Learner001

Location

Latest comment: 10 years ago11 comments2 people in discussion

RE your recent addition to the Jimi Hendrix article; I always like to include a location when citing to a DVD. Do you know the location of the event? Thanks. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 16:36, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Not sure what you mean by "location" for the DVD.Learner001 (talk) 19:32, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Well, like event occurs at 45 minutes and 36 seconds, for example. We really shouldn't cite to a book without including a page number or a DVD without including a location. Otherwise, its a really nice addition, but a FA needs tighter sourcing. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 19:50, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Also, when we quote someone, we need to include an in-line attribution as well as a cite. E.g., "According to John Doe, so who exactly made the comment that you quoted? GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 21:02, 30 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

FYI, pending event location and speaker identification, I've removed your recent addition. If you can provide a location and attribute the speaker, we will discuss adding the quote back, though on reflection, it seems more like a many-years-after-the-fact type of analysis that runs the risk of sounding like revisionist puffery; Hendrix burned the guitar as a PR gimmick, not a political statement. GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 17:16, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

It seems the larger issue is that you don't see Hendrix as a part of the counterculture. From a political standpoint, I concur entirely, but you must consider the fact that he was seen - then and now - as highly significant to 1960s youth culture. So we're talking about the era generally as well the many components of the era, some of which Hendrix was intergral to, and some of which he was not. As to the cite: please watch the Youtube version of the documentary, which was produced by Oregon Public TV, accepted, and nationally broadcast by PBS: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mUc2eLe-ruI. Hendrix at Monterey starts about 14:00 in. The statement is made by the narrator, reading a script written by the production team. As to "puffery" :), perhaps, but all latter-day history runs a risk of that, whether speaking to music, or the larger culture within which the music flourished. If you'd like additional sources as to JH and the counterculture, I can load you up on them, ad nauseum. My intent is simply to note (in passing, essentially) Jimi's significance to his larger era, and not bog down the article with material that might detract from his musical accomplishments, which I believe you rightfully seek to keep in focus. Please note the location of the quote within cite as you see fit and restore the edit, if possible. Best wishes on FA! The article is worthy. Please let me know if there's anything on your to-do list I might be able to assist on!Learner001 (talk) 17:47, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

I don't entirely disagree regarding Hendrix and the counter-culture, but as I said, its all after-the-fact hindsight stuff. Nobody, that I know of, at the time thought Hendrix's guitar burning was a political statement, and including the quote there as it was implies that people at the time made this connection; I seriously doubt that they did. Also, Hendrix and others close to him have repeatedly stated that this type of stuff was done for attention and PR, not to make political statements. That's essentially the core of what concerns me, that it attempts to give a new meaning to an old stunt. Perhaps, much of what Hendrix stood for was counter-culture oriented, but certainly not the guitar destruction, which was really just attempts to outdo the Who.

Also, generally speaking, the narrator of a film is not in itself a notable speaker. If the speaker were a biographer, musicologist, or critic, it might hold some weight, but as it is the quote is little more than a bit of voice-over; its not really culled from a serious critical analysis. Did someone notable make the statement, or is it an unidentified comment made by the writers of the doc? When we quote someone we must always attribute the quote in-line, and it would be awkward to state that an unknown narrator of a documentary made the comment, which really should be attributed to the person who wrote the passage, not the person who did the voice-over. Thanks for the kind and encouraging words. BTW. Cheers! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:11, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

Got it. Look, this is not that important, but the source is good, and if you're interested in the truth, please don't pre-judge based on your own PR or opinion, even though I tend to agree with your take. I understand your concerns for FA, so I'll let it go in deference to that for now. So, in the meantime, I won't edit as to the cc subject, but instead I'll send some thoroughly cited prose for a small section for later consideration. I suggest that the article give a bit more attention to Jimi's personality, the '60s mindset which he interacted with, and era context generally. Perhaps these elements need to be more fully developed in this, a bio article. Jimi was a dynamic and complex human being living in an important, fast-paced era. He was not simply an awesome guitar player. My two bits. Happy NY & Cheers as well!Learner001 (talk) 19:57, 31 December 2013 (UTC)Reply

For thought: Not sure if this is worthy of discussion in the article, but the night after he was released on bail following the Canada bust, he spoke on stage before they went into Machine Gun: (paraphrasing the difficult-to-transcribe words) "I'd like to dedicate this one...to all the soldiers fighting in Chicago, Milwaukee, and New York. And the soldiers fighting in Vietnam."

I consider this to perhaps be gratuitous and concur with you that although he was being pulled to join in many leftist causes, his heart was never really in it. He wanted to create music, first and foremost. You could also make the case that, like many, JH was ultimately as much a victim of the era as he was a participant.Learner001 (talk) 17:48, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

As far as I can tell, that comment made during the BoG shows, his participation in an anti-Vietnam festival, and his participation in a Black Panther benefit represent the sum total of his political involvement. You could argue that some of his lyrics also go there, and he certainly mentioned the hippy movement during interviews, but there is not much outside WP:SYNTH and/or WP:OR. That's not to say that Jimi was strictly apolitical, but in general it does not strike me as especially notable to his bio (the reliable sources tend to agree with that assertion). Arthur Allen tells a story whereby Jimi bought a Black Panther paper in an effort to impress he and his brother Albert, but it was obvious that Jimi wasn't really interested in getting too involved. I think that, had he lived another year, this would have changed and he would have become more vocal, but alas it was not to be. Happy New Year! GabeMc ^{(talk|contribs)} 18:03, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply

Interesting. Countless musicians during the era dabbled in politics, and lyrics in and of themselves may or may not be significant, unless you're a protest singer (per se') ala (early) Dylan, who was a musical inspiration for JH, but probably not much of a political mentor, as it were. The whole Black Panther thing for J seems to have a bit (or more) of coercion written on it. So, perhaps your comment above is the crux of an important graph or two. Along the lines of references to the "fact" that when J became a smash in the US, morons in the audience wanted to see him come unglued and burn/destroy his equipment. This goes back to the point that misperception can play as an important role in so-called history as can the truth, viz. your "gimmick" note concerning Monterey, trying to top the Who after he asked not to follow them...Best wishes for '14Learner001 (talk) 18:29, 1 January 2014 (UTC)Reply