Talk:Jimi Hendrix

Archives

06.2002-12.2005

01.2006-03.2006

09.2006-11.2006

11.2006-01.2008

2008

Early Life

This sentence "On his release from the Army his father, James Allen "Al" Hendrix (1919–2002), took him, and changed his name to James Marshall Hendrix in memory of his deceased brother, Leon Marshall Hendrix." Is totally, totally wrong. He was taken by his father Al when he was FIVE years old and was very sad because he liked his former family. And his deceased brother Leon? He was born in 1948 and still alive.. All this is can be read in "Jimi Hendrix, The Man, The Myth, The Truth" by Sharon Lawrence.

Why is WikipediA lying about his background, Hendrix had NO Asian blood in him, he was African American, Native American European American. If they are lying about his DNA what else are there are lying about? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Blackhistorythetruth (talk • contribs) 16:37, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Discography

For Discography section, the "Studio Albums" sub-section should be titled something like "With The Jimi Hendrix Experience" or something to include the band he played with. Those albums are labeled "The Jimi Hendrix Experience". Fdssdf (talk) 00:46, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Death and Bob Brown

The article states that Bob Brown pronounced Hendrix dead. The source quoted (see the PDF document) only infers Bob Brown was a medical officer and present in the ward when Hendrix was admitted. Nothing in the source supports the article's speculation that Bob Brown pronounced Hendrix dead.

Accordingly, the sentence should be amended. In any case, the mere presence of a minor antipodean political figure in the ward where Hendrix was pronounced dead is trivial and should probably not be in the article anyway. --Mkativerata (talk) 02:05, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the source doesn't at all back up what is in the article. I've removed that sentence. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 23:22, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Not completely black

His paternal grandparents were on one side half white, half black, on the other side half black and half cherokee.

His mom's father was half black, half white, her mom was of Cherokee and black ancestry.

50% black, 25% cherokee, 25% white.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimihendd (talk • contribs) 02:47, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

• I'm pretty sure you are right about that, but of course it would need a reliable source. It also wouldn't bother me if race were left out of it altogether unless there is something directly related to it that is relevant to the article. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:58, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

Hey. 'Its meagainI changed names, cuz i forgot my other password. I have reliable sources to support what I just said. This article only mentions his african-american roots... why can't I edit the page? Can you replace that with 50% black, 25% cherokee and 25% white. Here are the links...one minute ............ This link talks of his paternal grandparents: one side half black, half white, other side half Cherokee and half Black. >>>>>>> http://www.blackpast.org/?q=perspectives/blood-entertainers-life-and-times-jimi-hendrixs-paternal-grandparents This links talkf of his maternal grandparents: one side half black, half white, other side Cherokee/black. >>>>>>> http://www.basicfamouspeople.com/index.php?aid=244 His maternal great grandmother said that her Cherokee forebearers had to flee the white threat and that they intermarried with Blacks.

• I'm not sure those are what would be considered reliable sources. And I really don't understand where they could have gone to "flee the white threat" that would have been populated by blacks. Certainly not to Seattle. At the time of the Trail of Tears, there was no such thing as free blacks in North America, with a very few exceptions, they were considered property not people. I still think race isn't really discussed in this article, other than mentioning it in passing, and that information on his race could be safely left out without harming the quality of the article. After all, I wouldn't expect the article on Eric Clapton to mention that he is white, unless he had been involved in some sort of racial controversy or movement. Hendrix was a hippie, or maybe just a "freak" not a Black Panther. Beeblebrox (talk) 02:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

• perusing the links on this page, the one cited for his being of African descent [1] actually says he was " a black American of African, European, Cherokee Indian and Mexican descent." so there's another version. I wonder if anyone has an actual authorized biography or something of that nature that could be considered a definitive source for this issue... Beeblebrox (talk) 02:12, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

---

The Man is black, get over it------

He clearly identified with being black more so than anything else. His friends, and he himself mentions this in this documentary. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Ljgih-OJgU) Saying Jimi is Not black is like saying other african american with some partial ancestry are not black. The mans hair, facial features, and skin color says it all. Many African Americans have some partial native American ancestry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 04:36, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

