Talk:Jimi Hendrix

Archives

06.2002-12.2005

01.2006-03.2006

09.2006-11.2006

11.2006-01.2008

Amplifiers and effects

At the bottom it says Jimi's thumb fretting technique can clearly be witnessed in the Woodstock video during Red House. It's true this video does have good close-ups of his fretting hand, but if he uses thumb fretting here AT ALL, it's only very minor! He does bend his thumb, but that's because of his lead playing. The-bna (talk) 12:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

His birth name

On the page it sais his maiden name is Johnny Allen Hendrix, this is incorect. he changed to that on his first flight to england. his real maiden name is Johnny Allen Hendricks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ptstandard (talk • contribs) 07:04, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

His father and paternal grandmother both spelled their last names with an x. If the family name was originally "Hendricks," the change happened in the 19th century, long before Jimi was born. The change in England was from Jimmy to Jimi. bobanny (talk) 03:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Folks, I don't know about where you live, but in the English-speaking world men don't have "maiden names". Ward3001 (talk) 15:21, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

His biographies state that his father had Johnny's name changed to James when he was fairly young (I think after his mother's death). Maybe it shouldn't go in, or perhaps be mentioned in the young jimi hendrix article (if it still exists). Harmanicus (talk) 11.57, 09 October 2008 2008 (UTC)

• If you have sources, go ahead and make the change. I gotta say the section title makes me laugh, as Ward 3001 is quite right, there's no such thing as a maiden name for a man. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:00, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Sure, I'll do it in a day or two. For the sake of not laughing at this (quite minor anyway) issue can we just say birth name rather than maiden name. Maiden name refers to surname in women only, after all. In fact, done. Harmanicus (talk) 18.00 October 10 (UTC)

Is there really any question about Hendrix's status in rock history?

I don't understand why this article does not emphasize the point that Hendrix is almost unanimously regarded as the greatest rock musician to ever pick up a guitar. I don't see him being called "one of the greatest" too often, it's always "the greatest". Are there any objective reliable lists out there that do not rank him #1 among rock guitarists? I don't think this would be pushing POV because this would be an example of a fact about opinions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hot potata (talk • contribs) 23:30, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

You are never going to find an "objective reliable list". Ever. And lots of people disagree with you he is by no means "almostunanimously regarded" as the greatest anything.

Electric Ladyland, 1968

I edited the end of this entry which speaks of Jimi collaborations with other musicians. It seemed to ramble on and on, so I provided a link to a Wiki article which expounds on the 1968 live recording done with Jim Morrison rather than have all the info cluttering up this page. --Jfkinyon, talk April 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 05:52, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Also, in this section there is a reference that can be added to the statement that Jimi performed with BB King.... As a new editor I'm not allowed to add this info... this info was published in UniVibes Magazine #14, May 1994. The article is archived on the magazine's website here - http://www.univibes.com/BBKing_on_Jimi.html - Jfkinyon —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfkinyon (talk • contribs) 06:09, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

what a load of bull i am a member and think that this person and jimmy hendrix a full of #$!* —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.11.81.242 (talk) 09:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC) Added citation to the BB King story. Jfkinyon (talk) 06:53, 7 April 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". Scarian^{Call 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

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". Scarian^{Call 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)

Arthur Lee & Love

"My Diary" is the first Lee composition that came near to being a hit. It was written for the R&B singer Rosa Lee Brooks, who performed and recorded it. This recording included Jimi Hendrix on electric guitar. Lee had seen Jimi backing up the Isley Brothers. It is possible that this is the first appearance of Hendrix on vinyl and, indeed, the first known Hendrix recording session.

Jimi Hendrix also appears on the first track of the Love album False Start. —Preceding unsigned comment added by XnetSandstorm (talk • contribs) 09:52, 6 July 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 choking on his own vomit. It was caused by a combination of alcohol, cannabis, and an overdoes of high-strength sleeping pills Oh, yes, a story in the Bildzeitung reported that the stolen 2.1 million cigarets had been recovered.

