Talk:Jimi Hendrix/Archive 5

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Early life

This sentence "On his release from the Army his father, James Allan '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.

In this section in the article, it says "That same year his only failing grade in school was an F in music class.[citation needed]" I notice the bit that says 'citation needed' and I know what that means. But this can't be true as jimi hendrix is known as the greatest guitarist of all time.

Posted by: JetanHertz13 (talk) 21:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that the line you are referring to be deleted? I suggest a good faith search for that info, of course, keeping in mind to ignore mirror sites. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 21:43, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

No Asian ancestry

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)

Well, actually, wikipedia isn't lying. Wikipedia is just really the host, as far as I know. I don't actually think wikipedia makes contributions, and, therefore, it is the users lying, and, even then, the users may just have incorrect scources, and, therefore, it is the scources that are lying, and, even THEN, the SCOURCES THEMSELVES may have wrong scources, and this can continue forever, so, really, it isn't wikipedia's fault, probably some scource far down the line, so you shouldn't really complain about this.

JetanHertz13 (talk) 21:32, 12 October 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)

In the following interview with Bob Brown he himself dismisses the claim. http://bob-brown.greensmps.org.au/content/greencast/bob-talks-about-jimi-hendrixs-death —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.38.244.40 (talk) 10:18, 23 November 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)

His skin tone clearly showed that he was not full-black. It is relevant to the biography of a person usually considered black, that in fact he had a substantial amount of non-black ancestry. Barack Obama is identified by most as black or African-American; any biography of him would be severely lacking if it did not mention the fact that his mother was white. Qzm (talk) 16:43, 23 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.

Reply to above statement: There could be no "admmiting" as nobody knew, the coroner gave the correct verdict legally an open one. Eric Burdon, for reasons best known to himself made two (at least) unambiguous statements that Jimi had committed suicide, one on TV and one in the press. The "silence" was because there was nothing to say as no one else was there apart from Monika. Most people including Gerry stickells had no idea where Monika's flat was, or much about her anyway.Jameselmo (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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.

Reply to above statement: Why should it not be an accidental overdose, Jimi was no stranger to downers & booze, very popular at the time (according to Noel who says he developed a bit of problem with Mandrax as well as the booze around this time)It's quite easy to up your intake of downers up to a high level in a relatively short time. Jimi was obviously on downers and booze throughout most of his last European visit. Brian Epstein, Alan 'Blind Owl' Wilson, Judy Garland etc etc - what makes Jimi's death any less likely to be accidentalJameselmo (talk) 20:36, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

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)

Reply to above statement: Only one man - Dr Bannister has said anything about there being lots of liquid wine in his body a man who was struck of for fraud - hardly reliable testimony - he also appears to wallow sensationally in the gore of his story and appeared very keen to talk whereas the rest of the staff involved, in keeping with the profession's natural reluctance to discuss patients details publicly were quite reticent. The ambulance men said the wine and matter in his mouth throat and elsewhere was dried and difficult to shift.It doesn't take very much liquid and matter to choke to death, when your cough reflex is hampered by drink and/or drugsJameselmo (talk) 20:36, 15 October 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)

Another mistake in death section

Age of death is wrong. Article states he lived from 1942-1970 yet the age of death says "27".

Since Hendrix was born on November 27, 1942 and died on September 18, 1970, he was just 2 months and 9 days shy of his 28th birthday.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:42, 27 October 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)

Unencylopedic: Video Game

This hardly-related blurb on some off-beat appearance in some random video game completely ruins the encyclopedic nature of the article. Video games are not in any way related to any part of this article and do not constitute a major part of what it is to define the subject of this article. Move for removal else include all other known obscure media references. 76.67.111.229 (talk) 01:45, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! Is my fix all right?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

This entry desperately needs a heavy rewrite!

The writing is terrible, far below the proper standards. So how about someone doing it?  :( —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.86.208.158 (talk) 14:11, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"Boot camp"

The Army does not have "boot camp", it has "basic training" or just "basic." "Boot camp" is a Navy/Marine term.76.230.152.236 (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2009 (UTC)

Hendrix and Little Richard

Although Little Richard biographer White (and sources who use him) give April 1964 or an earlier date for Hendrix joining Little Richard, many Hendrix biographers disagree. Shapiro, Belmo, Brown, Black, Robey, Shadwick, Cross, McDermott, and earlyhendrix.com all put Hendrix joining Richard from October 1964 to January 1965. In March 1964, Hendrix recorded "Testify" with the Isley Brothers and then toured with them off and on until October 1964. White also writes that Richard recorded with Hendrix in 1964, which is disputed by all of the foregoing sources. A postcard sent by Hendrix to his father (1/25/65) mentioned "I'm playing with Little Richard now" while previous postcards (9/24/64 and 10/8/64) make no mention of Richard. Propose to change date to "between October 1964 and January 1965". Ojorojo (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

That seems reasonable. Nice work.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

noise

was he an influence on noise music? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.104.240.106 (talk) 05:16, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Military Discharge

Jimi Hendrix was receiving 10% disablity benefits monthly from the VA. I worked at the VA at the time. I know this for sure. So he was telling the truth when he said he broke his ankle in a parashute jump. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.250.28.98 (talk) 06:12, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

I, for one, believe you.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 06:17, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Legal Troubles

"The US dispute ended up with Hendrix having to record an album "of new songs" for Chalpin, from which Hendrix and Reprise records would receive no financial return from US sales, including Hendrix's songwriting royalties, and worse Chalpin was granted 2% of profits from Hendrix's back catalog sold in US."

Using "worse" in the third line adds bias to the facts.

Rslaughter5 (talk) 01:45, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Why no mention of his 6 months playing for James Brown?

An excerpt from an essay with references to published books about Hendrix:
> However, he did not start out at the top. Jimi started out playing as part of the back-up for small time R & B groups. It did not take long before his work was in demand with some of the best known artists in the field, such as B.B. King, Ike and Tina Turner, Solomon Burke, Jackie Wilson, Littler Richard, Wilson Pickett, and King Curtis (Clifford, pg. 181). Using the name Jimmy James, he toured with a bunch of R & B shows, including six months as a member of James Brown’s Famous Flames (Stambler, pg. 290).
-"The Rise and Fall of Jimi Hendrix"
http://www.cyberessays.com/Arts/24.htm
And here are more sources:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&q=%22jimi+hendrix%22+%22james+brown%22+%22famous+flames%22&aq=f&oq=&aqi=
68.174.102.95 (talk) 07:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Because you hadn't arrived sooner with the information. Please add it.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 07:44, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hell, I'll add it if it isn't up when I get home from work today. Notable and worth mentioning? Just a wee bit... Doc9871 (talk) 09:56, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

No mention because he never played with James Brown, that's why the above is just a load of pathetic puff, do some serious research, this article is turning into a load of rubbishy third had unsubstantiated rumours, and patently bogus, laughable claims.92.27.3.200 (talk) 22:13, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Legal Troubles & Mugshots.

I note that a number of editors having discussions about this on their talkpages, whilst it really belongs here for everybody to see. That said I can weigh in regarding the subsection. I find it strange that you are arguing about the mugshot, when the section itself isn't referenced. Bit cart before horses if you ask me. I also have trouble with the weasel words "...unfavorable agreement Hendrix..." why is it unfavourable? Hendrix must have signed it and therefore thought it was worth signing - even if he changed his mind later, furthermore if he had dealt with it before he signed another contract it wouldn't have been a problem later (all in my opinion, because I was unaware of this before). As for the mugshot... Hendrix had hands of gold, but not unreasonable to show he had feet of clay. WP is NOT a fanzine. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Thankyou. You've just made the *perfect* case for not including the mugshot. You talk of "feet of clay". Now, everyone knows Jimi Hendrix wasn't a saint - but he wasn't a criminal either. There are no feet of clay, at least not with the incident this mugshot refers to. It should be removed because it is misleading people into believing something that isn't true - as you have, eloquently, just proved. David T Tokyo (talk) 15:41, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Seems like no matter what I had said you would have turned to suit your POV. You should have read what I wrote and attempted to understand it. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:54, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Ooh. Unfair. I'm more than willing to listen and persuaded round to a different POV. But in this case I dealt with your final-but-one sentence as that was the one that referred directly to the mugshot. I don't think I read it wrong. Did I? David T Tokyo (talk) 16:35, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

You probably have a stronger case DavidTTokyo, but your way of expressing yourself comes across a bit condescending. It would support a pleasant editing and learning environment if you'd make the extra effort at niceness.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Apologies if you see it that way. I've tried to keep the discussion polite - that's all. Getting back on topic - these are links to two user pages where previous discussion on this subject has taken place.

RodHullandemu

Doc9871 —Preceding unsigned comment added by David T Tokyo (talk • contribs) 05:54, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Of the eight people (and counting - random sample, some friends, some not) I've shown this to in "real life", not one has indicated that they feel that seeing that mug shot influences them into thinking that he was a criminal. All agreed they learned something about the subject by both seeing the image and reading the prose concerning the circumstances. None felt that the image should be removed, and all agreed it was an historic, educationally valuable, and irreplaceable image. None felt, due to the historical importance of the subject, that the image was unduly prejudicial simply because he was acquitted of the charges.

A lot of the argument against the picture having overt negative weight on Jimi's reputation is really something meant for a jury in an active criminal trial. Mug shots are prejudicial to a jury, as is seeing a defendant in a Hannibal Lecter mask and shackles. That's why defendants are allowed to dress nicely in front of a jury, so as not to influence their opinion based on appearance. I don't see the connection in this particular case...

Why deprive WP users of factual information that is freely available on Lord knows how many websites? How can one not want a user to delve into the article to further their understanding of the subject? Is this a bleeding picture show only? An only good picture show? Even with two administrators pledging support for removal of the image, I will fight this one fiercely, and "by-the-book"... Doc9871 (talk) 08:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

What I said was that the WHOLE section, including the mugshot failed WP:V, WP:Opinion and probably a couple of others as well. When I see one side of an argument referencing WP:UNDUE I usually tie it into WP:POV. To keep any of the section it would need referencing first. Then assuming it was all verified I'd probably move the photo to the sub-section "Drug Use" where it properly belongs in my opinion. I hope my position is now clear enough, if it's not please ask! --Richhoncho (talk) 08:50, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Nice work, Doc9871. Both on the compromise and on your use of the word "delve". :-)--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:31, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree, notwithstanding my comments above. Good to see a positive comment, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:49, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Now, what does DavidTTokyo think?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 13:28, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie, you know my views - I believe that mugshots imply criminality. Changing the caption doesn't work for me - if he isn't a criminal, why are we showing a picture that suggests that he is and then having to caption it to say that he isn't?

That said, I'm mindful that this debate has gone on in several places and for a while. Rather than keep banging on about it, in the process repeating myself endlessly, let's go with whatever consensus there is now. David T Tokyo (talk) 15:29, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not sure I understand your perspective. I think I'm close. And I want to make sure this is the best article possible for Jimi, so let me see if I get you. You don't want the article to just put up everything that has to do with the subject, especially not an accusation of a crime that was dismissed anyway. The ultimate concern being we might be tarnishing the subject's image needlessly. "If it was dismissed why is it being brought up again? Why isn't it being struck from history?" Is that an accurate paraphrase? If it is, I think it's a valid concern. And my answer would be that it can't be struck down. It's history. We have the info, and we have the photo, and we include it for comprehensive memorabilia, to show how different people in different places treated Jimi. And sad though it is, not all of them treated him with respect, because he didn't live in a world of perfect laws and perfect order, he lived and died amidst war and chaos, and his music, life, and death reflect that. You might also take comfort from the fact that he is in the company of countless scores of other musicians, of which the tiniest fraction include (some of whom were not acquitted): Gene Krupa, Red Rodney, Thelonious Monk, Bud Powell, Billie Holiday, and at least 3 Beatles. I hope this helps.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 16:27, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie - that's close but without the last bit - "Why isn't it being struck from history". I'm not trying to strike anything from history. I never had a problem mentioning the arrest / acquittal within the text. I have a problem with mugshots for people who are not criminals (i.e. they were found to be innocent) being put onto pages, for the simple reason that people can see them, and without reading anything, form the wrong opinion. Whether it's Jimi, or anyone else that's not a criminal, I think it's wrong.

I struggle with the second part of your argument. Personally, I don't disagree with it - I was around in those times and remember only too well what was going on - but to my mind it's just a mugshot. It's not symbolic of anything other than the fact he was arrested and all sorts of POV issue raise their heads once we start to attach more significance to it than that. David T Tokyo (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so you didn't like my unabashedly sentimental take, rather you're concerned about someone reading Wikipedia by images rather than words. Then, maybe the compromise is to include more photos, so this trivial incident would be put more into proper perspective.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 18:31, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Above a comment was made to "...go with whatever consensus there is now." WP:Consensus states, "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." The appropriate steps have not been taken to reach WP consensus, so let's not try and hijack the system, shall we? Doc9871 (talk) 22:22, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Condescending, Hijacking the system...it would be good to get through this without quite so many accusations flying round. Doc: I wasn't hijacking anything - I was giving in. I assumed consensus was in favour of keeping the mugshot on the page and as I was the person who raised this objection in the first place, I was suggesting that we should call a halt to it and move on. David T Tokyo (talk) 03:17, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to DavidTTokyo's initial comments, I was inspired to add more photos to dilute the effect of the mugshot. Nice catch, David. Hope it looks good to everyone.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:58, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, mate. Didn't mean to appear condescending. If there's no longer an objection to keeping the image, please disregard my last statement, and peace to us all :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Images: more or less? Legal troubles?

Okay, if you're not out of breath from the last topic, I think we have plenty of photos now. And, as I was scanning through them, I found three that seemed to detract from the weight of the article. 1) yes, the infamous mugshot. 2) the framed bellbottoms pic, and 3) the "first rays" posthumous album cover. I know I added the last two. And I know I was working towards the inclusion of the mugshot, but hey, the point is to try different things and to see what works, right? So, we're trying the inclusion of several photos to see if the weight of the mugshot is sufficiently dilluted. And, to give me a better perspective, since my last edits, I've been reading the spillover from the debate on Rodhullandemu's and Doc9871's talk page, I've checked the Doors article to see the difference with the mugshot there, and I've simply read the Hendrix article: and i come up with the fact that 3 photos stick out to me. The situation with Jim Morrison was different. He had multiple charges against him, he mentioned the incidents on stage and in the studio, and the photo brings to mind the image of the irascible Morrison punching kicking spitting (not that I'm ready to label him a criminal for that or for his mugshot), belligerent. Hendrix's situation was clearly different. His singular arrest, while passing through Canada, was explained and acquitted. His demeanor, voice and posture were gentler. His persona was more poetic, philosophic, aural, while Morrison's was more physical and raging. That's part of the reason that photo sticks out to me. Another thing that seems to stick out is the subsection "legal troubles". I see that it has the same heading level as more relevant sections, such as "The Jimi Hendrix Experience", and that seems grossly unbalanced. The only other "legal trouble" mentioned, besides the dismissed drug charge, was about some shady ex-manager who wanted a bigger cut, and Jimi gave it to him. That's not necessarily "troubles", that actually highlights Jimi's success in skirting trouble. I propose cutting the three photos, removing the section heading "legal troubles", moving the canadian acquittal to the drugs section, and fitting the ex-manager bit closer to the "band of gypsys" section. Anyway, what do you all think?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 09:40, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie, irrespective of whether the mugshot (or others) is removed, I think the reorganisation you're suggesting would make the page flow a lot better. IMO the picture that's really needed is the one of the flaming guitar and the lighter fluid - but I'm sure those are all copyrighted for the next zillion years. David T Tokyo (talk) 10:04, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie, I like it, pretty much what I said above. As for the photo of guitar & lighter fluid, a low-resolution screen shot would be permissible. Monterey Pop anyone? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:32, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I can't wait to see the Monterrey image, but I have to rely on you since I'm not good with images not already on WP or Commons. As far as the changes listed above, I think we all had to burn off some of the bad vibes to be able to understand your point clearly. I'll get to work on the other changes, except for removing the 3 photos, since Doc's perspective is missing.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 12:54, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the recent changes are a vast improvement. Of course, being the uploader and "inserter" of the mug shot, I naturally would be against its removal. I think it's better in the "Drug use" section as it is now, as it is put even further into perspective; and the expansion and referencing of the arrest in the article is superb. Excellent work! Doc9871 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm sure somebody wants to punch me for being the fickle editor of the year, but I think it fits where it is now too. But I'm not saying it cuz you were the one to include it. I'm saying it solely for the article. Remember to watch those motives, my friend!! Ha ha ha!

Also, what do you think about the images in the "fashion" and the "posthumous releases" sections? --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 04:41, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think if I had to choose any of the three to go, I'd pick the "posthumous release" one first (in favor of the more recognized Monterey photos, which can hopefully be added, but as David pointed out, the most famous image is certainly well-protected by copyright). But even the image I mentioned still illustrates an example of a "posthumous release", so I'm not eager to delete it especially. I think all three images are fine where they are, really. Jimi's been gone for almost 40 years now, and we can never get a new, free image of him. Any worthy, verifiable, and contextually placed image in the article (and there should be a decent amount) is not going to see much of an argument from me... Doc9871 (talk) 05:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

→

Archive 10

Reading a Bit

Reading a bit of this article and the author(s) seem(s) to leverage a healthy portion of arbitrary bull. I think it's sad that bent people use the legacy of someone deceased to let their neuroses shine. Actually it's worse than sad - it's despicable. I recommend a thorough copyedit and rewrite. The article in its present condition is - to be honest, it reads like something written by a 'merkaan'.

I agree. The sentence structure is horrible and many sections lack cohesion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.228.96 (talk) 09:38, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Lynne Truss

I am sure, that many, or most, of the authors, of this protected article, have never heard of Lynne Truss, but I would still recommend, that they read, and use, her book, if it can, in some way, help correct, their extravagant, writing style. Thank, you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.136.55.169 (talk) 21:57, 24 September 2010‎ (UTC)

Early Career: Influences

Jim Dawson in his 1994 book Nervous Man Nervous, (Big Nickel Publishing; pg. 134), argues that saxophonist Big Jay McNeely had a significant impact on the development of Hendrix both in terms of his stage performance as well as a musician.

"Indeed, the 'screaming' bent notes and shrieking feedback that Hendrix coaxed out of his guitar and amplifier sounded similar to what Big Jay and the other honkers had been routinely forcing out of their horns for years."

