Talk:Robert Johnson (musician)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Tommy Johnson

"didn't start recording until three years before his death". How is that even possible? You mean his music wasn't widely released until after his death?

He started recording in November 1936. He died in August 1938. I make that almost two years.DavidCrosbie (talk) 18:33, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Um: "His contemporary Tommy Johnson, by contrast, actually claimed to have sold his soul to the Devil"? Isn't his "contemporary" Tommy Johnson a fictional character in the movie O Brother, Where Art Thou, based on Robert Johnson? AJD 22:25, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Yes and no. The Coen Brothers created a character named Tommy Johnson for O Brother Where Art Thou, and he was based on Robert Johnson, but at the time they were unaware that there was another bluesman of that era named Tommy Johnson, who had actually and frequently claimed to have sold his soul to the devil. msclguru 14:33, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could you point me to some documentation for this? I don't mean this as a criticism of you personally, but it seems like an unbelievable claim. AJD 06:15, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't understand...which part do you want documentation on? That there was a real-life bluesman named Tommy Johnson, or that the Coens had never heard of him when they made the film? msclguru 11:16, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That the real-life Tommy Johnson fits this description. And that the Coens had never heard of him, too, would be pretty cool, I guess. AJD 03:31, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

From the All Music Guide ([1]):

"...Then there's the crossroads story. Yes, years before the deal with the Devil at a deserted Delta crossroad was being used as an explanation of the other-worldly abilities of young Robert Johnson, the story was being told repeatedly about Tommy, often by the man himself to reinforce his abilities to doubting audiences."

A more definitive source is Tommy's elder brother Ledell Johnson, who survived him by many years and was interviewed by blues scholar David Evans in 1966 and 1967. Evans prints Ledell's account in 'Tommy Johnson' (1971) Studio Vista. I've slipped a mention into the text, and will try to compose a proper citation.DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:47, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I also recommend Escaping the Delta: Robert Johnson and the Invention of the Blues [2] by Elijah Wald. It hypothesizes (as I remember) that the origin of the Robert-Johnson-sold-his-soul myth, may have been as simple as a historian's or interviewee's confusion of Robert Johnson with Tommy. msclguru 11:15, 29 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Not really. Wald's argument is more complex, more detailed, more subtle. I've just about finished a paragraph on it and will insert it soon.DavidCrosbie (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm interested in the basis for saying that the Coen Brothers created a character named Tommy Johnson based on Robert Johnson, while unaware that there was a bluesman named Tommy Johnson. It seems unlikely that they just happened to choose the name Tommy and later discovered there was a Tommy Johnson who exactly fitted the character. Nurg 10:08, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Robert Johnson wasnt really a hugely popular artist until the 60s. I think a lot of the article exagerates his influence on the blues.

He wasn't popular among white audiences until the 60s; however, he traveled in the same circles as many other influential blues musicians and was known to them.

By the way, Wikipedia has a separate article on Tommy Johnson: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_Johnson Pretty good for someone who supposedly doesn't exist as you claim. And he fits the description (regarding the deal at the crossroads):

Tommy Johnson (1896 – November 1, 1956) was a very influential blues musician. He was born in Terry, Mississippi, and lived most of his life in Crystal Springs, Mississippi. He polished his skill playing in Mississippi Delta and was fond of telling how he had sold his soul to the devil in order to have a mastery of blues guitar. This story closely resembles the same legend of Robert Johnson; however Robert Johnson was never known to tell this story, and was most likely a rumor started by Son House in the 1960's, long after both men were dead.

Also: http://www.cr.nps.gov/delta/blues/people/tommy_johnson.htm The National Park Service lists him in their blues directory of the lower Mississippi Valley.

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000000J25?v=glance You can buy his music on Amazon.com (pretty good for such an unbelievable character lol)

http://www.britannica.com/eb/article-9002884?tocId=9002884 Encyclopedia Britannica must've made him up too.

[edit] Keith Richards

The KR story is true; the source is the note Well, This Is It, by Keith Richards himself, included in the liner notes for Robert Johnson: The Complete Recordings, pp. 21. Noel (talk) 03:02, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crossroads

Shouldn't it be mentioned that it's actually a cover of Cross Road Blues?

The song Crossroads by the band Cream (Eric Clapton, Jack Bruce, Ginger Baker) is about when Johnson supposedly sold his soul to the Devil at the crossroads.

It gives the impression that the lyrics are an original piece by Clapton, when they were actually written by Johnson.

It's a good article though. Toffile 20:21, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

The article has been clarified. --Blainster 22:17, 30 July 2005 (UTC)
Thank you. Toffile 21:13, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

youre welcome

[edit] Date of birth

To better reflect the text of the article, I changed his birth date so it says 1909/1912. If this is handled some other way in the future, please also update Johnson's entry at List of blues musicians Theshibboleth 18:27, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

The phrase "even though he lived to be only 27" is now incorrect. I've changed it to "even though he didn't live to see his thirtieth birthday". Soobrickay 23:57, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the section "The song "Crossroads" by British blues rock/psychedelic band Cream is a cover version of Johnson's "Cross Road Blues", about the legend of Johnson selling his soul to the Devil at the crossroads, although Johnson's original lyrics ("Standin' at the crossroads, tried to flag a ride") suggest he was merely hitchhiking rather than signing away his soul to Lucifer in exchange for supernatural guitar technique." This gives the wrong impression, there is no evidence that Cream's song was about the legend of Johnson selling his sole. The Cream's version was a cover and the lyrics to the cream song are the same as Johnson's original lyrics.

[edit] Sweet Home Chicago

The two listed theories for the lyric "Back to the land of California, to my sweet home Chicago," in the song "Sweet Home Chicago," while certainly reasonable, are not the only thoughts many people have behind this seemingly geographic error. It is possible that Robert Johnson was speaking to someone, trying to convince them by listing promising destinations that they could visit after they left their current area. I personally think of the lyric as a list of places they could go. I'm not going to edit anything; I'm just throwing this idea out there for discussion. LeeR 20:00, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

Someone posted a note on Amazon.com remarking that Johnson had a brother stationed at the naval base in Port Chicago, California. It would be handy if someone could verify this.

Can't verify that, but can offer another explanation. Perhaps Johnson was not at all confused about the location of Chicago. Perhaps he knew Chicago, IL, was not in California. Instead, maybe he was comparing the promised land of California to the promised land of Chicago. California has long held mythical promise in the American pysche, and among delta blacks during the period of the "great migration," Chicago came to represent a similar promise. Like gold in California, a man could go to Chicago and get rich.

There is a major street in Chicago called California Avenue, that runs from NW Chicago to SW Chicago. Perhaps in Johnson's day, somewhere on California Avenue there were Blues clubs and/or recording studios that make that street memorable to a musician. --rogerd 21:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Artists Who Have Covered Robert Johnson

That section looked like a bad idea since day 1, as Robert Johnson is one of the most covered artists of all time and most bluesmen and hundreds of rock bands have recorded his songs. The work on building that lists seems futile, and I'm in favor of removing the section (but I'd let it run for a while before removing, so that the "the article is becoming too long" argument becomes obvious. If anyone is favorable to keeping the list, no matter to what size it grows to, speak up. Fbergo 15:45, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You are correct—this section has become a laundry list including artists who have recorded even one of his songs. I am changing the title to Artists influenced by Johnson and limiting the list to those who have at least four of his songs. --Blainster 20:32, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
Good luck, these lists take on a life of their own. I prefer when relevant info like this is incorporated into prose. BTW, I added a link to Clapton's Johson album and shortened his list to just those songs (I think) he previously recorded. Alcuin 16:45, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Taylor Hicks and Keb MO' did a version of "Sweet Home Chicago" at the Chicago House of Blues recently.

This list, in its current incarnation, is getting out of hand again. "Patti Smith covered "Come On In My Kitchen", it was released as a b-side in 1996." To reiterate, this list would be in the hundreds--maybe thousands--if we included every single artist to cover a RJ song. 68.13.246.251 (talk) 06:38, 24 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Curse of the Crossroads

What about the "Curse of the Crossroads," that major bands who cover his songs all have members die? Lynyrd Skynyrd and their plane crash, the Allman Brothers and the deaths of Duane Allman and Berry Oakley, the Rolling Stones where Brian Jones drowned, and Stevie Ray Vaughan's fatal helicopter crash. I'm not saying I believe in curses literally, but for trivial purposes it is quite fascinating. And yes, I realize that since Johnson is one of the most covered artists that many people have played his material, and that when a famous musician dies there is a good chance he was one of those people who played Johnson covers. Still...

[edit] The Devil and Robert Johnson

about the legend of Johnson selling his soul to the Devil at the crossroads, although Johnson's original lyrics ("Standin' at the crossroads, tried to flag a ride") suggest he was merely hitchhiking rather than signing away his soul to Lucifer in exchange for supernatural guitar technique.

Yeah, uh-huh, and love is just a biochemical reaction in your hypothalamus. This bit of the article strikes me as a bit pollyanna-ish, and/or disingenuous, and also NPOV. The blues is the Devil's gospel, as any gospel singer will tell you, and not a few bluesmen. Where's the literary authority who has pronounced that Johnson's original lyrics "suggest" a purely banal explanation for something so clearly intrinsic of the legend and the mystique of the story of "Johnson at the Crossroads". To me, as a songwriter and musician, "trying to flag a ride" is as much clearly a summoning of the power of music/song; waiting for a wind, as others have put it. What kind of driver it is that picks you up is part of the risk, and that's what the blues is about; extending your soul into the darkness and hoping it doesn't get swallowed in the process. Gospel singers reach for the light; bluesmen reach into the dark insides of their soul; and in there, if anywhere, is where the Devil is to be found, and one's soul may be bartered for powers greater than the conscious mind would dare wager; it is the unconscious mind that speaks forth in music. The opening line of The Iliad is a similar summoning to Johnson's line - Homer calls on the goddess to let him sing of anger - and so it goes through thousands of years of poetry and song. Try reading the prologue to Randall Jarrell's translation of Goethe's Faust and you'll find much the same stuff; all dismissable by the nuts-and-bolts latter-day positivist/mechanist view of the world which seeks to do away with all mystery, all magic, all danger and all wonder; how BORING and sad it is that such people's views have taken over the experience of the world. Dismissing the Crossroads legend as, "well, it appears that Johnson was only just hitchhiking" is so utterly mundane a judgement - and without citation - that either it's original research (whose?) - or just a cheap sell-out to people's need to make everything safe and understandable. Johnson's not the only one with these kind of experiences; Hound Dog's many comments about his addiction and pending death are full of it, and the theme of barterdom, damnation, and redemption is found throughout blues and blues-derived lyrics and music ever since Johnson's day. "Oh, he was just hitching a ride". Yeah, and Satchmo was just whistling Dixie.....Skookum1 17:17, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

You're right that we should be prepared to look beyond the surface when interpreting any lyrics, particularly those strongly rooted in particular cultures, as the early blues undoubtedly was. So far in these discussions, there's a bit of a fixation on Cross Road Blues. Devilish imagery can also be found in Hell Hound On My Trail and Me and the Devil Blues. In the latter, the Devil seems to provoke Johnson to attack a woman. The Devil is definitely a real presence in these songs. However, they cannot be used to support the specific myths about Johnson's relationship with the Devil. It is important to distinguish between Johnson understanding of the Devil's place in the world, and the assumptions we make based on the stories we have heard. --Lamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 20:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

'Crossroads Blues' is undoubtedly about failing to hitch a ride as night falls. That does not mean that Johnson doesn't invest the situation with symbolic overtones. But nothing whatsoever suggests the presence of the Devil. We would not consider the possibility for one minute -- but for the existence of the Crossroads myth.DavidCrosbie (talk) 18:39, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now created a separate section ==Legend== relating how the crossroads detail was transferred from the TOMMY Johnson story..DavidCrosbie (talk) 00:55, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Discography

It strikes me as strange to have a discography for a guy who only recorded 42 tracks. The '61 album is notable, because this is the one that Clapton and Keith Richards would have had access to, but the rest are merely countless repackagings of the same material, most of which are probably out of print. I think the section should be zapped. Alcuin 15:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. King of the Delta Blues Singers already has its own article, and the only other one of note is the Columbia (now Sony/CBS) Complete Recordings. They can both be listed elsewhere in the article. I will go ahead and implement your suggestion. --Blainster 17:59, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, good job. My laziness paid off... :) Alcuin 05:20, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Glenn Danzig

Danzig mentioned Johnson in an interview for the February 2005 issue of Steppin' Out Magazine, when he was asked "what's going on with you possibly recording with Jerry Cantrell?" he answered: "Just trying to work out our schedules and make it happen. We're gonna do a dark southern blues kind of record. And when I say southern I don't mean like Lynyrd Skynyrd, I mean like Robert Johnson. A creepy old blues record." LIllIi 23:27, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] demon in the photo

has anyone seen the grim reaper in the robert johnson photo, to the right of him??? they've cut it out on this bluey photo, have a look around for another photo that hasnt been cut! Paul from south staffordshire.

Did a google image search, and sure enough, in the texture of the wall over Johnson's left shoulder I see a creepy looking face. Of course, this is the kind of stuff you only see if you look for it, but fun nonetheless. Where'd you hear about it? Should a picture with the reaper be in the article? Alcuin 16:10, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Wait, on second thought, I'm not sure we're seeing the same thing. I see a face, tilted slightly to the right that kinda looks like Neil Young circa 1975. The forhead of this face also looks like the hood of a cloak, which would be part of the reaper that I think you see. Alcuin 16:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

The demon is not "behind" him, because "he is" the demon himself. I'd bettere say he's half- a demon. Just try to cover half his face: just on one side he's devil!

[edit] Sonny Boy or Honeyboy

There seems to be some division of opinion over whether Sonny Boy Williamson or Honeyboy Edwards was with Johnson the night he was poisoned. Charles Murray in Blues on CD says Johnson was playing with Honeyboy that night. The booklet that comes with the Complete Recordings CDs says that they were both there, but Honeyboy did not show up 'til after 10:30 pm, when Sonny Boy had left. According to this version it was Sonny Boy who had knocked the first bottle of poisoned whisky from Johnson's hands. --Blainster 04:24, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


Honey Boy was there. He told me himself. Alec Rice Miller (or what ever you call him)claimed to have been there and also DID make the claim that he knocker the bottle outta Johnson's


Isn't Sonnyboy also the one who claimed RJ was crawling around on the floor barking? Remember kids, "Smart Aleck." 3 names, 4 birthdays. We'll just not pay attention here, mmk? -- Jimbo

[edit] Influence

The book I mentioned earlier, Escaping the Delta: Robert Johnson and the Invention of the Blues [3] by Elijah Wald, makes a statement that does, indeed, indicate that Johnson's influence on the blues is exaggerated today. He says, and I quote:

"As far as the evolution of black music goes, Robert Johnson was an extremely minor figure, and very little that happened in the decades following his death would have been affected if he had never played a note."

His book has generally been accepted as absolutely correct by musicologists, historians, and even amateur blues enthusiasts. I think it warrants mention here. I will write it in later this week, unless someone gives reasonable objection. -- Msclguru 01:21, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Done. Msclguru 16:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Nice section, good job. The only thing I would change is to reword the first sentence a bit to make it clear that this is Wald's opinion, not necessarily a fact. So maybe, "According to some, Johnson's major influence..." --Aguerriero (talk) 22:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
Please, no "weasel words", always be specific: "According to some According to Elijah Wald, Johnson's major influence..." --Blainster 15:10, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Agreed, thanks for the correction. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

While its probably true to say that not much would have been different if Johnson had never played, that doesn't mean he wasn't influential. He loomed large in the minds of the sixties generation of blues rock stars, notably Eric Clapton, The Stones and Bob Dylan. Read Dylan's description of hearing Johnson for the first time in 'Chronicle: Volume One' for a great description of the power of the blues. The point of any of these old country bluesmen (Son House, Tommy Johnson, Charley Patton, Mississippi John Hurt etc.) is that they were the best. They worked within a tradition, so yes they did sound similar, and their individual influence may seem small, but a tradition cannot survive without great exponents Lamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 00:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

 :: I have inserted a paragraph (and transition to the next) emphasising Johnson's early influence on white critics. This is based on Marybeth Hamilton's 'In Search of the Blues'. DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:32, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Robert Johnsons Influence On Hendrix

I could not find an article to cite Hendrix's influence but in many live preformances he invokes Johnsons lyrics. Durring his famous live at the BBC sessions he injects Johnsons lyrics into his songs at several points with Johnsons vocal stylings inflected in his voice. Durring "Hey Joe" he adds the Johnson lyric "That's what I'm talkin' 'bout" from Traveling Riverside Blues then again durring "Fire" he invokes Traveling Riverside Blues with the lyrics "You know what I'm talkin' bout? That's what I'm talkin 'bout."

I have no problem with adding Hendrix. I wonder, since arguably most modern blues artists have been influenced by Johnson, if we should form a short list with citations and leave the rest out. Clapton, Hendrix, B.B. King, etc. --Aguerriero (talk) 13:33, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
I agree. --RobHutten 15:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The question of viable, reliable citations is crucial, but otherwise I feel it is a very worthy idea. It would also provide a strong counterpoint to the cited argument elsewhere in the article about Johnson's influence, or otherwise.
Derek R Bullamore 19:16, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
The phrases you've cited ("You know what I'm talkin' bout? That's what I'm talkin 'bout.") are extremely common. The link is not very strong, especially if that's the only evidence you have. Notahippie76 00:33, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Links

The links from song titles mostly border on Easter egg links. For example, the link from "Malted Milk" is about the beverage, not the song. Quite a few of the songs actually merit articles, so they should have links. I suggest that we get rid of most of these Easter egg links (and where they are genuinely needed for explanation of elements of song titles, we add a parenthetical remark. E.g.:

What do others thing about this approach? - Jmabel | Talk 07:09, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree on the couple of examples you've given, however the rest of the links seem to be vaguely useful links either on the songs or terms in them. Most of the terms are easily understood, but if someone didn't, the links would help. I'd change the ones you mentioned, which are a bit daft, but leave the others as they areLamename Cheesestring Rodriguez 00:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested Page Move Discussion

[edit] Survey

Add * Support or * Oppose followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Robert Johnson → Robert Johnson (musician) —(Discuss)

Note: Individuals responding to this debate may also be concerned about a related debate on Robert Johnson header tags. TonyTheTiger 19:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

  • Support - Too many Robert Johnsons for anyone to be located at the Robert Johnson Page. This would make way to move Robert Johnson (disambiguation) to Robert Johnson. This may be problematic however due to the number of articles linking to the musicians page. TonyTheTiger 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose Robert Johnson is a very important figure in the history of music, he has influenced countless number including a very large amount of blues musicians and all genre's eminating from the blues genre, which include, rock and R&B as well as many others. Plus a link to the disambiguation page is provided at the top of the page so people looking for another Robert johnson can simply go there for another person. Chappy84 19:59, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I do not contest his importance. You can see I added the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame Induction to his page at the same time I requested this move. I am just saying that due to the number of important people of the same name no one should be located at the unambiguated article name. A dab should be there. TonyTheTiger 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The issue is not how many Robert Johnsons there are, but how likely is it that this "Robert Johnson" is the desired choice in any search for Robert Johnson. The popularity of the blues musician makes the present title the best one. --Blainster 20:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I think your argument actually would lead one to think that it is less likely than not that someone looking for someeone by the name Robert Johnson is actually looking for the one currently located on the page. I think you are being parochial about the page. He may be the most popular of all the people of this name and still not deserve to be located at this address if more often than not someone entering Robert Johnson is looking for someone else. Suppose 30% of all Robert Johnson seekers are seeking the musician and 70% they are seeking one of the numerous other Robert Johnsons. Then the page should be moved IMO. TonyTheTiger 21:11, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. With such a wide array of people named Robert Johnson, it is impossible to tell which one is being searched for most often at any given time, which is highly likely to change. I would hazard a guess that the article on the congressional candidate (Robert J. Johnson) is currently what people are most often seeking. However, I can't prove that, nor can anyone prove that this article is the one most often sought. Getting to the article about anyone else named Robert Johnson now requires navigating two links: the initial search arrives at this page, the link to the Robert Johnson (disambiguation) page has to be clicked once found (it is difficult to see with the template there about sources), and then the link for the article that was being searched for to start with. If the disambiguation page is renamed, searching for Robert Johnson takes one there, and then only one click is needed to arrive at the article being sought.—Chidom talk  22:03, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with the understanding that the person initiating this move fixes the links. --Ars Scriptor (t) (formerly Aguerriero) 04:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Currently, there are over 250 links to Robert Johnson. I do not know what standard procedure is but if they suddenly are linked to a dab page it becomes the responsibility of the people editing and using the linking pages to move their links to the proper Robert Johnson (which may or may not be the person currently located at that location). I am willing to coordinate all header tags on the 15 or so pages, but am not willing to fix between 250 and 500 links. TonyTheTiger 19:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
      • Aw come on - disambiguating links is fun!  :) It can be done fairly easily using AWB if someone compiles a list of affected articles. I will see if someone at WikiProject Guitarists can do it. --Ars Scriptor (formerly Aguerriero) 18:44, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Standard procedure is that only double redirects (a redirect page that links to another redirect page) need to be corrected; if this page becomes the redirect page, none of the direct links to it will need to be fixed. See Wikipedia:Redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. One very good reason for this is that often people wikilink names in articles without checking that they're linking to the correct article; for example, the link to Robert Johnson from the Nicholas Ferrar article may or may not more appropriately link to Robert Johnson (composer) of the 17th century, but certainly has nothing to do with the 20th Century musician. Certainly the Robert Johnson linked at List of athletes on Wheaties boxes should be linked to Robert Johnson (American football), not here.—Chidom talk  00:24, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
That standard only applies if "Robert Johnson" is left as a redirect to "Robert Johnson (musician)" - I assume that won't be the case here and so all links need to be altered. -- Beardo 01:25, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
    • I am willing to move all double redirects. However, I think the move may be tricky since both pages exist and it may take some double moves to retain all page histories. If someone knows the proper move procedures so that the number of double redirects remains limited I will need their assistance. TonyTheTiger 22:41, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support with the understanding that the person making the move ensure that the other Robert Johnson pages show up on the disambiguation page. Steve 18:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. There would appear to be sufficient interest in other Robert Johnsons to justify this change. Countersubject 15:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support - I have come to this page several times and needed to then go to the disambiguation page to find who I was actually searching for. I strongly support moving this inline with several other common names. otduff (talk/contribs) 03:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. Yes he is important and famous but there are many other robert johnsons that people would be looking for.
  • Support as per everyone else. I was actually quite suprised that "Robert Johnson" was not a dab page. Natalie 18:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crossroads And the Devil

Can anyone explain to me how cross road blues is about a deal with the devil or anything like that.I've heard the song and i know the lyrics but it still seems about someone just hitchhiking.If anyone could explain that would be great.

To answer the anonymous questioner:

The link was made by modern fans when Ledell Johnson's story of how his brother Tommy sold his soul at a crossroads was added to the existing story that Robert Johnson had sold his soul at an unspecified place.

Unsuccessful hitch-hiking is Johnson's individual take on the metaphor of difficulties in the road that is life. I'm working on a paragraph to quote the case against this Devil obsession. DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:26, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] tone

The tone of this article seems a bit too magazine-like. I'm thinking specifically of the section "Death at the Crossroads", and sentences like ". In any case, everyone agrees that music was Johnson's first interest" or "Johnson would establish ties to the local community that would serve him in good stead when he passed through again a month or a year later." I don't feel qualified to rewrite, since writing about musicians is not my forte, but I think a rewrite would make it a bit more encyclopediac.

Also, Lonnie Johnson is referred to as Robert Johnson's namesake, while the bio section says his last name comes from his father, a totally different Johnson. While my dictionary defines namesake as a person or thing with the same name as another, I think many people assume it means that A was name after B. Perhaps another word would suffice. Natalie 18:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Robert used various surnames in his early life. His choice to discard the others in favour of Johnson was conditioned by his admiration of Lonnie Johnson -- and perhaps by a commercial desire to be associated with him. I'll try to work this into the text. DavidCrosbie (talk) 13:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

I have now included a paragraph on Robert's surnames in early life. DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The tone of this article is horrible. All the Rock & Roll talk is little more than cultural Gerrymandering on the part of rock fans. Somebody has to beat this article into shape. SECisek 02:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

It's difficult to add and correct in a collaborative manner without partly echoing the tone of existing material. This is where we miss the presence of an editor.DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:01, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] The page move

Page has been moved to Robert Johnson (Musician), but I think it's supposed to be lower case m. Natalie 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

This is now fixed, but the ones who promoted the move are now obligated to fix the (hundreds?) of Robert Johnson links that are now broken because they go to the disambiguation page. --Blainster 19:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Isn't there a script or bot that can do this, or at least some of it? I don't know anything about it and probably can't run it, since I'm on a Mac, but it certainly would cut down on the work... Natalie 22:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
A bot can't do it all, because we really need to hand-check to make sure that each really refers to this Robert Johnson. - Jmabel | Talk 01:49, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] slow down, please

Greetings to all those of you who've been on this talk page for a while. Please spare a thought for those of us who have just arrived. The general tone of this page - as experienced by a newcomer - is quite aggressive. I suppose I can understand folks getting het up about biographies of politicians, but here we're talking about a musician, who as far as I know, was not especially polemic in his own lifetime, never mind later.

While there are several things in the article that could be expressed better, something which is definitely true of just about every article on wiki, I would just like to make two practical points: as the general practice here on wiki is for everyone to help out when it comes to tidying up articles, adding links, etc., I don't see why we can't just continue doing the same. Most of the time I spend on wikipedia is doing just that, and it doesn't bother me too much. Secondly, couldn't we just have a specific page - linked - for certain songs, such as Cross Roads, which have been covered by various people/groups? 83.180.157.136 19:27, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

For any song that you think merits an article and lacks one, feel free to link. If there is already a link that leads elsewhere than the song, you might do something like what I did at ".32-20 Blues". Of course, it's particularly useful if you will also write the article. - Jmabel | Talk 08:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obscure, but...

The lede containst this: Of all the great blues musicians, Johnson was probably the most obscure. All that is known of him for certain is that he recorded 29 songs; he died young; and he was considered one of the greatest bluesmen of the Mississippi Delta. But then we have a rather lengthy and detailed article; is the information in it generally conjecture and not known for certain, then? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 05:56, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Almost all the firm biographical information in circulation comes from the researches of Mack McCormick. Unfortunately, he has not published his findings. Fortunately, he allowed Peter Guralnik to publish a summary in 'Searching for Robert Johnson'. Before this book was published, there were only a few published interviews with a handful of bluesmen.DavidCrosbie (talk) 18:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC) Correction: the summary was published as a magazine article, and only later republished as a book. I have includded this in the text of the article. DavidCrosbie (talk) 01:04, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a little over the top, presumably based on the Martin Scorcese quote. Scorcese is not a historian, and we certainly don't need both statements..--Blainster 22:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
I think that the idea that Robert wasn't influencial is just a big reaction to his massive posthumous praise. His songs are part of the foundation of the later chicago blues style that influenced white bluesmen in england more directly. The reason Johnson didn't sell a lot of records was that his voice (albeit beautiful) was too thin to carry in a club before amplification. Even Son House remembers him being a better guitarist than a singer.GolumTR 02:12, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photos & Film

I think some explanation should be given to the two photos in existence and the debate over new photos. Also, Bob Dylan speaks about seeing some film footage of Johnson in his book Chronicles: Vol. 1. I think it has been debunked and exposed as fake, but I think it deserves mention regardless. Notahippie76 00:38, 28 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Comics Scene#49

In Comics Scene#49, David Goyer noted that he wrote a version of the Ghost Rider screenplay which would have used the crossroads where Robert Johnson sold his soul. Enda80 12:49, 28 January 2007 (UTC)Enda80


This Is B.S.


"They're red hot" is covered on the Red Hot Chili Peppers' album "Blood Sugar Sex Magick" i dunno if you should add it to the influences section tho.


This isn't important enough to bother with.

[edit] Trivia

The trivia section has become a huge flaming mess of junk. Anyone have any suggestions for cutting it, short of cutting it completely? --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 23:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

  • I'm an inch away from chopping "Trivia" completely. It's almost completely "who cares" stuff. --jpgordon∇∆∇∆ 15:37, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Crossroads, legend should be in the intro

in 2007, a musician making a deal with the devil at the Crossroads is a pop culture myth that has been used repeatedly in movie, cover songs, new songs, fiction, etc. It should say in the intro that Johnson is the original source of the myth. "Johnson is the character, and original creator, of the popular myth of a musician at the Crossroads selling his soul..." something like that. I came here to read how Johnson is connected to the myth after reading that kind of blurb in the cover jacket of a blues CD. SchmuckyTheCat 02:46, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

But Johnson isn't the original source of the myth. It's probably true that he said that he'd sold his soul to the Devil. It's not certain what he meant, or how serious he was. All the details of the modern myth were added in recent years.DavidCrosbie (talk) 17:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Stop Breaking Down

Again, I have deleted the reference to this "Emmy Award Winning" Thesis Film. The shameless self-promotion on the part of the director has been cleaned up, by me, in three articles (including this one, the others being Son House and Willie Brown). Not only are his edits ugly, and the use of boldface sticks out from the formating of the rest of the article, but his use of Wikipedia as a place of advertising is sad and against what this site is for. He has not ever posted in a discussion section about whether or not his additions are worthwhile to the article and (upon looking at the Internet Movie Database) there is no notice of the film winning an Emmy.

If anyone sees the additions resurface, please delete them. It is self promotion and nothing more. Liontamarin 05:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I haven't been able to confirm that this film won an Emmy (though it's possible). There are lots of classes of Emmys: Primetime, Daytime, Sports, Technical, 22 different "regional" (i.e. local) Emmys, plus some others. The IMDB entry for this film merely tells us that it exists; it doesn't even have 5 votes for review. The BFI index is similar, certainly no notes of awards. The film is not available via Amazon or Netflix. It looks totally non-notable; there isn't even an online review of any kind that I can find. I see no reason to reference it in Wikipedia, even if it's not self-promotion. In addition to being non-notable, it's apparently unavailable, and so is not suitable as further reference material either. Studerby 23:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
The Emmy Awards are for television. — Demong talk 06:57, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
The Emmys are for television, yes. This was a student thesis film which was, as I understand it, shown on television locally, so I'm assuming it won a local Emmy, which would be of no note whatsoever. I concur with the fact that it is not notable. Liontamarin 00:42, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright status?

I am aware of the Life+70 rule for copyright duration, so next year will be when Johnson's original compositions will come into the public domain. But what about the recordings? Various labels have released and re-released the recordings at different points... so do the recordings go into the public domain 70 years from being recorded, 70 years from his death, or at some other date altogether because they are owned by various labels? If they are already in the public domain, I think it will be beneficial to have the 29 songs uploaded so that it can better illustrate what the text is trying to convey about things such as his guitar skills and voice. --Edward Morgan Blake 08:59, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

They won't come into the public domain until the year 2033 in the U.S. because of the Copyright Term Extension Act. The samples will have to do for now. Graham87 00:33, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Pitch stuff

Seems to me this might go better as a subsection under the posthumous recordings section. It is more "information stuff" and not citation stuff so seems it should go further up in the article, if not there maybe in its own section. -- MDuchek (talk) 22:44, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Recording Sessions

There is far to much speculation in the first paragraph of the "Recording Sessions" section, I think this part needs to be completely revised removing all the probablies and presumablies. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CoolJack2 (talk • contribs) 11:03, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.[1]

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.[2] Although Guralnick made it clear that the details belonged to the Tommy Johnson story,[3] 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.

  1. ^ Guralnick
  2. ^ Evans p 22.
  3. ^ Guralnick p.18

--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)