Talk:Jimi Hendrix

Archives
06.2002-12.2005
01.2006-03.2006
09.2006-11.2006	11.2006-01.2008 Paul Caruso There is something wrong somewhere with the fact about Jimi's fight with Paul Caruso in section Drug use. Paul Caruso was apparently around 15 years old in 1970, so something doesn't make sense -m-i-k-e-y- 22:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC) where is it recorded that caruso was this age? maybe after his time trip on EXP!Jameselmo (talk) 11:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Edmund Darris? I've been reading a lot of articles on various rock musicians, and many of them mention a guy named Edmund Darris. He even has his own article, that IMO looks like a very colorful attempt at self-promoting. I googled him and ended up finding just a couple of movies. There were basically no source material to verify that he has, for instance, met Albert King, played guitar at Eric Clapton's birthday party or being taught secret guitar tunings by Hendrix as the wiki articles claim. Could anyone please tell me who this guy is? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.164.132.123 (talk) 15:00, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Anything related to this edit has been nominated for deletion as patent hoax nonsense. The text in this article can be removed as well. 156.34.142.110 (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2007 (UTC) Jimi was actually right handed? I noticed the Jimi Hendrix article states Jimi was left handed. Actually he was right handed and merely played guitar left handed. He could also play guitar right handed. He wrote with his right hand. Not sure why the left handed myth persists, I suppose he did teach himself to play left handed. One source I have is the online Hendrix magazine. There are also photos of him writing with his right hand. This needs research don't want to keep expanding on an urban myth in wikipdia. Thanks. http://www.jimi-hendrix.com/magazine/603/603,features,fireredmoon.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.225.30.142 (talk) 20:25, 15 November 2007 (UTC) Yes jimi hendrix was in fact right handed. The reason he plays left handed is because his father did not approve of right handed playing. I know this from his biography. Blackties30 (talk) 23:13, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Which biography? -- Mickraus (talk) 23:22, 12 December 2007 (UTC) Jimi would have been naturally left handed, but taught to write with his right hand, as often happened in those days. Whereas being self taught on the guitar he would naturally play it it left handed. Much guff is talked about Jimi playing a right handed guitar, when for most lefties this was usually their only option, due to the scarcity and added expense of left handed models. There are several noted guitarists who played in this way, without comment, Otis Rush even plays a normally strung right handed guitar upside down, without many silly comments about itJameselmo (talk) 15:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) First Guitar God? It states in the Legacy section that "although the term was not used when Hendrix was playing, he likely qualifies as the first 'guitar god' of rock music". Surely this would correctly apply to Eric Clapton? 'Clapton is God' was wrote on the wall of Islington Underground station in mid 1967, Hendrix was only just famous at this point? I won't deny that I am a fan of Clapton's, so I could be being biased on this, but it just seems to make more sense to me. Does anybody have any thoughts on this? CDicken 20:45, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Eric Clapton? You're actually tarnishing this talk article with that wannabe?--Asams10 20:30, 8 October 2007 (UTC) WANNABE? Eric clapton is far more technichally skilled that Hendrix, try playing the crossroads solo, its 5 times harder than anything Hendrix ever played. And btw who used the wah wah before Hendrix? Clapton! He used it on Tales of Brave Ulysses which was recorded long before Hendrix used it. Also Hendrix didn't come up with feedback, Lennon did. Clapton is a better guitarist, he just plays guitar plain and simple unlike the act that Hendrix put on which was completely stolen from the Who. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.139.43 (talk) 02:33, 23 October 2007 (UTC) Eric's ability is irrelevant, that is a matter of opinion. I just want to establish who was considered a 'Guitar God' first. I knew my opinion could be biased in Eric's favour, that's why I mentioned it in the original post. I am trying to keep my opinions unbiased and it shouldn't be difficult for Hendrix fans to do the same. They were both fantastic guitarists in their own way, with lots of fans. Even Hendrix was a fan of Clapton's, and vice versa. Hendrix came to England on the condition he got to meet Clapton, they then remained friends for the rest of Hendrix's life. If they can acknowledge each others talent, why can't you? If you have issues with Clapton, take it to to some forum elsewhere, Wikipedia is a place for fact, not opinion. CDicken 23:35, 8 October 2007 (UTC) LOL, if you have issues with HENDRIX, take them elsewhere. Why even mention Clapton here? You're a Clapton fan trying to crap on the Hendrix article. Clapton wasn't even in the same class let alone anywhere near as innovative. Gods? That's so irrelevant it's absurd.--Asams10 23:01, 8 October 2007 (UTC) I have no issues with Hendrix, I think he is a brilliant guitarist. I am not trying to 'crap' on his article at all. I said in my last post that they were both 'fantastic guitarists in their own way' then I made the point that if 'they can acknowledge each others talent, why can't you?' You called Clapton a 'wannabe', I have complemented Hendrix on his ability, how does that sound like a person with issues against Hendrix? I haven't said anything that could imply I don't like Hendrix, or I don't think hes very talented or anything like that, all I said was that I considered that small part of the article to be incorrect. Thats not having an issue it's just trying to keep facts correct. I haven't said anything detrimental about Hendrix at all. My original post said 'I won't deny that I am a fan of Clapton's, so I could be being biased on this', I am obviously being fair to fans of Hendrix by saying that. I'm not putting down Hendrix or saying Clapton is better or anything like that. If I did have an issue with Hendrix I would just go ahead and change it, or delete his page and replace it with some obscene message like a lot of other people do. I don't have an issue, thats why I came to the discussion page, to discuss it with other people.CDicken 0:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC) CDicken raises an interesting point. I'm pretty sure graffiti of 'Clapton is God' predates Hendrix's arrival in England and is well documented; therefore, it's entirely possible that Clapton was the first 'guitar god' of Rock music, albeit rather short-lived. Hendrix was actually referred to as King Guitar shortly after he arrived in England. -- Mickraus 11:55, 9 October 2007 (UTC) I removed the sentence per WP:BOLD. It is an example of the many unsourced, POV statements that this article is full of. So, instead of arguing about who is a better guitarist, or who we each think is a "God", or what we may of not have heard of, energy should be devoted to digging up verifiable sources that back up any such such statement.-- HJensen, talk 13:54, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Good idea. -- Mickraus 14:19, 9 October 2007 (UTC) Of course if anyone should be considered the first guitar god, it should be Clapton. I mean, "Clapton is God" was on the walls in '66, predating Are You Experienced by about a year. It doesn't really get much more explicit than that. :P 18.245.6.171 (talk) 17:15, 20 November 2007 (UTC) Exactly, I'm glad that others can see my point. Clapton was considered God before Hendrix was widely famous. Some reports say it started even earlier than '66. On Eric Clapton's website it states he was first called God in April '65. Hendrix was still playing in NY night clubs at this time. It's possible that there were small groups that considered BB King, Robert Johnson, Freddie King, Django Reinhardt, etc to be 'God' even before this, but Clapton was definitely considered to be god before Hendrix. CDicken 4:13, 23 November 2007(UTC) JIMI HENDRIX IS MY GOD! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.189.17.172 (talk) 01:38, 26 November 2007 (UTC) lmao arguing over who was 'considered god' first —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 20:47, 10 January 2008 (UTC) ok guys, arguing over who was the first "god" is pointless, neither one of you can prove that either guy was the first god. its all opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.55.144.8 (talk) 03:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC) There is one God and nobody on this earth is him.LifeStroke420 (talk) 04:17, 25 January 2008 (UTC) This is just a load of trivial, degrading puff by people that have no serious understanding of Hendrix as the massive musical, cultural, political, fashion, innovater/mover89.241.204.118 (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC) (ARTIST), that he eventually became, and his understanding of how his image had been co-opted by some people he had never even met ("The Movement" "The media" "Fans") All we have is what Jimi said himself, and contemporary witness, anything else is opinion/gossip. Don't forget Jimi was not a "University graduate" but was a high school dropout and instead (according to all the evidence) had an early awareness of his calling as an artist and musician from a relatively early age. He saw what happened when you rocked the boat in USA - Bobby Kennedy, Martin Luther King. Jimi always made a point of commenting on the plight of the American Natives, who he indentified with through his family's heritage, even at a quite early age, drawing a picture that is remarkabely similar to contemporary Native artwork, depicting an attack by federal troops on a native encampement and then sharing the fate of Custer at little bighorn, as they are ambushed by the natives. He wrote 'I don't live today' as a comment on the Natives plight. He espoused support for Martin Luther King as have several family members, but Jimi then went on to profess (occasionally limited) support for the Black Panthers from virtually as soon as he became an (in the USA strictly commercial) interviewable subject in 67 until shortly before his demise in september 70. ---- I really don't have the time to research for you, but if you want to contest this or any of my attempts to enlighten you as to this disgraceful, trivial treatment of one of the most internationally recognized profound and remarkable MUSICIANS and COMMENTATORS to stuggle through the systematic abuse of human rights that is the USA. He had to become popular/famous in (almost immediately) Europe (where he featured regularly on radio TV & press), Australia, New Zealand, Japan etc. prior to his massive popularity in later 1968 in the USA, due mainly to word of mouth, a little positive press following Monterey and nation wide touring with press & radio advertising, getting virtually no radio and no TV exposure. So before printing some degrading, trivial nonsense about "non political" "Elvis, bowler hats, dashikis", etc. etc. etc. How about a discussion first, here, now, with me, bring credible proof of relevance, not gossip.Jameselmo (talk) 12:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC) hand size while hendrix probably did have huge hands, it does not take large hands to fret across all six strings with your thumb. i have small hands and can easily do it, so someone should go ahead and remove that particular sentence. I was going to make a comment, but then I'm not from the land of giants. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 00:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC) It probably meant not his whole thumb, but rather the top part. Original name It is worth noting that Jimi's surname was not originally spelt "Hendrix"; his birth name was "Hendricks" which was changed at a later date. LynkStar 10:15, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Can you provide evidence of this assertion? -- Mickraus 12:09, 3 July 2007 (UTC) Well, i'm reading the biography of Jimi Hendrix, Room Full of Mirrors, according to that published book, yes, it is correct, however this was never jimi's name. Thatb was the family alst name until 1912... they changed it so jimi was born a "Hendrix and never a "Hendricks" Im writing here because Jimi was NOT born James Marshall Hendrix. He was in Fact born Johnny Allen Hendrix. His Name was changed after his father returned from his military service was complete. He legally Changed Jimi's name to James after his own first name and his middle name Marshall after the middle name of Jimi's deceased uncle, Leon. You can check my information by getting a copy of Room Full of Mirrors by Charles R. Cross. Its a good book. It says that Al Hendrix believed Jimi was named after an affair his wife had while he was still in the military. Thats the reason his name was changed. Anyways, can someone change the information for his birth name? Im new, i just saw that and wanted to fix it. ---Patullo23 13:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC) I'd inserted that fact in January this year and I see that someone has removed it. I'll have to find out why. I discussed this in the talk section Jimi's Original Name --Mickraus 14:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC) I've just noticed it's been placed in the Biography section, so it's still there. --Mickraus 14:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC) I've read in rolling stones and other websites that he's the third as in James Marshall Hendrix III. I don't know if this is true, will someone verify or disprove. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.219.8.11 (talk) 02:17, 13 November 2007 (UTC) Also, it should be known, when first began touring england, he was touring as Jimmy Hendrix, it was later changed by his manager to Jimi. k8cpa 00:59, 16 November 2007 See this is still being changed on a regular basis. Can't we take it that Charles R Cross' book (see above) is correct and stop changing his name back and forward--Egghead06 (talk) 16:28, 19 November 2007 (UTC)? I read that biography too, and it said his ancestors' names were Hendricks, and it was changed to Hendrix long before Jimi's time, or even his parents. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.226.215.168 (talk) 22:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC) Decreasing article length Since it has been a great problem, I was thinking that instead of cutting out his early life (this is a biography article and it should include all personal details), that we instead take all the information on who controls the release of his albums and the future releases and place them in the discography section. Any thoughts? 75pickup (talk · contribs) Support definatly this article is way to big (and anyway I hope that nobody cuts out his early life part I mean it is his biography.--Seadog.M.S 12:11, 14 October 2006 (UTC) Object The story of Hendrix's posthumous legacy is probably more important than the prehumous details of his life. This article is long because of the scope and complexity of the Hendrix story, not because contributors here think he's that 'great' or 'worthy' of such a long article. --Zig 18:35, 16 October 2006 (UTC) Comment Make his early life into a new article? Adam Wang 01:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Comment I've passed a few FAs recently, and though you may see some objections for length, they'll be overruled if your article meets the comprehensiveness requirement. I'm not necessarily arguing to keep the article as it is, as I haven't read it yet. But just some advice -- you don't have to conform to any arbitrary kilobyte limits. Let the article define itself, and be tasteful when avoiding trivia or excessive details. I honestly wish I had time to make this featured... --Zeality 19:43, 18 October 2006 (UTC) Comment Too many editors have been swooping in and carelessly doing 'chop jobs' on this article. They combine sentences into run-ons, remove pertinant details, leave fragemented paragraphs, and disrupt the TOC, all in the name of shortening the article length. Even at it's fattest, the article content consistently remained focused on Hendrix himself, or on items that have affected his life, music, or legacy. When I conceded to the 'conservatives' by migrating large swaths of information to separate articles, those articles were summarily deleted from Wikipedia. Needless to say this has been very frustrating. I'm very tempted at this point to leave Wikipedia forever and GFDL all of the Hendrix content into my own personal website as a static page or a separate 'Jimipedia' site. I'd like to stay and avoid such divergence, but another month or so without compromise or administrative input will likely be the tipping point. --Zig 16:37, 20 October 2006 (UTC) Just keep on trucking. If you can manage to get this featured, no one will touch it. Of course, people will object to length on the featured article candidacy, but Raul will pass it regardless of how many length objections there are if the information is relevant to Hendrix. Byzantine Empire is 121 kb and some Indian / Bangladesh topic is 111 kb. The Bangladesh one was objected to several times, yet Raul passed it for meeting the comprehensive requirement. People obsessed with length should review featured article criteria. --Zeality 19:58, 21 October 2006 (UTC) Object It's a good article, and none of the content should be cut. Bifgis 06:34, 8 October 2007 (UTC) Stuff I put about Hendrix's infamous and historical concerts at SF's Winterland Ballroom have been striken from the article. I had not visited in a few months and just discovered this. For example, the article now implies that he opened with Killing Floor for a long time. Not true. He opened with Sgt. Peppers for most if not all of 1968. Oh well, I guess the owners got sick of all the editing and bickering and locked the door and took away the key. —Preceding unsigned comment added by WilliamKent (talk • contribs) 14:47, 25 October 2007 (UTC) Public Domain Photo There is apparently a collection in the library of congress from a Look magazine shoot that is free for use. There is no image available on the website but maybe you could order a copy or something. See here for more information. 