Cannabis has NEVER been proven to be a contributing agent in a case of an overdose death, and no expert has ever claimed this. The doctor at the autopsy said he had virtually drowned in undigested red wine as this was the main content of his lungs and stomach, the actual amount of barbiturate from the pills in his system was unrecorded, and the figure of nine pills given by Monika Danneman was accepted unquestioned at the time, but her story of the events surrounding his death was later found to be unreliable. A small amount of amphetamine was also found in his system. Jameselmo (talk) 07:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

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)

"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." I love the way this follows: somebody will be disliked, therefore it stands to reason that somebody else will arrange to have them killed. Not just paranoia, but peculiarly German paranoia if you don't mind my saying so... :-) Lexo (talk) 14:23, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Lexo, ILike2BeAnonymous, you both seem particularly biased against conspiracy theories of any sort. I get the feeling that you simply skimmed through that man's theory and abandoned it altogether on the premise that Jimi Hendrix's death just doesn't line up with the generally accepted idea that he committed suicide. Both of you should be ashamed of yourselves (and especially for the "peculiarly German paranaoia" bit). I didn't think such ignorance and xenophobia was possible on Wikipedia. Clearly this person put a lot of thought into this theory. Add to that the fact that he was there and you two dolts weren't, and I think he's made a very interesting case. 209.62.199.157 (talk) 18:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

"Clearly this person has put a lot of thought into this theory"???? I'm not sure about whether it was "a lot of thought", but it certainly is something that an average 10-year-old might concoct after a few minutes of daydreaming. Although I wouldn't have used the phrase "German paranoia", the theory is one of the most far-fetched pieces of idle speculation I have ever encountered. It has absolutely no substance except for the incredibly strained logic of one person's overblown imagination. It doesn't even have any internal logic, something that more credible but unproven conspiracy theories have (e.g., Kennedy assassination). It's just a haphazard linking of random events (if they are even accurate). As for the phrase "Without claiming that any of the following is ready or proper to be included in this article", a more accurate statement would be that this load of garbage has about as much chance of getting into Wikipedia for more than a minute or two as I do of becoming king of the world. By the way, anon user 209.62.199.157, the phrase "German paranoia" may have been inappropriate, but so is your personal attack on editors in calling them "dolts". Ward3001 (talk)

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)

About the rascism being prevalent in the south, I am from Texas, and the only people i know that make racist wisecracks are from the North; it doesn't take a Southerner to be racist. 4-4-08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.195.196.19 (talk) 18:10, 4 April 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. Scarian^{Call 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. Scarian^{Call 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)

Please change: His sister's name is spelled Cathy, not Kathy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.56.40.167 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 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.

The Kinks were not 'the first ones to incorperate (sic) the sound of the distorted guitar'. Nobody knows who exactly was the first, but Link Wray's 'Rumble' features a distorted guitar and was recorded in 1958, when Ray Davies was no older than 14. At the same time as The Kinks were recording 'You Really Got Me' in 1964, bands like The Kingsmen, The Wailers and The Sonics from the Pacific Northwest (where Hendrix grew up) were experimenting with distortion and fuzz effects. The Kinks were just the first British band to have a hit single with it. Hendrix may have joined the British beat scene but he took it to a new level - everybody who was there at the time agrees about that. Not knocking the Kinks, but I doubt they had a very important influence on Hendrix. Lexo (talk) 14:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

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

Jimi's Mother Lucille was 17 at the time of his birth, not 16. Citation of this can be seen in Charles Cross' biography, Room Full of Mirrors. Please correct this error ASAP. Hendrixfan24 (talk) 18:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Plese be bold and make the change yourself. I will be happy to help out with the referencing. Cheers.