Jim also cites Harry Shapiro and Caesar Glebbeek's definitive bio of Hendrix, "Electric Gypsy" (St. Martin's Press, 1990).

"The sax players were the guitar heros of their day and McNeely's act was a blueprint for the gameplan that Jimmy himself would use later on. Jimmy was also impressed by the power of the horn itself, the way it cut through the rhythm section, soaring and swooping to the climax of the song, and he incorporated horn sounds into the matrix of his own style and technique."

Buescher38 (talk) 16:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Sounds awesome! Why don't you add it to the article?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:21, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Jimi often referred to his guitar as his "public saxaphone", but I don't see any reason to single out Big J as several songs Hendrix covered in his early days featured prominent sax as the soloJameselmo (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC) Jimi was Not influenced by B.B.King Several Times His Family has Said That Jimi's Idol was Elvis ; B.B.King Had The Opportunity to share the stage with jimi and B.B. King Sais That The Man Was Incredible —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bintays (talk • contribs) 01:40, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Silvertone Danelectro guitar

Sivertone & Danelectro are two seperate guitar companies that didn't build any guitars together - hence, it was either one or the other - this needs clarification...Thanks —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.244.7.243 (talk) 04:49, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid that you're mistaken. "Silvertone" was never a guitar company; it has always strictly been a brand name that Sears applied to the guitars they bought from the Danelectro, Harmony, Kay, Teisco and Valco factories. (This was a common practice with Sears who also contracted with many other famous factories to produce wares with Sears' "J.C. Higgins" brand applied to them.) Hendrix' guitar was a Danelectro model #3011 or 3012 (the only difference was the color), sold by Sears with the Silvertone logo on the headstock.Bricology (talk) 04:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

Santana and Hendrix's heritage

"Carlos Santana has suggested that Hendrix's music may have been influenced by his partly Native American heritage.[15] " Hendrix was in no way musically influenced by "his heritage". That's speculation and Santana probably said it so we could see his name on a page he doesn't belong to. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.172.72.175 (talk) 14:14, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, that sounded pretty NPOV.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:13, 15 December 2009 (UTC)

We don't need a Santana quote - Hendrix himself mentioned several times that some of his songs were influenced by Native-American themes, he frequently introduced I Don't Live Today as being "dedicated to the American Indian" and named another song with a distinctly Native -American beat "Cherokee Mist"Jameselmo (talk) 22:22, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I am a mixed blood Cherokee - Hendrix was as well - and I actually lecture at a university. One thing we talk about is the Native American influence in some of Hendrix's songs. For example, in Voodoo Chile (Slight Return) there is a lyric... "If I don't see you no more in this world, I'll meet you in the next one... and don't be late." That is a very Cherokee thing to say.Bigdatut (talk) 00:29, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

that actualy sounds pretty African American.............. His father was African American. His mother has some mix. Which would make the majority of his genes Sub Saharn.... I find it funny everybody wants to claim african americans AFTER they get famous... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.10.78.187 (talk) 19:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Also the song Voodoo chile lyrics very closely resembles negro spirituals. Darkman1984 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC)Darkman84 His father was AFrican American, and his mother was a mix. That would make most of his genetics sub saharn African. I find it funny the only time Indians, or white people want to try and "claim" People is when they get famous Darkman1984 (talk) 19:18, 13 December 2010 (UTC) Darkman84

Spelling Mistake

Hi i was reading this page on jimi hendrix and i noticed you spelt his orignal name wrong it is hendricks not hendrix as i read it in his biography and also i dont know if its in there but the reason it was hendrix was beacuse of some producer who didnt know his name was spelt with 'cks' at the end and put an 'x' as he thought it was.

Marc

Vampiresoxxie (talk) 18:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Would you mind referencing the book? Then we can add it. Or you can feel free to add it yourself...--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 19:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

No, Jimi was so born with the surname "Hendrix", not "Hendricks". Same goes for his father and grandfather. I think you need to look up the Hendrix Family Tree on the 1991 biography Jimi Hendrix – Electric Gypsy on page 747 ISBN 0312058616.. It wasn't until the 1800s, one of Jimi's ancestors started using the -x spelling. [[2]] 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:32, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The Blue Flame

(The band was actually billed as 'The Blue Flame' in the only surviving advert for them and they were also referred to as such by John Hammond, a Crawdaddy 1967 issue, and also by Hendrix himself in his 1969 interview with Nancy Carter. 'Jimmy James' was merely his alias at this time, as was the earlier 'Maurice James' ie not part of the band title)

What's your problem with this Abie?

My problem is with the "i.e." part of it. i.e. I don't understand what you're trying to convey with that fragment of a sentence. But I love all the other changes you've made. I consider it an honor to find a way to improve on edits made by someone as well informed on Jimi Hendrix as you.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 23:16, 19 December 2009 (UTC)

I think it's perfectly clear it's not "a fragment" , it's part of the sentence: 'i.e.' - 'that is' his name was not part of the band title as per Hammond, Hendrix, Crawdaddy and the advert from village Voice i.e. the band was called and billed as : 'The Blue Flame' period. Jimmy James was just his alias at the time as was the earlier Maurice James - can I make it any clearer?Jameselmo (talk) 00:47, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I assumed it was perfectly clear to you. That's not the issue, Jameselmo. The issue is that I feel that particular clause is unnecessary. I never thought his name was part of the band's name. Why can't we just edit it to say "The Blue Flame"? And, maybe, but only if the consensus calls for it we could add the clause, ", sometimes mistakenly known as "Jimmy James and the Blue Flame".

That would be perfectly clear to me. Let's try and meet.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:35, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I made my edits, moving the info about the misnomer Jimmy James and the Blue Flames down to the reflist, though I'm not sure if it would fit better in a notes section. What are all your thoughts on any of my fussing around? I'm particularly curious to know Jameselmo's thoughts.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 02:39, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

recent BOG's edit by Abie

there is no "compromise" statistically ie the Billboard R&B chart shows clearly that Hendrix was very popular with the "black" community and I have added a cite as to this fact. The idea that Jimi wasn't popular with this community stems from "white" rock journalists who were unaware of the R&B chart, and unsubstantiated POV repeated endlessly until it has become a "factoid".Jameselmo (talk) 01:00, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Abie:"The resolution for the dispute included Hendrix having to record an LP of new material for Chalpin company, which wouldn't feature the Experience band, and wouldn't be associated with the Experience band name."

Where did you get this information from?

Ed Chalpin said that he was unhappy with the album as the agreement stipulated the Lp was to be the next 'Jimi Hendrix Experience' studio LP composed of original songs, of a comparable standard to their previous releases.Jameselmo (talk) 01:25, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

That sound useful, Jameselmo. Please reference and add it. By the way, no one's fighting you. At least, I'm not. And I'm not trying to disparage Jimi nor the black population. I am trying for a good article on Jimi Hendrix. Just to be clear. With that said, I think I have found the compromise. Let me know if you like it. --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 01:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

File:Jimi Hendrix Experience.jpg

This non-free file does not have a non-free use rationale to explain why it is acceptable to use it in this article. If there isn't a rationale the image shouldn't be here. It may ultimately end up being deleted if it remains here without a rationale being added to the image description page. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:37, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

1970

This article reported in error that Hendrix was discovered in his girlfriend's flat unresponsive then brought to St Mary's Abbott Hospital where he later died. He had actually died long before being discovered, the testimony from the two ambulance drivers Mr Reg Jones and Mr John Suaaw confirms that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.139.137 (talk) 03:24, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

By "this article", do you mean Wikipedia's article? Because the second paragraph explains both the claims of Dannemann, and the police's and ambulance drivers' claims. Seems fair to me, no?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 03:38, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

Influences?

No mention of how a certain dude named Freddie Bulsara idolized Jimi and went to see him several times with his friends/future bandmates Brian May (also influenced by Jimi) and Roger Taylor? 24.189.90.68 (talk) 00:34, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm...I think the "Legacy" section is doing an adequate job. Do you have a source to reference for that info? Maybe you could try squeezing it into that section.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 00:40, 30 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a Typo Fix Request

Hi,

Since the article is semi-locked or whatever, I just want to point out to whoever can edit this that the "Pan handle" of Golden Gate Park should be "Panhandle". (5th paragraph 1st line of the US success section.)

Thanks,

Q — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.23.85.42 (talk) 04:03, 27 February 2010‎ (UTC)

Edit request

{{editsemiprotected}} DRUG USE, DEATH and IN THE ARMY

What's the point of the entire DRUG USE section on the Jimi Hendrix listing? While its known that Jimi experimented with drugs, so too did almost all musicians in that scene at the time. Two mandates of Wikipedia are to maintain "neutral point of view" and that content has to be to "verifiable."

Too many people in mainstream media have the incorrect belief that Hendrix was a heroin user and died from an overdose of that substance. The Drug Use section seems to create more questions than it answers. In the end, it provides almost no benefit to the entire Jimi Hendrix entry and seems a little out of context in the terms of what an encyclopedia should include; not to mention several drug related facts can't be verified.

Linda Keith: can that really be verified that she introduced Jimi to LSD?

Kathy Etchingham: whether this did or did not happen; its a singular event that doesn't seem to fit into an encyclopedic reference. It's also a posthumous interview quote remembered some 20+ years following Jimi's death. It happened in a public place (a pub) but never seemed to be verified by anyone else.

