Talk:Frank Gambale

message: The article it seems isn't so much not fulfilling NPOV as being too informal.  And it does read like something that's on a fan site.  I'm going to add a clean up tag. Justinmeister 21:09, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Clean up 

message: It came from:
http://www.frankgambale.com/bio.html
I took a bunch of stuff out, rewrote some. I'll clean it up when I get a chance. Rx StrangeLove 23:34, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:     

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:08, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: Like I have done with Tony MacAlpine and Greg Howe previously (and plan to with a few more guitarists), I have managed to create separate album pages for Gambale's first eight solo albums; those of which I physically own and from which I can verify information, anyway. These do not include his GHS work or other collaborations – solo only for now. Hopefully this can be a step towards improving this rather sparse biography page! Mac dreamstate (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Some album pages added

message: There seems to be some vehement disagreement as whether Gambale has played instrumental rock. Now, if one listens to some of his 1990s albums  in particular (and even his early albums in the 1980s), it is clear that his playing has entered this genre many times—despite him being known primarily for jazz fusion. For example, two of Jeff Beck's solo albums in the 1970s (Wired and Blow by Blow), and the bulk of the Mahavishnu Orchestra's discography, are widely considered early staples of instrumental rock, yet they sound nothing like Steve Vai or Joe Satriani.Just because there isn't a 'heavy' feel to it or it sounds 'softer' compared to shred-orientated artists such as Jason Becker, doesn't mean that it doesn't encompass all the basic traits of instrumental rock. Also, it's not as if his style is being labelled excessively broadly with simply "rock", because that wouldn't be specific enough. Instrumental rock, however, is an accurate description of the (generally) non-vocal stylings of Gambale. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 20:22, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I understand the instrumenal rock part, yet there are a few albums where the instrumental rock must be dropped  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.229.73 (talk) 01:00, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: To further reference Jeff Beck, the aforementioned Blow by Blow and Wired have been listed on Digital Dream Door's "100 Greatest Rock Instrumentals". Now, if one listens to 'softer' Gambale albums such as Brave New Guitar, A Present for the Future, Thinking Out Loud, etc., there should be a clear similarity with those to that of Beck's early work. If it has prominent drum work and guitar with few or no vocals, I believe it can be safely be labelled as instrumental rock. Any other genres can happily co-exist alongside it, and those who are quick to view instrumental rock solely as 'shred' guitar played by virtuosos are only fooling themselves—anyone with some knowledge of music will understand how broad both jazz fusion and instrumental rock can be. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:05, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you are going to put down instrumental rock, you'll have to put down instrumental jazz or just jazz.  Remember Gambale comes from the school of jazz unlike Beck who comes from the school of rock.  So obviously Becks stuff may be considered rock/fusion, while Gambale is jazz/fusion.  You can also hear the difference easily.  Frank is more complex like a true jazz guitarist, while Beck is more simple like a rock guitarist.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.229.73 (talk) 01:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, since it seems as though we both have valid viewpoints, there's always the even-broader jazz rock category, although I've never been too keen on that outdated term myself. However, I see no reason as to why both jazz fusion and instrumental rock cannot reside together as infobox genres. It adds more descriptive depth to his work than simply "jazz" or "rock", because any fan of his knows that he is more than just a straightforward "fusion guitarist" or "rock guitarist"—rather, on each album he does a little bit of both and meshes them together. So upon viewing the album pages, fans of either genre (or both) can decide to explore an album further if they see fit.And to quote Wikipedia's own definition of rock..."Rock music is a genre of popular music that entered the mainstream in the 1950s. It has its roots in 1940s and 1950s rock and roll, rhythm and blues, country music and also drew on folk music, jazz and classical music. The sound of rock often revolves around the electric guitar, a back beat laid down by a rhythm section of electric bass guitar, drums, and keyboard instruments such as Hammond organ, piano, or, since the 1970s, synthesizers. Along with the guitar or keyboards, saxophone and blues-style harmonica are sometimes used as soloing instruments. In its "purest form", it "has three chords, a strong, insistent back beat, and a catchy melody."In the late 1960s and early 1970s, rock music developed different subgenres. When it was blended with folk music it created folk rock, with blues to create blues-rock and with jazz, to create jazz-rock fusion. In the 1970s, rock incorporated influences from soul, funk, and Latin music. Also in the 1970s, rock developed a number of subgenres, such as soft rock, glam rock, heavy metal, hard rock, progressive rock, and punk rock. Rock subgenres that emerged in the 1980s included new wave, hardcore punk and alternative rock. In the 1990s, rock subgenres included grunge, Britpop, indie rock, and nu metal." Mac Dreamstate (talk) 01:20, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok, I'm not worried about the definition of rock. I'm more worried about the definition of Frank's work.  