This sentence does not seem to make sense

During a brief excursion to Vancouver in 1965, it was reported that Hendrix played in the (much later in 1968) Motown band Bobby Taylor & the Vancouvers with Taylor and Tommy Chong (of Cheech and Chong fame).--Filll (talk | wpc) 02:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Here's another sentence that I find hard to figure out, due to the number of double and triple negatives: Later untrue statements about special toxicology reports were only released to quiet the unfounded speculation that Hendrix had overdosed on heroin, as was the statement about the lack of needle marks, although no-one had specifically accused him of injecting and this has never been a point of contention.[102] JamesHAndrews (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
I hate to be a grammarphile, but the very beginning paragraphs include "Hendrix'" to show possession by a singular noun. This is not correct. The correction should be "Hendrix's".Ddrehs (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Correct it then. "Anybody can edit" Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat}

I have. Thanks for the testicular fortitude doc. Ddrehs (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Influence

Hardly my own POV. He is consistently cited by anybody who is anybody in the music business and guitarist based as the most influential. Yngvie Malmsteen "He was the Jesus of all guitar players". Clapton himself was blown away by Hendrix and said "How can anybody play like that". Joe Satriani, Vai, SRV all the best guitarists cite Hendrix as their biggest influence so hardly my own POV. If you think he is not widely considered the greatest guitarist of all time yoou are seriously kidding yourself. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 19:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Look at my edit summary again, Dr. B. I did not say he is not widely considered the most influential. I said it is unsourced POV. If you had been a new editor I would have given you a template for failure to provide adequate sourcing, but you've been around long enough to know that "the threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth". The source you cite only identifies Rolling Stone as naming him the greatest guitarist, not "widely considered ... by musicians in the industry and fans alike" as you stated. And only the word "greatest", not most 'influential', is used. I'm not arguing that what you say is untrue, only that it is not sourced as you presented it, and that you misprepresented the source. It doesn't matter what you quote on this talk page. What matters is the source(s) you provide in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 19:27, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Well in that case I would have to provide several thousands citations to support the claim that he is widely considered. Well I guess most people know it anyway. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 20:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

No, you only have to provide one reliable source that states he is widely considered the greatest and most influential guitarist by musicians and fans, or similar words. If you can't find all of that in one source, then find several that cover the various components of that statement. In fact, providing a thousand citations of sources with each expressing their opinion that he is the greatest and most influential would be your synthesis of others' research to form your own conclusions, also against policy. Find one good source that says what you want to say and that's all you need, but don't state that a source says something when it doesn't. That's fundamental policy. My personal opinion is that Rolling Stone's opinion carries a lot of weight, making their statement that he is the greatest guitarist quite an accolade. But if you want to say more, then do the research. Ward3001 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Wouldn't this link support the claim? If so, I'd suggest that reference is made to the book itself and not to the google search result. http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=r0SOzr_0Ya4C&pg=PA85&dq=Jimi+Hendrix+widely+considered&ei=c_fgSeexJJS0zgTqlPm7DQ#PPA85,M1 David T Tokyo (talk) 20:07, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

That certainly comes closer than the link used by Dr. B. Of course, other reliable sources may disagree, and if somone finds one, that disagreement would also need to go in the article. Ward3001 (talk) 20:10, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

There are a couple of others...

1) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ZDRUDrFdSIsC&pg=PA848&dq=Jimi+Hendrix+widely+considered&ei=2vngSa6jHYy0yQTb3tCaDQ#PPA848,M1

2) http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=99LCqESu2KAC&pg=PA118&dq=Jimi+Hendrix+widely+considered&ei=2vngSa6jHYy0yQTb3tCaDQ

Few artists ever have the kind of blanket acknowledgment of being "the best" that Hendrix appears to have, particularly from his peers (other guitarists). Personally I think we should include the claim within the article, maybe using all three references to ensure its credibility. It really comes down to whether these links are acceptable. On a lighter note, I think quoting from a book on psychology is a particularly nice touch...David T Tokyo (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with it if it is done with accurate wording based on the sources and with appropriate balance and weight, and with the understanding that if another reliable source identifies Clapton or someone else with similar wording, the comments would need to be adjusted accordingly. Ward3001 (talk) 20:40, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

OK. In which case I suggest we go with the quote from the Handbook of Education and Psychology. ("Jimi Hendrix is widely considered to be the most important and influential electric guitarist in the history of popular music") and we list the two other references as additional validation to the claim. It should replace the second sentence in the Lead; the quote about Rolling Stone is already mentioned in the final section of the Lead.