75pickup (talk · contribs) Guitar styles Why is it that "funk" is not listed as one of Hendrix's styles? It's common knowledge that his rhythms were heavily funk and blues based. Listen to Purple Haze. The guitar rhythm for that song is almost exclusively a funk rhythm. I think Rock/blues/funk would work fine. What about Metal? If you read the first sentance, it describes Hendrix to a T. Ryan2x 19:22, 1 November 2006 (UTC) You need cites from reliable sources to add anything like that. Personal opinion and judgement doesn't cut it. Anyway, I think he was more of an influence on the development of funk and metal than a practictioner of those styles. A major influence, in both cases, but still, an influence rather than an actual practitioner. (Metal, in particular, didn't really become estabished as a distinct genre until after Jimi's death.) Xtifr tälk 23:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC) The simple fact that a funkk beat is present in his rythms does not make him a Funk musician. Funk is an overused term in Music. Listen to the Funky drummer by James Brown. That is funk. Funk simply means all the emphasis is on Beat One. I have no sources but Im also a Jazz musician at VCU. The main rhythm section to Purple Haze is just E7/9, G, A. There's nothing "funk" about that song. Furthermore, when you say his "rhythms" were blues based... well, that's just not true. Most of his legitimate "blues" tracks didn't HAVE a rhythm. It was all lead.207.38.196.202 04:50, 2 July 2007 (UTC)AP didn't have a rhythm guitar sure, but no rhythm ? surely Noel Redding's bass over Mitch Mitchell's drumming would count ? I'd certainly consider Hendrix a 'funk' musician. The intro to Voodoo Chile - Slight Return with that wah-wah pedal can surely be heard in both Issac Hayes' Shaft and a lot of Nile Rodgers (Chic) playing. Hendrix in no way had the whole 70's funk sound in his head - but I think he contributed to it for sure. Markmorgan10 17:38, 18 September 2007 (UTC) And Band of Gypsys? Is this not funk? It seems to me all of Buddy Miles drumming is well within the criteria of funk, as is a plethora of the licks coming from Jimi's guitar. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ROG 19 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 October 2007 (UTC) No citations! This article is extremely well-researched and accurate, I'm sure. So where are the citations? It's the only thing holding this article back. --RPaleja 05:38, 25 October 2006 (UTC) I just read the article and find it to be poor by Wikipedia standards, considering how much attention it will have recieved. Some of the language used, like "He caught up with Linda Keith, an old flame that he still admired", is a bit romantic, and there were many instances of liberal portrait of Hendrix, as well as some instances where the chronology becomes confusing. See for example the Are You Experienced subsection, the article states that the album was released on May 12, 1967, apparently while Jimi doing a tour of Europe where he set his guitar on fire on March 31, 1967... The article reads like it was in excellent shape at some point but was then padded with uncited trivia by fans. 88.110.32.144 21:03, 7 December 2006 (UTC) It's shamefully true -- It's hard to a believe a single sentence in this article. Honestly, about two-thirds of this stuff should probably be removed on the grounds that it discusses pretty personal/sensitive stuff such as Hendrix's thoughts and feelings(!) without even a shred of a citation, much less evidence. Ok! 22:31, 12 December 2006 (UTC) As opposed to just deleting two thirds of the article right away, it would be best to see if we could find citations first. I see a list of Hendrix biographies, magazine articles, interviews, etc. in the References section, which I assume is where most of the information in this article comes from, so, I think we should use these sources to cite the article properly. Dumping a list of biographies just won't cut it as far as citations go. Having said that, I doubt many of us would be prepared to go through all the hassle of researching everything again, but we'll see. On the other hand, the entire article does read like it's been copied entirely from a Hendrix website or book, due to the amount of weasel words and POV remarks. If this is true, most of the article is in violation of copyright. We'll just have to see how things go as far as citing the article goes though. But I suggest we immediately remove any additional information added into the article unless it is cited, this will make the whole the citing process much easier! ĤĶ51→Łalk 22:51, 12 December 2006 (UTC) Ok. Here goes. I found a copy of Electric Gypsy at the library, and started filling in references for "Early Life". Sorry it is all the same source, but is better than before. Ok! 20:12, 14 December 2006 (UTC) Just to put this in context - the Pearl Jam article (which I'm much more familiar with) has 89 references, and this one has 14, so that's the scope of the referencing project. I think this article should be tagged as poorly referenced. Kristmace 22:44, 21 September 2007 (UTC) Biography section I don't understand why the section called biography exists. I mean, all it's doing is summarizing jimi hendrix's life and his legacies. That stuff should be or is already mentioned in the lead section. Otherwise it should be distributed else where in the article. I think its unnessesary and should be deleted. After the lead section, the article should go right into the early life section. Justinmeister 21:47, 17 November 2006 (UTC) I totally agree with this, the stuff there at the start of the bio section is completely useless as it has all been mentioned previously in the article. I'm going to go ahead and remove it now, if anyone has any objections, you know what to do. HK51 22:03, 17 November 2006 (UTC) Also, why does it say he is "mistakenly" considered the greatest and most influential guitarist ever? I assume that's some wise-guy trying to be funny. This should be fixed. I think I'm going to fix this, too.Caregirl21789 07:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC) Yeah its a shame someone would say that. Jimi Hendrix's political views "It has been equally difficult for biographers to discern Hendrix's political views because his opinions on social and political topics varied in step with the company that he kept. To a crowd of hippies, Hendrix would speak about social change and against the Vietnam War; in Europe, however, he would rant in disgust to his British friends about witnessing anti-war protesters riot in Paris." This paragraph uses an example that supposedly highlights Hendrix's contradictory political views and chameolonic social nature. However, the two events relayed in the example are not inconsistent with each other. For example, let's say he was against the Vietnam War, and he also spoke against anti-war protesters rioting in Paris. Perhaps he was upset that people protesting against the war could not remain peaceful themselves. I think most would agree that resorting to violence (rioting) in protest of war is hypocritical. My opinion is that, at the very least, the example given to buttress the opening statement does not hold water. 70.152.108.15 16:51, 23 November 2006 (UTC)JustaRandomPasserby This entire statement is sufficiently problematic that I've tagged it with {{fact}} until someone can come up with some attribution or references. +ILike2BeAnonymous 18:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC) Many who have been in the military often have problems defining their true beliefs. They often become mixed or paradoxal. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.178.17.117 (talk) 16:18, 12 January 2007 (UTC). First of all, that's just your opinion, not concrete fact. Second, considering he was only in the Army for a year before getting kicked out, I highly doubt that short amount of time would have a profound effect on his political views. (BvonS 17:12, 19 April 2007 (UTC)) where is the proof that Jimi "ranted about anti war... paris etc.? Eric Burdon possibly? well known for talking complete bollocks about anything that comes to mind ie jimi's "suicide note" and "suicide" etc. etc. Also jimi never made his views on vietnam known in any interviews or otherwise. He did mention it in passing on stage (before playing wild thing), but never to profess support or otherwise directly. the only time he contributed to a directly anti vietnam war benefit was the one where he very crudely insulted a woman in the audience, played only one and a half songs very badly and then left the stage. Then again as a contrast to much unfounded speculation about his Vietnam views, he consistently reffered to his Native American heritage and talked about their plight, well before it became fashionable, possibly bringing the subject to public notice and dedicated his song I don't live today to them on stage. Also let's not forget that Jimi also, as well voicing support for Martin Luther King, consistently from '67 to '70, spoke of his (qualified) support of the Black Panthers on stage and interviews, as friends The Allen twins also attest on film. The Panthers in 68 Seattle made a big impact (look it up!)89.241.204.118 (talk) 01:11, 20 February 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 23:18, 19 February 2008 (UTC) the citation is to listen and read to his many recordings and interviews where he profess' these views, instead of quoting some ridiculous opinions by people who have made no effort to read and listen to "Their masters voice" and only listened to some of his recorded work on an extremely superficial level and repeating uncritically recieved nonsense. Albert Hall Video? I have a 40 minute video I got from torrents of the Experience at albert hall, is this the mentioned dvd not released (yeah 40 mins is short). It seems to have professional editing such as involving shots outside or maybe not relating to the concert (such as an airport). Also effects on the colour, like inverted etc. Hendrix's Other Anthem? - Current Event! UK news via Taipei Times says a dusty 8-track tape from an old tea chest in a recording studio yielded Hendrix playing the Welsh national anthem, Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau, or, Land of My Fathers. Apparently, Hendrix was in London at the time it was recorded, and the studio was recording his friend and their band. The rendition has been described as "ear-rattling" by a UK writer who added, "It does sound rather like him." Note: This is an original synopsis of the story. --Torchpratt 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC)--Torchpratt 12:55, 2 January 2007 (UTC) Anyone know where one can find this? ;D --Perplextrator 11:21, 7 January 2007 (UTC) That's long since been revealed to be a hoax. 75.70.125.3 04:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC) It's too modern sounding to possibly ever have been him. It sounds more like Satriani or Vai than Hendrix. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 21:21, 10 January 2008 (UTC) why did you add this when it's already been stated with ref that it's a hoax, (and a pathetic one at that, where do these morons come from, give us a effin break!) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 01:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Old flame He caught up with Linda Keith, an old flame that he still admired, and gave her a brand new black Fender Stratocaster as a token of his appreciation for her discovery efforts years earlier. Encyclopaedias shouldn't resort to such idioms. What's wrong with "old friend"? 138.243.129.4 22:38, 2 January 2007 (UTC) the jimi hendrix experience article should certainly NOT be merged with this article. jimi was simply a member of the experience, and therefore only part of the band. doing so would be like merging the led zeppelin article with the Robert Pland article! Regardless of the merging of articles. Jimi Hendrix was not 'simply a member of the experience' He was brought over by Chas with the intention of making him a star, All songs and arrangements are by Hendrix a 'singer songwriter' apart from two distinctly underpar numbers by Noel. Nearly all published/broadcast interviews were of Jimi himself . The group was often reffered to as just Jimi Hendrix, to Noel's recorded digust. Just look at the contemporary articles/advertising and the percentage that show only photos of Hendrix. Jameselmo (talk) 15:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Even the very name 'Experience' is ambiguous and can be seen seen as merely a description of his performance. Spurious One Hit Wonder Claim Whilst he may have only had one single in the charts, the success of his albums means he's not a one-hit wonder. This term is usually reserved for acts who have only one single but no albums which chart. By the definition used here, Led Zeppelin were also one-hit wonders.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.27.182 (talk) 16:33, 8 January 2007 Yes I agree. I had been thinking about removing this triviality as well. Thanks for having done so. DVdm 19:24, 8 January 2007 (UTC) Ayone who said Jimi Hendrix is a one hit wonder is wack. Her headlined Woodstock. If you ask an average person on the street they could name five JImi Hendrix songs whereas the Village People probably only one......YMCA HERE HERE!!! exactly true!!! From a UK perspective, Jimi had eleven hit singles and twenty-nine hit albums (according to Edition 18 of British Hit Singles and Albums). Mickraus 18:13, 12 August 2007 (UTC) Hold on folks, Jimi is in a situation like the Dead and Radiohead, an important musician with only one US Top 40 Single. Also Zeppelin is not a one hit wonder: six top 40 songs in America Doc Strange 17:49, 30 September 2007 (UTC) Accuracy of facts If someone could produce a photo of Jimi playing a Gretsch Corvette, it would be news to me, and I've been running gretschpages.com for more than 10 years. If anyone has that photo, please share 216.84.96.34 18:38, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Tim Baxter In Electric gypsy there is a photo of him on UK's Top Of The Pops with this (miming) probably borrowed for the occasion as this is the only evidence of him associated with this guitarJameselmo (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2008 (UTC) This article states that Jimi Hendrix was left handed. I have seen pictures (posted online) of Jimi writting with pen and paper and the pen is in his right hand. I believe he wrote with his right hand and played a right handed guitar upside down, strings reversed, in a left handed style. This should be checked. You are correct. He was a left-handed guitarist, but would write with his right hand. Mickraus 14:47, 25 January 2007 (UTC) Jimi Hendrix was not part Mexican American, he was part Cherokee. He was pride of his Native American heritage; someone please change Mexican to Native American. Jimi Hendrix was Right-handed. Not he could write with his right hand...He preferred to write with his right hand. I always found it strange that they teach you to use your off hand for guitar fingering. Shouldn't your dominant hand be used for tyhe detail work? I have a feeling Jimi saw the obsurdity in this as well. Jimi was lefthanded! Although Jimi played guitar left-handed, he would do a number of other things right-handed, possibly because he was forced to either by his father or by his teachers. Jimi would write lyrics or sign autographs with his right hand and would also hold a desert spoon with his right hand [as can be seen in the Moebius print "Food For Thought", based on Jean Noel Coghe's print entitled "Food"]. When greeting someone with a handshake he would use his right hand (Robert Fripp claimed that Jimi once told him at a party in London, "Shake my left hand man, it's closest to my heart") and when speaking on the phone he would hold the receiver in his right hand. However, Jimi would use his left hand for pitching the ball when playing baseball, for combing his hair and for holding a cigarette. (mark, netherlands) —Preceding unsigned Jimi himself says he was left-handed in a quote from an interview in 'Electric Gypsy' Shapiro & Glebeek page 37, about his first guitar "I didn't know I would have to put the strings round the other way, because I was left handed..." Jameselmo (talk) 22:53, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Jam Sessions There is no mention of the sessions he did with people like B.B.King,Stephen Stills and Al Kooper. These aren't just internet rumors. I have copys of all of these Playing For The End 16:57, 14 January 2007 (UTC) Find some references and put them in. By the way, I hope your writing is better than your spelling ("copys"?). +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:17, 25 January 2007 (UTC) The Cheetah was not on West 21st street until the 1980's (as a "gentlemen's" club). It began life on May 1, 1966 as a renovation of the old Arcadia Ballroom at 53rd & Broadway, which is where Jimi performed. 