Talk:Bix Beiderbecke/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comment on relation with Armstrong

Previous version of this entry seemed to make Bix's relationship with Louis Armstrong it's main focus (I suspect influenced by the Ken Burns television show). While Bix admired the hell out of Louis (as did many musicians of the time), this was not the most important fact about his carrer; one of the things that sets Bix apart is that a time when many other trumpeters were styling themselves as best they could as imitators of Armstrong, Oliver, Keppard, or LaRocca, Bix on the other hand created his own unique style.

Also, Tram played C-melody sax, not trombone.

Ortolan88-- Mostly good additions and changes, thanks, except that "I Can't Get Started" was the signature hit for Bunny Berigan, not Bix.

-- Infrogmation

External links section

Hi to all. I have moved two non-hyperlinks contained within this section to a new section headed "References", as is the normal Wikipedia convention. Thanks. Refsworldlee^(chew-fat) 15:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Wrong photo

I took the liberty of deleting the photo in this article, this since it was not a photo of Bix Beiderbecke at all but one of a schoolmate of his, Eugene Clinton Parker (Bix is present too in the full original photo but not in the excerpt published here).

For a discussion regarding this, see the Bixography discussion group at:

http://www.

[blocked link] network54.com/Forum/27140/message/1143416736/Whoever+wrote+the+current+Wikipedia+Bix+entry...

/Fredrik Tersmeden, Sweden (user "FredrikT" in the Swedish Wikipedia)

_____________________________________________________________________ I put up a correct photo of Bix, and gave the appropriate reference/citations, but it was nevertheless removed.

--Gautam3 02:54, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Bix's Parents

If it's true that Bix's parents supported his music I would like to see proof. Every text I've ever read, including textbooks, and the PBS documentary state that his parents did not approve. Can anyone site this claim and let me know where it was found. I would be very interested to know.

67.63.99.53 06:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

Both the Grove Dictionary of Jazz and Ken Burns's PBS Jazz television series support your version of this (state that Beiderbecke's parents were not supportive--at all), rather than the article's version as it currently stands. I've improved this section's ("Death") prose style and grammar slightly and added "citation-needed" tags. TheScotch (talk) 07:08, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the relevant passage in Grove (with context): "His [Beiderbecke's] family disapproved of his interest in jazz, and sent him in 1921 to Lake Forest Academy, but the opportunity to play and hear jazz in nearby Chicago caused frequent truancy and eventually his expulsion."

Someone I knew who grew up with Bix told me that his parents didn't let him play baseball with the other kids because they were afraid he'd hurt his fingers, and they wanted him to play the piano. Perhaps his memory isn't reliable, but is it possible his parents encouraged an interest in music, but not jazz? 69.118.29.171 (talk) 08:05, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

Bix's real name

In the first sentence of this article, Bix's name is given as Leon Bismark (some places noted as Bismarck) Beiderbecke, but several supposedly definitive biographies (including, online, http://ms.cc.sunysb.edu/~alhaim/brief.htm ) list his name as simply Leon Bix Beiderbecke, the Bismar[c]k supposedly having been a circumlocution devised in the mid-20th century for those who felt the need to feel that "Bix" was simply a nickname, as so many other great jazz musicians have. If there is no disagreement, I will remove the "Bismark" (after waiting a couple of weeks to see if there are indeed any replies to this comment) and add a sentence in the body article stating that the "Bismar[c]k" was often assumed, in error, to be his real name. StavinChain (talk) 14:42, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Oops...finally looked down at the bottom of the article and saw that this topic had already been covered. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain...or the paragraph above. StavinChain (talk) 14:49, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

how does one pronounce his last name? Three syllables or four? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.181.59.198 (talk) 13:46, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

Given that the true facts are controversial, I think it's safe to use "Bix" in the lede - it was what he was known by. But the section on the name would be much improved by the use of inline citations - as it stands, I have a hard time seeing where I can go to check the references for each viewpoint. BTW, it's rare to call a web page without a stated author "definitive". --Alvestrand (talk) 17:21, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

I was the one that added the paragraph regarding Bix's actual name; this since several convincing original documents confirming "Bismark" had been reported in Albert Haim's Bixography forum. The link to those postings later seems to have been removed by someone. However: the most recent major biography written about Bix, Bix - the definitive biography of a jazz legend by Jean Pierre Lion (which is partly available through Google Books) also confirms this: see this link. /FredrikT (talk) 18:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

