Talk:Blind Willie Johnson

Blind Willie Johnson--Blues or Gospel?

Johnson was not a blues musician by any meaningful definition of the term. I'm changing the first sentence to reflect this. --RobHutten 15:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

• What exactly do you mean by "meaningful definition of the term"? If you are going by a musical definition of the blues, then you know that many of Blind Willie's are based around a 1-4-5 chord progression in 12 or 16 bars, and that the songs feature "soulful lyrics...originating from the era of slavery." Or if argue a non-musical definition: "a feeling or spell of dismally low spirits; a state of depression," then remember that Johnson was blinded as a child by his abusive step-mother, made an impoverished living as a street performer (in both Chicago and New Orleans, of all places!), was turned away from a whites-only hospital because he was black, then turned away from a blacks-only hospital because he was blind, and with nowhere else to go, he lived in the burned out ruins of his shack--where he froze to death. You seem omitting him from the blues genre simply because his songs were based on Scripture. While he wasn't singing about Dynaflows or big-legged women, Blind Willie was just about as "blues" as one can get. I haven't reverted back to the term "gospel blues" just yet, regarding the articles opening paragraph, although I believe this to be the most accurate way to describe him. A compromise, perhaps? "...his music is a combination of blues and gospel..." Or maybe the article could elaborate on the idea that Blind Willie transcends genres. Maybe a vote is in order? --buck 21:24, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

---

My edit was a reaction to the almost universal categorization of Black American music as blues. I understand the complexities surrounding the definition of the term "blues", but I see no value in broadening it to include, say, all self-accompanied sacred African-American music.

I guess I can accept the compromise "combination of blues and gospel". But what in Johnson's music isn't encompassed by the term "gospel"? --RobHutten 23:30, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

---

• First let me apologize for my failure to proofread my last rant--sorry, that was atrocious!

Ah. I understand your point better now. However, what in his music isn't equally encompassed by "blues"? In that light, I'd still argue that Blind Willie was predominantly a blues musician not because he was black (although, admittedly, I believe that has a minor part in defining his music, as he was a black "vocal-with-guitar-accompaniment" musician during the great depression), but by the nature of the performances in these old recordings. Looking beyond the gospel lyrics, the guy had among the most virsatile and aggressive bottleneck styles on record. The delivery of vocals--the booming growls and shouts of his "bass falsetto"--with such ferociousness (and pure Son House). Compare him to Gary Davis for instance--would you call Davis a blues singer or a gospel singer? Can you adequately call him one and not the other? Or Mississippi John Hurt, who sang as many secular songs as he did gospel songs? (And check out Willie's complete recordings--there's one or two secular songs thrown in there, or at least ones that aren't overtly religious.)

Furthermore, this type of crossover is seen widely these days. Bands like P.O.D. and Creed are recognized as mainstream hard-rock bands but are also considered modern gospel. Labelling them gospel alone would be a bit misleading. I think the same applies to Willie--he's more than strictly blues because he incorporates gospel; likewise, he's more than strictly gospel because he incorporates blues. --buck 03:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

---

As to what is in BWJ's music that isn't encompassed by the term "blues"? For one, a strong prevalence of sacred themes; for two, a repetoire of set songs, rather than assemblies of floating verses; for three, most of his songs use verse/chorus structures instead of the AAB form which practically defines the blues genre.

I don't equate "bluesy" with "blues", not when it comes to classification. Of course there are bluesy elements in most African-American gospel music; this is (or, at least, was in Johnson's day) due to common antecedants between the two genres, not a direct influence of one to the other. And if we're to define as blues any music created by a tortured individual, or that delivered in a ferocious or passionate manner, let's toss Beethoven, the Sex Pistols and most flamenco music into the mix.

Hence my original "meaningful definition" comment.

Look at the larger context of Johnson's life. For all that he may not have been a saint, I'm fairly certain that he would have objected to any hint of his music being considered blues. There are many musicians who played both styles of music, unambiguously: Son House, Charlie Patton, Fred McDowell, John Hurt, Furry Lewis... etc etc. House even said "you can sing the blues in church if you use the words right". However, many of House's songs were clearly blues; none of BWJ's recordings were. Even the less overtly sacred tunes - When The War Was On, etc. - do not follow any standard blues structure.

How can you call someone a blues musician when there's not a single blues tune in his repetoire? The comparison to Gary Davis is weak; Davis recorded a few blues tunes. Johnson did not.

--RobHutten 14:51, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Beethoven, Sex Pistols...if we are reaching outside of the blues genre, then let's go outside music altogether and include Van Gogh, Tolstoy, and Anne Frank. Come on now, you're stretching a little too far to make your point. I'm not defining blues simply as the music (or any other art for that matter) by a tortured, passionate individual. Blues does have a specific sound. And I do feel that Blind Willie's music has that specific sound. But how do we define that sound?

Certainly not solely by the "AAB" lyrical format that according to you, "practically defines the blues genre" (your number three). Or maybe we should just throw out Skip James and Leadbelly. And half of John Hurt's and Mance Lipscomb's songbooks (but we should probably be calling them "songsters" anyway, am I right? See your number two). Many of the most recognizable blues songs don't follow the "AAB" format: "See That My Grave is Kept Clean" (Blind Lemon Jefferson). "Boom Boom" (John Lee Hooker). "Mannish Boy" (Muddy Waters). "Sitting On Top of the World"/"Come On in My Kitchen" (countless).

Now, you also say that Blind Willie did not record a single blues song. How about "Mother's Children"--not only is it blues, but it's a blues song that pops up in dozens firmly-defined blues singers' recordings (usually as "Motherless Children"): Son House, Mance Lipscomb, Jessie Mae Hemphill, Big Joe Williams, Josh White, the apparently controversial Gary Davis, and crossover blues performers like Eric Clapton, Odetta, the Steve Miller Band, and John Renbourn. Look at "If I Had My Way" and "I'm Gonna Run to the City of Refuge". While these songs' lyrics are obviously taken from Scripture, the melody sure wasn't. Compare their choruses to the quite un-biblical Robert Johnson tune "Last Fair Deal Gone Down" (which itself was based on Blind Lemon Jefferson's "See That My Grave is Kept Clean").

Nor do I think the comparison to Gary Davis is weak at all. We are arguing about whether Blind Willie Johnson's music is blues or gospel, right? Regarding your number one--does a blues song have to not have gospel lyrics? Rather, if a blues song has lyrics referring to the Scripture, does that instantly negate it from being "real" blues? Do "real" blues songs have to be about violence, loose women, hard liquor, and fast cars? How many are about God and the devil? Heaven and hell? Sin and repentance? Remember I am arguing that Blind Willie's music is a combitation of blues and gospel. I feel the same about Gary Davis. The vast majority of Gary's music was obviously spiritual. Why is he more "blues" than Blind Willie? Because he recorded "Cocaine" (albeit instrumental), and "Candy Man"? Or maybe he lived long enough to perform at the Newport festivals with John Hurt, Fred McDowell, and Mance Lipscomb as part of the blues revival. --buck 01:18, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Re: Davis: Actually, I was thinking of his "Cross and Evil Woman". His "Cocaine" is, in my book, a rag. So are many of John Hurt's songs - more rag than blues, that is. That's not a judgement call in any way - Hurt's probably my favourite recorded musician and I love everything he recorded. But lots of his tunes weren't blues - not by my definition.

