Talk:Robert Johnson/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

External links

To clarify why I just removed two recently added external links. First, Robert Johnson does not have an 'official website' - the site so labeled is a Sony Records site that has no substantive info. The other site doesn't add any info either - it's for a blues foundation that has his name, but doesn't add to the article. - Special-T (talk) 21:21, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Facing the wall

Rumour has it that Johnson played facing the wall with a microphone pointed at it to catch the reverberation. Whether or not that was the real reason, doing so does offer certain acoustic advantages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.75.11.192 (talk) 20:54, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Patricia Schroeder in 'Robert Johnson, Mythmaking and Contemporary American Culture' explores how different people have interpreted this myth. The idea that he did it for acoustic effect is the explanation of modern-day guitarists. Some of Johnson's contemporaries believed it was to hide the fingering and tunings from potential rivals. The source of the story said it was because Johnson was painfully shy. And, judging by the rest of his story, he was quite probably remembering a different musician entirely.DavidCrosbie (talk) 14:28, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Rewrite of lede

I strongly object to DavidCrosbie's wholesale rewrite of the lede, with his stated goal of making it more balanced. I do not believe there were any issues with the lede being unbalanced, but if he did, he should bring his concerns to the talkpage for discussion. I reverted his edits once last night, asking, in my edit summary, that he come here and discuss his changes. Instead, he simply reinstated his changes with no further comment in his edit summary. ---RepublicanJacobite_{The'FortyFive'} 20:05, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

I also think the old lede was superior to the rewrite. The only balance problem I could identify was that the importance of the 1961 album in bringing Johnson to a mass audience was unmentioned, so I restored the old lede and added a line. Ewulp (talk) 03:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem with this is that for fans of early Blues it comes across as misleading, if not downright untrue to represent Johnson as influential in his lifetime or immediately after. Contrary to popular belief, Johnson was not generally well known to or admired by later blues musicians until he was adopted by rock musicians. There is a growing literature on Johnson the man and the distinct phenomenon of Johnson the legend. An encyclopedia should not relate only the legend (or, worse, one aspect of the legend) and neglect what is known of the man and the real nature of his influence. The 1961 album did far more than bring Johnson to a mass audience. (By the way, this is the first time I've seen any objections. I thought the first loss of my changes was due to some mistake on my part.)

Yes, it came as a shock to me when I read Elijah Wald's 'Escaping the Delta'. But everything I've read since confirms of his assessment of Johnson's lack of influence. Edward Korma's 'Road to Robert Johnson' reinstates his status as a major innovator. But this raises the question, how did these innovators reach the mainstream when we know that Johnson was such a minor figure?

Have either of you read the newer literature? I recommend references I've given in the article plus 'Robert Johnson, Mythmaking and American Contemporary Culture' by Patricia A Schroeder.

I probably won't try to reinstate my last version in the immediate future. But ultimately the lede — like the rest of the article — needs rebalancing. Wikipedia is not consulted only by people with a rock music perspective.DavidCrosbie (talk) 14:20, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

The revised lede perfectly captures the timing of Johnson's influence, and how it came about—as does the related section in the article itself. Vote to keep this portion as written, unless a revision would restate same (or even make stronger).Artaxerxes (talk) 21:51, 13 April 2011 (UTC)

That he's had so much impact—outside his time and place—an itinerant musician shuffling about with only minor attention in his day is a big part of what makes his story so remarkable. He never gave a concert per se; reportedly dying the same day he received invitation to appear in his first (in NYC). Take his enormous impact on English musicians and compare their access to the likes of Chuck Berry and Jimi Hendrix—live appearances, television, film, personal relationships, interviews, news reports, etc. Artaxerxes (talk) 18:45, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Move per nomination. Orlady (talk) 03:50, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

---

Robert Johnson (musician) → Robert Johnson — Robert Johnson (musician) is the primary topic, attracting a monthly average readership of over 75,000 - it is ranked in the top 8,500 articles, and is a vital article. The only other Robert Johnson article that attracts significant attention is Robert L. Johnson, which attracts an average of 12,000 readers a month - over 60,000 fewer, and the title is already disambiguated as it contains the middle letter L., which is how Robert L. Johnson is identified. This would normally be an uncontroversial move, however Robert Johnson was moved to Robert Johnson (musician) 4 years ago following this discussion. Even though we didn't have primary topic in November 2006, so the situation has changed, it is still appropriate to seek consensus to overturn the consensus back then. SilkTork *^YES! 22:22, 8 April 2011 (UTC)

• Robert Johnson → Robert Johnson (disambiguation)

Survey

• Oppose Not primary; which would require a supermajority among all the Robert Johnsons. If Robert L. Johnson were the only competitor, this would be a marginal claim; and he isn't. (I must thank SilkTork for laying out his case so fully, but this isn't what I mean by primary usage.) Septentrionalis PMAnderson 03:02, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. This article had over 72,000 pageviews in the last 30 days compared to 11,000 for Robert L. Johnson and a little over 20,000 for all 27 other articles on the dab page combined (many of which, such as the Robert Wood Johnsons, wouldn't be expected to be found under the title Robert Johnson). That's well over a 2:1 ratio. A sampling of 16 incoming links to the dab page shows 14 intend the musician. I think most people searching for or linking to Robert Johnson would not be surprised to find an article about the musician. Station1 (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The numbers do indeed suggest a clear primary usage, as SilkTork and Station1 have shown. --Saddhiyama (talk) 08:42, 9 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose. Not convinced that page views are a good measure in this case, nor that the 2:1 ration is sufficient. Far safer to have the DAB at the undisambiguated name. Andrewa (talk) 06:00, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. The rationale given in the nomination is sufficiently compelling. Skomorokh 16:38, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support. If this means when "Robert Johnson" is entered into the search box, Robert Johnson the musician appears (with a "for other Robert Johnsons please . ." notice at top). Artaxerxes (talk) 20:55, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support He is the most notable "Robert Johnson" and there is really no need for the suffix in the parenthesis. I totally agree with nom.--♫Greatorangepumpkin♫T 19:45, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose multiple notable people of this name - a 2:1 (or 6:1) ratio is not enough to meet the much more likely than any other standard of WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Tassedethe (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support The relevant language states that the primary topic should be "highly likely—much more likely than any other, and more likely than all the others combined—to be the subject being sought when a reader enters that ambiguous term in the Search box". The meaning of "much" is debatable, but in most circumstances 72,000 would be considered much more than 11,000, whether comparing population figures, distances, weight, time, income, or anything else. The only ratio WP:PRIMARYTOPIC specifies is a relationship of primary topic : all others combined measurably greater than 1:1, which this article meets easily. Ewulp (talk) 01:22, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
• Support, per SilkTork and Ewulp. — Mudwater ^(Talk) 21:19, 8 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support. Absolutely, as Johnson's cultural contribution and import dwarfs the others, and should be the primary go-to entry for the name Robert Johnson.PJtP (talk) 13:31, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, all the evidence is that he's the primary topic by our usual criteria.--Kotniski (talk) 09:10, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
• Support, he is by far the most famous of the Robert Johnsons and is very likely who most people are thinking of when they search for "Robert Johnson." Mellophonius (talk) 02:04, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Comment. I'd like to comment that the misfortune is that he simply has too common of a name, and no middle initial to distinguish him from all the many other notable Robert Johnsons out there. On that score alone, and since I myself have not heard of him, I'm going to vote Oppose per Tassedethe's reasoning in case it matters to anyone tallying these results. Softlavender (talk) 08:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
• Oppose - it is a very common name, but notably unique among musicians. I agree with Tassedethe's ratio reasoning: a much higher ratio would be needed to justify the move. It's such a common name that some other notable Robert Johnson could come along at any moment. --Lexein (talk) 09:00, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Surely the decision ought to be based on the current situation, not some potential future event (in which case all we need to do is renew the discussion based on those new circumstances)? --Saddhiyama (talk) 09:45, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Surely you don't mean to niggle with my subsidiary point (a future certainty), while not addressing the primary? There are many, many Robert Johnsons - no need to artificially promote any over any other, based on a low (possibly temporary) ratio of page visits. To do so would be tantamount to WP:UNDUE and perhaps even WP:PROMO. The prior move was eminently sensible. The proposed move is clearly disputed. Aside from the ratio being too low, 30 days is not a properly long sampling period. Years or decades would be more proper, in the case of historical figures. Keep in mind that I created the article The Search for Robert Johnson, and I still don't think his name is primary among all Robert (x) Johnsons. --Lexein (talk) 12:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Let us be realistic. We can't do months or decades of sampling, nor can we (or should) we take into account hypothetical future events. And yes, I still think that there is a clear case of primary topic here. The prevalence of the name does not retract from the fact that it is the bluesmusician that is the most wellknown by far. --Saddhiyama (talk) 13:31, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

• Decades are not possible but years are. In 2008 Robert Johnson (musician) had 577001 pageviews vs 144926 for Robert L. Johnson. In 2009 it was 686138 vs 149588. In 2010 it was 725935 vs 147523. In 2011 so far it is 417471 vs 67726. Station1 (talk) 06:22, 31 May 2011 (UTC)

• Support move. The musician is much more likely than any other (72k page views vs 11k page views for the closest competitor), and more likely than others combined, to be the article a user is searching when they enter "Robert Johnson" in the search box, so it should be treated as the primary topic by definition. Jafeluv (talk) 22:20, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
• The disambig page Robert Johnson lists 37 other Robert Johnsons. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 21:37, 1 June 2011 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Incorrectly closed move.

In my opinion, this was a poorly justified move. One of the goals of an encyclopedia is stability. Another is the appearance of impartiality. Another subsidiary goal is the avoidance of stupid busywork. The impromptu, (fanboy-driven?), numbers-only emphasis of a single individual over 36 others, by removing all qualifiers from his name, goes against all of these goals. That this move went through indicates a lack of common sense, and the applicatoin of poorly rationalized guidelines, against the goals of Wikipedia. All closing administrators have a responsibility to consider the bigger picture, and act accordingly, even when it goes against a poll (which, by the way, is also against the guideline against polls, since Wikipedia is consensus driven). There was no consensus for this move. --Lexein (talk) 11:28, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

The bigger picture is that Wikipedia very frequently "emphasizes" one out of many holders of a particular name in this way, if most people searching under that name are looking for that topic. It's perfectly normal practice and makes Wikipedia that little bit more friendly to use.--Kotniski (talk) 12:20, 2 June 2011 (UTC)

When you enter James Taylor, a very common name, Wikipedia takes you directly to the famous musician--with the 'For other people named SOANDSO, see SOANDSO (disambiguation).' notice at top. Same thing for James Brown and Michael Jackson. What could Robert Johnson possibly have to do with Michael Jackson? The former is also one of the most influential American musicians of the 20th century. Those in the music field, or those who know the blues, certainly know who you're talking about when you mention Robert Johnson. (For some the name Robert Johnson is almost godlike.) If a new Robert Johnson should come along, one whose fame eclipses this one, then Wikipedia would need to deal with such an occurrence/emergence at that point. Artaxerxes (talk) 17:01, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Need for expert

The article has improved greatly since this tag was first erected. And it's been up there a long time, making me wish it would no longer "grace" the page. But, I do believe a music (or perhaps a music history) expert could help in two important areas: defining and describing his musical style, and the same for his impact on music (and musicians). Artaxerxes (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Speaking of the need for a music or music history expert: I'm looking at this article for the first time in over a year, and I notice that it has almost completely lost the material from the Performer and songwriter section I had written back in 2009. I don't have time to go through the history and work out why this was all removed, and there may have been a good reason, but there was a lot about his actual songs and music there, something that is once again largely missing from the article. - Jmabel | Talk 15:32, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

I reverted the removal of the need expert template for some of the above-stated reasons. Jmabel, you can trace back the introduction of any particular text using WikiBlame. Binary search will find the first introduction. Linear search takes longer, but will find when it was introduced, and when it first disappeared. There are enough books written about his style and subsequent influence, and enough of them online in Google Books, that sourcing should not be a major headache. --Lexein (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

The older, deleted content I link here is thoroughly cited, though I used only one source (Elijah Wald). If someone wants to work on getting material like this back into the article, I believe they will find this useful, although it may be desirable to supplement it with material from other sources. - Jmabel | Talk 23:40, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Your text hasn't been removed; it has just been moved around a bit, as far as I can tell. Graham87 04:04, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

It's a minor issue, but seriously, what is the likliehood of this tag attracting a bona fide expert historian or musicologist? Close to zero, and not worth defacing the article for in my estimation. Unless there's some highly technical question or other matter beyond the potential of regular editors to address, "expert-needed" banners rarely add value. Skomorokh 18:07, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

When I've seen "need expert" tags on articles on subjects in which I have some expertise, I apply myself by adding or editing text, and adding citations, not by claiming expertise. So we might not ever know which editors have the desired expertise, but I think of that banner as an invitation not as any sort of defacement. I hope that musicians and music writers have been here, and contributed, specifically because of that invitation, rather than reading the article, noticing how much is not here, saying "this is crap" and leaving. By acknowledging that we want help from those expert in the subject matter, we play it straight with the reader, rather than pretend that this article is more than it is. --Lexein (talk) 18:24, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

There's nothing pretentious about an untagged article. If it isn't expert input per se you're hoping for but quality well-referenced improvements, it would be better to highlight the nature of the problem(s) you think the article needs serious work. Skomorokh 19:25, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Any Wikipedia guidelines on how to go about getting an actual expert to help on the article? I know the tag suggests some links for such; just couldn't find anything quickly on it. Artaxerxes (talk) 22:49, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Birth Name vs. Performer Name

We have the name as "Robert Leroy Johnson" - wouldn't it make sense to have the template use Robert Johnson and then have the birth name within the template use his middle name? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Count of Tuscany (talk • contribs) 02:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

The infobox should read 'Robert Johnson', which I'll now change. Where else 'Robert Leroy Johnson' should appear, I don't know. Seems I've seen other infoboxes with a birthname line (code can be copied in). Nobody knows him by that name (at least anymore). Artaxerxes (talk) 13:34, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Awesome, that's what I thought it should have been :) --His Lordship,The Count of Tuscany (you wish to address his honor?) 08:21, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Legacy/impact

A major part of this itinerant musician's story--a man who never left his homeland and died young with just a few recordings and no major live performances to his credit--is that his impact on other musicians was not felt in his time and space (see Wald on this in above section of article). A huge impact occurred in England after the Columbia re-release. The impact of this impact was then felt in other regions of the world--the British Invasion bringing this American musician's impact back to America--and on subsequently developed genres of music (such as the heavy metal you mention, which one must think arose somewhat directly from rock). The article was worded around this narrative. You came in, for the first time, called all this 'stupid' (without apparently understanding it), and made a ham-fisted edit which did not take any of this into account: what followed your change of heading and blind insert were sentences supporting the story as outlined above. Considerable (unlimited?) room exists for you to make the points you wish to make (properly-referenced one hopes). Please do so with: 1) consideration of the work that has been done before your arrival on the scene (please desist from labelling what others have done before you as 'stupid', at least until you have read it over in its entirety and understand what's there); and, 2) with proper circumspection regarding the existing text of the article. Your wish to help improve the article is much welcomed. Respect for other editors and their edits even more so. Artaxerxes (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Under the photo of Robert in a suit the article states :Robert Johnson's studio portrait, circa 1935—one of only three verified known published photographs

when you click on the photo the article state: Rat.: There are only two known photographs of Robert Johnson, both were registered for copyright upon initial publication in 1989 by the Delta Haze Corporation. Wikipedia claims fair use on a reduced quality (lo-rez) version of the photograph to identify Mr. Johnson and illustrate his influence on developing the Delta Blues form of music.

As far as I know their are only two photos and the statement under the photo should be changed to Two.Johnn2blues (talk) 03:55, 3 February 2013 (UTC)

Complete recordings.

There is new fully complete compilation will all his tracks, as stated on the official website.

http://www.discogs.com/Robert-Johnson-The-Centennial-Collection/release/2921006

It has all recordings and alternate takes available.

SF01 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.7.130.99 (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Claud Johnson

Claud Johnson, recognised as Robert Johnson's son, died on 30 June 2015, aged 83 - [1]. I was going to add this to the article, but there seems to be no appropriate place - there seems to be no mention of what is accepted to be his family, and descendants. This should be addressed, but I don't feel confident enough to do that myself - I'm quite sure that there are many editors here much more knowledgeable than me about the details of Johnson's life who could draft and flesh out a short section setting out what is known. Ghmyrtle (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2015 (UTC)

The reference above regarding Claud Johnson's death has aged out. This one will stay put for quite a while: http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/02/arts/music/claud-johnson-83-son-of-blues-singer.html?_r=0 Thank you, Wordreader (talk) 05:45, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

In the absence of any further comments here, I've added a short paragraph on Claud Johnson and the ruling that he was Robert's son and heir. Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:59, 6 September 2015 (UTC)

Doctor doctor

I removed the speculation about syphillis because it has no medical basis; interesting or otherwise, it's nothing more than guesswork. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but as an annotation on Johnson's death certificate it has been cited in other works referring to his death, so should be mentioned here, without giving the theory undue weight. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:28, 20 January 2016 (UTC)

Robert Johnson's source for "Kindhearted Woman"

Robert Johnson's source for "Kindhearted Woman" A more likely source of a starting point for the Robert Johnson song "Kindhearted Woman", is Cruel Hearted Woman-Bumble Bee Slim 1934. Song form and vocal melody match up almost identically. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:30D3:1D20:6130:F89B:8148:DEDB (talk) 13:16, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Elijah Wald

On June 19, 2012, the 508 Park Project put on a live documentary/concert commemorating the events of June 19, 1937 in Dallas, Texas. On the DVD (On That Day) recorded at that event, there is a long section by musician and musical historian Elijah Wald which may prove useful.

Wald's book Escaping the Delta: Robert Johnson and the Invention of the Blues (HarperCollins, 2004 isbn-0-06-052423-5) may also be useful to researchers.

Copies or transcripts of On That Day might still be available from the 508 Park Project, The Stewpot (Dallas, TX), and/or First Presbyterian Church, Dallas. They may also be available at the Dallas Public Library. If the Dallas Public Library has a copy, it may be available through your local library via Inter-library loan. 70.251.132.55 (talk) 16:39, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Wald's book is extensively referenced in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 17:03, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

This sentence, at the end of the first Influences paragraph, is footnoted to Wald, but it seems to have gone astray somewhere. It cites James as an influence on James, and never says what Johnson song is being referred to in the last phrase. I would correct it, but I don't know exactly what was intended. "As with the first take of "Come On In My Kitchen," the influence of Skip James is evident in James's "Devil Got My Woman", but the lyrics rise to the level of first-rate poetry, and Johnson sings with a strained voice found nowhere else in his recorded output." Miamiclay (talk) 18:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't have access to Wald's book right now, but as I remember "Devil" is discussed as an influence on "Hellhound on My Trail", although a verse is used in "Kitchen". Perhaps a better reading would be "As with the first take of "Come On In My Kitchen," the influence of Skip James' "Devil Got My Woman" is heard in Johnson's "Hellhound on My Trail". The lyrics rise to the level of first-rate poetry, and Johnson sings with a strained voice found nowhere else in his recorded output."

Zinnerman / Zimmerman

Eagle and LeBlanc, in Blues: A Regional Experience here, have Isaiah Zimmerman, born Grady, Alabama, December 1898 (with a footnote saying that some official sources give his birthdate as April 27), died Torrance, California, August 3, 1967. He's not sufficiently notable for his own article, but should any of this info be added to this article, perhaps as a footnote? Ghmyrtle (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Death of Robert Johnson

I've viewed many TV documentaries & having read several articles about Robert Johnson's death. The jealous husband aspect has always been mentioned, but the only cause of death has been that of having his neck slashed.Michael Galasyn jr. (talk) 20:58, 12 January 2017 (UTC)Michael Galasyn jr.

Radiolab Podcast "Crossroads" April 16, 2012

This episode, rebroadcast yesterday on VPR in Vermont, raises possibility more than one Robert Johnson was traveling around making music at the time of THE Robert Johnson's life — confusing biographical information about our subject. The death certificate attributed to THE Robert Johnson, indicates on its backside that possibly another Robert Johnson came to the area to play BANJO and died of syphilis — perhaps explaining some of the confusion about THE Robert Johnson's cause of death. THE Robert Johnson was also reportedly seen twice after his supposed death, once in 1939 and another time in 1941 (in Memphis?). They spoke with Tom Graves, Elijah Wald, David Evans, and Robert “Mack” McCormick. Tapes of a Ledell Johnson (no relation to Robert) indicate an intention to spin a Devil at the Crossroads story — one that may have jumped Johnsons to THE Robert Johnson somehow. Artaxerxes 20:33, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

References

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Robert Johnson. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305144848/http://blues.jfrewald.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cert_back.jpg to http://blues.jfrewald.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/cert_back.jpg
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.rockhall.com/exhibithighlights/500-songs

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:26, 2 December 2017 (UTC)

This might make a source for the article (perhaps it's already being used), but it doesn't make much of a fit for External Links section:

• • "'Sweet Home Chicago' leaves sour taste for some" Knopper, Steve. Chicago Tribune. 30 May 2002. Pages 1–2. 9 September 2015.

To add to article

To add to the article: in Martin Scorsese's documentary Feel Like Going Home, Johnny Shines says that he toured with Robert Johnson to the following states: Missouri, Arkansas, Tennessee, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, Canada, New York, "and places like that." 131.123.48.58 (talk) 22:57, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Possibility Robert Johnson Had Marfan Syndrome

I'd like to suggest that the article on Robert Johnson be updated to include new theories that he suffered from Marfan's Syndrome and that is what led to his death. One of the symptoms is having very long fingers, which would explain why his style is so unique and difficult to reproduce. I don't feel comfortable editing the article myself so am hoping someone will take on the task. See article Retrospective blues: Robert Johnson — an open letter to Eric Clapton Grannysage (talk) 19:28, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Speculation based on a grainy old photograph and a half-remembered account from an unnamed source, seven decades after the subject's death - yup, that's about as close to the epitome of Original Research as you can get ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:44, 3 September 2017 (UTC)

I reverted this edit - it is discursive and probably in the wrong section. However, the speculation that Johnson may have had Marfan syndrome has been mentioned quite widely in sources, and probably should be mentioned somewhere in the article. Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Commercial Success?

The new bio, mentioned in another topic, documents the sales of Robert Johnson's original recordings by producer Don Law. Surprisingly, they enjoyed significant sales, according to the books authors. "While we have no actual numbers detailing how many records Vocalion pressed (save for the notion that Robert's only hit, 'Terraplane Blues' sold in the thousands), we have exact numbers for the dime store pressings......Robert's sixteen songs (eight records) accounted for five thousand total pressings by Perfect Records, four hundred by Romeo Records, and only one hundred fifty by Oriole Records." All told, it appears Johnson's record sales approximated more than 10,000 copies, in a less than two-year period which at that time would be quite substantial and perhaps belies the notion that he had NO commercial success. Of course, Johnson was paid a flat fee for each song and his income was not dependent on the number of discs sold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dbaile53 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

If you have the book, I suggest that you add appropriate wording to the article, using the correct citation template at Template:Cite book. By the way, if you add a comment to a talk page like this one, you should sign it using four of these symbols: ~ Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:49, 20 June 2019 (UTC)

Other Photographic Images

Removed from article for lack of proper referencing:

===Motion Picture Films===

In April 2018 blues researcher Scott Kaplan, publisher of the blues website kingbiscuitblues.com, discovered that the performers in an already popularized August 1929 Fox Movietone Newsreel film were Robert Johnson playing banjo and singing with Hayes McMullan, Robert Petway, Tommy McClennan and Mississippi Fred McDowell The films feature the group performing the songs Suwannee River in a rowboat on a Bayou and Mary Don't You Weep on a field with a dialogued finale of Hayes McMullen and Tommy McClennan sharing a laugh over Johnson(.)"--Artaxerxes (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)

It is possible to source the claim to the website mentioned, but the supposed identifications are clearly fanciful and completely without foundation. Tony 1212 (talk) 19:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

New biography

The new biography of Johnson, Up Jumped the Devil by Bruce Conforth and Gayle Dean Wardlow, has recently been published and seems to have been well received. Presumably some of it will be used as a good source for future edits? Ghmyrtle (talk) 12:27, 18 June 2019 (UTC)

Update: Edits that clearly draw on the Conforth/Wardlow book were made by an anonymous editor here and here on May 16, 2020, but were reverted by Arjayay (without explanation) and Ojorojo ("..needs reliable corroboration that new source is definitive"). I intend to reinstate some but not all of those deleted edits. The book has won at least one award, and is generally regarded by those with a scholarly interest in blues history as certainly a reliable source (if not "definitive" - can anything ever be?). I have the book so can check page numbers, etc. Further comments welcome, but I intend to do it within the next few days. Ghmyrtle (talk) 21:43, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Johnson bios have been off my radar for a while, but with the recent attention, I've ordered a copy (I like Wardlow's Chasin' That Devil Music). It will be interesting to see how this article develops. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:21, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

It's a fascinating and well-researched book. In even newer news, have you seen this? The book isn't out yet, but virtually all the experts who have seen the cover think that the photo is genuine. So, more insights to come, hopefully. Ghmyrtle (talk) 16:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Hmmm, "hi, I'm Bob" – could this be the end of the popular enigmatic, quasi-mythical figure? —Ojorojo (talk) 17:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)

Or "R.L." as he preferred, according to the book. Some things I will be changing in his song articles:

• Satherly (note spelling) was not involved in the recording sessions.[p. 152] His selection of what to release and when is what producers usually do, but he is not specifically identified as such.[p. 185–186] The 1991 box set liner notes only list Law as the producer.
• According to Johnny Temple, R.L. taught him the boogie bass line for guitar,[p. 127] not the other way around nor "jointly developed". Temple brought it to Chicago and was the first to record using it, but R.L. developed it first.
• His 78s sold reasonably well for the time,[pp. 150–152, 186] so he wasn't unheard of nor ignored by the public. Many were sold to establishments with juke boxes, so their exposure was greater than the numbers alone suggest.
• He was not jailed between the first and second San Antonio sessions, but before the first one.[p. 172]
• The more sensational descriptions of some of his work ("evokes the themes of damnation and redemption, darkness and light ... glimpses into the musician's inner life, and all its attendant turmoils", "The poetic imagery is brilliant and intense with a feeling of personal frenzy. The song's lyrics reflect an agonized spirit for whom there is no escape") need to be toned down or qualified as the impression of the particular writer.
• While I wonder about the accuracy of some recollections that are 50–70 years old (and some from when they were very young children), they don't remember him as being obsessed with Satan or overly into hoodoo/folk magic. C/W paint him more as shaped by the abandonment by his mother and the death of his first wife and child, which came out in anti-religion/anti-God rants when he was drunk. He probably bought into the guilt trip of "playing the Devil's music", which was common among many early bluesmen.

As I go through the articles, there will probably be more. Anything to add?

—Ojorojo (talk) 14:43, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Only that all the records about Satherley - his birth, death, naturalisation, social security records, etc. - spell it with a second "e". So, it's a typo in the book. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:27, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

New photo / when to consider "accepted"

Hi all, now that the new photo is officially released, along with the Annye Anderson book, at what point can it be considered accepted as genuine for the purpose of this article?

https://www.amazon.com/Brother-Robert-Growing-Up-Johnson/dp/0306845261

Cheers - Tony Tony 1212 (talk) 22:11, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

It's already mentioned, in the "Photographs" section. To say any more than we currently do would, I think, require a statement from acknowledged experts that they think it is genuine, for instance in book reviews. I know from social media posts that it certainly is accepted as genuine, but that's not really admissible. Ghmyrtle (talk) 20:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I was wondering if the book itself contains such opinions from researchers - now the full text is available (I do not have a copy myself)... Tony 1212 (talk) 22:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

I assume that Preston Lauterbach, the co-author, endorses it, but I don't have the book either. (Surprised he doesn't have an article here.) The blurb for the book says: "Featuring a foreword by Elijah Wald and a Q&A with Anderson, Lauterbach, Wald, and Peter Guralnick, this book paints a vivid portrait of an elusive figure who forever changed the musical landscape as we know it...." . Wald and Guralnick are authoritative, I would say. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

So someone needs to read the book and figure out if it covers what we are seeking... Tony 1212 (talk)

...or if an authority on Johnson publishes a review that endorses the photo. Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

PS: Here is a review that says: "The authenticity of the photo was confirmed in a Facebook post by blues scholar Elijah Wald, who wrote the book’s foreword." Ghmyrtle (talk) 22:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

That's good enough in my opinion... I have adjusted the article text accordingly, see in you are happy with it...Tony 1212 (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)

Other Robert Johnsons

The Radiolab podcast "Crossroads" (NPR; April 2012) doesn't simple raise "the possibility that more than one Robert Johnson was traveling around the region making music at the time of the subject's life." It fairly well establishes this fact with an impressive list of interviewees. The lameness of this dodge fails to save the day: "This would not be surprising, however, since blues musicians from this time often claimed they were someone else." Um, okay, so that doesn't really help. That this Robert Johnson "even occasionally claimed to be Lonnie Johnson" doesn't help much to obscure the fact that other people with his fairly common name were doing as he was in the same era and region. The statement of a county registrar, Cornelia Jordan, used in the Death section -- given so much space to help establish the veracity of the reported claim of his death -- is weak, not just for its folksy nature, but also for the fact that she was investigating the death of a BANJO PLAYER. Unless the instruments this Robert Johnson played are adjusted in the infobox and elsewhere, this makes a bald indictment of itself. When do registrars investigate deaths, anyway? The NPR show mentions that the subject of this article was seen twice after his reported death. Best to be less certain, I'd say, with so much uncertainty afoot.--Artaxerxes (talk) 11:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

I think scholarship has moved on since 2012, particularly with the Conforth and Wardlow book in 2019 which (I believe) does not consider the possibility of mistaken identity. Regarding the mention of the banjo (rather than guitar) on the back of the death certificate, they state that this is "an understandable mistake" (p.260). The recent book by his stepsister (which I haven't read) also, I believe, would provide evidence that the person who made the recordings was the person who died in 1938. But, there are many people more expert than me who could give further opinions. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

If investigation of a banjo player's death by a county registrar is to be used to confirm the facts of this Robert Johnson's death -- when other Robert Johnson's were known to be roaming around the South plying their musical craft -- I think it best to explain: 1) why the county registrar; and, 2) why a banjo. Otherwise it just serves to further obscure death facts that appear to the objective observer to have been lost to obscurity. That this Robert Johnson's death should be shrouded in mystery perfectly fits the rest of his biography. This irony could be used as intro to a section that doesn't definitively establish how he died (because it can't).--Artaxerxes (talk) 13:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

We're not here to establish truth, we're here to report reliable sources and let the reader come to their own assessment. Having said that, I don't think there's any serious doubt that the Conforth and Wardlow book is the most reliable source that exists, and where there are conflicting opinions the wording of some sections in the article may need to be tweaked to give their findings greater prominence. For what it's worth, Elijah Wald, who is quoted in that 2012 radio piece, also wrote the foreword to the book - so, was convinced I assume. Ghmyrtle (talk) 13:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)