The article is wrong concerning Bix' name. His birth certificate says simply "Leon Bix Beiderbecke." His own sister was filmed for a documentary explaining that "Bismark" was never part of his name. This latest "source" arguing his name was "Bismark" is bad, and the information is completely false. It is unfortunate Wiki allows questionable sources with false information to be allowed with no further scrutiny by people who don't know any better. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.208.4 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't have an opinion one way or the other on what Bix's given name was, and I think the article fairly states what the current scholarship says. If you think that "this latest 'source' . . . is bad," I would ask of you the following: 1) please be specific about what source you're referring to; 2) please explain why the word "source" needs to be scare-quoted here; 3) please explain more fully why the information in the source is wrong -- in other words, engage the source and what it says, don't just bring up different information; and 4) please sign your name or some kind of identifier, especially as you worry about Wikipedia's standards. Margo&Gladys (talk) 21:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)

Here's a list of facts which were presented a few years ago by the late Bix researcher Rich Johnson in Albert Haim's "Bixography discussion group" and also (I believe) in "Bix notes" (the newsletter of the Bix Beiderbecke Memorial Society):

1. Early First Presbyterian Church records has Bix’s name as Leon Bismark.
2. Tyler School records show his name as Leon Bismark.
3. His original birth certificate reads, Leon B. Beiderbecke.
4. 1963, Bix’s birth certificate at Scott County Court House was altered to read, Leon Bix Beiderbecke.
5. Question? If his original name was Leon Bix Beiderbecke, why was the birth certificate altered?
6. When Mary Hill died, the following people were included in her will: Agatha, Mary Louise, Charles Burnette, and Bix. All signed the legal paper except Bix, who was a minor, so Agatha, Bix’s mother, signed his name on the legal document. She wrote, Leon Bismark Beiderbecke.
7. "Bix" was a nickname for the name, Bismark.

The full posting from whicj these facts were taken can be found [1]

[blocked link] network54.com/Forum/27140/message/1151790683/Jim+Arpy%27s+article+and+Rich+Johnson%27s+response here

as can the links to several interesting follow-ups. It should also be noted that the birth certificate provided by the Beiderbecke family in evidence aginst Bix' name actually being Bismark wasn't issued until 1963 (se [2].

[blocked link] network54.com/Forum/27140/message/1158172485/Bix+or+Bismark+Redux here] for a posting about that)! /FredrikT (talk) 17:03, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

Introduction / Early Life

I have significantly expanded the introduction to better cover the full scope of Beiderbecke's life, influence, and legend. I've tried to cite it appropriately, pointing readers to a variety of sources. I have also begun to expand the "Early Life" section of the article. I have added reference to Beiderbecke having (perhaps) met Louis Armstrong in Davenport (making sure to note that historians disagree) as well as reference to Beiderbecke's 1921 arrest in Davenport on the charge of "lewd and lascivious conduct." Beiderbecke's arrest is a highly controversial issue among scholars, many of whom have chosen not to mention the incident at all when writing about the musician. There is no argument, however, that the arrest happened and that the charge was subsequently dropped. I have done my best here to remain neutral on what it might have meant (if, indeed, it meant anything). Beiderbecke's most recent biographer, Jean Pierre Lion, seems to think that it had some personal significance for Beiderbecke. He may or may not be correct, but his status as a Beiderbecke authority warrants his quotation. My hope is that this marks the beginning of revision and expansion of the entry so that it more thoroughly reflects Beiderbecke's career and music.

Margo&Gladys (talk) 18:12, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice work Margo&Gladys - keep it up! /FredrikT (talk) 10:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I have included a phrase to note that the charges were hearsay. I think this is necessary as the evidence amounted to such. In short, regardless of what the father said about why he dropped the charges, the point is that there was no evidence that would be presented. If you think about it, it is rather odd to include the father's statement on why he didn't press further (which may or may not be fair; he may have said it to save face, or whatever). In other words, why give the father the last word and not note that there was no evidence? Or better yet, just say the charges were dropped for lack of evidence? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.98.209 (talk) 23:24, 12 March 2011 (UTC)

:With regard to including Jean Pierre Lion's opinions of the charges brought against Beiderbecke: If this were a biography of Mr. Lion, then his speculation on the matter would be relevant as it reveals something about Lion, not Beiderbecke. However, this is a biography of Beiderbecke and, regardless of  Mr. Lion's expertise, his opinion on the legitimacy of the charges and his speculation on Bix's state of mind do not better reveal Bix, they  better reveal Lion.  

