WeenieCampbell.com
Country Blues => Weenie Campbell Main Forum => Topic started by: snakehips on December 13, 2007, 05:54:08 AM
-
Hi there !
Anyone heard much about a 3rd picture of RJ - supposedly holding a picture, alongside Johnny Shines (and possibly a woman too ?). Supposedly, someone will be releasing this photo next year ?
It might be mistaken for a supposed photo of RJ with his cousin or brother-in-law (or whatever)
Or perhaps it just isn't him ???
Anyone ?
-
Someone is writing an article about Johnson for Vanity Fair, publication date unknown. Supposedly, they have a 3rd photo purported to be Johnson.
-
Pete Guralnick, in Searching For Robert Johnson, describes a photograph that Mack McCormack showed him of Johnson standing with his nephew, who is in a sailor's uniform. He describes the photo extensively - two paragraphs of text - but there's no mention of either of the two holding a picture. So is there a fourth photo of Johnson?
-
The 3rd photo (or 4th, quite right about the McCormick photo, dj, I recall that as well) supposedly has someone reported to be Johnson holding a guitar, alongside another man who is supposedly Johnny Shines. From what I hear anyways. All unsubstantiated.
-
Something is niggling away in the back of my brain concerning Shines having been shown a photo which purportedly depicted he and RJ together but JS was non-commital. I think Shines died in 1992 so this would have been long before then. I suspect I'm one of the few who have absolutely no interest in the RJ "is it, isn't it" photo sagas so instantly expunged from memory. >:D
-
So this implies that there's a picture of Johnny Shines from the 1930s? I didn't know that one existed. That's something I'd like to see!
-
So this implies that there's a picture of Johnny Shines from the 1930s? I didn't know that one existed. That's something I'd like to see!
Assuming that what I've reported is correct, yes. But as implied I might be way off base with this, it could be totally different artist! Where does the Vanity Fair information emanate from? Who is the "somebody" writing the feature? I can't see VF (published since late 1800s) blithely printing a RJ photo without first having provenance verified and the subjects in same "authenticated" by somebody reputable. What the hell do I care anyway. This is the last from me on this, I promise. :) ;D
-
Dick Waterman mentioned the VF article and being interviewed for it, did not name the writer, and was shown the photo. The provenance was not discussed. He didn't commit to it being RJ, though did say, despite being very cynical about such things, that it could be him, but he was unsure about Johnny Shines. This was on the prewarblues list (someone forwarded the message from Waterman). He speculated that the article might come out next spring but didn't really know.
-
..and don't forget the RJ photo offered on ebay I think last Jan, for $750K
-
This is the one that was on eBay earlier in the year for $795k:
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fpic20.picturetrail.com%2FVOL1600%2F965874%2F1914455%2F220734850.jpg&hash=d38107d44601b6c823fc187effe389c4c393baf7)
-
Oh BH what a thing to say..... >:D I was beginning to think that I was the only occasional rebel as well ;)
-
The Vanity Fair article writer is supposedly Nick Tosches, who's written a lot of articles dealing with music and the counter-culture.
-
Whatever happened to the Nick Tosches article and the much touted never before seen Robert Johnson photo? Some comment was made that Vanity Fair was publishing it this summer '08, but a search of the VF website turns up no reference.
-
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fimg.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fv232%2Fsoulrevolution%2Frj.jpg&hash=ed6d8f99b01a17c2cbac8cb4e9a5c6e09e4b8ce7)
-
...er...no - I think that's John Robertson.... >:D
-
Searching for Robert Johnson (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/11/johnson200811)
photo of Johnson w/ Johnny Shines?
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2F2008%2F11%2Fcuar01_johnson0811.jpg&hash=3c6f0e22e50932be5a30ae9b9c88a2f0ea9ddde2)
-
My immediate reaction: The man on the right definitely doesn't look like Johnny Shines to me. Whether the man on the left is Robert is questionable. Vanity Fair magazine stated that this is a photo of the two, or a photo which may possibly contain Robert and Johnny?
After looking at the photo again: I noticed the copyright symbol and the Johnson surname. So, this is definitely Robert and Johnny?
-
It may be hard to tell, but the first line of Michael's post is a link to the online article. So, read it for yourself, eh? Then put your expert opinion into context.-G-
Edit - I've merged this with the previous topic.
All for now.
John C.
-
That fellow on the right looks nothing remotely like Johnny Shines in my opinion. Had the person that found this photo ever even seen a photo of Shines?
-
FYI here's the 3 supposed Robert Johnson photos...beats the heck out of me whether they're the same guy, but each seems blessed with loooong fingers...
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fmodernmask.org%2Fissue_iv%2Fimages%2Fjohnson1.jpg&hash=bb1273ce4259762cda6f52f75c4c4f1ebfdd0ea9) (https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fblog.hufsf.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2008%2F06%2Frobert_johnson.jpg&hash=381dfa56db69478229b99e50d66e8da2a5ea11d0) (https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.vanityfair.com%2Fimages%2Fculture%2F2008%2F11%2Fcuar01_johnson0811.jpg&hash=3c6f0e22e50932be5a30ae9b9c88a2f0ea9ddde2)
-
Yeah, that pic of Johnny Shines looks like a 20 year old. Everybody knows he looked like he was 80! I mean, he doesn't even have those trademark bags under his eyes and deep creases in his cheeks. Those old blues guys were always old blues guys, right? No body could get me to believe that Johnny Shines was every a fresh faced young kid. No way! Sprung full formed from the forehead of Zeus with a slide on his finger, I say.-G-
Uh, anybody Google Images of Johnny Shines?