Re: Motherless Children: I'd say it's probably pre-blues in origin, but I have no evidence at hand to back that statement up. What I do have is its inclusion in a 1929 hymnal in my collection, under a section called "Songs of Death". I'm about 99% certain that most church-going African-American southerners of the '20s and '30s would not have considered it a blues.

Every performer you listed as having performed the song also recorded other songs which were not blues, so I'm not sure where you were going with that. (And since when is Renbourn a firmly-defined blues musician? - no, don't answer that.)

As to Hurt and Lipscomb being "songsters" - right on. Both played some blues, obviously. Would you consider Hurt's "Let The Mermaids Flirt With Me" a blues?

Re: Lemon's "See That My Grave Is Kept Clean" - it's AAAB, which is most definitely a recognized variant of the standard AAB structure.

Re: Hooker's "Boom Boom" - I'd bet good money that he wouldn't call that a blues song. Here's what he said about the similar song "Boogie Chillun" in a Guitar Player Magazine interview with B.B. King in 1993:

BBK: For instance, when John Lee made "Boogie Chillun", that wasn't blues. That was get up and get it!

JLH: Get up and go! That was the first rock!

BBK: That's right!

JLH: So when people say blues and you say "Boogie Chillun", how in the heck could he be blue? He's havin' a ball! He's havin' a good time."

As to "does a blues song have to not have gospel lyrics?" I guess not, but it does have to meet some meaningful definition of the term. And why not go with the definition most common within the culture that created the stuff? There's real value in having meaningful definitions for musical genres, and BWJ's oevre is adequately described by the term "gospel music", especially when taken in the context of a self-accompanied performer of his era.

The "bluesy" elements that you are attributing to blues and to BWJ's music are shared elements in many/most African-American musical styles. So just because a gospel song sounds bluesy to you - "that sound", as you say - doesn't mean it's a blues song, not if the term is to have any usefulness in classifying musical performances. It's African-American music, yes. But blues is one genre in African-American music. It's like calling an Andean huayno a salsa; sure, it's got an identifiably Latin rhythm, but it's not a salsa - it's a huayno.

I see you've gone ahead and changed the page... thanks for at least noting the dispute. I'm not going to remove the word "blues" again, although I'm now even more annoyed by its inclusion than I was when I started this whole rigamarole.

Grumpily yours, --RobHutten 01:50, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

No need to get grumpy. I didn't change it to annoy you--the opposite, actually. I thought the inclusion of blues and gospel was an agreed compromise. I also expanded the categories to include BWJ with the other categorized gospel singers. Go ahead and arrange it how you see fit--this article needs some serious overhauling anyway. The only place I am not willing to compromise is where BWJ is stated as being only gospel or only blues. Many people besides me agree that he combines the two genres.

I'm content at ending the discussion here, but you've thrown me some irresistable bait. I can't help myself.

Try reading your BB King/John Lee Hooker interview again. They are telling us that "Boogie Chillun" isn't blues not because it deviates from some predetermined set of music theory guidelines, but because it is one of the seminal records that spawned rock n' roll. Those guys don't care how Alan Lomax would categorize their songs or how their music looks when transcibed in musical notation. They are emphasizing that songs like "Boogie Chillun" laid the foundation for what would become rock 'n roll. Surely even you wouldn't argue against blues directly influencing rock n' roll...?

• "Every performer you listed as having performed the song also recorded other songs which were not blues, so I'm not sure where you were going with that."

How are you not sure? My whole arguement is that BWJ combined blues with "non-blues" (or more accurately, gospel with "non-gospel", where non-gospel includes blues), as did these other performers. You disagree with John Renbourn too? OK. I won't go down that path.

• Would you consider Hurt's "Let The Mermaids Flirt With Me" a blues?

Yes. But I wouldn't be naive enough to call it only blues. It's equally a rag, a ballad, a country tune, a gospel tune, a yodel ("Waiting For a Train")...it doesn't fall under one label. But he sure makes it more of a blues song than Jimmie Rodgers (although, for another discussion, I'd say that Jimmie sang his share of blues as well).

Your examples beg the question: if a blues singer records a non-blues song, is he no longer a blues singer? Or the same for gospel--if a gospel singer sings a blues song, is he no longer a gospel singer? Your arguements tell me your answer is yes. BB King has recorded whole albums of gospel music. Would you no longer call him a bluesman? Your boys the Sex Pistols recorded "Jonny B. Goode". Are they now r&b instead of punk? They even covered the Frank Sinatra hit "My Way". Do you think of the Sex Pistols when you listen to the Great American Songbook?

• Lemon's "See That My Grave Is Kept Clean" - it's AAAB, which is most definitely a recognized variant of the standard AAB structure.

Now you're fumbling. I mentioned this song in a comparison to Johnson's songs "If I Had My Way..." and "I'm Gonna Run..." (and I even failed to mention "I Know His Blood Can Make Me Whole"). You say this song is a recognized variant of a standard blues structure, therefore defining BWJ as blues.

I agree with your statement that most, if not all, forms of African-American music contain "bluesy" elements. Are you implying that I would define all African-American music as blues? While jazz, soul, hip-hop, doo wop, American reggae, and funk certainly contain elements of blues (some more than others), I don't group them in blues.

Lastly, let me say that I believe that limiting musicians to only one genre is basically a Sisyphean task. The great ones transcend genres. Bob Dylan is more than a folk singer. Louis Armstrong was more than just jazz. The Beatles were much more than pop. The Carter Family were more than just country. And yes, Blind Willie Johnson was much more than just gospel. --buck 05:19, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

* I didn't change it to annoy you--the opposite, actually. I thought the inclusion of blues and gospel was an agreed compromise.

It was, before I convinced myself otherwise :)

• The only place I am not willing to compromise is where BWJ is stated as being only gospel or only blues. Many people besides me agree that he combines the two genres.

Many people think a lot of things. But this is supposed to be an encyclopedia, not a repository of opinion. I'm attempting to classify an important musician based on accepted definitions - accepted by music scholars and the musicians themselves.

*Try reading your BB King/John Lee Hooker interview again.

I've read it many, many times.

• Those guys don't care how Alan Lomax would categorize their songs

Nor would I.

• or how their music looks when transcibed in musical notation.

Where are you getting this stuff? I never implied any such thing. Please address my actual comments, not your misperceptions of my opinions.

• They are emphasizing that songs like "Boogie Chillun" laid the foundation for what would become rock 'n roll.

And, while doing so, explicitly stating that the song is not blues!

• Surely even you wouldn't argue against blues directly influencing rock n' roll...?

Oh, for pete's sake, Buck!

• My whole arguement is that BWJ combined blues with "non-blues" (or more accurately, gospel with "non-gospel", where non-gospel includes blues), as did these other performers.

You're not arguing it - you're simply re-stating the case over and over again. With the arguable exception of Motherless Child, you've yet to state which of BWJ's songs are blues, or even why any of them aren't sufficiently covered by the term "gospel".

   * Would you consider Hurt's "Let The Mermaids Flirt With Me" a blues?

• Yes.

I was asking that question rhetorically - I never actually thought you call that song a blues.

• But I wouldn't be naive enough to call it only blues. It's equally a rag, a ballad, a country tune, a gospel tune, a yodel ("Waiting For a Train")...it doesn't fall under one label.

I fear to ask, but could you please offer some justification for calling this completely secular song a "gospel tune"? If you're going to insist on ignoring accepted, standard definitions, you should rethink contributing to an encyclopedia project. The wikipedia page for gospel music is actually a good place to start if you want a definition of the term.