70.23.13.145 22:35, 4 August 2007 (UTC) Several sources say that Hendrix Was might have been/homosexuel .... BUt he also had girlfriends didnt he? Monica dannemann etc. might he have been bisexuel ??? by the way im not ralking about the army story that he was released and so on...? what do you know... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.165.67.198 (talk) 17:53, 26 September 2007 (UTC) Correct that to say "some totally unfounded gossip" there is no "what do you know" nobody that new hendrix well has ever claimed this, women dripping off him, eat your heart out —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 01:17, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Jimi's Original Name I changed the beginning of the article (since reverted by ILike2BeAnonymous) because within the first six words there is an inaccuracy, viz., "Jimi Hendrix (born James Marshall Hendrix..." Anyone reading what I'd altered it to would have seen I had corrected that inaccuracy: Jimi was registered as Johnny Allen Hendrix by his mother on 7 December 1942, and it wasn't until nearly four years later his father changed it to James Marshall Hendrix. I'm sorry that I have to agree with another contributor who was sceptical of the accuracy of this article. If corrections to inaccuracies are going to be reverted, I can't see how the article will improve. Mickraus 00:55, 28 January 2007 (UTC) I'm don't doubt the veracity of what you say, but a source would probably help the edit not to be reverted. Dravick 02:14, 28 January 2007 (UTC) One source is Jimi Hendrix: Electric Gypsy by Harry Shapiro & Caesar Glebbeek, ISBN 0 434 69523 8. Mickraus 16:42, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Excellent then, with a reference it will almost certainly not be reverted. Dravick 18:51, 28 January 2007 (UTC) Jimis original name is Johnny Allen Marshall. It was changed when Al Hendrix his father took him away from his mother. Jimi owever was called many names for the first few uyears of his life but then Al did not want him to remember his mother according to the biography. Accuracy? I've been trying to read through this article and keep questioning what is fact and what is opinion. It would take a lot of editing to make this into a true encyclopedia entry citing it's contents. I'm wondering how some of this article was approved to begin with. Hasn't anyone gone through and checked where the references came from? I'm new to Wikipedia, so I don't know who is responsible to make sure things like this don't happen. Are we all responsible? Should there be a reference after every line? ie; "He built upon the innovations and influences of blues stylists such as B.B. King, Muddy Waters, Albert King, and Buddy Guy, and derived style from rhythm and blues and soul guitarists Curtis Mayfield, Steve Cropper, and Cornell Dupree, as well as from traditional jazz. Hendrix was also inspired by rock pioneer Little Richard, having toured in Richard's back-up band "The Upsetters" before forming his own rock group in 1966". Who said this? "derived style" seems like an opinion rather than a recognized fact especially in the context in which it was used. Did Jimi say this? I know he was influenced by Curtis Mayfield as is evident in his ballads, but I don't recall him citing Cornell Dupree in any interviews. I wish there was a reference that i could see, because that would be a fact, if it were true (and i don't know for sure), which I would want to retain and possibly pass on to someone else. Are we passing on rumours or opinions of other people we don't even know? Also, this is just one example where opinion and fact are in the same sentence. I don't think I'm a Jimi Hendrix "authority" by any standard, but enough of a fan to be confused when i tried to read this article. I found myself going "hmmm?" for most of it. Analogypsy 20:27, 28 January 2007 (UTC) The phrase "derived style" could be used if someone is educated in music and could make the educated decision that he "derived style" from another player. Indeed, we are all responsible to add references when we add some text. There should be a lot more references in there (but maybe not one for each line, that would be too much). If you think something is dubious, you can add the {dubious} template, which look like . If something definitly needs a ref, you can add {fact}, which look like (to make the templates work, there must be two brackets). And if something is completly wrong, you can just remove it. Dravick 03:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC) OMG does any one here know what they are talking about! Jimi was born Johnny Allen Hendirx on 11/27/42- 9/11/46 Al changed it here in the Seattle court house to James Marshall Hendrix after his uncle who was killed in the war. A name with dignatiy that is what Al said. It was not long after that that Jimi Named him self JIMI William Mitchell was her (lucile's) second husband (married in 1958 just before she died) There was a man in her life named Johnny Williams Hummmm think about that one for a while. Al ofter stated that Jimi was not his son, until the money came of course. Lucille gave birth to Jimi while Al was gone to war. When he came home after many years he wanted to take over as he was a very stong willed man and wanted to be in charge. go to my space and see Lucille funeral last year as she was in a unmarked grave all these (48) years. johnnyallenhendrix/myspace.com Bonnie Fitzgerald —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.61.32.30 (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2007 (UTC) Suggestions 1) RE: the external link to "Photo gallery showing rare pictures inside Jimi's first Marshall JTM-45/100 amp" The 2006 Marshall JTM-45/100 amp costs £3200 (US$6240) (http://reviews.harmony-central.com/reviews/Guitar+Amp/product/Marshall/JTM-45%2F100+Head/10/1) therefore I think it extremely unlikely that Hendrix's first amp was one from this product line, no musician starting out has that much money for equipment (I know from experience!!). I think that possibly whoever put this link up is a bit confused, because when you follow the link it is written "Hendrix's #1 Amp, the 'Dickinson 45/100'", and on the homepage of that site "Uploaded photographs of Jimi Hendrix's favourite Marshall". So I conclude this person need the concepts "#1 (chronologically first)" and "#1 (preference)" disambiguated :) I will edit this after seeing what anyone thinks, i don't want to cause trouble, this page is full of debate anyway. Someome else maybe can do it? Emayoh (talk) 19:57, 27 November 2007 (UTC) 1. That link is no longer valid a.yway and should be removed. The link as is goes to a nealy-spam portal page. 2) Jimi Hendrix is/was part-Cherokee and I think this should be mentioned in the article. The Cherokee Nation article links to Jimi Hendrix. Whoever has the book "Electric Gypsy" by Shapiro can find this fact and cite a source, unfortunately, my copy is in my other house, which is very far away from where I am now. Liquidcentre 16:35, 18 February 2007 (UTC) 1. in response. the product line you mention is one of a copy created from an original amp and the financial aspect of this will be far different to that of today. after much reading from the mentioned owners web site and other references such as univibes magazine (written br Ceaser Glebeek) it would appear to be fact that the amp 7026 is both a favourite and according to evidence the number 1 amp in his chain of amplifiers and the 1st Marshall amp owned by Jimi thus allowing the terminology used. 2. no comment as i am not sure. DNine 23:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)DNine Hendrix is a legend --Swilliams1989 16:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC) Jimi Hendrix was not part Mexican American, he was part Cherokee. He was pride of his Native American heritage; someone please change Mexican to Native American. Translation of a text on scaruffi.com Hi! If English is your first language, and if you think you control the Italian language well enough, then please consider translating this article about Jimi Hendrix, written by (musical) scientist Piero Scaruffi. Your help is greatly appreciated. - Face 10:10, 28 February 2007 (UTC) GA Status I noticed that this article is a former Featured Article Candidate. Just as a pointer, this article should be nominated for Good Article status, and that will be one step towards making it featured. It will probably offer strong points of where to improve. -- Reaper X 21:58, 4 March 2007 (UTC) Unfortunately as with many other musician entries this article screams PoV and is in general uncritical against Hendrix' accomplishments. It is _not_ fitting for an encyclopedia to talk about the 'profound sense of melody' of Hendrix as if there is some kind of objective standard of melodious quality. Who the hell wrote the whole 'Jimi Hendrix Experience' part and onwards actually? - since it reads much like a biography of Hendrix on his fansite or so, elevating him to a musical hero, pitted against people like Noel Redding and the English public. Noel Redding should be glad he hasn't been crucified by the public for his role against Hendrix if this entry is to be believed. A total rewrite should be done imo, and let someone understand that while music is very much subjective, it can be written about objectively. 217.123.72.213 00:36, 8 March 2007 (UTC) Inaccurate gravesite Jimi's gravesite is in Renton, not Seattle. Both are mentioned in the article. It should be changed, but I don't know how to do that... 134.39.100.71 21:03, 9 March 2007 (UTC)KMS Guitar tuning The last sentence of the first paragraph describing Axis Bold As Love is incorrect. Come on (let the good times roll) is in E, not Eb. Someone fix that or delete this thing I put up here. 12.201.72.38 08:28, 11 March 2007 (UTC) We are talking about the greatest guitar playing history. The fact that one song is E does not automatically make his guitar tuning standard. It is common knowledge that Hendrix and Stevfie Ray Vaughn both used an Eb tuning. Beside let the good times roll is an Earl King cover which would be another reason why it is written in E. Miles Davis I added the line in the legacy section about Hendrix's influence on Miles. This is common knowledge.SmokeyTheCat 14:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC) Still it should be sourced. I have rephrased the stuff with a source (I could not find a source stating Hendrix as main influence on Davis'electric Jazz; "only" source for his admiration of Hendrix.)--HJensen, talk 21:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC) The best source for Hendrix's influence on Miles Davis is Davis himself -- he writes about it extensively in Miles Davis: The Autobiography. Miles claims that he was on his way to London for rehearsals with Hendrix and that he was planning to record an album with Hendrix. Psychlist Psychlist —Preceding comment was added at 16:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC) Image Dear dedicated Wikipedians, Am I the only one who prefers the image previously in the article to the one currently in the article? I sure hope not that'd be icky ^_^. If it's not too terribly much trouble, does someone who can edit the article and who agrees want to change it back? That'd be great, thanks! <3 152.3.46.147 11:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC) You mean the black and white one of him smoking? if so, yeah, I liked that a bit more. But this is fine ; doesn't make all that much difference, honestly. 12.107.247.29 07:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC) Electric Vodka I know that someone came out with a brand of vodka called Hendrix Electric Vodka. My understanding is that his family was upset about it, but I don't no about any legal conflict nor do I know what company released the vodka. Can anyone elaborate? ufossuck 01:41, 7 April 2007 (UTC) check this out. i think the family sued http://www.jimihendrix.com/news/news,legal_vodka.html "His Family" consists solely of Al hendrix's Japanese-American adopted daughter nee "Janie Jinka" who met Jimi at a very early age, three times very briefly in his lifetime and a cousin Bob Hendrix, who played with Jimi as a young boy. Hendrix' immediate and extended blood family who he grew up with get nothing - his brother Leon and his family only recieving one gold record (basically an ornamental keepsake) and the people who brought Jimi up and looked after him get zip. A bit hypocritical when you consider Janie & co were selling hendrix brand red wine, as this was the very thing that jimi choked to death on according to Dr. Bannister the doctor who first attended to hendrix at the hospital. Jimi & ELP Adding this? Jimi Hendrix was considering joining the group ELP; the British press, after hearing about this, speculated that such a supergroup would have been called "Hendrix, Emerson, Lake & Palmer", or HELP. Before settling on Carl Palmer, they approached Mitch Mitchell of the Jimi Hendrix Experience; Mitchell was uninterested but passed the idea to Jimi Hendrix. Hendrix, tired of his band and wanting to try something different, expressed an interest in playing with the group. Due to scheduling conflicts such plans were not immediately realized, but the initial three planned on a jam session with Hendrix after their debut at the Isle of Wight Festival, with the possibility of him joining. Hendrix died shortly thereafter, so the three pressed on as Emerson, Lake and Palmer. Greg Lake made this comment on ELP's discussions with Hendrix: "Yeah, that story is indeed true, to some degree...Mitch Mitchell had told Jimi about us and he said he wanted to explore the idea. Even after Mitch was long out of the picture and we had already settled on Carl, talk about working with Jimi continued. We were supposed to get together and jam with him around August or September of 1970, but he died before we could put it together." --81.208.74.184 16:37, 10 April 2007 (UTC) I've heard of that too. Ultimately, it needs a reliable source, but if I find one I'll enter it.-h i s s p a c e r e s e a r c h 10:23, 30 June 2007 (UTC) The only source is this extremely post hendrix, uncorroberated assertion (fantasy?) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.241.204.118 (talk) 01:23, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Harlem thugs What evidence is there that his guitar was stolen by Harlem thugs? Was it proven that the thieves were from Harlem? What makes thugs from Harlem worthy of a description, assuming these thugs were not from Minneapolis or White Plains? Is it because they are from Harlem? The implication is that they are black, I believe. Under the "Fender Stratocaster" section it states that Jimi Hendrix was left handed, and in the trivia section it states that he was actually right handed and that he only played left handed. Does any one know which is correct? --Gregasaurous 05:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC) Hendrix was left handed, but due to the availability of only right handed guitars at the time, played a right handed guitar upside down, essentially left handed. It is intersting to note that shortly before his death, friend Eric Clapton purchased a real left handed guitar for him, yet was unable to present him with it, hearing of Hendrix's death a few days before he was due to meet him. :PriceyCabbage|PriceyCabbage]] 22:02, 17 October 2007 With the infobox's picture... Can we get a caption on this? Such as when and were this picture of him was taken? Thanks. --ASDFGHJKL=Greatest Person Ever+Coolest Person Ever 00:50, 26 April 2007 (UTC) caption added now —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 01:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Voodoo Child? Surely Voodoo Child is supposed to be Voodoo Chile. The1after909 08:32, 30 April 2007 (UTC) Both tracks appear on Electric Ladyland: Voodoo Chile Voodoo Child (Slight Return) DVdm 08:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC) UK Ladyland Cover Please provide the original UK Ladyland cover instead of the abortive wussy US cover.