All for now.
John C.
-
Here's a somewhat earlier pic of Johnny with Little Walter. Not such a stretch any more, eh? This would have been 15 to 20 years after the pic in question. High Forehead, high cheekbones, smooth complexion?
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.littlewalter.net%2FLWbullhorn.jpg&hash=bf3066576e1e9cfc12072998b5a1ae09406d7218)
All for now.
John C.
-
That's Sam Lawhorn. And the bullhorn was photoshopped in. The picture was taken by Ray Flerlage at Mandell Hall, U. of Chicago, May 20, 1966.
-
Different jawline, different forehead -- Shines had a distinctive hairline and eyebrows.
Check out the photo of a 26 year old SHines in the liner notes to "Johnny Shines 'Live' in Europe 1975."
-
Check out the photo of a 26 year old SHines in the liner notes to "Johnny Shines 'Live' in Europe 1975."
Any chance you could scan it and post it here for comparison?
-
If I had a scanner, I would, Pan. :D
But take a look at the guy in the Vanity Fair photo's forehead and then look at some photos of Johnny Shines. I've never heard of a man's hairline increasing with age! Also.. Shines had those "chipmunk" cheeks.
-
Does anyone know the provenance of the photo? How was it determined that this is Johnny Shines?
I'm currently pumping up the pixels to compare earlobes but my initial response is that the complexion is too light,
and the mouth to small, and the face too triangular and thin, even with the all too familiar corrections for age and corpulence.. The complexion IS just about right for Robert Jr. Lockwood however.
-
O'Muck, the picture was shown to Lockwood. He didn't recognize either person. You'd think if it was him, he would have said "Hey, that's me." Honeyboy Edwards saw it at the same time and with the same result: he didn't recognize either person.
-
If I may quote Nero Wolfe: "Pfui."
Chris
-
I think the original Ebay sellar of the picture had it right the first time, looks more like a young B.B. King to me.
-
Well, I guess if I had paid over $2000 for the photo, I'd be claiming it was Johnson and the Devil himself.
-
Zzzzzzzzz........hawwwwwwmmmmmmmnnnnnnh.....
Sorry did I miss something?
Anyone comes up with a picture of Ben Curry, or Kid Prince Moore, or... wake me up... :P
-
I'll gonna have to take a pass for now, but give me a heads up when the docudrama / miniseries is released on Blu-ray. :P
-
Sorry about that, Waxwing. I didn't even realize that there was a link to the Vanity Fair article there. As for the man on the right being Johnny Shines, he definitely isn't. He's missing the chipmunk cheeks, the semi-East Asiatic eyes, etc. Whoever said he looks more like a young B.B. than a young Johnny is correct. Mack McCormick (spelling?) supposedly has all kinds of information on Robert's death and all these pictures of him, if I'm not mistaken. I'd guess McCormick is in his eighties by now (?). Anyway, hopefully he or Wardlow or somebody will present the world some pictures of young Robert before the century is over. Honestly, I'd rather listen to some unreleased Johnny Shines recordings than see a third photo of Robert Johnson, but now I'm going off topic. I'd also love to see the complete video of Peter Guralnick interviewing Johnny.
-
I go along with David Evans - B.B. King and Willie Nix (l to r). When WILL the world get off this Johnson shit: there are SO many more important and influential artists. Not that there's anything wrong with RLJ's music... BUT it didn't sell jack in its day and took W.E. to make him a legend. It helped that he was long dead, too. Remember, when you put somebody up on a pedestal, you are really giving them the shaft!
yrs,
Peter B.
-
Thinking about this last night, two things surprised me about the Vanity Fair article. The first is rather obvious: Why didn't anyone show the photo to B.B. King? The second id maybe less so: Why wasn't an expert in historical fashion consulted in order to find some approximate date for the picture and thus establish whether the Johnson identification is a possibility? A prop guitar doesn't necessarily mean anything, as it could sit around a photographer's studio for years. But no self-respecting young man would be photographed in anything but the latest fashion, so fashion analysis should be able to provide a window of a few years in which the photo may have been taken. I'm not an expert, but I can't recall any pre-war photos of blues singers wearing those wide brimmed hats and baggy trousers. To me, they're dressed more like a couple of wartime beboppers.
-
Had the person that found this photo ever even seen a photo of Shines?
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say the guy that paid for this photo only knew of Shines from having read his name in the liner notes to the Columbia RJ boxed set. So anybody next to a guy who must be RJ (and anybody with long fingers must be RJ - come on!), must therefore be Johnny Shines. Jeez, do I have to explain everything?!?
Thinking about this last night, two things surprised me about the Vanity Fair article. The first is rather obvious: Why didn't anyone show the photo to B.B. King? The second id maybe less so: Why wasn't an expert in historical fashion consulted in order to find some approximate date for the picture and thus establish whether the Johnson identification is a possibility?
The last RJ craze (remember the film that was purported to have been RJ?) was de-bunked by Tom Freeland of Oxford, Mississippi - based on his knowledge of movies (he identified a movie poster in the backgroud as having been released in the 1940s - after RJ's death), so dj, your second question isn't as obscure as it would seem. Please do not distract the treasure hunters and myth makers with facts or rationality - it's such a bummer and it brings them so dooooowwwwwnnn.
Zzzzzzzzz........hawwwwwwmmmmmmmnnnnnnh.....
Nitey-nite... zzzzzz....
-
Al these discoveries of unseen Johnson film footage or photos smack of novice historical work & perspective to me. To not realize the sheer number of black musicians, the wealth of songs & culture even outside the remaining recordings & ephemera is disappointing. There's an underlying naivety, bordering on unintentional racism here too I find. Old photo of black man with or without guitar = Robert Johnson!!! How many of us, black or white, look similar in a suit & hat?
-
Yes, it borders on racism. It borders on making a strange, foreign oddity out of a black man who wasn't even famous in his home state, and died at the age of twenty-seven in 1938. There are plenty of Bluesmen who recorded even fewer songs that Johnson, with even less known about them. Boweevil Jackson comes to mind. Elijah Wald is right when he says that it was the Stones and American Blues researchers who put Johnson up on a pedestal. Skip James' vocals and music are more cryptic, Kokomo Arnold's slide is more amazing, and Johnny Shines' voice is much stronger. I love Robert Johnson's music, but I've grown tired of him being the only pre-World War II Blues artist that people care about.
-
I very much agree with you, cheapfeet. It's unfortunate that the Johnson stuff has to be the starting point for this photo, because it's an interesting photo in and of itself. If it had been approached from the perspective of "When and where was it taken? Who are the people? What does it tell us about african american culture and music?" I would have found the article, and the ensuing discussion, here and elsewhere, much more interesting. Unfortunately, there are a thousand people in the world who are going to care about this picture if it's a couple of anonymous guys from Memphis in 1942, and several million who will care about it if it's Robert Johnson.
-
I'm not an expert, but I can't recall any pre-war photos of blues singers wearing those wide brimmed hats and baggy trousers. To me, they're dressed more like a couple of wartime beboppers.
Fashion wise one?s only got to look at the post war photos of bluesmen contained in Mike Rowe?s Chicago Breakdown to see that those suits are of a later decade.
-
On the other hand, I do quite like that photo of Amy Adams on the VF cover...
Hard to tell from the web resolution of the "RJ" pic, and apparently the original isn't necessarily better, but that guitar does say mid to late '30s Harmony to my inexpert eye, on first impression. But according to the article it has no strings, tuning pegs are broken off etc. Sounds like a guitar that's been lying around somewhere a while that someone picked up to use as a photo prop.
Anyone recognize the guitar?
-
It looks like a Gap ad. >:D
-
When WILL the world get off this Johnson shit: there are SO many more important and influential artists.
Every time I read Eric Clapton say something like this -- "At first the music almost repelled me, it was so intense and this man made no attempt to sugarcoat what he was trying to say, or play? -- I wonder whether he's ever listened to Charley Patton, Willie Brown or early Son House?
Anyway, I'd be interested in having music and/or photos of Ike Zimmerman show up. Anyone who helped transform Robert Johnson from an annoying little kid to a guitar virtuoso must've been something else.
-
I wonder whether he's ever listened to Charley Patton, Willie Brown or early Son House?
He certainly listened to Blind Joe Reynolds, since he covered "Outside Woman Blues" with Cream.
Isn't there a photo of Zinnerman in the booklet to the RJ boxed set?
-
There was an Ike Zinneman story in a recent Living Blues, including photos and a fairly thorough biography. The writer tracked down Ike's surviving family (he died in the 60's, I think). Sorry -- don't have the magazine with me at the moment. I'm sure someone else can offer more details...
-
Here's a scan of the Ike Z photo from the Columbia Complete Johnson booklet. Sorry about the quality.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
so fashion analysis should be able to provide a window of a few years in which the photo may have been taken. [/quote]
I'm fairly sure that a good fashion historian (like at the Met's fashion dept.) would be able to pinpoint the year the suit was made, and maybe even who made it and where it was sold. The BB resemblance is strong as well as the persistent feeling that I've seen the guy on the right before. But where....where.
I was almost signed onto the Johnny Shines ID because of certain similarities in the structure of the mouth but the bridge of the nose is too wide, along with all the other differences.
Therefore I have concluded that the picture is actually of Adlai Stevenson and Eleanor Roosevelt.
-
This is probably a long shot, but I'll ask anyway: did Ike Z ever record anything?
-
Apparently not, unfortunately. Check out the back issue of Living Blues from February, 2008 (Issue 194). It's available through their website (www.livingblues.com).
-
After a further reevaluation of the the evidence, both photographic and phonographic, I am now convinced that it is a photo of Robert Johnson standing next to Robert Johnson.
-
I have yeti's body on ice! act now...goes to e-bay tomorrow.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I've been out of touch - whatever happened to the unquestionably authentic RJ guitar going for $6 million a while back?
tom
-
I'd just like to say that in Bob Dylan's autobiography, he talks about hearing Robert Johnson for the first time and thinking it was the most brilliant thing in the history of the world, while at Dave Van Ronk's apartment. When Dylan asked Van Ronk if Johnson was the greatest thing since sliced bread, Van Ronk just simply said something akin to, "He's very, very good. Maybe great. But there are much better players. I don't see the magic that you see in it, Bobby." Maybe somebody with the autobiography can give us the exact quote. If Clapton was repelled by Robert Johnson, he might die if he hears King Solomon Hill or Boweevil Jackson, not to mention some of the amazing African-American field recordings done by Lomax, of geniuses like Bama.
-
doctorpep - Check out this very interesting article by Elijah Wald:
Bob Dylan, Dave Van Ronk, and Robert Johnson (http://www.elijahwald.com/davdyl.html)
-
Interesting article by Elijah Wald. All artists are somewhat guilty of forming their tastes around their own capacities and inclinations, and even their sense of how their choices affects whatever persona they're choosing to project at the moment. In my opinion its a tendency that should be resisted. In order to really get the full meaning of a piece of music or a painting, or a work of literature, it is beneficial to suspend, to whatever degree its possible to do so, ones own criteria concerning the relevance or usefulness of the piece. Ideas of usefulness and cultural relevance are often assigned to artists as a result of the influence they exert on succeeding generations. This however is no
guarantee of any great intrinsic value in the work itself. There are certainly many examples of great artists whose work produced few if any followers. Bob had it right and Dave missed an opportunity to challenge and deepen his conception of the music he loved. But he missed very few of those and was a pretty good example of the kind of attitude I'm endorsing.
-
If Clapton was repelled by Robert Johnson, he might die if he hears King Solomon Hill...
Let's be fair, doctorpep. The key word in that sentence is "was". Forty some odd years ago, Eric Clapton first heard a blues record recorded in the 1930s. He'd never heard anything like it before, and like most of us, he was initially a bit conflicted - attracted, but at the same time not yet able to completely enjoy it because it was such a radically new experience. But, like the rest of us, he was soon drawn in completely. I'd been primed by listening to mid-sixties rock, then white blues bands, then the major Chess artists, B.B. King, and Memphis Slim, but I remember almost exactly the same reaction on first hearing Blind Boy Fuller and a Mississippi Blues compilation when I was 15. And, for that matter, when first hearing Ornette Coleman and Medieval music played on an Irish harp at about the same time. Heck, I felt the same way about my first cigarette and first bottle of beer.
I'm sure he's long since heard King Solomon Hill and Boll Weevil Jackson, and, at least up through the press date of this morning's newspaper, he's still alive. ;D
-
Dj, you're probably right. That quote from Clapton is probably many decades old. I just wonder why Clapton and Keith haven't raved about others in the manner they've raved about Mr. Johnson. Or have they, and it's just the media that chooses to quote them about Johnson?
-
B.B. King (1942 & 1946) in the b&w photos; mystery man in an enhanced shot of the Vanity Fair picture.
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldblues.com%2Fbbking%2Fprairie%2Fimages%2Fbb16.jpg&hash=bec1989db18156765ed170293f92fbe92c88ad15) (https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.worldblues.com%2Fbbking%2Fprairie%2Fimages%2Fbb19.jpg&hash=e9a4aff01ee0b2deb1b84c7cf0546d9dd2c4e0b3)(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi10.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fa102%2Fjackobob%2Frobertjohnsonjohnnyshines.jpg&hash=f50877c4e02da8f4d2a970d3fc201914a182421a)
Personally, I don't think the guy in the Vanity Fair picture is Robert Johnson or B.B. King.
-
I guess my general reaction is 1) it might be Johnson; 2) who cares?
But another angle that springs to mind is that we live in an era of Photoshop and other kinds of readily available sophisticated image manipulation. Maybe the picture is a fake or pastiche of some kind.
-
There was mention made of this new photograph in another blues related guitar forum some time ago during the anticipation of it's release. At the time, there was a comment that suggested the photograph was actually published in a local Arkansas newspaper, and the photographer worked for or was associated with the newspaper.
Efforts have not been succesful trying to retreive a copy of the newspaper from the time period.
Supposedly Johnny Shines confirmed this story, about RJ and himself in the photo, however we read that he did not recognize this photograph, so this all might be nothing more than speculation.
If it's BB King, he couldn't have beeen more than 13 at the time. I don't see any resemblance to Johnny Shines.
-
I just finished the article in VF about the photo. Zeke Schein (the discoverer, or owner) is certainly a "geek" in this situation, he's a guitar guy like a lot of us.
I think the man in the dark suit has very many resemblences with the guy in the earlier photos. If the earlier two pictures are Robert Johnson, than this guy could be also. I'm going by his left eye, and the long fingers, as well as the general resemblence.
It is important because it gives blues lovers something more to talk about.
-
I think the commentary on this photo has pretty much burned itself out. I followed the initial rumors with some interest, but the published result is a little underwhelming...and I find myself caring less and less. For what it's worth, aside from the ?long, spidery? fingers, I see very little in this photo to make me believe it?s Robert Johnson. (And certainly the claim that the second man is Johnny Shines does nothing to bolster the story.)
A couple things make me suspicious of the photo right away: 1) It was sold on Ebay, which isn't a bad thing in its own right. But Ebay and other auction sites have had their share of unfounded Robert Johnson ?relics? in recent years. 2) It came from Atlanta, with no known connection to Johnson or anyone who knew Johnson. If it had come from Mississippi or Arkansas, I might have been a little more curious. Indeed, the seller made no claim that there was a Robert Johnson provenance, and I am unaware of any connection the photo has had to a Johnson friend or relative. 3) Johnson's few remaining contemporaries, when asked, failed to identify either man.
I am also curious about why Johnson would have posed with what seems to be a studio prop guitar. Would he have needed to? And looking again at the guitar and those "long, spidery" fingers raises another question: in every photo of any old bluesman that I can think of (from Patton to Robert Petway to Joe McCoy to Peetie Wheetstraw to Clifford Gibson to Charlie Jordan to, yes, even Robert Johnson in his two known photos), the guitarist is clearly and purposefully fingering a chord. In this photo, the guy, whoever it is, is just sort of holding the neck of the guitar. This is a small, inconclusive detail, to be sure, but it?s another one that stacks up against this really being Johnson.
It is interesting to speculate. And I'll admit I am seduced by the appearance of a new photo of any old bluesman. But this one is a little hard to accept. I think if I had spent a couple thousand dollars on a photo, I would want to believe it was Robert Johnson, too. Ultimately, I am left with only the long fingers as the best evidence. And I'm pretty sure there have been many long-fingered men, of all races and ethnicity. Some of whom have played guitar, and some who haven't.
-
"...the guitarist is clearly and purposefully fingering a chord. In this photo, the guy, whoever it is, is just sort of holding the neck of the guitar."
It's hard to tell from the small, low res. on-line VF pic, but if you look closely, his middle and ring fingers appear to be bandaged, which would explain not being able to bend them to form a chord. (looks like bright lighting in areas, but the thickness of the first joint is exaggerated).
Zeke showed me copies of this pic a few years ago in NYC and it was more apparent and striking examining it up close.
Just speculation (all most of this is!) but he could have been in a brawl and had his guitar smashed... Seems in character.
Just to introduce myself; Brian Kramer (from B'klyn, now residing in Sweden...).
Working musician in the blues & roots field (and all the gray areas in between).
www.briankramerblues.com (if curious)
I dont do this forum stuff too often, and am rusty on the etiquette. Not to appear rude...
I think this is an amazing find and subject, whether it's RJ or not, the photo raises much more questions than it is being given credit for.
It is being written off way too quickly from most by what is being simply viewed on the surface.
-
Good point, Brian. There is a lot we can learn from this photo about late 1930s or early 1940s styles of clothing amongst then-young black males. The photo certainly provokes a lot of questions. I think that most of us are just generally dissatisfied with the Robert Johnson hype. He was a great singer and guitar player, but perhaps, as Elijah Wald MIGHT say, he should be chiefly remembered as a songwriter and an amalgam of a lot of artists who came before him. A week or so ago, someone posted an article in this thread about how Bob Dylan looked to Johnson chiefly for lyrical and songwriting inspiration, and almost ignored his guitar playing, which many young people say sounds like "10 people playing at once!". I should probably only speak for myself, but I think that, at one time or another, we all thought that Robert Johnson was the king of the Delta Blues singers (whatever that means), because of the hype that surrounds him. However, many of us are very serious Country Blues fans, collectors and even musicians, so we may be over that stage in our lives. I still love Johnson's music, but I just wish that mainstream media would devote a little time and energy to talking about that guy Johnson always traveled with. What's his name? Oh, Johnny Shines!
I hope I didn't come across as speaking for everybody, because I certainly have no right to do so. At any rate, welcome aboard, Brian!
-
Look at the eyebrows on the guy on the right. Very, very similar to the other B.B. pics recently posted, particularly the general line and asymmetry. Mouth too. I'll go with B.B. King.
The guy on the left's tie stripes are clearly too narrow, what were you guys thinking? The hands are right though, freakishly long digits.
-
(sigh) The fact that this kind of topic still sparks fascination in our ever-more-grayer matter continues to baffle me. Then again, so do many things. Anyway, I only took a month or so to get all the way through the VF article (Thank you, Mr. Chez) - which, believe me, is quite an feat for one who stopped reading shortly after eleventh grade. I have to echo Rivers' tie theory - it's clearly pre-Columbian. If I were ever to get serious about such a thing (and who's to say that it mightn't happen), I'd take that bottle away from the forensic physiopanegyrist and give it to Mr. Zeke: In those three RJ-touted pix are at least three noses - and only one of them belongs to the one known as RJ-no-hu. But hey, who's counting?
I dunno who the guy is on the right; maybe cropped-in Dr. Joel Foy - which reminds me, Rivers - he recently acquired your internet address from me at email-point!
Cheers,
Jed
-
Maybe Bunkerhill still has that other rare pic of RJ I sent him as card last Xmas. Bunker ???
-
Sorry to bring this crap up again but I recently listened to an interview with Zeke Schein (the guy who purchased the photo & the subject of the Vanity Fair article) on the otherwise great Down Home Radio show
(found here: http://www.downhomeradioshow.com/2008/10/interview-with-zeke-schein-a-new-photo-of-robert-johnson-comes-to-light/ (http://www.downhomeradioshow.com/2008/10/interview-with-zeke-schein-a-new-photo-of-robert-johnson-comes-to-light/))
& got sucked back into this debate . . . mostly because my blood was boiling as I listened to this cat declare that his immediate gut feeling was that the picture had to be of the most famous country blues singer in the world of course!
