Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:32, 5 January 2014

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Music Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject American music. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Library of Congress Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Library of Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Library of Congress on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Library of CongressWikipedia:WikiProject Library of CongressTemplate:WikiProject Library of CongressLibrary of Congress Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Albums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Albums, an attempt at building a useful resource on recordings from a variety of genres. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.AlbumsWikipedia:WikiProject AlbumsTemplate:WikiProject AlbumsAlbum

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Are You Experienced article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Are You Experienced article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days

I Don't Live Today was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 23 May 2008 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into Are You Experienced. The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Disambig

Are You Experienced? is also the title of a novel by William Sutcliffe, and several pages (see "What links here") point to this -- the wrong -- page.

How shall we go about it?

• Are You Experienced? (album),
• Are You Experienced? (novel), and
• Are You Experienced? as a disambiguation page?

If no one objects, that's what I'll do next time I access Misplaced Pages. <KF> 23:01, 7 Apr 2004 (UTC)

PS I'm asking this question here because recently there have been different opinions on how to disambiguate the Saint Louis Blues page.

• GabeMc 00:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Researching genres

• Revisions diff: his, mine

Please research the most reliable sources on the topic, not just a Google search for " 'acid rock' 'Are You Experienced' ".

• Allmusic's page on acid rock consists of one paragraph saying that such artists " from the overblown blues improvisations of Cream and Jimi Hendrix", and a list of albums that have been categorized as "acid rock" by Allmusic's sidebar; this album is also listed at Allmusic's page for "pop/rock", another genre listed by their sidebar for this album.

• How is this book by Randall Bennett Woods on the American experience from WWII into the Cold War relevant to Are You Experienced or music criticism? To cite it as a source for this album's genre being "acid rock" is original research, because it does not explicitly support it and it's being used out of context; it says that "Hendrix typified the acid rock genre" and only mentions this album as having sold 500,000 copies and reaching number five on the Billboard chart. No discussion of the album in a musical context, just as an example of Hendrix's success.

• The same with this promotional ad featured in Billboard magazine, which remarks on Hendrix "doing" something for acid rock, without any mention of the album. Dan56 (talk) 19:07, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

GoogleNews might be a more viable option for past music reviews. A music review (with actual prose instead of dubious, categorical sidebars) like this one by the Miami Herald explicitly credits this album for "ushering in" acid rock and classic rock. Dan56 (talk) 19:10, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

Like I said it has Are you experienced listed as one of the albums of acid rock. Once again you are basing the album on your Personal anylsis which you do not understand is a violation of Misplaced Pages policy. Acid rock is listed on every Hendrix album except this one because of you. He is more Acid rock then Hard rock or Psychedelic rock. You seem to be too stubborn and bullheaded to come to an agreement so I will no chice but to report you again.

as the most reliable sources on the topic http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Albums/Sources is considered The most reliable sources for music. you Keep wanting to add you own Anylsis to what the album should be is the ONLY thing that stopped it from being added in the first place, and using another Ip address such as User:82.39.108.194 or User:75.65.123.86 to by pass the 3rr is a violation WP:sock--75.65.123.86 (talk) 19:34, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

--75.65.123.86 (talk) 19:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

My IP address is 67.81.110.69. What this me as well? Dan56 (talk) 19:48, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've semi-protected a week to stop the edit-war. I suggest building a consensus here or at project talk, adding something agreed-on to the article body (not the infobox), and everything will be cool. --John (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

• I've removed "classic rock" as its a radio format not a genre. -- Rvd4life (talk) 18:20, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Acid rock

In response to this edit summary, GabeMc, how could the same not be argued about psychedelic rock being a more specific form of hard rock? Either way, we shouldn't be mixing our own opinions or interpretations with those of critics. After all, these are subjective interpretations (not facts) that should be limited to what relevant sources say (WP:SUBJECTIVE). If the current Miami Herald source that I found in response to the above discussion isn't relevant or notable enough (in comparison to others that I cited such as The Guardia or Gilbert Chase), I'd understand that argument rather than saying one interpretation is less valid than another, or that what we think of it should factor into keeping it in the infobox. If generalizing is more important than sticking to what a source like the aforementioned one said, then we might as well find a source that says "rock album" and leave the infobox at that. On the other hand, it could be argued that specific is more accurate, in which case "acid rock" may be preferable to "psychedelic rock" if the former is in fact under the latter. These kind of arguments is why I prefer to close my eyes (and ears, since I like this music) and stick to what the most prominent sources on the topic say and prefer, broader labels or specificity (perhaps the Herald quote isn't a prominent voice here?). Apart from this, I greatly appreciate your efforts to improve this article, whose importance should call for better quality. Dan56 (talk) 18:58, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