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.213.93.202 (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2007 What? I represent that comment. I have the original Electric Ladyland US album, and it's fine. What's with you Limeys? +ILike2BeAnonymous 00:25, 9 May 2007 (UTC) Hendrix never agreed to that album cover in the first place so why should it be here? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hardrockallahhuakbar (talk • contribs) 20:29, 1 November 2007 (UTC) He never agreed to choking on his own vomit either. Perhaps we shouldn't put that in?--Egghead06 07:33, 2 November 2007 (UTC) The cover design that he wanted as he wrote clearly and also painstakingly illustrated in his letter to Reprise, was Linda Eastman's photo with the children in Central Park, which was ignored. and the red and yellow blurred blob of his head for some unknown reason was used. So neither were what he wanted, though he obviously took particular dislike to the UK cover as his comments on it show. Nevertheless the UK cover is the cultural icon that people are willing to pay very large sums to own, not Mr Blobby.Jameselmo (talk) 22:16, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Experience Music Project Some Hendrix fan should write about Seattle's EMP permanent Hendrix exhibit, certainly the world's most complete Hendrix collection.PedEye1 21:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC) protection tag? Yet another indefinitely sprotected article with no protection tag--69.118.235.97 22:51, 24 May 2007 (UTC) I will post the {{pp-semi-protected|small=yes}} tag. if this is the wrong tag, can somebody infrom me or just change it? —Gaff ταλκ 23:00, 24 May 2007 (UTC) Paratrooping release "He was given an early release from military service in Fort Campbell, Kentucky for "behavioral problems",[4] though rumors held that he faked homosexuality or was given a medical release for breaking his ankle while parachuting." This needs to be fixed. You can go directly to the Jimi Hendrix website [1] and it states why he was discharged. "In 1961, Jimmy left home to enlist in the United States Army and in November 1962 earned the right to wear the "Screaming Eagles" patch for the paratroop division. While stationed at Fort Campbell, Kentucky, Jimmy formed The King Casuals with bassist Billy Cox. After being discharged due to an injury he received during a parachute jump" --68.55.48.8 00:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC) There's much speculation that those facts from the website are untrue. --- My IP Address A portion of Hendrix's military record dealing with his discharge is available online.[2] It includes statements from his commanding officers and fellow soldiers indicating that the reason for his discharge was poor performance and lack of respect for military regulations. There is no mention at all of homosexuality. Since these documents are a primary reference, I've removed the bit about "thoughts of homosexuality", and changed it to reflect what is found in his military record. —PHaze 03:56, 28 September 2007 (UTC) The available records clearly show he was discharged due to his general unsuitability as described, and thefore it should be pointed out that the Charles Cross statement has no merit as he has never provided any reliable source for his assertion. Jameselmo (talk) 22:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Jimi Hendrix did fake being homosexual to get out of the army because they would not let him play his guitar as much as he wanted to. I am not surprised that the records previously discussed do not have the homosexuality rumor on them because of the times. This is the 1960s we are talking about. No one ever said they were homosexual even if they were faking it because they would be shunned. by the way, I am straight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 18:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC) your sexuality is not the question, how you come by this information is. Fair use rationale for Image:AreyouexpUK.jpg Image:AreyouexpUK.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC) Fair use rationale for Image:SmashHits.jpg Image:SmashHits.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use. Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page. If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 05:34, 6 June 2007 (UTC) Hendrix DID NOT play with James Brown In the trivia section (the same entry that erroneously states that Hendrix was not left-handed) also states that he played right-handed with James Brown. Jimi Hendrix NEVER played with James Brown. I am well versed in the history of Hendrix and James Brown, and can tell you that Hendrix playing with Brown is a myth! Hence this piece of "trivia" has never made it into any Hendrix biography of any repute...In fact in Charles Shaar Murray's Crosstown Traffic, he writes that "if" Hendrix had played with Brown that Jimi would have lasted five minutes. Maximum. (p167) According to Charles Cross's biography of Jimi Hendrix, he DID play with James Brown but was kicked because he didn't blend in with the band and was stealing the spotlight from James Brown. James even said "YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO BE PRETTY! I'M THE ONLY ONE ALLOWED TO BE PRETTY!" when Hendrix wore a hat or something. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supuhfanng (talk • contribs) 00:22, 5 February 2008 (UTC) that was little richard —Preceding unsigned comment added by A plague of rainbows (talk • contribs) 20:10, 14 March 2008 (UTC) This article can do so much better Lots of POV fancruft bullshit needs to go. Non-free images without fair use rationale, when public domain should be readily availabe...Let's clean this mother up and get a Good Article status...—Gaff ταλκ 08:22, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Coltrane Hendrix strove to combine what he called "earth", a blues, jazz, or funk driven rhythm accompaniment, with "space", the high-pitched psychedelic sounds created by his guitar improvisations. This sounds almost identical to what Coltrane was trying to do. —Viriditas | Talk 02:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC) This sounds like an direct quote of an authors opinion and should be removed as it is unverifiable, and also plagiarism at that89.241.204.118 (talk) 01:33, 20 February 2008 (UTC). The only accurate reference to this I can think of is Jimi himself at his nadir at the Madison Square debacle "That's what happens when Earth fucks with Space" Jameselmo (talk) 22:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Again, tag it with {{fact}} as I explained in my comments below. That's a very useful function for editors here, as a "reality check" on what other editors have put in here. +ILike2BeAnonymous ([[User talk:ILike2BeAnonymous|talk]]) 22:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC) How about just getting rid of all this unverifiable unwarranted trivial nonsense, and treating hendrix as the major musician he was, on the plane of louis armstrong, duke ellington, miles davis etc. now that would be a reality check (miles thought so anyway) External Link Request I would like to request the following link be added under the External Links section on the article page: Jimi Hendrix discography at Discogs The information available through that site is significant and relevant. Any information that is deemed inaccurate can be updated by anyone. Thank you Here we go again (left-handed issues) Someone who is able to edit should change this line from the article, because it is misleading. Right now, the article says: Another remarkable fact about Hendrix is that he was left-handed, yet used right-handed Stratocasters, playing them upside-down. Okay, that's half correct and yet still completley wrong. He did play a right handed guitar upside-down, but he also moved the tuning pegs to the opposite side of the headstock and strung the guitar backwards, so, essentially, Hendrix was simply turning a right-handed guitar into a left-handed one. People get confused on this and think he was playing the guitar "backwards" with the order of the strings reversed, but he wasn't. the bit about his gravestone says that the strat depicted was a right handed one even though he played left-handed. should they have had a depiction of a right-handed guitar with the tuning pegs displaced? more importantly, what should the article say?backstabb 22:11, 22 September 2007 (UTC) ^^ You are wrong about him switching the tuning pegs to the opposite side of the headstock ... there is no photographic evidence of this whatsoever ... however, Jimi was known to remove the nut and reverse it's direction to allow him to play "right side up" on his flipped guitars ... similarly, he relocated the strap button from the top horn to the bottom horn on his stratocasters for the obvious utility of being able to stand & play onstage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.166.66.2 (talk) 16:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC) I recently wrote on the Early Years article's talk page "Jimi played a right-hand guitar, but restrung (lower E at the top). I read that he liked playing a right-hand Strat because he then had the knobs and whammy above the strings, which he felt more natural. Also, by restringing, he unintentionally (according to manufatures of Strats) created a unique sound as the pick-ups were asymemetrically built. I.e., the part intented to pick the high E now picked up a low E and vice versa. I'll check for the source". I'll be looking :-) --HJensen, talk 08:14, 23 September 2007 (UTC) "the part intented to pick the high E now picked up a low E and vice versa." it has to do with the slant of the bridge pickup - the strat was designed with the end of the pickup under the treble strings closer to the bridge so the high e would have a sharp piercing sound, with a mellower sound on the bass strings. hendrix's restringing reversed that Here is, for the record, a reference for the importance of the restringing and the Stratocaster pickups for the "Hendrix sound": Seven Fender Stratocaster Models That Pay Tribute to Jimi Hendrix. --HJensen, talk 12:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC) Hendrix played a right handed strat - so what! so do many other famous & not so famous players, Otis Rush even plays with the strings upside down, move on, jeez! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 01:39, 11 February 2008 (UTC) What do you mean by "move one, jeez!? This is the place of discussing big and small things. And apparently some had not "moved on", and so others try to explain as best they can what the issues are. And some even provided a citation. :-) --HJensen, talk 07:16, 11 February 2008 (UTC) It is well established that playing a guitar any way you fancy is not the point, as Jimi himself pointedly said "I play the guitar with my ears" Hendrix is continually discussed as if he were just a guitarist, or, at a push, possibly a guitarist singer/songwriter, when he was so much more, to many other musicians at the time and now. A bandleader (The Blue Flame/Rainflowers; Jimi Hendrix Experience; Gypsy Sun And Rainbows, Band Of Gypsys; Jimi Hendrix Experience [II]) producer, sound engineer, studio owner involved very much in it's design and outcome, an artist in his whole performance concept (painted guitars and sacrifice of said, costume/image, and his many drawings - including an illustrated design/layout of ELL LP, an artist that was also very much aware and involved in the business side, (read my transcript of his note to Mike Jefferey) had ambitions of making films, as his screenplay "Moondust" testifies. The whole reason of his popularity cannot possibly be just his guitar playing - an adolescent, male, 60's, fantasy creation. There are not enough of these to explain his No.1 LP Electric Ladyland and the presense of Are You Experienced in the USA charts for 106 weeks —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 02:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC) A project for me I'm gonna re-write this article on my userpage. I'll find rferences for the stuff I can, delete what I can't. Give me a week, and you'll have a clean article. I promise. -Violask81976 22:08, 25 July 2007 (UTC) Amps The Marshall Amps that define Jimi's early sound (Are You Experienced and early singles Hey Joe, Fire and The Wind Cries Mary)were Marshall JTM-45/100 or "Super 100" (also known as JTM-100). Like Eric Clapton's 100 Watt Marshalls with Cream until April 1968, these had four KT-66 power valves and an aluminium chassis. Purple Haze was recorded with an Arbiter FuzzFace plugged directly into the (all tube) PA. During Axis sessions, Hendrix had switched to SoundCity amps (the Hiwatt precursor) with EL34 power tubes, and for Electric Ladyland, to Hiwatt. Later Marshall amps Hendrix used will have had EL34 power tubes (used by Marshall from 1967 onwards). It is sometimes claimed that Hendrix had these replaced by 6550 power tubes, but that is to be verified. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Who's_influence_on_sound Herringgull2 14:47, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Proto metal In the documentary Metal: A headbanger's journey Jimi is listed under proto-metal, and I agree. Let's face it some solos are pretty metal, and even a few heavy riffs. Just listen to Dimebag play Little wing, sounds pretty metal. Anyway I'm not saying he was metal, just that he influenced it's development (through technique and effects) and played early versions of it. So I think we should also add the proto-metal label. --Mudel 17:13, 5 August 2007 (UTC) It seems to me a bit silly to add a tag for a music genre because an artist was an inspiration musicians who developed another genre. Y'know, hendrix also did a lot of heroin and used a lot of effects pedals to make "dreamy soundscapes" in some of his music, so maybe we should call him "proto-shoegaze" also. There's no doubt Hendrix influenced nearly every guitarist who followed him no matter the genre, but it seems a bit much to go back and label his music as "proto" anything. ROG 19 20:13, 11 October 2007 (UTC) YES HENDRIX IS PROTO METAL!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.99.224.80 (talk) 23:06, 11 October 2007 (UTC) Guitar Legacy Jimi Hendrix also frequently used a set of '9's (regular light-gauge strings) on his guitar, but then substituted the bottom E and A strings from a heavier set, such as the E and A from a set of '10's, thereby enhancing the sound of his 'soloing on top, rythm on the bottom' playing. Interesting. Citation? +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:17, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Kidnapping The citation for the bizarre kidnapping segment is a broken link. 74.77.208.52 20:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC) Then replace it with {{fact|date=[date]}} (which generates ). +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC) it is mentioned in the henderson book iirc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Hendrix DID play Funk-Rock and Jam It is no myth, nor is it the fact that Hendrix was JUST an influence on Funk-Rock, but Hendrix DID do Funk-Rock, you may have noticed someone putting Funk-Rock and Jam band into his musical genres list, and that was me before i made this account. Any doubters on this theory need to actually go on to the "Funk-Rock" page and see for themselves. It clearly says that songs like "Little Miss Lover", "Power of Soul", "Izabella", "Freedom" and "Straight Ahead" had Funky Riffs and funky basslines combined with his typical Rock sound, thus he is Funk-Rock and not just a influence to Funk-Rock bands of today. Also I believe that Hendrix also did Jam band, or "Jam". This style simply features musical improvisations and usually this style is used in genres such as Folk-Rock, Funk-Rock, Blues-Rock, Jazz Fusion, Psychedelic Rock, Rock 'n' Roll and Southern Rock. Now Jimi and The Jimi Hendrix Experience usually had musical improvisations in there music and thats the truth, and the truth is also that they covered those genres just listed except for Folk-Rock, Jazz Fusion and Southern Rock. So therefore Funk-Rock and Jam should firmly stay within his list of genres and shouldn't be removed, his and his bands name pop up in both of the genres threads here on Wikipedia so I hope it doesn't get removed AGAIN. One last thing he did play with James Brown, there was split second footage of them together playing on the mini-series called "Seven ages of Rock" that aired a few months back, this is true because the first episode was all about Jimi and his development of Pyschadelic Rock.TomKing1980 19:34, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Genres There seems to be much contention about genres. I feel Psychedelic soul is a genre that should be mentioned on Hendrix's page. For example, if he warrants a mention in the genre description on All Music Guide, see All Music Guide's Psychedelic Soul entry, then I think his contribution to that genre should not be overlooked. Mickraus 13:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I was expecting some intelligent discussion on this, rather than repeated undos by Asams10. Mickraus 13:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC) ...of course, I was expecting to be free from a personal attack.--Asams10 14:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I was expecting some intelligent discussion which I'm still not finding here. Did you even visit AMG's overview of the genre? And you've not explained your assertions about the genre. And you've reverted yet again. Mickraus 14:45, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I looked at it, and all I can say is that I'm skeptical as to the "reliability" of that source. What can you tell us about "allmusic.com" that would persuade us to trust it? +ILike2BeAnonymous 19:07, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I offer it merely for discussion, but I felt the article had credibility because if the mention of Sly and the Family Stone. Sly Stone and Jimi had mutual respect and enjoyed each other's music. The mention of Curtis Mayfield and the Isley Brothers also gave it credence in my view: they were artists Jimi played with before he was famous; therefore, the assertion that Jimi was a catalyst for that genre made sense. That's my rationale for adding it as one of the main genres on Jimi's page. Mickraus 19:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I'm just not seeing the "soul" connection. Psychedelic, sure, but as soul music is almost always considered the music of Motown, Stax/Volt, etc., as a genre closely allied to R&B, I don't think that genre fits Hendrix very well. +ILike2BeAnonymous 20:14, 10 September 2007 (UTC) electric ladyland, title track. but the whole genre thing is stupid and reductivist and needs to go away —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:41, 6 November 2007 (UTC) Well, you have a point. But as the article correctly points out, Hendrix cut his teeth on the R&B circuit. Hendrix did regard Motown as "pseudo-Soul". Perhaps he was more an influence on the Psychedelic Soul genre than he was a participant. Mickraus 20:24, 10 September 2007 (UTC) You're attempting to debate without any weapons. I've given my arguments. We either limit it to major genres or we list them all. How many musical Genres are there? He played them all at one time or another. Ask Jimi what he played and you'd say he played his own Genre, he was his own person. Don't patronize me. Don't try to say you know what music he played.--Asams10 16:35, 10 September 2007 (UTC) I didn't realise debate was so confrontational that I needed "weapons." Whose definition of major genres shall we use? Hold on, you say Jimi played his own type of music, in which case scrap all the Genres listed in his entry. Why can't I say what type of music he played? I'm just as entitled as you are, or anyone else. Mickraus 18:31, 10 September 2007 (UTC) Jimi himself said there were two kinds of music - Good and Bad, all this stuff is so much chit-chat, take "blues" for instance, all of the artists designated as such played many different styles of music then popular in the African American (USA) community, for "blues" read African American pop music ie "Race music" later termed "Rhythm & Blues" (due to the business community's new found sensitivity to criticism about overt racism) for the commercial charts. As opposed to the "White???" "majority???" community charts ie "Pop music" who decides what's what - business that's it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 21:27, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Can someone get rid of the protection on his page? I wish to list Funk-Rock and Jam into his genres, im the same guy who has been putting them in recently, I put forth reasons as to why he did play both genres, I stated how his and his bands name popped up in both of the genres pages and its simply the truth anyway. I have no trouble believing that the dispute over what genres he does was the reason it was protected in the first place but im simply putting them in because its the truth, and whoever is removing it everytime simply hasn't heard all his stuff. TomKing1980 18:21, 12 September 2007 (UTC) If you try to add those genres, they will be removed, as they're incorrect. I refer you to the discussion just above. Hendrix was not a funk artist, and "jam" is something that came much later. +ILike2BeAnonymous 01:28, 13 September 2007 (UTC) Im sorry but you cant base it on your opinion, first off I know a hell of a alot about music genres in general and much of his later work such as on his unfinished album were Funk-Rock, note how I wasn't saying Funk as the genre, but the genre which fusioned Funk and Rock together. The genre Funk-Rock usually incorperates Funky drums and basslines with a typical hard rock sound, which is what Jimi Hendrix did, go on the Funk-Rock page and see for yourself, hes one of the first artists to pop up on the page, saying how some of his work are the earliest examples, because that is true, songs like "Little Miss Lover" and "Freedom" are Funk-Rock. Hendrix was also Jam as it simply means how an artist/band uses musical improvisations in their songs or, most usually, live performances, and its no myth that The Jimi Hendrix Experience did heavy and obvious improvisations in their shows. Ive put forth logical reasons, ive stated the obvious, why is Blues-Rock there when the only real Blues orientated song hes done is Red House and thats no lie, hes done far more Funk orientated songs. I am right on this TomKing1980 19:27, 13 September 2007 (UTC) I any case, there shouldn't be too many styles in an infobox. I would be perfectly happy with just "Rock" and "Blues" (the "Acid Rock" and "Phsycedelic Rock" is definitely one too many). "Funk Rock" strikes me as odd (marginal for Hendrix at best). And "Jam" is not a musical genre imo. It is just a characterization how a band performs their given genre.--HJensen, talk 22:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC) Not even close to right about Hendrix and the blues. The album "Jimi Blues" should be adequate evidence that Hendrix played more blues than simply "Red House." You seem to be a fan of the later-period Hendrix, so "Earth Blues," or "Hear My Train-A-Comin'" they don't sound like blues to you? Additionally, much of Jimi's jamming style was heavily rooted in blues.ROG 19 20:39, 17 October 2007 (UTC) 27 Club What is the objection to the 27 Club? A two-sentence mention of it in the middle of the article is taboo? It's encyclopedic enough to have an article, and this is easily the most obvious place to link there. I was having a conversation where the 27 club came up, I wanted to look it up on Wikipedia but didn't know what it might be called, so I tried the most famous member, Jimi Hendrix. There was no mention of it here, so I tried Morrison, where I found the link, in the lead. I don't have a problem with not putting the link in the lead, but there should be a link somewhere, like in the "Death" section. The link is useful, it's not intrusive, what is the problem? eae 07:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC) I don't fell that the 27 club article is particularly encyclopedic. There's no particular reason to add in a bunch of superstition to this article, even if it only is a paragraph. ➪HiDrNick! 08:05, 20 September 2007 (UTC) I removed it from the lead a few days ago, as it clearly did not belong there. As to whether it is notable enough to be in the Death section, I am in doubt. Sure, it is superstition, but on the other hand it is well-known concept in popular culture, so a half line (or a footnote with a source) could not hurt in my opinion.--HJensen, talk 08:22, 20 September 2007 (UTC) Hendrix's birth name Jimi Hendrix's birth name was James Marshall Hendrix not Johnny Allen Hendrix! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.215.197.36 (talk) 21:47, 23 September 2007 (UTC) No it was not. It was Johnny Allen Hendrix.--HJensen, talk 21:51, 23 September 2007 (UTC) He was registered as Johnny Allen Hendrix by his mother on 7 December 1942, his father Al changed it to James Marshall Hendrix on 11 September 1946, when Jimi was three years old. -- Mickraus 21:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC) Jimi Hendrix - Rainbow Bridge I've read he entry on Jimi Hendrix, and nowhere is there any menion of Rainbow Bridge. Certainly someone out there an rectify this oversight...:) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.158.234.145 (talk) 13:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC) James "Al" Hendrix Hi, The article on James Al Hendrix is a shocker. Someone who knows what's what should probably give it a once-over. --Slashme 09:42, 8 October 2007 (UTC) jimi hendrix memorials in seattle In addition to the already mentioned memorials, there is another in Seattle. at the woodland park zoo, they have a huge rock that you can stand on to get a better view of the lions. It has a plaque that says that it is jimi hendrix's rock. It is pretty cool when you check it out, and people who are visiting Seattle wishing to see his grave and memorials might like to see this as well. also, it's a cool zoo. 72.223.102.107 03:04, 13 October 2007 (UTC) Stratocaster It's tough to know where to begin, but most of what is writtn here about Strats and Hendrix is nonsense. For instance: Strats aren't easier to play than other guitars; lots of people find them more difficult because the longer scale length. Hendrix switched from rosewood to maple neck Strats because Fender stopped making rosewood, not because of some artistic reason or inspiration from the change in headstock design -- he needed a continuous supply of guitars because he destroyed so much equipment, so he took what ever Fender was making at the time. The business about his having such big hands that he could fret with his thumb as well his fingers is nonsense; almost anybody can do this and many people do; it doesn't take particularly big hands. The thing that's unusual is that he did it so extensively. And on and on. This section needs a total re-write. Psychlist 16:24, 17 October 2007 (UTC)Psychlist Be WP:BOLD and do it! You seem to know what you talk about, so please add to the article. Please find good sources along the way. Happy editing! --HJensen, talk 18:47, 17 October 2007 (UTC) talk People with smaller hands can't fit their hands around enough to fret the strings with the thumb. Also it would make sense for Jimi to switch to maple since he used very light gauge strings (Thus brightening his sound.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supuhfanng (talk • contribs) 00:25, 5 February 2008 (UTC) what has the colour of the wood got to do with it! the "lightening" "brightening" "darkening" more like "floating away into a cloud of nonsense" it would make sense to stop talking ****Jameselmo (talk) 21:32, 25 February 2008 (UTC) No-one invented feedback "Also Hendrix didn't come up with feedback, Lennon did." One cannot invent a physical phenomena. Saying that one person did so is ignorant. Perhaps one person is well-known for using the feedback of an eletric guitar and its amplifier to musical effect.... but that does not mean they invented feedback. Feedback has been around for as long as there has been coupling between a system's input and its output, whether that be an electro-acoustic system, a biological one, an economical one, or otherwise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dc197 (talk • contribs) 02:30, 27 October 2007 (UTC) I didn't bother check for how long this sub section has been around, but for at least a month, the lead of the main article has been stating: "Jimi Hendrix helped pioneer the technique of guitar feedback with overdriven amplifiers, incorporating into his music what was previously an undesirable sound." Nothing about him "inventing" feedback. So let's focus discussions on what is in the article, not what is not or has been.--HJensen, talk 11:11, 27 October 2007 (UTC) Feedback has always been there as an unwanted noise, and Hendrix may have helped develop the use of feedback, as an integral part of a playing style, but it is a fact that the use of it on record in this way was preceded (pioneered) by: John Lennon (I Feel Fine); Pete Townsend of The Who (Anyway, Anyhow, Anywhere etc.) and Jeff Beck etc. All English guitarists. [I'm not English by the way]Jameselmo (talk) 21:27, 3 February 2008 (UTC) New York musician add him to the new york musicians list as ny was his US base his whole career. not just nyc he spent time upstate writing and recording too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.125.110.223 (talk) 18:30, 6 November 2007 (UTC) There's no denying it was his favourite spot, from winter of 1963/64 until his death, apart from roughly a year in the UK, and a bit of time on West Coast, he lived and worked out of NYC, even when he rented the house up in Boiceville he still spent a good part of his time in NYC.Jameselmo (talk) 21:25, 3 February 2008 (UTC) I am tired of Pete Fucking Townshend... what do you mean he "influenced" Hendrix.... they have nothing in fucking common and that pete thinks he's jesus —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simonhoyos (talk • contribs) 02:43, 14 November 2007 (UTC) How about: Marshall stack? Feedback? stage act? ring a bell?Jameselmo (talk) 21:18, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Category overload Have you noticed how long the category listing has gotten on this page? Thirty-three of them. That's the first problem. Second, and more importantly, over a third of them are maintenance categories. Most of these have very long names, stretching the list out very long. On top of that, the maintenance cats appear first on the list. Can someone find citations for these tags, or remove the passages? Failing that, can we change or remove the dates on these tags? Or something? Help! -Freekee 03:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC) I thought this was a discussion page? are you wanting to limit discussion, are you paying for it, are you even discussing pertinent topics with your NEW CATEGORY THAT MAKES THIRTY-FOUR now by your own reckoning, nobody seems to want to discuss, just start their own ???Jameselmo (talk) 21:38, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Early life article merge I have merged all of the information, verbatim, from the article Early life of Jimi Hendrix. Most of the information is uncited, so it can be either cited or removed eventually. Ckessler (talk) 01:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC) I have just discovered that this section is more ore less a ripp off of pages 10-12 of the book "The Essential Jimi Hendrix"; see here. It has changed a bit over the recent months, but it is misuse of copyrighted material. We need to remove it, or very quickly rewrite it. I think this has top priority! --HJensen, talk 23:09, 13 February 2008 (UTC) Jimi Hendrix Clothing Series Altamont Apparel, a skateboard based brand from STI Labs (Sole Technology Institute), made a line of jeans, shirts, and jackets that were either inspired by Jimi or actual artwork Jimi's family gave to Altamont. These include the shirts "Voodoo Child" which depicts Jimi Hendrix's portrait and several pieces of either his writing or someone elses writing, the shirt and jacket, both called "Bride" which has a hand-drawn sketch of a woman with stars falling down from the shoulders of the shirt, the shirt "Stone Free" which has an abstract drawing of Hendrix's, the shirt "Crosstown Traffic" which also has an abstract drawing of Hendrix's, the jacket "Fire" which, again, has an abstract drawing of Hendrix's on the back, a shirt called "Rooster" with a hand-drawn rooster on the front, a shirt and jacket called "Wailer" which has a tie-dye pattern known as the V shape along with the Altamont Apparel logo on the front, and two jeans which are purple and blue. All were sold in Altamont's Fall 2007 line along with the rest of their line. All were reproduced with the expressed permission of Jimi's family. Sumthingelse (talk) 01:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC) And your point is ... ? You're not selling this stuff, are you? +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Josh Allain should be blocked The editor Josh Allain should be blocked for his incessant addition of inappropriate genres (heavy metal, etc.) to the article, genres that he must know are totally wrong, disputed and opposed by virtually every other editor here. I think this block should be punitive in nature, to get it through this person's thick skull that it's not OK to keep up this annoying behavior. (Oddly enough, Allain seems to contribute helpful edits in addition to this repeated depredations, but that doesn't make up for it or make it OK.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 20:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC) Is it any better? (re:recent edits by Jameselmo) From January 26 to today there has been an ongoing series of edits done to this article and, comparing the two, it appears that some were not for the better. The article was not in very good shape (it has always been a struggle to get this one right) and looking at it now... it seems, in spots to be a lot worse. The problems are driven home right from the lead-in. Why does this article now have a lead-in that's longer then some other highly notable guitarist's entire articles? A good lead-in should be 2 or 3 brief paragraphs giving a general overview of the article subject. This one goes one forever. And the poor writing style that flows through the lead... flows right on down through the rest of the article now. Can it somehow be resurrected. This article, at one time was WAY too long and someone took the time and effort to clean it up. NOw it'll have to be done all over again. 156.34.220.142 (talk) 02:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I agree completely. A lot of non-sourced or very poorly sourced POV edits have been added lately, it becomes a mess to clean up! --HJensen, talk 06:19, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I agree as well, and found that the solution was exceedingly simple: undo all of Jameselmo's recent edits. Interesting that he or she hasn't written one single word here, despite massively disruptive edits to the article. So please feel free to do as I did with confidence that you're doing the right thing (at least in the short term until this "weekend music historian" gets bored and moves on elsewhere). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 07:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC) I would agree but now all the cleanup has been rudely reverted without discussion and the bloated lead-in has returned. The Jimi Hendrix Experience has its own article and does not need to be detailed here. Way too much "snuff n fluff". Too many uncited adjectives and OR. Someone revert it back. And any further changes should be discussed here first. 156.34.220.142 (talk) 12:25, 1 February 2008 (UTC) The entire article seem to be duplicated at the bottom? 156.34.220.142 (talk) 12:27, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Okay, I did a major restore all the way back to the 26th of Jan. I don't think it would be a good idea to leave the article with any of the said users' contributions in it as many of them are suspect. Apologies if any decent contribs were reverted in the restore. I think it's best to assume damage limitation at this point. I'll leave a note on the user's talk page reminding him/her to use the discussion page to discuss major changes. ScarianCall me Pat 12:44, 1 February 2008 (UTC) The lead I'd like to point out to the editor who is the subject of this discussion (Jameselmo) that while some of your work is appreciated, your massive unilateral edits to the lead are definitely not. They resulted in making the introduction far too bloated, with much historical material that belongs elsewhere in the article. Please don't do this again; the lead has been worked over and refined, with much painful editing to show for it (check the article history if you're interested). +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 22:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC) All very well, but if there is much historical material that belongs elsewhere why not move it instead of deleting it? Hey, I'm not an experienced editor, but I know my subject and there are some glaring and fundamental errors here that need something done urgently, this nonsense is being broadcast round the world, style over content as ever.Jameselmo (talk) 00:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Most of my "bloated" (This comment is a cheek anyway considering the amount of duplication, unreferenced innacuracy, worthless gossip and posturing throughout the previous article) revision (not knowing how this thing works), was I had hoped (naively) in the form of information that would be mostly deleted, explaining the reasons why this intro needed to be changed. Anyway the only fundamental additions I want to make to the intro are for accuracies sake to add "bandleader" & "record producer" to the list of his talents, insert "internationally" in place of "in England" (which in any case is misleading, as the measure of his popularity covered the whole UK) and "notice in the USA" (as he had previously been ignored by the US media and his first two singles there had only sold a negligible amount, becoming today amongst the rarest of records) in place of "achieved world wide fame" (which falsely implies that his appearance at this festival, suddenly created an almost ubiquitous admiration, where in reality it really only garnered him some favourable press in the USA, which translated into modestly successful sales (initially) of his belatedly released (and rehashed at that) US version of his earlier and successful international release of the LP Are You Experienced, and also a very limited amount of large venue bookings, mainly on the West Coast. The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame needs the prefix "USA's" as the lack of this might imply that it a legitimate arbiter of International standards in music, rather than a commercial enterprise that only reflects (allegedly) the taste of the US public. In general, not enlarging the intro by more than a couple of words. Jameselmo (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC) Many faults, including overplay, underplay, hyperbole, innaccuracy, bias, trivia, unsound references, etc Jameselmo (talk) 14:34, 1 February 2008 (UTC)Much of the article is written in a hyperbolic style not suited to an article purporting to be an unbiased work. The reference from USA's 'The rock and Roll Hall of Fame', a commercial enterprise, not an academic one, should not be seen as more authorative than the many, well recieved and painstakingly researched published works by several authors. It also underplays or overplays the extent of Hendrix's achievements, underplaying his achievments as a bandleader and record producer and falsely claiming that he pioneered the use of feedback (rather that developing it) which is well documented as being first used on record by other English guitarists. This article appears to be overly slanted towards an American viewpoint, and does not reflect accurately the fact that he was internationaly famous, or that he was in the record charts and on TV & well played on radio in several countries, on at least three continents, several months before he became noticed in the USA, his first two singles there having failed to sell and becoming amongst the rarest of records, fetching very high prices due to there rarity (promotional copies even being more common!), he was virtually ignored by popular radio and TV in the USA until the much later "alternative" FM stations opened up and only appeared on TV after Woodstock on a late night chat show. The film 'Monterey Pop' only premiered in New York's Lincoln Center on 28 December 1968 and wasn't seen by the general public in the USA until 1969 at the earliest. The publicity from the (generally favourable) press reviews of his performance at Monterey appear to be his main achievement at this festival. This, the press articles about him leaving The Monkees tour and the subsequent advertising for his August release of the Are You Experienced LP appear to be the main source of the USA publics growing awareness of him. The growth of his fame is attested by it's entry at 190 in the USA charts on the 26 August 67. He built on this by extensive touring in the USA throughout 1968, in 1967 he only played a few large venues (a few of them as the support act) and some club dates to a relatively limited audience. The internatinally released single 'Burning Of The Midnight Lamp' wasn't released in USA & Canada and their later 1968 single 'Up from The Skies' also failed to sell . A fairly quick, though moderate success in the LP charts, mainly achieved through two episodes that were covered by the press and some well placed concerts, but not exactly an overnight sensation as the article implies. Little Richard The Upsetters were a recording group in their own right and not just Richards backing group, and when he gave up Rock & Roll for a religeous career, they continued recording. After he returned to Rock & Roll around October 1964 they chose not to re-join him permanently only playing a few weeks with him. This is when he hired another backing group and included Jimi Hendrix, they were titled 'The Royal Company' (Richard being 'The King Of Rock & Roll') as it clearly written on the bass drum skin in the film of Buddy & Stacy Leon Hendrix' statement about Hendrix meeting Richard is vehemently contended by his father, and is uncorroborated and undocumented. USA reviews of Monterey Generally favourable, but some have racist overtones and/or are insulting San Francisco Chronicle (21 June 67) by unknown: “Jimi Hendrix, the young guitarist from Seattle who came from London with his new group, is a remarkable guitarist and a good singer but his act, like The Who is show biz. He sang some unoriginal material, did ‘Like A Rolling Stone’ rather badly and ended his part of the show by pouring lighter fluid on a cheap guitar [actually a Stratocaster Jimi had painted specially for the occasion] and kneeling on the stage while it burned. I yawned.” L.A. Times (date? possibly a much later article) by ?: “[When Jimi left the stage] He had graduated from rumour to legend.” Billboard (08 July 67) [unknown title] by [unknown]: “The Jimi Hendrix Experience from Britain (although Hendrix is from Seattle) proved to be more experience than music, pop or otherwise. Accompanied by overmodulated feedback squeals and bombastic drumming, the Hendrix performance is quite a crowd raiser but it’s sensationalism is not music, and unlike Chuck Berry (who was doing some of this stuff fifteen years ago), when Hendrix sings he has trouble with phrasing, and his modal-turned chicken choke handling of the guitar doesn’t indicate a strong talent either.” Down Beat (# 16, 10th August 67) [unknown title] by Barry Hansen: “The audience, a bit taken aback at first, cheered more loudly with each number…The climax came with a lightly regarded rock tune of a year ago, Wild Thing. This had the audience screaming at every line before Hendrix even started his final coup de grace, a stage act that included an unprecedented variety of exotic dances [duh?], and finished with Hendrix setting his guitar on fire, then smashing it and throwing parts of it to the audience. If the Who had not done some of this before, there might have been a riot. Hendrix’ act somehow had a much more personal, less mechanical feel to it, a spontaneous one-man revolution as opposed [to] the Who’s organized assault on the senses.” [Unknown paper from a clipping][unknown title] by [unknown]: ”…vulgar parody of rock theatrics…” Berkeley Barb (23 June 67) [unknown title] by [unknown]: “Hendrix is a fine musician, working with a beautiful blues voice and exotically complex electronics. [Ed: actually only a fuzz pedal!] He plays absolutely every part of the guitar with every part of his body, and to the extent that he resorts to gimmickry (playing with his teeth and behind his back) it only seems to demonstrate his complete control over the instrument.” East Village Other (1967?) [unknown title] by Sam Silver: “Jimi did a beautiful Spade routine...socked it to them…” Village Voice (29 June 67) [unknown title] by [unknown]: “At Monterey, Hendrix […] slung a violet maribou [feather boa] over his shoulder and swung into ‘Hey Joe’, Purple Haze’, and finally ‘Wild Thing’ – all spasm rock; mudddy if stark sound. Like an evil bird of paradise, he fell to his knees and pretended to masturbate, hips bobbing, lips shrieking silently. Now I don’t mind someone jerking off on stage, as long as he gets paid. But does the climax have to be symbolised by a can of lighter fluid squirting from the crotch? Must the ‘singer’ then proceed to light a blaze and bow before his creation? Only Jimi Hendrix knows for sure. At Monterey he ended his set by flinging his smashed guitar out over the audience. The real musicians gazed, horrified at that plastic mound which once made music. It was a strange moment for the love generation, aroused by all that violent sexuality into a mesmerised ovation. But no one saw the paradox in the Jimi Hendrix experience. Maybe that’s what makes it art.” Esquire (January 1968) ‘Anatomy Of A Festival’ by Robert Christgau: “Hendrix is a black man from Seattle who was brought from Greenwich Village to England by ex-Animal Chas Chandler. A smart move--England, like all of Europe, thirsts for the Real Thing, as performers from Howlin' Wolf to Muhammad Ali have discovered. Hendrix, joined by two good English sidemen, came to Monterey recommended by the likes of Paul McCartney. He was terrible. I've run out of time, more later Jameselmo (talk) 16:42, 1 February 2008 (UTC)== Additions to "Jimi Hendrix" == Oh I forgot to add that I didn't realise the rules/protocols of wikipedia and also didn't figure out how to discuss/reply to people etc. until today Jimi's first guitar In this sentence "At about age fourteen, Jimi acquired his very first guitar, a severely battered acoustic with one string that he retrieved when another boy had thrown it away" I have never seen in any biography that Jimi had a guitar with one string or that "another boy had thrown it away" This appears to be a garbled account from "Electric Gypsy" by Harry Shapiro & Caesar Glebeek page 36, where he is given a ukelele with one string that his father found while clearing out someones garage. In this sentence "Young Jimi proudly slung his guitar behind his back like the hero in Johnny Guitar, and tried to coax every sound possible from its one string." Proudly is subjective and is out of place here. The word "Jimi" is over familiar as well as problematic in that his proper name was James at that time and should be replaced by "Hendrix". "like" implies that Hendrix was deliberately imitating Johnny. The word hero is also subjective in that it is an opinion and should be omitted or replaced by "character" and after all, where else was he going to sling it? According to Al Hendrix in "My Son Jimi" page 113, Jimi's first guitar was an acoustic bought from his landlady's son (a grown man) for $5 shortly after he found Hendrix pretending with a broom. Jimi said said that it was he who bought it, from a friend of his fathers when "stoned" for $5. "Electric Gypsy" by Harry Shapiro & Caesar Glebeek page 37 Jameselmo (talk) 21:14, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Be WP:BOLD and make those changes based one your cites. It can only improve to get rid of inaccuracies and subjective (in wikilingo, WP:POV) statements. And yes, using the name Hendrix througout would be the best. Cheers! --HJensen, talk 21:54, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Vietnam and Hendrix This sentence: "Although discharged from the Army three years before Vietnam saw large numbers of U.S. soldiers arrive, his recordings would become favorites of the servicemen fighting there, most notably his version of Bob Dylan's "All Along the Watchtower"." is very problematic, what does his being discharged from the army have to do with the alleged popularity of his songs with the servicemen? His recordings may have been popular with some servicemen, but how many, and how could this be judged? after all they were from wildly different backgrounds and I'm sure tastes. And how does he know that "All Along the Watchtower" was particularly popular? I feel this should be removed, unless a very good source can back this up.Jameselmo (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC) The solution: tag the statements you suspect with {{fact|date=February 2008}}, which generates the text "". Request: Please stop your massive editing at least temporarily, until some of the issues you've raised here can be discussed. But if you see something you feel needs a citation, put the "tag" I showed above on it. That'll impel editors to either find a citation or remove the offending statement. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 21:59, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Hendrix experience of racism in The South Is this not a tad overstated: "the extremes of racism and poverty that he endured left an indelible mark on his memories of this era." At this time he was no less off than many of the musicians on the tours and he never spoke bitterly of his experiences. So I think we can leave out the emotive comments "extremes", "endured" and "indelible mark" (this especially would need some back up) after all he wasn't picking cotton, or other hard labour, he lived in the The South at this time, choseing to go on these tours because he wanted to . Poverty is relative and usually means little or no earnings, Hendrix was earning money, young, single, suited and living the life that many would have envied, many performers including BB King speak fondly of the chitlin' circuit, while not forgetting the relatively petty hardships. Jameselmo (talk) 21:49, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Discography This section should surely just restrict itself to a list of his released albums and singles with links to the wiki pages of these, not an emotive, subjective and contentious "Notable Songs" heading, please change this.Jameselmo (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Please read the comments I have left for you on your talk page - ScarianCall me Pat 22:33, 1 February 2008 (UTC) Hendrix fashion Don't make me laugh "he wore a "trilby"!! a "bowler"!! has anyone tried the links and looked at the pictures!? how about "an Australian bush hat"!! I've seen that as well several times ha-ha-ha. He actually wore a wide brimmed Western style american hat (brand name inside it: "The Westerner") with the crown pushed out to make it smooth and round in the style worn some native americans, he wore this hat in 1967 in Europe, long before he met Allan douglas and all the ornament on it is his. Stella Benabou (Douglas) & Collette Mimram (both incidentaly of French Morrocan Jewish descent, hence his trip there with them) created his white fringed jacket he wore at Woodstock and many other items of clothing. Jameselmo (talk) 04:49, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Hendrix and trad jazz (opening paragraph) since when was Hendrix into trad jazz (aka Dixieland) he was into modern jazz: Lonnie Smith, Mile Davis, Roland Kirk, Dave Holland, John Mclaughlin etc. how about leaving out the traditional, just have "jazz"? Jameselmo (talk) 05:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Earth vs. Space This line "Hendrix strove to combine what he called "earth", a blues, jazz, or funk-driven rhythm accompaniment, with "space", the high-pitched psychedelic sounds created by his guitar improvisations" Where is it quoted that Hendrix himself said or implied this? If this is just someones observation then this should be changed. Could it not be that Jimi saw his better self as "Space" ("when things get too heavy just call me helium, the lightest known gas to man") and the evil side as "Earth". The only two occasions I know of him using these two word in conjunction are, at Newport 69, when the day after losing his temper and insulting sections of an unruly audience, that shouted and taked loudly thoughout his performance, he returned and as an apology, treated the same audience to the well known jam, which he introduced as "Earth versus space", and the other is at his disasterous Madison Square anti Vietnam war gig when, following a woman shouting requests at him, he insulted her in the crudest way, only partially played (badly) two songs and announced "That's what happens when Earth fucks with space" before leaving the stage.Jameselmo (talk) 13:59, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Hendrix & Elvis This paragraph; "His "reverence to Presley continued even into adulthood, "as when he attended, in late 1968, a late-night screening of Presley's "King Creole", during his time in Paris" (SHOW US THE EVIDENCE)and "crediting this particular viewing with giving him the additional strength and inspiration needed to further his career, after his first, "unevenful travel to London " He may have been a young, early fan, he may have continued to like him, but to say that he "revered" him as an adult is to wildy exagerate the evidence. Hendrix didn't mention him much if at all, mockingly imitated his voice during the spoken intro his "Blue Suede Shoes studio jam" with BOG's, only played one song for fun privately and at a sound check - 'Hound Dog' which he would know was an original hit for Big Mama Thornton, incorporating the barking from her version on a fun version (not broadcast) he recorded at the BBC. As to attending King Creole in Paris in 1968, maybe, but (SHOW US THE EVIDENCE) to maintain that watching this in 1968 Paris, nearing the apex of his career, could "give him the.. etc. is ludicrous especially the following unconnected (due to a gap of two years) 'time warp' statement "after his first...etc. "First, unevenful travel to London" ...(late 1966) "uneventful"! what? like flying first class to London (his first commercial flight and first trip ouside of USA/Canada) as a complete unknown, staying in a decent central London hotel with an attractive young woman (the start of a relationship), visiting the top London clubs, jamming on stage with Eric Clapton & the Cream, meeting and sometimes jamming with many(approving) famous musicians, forming his first professional band, getting his first Marshall stack, recording his first hit record, writing and recording such classics as Stone Free, Foxy Lady and Red House as well as Can You See Me and demo's of 3rd Stone From The Sun, going on a week long French tour (his first visit there) which ended by playing in France's premier concert venue to a very receptive audience at the invitation of France's No.1 Rock & Roll hero, the French Elvis - Johnny Halliday, The Who's managers inviting him to be on their new record label. Playing a residency to appreciative audiences in Germany (his first visit there) for a week, playing his new single live on the UK's top two TV pop shows with his new band, Playing a showcase gig for the press at the latest top London nightclub, seeing a full page article with a very large photo of himself under a headline screaming MR. PHENOMENON! in one of the top music papers and seeing his first single there entering the UK charts - yes, very uneventful for his first three months in London!(24 September to 31 December)Jameselmo (talk) 15:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Charles Cross, spurious argument This a false argument: "[Hendrix]...did not leave the Army as a protest to the Vietnam War, but simply wanted out so he could focus on playing guitar" did Hendrix ever claim that he left the army as a protest? No. So this should be removed as manufactured contention by Charles Cross. Also Charles Cross has never produced any evidence that Hendrix was disharged by the army for homosexual tendencies, pretended or otherwise, all the published records clearly show that he was discharged for his abysmal performance of his soldierly duties, and tardiness. This should be clearly pointed out or this groundless allegation removed.Jameselmo (talk) 20:54, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Alleged Garfield "Legend" ["Legend among the students at the school over the years has credited Hendrix with a number of rebellious acts during his time as a student as the supposed real cause of his expulsion -- including having ridden a motorcycle through the main hallway -- though no actual evidence of any such stunts has ever been produced.)"] I've taken the liberty of removing the above as it obviously qualifies as unfounded hearsay (gossip), the last sentence says it all, and is not mentioned in any major articles, publications or interviews about Hendrix. Feel free to put this nonsense back in though, it's sitting here. Also you guys are always on about being concise, for reasons of? So why is there so much other unattested, frivolous gossip on the page! Even if it can be verified that Garfield students think this, so what!Jameselmo (talk) 21:55, 3 February 2008 (UTC) Wah wah and Zappa As of now it is mentioned twice. (I sourced the first instance earlier today, but discovered afterwards that the article also includes more detailed info in the section US Success.) One ´mention should be enough. Also, the first instance, Hendrix and his new band played a several venues in NYC, but their primary spot was a residency at the Cafe Wha? on MacDougal Street in Greenwich Village, that runs along one side of "Washington (Square) Park" that Jimi sang of at least twice. Their last concerts before Hendrix left were at the Cafe A Go Go, as John Hammond Jr.'s backing group, billed as "The Blue Flame". Singer-guitarist Ellen McIlwaine, who was supposedly on the same bill, although she does not feature on the advert for the shows, claims she met Hendrix here and that he played on some her sets.[citation needed] At this time he also met and played with guitarist Jeff "Skunk" Baxter[citation needed], who was a sales assistant at Manny's. During this time, Hendrix also met Frank Zappa who introduced him to the wah-wah pedal. seems to have a source in this book. So the {{fact}} tags may not be needed; and/or the text should be a bit less close to the reference. --HJensen, talk 22:58, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Elvis' King Creole, where's the evidence for this! Jameselmo (talk) 16:58, 18 February 2008 (UTC)- An un-referenced Elvis web-site! hardly a credible source, please come up with something credible or take this off Jameselmo (talk) 17:09, 18 February 2008 (UTC) At least I make careful and verifiable references, when I edit. But I take your point (as I interpret it from your exclamation). If I don't find anything I'll take it out. More important, however, is the whole plagiarism thing about the Early life section (brought up further up on this talk page), which nobody seems to care about. I just don't have time to write up a whole section myself for the moment.--HJensen, talk 19:22, 18 February 2008 (UTC) researching this elvis stuff i came across whole paragraphs of direct plagiarism I am going back to reveal this, had a bee in my bonnet at the time about other matters and unfortunately let this slideJameselmo (talk) 21:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Yeah, it is basically the whole early life section as I note above.--HJensen, talk 23:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC) Capitalization of song titles What's with the unnecessary, ugly and cluttered "" around every song title and the small case in song titles, where the convention is to use Capitals regardless of grammatical correctness? All song titles are in large case on records including - and, the, a, etc-etc it's just the way it is, from the first record labels, don't be messing with it.Jameselmo (talk) 21:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC) It is wiki convention to have " " around song titles. So this cannot be unilaterally changed by you.--HJensen, talk 23:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC) Well I would suggest that whoever runs wiki should stop unilaterally re-writing International convention and should get off their overly USA oriented outlook high horse and live in the real worldJameselmo (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) This is really not a very helpful response. Also, album titles are to be in italizs, and only wiki-linked the first time they appear. Those are conventions made to make the encyclopedia consistent accross artivles (of which this article is just a minor part of). So I just got used to it, and stopped being aggressive about it.--HJensen, talk 13:36, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Can you remove the caps from your section headings please? It's considered "shouting". ScarianCall me Pat 10:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Yes I can but only reluctantly.Jameselmo (talk) 14:29, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Just to be sure; are you talking about the way song titles were originally printed on record album sleeves? If so, then your request that we preserve the capitalization there is an absurd one. Lots of these liners were printed using ALL CAPITALS; that in no way constrains us to follow that typographic convention here, which looks ridiculous. It's the same as citing a web site whose title appears in all caps in the browser; the convention here is to convert it to the appropriate case in the citation. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:24, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Now, who's being "absurd"? You should know that all song titles on record labels are printed with the initial letter in capitals. That is the convention and always has been and when titles are mentioneded this should be enough to distinguish them from the surrounding text without cluttering the page with "". Where is the justification for using "" in a song list without any accompanying text? How they are printed on sleeves is merely design and can take any form. The exessive italics don't look absurd? Come on? And what's with changing English spelling into a US dialect? Maybe we should start using Scots-English or Australian-English, Indian-English, South African etc.? Well guess what? we do! it's all there in your average UK dictionary along with USA English - not a significant difference, apart from leaving out some archaic letters mainly u and using z instead of the letter s occasionally. So, how about restricting your corrections to ones that matter and I will too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) Revision as of 01:35, 12 March 2008 (UTC) There are wikipedia policies and rules on style that we cannot change here (I explained that a few paragraphs ago, but I will be happy to do it again; and contrary to what you imply, style does matter here). Nothing is gained that you get cooked up over them. It is a lost battle, and such are not worthwhile engaging in. I suggest that you take a break from editing and familiarize yourself with the basic style policies. WP:MOS is a good place to start, and also WP:CITE. Leave the aggressions at the door. It doesn't help anybody, including yourself. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 07:10, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I am not suggesting that style does not matter, merely that style over content is diasterous in a publication that, I presume, would want to be accurate. Who's being aggressive? I thought this page was for discussion, therefore I'm discussing, this is my opinion on the article. I have added very many well researched cites to this article and have corrected several glaring misconceptions etc. How about not engaging in this personal stuff and just concentrating on improving the article (the Hendrix one)?. Cheers.Jameselmo (talk) 11:32, 12 March 2008 (UTC) Hyperbole - give it a rest! Jameselmo (talk) 21:02, 25 February 2008 (UTC) It is very difficult to understand your goals with this article. You make a lot of constructive edits, sourcing, but now and then mix it up with angry outbursts amined at fictional characters (and accusing an editor above to "being paid" to do certain things). It appears rather confusing and distracts attention away from your substantive edits. Please remain civil and don't bite at other editors. --HJensen, talk 23:01, 25 February 2008 (UTC) What is difficult to understand? read the article, I have spent much time trying to improve the gross hyperbole, pagiarism, rapant "rockjournalese" and fiction in this article. I have not knowingly accused anyone of being "being paid" there are no "fictional characters" I have been directly insulted in a very high handed and smug manner and have not directed any spleen at a particular individual, only suggested that, after seeing much hard work removed immediately, when completely unresearched, uncited drivel is allowed to remain, there might be possibly some form of "favouritism" being practised. If anyone is interested in this article reflecting reality, they should feel free to do a bit of research and add some cites, themselves. There's a lot of work to be done.Jameselmo (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Your are, as stated, doing great things here. I just want to emphazise this!