Here's an article by the VF writer Frank Digiacomo providing forensic analysis examples of the work done by Lois Gibson, seemingly to answer the online debate about the legitimacy of the photo
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/culture/2008/10/27/a-disputed-robert-johnson-photo-gets-the-csi-treatment.html (http://www.vanityfair.com/online/culture/2008/10/27/a-disputed-robert-johnson-photo-gets-the-csi-treatment.html)
I know, who cares anymore, but it just really bothers me that this kind of novice analysis & historical detective work is garnering so much attention. We'll probably have to wait another 5-10 years to read a published article about the many errors & inconsistancies used to authenticate this photo & the embarrassing fact that it's own make-believe steam got it all the way to the pages of Vanity Fair. Thankfully, I see that the comments sections to all this stuff is full of folks who doubt its authenticity as well.
I'm open to being wrong here, by the way. I would love for this to be a photo of Johnson, why not? But hearing this interview & reading the article I realize that this is really a story about Zeke Schein & how he really likes R Johnson & not about all of our desire to give this music it's rightful share of spotlight & understanding.
-
Yawn. Oh sorry are we back on this again....
Sorry to bring this crap up again
CF, you can't say that, you'll have the RJ fanatics taking out fawahs against you!
That said I have to admit found the analysis itself quite interesting and wonder what it cost? I expect BH could confirm that he also used a 13 gauge on the top string, a 16.2 on the second and wore pink BVDs?
Sorry, I'm ramblin' (on my mind) it must be the Prozac (again) zzzzzzzzzz
-
The main part of the problem is Robert Johnson is the only name that exists to the media. Vanity Fair isn't going to do a story about a guy obsessed with Lonnie Johnson, or Bo Carter or finding another photo of Blind Lemon or Peg Leg Howell.
Anyway CF, think of it as TMZ or whatever for the blues crowd. All Robert Johnson all the time.
I stopped listening to him for years. Now every 2 or 3 weeks or so, one of his songs pops up in iTunes and I can enjoy him again. He ain't bad. >:D
-
I stopped listening to him for years. Now every 2 or 3 weeks or so, one of his songs pops up in iTunes and I can enjoy him again. He ain't bad. >:D
I hear ya UB. One of the better aspects of all this hoopla is that I have been hearing R Johnson stuff again after having taken a long break from him. Despite the many caveats us hardcores use when appraising his talent, he was really amazing. I may have to reevaluate his stuff soon. If I had heard Patton in high school & not RJ, I don't think I would have been able to compute it. As crooked as RJ's playing seemed in those days, well I hadn't heard anything yet!
So, Robert Johnson was brilliant, this photo is bogus . . . I can shut up now.
-
Photo is definitely absurd, if for no other reason than that man is obviously not Johnny Shines. I'd like some more pictures of J.T. "Funny Papa" Smith or ANY picture of Richard "Rabbit" Brown. I had to put R.J. away for a while, too, Cheapfeet, and have recently come back to him. Elijah Wald does a good job of analyzing which R.J. songs deserve the praise they get and which ones are overrated.
-
Hi all,
I'm sorry to parachute in on this one - as a high-school convert to Johnson some 24 years ago, I can't help but find this stuff compelling. I'd also quickly add that whatever your take on RJ, he represents an incredible entree in to the world of country blues
Sorry to revivify this probably now long dead discussion (and do it as a first post), but there is one aspect that makes analysis of this further problematic: it being B.B King.
Whilst my initial reaction to (just) having see the photo was "wow... a young B.B King", beyond the theory that the image is somehow photoshopped (something I think VF might have investigated thoroughly before opening this can of worms) - the fingers are never going to be B.B's. Just as a man's hairline doesn't magically drop as he ages, neither does he go from having seriously long digits to what B.B. himself refers to as "short, stubby fingers". Compare to the early photos displayed earlier in the post.
I am also curious about why Johnson would have posed with what seems to be a studio prop guitar. Would he have needed to? And looking again at the guitar and those "long, spidery" fingers raises another question: in every photo of any old bluesman that I can think of (from Patton to Robert Petway to Joe McCoy to Peetie Wheetstraw to Clifford Gibson to Charlie Jordan to, yes, even Robert Johnson in his two known photos), the guitarist is clearly and purposefully fingering a chord. In this photo, the guy, whoever it is, is just sort of holding the neck of the guitar. This is a small, inconclusive detail, to be sure, but it?s another one that stacks up against this really being Johnson.
I completely agree with jpeters609 on this - and I'd add that the prop guitar in question seems odd. In the Hook Bros. photo, Johnson use of the Gibson is telling. If I remember rightly, there is conjecture that this wasn't even Johnson's guitar, with RJ choosing the potentially more desirable Gibson over whatever he might have been using - most likely a kalamazoo, and probably an archtop. My point is this: the guitar in the photo doesn't fit with what I'd see as common practice in photos of musicians. Unless it IS RJ, and he also got an inside knowledge of the future power of ironic instrument imagery as part of his faustian pact O0 . The other thing on this is the condition of the guitar. I'd agree with the idea of it being ~1935. Does it look like a maximum of 3 years wear on it? Just a thought, an observation, but not an argument.
I'm not trying to argue this is Johnson - I might just be him - but I think that B.B is out of the frame. Maybe its the guy from the debunked film?? (which I was lucky to see in person in 1998 - serendipity never ceases to astound me).
Has there been any development on the picture front? We "know" that McCormack might have the fabled 3rd picture - but do we know what LaVere might have? I can't see LaVere - who had intended to publish a biography himself - not withholding some "Ace" information.
-
I got hip to RJ when Down Beat offered an LP of his music, sans photo, because no one had one back then. The hoopla about this photo is about as valid as all the craziness about one M Jackson who never sang the blues but has rapid fans NTL.
I am still mourning the loss of Willie King.
-
I'm trying to see what point you're trying to make, RobBob - the MJ stuff? Assuming you mean rabid fans, are you likening RJ fans to MJ fans? Or establishing you've been listening longer? Or that he's not esoteric enough?
The fact is that Johnson's music might be the "four seasons", "kind of blue", or "With the Beatles" of it's genre, but it doesn't negate that it represents an entree point into a world of less well-known artists for the masses. If they only get as far as RJ, then that's fine with me.
Getting any information on people who are historically inarticulate - that is, they leave little in terms of personal documentation - is deserving of such attention, and as a historian, I really attach to the idea that such micro research occurs. That there is such "hoopla" surrounding this being potentially RJ is warranted, but concede I'd be just as, if not more interested if another Charley Patton, Skip James, BBQ Bob, Blind Willie Johnson, or other photo came to light.
If it's not RJ, it's comforting to know it could be someone who could have used a functional guitar in anger. As with the debunked film, we should take away that it is more documentary evidence of those that are historically inarticulate.
-
hello friend,
to get back to the subject of the picture itself - has this photo been verified to be robert johnson? i was looking at the new gibson email (guitar company) newsletter today. & they had their top ten slide guitarists of all time, & guess what picture they had next to the article? yep! this one. & they had robert johnson leading off the list. they didn't say the picture was johnson, but i think thats what was inferred. i mean, i'm pretty sure it isn't duane allman, right?
chris
-
Whilst my initial reaction to (just) having see the photo was "wow... a young B.B King", beyond the theory that the image is somehow photoshopped (something I think VF might have investigated thoroughly before opening this can of worms) - the fingers are never going to be B.B's.
B.B. may have short stubby fingers now, but that wasn't always the case. Look at his fingers in this pic from his younger days, especially the left hand.
I know my fingers are slightly stubbier than they were when I was a younger lad.
-
Point taken - but IMHO, those fingers aren't BB's in the VF pic.
Great pic, BTW
-
While others discuss the reasons an artist would use a studio prop in a promo photo, can someone answer me this:
That's Sam Lawhorn. And the bullhorn was photoshopped in. The picture was taken by Ray Flerlage at Mandell Hall, U. of Chicago, May 20, 1966.
Having watched Sammy Lawhorn from a few feet away during many Monday nights in Chicago's Theresa's Lounge circa the mid-70s, I recollect that he was 1) darker-complected, 2) sunnier-disposited and 3) always six-stringed (Lawhorn would have been a no-brainer first or second guitar choice by either Muddy or Walter, and therefore highly unlikely to play bass). Visually speaking, he looked a lot more like doctorpep's J. Shines picture than the serious bass player who's trying to keep up w/Little Walter's 11-3/4 bar verses. Are u sure that's Sam Lawhorn?
And what-all does this have to do w/RJ? Nothing at all. And that's good! This said, I've got one more grain of sand to extract: The sound - general production - of recordings has a lot to do with what happens decades later. For me, the consistency of sound distinguishes those 41 sides (or is it 43 now?) more than the non-unique musicianship. Take Bo Carter, for example: Many of his recordings' haunting qualities is their exceptional clarity, which (per my meager memory) was new in the CB canon. This speaks to the combination of the artist's choices, the producer's sensibilities and the technology at hand. What happens later, in large part, results from a small group fanning some spinning embers and the rest of us'all being attracted to the fresh flame.
What we need is a good, modern cartoonist to animate these old pictures, with the subjects going on about who is who and the percentage they should get for their pictures receiving so much attention!
-
Are u sure that's Sam Lawhorn?
jed, October of last year is a long time ago for my feeble mind, but if my memory is at least partially accurate, my ID was from the caption to an unretouched version of the picture included in Blues With A Feeling: The Little Walter Story by Glover, Dirks, & Gaines.
-
As far as the Vanity Fair published photo:
I simply refuse to believe that it is Johnny Shines.
It COULD be RJ on the left.
To me, the guy alleged to be RJ looks like Tommy McLennan.
Did anyonme else pick up on that? FM
-
As far as the Vanity Fair published photo:
I simply refuse to believe that it is Johnny Shines.
It COULD be RJ on the left.
To me, the guy alleged to be RJ looks like Tommy McLennan.
Did anyonme else pick up on that? FM
It's pretty easy to believe it's not Johnny Shines, since it definitely is not! I have an e-mail from one of his grand-daughters some where saying "that's not grandpa."
-
Are u sure that's Sam Lawhorn?
jed, October of last year is a long time ago for my feeble mind, but if my memory is at least partially accurate, my ID was from the caption to an unretouched version of the picture included in Blues With A Feeling: The Little Walter Story by Glover, Dirks, & Gaines.
I just found a memory aid; check the attached pic of - it's Otis Spann and Sammy Lawhorn. Dunno the woman.
-
Better pic of Sammy Lawhorn:
-
"Dunno the woman."
