Talk:Axis: Bold as Love/Archive 1

Archive 1

NPOV problems, on a music page - as always

NPOV just doesn't seem to exist very much on band and album pages.

Example: "The group, however, undoubtedly sounds more confident and more proficient than it did on its debut." Caleb462 23:41, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Actually, that's the exact line that got me to jump on the talk page. I just listened to both albums and this seems to be nothing more than an opinion. In MY opinion, they were already proficient ;). That's why Jimi got kicked out of the Airborne. This is definetly not NPOV. I'm going to try and clean up this article. Anybody else want in? Ph33rspace 05:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

FACT Ph33rspace 06:03, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

John Mayer

John mayer also covered little wing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.41.174.75 (talk) 10:47, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Rage Against The Machine?

To me, the moment I heard "Spanish Castle Magic," I realized where Rage got a lot of their influence from. The riff is straight-up Tom Morello, or, I should say, Tom Morello is straight-up Jimi. 65.248.164.214 (talk) 16:21, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

Covers

Can somebody mercifully fix that section by limiting it to something like "Many musicians have covered songs from 'Axis', including" and a simple list of names - if not removing it entirely? It's excruciating to encounter the phrase "...also covered" or "Another musician who covered..." or the word "covered" itself dozens of times in a row. (Actually, I may do this myself.)

Vonbontee (talk) 09:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Album cover

Is there any information about who is the artist for the album cover? I ask because of a (non-fiction) book that mentions a lady who claims to be the artist of a Jemi Hendrix album cover, The_Year_of_Living_Biblically -- The lady who is the possible artist is a neighbor of the author...but, near the end of the book, the lady passes away, before she can complete a book she was writing about 60's/70's musicians she knew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.183.217.250 (talk) 19:38, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

According to the designer it was a cheap, mass produced religious poster bought in a London market. It is a copy of the Hindu devotional painting known as "Viraat Purushan-Vishnuroopam" showing the different forms of Vishnu with a small superimposed, photo portrait of the group (by Karl Ferris) overpainted by Roger Law to blend in[5]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jameselmo (talk • contribs) 18:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Why is there a need for a citation there? Thats its a Hindu Devotional piece depicted to the point of cliche is common knowledge. For example,if They had used the ceiling of the Cistine Chapel,it would require no citation to point that out, any more than it would require a citation if I identified a picture of the moon, and called it "the moon". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solerso68 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

Running order

This says that some pressings had a different running order. Can anyone be more specific than saying that Bold as Love was not the last track? --Benwilson528 18:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

I came to this page thinking to ask if a note should be made on this - the article doesn't seem to say it any more. I have a cassette which has: 1) EXP, Up from the Skies, Spanish Castle Magic, Little Wing (first variant), If 6 Was 9, One Rainy Wish; 2) You Got Me Floatin', Castles Made of Sand, She's So Fine, Little Miss Lover (first variant of side 2), Bold as Love, Wait Until Tomorrow, Ain't No Telling. IOW, 1.4 and 1.5 are moved to the end of side 2, and 2.4 is moved to the end of side 1, presumably to idiotically balance the side lengths. I don't know if it ever would have varied on vinyl or CD (IIRC, my own record was in the right order, and my CD is) but it definitely does on cassette. --74.162.131.148 (talk) 03:00, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

Legacy Section

I Think More Should Be Added To The Legacy Section, such as the critical reception of the album, and its subsequent legacy and ratings on websites and magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.134.45 (talk) 06:48, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Citations in lead

WP:CITELEAD states:

"Because the lead will usually repeat information that is in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. Leads are usually written at a greater level of generality than the body, and information in the lead section of non-controversial subjects is less likely to be challenged and less likely to require a source; there is not, however, an exception to citation requirements specific to leads. The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus. Complex, current, or controversial subjects may require many citations; others, few or none. The presence of citations in the introduction is neither required in every article nor prohibited in any article."

There are no controversial assertions in the lead and therefore no citations, since all the points are addressed in the body of the article. There is an entire referenced paragraph devoted to the lost tape incident, which is sufficient to expand/define the info in the lead. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:20, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Axis: Bold as Love. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.popmatters.com/feature/121898-jimi-hendrix-reissues/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Axis: Bold as Love/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

== Sectonalize == The article needs sections. Right now, it looks as though the matter is crammed into the article. A more spaced layout would be better --NRS | T/M\B 13:48, 6 October 2006 (UTC) Complete. —Viriditas | Talk 09:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC) ==Re-assessment== Start class: Y A reasonably complete infobox Y A lead section giving an overview of the album Y A track listing Y Reference to at least primary personnel by name (must specify performers on the current album; a band navbox is insufficient) Y Categorisation at least by artist and year C class: Y All the start class criteria Y A reasonably complete infobox, including cover art Y At least one section of prose (in addition to the lead section) Y A track listing containing track lengths and authors for all songs Y A "personnel" section listing performers, including guest musicians. B class: Y All the C class criteria Y A completed infobox, including cover art and most technical details Y A full list of personnel, including technical personnel and guest musicians N No obvious issues with sourcing, including the use of blatantly improper sources. Y No significant issues exist to hamper readability, although it may not rigorously follow WP:MOS This article lacks a lot of citation in it's sections. Only the title intro is well cited. Andrzejbanas (talk) 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Last edited at 01:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC). Substituted at 08:43, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Psychedelic rock

I don't understand why you have a problem with characterising Jimi's music as psychedelic rock, All sources indicates that, yet here on wikipedia it is a taboo term. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.39.136.133 (talk) 13:48, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree; there are several derivatives of the psychedelic genre, including space rock, psychedelic blues, acid rock, psychedelic soul, psychedelic pop, to name a few. This album doesn't incorporate all of these derivatives, let alone just a few. Psychedelic rock would be an appropriate genre that captures the style that Hendrix played on the album.

Sources which also classify this as psychedelic rock: Discogs,AltRockChick, and RateYourMusic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyclomethane (talk • contribs) 03:20, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Should hard rock, jazz, and rhythm & blues be kept in the infobox?

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

These three genres are mentioned in the article; according to Hendrix historian Steven Roby, critics praised the album "for its wonderful blend of R&B, hard rock, and Mose Allison-influenced jazz" (Roby 2002, p. 77). This issue is being raised in response to GC16's recent removal of those three genres. Dan56 (talk) 18:29, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Votes

• Yes as nominator Dan56 (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• No album genres should describe the album overall, not specific influences or songs (more in discussion). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
• Yes the genres should be added back in the infobox. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 21:48, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Just because the word "blend" is used, does not somehow negate the use of any/all the genre. The context clearly indicates the author feels it falls into the mentioned genre. Sergecross73 msg me 14:57, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
• Yes - Summoned by bot. I don't have much experience in editing album pages but IMO, the three genres should be included in the infobox since it was supported in the source provided. Meatsgains (talk) 00:10, 6 September 2016 (UTC)
• No. The source does not define a specific genre. Rather, it describes influences. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2016
• No – The word "blend" does indeed negate the individual genres. The author is not explicitly describing anything on the record as jazz, R&B, or hard rock. Not sure why "pop rock" is not included, however, when a source uses that directly. GC16 (GC16) 18:46, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

(UTC)

• Yes. Summoned by bot. I think users !voting no are being tricked by the author's use of the word "influence", which in this case specifically applies to the variant-jazz aspects of the recording. It seems quite clear to me that R&B, hard rock and jazz are clearly genre attributions and nowhere does the author imply these are mere influences. When requiring sourcing for filling infobox parametres this is precisely the type of references we look for. Unless some more context or countering references are provided, these genres should be present. FoCuS contribs; talk to me! 12:42, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Discussion

GC16 removed them, saying the "source doesn't call Axis a jazz album, hard rock album, or r&b album—it describes it's music as a mixture of those things, which isn't reducible to any of them ... it's reducing it to all three individually. Unless the source is describing this as 'a hard rock album and also a jazz album' etc, then its inadmissible". Interestingly, the editor did not remove pop rock--which isn't supported by sources in the article that phrase them the way the editor complained the other three didn't. His removal of "jazz" specifically in a past edit was also inconsistent with his rationale ([1]). If the author describes the album as possessing those genres, then it's appropriate to include them in the infobox, regardless of whether they explicitly call it a "hard rock album" or a "jazz album", IMO. Dan56 (talk) 09:07, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

I am not addressing what GC16 did or didn't do, but genres in album infoboxes (as well as songs, singles, artists, etc.) should aim for generality. Many albums have a variety of styles and influences, which music writers attempt to describe. Their comments should not be confused with the genre of an album. For example, the White Album has everything from folk to Stockhausen, but the infobox lists "Rock, pop". When Roby includes "Mose Allison-influenced jazz", he is referring to one song only. To include "jazz" as an album genre suggests to the reader that there is more jazz-style material, which there isn't (similarly, pop-rock only applies to one song). Ideally, only when a source clearly states a genre in describing the whole album should it be used, e.g., "one of the finest hard rock albums of the year". Absent that, the infobox genre should reflect what best describes the majority of the songs consistent with the artist's style (which is the White Album approach). I haven't read through all of the ABAL sources, but hard rock and R&B should cover it. Further descriptions (psychedelic, jazz, pop, soul, white noise, etc.) should be addressed in the body of the article, where they are referenced. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:06, 25 May 2016 (UTC)

@Ojorojo:, does Roby say he's referring to one song only? (I only got a snippet preview from Amazon.com of the book and that quote, so I wasn't able to read the rest) Dan56 (talk) 04:33, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It's a good book – if you have the chance, you should get it. Roby writes about unreleased (as of 2002) Hendrix material. He does not go into great detail or length about already released material. Since he is discussing songs and techniques, a better reading would be "its wonderful blend of R&B, rock, and Mose Allison-influenced jazz [songs]". Keith Shadwick, in Jimi Hendrix: Musician (probably the best all-around Hendrix bio), discusses "Up from the Skies" and the Allison and other influences on the song. He does not refer to "Allison" or "jazz" for other ABAL songs. McDermott in Ultimate Hendrix mentions jazz in connection with UFTS, but not other album material. Dan56, you really need to look at the totality of the material and not focus so tightly on a single snippet. Do you really feel that there are more Allison- or jazz-influenced songs on the album, or more importantly, are there any sources that support this idea? —Ojorojo (talk) 14:42, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Billboard{{'}]s original review of the album said it had "more jazz-oriented" songs than the previous album, while AllMusic describes "If 6 Was 9" as a "proto-fusion jazz" song ([2]) Also, I did two separate searches at Amazon.com's preview, one for "jazz" and the other for "Mose", and page 73 (the quote in question, specifically) it seems is the only one where either of those two things are mentioned. So I'm not sure Roby is speaking in the context you're suggesting. I simply believe he finds the music/style of the album in general to be a mixture/fusion of those genres, which at the very least (along with Billboard's source) would make having "jazz" at the very end of the genre field in the infobox not objectionable. Dan56 (talk) 16:40, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

It sounds as if Koda is describing I6W9 as a sort of precursor to jazz rock or fusion, not a distinct genre. Hendrix described it as his own kind of blues (Shapiro p. 247) and Newquist as "acid-fueled blues" (p.32). If ABAL has 1 1/2 jazz-influenced songs versus 1/2 on AYE, I guess it would have "more jazz-oriented numbers" (although I give more weight to Hendrix biographers than a Billboard staff two-sentence "review"). Still, it does not describe the overall album and is at the level of including genres for individual songs. Diluting the infobox with minority or fringe views makes it less useful for the reader. —Ojorojo (talk) 15:23, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I think even with the adjectival "proto-fusion", he's still calling it a "jazz blowout". And it seems like you're combining assumptions ("1 1/2"?) to reach a conclusion not suggested by any of the sources (What biographers say explicitly that the album's music is rock/R&B?) It's not a fringe view IMO, since Roby names it as a genre that's in the music, while others touch on it less explicitly. We just differ on how we understand what he's saying, or the purpose/implciations of the genre field in the infobox, and you seem to be downplaying each source... this is just going off-topic since this RfC isn't just about jazz, so I don't have anything more to add. Dan56 (talk) 08:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)

"Jazz blowout" is on about the opposite end of the jazz spectrum to "Mose Allison-influenced jazz". If Roby (or the critics he is speaking for) is indeed describing more than UFTS, this should be evident in more songs. Otherwise to conflate Koda, Billboard, and Roby constitutes WP:SYNTHESIS. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:50, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes to keeping 'hard rock', but no to everything else. Nothing on here strikes me as jazz honestly and R&B only seems to really be in the undertones and not worth mentioning. This is blatantly hard rock (and psychedelic rock) though. Honestly I'd probably tag it exactly the same way Cream's Disraeli Gears is tagged. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 21:35, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Your reference to WP:SYNTH is confusing. Conflate them into what? Roby is speaking for himself. Dan56 (talk) 17:18, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

@Dan56: I admit that I don't know much about genres, but I do know that a genre should be added to the article if the genre is supported by source or reference. TheAmazingPeanuts (talk) 22:10, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

• Yes: I think genres of every album should be listed by A RELIABLE SOURCE, in this case a physical source or book is a reliable source and the album does sound like some of the following genres. The album's genre's should not abide by opinions. troublednbored (talk) 05:21, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Why not simply use the genres listed for The Jimi Hendrix Experience article? They are sourced.

• Psychedelic rock
• blues rock
• acid rock
• hard rock

Timtempleton (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Well, because they don't directly discuss this article's topic and it would be misusing those particular sources (WP:NOR). Dan56 (talk) 20:56, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

If this was done right, ideally you'd start cataloging the genres at the song level. Then, you'd have a list of genres for each album, and then that list would be compiled and added to the group's article as the overall genres, however long that list might be. I listened to Axis: Bold as Love again yesterday and would categorize it as psychedelic rock, guitar rock and hard rock, but haven't "genre-fied" each individual song.Timtempleton (talk) 05:17, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Timtempleton, and it was the same point as I was trying to make since my comment about Disraeli Gears, since it's the same 4 tags haha. Psychedelic, Acid Rock, Hard Rock, Blues Rock. It'd be perfect. Mrmoustache14 (talk) 03:39, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

Emphatically disagree. The genre of a musical artist comes from sources talking about the artist's musical genre. The genre of a song comes from sources talking about the song's genre. The genre of an album comes from sources talking about the album's genre. Song genres don't automatically add up to become the album genre. Album and song genres don't automatically add up to become the artist's genre. As an example, we can see that Barbra Streisand does not have classical music listed in her artist genre parameter despite the fact that she released the very successful classical music album Classical Barbra. That's because vanishingly few sources say that she is a classical music artist. Binksternet (talk) 03:41, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this sentiment, but don't agree with your reasoning for voting "no" above. I don't see how the quote "its wonderful blend of R&B, hard rock, and Mose Allison-influenced jazz" makes the distinction of "influences" rather than "genres", which it undoubtedly lists. I don't understand how you're processing the quote and churning out "influences", @Binksternet:? Dan56 (talk) 19:51, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.