I noticed Hendrixfan24's comment and your response and I have made the change. Several books undoubtedly mention Jimi's mother's age at Jimi's birth, either explicity or by providing her date of birth, so I've left in the original citation. -- Mickraus (talk) 23:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimi's pet history

Does any body have information on Hendrixes pets he owned or if he like animals at all? HEY YOU! YES YOU! I AM TALKING TO YOU! THIS IS ME! 19:35, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimi owned a dog named Prince, can't remember where I read that though. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.215.5.90 (talk) 23:59, 30 September 2008 (UTC) Then They all went Meow... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.204.45.254 (talk) 13:24, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Editing

Please edit this article as much as possible. Because of its length there are bound to be errors in information and grammer/mispelled words.

                                  Thank you for your cooporation. Sincerely, PontiacFirebird  —Preceding unsigned comment added by PontiacFirebird (talk • contribs) 14:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 

(Way to go on the template there, Pontiac). This article is a thorough mess, which is a pity. It's full of information, much of which is of only dubious relevance for anyone who wants to learn about the life, work and legacy of the subject. (For example, it is not relevant to the article that the Woodstock Festival was not actually held in Woodstock but in Bethel, so I've cut that. Likewise, why do we need a random paragraph about Hendrix's relationship with Sweden in the middle of a section supposedly devoted to his first album?) I suspect that a lot of people have attempted to make edits to this article while stoned, which is understandable but which needs to stop. There is no excuse for an article on a subject as important as this failing to receive Feature grade, let alone A-grade, and it can only be because everybody wants to throw everything in. I agree that the inconsistent quality of Hendrix biographies doesn't help, but surely we can start cutting stuff that doesn't belong? Lexo (talk) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Of course it's important to stress his relationship with other countries than USA & UK especially Sweden who gave him much financial and critical support before USA, this is why it is in this section as it is part of that whole scene. Also his only son is Swedish. Jimi was an internationally renowned star and major record selling artist before the USA eventually, slowly picked up on his music, only becoming a major record selling artist there in 1968. France who gave him his first popular support at Olympia and Germany who followed through from '66 until his final concert there at Fehmarn, one of his best on his last tour.

It's also relevant that the Woodstock Festival was held in Bethel as that is the truth. It is also of interest as he briefly rented a house and recorded in the vicinity. Editing five words to confuse the facts is hardly making a significant dent to the size of the article. Hendrix is such a unique figure in "rock music" history that this will always be a long-winded article. Hiving off material to the respective sub-sites ie "Jimi Hendrix Experience" "discography" and other associated pages would shorten the article considerably and end the massive duplication on these sites.

Also most of the "technical" stuff is just POV. Maple "1970's" guitar fingerboard producing a "lighter" sound ha-ha-ha, he used a maple fingerboard strat throughout the late 67 european tour and then smashed it up, he loved the sound of it so much! What possible difference could the colour of the wood make? It's all the same POV rubbish. Jimi played standard strats, only changing the stringing to left handed and minor adjustments to keep the strings in place. he used standard light strings throughout, with the occasional change of order now and then, to suit HIM and the particular guitar. The studio recordings have shag all to do with the voltage he didn't even use marshalls for several tunes. As Jimi said he played guitar with his ears. His fragile glass valve based amps broke down constantly throughout his career mainly due to the lack of adequate protective cases and the extremely rough handling and occasional stage abuse. Most of this tech stuff reeks of wine connoisseur nonsense. Jimi was a master of brinksmanship, arriving late and sometimes in various states of inebriation and/or suffering sleep deprivation, playing on the edge, usually without a soundcheck, through broken amps, speakers, usually dreadful hall acoustics and often out of tune due to his frequent use of the whammy bar and rough treatment of the instrument. Out of this seeming chaos he and the group often created a hightened musical interplay and sometimes a unique raport with the audience, who were also frequently in a similar chaotic and inebriated state. Often the "hippie" audience just shouted at each other to sit down etc. ruining the scene, especially noticeable throughout beautiful renditions of Little Wing and other quiet songs. Jimi managed to keep his temper in these situations trying to create a balance, only much later at the Newport festival finally giving vent to his frustration, although in a fairly mild manner much exaggerated by later commentators. He later voiced more forthright contempt for the audience, who not only shouted and talked through his performance but kept on blabbering through his dedication to his friends at the Randall's Island New York Pop debacle. These later large festivals became an unruly mess plagued by poor organisation, naive "political" division, low key gang type violence, fringe police harassment and adverse weather.

