Talk:John Coltrane

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Saint categories[edit]

Searchtool-80%.png Response to third opinion request:
I'm not an expert on sainthood, and I've never edited the article on Coltrane or sainthood. I'm not here to judge. I'm just here to help. Regarding sourcing, I think it's better to use wp:rs third party sources to establish the fact of sainthood, rather then the using only the parish's website. From a quick Google news search on saint+coltrane+african+orthodox+church, it would appear to me that the African Orthodox Church beatified Coltrane in 1981 ("a dozen years ago" from a 1993 article in the Philadelphia Daily News). The beatification was not done by just "a single church". More expert editors should provide even better sources and verify this. Assuming this is true, then it would be appropriate to add him to the Category:American saints, since the AOC has 15 parishes and 5,000 parishioners, and appears to have established wp:notability in its own right (outside this isolated issue of sainthood). I think it's inappropriate to add him to Category:Anglican saints, since no reference provided (so far) states he was beatified by the entire Anglican church. If Coltrane was only beatified by the single parish, he doesn't belong in either category—Work permit (talk) 04:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


Agree with Work Permit. I won't challenge the American saints inclusion. I do believe that a section should be placed in his article concerning it. --Manway (talk) 04:58, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Sourced The categories Category:American saints and Category:Anglican saints are justified by the fact that Coltrane is canonized by the African Orthodox Church, which is a part of Anglicanism. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 22:23, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

From what I can see, it is one church in San Francisco, the St. John Coltrane African Orthodox Church at [1], that has "canonized" Coltrane. Not the entire Anglican communion. I don't believe this qualifies him to be listed in Wikipedia as a saint. Third party opinion requested. --Manway (talk) 22:37, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, this is the same thing we deal it in the spanish wiki about the god status of Maradona, because he has been praised by 10000 members congregation as a God. So the solution was to treat this thing like a Trivia or extra data. Coltrane is, of course, not an Anglican Christian or American Saint. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, Martin Luther King, Jr. was not an Anglican Christian, but he is considered an Anglican saint. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:41, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
Even so, although I think it's acceptable, I wouldn't personally promote it. No contest, I guess is my feeling on it. However, I strongly believe that the infobox repeating the same information as the Muisician's infobox right above it (i.e. birthdate, origin, etc.) should be removed. Perhaps there's a way to add it to Coltrane's template at the bottom of the article rather than the way it is now, since it will be mentioned thus far it seems, in the external links section, and in the text? It's overkill to have two infoboxes on the same page just as a matter of clarity. Can we not find a better way to display the information? Right now it looks like a brand-new user stumbled onto the page and erroneously put a box relating to some other article there at first glance. --Leahtwosaints (talk) 20:00, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
The Anglican Communion has only ever cannonized one person, Charles I of England, as a saint. However, certain churches celebrate people as saints on their calenders (i.e. Martin Luther King, Jr. is a saint in the Episcopal Church USA, and he is categorized under Anglican saints. Coltrane was cannonized by an independant Anglican Church, the African Orthodox Church, as a saint, and is venerated as a saint. Therefore, he is an Anglican saint. --Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

What happens next?[edit]

  • If the opinion misses the point
Explain why you think they have missed the point and give the respondent a reasonable time to justify or revise their opinion. The third party is unlikely to be an expert on the topic and may unintentionally overlook a detail.
  • If the opinion needs clarification
The reply should be in Plain English but may include references to Wikipedia guidelines and policies. If the response is confusing or you can not see which part of the referenced material applies, then ask for a further clarification. Please remember to remain civil.
  • If the opinion is not accepted
If the opinion given is firmly rejected, it probably is not worth while going over the same ground again. Ask the non-accepting party to clarify their viewpoint and summarize the current situation. Remember to stay cool and give reasonable time for contributions from other editors who may act as local mediators.
Your next step is probably to consider one of the other dispute resolution options. The most common of these at this stage are:
  1. A request for comment, a good solution for agreeing a proposed exception to the guidance, or rejecting it.
  2. Raising a Wikiquette alert, a fair way of dealing with another editor who consistently shows what you think is poor etiquette. Going through the third opinion process should demonstrate that you have made reasonable attempts to resolve issues locally before raising the alert.
  3. Requesting advice on a Wikipedia noticeboard. For example Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is particularly helpful in those cases where the inclusion of problematic biographical material for a living person is under debate.
  4. Requesting advice on a Wikiproject talk page. Nearly all articles fall within the jurisdiction of a Wikiproject, and the members of that project can be helpful in further bringing about consensus on that page.
  • If the opinion worked and resolved the dispute
Don't forget to express thanks to everyone involved. Positive feedback is encouraged as it shows that their contributions are appreciated which will help to ensure the future of the third opinion project. If the third opinion was especially sage or particularly helpful, you might consider awarding a Third Opinion Award on the talk page of the Wikipedian who gave the opinion.

