Talk:Jimi Hendrix

Jimi Hendrix

Link to nomination: Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Archived_nominations/Index/July_2004#Jimi_Hendrix

• Talk:Jimi Hendrix/archive1
• Talk:Jimi Hendrix/archive2

Spelling

His family name was spelled Hendricks. Can't believe you missed this. OK, I can. — Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Not true. Both Jimi and his father Al were born with the surname 'Hendrix'. Jimi's birth, arrest, and military records all bear the name 'Hendrix'. His paternal grandfather, Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix, was the son of a former slave and the white merchant who once owned her. There is an unproven story that this Anglican merchant slave owner was named 'Hendricks' and that when he disavowed paternity of Bertran (or years later as an adult), Bertran's surname was changed to 'Hendrix' - a French interpretation of the name - perhaps in an attempt to attribute his caucasian paternity with the French Canadian or Creole ethnicities of North America, or simply to disavow himself from his slave owner father. The Bertran 'Hendricks' story is very old and cannot be verified, but it goes without a doubt that Jimi was born with the surname Hendrix. --Zig 15:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Native American?

Why is Hendrix included in the Native American musicians category? Yes, he did have Native ancestry, but so do most African Americans (and more than a few white folks). Being Native American is a very specific experience, one that Jimi Hendrix did not have. Socially and politically, he was a Black person.--Pinko1977 04:02, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

This is total nonsense. He deliberately identified with 'native americans'. Vis his Navajo hat. Stop being an ass. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.197.254 (talk • contribs)

I'll go ahead and remove it. Thanks. --ILike2BeAnonymous 07:43, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Jimi's grandmother was a full-blood Cherokee. He spoke in intervoew about conversations with his grandmother. Several songs of his made reference to Cherokee and Native American culture. Put the reference back in. --Taishanglao 07:49, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So if true, that means that Hendrix was one-quarter Cherokee, right? Does that make him a "Native American musician"? I'm not a cultural anthropologist, but my guess is no. Any other opinions? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:52, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Saying that Jimi Hendrix is Native American is a bit like saying that Tiger Woods is Thai. And FWIW, Tiger Woods is the only article in Category:Thai Americans, which is patently ridiculous. Microtonal 23:08, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Not any more; I removed that category from the article. Agreed. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 02:43, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

It is a myth that Jimi's grandmother Nora Rose Moore was a full blooded Cherokee - She was half Cherokee and half mulatto, and lived as such. During his visits to her Vancouver home, Nora Moore taught Jimi native american pride, customs, and history, but she also cooked him chitlins and collard greens in her soul food restaurant. Jimi's maternal grandmother (Clarice Lawson) was half Cherokee and half black, but didn't know much about her Cherokee roots, and thusly didn't convey any Cherokee culture to Jimi. This makes Jimi's blood 25% Cherokee, from two different ancestors, but since Clarice's native american ancestry was ignored, one could conclude that from a cultural standpoint, Jimi was one-eighth Cherokee.

The article explains the correct ancestry and mentions the native american influence on Jimi's music. Since he did incorporate these themes into a number of his works, I think folks who look for native american music or artistic influences should find a correlation with Hendrix, albeit under the proper context. Whether this should be implemented via the 'Native American Musicians' tag or some other tag, I don't know - tags aren't really my thang. Just wanted you guys to discuss based on the proper facts, and add my $.02 --Zig 15:47, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Summary of 2/13/06 edits

1. Jimi's litigous producer was Ed Chalpin, not 'Chaplin'. 100% sure on this.
2. The Chalpin album was titled 'Band of Gypsys' in the US and 'Band of Gipsies' in the UK. The title never included the words 'Live at the Fillmore East'
3. The Berkeley concert was 30 May 1970 not 16 May.
4. The paragraph about Rainbow Bridge had some vandalism inserted into it.

RUBBISH !! READ YOUR OWN RULES ABOUT EDITING and CHECK YOUR FACTS BEFORE ACCUSING THANKYOU!!!!

A thousand apologies - the phrase "BiG T is Amazing" totally belongs in a paragraph about Rainbow Bridge.

---

Sorry misplaced accusation!!I must have missed that one - and it wasn't me adding whoever or what BigT was or is ?? 61.68.171.172 15:42, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

---

1. The purple box set had four discs, not three.
2. The reference to Jimi's guitars promulgates the myth that he burnt his guitar on a regular basis - this was not so.
3. Janie Hendrix was incorrectly referenced as Al's biological daughter. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zigthis (talk • contribs) 11:13, 13 February 2006 UTC.

Zig's Usenet Redesign

This is my attempt to redesign the article along with some folks from the alt.music.jimi.hendrix newsgroup. Our first step was to ditch the year-by-year layout. Instead, we divided the existing text into more cohesive phases of Jimi's life and career. It may appear very 'chopped up' right now, but over time some of these titles will be phased out while others will grow to fit their distinction. We also tried a new way of divvying up the existing discography, so that the posthumous releases are kept separate from the ones where Jimi was alive to supervise and approve the material - this is an important distinction in the Hendrix world. It may also be necessary to categorize the posthumous recordings even further to show the era of control over Jimi's estate that each comes from. Stay tuned. Zig 17:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Not bad, not bad. Hey, could you & your colleagues do us a flavor and maybe provide some references for some of the material here? Still waaay too much "fanzine"-type stuff and not enough verifiable material. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. This article will probably forever be a nightmare. Hendrix died so young with so much material, ideas, scraps of paper, and unanswered questions that it's just maddening. The decades since have been wrought with legal wranglings and a zillion interpretations of just about everything. Many writings, even some whole books, are riddled with these 'interpretations' or just outright lies. Everyone involved, from his bandmates and management to the girl he died with to the current team in control of his estate - EVERYONE has bent the truth and revised history to suit some purpose. Also, most of what fans have/will contribute here are just things that have been in their head for 30 years. Henceforth, we're not exactly sure how to handle references. Are you looking for linkage between each fact in the article and a reference, or a list of references for the article in general? Where should references be placed? In the article next to each statement (that would be annoying to read), in a section at the end, or both? It seems pointless in a way because every single fact about Hendrix can (and thanks to Wikipedia, will) be argued over until the end of time. -- Zig 17:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Good points; no, I'm not suggesting getting anal about it. Lots of things cannot be referenced or verified. And I'm going to have to cop out a little by saying I don't know exactly how to do references; I suppose it's buried somewere in a FAQ here. I'd say just use reasonable and judicious references.

By the way, what was that "Blue Angel" thing about? I removed that section header. Was that your doing? --ILike2BeAnonymous 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Yep that was me. I poked around at other musician articles looking to glean ideas or style elements from them. The Elvis article listed the stages of his life as subheadings under one top-level heading which was titled "An American Icon". It looked like a nice layout, so I applied the same format to the Hendrix article. When it came time to choose the heading text, I remembered the phrase "Blue Wild Angel". At the Isle of Wight festival (UK's answer to Woodstock), Jimi asked the announcer to introduce him using this additional moniker, like they do with boxers and such. The guy must've thought it was corny or forgot the name, cause he just said "..and the man on the guitar, Jimi Hendrix". He commented on it after the show, since the guy's announcement was so plain - Jimi always said something cool like "...the man on the public saxophone" when doing his own roll call of the band. Now you're the modern-day reincarnation of the announcer guy.  :-). After I get the above story into the article, I'll try changing it again and we'll see if it sticks. - Zig 04:26, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

2/15/06 - Added a layer to the TOC, inspired by the Elvis article. Removed tour dates from the body of the article, created "Live Performances" section instead, referencing "Ask the Axis" external site. -- Zig 18:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Please, enough with the "greatest guitarist/musician of all time" crap!

I've changed the opening paragraph to qualify the statement about Hendrix's greatness and influence.

While it's practically without dispute that he was "great" and that he was one of the most influential guitarists, if not the most influential electric guitarist (note the distinction), this needs to be qualified. Why? Because, like it or not, there do exist very many genres of music, which are as comparable as apples and oranges. Great? What about Andres Segovia? John Williams? Paco de Lucia? Stanley Jordan. Influential? What about Les Paul? Chet Atkins?

DJANGO REINHARDT IS THE GREATEST GUITARIST

---

Meta-note on editing "talk" pages: to the person who added what they no doubt thought was a helpful little something extra to my comments above (199.245.163.1): Don't do it. It's bad form, worse when you don't even leave a signature. Leave your own comments if you wish, but don't mess with existing ones. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

---

See the problem? I think that however the lead paragraph ends up reading, it should carefully couch its use of these superlatives, so as not to fall to the level of uncritical, adoring fanzine talk. (This, by the way, from a confirned lifelong Hendrix fan who actually got to see him live once.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 22:25, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I even found a Wikipedia meta-article that deals with this very subject: Avoid peacock terms. --ILike2BeAnonymous 23:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Your comments raise the point, is there evidence of Hendrix playing guitar where criticism could be made ? If so which pieces....Hmmm He was extremely versatile and borrowed from many styles of playing, but as you rightly point out other musicians surpass his technique in strict styles of Jazz ,or Classical playing.

Does a guitarist have to carry this ability of perfection of every style ?.. I dont think so.

A in depth analysis is required of just one song to properly grasp just where Jimi was at I raise my hand for either Machine Gun/ Stone Free Fillmore East. But to do this would require extreme skill in music analysis see: http://www.andrewkeeling.ukf.net/Keeling-Red.html 61.68.165.188 00:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

This was re-worked over time to say "arguably" and "considered by many to be..." instead of just flat out "Jimi r0x0rz @11 of j00s". Now it just blatantly looks like someone 'corrected' it. Within 24 hours, someone new will come along and change it again. What it said lately was true though - if a trivia question or game show mentioned the words "greatest guitar player of all time" most people would say Hendrix, even if they didn't like his work. My grandmother would say Hendrix - yours would too. Just my $.02 on this.. -- Zig 04:53, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, as you predicted, someone did change it: it now reads

Widely hailed by music fans and critics alike, Hendrix is arguably the greatest and most influential electric guitarist in rock music history.

And you know what? I think that's good. Can we try to retain that as the final word in that paragraph? --ILike2BeAnonymous 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick, but the word "hailed" seems funky to me, here (widely hailed as what?). It's been in there for a long time, apparently, but I never noticed it until just now. I would propose replacing it with a different verb: "praised", "lauded", "revered" or something similar. The rest of the sentence is just fine. Microtonal 01:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

"Widely lauded by music fans and critics alike, ...". 'Tis done. ("Revered" seemed a little too much.) Thanks. --ILike2BeAnonymous 07:59, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

---

The big deal with hendrix's greatness is that he utilised techniques and effects like distortion and feedback that no one before him was able to do. He has had a much larger influence on rock music or his style of music than other guitarists have had in there style, so he is considered greater.

Drug use

I'm sure everyone has heard some of the stories about Jimi's "legendary" drug use, but its not even touched upon in this article; the only mention of drugs at all is a description of what he'd taken before he died. I think someone in the know should include some discussion of his drug use, and how it affected his life and music. I mean, who HASN'T heard the myth(?) that Jimi would cut his forehead and drop LSD into the wound, and then cover it up with his headband. Although anecdotes like these do seem childish, they are widely believed, and debunking or verifying stuff like this would put some truth to what are essentially legends. Static3d 03:11, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I have plans to add content to the article that will address the rumors and known facts about Jimi's drug use. Basically he loved weed and LSD and tried just about everything but the eyeball and headband acid stories are BS. The angle of LSD being an influence on his music and Electric Ladyland being the ultimate acid trip album must be covered, as well as his alleged and infinitely debatable use of heroin. Even more interesting and controversial are the various theories on his death - murder, suicide, etc. It's better to cover this stuff in an unbaised way now than to have folks wedge it in later with a slant. -- Zig 08:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Pardon me Zig but why is his use of heroin "infinately debatable?" Aren't there enough people still alive who knew him personally that his drug habbits would be documentable? If he was friends with someone like Buddy Guy couldn't someone just ask him at a show. I wouldn't expect his estate to be completely trustable. 70.248.101.236 12:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Take every Hendrix associate, every writing, quotation, and film that documents Hendrix's life - basically every place where it could be mentioned. Throw away the ones created by the 'estate', then put the ones that say he used heroin in one column, and the ones which deny or make no mention of it in the other. It'll be about 50/50. Personally, I believe that he was using heroin, but again, if we state it in the article as fact it will be changed over and over again. Also, I don't know of any Hendrix source, living or dead, that is trustable. That's what makes this article so difficult to work on. -- 69.143.57.75 17:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Either way, if hendrix did use heroin, or not.. It doesn't matter.. How he could even control the sounds of his guitar, and yet acutally speak and sing, is just amazing while on LSD.. He was a mystic :)

Help! "Posthumous Releases" discography

I just cleaned up this section, which was extremely badly written, punctuated (not!) and formatted. I cannot be sure that there aren't errors here, because it was impossible to tell which songs belonged to which session, album or performance, because of all the sentence fragments, glued-together clauses, etc.

Could someone who knows Hendrix' discography and performance history go through this and fix any mistakes? Thanks. --ILike2BeAnonymous 00:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

---

Yes glad to "In the West" Voodoo Chile and Little Wing are Feb 24 1969 recordings at Albert Hall London. Voodoo Chile is a fade out edit on In the West but actually leads into Room Full of Mirrors in the original performance at Albert Hall. Both pieces from In the West offer outstanding almost unbelievable audio quality hence the comment of possibly taken from the audio tracks of the film Experience. but confusingly "In the West" is credited with these same songs on the album sleeve notes as San deigo Sports Arena probably to market that album as US recordings . I orginally wrote this section, and grasp your criticisms , but will carefully rephrase this section over the next few days. 61.68.162.248 13:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Punching Up His Own Past?

What is the deal with this:

Hendrix would punch up his own past by telling reporters that he was expelled from Garfield by racist faculty for holding hands with a white girlfriend in study hall, but Principal Frank Hanawalt insisted that it was simply due to poor grades and attendance problems.

Why should we believe the principal over JH? That needs to be rewritten so as not to take sides on the issue. (if it we're true that he was expelled for racist reasons, the principal would likely not admit it if asked anytime after the mid-60s, as it was a hot-issue. Thats not to say JH didn't have bad grades or that his bad grades wern't an issue in his expulsion, but it may very well be true that what the principle saw as a proprietorial infraction contributed to his decision to expel JH. Or maybe not, but its not the wiki's place to take sides.)--Brentt 10:57, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

This was covered in a chapter of the Charles Cross biography, which was based on interviews with the principal, Jimi's high school friends, Al Hendrix, and Leon Hendrix. They all concede that there was no 'white girlfriend' incident or 'sex on the stage' incident and that Jimi was simply revising his own past to impress gullible reporters, especially in Europe where they were unlikely to go digging for facts. Thanks for bringing it up here instead of editing first - if you have a rebuttal, please respond. --Zig 14:11, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Zig is correct in "Room full of mirrors" robert cross' biography on jimi hendrix, it does state that frequently Jimi told conflicting stories and even made up stories, simply for publicity (under orders from Chas Chandler) or for no apparant reason at all

Impact on music

am i missing something, or does the "impact" section, perhaps the whole article, totally fail to mention his immense impact on hard rock and heavy metal music?

You're right, this section is exceedingly weak. "There's something about Hendrix's playing that was truly his own" sounds like the best effort of a know-nothing 15-year-old trying to come up with something for a homework assignment. Surely we can do better than this to honor Jimi's legacy? ==ILike2BeAnonymous 21:39, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

agreed. i'll expand it a bit. Joeyramoney 00:11, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Toronto Arrest information

In the article it says: Then on May 3, 1969 Hendrix was arrested at Toronto International Airport after heroin was found in his luggage. Hendrix argued in his defense that the drugs were slipped into his bag by a fan without his knowledge, and he was acquitted on that basis. However, on the FBI file which is an external link on the article it says that the drug discovered on him was Marijuna, not Heroine.

All of the books and media I have here (alot) say he was arrested for posession of both heroin and hashish (hash is a psychedelic derivative of marijuana). The FBI file doesn't have the actual arrest papers from the Toronto bust, it just mentions them honoring a request from Canada to provide his US arrest sheet so they could deport him. The document which mentions this was dated four days after the arrest, so perhaps the lab results identifying the smack weren't conveyed to the FBI at that time. Perhaps Canada has released their documents on Hendrix or perhaps they have a FOIA process that allows the Canadian public to obtain such records. --69.143.57.75 02:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I want my name in the Jimi Hendrix article on Wikipedia

I've noticed that Ellen McIlwane's name made it back into the article. Who is she? Why is her name in this article? Aren't there hundreds of musicians that played with Hendrix that should be mentioned before her?

Look her up on the web if you haven't already. She was actually quite well known back in the 60s, and a lot of us old farts remember her. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 01:41, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Miscellaneous misconceptions

It is a lie that Hendrix claimed to be gay to get out the army. Check smokinggun.com and search the archives. They have the army documents. It was Bruce Springsteen who claimed to be gay to avoid being drafted to Vietnam. Also Jimmy Page never saw Hendrix play-this is another myth. He has been quoted as saying he was mostly in America trying to get the then fledgling Led Zeppelin off the ground when Hendrix hit the big time in London. Have heard Page apparently saw him in a club somewhere in the US towards the end of his life-but Hendrix was so stoned-he thought it wasn't worth introducing himself. As to Hendrix injecting himself with peanut butter and heroin in the temple the night he died-has got to be rubbish. Hendrix had a phobia of needles. He was a drug user rather than a drug addict like many other people in the 60's. --Anon-London 10/05/06

The article doesn't directly state that Hendrix claimed to be gay, it says that Charles Cross alleges this in his book. For decades, it was considered fact that Jimi's departure from the Army stemmed from an ankle injury, since that was the story he told reporters. The SmokingGun documents reveal the proven truth that it was instead due to his behavior. Cross has added to this the theory that Hendrix faked being gay, based on comments Hendrix made to friends that Cross interviewed and based on additional Army documents that he obtained copies of from a collector. A second edition of the Cross book now includes images of these documents, but because they are copies from someone's collection and not from a government FOIA request, the validity of the documents is still in question. The article takes pains to present all of this in the proper fashion, citing the proven information as fact while presenting the Cross allegations appropriately. --Zig 14:20, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mixing topical subsections into the timeline

I'd like to take topical subsections like Fender Stratocaster, Amplifiers & effects, Drug use, and Paternity and mix them into the timeline of Hendrix's life. Right now they're just thrown in after Death like a hodge-podge, and I think this long article will flow better if the topicals were interspersed throughout the timeline as short breaks from the story instead of being piled together at the end. Any thoughts on this? --Zig 14:47, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Too Bloody Long

That says it all. Article needs a lot of subdivision/paring down/summarizing. SECProto 23:24, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Family origins is EIGHT paragraphs, and besides being almost totally unsourced, it is largely about his father's remarriage, the paternity of Hendrix's siblings, and lots of detail about his parents. This might work better in a subarticle or something. Kaisershatner 15:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not that simple. Many of the topics have much detail but aren't quite of the length that would require a subarticle. Furthermore, the details in the family origins, bands, and other sections are intricate to the story of his life and aren't of sort that belong in a subarticle. As large as it is, the article never drones on, but rather flows quickly through the immense amount of material and happenings that took place. Hendrix is an important cultural figure of his era, evidenced by his top billing at Woodstock, Isle of Wight, and other music festivals of the 1960s. This coupled with his prolific recording activities, collaboration with other artists, heavy influence, and eventful life warrants the breadth and complexity of the current article. The trimming efforts made over the last few days are great, but please discuss any significant changes or deletions here before implementing them. This article has alot of eyes on it and is also heavily vandalized. I certainly don't claim any 'ownership' of it but rather wish to see it evolve appropriately and peacefully.

PS: Most of the 'Family Origins' details are from the Charles Cross biography, which is listed in the References section. Not sure how to tag all of those statements off to the book without riddling the article with citations. --Zig 17:16, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Looks to me like a case for judicious editing. For instance, this sentence from the 4th paragraph of the "Family Origins" section

Jimi and Leon would sometimes spend time with Pamela in their neighborhood or run into Joe on the streets of the Central District.

doesn't seem to add any crucial information to Jimi's story, so it could just be eliminated. I'll bet there's a lot of other excess baggage we could throw overboard to lighten it up. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Jimi was close to his paternal grandmother, Nora Rose Moore, the daughter of a Cherokee father and mulatto mother who instilled in him a strong sense of pride about his Native American ancestry, which would later become a recurring theme in his music. Jimi's paternal grandfather, Bertran Philander Ross Hendrix, was the son of a former slave and the white merchant who once owned her. They were both vaudeville performers from America's Midwest who met in Chicago and settled in Vancouver, British Columbia, where Al Hendrix (June 10, 1919 – April 17, 2002), Jimi's father, was born the youngest of their four children. Jimi's maternal grandfather, Preston Jeter, also the son of a former slave and slave owner, left Richmond, Virginia at the turn of the century after witnessing a lynching, and settled in the Seattle area. In 1915, he married Clarice Lawson, a woman half his age who was of mixed Cherokee and slave descent. Lucille Jeter, Jimi's mother, was the youngest of their eight children.

Explain to me how every part of that is important. I don't think it matters that someone related to him (I can't even tell who because of the poor structure) met in chicago then moved to vancouver where jimis father was born. Why might his father's birth date and death date matter. Is it necessary to include that they left because they saw a lynching? It is full of details relevant to jimi's family, yes, but not to him. That's why they might fit in an article on his family history, but not in the main article on him. The rest of the "family history" section is just as bad, and none of it is referenced. It needs basically a rewrite. But I don't know much about the guy, so I can't do it. SECProto 01:48, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Note: I just saw your comment that most of it comes frmo some dude's biography of him. ok. SECProto 01:50, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree with this, as another example, "and after a few casual dates, their relationship escalated when Al was hospitalized with a hernia and Lucille volunteered to help care for him." Nice, but this is an article about Jimi, right? Kaisershatner 19:08, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we could create a separate page for discography and decorate it nicely like Led Zeppelin discography or maybe even Led Zeppelin Concert Tour Chronology DrIdiot 02:32, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Can't read/write music

The fact about Jimi Hendrix not being able to read/write music ("who did not read or write sheet music") was removed, does anyone think it's worth restoring? Do all rock musicians lack the ability to read and write music? DrIdiot 02:13, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Not all, but many. I agree with the edit, and think that the editor put it best: it's "non-notable for a rock musician". --Zig 14:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

forn someone of his talent, it strikes me as quite notable. an article does not benefit from the removal of one briefly mentioned fact that can be verified (this logic has never been fully explained to me), so i am restoring it. Joeyramoney 03:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Superstition and race

Its seems everything in this article regarding Hendrix and race is just superstition, there are no quotes, no sources. Hendrix did not write this info himself, and 1st hand research is not allowed even if you have a phd in jimi hendrix geneology. All these things regarding Hendrix and race need sources, evidence and proof otherwise it is all just superstition subject to vandalism. And please use reputable cites, not geocities or any other crap like that —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dualldual (talk • contribs) 22:41 27 May 2006.

http://genealogyblog.com/celebrity-genealogy/jimi-hendrix-ancestry-included-in-room-full-of-mirrors-4477 . PS you do know how to sign off properly, right? and you couldn't bother to do a simple google to verify that the information was in fact true? In case you think "Room Full of Mirrors" isnt reputable: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1401300286/103-7454969-2062207?v=glance&n=283155 Next time you make an edit, make sure you know something about the actual topic before you start removing material that you feel, unjustifiably, is "superstition". DrIdiot 21:30, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

"Jimi Hendrix was of mixed African American, Caucasian American, and Cherokee Native American descent." This is common knowledge and has never been disputed, though the amount of his Cherokee blood has. Every biography on Hendrix mentions the correct makeup of his race, including the ten currently listed in the References section, and especially "Room Full of Mirrors" by Cross, who conducted the proper research. This is a non-issue. --69.143.57.75 19:30, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

You know as well as I that we don't accept blog reference because anyone can make them and the amazon refernce makes no mention of race just Jimi being a bi-sexual which cause me to raise an eyebrow regarding its authenticity.Dualldual

So I take it you can't read? (Books, that is. Remember those things? They're made out of, oh, what's that stuff called? oh, yeah, that's right, "paper".) ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

The amazon reference was so you could go buy the book and read it since it's the source. You know, not everything is on a nice official page on the internet. DrIdiot 02:02, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

second sentence

it seems that people think of his sheer talent more than his overall influence. one does not necesarily have to be talented to be influential, but he certainly was. the last time i put up "..widely considered among the most talented..." alongside "influential", someone took it down, and i have no clue why. the fact is that he is thought of as highly talented, not just overall important, so it's going back in. Joeyramoney 03:29, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

penis size

I have heard from several reliable sources (in person) that Hendrix had an enormous penis and that a plaster cast was made and there are dildos. I was hoping that by adding it to the article someone could help me find a source. It was not meant to be vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Elcella (talk • contribs) 04:24, 4 June 2006.

Don't know about Jimi's member size, except if you put anything like that in the article, I'll remove it in a nanosecond. So far as plaster casts go, yes, there was a woman who was famous for making plaster casts of all sorts of rock musician's penises; just google "plaster caster rock music" to find her. But it sure as hell doesn't belong in the article. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:30, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

Why not? The Plaster Casters is a pop culture story, all the Hendrix books mention his partaking in it, and plenty of Hendrix biographers have interviewed women who attested to his generous proportions. What's the problem? --Zig 20:06, 5 June 2006 (UTC)

true. if it's verifiable, this could go under trivia or something, but removing verifiable information in NO WAY adds to an article (i have never been remotely able to grasp this logic). Joeyramoney 02:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Why is this GOD not in a featured article??

I mean I have seen some pretty lame articles, and this genius is not one of them...whats up with that? somebody please tell me this. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.189.99.161 (talk • contribs) 23:19, 4 June 2006 .

See Wikipedia:Featured_articles and Wikipedia:What_is_a_featured_article - featured articles has to do with how well written the article is DrIdiot 22:23, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

RE: Vandalism

I don't know if it's just me, but it seems like this page is getting vandalized a lot. Might I suggest a temporary lock? J.T.

No, it's not just you. Just more evidence that the current model for Wikipedia (i.e., let any fucking idiot in to do anything they please, then wait for someone to clean up after) won't last much longer. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Believe it or not, there is nothing unusual about the last few weeks here - This article just normally gets vandalized alot for some reason. Nothing suggests that it's someone on a mission to harm the page, instead it's just a neverending series of passersby (lots of school IP's) who just scribble in random shit. I don't think a lock will do much good - once the lock comes off, the graffiti will resume. Plus there's still a cleanup effort going on here, and enough users watch this page regularly that most graffiti lasts merely minutes before it's nabbed. --Zig 13:37, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

---

Request/proposal:
Just for ha-has, would someone want to calculate how much of the time this article exists in a vandalized state, based on the history log, say over the last couple weeks or so? (Or pick any random interval.) In other words, what are the chances that a random visitor here will see a vandalized/erroneous article? I'm curious. My feeling, unconfirmed by evidence as of yet, is that this article spends a significant amount of time in a corrupt state, as do many, many articles on this so-called "encyclopedia".
And yes, I'm too lazy at the moment to do this. Besides, I'm not really a statistician. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:56, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I'll do it tonight, unless someone else wants to do it - a bit busy right now. I'm also interested to see those stats. DrIdiot 21:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that it would be more effective to find how many times it has been vandalized in (amount of time) than the time it's spent in vandalism? 'Cause I've seen several cases even in the past week where it's gone back and forth between some moron and an admin in a couple of minutes. J.T. 22:24, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I specifically made the proposal as I did to get an answer to the question, How much of the time does this article spend in a vandalized or erroneous state?. In other words, for a given interval, this article spends X% of the time being a bad source of information. (From which one can infer that one's chances of getting bad information from it, based on a random visit, are also X%.)

If what you say is true (basically, that vandalism is quickly fixed), then that would simply tend to lower the percentage of time in the vandalized state. I'm asking for an empirical measurement here, not the usual pulled-out-of-one's-ass Wikipedia explanation, "vandalism is quickly reverted". Numbers, man.

It would be interesting, I guess, to find out how many times it's been vandalized in some interval, but I think the number above would be a more useful metric. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 22:39, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked it out briefly - over a period of 2 days (2880 minutes), 35 minutes were vandalized. That's about 1.2%. DrIdiot 00:29, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for that research. (Whoops, no original research.) That's a lot less than I would have guessed. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 00:33, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, most of the major vandalisms were reverted in less than a minute by bots. THe longest time the article had vandalized content was 11 minutes, then 8 minutes. average is 4.375 minutes (8 times). DrIdiot 01:17, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Al Hendrix

Al Hendrix simply redirected to this article, so I've de-linked it for now. If there's enough info on him to write a full article, by all means go ahead. -- 201.78.233.162 12:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Drugs

The sentence The prevailing opinion is that Jimi's use of LSD was an integral part of his creative process and contributed greatly to the content of his three studio albums should be removed. There is no factual or scientific proof on this matter. Brian W 00:12, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

agreed - ishmael blues

I've changed the sentence, hopefully it won't take us to a dispute / edit war. Brian W 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Thanks for contributing a smart edit! --Zig 15:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

"It is said" is a bit vague - is the source one of the referenced books? -- Amcguinn 10:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, feel free to change the sentence, but please do not quote here pseudo-science, such as stating that LSD improves artistic creativity. Thank you. Brian W 10:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

It's hardly "pseudoscience"; plenty of research on this connection has been done, for example by Dr. John Lilly. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 18:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

R&B?

Hendrix isn't R&B. I cannot think of one hendrix R&B song. I will take R&B off if no one speaks.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}#top|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Hendrix played plenty of R&B songs - before he became a famous rock guitarist. That genre is listed because Hendrix played in a number of R&B backup bands (most notably the Isley Brothers) before his more famous solo career began in 1966. His guitar work was notably featured on the two part Isley R&B hit "Testify" in 1965, and most of his pre-Experience recordings consist of lively R&B rhythm and lead work. --Zig 16:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

"travelled"

Someone changed "traveled" to "travelled". I'm leaving it, as both are acceptable spellings, but what's wikipedia's policy on alternate spellings? DrIdiot 19:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, that was me. I was not aware that traveled was an acceptable spelling but now I see it is. If it's American English and travelled is Commonwealth, then the American spelling should be used as it's an article about an American. As far as I understand it American English should be used for US "centred" articles and Commonwealth English for any other article, including "neutral" ones. That's if traveled is specifically American anyway. hedpeguyuk 20:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it's region specific. I was just pointing it out, and then asking a question that I needed clarification on. Because usually when I see a British spelling I leave it. DrIdiot 20:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

piano/keyboad??

Did he ever play piano or keyboard. In which songs, because i have plenty of his songs and I always thought he only played guitar.

Hendrix played a harpsichord on "Burning of the Midnight Lamp", a primitive synthesizer keyboard on a pre-Woodstock studio recording of "The Star Spangled Banner", and a primitive drum machine and synthesizer on an early demo of "Angel" known as "Sweet Angel". On the purple box set, you can hear all three of these, including a segment of Hendrix tinkering with the harpsichord parts during the development of "Burning of the Midnight Lamp". Since in Hendrix's day these instruments were very large, rare, and confined to the studio, you won't see footage of Hendrix playing a piano in concert like Axl Rose, and I doubt he'd choose to play keys onstage either. He was more into just achieving the sound he was looking for during the studio sessions, and if that meant tinkering with a keyed instrument, then so be it. I haven't heard any recording of Hendrix playing a plain old piano, but it's certainly feasible. I'll check with the Hendrix-philes on ElectricSkyChurch - that's an interesting question... --Zig 02:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

he played piano on valleys of neptune on a recently released cd of bootlegs/studio jams there are two versions of valleys of neptune a piano and guitar one, hendrix playing both.. the cd is called hear my music it was released in 2004 by dagger records (http://www.daggerrecords.com/disc7.html)

Article is over 100K?

This is a huge article. Is there any way to break out some of this info onto other pages? An idea: On the Johnny Cash page, I took all of the list-oriented info and created a "Johnny Cash lists" article. I can see on this page that the bulk is prose. Still, I recommend that you think about it. -- 67.116.253.187 18:11, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Story of Jimi's first guitar...

The Charles Cross book details this story very well. Jimi retrieved the battered guitar from the trash after a neighborhood child had thrown it away. The child was part of the foster home that Leon was living in. Jimi would hang out and eat there often, since there was never much food at the Hendrix household. Cross' chapter came from interviews with Leon and others close to the Hendrix family, like Delores Hall and Freddie Mae Gautier. I reverted the $5 story to keep the article clean, so to avoid a revert war, just post any related discussion here. Let's hash it out here before editing. --Zig 19:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Django Reinhardt an influence on Jimi?

I have seen in various articles that Jimi Was influenced by Django Reinhardt the great Gypsy jazz guitarist. This is why he named his band the "Band of Gypsies" —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 199.245.163.1 (talk • contribs) 12:46, 10 February 2006 UTC.

Cite, please? --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC) click on Django Reinhardt —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 4.244.96.92 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 11 February 2006 UTC. Wikipedia articles aren't sources for other Wikipedia articles. Besides, it's not soucred at Django Reinhardt, either. Find an external source. Microtonal 06:33, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Django 4 Django now should be in Jimi's influences,what do you think?

I think you're an idiot who believes everything that's written on someone's blog. No, let me rephrase that, since this is Wikepedia and we're all supposed to be nicey-nice here: you don't get to put stuff in an encyclopedia article just because someone, somewhere in the "blogosphere" (whatever the fuck that is) says it, OK? --ILike2BeAnonymous 07:53, 11 February 2006 (UTC) Settle down chief. The feeling is mutual. It is merely information.Its on the wiki Django Reinhardt too. What makes you so sure he did'nt listen to Django-that is why he named his band the "Band of Gypsys".And I did not put anything in the article. That is someone elses job. There are more cites to this and I will find them for your geek ass OK? Since you are obviously the king of the wikipedia Jimi Hendrix site.

Besides I think Django is better than Hendrix anyday,even if he could only use two fingers!!!!!Beat that sucka

To answer your question (whoever you are; you don't sign anything so there's no way to tell), Hendrix probably did listen to Django—I'd be surprised if he didn't. However, whether Reinhardt was an influence on him is something we'll probably never really know. As to the "Band of Gypsies" thing, go ahead and find some citations if you can (real ones this time). --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:51, 11 February 2006 (UTC) 195.195.166.41

some of hendrix's music (eg on "Sunshine of your Love" in the first 69 Albert Hall concert shows the clear influence of Django - fast chromatic runs, chromatically-rising chords with voicings identical to Reinhardt's - its definitely there.

Still waiting for a citation (other than your say-so) of any kind for any of this stuff. --ILike2BeAnonymous 23:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC) here is a reference, finally:

http://www.fgmrecords.com/gypsy jazz/django_reinhardt.html

There is a space between the words "gypsy" & "jazz" which is causing this website not to post properly after I save it.