If only people would sign their comments, one could get head and tails in this page. But this talk page is as messy as the Hendrix article. Sigh. Well, on the particular comment about the importance of mentioning "Bethel", truth is not an argument for inclusion in an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not about truth, but about writing articles with relevant and verifiable material. And I for one, cannot see the great relevance in a Henrix article of mentioning Bethel. For an article on Woodstock it could be relevant. --HJensen, talk 07:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

"Voodoo Child" is spelled wrong in the breakup section. (I can't change it myself.) Goes to show you that no one is reading the whole thing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.160.243.109 (talk) 14:37, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Couldn't you then please write the correct spelling here? Thanks (I guess you know that on the Album Electric Ladyland, the song is named "Voodoo Chile"). --HJensen, talk 20:41, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Your link in your response refers to the 15-minute jam: a different song to the one being referred to by the original poster. -- Mickraus (talk) 12:55, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

As the claim in the article is unreferenced, we don't know which song was played. Moreover, my 2LP copy of Electric Ladyland (Polydor 2657 012 DELUXE DOUBLE) has last song on side four named "Voodoo Chile (slight return)". So whether the spelling was "wrong" is indeed an open question. But I guess it is most likely that they played the "...slight return" song, so you edit is fine!. Cheers. --HJensen, talk 20:18, 13 May 2008 (UTC)Jimi was also called Marbles in his younger years because he carried his guitar anywhere with him, if he went to the movie theater he brought his guitar and practiced whilst watching a movie, if he went on a car ride he also took his guitar. Thust resulting in the nickname "Marbles".

Mother was Cherokee

I remember seeing-on A&E's Biography that Hendrix's mother was a Cherokee Indian; how exactly does one cite television programs?

This link provides templates for most needed citation types. --HJensen, talk 10:16, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Jimi's paternal grandmother's grandmother was a Cherokee, though this is often twisted even in "reliable" sources. See this article, written by Jimi's stepsister: http://www.blackpast.org/?q=perspectives/blood-entertainers-life-and-times-jimi-hendrixs-paternal-grandparents

the main article actually says

[[Hendrix is of African American descent.[11]]]

This seems a little misleading.

funny line

from the politics section: "... and extremist groups who wished to use his fame to further their own cause."

per wikipedia standards, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this line and it is perfectly encyclopedic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.233.136.159 (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alleged Sex tape release

I'm going to leave it to people more familiar with Hendrix and this article to add this, but since both CNN and AP, two very reputable sources, are now reporting the release of the sex tape, it's going to have to be added somewhere in the article. Here's the most recent article from earlier today link. 23skidoo (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It shouldn't be in the article imo. It has really nothing to do with Hendrix the musician. Also, the reference talks about an "alleged" tape. So nothing verifiable to add as of now.--HJensen, talk 21:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

It is also clearly fake. The person in the tape is not Hendrix, and it really does not merit serious comment. The fact that CNN, AP and other media outlets have assisted in this hoax means nothing. (~~) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.62.108.124 (talk) 19:14, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I saw the sex tape on display in a store yesterday. It's being distributed by a company called Vivid. They claim in the cover copy that Pamela Des Barres and Cynthia Plaster Caster have seen the tape and verify its authenticity. I suppose that they wouldn't falsely claim that at the risk of being sued by The Hendrix Estate, The Des Barres Family, and Ms. Caster, although not having seen the tape itself, I can't personally verify its authenticity. Aoa8212 (talk) 05:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

They've offered something like $100,000 to anyone who can prove it's fake apparently. The thing is though, it's usually impossible to definitively prove a negative. They haven't stated what they would accept as proof that it's not him.80.7.59.211 (talk) 21:15, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

the tape is real you can view it here I think it should be added with the attribution from CNN and the Associated press http://www.jitterville.com/MOVIES/jimihendrix.php ``` —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.140.90.117 (talk) 14:29, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Anyone using wikipedia to promote a commercial product (real or fake), as the poster above has done, should be blocked. I agree that the dubious claims to authenticity preclude referring to this "sex tape". Also worth considering: videotape was not commonly available for consumer use during the purported time; half-inch black-and-white video open-reel wasn't marketed until after Hendrix' death.

I recall reading somewhere that a couple women Jimi had sex with amongst other people (one of which being Charles R. Cross, author of the biography Room Full of Mirrors) said that it isn't Hendrix in the tape. Sorry I don't have a link though. 13:38, 28 July 2008

Its true apparently that these two women who he was supposedly with verified that it was Hendrix. However Hendrix's girlfriend of a number of a years said that it wasnt Hendrix. It all depends on who you trust the facts to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanchen07 (talk • contribs) 22:43, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Personality Section

The personality section breaks up the biography. It should go after Hendrix's death section. Hendrix was said to have only smoked weed and drank alcohol, but the first night of the Monterey Pop Festival, he was introduced to acid.

Jimi Hendrix best paid performer of his time

Jimi Hendrix was the highest paid performer at Woodstock with $18,000 (Hendler, page 120) [1], I once read an article which stated that for a show in Canada Jimi Hendrix was payed the highest sum of money ever payed for a life performance at that time. Phalanx Pursos 20:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

"Pan handle" of Golden Gate Park

change to : Golden Gate Park's Panhandle. Phalanx Pursos 09:51, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Death

Is Eric Burden as mentioned in this section the same as the lead singer for The Animals? Or is it someone else? Could anyone who knows one way or the other specify? Mech Aaron (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 01:44, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

it is he

WP:FAIR cleanup required

The album covers and screenshots need to be removed as they do not comply with Wikipedia's WP:FAIR policy. Even if the sections they were placed in revolved completly around the source of these images that would be stretching WP:FAIR to its limits. Those are the only 2 I have checked so far for tagging issues. Does anyone know the last time a ref check was done on the weblinks? Some of the 'last viewed' tags are dated. Anger22 (Talk 2 22) 01:00, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

The two album covers are removed. I fail to see that the screenshot should go. The references are a utter mess; I haven't the time for bringing them up to just acceptable standards.--HJensen, talk 20:47, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Songwriting legacy

Hendrix was also an influential songwriter, who discussed many of the important themes of his generation, such as revolution, hope, love, despair, sex, and loneliness. He captured most of the overarching ideas of the 1960s in his music, making him a valuable spokesperson for the era. His songwriting is sometimes postive, calling for change and peace, while it can also be characterized by his criticism of society. Hendrix often rejects the stereotypical "American dream" and the values of his culture, as well as the themes of noninvolvement and detachment from a chaotic world. - "The Rhetoric of Hope and Despair: A Study of The Jimi Hendrix Experience and Jefferson Airplane." Lawrence Chenoweth. American Quarterly spring '71 vol. 23-1. pp. 25-45. published by John's Hopkins University Press. Sean Chenery and Shannon Coyle —Preceding unsigned comment added by Seanchen07 (talk • contribs) 17:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Album Sales

Would it be possible to get some kind of data on Jimi's total album sales, either in the first paragraph of this article or maybe on the somewhat sprawling discography page? I read somewhere (I think the BBC website) that his music sells on average 600,000 records per year, and I would guess total record sales were around the 40 million mark. Still, does anyone have any information on this? After all, in the 60s the man was a superstar (hence the all the festival headlining slots), and posthumous album releases sold well, especially in the 70s and 90s. Most major music artists have record sales on their page, and Hendrix is one of the obvious exceptions. It wouldn't make much sense to put record sales on the experience and band of gypsys articles, given that those bands were considered vehicles for the man himself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Harmanicus (talk • contribs) 11.49, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Bob Brown