Carmen Borrero: another posthumous interview, done some 20+ years after Jimi's death. If its true, its sad; but could there be other circumstances behind this event other than just alcohol? Unless you're an alcoholic -- which no one has ever said Hendrix was -- tying alcohol to the generic DRUG USE moniker is heavy handed.

Stockholm: lots of musicians have trashed hotel rooms, parties are parties. Plus this happened in Gothenburg, not Stockholm.

Paul Caruso: Jimi punched him because he believed Caruso stole from him; not because he was drunk. If someone steals from you, are you not potentially prone to wanting to punch them too?

Toronto event: Hendrix was aquitted.

Death controversy: Making vague references (even to discredit use of heroin -- albeit in a clumsy way) only seems to expand mainstream media's perception that Hendrix was a full-time drug addict and that he died on heroin. There's never been proof of Hendrix doing heroin, no one ever said he did; and the autopsy report following his death made clear reference that there was no indication of Hendrix using needles, etc. Why make any references whatsoever to that subject if it's never proven?

Hendrix's official cause of death is "barbituate intoxication, inhalation of vomit" caused by wine and sleeping pills. Doctors on the scene following his death had also indicated that had Jimi passed out on his side, rather than his back, he most certainly would have made it through the night and not choked on his own vomit.

That said, this drug use section seems to come across as having a negative bias towards Hendrix. If you look at the Wikipedia entries for fellow entertainers who died of drug overdoses and had reasonably well-documented history of taking drugs; they have no such similar entries. A random sampling people like Tommy Bolin (Deep Purple, Zephyr), John Belushi, Paul Butterfield, John Entwistle, Shannon Hoon, Janis Joplin or even Keith Moon ... none of their wikipedia bios are tarnished by the unnecessary DRUG USES section.

The last two paragraphs of the DEATH section also present questionable material that cannot fully be vouched for by official postmortem documentation and only help to serve those individual's personal interests in selling books (Eg. Tappy Wright). Interesting that Wright's statement is backed up by a discredited doctor who was drummed out of business in the UK for fraudulent conduct. John Bannister's comments have grown more exaggerated over the years each time he gives an interview; they also conflict slightly with Reginald Jones who was one of the ambulance attendants who came to Jimi's flat after he died.

The IN THE ARMY section includes the Charlie Cross reference to Jimi Hendrix being homosexual, with similar personal interests to help sell his book. Cross provided no verifiable evidence to make that point; which clearly goes again the "verifiability" requirements for Wikipedia entries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liveshotz (talk • contribs) 17:49, 12 April 2010

Not done: Welcome. The editsemiprotected template requires a 'please change X to Y' degree of detail. Also, you need to understand that our policy on verifiability means that one can verify that the source made the claim, not that the claim was true or verifiable beyond the source. We rely on reliable sources not to make wild claims. If something is presented in the source as an opinion, it should also be presented here as the opinion of that source, but claims which are presented as fact by a reliable source are considered facts. You are welcome to leave your comments here for an editor interested in this article to read and use or you can submit a new request with specific changes. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 18:58, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply Celestra. Excuse me if I'm way off base as I'm not a Wiki-expert. However, it seems to me that the test for verifiability between a LIVING PERSON and a DECEASED PERSON is heavily flawed. Under Wikipedia's mandate for trusted sources they state "As WP:BLP states: Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—should be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion."

Who declares someone as being a "trusted source" when they are referring to a deceased person? Just because you wrote a book; should not automatically make someone considered authorative on a subject matter.

If content can be pulled for a LIVING PERSON that is "negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable" should be removed immediately; why can't similar such statements for a DECEASED PERSON have similar responses. Seems that the declaration on what is a trusted source for a deceased individual may have some issues that can allows "questionable" statements to be permitted.

And while it may be true that you can't defame a dead person ... so the need to remove "questionable" or "negative" material is less important than for living people ... it does a great disservice for readers that attempt to use Wikipedia as a source for unbiased and correct information on subjects when such "questionable" statements can be left in. Seems a little like a double-standard and a flaw in the process. Liveshotz (talk) 18:06, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

In Re the drug use issue... if you go to the official Hendrix website, there are a number of recorded radio broadcasts that can be played. In the numerous interviews, a number of his closest friends and business associates say emphatically that Jimi was clean and sober for the last 6 months of his life. They also opine that his death via an overdose of sleeping pills was an accident that had to do with the difference between American versus European medical measurements (i.e., metric versus standard). One European sleeping pill equated to three American pills... so he ended up taking the equivalent of 9 pills by mistake. Check it out.Bigdatut (talk) 00:34, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Section on music

Seems to me we have more than enough on his life. Would it be possible to expand on his music, techniques, effect on contempories and later, effects, etc, etc, blah, blah? Fergananim (talk) 00:29, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Of course! Bold, Revert, Discuss. Cheers. Sebastian Garth (talk) 15:14, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Rory Gallagher

Please create a link to the Wikipedia article on Rory Gallagher at the point in the Jimi Hendrix article where Hendrix says "ask Rory Gallagher". Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.80.97.117 (talk) 15:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

The citation can be found here. It was actually in the Rory Gallagher article where you added the info in the section where it's actually cited. ;) - Jack Sebastian (talk) 16:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Expat

Why is this page locked? Anyway, can someone add the cat: American expatriates in the United Kingdom for Jimi Hendrix? 98.221.124.80 (talk) 21:25, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Thought a filter would block my "an hero" edits

I admit that giving Jimi Hendrix the meme treatment wasn't right, but I thought it would be blocked by the same filter that disallowed another meme at Stanley A. McChrystal. Oops. Can someone remind me how to properly test filters? 68.36.120.7 (talk) 22:42, 24 June 2010 (UTC)

Which name is correct?

The intro says James Marshall "Jimi" Hendrix, the box to the right says Birth name: Johnny Allen Hendrix. I'm confused... --92.200.223.228 (talk) 22:42, 14 August 2010 (UTC)

He was named Johnny Allen Hendrix by his mother at birth, but was later renamed James Marshall Hendrix in the custody of his father. To make it clear, I'll mention his birth name in the lead, per the manual of style. Sir Richardson (talk) 02:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Mexican ancestry

the List of Mexican Americans provides this reference, but there is no reference i can find in this article to show his Mexican ancestry. I dont usually add material to high profile articles, so i am leaving this here for someone else to place. I think we need to have some reference here, and some mention in the body of the article, not just the category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:56, 29 August 2010 (UTC)

He needs to be removed from the Mexican American page. If thats the case he need to be on the African American musician page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darkman1984 (talk • contribs) 21:52, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

No Jimi wasn't of Mexican heritage..Come on! But as a black American, we really do not like to claim him since he went out with white women. So in reality, he was a sell out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.63.149.149 (talk) 19:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Allegations of murder section

I removed this ill-sourced and tabloidesque section as it seems to have no place in a serious encyclopedia article. Another user has replaced it. What purpose does it serve? --John (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

It serves a purpose and conveys the possibility that this was an intentional act. We do not censor these and it is clear it was only a allegation. Had I seen the removal I would've reverted it, there is nothing new in Wikipedia about reporting things that are controversial or possible. Remember a allegation is exactly that something not proven, however if we start by removing all the articles that talk about conspiracies we might as well start with this one Death of Diana, Princess of Wales conspiracy theories or Pope John Paul I conspiracy theories. Had the section been sourced by Inquirer I'd understand the reasoning but as is the section is fine Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

What is the merit of conveying this possibility? Bear in mind WP:UNDUE please when answering. --John (talk) 14:34, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

I had a edit conflict...I guess I'd also be iinterested in what is undue attention to this? Ten lines that are sourced when compared to several hundred? It seems this is a very small portion of a otherwise large article so not understanding your viewpoint. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:36, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

The entirety of the murder allegations section:

A former Animals "roadie," James "Tappy" Wright, published a book in May 2009 claiming Hendrix's manager, Mike Jeffery, admitted to him that he had Hendrix killed because the rock star wanted to end his management contract. John Bannister, the doctor who attended the scene of his death in 1970 stated publicly in 2009

"The amount of wine that was over him was just extraordinary. Not only was it saturated right through his hair and shirt but his lungs and stomach were absolutely full of wine. I have never seen so much wine. We had a sucker that you put down into his trachea, the entrance to his lungs and to the whole of the back of his throat. We kept sucking him out and it kept surging and surging. He had already vomited up masses of red wine and I would have thought there was half a bottle of wine in his hair. He had really drowned in a massive amount of red wine."

In 1992, Bannister, according to the Daily Mail, was struck off for "fraudulent conduct" .

It was claimed that Mike Jeffery was not "in London," he was in Spain when Jimi died in London on September 18, 1970.