I understand your concern about conflicting claims - for what it's worth I've done similar searches on half a dozen other prominent guitarists and haven't found any similar references that could challenge the Hendrix claim. I was expecting to find a "widely considered to be one of the", rather than the definitive "widely considered to be THE", but I haven't even found that as yet.

Thoughts? David T Tokyo (talk) 21:11, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what the problem is. There are a huge number of potential sources which will back up the claim. If we use this and Britannica as double referenced to support the "greatest" and the "most influential" claim this should be OK. I'm not trying to blow Hendrix's trumpet and implant my own POV but the fact is Hendrix is cited and referred to every day by guitarists as a huge influence and the intro did nothing to indicate this, thats all. I watch a lot of guitarists every day on YouTube and while ther eis a lot of crap by people commenting on who is the best or better 99% of the time nobody disputes the fact that Hendrix was the best. Even when you visit Satriani or Vai videos people will always say things like "Hendrix was better" or "nobody has come close to Hendrix since". If you conducted a worldwide poll, I'd bet my life on it that Hendrix would top it by a country mile. There shouldn't be a problem finding sources to support the claim. Rather it seemed a bit weird to not mention his huge influence on rock music in the intro and it looks like we are hiding it for neutrality purposes. The reason why I initially cited Rolling Stone is because Pete Townsend, a peer in the industry placed him at #1. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 21:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there is a problem Dr B - we're at the stage where we're now agreeing on what to say and how and where to include it. I agree with a lot of what you've just said; the only problem is finding the appropriate documentation to support the facts. Don't worry, we'll get there.... David T Tokyo (talk) 21:39, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with David T Tokyo. Dr. B, it looks like we are reaching the point where there are sources available to add a sentence similar to yours. The "problem" (to use your term) is that Wikipedia is not based on what you think would be the results of a poll, or on opinions from sources that you don't cite. One of the very cornerstones of Wikipedia is verification by reliable sources. Since you did not adequtely provide those sources, please be patient while they are found by another editor. Ward3001 (talk) 22:04, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Don't patronise me. I bet I've referenced thousands more articles than you have and have bene here a lot longer than you have. I uh know about verification and reliable sources, don't speak to me like that. The reference that to Rolling Stone magazine as being recongised by the industry is not exactly a reedunant one. It just needed rewording and adding further sources which I've now done to save daddy having to add them for me. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 23:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

And don't falsely accuse me of patronizing you. I don't give a rat's ass about how many articles you've referenced or how long you've been here because that's not the issue here. If previous editing practices and length of time was enough, you would have done it right to begin with. I am only concerned about how you quite inadequately sourced the statement in this article. And I'm obviously not the only one who feels that way. And there's a hell of lot more here than just rewording. The additional sources that you did not cite are immensely closer to properly sourcing the statement than your source that you misprepresented. If you don't want the shortcomings of your edits corrected, then don't edit. End of discussion. Ward3001 (talk) 23:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Really. Whatever. Go and buy some Andrex and wipe your rats ass then and stop overly brandishing your policies as its stinks to high heaven. ALl it needed was some sources, not a big issue that you made it out to be. Buenos Noches Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 23:53, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Dr. Blofeld, consider this your first warning about personal attacks. Ward3001 (talk) 00:00, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Uh, I wasn't the one who mentioned the rat. For somebody who is a Hendrix fan you have to be the least cool and uptight wikipedian I've ever met. Its pretty tricky to write that without it seeming POV or unbalanced so getting it right first time may have been difficult. Just try to take life a bit easier, as citing all these "rules" in every sentence is really quite irritating especially when I know this and tried hard to correct the problem myself. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 00:03, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