This article claims that Bob Brown signed Hendrix's death certificate. The source cited does not state that; only that Brown was present working in the hospital at the time. Unless a source verifying the signing of the death certificate can be cited, this should be amended. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mkativerata (talk • contribs) 22:44, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Appearance in Guitar Hero World Tour

Jimi appears in two songs in the game GH:WT. During the Solo Guitar career of the game, the player's current character will back off of the stage and let Jimi take over for the songs "The Wind Cries Mary" and "Purple Haze (Live)" I have no idea if he is unlockable for use on other songs, but he is indeed playable. --71.65.126.77 (talk) 03:30, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Unique spelling of "Jimi"

There is nothing in the article about the origin of the unique spelling of 'Jimi.' Im very curious as to how/when/why this spelling originated. Rag-time4 (talk) 13:25, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Right Handed versus Left Handed Guitar

The article repeats the oft-stated assertion that Hendrix played a right handed guitar "upside down" or left handed. Hendrix's guitars used right handed bodies and necks but they were strung in the normal fashion for a left handed guitar player. This requires that the nut be reversed. No other major modifications are required.

A guitarist of just about any skill, observing films of Hendrix performing, can see plainly that he is playing in the normal manner for a left handed guitarist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.253.65.38 (talk) 21:09, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Encores

I've just read a quote from Marc Bolan in a book, saying that Hendrix never did any encores. I most certainly wouldn't put Bolan in the front line of reliable commentators (he probably said it to get out doing them himself), but it's a weird fact if it's true. The book, by the way, was Charles Shaar Murray's "Shots From The Hip".

True or untrue? David T Tokyo (talk) 04:42, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this question supposed to improve the article? If not, it doesn't belong here. Ward3001 (talk) 04:47, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Duh! Well of course it's supposed to try and improve the article. If it's true (and I have to say I doubt it - but, that's what the book says), the fact that Jimi Hendrix never played encores is definitely worth mentioning. Not only is it extraordinarily unique but clearly it was something he had a problem with. David T Tokyo (talk) 05:19, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Jimi rarely gave encores, though it's not true to say he never gave them; for example, he played "Hey Joe" as an encore at the Woodstock festival, and came back on stage for an encore at the Royal Albert Hall gig on 24 February 1969 - although that was probably for the sake of the filming. -- Mickraus (talk) 15:55, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

U.F.O. record

Hi, can I put the record I have on here? It is a very rare record with alot of other music that Jimi covered in his own style. The best is, sugar-pie honey bunch. I looked for it, and I can't find it on google.com. 69.159.15.211 (talk) 01:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

• I've never heard of this record. There are a lot of "unofficial" recordings of Jimi, that were not released while he was alive. Without sources, we can't even verify it is Jimi, so I would say it shouldn't go in the article at this time. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Hendrix burning his guitars at concerts

Folks, A very fascinating article. However, under the section "Guitar History" or similar name, it is stated: "Hendrix bought many Strats and gave some away as gifts. Hendrix set fire to two of them during concerts. The first time on the opening night of his first UK tour. The only other documented guitar-burning incident was at the Monterey Pop festival." This may be a true statement considering the adjective "documented." However, I was present at Hendrix' September 1968 concert at Balboa Stadium in San Diego and I vividly remember him setting his guitar afire onstage. It was not very dramatic but it made me think instead that he was simply going through the motions of one of his trademark tricks. But he did indeed set it on fire. Thanks... Steve K. Stevek83 (talk) 09:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

• I tend to agree, Hendrix was infamous for burning his guitars onstage, I have changed the section accordingly. Beeblebrox (talk) 17:02, 15 December 2008 (UTC)

Reborn in 1992?

Just out of curiosity what is this all about? "In 1992, he was reborn as the excessively charming Jacob Morris."

Is this vandalism of the page? Or am I missing a point here?

Gduran1 (talk) 15:30, 15 December 2008 (UTC)Gduran1

Thanks for pointing that out, it is vandalism and has been reverted. Nev1 (talk) 15:33, 15 December 2008 (UTC)