• But he sure makes it more of a blues song than Jimmie Rodgers (although, for another discussion, I'd say that Jimmie sang his share of blues as well).

I'll certainly agree on that second point. Hurt's delivery of the melody is obviously influenced by African-American music, but it's not a blues song just because it was sung by a Black guy.

• Your examples beg the question: if a blues singer records a non-blues song, is he no longer a blues singer?

Of course not, and nothing of the sort was ever implied in anything I wrote. One singer can perform several types of music.

• Or the same for gospel--if a gospel singer sings a blues song, is he no longer a gospel singer? Your arguements tell me your answer is yes.

See above - please address the points I actually state, rather than the ones you're (erroneously) infering.

• Your boys the Sex Pistols [...]

PLEASE STOP. I can't stand the Sex Pistols' music. I tossed that example into the discussion as a reaction to your attempt to define BWJ's music as "blues" because of the "ferociousness" of his vocal delivery. That's no sort of definition that belongs in an encyclopedia.

       * Lemon's "See That My Grave Is Kept Clean" - it's AAAB, which is most definitely a recognized variant of the standard AAB structure.

• Now you're fumbling. I mentioned this song in a comparison to Johnson's songs "If I Had My Way..." and "I'm Gonna Run..." (and I even failed to mention "I Know His Blood Can Make Me Whole"). You say this song is a recognized variant of a standard blues structure, therefore defining BWJ as blues.

Your logic is puzzling. I disagreed with your assessment that I would not classify Lemon's song as a blues because it wasn't AAB. You had raised that song as being the basis for a Robert Johnson song which was similar, melodically, to the choruses of two of BWJ's songs. At no time did I hinge my definition of BWJ's music on the blues-ness or non-blues-ness of a Blind Lemon Jefferson song which may or may not be the basis of a Robert Johnson song which happens to sound like the chorus of a couple of BWJ's gospel songs. Nor should you.

• I agree with your statement that most, if not all, forms of African-American music contain "bluesy" elements. Are you implying that I would define all African-American music as blues?

You seem to be doing just that. You're offering no other evidence for classifying Hurt's Mermaid ditty as a blues. It's a cool song, played and sang well. But it's laughable to call it a blues song.

• And yes, Blind Willie Johnson was much more than just gospel.

I think BWJ was one of the greatest msuicians America ever produced, and in no way is his significant contribution to world culture lessened one iota by classifying his music as gospel.

And I'm done. --RobHutten 11:49, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

Yes, this is getting us nowhere. We'll just have to agree to disagree. Although this has been fun for me, and quite educational. Peace & plenty. --buck 14:24, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

---

As near as I can tell, there is no factual dispute and the only reason for having the warning on the main page is one guy's sumpsimian personality. Rob's opinions about ethnicity and musical categorization are duly noted, but I'm removing the tag, inasmuch as, in any useful or practical sense of the term, Blind Willie was a blues artist - his work is included in blues compilations, is considered a "bluesman", is part of the legend of the history of the American Blues, and will be found - when one is searching for his music - in the blues section of one's local or online music store. --jowfair 10 October 2005

---

I support removing the dispute warning, although perhaps not for the reason it was removed.

As to my sumpsimian personality - I'll ask again: is this an encyclopedia or a repository of opinion?

Either way, please leave personalities out of this, and stick to the merits of arguments.

"Argue facts, not personalities." - Wikiquette

So far the arguments here for defining Johnson as a blues musician have been "he sounds bluesy to me", "he sounds like other musicians who sang blues songs" and "everyone else calls him a bluesman." I'm offering evidence that he recorded no blues songs (by the accepted definition of the term), and that the ostensibly "bluesy" elements in his music are, in fact, common to other distinct African American musical forms. Please, concede or argue these statements.

"One of the keys to writing good encyclopedia articles is to understand that they should refer only to facts, assertions, theories, ideas, claims, opinions, and arguments that have already been published by a reputable publisher." - Wikipedia: Verifiability

--RobHutten 16:58, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

I am interested in the comment that there are people in Beaumont interested in finding his grave and that there is some dispute where the grave is. I personally does not think that fits the facts well. I don't know of anyone that even can take a guess at where the grave is. The cemetary where he is buried is clearly marked on the death certificate, but I have looked and I have not found any stone with his name on it. If there ARE people in Beaumont looking for his gravesite I would like to put in contact with them. I do not know where that information in the article came from? I am also interested in any information about his 2nd wife that lived with him in Beaumont. Sam Charters interviewed her in the 1950s but I could find no reference to her after that point. My email is jharper4@houston.rr.com and feel free to contact me if you can help with these issues. I believe Blind Willie has a daughter that is living in Mexia now (moved back a couple of years ago) but I have not spoken with her in several years. I personally think of Blind Willie as a bluesman with a lot of religious content, he lived the lifestyle, music sounds like blues, and he doesn't really fit the definition of a purely religious singer either. The word "blues" has a bigger definition than just purely a song form (though it can be used that way), and if "Dark Was the Night" isn't a blues, if in feeling if not in form, I am not sure what would be. I don't really think focusing on the song form and disregarding the feel of the music is quite fair. My email is jharper4@houston.rr.com. I have since read that Steve McVie tried to get the remaining daughter to sign up with him but that she choose not to.

---

I think as currently worded the introduction has reached a fair compromise between the above viewpoints regarding blues v. gospel. Based on his recordings and the admittedly small amount of biographical information available, my belief is that Willie himself most likely would have objected to being called a blues man. Speaking personally, my hesitation in using the blues label in reference to Willie stems from considering the word a.) in purely musicological terms and b.) historically, within the context of the society that Willie and all the other performers listed above, Charley Patton, et al, lived and performed in. Most of my pertinent books are on loan to friends right now, otherwise I would get them out to cite some references, but my understanding is that in their own time (that is to say, within the southern, african-american culture of the early twentieth century) someone considered a blues performer was understood to be an undesirable at odds with the church and the good christian citizen, a lowlife singer of secular, wordly songs whose lyrics reflected the associated lifestyle of loose and crude sexuality, gambling, barrelhouse juke joints, white lightning corn liquor, and so forth. The performers, listeners, and non-audience alike did not apprehend the songs as blues in musical terms because, as I think the above long discussion highlights, they as well as non-blues tunes, sacred or otherwise, drew on the same traditions and so were often basically indistinguishable musically. Rather the distinction was based more on lyrical content and the perceived lifestyle that came with the songs. Defining the blues purely in musicological terms (which seems to have been the tendency of the outside researcher and, I guess as time passed and it lost relevance or immediacy, eventually anyone listening) creates a genre which is certainly distinct from many others, but which can easily become a catch-all and absorb tunes or performers who were not thought of in their own time as blues (as in this case, I contend, Willie Johnson), since many of its generalized characteristics were shared by other music. These old guys' repetoires were sometimes huge, like someone above said too, and could include all kinds of other tunes even if they were known primarily for blues "doggerel," which further confounds things. I don't think a mid-thirties Baptist congregation would be offended by a D-G-A chord progression and pentatonic melody, but if the verses were along the lines of "I Want Some of Your Pie," they would certainly not be pleased. Addressing Blind Willie in particular: Even if not strictly religious and shared with other, undisputed bluesmen, like Mother's Children, his songs do not display the kind of lyrical content that I've outlined. Claiming to have found religion certainly did nothing to stop plenty of others (Skip James &c) from continuing to play their blues at house-frolics or keep bad company, and since we know so little about Blind Willie it's anyone's guess as to what he did in his undocumented time, but the recollections of those who knew him as far as I'm aware do not indicate his engaging in any of that kind of activity, whereas his involvement with the church and religion is recalled from his childhood. Also somewhat telling, at least to me is that, whether or not he knew any blues songs, he appears to have chosen not to record any at a time when solo blues records were selling and the talent scouts were actively looking for blues performers. They were able to get Gary Davis, who seems to have been pretty ardent in his faith, to record a couple blues at his 1930s session. During his 1940 meeting with Alan Lomax, Blind Willie Mctell's reply to the question, "what do you consider [Willie Johnson's] best music?" was, "well sacred music," and also says, after having given a long, strange history of the blues, "he was a notable singer, in his type of singing." Anyway these are my thoughts as a great fan of all the music in question and an amateur "blues historian," and I thought that maybe in detailing them I could help the two sides of this argument to understand each other's viewpoints. As I said before I think a fair compromise has been reached in the article, and regardless of my own standing I recognize that the question is almost completely inconsequential to anyone except some fairly specialized scholars anyway. Svart kultur (talk) 21:28, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Bottleneck