--HJensen, talk 20:09, 2 March 2008 (UTC) I appreciate your continued interest in improving the hendrix article, but it is extremely frustrating when there is no, or at most, very little serious discussion taking place here, that furthers the truthful understanding and place of Hendrix in the general scheme of things. I have had to restrict myself to trying to clear up severe shortcomings in the article and finding the required "cites" while others have only made the occasional criticism without contributing anything of substance.Jameselmo (talk) 02:44, 4 March 2008 (UTC) This is wikipedia. It is in its nature that some articles have very few "core" contributors. But look at it the other way around: People who "only" do few edits (which is better than nothing), may not have time to do more. So take whatever they offer as a positive. Even if it involves criticism of your contributions. it is better than silence in these parts of the world imo. (PS: Why do you put "cites" in quotation marks?) --HJensen, talk 08:13, 4 March 2008 (UTC) I have no problem with pertinent criticism (backed up by the person improving, constructively whatever they percieve as wrong, badly written etc.), corrections (spelling, punctuation, etc.) I'm obviously (I had hoped) only talking about negative comments, ie ones that are not contributing anything directly, not leading to accuracy, improved readability, furthering knowledge of Hendrix or are repeating misinformation. Hey, I've written all this stuff here to discuss and no-one's discussed a thing! I've only seen (subjective POV) criticism on stuff about my attitude, style, my rubbish writing etc. - that's not discussion, that's just telling me off! or pointing out mistakes without correcting them. I'm only interested in improving the accuracy of this article, anything else, I don't really care. Addition: Your recent edit summary "it's called "The Cry Of Love" and don't just add lazy, arrogant USA centric chart positions, the rest of the world reads this and initially appreciated his art", is very confrontational, and does not set the scene for productive collaboration. You are practically calling people names, which is not allowed here. --HJensen, talk 13:31, 4 March 2008 (UTC) Excuse me, but I think it's going too far (hyperbole) to accuse me of "practically calling people names" [The rest of this is directed in general (to no-one in particular)] I'm talking about an article not a person, I've no idea who or how many people contributed to this, and it's merely my observation of how this reads to a non USA audience, ie the above. I have consistently attempted to include my corrections, pertinent additions and deletions of patently innacurate material within the existing framework of this article, regardless of how flawed it appears to me and have frequently seen well cited material removed in favour of uncited, blatant nonsense for reasons that appear to have much to do with "[it's easier that way]". The terms lazy and arrogant I feel are accurate in this case. What other words would you suggest for this total disregard of the rest of the world. Omission itself can be seen as confrontational, after all ignoring someone is seen as one of the worst insults, is it not? (feel free to discuss) Oh, by the way I see the extreme POV discog is still here - feel free for anyone to defend it's inclusion.Jameselmo (talk) 00:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC) When you write like you do in an edit summary, it is dificult to read it as not being directed against other editors. And I have no suggestions how you should express your opinions. Finally, as I have mentioned for you several times now, the fact that some crap is left untouched is not something to use in an argument. Delete it, cite it or tag it. This continuous stuff about inviting others to "defend it's inclusion" does not lead anywhere. What are you actually trying to accomplish by the statement: "Oh, by the way I see the extreme POV discog is still here - feel free for anyone to defend it's inclusion" ? In my ears it does not sound very cooperative. --HJensen, talk 07:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC) The pre-death discography is not very good. When I get time I will re-do it. Are You Experienced was released in the UK several months before the American release, and the track listing was different. People have to accept that there are two different albums called Are You Experienced and not assume a particular one in discussions or discographies. As it is, the pre-death discography assumes the American release in its list of Notable Songs. Its indication that it peaked at No. 2 is therefore wrong because it was a different album that reached No. 2 in the UK that reached No. 5 in the US. Subsequent releases on CD have addressed the differences by providing the original sequence of songs issued on the UK release, and adding the tracks included on the American release (the first three UK hit singles), but this is not relevant to a discography that claims to show "Albums released before his death". -- Mickraus (talk) 10:44, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Can you remove the caps from your section headings please? It's considered "shouting". ScarianCall me Pat 10:46, 26 February 2008 (UTC) I thought this one was quite funny - hyperbole, get it!Jameselmo (talk) 14:50, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Propagandamord: Hendrix assassination theory I am writing from the standpoint of one who was present in Berlin in 1970 and paying some attention to politics and the media. Assuming for the sake of argument that someone didn't want there to be an African-American role model flaunting long hair and purporting to help determine the future of rock and roll, it would be logical to arrange for such a person to meet a gruesome early death as a warning to others. Something similar had happened in Berlin on April 11, 1968, with the shooting of Rudi Dutschke (seven days after the death of Dr. King). Theories were formed as to the role of the ultra-right-wing Axel Springer newspaper chain in goading some nut case to shoot Dutschke. Without claiming that any of the following is ready or proper to be included in this article, I ask consideration: August 18, 1970 In the Springer publication Berliner Zeitung (BZ) appeared a news story about a 14-year-old girl named Barbara, in the suburb Tegel, who committed suicide with sleeping pills after being upbraided by her family for using hashish. Oh, yes, on the same day, in the Springer paper Bildzeitung appeared a story that 2.1 million cigarets had been stolen from a trailer somewhere. (2.1 million was the population of West Berlin at that time.) September 18, 1970 On this day Jimi Hendrix reportedly died in London of a combination of alcohol with pharmaceutical pills of some kind. Oh, yes, a story in the Bildzeitung reported that the stolen 2.1 million cigarets had been recovered. September 2-3, 1970 Please note that this is exactly midway between the two "18ths" mentioned above. In the previous week I saw many small (a5, or analogous to 5-1/2" x 8-1/2") posters advertising an appearance of Jimi Hendrix in Berlin on September 3. The portrait seemed to me, at the time, to make Jimi look like a Christ-figure. (Not being particularly a rock fan nor full of money I didn't get to the concert.) On September 2 the BZ had a page 4 story headed: "Haschraucher lockten die Polizei in die Falle" (hash smokers lured the police into a trap). The story claimed that hash smokers dumped gasoline on the street near a certain pub (kneipe), phoned the police, and set it on fire when a police car arrived. On an adjoining page appeared a column by a writer, "Peer" (note that there also was a brand of tobacco cigarets in Germany named "Peer Export"), bitterly crying out for more law enforcement against cannabis. On that same day, September 2, I saw an angry, apparently drunken man attempt to assault someone he suspected of being a hash smoker (he may have been right). Possible evidence of a manipulated hostile climate, timed to greet Hendrix who had been accused of being involved with cannabis and psychodelics? Did someone insult or threaten Hendrix, on the street, at a hotel? I was informed later that Hendrix arrived at a scheduled appearance at a rock festival in Femarn (peninsula in northwest Germany) on September 4 or 5 (?), six hours late, and was greeted with cries of "Arschloch! Arschloch!" (asshole). Did events of this nature precipitate an unstable mental condition in Jimi by playing on vulnerabilities that he had? Whether the above symmetrical arrangement of dates and additional facts represents a hyperbole or not, awaits further research, but perhaps it could qualify for inclusion in the Hendrix article if findings support the supposition regarding the way media are used to change history. Think of it as analogous to the way an American president with a name sounding like "Joint Of Cannabis" was snuffed shortly after the appearance of a famous movie, starring Lawrence Harvey, with a title sounding like "The Man Shooterin' Kennedydead".Tokerdesigner (talk) 01:28, 27 February 2008 (UTC) Sorry, sounds like mostly crazy bullshit, interwoven with heavy conspiracy theory, to me. So no, it doesn't belong here. (Just so you know, I do remember discussions, over plenty of cannabis, at the time of Jimi's death, speculating on why it happened, but we were reasonable enough to leave it at that.) +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 04:34, 4 March 2008 (UTC) The "racism" line Please remove the BS line about 'racism being common in America'. Racism exists everywhere to virtually the same extent, singling out America as being particularly or exceptionally racist is just dishonest. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.2.209.2 (talk) 00:11, 1 March 2008 (UTC) It's not BS, as it was (still is?) true of the American South at that time. And it certainly doesn't imply that racism didn't exist anywhere else; the discussion is about Hendrix's reception there, so it's appropriate. +ILike2BeAnonymous (talk) 18:27, 4 March 2008 (UTC) "[Racism,] which is just a normal part of life in the United States, then as now." is a political statement, not information about Jimi Hendrix, and certainly does NOT belong in an encyclopedia-quality article. This line contribues nothing, other than to raise a person's emotions, and to actualy promote racism by fanning the flames. I've a feeling that neither Hendrix, nor MLK who is also mentioned in this section would approve of that statement, whether it's true or not, in this setting. 66.0.108.146 (talk) 06:06, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Why don't we just end the sentence at racism? Carl.bunderson (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2008 (UTC) Good idea. Done. --HJensen, talk 08:58, 7 March 2008 (UTC) I've also taken the liberty of removing the racism part of the "Politics and Racism" section after reading the above comments, as I'm sure you will agree that using one alleged incident that is un-attested elsewhere, about a mainly African-American audience harrassing Hendrix and his alleged at the time girlfriend - a blond - is not an accurate representation of Hendrix' experiences of racism during the 1960's in USA (oh, and elsewhere too!) and may in it's isolation be considered racist itself.Jameselmo (talk) 23:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Ampersands Please try not to use ampersands to replace "and". This is an encyclopaedia and we have to write formally. Please only use ampersands when it's in the name of a band or the title of a book etc. ScarianCall me Pat 11:31, 9 March 2008 (UTC) How about "Buddy & Stacy" (or "Buddy & Stacey") being "in the name of the band" (or artists, in this case)Jameselmo (talk) 23:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Yeah, that'd be fine. ScarianCall me Pat 10:59, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Early life section It may have escaped people's notice, but twice above, I note that the Early Life section is plagiarizing this book. I think energy should be devoted into rewriting the whole thing from the beginning, instead of making adjustments to what is essentially copyrighted material.--HJensen, talk 15:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC) Yes that would be excellent, as long as it doesn't repeat innacuracies edited out of the original and includes the accurate cites that took much time to source, to remove these without replacing them with equally researched and valid ones would constitute gross vandalism.Jameselmo (talk) 01:40, 12 March 2008 (UTC) No, it would not. Plagiarism is a violation of copyrights, and adding references to copyrighted material does not make it less of a copyright infringement. If I should act fully consistent with wikipedia policies, I should remove the part merciless right now. Note the little sentence: "Content that violates any copyright will be deleted" under the editing window? It is not there for fun.--HJensen, talk 07:14, 12 March 2008 (UTC) I too on first glance of this material (please see my earlier, above, concerns about this) thought this section to be plagiarism. On further reading of this 2006 book I was struck by the title "The Essential Jimi Hendrix" apparently taken from the chart compilation album (plagiarism, possibly?). Also most of the two pertinent chapters don't appear to be original work either, try a comparison with the relevant chapters of the Charles Cross 2005 book. On further reading almost the entire wiki article appears to be taken from this book, as I was reading many sentences that appear to come from other works leered out. This book seems to be merely a repetition of facts, gleaned from other books and paraphrased in such an edited fashion -almost a list- that any other concise attempt to cover the same material can appear as plagiarism. Then I noticed some parts which mirrored too closely parts of this site referenced from other sources and realised this is a self published downloadable internet book which appears to have been partly taken from this site, it is extremely basic, only 124 pages and is text only, no pictures are mentioned. Although advertised elsewhere (I could only find Amazon (currently unavailable [was it ever?], and Blackwells (where it is initially advertised at £9.95 including shipping to UK) who redirect to Lulu self publishing where it is only £1.95 if you download it!), it's only available from the Lulu self publishing site. Cheers.Jameselmo (talk) 12:47, 12 March 2008 (UTC) check out this h ttp://www.lulu.com/uk/products/ where it actually encourages and guides you how to do precisely what this appears to be, including ISBn numbers, copyright etc. and compare this (where Ogunjobi appears to be almost justifying his....?) with the Cross book http://www.articlejoe.com/Article/Experienced------Business-According-To-Jimi-Hendrix/24784 Just been retracing the editing of this site from 2005 and it would appear that "The Essential Jimi Hendrix" a self published (in 2006) internet book has substantially paraphrased if not plagiarised this site and several books, mainly the charles coss bio. Check it out please "the iconoclast Frank Zappa" etc. This guy is at it!Jameselmo (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) Just been reading more of Mr Ogunjobi's Hendrix article he has even included plagiarised sections of the wiki greenwich village article ha-ha!84.13.145.168 (talk) 11:30, 13 March 2008 (UTC) just found a site that would appear to be by the very man (his above "publishing company" is his first name Rotimi reduced to Timi), it is truly bizarre, please check it out!Jameselmo (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2008 (UTC) That is very, very interesting. I would suggest, based on your findings, that we here declare this book, Rotimi Ogunjobi (2006): The Essential Jimi Hendrix. Lulu.com a non-reliable source based on the wikipedia policy that other wikipedia articles (including other versions of the same article) are not valid references). This whole thing reflects one unfortunate problem with Wikipedia: Things that are written here get ripped (as it is copyright free). This implies that non-sourced, potentially untrue claims, get their own life on the internet (and perhaps paper books) and becomes the "truth". I have many times tried to source things for other articles, and found that the only places on the net where one can find the assertions, are at sites that have ripped off the wikipedia article. Phew - That is nasty. As for what to do here: I immediately remove the book from the ciations list. Then, I think one could use Cross and/or others as main cite(s) for the early section part. I guess that Cross is a somewhat reliable source (many things in this section are rather uncontroversial, so any reliable source can do the job as verification.). I will for now just remove the book from the article, and then I have a week off from here. Happy editing. --HJensen, talk 13:28, 14 March 2008 (UTC) kinks was jimi hendrix not influenced by the sound of the kinks who were the first ones to incorperate the sound of the distorted guitar into there act just as he was influenced by pete townsend because hendrix just happened to wreck is guitar on stage after seeing pete townsend do it at a who show,remember jimi hendrix did not start a new scene he joined it--Wikiscribe (talk) 18:50, 12 March 2008 (UTC) he didnt' invent music, no. but post-jimi is qualitatively different than pre-jimi. townshend, clapton, beck et. al. all changed after seeing hendrix. i hear no remarkable similarities between the kinks' and hendrix' music. Early Life It is incorrect that Jimi and his sister were sent to Vancouver, WA on occasion to live with thier Grandmother. His grandmother lived in Vancouver, British Columbia, not Washington. His grandmother lived in the West End of Vancouver, BC and James Allen Ross Hendrix (Jimmy's dad) was born in a small house at 2225 Triumph St. in 1919 Vancouver, BC. See article from the Toronto Globe and Mail dated 2002-05-28 http://www.tomhawthorn.com/?a=6 Someone please correct this error - we Canadian Jimi fans are proud of this Canadian Connection. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stepsuth (talk • contribs) 19:49, 28 March 2008 (UTC)