Talk:Captain Beefheart

Prodigy?

As I understand it, the only ultimate source for Beefheart's putative status as a prodigy was Beefheart himself, and according to those who knew him when he was young and worked with him, Beefheart had a pronounced proclivity for spouting untruths, particularly pertaining to himself. 17:24, 16 June 2022 (UTC)~

So the current source in the lead is a Rolling Stone article, whish originally appeared in The Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (Simon & Schuster, 2001), and which says this: "A child-prodigy sculptor, Don Vliet (who reportedly had his name legally changed to Don Van Vliet by 1964) was noticed at age four by Portuguese sculptor Augustinio Rodriguez, who featured Vliet and his clay animals on his weekly television show for the next eight years. When Vliet was 13, his parents declined their son's scholarship to study art in Europe and moved the family to the California desert communities of Mojave, then Lancaster, where Vliet met the young Frank Zappa." Do you have any sources to disprove these claims? They are expanded somewhat in the main body of the article, but it is made clear that "Van Vliet said that he was a lecturer at the Barnsdall Art Institute in Los Angeles at the age of eleven" (Barnes 2000, p. 2). So that one is indeed a self-made claim. Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 18:08, 16 June 2022 (UTC)

Rolling Stone's ultimate source for this information is merely Van Vliet himself. Beefheart drummer John French in his book about the Magic Band casts significant doubt about the story and about Van Vliet's veracity in general. He claims to have made some considerable effort to research it. He also directly quotes several other associates of Van Vliet who are similarly doubtful. You can read a considerable portion of French's book without buying it or checking it out from the library by going to amazon.com and clicking "look inside". Read far enough, and you'll know precisely what I'm talking about. TheScotch (talk) 08:35,

The book is called "Beefheart: through the Eyes of Magic". TheScotch (talk) 16:26, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I would not be surprised if Van Vliet invented positive things about himself. But this begs the question of whether or not Rolling Stone is really RS here or has been undermined by better sources in this case. Martinevans123 (talk) 10:29, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Quite. Artists mythologise themselves, and their sycophantic acolytes encourage them. If Wiki quoted everyting Salvador Dalí said about himself....FangoFuficius (talk) 06:52, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

I've added two reliable sources, out of the many available, that describe him as a child prodigy sculptor (including the already given Rolling Stone article), and I've amended the article text accordingly, adding two reliable sources. Just as an aside, I bought Trout Mask Replica in 1970, and found it unlistenable, "genius" or not. I did like his vocal on the song Willie the Pimp from Zappa's album Hot Rats, and still sing it occasionally.;-) Carlstak (talk) 15:26, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

I'm nor sure that genius in clay modelling necessarily transfers to genius in the musical sphere. Maybe Mozart was dab hand at needlework, but no-one seems to have discovered that yet. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:22, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

Good point.;-) Carlstak (talk) 16:45, 21 June 2022 (UTC)

It's pointless to add more citations that are simply copying the original citation. None of these sources actually researched this, and they all simply rely on Van Vliet's word, which is unreliable. Instead of saying Van Vliet was a prodigy, the article should say that Van Vliet claimed to be a prodigy and was reported to have been a prodigy by various organizations including Rolling Stone. The article should then go on to quote John French's dissection of the matter. (John French worked with Van Vliet extensively and intensively, and knew him intimately.) It is not for Wikipedia to decide whether Van Vliet was or was not a prodigy. The reader should know, rather, that the the matter is contentious and that the supposition that he was a prodigy derives ultimately only from himself. (Whether or not various editors like or dislike Captain Beefheart records and what early ability in one art form may have to do with ability in another are irrelevant here. Also: "begging the question" does not properly mean "provoking a question"; it refers to a particular logical fallacy, also called petitio princippii, assuming a priori the very thing your argument attempts to establish.) TheScotch (talk) 16:23, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Would you like to sign? Thanks. Martinevans123 (talk) 16:13, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I tried. I was logged in, but my moniker failed to appear. Maybe too many tildes. (Yes, that was it.) TheScotch (talk) 16:22, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks. Sorry if it's "petitio princippii", but do you regard Rolling Stone as an WP:RS source or not? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:25, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I've repeatedly tried to explain that this is irrelevant in this case. Please re-read my paragraph above. It's perfectly fine to report that Rolling Stone called Van Vliet a prodigy, but that's different from stating flatly that he was and citing Rolling Stone. (Also: Please go to Amazon, find "Beefheart: Through the Eyes of Magic", click on "look inside", and read the relevant passages. They go into some detail.) TheScotch (talk) 16:30, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

I've no objection to changing the text to read e.g. "Rolling Stone described Van Vliet as a child-prodigy sculptor." But the status of Rolling Stone (and the book it quotes), are hardly "irrelevant" to the content of this article. This content has been here for some time (years?) because everyone agrees that RS is an WP:RS. "Rolling Stone (culture)" is coloured green at WP:RSP. Themz the rulez? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:39, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

History books often use this construction: VV was "a prodigy" (Rolling Stone). However, I wouldn't recommend that, as Rolling Stone is mere rock journalism, which is a joke (are you going to quote everything Charles Shaar Murray or Julie Burchill ever wrote as biblical truth?). Ugh, I've just noticed you've even got Cooder down as a guitar prodigy. I give up!FangoFuficius (talk) 06:42, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

Do something about that stupid 7 1/2 octave claim. That's the range of an 88-key piano. Some idiot journalist has made that up or got the wrong end of the stick. FangoFuficius (talk) 13:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Agreed. The source itself is reporting this range as hearsay. There is no need to put a specific figure unless there is a reliable source for it. The article could simply say he has a wide range. ChrisTheLemon (talk) 14:47, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

 Fixed Both the given sources (and Rolling Stone is not always reliable for factual information about performers) make qualified statements regarding this claim, so it's undue. We all know a seven and a half octave vocal range is bullshit. Carlstak (talk) 01:11, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

cutting bills off pelicans?

I was relieved not to be able to find a single reference to this on the rest of the www. Could the Captain have made it up? 2A00:23C4:5602:2301:C01:5A9D:1C8C:5E8A (talk) 19:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)