The article's edit history speaks for itself. And now, this is truly end of discussion because I have more important things to do here and elsehwere than to read your distorted interpretions of the article's edit history. Ward3001 (talk) 00:14, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah its shows I bothered to correct my "shortcomings" and found a balance of sources and corrected the original sentence to read more suitably and which meets requirements. Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 00:18, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

You found sources? YOU found sources??? Like I said, this talk page and the articles edit history speak for themselves. Ward3001 (talk) 00:27, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes I found the sources myself and add some book references thanks to the help of Mr. Tokyo and bothered to add them to the articles, which is far more than you ever do. All you do is revert and the edit history of the page actually shows this. My advice is to to take your head out of your backside and just drop playing policeman. ALl you do is whine and revert and brandish your policies to explain why other peoples edits are poor and you are somehow superior, you never actually do anything yourself to help the situation. Before you talk about my own shortcomings, when was the last time you actually constructively edited wikipedia yourself and bothered to improve an article yourself? Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 00:35, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dr. Blofeld, consider this your second warning about personal attacks.
• "Yes I found the sources": (let me catch my breath from laughing). The talk page speaks for itself. Ward3001 (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Get a grip mate, you're seriously weird if you really care about petty things like that, Oh no third warning for no personal attacks, I'll be blocked indefinately. Now this is end of discussion and hope you really have a lot of fun in the future doing what it is you enjoy, I hope wikipedia's days don't get too numbered as you claim.... Dr. Blofeld ^{White cat} 00:57, 12 April 2009 (UTC).

Influences

One of his major influence was Buddy Guy. He regularly video and audio taped him in show so we must add Buddy Guy as the first of his influence. Any possibility of adding Bob Dylan and Robert Johnson to the list of influences in the introduction? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.88.133.23 (talk) 06:33, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

And where is your reliable source? Ward3001 (talk) 00:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

i've read a book about jimi hendrix's taking a lot from buddy guy, and when you hear buddy guy's music like the "stone crazy" album, it sounds a lot like hendrix before hendrix. try to google their names together and you could probably find some interview or article (to someone who has the time and patience).

also, robert johnson as far as i know did not influence jimi hendrix, that's just a cliche blues artist that people like to think influenced every rock guitarist... clapton and richards was influenced by him, not jimi. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.28.185 (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Minor grammar edit

{{editsemiprotected}} Please change 'a myriad' to myriad. Thank you.

The phrase reads, "a machine capable of generating ambient lighting in a myriad of colors. "

As far as I am aware, that is perfectly grammatically correct - unless you can explain otherwise?

Not done at this time; please add the {{editsemiprotected}} again if required.  Chzz  ►  22:01, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Featured song sample

Why is this not one of Jimi's compositions? Surely Purple Haze, or Voodoo Chile would be more appropriate

I agree, all along the watch tower is a bob dylan song. voodoo child, with that psychedelic blues rock type feel and those shredding melodic trademark solos (which is the strength of his influence) are more defining then a cover.

7.25" radius more rounded than 9.5" radius [citation needed]

I don't believe this part of the article needs a [citation needed] tag. A circle drawn with a 7.25 inch radius will naturally seem more rounded than a circle drawn with a 9.5 inch radius, especially when considering a at most 2 inch segment (as with a guitar neck). I suspect that this is not actually the fact in question, but whether or not Jimi Hendrix actually owned a Stratocaster with a 7.25" radius. In this case, the tag should be moved to the statement preceding the "7.25" radius more rounded than 9.5" radius" line. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.211.31.119 (talk) 19:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"The Greatest Guitarist"

The second sentence of the article: "He is widely considered to be the greatest guitarist in the history of rock music by other musicians and commentators in the industry," should be changed to "He is widely considered to be ONE OF the greatest guitarists..." because the former is an opinion, not a fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jarickman2 (talk • contribs) 17:51, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

The latter is also an opinion, but I agree that it should be changed to "one of the". Fdssdf (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

This is covered earlier on this talk page. David T Tokyo (talk) 19:46, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

"He is widely considered the GREATEST GUITARIST"... - please look to references. --83.10.1.26 (talk) 17:23, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix (drug use)

The section of this article about his drug use includes a paragraph that i believe to be untrue about his violent behavior while drinking, and there are no citations for the paragraph as well, and i beleive it should be removed from the main article.

Done. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 18:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have heard rumors that Hendrix may have smoked marijuana at some point in his career. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.3.14.133 (talk) 23:23, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Possibly go back a generation?

According to The Seattle Times "100 years later, Seattle's first world's fair remembered" (originally published 2009-05-22; the relevant picture and caption from p. 6 of that print document can be found online at http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/ABPub/zoom/html/2009224215.html), Jimi Hendrix's paternal grandparents first arrived in Seattle as performers at the Alaska-Yukon-Pacific Exposition. Should we add this to the article? Some biographies in Wikipedia go back 2 generations, some don't. In this case, I think it's interesting because (1) it shows that his grandparents were a dancer and a roadie/stagehand, respectively and (2) it ties his family's presence in Seattle to what many would consider one of the two events that put Seattle on the map (the other being the Yukon Gold Rush that the exposition commemorated). - Jmabel | Talk 01:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Fans of Nirvana (band) might assert there should three items on that list... In fact, most people are far more likely to think of Kurt Cobain when they think of Seattle, and not Hendrix. Only fans are likely to know where Jimi was actually from. Eaglizard (talk) 21:26, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not talking about "on the map" in the music world, I'm saying as a city. By the time grunge came along, Seattle was certainly "on the map": it was already one of the 20 largest cities in the country, longtime home of Boeing, had hosted another World's Fair (the Century 21 Exposition in 1962), etc. I'm just saying that Hendrix's grandparents give him an interesting tie to a key event in the city's history. - Jmabel | Talk 22:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hendrix's death

The article states that the causes and circumstances of Jimi's death have never been fully explained, which is true of course. The inquest stopped short of giving any conclusive reason ("death by misadventure following inhalation of vomit") and Dannemann's contradictory statements (maybe Burdon's too, and the silence of most other people who had been close) didn't help things. Plus, at the time it was standard practice not to admit that a lucrative artist had committed suicide, both because it could hurt sales and because insurances on performing were invalidated if the death was listed as suicide. So nobody wanted Hendrix to be known as haviing killed himself.

Many people still have the idea that it was "just another dopey O.D.". Tony Brown did a very illuminating piece of research with his book on Hendrix's death and the weeks leading up to it; he was the first to actually track down many of the people who had taken care of the body or who had met the man in his last weeks in London, and he established (by interviewing Dr.Bannister and locating police reports) that Hendrix was already dead when the ambulance arrived and had been dead for some time.

As there's so many vague ideas buzzing around about this, I suggest the article should include that Brown makes a credible case for suicide, a suicide attempt that may have been half-clearly intended as a call for help in rough circumstances (so not fully meant to "succeed") and which may have been aggravated by the intervention of other people (Miss Dannemann, whom Sharon Lawrence claims to have gotten to admit she poured red wine into Hendrix when he had passed out, something that squares with the medical observations noted by Brown of the sheer amount of red wine involved, and of the alcohol level in the guy's blood, even though many hours must have passed between drinking and the samples being taken).

On the causes for his tragic death, the suicide thesis is the main pitch of Jimi Hendrix: The Final Days and it's convincing, though not conclusive of course. Brown shows that Jimi was in a rough spell, probably very tired, hounded by struggles with both Jeffery and Chalpin, and likely worn by the fact that audiences wanted to hear his old music, see the old tricks while he was moving into new territory. He had no steady band and he must have been feeling uncertain of how his new double disc would sell, when it was completed - it needed to make very good sales to pay for the studio but it was also a new departure. Above all, he lacked a steady supporting network of people who understood these issues. And the very day he died he was scheduled to appear in court in London over Chalpin's demands. That may have tipped the scales and made him go for a desperate gamble to bring home that things were not okay any more.

Pointing out Monika Dannemann as part of the supposed deadly sequence of events is problematic. We'll never know if it happened like that, actually it might just as well have been Jeffery who poured the wine, even though I don't personally believe the story that he was involved. Dannemann does sound likely, it may have been out of anger and revenge - but Sharon Lawrence clearly loathed Dannemann anyway, it exudes from the pages of her book. So the "admission" from D. that she had forced wine into a prone Hendrix is not safe at all. But the text should indicate that there's a good case for suicide and that things are not as totally vague as they used to be.Strausszek (talk) 21:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestion - someone who has read that book ought to update the text. But while you do so, Strausszek :), be careful: one new source does not completely eliminate the previous good sources, its just another theory (for now). And honestly, the idea of Jimi attempting suicide, even as "cry for help", seems pretty far-fetched, to me. Eaglizard (talk) 22:02, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh sure, i would not write that it's proved in any sense. It's a plausible and (to me) cogent interpretation, it brings together many of the facts, but it can't be proved. And of course many of the people you'd like to talk to are long since dead - Michael Jeffery, Devon Wilson, Alexis Korner and others.

And I can see that the idea of Hendrix commiting suicide is impossible to many people. How could an exuberant, resilient guy (and he'd been a parachute soldier) like that give in just at the point when he was getting his studio completed and would be going onto the last lap of producing an epochal new album?? But I can understand it; no matter how great the music he put on tape would be, he was in a bad shape physically (Pete Townshend attests to that, they met for the last time at the Isle of Wight festioval) and likely mentally. And all the lawsuits and suspicions that his money was being siphoned off could have made him very vulnerable. So it makes sense to me if he felt he was in a blind alley in spite of all that he was striving to make happen. The loss was tremendous, I feel sure that if he'd lived he would have related to the new directions in jazz at the time, as well as hard rock, and the prospect of Hendrix guesting on Live-Evil or something like that - Miles wanted him to join as a guest soloist - or dueling with let's say Ritchie Blackmore, would have been a real keeper.Strausszek (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Checking Tony Brown's final chapters closely I can see that Mike Jeffery was in Spain during the days leading up to Hendrix's death - he flew back to the UK when he got word. It seems well attested that he was actually overseas, so he can't personally have been doing anything to Hendrix though one might theorize that he had somebody hired to, like, drug Jimi or pour red wine into him. I really don't think he was involved at all, even if he probably had a lot of shady business.Strausszek (talk) 02:40, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Miscellaneous

Could anyone be kind enough to put Jimi Hendrix in 'Category:American baritones'? Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.126.99.215 (talk) 02:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

doneStrausszek (talk) 09:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

May not be the right place for this, but also, are additions merited that reference serious artists who emulate Hendrix's music, e.g., Enrique Casal?

Dmaszle (talk) 03:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Typo in Death Section

In the "Death" section on the current page there is a typo: Lyrics written by Hendrix, which were found in the apartment, led Eric Burdon, who often claimed he had been telephoned by Dannemann aftter she discovered that Jimi refused to wake up, to make a premature announcement on the BBC TV program 24 Hours that he believed Hendrix had committed suicide.

"aftter" should be "after". Could someone do this update?

DoneStrausszek (talk) 11:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Specifics

In the section titled "Video Games," it would be more accurate to say, "Jimi Hendrix is a playable character in Guitar Hero: World Tour when playing the live version of Purple Haze," since he is not playable outside of this song--Marcopolo47 (talk) 03:08, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Typo in Early Life section

In the "Early Life" section under "Biography", there shoud be a full stop/period directly after the word "garage".

Could an established user put one in please? Leonini (talk) 16:09, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Missing word in Fashion section

Also, in the third paragraph of the Fashion section, it says "Isle Wight concert" as opposed to "Isle of Wight concert". Could someone add "of" please? Leonini (talk) 16:19, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. CuriousEric (talk) 18:49, 9 August 2009 (UTC)

Renton not Seattle

Actually Jimmy was born in Renton, Washington and then was buried right across from the apartments he grew up in as a kid.--76.28.229.98 (talk) 07:23, 12 August 2009 (UTC)Nicole

Rolling Stones 100 Greatest Artists of all time

How is it that Hendrix ranking number six on Rolling Stones list of the greatest artists of all time is not mentioned anywhere on the article? Considering that three other "top 100" lists are mentioned, I think this information is relevant no? User:Superceller (talk)

Yes, indeed.Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:33, 20 September 2009 (UTC)