's family) to decide what the release should be marketed as. Had Ozzy Osbourne given the releases of the original mixes a different name and labeled them as "documentaries", we would have to consider them separate albums. That doesn't mean we need to have a separate article for Greasy Love Songs. As I've mentioned before, I wouldn't object to merging it with Cruising if we reach a consensus that the two releases are better documented in a single article. But Greasy still has to be listed on the discography page and template. The Zappa Family Trust calls it a separate release, and thus it is a separate release. Taking that under consideration, I have to wonder why you call Zappa's discography "treated worse off" and "disregarded" for following the expressed preferences of Zappa's family. Doesn't that show an increased respect for the artist? --Mystery Roach (talk) 16:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Zappa's family is not Zappa, and other non-promotional sources differ from their website. Also, the remix of Ruben most certainly does not qualify as the album. The original mix is the Ruben album. The remix is an altered version, and is treated as such. The reissues of Star Wars with added CGI don't have their own articles -- the original films which attracted such a following and are loved worldwide have articles, NOT the altered versions. The article about Ruben is about the original album, which Greasy Love Songs is a reissue of. --WTF (talk) 00:01, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

The Zappa Family Trust is not Frank Zappa, but it holds the rights to his material and is authorized by him. You are free to point out valid sources that clearly identify Greasy as a reissue. If no such source exists, the claim that Greasy is a reissue is unsourced and we can't use it regardless of its validity, whereas the claim that it is a separate album is sourced by zappa.com. I know that zappa.com promotes the album, but that doesn't automatically make it unreliable as a source. --Mystery Roach (talk) 10:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Allmusic refers to it as a reissue, so it's untrue that "no source exists" because clearly, at least one source calls it a reissue. --WTF (talk) 19:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I'll reply to everything all in one: What are you trying to accomplish? You present us an excerpt from Allmusic that mentions nothing about the reissue matter, and when we point this out to you, you insist that it does without anything to back it up yet accuse us of ignoring facts that aren't there. You quote the "box set" article to prove your point that any release with three or more discs is a box set regardless of whether or not it comes in a box, yet the article clearly states that it has to come in a box. If you use sources to back up your claims, make sure they actually do. Pretending otherwise is blatant lying and won't convince anybody. --Mystery Roach (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Wait, what? I directly stated that Lumpy Money and MOFO come in a box. Friginator is arguing that they are not in boxes. The packaging for those two releases look like box sets to me. Second, Allmusic clearly states that Greasy is a reissue. That should end the matter here and there, but you seem to want to contradict me at every point, despite obvious clear sourced evidence. --WTF (talk) 00:33, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

If Allmusic states that Greasy is a reissue, show me where they use the word "reissue". I don't own Lumpy Money and MOFO, but you both clearly stated that they come in a digipack. A digipack is not a box of any sort. --Mystery Roach (talk) 08:05, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't know if I'd call MOFO a digipack or not. It's similar--it's a big folding piece of vinyl with CD trays in it. It's the same vinyl material as a ring binder. The 2 disc version is in a standard jewel case. Neither one comes in anything I'd describe as a "box". If they came slipcased or something like that, maybe, but then you have to wonder if they qualify as a "set," which generally refers to multiple items that would otherwise be released separately. For example, "The Old Masters" or "Beat the Boots" would be box sets since they both come in boxes and both contain multiple individual albums. And since the subject has been brought up, I'm going to go ahead a change the MOFO page from "Box set" to "Compilation album" too. Friginator (talk) 20:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

The point is largely irrelevant anyway. A box set is just a type of compilation. Box sets don't deserve their own articles on the grounds that they're box sets, but on the grounds that they're compilations. Even if MOFO and Lumpy Money can be classified as box sets, that doesn't mean Greasy isn't its own release. --Mystery Roach (talk) 09:21, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Let's solve the box set argument right now. The Complete Bitches Brew Sessions is classified as a box set. It is not contained in a traditional box, it is contained in a large sleeve with plastic digipack matter to hold the discs. Second, the Blade Runner collectors edition features the same kind of digipack packaging as Lumpy Money, yet it says it is a box set on the back cover. To most people, if something has three, four or more discs, it is a box set. The exception being legit studio albums that are not compilations. Läther is not a box set because it was intended as a studio LP, despite it having four discs.

Box sets: Bitches Brew Sessions, Lumpy Money, MOFO, Blade Runner Collector's Edition

Studio LPs: Läther, All Things Must Pass

Second, in the copyright information for the most recent edition of the Big Brother/Janis Joplin Cheap Thrills album, it is classified as a compilation, as it has the original album, plus bonus tracks. Greasy Love Songs is the same classification, just with a different name attached to it. Having a different name does not make this a compilation that deserves its own article, just as there is no article for Cheap Thrills (CD version).

Also, I quoted Allmusic directly saying that Greasy is a reissue of Ruben & the Jets. This is a reissue. End of story. --WTF (talk) 21:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Allmusic didn't say (directly or indirectly) that Greasy is a reissue. The review in question never uses the word "reissue". Repeatedly claiming the contrary doesn't make it true. Also, Allmusic lists Greasy as a "main album" here. --Mystery Roach (talk) 06:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, the quoted source does not state that this is a reissue. WTF, please read the policy about wp:original research and stop reverting. It's better to try to establish a consensus through this RFC. - DVdm (talk) 10:43, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

• (Responding to RfC request) Honestly, this is a no-brainer. Clearly, given the huge similarities here, there is not enough new information to warrant a second article. Without doubt there should be just one Wikipedia article that discusses these two things since the material has such huge overlap and if there were two articles then there would be gigantic amounts of duplication and much effort wasted in keeping them in sync. The combined article should be named after the first album with a redirect from the name of the second 'release' (or whatever). There should be a section in the article describing the differences between the two albums - and a short section describing the circumstances surrounding the re-release and the controversy/confusion amongst fans ('if this is covered in reliable sources) surrounding this matter. SteveBaker (talk) 18:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)