"There was a freak storm across Majorca and all the phone lines were down. Somebody told Mike that Jimi had been trying to phone him. The first call that got through was to say Jimi was dead. Mike was terribly upset at the thought of Jimi not being able to get through to him." - Trixie Sullivan, secretary/assistant for Mike Jeffery

I think it's pretty clear that John has a reasonable point, the section is just awful. The section starts with an accusation by a roadie (which would no doubt have helped boost sales of his book), followed by a quote from Bannister taken out of context. In the Sunday Times article he said that Wright's accusation "sounded plausible because of the volume of wine". The way the quote is presented in the article gives the impression Bannister agrees with the accusation. Also, why is it relevant that Bannister was struck off in 1992? And why is "in London" in scare quotes? Why is it even mentioned at all? The section needs a heavy pruning to say the least; at most a sentence may be salvageable. Nev1 (talk) 14:50, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider the headline about the Dr mqking the claims...."Doctor on duty the night Jimi Hendrix died adds weight to murder theory" Consider also [[3]]. It doesn't matter if the person added this to sale books the issue is that he result ended in news coverage. This is not undue wait it is clearly a npov reporting there was controversy. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 14:58, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Consider the headline? Please tell me you're not serious. Bannister said it was "plausible"; it's one thing for the Mail to be sloppy, but Wikipedia's article is just as bad as it presents the information as if Bannister supports the allegations. Including so much information on what he said is irrelevant. If this should be mentioned at all, it should be something along the lines of the first sentence of the section and merged into the death section as it doesn't stand on its own. Nev1 (talk) 15:07, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes I am serious. No one here has raised a reason why it shouldn't be raised. If you think it should be pruned down go ahead but the material is valid and it has recieved coverage. It at least deserves mention in my opinion. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 04:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

"Having received coverage" is not the criterion here. Please actually read WP:UNDUE. Thanks. --John (talk) 04:38, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It never ceases to amaze me, as a child of the '60's, that this idea which never received coverage, and indeed didn't exist as a rumor (even among fans like me) until sometime 20 years after JH died (an entire generation) would somehow now (some 40 years/2 generations later) garner a following sufficient to sell books or notoriety for a few peripheral and now geriatric hangers-on (an ANIMALS roadie? An ancient former doctor? A supposed girlfriend who was never mentioned by JH?) None of these unreliable sources ever spoke up at the time, despite the anguish, disbelief, and incredible publicity that immediately followed JH's death and persisted for a year or two; all waited for literally 20 to 40 years. The Google news search above actually tends to demonstrate that the murder theory is recently invented, but of course, it's not a reliable source for that point (or for that matter, for the idea that the murder theory is somehow worthy of consideration). My two cents, but this really is a great example of WP:UNDUE. I suggest a single sentence: "Decades after Hendrix died, the public's fascination with his life and early death continued; several persons claiming some connection to Hendrix announced to media in the 1990's and early 21st Century that they had information indicating that a crime had occurred, and that Jimi Hendrix had been murdered (cite reliable secondary source). Steveozone (talk) 08:12, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Something along those lines would work IMO as it doesn't put undue emphasis on the allegations and puts them in perspective.. Nev1 (talk) 11:45, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for the suggestion, Steve. --John (talk) 14:11, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I've read the policy perhaps you haven't.... Consider these points. Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources(news Article counts as reliable), in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight". It is important to clarify that articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description (no where is this given undue attention there wsa two statements by a Doctor and a former roadie) as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all. For example, the article on the Earth does not mention modern support for the Flat Earth concept, the view of a distinct minority; to do so would give "undue weight" to the Flat Earth theory. (there is clearly support for the claims in contemporary media.)

In articles specifically about a minority viewpoint, the views may receive more attention and space. However, such pages should make appropriate reference to the majority viewpoint wherever relevant (this was done in the claim that Jefferies wasn't in London. ), and must not reflect an attempt to rewrite content strictly from the perspective of the minority view(this has been clearly denoted as allegations and not fact.). Specifically, it should always be clear which parts of the text describe the minority view, and that it is in fact a minority view. The majority view should be explained in sufficient detail that the reader may understand how the minority view differs from it, and controversies regarding parts of the minority view should be clearly identified and explained. How much detail is required depends on the subject: For instance, articles on historical views such as flat earth, with few or no modern proponents, may be able to briefly state the modern position, and then go on to discuss the history of the idea in great detail, neutrally presenting the history of a now-discredited belief. Other minority views may require much more extensive description of the majority view in order to avoid misleading the reader. Wikipedia:Fringe theories and the NPOV F.A.Q. provide additional advice on these points

Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject. (Ten lines is hardly out of proportion with this article) This applies not only to article text, but to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material as well.

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:35, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's rude and counterproductive to do a text dump like that. It's also rude to revert. I think the bit you aren't getting is probably "in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint, giving them "due weight""; this is a tiny minority view, a recent invention by inherently unreliable sources for commercial reasons, and thus does not belong in the article at all. Putting one sentence was a compromise. Having a paragraph of this conspiracy theory crap is definitely too much. I think you are the only editor arguing for its retention at this point. Conceding gracefully is a real skill here. You should practice it. --John (talk) 16:00, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

It's also rude and counter productive to make stupid comments like "Please actually read [[WP:UNDUE]". If I can't get you to back up your argument in a coherent way without vague policy references, I'll paste the entire fucking policy here and bold the important parts so it's a little more like a coloring book, simple and easy to understand. Perhaps you'll like to instead make a valid point how clearly noting it was a allegation only and also then putting evidence that refutes the claims helps lend it NPOV and gives it undue weight. We're talking about ten lines in a article with hundres if not in the thousands. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I am sorry if it was rude to ask you to read a policy, if the problem was actually that you had read it but didn't understand it. Anyone else besides Hell in a Bucket think this paragraph "helps lend it NPOV"? I don't agree that it does, I think it breaches UNDUE, indeed it is a textbook example of UNDUE. It's like having a paragraph in the Earth article about how some people think the Earth is flat. We don't work like that. The claims are weak, the sources are weak, and it taints the article with tabloid trash. --John (talk) 17:14, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

I'm assuming a less vague comment will be forthcoming....Why is this a textbook example of Undue? I'm interested to see your reasoning and not vague ramblings that don't really explain your position at all. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 17:21, 9 September 2010 (UTC)

If I were you, Hell, I would accept the sentence that has been generously suggested and drop the matter. I don't think this theory is worth mentioning at all. I would liken it more to a paragraph in the Moon article regarding the theory that it is 'made of green cheese' or is 'a reflection' or that a London bus was found on it (reported in the Daily Star in the 90s, with a photo). It is the sort of theory that gives half-baked a bad name. Occuli (talk) 11:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Please by all means explain what sentence has been offered so generously? Hell In A Bucket (talk) 15:38, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Let's consider the coverage.....

• Hendrix murdered by his manager, says former aide [[4]] The Independant
• Jimi Hendrix murdered by manager, claims roadie [[5]] The Guardian
• Jimi Hendrix murder theory 'plausible' says ER doctor The Telegraph
• Was Jimi Hendrix murdered? [[6]] The Week
• Was Jimi Hendrix murdered? [[7]] The Sunday Times
• Doctor: Jimi Hendrix May Have Been Murdered [[8]] Fox News

I've demonstrated that this conspiracy has generated international headlines with more examples here [[9]], [[10]], [[11]]. I guess I'm completely not understanding how this plethora of sources is being ignored. It was covered on both sides of the ocean, clearly make things known it was a allegation only and not established fact. I am really not seeing how this should be exclused. It has widespread coverage and does not give it undue wueght. Please explain how these sources are not allowable. Hell In A Bucket (talk) 16:02, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Is there any reason to believe a hit by The Mob is conspiratorial? Is it not true that many Mob murder hits go unsolved? Jimi seems to have been drugged first, then Water-boarded with Wine while Monica sat in the room at gun-point. It explains why she gave several stories of the event, fear of reprisal by a mob murder squad. "Make some story up or else!" Please consider these points in any more revisions. Facts are important but so is knowing what really happened to Jimi, where, unfortunately, the circumstances of that morning can never be proven completely. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjimih (talk • contribs) 23:20, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

I signed-on to Wikipedia because of this topic and this is my first post so go easy on me I'm not sure how this Talk business works or what the rules are. I've been deeply researching this for 2 years and can tell you the murder allegations are not dismissible as "tabloidesque" or "crap" as some people have suggested. If you Google the Sydney news publication Mosman Daily you'll find a 2009 article where Dr Bannister directly says Mr Wright's claim fits what he witnessed and until he read Wright's book he never realized what he witnessed was evidence of murder. It is false to suggest either this or Dr Bannister's emergency room witnessing was "taken out of context". Most of the protests by the editors against these allegations are unsound and the suggestion that the delay period before their being made is evidence of their falseness is also based on faulty reasoning and conventional uneducated public opinion. Indeed the reason I signed-on was because this section does not give due weight to the veracity of this claim or the evidence behind it. I understand the Wikipedia reliable referenced source limitations, however in this case they have served the function of undermining the truth, instead of allowing unproven allegations, as some protest. The problem with the current Murder Allegations entry is that Dr Bannister's loss of his medical license and Bob Levine's claim serves to give a false impression by juxtaposition. Dr Bannister lost his license due to routine billing fraud that had nothing to do with his medical competency or what he observed. It is highly unjust because there is credible reason to think it might have had a political aspect because of what he witnessed. The way it is placed in the paragraph makes it look like it brings doubt to his witnessing. Also, Bob Levine's information is quickly disproven by the fact the Warner Brothers artists insurance policy was signed in 1968 when Michael Jeffery signed contracts with Warners in Los Angeles. In McDermott's 'Setting The Record Straight' Bob Levine specifically details that Jimi came to him with a personal policy in Hawaii in July 1970. Levine told McDermott that he had a bad feeling about it and warned Jimi not to sign. These were Levine's own words. Also, if this was a nominal artists policy why would Levine warn Jimi not to sign this mundane mandatory contractual writ? The way Levine's recently published statement appears in this entry creates doubt about the murder allegations, but any simple research will show that Levine is offering easily-disproven input. I also have a long list of problems with the "Death" section. Though most of my protests can be referenced and sourced the digression works against the established information from reliable sources Wikipedia format and would appear as speculation even though its content is much more accurate than what presently exists on the page. As much as some editors protest, the death and murder information hasn't gone far enough and doesn't contain as much as it should to relay an accurate scenario of how Jimi died. I could offer information garnered from my research that would seriously overturn these protests but it is presently proprietary and part of a future work. One thing I can say is that these murder allegations have strong merit and were not "a recent invention" as one user suggested. In 1975 Crawdaddy Magazine suggested Jimi was the victim of some kind of homicidal action and mentioned Jimi's management as the source. Also in 1975 Monika Dannemann was documented and recorded saying on Caesar Glebbeek's Dutch radio show "There was evidence that could not be brought to the police and that the mafia killed Jimi for sure". Unfortunately, the protests against the murder allegations appear to be based on ignorance of the facts and how much credible connection Tappy Wright has to Michael Jeffery, as well as uneducated fan politics. Exiles800 (talk) 16:02, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Please suggest some specific, well-sourced changes to the article. — goethean ॐ 14:49, 12 July 2012 (UTC)

