Talk:Robert Johnson/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Fair use rationale for Image:Robert johnson stamp.png

Image:Robert johnson stamp.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Johnson (Robert and Tommy) and the Devil

Just watched the documentary "Searching for Robert Johnson" (available on Netflix), and one of the interviewees seemed to suggest (well she was an old lady, kind of eccentric) that the myth about selling your soul to play the blues was common. That might suggest that the this legend may not have been unique to either musician and therefore wasn't necessarily mistakenly applied to one from the other. Not sure what that's worth... There were also suggestions in the film that Johnson himself created this image of himself, which would suggest it wasn't history that developed these legends but Johnson himself.

Interesting film in any case. One of the historians interviewed apparently talked to a guy who apparently basically admitted to poisoning Johnson, though no two people in the film agree about how he died or where he was buried. MDuchek (talk) 04:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I have always interpreted learning from an older Black man at night as an indicator of the rigors of contract labor and the curfew system. The attribution of instruction to the devil I take as mere sensationalismRichardBond (talk) 00:10, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Spin off covers of RJ tunes?

The section listing cover versions of Robert Johnson tunes seems like it should be split off into a list, since that's all it is, and since it has the potential to become very long. Thoughts? - Special-T (talk) 21:14, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Unlike other pages, the { {reflist} } appears under the heading. ==Notes==. The actual references are then listed under ==References==. So the inserted references are actually short citations of a separate bibliography. Should this be tidied up? In any expert prepared to do the tidying? DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Major clean-up (copy& pasted on discussion page) - please see discussion page

I realise that a lot of work has gone into this, and many editors will object, but as per the verification template, am deleting (and copying and pasting here for future reference/action) what is POV content and dangerously close to hype. It also reads like a novel, not a serious encyclopedia article. I realise that this will stir up harsh feelings, but someone has to be bold and do something about this article, even though there appear to be references, said references just seem to corroborate themselves and are thus suspect ...

BTW – my old man told me of the Devil/Crossroads legend when giving me King of the Delta Blues Singers, Vol. II in 1970 - way before 1982 which is when Guralnick supposedly inadvertently connected the two unrelated events.

Deleted stuff:

Scarcely anything was known of Johnson's origins until Mack McCormick traced and interviewed members of his family. The research has still not been published, so the biography is based entirely on trust. Such is McCormick's reputation among his peers that no blues scholar seriously doubts his findings. Eventually, McCormick pemitted Peter Guralnick to publish a summary in Living Blues (1982), later reprinted in book form as Searching for Robert Johnson. [5]

Twenty two-year-old Charles Dodds had married Julia Major in Hazlehurst, Mississippi—about 35 miles (56 km) south of Jackson—in 1889. Charles Dodds owned land and made wicker furniture; his family was well off until he was forced out of Hazlehurst around 1909 by a lynch mob following an argument with some of the more prosperous townsfolk. (There was a family legend that Dodds escaped from Hazlehurst dressed in women's clothing.) Over the next two years, Julia Dodds sent their children one at a time to live with their father in Memphis, where Charles Dodds had adopted the name of Charles Spencer. Julia stayed behind in Hazlehurst with two daughters, until she was evicted for nonpayment of taxes.

By that time she had given birth to a son, Robert, who was fathered by a field worker named Noah Johnson. Unwelcome in Charles Dodds' home, Julia Dodds became an itinerant field worker, picking cotton and living in camps as she moved among plantations. While she worked in the fields, her eight-year-old daughter took care of Johnson. Over the next ten years, Julia Dodds would make repeated attempts to reunite the family, but Charles Dodds never stopped resenting her infidelity. Although Charles Dodds would eventually accept Johnson, he never would forgive his wife for giving birth to him.

Around 1914, Robert Johnson moved in with Charles Dodds' family, which by that time included all of Dodds' children by Julia Dodds, as well as Dodds' mistress from Hazlehurst and their two children. Johnson would then spend the next several years in Memphis, and it was reportedly about this time that he began playing the guitar under his older half-brother's tutelage.

Johnson did not rejoin his mother until she had remarried several years later. By the end of the decade, he was back in the Mississippi Delta living with his mother and her new husband, Dusty Willis. Johnson and his stepfather, who had little tolerance for music, did not get along, and Johnson had to slip out of the house to join his musician friends.

In the course of these these years, he was known by various names: Robert Dodds and Robert Spencer (his first stepfather's real name and pseudonym), and Little Robert Dusty (after his second stepfather's nickname). Finally he chose to use his birth name Robert Johnson after his natural father. He may also have wished to be associated with the great guitarist Lonnie Johnson. These changes of name largely explain the inability of researchers before McCormack to obtain information.

In 1982, Guralnick unintentionally added the crossroads details to the legend. He quoted the account given by Ledell Johnson to David Evans of how his brother Tommy Johnson (no relation to Robert) sold his soul to a large black man at a crossroads. Although Guralnick made it clear that the details belonged to the Tommy Johnson story, casual readers failed to notice, and the crossroads association passed into oral tradition, and then into popular written accounts. The myth was established in mass consciousness in 1986 by the film “Crossroads’. There are now tourist attractions claiming to be "The Crossroads" at Clarksdale and in Memphis. The movie O Brother, Where Art Thou? portrayed Tommy Johnson.

--Technopat (talk) 01:53, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

The section that you've deleted is uneven in style because it was written by various people changing parts and leaving parts. There are also details that are less supported than others. And it's not clear which details are supported by which sources. The solution to this should be to do a real 'clean up' -- not a blanket deletion. You have now removed most of the only early biography section, leaving a very strange skeleton. The one sentence i would have deleted -- the unsupported assertion that 'everyone agrees that music was Johnson's first interest -- you've let intact.

I have purchased, but not received some other books of Johnson. I'll wait before I've read them before I attempt to reinstate any of the early biography stuff.

The Tommy Johnson material I have reinserted. What your old man told you in 1970 is interesting, but not enough to disprove the argument that the details in the current myth are taken from Ledell Johnson's frequently reprinted story.

Your argument that sources must be wrong because they agree with each other strikes me as perverse. I can't speak for other contributors, but the sources I've cited have made clear when they are drawing on the same material.DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings DavidCrosbie, and thanx for your feedback. My "boldness" in removing the stuff was aimed at getting some sort of action from other editors - precisely why I pasted the deleted material here for others to pick and choose from what might be relevant to a Wikipedia article. I've found in the past that suggesting improvements etc. on discussion pages brings about little response, whereas there's nothing like a major edit ...

As for deleting much of the early biography section, surely that makes sense - that's where most of the (possibly irrelevant?) speculation on RJ's life and works is to be found. My old man's mention of the legend is clearly original research, which is why I made no mention of it in the article, but it is possibly enough to suggest that when legends/rumours etc. actually make it into print they are already old hat - much the same happens when words finally make it into dictionaries.

Finally, as to my perverse conclusion re. sources, the neat saying Material copied from one source is considered plagiarism, whereas material copied from various sources is considered original research. Wikipedia does, of course, accept any printed reference as true, but that's beside the point. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have reinstated the crossroad myth argument with careful reference to sources. To accommodate your old man's story, I have left open the time when the crossroad detail was added. Added it most certainly was. It's just about possible that Johnson himself told the tale, but it did not emerge until the 1960s. Perhaps the Tommy Johnson story spread by word of mouth among blues fans before it was published in 1971.

I can't agree with your deletion of the early life history. The fact that so many accounts are based on McCormick's unpublished research does not invalidate that research. (Nor is Wardlow discredited because he is cited by Wald and Komara). I have on order books by Edward Komara, Patricia Shroeder and Lee & McCulloch. They all claim to examine all the evidence, and I will be very disappointed if they merely repeat Guralnik's summary of McCormick.

Your assertion that McCormick's work is 'speculation' has no foundation. Some biographical details were obtained by McCormick first and later confirmed by discoveries by Wardlow and others.

And your definition of plagiarism is totally irrelevant. Those who first included the biography gave no sources at all. I cited Guralnik (1982), and made clear that it was a summary of McCormick (unpublished). None of the works that I've used borrow material from other writers without acknowledging the source.

If anything, the early biography has more documentary support than most of the entry.DavidCrosbie (talk) 12:55, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

I have now removed the unsupported assertion that Robert did not take the Dodds surname. And I have watered down the what was left as the one biographical 'fact'. I will try to find the source for the assertion 'all agree' that his first interest was in music.DavidCrosbie (talk) 14:12, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings DavidCrosbie. Maybe I'm reading this wrong, but you seem to be taking this personally. I can assure you that I have no criticism aimed at you - my idea was that, due to multiple edits, the article seemed to have evolved away from a Wikipedia encyclopedic-type article into a narrative based on what I (mis-?)understood to be hearsay.

As for your "Your assertion that McCormick's work is 'speculation' has no foundation. Some biographical details were obtained by McCormick first and later confirmed by discoveries by Wardlow and others.", I did not specify that McCormick's work was speculation, merely that the content found in that section of the article - which, as it did not contain any references, I had naturally assumed to be a hotch-potch of individual edits, and as I say, unreferenced - could only be speculation. Whatever it is, I certainly do not consider it encyclopedic.

Look forward to reading your future contributions to the article. Regards, --Technopat (talk) 18:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

The biography written before I started on the section looked OK to me, though clearly a single editorial voice and some decent references would improve it. You did indeed misunderstand the quality of the information. All such biography is largely hearsay -- interviews with elderly survivors long after the event, with few if any written documents. Two marriage certificates and a death certificate is unusually rich documentation. And Johnson was too insignificant to make it into the music press.

The paragraph you deleted on McCormick is central. It was McCormick who interviewed most of the surviving informants. The status of the information is unusual, because McCormick has not yet published, which I believe is useful knowledge for anybody seeking to understand Johnson's life. It would, I think, be better to reinstate the missing material giving Guralnik as source for the whole section. I for one would seek to improve it later.

The paragraph you deleted on Robert's surnames is also crucial. Enthusiasts and scholars started searching for information on Johnson even before he died. The fact that almost nothing was discovered for over twenty years is explained by the fact that he was not known as Robert Johnson for most of his life.DavidCrosbie (talk) 00:07, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

I think the two sections as I have revised them are much better than nothing, and will do the job for the time being. Eventually, the only format that can satisfy the sceptics is to specify which informant is the source of each purported fact. I can't do that right now, but I hope I will be able to after consulting new secondary sources.DavidCrosbie (talk) 12:03, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

Greetings DavidCrosbie, The work you (and other editors) been doing recently is a tremendous improvement on the article that I came across a while back. I wish I could have helped out in some way. It now reads like a serious encyclopedic biography of Johnson. Well done! Regards, --Technopat (talk) 22:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Neglected Screenplay

Back in the late Sixties I wrote what was probably the first screenplay devoted to the life of Robert Johnson; Hellhound on My Trail was copyrighted and registered with the Writers Guild in 1970 and circulated in Hollywood for many years after that, with much producer interest, some actor/director discussions, etc. But of course no film was ever made from it. The existing Wikipedia article about Johnson is excellent, but as there was no mention of my screenplay--a copy held at the Blues Museum in Mississippi, portions of it published c.1972 in Boston magazine called Fusion, and now its entire publication on the Internet at www.robertjohnsonhellhound.blogspot.com--I have made a couple of minor emendations to claim my small role in the decades-long story of the Johnson revival. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mrebks (talk) 21:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Mrebks (talk • contribs) 21:44, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

There are conflict of interest issues here (WP:COI), as well as issues of original research (WP:OR) and reliability of sources (a blog), so I've reverted those additions. If there is a reliable published reference that can be cited, there still would be the issue of notability. - Special-T (talk) 00:12, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

just because you are a computer whiz, what gives you the right to erase my perfectly accurate addition? the screenplay WAS written in the late Sixties, WAS copyrighted and registered in 1970, WAS circulated in Hollywood for two decades and more, WAS partially published in November 26, 1971 issue (#67) of Boston-based rock magazine Fusion, and IS on file with the Blues Museum in Mississippi--can be found by Googling "Robert Johnson Hellhound Screenplay." Greil Marcus, Peter Guralnick, and other writers, plus producer Tony Bill, actor-director Ossie Davis, cameraman-turned-director Fouad Said (co-developer of the Steadi-cam, as i recall); record guru Jerry Wexler, the editors of Fusion, comix artist William Stout, and many others all read it in manuscript way back then; Elijah Wald and others later. i could get sworn statements if needed. for pete's sake, all i was adding was mention of an early and sadly unsuccessful attempt to spread the word about Johnson long before Greenberg and Crossroads and the documentaries. surely not all info in Wikipedia stems from completely disinterested parties. you are depriving the world of factual material! how can i introduce Hellhound mention according to "proper" regulations? Mrebks (talk) 04:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)16:19, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

See the links above, as well as WP:VERIFY and WP:NOT. These edits fail all three criteria of Wikipedia:Core content policies. - Special-T (talk) 20:28, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

okay, i see that i am guilty of conflict of interest, but surely the portion printed in Fusion in 1971, and the copies filed with Library of Congress and Writers Guild West around the same time, and the copy held in the Blues screenplays section (or whatever) in Mississippi museum might count as verifiable background worthy of footnoting? and i'm not trying to add a whole page or a new article, of course, only a few lines to let the world know that the full story has not been told. the Johnson article as is is full of speculation and unverified statements from various bluesmen whose anecdotes and stories varied from one article to another--i remember all this well because i was reading everything that appeared back in the middle Sixties. by the way, other cats i connected with who read my screenplay included Pete Welding and Les Blank (roots music documentary filmmaker in case you don't know his name). why should it be required that a simple footnote or two to the RJ article need be submitted by someone other than he who knows the story best? i'll bet there are real world personages who have taken it upon themselves (or had underlings do it) to correct data in other Wikipedia articles. why don't you read the screenplay, available to all at www.robertjohnsonhellhound.blogspot.com or my post-reprinting wrapup article at www.mrebks.blogspot.com --both of which might give you further info and possibly a different understanding. Mrebks (talk) 00:42, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Weeks later, no response, clearly wasting my breath. but all who care are invited to read the screenplay online. Mrebks (talk) 22:43, 14 November 2008 (UTC).

No response does not mean it has not been read and taken notice of. The problem of conflict of interest though weakens your case. I do not think anyone necessarily feels your comments are not valid - but 'self promotion' makes serious editors wary. One weakness I feel (pure POV on my part) of Wikipedia is that, if someone else had edited your article in, it would probably have gone unchallenged. I have not got a deep insight into Robert Johnson generally - perhaps no-one has - but I do feel you are acting honourably if nothing else. However Special-T's comments above are more than well made. Best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:28, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

thanks for weighing in. i guess self-publication and overall availability on-line will just have to suffice for now... but very frustrating! after all, few would argue that Wikipedia has perfect entries or the last word on anything worthy of scholarly judgment. i feel somewhat victimized. ed Mrebks (talk) 04:33, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Vanity Fair article

"Searching for Robert Johnson ", a good deal of coverage from Vanity Fair. the skomorokh 14:36, 24 October 2008 (UTC)

Nice Article

I like it. Can it be nominated for one of those stars? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nincomp (talk • contribs) 07:36, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

It would be a good candidate for Good Articles, but some of the sections (e.g. Influence and Films) lack references. Glad you like the article! the skomorokh 15:29, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

External links

I removed and edited a bunch of the external links that either didn't have any real extra info, or were just ads, or weren't germane to the article. I did several edits, so if there's legitimate disagreement, any one can be undone. But this article seems to be a magnet for non-notable, COI, and low-quality links that need to be pruned now and then. - Special-T (talk) 14:19, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

missing musical infor

I've been told that RJ was the first (one of the first, the first important) to use a particular style of guitar playing. supposedly it was this which led Keith Richards to inquire about the second guitar player when he first heard one of RJ's records. As of this date, the article does nothing to enlighten a non guitar player on this point. As it seems important, perhaps someone knowledgeable could add something from the non-initiated? ww (talk) 07:36, 20 February 2009 (UTC)

Read 'The Road to Robert Johnson' by Edward Korma. I've tried to reproduce some of his and Elijah Wald's stuff in articles on Kind Hearted Woman Blues, Dust My Broom, Sweet Home Chicago, and (unfinished) Ramblin' On My Mind. I might eventually attempt a section here. I'm not a guitarist, though. Somebody else might do a better job.DavidCrosbie (talk) 16:58, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Genealogical Data

I am a professional genealogist (Family Quest in Los Angeles). It never fails that when I discover information contrary to what has been considered the truth for a long time, there is resistance. The earliest census that gives an age for Robert Johnson, who was at the time Robert Spencer, reports his age as seven, not eight, in 1920. This was before his alleged birth month in May. That would mean he was seven turning eight rather than eight about to turn nine. The earliest census date in a person's life is usually the more accurate. This when parents more often have the best memory and best guess. It appears that Robert Johnson's birth date could have been 1912. On the other hand, by the time of the 1930 census taken in April, Robert identified his age as 18. An author says "he was probably born on May 8, 1911." He also states that he was the eleventh child. The census of 1900 and 1910 show the existence of eight or nine children, not ten. There is no tenth child to be found.

1900 Census (June 1, 1900)

Name: Charles Dodds Home in 1900: Hazelhurst, Copiah, Mississippi Age: 35 Birth Date: Feb 1865 Birthplace: Mississippi Race: Black Ethnicity: American Gender: Male Relationship to head-of-house: Head Father's Birthplace: Virginia Mother's Birthplace: Mississippi Spouse's Name: Julie Marriage Year: 1889 Marital Status: Married Years Married: 11 Residence : Beat 1 (West Parts of Hazelhurst & Martinville Precincts), Copiah, Mississippi Occupation: View on Image Neighbors: View others on page Household Members: Name Age Charles Dodds 35 Julie Dodds 25 Louise Dodds 12 Harriet Dodds 9 Bessie Dodds 8 Willie M Dodds 5 Lula B Dodds 4 Melvin L Dodds 1

View Original Record

View original image Charles Dodds is reported as a farmer. Julie's sister and mother live down the street indicating Julie's maiden name was Mary Sumerell. Charles and Louise can read and write. Note: Six children

1910 Census (April 20, 1910)

Name: Julia Dodds Age in 1910: 38 [39] Estimated Birth Year: abt 1872 [abt 1871] Birthplace: Mississippi Relation to Head of House: Head Father's Birth Place: United States of America Mother's Birth Place: United States of America Home in 1910: Martinsville, Copiah, Mississippi Marital Status: Divorced Race: Mulatto Gender: Female Neighbors: View others on page Household Members: Name Age Julia Dodds 38 Bessie Dodds 21 Caroline Dodds 15 John Dodds 12 Codie M Dodds 10

Notice that Bessie has moved from 8 in 1900 to 21 in 1910. Note: Three new names. Where was Caroline in the 1900 census unless she was given another name? The census taker may have guessed from their size that John was 12 and Caroline was 15, or the mother guessed wrong. Codie being 10 seems to indicate that she was last and number nine.

1920 Census (January 23, 1920)

Name: Robert Spencer Home in 1920: Lucas, Crittenden, Arkansas Age: 7 years Estimated Birth Year: abt 1913 Birthplace: Mississippi Relation to Head of House: Stepson Father's Birth Place: Mississippi Mother's Name: Julia Mother's Birth Place: Mississippi Marital Status: Single Race: Black Sex: Male Able to read: No Able to Write: No Image: 305 Neighbors: View others on page Household Members: Name Age Will Willis 22 Julia Willis 45 Robert Spencer 7

1930 Census (April 11, 1930) Name: Robert Johnson Home in 1930: Beat 3, Bolivar, Mississippi Age: 18 Estimated Birth Year: abt 1912 Birthplace: Mississippi Relation to Head of House: Head Spouse's Name: Virginia Race: Negro (Black)

Whether able to read and write: Yes

Occupation: Farmer

Education:

Military service: No

Rent/home value: --

Age at first marriage: 17

Parents' birthplace: Mississippi

View Image Neighbors: View others on page Household Members: Name Age Robert Johnson 18 Virginia Johnson 15

For Virginia: Age at first marriage 14.*

• This disputes the marriage certificate that asys she was 16 at marriage.

Daviddaniel37 (talk • contribs) 08:30, 24 February 2009

You may be right, but this sentence was problematical: "The 1920 census, however, suggests he was born in 1912". WP policy is to rely mainly on secondary sources, to avoid original research, and to handle primary sources with particular care. The 1920 census, dated January 23, 1920, gives RJ's age as 7, and gives an estimated birth year of "abt 1913". It is reasonable to conclude from this that he was probably born in 1912, but the census does not say this, so it amounts to OR. A birthdate of May 8, 1911 is easily sourced and seems to be the most commonly accepted date, for better or worse. Any argument for May 8, 1912 depends (so far) on a synthesis of sources and on an informed conjecture that the earliest census date in a person's life is usually the more accurate. Robert Johnson has been much written about; let's see if a good secondary source for the later date can be found. Ewulp (talk) 11:31, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

I do get your point, but many birthdates are accepted because they are given by the artist or family as a birthdate that was decided upon or chosen at one time or another. Once in biographies, people give them the status of being almost irrefutable. But early genealogies dispute these undocumented sources. A marriage certificate in 1950, for example, gives a birthdate that may be one or both of the spouses' best guess. But it does not make it so. The earlier or earliest sources depend on such things as parents' not-so-distant memories, the size of the child in the view of the parent or census taker and so on. Only a birth certificate would give us the final answer, and even then, it might be off by a few days.Daviddaniel37 (talk) 17:14, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

Devil myth

It seems pretty odd to cite Elijah Wald as a source for the myth about Johnson selling his soul to the Devil. If he's going to be mentioned in this connection, his own take on the matter should be discussed. In Escaping the Blues, Wald argues that this legend almost certainly never pertained to Robert Johnson in his lifetime (he also points out on p. 271-275 of that work that bluesman Tommy Johnson's brother talked about that Johnson selling his soul to the Devil). Further, there is the quotation you can find in the Elijah Wald article, that begins "For forty years, white folks have had this myth about Robert Johnson selling his soul to the Devil, and that says a great deal about white fantasies of blackness and its links to mysterious, sexy, forbidden powers." - Jmabel | Talk 05:20, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see we do mention the Tommy Johnson matter later in the section. Still, Wald shouldn't be misrepresented. - Jmabel | Talk 05:23, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• I've added a paragraph, trying to get some balance here. - Jmabel | Talk 02:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I also disagree with the myth in the article. I was always taught that Johnson met the devil at the crossroads and sold his soul for the thirty best blues songs of all time, but only recorded 29 of them before he disappeared. All other minor details, such as the tuning of the guitar and the devil taking the form of a large black man were in the version I learned aswell however.

ElDeckardo (talk) 23:29, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Very short on discussion of musicianship or songs

There is really very little here that would let anyone know in what respects Johnson was an innovator, or what about his records stands out from the pack. - Jmabel | Talk 05:29, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

If you have sources for such information, please add it. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 14:52, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

Sure, Wald writes about this at great length. - Jmabel | Talk 21:44, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

• DONE. This may be a bit much from one source, though I think it's an excellent source. If people have access to other writers' song-by-song discussion of Johnson, they may want to expand or replace. I've mentioned most of Johnson's songs in this section, and (I think) all of the ones for which he is really remembered. - Jmabel | Talk 02:48, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Wald's book is indeed an excellent source, and the work you've put into this section is very impressive - thank you! since it might indeed seem like quite a lot of detail from a single source, it might be worth trimming down somewhat, though - i hope other editors will say what they think about that.
meanwhile, to provide some "overview" sort of commentary as well as another source, there are some comments from other bluesmen in that Can't You Hear the Wind Howl documentary talking about Johnson's innovative "translation" of piano lines to guitar, and how those strikingly long slender fingers come in handy (yikes - no pun intended, truly!) for combining slide and picking like that. is it worth digging that out and transcribing some of the quotes for possible inclusion here? Sssoul (talk) 07:23, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I would think so, especially if some of this can become either a second citation or a replacement for some of what I drew from Wald.

I'm open to someone else editing this down, if they think they can do so without losing significant content and still leaving it citable. The reason I wrote it at this length was to avoid a synthesis that might constitute original research. Which is to say, I can see how I'd write this more briefly, but not within Wikipedia's standards of citation. - Jmabel | Talk 00:53, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Wald's work is no longer alone. See my remarks in #missing musical infor above on 'The Road to Robert Johnson' by Edward Korma. You may also wish to improve on my contributions to articles on some songs.DavidCrosbie (talk) 17:04, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Harmonica?

Is it appropriate to list "harmonica" as one of Johnson's instruments? He may have been able to play harmonica but being that he was never recorded playing one should it be listed? Are we going to list every instrument a musician is able to play? I think it's fine to mention it in the text, since it has been backed up by a source. It seems anecdotal to me and not something he is well known for. --Archaeolojae (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Date of death

The IMDB lists his date of death as August 13: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0426101/

Is there any way to verify whether they're right or we are? Saberwolf116 (talk) 14:00, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Pitch and speed

The stuff in the "Playback issues..." section is unsupported or just someone's opinion. One statement is from a blog that doesn't cite a source for its claim of musicologist consensus, and the other is a quotation from a music company exec who says, yes, it's possible that the pitch isn't accurate. I cleaned it up a little, and I'm hesitant to just axe the whole section (even though it doesn't meet reliability or notability standards). Does anyone have any better sources than "some music biz guy is of the opinion that these recordings might be too fast"? - Special-T (talk) 14:25, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Are his records now in the public domain?

As Robert Johnson died in 1938, more than 70 years ago, I assume, that his recordings are now in the public domain. Am I right? - 92.101.209.251 (talk) 12:32, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Doubtful - but this page is for discussion of the article itself, not its subject. - Special-T (talk) 20:47, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

English Rockers

I see someone deleted my edits re: Fleetwood Mac. FM is one of the more influential groups from that era. Given that Peter Green (who has resumed touring) recorded Johnson's entire catalog, I thought it was pretty notable. The quote from Robert Plant on the other hand is more of an off-hand comment and doesn't give the reader any information on how Johnson influenced Plant and Led Zeppelin. It would be *more* worth mentioning that Led Zeppelin recorded a song called "Traveling Riverside Blues" that drew from Johnson's original, and quoted a number of Johnson's songs in the lyrics. I don't really care enough to fight with the person who reverted my edits, but thought I'd put in my two cents here. MDuchek (talk) 19:53, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Photographs

The photo on the page has the caption "Robert Johnson's studio portrait, circa 1935—one of only two verified known published photographs". This is now incorrect. A newly found and authenticated photo is now available through the estate and can be found on the Getty Images site: http://www.gettyimages.com/Search/Search.aspx?contractUrl=2&language=en-US&family=editorial&assetType=image&p=102708994

This is the only authorized image by the estate as the other 2 images were stolen from the family by Steven LaVere and he will not return them. This should be reflected in the article (at least the fact that there is another one available). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.169.242.1 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2010 (UTC)

Such an outlandish claim needs a very strong source, which you have not provided. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 22:44, 13 September 2010 (UTC)

1931 book unlikely to contain Johnson's story

The edit I reverted claims that a book with a 1931 publication date has pertinent information about the devil legend as it applies to Robert Johnson. I don't see how this is possible chronologically. The research for that book was done while Johnson was a young teenager. It seems very unlikely that he would have been a subject in that book. - Special-T (talk) 04:14, 15 December 2010 (UTC)