This page classifies Blind Willie Johnson as a bottleneck slide player. As far as I know, he played lap slide, fretting the guitar with a pocket knife. I think that's a worthwhile distinction to make. Yes? No?

I haven't heard that he played lap-style, though I certainly wouldn't put it past his abilities. The "classic" photo of Blind Willie shows him holding his guitar upright with a bottleneck slide affixed to his finger. While I'm thinking of it, I think I'll add that pic to the article. Listening to the recordings, I'd say it sounds like bottleneck, but he may not playing in this fashion in every song. Rob, do you happen to know if Blind Willie used a pocketknife? --buck 22:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

well, your source is a photograph and mine is my ex-guitar teacher, so evidence would suggest you're right. i think he did play lapstyle at least some of the time.

---

There's no report of him playing lapstyle that I know of. The subject came up in a Guitar Player Magazine interview with Ry Cooder; Cooder believes BWJ played bottleneck. So do I. I play both styles and, to my ear, he's holding the guitar in the normal position as do most sliders who primarily play single-note melodies. He never barres complete chords with the slide (except the occassional 12th-fret tonic), which is practically universal amongst lap-sliders. Compare BWJ's sound with, say, Charley Patton's - Patton almost definitely played lap-style.

Another hint is that when BWJ slides on the 2nd string you can usually hear ghost notes on the unmuted 1st string. This is more typical of lap sliders than lap sliders - when playing a 2nd-string melody lap-style, you're pretty much forced to use the tip of the bar on that single string. So the bar wouldn't reach the 1st string to produce those ghost notes. With bottleneck style, 1st-string ghost notes are almost a given when playing 2nd-string melodies, unless you mute the 1st string. BWJ didn't mute much, if at all.

I don't have access to Charters' liner notes from the Columbia set right now - he may have a report on the type of slide BWJ used... that could be a clue.

--RobHutten 13:35, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Just looking at the photo and thought of another good argument for BWJ not playing lap-slide - he had a cup wired to the headstock of his guitar for collecting tips. If he were to lay his guitar on his lap, all the change would fall out :-) --RobHutten 13:50, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

• I have those liner notes at home. When I think of it, I'll flip through them and see if there's a mention of BWJ's bottleneck (or lack thereof). --buck 14:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

Well, oddly enough, I came across this sentence in Sam Charters' liner notes to Columbia release. In describing Johnson's recording of "I Know His Blood Can Make Me Whole":

The accompaniment was played with a slide, probably a pocket knife, and as in all his slide pieces the guitar was in open D tuning.

I agree with Rob (fancy that!) in that since I play both styles (though I much prefer bottleneck), Johnson's recordings sound like he's playing with a bottleneck slide and holding the guitar upright, judging by the lack of muting as well as the fierce, rhythmic strums (difficult to do when the guitar is laying flat, but not impossible).

I found no mention that he played lapstyle, just that he may have used a knife. There are other references to his slide playing, but none as specific. Not really sure how to incorporate this into the article, though. --buck 14:58, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

--- Thanks for digging that up, Buck. As for the article, I'd leave it alone. There's not sufficient speculation that he played lapslide to warrant mention, is there? --RobHutten 11:27, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

I have added a little bit at the end of the article, something Marc Ribot wrote about Blind Willie. Since I'm note a native english-speaker (I'm from Berlin, Germany), please feel free to correct and improve my addition. (Jodeffes 21:16, 29 March 2006 (UTC))

Masters

Johnson's records have very good sound quality compared to S.James, C.Patton, S.House & B.L.Jefferson. So, have the original metal masters survived? --128.214.205.4 10:04, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Reorganization of material

Re-worked the main sections for clarity, grammar, and more neutral language. -- Denstat 06:54, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure where or how to post this, but thought I would start here.

From the article: "operated the House of Prayer at 1440 Forest Street, Beaumont, Texas"- the address may have come straight out of the phone book, but I don't remember seeing it listed as House of Prayer, I have a copy of the original listing in the phone book but I am not looking at it right now,

From the article:(The death certificate reports the cause of death as malarial fever, with syphilis as a contributing factor.)-I am not sure why this needs a ciatation (or maybe it refering to the first part of the sentence) because this is clearly written on the death certificate which was obtained in Beaumont.

The article is still missing a lot of basic information. There may still be people alive in Beaumont that remember Blind Willie. Also a relatives on his mother's side are still alive west of Mexia (and interestingly had singers other than Blind Willie in the family), and there are direct relatives still in Mexia. Also Angline Johnson may been related to a famous Blue singer and I would like to know more about her. I think she was originally for Dallas and last heard of from Beaumont but I am not sure how or when she died. The last place I found any information on her was in the Samuel Charters interview back in the 50s.

Also there may be a way to find his grave if someone wants to take the time and money. The cementary is known, and there is a plot number on the death certificate, but no corresponding map to know where the certificate is.

If anyone wants to rewrite this, they are welcome to contact me at jrharper4@comcast.net, and I would be glad to help —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.30.219.119 (talk) 19:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

bottleneck/ring/slide

I'm removing the "Although he is called a bottleneck guitarist,..." sentence from the first paragraph; it doesn't really belong in the intro, and the nature of his slider is covered later in the article. --RobHutten 23:34, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

In regards to the nature of his slider, I wrote "However, in enlargement, the only known photograph of Johnson seems to show that there is an actual bottleneck on the little finger of his left hand. [6] While his other fingers are apparently fretting the strings, his little finger is extended straight--which also suggests there is a slide on it as well."

I would argue that the picture, especially when enlarged, shows a bottleneck on the little finger of his left hand, as does the straight extension of that finger.User:Y2karl 9:58 11 January 2010 (PST)

Page move

It has been proposed that Willie Johnson be renamed and moved to Willie Johnson (disambiguation) so that Willie Johnson can be redirected to Blind Willie Johnson. Please discuss at Talk:Willie Johnson.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTD) 14:18, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

John the revelator

Let them be no doubt that White Stripes covering this one here is an awesome awesome clip. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Z7QBmqa0PY I remove the 'citation needed' thing. Walking thhe blues/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Walking the blues (talk • contribs) 19:48, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Loved Reading the Aricle!

Jusy here to say that I enjoyed reading this article Sir Floyd (talk) 12:35, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Also Known As

I've added to his list of aliases "The Blind Pilgrim," used on the Anchor reissues of some of Willie's tunes. This can be easily verified via the illustrated Blind Willie Johnson discography, linked to in the article, which has images of the labels themselves. As only the word blind was placed within quotes in the other AKA entries, I was not sure if the new name warrented their use and so did not employ any. Svart kultur (talk) 21:39, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Merge into Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground

What? Why? And no. --Moni3 (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

This makes no sense. The mergefrom template was placed on the "Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground" article, suggesting it be merged into Blind Willie Johnson, to which I would be opposed. But, here, where we should be having a discussion of that very bad idea, we have a header which seems to suggest that Blind Willie Johnson should be merged into "Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground," which is an even worse idea. So, can we please be clear as to what is being suggested? Either way, I am opposed. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 21:32, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

The DWTN page reads like a biography of Johnson. The Johnson page is 1/3 info about DWTN. That to me makes no sense.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:44, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Blind Willie Johnson needs to be expanded to include discussion of his other music. Can we trust you to do it then? --Moni3 (talk) 00:47, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Is it ok if I keep the biographical info in DWTN cursory? I'll put the bulk of the info about who's praised and covered that song on the song page.--Atlantictire (talk) 00:51, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, no. I disagree with that. I've written two other song articles and in both some information about the artist is included. The Blind Willie Johnson article needs work. Dark Was the Night, Cold Was the Ground does not. --Moni3 (talk) 00:54, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

Atlantictire, before you remove a large chunk of information from this article (and hopefully not paste it directly into the song article), you should probably get hold of sources about Johnson's life. Music libraries, Blues anthologies, and other trade journals should give you an overall perspective on the amount of information dedicated to the song. I'm concerned you haven't checked the sources for Johnson's article and are doing a gnome-job because it simply looks off. Johnson's article should be treated respectfully and written with the best sources. --Moni3 (talk) 01:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)

references in poor shape

I am working on them, but this one i cannot even figure out: does anyone know what the heck it is a reference to? — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 21:30, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

OK, never mind about that, I found an alternative reference for the fact and eliminated the mysterious "obek and ford"... there are still some references needed, and I don't have the resources to fill them in right now, but in any case, i have fixed up the ones that were there to some extent. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:29, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

References

timothy beal's take on arrest

it's not an ad for the book, it's a cited take on the incident from a reliable secondary source. i know that beal doesn't "present an argument" for this, i'm using argue in the sense of presenting a viewpoint, a standard usage of the word. do you have any other reasons for thinking that this passage should be removed? obviously the arrest needs to be in the article because it's discussed in a number of sources. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 22:32, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Timothy Beal reference

note for the sake of the future: this discussion concerns this diff here. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:53, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorry for the different name, as that was my first edit and for some reason it would not log me back in so name is modified. Nevertheless, I do understand the definition of "argue." On the other hand, evidence must be presented to substantiate claim. Is this new information by Mr. Beal backed up by a conversation he had with an arresting officer? Does he know the name of the officer or anyone that he spoke with who can back-up this claim. And I'm not sure he is a secondary source unless he knew a first source. In fact, there is no evidence that Johnson was ever arrested at all. So then to go further and state what was in someone's mind when they arrested him goes too far for a encyclopedia or even a wikipedia entry. Finally, there is no page citation for this source but simply a reference to the entire book, which does not seem to be about Blind Willie Johnson research. So I would argue that the "reference" is actually not a reference at all but simply an opinion based upon nothing but the author's own belief but not facts. Prewarblues1 (talk) 23:33, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

fair enough, but I'm feeling that the way that sources are used on wikipedia supports the inclusion of this material. that is, if a reliable secondary source states such and such, then such and such is inclusible in an article. i'm thinking specifically about the bit that says Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources; and, all majority and significant minority views that appear in these sources should be covered by these articles. beal's a professor at a respectable university, he has a section in his book which discusses johnson, the book's publisher is respectable, so the information can go in, supported by that alone. wikipedia policy is generally opposed to editors interpreting primary sources on their own, i believe because that would take us down the rabbit hole of what interpretation to place on documents and sources. this way, we let the professionals sort out what the primary sources mean, and we quote all of their points of view: Articles should be based on reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. This means that we only publish the opinions of reliable authors, and not the opinions of Wikipedians who have read and interpreted primary source material for themselves. i'm sorry about not putting in the page number, and it was a library book so it's too late now for now, but the index should allow you to check it easily enough. also, points of view can go into articles as long as they're identified as points of view of the authors of reliable sources, which is why i chose to phrase it in such a way as to make it clear that this was beal's interpretation of the event, rather than something being stated as a fact. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 23:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

We can let it remain although I do not follow your logic. Maybe others will weigh in and a consensus will be reached. The main reason for my disagreement is that although Beal may be "a professor at a respectable university" he is not a blues scholar or a Blind Willie Johnson scholar. And the publisher may indeed be reputable but they did not agree to publish the book based on his blues knowledge. And my last argument for removal is that many of these blues or gospel singers of this era have their history based on myths. And Blind Willie Johnson is not an exception to this. The last thing we need is to add on. In fact, we need the opposite. But if it remains I think we should have a page cited. Your getting the book from a library is not a justification for not citing sources correctly. And it is not my job to do look it up. Since you are the agent that made the change, it is your duty to do it correctly. If not, I think this in itself will merit a removal if not added. Prewarblues1 (talk) 00:38, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

ok, if it's the page number that's bothering you, i put it in. it's perfectly ordinary to cite books without page numbers if the location of the information is clear from the book's index, but it's a moot issue now. (also, i wasn't suggesting that you put the page number in, but was asserting that the information is accessible with the information given, so that a page number didn't seem necessary to me). the reasoning about using secondary sources is not my reasoning, it's the consensus of wikipedia editors, although i personally also agree with it, even though there are some ways in which it's not ideal. it is true that beal's not a blues scholar, but a theologian. however, i think it's important to remember that johnson was not just a blues singer, but a preacher as well. it seems reasonable to me to use sources that address that aspect of the man's career. if there's some kind of consensus that the sentence and the source should be removed, of course, i'll let it go, but i'd be surprised if that happened. we shall see, i suppose. thanks for talking about this, anyway. — alf.laylah.wa.laylah (talk) 00:52, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Blanchette Cemetery

"Blanchette Cemetery (which is the cemetery listed on the death certificate but location previously unknown) was officially located by two researchers in 2009. In 2010, those same researchers erected a monument to Johnson in the cemetery, but his exact gravesite remains unknown." This part is not true, well maybe the word officially, which really doesn't mean anything. I know where Blanchette was back in 1990s (whenever I found the death certificate) and spent two or three days tramping through the graveyard looking for some sign of his grave. It may be possible to find it by going backwards, find the grave, and the pull the death certificate, to identify the sections of the cementary, but this would take a lot of time, and may not work, but it is possible, at least to get an idea of where he is buried. I did find a Johnson, but it was not Blind Willie. Some of the graves had only small metal frames with typed names inside, and these would have not lasted long, and if this is what what used to mark his grave, it is no surprise it is no longer there. ,it is a great subject I don't know how to sign out with the squiggles — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.140.4.205 (]]) 03:32, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

In Reference to recent removal

Removed excess that was added in reference to article posted online. This included a specific date of marriage (which cannot be backed up by evidence) and pieces of a conversation conducted by Sam Charters. The audio can be located and listened to for ones self but it was not printed accurately and moreover, it is extraneous. Bottom line is the article mentioned provides no NEW information on Johnson so if the "information" is to be included, it should be done so with the orginal source with respect to the original author.1953casestudy (talk) 20:58, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

"Nobody's fault but mine" was known to me as more ballad-like versions like the (magnificent) ones by Nina Simone and Rory Block. When I first heard the very raw original and grasped that this was by a man blinded by acid in his eyes when he was 7 ans who proclaimed that his soul might be lost because he did not read the Bible this totally changed its sense to me. I then took it over in a version in E minor on the piano and since played it explaining to people what it might well mean, adding that this man died in a hospital simply because he was blac and blind and had no money. This carries it, to me anyway, into the range of songs like Saint James Infirmary Blues about the loss of a loved one, which I have played at her parent's request for the funeral of a 43 years old mother of 3 children. Blues is about life, and life inevitably ends with death. OK, no problem, but nonetheless we mourn those we lose. Shakey Sam hanged himself shortly after we last met. Juke Boy Bonner died of self-abuse two months after I saw him last. Big Joe Williams from whom I learned much is gone as well, as are others. Last of the row, my beloved guitarist Pierre died of AIDS. I'm not religious in any way, but let Blind Willie's cry be a lesson to us all. And let's all continue to play the Blues, be we white or black or whatever the hell !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.227.203.31 (talk) 01:12, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

With A Grain of Salt

I really don't know what to say about the person, TheGracefulSlick, who decided to completely re-write nearly this entire page. I'm sure the intentions were well-meaning (and some of the changes are welcome; the problem is the majority - facts are wrong and sourced poorly.) Tried to fix small areas of concern but because of the breadth of the re-write it is nearly impossible to do so. It appears, at least to me, that this was the intention and instead of a collaborative effort this was an effort to take ownership of an "article" as he refers to it, on his user page. Nevertheless, it is better to outline the difficulty than to state it - so here we go and then over time maybe it can amend itself.

1) everything looks OK with the changes to me except for the term "chest voice" and everything I detail ahead. This term is almost always previously cited as "false bass." Another issue obviously is with stating "he had little wealth or recognition in his lifetime." This statement has no basis in fact. We do not know what his level of wealth is and secondly, how would we define "wealth"? By today's standards? No matter the answer and although he was probably poor for most of his life - we do not know. Secondly, he did have recognition in his life. At one point he was one of the biggest selling artists in the "race" records category. In addition, many performers heard his music and covered his songs. And obviously the biggest complaint I have with regards to this re-write is when the author concludes that his life is "left to speculation." Much of it was but this re-write takes this meaning to a whole other level, as I will outline. Also "overtime" is actually - over time, if we are to speak of a passing of time. And last, Sam Charters did not get much right at all and toward the end of his life, admits as much.

2) Regarding the second paragraph, there is no strong evidence Johnson's music had much of a revival in the 1960s. Yes, Rev. Gary Davis did play Johnson's music as did a few others like Rev. Pearly Brown. But there was a so-called "blues revival" going on anyway. This was mainly due to the release of Harry Smith's Anthology and the folk movement but please provide evidence as it pertains directly to Johnson. Again, "overtime" is used, instead of over time. Next - where is the evidence that "Dark Was the Night" is "widely-covered"? There is one major one which, if included, should maybe give credit to that performer, but that song is not widely covered by any stretch. And if it is, please provide evidence.

3) As it pertains to the date of birth - if you are still going to keep the date of birth at January 25, Pendleton, not Independence would be the place of birth. All the recent evidence points to this as being the place and the January 25th date comes from this same evidence. Independence is the old place based upon the death certificate which also included a different date of birth.

Next, we do not know who his parents were or what their names were and especially what they did for a living or when they died. Until solid proof exists, it is better not to include this information as fact. Unless of course, you can provide such evidence or a citation where a researcher can prove such information exists. (to be continued)Demojury73 (talk) 14:38, 27 October 2016 (UTC)demojury73

With A Grain of Salt (Cont'd)

4) "Around 1900, his family, which according to blues historian Steven Calt included at least one younger brother named Carl, moved to the agriculturally-rich community of Marlin where Johnson spent most of his childhood. There, the Johnson family attended church -- most likely the Marlin Missionary Baptist Church -- every Sunday, a practice which had a lasting impact on Johnson and fueled his desire to be ordained as a Baptist minister.[1] When Johnson was five years-old, his father gave him his first instrument: a cigar box guitar." - this whole part is complete speculation and I direct you to what I wrote above as it pertains to evidence. Providing conclusive dates with no evidence is not only poor research but dangerous as it pertains to future dissemination of information. This includes the year his family supposedly moved to what church he "most likely" attended to him being a "ordained as a Baptist minister." There is absolutely no evidence of any of this, unless, again, you can provide it? We also do not know what gifts his father gave him. The only thing that is true and is cited is what Calt wrote in the liner notes, which are also not cited and even that was told to him by bluesman Thomas Shaw. And without providing context to that information, not sure the relevance.

5)And finally, as I believe I have made a good enough argument already for a careful reexamination of this edit, I will deal with some of the life info - We know that Johnson was "married" at least twice. In addition, there is no evidence he married Angeline at all, much less twice. She claims, in the recordings with Sam Charters, that she married him in the late '20s and was with him until his death. Based on census and recording data, we know this not to be true. We only know that she was with him (for sure) at the end of his life in Beaumont. One also left out is that the musician L.C. Robinson also said that Johnson was married to his sister. So if relationship data is to be included, I believe we should not be so definitive but concede that not everything can be known for sure and also be thorough with ALL of what has been in the public domain. The next sentence states he earned a "meager" wage. Meager in comparison to what? And what was that wage? This is an adjective that is a guess at best but is probably best being excluded and just say that he "performed." The next line is not cited correctly and double cited at that. That information was first published in a Michael Corcoran article and was previously cited correctly but now has disappeared. In addition, "no hospital would admit Johnson because of his visual impairment" should be reverted back to "In an interview, Angeline said that she tried to take him to a hospital, which refused to admit him because he was blind. Other sources report that the refusal was due to his being black" as being black was probably the more likely reason, another thing Sam Charters took on Angeline's word but, as was in the original, both explanations should be included. And finally, you state that, "Over the course of the year, his condition steadily worsened until Johnson died on September 18, 1945" - what evidence do you have that a fire occurred a year before his death? In fact, research published by Michael Hall shows that there is no record of a fire at all. That certainly does not disprove that there wasn't one but it also confirms that there is no evidence that there was one in 1944 or that Johnson's "condition steadily worsened."

I could probably go on but this is plenty of typing for now. The reason maybe the original author did not find "sense" in the subtle change was that they did not conduct their research very thoroughly. They have used old sources for new information and new sources for old information. Seeing this, I would look at the user's page and question all other "articles" as they call them. But seeing this as their article is part of the original problem, I believe. Like any research, it is best when peer reviewed and in this case, it is supposed to be collaborative effort to make sure we get it right. To say that an edit with an explanation, "literally makes no sense" is a childish, unacademic statement. Please, combat it with evidence not ad hominem attacks. Now, if you can argue - with evidence for your claims (and not outdated or with sources floating around the Internet but not validated) please include. But saying something makes no sense is just not a sound and factual rebuttal. With all the speculation, let's not add more. Demojury73 (talk) 15:08, 27 October 2016 (UTC)demojury73

Update: Vast improvement. thanks.Demojury73 (talk) 14:55, 29 October 2016 (UTC)demojury73

GA Review

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

This review is transcluded from Talk:Blind Willie Johnson/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Cartoon network freak (talk · contribs) 22:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Coming soon... Best, Cartoon network freak (talk) 22:50, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Lead

• in the 1960s, due to his → remove comma
• both efforts spearheaded by Charters → both efforts being spearheaded by Chaarters
• practitioners of the blues → remove "blues"
• is also highly praised → which was highly acclaimed

Infobox

• For genres, occupations and instruments, use a flat list.
• 1920s-1945 → 1920s–1945

Biography

Early life and career

• instrument: a cigar → instrument—a cigar
• Little else seems to be known about Johnson's childhood but at some point → While few other information is known about the singer's childhood, he met another blind musician at some point named...

Recording sessions

• evangelist with "remarkable → evangelist with a "remarkable
• most established → most-established
• best exemplifies his unique guitar playing in regular tuning in Open D for slide → place "best" at the end of the sentence
• and according to Harris he → and—according to Harris—he
• according to Johnson biographer → according to Johnson's biographer
• spectating Johnson perform → spectating Johnson performing
• journeyed to Atlanta with Harris → add comma before "with Harris"
• in 1932; however, Johnson → in 1932, but Johnson

Later life and death

• of that cemetery → of the cemetery

Musical style

• Sam Charters in the liner notes to the compilation album The Complete Blind Willie Johnson wrote Johnson, in fact, was → Sam Charters wrote in the liner notes of his compilation album The Complete... that, in fact, Johnson was
• Johnson's style: "opposed → Johnson's style as being "opposed
• Johnson also delivered in his → Johnson also delivered vocals in his

Legacy

• was included because, according to Sagan → was included, as—according to Sagan—

References

• Please change the style into {{reflist|2}}

Outcome

AWESOME article!! You did a fantastic job on it ! I've put this  On hold to allow fine-tuning edits on the page before passing to GA. Best regards and good luck, Cartoon network freak (talk) 23:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Cartoon network freak thank you for the review. I made the changes as asked, but I have questions about the last two alterations you suggest in the lead. Shouldn't the "blues" be kept in the sentence so readers know specifically what Johnson was a "practioner" of? Also, could you re-read your fourth recommendation because I read it over and over, and it just does not make sense to me in the sentence. Other than that, I am happy to say I like how the article turned out, especially when I consider the shape it was in not too long ago. Thank you again!TheGracefulSlick (talk) 23:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

TheGracefulSlick Hi there again! In the first case, I just wanted to say that you should remove overfluous "the", but I have made a mistake by writing "blues" instead. My fourth recommendation is meant to be a better solution for saying that his work was "praised", but if you think your is better, then just keep it;) Finally, I'm gladly passing this AWESOME article, and I'm going to fix the problem with "the" before enlisting this. Best regards and congrats, Cartoon network freak (talk) 06:41, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Issue With Alternative Theory For Visual Impairment

The page currently makes the following statement: "...that he viewed a partial solar eclipse that was observable over Texas in 1905...". However, no solar eclipse (of any kind) occurred during 1905 that was visible in the United States as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_solar_eclipses_visible_from_the_United_States What's further is that it seems no partial eclipse was observable anywhere in the world during 1905. There was an annular eclipse in March 1905, but again it wasn't visible in the USA, nor was it a "partial" eclipse. The mentioning of the theory may still hold relevance in a historical sense, but it can't be argued for with much veracity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Derp10327 (talk • contribs) 14:27, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

THe Solar eclipse of August 30, 1905 would have been partially visible from Texas. It is not listed on that page because the path of totality did not touch the U.S., but a partial eclipse would be visible from Texas Sheila1988 (talk) 17:43, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Record Not Listed In Discography

Hello, if I’m not mistaken, Mr. BWJ recorded more than is listed. I have a 10 inch recording side A “Let Your Light Shine On Me” / side B “God Don’t Never Change”. This recording is detailed in the records enthusiasts site DISCOGS.[1] Not married to my edit, just thought I’d run it by. Thank you.RayJ (talk) 19:00, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Hello Rj2046, not sure which list you are referring to, but the two songs are included on the List of songs recorded by Blind Willie Johnson, along with the recording and 78 Columbia release info. Both songs have their own articles ("God Don't Never Change", "Let Your Light Shine on Me") and are also included on Template:Blind Willie Johnson. BTW, Discogs.com has images of records and album covers, but cannot be used as a source because the added details are not considered reliable (see WP:NOTRSMUSIC: "Info is user-submitted/uploaded and fails WP:USERG"). Thanks for bringing it up though; perhaps the list of songs should be upgraded to a discography/sessionography layout that is more typical for articles. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:19, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

date of death is wrong 62.98.138.76 (talk) 18:33, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

Willie B.Harris doesn't sing on "I Know His Blood Can Make Me Whole",just listen to the song and check it...first 4 sides are solo recordings by Blind Willie Johnson.On Johnson influence on Howlin' Wolf i'm dubious (Howlin' Wolf played guitar rarely),just Wolf's voice is similar to Blind Willie... 62.98.138.76 (talk) 18:39, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

I have "The Complete Blind Willie Johnson" box-set and reading the booklet i can't find where Samuel Charters states Willie B.Harris sings on "I Know His Blood Can Make Me Whole"...just listen to the song is simple first 5 sides were solo recordings by Johnson...as often happens Wikipedia is wrong, citing false sources. 62.98.138.76 (talk) 15:07, 18 April 2022 (UTC)

Location of cemetary was not unknown or lost

Location of cemetary was not unknown or lost. That is utter BS. It is true that the specific place that Blind Willie is unknown because no map of the cemetary's plot existed currently that was available. 2600:100D:B04F:F741:A9CE:6D01:96FF:A199 (talk) 14:09, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

The story behind the discovery of his burial place is recounted in this article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:28, 28 April 2022 (UTC)

Note to removal of citation pertaining to Original research concerning date of birth and addition of research concerning parent's names

There was a recent removal of first source citations because the reference contained was "self-published." What the editor (and any future editors) must understand is that just because something is self-published does not mean that it is inaccurate. And if something was inaccurate, then the editor must show that what is being cited is factually incorrect. In the case of this citation being removed, it is a serious error considering this was the first source (with original research) to correct decades old inaccuracies. So in this case - if the article was to maintain the date of birth as January 25, one would have to cite the one who posited this date first. Furthermore, i also made a correction as to who Johnson's parents were - which was also discovered by the same researcher and included in the same source. This information was first published in 2011, but has never be argued or proved otherwise in the intervening 11 years and, in fact, has been confirmed by several other not "self-published" sources in the intervening years. And finally, if a self-published work is your main concern, the original author has also published the information for the Library of Congress which one could easily locate here: https://www.loc.gov/static/programs/national-recording-preservation-board/documents/DarkWasTheNight_Ford.pdf. But I still think it is imperative to cite the first time this information was printed, but surely if your research says otherwise, please feel free to respond here with it. DejaVudu19 (talk) 12:55, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

You seem to misunderstand the WP policy on verifiability regarding self-published sources. The warning "content sourced to vanity press" is automatically added when Lulu Press is detected. Just because a self-published source may have some correct information doesn't mean it is acceptable as a source. Rather, "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." It appears that Ford has only one self-published book and a National Preservation Board "guest post".

But when reliable sources are available there is no need for self-published ones. Jas Obrecht has published numerous books and articles on various artists and he addresses the conflicting dates and parents names in Early Blues (published by the University of Minnesota Press). He identifies the sources as Johnson's death certificate and a draft registration card. This should be sufficient for the points now sourced to Ford. BTW, why did you remove the Lone Star Music article without any explanation?

—Ojorojo (talk) 16:29, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I am going to have to respectfully disagree with your logic, but agree with your conclusion. Maybe Ford's data could be looked into (as it should) when the book was released (because it was new information), but 11 years later and with multiple "experts" not disputing it and, in fact, using the data, your argument doesn't hold that much weight. And I truly hope you did not discredit the Library of Congress as an official source. A "guest post" is only someone who works outside of the library, but it is not a role anyone can play, as it is by invitation only.

And I removed the Lone Star Music citation because it was associated with an innaccurate "fact" that I thought I'd fix while I was on the page. That read: "Johnson was born on January 25, 1897, in Pendleton, Texas, a small town near Temple, Texas, to sharecropper George Johnson (also identified as Willie Johnson Sr.) and his wife, Mary Fields, who died in 1901." The citation is a mistake as to the birth date (Ford) and if we are to understand that that date is verifiable with the preponderance of evidence then we can conclude that his parents were not George Johnson or Mary Fields. So while Lone Star Music (if that is even the correct source) may have been where the inaccuarate source originated, it is factually incorrect.

In conclusion, I am all up for a discussion pertaining to what is true and what is fiction about the Johnson legacy but let's be clear - there are only three people who have conducted original research into it and that's Sam Charters, Dan Williams, and Shane Ford. If you can show me otherwise, I'm all ears. With that being said, all the rest is conjecture or opinon. DejaVudu19 (talk) 17:39, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In fact, the Library of Congress only asks "an established subject-matter expert" to write those posts and obviously they felt Ford was the foremost living expert to do so, which I would say is pretty "reliable." DejaVudu19 (talk) 17:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

These comments appear to be little more than personal opinions. The fact that the Library of Congress used a "guest post" does not mean that "obviously they felt Ford was the foremost living expert" on Johnson. Obrecht, in his 2015 book Early Blues, notes that "it is possible that this draft card [with Jan. 25 and Pendleton] relates to another person." So, while it doesn't specifically dispute Ford's info, it does question whether it should be considered dispositive. Additionally, your characterization of the Lone Star Music article as "factually incorrect" is baseless – it only includes "Johnson, born in Pendleton, Texas in 1897, only recorded 30 songs ...", which is consistent with Ford's guest post. The idea that "all the rest is conjecture or opinion" except for the three writers named ignores WP guidelines for identifying reliable sources. Johnson has been written about by several well-known published music authors and should not be so easily dismissed.

If choice comes down to a self-published author or one who has several books published by major music book publishers, the latter is preferred. Also, it is important to "maintain a neutral point of view and present what the various sources say, giving each side its due weight" (WP:Verify).

—Ojorojo (talk) 19:27, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with your assessment, but the main thing is that if something is stated in the article then that original source should be cited. On the other hand, if that information is untrue, then it should be removed until it can be verified. At the end of the day, I believe that the sources and information as it pertains strictly to what our conversation centers on, is correct and should remain as is. DejaVudu19 (talk) 19:40, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

In 2008, prior to Ford's 2011 essay and 2014 book, an article in Living Blues magazine reported "blues researcher Jeff Anderson has found ... Blind Willie Johnson's June 5, 1918, draft card. [It] notes that he was born on January 25, 1897 (his death certificate cites January 22, 1897), that he was blinded at age 8 (his widow said 'about age 7'), and that he was born in Pendleton, Texas." So, if if only the original source should be cited, the draft registration card or Living Blues should be used (it also lists "Dock Johnson" as his father).

Also, it doesn't appear that other blues researchers and writers have acknowledged Ford as an expert on Johnson. The following sources, published after his essay and book, do not mention Ford nor list him as a source:

• Sullivan (2013) – "Born in 1897 near Brenham, Texas (as journalist Michael Corcoran learned in 2004 by finding his death certificate)"
• Obrecht (2015) – explains both the death certificate and draft registration sources
• Hayes (2017) – notes the conflicting sources
• Coppedge (2019) – "Corcoran later found that Johnson was actually born in Pendleton"
• Monge 2022 – "For the most reliable biographical information on Johnson, see Michael Corcoran, 'On the Trail of Blind Willie Johnson,' Blues & Rhythm 188 (April 2004)

So, it can't be said that only one view or Ford is widely accepted. This is a case of conflicting sources and should follow a neutral point of view: "Neutrality requires that mainspace articles and pages fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources."(WP:DUE)

Propose to reword the "Early life and career" section to explain the conflicting information and sources along the lines of Obrecht's 2015 book. This is the approach that is taken in other WP blues bios, such as Muddy Waters or John Lee Hooker.

—Ojorojo (talk) 17:34, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

There is no "conflicting" information. Only you are conflicted. Unfortunately you have just not done your research. Research is not a popularity contest. Just because you are unfamiliar with a source does not refute the evidence presented (which you have still failed to do). All the names you have mentioned have not conducted original research into Johnson and again, I ask you to provide the data that says they have but, as of now, I can tell by your analysis that you are not an expert on this subject. So have your fun rearranging words on a Wikipedia entry. The truth remains, and I will look forward to returning to this thread in the coming years and see how well/ or not so well your words age. DejaVudu19 (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Wikipedia follows reliable sources. We should summarize the conflicting information as Ojorojo suggests. Ewulp (talk) 00:49, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, inexperienced editors sometimes feel that their source is the ONE AND ONLY TRUE SOURCE that can be used. And sometimes they resort to personal attacks and using multiple accounts (Prewarblues1, 1953casestudy, Demojury73, and Derp10327 have similar writing styles on this talk page and the article history shows several blocked users). Anyway, I'll work on rewording the "Early life and career" section with due weight in mind and try to replace the "citation needed" tags. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:06, 11 December 2022 (UTC)

Unfortunately, inexperienced researchers sometimes feel that their source is the ONE AND ONLY TRUE SOURCE.

And let's not confuse an attack on your reasearch with anything personal (unlike what you seem to want to do with the lead sentence). The goal here is to make sure that if something is asserted that it is cited accurately. As you may know, people will carelessly pull from a source such as Wikpedia and either not cite at all or cite incorrectly based on what they find here versus look into it further for themself.

In this case, I'm not even sure what you are debating anymore. It appears you have gone from saying that a self-published source is not good enough to source to questioning the entire validity of the information associated with the source. And I think we have already established that Ford is a legitamate source (again, see work in 2011 and the Library of Congress). Any sources that were subsequently publsihed that did not do their research properly (or cite properly) should not be cited here, as it diminishes the work of the original researchers.

For the case here (as it pertains to Johnson's DOB and parents) please see the trail here: Hall, Michael. “The Soul of a Man.” Texas Monthly, December 2010. https://www.texasmonthly.com/articles/the-soul-of-a-man/, Ford, Shine a Light (2011), and even Michael Corcoran for his liner notes for the Alligator Records cover album in 2016, who states this information as fact with no citation.

So, please... write whatever you will here, because at some point your faulty reasoning will be proved as much and, at that time, I hope we can meet back here and you will make the necessary and overdue corrections. Until then... DejaVudu19 (talk) 16:05, 11 December 2022 (UTC)