On all of his albums, if you put down instrumental rock, then you'll have to put down jazz.  Jazz is the more important in his work, so you would have to put it before the rock.  I don't know why you left out the jazz on many of the albums.  On the Gambale/Holdsworth Album "Truth in Shredding" I understand it sounds rockish because of the electrified band, yet they rely more on the jazz tradition also due to the fact that they are playing bebop standards.  They're playing bebop standards on electric guitar, so that doesn't automatically qualify it as instrumental rock. It qualifies it as fusion.  I think if a jazz person plays a electric guitar then it gets the fusion genre.  Also, in interviews of Holdsworth on youtube, he states that he does not play jazz or rock yet he leans more on jazz due to the improvisation.  The only rock imput is from the guitar he uses. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8aAYfZdkCA8 listen at 1:40-2:20.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.229.73 (talk) 01:33, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I neglected to put "jazz" on its own at the time of making the pages, because then I would've had to put the broad term "rock" on its own as well. That, then, results in unnecessary list crufting, which is unfortunately what we've both ended up doing. So when originally labelling the genres, I figured that both jazz fusion and instrumental rock, as specific genres, would suffice. See how that works? Jazz fusion is derived from jazz (itself a very broad genre), and instrumental rock from rock (even broader). He and his band play both styles on every album except his most recent three, so therefore I included them alongside each other. That I happened to put instrumental rock ahead of jazz fusion on some pages reflects my opinion on what is the more prominent 'feel'—i.e. The Great Explorers and Passages have lots of distorted guitar and not a very 'jazzy' thing going on, whilst Note Worker and Thinking Out Loud have their instrumental rock moments ("High 5" and "My Little Viper") but are overall glorified jazz fests.And whilst you may not be concerned about the definition of rock, I quoted it for you because the core elements of Gambale's work—disregarding for a moment his individual jazz stylings—fall largely under that category. There are punchy drums, electric guitar (even if it isn't distorted, one only has to look at bands such The Beatles to hear 'soft' guitar work), keyboards, bass, and hardly any vocals. Those already make it instrumental rock by Wikipedia's own definition. That's just how it is. Gambale himself then applies the jazz flavour with his tone and style, which ultimately makes it both jazz fusion and instrumental rock. The absolute basis of rock (drums, bass, and/or keyboard) always lies underneath whatever jazz he's playing.Ultimately, what I suggest is that we keep both jazz fusion and instrumental rock on all his album pages (except obviously the non-existent Raison d'Être, Natural High and Natural Selection pages, which are solely acoustic works). By taking out the overly specific smooth jazz and whatnot, we still end up with an accurate description of what can be expected on the albums. They are both jazz fusion and instrumental rock at their core. On some albums the other takes priority, so it could look like this...Brave New Guitar — jazz fusion, instrumental rockA Present for the Future — jazz fusion, instrumental rockThunder from Down Under — jazz fusion, instrumental rockNote Worker — jazz fusion, instrumental rockThe Great Explorers — instrumental rock, jazz fusionPassages — instrumental rock, jazz fusionThinking Out Loud — jazz fusion, instrumental rockComing to Your Senses — instrumental rock, jazz fusionCan't we both live with that? You've got the ever-important jazz fusion in there first and foremost (through which people can navigate to jazz alone or even smooth jazz if they want to know more about its lineage), and there's the instrumental rock fundamental to back it up. On other albums jazz fusion takes a back seat (he doesn't always do the jazzy thing). Remember that jazz fusion doesn't always have drums, bass and keyboards, so the inclusion of instrumental rock should be needed to describe the drum-driven, all-instrumental feel of his albums. How does that sound to you? I think it's a fair compromise. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the main album that needs to be fixed is the thinking out loud album.  That album is smooth jazz with a hint of fusion.  If you think that the pop/rock drums qualify it for instrumental rock, then you're wrong.  You should try listening to more smooth jazz. All smooth jazz has that type of drum sound.  This doesn't mean that when labeling smooth jazz albums that you should put down instrumental rock.  It's just smooth jazz.  When you state smooth jazz it encompases the fact that it has a hint of pop or rock drumming.  If you label "thinking out loud" as instrumental rock, then you will have to label all the albums done by Kenny G, George Benson, Norman Brown, etc as instrumental rock.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.229.73 (talk) 02:11, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, if you put it that way, I'm OK with labelling Thinking Out Loud as simply smooth jazz and jazz fusion, respectively, because it's a pretty unique album in his discography anyway—at the very least it's the 'softest' one. I still think the drumming and bass work classes it as rock, even in the most distant of ways (since any Western music with drums is basically rock at its purest root), but I'm willing to concede on that one. The rest, however, are all jazz fusion with the usual rock thing going on in the background. And yes, I have listened to some smooth jazz over time—Stanley Jordan and Lee Ritenour come to mind, although I'm much more of a fusion man myself. So is that settled, then? As in, going back to the list above, excluding Thinking Out Loud. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 02:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing about putting jazz fusion & progressive rock means that you're leaning him over more in the rock spectrum.  Jazz fusion has rock in it so it makes it seem that the albums are more rock oriented.  That's not true though because they are right in the middle of the fusion spectrum.  So if you put down instrumental rock then you will have to put down jazz, because a few of the albums are more jazz/jazz-pop/smooth jazz oriented.  If you were to ask Gambale himself, he would say that his playing style reflects more of the jazz/fusion spectrum(with a few exceptions on 1 or 2 albums).  When labeling Jeff Beck, then you'd label him as rock/fusion.  Gambale would be jazz/fusion.  They both play fusion, yet Beck is more rock, while Gambale is more jazz.  Try just listening to the chords of the music.  Gambale uses a lot of chords and has more of a swing feel, but Beck doesn't use that many chords and plays more like a rock dude by playing the same note redundantly and sustanes notes way more than Gambale ever would. I don't think you could label Beck & Gambale as the same thing.  Gambale is far too jazzy. P.S. Did you watch the Holdsworth video.  Frank represents the jazz/fusion while Jeff represents the rock/fusion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.229.73 (talk) 02:31, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: If you were to label Jeff Beck as Jazz Fusion/Instrumental rock, then I would have no problem. Yet Gambale is far too jazzy.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.229.73 (talk) 02:34, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, dude check out how the albums are labeled now.  I think they are perfect.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.68.229.73 (talk) 02:36, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding leaning him over into certain spectrums, that's far from what I'm doing. By having jazz fusion and instrumental rock, one after the other, I'm merely describing the two fundamental genres into which his work can be classified—the first of which should indicate the most prominent style, and the other perhaps not as much but is still present. If others start thinking of Gambale as some shred rock guitarist just because they see the word "rock", then that is their problem and they are free to make that preconception. It's not the fault of instrumental rock itself. Those in the know will know better and not be swayed by its inclusion, because it could mean something like Wired, The Great Explorers or even Surfing with the Alien. One should let the listener make their own mind up by providing both genres to describe the music.So in the case of around 80% of Gambale's albums, I had naturally placed jazz fusion ahead of instrumental rock because of reasons I've already discussed. They are primarily comprised of jazz fusion, but also contain the basis of instrumental rock as well—especially when Gambale chooses not to play in such a jazzy style (i.e. more straightforward moments like "High 5"). This whole Gambale/Beck/rock/fusion argument can be applied to various other groups or musicians, such as Rush/Genesis or Mariah Carey/Whitney Houston. Is it progressive rock or pop rock? R&B, pop or hip hop? I say it's just better to include at least the two most prominently descriptive genres present in the music. It satisfies everyone that way.And yes, I had seen that Holdsworth video before (in addition to his REH instructional video), but the artists themselves are often not the best indicators of what they actually play—i.e. Lemmy from Motörhead claims to play just "rock n' roll", but it's obvious to any fan that the band plays heavy metal. So whilst Holdsworth claims to lean more towards to jazz in his playing alone, there is a lot of rock stuff going on in the background and foreground in each of his solo albums. The straightforward solo in the Atavachron title track, for instance, could almost be straight out of an 1980s guitar album. The distorted chords intro to Metal Fatigue is probably the heaviest thing he's ever done. Many of his songs containing vocals (at least with Paul Williams) have a pretty basic rock blueprint behind them, with Holdsworth laying on the jazz solos in his own way.Going back to Gambale, though—yes, I'm happy with how they are labelled now. It's the best of both worlds, and I'm in agreement if you are. I just regret that it had to go this far in the first place! Perhaps you should consider creating a Wikipedia account so that you can participate in editing more efficiently in the future. It'll make it easier for you to join in with talk pages if any similar disagreements arise along your travels. Mac Dreamstate (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Styles/genres played

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Frank Gambale. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140108084452/http://cheapelectricguitar.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/frank-gambaledweezil-zappa-dweezil-explains-how-gambale-advanced-his-technique/ to http://cheapelectricguitar.wordpress.com/2012/06/04/frank-gambaledweezil-zappa-dweezil-explains-how-gambale-advanced-his-technique
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:17, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified