Talk:John Frusciante/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2

Work with Omar Rodriguez

Is there any information about his contribution to The Bedlam in Goliath? Thisnamestaken (talk) 21:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Notable instruments

Obviously John is notable for using his strat. I'm curious as to why the White Falcon is mentioned, but his Tele, Martin, and Les Paul are not. In fact, on the Slane DVD it seems like he plays the Tele more than the WF. Also, the DC EP was entirely Les Paul. Tparameter (talk) 13:29, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The Les Paul is an instrument John rarely plays. Although DC EP was comprised of some use of a borrowed Les Paul, it isn't something he uses but once in a blue moon. What's listed in the infobox represents what sources we have found him mentioning or confirming he uses the specific guitar. The White Falcon is a pretty significant instrument; he's recorded two hits, "Californication" and "Otherside", with it (amongst others). The Telecaster was the guitar he used significantly throughout the By the Way tour, indeed. From what I can hear he also plays it on most of the songs on the Live in Hyde Park record. Nothing is being excluded, mind you. If you can find anything at all feel free to give it to me and I'll include it into the Music Style section. NSR77 TC 18:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
So, are you saying his use of the Tele is notable? Also, if it can be shown that he used his Martin to record hit songs, would it be considered notable as in the example of the White Falcon? Thanks. Tparameter (talk) 04:28, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The Martin is just about the only acoustic guitar Frusciante plays but I can't find a source for the life of me. If you can that'd be awesome. NSR77 TC 19:55, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Eventually ;]. I have a formidable stack of guitar mags with JF features - but, I'm really short on time for a while. I'll dig deep when I can. Tparameter (talk) 20:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I went through my "John stack" of interview and related magazines a couple times, actually. I'm positive it's in there, somewhere. NSR77 TC 05:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I added the Martin to the notable guitars- it was a staple of his solo career. here is a source http://www.guitarplayer.com/article/red-hot-chili/sep-06/23160 Lose311 (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is the Fender Jaguar in this list, I believe the only song he ever recorded with the Jaguar is Under The Bridge, but he never plays it live, only once at Woodstock '99. Yes the Martin should be included in the list as well as the Telecaster. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 123.243.231.195 (talk) 10:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Solo

Does anyone have a reliable source for the fact that one of the best rock and roll solos ever recorded begins at 25:58 on the Live at Slane DVD? Thanks so much. Tparameter (talk) 06:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

well I think that's quite subjective ;p Frusciantor (talk) 21:09, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
It is a fact - it's just that I can't find a source to verify it. Tparameter (talk) 00:44, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

I find that extremely opinionated. Unless four or five reputable sources agree on this, it is not a fact. Even then it still isn't a fact. NSR77 TC 01:05, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


Jack Frusciante é uscito dal gruppo

I think it's worth mentioning (perhaps in a trivia section) that an Italian bildungsroman by Enrico Brizzi called Jack Frusciante é Uscito dal Gruppo (Jack Frusciante Left the Band) was written with John Frusciante in mind (author was worried about copyright issues and used Jack instead of John), about a disillusioned teenage kid who doesn't understand why John left the RHCP. Well, it's not about that really, but that helps underline one of the themes. Anyhow, it plays in with John Frusciante and there's an Italian-language article on the novel. Think it belongs in a Trivia section? Not to make this article any longer, but it's a good book and outlines that Frusciante has international success. Eccomi (talk) 22:54, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Trivia sections are not encouraged on wikipedia. Moreover, I cannot see what this should add of value to the article.--HJensen, talk 07:54, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Photo with face.

How can you have a photo without his face in it? Here is one that I think would be good for his article [1]Ipodman (talk) 09:46, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been looking high and low for a new image for the infobox after the other one was deleted. Is the image you posted a free one? NSR77 TC 19:28, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it is a free image, not 100% but I know it's not from a commercial site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ipodman (talk • contribs) 10:16, 8 June 2008 (UTC)
This is just what I came back to check upon!! C'mon, for a barnstar article, without his face, it's ridiculous. I'm surprised I haven't yet seen a tag saying it's no longer an "arts good" page, with people adding and removing vital stuff. --leahtwosaints (talk) 10:11, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Jaw reconstruction

I've heard he had a new jaw implanted, when he re-joined the band, due to the old one being destroyed by his massive heroin use. There's definitely a change in his face from pre-heroin to post-heroin.

Can anyone confirm? EZtaR (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think he had his whole jaw replaced - I know he had all his teath replaced with bone from his hip, and something was also done to his jaw. But he didn't get an entirely new jaw implanted. I don't know if thats even possible... --LeakeyJee (talk) 11:10, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

No, his jaw wasn't replaced. However, now, it's costly, but after having all your teeth removed, it is possible to have "new teeth" literally screwed in to the bone of your jaw, permanently. I know folks who have done this. I'm not sure if John went that far-- his concern for his mortal body is still nearly zip. I *think* I've seen him sing on videos (YouTube) without teeth- can't swear to it. So either he had tooth implants or dentures made. --leahtwosaints (talk) 10:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Dentures. You can hear it in his voice, especially in the time right after Californication was released. It's barely, if at all, evident in his voice now, though, because he's gotten so used to it. NSR77 TC 16:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

What is this?

I'm not enough of a guitarist to be able to describe what this is that Frusciante is doing to get the tone and sounds from his guitar with Flea and Chad on Pinkpop. Anybody know? [2] Thanks, --leahtwosaints (talk) 11:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for not replying sooner (I intended to reply when you posted, but I completely forgot). Its chorus, and lots of it. NSR77 TC 04:05, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

John's Nose

Did John ever break his nose? The shape is so different now to when he first joined the band. Thanks 86.29.225.100 (talk) 17:19, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't remember where or if it was actually John who said it, but apparently he broke his nose sometime during his drug period between 94-97. If I remember correctly, he neglected to treat it at a hospital for nearly a week, which is a significant contributor to the shape it's in now. Yeah, it left quite a large bump. NSR77 TC 19:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that - poor John really went through it. 86.29.224.89 (talk) 12:21, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Frusciante official website?

I have noticed that www.johnfrusciante.com has been dead for a while. Does anybody know whether it is a permanent or temporary situation? I just don't think we should link to a dead page for too long. --HJensen, talk 08:46, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

It should be active again soon. John has been overall pretty seclusive these days (neglecting to shave, not going to crowded places, not releasing an album, not playing any shows). We have to see what happens in the coming months. NSR77 TC 18:40, 26 September 2008 (UTC)
Do you mean this one http://johnfrusciante.com/ It's been back for a few weeks. 86.29.225.116 (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2008 (UTC)

May God Reach Down, and...

Bless the diligent editor who provided a photo of John that shows his face. All this time from before FA status this has driven me crazy, with all the RHCP photos flying around out there. Please, take a bow! :) --leahtwosaints (talk) 09:47, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Guitars

How is a telecaster not in his list of guitars? He clearly uses it on the Off the Map DVD, as well as the Live @ Slane Castle DVD. He used it both Vegas shows I went to, as well as one in Iowa as well. Tparameter (talk) 13:28, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

I haven't found an interview where he mentions the Telecaster. You are correct about this, however; he used it extensively during the By the Way tour. NSR77 T 00:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Work with the wu tang clan

Under influences there should be something about the wu tang clan...I've seen numerous interviews where he talks about how the wu tang clan's 36 chambers album, influenced some of his playing on Stadium Arcadium...if you want links for these then let me know..In addition to this he has also spent alot of time with the RZA in the studio..giving him guitar lessons as well as recording more songs. Again i will try and get sources for these asap...The only reason I haven't added to the article myself is because I'm pretty new here and would rather learn from you guys.

John frusciante also played guitar on a song called "Way Down" (feat. RZA, Barbie Hatch & John Frusciante)for a hip hop group called N.A.S.A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Spirit_of_Apollo_(album) Grt05 (talk) 13:38, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Here is something I haven't noticed; may be relevant

I hadn't noticed this. Is it useable, say, with a bit of checking, to find the origins of the song here for the discography?(I haven't noticed; may be relevant.) [3] --leahtwosaints (talk) 23:15, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Quote: "By age ten, he had taught himself how to play most of (GI)'s songs in a tuning that allowed him to play every chord with a single-finger barre.[2] Soon after, Frusciante began taking guitar lessons from an instructor who introduced him to the music of the Red Hot Chili Peppers.[3]."

The chilis formed in 1983 when he was 13, as the link to the reference is now obselete does anyone know how accurate the statement about his instructor introducing him to their music is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.204.101.70 (talk) 01:26, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

melody and emotion

to say and to repeat that his playing is characterized by melody and emotion is vague & should be clarified. the emotion thing is subjective/nebulous, and the melody thing is unclear. if it means that his guitar parts are counter-melodies in that they differ from while running concurrent with the vocal melodies, then that should be stated, or if it has a different meaning, it should be spelled out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.85.48.162 (talk) 02:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It is, in the "Music style" section. The lead serves as a general summary of articles and is not intended to divulge into any deep levels of specificity. NSR77 T 02:40, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
But later the article does go into places where one might expect the divulging of (if not necessarily into) "deep levels of specificity", and the reader learns that Frusciante's guitar playing is largely centered on melody and emotion rather than virtuosity. Well, that could be called the topic sentence, but what follows then waffles. Would anyone hereabouts care to say something clear? (A PhD in music is not required for such an exposition, but it can't hurt.) -- Hoary (talk) 12:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Complaint

I've received a complaint by a senior admin and English-language professional that this article is "prolix and flabby". Certainly, it's embarrassing to have it on the main page in its current state. NSR77 and Grim-Gym, when was it promoted to FA status? I do believe it needs a stint in FAR for structured, supervised improvement. Will that be OK? Tony (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

It's clear that NSR77 disagrees, Tony. Yes, one little comma aside, there's been a complete reversion. Well, maybe I'm wrong: maybe (humdrum example) often really is an inferior substitute for on numerous occasions. -- Hoary (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I've just had a quick look at the style section ... um ... full of flab, and MoS breaches to boot. This article needs serious work. Tony (talk) 13:04, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It does need serious work. On the other hand, it probably won't be improved by some snoot ;] coming in and using words like "prolix" in order to improve it. This article was written by people who are passionate about the artist, but who lack in an understanding of advanced English grammar. Both sides should keep that in mind. Subtle improvements should be made, and protectionists should allow as much. Tparameter (talk) 14:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I would suggest we move the pagespace forward instead of backwards (my reversion of User:NSR77's somewhat defensive edits aside). BusterD (talk) 14:07, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It was my belief that the FAC process is intended to improve articles needing an understanding of advanced English grammar. How did this get out in this state? It's very good, and deserves pageviews, but there was nothing controversial about User:Hoary's changes. BusterD (talk) 14:12, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree completely. It is just that most substantial articles here are protected by people who are emotionally attached to them, and have significant time invested. So my comment only served to forward productivity while keeping that in mind. Personally, I think this article is bloated, poorly worded (here and there), and missing significant facts - but, I've given up my own struggles (here and elsewhere in wikipedia) in the quest for peace. Tparameter (talk) 14:20, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
So the primary authors own the article? ¶ We learn in the link that "snoot" is somebody who knows what dysphemism means and doesn't mind letting you know it and that "snoots" are just about the last remaining kind of truly elitist nerd. Yes I know what "dysphemism" means and if asked what it means I don't in the least mind saying; should I instead learn to play the dumb [male] blonde, as girls don't make passes at guys who show brainses? Does cutting flab from an article now qualify as truly elitist nerdistry? -- Hoary (talk) 14:28, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
"Own" is a loaded word in this context and should be used carefully. I think the the term "invested" better describes the way I feel about constructions I've started or shepherded. Folks getting called on their apparent ownership is inevitable when an article gets main page exposure. Let's move the pagespace forward. BusterD (talk) 14:41, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
But, did you like the DFW link? BTW, I like snoots. Tparameter (talk) 14:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
It did start off with some good examples, but it went on a bit and I have trouble reading any text that praises the ghastly Garner. I like snoots too. I'm glad we agree. Are we really going to "move the pagespace forward"? I did spend half an hour or so doing, uh, what I think that means; but it was then moved backward. So I suggest instead just moving it sideways, or under the carpet, or behind the fridge or wherever. -- Hoary (talk) 14:49, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I concede: "snoot" is a good word, and makes me smile. I've seen some weighty epithets hurled around on talkspace, and snoot is relatively benign for a descriptive noun. I put the page back where you left it, and incorporated the changes made after the reversion. So it is better. But I'm afk for about 8 hours. BusterD (talk) 14:55, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

I received an absolutely unjust and nearly vicious talk page message from User:BusterD; the following is a reproduction of my response:

I ask you to please review the guidelines noted in Wikipedia's civility policy; claims such as "That this article made it to FA status without such minor but essential changes reflects poorly on the FAC process," are provocative in nature, most rude, and extremely belittling to the authors—one of which is myself. Furthermore, I ask that you apologize as I am actually very offended by such a brazen jab at my integrity and character, not to mention my ability to write. The copyedit in question was extensive and executed without discretion nor was any warning message left on the talk page. The article, which has been a Featured Article for nearly two years, was copyedited prior to obtaining such a status multiple times; it also endured the rigorous process of FAC, which you quite clearly feel is inadequate. Users came to a consensus that it was of sufficient value to be promoted. Very little has, actually, been changed since September 2007 aside from several updates. The user who decided to change the wording drastically did so without consulting someone who is familiar with the text—either myself, or the no longer active Grim-Gym. I welcome improvement wholeheartedly but thousands of not only established editors but everyday web-surfers have viewed the time-honored incarnation of the article. I suggest that either you or the user who executed these edits contact me once the article is no longer being barraged by wandering eyes in order to rectify this situation and perhaps improve the article. It is simply astounding to me that an editor such as yourself—who has the audacity to claim that my edits implicate page ownership and insists that my revision be discussed on the talk page—is unable to realize that his "minor but essential" edits are not only excessively scrutinizing but are defaming an article on the main page by indiscriminately adding "vague" template at any point in which his comprehension is even minutely compromised. I am going to revert his edits for today simply because of that reason, but am one hundred percent open to discussion tomorrow. If you feel that this action is simply inexcusable and that the copyedit is so dire that it can not wait one more day then please feel free to contact me, but I ask that you keep the finger pointing, accusations, rudeness and incivility to a minimum please. NSR77 T 19:25, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
And in response to Tparameter—I became involved with this article after virtually all of the Biography section had already been written, though I have indeed rewritten and reformulated a considerable portion of it. I full well acknowledge that there are facts missing, but I would be more than surprised if you believe there are any glaring, perhaps even indispensable omissions. If one were to boil a BLP down to its very essence then one must note that every minute detail can not possibly be presented. Every time I look a this article I see a barely notable smidgen of information that could be included or, similarly, a quote that adds perspective. I understand that you presume that I hold material attachment to this article—perhaps even all of you do—but in reality I do not, simply because I am bound to an alternative philosophy regarding not just this article but Wikipedia as a whole. I have too busy a life at the moment to hold a virtual collection of facts and sentences dear to me; the erratic rate at which I am able to contribute reflects this. I do not consider this article to be my finest work on Wikipedia, especially considering, in retrospect, I was a full two years younger and still in High School. The fact that this article's current state is strikingly similar to the one that existed in September 2007—when it was promoted to Featured status—and that, since then, objections of this caliber have not arisen makes me highly curious. I was absent for the height of this discussion, but I would like to vehemently convey that my intentions are not of ownership; I seek this article's improvement and acceptance in the eyes of my peers above all else. NSR77 T 19:47, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I have spent hours on the talk page simply trying to change a few sentences with glaring inaccuracies. That is on the record. But hey, I'm not even really a hobbyist around here - and guys like you definitely make this encyclopedia better. So, more power to you. I would rather step back than edit war with owners who protect inaccuracies and bad grammar - mainly because you guys overall do a much better job than I. However, when some people happen along with legit expertise in English, I would recommend that you let their improvements stand. It makes the article much better to read. And it's not an insult to previous contributors. Tparameter (talk) 20:53, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
A great example: you reverted my repair of this absolutely terrible sentence: "...Frusciante began a period of dormancy in respects to his solo career." So, in respects to (sic) ownership, loosen up a little. That is all I'm saying. Tparameter (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
I don't think I've yet to make myself clear, I apologize. I should have stipulated from the beginning that the only reason I reverted his edits altogether—and yours just recently, which was not my intention as I did not notice you had made any revisions—was because the article is on the main page. Two other articles that I significantly contributed to have been featured on the main page previously and when so many editors converge to one article there is bound to be some friction in regards to divergent viewpoints. I was in the mindset that I would try and preserve the article as much as possible (when, of course, I have the time to be on the computer) and avoid any major revisions. I am not at all opposed to this article being edited for I can not possibly hope to catch every flaw; the more people that read a given article, the better and more fluid it becomes. I admit my inconsiderate behavior, and I understand that it could have easily been misconstrued for aggressive ownership, but the belittling personal attacks and incivility towards me is petty and unnecessary. I had to leave the computer minutes after I reverted Hoary's copyedit and was therefore unable to rectify this sooner, but it would have turned out far easier a process had we been dealing with editors who possessed more empathy, such as yourself Tparameter. NSR77 T 21:31, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Good morning all. I notice that Gwen Gale has just reverted the article to what for the sake of brevity I'll call "my" state. (While I have been writing the two paragraphs that follow, it may of course have been rereverted, multiply vandalized, etc.) I'm still convinced that "my" version is better than what preceded it, but I'm not certain that it isn't in some places inferior to that: I may have got some stuff wrong. Of course it looks odd when a currently featured article is littered with "[vague]", but there are not so many instances of this and what I'd recommend is that those who (unlike myself) are knowledgable about the subject grit their teeth, swallow their distaste, and tackle the instances one by one, for genuine, uh, devagueification.

Having fixed each instance of "vague", the knowledgeable editor might look for each instance of "significant". This word has a particular (and counterintuitive) meaning in statistics; elsewhere it can be useful in argument ("That's not significant, because [...]" / "Yes it is significant, because [...]") but very odd in expository prose. The first example: we read that three musicians spent most of their time smoking significant amounts of marijuana. Surely this is a jocular way to say "a lot of marijuana", where "a lot" differentiates the smoker from Joe Q Average Undergraduate and instead classes him with Bob Marley. But if this guess of mine is right, sorry but jocosity doesn't work in an encyclopedia article. Say "a lot". Of course this itself is vague, but as this isn't an article on pharmacology or even criminology, it's probably all that needs to be said. (If my guess is wrong, then I suppose "significant" must instead be in contradistinction to "insignificant", but as genuinely insignificant amounts wouldn't be mentioned, "significant" is redundant.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I have no objections to the vague templates being added, but, as you mentioned, it was a quick "this doesn't look appropriate for the main page" thought that ran through my mind and I basically shot first and asked questions later. Now that the article is off the mainpage and edits will return to normal I am more than happy to scrutinize the prose to any extent you see fit. I suppose you are correct about the marijuana statement; makes good sense. I'm a little tied up at this very moment but will return (perhaps tomorrow) and really take a good hard look at all the templates and your invisi-comments. Further input is anticipated. NSR77 T 01:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

I think it is great that other editors suddenly get interested in this article. But I have never felt that massive edits on the day an article is on the main page are very productive; on the contrary. Usually, one or two editors have enough on their hands in reverting vandalism during that day. So I think there are always room for improvements, but this is just the worst timing I have seen recently. And the derogative attitude by several editors towards the writing is not very helpful. I guess I could shred ANY FA to pieces if I wanted to. Today we have Structural history of the Roman military. I pick a sentence at random: "Men without property, who were thereby excluded from the qualifying social classes of the assidui, were exempted from military service on the grounds that they were too poor to provide themselves with any arms whatsoever". What is "whatsoever" doing there? From the lead "In the third phase of the city's military development, Rome's forces were tasked with manning and securing the borders of the provinces brought under Roman control, as well as Italy itself.". Does this give any meaning? How did this article ever get to FA status? Basic message: Relax.--HJensen, talk 10:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Solution to the first: delete "whatsoever". And the solution to the second might be equally simple. But let's look at this article. It tells us: Frusciante derived the technique of creating tonal texture through various chord patterns [...]. Now, I do know what a chord is, but I've no idea how what the whole thing means. Are these chords, or the patterns thereof, unusual? What does "tonal texture" mean here? "W derived the technique of creating X through Y from Z": is it the technique or is it Y that's from Z? I'm quite lost (though I'll admit that my education in musical theory was perfunctory and largely forgotten).
I also don't agree with you about editing during the day. Whatever the day's FA is, it's usually well watched. And the editing isn't that hectic: although I took my time going through the page, my series of edits wasn't interrupted by a single act of vandalism or indeed by any other edit. Take a look at what happened to "Pierre Rossier" during its day in the sun: of course this was interrupted by vigorous dickheadedness, but all in all the article improved. -- Hoary (talk) 10:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I understand the point completely. Editors should or should not improve articles on the main page? This article hasn't be substantively changed. Thus far, I've only seen positive grammatical improvements, which is a good thing. Tparameter (talk) 12:36, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Hoary, I think the best and really the easiest solution here would be for you to make a list, either on my talk page or a temp-page, of everything that you find wrong with the article. I do not want you to be hesitant; feel free to rip it to shreds as much as you please. Some of the things (like tonal textures) are actually, now that I look at it, very confusing for something who is not intimate with guitar tones or even production of a record. The list will keep this talk page from getting too cluttered and also converge everything to one place where it can be easily identified and then rectified. Thanks. NSR77 T 14:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
Thank you for the invitation, but sorry, no, that's a very laborious way of doing it, because of all the effort needed to explain where everything is. Instead, you say here when you're through looking at the changes made (whether by me or by anyone else) so far, and then I'll give it another look (but shan't do that much); and we can then go through a similar cycle again. -- Hoary (talk) 15:03, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
That's fine. I'll take a look at the diffs once you're done with the copyedit—unless you are already, in which case just tell me. I'll have to do my own copyedit of pretty considerable length as just a quick look gives me the notion that most of the issues are with vagueness and being unclear at certain points. I also need to make sure your changes have not compromised the accuracy of the facts, as well. NSR77 T 15:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm quite done for now. (Indeed, it's bedtime here.) Go ahead, take your time. -- Hoary (talk) 15:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

Picture Wrong

The picture under the 1988-1992 section is not Frusciante with Anthony Kiedas, it's Flea; he's half naked and toting a bass guitar.

Please someone change that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.63.192 (talk) 23:36, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

You are mistaken. It is clearly Frusciante. Not only does it look like him, but you can tell just by the neck that it's a Fender Stratocaster. NSR77 T 02:06, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Bring back the Gear section

The current section is unclear and has some inaccurate info regarding his gear. I propose that we have a section dedicated to the gear something like this, not like before, but just the essential.

His favourite/main guitars for stage and recording are (as of early 2009, in order) 1. '62 Sunburst Strat 2. '55 Sunburst Strat 3. '61 Fiesta Red Strat

Something about his acoustic guitars, Other guitars he has used - '63 Telecaster Custom (retired as of Stadium Arcadium tour),'69 Black Les Paul Custom, '55 Gretsch White Falcon and '62 Fiesta Red Fender Jaguar.

His amps Vintage Marshall Major (for clean tones) Vintage Marshall Silver Jubilees (for dirty tones)

There is a lot of other info about other guitars, but this is his main selection of gear.

Also a quote like this should be included

"I feel like Strats are an extension of me, and a Jaguar feels like the next closest thing to being an extension of me. Les Pauls and SGs seem like a further stretch. With a 175 or 335, I feel like a totally different person. I barely see a relationship to the way and the way those guitars are set up. You grow up developing a style on a Strat, and that's what you play all the time."

I got most of this info from http://www.invisible-movement.net/articles/press-2009/04-vintageguitar April 2009, Vintage Guitar magazine (USA). This is the most accurate because his equipment has changed quite a bit.

I don't see how any of the information is incorrect. All of it was retrieved from major music magazine publishers of interviews with Frusciante. Therefore, everything that is currently in the article came out of his mouth. NSR77 T 16:15, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
The WikiGuitarist Project correct guideline for a guitarist article includes a gear section. But the preference is not to have a list style but instead to use a prose style writing including inline refs as well as cited quotes regarding the notability of specific instruments that are near/dear to the subject. As for this article only the strats have some significance to the subject. Everything else he uses is just that... "use"... with no notability. Case in point the current 'notable_instrument' field in the infobox lists guitars that do not meet the criteria for the field... but they are there anyway because of editor's personal pov. A gear section should be included. But it should be done right. If you ignore the effects/amps sections on the Mark Knopler article... the beginning starts out with some promise. The Real Libs-speak politely 16:55, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

There's no reason to have a section devoted to his gear, despite what the Guitarist WikiProject says. It's a bad policy in general since gear sections tend to be full of cruft and unnecessary detail, and that sort of thing won't be tolerated by editors at FAC or FAR. Mention any relevant information about his gear in the musical style section in the form of well-written prose. If it's notable, then it would be mentioned there. WesleyDodds (talk) 06:42, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Pronunciation

The pronunciation is not [fruːˈʃɑːnteɪ] but [fruʃˈʃante], in italian. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.3.90.141 (talk) 11:15, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

John on Heroin

I deleted the statement that said John succumbed to heroin. Its not true until there is a valid source. If you can cite the information feel free to put it back up, whoever did. MyLovelyMan 17:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Good delete. That was a ridiculous unbacked statement to add. --SevereTireDamage 06:11, 1 July 2006 (UTC)
I am not sure but i believe their are sources for that, at least in Kiedis's biography, ill go and look for it tomorrow or the next day —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 198.214.229.39 (talk) 05:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC).
I do believe he did heroin. [4]. It says so on his official homepage. --82.196.221.117 14:53, 18 July 2007 (UTC)
Just finished watching a VPro interview in '94, where he says he shot up on heroin. For confirmation, just see the videos (they are on video.google.com and youtube.com--85.164.95.143 20:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think it is questioned that he was on heroin. It is in the article now.--HJensen, talk 23:16, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

People were questioning that he did heroin? lawl 68.32.194.67 (talk) 21:27, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

John's cats

I've heard that he has two cats, Maya and Aztec...before adding it to trivia I would like to know if there's a source for this

Even if there is, that's completely irrelevant to an encyclopedia article. Please don't add it. --Ars Scriptor 16:21, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

That's why it's called trivia - because it's useless info. I think we should get rid of the trivia section and if it's relevent included in other sections of the article. St. Jimmy 21:39, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

I would support that. Are you volunteering to do it? :) --Ars Scriptor 21:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
As I said below: none of it is really relevant. It doesn't add to the article. I read through it and it belongs on a fan site not wikipedia. St. Jimmy 20:48, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Probably the names of his cats aren't important for an encyclopedia article, but the fact that he owns cats says a bit about who he is. 74.104.1.193 03:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC) Jordan

Not really. St. Jimmy 13:27, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
I think actually think it does. He has been sitting with his cats for hours, just feeling that he's talking to them. He has had cats for years, even back in 1994. If a cat and a dog would be dropped from a plane he would catch the cat. He has said a lot of things, the newest is that he is concerned about how his cats appretiate his music.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.228.116.133 (talk) 17:21, 25 February 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

  • This should be incorprated into the article or deleted per WP:TRIV. John Reaves 03:11, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
Incorporate as in place into existing text, not put section back in the way it was before. John Reaves 02:11, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

None of it is in any way relevant St. Jimmy 20:46, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Just thought I'd point out he's no longer dating Emily Kokal (as of about 2008) and according to an interview with Nicole Turley about her band Swahili Blonde she is dating him --92.238.117.232 (talk) 11:55, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Trivia

  • John is the youngest member of the Chili Peppers, joining when he was 17.
  • John has reported in an interview that he heard about the Red Hot Chili Peppers when his teacher, who was a guitarist, informed him that he was going to try-out for a band named the Red Hot Chili Peppers. After seeing the video for "True Men Don't Kill Coyotes", John saw Flea playing and said that he couldn't be replaced, but after finding out about the death of Hillel Slovak, he then knew why they needed a guitarist. Though, his teacher didn't get the position, John tried out and got it.
  • Previous girlfriends include Toni Oswald, actress Milla Jovovich and Stella Schnabel (his ex-fiancee, who was featured on the cover of By The Way). He is currently dating singer Emily Kokal.
  • John is a huge fan of musician Frank Zappa and has said that his collection of Zappa records is one of his most prized possessions.
  • Frusciante has stated that Bernard Sumner of Joy Division / New Order is one of his favorite guitarist of all time.
  • John is a huge fan of 'The Wellingtons'
  • The first song John ever wrote was called "Fuck You to José" when John got into a childhood fight during a baseball game. According to him, this was also the last time he has played a sport.
  • John is the godfather to Flea's daughter Sunny Bebop.
  • John has said that the only television shows that he likes are Curb Your Enthusiasm, The Simpsons, The Office, Extras and Chappelle's Show.
  • John practices Vipassana, a form of Buddhist meditation.
  • Despite being shown driving a car in the Scar Tissue video, John doesn't drive in real life.
  • In the anime Strawberry Marshmallow, Ana Coppola's pet dog Frusciante is named after him.
  • Frusciante has a habit of carrying a guitar with him almost everywhere he goes, so much so that he is particularly easy to spot on the street.
  • A book by Italian writer Enrico Brizzi is titled Jack Frusciante è uscito dal gruppo, (translated: Jack Frusciante has left his band) with a deliberate mistake on his name.
  • John's father is a judge in the Juvenile Division in Fort Lauderdale, Florida. Judge Frusciante has a gold record from his son hanging in his chambers.

The Mars Volta

Something should be mentioned about his work with The Mars Volta as he regularly records with them and has played live with them on many occasions.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by T1madpaintballer (talk • contribs) 00:37, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Critically Acclaimed? Ha!

The article reads as follows: "and the critically acclaimed Smile from the Streets You Hold (1997)." Acclaimed? If we follow the link to the aforementioned album's article, all we can find are two reviews: one from allmusic (3 stars, hardly constitutes acclaim) and pitchfork (0 stars, meaning it was panned). Objectivity, please. Acclaimed? Ha! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.193.239 (talk) 00:12, 16 May 2010 (UTC) 81.99.193.239 (talk) 00:16, 16 May 2010 (UTC)

Section 1.6

1.6 reads "2007–2011: Red Hot Chili Peppers departure, The Empyrean and further collaborations", should I start 1.7 for 2012 or can we just change the 2011 in 1.6 to 2012? Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 20:25, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

I have been bold and taken the liberty of changing 2011 to 2012. Aleksandar Bulovic' (talk) 12:59, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Nicole Turley

Are John and Nicole married now? Thanks 86.128.27.70 (talk) 21:04, 18 April 2013 (UTC)

Recent activity

I know the editors responsible for bringing this article to FA status are not around any more, but does anyone have thoughts about how to classify Frusciante's activity in the last year or two? He released Outsides last year and it kind of got tacked on to the "Switch to electronica" section of the article. But, is it really electronica or should there be a new heading? --Laser brain (talk) 15:06, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

His role in the untimely death of River Phoenix

Anyone familiar with the relationship between John Fusciante and River Phoenix, has heard at least one or twice in the media, TV, tabloid or paper, of John's rumoured involvement in the facilitation of drugs to River Phoenix on the night of Oct 31, 1993. Its strange that after so much time and so much speculation has elasped over the incident, the issue still remains in the eye of the public 20+ years later, yet the persons responsible for this page refuse to even make mention of their relationship, never mind the topic at hand. The latest piece on this particular topic was published a few months back in the book "Last Night at the Viper Room" by Gavin Edwards. Here is an excerpt:

"12:45 A.M.: A GUITARIST FRIEND of River's came over to his table holding a cup. "Hey Riv, drink this. It'll make you feel fabulous," he told him. River didn't know what was in it, but since he had taken this friend to rehab twice, he could guess it wasn't ginger ale....

In the drink was a dissolved speedball: a mixture of cocaine and heroin. The Heroin circulating in L.A. that fall included a particularly potent variety of Persian Brown. River immediately felt unwell, "What did you give me? What the fuck is in it?" he shouted. To calm himself down, River took some Valium, which didn't seem to do the job. Soon he had vomited on himself and the table. He then slumped in his chair, unconscious."

The whole subject of the matter wont simply die by snowing over the issue, especially with River's newfound popularity with a new generation of 20 somethings. Kingsly Alexander (talk) 01:39, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Last name pronounciation

Frusciante's pronounciation is wrong, it's FROO-SHAN-TEH not FROO-SHAN-TEE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Machete kills (talk • contribs) 00:43, 29 June 2015 (UTC)

Personal Life

Why was that section removed? There is no mention on John's past relationships, getting married, being the godfather to Flea's daughter or the restraining order he filed against a stalker. All of this is pretty important info in a person's bio. Jason1978, talk 4:39, 29 December 2011 (UTC)

John Frusciante is the godfather to Flea's daughter? J.C.Sartaj (talk) 13:29, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Frusciante. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:55, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

Add 'keyboards' as instrument

He is well known for playing keyboards on many RHCP albums and his own solo work. Also, on the topic, I'm not sure if bass guitar should be listed as an instrument. 106.68.153.211 (talk) 04:29, 11 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on John Frusciante. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:23, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on John Frusciante. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on John Frusciante. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Frusciante. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:56, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on John Frusciante. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:15, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:John_Frusciante/Archive_2&oldid=1184786297"