Proposed (partial) name-spelling change

Jimi was born with the surname "Hendricks," and that was the spelling he used until he went to London in 1966. I'd like to hear thoughts on changing the spelling in the Biography section for his life prior to that time. (The matter has been somewhat confused by the fact that, after Jimi became famous, his father and other family members started using the -x spelling) --Solicitr (talk) 19:21, 16 September 2010 (UTC)

Solicitor, your statement is false. Jimi was indeed born with the surname "Hendrix" not "Hendricks". Same with his father and grandfather, according to the family tree in the 1991 biography Jimi Hendrix – Electric Gypsy on page 747 ISBN 0312058616.. It wasn't until the 1800s, one of his ancestors started using the -x spelling. I suggest you pick up a copy. [[12]] 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

http://www.famousroots.com/profiles/H/hendricks-johnny-allen.html. I suspect the tree in Electric Gypsy has been "regularized" (not uncommon in genealogy, since name spelling can be rather flexible over time).

Johhny Allen Hendricks (soon re-named James Marshall Hendricks and eventually known as Jimi Hendrix) was brought into the world in the city of Seattle, the son of Al Hendricks and his wife Lucille Jeter. http://www.nndb.com/people/885/000031792/Solicitr (talk) 05:41, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

The family tree in Electric Gypsy has NOT been "regularized"; it's all the evidence you need. You also need to read more of his biographies. The two websites you have just provided me are just completely unsourced. Better yet, you need to sit down with the Hendrix family in person and they'll tell you the real spelling of their name. To think that Jimi and his family were born "Hendricks" and not "Hendrix" is just absurd. 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I hear you, IP, but "Sit down with the Hendrix family" is not how we cite here; a cite from an editor here saying "He told me" is not going to work. I've frequently seen or heard biographies that mention this idea that the "x" was invented when JH met Chas Chandler and was "remade" so as to be famous; it's not surprising that there are some sources out there that repeat that "conventional wisdom." ON the other hand, though, there is this: [13], an actual document from the beginning of JH's military service, before Chas Chandler and before the chitlin circuit--JH is acknowledging and signing his last name with an "x." I'm not necessarily saying that this is conclusive, or even a reliable source, but it does lead me to question the "conventional wisdom" and conclude that we need some better sources than those which have been used to support the "-cks" story (which may be nothing more than an oft-repeated legend). Steveozone (talk) 00:58, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

The source the IP provided clearly states on page 7 (paraphrased by me for relevant content): "Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix was born in Urbania, Ohio, on 11 April 1866... His mother...was called Fanny. Fanny Hendrix (or Hendricks as it was originally spelt)...had been married to...Jefferson Hendrix". So I think we have some conflicting sources here, fellow editors! Cool. How should we proceed? Doc9871 (talk) 01:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I think we should stop believing this legend that Jimi's surname was originally "Hendricks" and cite Jimi's family tree on Electric Gypsy. Since I'm a complete Hendrix nerd, I don't remember seeing or reading any of his biographies that mentions this name-spelling change. And thanks for agreeing with me, Steveozone. Fanny Hendrix was probably the first to officially change the spelling from "Hendricks" to "Hendrix". OH! And by the way, I read in one of his bios that Jimi himself altered the spelling of his first name from "Jimmy" to "Jimi" during his time at Cafe Wha? in Greenwich Village, claiming he wanted the spelling to look more "exotic". 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Well, the surname was originally "Hendricks": but long before he was born. Even Fanny's husband was named "Hendrix" - so I don't even think she changed it. It seems clearer that Jimi Hendrix was born "Hendrix" and not "Hendricks" from this source. No thanks needed here, IP! Happy editing :>

BTW - After the last "period" of your next post, put one space and then type four "tildes" ~~~~. This will sign your posts so that other nitpickers like me won't have to. Cheers... Doc9871 (talk) 02:15, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

• And - I think it's possibly WP:BRD time, here, folks. The source provided in the article for him being born "Hendricks" (pg.8 of that source) does not support this at all: in fact it's the opposite. I'll do the honors, if no one else wants to "embolden" themselves... :> Doc9871 (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Okay, Doc9871. I will do that. Since you've said "Happy editing", do you think you can contact someone to unlock this article so that I can edit it? Just change the spelling back to "Hendrix". 75.192.240.187 (talk) 03:27, 18 September 2010 (UTC).

I'll do it for you: and happily! And I'll add the appropriate source. BTW - I had to put the "nowiki"/"/nowiki" marks around the above example or it would have signed as "Doc9871" instead of actually displaying the four tildes. You shouldn't put the "nowiki" marks when you sign: just type the four tildes. You've fixed it, though, I see! You can still edit this article anyway: see WP:REGISTER. IP page protection quite often happens because of continuing vandalism: but registering gets around that nicely. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 03:38, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Are you changing the spelling back to "Hendrix" yet, or are you still in discussion? Just curious. 75.192.240.187 (talk) 04:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Let's see what happens... :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:10, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

You missed the Early life and The Jimi Hendrix Experience sections. Can you also delete the sentence where Chas Chandler was "coming up with a name-spelling more eye-catching than 'Jimmy Hendricks'"? 75.192.240.187 (talk) 04:17, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Heh! I've still got to move the cite, as that page of the source doesn't completely support the birth name listed in the article; only that his surname was "Hendrix" and not "Hendricks" prior to his birth. Still working on it, believe me. There's no WP:DEADLINE, and anything here must be properly sourced above all else if it's to stay. Even so: I've had many reliably sourced entries altered by another editor to then not reflect the source: it happens as part of the course of action here. No worries! It will get sorted out, and hopefully the discussion will continue here from other editors as well. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:24, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

There are some bad references here: some aren't even considerable as references. I'm going to have to find the appropriate substitutes, and this may take a short amount of time... Doc9871 (talk) 04:29, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I've done what the IP pointed out was correct to do, removing "references" and original research. To think that I was actually going against this editor until I actually looked at the source he/she provided. You learn everyday... :> Doc9871 (talk) 04:53, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Hey, ya gotta love those anonymous IPs, who come up with good edits despite the fact that they refuse to edit under their own names that their parents gave them, as opposed to those who insist on editing here under their own fake names that they gave themselves....Good looking out, IP. Steveozone (talk) 05:55, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

I fully agree. I forever curse the day my parents named me "Doc9871". It caused me a lot of grief growing up. Thanks, Ma and Pa! ;> Doc9871 (talk) 06:00, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

OK, I concede that I was mistaken as to "Hendricks." Mea culpa. But it is unquestionably true that the "Jimi" spelling was Chas Chandler's idea, or at least that Hendrix didn't use it before London. Solicitr (talk) 15:43, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Do you remember where you saw this? If it can be backed by a reliable source, it pretty much needs to be here... Doc9871 (talk) 07:37, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Totally missed the reinsertion of the quote with the source: awesome! One problem though: the source says, "Switching gears from bass player to manager, Chandler's first task was to change Hendrix's name to "Jimi." It mentions nothing about "eye-catching", and as a NPOV issue, that part of the phrase would be considered original reseach. I'll rewrite it to reflect the name change only, or another editor can if they get to it before I do ;> And Solicitr: it's best to actually use the edit summaries when undoing another editor's edits. This[14] could have mentioned that you added a source, you know. The same source that further backs up the "Hendrix" vs "Hendricks" thingy. Without an edit summary, it appears as a straight revert: I don't mind, but reverting can be a "touchy" thing with some editors, and doesn't foster good communication too well. Cheers :> Doc9871 (talk) 08:03, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

Roger Law

Is the "Roger Law" who did the cover for Axis: Bold as Love the same one referenced here? If so, could this be made a link (and someone edit the Roger Law page to reflect this). KeithC (talk) 21:36, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

his ukulele

i read in a book that the ukulele he had as a kid, before he had a guitar, only had one string on it. so in other words not really a playable instrument. i think that should probably be included... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.4.200.69 (talk) 02:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

You're very welcome to add it, provided you WP:CITE the book, which needs to meet the criteria as a reliable source. All you have to do is find the book and use {{Cite book}}, and it's all good (usually). I can help you with it if you need it: just keep talking on this page. Cheers :> Doc talk 03:01, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't know what book you were reading but if your talking about Room Full of mirrors it states that his first guitar was an acoustic he had bought for something around 5 or 10 dollars (probably 5) I didn't catch anything about a ukulele but the guitar which was his first did only have one string on it. get back to me because I no longer have a copy of that book and would like to know for myself the price and origins of his guitar (its all in Room Full of Mirrors). I read how he slept with the guitar laying on his chest every night and tried to strum along with the radio every day even though there was one horribly out of tune string. I know the first guitar he ended up playing wasn't his it was a (most likely acoustic guitar) owned by one of his father's card playing friends and he said the guitar didn't feel right him being a lefty and the guitar being a righty with the strings upside down for him. I'd really like to help improve this article any way I can because I'm a big fan c: — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lordanstanley (talk • contribs) 12:16, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why would his father's friend's guitar feel "wrong" to him,if it was the first real guitar he ever played? He would'nt have had a conception of the "right" way to hold/play the guitar,or how the strings should be placed. A lot of left-handed people play/played the guitar "right handed". Danny Gatton,Steve Morse,Eric Gales,Gary Moore,etc. They certainly dont sound like they had too much trouble. When you think about it,it almost makes more sense,because(for a lead guitarist) it would make sense in a way to have your dominant hand on the fretboard,rather then picking. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.40.41 (talk) 02:22, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

guitar playing

jimmy never played behind his head and or back —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.176.120.146 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2010 (UTC)

Right... all those videos were forgeries.Bigdatut (talk) 00:35, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Is there any way I can debate the fact that in the Hendrix article it says that Voodoo child was recorded with a Telecaster, I own a (Hal Leonard) book on how to play Hendrix's music and in it they say the studio version of voodoo child was done with a Stratocaster I don't doubt that, in the book it says your supposed to move the pickup selector switch in different directions to imitate the sound Hendrix is getting out of his Stratocaster which would be very hard to do unless you played the same way (right handed guitar strung lefty. I suppose you could do left handed guitar strung righty c: like Yngwie malmsteen, ive seen it on covers of his guitar lesson books).

You can debate it,but if you don't have a source,i don't see what the point would be. I'm not sure the book you cited would necessarily be reliable. But i would not be surprised either way,whether it was a tele or a strat.It's much more in his hands,not to mention all the effects and amps he used. As far as imitating his sound,again,id say it's a lot more in the hands then anything. Just look(or listen) to players who have sounded alot like him,sometimes playing through very different gear. Eric Johnson,or Eric Gales(who both play strats alot,but defenitely not exclusively,and often with different effects,amps,approaches,etc). Frank Marino would be an even better example,since he has played mostly on an SG,a decidedly un-strat like guitar in many ways.And just FYI, Malmsteen doesnt play a left handed guitar strung right handed. The strings are the "normal" way on his guitar. the headstock is just reversed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.40.41 (talk) 02:08, 17 March 2011 (UTC)

Military Service

At various times, and in various interviews, the story of his exit from the military has taken different form. In one interview Jimi himself said he pretended to hurt his back. In one of the books (it might have been Room Full of Mirrors) it mentioned that he broke his ankle. In another reference it said that Jimi told his commanding officer that he was a homosexual. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigdatut (talk • contribs) 23:42, 29 November 2010‎ (UTC)

There are a lot of myths about how Hendrix joined the military. There is no reference supporting the statement in this article, that Hendrix had to join the army to avoid jail. There is even a recent film on Hendrix: "Jimi Hendrix: Voodoo Child" which states that Jimi Hendrix volunteered to join the army, and supports this claim with actual letters sent by Jimi to his father. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.213.211.94 (talk) 23:28, 21 December 2011‎ (UTC)

Homosexual References

It doesn't seem like that much of a stretch to think that Jimi could have been at least bi-sexual. Look at his incredible stature in the entertainment world. He certainly would have had the opportunity. Look at other media icons - Jagger, Bowie, even John Lennon, who admitted to giving it a try with a man "just to see what fucking would be like with a guy." Jimi knew all of these people, and it is not at all impossible that, perhaps during one of his many groupie orgies, a male would have been involved. It certainly would not diminish my respect for the man.

From the American Indian standpoint (I am an Indian person), there is a tradition of the Dual Spirit Person - one with the spirit of a man and a woman. Jimi would exactly fit the mold of such a person. Jimi was almost like an alien - he was such an original. In fact, some Indian people point to a lyric in the song "Purple Haze", in which Jimi sings, "Excuse me while I kiss the sky." Kiss the sky? What does that mean? In reality, if you watch a number of his live concert recordings, it is clear that he is actually saying "Kiss this guy." That makes sense. It's as if he is trying to tell us his secret - not that he is gay - he clearly had many sexual encounters and relationships with women - but that he was bi-sexual - at least on occasion. In my opinion, this is almost a settled fact.Bigdatut (talk) 00:42, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

"Homosexual references"?! First of all, Jimi himself stated that "Purple Haze" is about him walking underwater in a dream. He only said "Kiss this guy" once just to be humorous; the actual lyric is "Kiss the sky". To assume that Jimi was bi on occasion is completely ridiculous. Who would come up with this nonsense?

Oh! And in regards to the beginning of this article, can you change "...the greatest electric guitarist in the history of music" back to "...in the history of ROCK music" please? Thanks!65.78.48.8 (talk) 04:21, 8 January 2011 (UTC) Why? You would only negate claims by fans of Django Reinhard, Charlie Christian, and Les Paul. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fictus factus (talk • contribs) 14:22, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

The 27 Club

Referring to the following sentence in the music legacy section, please note that Kurt Cobain was not a 1960s rock star but a 1990s rockstar so I do not think including him in this reference is correct. He was 27 but he did not die within months of the others.

"His career and death grouped him with Janis Joplin, Jim Morrison, Brian Jones, Ron "Pigpen" McKernan (of the Grateful Dead), and Kurt Cobain as one of the 27 Club, a group including iconic 1960s rock stars who suffered drug-related deaths at age 27 within months of each other..." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Katsuit (talk • contribs) 01:32, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from Juligan01, 3 March 2011

In the bottom of the article, under links, please include www.jimihendrixlessons.com. This website includes Jimi Hendrix lessons, licks, lyrics, tabs, biography, discography, merchandise, photos, quotes and more. Thank you!

Juligan01 (talk) 23:26, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Per ELNO #11 this looks like a "fansite" and would not meet the criteria for inclusion. The YouTube video prominent on the site has clear copyright violations, which would make the link even less appropriate. Cheers :> Doc talk 02:13, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 85.127.78.96, 5 March 2011

On the Jimi Hendrix genres list there is "Hard rock" but i seriously don't think Jimi Hendrix ever did hard rock, so please delete that one.

85.127.78.96 (talk) 16:58, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. "I don't think..." is not a good rationale for changing content. Citing sources is. Reaper Eternal (talk) 01:33, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Hi, my name is Rebecca Morre, and i am not to farmiliar with Jimi Hendrix but needs a quick answer, what kind of music did Jimi produce, what STYLE of Rock? Thank yoou. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.175.202 (talk) 22:04, 9 March 2011 (UTC)

There is no answer. Jimi produced Jimi-style Rock. He is/was the most original Rock musician that history has ever known. To classify his music as 'hard' or 'heavy' rock is to lump him in with the Led Zeppelins of this world, which is way off the mark. Similarly, he could not be labelled Blues-Rock, Jazz-Rock, or even Psychedelic. Sorry, but this man's music is not encyclopedia-friendly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fictus factus (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually 'psychedelic' is exactly how we did describe it back in the day. The real problem is that people subsequently keep changing what the old categories defined. Deke42 (talk) 18:22, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Jimi produced numerous examples of hard rock music, live and on records. — GabeMc (talk) 05:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Confusing Internet Music Case Reference

The last line of the third paragraph of the Woodstock section is slightly vague. It's more of a "fun fact" than anything else, but in its current state it is more confusing that interesting. I'm not saying there is no place for it but it lacks context. The court case is of course a famous one, related to the whole Napster controversy I'm pretty sure, but it might lead some readers to believe that there was some contentious issue about how Hendrix performed the anthem. The fact that Hendrix was referenced in an important court case about music is interesting but it should be presented clearly as that. It is not a self explanatory sentence is my point. The fact that Hendrix was selected to be used as an example next to Yo Yo Ma was significant in terms of recognizing his importance to modern music but the beauty of that fact could be lost in the current delivery. I was compelled to look up that case and search for the quote to get the context. Fun facts shouldn't require the reader to seek out clarification simply to understand their basic significance. Someone with more expertise on that reference than me should add further explanation. Skiingdemon (talk) 00:09, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I completely agree.I'd edit it myself,but i dont have an account. It should be in a different,"trivia" type section,or just removed alltogether. I mean,if Barack Obama mentions castles made of sand on camera at some point during his career,should that be included in the Axis:Bold as Love section? It's also redundant. We allready know he performed the star spangled banner,its mentionned in the sentence directly preceeding it.The fact that a judge mentionned it isnt bringing any new essential information. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.122.168.200 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Gypsy (Romani) ancestry?

Does anyone know if there is actually any truth in this article?

http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/Melungeon/2002-06/1024809455 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tsigano (talk • contribs) 17:48, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

It's true in the sense that all bloodlines, anywhere in the world, have lived nomadically at some point. Words such as 'gypsy', or even 'Romani' are redundant, and imposed from outsiders looking in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fictus factus (talk • contribs) 14:00, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Fashion made by Michael & Toni Designs

Many of the outfits worn by Jimi Hendrix pictured in the Article section "Fashion"were designed and made by Michael & Toni Designs. Michael Braun's website: www.michaelbraunart.com describes Jimi as one of the musicians he made clothes for and the book, Threads of Rock n' Roll, also includes many of the stories associated with Jimi during the time Michael & Toni were making his clothes. Michael & Toni have a letter written to them by Jimi requesting more clothes as he never seemed to be able to keep them. The picture of the white bell bottomed pants with the blue embroidery on display in the Hard Rock Cafe Hollywood were Michael & Toni Designs, i.e. Michael Braun and Toni Ackerman.

---

Signed by MBraun--- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwbraun1 (talk • contribs) 17:07, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from 71.249.196.188, 12 July 2011

The last sentence of the third paragraph (of four) in the "Woodstock" section of the Hendrix article is wrong and/or misleading, and the footnote to a source is erroneous. I'll say how they read now, why that's wrong, and what I would edit them to read.

I am a lawyer who has taught legal bibliography and litigated in the Second Circuit, and I recognized these as errors immediately. (By the way, as a fan since 1967, I'm also astonished to see that the article never mentions the sex-infused nature of his music! To sterilize it is to re-write history. But I'll let someone else fix that.)

The sentence reads: > In 2010, a judge in a court case in the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit would say, "Jimmy Hendrix memorably (or not, depending on one’s sensibility) offered a 'rendition' of the Star-Spangled Banner at Woodstock when he performed it aloud in 1969."[103]

The footnote reads: > United States v. ASCAP, 09-5939 CV (September 28, 2010)

They're wrong in that: (a) it was the unanimous 50-page opinion of a three-judge panel, not "a judge," even though of course it was written by one of the judges. (In fact, it was John M. Walker, Jr., a cousin of President George H.W. Bush. I'm amazed that he misspelled "Jimi", but he is indeed quoted accurately.) (b) the point of the court's using quotation marks on "rendition," and of using the seemingly obnoxious word "aloud," was not any sort of music commentary, but merely an example of what it is to "render" music. The lawsuit was about whether the act of delivering a recording through Internet file-sharing constitutes "performing" the music. The relevant statute defined "perform" as "recite, render or play," so the court used Perlman, Hendrix and Ma as examples of recital, rendition and playing. (c) the footnote uses the CV case number of the *trial* court's initial ruling (Southern District of New York, in 2009), even though the quoted opinion was by the *appeals* court in 2010. The correct legal citation is the only easy way to look up an opinion. It's not set forth in the opinion itself, because it takes the publisher weeks after courts issue an opinion to assign a volume and page number in the permanent reports. You can see all this for yourself at www.leagle.com/unsecure/page.htm?shortname=infco20100928100 .

So, the correct sentence and footnote should read:

In 2010, a federal court of appeals court decided whether online sharing of a music recording can constitute a "performance" of it, writing: "Jimmy Hendrix memorably (or not, depending on one’s sensibility) offered a 'rendition' of the Star-Spangled Banner at Woodstock when he performed it aloud in 1969."[*]

• United States v. ASCAP (In re Application of RealNetworks, Inc. and Yahoo! Inc.), 627 F.3d 64 (2d Cir. 2010).

Options as to the footnote: You can create a live link to any number of free or sub-only online law libraries, but I'm loath to just pick one. Even unlinked, people can easily use the corrected (F.3d) citation to find it. It is perfectly acceptable to delete the case's subtitle in parentheses if space is at a premium. Although there are many US v. ASCAP cases, if you use the correct cite there will still be no confusion - at least not in the Hendrix context.

Thanks for considering this. I just wish I could have edited it myself! - Andy von Salis 71.249.196.188 (talk) 01:37, 12 July 2011 (UTC) Moved from here — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 06:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

 Done:IMO this is taking a very small matter far too seriously but i have added your request like for like (i am trusting you that its correct). Monkeymanman (talk) 15:00, 12 July 2011 (UTC)

Paul McCartney's comments on August 1, 2011 about the Saville Theater appearance

The Wikipedia page on Jimi Hendrix reported the following: "On June 4, 1967, the Experience played their last show in England, at London's Saville Theatre, before heading off to America. The Beatles' Sgt. Pepper album had just been released on June 1 and two Beatles (Paul McCartney and George Harrison) were in attendance, along with a roll call of other UK rock stardom, including: Brian Epstein, Eric Clapton, Spencer Davis, Jack Bruce, and pop singer Lulu. Hendrix opened the show with his own rendering of "Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band", rehearsed only minutes before taking the stage, much to McCartney's astonishment and delight.[81]"

On August 1, 2011, at his Wrigley Field show, Paul McCartney provided further information about this appearance after he had just played the guitar riffs from Foxey Lady. He said Sgt. Pepper was released on a Friday and he confirmed that Jimi learned Sgt. Pepper's Lonely Hearts Club Band over that weekend and performed it on the following Sunday at the Saville Theatre performance. Paul said that Jimi had a distortion bar on his guitar which he used there. The result was that the guitar went horribly out of tune. Paul said Jimi did not know how to tune a guitar. So, he said, Jimi stopped the show and inquired if Eric was out there. He was looking for Eric Clapton. Clapton, Paul said, did not want to be recognized, but Jimi asked Eric to come onstage and tune his guitar. Paul said Eric went onstage and tuned that guitar for Jimi.

Garry Naples, August 2, 2011 garrynot@yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by Garrynot (talk • contribs) 13:34, 2 August 2011 (UTC)

Paul is an idiot when it comes to Hendrix, IMHO, he is still jealous of his playing ability, and that Jimi dated Linda before she met Paul. It is absolutely false, and ridiculous to claim that, "Jimi didn't know how to tune a guitar." He would often tune up in between songs in a matter of 15-20 seconds. There is video of Jimi tuning during songs. That perfomance of "Sgt. Pepper" is available, and there is no sign of a stop in the middle to ask for tuning assistance from Clapton. Paul made an ignorant crack like that in Vegas in 2009, the crowd booed him a little. Paul initially thought himself a lead guitar player, and in the 50+ years since, he has done little (with a few exceptions) to convince us otherwise. Also, what in the world is a "distortion bar"? — GabeMc (talk) 21:16, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

Possible useful additional source

Hendrix, Jimi (1942-1970), HistoryLink.org Essay 2498. HistoryLink is an excellent Washington State history site, which we often use as a reliable source for Washington-related articles. - Jmabel | Talk 15:01, 18 August 2011 (UTC)

Update reference for 'Hansson & Karlsson'

Instead of linking to Bo_Hansson I suggest linking to Hansson & Karlsson, which in turn links to the former. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HenrikB (talk • contribs) 21:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Psychedelic, blues, funk, etc. to simply "rock"

I should change it to simply "rock". He is all kinds or rock, and "rock" is suitable enough. Spidey665 22:44, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

I disagree, Jimi delved into more styles than the term rock can cover, i.e. straight blues, jazz, R&B, etc... — GabeMc (talk) 00:59, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

I've reverted the change. Hendrix explored so many different styles that his music almost defies categorization; lumping it all into "rock" certainly isn't sufficient. Sebastian Garth (talk) 01:48, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Wah-wah pedal and pitch

in the first section it says that "Hendrix, as well as his friend Eric Clapton, popularized use of the wah-wah pedal in mainstream rock which he often used to deliver an exaggerated sense of pitch in his solos, particularly with high bends, complex guitar playing, and use of legato."

In my experience a simple WahWah pedal such as a Crybaby etc. could never be used to deliver an exaggerated sense of pitch. That's not what a wahwah pedal does. I've used a crybaby/Vox and other variations at different times for over 30 years and they have never altered the pitch.

When you use the pedal faster than moderate, it creates the wah sound by shifting the frequency of a filter up and/or down in turn. That's not the same kind of thing as altering the frequency or pitch of the actual note. It changes the tonal quality instead.

The only time that there might be a perceived frequency change is when the pedal is used slowly, then a kind of phaser effect sound is heard because the frequency of the filter naturally moves more slowly. But the pitch is still actually unchanged.

Please would somebody with editing ability correct the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.57.212 (talk) 06:53, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Edit request on 6 December 2011

Request the following information be included on the Wikipedia page for "Jimi Hendrix" as 100 Greatest Guitarist of all time in 2011. Please reference Rolling Stone Magazine, issue 1145 of 8 December 2011 for verification. Yes, it's the one with Hendrix himself on the cover...should be an easy task. Suggested change should include 2011 as shown below:

"In 2006, his debut US album, Are You Experienced, was inducted into the United States National Recording Registry, and Rolling Stone named Hendrix the top guitarist on its list of the 100 greatest guitarists of all-time in 2003 and 2011.[18]"

Thanks DP

75.110.140.62 (talk) 22:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

Not done for now: The current reference is a rehash of a list formulated in 2003; the fact that the list was reposted doesn't make it current. If there is a new list then please provide a link to it as I do not happen to have a copy of Rolling Stone Magazine lying around.--Hazel77 ^talk 18:48, 12 December 2011 (UTC)