Talk:Are You Experienced/Archive 1

title
should it have a "?" or not.... which is correct? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.96.41.169 (talk • contribs).
 * None of the album covers list the title with a question mark. It's officially without a "?" I think. Please sign your comments btw. - Face 13:28, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed this sentence: "The title track, however, includes a question mark." This ain't the case with my copy. I have the one with the boring black cover. I've tried to find the back of the other covers via google, but can't find them. Perhaps somebody can clearify this? - Face 11:45, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Well, you should take a look here: . The title of the US version of the album has a question mark and the tracks also ... (didn't know this, too - thanks to musicbrainz user drsaunde for finding this) greetings -- Schusch 10:57, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Wow, apparently the two titles are used interchangeable. I've add this information to the article. Hopefully someone could ever clarify how many track listings there are exactly. - Face 10:45, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AreyouexpUS.jpg
Image:AreyouexpUS.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:AreyouexpUK.jpg
Image:AreyouexpUK.jpg 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 Wikipedia articles 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.

If there is other 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 uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 19:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Track Listing
The US track listing in the article is nothing like any of the US versions I've ever seen. I've always seen it as:

1. Purple Haze 2. Manic Depression 3. Hey Joe 4. Love Or Confusion 5. May This Be Love 6. I Don't Live Today 7. The Wind Cries Mary 8. Fire 9. Third Stone From The Sun 10. Foxey Lady 11. Are You Experienced? 12. Stone Free 13. 51st Anniversary 14. Highway Chile 15. Can You See Me 16. Remember 17. Red House

Where is the one being used from? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.35.45.79 (talk) 17:37, 11 January 2007 (UTC).


 * Your listing is the same as the US listing for the first eleven tracks. You have bonus tracks on your listing comprised of the B sides of the first three UK singles, plus the three tracks that were removed from the original Are You Experienced album when it was released in the US. -- Mickraus 21:56, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

I think..
that someone should make this page so that when anyone were to look up 'Are You Experienced' they will be automatically taken to this page instead of the disambiguation, considering the disambiguation for this is completely pointless..--FloydZeppelin74 04:05, 8 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. I added a hatnote for the disambiguation. Torc2 (talk) 01:12, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Pop Culture
Minnesota-based indi-rock band Trip Shakespeare's 1989 release Are You Shakespearienced was a eponymic homage to the Hendrix album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by GenacGenac (talk • contribs) 17:56, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Release
--Jutmcdoug (talk) 02:31, 5 April 2011 (UTC)I have been doing some esearch on the release of the the album. Does anyone think it would be benificial to the aticle to add more information about the release of the album?

Correcting grammatical/sentence structure errors
I changed "has stayed " to "has remained" in the intro section.

I corrected the "Release" section. It consisted of one run-on sentence with no subject.

I removed "Indeed, Hendrix's own follow-up, Axis: Bold as Love, out that December in the UK, had to be detained for six weeks due to his debut's stellar sales (and it still wouldn't reach its peak of #5 until October 1968).” This sentence doesn't make any sense.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Quackerfuss (talk • contribs) 02:17, 7 April 2011 (UTC)

Additions
I'm working on a project to try to bump this article up to at least a B-class rating. I think it would benefit from adding information on a tour for the album and song inspirations. Does anyone agree with this or have any suggestions on what else you think would improve the article - besides adding the citations Wikipedia is demanding at the top of the article? Thanks! Jessica1027 (talk) 02:21, 31 March 2011 (UTC)

Changes for consistency
I have changed three occurences of U.S. and two occurences of U.K. to US and UK, respectively. I also bolded the only appearance of Are You Experienced? --200.52.175.129 (talk) 02:43, 15 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I am same user but with different IP. I have changed U.K. and U.S. in infobox to UK and US. I also linked Jimi Hendrix: Blues. --189.194.160.229 (talk) 17:21, 15 May 2011 (UTC)

???
Howcome the US and UK tracks have different times? Were there different versions of the songs, or just slight time differences?--Tainted Drifter (talk) 06:01, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Not sure. I'm assuming these are the times printed on the record or record sleeve, which were probably compiled by some intern with a stopwatch.  I know the different versions of The Dark Side of the Moon are even worse due to segues. Torc2 (talk) 07:28, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

When they were originally released, the UK version of the album was extremely different from the US album. By that I mean some songs were on one version but not on the other version. Purple Haze wasn't even on the UK version. It was later made so that all 17 songs from both versions were put on the same album together in both countries. 67.86.22.253 (talk) 03:58, 6 June 2011 (UTC)

Production & Musical Style
I Think More Should Be Added About The Recording Of The Album. Also Hendrix's Supernatural Guitar Playing MUST be talked about. Oh and all the special effects he used for this album should also be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.214.134.45 (talk) 06:45, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Reception??
Reception means how the press and public reacted in immediate time. The latter is addressed in album sales note. But the article presently skips the contemporary reviews and leaps forward 30 years to give the recent critical reaction. WRONG.Dogru144 (talk) 20:29, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Heavy Metal Album?
How is this album a heavy metal album. I find no song heavy metal in the album. Honestly, I'm a Jimi Hendrix fan, but this album isn't HEAVY METAL. So what do you guys think about it?Phymacheo (talk) 08:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * check this out. Keep in mind that heavy metal didn't exist in 1967, so we are talking about music that led to the development of heavy metal, much as the music of Robert Johnson or James Brown would lead to rock'n'roll. &mdash; goethean &#2384; 14:19, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Genre RfC
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 (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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 Wikipedia is a reliable source, but according to the acid rock article: "The term "acid rock" is generally equivalent to psychedelic rock."  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:34, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose hard rock


 * Discussion


 * There is a merger discussion taking place at Talk:Psychedelic rock. Input would be appreciated regarding the proposal to merge acid rock in with psychedelic rock. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  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 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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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)

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 Wikipedia.  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 (talk&#124;contribs)  00:21, 4 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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:01, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) "who sang in an indistinct, conversational manner" is POV, especially your use of the term indistinct. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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 Wikipedia. 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  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:01, 4 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,[http://books.google.com/books?id=FliMnJzujucC&pg=PA121#v=onepage&q&f=false 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 (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:40, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan, you didn't even change the order of the songs. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  03:41, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * How about this one ?
 * 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 (talk&#124;contribs)  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 ? 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)

Researching genres
Please research the most reliable sources on the topic, not just a Google search for " 'acid rock' 'Are You Experienced' ".
 * Revisions diff: his, mine
 * Allmusic's page on acid rock consists of one paragraph saying that such artists "[Drew] 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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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. Wikipedia 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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:24, 3 January 2014 (UTC)


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


 * Not that Wikipedia is a reliable source, but according to the acid rock article: "The term "acid rock" is generally equivalent to psychedelic rock." GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:06, 4 January 2014 (UTC)


 * According to Psychedelic_rock, 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 Wikipedia article for acid rock does not necessarily prove anything at all, except that the article exists. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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  (talk&#124;contribs)  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 Wikipedia) 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"

, take a look at the original UK track listing. Of the 11 songs, how many do you think are acid rock? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  21:28, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Dubious content removal
GabeMc, who had a long-standing issue with "acid rock" being in the infobox (but conceded in the above RfC attempt), tried to sneak its removal earlier today in a larger edit I reverted him, but then he reverted me and removed the supporting prose altogether, claiming The Miami Herald are not "musicologists". Yet he did not remove the nearby prose from The Guardian, which was the supporting source for "psychedelic rock" being in the infobox (a genre he has in the above discussions expressed approval of). I brought this possible double standard from him up, to which he leaned on a technicality, claiming that the Miami Herald, unlike The Guardian, is not included at WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES, which says that their list isn't exhaustive and that any professional print publication is reliable GabeMc simply reverted me and offered an evasive edit summary  He also offered a similarly evasive response to the discussion at my talk page  So, apart from GabeMc, who I know doesn't want this in the article, thoughts on restoring this material to the article since there never was consensus to remove it by the editor? Dan56 (talk) 00:32, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * You only had the consensus of you and an IP editor. That's not a consensus. Who else is arguing for the inclusion of acid rock? Stop wasting people's time and go fix the plagarisms in your FAs. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:38, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dan56, it's clear that you have found sources that refer to the album as acid rock. There are many, many sources that also don't call it acid rock. The reason was explained in the RFC by GabeMc. The thing you seem to be missing from your personal criteria for including genres in an article is that you have to critically assess not only the quality of sources but what is said in the preponderance of sources. It's easy to find an article that supports some point. What you really have to do is review all of the sources in use and get an idea of what they say as a whole. This is how GabeMc is able to write quality articles on much larger topics than this—he has the ability to grep a large body of knowledge and translate that into an article. I really don't understand why you are so excited and insistent about this. I'm against the inclusion of the term "acid rock" based on the body of knowledge currently being used to source the article. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:00, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * What "personal criteria"? You do realize that, b/c GabeMc's POV agrees with "psychedelic rock", he has overlooked/ignored that fact that an obituary column for Noel Redding is the source cited to support "psychedelic rock", yet he did not remove that. And he has yet to cite anything to support the other unsourced genres in the infobox. Dan56 (talk) 01:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * From the article: "Writer and archivist Rueben Jackson of the Smithsonian Institution wrote: "it's still a landmark recording because it is of the rock, R&B, blues ... musical tradition." And ''"American musicologist Gilbert Chase asserted that the album 'marked a high peak in hard rock.'"[116]What's contentious? Are you disputing psychedelic rock? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:09, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I'm the one that cited "hard rock". And no, being of the blues tradition does not make it a blues album, Duh. Rhythm and blues is of the blues tradition, that doesn't make it blues. That's using the source to support something it doesn't explicitly say (WP:NOR). And let me reiterate my other point since you didn't respond to it: "...fact that an obituary column for Noel Redding is the source cited to support 'psychedelic rock', yet he did not remove that." Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dan56: I just mean your personal threshold for when you are satisfied that the sources support the inclusion (or removal) of a genre. Do you go to an article with a genre in mind and then search for sources to support it? Because it really should be the other way around: you should review the preponderance of sources about the topic and then list the genres that they agree on. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:13, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Actually, if you look into the archived discussion when IPs were vandalizing this article, I was reverting one that kept adding "acid rock" without adding a proper source, so as a compromise, I found one for him. Dan56 (talk) 01:14, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan, I think you are just being WP:TEDIOUS for spite. Does this change your mind? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:21, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this is worth, but as you asked...I'm old enough to have been there when the album was new and we (Hippies that is) would have called it Acid Rock or Psychedelic Rock. But, in the final analysis, music genres are often rather subjective. WQUlrich (talk) 01:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * This is pretty much the point I was trying to make. You will find music journalists that call albums all kinds of genres. In the end, if you have 50 sources or 100, you have to use what the majority of them agree on. It's subjective even among experts. What I would like is for Dan56 to concede that GabeMc has reviewed way more sources about this subject and probably has a better idea of what the genre listing should be. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:22, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Uhm, I would but I was the one who originally used DeRoragatis when I started that section weeks ago and used that specific quote In your trimming, GabeMc, you removed it. Don't know why you'd dig it up again. Dan56 (talk) 01:24, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * If only we had a source that specialized in music, and that stated that this album was a highlight of the genre of acid rock. http://www.allmusic.com/style/acid-rock-ma0000012327 does just that, although it doesn't have prose and the prose at http://www.allmusic.com/album/are-you-experienced-mw0000537390 doesn't support any genre. Other than that, I can't really find anything that GabeMc might find as musicologist-approved to support the genre. However, to state that the writer at the Miami Herald, unlike The Guardian isn't sufficiently professional because of WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES or any other criteria is a bit lame. What's lamer is to edit war over this when the article was previously locked for such an event. I would argue that the source should stay, but that the genre should not be included in the infobox as it is a minority opinion.
 * Disclaimer, . Looking back at Dan56's mos recent 1000 edits, I don't see any articles that we've worked on together, and to the best of my knowledge, I haven't much to do with him except to voice my opinions as I did in December 2012. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * I've always been pretty hesitant to use allmusic as a source for anything when there are any other reliable sources available. I don't remember where I read it, but they use a metadata source for their genre listings that's not really any form of journalism or serious music research. -- Laser brain  (talk)  01:40, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * The genre cloud on any given article is not a reliable source. That wasn't a genre cloud feature though. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Dan, not everything you contend needs to be immediately removed. You get fixated on the exact language: "This album is XXX rock", but can you find me a source that explicitly says all four Beatles were male? GabeMc (talk&#124;contribs)  01:28, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Uhm, don't know what you're saying. In my previous comment, I was merely saying that you had removed DeRogatis' characterization of this album as "psychedelic rock". Dan56 (talk) 01:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Dan, you argued about "Remember: being an R&B song even though no sources disagree. You are being a control freak; I'm not even through GA with the article yet. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:37, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

I try to understand Dan, but cannot find any rational explanation for disturbing other editors while they attempt to improve articles to certain criteria. I believe Gabe is skillful editor who knows to evaluate the sources according to their weight and reliability. I agree with every word of Walter Görlitz, that both journals should be used in the article as reputable media sources, but I certainly don't approve listing every genre that is found on the Internet.--Вик Ретлхед (talk) 10:03, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Correct. The infobox is supposed to be a summary of the article. A discussion should be had about this genre in the article, but it seems that it would be one sentence and be supported with one reference. Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:51, 24 January 2014 (UTC)


 * Bottom line: none of my sources describe Are You Experienced as an "acid rock album", and neither of Dan's Allmusic links do either. So, pending the discovery of a high-quality source or two that explicitly describe the album as acid rock, the genre will not be included. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:43, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Whew! Frankly, I think both of you guys expended way too much energy on what is, basically, a trivia question. And you seem to have forgotten something very important: Neither one of you really has the final word. In a few months, weeks or even days, someone will come along, change it, and you'll be right back to square one. My advice?...You're not getting paid to do this. Relax! Enjoy! A little bit of contention is part of the fun, but...sheesh. WQUlrich (talk) 23:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Lead, etc.
Again, great work. However, a small point. I'm not sure how else to word it, but "the album featured Hendrix's R&B-based, distortion-and feedback-laden psychedelic electric guitar" (my italics), doesn't sit well. One of the revolutionary aspects of the album is that it established a whole new guitar (and musical) vocabulary. True, up to AYE, Hendrix played mostly R&B-style music, which is reflected in "Remember", and possibly "May This Be Love" and "The Wind Cries Mary". However, the guitar in "Purple Haze", "Love or Confusion", "I Don't Live Today", "Third Stone from the Sun", "Are You Experienced" really takes it further. "R&B-based" in the opening just sounds restrictive. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:24, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * It's a work in progress, but thanks for your input. I imagine the lead will look quite a bit different when I finish with my copy edit. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:34, 10 January 2014 (UTC)
 * OK, I see, you're taking this to FA. Another small point — "[Chandler] encouraged Hendrix to start writing; he composed his first song the following day".  For a different angle, see Shadwick p. 80: "[Hendrix] continued to compose new tunes so that The Blue Flames were not just a cover band. People around him at this time remember Hendrix playing embryonic versions (or at least portions) of 'Third Stone from the Sun', 'The Wind Cries Mary', and 'Remember' in addition to 'Red House'... Linda Keith said that when Are You Experienced was first released none of the tracks were a complete surprise to her, because most featured riffs, patterns and ideas she'd first heard in Greenwich Village that summer".  Also interview p. 102: "I've written about 100 songs [in NY]..." (anecdotal, but an indicator that at least he thought he was working on songs earlier).  Although strictly speaking they are instrumentals, he did get composer credits for "Hornets Nest", "Knock Yourself Out", "No Such Animal" while with Knight (in an early club recording, Knight announces "Drivin' South" as a song Hendrix wrote, although Knight aka McNear later filed for the copyright). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:32, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, its correct to state that Hendrix attempted a few songs pre-England, but the preponderance of sources do not regard them as full compositions, as none of them are extant. He didn't write any lyrics with Knight, who included his name to sell more records. Its a tedious point, IMO, but I'll refrain from calling "Stone Free" his first song, but it remains the first Hendrix song with lyrics that we know about.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:42, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Keith's recollection or something to the effect be worth a mention as background? (Shadwick apparently did.) That was the purpose. —Ojorojo (talk) 18:46, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * No, I really don't think that mentioning songs that have nothing to do with AYE in this article is appropriate, except maybe in an endnote. The topic of this article does not extend to things Hendrix wrote prior to arriving in England. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:55, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I've added the info about Hendrix's first songwriting credits as an endnote. Thanks for your comments! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:01, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Maybe some confusion was caused by adding the aside about non-AYE pieces, so they have been struck. —Ojorojo (talk) 20:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * My thinking is that, although elements of songs that appear on AYE were no doubt in Jimi's bag of tricks prior to arriving in England, the final arrangement of these parts into compositions that were recorded still constitutes songwriting. After all, if I sit down to write a song now, it will no doubt contain pieces of stuff that I already play, since few writers avoid what they already know when writing. Do you think I should add the bit from Keith? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:48, 27 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Specific AYE songs are mentioned, Keith was certainly there — it's worth a brief mention. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:49, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * RE: "Linda Keith said that when Are You Experienced was first released none of the tracks were a complete surprise to her, because most featured riffs, patterns and ideas she'd first heard in Greenwich Village that summer." Well, for one Keith isn't a musicologist, so I'm not sure what value her recollection of having heard generic R&B and blues motifs used by Hendrix in New York has. Secondly, "Red House" isn't really an original number so much as a re-write of Elmore James' "The Sky is Crying" and "Remember" is a stock R&B number that several authors have said could be an Otis Redding B-side; i.e. the motifs used in the song are quite generic and common in R&B. The melody of "Third Stone" is really a Wes Montgomery rip-off; its the same with "Mary", but the progression is Curtis Mayfield style. I don't doubt that there is something to her comment, Egan goes into this point in some detail, but there is no verifiable way of saying: "Hendrix wrote much of this song at an earlier point". Also, this kind of detail strikes me as inappropriate for an overview article about AYE. This is fine detail regarding the individual songs that seems more appropriate at the dedicated song articles, assuming it could be properly sourced. I don't think we should use Keith's comments as a way of declaring that every song on the album had roots in earlier Hendrix compositions. Lastly, presumably, when Keith saw Hendrix play in New York he was not playing original songs; he would have been playing strictly covers of blues and R&B numbers, which perhaps speaks to the fact that the entire album is built on a blues and R&B foundation. I too can hear R&B style riffs and motifs in just about every song. Thanks for your comments BTW; you certainly know your Hendrix, so I hope you continue to give me advice. Cheers! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:23, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
 * "Strictly covers of blues and R&B numbers"? Not according to Roby, McDermott, Shadwick, Shapiro, Cross, etc. (specific refs in the Blue Flames article). —Ojorojo (talk) 16:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misspoke. He would have been performing a few Curtis Knight originals and possible an instrumental or two that he wrote; I forgot that Keith first saw him when he was playing with Knight, but still 1) Keith is not a musicologist, and b) That Hendrix used generic blues and R&B motifs that would later turn-up on AYE is not a verifiable way to state that various AYE songs were written in the States. What exactly are you suggesting here, because I'm unsure what you want me to write? Are you aware of reliable sources that explicitly states that song "X" was written prior to his arriving in England? Or is this just Keith's vague recollection that the music on AYE was not that far from what she heard him play in the States? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:22, 31 January 2014 (UTC)

First, my comments (and those of the sources) are referring to Hendrix's performances in Greenwich Village with Randy California and the Blue Flames; apparently he neither performed there with Curtis Knight nor other R&B groups, so they are not talking about "generic blues and R&B motifs" (I struck the aside about the instrumentals for clarification). Biographers discuss several musicians who saw Hendrix in the Village who have identified techniques and material later found on AYE which were in various stages of development at the time Chandler first saw him — Bloomfield described hearing "getting every sound I was ever to heard him get"; Kulick recalled a "primitive version of 'Third Stone'"; California identified an original Hendrix composition "Mr. Bad Luck" that the Experience later recorded; Keith recognized "riffs, patterns, ideas she'd first heard in Greenwich Village" (i.e., the Blue Flames mixed bag, not Curtis Knight's R&B repertoire) (again, specifics are in the Blue Flames). Evidently, these sources were seen as reliable by the Hendrix biographers that used them. How you choose to present this and who to quote is up to you, but I wouldn't dismiss "Third Stone" or "Red House" as rehashes. Hope this helps. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:25, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, all I meant was that when Keith first saw Hendrix play, he was performing at the Cheetah Club with Curtis Knight. Anyway, I still don't even know what you think I should add. All that stuff above is excessive background detail pertaining to things Hendrix did before going to England. I think the background section is detailed enough as it is, but if you can give me a more specific idea of what you want added I might be able to satisfy your concern. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:03, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Apparently, these sources clash with your notion that a strictly-R&B sideman was transformed into Jimi Hendrix in the hands of Chas Chandler or that anything he developed earlier was just derivative (OR?). Well, at least "he composed his first song ['Stone Free'] the next day" has been corrected; the rest can be addressed later. —Ojorojo (talk) 19:10, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * No need to get snarky, ; you are misunderstanding me here. 1) The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth, and at least three or four high-quality sources claim that "Stone Free" was his first written song. So while I'm sure that it wasn't, how can we source that he wrote any of the AYE tracks pre-England? 2) What source says this explicitly? You still havn't succinctly told me what it is that you think the article should say about this point. As a guitarist who can play every single song on AYE (I learned "Red House" when I was 16), I can tell you that even "Purple Haze" is constructed using R&B/blues motifs. What exactly is so notable about Keith thinking that some of the material was not 100% original, and how do we use her criptic comments to source material regarding song authorship? I'm really not opposed to adding something regarding this point, but you are being quite vague, IMO. And FTR, its not OR to say that "Remember" and "Red House" are derivative works, not at all. Anyone who knows enough about blues and R&B knows this, and the sources agree with me. Do I really need to waste time digging this up to prove it to you, or can I spend that time improving articles? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:22, 1 February 2014 (UTC)

infobox image
I know that the cover is a bit dark, but the infobox image of the front of the cover has a poor resolution and so it is disappointing. It should be possible to get a better resolution image about 300px x 300px. Snowman (talk) 20:17, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll see what I can do; thanks for taking a look! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:23, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have the reissue double LP "Are You Experienced" / "Axis Bold as Love" on Polyador. I think that the front cover might be the same as the original, except for "Polyador" stamped in one corner and "2 set LP" stamped in another corner, so it is probably no use for this article. Note that in the current infobox image there is an excessive distance between the "D" in "are you experienced" on the right side of the image and the edge of the image cuts through the "E" in "Experienced" on the left hand side. On my LP cover this writing is symmetrically placed with letters of "Are You Experienced" approaching to about 2-3 mm from the outer margin of the cover on both the right and left. Snowman (talk) 20:36, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I have just noticed that the image File:AreyouexpUK.jpg has very poor documentation and no known source. Probably, the simplest thing to do is upload another fair-use authentic image of a front cover and then have the poor quality image deleted. Snowman (talk) 20:40, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I agree, but I'm not finding any better ones online, and my scan was much worse at 600dpi. Any suggestions? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:59, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * If you have the LP, can you photograph it and then process the image to get it down to the right size? Snowman (talk) 21:04, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't have the LP, and I'm a lousy photographer anyway. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:11, 1 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Even a scan of the CD cover would suffice, apart from size, they would be identical. FunkMonk (talk) 22:31, 2 February 2014 (UTC)
 * I tried that, but at 600dpi it looked much worse than what's there now. This is a copyrighted image, so shouldn't it be of a low-quality anyway? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  00:33, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Small size doesn't necessarily have to be low quality. What about a cropped version of this? FunkMonk (talk) 00:55, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Shall I resize the image to 300x300? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:00, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but crop it first,so you don't lose stuff unnecessarily! FunkMonk (talk) 01:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh, I just noticed that this is not the original UK cover, which di dnot include Jimi's name at the top. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  01:15, 5 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Whoops! Well, I bet there must be a suitable image on Google somewhere. FunkMonk (talk) 01:34, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Protection
I have protected this page for 24 hours while the content dispute is ironed out here. --John (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * As protection is about to expire, can I remind folks that I will not look kindly on a continuation of the edit war that made it necessary. I will warn once then block for even one revert. The main players have already been warned and will go straight to a block. Instead, the discussion above needs to be finished off and brought to a conclusion. I don't care what conclusion you all reach, but I do care if any kind of edit warring resumes. Don't do it. --John (talk) 17:53, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Hear hear. And/or the article will be fully protected for a while. You know, Hendrix would be laughing his butt off over this, and would say hey, don't you have anything better to do? Like make love? Drmies (talk) 21:01, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , what do you think of the proposed compromise? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And mine? lol . Dan56 (talk) 21:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm here (in this section) as an officially uninvolved admin. Moreover, the Berkeley concert has been in rotation most recently, so I'd need a refresher. Instead, let me offer you this: why would you fight over one rather esoteric quote (I just mentioned that in the section above) when Christgau wrote at length on the topic in Grown Up All Wrong? My counter proposal is to find, like, you know, a different way. Drmies (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I looked at Christgau's book for exactly three seconds before finding an error. He cites "Sunshine of Your Love" as preceding Hendrix; too funny! GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And this is why no one really wants to discuss things with you. Christgau's point is that in comparison it doesn't stand up to Are You Experienced; he's not making a point about chronology. Too funny, indeed. Drmies (talk) 01:37, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Why is the British edition listed in the infobox?
Shouldn't it be the US edition at the top since Hendrix was from the US? Or are there guidelines for this? Twyfan714 (talk) 03:15, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The LP was first released in the UK. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ahh! Got it! Twyfan714 (talk) 16:34, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

Unexplained removal
Why was this review quote removed from the "Reception and legacy" section? Dan56 (talk) 17:21, 21 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Bob Christgau is an absolutely terrible source for music that is at all hard or heavy, and due to the fact that he has made numerous disparaging comments about the related genres I think his bias precludes him from being used at this article for critical commentary. 2) He was quite vocal in his dislike of Hendrix, so this review seems to be a pathetic way to save face; he's backtracking so the meaning is lost. 3) You cannot continue to go around to every single article and demand that they include a review from Christgau. You are POV pushing and if I didn't know better I'd swear that you either worked for Bob or you are Bob. 4) The "review" is exactly three sentences long, which is not at all serious critical commentary. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  17:31, 21 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 1) Christgau is one of the most notable critics in rock ("eminent rock critic", said The New York Times, "preeminent rock critic", said several writers, "the rock critic's rock critic", "Along with presenting reviews of music from all genres, Christgau insightfully and tersely analyzes the cultural or aesthetic significance of many hard-rock and heavy metal recordings.") Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 2) To address your suspicion that Christgau dislikes Hendrix--apart from him being "appalled" by Hendrix's performance at the Monterey Pop Festival (is this what's been misconstrued as Hendrix-hate?), almost everything he's written since then about Hendrix has been positive, including his "back catalogue" reviews for Blender and the majority of Hendrix's discography in his Consumer Guide reviews. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 3) The review quote had been in this article since before November of last year--you cant go around articles removing perfectly appropriate critical sources without a reason in your edit summary and act outraged or whatever when someone challenges your removal. And you've recently admitted how you feel about Christgau--"...lame blurb-cruft from someone who does not understand anything about rock guitar..." Dan56 (talk) 00:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * 4) The length of the review is irrelevant, since we're boiling down and paraphrasing the most important part in one sentence, whether it's a terse column review or a chapter from a book. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * This is actually quite a common situation on Wikipedia where we have a choice of sources to include. It has to be down to editorial discussion. I see from the central discussion that Christgau is known for writing very short reviews. Dan56, is there a reason you are adding these reviews to many albums? --John (talk) 19:28, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, the same reason AllMusic's reviews are added to almost every album article--these reasons were outlined at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Albums. Dan56 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The problem isn't so much that Dan adds a Christgau quote to every single article that he edits, its that its for the sake of adding it, not that it brings anything to the article. Also, using Christgau to explain hard rock or metal is like asking a skinhead what they think of ethnic Jewish music. Christgau is a self-avowed jazz fan who is on record disparaging this kind of music. Also, the business that you can gain consensus with your friends at an album project and then dictate content at an article page where that discussion has not taken place is absurd. John, you asked us to accept a voluntary IB, so how does Dan's continuation of his edit warring here work with that agreement? Now Dan will canvass three or four editors who never edit here to support his position, thus bullying yet another article into his will. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:33, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Also, Dan's approach is basically that no editors can ever remove anything that he added, but if they do then he will attempt to exhaust them while recruiting Wikibuddies to sway the discussion, hence my accusations of meatpuppetry. In the next few minutes several editors with a history of working with Dan will show up here supporting anything he wants, which is classic WP:MEAT. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:37, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * OK, let's leave the ad hominems for a moment and pretend we are all the best of pals discussing this over a small beer in a Paris cafe. Dan56, do you see why your additions are being seen as unhelpful? There is no Wikipedia guideline (that I know of; tell me if I am wrong) that says we need to add Christgau or AllMusic reviews to all music articles. --John (talk) 20:11, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Articles should provide an overview of the common interpretations of a creative work, preferably with citations to notable individuals holding that interpretation. Verifiable public and scholarly critiques provide useful context for works of art." (WP:SUBJECTIVE). As the discussion currently taking place at WP:ALBUMS' talk page continues to show, Christgau is clearly a notable individual holding the interpretation in the quote GabeMc removed. Btw, since Gabe recently responded at that project talk page, and since he has expressed the view that Christgau is an inappropriate source at other album articles/discussion, might it be more appropriate to discuss this at WP:ALBUMS? Otherwise, this anti-Christgau argument can be argued by him elsewhere--"an absolutely terrible source for music that is at all hard or heavy", which makes this an issue broader than just this article. Dan56 (talk) 20:44, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * The simple points are that not every article needs a quote from Christgau, who is not the best source for every single music article on Wikipedia. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'd really like to know what problem you have specifically with "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as "a roiling sea of guitar" that influenced the way in which "a generation of fans heard music". A consensus at WP:ALBUMS (unsolicited comments from project members who edit album articles of various genres) found him to be a more-than appropriate source here. Dan56 (talk) 21:21, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I absolutely require you both to stop commenting at all here about each other. You are welcome to discuss your individual dispute at my page. We need to keep this area for discussing improvements to the Are You Experienced article. I've redacted part of each of your posts which broke talk guidelines. Please, both of you, stop this bickering here. --John (talk) 21:35, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * With the issue of whether or not Christgau is an appropriate source for music that is "hard or heavy" settled at WP:ALBUMS' talk page, what problem do either of you (if that's the case) have specifically with "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as 'a roiling sea of guitar' that influenced the way in which 'a generation of fans heard music'." Looking at secondary sources covering each critic, he appears to be a more notable critic than Noe Goldwasser and as much notable, if not more than, Charles Shaar Murray--the other two in that paragraph, neither of which have been "trim"med out. Is it Christgau's diction, grammar, what? in this quote? Dan56 (talk) 22:43, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Goldwasser founded one of the most widely read guitar magazines in the world, and he knows Hendrix's music inside and out as both a musicologist and a guitar player. He served as the series editor of the Hendrix Transcriptions that transcribed and analyzed every single note on Jimi's three studio albums, including bass and drums. Charles Shaar Murray is one of the most respected UK music journalists of the last 50 years and the author of arguably the best scholarly analysis of Hendrix's music ever published. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  22:48, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * You know, the discussion at WP:ALBUMS' talk page cited several secondary sources from me and one from about Christgau, none of which I see have changed your dislike of him. Regardless, I don't see how any of what you said (verifiable or not) proves my previous remark untrue. And it definitely hasn't answered it--so I'll ask again: What problem do you specifically have with the "Reception" section continuing to include "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as 'a roiling sea of guitar' that influenced the way in which 'a generation of fans heard music'." Dan56 (talk) 22:59, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , this is a blatant canvass as I predicted earlier, since Wasted hasn't edited here recently, and by that I mean never. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:02, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * That's the third time you've avoided my question: What problem do you specifically have with the "Reception" section continuing to include "In a retrospective review for Blender, the music critic Robert Christgau described Are You Experienced as 'a roiling sea of guitar' that influenced the way in which 'a generation of fans heard music'." Dan56 (talk) 23:04, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:IINFO. You aren't arguing to include Christgau because he offers so much to the article—your position isn't content improvement oriented—you are demanding that he be including based on his notability, not the value of the actual material you are pushing. As JG66 said, its "Christgau for the sake of Christgau" with you, and its doesn't seem to matter if actually improves article. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  23:10, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * But you're the one whose points of excluding the quote were credibility-related, not that the quote is a detriment to the section's prose. And I've addressed your concerns about Christgau's appropriateness, with reliable secondary sources to boot, as well as a consensus for Christgau's appropriateness as a source for criticism on "music that is at all heavy or hard", as you put it (WP:ALBUMS (Robert Christgau as a source for "hard or heavy" music?). A lot of bending over backwards, but you're still stubbornly defending your removal and being difficult with something as simple as a one-sentence review quote from one of the most reputed critics in rock music, removed from what is now a two-line paragraph in a short reception section. Dan56 (talk) 23:52, 22 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "Editors, instead of simply declaring something to be 'cruft', should take care to explain in their rationale for deletion why they think the material should be removed." (WP:NOCRUFT) GabeMc: ""lame blurb-cruft from someone who does not understand anything about rock", "token name-drop". Dan56 (talk) 00:21, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Yep the review should be restored to the article, I see no logical reason for its removal, and Gabe's points have no reliable sources backing them. I still do not see why this needs to be discussed, Christgau is most certainly a notable, reliable reviewer and it always good to have retrospect reviews. STATic message me!   00:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I'm glad we got nothing better to do. Christgau's reviews are terse and sometimes to the point; this one hits the mark, IMO (OR, of course). I am not in favor of adding them all over the place, but if they contribute something, as it does in this case, I don't see why not. That it should be item no. 1 in a paragraph is disputable. But really, this is all quite silly. Policy will not decide one way or another, and it can easily be argued that a really short review/remark shouldn't be given the weight that other, longer reviews get. From a practical point of view I don't care which one of you wins; perhaps you should consider an RfC to settle it. Or maybe an ArbCom case. And I dedicated that remark to the girl in third row with the yellow underwear. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Can't say I see a strong policy-based reason to remove the quote, but I do agree that it's crufty and adds little if anything of substance to the article. From a strictly editorial standpoint (if I were primary editor) I wouldn't include it. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Okay so I read this whole argument and it was relatively hard to decide but i'm going to have to (surprisingly haha) agree with StaticVapor (and Dan56) on this one. Why would you remove his review if he's a credible reviewer? It feel's as if there's more of a personal bias coming from Gabe rather than Dan even thought it's continually insisted that Dan is trying to include Christgau's input in every reception section. It makes more sense to leave the review rather than take it away from a rather empty section just because it annoys you that he likes Chrisgau as a reviewer. BlaccCrab (talk) 03:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My views would align pretty much with BlaccCrab really. Sorry Gabe. Cherry-picking reviews is harder to defend than being overinclusive...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 03:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , if you think that I'm cherry-picking then you should re-read the section. I added an especially scathing review that called the album a "violent piece of junk". I'm not cherry-picking anymore than any editor who makes choices about what to include and what not to include. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Sorry, bad choice of word, but I meant it could appear as such - would a compromise be to just add that he gave a positive review? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, I suppose that would. That's a great suggestion, since my issue is with the emptiness of the statements. Perhaps something like: "In 2005, Robert Christgau gave the album a favorable review", or similar? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Exactly. the quote itself is not hugely memorable. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 18:34, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Curly Turkey, above, succinctly expresses a view that coincides with my own. The sentence in question gets the name of the album wrong, but that could be fixed easily enough. Does the addition add anything, though? Like Curley Turkey I take the view that it doesn't, and at 77,000+ bites we have here a pretty long article without further lengthening it. Tim riley (talk) 10:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Well for one, it introduces the theme of the second paragraph--"retrospective review", the influence of its guitar sound, how listeners hear music differently because of it, etc. Secondly, there is a drawn-out "Recording" section and a "Music and lyrics" section that doesn't use summary style effectively, because of unnecessarily details on songs that already have Wikipedia articles of their own. The "Reception" section, unlike those sections, doesn't need a trim as it is noticeably short and inadequate, especially considering the ratings template, which supplement nothing now because none of the reviews from it are mentioned now. However, the length of either sections should hardly matter when it is one sentence being discussed, one sentence which was included in this article when it was being reviewed for FA, where there was no voice of concern for either the length or this sentence. Dan56 (talk) 10:37, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I must admit, I am not familiar with Christgau or his expertise in the field of rock music but I see no benefits in including this quote here as there seems to be plenty more where this came from. If a piece of information exists then it doesn't necessarily mean that it should be added.  I think the article has enough journalistic view points as it is and it is more than capable of standing up on its own without having this quote in it.  IMO, nothing would change in terms of quality if this quote were to be omitted.   Cassianto talk  10:59, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * , how can a skimpy paragraph citing two journalists equal "plenty more where this came from"? Per MOS:ALBUM, "the way that the album affected the cultural consciousness of a society or culture should be included to further establish notability." → quote: "influenced the way in which a 'generation of fans heard music'". Furthermore, it is a "notable individual holding that interpretation" (WP:SUBJECTIVE), and his expertise has been established in past discussions, including this most recent one. Also, unlike the other two journalists cited in that paragraph, Christgau's quote is from an actual review: "For older albums, try to include not just contemporary but also some more recent reviews." (MOS:ALBUM) Dan56 (talk) 11:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * sentence is just as skimpy. Secondly, I don't know who, how or when this quote was added but it is not for Gabe, Tim, me or anyone else to justify its removal, it is you who must justify its inclusion. It is imperative that we don't turn this article into a quote farm and add cruft to cruft, just because it exists.  Like I said before, they are my reasons for opposing and not because of Christgau himself, a chap whom I know nothing about.  Cassianto talk  20:16, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Can someone sum this up in one sentence for me, while I watch Pakistan DESTROY Australia. Thanks.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 11:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

It's a review from a respected rock music critic. I don't think this reception section is overly long and we're talking about one sentence. But what sways me is that this line has been included in the article since November. Dan isn't adding this new content now, out of the blue, it's been part of the article that lasted through hundreds of edits by Gabe over the past few months and is only being deleted now in March. This seems to be part of a personal dispute between the two editors that began in January until Dan backed off from editing this article.

Whether or not this review is included, it's important to note that, unless there are editing restrictions, all editors can work on any article...the primary author might not agree with all of their edits but that doesn't mean they are necessarily bad edits. Liz Read! Talk! 12:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What is a "roiling sea of guitar" and what does it mean to "change the way a generation of fans heard music"? Including this does degrade prose, IMO.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:03, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Is "roiling sea of guitar that changed the way a generation of fans heard music" better than "One of the most stunning debuts in rock history, and one of the definitive albums of the psychedelic era"?  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  16:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * They're certainly different, but both are right. I like Christgau's poetic brevity even when he's wrong, which isn't often, and he doesn't underestimate Hendrix's genius. Rothorpe (talk) 16:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

 * Casliber has suggested that as a compromise, we could simply mention that Christgau gave the album a favorable review. I agree with this as it resolves my concern that the actual content of the quote is crufty and it satisfies Dan's desire to cite a Christgau review.


 * Support
 * 1) Per Casliber.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  18:40, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * me, who suggested it. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 1) Nice one Cas! Agree.  Cassianto talk  19:57, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) An admirable suggestion. Gives the info in plain English. Thank you, Cas Liber. Tim riley (talk) 20:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 3) Is this meant to plug Christgau or improve this article? Great suggestion Cas liber as we don't need to mention anything more than that Bob appreciated the album. AstroMan67 (talk) 20:15, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 4) And Christgau aficionados know the whole gamut of Hendrix reviews are a click away from a particular album review. Rothorpe (talk) 21:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * 1) Dude, the point isn't to be inclusive for the sake of it. Leave the review as it is, which, , , , and  found appropriate. Dan56 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well,, and  said that it should be removed entirely. See, Dan, this is why you are disruptive, IMO; you cannot bring yourself to compromise and its your way or the highway on every dispute in which you participate, which are numerous.  GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:00, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well part of discussing is addressing others' points--they have yet to respond to my replies. Either way, as suggested, the section isn't "overly long and we're talking about one sentence", which you're being pretty adamant about removing, so I wont accept that lame finger-pointing argument. Furthermore, saying that "Christgau gave it a positive review" is already established by the Blender score in the ratings template, and I don't see how you can be satisfied with that type of prose but not an actual quote/paraphrase. Dan56 (talk) 19:08, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Discussion
 * 1) Gabe continues to try and smear my name during a content dispute  This is quite lame and distracting. You don't see me drudging up your past disputes, so I'd appreciate it if he'd do the same. Dan56 (talk) 19:13, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * 2) Dan56, specific reviewers aside, review sections are prone to be come laden with quoted segments of text at the best of time, which I think can be jarring - hence sometimes I do think we need to just note folks who review an article as postive/negative/whatever. Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 19:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes,, but if you've seen other FA articles, including GabeMc's Imagine (song), you'd find this three-line paragraph to be small potatoes. Furthermore, Christgau's quote in particular addressed "the way that the album affected the cultural consciousness of a society or culture", which "should be included to further establish notability." (MOS:ALBUM) That someone gave an album a positive review is a tame, self-evident, and unencyclopedic sentence. Dan56 (talk) 20:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , how about paraphrasing it further to something like "Christgau said that the intrinsic quality of the songs, which he described as a "roiling sea of guitar", influenced a generation of listeners' sensibilities and perception of music." Dan56 (talk) 20:09, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay so maybe "viewed it as a landmark album"? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:10, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well perhaps a bit more detail, and, like "viewed it as a landmark album that influenced the musical sensibilities of a generation of listeners "? Dan56 (talk) 20:14, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The album is something that everyone and his dog has written about over the decades—I can't imagine why Christgau should be singled out at all, let alone quoted when the quote is so lacking in substance. I'd much rather see something along the lines of: "Over the years critics and reviewers have recognized the album as a landmark, including X, Y, Z, Α, Β, and Γ", or something more snazzily-written.  Quotes like Christgau's, I think, shouldn't be quoted unless: (a) they're quoted by other sources; or (b) there is a dearth of reviews (not the case with any Hendrix album, obviously). Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:04, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Why do you feel it is lacking in substance? At least any more than "lyrically, inartistically violent" or "completely changed notions of what a guitar could sound like, or indeed, what music could sound like"? Neither elaborate on their sentiments any more than Christgau does. Dan56 (talk) 21:12, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * And for that reason I'd chop them, too. Seriously, Wikipedia articles—and especially pop-culture ones—tend to be far too quote-heavy, and far too many editors lack judgement in choosing appropriate quotes.  Kill 'em all, and let them beg for readmission. Curly Turkey (gobble) 21:29, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , what do you think of the proposed compromise? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I dislike the empty quote, but what I think is the real problem is cherrypicking Christgau at the expense of every other prominent rock critic who has likely had something to say about the album—WP:UNDUE applies, as does WP:FA? 1b: "comprehensive". So both solutions, I think, are unacceptible. Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:12, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

Restore the review quote?
Leave this review quote as it is please, which I,, , , , and found appropriate and supported. Should it be kept where it originally was? Thoughts from other editors who haven't weighed in? Dan56 (talk) 18:55, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't see any problem with it being on the article CFP2016 (talk) 19:22, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * What does a "roiling sea of guitar" even mean? Roiling is the present participle of roil, which means "make (a liquid) turbid or muddy by disturbing the sediment". Does this mean that AYE is a mudding ocean of water? I think Christgau is misusing this word, because I think that you could have a sea that is roiled or roiling, but a roiling sea seems like an incorrect use of a verb where one should include an adverb., is this a correct usage of this verb? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:24, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Rolling sea, adjectival use of present participle. Never seen waves rolling? You're under no obligation to like this kind of poetic writing, and it can be overdone, but I think Jimi might have appreciated the description, even if it's technically nonsense. Hear my sea a-rollin'! Rothorpe (talk) 20:18, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * , its not rolling, its roiling. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:20, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Damn this small-fonted laptop! Rothorpe (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Still, the imagery stands--turbulent, stirring up, etc. Extends to his sentiment about impacting listeners' sensibilities--stirred things up, etc. It's idiomatic, we know, but I've suggested a better paraphrase above. Dan56 (talk) 20:23, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "disquiet", "turbulent", the image is fairly clear. Now you're reaching for grammar? Really? Throughout this entire discussion, You've been applying a seriously unfair double-standard for this reviewer and quote in particular, which is really suspicious. Dan56 (talk) 19:31, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Its probably fine as an intransitive verb, but to be clear Christgau means that the album is "a turbulent sea of guitar". What does that mean? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:38, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "Roiling" here isn't used as a verb, so its transitiveness is of no matter. It's an adjective, and its use here is completely unproblematic. Whether it's addressing the songs of the album's essence or whatever is nitpicky. Yet the more I look at this very brief and...what's the word...transcendental? review, the less I see much reason to stick it in anywhere. (That's not so not to say I share in the sneering at Christgau's word choice as practiced below by GabeMc.) Sure, he's the frigging dean of rock critics, self-proclaimed or not, but that doesn't mean he always needs to be quoted. So mark me "meh, I don't care." Drmies (talk) 22:02, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, he's describing the intrinsic quality of the songs--"...their essence, a roiling sea of guitar that would change how a generation of fans heard music" (Blender review). You originally paraphrased the original quote down to "described Are You Experience as 'a roiling sea..." back in January. Dan56 (talk) 19:47, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * So, the review isn't talking about the album, but rather the songs on the album?!? Anyway, this is embarrassingly bad writing, IMO: " a roiling sea of guitar that would change how a generation of fans heard music and conceived their own blown minds." The album changed how people conceived their own minds, which are blown? Really? GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  19:51, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. "blows one's mind", an idiom--the music was shocking to listeners and changed how they viewed/perceived their own sensibilities, musical or otherwise. How is this any less clear than "inartistically violent" lyrics? Dan56 (talk) 19:58, 23 March 2014 (UTC)

Dan56's suggested compromise

 * As I suggested above, riffing off of 's suggestion in, how about "In a retrospective review for Blender, Robert Christgau viewed Are You Experienced as a landmark album that influenced the musical sensibilities of a generation of listeners"? This way it's more than the axiomatic "gave a positive review" and expresses the critic's sentiment without indulging in his poetic/idiomatic prose. Thoughts, , ? Dan56 (talk) 20:26, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * While I applaud your change of heart, Dan, I also have to wonder if this doesn't prove my point, that this was never about the actual quote so much as your insistence to cite Christgau. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:39, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Frankly I'm more bothered that none of the reviews cited in the ratings template are used in prose, since its purpose is to supplement the prose (MOS:ALBUM). But my appeal to Christgau's notability/credibility was mostly a response to your original points above to start this discussion. Otherwise, if it was the quality/relevancy of the prose/quote, I would have cited MOS:ALBUM#Critical reception earlier → "the way that the album affected the cultural consciousness of a society or culture", which I think Christgau's sentiment touches on. Dan56 (talk) 20:46, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm not seeing where that guideline says that you shouldn't have any ratings in the chart that aren't accompanied by actual prose from those reviews. The rev scores are optional, so why would using them require a quote as well? Are you taking the position that only Christgau relates "the way that the album affected the cultural consciousness of a society or culture"? Because we also have: Noe Goldwasser, the founding editor of Guitar World magazine, called Are You Experienced "a veritable textbook of what a musician can do with his instrument" and "the measure by which everything ... in rock and roll has been compared since."[152] According to music journalist Charles Shaar Murray, the album "completely changed notions of what a guitar could sound like, or indeed, what music could sound like."[153], which I think does exactly that. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  20:52, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * "the text may be supplemented with the template". It'd make more sense to discuss some of those five-star retrospective reviews, otherwise what's their purpose other than a neat illustration of how the album was received by critics who aren't mentioned--also begging the question: Christgau's words not acceptable, but his score is? That's one argument, but it's whatever at this point. I'd like to focus on whether or not my suggested paraphrase will suffice. Neither Murray's nor Goldwasser's quotes address the generation of listeners that Christgau argues the album affected. Also, if that's your argument, then how is "textbook of what a musician can do with his instrument" any different than "completely changed notions of what a guitar could sound like"? Dan56 (talk) 21:11, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That is in no way saying that its inappropriate to have rev scores from reviews that are not also cited in the prose. That is your own personal opinion so please stop pushing it at article talk pages. GabeMc  (talk&#124;contribs)  21:27, 23 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Ok, relax (?) Dan56 (talk) 21:30, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Thoughts on the compromise I suggested?--"In a retrospective review for Blender, Robert Christgau viewed Are You Experienced as a landmark album that influenced the musical sensibilities of a generation of listeners." No quote, paraphrasing just the idea., , , , , , and ? Yay/nay? Feel free to leave a support or oppose in bold, or just comment. , I know you said you'd chop other quotes in the section out, but I doubt Gabe would agree to that kind of compromise. Otherwise, is my suggestion reasonable? Dan56 (talk) 22:28, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I think they're both bad solutions, especially on a proposed FA. Why is Christgau given such WP:UNDUE weight?  What about a summary of all the other prominent rock critics since Hendrix's time?  I dislike the quote (because it's just so cookie-cutter "rock critic" babble), but it's the unbalanced weight put on one particular rock that makes the article seem less than comprehensive, which is a far more important issue (I wouldn't bother opposing the quote per se, much as I dislike it). Curly Turkey (gobble) 01:09, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't see how it's undue weight to paraphrase in one sentence one of the reviews cited in the ratings template from a notable individual holding that interpretation (WP:SUBJECTIVE). Christgau wasn't cherry-picked--his review had been included in the article from way back last year (and his Blender revscore even further back before I edited this article) into this March when the FA review concluded. I also don't understand your argument--who is Christgau taking the place of? Who has been removed in his favor? These are seriously high and dubious qualifications for what I'm starting to believe wouldn't be an issue if the reviewer's name wasn't Christgau. I don't know what your particular opinion of him is or of rock critics in general, but as questionable as we may sometimes find their criticism or choice of words, they are the ones for which this section is for. We're not writing a book on how great this album is, but how it was received by critics, contemporary and present. Dan56 (talk) 01:29, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * "who is Christgau taking the place of? Who has been removed in his favor?": I guess you missed the bit where I said we should have a list of prominent critics who see it as a landmark album—including Christgau. Why single out Christgau?  Yes, I realize he's not the only one quoted—my opinion extends to the others, as well.  Basically, I dislike the whole appraoch to the "Reception and legacy" section after the first paragraph.  I don't have time to properly review the article, though, or I would (although most of my feedback would be "non-actionable" griping coming down to editorial choices—I hate the sea of quotations and "best of" lists). Curly Turkey (gobble) 06:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Either compromise is fine (meaning, I don't oppose either) but I prefer Dan's version. Where now talking about the difference of a few words! Bottom line? One sentence in an article, one review among several other reviews, isn't worth this level of conflict. At some point, it becomes less about having Christgau's review and more about winning the dispute. Try to think of the big picture of the entire article, this sentence shouldn't be such a stumbling block. Liz  Read! Talk! 22:44, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support. Rothorpe (talk) 23:07, 23 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Support, although I don't have a problem with Christgau's language in the original quote. This most certainly was a landmark guitar-oriented album, and quoting notable critical reflections seems entirely appropriate, regardless of someone's quibbles with the precision of their language. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:52, 24 March 2014 (UTC)

how can we access the archive for this talk page?
It would be useful if, whenever Mizrabot (or whatever) begins archiving a page, the archive is automatically accessible. Where have all the past threads gone? JG66 (talk) 14:41, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Are You Experienced. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:
 * Attempted to fix sourcing 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 ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 20:48, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

CD releases
AYE was reissued on CD in 1993, during the controversial tenure of Alan Douglas. It included a new mix, extra tracks, and cover art. In 1995 after years of litigation, Hendrix's family gained control of his recording legacy. In 1997, the Douglas reissue (and those for other Hendrix albums) was superseded by CD releases supervised by Experience Hendrix (the family company). The original artwork and sequencing was restored for both the US and UK releases (both also added six extra tracks, so the US and UK editions have the same 17 tracks, although in a different order). For the last 20+ years, these have remained the official authorized CD versions of the original albums. Propose to remove the separate "1993 US CD release" and add a "CD releases" sections which includes this infomation (with refs). —Ojorojo (talk) 15:04, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * If it makes things less diffuse for the reader, it should of course be done. FunkMonk (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. Since this is a FA, a quick look-over would be appreciated. (BTW I have another Hendrix GAN if you're interested.) —Ojorojo (talk) 17:29, 30 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Saw it, will have a look if no one else takes it. I wouldn't want to hog all the Hendrix reviews, just like I've refrained from reviewing the latest Deep Purple album GAN because I already reviewed two other close ones from their discography... FunkMonk (talk) 19:22, 30 August 2017 (UTC)

TFAR
Today's featured article/requests/Are You Experienced --Gerda Arendt (talk) 12:58, 16 October 2018 (UTC)