May I respectfully suggest that you expend far too much energy splitting hairs over subsumptive genres? I really do not see how acid rock is a significantly different label then psychedelic rock. Should we also have mushroom rock, ecstasy rock, and Ketamine rock? GabeMc 19:06, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If relevant sources see it as "acid rock", that matters more than what we see. That's not fair to say? You're the one that removed it, so I should just leave it unaddressed? Defer to you (or any other editor) rather than what a critic or writer said? Or ignore the fact that there are separate articles treating "acid rock" and "psychedelic rock"? Dan56 (talk) 19:08, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you don't have an argument to make other than your opinion, I'm going to restore one of the interpretations critics made. Dan56 (talk) 19:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

By your logic then, we would apply any and all labels that at least on reliable source used. This is not contentious editing, IMO. The ones that call it acid rock do not also call it psychedelic rock, do they? Do you have more than one reliable source that affixes both labels at once? Anyway, acid rock is a parochial term that really degrade the music and the artist. Psychedelic is a much more respectable label, IMO. To call it drug rock just cheapens it all. Please don't just add it back, to do so would be to edit war, and you know that. As it is now, we are not in agreement, and your opinion does not trump mine or vice-versa. GabeMc 19:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Wait, who made the original removal? The burden should be on you, since the above discussion resulted in "acid rock" being one of the genres in the infobox, for which there isn't a policy that interpretations should come from one source (you didn't remove "hard rock", right? b/c you agreed with that?) Please just don't remove it, like you originally did. Make an argument based in policy, not your opinion, b/c you think it's too shoddy for the artist and music discussed here. I heard the same argument from the IP in the previous discussion, just that he argued in favor of the other genre. Either way, same argument. Dan56 (talk) 19:17, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

EDIT CONFLICT number six!!! Right, and now you need to allow time for this discussion to develop. Dan, please don't eat-up a bunch of my editing time with this nonsense. Misplaced Pages is not a reliable source, so that there are separate article for psychedelic and acid rock is irrelevant. I left hard rock because its different enough than psychedelic rock. Since not everything hard is psychedelic and vice-versa. What is acid rock, but not also psychedelic? GabeMc 19:21, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I found the reliable sources to cite those three genres. You cant just remove them b/c they don't mesh with your personal opinions on music. I challenged your removal of something that resulted from the above discussion, so perhaps the burden is on you to get a consensus, not me. I even gave you viable arguments in my opening remarks here on why the Herald may not be a prominent enough source, but you're still throwing your opinion in my face. Dan56 (talk) 19:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'll solicit some opinions from other editors for you, if you'd like, but don't make it seem like my contributions to this article haven't been meaningful. Dan56 (talk) 19:27, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan, please do not canvass anyone. I started an RfC below. GabeMc 19:36, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I couldn't ask for comments without canvassing? Dan56 (talk) 19:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

If you ask even one person because you think that they will agree with you, then you are canvassing. I'm asking you to just let the RfC generate comments. Is that acceptable? GabeMc 20:14, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

you thought I'd look for particular ppl? Not cool. Dan56 (talk) 20:20, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I didn't say that; you're twisting my words to argue with me. Its much better if neither of us invite anyone. Agreed? GabeMc 20:25, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

You said to me "please do not canvass anyone", and then you explained what canvassing is (which I already knew). Obviously there was a way to randomly solicit comments instead of doing that. Dan56 (talk) 20:35, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan, don't play dumb now; you've "randomly" canvassed me at least half-a dozen times. Please, just try to relax. This is a very minor disagreement that need not make us mortal enemies. Lets just let the consensus develop. I pledge to abide by whatever that consensus turns out to be, even if we erroneously continue to list a genre and a redundant sub-genre. GabeMc 20:59, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

So now you are saying I'd look for particular ppl? I don't have you on speed dial, bro. I look at my watchlist and pick out a name. That's random. BTW, according to these authors, there is a difference. Dan56 (talk) 21:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Well, that's a pretty good start, but these writers are not musicologists and the book is not about music. Also, by this definition then, there is at most two acid rock tracks on the album, right? "Are You Experienced" and "Love of Confusion", since I assume that "Third Stone" and "May This Be Love" would be considered psychedelic according to this source. If you look at it that way then, there are as many blues/R&B tracks as acid rock, so I guess I'll go add those genres as well, since we are trying to pinpoint each and every genre and/or sub-genre. GabeMc 21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Go for it musicologist. Dan56 (talk) 21:37, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• Not that Misplaced Pages is a reliable source, but according to the acid rock article: "The term "acid rock" is generally equivalent to psychedelic rock." GabeMc 00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

According to Psychedelic_rock#Etymology, some see a difference, and I'm assuming that a separate article being created for acid rock would have required enough sources expressing a similar viewpoint. Dan56 (talk) 00:48, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Maybe, but the acid rock article is only about three paragraphs long, with nine total cites. Its also not at all clear if the article or any of the sources used in the article consider acid rock and psychedelic rock as distinct genres. I suggest that they are not, but I might be wrong. The short of it though, is that the fact that there is currently a separate Misplaced Pages article for acid rock does not necessarily prove anything at all, except that the article exists. GabeMc 00:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

So why bring it up again? And what exactly are we proving ? Genres aren't concrete, tangible things or facts. They're descriptions used by critics, writers, etc. Whether the article gets merged or not has little to do with whether "acid rock" is removed here. Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Not true. If acid rock is merged into psychedelic rock, then it will cease to exist as a linkable article, and it will no longer be used as a genre here or elsewhere. What are we going to do, link to a redirect in a FA? GabeMc 01:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Pretty ambitious. Dan56 (talk) 01:16, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

When I said go for it before, I assumed you'd find a source saying this is an R&B album. Something equally as explicit as the sources I found for "acid rock" below. How does a source naming one R&B song and a couple of blues tracks equal the source saying this is an R&B or blues album? Dan56 (talk) 20:17, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

How many acid rock tracks are on the album, Dan? You do not WP:OWN this article btw. GabeMc 20:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Srry, I haven't been editing the song articles lol. But seriously, I don't see why you have to resort to accusations brah brah. I'm not the one removing another's addition to this article because of pedantic objections or personal analysis. I made a valid point--You didn't cite a source that said this is a blues or R&B album before or whatever you're adding now to the infobox. And you still haven't. Who in this source or the other one you cited in the infobox says Are You Experienced is a blues rock album? If you want to make a mess of the infobox to make a point, I wont object, but seriously stop with the personal attacks. You're bringing tension and drama to a situation that has enough of both. You know the infobox is theoretically supposed to be based on what's already cited in the rest of the article, so if those citations you added aren't bogus OR added just to prove a point, then they should offer prose that can be added in the section I tried to start to resolve this infobox issue. It's whatever either way. I'm sure readers can check those citations for themselves to see if any of the writers actually said this is an album of album-oriented rock. Dan56 (talk) 20:53, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

The point I am making is that the album has almost as many genres as it has songs, that you insist on using only the three that you agree with smacks of ownership issues. This source says it well. GabeMc 20:58, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Trying to get a consensus to merge "acid rock" (which according to you, effectively remove it from infoboxes across Misplaced Pages) doesn't? Dude, none of the sources you cited say this is a blues rock or R&B or album-oriented rock album, period. Dan56 (talk) 21:03, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, how can you say it's a matter of whether I personally agree with them when I almost got into an edit war related to the discussion above us, with an IP who kept adding "acid rock" without appropriately citing it? I don't have an ulterior motive here. Dan56 (talk) 21:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Track by track

• "Foxy Lady"
• "Manic Depression"
• "Red House"
• "Can You See Me"
• "Love of Confusion"
• "I Don't Live Today"
• "May This Be Love"
• "Fire"
• Third Stone From the Sun"
• "Remember"
• "Are You Experienced"

Dan56, take a look at the original UK track listing. Of the 11 songs, how many do you think are acid rock? GabeMc 21:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Genre RfC

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Biographies When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

The purpose of this RfC is to determine the current community consensus regarding which genres we should apply to this album, Are You Experienced. Currently, we list three: psychedelic rock, acid rock, and hard rock. GabeMc 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Support psychedelic rock

1. This is a more encyclopedic term than acid rock, and as far as I am concerned it means the exact same thing. GabeMc 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Support acid rock

Support hard rock

1. This term is different enough than psychedelic rock that it conveys additional meaning without being subsumptive. GabeMc 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose psychedelic rock

Oppose acid rock

1. Strongly prefer psychedelic rock over acid rock, and we should not be using both. Also, not that Misplaced Pages is a reliable source, but according to the acid rock article: "The term "acid rock" is generally equivalent to psychedelic rock." GabeMc 19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Oppose hard rock

Discussion

• There is a merger discussion taking place at Talk:Psychedelic rock#Merger proposal. Input would be appreciated regarding the proposal to merge acid rock in with psychedelic rock. GabeMc 00:09, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

This shouldn't be a matter of finding votes, but sources. I'll start. Apart from the Miami Herald source currently cited in the article ("Ushered in heavy metal's guitar style, acid rock and plain-old classic rock"), these characterize the album similarly: 1) this book where Amy Wallace mentions the album as a classic of acid rock. 2) this book by Randall Woods mentions Hendrix and the album in a discussion on acid rock. 3) this book by Timothy P. Maga ("Are You Experienced?, was cut in England in 1967. But Hendrix's unique acid rock sound soon spread..."). 4) this book by author Alan Bisbort and Rolling Stone's Parke Puterbaugh define "acid rock", followed by examples, this album being named as one of them. Dan56 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I personally think the last one is the most explicit and from a fairly relevant source, an author plus a music journalist explicitly naming this album as an album that exemplifies acid rock. Again, this isn't a matter of what we think of or if we agree with how relevant sources interpret this album's music. Due weight should be given to "acid rock", just one of the interpretations made by critics or writers, and one of the three that I found (so I'm not supporting the removal of any of them) because of a past discussion that arose because an IP was driven by their opinion. Dan56 (talk) 19:52, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

IMO, you are splitting hairs over semantics. Dan, just answer this one question: Is there such a thing as an acid rock album that is not also considered psychedelic rock? Acid rock is a largely archaic term that is falling out of favour for the more encyclopedic psychedelic rock. Are you really asserting here that they mean two significantly different things? GabeMc 20:03, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Why are you asking me? I'm not an expert on the subject. I did just cite some though. Dan56 (talk) 20:04, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm asking you because you are the one insisting that we use both terms here however subsumptive they are. Do you have any reliable sources that refer to the album as both acid rock and psychedelic rock? Because that's what you are arguing for here, to use them both. Do any reliable sources use both, or do they use one or the other? What's your argument to include them both? GabeMc 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

• FWIW, a Google search for "Jimi Hendrix acid rock" turns up a paltry 52,000 hits, whereas a Google search for "Jimi Hendrix psychedelic rock", turns up 288,000 hits. Which is one indication that the later term is much more common, and per WP:COMMONNAME, that's the one we should use, not both. GabeMc 20:11, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

That's for article titles. You still haven't addressed any of the source I just found for you. Is there a single source that characterizes the album as both "psychedelic rock" and "hard rock"? I'm pretty sure it's not encyclopedic to rely on a single source. Please stop treating these as facts or saying one interpretations is more valid than another. We're not in any position to do so. I've already noticed "psychedelic rock" is the more prominent description before when I had to cite all the previously unsourced genres in this article a while ago, which is why it was placed ahead in the infobox. That's no reason to dismiss "acid rock" or "hard rock". My search method involved the album title and the genre(s), and I read the bits written about the album instead of just glancing at the number of search results. You already told me what you think of "acid rock" in your comment at this talk page on 19:14, 3 January 2014 (that it degrades or cheapens the artist and music), and the one guideline (for deciding on a title for an article) you cited has nothing to do with viewpoints on a topic, so it's hard to find any of this objective. You're making a lot out of one measly label that enough relevant sources seem to have used. Dan56 (talk) 20:32, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

I really think that your ego is too tired-up in this minutia, and you should step back a little and relax. Per my !votes, I am not disputing hard rock as an appropriate genre tag. All I am saying is that acid rock and psychedelic rock are too similar to warrant including them both. Is that really confusing to you? Its not complicated, I am not disputing that some sources call it acid rock and some call it psychedelic. I agree with you that you can find sources for both, but what I do not agree with is that we should list them both, kinda like death metal and heavy metal. You wouldn't need to mention them both, since one is obviously a form of the other. BTW, after 15 edit conflicts caused by you refactoring your comments between responses I'm done with this discussion for a bit. I really hope that you aren't doing that on purpose. GabeMc 20:43, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

How could I possibly know when you're going to edit and deliberately conflict with your edit attempts? It's your ego dude. I'm sick of hearing your opinion on genres and music. I gave you an opening to agree with the possible argument that a source like the Miami Herald is not as prominent a source as the others I used to cite psychedelic and hard rock, in which case I would have dropped it and not addressed your removal of acid rock, but you had to respond with another opinion (). There was already an edit war before because an IP was stubbornly defending his own opinion that acid rock is a valid genre without actually getting appropriate sources to support it. Should I ask if "psychedelic rock" is a form of "hard rock"? Probably not. Not because I don't care, but because that would get us nowhere. I did the work of looking for sources when none of the genres in this article were cited, when annoying IPs vandalized them, and now when one of them is being contested. If the other editors commenting here feel that the sources I found most recently aren't enough to show acid rock is a prominent enough interpretation to be kept in the infobox, that's fine. It's just going to be hard to respond to if they're more opinions on Hendrix and rock music. Dan56 (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2014 (UTC)

Close paraphrasing by User:Dan56

From Dan's text: "Songs such as "Manic Depression", "Love or Confusion", and "I Don't Live Today" feature high volume, distortion, and single-chord riffs by Hendrix, who sang in an indistinct, conversational manner."

He has apparently plagiarized this from a source that he cites a couple of paragraphs earlier in the passage,Evans, David (2005). The NPR Curious Listener's Guide to Blues. Penguin Books. p. 121. ISBN 039953072X.

I'm going to revert the copyvio once more. GabeMc 03:27, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

WTF is you're problem? If you think it's too close to what the source says, then refine it. You cant just remove valuable contributions to this article. Proveit! How is any of it plagiarism? Stop bullying me!!!!! Dan56 (talk) 03:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

You slapped that together really fast, Dan. I think you are plagiarizing sources and I think you have an ownership issue with this article. You wanted so badly to claim the article, that you plagiarized several authors. GabeMc 03:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

If you think you can plagiarize multiple authors, then expect other Wikipedians to paraphrase it for you, then you might want to read WP:CIR. GabeMc 03:35, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

It took me half an hour to write that, Dr. Freud. I said I appreciated your efforts to improve this article when I first spoke to you today. I'd appreciate it if the same courtesy was extended to me. I didn't plagiarize anything. Dan56 (talk) 03:36, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan, that is way to close, and the more I look, the more I see that you are stealing other people's writing. You do not understand how to properly paraphrase. Are you going to let this go, or should I give more examples? GabeMc 03:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dan, you didn't even change the order of the songs. GabeMc 03:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

The disputed versions are: Source: "... Hendrix encapsulated an era and a scene in tunes like "Manic Depression," "Love of Confusion," and "I Don't Live Today." His and the band's use of extreme volume, distortion, feedback, fuzztone, and one-chord riff patterns pounded these songs into the heads of listeners, who also had to pay careful attention to understand Hendrix's mumbled, conversational singing style and fragmented lyrics." vs Dan56's edit: "Songs such as "Manic Depression", "Love or Confusion", and "I Don't Live Today" feature high volume, distortion, and single-chord riffs by Hendrix, who sang in an indistinct, conversational manner." I will analyze the claim of closing paraphrasing on two different dimensions: word choice and sentence structure. It appears there are a limited number of ways to say that the three relevant songs contain the three listed effects. The song names ("Manic Depression", "Love of Confusion", and "I Don't Live Today") obviously must be identical. The names of the effects are very similar between the two versions ("extreme volume" vs "high volume", "one-chord riffs" vs "single-chord riffs", and "distortion"), but there are only so many words one can use to describe such an effect. Dan56's changes appear sufficient. The sentence structure is distinct in that "Songs" in Dan56's version is the subject (as opposed to "Hendrix" in the source) and Dan56's version includes content at the end of the sentence that does not appear in the source version at all. However, the sentence structure is indistinct insomuch as word order is identical. I suggest reordering the songs and reordering the effects so that they don't so closely match the order of the source. In addition, I suggest listing a couple of other songs (and/or effects) from other sources, if possible, and interspersing them in Dan56's proposed text as appropriate. This new content would put the question of close paraphrasing entirely to rest. I imagine there are plenty of Hendrix songs to choose from that can be described similarly to the three songs currently proposed for inclusion. On a separate note, I've noticed that you two have been involved in a fair amount of debate lately, so it's totally understandable that you may be getting frustrated with one another. I just want to make a friendly reminder that Misplaced Pages is not a battleground; I'm sure you both have good intentions for this article, and regardless of how this discussion ends, I hope you will continue to constructively and civilly work together to improve the article. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 07:32, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• How about this one Prototime?

From the article: "the half-spoken narrative style of Bob Dylan"

From the source: "Dylan's half-spoken narrative style"

IMO, this is plagiarism that should immediately be removed from the article. All Dan56 added was the, of, and Bob, which is not at all creative. He completely copied the creative aspect of the author's passage. GabeMc 22:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the surrounding context of those words are, but those two statements are virtually identical, and it certainly appears to be way too close of paraphrasing. There must be a better way to word that, which should involve at least replacing the terms "half-spoken narrative" with different words. I'm not exceptionally sure I know what "half-spoken narrative" refers to, but if it means what I think it does, I would suggest something along the lines of "Bob Dylan's style of singing softly and slowly." Well, I'm sure one of you could come up with something a bit more accurate than that, but you get the idea. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 23:12, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Why is your immediate response "removal"? And why are you taking this personally? ("creative aspect"?) I took a quick look after noticing your complaint, Googled for synonyms, and fixed it. It'd be more reasonable to tag the section instead of trying to remove it. Is the article worse for that? Apart from the song/effect order and this Dylan bit, what else did I plagiarize? Will this revision suffice Prototime? Dan56 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

"Storytelling mode" is quite distinct from "half-spoken narrative style", so yes, I'd say that revision fixes the close paraphrasing problem with the original material. –Prototime (talk · contribs) 00:32, 5 January 2014 (UTC)

Music and lyrics

• "Hendrix and Kramer's production involved considerable multitrack recording and sound manipulation techniques such as feedback sounds, phase shifting, and reverse tape effects."'

The album was produced by Chandler and Hendrix; Kramer was a mixing engineer, not a producer. The source, O'Grady, Terence J. et al. (2004). Henry Louis Gates, Evelyn Brooks Higginbotham, ed. African American Lives. Oxford University Press. p. 393. ISBN 019988286X, does not mention Chandler producing anything at all. GabeMc 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Songs such as "I Don't Live Today", "Love or Confusion", and "Manic Depression" were recorded at a high volume and featured distortion and single-chord riffs by Hendrix, who sang in an indistinct, conversational manner."

1) This source does not know a guitar chord from a hole in the ground, because none of these three songs contain single-chord riffs. The riff to "Manic Depression" covers four chords, the riff to "Love or Confusion" is mostly two, but there is a third, and the riff to "I Don't Live Today" has three. GabeMc 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

2) "who sang in an indistinct, conversational manner" is POV, especially your use of the term indistinct. GabeMc 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• "Hendrix's lyrics on the album touched on drug experiences and Romantic subjects. "I Don't Live Today" was written about the execution of a Native American, while "Purple Haze" drew a parallel between a woman's love and being intoxicated from barbiturates." GabeMc 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

1) "I Don't Live Today" was not written about the execution of a Native American. Its about their plight; the lyrics poetically beg for execution, but the song is absolutely not about that. "Purple Haze" is not about drugs or women, Hendrix said that it was about a vivid dream that he has where he was underwater, and you might know that if you owned even one Hendrix source. GabeMc 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• I had planned to improve this article with the hopes of taking it to FAC, but I see now that working with Dan is a complete nightmare, and I want nothing to do with him. He has major issues with close paraphrasing and in putting strong opinions in the voice of Misplaced Pages. He grabbed most of this junk from sources that aren't even specific to music, let alone Hendrix. The NPR Hendrix bio is two pages long! I don't have the time to deal with all the issues in his additions; there are numerous problems. I'll leave you to this article in the hopes that you will give me space on other pages, but please do not repeat this on the next project I start. GabeMc 19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class American music articles
• Unknown-importance American music articles
• WikiProject American music articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• C-Class Library of Congress articles
• Mid-importance Library of Congress articles
• WikiProject Library of Congress articles
• C-Class Album articles
• WikiProject Albums articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment