Talk:Jimi Hendrix/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

That sudden influx of "new" Hendrix albums we had in the 1990s was because the copyright situation finally got sorted out--I don't remember whom the courts decided in favor of. ("His musical legacy was still being sorted out more than twenty years after his death, with both Hendrix' father and a man claiming to be Hendrix' son in dispute over copyright.") IIRC, both parties got some portion of the royalties--but I'm not certain of it. Koyaanis Qatsi, Tuesday, June 25, 2002 hi now !!

I kind of cheated with that phrase "musical legacy". I had in mind not only the Hendrix estate in the legal sense but also the artistic inheritance. I think a lot of people are stuck back in the "superspade" era in their understanding of what Hendrix did as an artist, notwithstanding the shambles of his career and his life before he died. There are a lot of players who are popular, whom we love, who are important to us, and then there are the very few "world artists" like Hank Williams, Louis Armstrong, Duke Ellington, Jimi Hendrix. That's not the whole list, of course, but they really are in a different category.

BTW, I really paused and repaused over "choked on his own vomit". Romantics love that stuff, but in fact what happens, as I understand it, is more like drug-induced paralysis of the central nervous system and you die, vomit or not. Take enough barbiturates and you can die hanging over the rail. It's a little different in the Hendrix case, since he may have actually died in the ambulance, but wouldn't it be enough to say "died in a barbiturate-induced coma"? Ortolan88

Eh, I didn't write that part. My (mis?)understanding of it was that he took too many sleeping pills and never woke up. I've never read a bio of him, just various articles in guitar magazines. Koyaanis Qatsi, Wednesday, June 26, 2002

Re: previous two comments - if the cause of death was in fact suffocation, would he not in fact belong on a List of people who choked to death on their own vomit? 209.149.235.254 21:41, 27 Feb 2004 (UTC)

We mention B. B. King, Little Richard, Curtis Knight, and The Monkees, so why shouldn't we mention Ellen McIlwaine? The Ellen McIlwaine article says she "traded influences" with Hendrix. I have no idea whether that is true, but I don't understand why we should remove half a sentence in this article saying Hendrix played with another notable guitarist in his formative years. Ortolan88 16:05 Nov 4, 2002 (UTC)

Because McIlwaine is not a terribly notable guitarist, and Hendrix played with just about everyone who was passing through NYC, and played with considerably more notable people in London (Clapton, Page etc...) One can barely begin to list the notable people Hendrix played with, and McIlwaine is nowhere near the top of that list ... it seems like an arbitrary inclusion by a McIlwaine fan. (As to the McIlwaine article ... well, don't get me started on the McIlwaine article) --

User:GWO

Okay. Seems reasonable to me. Ortolan88

So I dropped "The Wind Cries Mary" in the wrong place in a sentence. Sorry. I'll never do it again. Ortolan88

Aahh. Sorry, didn't mean to be over harsh. Bad coding day... --

User:GWO

Should the broken link to

The article claims that the list of 150 songs was an urban legend. It is not. The urban legend was that the songs were banned. Clear Channel did not forbid radio stations from playing these songs; however, they did recommend that the stations not play the songs. Here is what the Snopes page says:

Accordingly, a program director at Clear Channel Communications (an organization which operates over 1,170 radio stations in the United States), after discussions with program directors at several of Clear Channel Radio's stations, compiled an advisory list of songs which stations might wish to avoid playing in the short term.

In light of this, I'm going to change that paragraph. Quadell (talk) 12:54, Jun 8, 2004 (UTC)

I removed the clear channel blacklist comment. I don't believe the supposed blacklist says much of anything about Hendrix, considering that perhaps half of all recording artists who had hits that are played by clear channel had at least one song on the list. Therefore, it doesn't belong here, and since it is already present in the clear channel and sept 11 articles I think it is adequately covered.

This article has so much text describing Jimi's life, but the discography section needs work, compared to other WP music pages. Some of those have separate pages for expansive discographies (e.g. The Beatles discography), but for now I was thinking of just adding a few essentials, such as the remaining Experience Hendrix live albums, South Saturn Delta - the things that would form the 'core' collection for someone just getting into Jimi's music. And also album-pages for those, like the BBC Sessions one, currently linked to, but empty. Anyone want to help out?

Also maybe the categories are a bit off. At the moment it looks like First Rays is a completed studio album done in his lifetime, as it's in there with AYE, Axis, and Ladyland, when it's really an approximation of what *could* have been, constructed decades later. It's halfway between an album and a rarities compilation, to my mind, so I'm not sure whether it should be in 'Studio Albums' or 'Compilations' or some other category altogether. Hmm.

WikiSimon 19:27, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Should this page have a basic or brief discography? The existing link points to a zipped word file that failed to open on my side. Modi

Whence came "died later at St Mary's"? If the quotations of the doctor and paramedics in Rethinking John Lennon's Assassination (online with traffic quota) are legit, he was dead well before leaving his room. He may have been pronounced dead at hospital, but that doesn't mean he died there. Kwantus 21:37, 2004 Dec 23 (UTC)

Like a number of WP music articles, this one suffers from too much detail; a reader may well lose the forest for the trees. In particular, the stream-of-consciousness account of Hendrix's 1970 shows and the recordings in circulation of them is almost a WP parody. The exacting account of guitar auctions also falls into this category, as do several other asides. Focus on the main points of Hendrix's life and music, so that readers can get a true appreciation for this great musician. -- jls 20 Mar 2005

I gave it once-over, but it still needs work. Some gems are buried in the detailed time-line style. --sparkit 01:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Better now. But the 1970 section still read like a bootleg guide rather than an article. I've pulled out the set-list detail and condensed it further. Hopefully it still gets across what Hendrix's last year was like. -- jls 22 Mar 2005

Also, much of the album detail is repeated in separate articles about the albums. --sparkit 01:21, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hendrix LP releases after his death are quite interesting. it tells how the industry represented, and as is revealed quite happily misreprested him as well. To miss out on this would not be quite right LP's for most of us were the main link with Hendrix as an artist. Biographical material is interesting but LP's and recorded sound contain a wealth of important information. It was me that wrote a lot of this detail ie Albert Hall, Band of Gypsys ,Cry of Love Tour, Fat Matress -Thin Pillow Rainbow Bridge .

Happy to hear any comments.61.68.162.248 12:46, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

This page could certainly use one. ~~ Shiri 04:25, Mar 26, 2005 (UTC)

Which is correct? Or did this actually happen twice? Ubermonkey 13:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

In November 1968 the band appeared live on BBC's primetime variety show hosted by Lulu on the day that Cream announced their disbanding.

vs.

On 4 January 1969 he was accused by television producers of arrogance after playing an impromptu version of "Sunshine of Your Love" past his allotted time slot on the BBC1 show Happening for Lulu.

Why guess ?? when the audio is readily available of what happened - as well as video clip as well To appreciate this have a listen to BBC Sessions Hendrix Estate edition . Hendrix was talked into "Hey Joe" with a glamourous intro by Lulu. Announcing himself "Block your ears" Hendrix launches into some really heavy brilliant playing with chordal progressions - the best part of the piece by all accounts- as though he was tired of the 3 min format demanded by the industry and was saying to himself, Im a player of guitar not a format driven artist to play No 1 Hits. Part of the way through Hey Joe he then says as the Strat is really getting out of tune ""We want to stop playing this rubbish and dedicate the next song to the Cream" ( who had announced their break up - Cream history should give dates and times ) BBC staff rapidly try and stop the performance with Hendrix after about 2 mins saying in to the microphone "We are being taken off the air" bringing Sunshine of Your Love sadly to a premature ending 61.68.162.248 13:06, 1 March 2006 (UTC).

I've modified the comment about 'outrage' in association with the Dick Cavett show reference; it's too strong. Cavett made a lighthearted reference to "nasty letters", then when Hendrix queried this, he spoke of the "unorthodox" nature of the performance. jamesgibbon 22:05, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I saw Hendrix once, in 1970, at the Boston Garden. Does someone know what month/day that was? I dont... isnt there some kind of agenda left? guess not... Thanks

It was June 27 197061.68.162.248 13:44, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Someone added a claim on 30 July 2005 that Hendrix claim to have fallen in love with a fellow soldier in order to get discharged. This was unattributed, but I revised to note that this claim was made by Charles Cross in his new book, Room Full of Mirrors: : A Biography of Jimi Hendrix". Cross also made another claim, that's also likely to be controversial: that Hendrix was an avid anti-Communist who did not leave the Army in protest of the war, but rather that he just wanted to focus on playing guitar. Cross claims to have learned about the claims of gayness in previously unreleased Army records. This story has been picked up by various papers, such as this review of the biography by the (Seattle Post-Intelligencer).

yeah apparently jimi did abit of public meat beatin' (masturbation) to get out i cant recall where i read it but yeah...

-13 year old black kid.

Some comments regarding the following paragraph:

"The Strat's easy action and relatively narrow neck were also ideally suited to Hendrix's evolving style and enhanced his tremendous dexterity — Hendrix' hands were large enough to fret across all six strings with the top joint of his thumb alone, and he could reputedly play lead and rhythm parts simultaneously. A more amazing fact about Hendrix is that he was left-handed, yet used a right-handed Stratocaster, meaning he played the guitar upside down. While Hendrix was capable of playing with the strings upside down per se, he restrung his guitars so that the heavier strings were at the top of the neck."

I don't understand the use of the word 'reputedly' in regards to Hendrix playing simultaneous rhythm and lead parts. The evidence is all there in the recordings - Hendrix adapted to the trio format by developing a style of playing where elements of what would normally be considered 'rhythm' and 'lead' guitar were blended together. Hendrix's 'rhythm' guitar part for any given song (as opposed to his solos, which were more in the straight 'lead' guitar vein) would usually include elements of 'riffs', 'chords' and single-note 'lead' licks. This was largely his own innovation and set him apart from other guitarists of the time.

Also, I don't understand why it is 'more amazing' that Hendrix was left-handed, then that he could fret all six strings with his thumb. As you note, by preference he strung his (admitedly upside-down) guitars in the same way as a right-handed player would, with the heavier stings at the top. This is hardly amazing, it's what you would expect.

The only thing that may be of interest to add to the left-handedness issue is why he didn't just play a left-handed guitar. For one thing, left-handed guitars are generally less available than right-handed models. Jimi is reported to have had to pawn his guitar fairly often during his early career as a sideman, buying another when gigs and money came along. He may well have got used to playing a right-handed model upside-down. It has also been suggested that, at that time, the left-handed models were often of inferior quality to their right-handed counterparts. Finally, Hendrix-obsessed guitarists today believe that the reverse angle of the bridge pickup (and headstock) on a Stratocaster, relative to the strings, when turned upside-down contributes a subtle difference in tone that Hendrix may have exploited. Or it may have been merely incidental. This has led to the creation of the left-handed 'Hendrix Strat' by Fender, designed to be played upside-down by right-handed guitarists.

No where does anyone make mention of the LEFT handed Gibson Flying V he used in 1970. Perfect example is the Isle Of Wight show Aug. 30, 1970. It was a gift from whom I don't know. Rosewood neck with Trini Lopez fingerboard and gold pick ups. Serial number 849476, now residing at the Hard Rock Cafe in Dallas, Texas. It was sold by former road manager Eric Barrett.(5/10/06)

- You're right, the wording is poor and confusing. If he strung a right-handed guitar the same way a right-handed player would, the heavier strings would be on the bottom, not the top, when he played it. Anyway, that's what I always thought about how he played guitar. Not amazing, but interesting because this would have an effect on the sound: When strumming downstrokes are naturally more powerful than upstrokes, and emphasize the strings on top. So if Hendrix had the high strings on top, he would have had to develop some strategies to get a "normal" bass-rooted sound. Obviously this wasn't a limitation for a guitarist of his caliber, but rather an invitation to explore fresh territory in guitar technique.

Another suggestion: In the quote:

"Mostly self-taught on the instrument, the left-handed Hendrix used a right-handed guitar that was restrung and played right side up" It should be written UPSIDE DOWN. The guitar is upside down. not right-side up. Even the picture shows this.

a lengthy comment from a casual wp user: This comment section seems contradictory. As a lifelong guitarist and Hendrix fanatic, I can say this for sure: Most guitarists play "right-handed", ie the neck of the guitar is in the left hand and the body falls beneath the right hand, which strums or picks. Most guitars are designed for right-hand playing. Tradition has led to the heaviest string (lowest tuned note) being on the "top", or nearest the guitarist's head, while the lightest string (highest tuned note) is on the "bottom", or nearest the guitarist's feet. the other four strings are graduated from heavy to light in between. Most right-handed guitars have the "controls", ie knobs, switches, input jacks, etc, on the "bottom" portion of the face of the guitar, nearer the guitarist's feet, in order to keep them out of the way of strumming, but not so far away that they can't be easily reached. Have a look at a picture of any "righty" guitarist like Clapton or George Harrison to see examples.

Left-handed guitars are usually mirror images of right-handed guitars. Heavy string on top, controls on bottom, but neck in right hand, body under left. Lefty guitarists typically play just like righty guitarists, but with hands switched - see Paul McCartney, Tony Iommi, Kurt Cobain, etc. The arrangement of the parts of the guitars means that most righty players can't easily play an unmodified lefty guitar, and vice versa. If you turn the guitar over to switch hands, all the parts get turned over, too, and then you've got the heavy string on bottom and the controls on top. Chord fingerings have to be inverted (flipped), which can be extremely difficult to do on the fly, and totally counterintuitive to boot. Knobs and cables tend to get in the way.

HOWEVER, some guitarists, famous or not, have learned to play righty guitars left-handed without modification. It's all in how you learn, you know? The arrangement of the guitar's parts is nearly as much tradition as utility. See, for instance, Elizabeth Cotten and Albert King.

I know you already know this, but bear with me:

Jimi Hendrix preferred Fender Stratocasters for various known and unknown reasons. He did not play them exclusively, but he played them usually, and is associated with that model above all others. He typically played righty Stratocasters WHICH HAD BEEN RESTRUNG LEFTY. Hendrix belongs to the group of "normal" lefty guitarist like McCartney and Cobain. He played right-handed guitars, but the string order was reversed, top to bottom, to be left-handed.

This means that his chording, strumming, and other fingerwork were not that unusual, despite being very, very good compared to rock guitarists of the day. He played standard chord and scale patterns most of the time.

What confuses people is that the actual structure of the Stratocaster was obviously "upside down". Though the strings, and therefore his technique, were standard as such, he APPEARED to be doing something very strange.

It has been reported anecdotally (there may be actual quotes from Hendrix to this effect, but I don't know) that Hendrix liked some or all of these aspects of right-handed Fender Stratocasters with reversed strings: 1) the quality of righty Strats (and other righty makes and models) was better because so few lefties were built at the time 2) he preferred being able to buy a righty Strat (easily restrung) in just about any city, when lefties were hard to find 3) he liked having the controls and vibrato bar (another story) "closer to him", ie on the upper side of the face of the guitar, so that he might more easily manipulate them in mid-song 4) he liked the reverse relative position of the "slanted" bridge pickup on the Strat (you'll have to look at a good picture of a Strat) when the strings had been reversed 5) he liked the harmonic difference in sound derived from the reverse relative length of the "runout" string between the nut and the tuners (see a picture, again) when the strings had been reversed.

Hendrix used restrung Gibson electrics and various restrung acoustics, too. Since he restrung most of his guitars, regardless of make and model, there must be some weight to some of the above reasons, particularly concerning quality and availability. It is also true that Hendrix, unlike most guitarists, was ambidextrous to some extent and could play right-handed if circumstances required. I have seen photos of him playing right-handed on right-handed guitars, left-handed on right-handed guitars, and everyone has seen pictures of him playing lefty on lefty guitars, which he clearly preferred. Accepted anecdotal evidence (from Eddie Kramer, Mitch Mitchell, and others) says that Hendrix re-recorded some of Noel Redding's bass parts on Axis: Bold as Love and Electric Ladyland with Noel's right-handed bass, without hesitation.

Hope all that helps clarify things a little bit.

"The Strat's easy action and relatively narrow neck were also ideally suited to Hendrix's evolving style"

• This description is not accurate. Stratocasters did not necessarily have easier action or narrower necks than other guitars of Hendrix's time. Stratocasters were definitely considered good guitars, but not for those reasons per se.

The first paragraph says that Jimi "is widely considered to be the most important electric guitarist in the history of popular music". I call

I personally think that "He is widely considered the most important electric guitarist in the history of popular music." is somewhat redundant since the electric guitar was only invented in the 30s and really gained attention in the 40s, which was the same era as jump blues, the precursor rock and roll. I'm going to leave it for a bit and see if anyone else has any thoughts on it, but i think saying that "He is widely considered to be the most important electric guitar player of all time." Or to be more modest "of rock and roll" or "of the rock and roll era" --Cptbuck 01:08, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I and others have taken the time to find media where the article's material is covered and list them in the References section of the article. There is nothing in the article that cannot be found in those sources. Other celebrity or musician articles contain less references but remain free of the unsourced tag. (unsigned comment)

Uh, could you sign your comments so we know who we're talking to?

You're halfway correct: the article lists its references, but for the most part does not cite them. There's a difference, and just throwing out a bunch of "facts", and then sprinkling a few books in a "References" section does not a valid referenced article make.

Just for ha-has, here are a few "facts" in the article with no references:

... he often cited Rahsaan Roland Kirk as his favorite musician.

Hendrix, aware of this musical coincidence, bought Handel recordings including Messiah and the Water Music.

"Gypsy Eyes", one of the tracks on Electric Lady Land, was reportedly recorded 43 times

Now, I can see you rolling your eyes and saying, "[groan], that's ridiculous: there are hundreds of statements in the article that would need to be tagged with references. It would be a *#&@)ing mess!". Which is true; I'm not suggesting that the article should be densely forested with references. But right now there are practically none. I'm not sure how to approach this, so I wait for others to put their US$0.02 in. --ILike2BeAnonymous 21:04, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Hey, of the examples you give, the latter two I have read somewhere - I'll try to find out exactly where and cite them in the article. It does seem kinda unfair that the Hendrix article is branded with these tags while others have less references yet they go without such scrutiny. If you find any other questionable items, list them here and I'll look for those too. -- Zig 14:49, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

That's not a very good argument: just because other articles are extremely sloppy doesn't mean it's OK for this one to be sloppy too. --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

More sources n the kidnapping would be good. ATM we only have Hendrix secon hand account I thinh. Rich Farmbrough. 14:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what else can be done. If you read Sharon Lawrence's book, John McDermott's book, Charles Shaar Murray's book, Noel Redding's book, etc. - they all mention this story. It was in an issue of Univibes magazine. It's common knowledge among fans/collectors. Where is the line between 'needing references' and ruining the article body riddling it with references? I read dozens of biographical articles on Wikipedia that simply list in a References section various books etc. where the article's details can be found. Why is this not enough here? There's certainly enough Jimi hawks out there who would jump to delete or revert the posting of untrue data about their hero. -- Zig 16:27, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

[going up one level] The answer is that it's neither good enough here nor in those other articles you mention. Remember, this is 'spozed to be an encyclopedia, not a fan site, so it's supposed to adhere to higher standards of accountability than one might find, say, in a Hendrix newsgroup or on someone's lovingly-constructed but not-so-well verified web site.

As to the conflict between referencing nothing and filling the damn article with so many citations that it becomes impossible to wade through, well, that's one of those judgement calls you must make as an editor. As someone knowledgable about the subject, you ought to be in a better position to judge than some other editors. --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:47, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

this article has come a long way in the last couple of months, no doubt. thanks (from a hendrix fan) for all those that put the work in. obviously, it still has a ways to go. the "legacy" section is a mess. i love guitar amps as much as the next guy, but who cares how much hendrix's first marshall is (speculated to be) worth? maybe that section is a catch-all for everybody's two cents, but i hope someone with editing abilities (i don't got 'em) can clean that up too. even if you're not a gearhead, don't be afraid to challenge the gearhead crap in the article. make the gearheads justify the filler!

Someone added this to the "Band of Gypsies" section:

The second and final Band of Gypsys appearance occured one month later (January 28, 1970) at a twelve-act show in Madison Square Garden dubbed the Winter Festival for Peace. Similarly to Woodstock, set delays forced Hendrix to take the stage at an inopportune 3am, only this time he was obviously high on drugs and in no shape to play. He belted out a dismal rendition of "Who Knows" before snapping a vulgar response at a woman who shouted a request for "Foxy Lady". He lasted halfway through a second song, then simply stopped playing, telling the audience: "That's what happens when earth fucks with space—never forget that". He then sat quietly on the stage until staffers escorted him away. Various angles exist around this bizarre scene—Buddy Miles claimed that manager Michael Jeffrey dosed Hendrix with LSD in an effort to sabotage the current band and bring about the return of the Experience lineup. Blues legend Johnny Winter said it was Hendrix's girlfriend Devon Wilson who spiked his drink with drugs for unknown reasons.

Did this happen? Did he say that? Is there any way to know for sure? ILike2BeAnonymous 23:59, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I wrote that. The story can be found wherever the Band of Gypsys breakup is covered. The quote can be found in at least four of the Hendrix biographies listed. I used the John McDermott's book and the Charles Cross book when composing this section. They both list interviews with people who were there and/or involved as their sources.

Oh, also, about the linked dates: Doh! I didn't know that they were linked for date formatting purposes.

--Zig 03:05, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

according to [1], jimi lived briefly in vancouver (i have read this elsewhere and this seems pretty verifiable), where he played in a band with Tommy Chong. I figure that under the chitlin' circuit section, the seattle bit is worth mentioning, and maybe work in the tommy chong anecdote.

I couldn't help but recall when somebody had put something into the article a while back that it was rumored that Hendrix had injected a syringe filled with heroin and peanut butter into his temple before his death. Has anybody looked into this? I would recommend putting it in there that it was rumored to have happened, yet however there is no evidence to support this rumor. Although it may seem to be superfluous information, rumors of this nature are of interest to readers. --EMC 22:31, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Why on earth would we want to put something in just because it is rumored to be so? I hear it's rumored that there are people with three anuses walking around: should I put that in Wikipedia somewhere? Think, man. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 03:08, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Editing the headings in the discography, I noticed this section is screwed up. We have "Discography" and a "Posthumous discography" sections, but the former has albums that were clearly released after his death. Someone care to fix this? I would, but I'm not an expert on Hendrix's recording history. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:42, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that was fast. Thanks. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 17:54, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Jimi Hendrix is one of my all time favorite musician and he was indpendent in music so talented that gave a music lesson to music history.my biggest respect.he was guitar hero.one of the really best guitar mans. —The preceding

I have no frigging idea what you were trying to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. ==ILike2BeAnonymous 06:18, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I (Editor19841) created a new template, {{User Jimi}}, to reflect that a user is a Jimi Hendrix fan. I'm still working on perfecting it's look, but here it is:

This user listens to Hendrix.

The template will also list and link users to Category:Wikipedians who like Jimi Hendrix. Enjoy. Editor19841 18:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Please note that the image used in your template is free-use, and as such should not be used in templates per

Wikipedia:Fair use criteria #9. --Syrthiss

18:45, 12 April 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) 195.195.166.41some 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.

What is left to fix to get this article reconsidered as a featured article?--Elysianfields 06:34, 13 August 2005 (UTC)

This is: "His school counsellor told his father to get him a guitar, and his father gave him a one-stringed toy guitar. Jimi played it so much that his father finally relented and bought his son a real guitar." I'm 99 percent sure this is actually true about Slash, and not Hendrix--but not sure enough to stand by the change myself. But I suggest someone look into it. --Petey, Dec 4th, 2005.

-I'm not sure about the counsellor but the rest is definitley true. --MortalMadMan 20:23, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Should not the article make it more clear that Janie Hendrix is not a blood relative of the Henrdrix family at all, and was Al Hendrix's adopted daughter?

That doesn't make her a step sister or a half sister. She is his full sister, but she is adopted. A half sister is one that shares one parent (like if your parents got divorced and your mother had a kid with her new husband) and a step sister is one that is joined by marriage (like if your parents got divorced and your mother's new husband had kids already).Tracer Bullet 16:54, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

yo douglas! Al eventually got remarried which resulted in Janie

-13 year old black kid with nothing to do.

From what I understand, this is still suspected. Am I outdated? A biography I read on Hendrix claimed it was almost definately the case.

Everything I've ever read made it clear that it was UNLIKELY that Hendrix would commit suicide at that time, and that it was certainly not "almost definately the case". There's plenty of mistakes in the many biographies out there. Don't trust just one.

The section on his guitars needs editing. Why are some guitars lumped into one line at the bottom? Also, I think we should have a good source for this section. Regards encephalon 12:46, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

amen. and what the hell is a "Gibson stereo"?

I've changed "Black Widow acoustic" to "Acoustic Black Widow." Acoustic was an actual brand in the late 60s and early 70s which. I've seen Hendrix's on display at the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland, though I don't believe it's still on display there. There isn't much information about this guitar out there, but here's a page I found Acoustic Black Widow

ANACHRONISM ALERT The very article about "Acoustic Black Widow" cited above states that the particular guitar in discussion was not designed until 1972. Hendrix was already dead!

Just saw a quote on slashdot.org, where the name Robert was used as the firstname for Jimi Hendrix, not sure if this is right tough.
'Scuse me, while I kiss the sky! -- Robert James Marshall (Jimi) Hendrix
--havarhen | Talk 12:25, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

According to the biography _Electric Gypsy_, he was born Johnny Allen Hendrix which was legally changed into James Marshall Hendrix when he was (iirc) 3 years old.

• That is almost surely a misprint or mistake. Johnny Allen Hendrix -> James Marshall Hendrix are the only names I've ever heard, and I've been studying Hendrix for 20 years.

maby if hendrix didnt use the guitar he did the sound that he is famouse for might not of been that succesfull

People, is there anyone out there who would care to upload more photos of our favourite Voodoo Child/Chile? Am a near techno-illiterate myself. Fergananim 12:59, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Jimi was born "Johnny Allen Hendrix" not "James Marshall Hendrix." Wanka 03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

If so, then I am sorry for the revert. But I guess then the name would have to be changed also in the lead of the article. However, on his tombstone it says 'Forever In Our Hearts -- James M. "Jimi" Hendrix -- 1942-1970' See [2]]. But hey, I am not an expert on Jimi Hendrix. I'll leave that to the regular people here. :) Garion96 (talk) 02:16, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

His name was legally changed to James Marshall Hendrix. I just wanted it to be set as "born Johnny Allen Hendrix" because "His father, after returning from World War II, legally renamed him James Marshall Hendrix." when it says he was born James Marshall Hendrix seems a bit strange, doesn't it? Wanka 03:57, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, I managed to skip over the rename part in the article. Garion96 (talk) 03:36, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Why shouldn't it say "born Johnny Allen Hendrix"? That was his original name. Just mention that his name was changed later.

I removed a blatant piece of POV. The bit about the

Can't spk for anybody else, but the criticism of his "Star Spangled " is bogus. It was magnificent. Trekphiler 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

i agree. at the very least, this was an historic performance of major cultural importance that deserves more mention in the article. -Joeyramoney 22:28, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

That first sentence about the one-string ukulele sure sounds dumb, and it wasn't there last time I looked. Sounds unsubstantiable and stilted. I'm not taking it out, but I just wanted to say that the second sentence in that paragraph is a much better place to start. We all want to put in our two cents, I know, but that two cents is bad.

That eBow addition is patently false. Jimi Hendrix did not have or use an eBow. See http://www.ebow.com/ebow/history.htm for the inventor's own timeline. Absolutely false claim as to Hendrix's use. There is no reason for that to be there.

I feel that this section really has no additive value to this article. It isn't really about Jimi at all, but rather his money. Because of the size of the article already, I am going to delete this section within 24 hours unless there are any strong objections.

Didn't notice this (& maybe nobody cares), but I've heard JH got fired by Little Richard for missing the bus, once... Trekphiler 01:31, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Where'd you hear? Can you document? Sounds interesting and relevant to me (Hendrix admirer when he was alive). --ILike2BeAnonymous 05:06, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

That story is certainly in at least one of the biographies I've read over the years, but I can't put my hand on it. Mind you, for a professional musician to miss a tour bus is a pretty grave offence. The bus would probably have stayed as long as possible after its scheduled departure time, consuming the safety factor built in to the schedule and putting everyone under pressure including the bus driver. Hendrix wouldn't have been the first or last person to be dismissed for a first offence.

Jimi died the same year as Janis. I was 18 and had owned an electric guitar less than two years. Jimi played things we couldn't even dream before. Andrewa 19:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

richard also fired him becuase he was too flashy of a player and richard thought hendrix might upstage him. the bus insident was more like an excuse to fire him, it was bound to happen.

Sometimes I've read that Hendrix was especially good improviser. This is probably true, but I haven't found any further information from the internet. If anybody could write something about his skills as an improviser, that would be nice. --128.214.205.5 13:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Hmm; seems to me this is one of those things that's self-evident, like the fact that the sky is blue: no supporting documentation needed. Is it possible you haven't listened to any of Hendrix's music? In any case, I can attest, having grown up listening to his recordings as well as having seen him live, that he was indeed an exquisitely masterful improviser. --ILike2BeAnonymous 19:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

But the article is made also for those who have never listened any Hendrix. And more importantly, I think that the quality of the article would be much better if there was something about this issue. The musician articles in general pay very seldom sufficient attention for playing techniques. Often articles just say that somebody is a "great" guitarist (or something like that) and that's the end of the story. Articles would be much better if there was something about playing techniques and possible developments that players have come up with. --80.221.30.182 17:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

the fact that little richard fired him is deffinately true, as stated in jimi hendrix's biography, room full of mirrors. little richard also fired him becuase he was too flashy of a player and richard thought hendrix might upstage him. the bus insident was more like an excuse to fire him, it was bound to happen.

Was he "deeply patriotic" as this article claims? He supported official views of vietnam war first, but I have got the picture he changed his views a bit in his last years. I don't remember anything that directly tells us that he was "deeply patriotic". Patriotic in some sense he might have been... --128.214.205.5 13:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

This is silly and stupid: will whoever is changing the dates to European format please just stop it?

Hendrix was American; this article is about an American musician. He wouldn't have written "27 November". Just resist the urge to tweak it, OK?

(You know, I was reading elsewhere about complaints that Wikipedia was America-centric; my experience is just the opposite. Everywhere I look I see British spelling and formatting. Kind of annoying, to tell the truth.) --ILike2BeAnonymous 08:07, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

It's even more silly and stupid than you probably know. If you don't want European-formatted dates, go into the "Date and Time" pane in your preferences and change it. The WikiMedia software will take both November 27 and 27 November and display them as November 27, if you so choose. It only makes a difference if you have "no preference" selected.

Besides, Jimi is quite dead, and even if he were alive I'm sure that he wouldn't give a toss what format the dates were in. Microtonal 06:20, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I just went through the article and restored proper date linking. This means that all dates with a month and a day should be "Wiki-linked". Why? This allows users who set date display preferences to see dates in their preferred format (i.e., where the dates now are in the format "month day", some users prefer "day month"). This is handled automagically by the software when you enclose a date (such as March 18) in double square brackets.

On the other hand, linking years (1970) is overlinking: a waste of time, keystrokes and storage space, and should be expunged when found. ILike2BeAnonymous 00:02, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I am curious as to why you have felt the need to raise yet another section on date formatting and linking when you have already made a similar section [3].

Because I looked for it and couldn't find it; my bad. ILike2BeAnonymous 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

[Moved stuff from new section here to consolidate.] ILike2BeAnonymous 02:12, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

All editors should be aware that the matter of date linking is not set in stone as attested to by the sizeable discussions, both present and past, at

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers). Moreso, expunging is not to be recommended or encouraged either in one direction or the other and I am adding this note as advice to that effect especially for any new editors. Alias Flood

01:38, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I have set the dates for Jimi's and Al's dobs and dods as per advice in [4] Alias Flood 01:57, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I went back to the style we (speaking for apparent consensus here) have become comfortable with, which is to not link years. Year linking is not needed and leads to blue clutter. ILike2BeAnonymous 02:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

That is very cosy but not the 'Wiki way'. If you have a case for changing style it should be made in the place provided ie

Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) or are you suggesting that this article should be different to all others? I doubt that you are and I will place the dates according to Wikipedia Manual of Styles (Dates and Numbers) Dates of birth and death. (Link already given) Alias Flood

02:16, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Well then, in this case, the "Wiki way" sucks badly. It may be true that most bios use that date linking; what's also true is that 99% of the articles here are guilty of date overlinking as I've described it (that is, the mindless and robotic practice of enclosing all dates, including just years, in square brackets, just on the off chance that someone will come along later and say, "Doh! I wonder what else happened in 1972; maybe I'll click on that there blue link."). So that doesn't hold much water for me. Got any better arguments? ILike2BeAnonymous 02:52, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Plenty but let us restrict ourselves to this matter. Take your case to the proper place and stop trying to impose your own tastes here by giving incorrect 'pseudo rules'. Go and argue about it with the people who care about it much more than I do. (You should feel at home and you will be the first to profess that the "Wiki way sucks badly". I doubt if anyone has dealt with that area of logic.) Alias Flood 03:05, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I've been seeing a lot of back-and-forth lately on this subject here (the allegedly interesting fact that Hendrix, Joplin & Morrison all died at 27). My own take on this: this is trivia, which would belong in a "Trivia" section if anywhere. What do others think of this? Is there a gigantic conspiracy theory cult out there I'm not aware of?

Believe me, I remember talk from back then about how there must have been some kind of conspiracy to kill all these stars around the same time. But so far as I know, such talk died down and was never really taken seriously. (We were all a lot younger then, you know).

By the way, I'm the one who put the "needs cleanup" tag up. This article is a mess, mostly from a simple grammatic and quality-of-writing standpoint. It reads as if it were written mostly by a bunch of adoring, enthusiastic but not very bright fans. --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree - i'm working through the article now. I should be done in a few hours. Let me know what you think. -- zalali 14.29 GMT

sorry - i take that back. it's taking me too long. i've done 1968 and 1969 so far. i'll do the rest some other time. let me know what you think about those two new sections if you have the time. thanks. zalali 13.37 GMT

the first paragraph seems a bit awkwardly worded since the last edit, and the bit about the vh1 list seems out of place. someone might want to clean it up a little.

Maybe you're referring to my edits? Writing can always be improved; what I tried to do was settle an issue that was problematic here by saying two things:

• That some people consider Hendrix the greatest electric guitarist of all time (perhaps in the entire universe), and
• That even those who don't necessarily consider him the all-time greatest electric guitarist don't dispute that he was one of the most influential guitarists ever.

The statement "he was the greatest guitarist of all time", which had been put into the article before, is subjective and impossible to confirm as fact, which is why I used the qualifier "some people consider". The second statement can pretty well be confirmed by reading about Hendrix. I'm also not sure about that VH1 reference; that seems as if it ought to go in a "Trivia" section or something like that, not in the lead paragraph.

If you can find a better way to say that, as they say, knock yourself out. --ILike2BeAnonymous 03:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

I would also like to submit that the first paragraph, or at least the last half, be rewritten. Whether or not Jimi Hendrix is the best electric guitarist of all time is a matter of complete subjectivity and has no place in an encyclopedia. "Widely considered to be among the best electric guitarists of all time", or something to that degree would be far more appropriate.

Well, since you requested that it not be unchanged, your request has been granted. I've reverted your edits. Sorry, Jimi Hendrix was not one of the "foremost musicians of all time". You'll get nothing but arguments over that. Keep in mind that music isn't just music: there are genres and styles, and many, many of them, which preclude pointing to any one musician in any one genre and saying that he or she is "the greatest". This might work in some kind of rock'n'roll fanzine, but not here.

What the paragraph now says is that some people think he's the greatest electric guitarist ever, but that his influence over electric guitar playing is indisputable, both of which are factual statements. --ILike2BeAnonymous 02:19, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Well great, now someones completely fucked with it and it says 'hendrix rules'. All I said that he was a foremost musician, which is universally undeniable. I don't understand what's so hard about this; the paragraph just needs to be rewritten more objectively. Actually, the entire article should be rewritten.

Hendrix's actual playing within songs deserves considered attention from a musical structure.. I agree with your comments that "best" "greatest" are inaccurate text. Having listened accutely for many years now there is extreme diversity and creativity in the way he forms a solo- in so doing he is aware of the piece its intended length other instruments acoustics of the venue basically he was/ is in touch with the entire acoustic event encompassing how many valves are functioning ( Winterland 1968 Sunshine of your love ). He was extremely polite with other musicians particularly getting into jazz styles where he would be critically aware of the occasion. Duanne Allman has often been credited with playing endless sequences of similar notes. U2's the Edge also - Bill Flanagan describes U'2 playing as "well they know three notes but can't quite come to terms with the 4th" - and they play them so well. Hendrix also had this incredible ability to turn note sequences around backwards and around continually not playing the same phrase but using 8 or 9 notes-- Stone Free Fillmore East you are sort of saying to yourself - thats impossible !!

Trying to describe his playing is hard because it weaves and evolves and challenges conventional methods : Sep 02, Venue: Vejlby Risskov Hallen - Location: Arhus, Denmark -have a look at the finger stretch !!Its this complete ability to reconcile the event to then use a guitar harmonically vibrating as a instrument to combine around the space. Im choosing these words carefully because there is so much evidence of this you can hear it in say Voodoo Chile/ Room Full of Mirrors Albert Hall Feb 24 1969 solo - where do the notes come from ?? There are sounds an electric guitar amplified should not produce yet almost at command he calls them up. There are write ups too of playing pieces backwards advising the recording engineer to reverse the tape just recorded to hear perfect renditions of otherwise an unrecognisable song when first recorded. Hope this helps61.68.170.75 15:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Standard practice is for song titles to be "in quotes", and album titles to be italicized. I'll fix the ones I find, but I may not catch them all, so keep on the lookout. Microtonal 18:16, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone know which is correct? The one biography I have ('Scuse Me while I Kiss the Sky:The Life of Jimi Hendrix by David Henderson) doesn't mention this person at all, so far as I've been able to tell. About the same number of Google hits are found with either spelling. Can someone with access to a reputable bio confirm which is right? --ILike2BeAnonymous 20:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

It's Chalpin. -- 69.143.57.75 04:05, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I have seen in various articles that Jimi Was influenced by

Cite, please? --ILike2BeAnonymous 18:51, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

click on

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 [[5]] 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)

195.195.166.41some 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.