Thesis in ext. links[edit]

I removed the following from the ext. links section and bring it here for discussion.

Is this thesis notable? I have no idea, but I would like to hear other's opinions. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 16:26, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

It was not written by Coltrane. I don't see how it is notable. It simply discusses his performances, in rather involved and esoteric musical terms. I can't see how the average reader would glean anything from this, let alone understand half of it. --Manway (talk) 19:51, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Sainthood in lede[edit]

Recently, I have been having a slow-paced edit war with an anon. editor who keeps removing Coltrane's canonization from the lede. The discussion above relating to the saint category seems to prove that the church that canonized him and the canonization are both notable. I see no reason it cannot be mentioned in the lede and then elaborated upon in the section on his legacy. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 23:56, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

This user has been at this for several years now. Protection might help. Viriditas (talk) 00:36, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Ah, I did not realize that! I will make a request for page protection. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
For the record, it should be mentioned in the lead section, and I don't understand why they keep removing it. Viriditas (talk) 01:38, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 01:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
If you were to try to best represent the argument against inclusion in the words of the editor against adding it to the lead, what would you say? In other words, why should it not be added to the lead? Viriditas (talk) 04:34, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

WP:LEAD The purpose of the lead is to summarize the article. Since this is a part of his legacy, it should be mentioned in the lead, but since it is a small part of his life story, it should be mentioned briefly. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 08:31, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed, but it actually has nothing to do with his life. Bishop King, the Church, and "Sainthood" came much later, and it should appear at the end of the lead. The body of the article should also go into more detail about the legacy of Coltrane and the Church, and mention the importance of "Uplift! The Music of John Coltrane", a three-hour radio program broadcast on KPOO from noon-4 every Tuesday, and part of the Church's "outreach". The show is a San Francisco tradition, and familiar to most residents. Viriditas (talk) 08:47, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Sure That is much more sensible: the lead should follow the strcuture of the article; maybe something like four paragraphs about his early life, career as a sideman, initial ensembles, and musical experimentation before his death, with one paragraph discussing his legacy in terms of slaes, critical reception, and beatification. Anything added to the section on the church should be sourced, of course. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 08:53, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
The one thing the anon. user has said that makes sense is that the lede should mention how many albums he has sold, and this should come before mentioning that he is a saint. That, and the other comments made above, make sense to me. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 14:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)
Can we start editing the lead section? I don't mind who does it, but I think we should get started. Viriditas (talk) 01:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Go for it be bold. —Justin (koavf)TCM☯ 01:47, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I would be happy to do so, but I was hoping RepublicanJacobite would have the honor. Viriditas (talk) 01:59, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Other than day-to-day editing, vandal reversion, etc., I am currently working on a bigger project in user space and offline. I would not have time to devote to this for a month, at least. You should go ahead and do it, if you like. ---RepublicanJacobiteThe'FortyFive' 02:11, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
I am the one who removed the sainthood sentence from the lead. I have not been doing it for years, only the last few days. I am on a shared IP and prior edits from years past are not mine. A brief look at the Coltrane page edit history reveals that multiple other users have independently felt the lead sentence was an inappropriate place for this. First, his being made a saint was by a single 5000 member church, not by any mainstream religious organization that represents a substantial number of Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists or other entity. Placing this item in the lead sentence only serves to raise the eyebrows, if not offend, many religious and secular readers.
Second, only 1% of the article (verified by word count) is about this beatification event. It makes no sense at at all, in terms of good writing, to place this in the lead. It also obscures and belies that Coltrane had a fairly diverse set of religious experiences himself, ranging from Christianity, Islam and Hinduism. There is far more on this topic in the body of article than the beatification. In the first sentence why not list him as the leader or sideman of albums A Love Supreme, Blue Train, Giant Steps, Kind of Blue, Ascension and John Coltrane Live at the Village Vanguard, topics that far better represent the spirit of the article.
An aspiration to fairness and proportionality is one thing that demarcates Wikipedia from Conservapedia. If summarizing a mainstream religion, should the lead include a sentence on a small fringe sect? There is so much to say about Coltrane in terms of his life history and impact that the beatification by a single church really amounts to trivia and ought be treated as such in an encyclopedia until there is far broader acceptance of the idea. Wikipedia shouldn't be used a tool to promote this agenda; it ought report on what is generally accepted as his impact and backed with citations for that impact. 14-Oct-2010, 15:36 —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:40, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Short and sweet and in order of the points made: 1) I apologize, but your edits reminded me of another editor 2) As for raising eyebrows or offending someone as a result of calling Coltrane a saint, that kind of argument isn't supported. We write based on the sources, and follow the related biographical policies and guidelines 3) The sainthood occurred after his death, and while there is a connection to his spiritual life and music, it is part of his influence and legacy. 4) It is notable enough to mention in the lead, and more can be said about it in the body. For some reason, this addition personally upsets you, and we just don't edit from that POV. Use the policies and guidelines we have to argue against inclusion. Viriditas (talk) 20:02, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
Addendum: Regarding the good suggestions by for improving the lead, I would be happy to implement them or encourage others to do the same. Viriditas (talk) 21:19, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
In response to some of the points, above: 2) I was not challenging that Coltrane's "beatification" cannot be sourced as legitimate. I am simply challenging whether this is universally accepted enough to be in the lead. There are roughly 2.1 billion Christians (2,100,000,000). The AOC which considers him a saint is 5,000 members in size, amounting to 0.00024 percent of Christians.
3) I agree with Viriditas that the sainthood represents his influence upon a seemingly well-intentioned church. But extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence, as Sagan suggested, or at least more widespread acceptance before this ought to be in the lead. What if the AOC were 2,000 members in size, or 100 members in size, or just two persons? Where is the cutoff at which point one should be accepted as a saint, let alone the broad appreciation that merits mention in the few sentences summarizing an extraordinary life?
There are some preachers who have suggested that J.S. Bach should be made a saint. Should Wikipedia alter Bach's biography to denote this (with the rationale that it is part of his impact and legacy)? Ditto for Beethoven. Anyhow, these are my thoughts. The current state of the article, in which this event is listed near the end of the lead is far more acceptable to me than being the second sentence.; 16-Oct-2010, 17:00