With regard to use of the word "hearsay": Testimony, not the criminal charge, is deemed "hearsay". If criminal charges are dropped either the charges were false or there was not enough evidence to merit bringing it to trial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gabagul (talk • contribs) 16:15, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

You are certainly entitled to have an opinion regarding the validity of the evidence presented in the public documents associated with Beiderbecke's arrest; as noted above, this is a controversial subject. However, an expression of personal opinion -- your determination that the charges were hearsay -- while illustrative of the controversy surrounding the arrest, does not appear to constitute the kind of scholarly, published source required by Wikipedia guidelines. The phrase "and others" in your edit would not fit those criteria, either. I'm going to have to undo your edits unless you can provide a better explanation for them than your opinion and speculation on the motivations of the father. Graupooten (talk) 07:38, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

I am not expressing an opinion and I don't include speculations of the father in the edits. You are being tendentious . See Wikipedia:Tendentious. The evidence available to the public (us) indicates very strongly that the only available evidence was hearsay as the child was not going to testify (regardless of the reasons the father gives which may or may not be accurate, but are fine include although I think not truly relevant). That is a statement of fact. I can try to write to read more like this, but I don't see it as opinion at all. If I misunderstand what the word hearsay means please let me know (even if it is something a judge rules on like "discrimination" other technical matters, we can use these terms generally and it applies here). Note: User name unknown

Edits undone. See Wikipedia:Verifiability page regarding questionable sources and burden of evidence. My quibble is not with the documents themselves or their location, it is with interpretation of those documents by an Internet forum and/or that forum's owner. Graupooten (talk) 20:57, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Your problem with the owner is not important unless you can state why it is biased and why that bias is relevant. If the documents are not in doubt, as you say, then conslusion that the evidence remaining was only hearsay is substantially not in doubt either. It is a fair statement of the facts not requiring judgement by the owner of the website. Note: User name unknown

Including the sentence "He dismissed the seriousness of the charge, but speculated that the arrest nevertheless might have led Beiderbecke to "feel abandoned and ashamed: he saw himself as suspect of perversion." is still questionable. Why include Mr. Lyon's speculation? If Mr. Beiderbecke was a living person, I think this sentence would be deleted.Sandcherry (talk) 23:25, 14 March 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Lion's speculation is worth inclusion here because his is the most important (and only full-length) biography of Beiderbecke still in print. And it is the first biography to include information about the arrest. Lion's opinions matter regardless of whether we agree with them. That Beiderbecke is dead is a determining factor in how we write about him (as it would be with any historical figure); what good does it do us, eighty years after his death, to imagine him to be alive? Margo&Gladys (talk) 00:30, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

I don't agree that the website by Haim and his presentation should be dismissed and that of Lion given priveledge. I think any reading of Haim's comments are balanced and scholarly. I have no connection to him. His comments and presentation of the evidence are not just some "internet forum." In any case, if we leave in Lion's judgement I think Haim's is fair game to include, too. It is certainly more closely verifiable than Lion's speculation on BB's state of mind (which is a perfect example of speculation). Please bring discussion here and do not edit war. Thank you. Note: User name unknown

If you care to scan through the Feature Article review, I, too, argued in favor of giving Haim and his forum the authority you seek. However, it was denied, and it was denied by people who know the various policies and styles of Wikipedia far better than I. Regardless, Lion, as the author of an award-winning biography, does deserve that authority. And his claim ought not to be that controversial. He is suggesting that someone accused of a crime might later have been affected negatively by that accusation. The wording of the article emphasizes that this is speculation. I'm not sure what more to say about this, except that it is not acceptable, by my lights, to delete sections of the article without discussion or without adequate explanation. To undo such edits is not engaging in an edit war. It is upholding the consensus view, as judged by the Good Article and Feature Article reviews, that the entry is well sourced. Margo&Gladys (talk) 20:01, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

Haim presents documents and the facts are that there is nothing other than hearsay. This is not opinion. Please note that I am not cutting anything by Lion. But I appreciate your points about the degree of latitude allowed to various writers. Ultimately I don't know why we stress Lion's status as "first" or the father's statement as this is not an aritlce about Lion, nor is there reason to stress the father's statement as to why he withdrew (which hints that the child could identify BB, see?). The emphasis should be on: 1) charge made and x,y, and z were done about it, 2) charges were dropped was no evidence was forthcoming, 3) Lion believes this to have x,y,z meaning in BB's life. As for edit warring, I'll check the link you provide, but I don't think that means that no future edits are allowed. That would be a strange reading of the article's selection (that it is infallible in it's previous state). No? Instead, the arguments made, which I'll see if made before, should be judged. The argument is simple: the case was apparently dropped for lack of evidence...or more accurate: the only evidence available was hearsay: some children fingered BB to the girl's dad not the girl. (Again, I am open that I am misuing the term hearsay). See what I am saying? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.122.177 (talk) 20:12, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I just read the relevant parts of the Feature Article page about this page. It doesn't rejec the points I am making. If the point should be made without reference to Haim, that is fine. But I still don't see why it is not correct to simply state that the charges were dropped as there was no witness. I also think that the father's reasoning for why there is no witness is not needed (who cares why unless it is really relevant?), but it's fine to have it there as trivia. We are talking, after all about a rather nasty charge. Simply pointing out that the case or investigation collapsed for lack of anything other than hearsay is an objective discription. Like "that car is red." No? I think people are protecting to much here and assuming that I am making an edit that I am not. I'm open to suggestions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.122.177 (talk) 20:21, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

First, I never said, nor did I intend to say, that no further edits are allowed. What I meant was that this issue regarding Haim's authority versus Lion's has already been discussed and decided. In other words, when consensus has been reached on a subject, and you provide nothing new to the debate, your edits should be rejected. (See WP: HEAR.) Lion is quoted not because this is an article about Lion, but because he is the only author of a full-length biography of Bix Beiderbecke to include this information and to suggest what consequences it had on his subject's life. The girl's father's statement is included because his statement is on the record and because it's obviously relevant to the issue at hand. To be clear: we do not know if the charge against Beiderbecke was dropped because there was no evidence (or only hearsay evidence) or if the charge was dropped because the father did not want his daughter to testify. (When you say that the case "collapsed for lack of anything other than hearsay," you are stating an opinion that is contradicted by the father's on-the-record statement.) What we do know is what the father told the police, and that's in the entry. And there are links in the notes to Haim's forum and a mention of Rich Johnson's disagreement. All in all, this strikes me as fair and thorough. Margo&Gladys (talk) 20:33, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

I know you didn't say it, but it is the result and my opinion that a minor and factual change is being resisted. "When you say that the case "collapsed for lack of anything other than hearsay," you are stating an opinion that is contradicted by the father's on-the-record statement" That is not an opinion and it is backed by what is know. Please tell me how this is opinion. People keep saying that but it is not an opinion. Once the child's testimony was withdrawn (for whatever reason and it is slightly prejeducial to only includ the father's reasoning, but I guess that is all we have) there was nothing else left. True or false? I don't think it is fair to label arguments opinion when they are not. There needs to be another reason to exclude this. What is it? (Also, it is not fair to include some comments in text and others in footnotes. It should be clear why.) Also, note that my arguments here are not the same as the very, very modest change I suggested. Please try to work with me and not just reject changes that I am not making. (I.e., I'm not talking about Johnson, etc.). To more forward in good faith, can you review the last edit I made and suggest a change to it that you find acceptable? Or I can re-enter it here if you wish. Thanks for your help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.113.2 (talk) 13:33, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I'm absolutely trying to work in good faith here. When you write, in the entry, that "others note the fact that the only publicly available evidence against Beiderbecke amounts to hearsay," you don't cite who these "others" are, and if they are Albert Haim and/or contributors to his forum, then we've been down that path. They are not adequately authoritative sources. If, on the other hand, one cites the girl's father's affidavit, then you can, in fact, cite that information. (You worry about it being prejudicial, but I don't understand that concern. When one is citing the public record, then readers can draw their own conclusions. Bix Beiderbecke doesn't care what those are. Bix Beiderbecke is dead.) Anyway, the father asserts that the charges were dropped because the girl would not testify. The assumption, then, is that without the girl, there was no case. But that is not the only conclusion you can draw. It could be that the father convinced the authorities not to move ahead with the case, despite whatever other evidence they had. It could be that the father made a deal with the Beiderbecke family, which included withdrawing the charges. I don't know, and I don't have an opinion. But what's in the entry now relies not on assumptions but on the public record. That's why I think the current edit is superior to your suggested changes. I'm not sure I understand what you mean by including some comments in the text and some in the footnotes. Can you give me a specific example? Haim and his forum are in the footnotes because they are not authoritative sources; therefore, they are extra information, rather than citations of information in the text. Johnson is in the footnotes because I believe that people who want to investigate this further would be interested in this source. However, the arguments he makes regarding the arrest are not supported by anything resembling scholarly citations. It's very poor history. Lion is the most authoritative source on the arrest, his opinions matter for the reason explained above, and they add something to the entry, even if you disagree. That's why they're there. I will be on the road the next couple days, and I may or may not have a chance to immediately respond if you have further comments. I'm happy to continue the discussion, however. Margo&Gladys (talk) 14:17, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Please, let's ignore Lion, Johnson, Haim. Debates about them (which I sense are a hot bed for some people out there) are not central to what I am discussing. Here's the facts: What we know from the public records are the accusation, the arrest, the withdrawal of the witness, and the case ends. Yes? Correct me if I am wrong. There are always lots of possible alternatives to anything (an infinite number if you think about it), but that is not an argument. What we do know is that without a witness the case falls apart because of....what? If you want to modify it by saying first "based on the known extant records" that is fine. As for who to cite, I would cite the same people for the records that you do. I assume there is no problem with that. Again, forget debates about Lion vs Johnson...I'm not discussing that (sorry if I went off on them as an aside and clouded things, but the point is NOT related to issues people have with them). I will look back at my past entry edits and see if the wording can be made that doesn't rely on "others note" since who notes the fact doesn't matter...what matters is that the case was dropped, based on extant records, once the witness withdrew...meaning the charges only stood on hearsay. Please note, and this is important: I agree with you that why the father/child withdrew doesn't matter, that they withdrew meant that the charges were left standing only on hearsay...see? The point isn't to denigrate the witness but to make a factual statement about the case. The kid wasn't going to or couldn't for whatever reason (settlement with family, child didn't want to do it, child admitted it wasn't BB or changed her story somewhat, etc.). Doesn't matter why; I'm not suggesting putting in why. The witness pulls back and there's no evidence, based on what we have. Not opinion; fact. Maybe the word hearsay isn't the right word, but I've not heard a suggestion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.113.2 (talk) 16:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

One additional point, the current page says "...the charge was dropped because, according to an affidavit submitted by the father, "of the child's age and the harm that would result to her in going over this case."" However, that is not true. The charge was not dropped because of the child's age and possible harm. It was dropped because the child wasn't going to testify or do whatever, etc. The reasons she didn't testify (given by the father) are not why the charges were dropped, although they led to it. See the difference? Very important distinction. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.113.2 (talk) 16:54, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

You'll need to explain to me what you mean. How do you know the father is not telling the truth? In the meantime, I'm happy not to discuss Lion and Haim, but you brought them up and you suggested changes to the article based on your opinions of their relative authority. Regardless, the article as it stands does not contradict your version of events as laid out above, while having the virtue of citable sources. We know the witness withdrew because of the father's statement, so why not quote from the statement? Readers can judge for themselves what it means. The article says what is known and allows the reader to see how it is known. Your suggested changes make a general statement (the case collapsed because the witness withdrew) at the expense of explaining the particulars (the charge was withdrawn at the behest of the father because, he said, he did not want his daughter to testify). The only reason (as far as I can tell) that you've given for wanting to make this change is because quoting the father is prejudicial. But you haven't said to whom it is prejudicial. If to Bix Beiderbecke, then I say again: he's dead. He doesn't care. And those of us who are alive and who do care about this incident are better served (I think) by the citation of the specific facts based on the police reports. And that's what this entry does already. If you feel strongly about the arrest and how it is portrayed, perhaps you want to create a separate entry for that. I'd be happy to contribute to it. Margo&Gladys (talk) 17:02, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

I didn't say the father is not telling the truth!! Where did I say that? Also, you write: "The only reason (as far as I can tell) that you've given for wanting to make this change is because quoting the father is prejudicial." That is also simply not true. The point is this: clearly stating why the case ended. It didn't end because the girl would come to harm or because the father said the girl would come to harm, or whatever the reason for the withdrawal (you gave the alternative reasons argument, not me, I gave them to point out that it is off point). It ended because the witness withdrew and there was nothing else. I don't think it's fair to say the readers have to decide what you mean. Even if you think it's clear, why not make a slight adjustment? I'm not suggesting opinion or falsehood, etc. Also, you again bring up the credible sources issues. I'm not trying to change any sources! I've stated that repeatedly (although I've also stated some doubts about how they are treated, but I've clearly pointed out that I don't see a need to change them as the evidence is out there in the sources cited (page 26 of Lion's book it seems is fine, I just looked it up on google books). You are repeatedly making claims about my argument that I am not making even after I have pointed it out. That is tendentious. You keep running back to argruments I don't make as central to the minor change. I.e., you bring up the sources, the father's truthfulness, etc. You don't say anything about the need for simple clarity that the case ended due to lack of witnesses. Good faith requires a slight adjustment be discussed at least, even if you think it minor. Instead you are trying to tie my change to some other arguments (I suspect arguments that people are having or have had over something else entirely); just protecting the current writing beyond what is fair is not...well...fair. My argument is based on the leap in logic in the sentence and the request to say (and I've modified this from the start to show I am open to edits) that the case was closed for lack for evidence or because the evidence remaining was hearsay. Take your pick, but your arguments here are repeatedly distorting my simple request and the basic logic under it even after I've offered clarification. And I don't know what BB's status as alive or dead has to do with any of this, either. Just focus on the simple argument I am making, please. Should I suggest language? Or do you want to? I'm not interested in writing a separate entry on the portrayal of the arrest (but others can if they want). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.114.123 (talk) 20:06, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

How's this for a revision? (New text in all caps.)

Although Beiderbecke was briefly taken into custody and held on a $1,500 bond, the charge was dropped because THE GIRL WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY. According to an affidavit submitted by HER father, THIS WAS BECAUSE "of the child's age and the harm that would result to her in going over this case."

My apologies if I've misunderstood your arguments or requests. Margo&Gladys (talk) 22:37, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

This looks very reasonable to me. Graupooten (talk) 01:21, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Apologies accepted; sorry if I mixed issues together. I would suggest two very slight changes:

1) ..."AFTER THE GIRL WAS NOT MADE AVAILABLE TO TESTIFY." [changes "because" to "after" as a nod to your prior concerns.]

2) Insert after the father's quote new sentence: "It is not clear from the father's affidavit if the girl had identified Beiderbecke." [See p. 26 of Lion's book (which one can find on google books). The best that we can tell, Beiderbecke was picked up because of what some boys told the father about seeing the girl and Beiderbecke together. Since people seem to not want to use the word hearsay, we should at least just say that it isn't clear what the girl said about Beiderbecke, if anything. This seems a fair and very slight addition and in line with Wiki's principle of adding clarifying info. Otherwise, readers are left with the strong impression that the girl's charges fingered Beiderbecke when we don't have that. This is essential information (more important than the father's statement, which adds texture or color to the story but doesn't clarify if Beiderbecke was picked up for any reason beyond the father's statement about the boys' claims).] Thanks for working with me on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.98.209 (talk) 10:06, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Those edits work for me. Margo&Gladys (talk) 17:00, 27 March 2011 (UTC)

Great. Thanks. You want to make them? I don't know where you want the ref's to Lion (who's book, BTW, is either horribly translated, or horribly written...he may have his facts right but his psychologizing and writing is really poor). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.98.209 (talk) 03:06, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, I'll make the changes. And with all respect, Lion's book is one of the better biographies about Beiderbecke, and to suggest that Bix -- who killed himself with drink, after all -- may have been personally affected by a police charge of this nature is hardly "psychologizing," as you put it. It's pretty much stating the obvious. But since this isn't a forum for the discussion of Beiderbecke's life, I'll leave it at that. Margo&Gladys (talk) 13:36, 28 March 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes. That Lion's book is better than most about BB says nothing of the quality compared to standards for a biography. And that BB was an alcoholic says nothing about the family relations re: this arrest or BB's thoughts about this event. There is nothing obvious in the reasons behind drinking oneself to death. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.88.147.182 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2011 (UTC)

You just keep going over the same thing over and over again..give it a rest..you sound like a bunch of lawyers arguing over procedure..no one knows what happened..we all know he probably did it or people wouldn`t still be talking about it..who knows..why do you care? it`s ancient history and its irrelevant..listen to his music..i`m sorry but this is how I feel about it..all these talk discussions that go nowhere are stupid..you go on paragraph after paragraph about how one line or one word should read instead of really presenting anything new Lonepilgrim007 (talk) 16:49, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Full Revision

I've completed a full revision of the article, rewriting and expanding all sections, including the introduction, "Early Life," and "Career" (the latter was actually scrapped in favor of three separate sections: "The Wolverines," "Goldkette," and "Whiteman"). I took information from a section on Beiderbecke's name and another on popular culture and worked relevant information into the main body of the article. I added a section on Beiderbecke's death and another on his legend and legacy. I did my best to thoroughly cite the writing and use a wide variety of sources. I may add a "Further Reading" section at some point to highlight the various books available on Beiderbecke, but for now, the "References" section serves the same purpose. I also added citations to the "Honors" section. It's impossible to cite the sections on cover versions of "Davenport Blues" and "In a Mist," and I'm not convinced such lists provide the sort of value one associates with an encyclopedia, but I'm happy to defer on that call. I think the entry needs more media, but there seem to be copyright concerns -- an image of Bix and the Wolverines was recently deleted from the Wiki Commons site.

Margo&Gladys (talk) 19:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I deleted two external links that do not conform to Wiki policy: 1) a Bix tribute album link that seeks to sell a product; and 2) a link to the site for the Bix 7 road race, which does not provide any useful information about Beiderbecke or his legacy. I have mixed feelings about the QC Memory link in that it accesses an article with disputed information that is not labeled as such and, in a few cases, bad facts (e.g., Whiteman, not Whitman or Wittman). I also have mixed feelings about the Bix Beiderbecke Memorial Society link; there is little if anything there that is not already in the article.

Margo&Gladys (talk) 21:44, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Be bold - you are doing a great job!Sandcherry (talk) 23:55, 30 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the encouragement. I created a "Style" section under "Music" to better explain Beiderbecke's musical distinctiveness. I deleted the covers sections for the reasons mentioned above as well as two external links -- QC Memory article and BBMS -- because they are unreliable (former) or do not provide substantial information about Beiderbecke that is not already in the article (latter).

Margo&Gladys (talk) 00:40, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Not sure who User 69.127.31.149 is, but this person has made a couple of edits that needed to be undone. Is it vandalism? Is there a reason, an objection to the entry? Maybe this person could identify him/herself. Margo&Gladys (talk) 22:01, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

My advice on handling edits from individuals that have 1) an IP address, 2) very few edits, and 3) edits like User 69.127.31.149 is to revert the edits without hesitation. This may not be Wiki policy, but it seems to work. I have never had a reversion meeting these criteria challenged by the editor. Although reverting these revisions is annoying, it is the price to pay for an open system which gives you and me an opportunity to edit this and other articles IMHO.Sandcherry (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Makes sense. Thanks, Sandcherry. Margo&Gladys (talk) 23:47, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

I can see Sandcherry's point, but doing so "withouth hesitation" sounds unfair. The hesitation should be the same as for anybody otherwise the page becomes "owned" by a clique. I do believe in sweat equity of course, but the "hesitation" (i.e., consideration) should be very close to equal (note that I am not commenting on a particular edit, just in general). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.253.113.2 (talk) 14:08, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Excellent point. The "without hesitation" bit was rhetorical flourish. Additions by contributors with IP addresses and user names should be given equal consideration. Sandcherry (talk)

LA Times article about this talk page

There is an article in the Los Angeles Times about this present Wikipedia discussion page. Michael Hardy (talk) 15:19, 19 January 2010 (UTC)

FAC?

Quite frankly, this article reads more like an FA than a GA to me. Certainly, it's as good or better than many FA's I have seen. I have only a few minor criticisms - that Whiteman is a little overemphasized in the intro I think, and that the famous phrase "shooting bullets at a bell" is missing - at least, I didn't see it. I'd certainly like to see the article nominated though, is there any reason why it can't be? Gatoclass (talk) 16:32, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this article is of a very high quality, and at a glance I can't see any issues with pushing it to FA status. It'd be best if it were nominated by Margo&Gladys (talk · contribs) though, as they seem to have done the bulk of the work on it and they clearly know the subject well enough to deal with any objections that might come up during the review. Lankiveil ^{(speak to me)} 11:13, 11 April 2010 (UTC).

Agree CTJF83 chat 17:28, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

Also agree. Viriditas (talk) 13:05, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Done. Your encouragement is much appreciated. Margo&Gladys (talk) 14:50, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

Possible inclusion of audio sample.

The article would benefit from an example of Beiderbecke's playing. I have raised this question at Commons about some files putatively in the public domain here, because I don't yet trust the licence claim there. Just a note in case other editors want to follow this. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:49, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

With some help from a friend, I figured out the logistics and have uploaded an 18-second clip of Beiderbecke's solo on "Singin' the Blues" and placed it in an appropriate spot in the Beiderbecke entry. Margo&Gladys (talk) 20:16, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

• Those clips A) Need FURs for this article and B) should be limited to one, as we have a policy of minimal use. Crisco 1492 (talk) 03:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Just curious to know if that policy changes according to the size of an article? Some music articles have more than one or two & btw could I have a link to that policy ? Thanks, Manytexts (talk) 11:24, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Recent edits

I hope contributors and reviewers don't mind a few edits I made to the article. I move two images up, as they were disturbing sections below, and made all four upright. This makes for a much cleaner look in my opinion. Also, I found the Compositions and Major recordings sections difficult to read, so I added bold text to separate ensembles. I wonder if these sections might read better as prose. Also, I found several instances of incorrect capitalization and punctuation, and I imagine there are more. Feel free to discuss if needed. --Another Believer _(Talk) 00:28, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Likewise, I've wikified in good faith – numbers as it's wikipedia not book prose & replaced the B in eiderbecke left by a url (editing in conflict) for whatever reason. I amended the Elipsis as per accepted use, so that they continue from the break with a gap before taking up the quoted line. Manytexts (talk) 11:20, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Private Astronomy: A Vision of the Music of Bix Beiderbecke

This might also be worth noting.

• http://www.allmusic.com/album/private-astronomy-a-vision-of-the-music-of-bix-beiderbecke-r656996
• http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1440418

Or not? --Another Believer _(Talk) 16:09, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Years later, I've created a stub for Private Astronomy: A Vision of the Music of Bix Beiderbecke. I will let editors more familiar with Beiderbecke and this article decide if the album should be mentioned here. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 04:17, 8 May 2018 (UTC)

Vandalism?

In the "Death" section: "I looked under the vagina...." PurpleChez (talk) 16:55, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Also "there were two Mexicans hiding under his bed with long daggers." The cause of death was listed as pneumonia or alchohol related - Is this part vandalism? If not this seems to need further explanation. 170.34.104.12 (talk) 17:05, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Corrected the first, though it seemed to me the latter was just a hallucination Beiderbecke was suffering from at the time. GRAPPLE X 17:06, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

The Lip

A Louis Prima song called, The Lip includes the line, "he's got a tone that's reminiscent of a boy named Bix" (referring to Beiderbecke). I don't think it's important enough for the article, but fans of both musicians might be interested in the trivia. 75.36.176.127 (talk) 18:49, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Bix and the Bucktown Five reversions

There is a reference given for these recordings at The Bucktown Five article. See here. If you're intent on repeated reversions of referenced information, you should set up your talk page so you can discuss it. Pkeets (talk) 03:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

These recordings appear to be fairly well referenced. Someone should add them to the discography. Pkeets (talk) 14:41, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Peacock terms?

Is "one of the most influential" in the first paragraph a peacock term? Isn't the matter of influence subjective? What about "unusual purity of tone"? I don't know what that means. Or "gift for improvisation". Isn't that subjective? Is it a gift or did he develop it? Don't all jazz musicians have a gift for improvisation, given that improvisation is part of the definition of jazz? Did he really "help to invent the jazz ballad style"? Invent? Who says? How? What is the jazz ballad style?
–Vmavanti (talk) 19:10, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello, Vmavanti. It's helpful to keep in mind that the introductory paragraphs are permitted to summarize information that appears in the body of the article. And this article does have a well-sourced sub-section on "Style and Influence". All of the phrases that you've identified appear in that sub-section, where they are sourced and for which the speakers are identified via in-text attribution. The phrases might be subjective to some degree, but the way they are used in the introduction does strike me as an accurate summary of what the article itself is saying. As for whether Beiderbecke "helped invent" a particular style, that notion is hinted at in the body of the text (which, by the way, does offer a definition of that particular style). Perhaps you have a point in arguing that the main text doesn't exactly say that he "helped invent" it, but it does seem to be fairly implied by the main text. NewYorkActuary (talk) 20:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)