Semi of this article seems heavy-handed given recent history. (talk) 00:08, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

After having read the diffs and the section above, I also happen to agree with the arguments put forward by the IP, but this is not my point.
Their initial edits perhaps could come across as confrontational (they weren't IMO - just bold and a little insistent), but he then amply demostrated (1) not to be a vandal and (2) to be perfectly capable of civil discussion.
Suppressing individual POV of unregistered users in an unwelcoming way is not what semi-protection is for, even if short-term. This matter could have easily been resolved by bringing it in the Discussion page. Please unprotect. (talk) 00:27, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Files for deletion/2011 April 6#File:John Coltrane 1960.jpg[edit]

All opinions welcome. Thank you. walk victor falk talk 06:30, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

i see images in loc are copyrighted [2]
google images [3] you might use the album cover "Blue Train (album)", or "blue note years" [4]. Slowking4 (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2011 (UTC)


If the article is going to include this Orthodox-style icon under "Sainthood", then shouldn't the Greek be made comprehensible?
The second word is ΙΩΑΝΗΣ, that is, John. But the first word?
And why does it say Will.I.AM?
Varlaam (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2011 (UTC)


What about the flute? He played well on it. Why not have this information in the article? Luudi1 (talk) 12:26, 15 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, all the critical write-ups I've read about JC's flute playing was rather unenthusiastic. And I would never categorize Coltrane as even a fair flautist, let alone a good one. Someone who was splendid on jazz flute like Eric Dolphy or Roland Kirk will be remembered for their accomplishments on the instrument; Coltrane seemed interested but it was little more than noodling on it. HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:22, 13 February 2012 (UTC)


Could everyone who keeps adding to the discography section here please note the heading

Discography below lists albums conceived and approved by Coltrane as a leader during his lifetime. It does not include his many releases as a sideman, sessions assembled into albums by various record labels after Coltrane's contract expired, sessions with Coltrane as a sideman later reissued with his name featured more prominently, or posthumous compilations except for the one which he approved before his death. See main discography link above for full list.

Coltrane, as much as any recording artist of the 20th Century, suffered from a deluge of outtakes at recording sessions assembled into albums, some while he was still alive and now signed to a new record company. While containing fine music, both Coltrane Plays the Blues and Coltrane's Sound were recorded at the sessions for My Favorite Things, these tracks assembled into albums by Atlantic Records AFTER COLTRANE HAD LEFT THE LABEL AND WITHOUT HIS INPUT. They belong in the main article for his discography, but not here. The discography section within the body of the biographical article serves a useful function in differentiating the releases Coltrane actually worked on and approved against the flood of releases made without his approval while alive or assembled after his death. If you go to the online catalogue index, you can tell by company catalogue number the sequence in which titles were released and/or renamed. Similarly, Live at the Half Note: One Down, One Up, Sun Ship and Cosmic Music are posthumous releases on Impulse Records, and do not belong on this list. Although the cover art of the current compact disc indicates a later vintage, Kulu Se Mama carrying an Impulse early 9100 series catalogue number was released in 1965 and belongs here. Please make no further edits to this list unless omissions are found in the Prestige catalogue - this list covers all the Blue Note, Atlantic, and Impulse! releases authorized by Coltrane himself. Thanks.PJtP (talk) 18:58, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

I've had to revert the discography again. Do not make any alterations to the discography within the body of the article. I've already asked politely - do not change it again.PJtP (talk) 01:08, 8 July 2011 (UTC)
And again. Look, people, the discographical list on this bio page is complete - there is no need to ever add anything to (or subtract from) it ever. John Coltrane will never authorize an album for release again; every album that he personally put together and authorized to be issued is already on this list, and that will never change. All other albums released that are credited to John Coltrane are on the comprehensive discographical Wikipedia page for Coltrane, linked at the header for this list. Do not add any more albums, for they will not fall within the parameters of this short discography explained above and as indicated on the page itself. PJtP (talk) 19:25, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

Instruments in infobox[edit]

'Trane's three main instruments were the tenor, alto, and soprano saxophones. Flute and bass clarinet were minor instruments which I do not believe need to be mentioned in the infobox. Any thoughts or opinions on this? ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 16:00, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

. . . actually, just the tenor and soprano saxes - he never consistently utilized the alto saxophone.HammerFilmFan (talk) 01:28, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
Agree. I actually never heard Coltrane playing anything except saxophone.--♫GoP♫TCN 17:23, 24 October 2011 (UTC)
However, looking at the "Instruments" section, there is written he played clarinet at the early age and the flute toward the end. He also played the horn. I must say that I never heard his "very early" music, where he, as a teenager, was just a band member in a very small band. I also never heard his late music. Reading the last unreferenced sentence, he just "experimented" some music with the flute.--♫GoP♫TCN 17:42, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

File:John Coltrane plays Soprano.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:John Coltrane plays Soprano.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests November 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 23:16, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Ornette Coleman image[edit]

How is the subject of this article illuminated by a contemporary image of Ornette Coleman? Not even the caption, talking about their respective roles in the "New Thing" in the early '60s helps clarify why an image from the 2000s is relevant for a musician who died in 1967. I think that image should be deleted. ---RepublicanJacobiteTheFortyFive 22:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

John Coltrane: Convert to Islam and Muslim name 'Jamaluddin'[edit]

User:John wants this addition to be discussed for some reason... I have cited my references, and they both corroborate with each other. I shall go on and add it to the article again. I don't see what is wrong with it. --Mostgraciousmostmerciful (talk) 11:10, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Despite the great speculation and conjecture surrounding Coltrane's actual religious affiliation, and irrespective of his clearly Universalist stance regarding religion and his diverse studies thereof, Alice Coltrane, upon being asked by the respected American Muslim scholar and convert Hamza Yusuf Hanson, whether John was a Muslim, set the record straight and confirmed: "Yes he was, his name was Jamaluddin, and he was very proud of his Islam"[1].
The fact that Coltrane had a Muslim name (indicating his conversion to the faith) was also confirmed by former bandmember Rashied Ali, also a Muslim, in an interview for Jazzwise magazine, saying: "John had said to me once when he went to get my passport ’Do you want it in Robert Patterson or Rashied Ali?’ I said ’I think I’ll do it in Rashied Ali’ and never looked back. You know, John had a Muslim name too but he never used it."[2]
This is too Muslim-centric, I think. None of the information is really important. But let's see what others think. Regards.--GoPTCN 11:45, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't find these sources convincing. We have someone quoting someone who is quoting Alice after John's death. That is highly suspicious to me. None of the accepted sources on John's life say that he converted to Islam, and none of his public expressions of religious faith use Muslim terminology, for example, he says "God" but never says "Allah". I find this dubious, to say the least. If this is going to be added, it needs better sources than these. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 14:52, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Why is it so important on an article about a musician to include this material on his supposed spiritual beliefs? --John (talk) 17:41, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
@The Old JacobiteThe '45; Well, surely the Rashied Ali source is convincing enough; it's from his own website, and there are other sources for that quote too, so, at the very least it should be accepted that John indeed had a Muslim name, and, with that, the quote from Alice becomes more acceptable, and the overall body of evidence is mutually strengthened. That's why I said the two references corroborate with each other, even if the quote from Alice may at first seem 'suspicious' to some. Why should one be suspicious about the quote from Alice? And with regards to God/Allah being two mutually exclusive Names; that is just a fallacy, because 'Allah' in Arabic simply means 'The God' (Al = The; Illah = God), which is also cognate with 'Eloh' in Hebrew and 'Alaha' in Aramaic. Most english translations of the Qur'an render 'Allah' as God. So the argument over John's non-use of Muslim terminology is a non-argument. And, besides, John composed the song 'Naima' - which in Arabic means 'blessing'; 'ease'; 'comfort'; 'rest' etc. - for his Muslim wife which he continued to play until the end of his life.
@John; Well, the other material regarding John's spiritual beliefs were deemed important enough to be included in the main article, so why shouldn't this? Other articles about musicians often include information about their spiritual beliefs/affiliations. To consider Coltrane as merely a musician would be to do a great disservice to him. The music comes from an inspired Spirit, transmitted through the Mind, manifests through the Body to the instrument where it then is delivered to our Bodies, and from the Mind transmitted to the Spirit and inspires us. All I have done is provide some important pieces to the puzzle about a little known and much speculated-over aspect of John's life.
@GoPTCN; I don't think it's too Muslim-centric. I did, at the outset, reaffirm the fact that ultimately John's stance was Universalist in nature, and that this was reflected in his diverse religious and spiritual readings. What if it was 100% confirmed that he had accepted Islam as Alice was reported to have said? Would it then still be too Muslim-centric?
In closing; As I have remarked above, I believe that the two sources mutually corroborate with each other and provide an acceptable body of evidence to indicate that: 1) (at the very least) Coltrane had a Muslim name; 2) The quote from Alice confirms he had a Muslim name, and adds that it was Jamaluddin; and 3) That at some point in his life (regardless of and not to the exclusion of his overall Universalist stance) he had accepted Islam. I think that to disregard this evidence, and to persist in removing the two paragraphs of mine from the main article is unfair and unfounded.
Best wishes and Kindest Regards. Salaam/Shalom/Peace. --Mostgraciousmostmerciful (talk) 04:46, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
Please review Talk:John_Coltrane/Archive_1#Islamic_convert. Viriditas (talk) 21:15, 4 March 2013 (UTC)


  1. ^ Hamza Yusuf, "Purification of the Heart", 17 Audio CD set, 1998 & 2004 Alhambra Productions. Part 18: "...Some of the real big Jazz musicians like Pharoah Sanders and John Coltrane - they became Muslims; and John Coltrane was a Muslim, because I heard that from his wife. I met John Coltrane's wife Alice and I asked her: "Is it true that John Coltrane was a Muslim?" she said: "Yes he was, his name was Jamaluddin, and he was very proud of his Islam".
  2. ^ "Jazzwise, Issue #110"

Did John Coltrane have a daughter or daughters?[edit]

In the German Version of the Wikipedia biography a daughter named Miki with Naima is mentioned. Because in this english version the daughter isn't mentioned I've googled around. Beyound dispute Naima had a daughter Antonia, later called Syeeda. There's told, she's now spelling Saeeda. In the book "John Coltrane: His Life and Music" by Lewis Porter a Sheila is mentioned six times as a daughter of John's, called by him as a descendant. She's apparently an illegitimate child of John's. In Germany, Miki Coltrane is mentioned a number of times as the daughter of John and Naima, surfing the english Google she's called a daughter of J. C. By she's called a daughter by J. C. with Alice. I'm not able to resolve these contradictions but wanted to notify this to you experts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jakkik (talkcontribs) 12:47, 6 December 2012 (UTC)

New discography[edit]

Hi, I have created a new John Coltrane discography page at John Coltrane discography using sortable tables. All items in the discography are either sourced through separate Wikipedia pages or researched materials. Other unconfirmed releases have been removed. Over the next few days I will continue to add citations to the introduction as well as additional compilations I found after my initial work.

In regards to separating Coltrane's contract work with Prestige and Atlantic from his post-contract albums: According to my research, the only time Coltrane had complete control over the packaging of his music was with Impulse. Prestige and Atlantic dictated the packaging of his albums while he was under contract and afterwards. So it is inaccurate to call the post-contract albums "unauthorized and without Coltrane's input." However, there is some debate around this issue, so I felt it was best to create separate tables of "contract" and "post-contract" albums for now.
In regards to the temporary removal of unofficial Coltrane releases: In the future these should be housed under a separate table. I did not include them because I didn't have time to source them -- they are haphazardly sourced on Wikipedia -- and I could find no official Wikipedia policy regarding bootlegs. At the very least, these should be kept separately from Coltrane's official discography. As for the Pablo Records live releases, these were legitimately licensed for release. I will add a citation confirming this shortly. Infamous30 (talk) 13:07, 15 March 2013 (UTC)


I'm surprised to see my merging of the article's two infoboxes reverted wholesale, especially with the edit summary "These changes should be discussed on talk". Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:29, 5 May 2013 (UTC)

Well, it wasn't an actual merge, and if you are going to do it that way, I think the nesting method is ideal. However, I still maintain that the Saint infobox should appear in the Saint section, not at the top, but I suppose I'm in the minority on this one. Viriditas (talk) 09:55, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
I do not understand what you find so surprising. You merged the infoboxes with no explanation of your reasoning, and I reverted you, saying that such changes should be discussed. Given all the discussion that has gone on around Coltrane's sainthood, did you not realize your changes would be controversial? I think we need to keep both infoboxes intact, but would have no problem with seeing it moved to the relevant section, per Viriditas's suggestion. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 13:32, 5 May 2013 (UTC)
Count me as a supporter of the "saint" infobox in the "saint" section. That viewpoint is such a ridiculously small and FRINGE viewpoint it should not be given WP:UNDUE weight by being elevated to the lead or incorporated into the main infobox. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)

Please delete the religious views passage beginning with "Moustafa Bayoumi"[edit]

On the album A Love Supreme Coltrane repeats the title of the album in refrain clearly and articulately. Bayoumi's claim that "A Love Supreme slides easily into Allah Supreme" is not relevant to Coltrane's religious views. The fact that one author states that the chorus of the song "slides easily" into other words is wholly unrelated to the song and John Coltrane's religious views. It serves as a point of confusion in the religious views section. Referenced of not, John Lennon's religious views section should not contain an entry that says: Author John Doe has been cited as saying that the lyrics "I heard the news today, oh boy" slide easily into "I heard the Jews today, oh boy." The fact that a single person thinks that the structure and prosody of a refrain could accommodate a different set of words does not deserve mention. Please read that section carefully, the Bayoumi passage is not only absurd, it has nothing to do with John Coltrane's religious views. The passage should be reformed to appear as follows:

In his book John Coltrane: His Life and Music (2000), on page 242, Lewis Porter describes the lyrics of Coltrane's A Love Supreme (recorded in December 1964 and released in 1965) this way: "Coltrane and another voice—probably himself overdubbed—chant the words 'a love supreme' in unison with the bass ostinato". In The Dawn of Indian Music in the West: Bhairavi (2006), on page 283, Peter Lavezzoli says, "Certainly in his opening solo in "Acknowledgment," with his constant modulations of the same phrase in different keys, Coltrane assumes the role of the preacher. After stating the theme in every possible key, Coltrane concludes his solo and quietly begins to chant, "A love supreme ... a love supreme," singing the same four notes played by Garrison on the bass. After chanting "A love supreme" sixteen times, Coltrane and the band shift from F minor down to E flat minor, and the chant slowly tapers off." Whatever the case may be, the liner notes to A Love Supreme appear to mention God in a Universalist sense, and do not advocate one religion over another.[33] Further evidence of this universal view regarding spirituality can be found in the liner notes of Meditations (1965), in which Coltrane declares, "I believe in all religions."[30]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:26, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Thank you for taking this to the talk page. I was not involved with the initial discussion and only reverted based on consensus. Having read your comment, I would agree that the interpretation of the line as "Allah" may fall under WP:UNDUE and possibly WP:FRINGE as there is no evidence that Coltrane was a Muslim nor was particularly interested in the subject. The claim seems to be about African-American music in general and is using Coltrane to bolster that claim. Which is fine academical, but we do need to follow the mainstream academic consensus and minimize new theories. We'll have to wait and see what other editors think but I'm inclined to agree that the contested info, even though sourced may be undue weight on a minor theory. freshacconci talk to me 15:06, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

Moustafa Bayoumi passage[edit]

In determining the legitimacy of the Moustafa Bayoumi passage, it is important to examine the passage in terms of its substance and relevance to John Coltrane's religious views, not in terms of its relation to previous discussions of his faith. Moustafa Bayoumi once stated that the the words "A Love Supreme easily slide into Allah Supreme". Although the fact that these two phrases ryhme may hold meaning for this author, it not relevant to John Coltrane's religious views in any way. It is not appropriate to include an anecdote so immaterial.

More importantly, the passage is predicated on the misquoting of an unfinished, unpublished college essay in which Moustafa Bayoumi makes claims regarding John Coltrane and others without offering any formal citations.

"Moustafa Bayoumi, an associate professor of English at Brooklyn College, City University of New York, has been cited as claiming that Coltrane's A Love Supreme (recorded in December 1964 and released in 1965) features Coltrane chanting, "Allah Supreme"

-The citation mentioned above misrepresents Moustafa Bayoumi's statement; he never made such a claim.

Bayoumi's own written assertion is only that "I've long thought that the chanting we hear on Coltrane's "A Love Supreme" slides easily into "Allah Supreme"".

-Bayoimi made the assertion above in an unfinished, unpublished, college essay completely devoid of formal citation (as stated at the conclusion of the essay). In addition, the assertion is an irrelevant, improperly cited tangential connection which does nothing more than present one author's observation that "A Love Supreme" and "Allah Supreme" happen to rhyme. The paragraph in question should be edited to appear as follows:

In his book John Coltrane: His Life and Music (2000), on page 242, Lewis Porter describes the lyrics of Coltrane's A Love Supreme (recorded in December 1964 and released in 1965) this way: "Coltrane and another voice—probably himself overdubbed—chant the words 'a love supreme' in unison with the bass ostinato". In The Dawn of Indian Music in the West: Bhairavi (2006), on page 283, Peter Lavezzoli says, "Certainly in his opening solo in "Acknowledgment," with his constant modulations of the same phrase in different keys, Coltrane assumes the role of the preacher. After stating the theme in every possible key, Coltrane concludes his solo and quietly begins to chant, "A love supreme ... a love supreme," singing the same four notes played by Garrison on the bass. After chanting "A love supreme" sixteen times, Coltrane and the band shift from F minor down to E flat minor, and the chant slowly tapers off." The liner notes to A Love Supreme appear to mention God in a Universalist sense, and do not advocate one religion over another.[33] Further evidence of this universal view regarding spirituality can be found in the liner notes of Meditations (1965), in which Coltrane declares, "I believe in all religions."[30]

[— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 16:12, 2 September 2013 (UTC)

A Love Supreme cut[edit]

I cut the following from the Religious section, as it's not relevant there. It could be useful somewhere...

Biographer Lewis Porter describes the lyrics of Coltrane's A Love Supreme (and released in 1965) this way: "Coltrane and another voice—probably himself overdubbed—chant the words 'a love supreme' in unison with the bass ostinato".<ref>Porter, p. 242.</ref> In The Dawn of Indian Music in the West: Bhairavi (2006), on page 283, Peter Lavezzoli says, "Certainly in his opening solo in "Acknowledgment," with his constant modulations of the same phrase in different keys, Coltrane assumes the role of the preacher. After stating the theme in every possible key, Coltrane concludes his solo and quietly begins to chant, "A love supreme ... a love supreme," singing the same four notes played by Garrison on the bass. After chanting "A love supreme" sixteen times, Coltrane and the band shift from F minor down to E flat minor, and the chant slowly tapers off." EddieHugh (talk) 10:23, 23 September 2013 (UTC)

Black/African & teachings of/works ascribed to[edit]

There is something close to an edit war over whether to have:

1. "historical black saints" or "historical African saints"

2. "the philosophical teachings of Plato and Aristotle" or "the philosophical works ascribed to Plato and Aristotle"

All involved/interested (including Sluffs and TheOldJacobite): please comment here rather than changing the article itself again. EddieHugh (talk) 18:48, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

Hi. I've left a post on the Talk Page of TheOldJacobite. Though for completeness I'll copy and paste it below:

Please justify you changes to the Coltrane article by providing works by Aristotle in his own words. (POST TITLE)

You do know there are no existing works by Aristotle and that all we have are either notes by his students or summaries/analysis by others. So why do you object to the term "ascibed" which means the "source of" without implying direct authorship or wording.

I'll undo your edit in the meantime - please provide proof of the works by Aristotle in his own hand before you revert.

cheers Sluffs (talk) 16:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

No. It serves a better purpose here where less experienced editors can learn how to deal with you. When you revert their edits they will naturally come here to see the reactions and actions of other editors you have reverted. Anyway back to the point of the word "ascribed" - here's a link to a Google book which discusses the origin of the works of Aristotle:

Aristotle's Philosophical Development: Problems and Prospect By William Robert Wians

You will have to go back and forth a bit to digest the material but here's a direct quote:

"...we may concede that such great works as the Metaphysics, the Politics, and the logical writings did not receive their present form from Aristotle himself, that concession does not deprive Aristotle of the authorship, but only of the arrangement of those works"

So we know it is the work of Aristotle that we are dealing with but no one can say whether it is as he intended or wished. The works are ascribed to him - in other words we are using copies of his works compiled and edited by other authors who claim Aristotle as the original source. For those that read the above and think that I have presented evidence that supports the opposite view know that all original works from circa 400BC Ancient Greece have not survived intact in their original Greek wording and form. I do not deny his authorship but like hell am I going to leave anyone reading the Coltrane article with the belief that Aristotle and Plato's teachings are verbatim. That is like reading Tolstoy in English and presuming that nothing has been lost in translation. Using the word "ascribed" will (imo) give a hint to readers that further investigation on their part is needed whereas "teachings" gives a sense of unquestionable quasi-religious truths which is anathema to philosophy anyway.

I presume you have a motive for your reverting that is not based on the words "teachings" or "ascribed". The issue is minor (in the sense that your edit or mine are not going to disrupt the article to the point of complete fallacy) so I presume something else is driving you to quibble over such matters. Please enlighten us as to your reasons?

Sluffs (talk) 19:46, 12 November 2013 (UTC)


Sluffs (talk) 19:58, 12 November 2013 (UTC)

As Sluffs has been indefinitely blocked, this issue is now moot. ---The Old JacobiteThe '45 15:34, 14 November 2013 (UTC)

Article introduction is a bit loose and needs tightening[edit]

The introduction to this article is a bit loose mentioning his wife, son, Miles Davis, his canonization, etc. Also it has the sentence "pioneer of the use of modes in Jazz". As a musician I can tell you that modes and scales are the same thing. The Ionian mode is the major scale. The distinction between modes and major/minor scales is one of usage as far as modern Harmony goes. No song exists without tonal and modal qualities. I always thought that the liner notes for Kind Of Blue were written to impress non-musicians. Miles turns up with a modal riff and says lets invent a new modal approach which assigns a thousand years of modal and tonal experimentation (by composers as illustrious as Bach and Mozart) to the bin. Poor Guido d'Arezzo will be turning in his grave and Hildegard of Bingen might as well have not bothered writing music.

A rewrite is needed - one that elucidates Coltrane rather than all the surrounding details. His son, wife, Miles Davis, etc are all in the main body of the article and to have them mentioned in the introduction is more of a distraction than a bonus. To illustrate my point here's a crude limited imaginary opening about John Lennon:

Lennon was a member of the Beatles. His son Julian is also a songwriter and musician. After the Beatles disbanded Lennon pursued a successful solo career. He was married to Cynthia while in the Beatles then married Yoko Ono. Lennon was shot dead by Michael Chapman. His song "Imagine" won numerous awards.

Even though the above may not seem related to Coltrane it is. That is exactly how the intro comes across - disjointed, jumping from point to point, and full of details that have no place in an introduction.

I'm interested in this article and wouldn't mind giving the introduction a more concise form. I'm doing other articles at the moment but I'll come back here to familiarize myself with this article and if the muse strikes I'll do the introduction rewrite.

Chromaticism, modes, motifs, improvisation are not the preserve of Jazz - Mozart was a supreme improviser and cadenzas are left blank to allow classical musicians the chance to improvise. A little tip for musicians starting out - in the key of C major (Ionian mode) the modal chords are Dm, Em and Am; the rest are tonal chords apart from the diminished chord on the 7th degree which is normally treated as a partial dom7 without the root. So if you want to revolutionize your next band practice develop a riff based on the modal chords of C major get the musicians to shift it up and down a semitone every four bars so its chromatic in the extreme and voila.

The above is not me being sarcastic or dismissive of Miles or Coltrane since it still takes skill to play anything well and they were the best musicians of their generation. Also the sentence on emotional significance of raga scales is exactly the same as the Baroque musicians view of what they termed in the 16th century as "affections" (more correctly Doctrine of Affections) associated with modes. Coltrane was a deep student of music. Now I've had my "Sturm und Drang" moment I'm off to watch Star Trek.

Sluffs (talk) 01:25, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Olatunji Concert[edit]

The Olatunji Concert? [the last stereo recording released by John Coltrane] "This is the last stereo recording released by John Coltrane, recorded only two months before his death, and a month before the onset of the sudden illness that would take his life. Although the extensive solos on this recorded are poorly recorded, they paint an extensive and multi-faceted picture of a musician who lived in an era of widespread turmoil, and who was perfectly willing to shy away from others' preconceived notions of what music should be." ~ Alcmaeonid (talk) 12:24, 20 June 2014 (UTC)