Looks like Victoria Spivey.
-
"Dunno the woman."
Looks like Victoria Spivey.
It is, taken by Len Kunstadt at a festival and first published in Record Research in 1966.
-
"Dunno the woman."
Looks like Victoria Spivey.
It is, taken by Len Kunstadt at a festival and first published in Record Research in 1966.
BH - your information never ceases to amaze and I'm sure all Weenies are highly grateful for your informative posts. I suppose you know what colour socks the photographer was wearing at the time as well! ;)
-
BH - your information never ceases to amaze and I'm sure all Weenies are highly grateful for your informative posts.
Thanks for the kind words and approbation but in truth I'm just a sad middle-aged nerd! ;)
-
But we very glad that you are a sad middle-aged weenie too! ;)
-
Hi everybody,
Hope this hasn't been debunked elsewhere on this forum - but I've only recently discovered the Vanity Fair article from 2 years ago, and it seriously bugs me.
Quickly - my main points:
A. There seems to be a glaring inconsistency between the Vanity Fair stories.
B. You don't need to know who the men in the photo are, because it's clear that it has been tampered with.
Supporting A. - the picture in the first Vanity Fair story shows the photo of the 2 men, with the picture clearly torn in "Robert Johnson's" forehead area. The "evidence" analyzed by Lois Gibson, the forensic examiner, shows the photo with "RJ's" forehead intact. Which is the "real" photo? Was one of them doctored, altered, or retouched?
Here are the links for the 2 stories:
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/11/johnson200811?currentPage=1
http://www.vanityfair.com/online/daily/2008/10/a-disputed-robert-johnson-photo-gets-the-csi-treatment.html
Supporting B. - the lighting on "Shines" is inconsistent with the lighting on "RJ", and it's clear that the 2 men have been assembled from 2 different photos (the cut is right down the middle, between them.) For this, you need a bit of an eye, so I've illustrated what I mean with arrows and captions, and also provided the original, and where the cut happens.
And, beyond what I've indicated there's at least one other specific area on "Shines" that shows photoshopping, but I just haven't had enough room here...
My explanations are short, and possibly unclear, so I'll clarify them if anybody's interested...
Note: I've blown up the image with the captions so as to be more clear, but it's all visible right at the size of the original Vanity Fair web posting, which I've provided as well...
-
My explanations are short, and possibly unclear, so I'll clarify them if anybody's interested...
Okay, I'll bite.
Please explain the deal with the forehead, I totally don't understand that part.
-
Okay, I'll bite.
Please explain the deal with the forehead, I totally don't understand that part.
Hi Stumblin
The 2 links in my original post point to the 2 Vanity Fair articles online. The first link is to the original story about Zeke Schein's ebay "find".
The second link is to a follow-up article in Vanity Fair that describes what a forensic examiner had to say about the find.
The first article (and link) shows the full picture in question - notice that this picture or scan is damaged. There are tears and scuffs, and specifically a major tear at the level of "RJ's" forehead.
The second article shows a close-up of "RJ's" entire head, and specifically the forehead, but that area appears to be *intact*.
Who would have doctored, or photoshopped the second image?
What makes matters worse, is that Lois Gibson (the forensic examiner) is specifically quoted as saying that this area, when compared with the accepted "Photobooth portrait", is *the most salient feature* that makes her believe the authenticity of the RJ-Shines candidate.
Put another way, what she calls it a ?square bony eminence? in her analysis (the 2nd VF article), is an area that is torn (and therefore not presentable as hard evidence) in the "original" RJ-Shines "picture" !!!!!
Even so, and beyond that point - all you need to do is look at "Shine's" right shoulder (on our left) down to his elbow area - and you will see that the shadows are just wrong, wrong, wrong....
And sorry for the very late reply - I checked for responses in the first few days after my post, but didn't see anything, so just forgot to come back.
-
I still think that the pair is B.B. King and Willie Nix!!
Peter B.
-
@ oddenda - agreed for BB !
Also agree with someone in a previous post that I'd much rather see some footage of Blind Willie McTell or Blind Willie Johnson at work than 10 new pictures of RJ ! (But then again, if I think about it, how wierd is it to want to see a picture or film of someone who was himself.... blind. A strange irony there.... ::))
-
hello all. I'm basically a lurker and I've read this thread a few times over the last year or so and I have a question.
The picture on page one posted by BlindSockeye...has that been proven to be a fake? Because that is obviously RJ. There's virtually no difference in facial structure with the studio photograph. But I don't see anyone mention it again in this thread.
Was it sold on Ebay? Was it a fraud? Just wondering becuase I'm fascinated by mysteries involving the old blues musicians
-
I don't know what pics of Rob Johnson you've seen but the above photo looks like a much more 'pretty-faced' fella than any pic of R. Johnson I've seen.
EDITED TO ADD:
I'm sorry, you meant that other picture that NO ONE thinks is Robert Johnson except the person trying to sell it.
Right.
-
I think the guy on the left is Lane Hardin. Prove me wrong.
-
Be cool if it turned out to be Harvey Hull.
-
Just to be clear, I mean the picture on the first page of "Robert Johnson" in the white hat with it tilted to the left. That is either a fake or it's RJ. Just look at that pic compared to the one on the boxset cover. Same eyes and facial structure.
As far as the Vanity Fair pic of those two guys, I don't think the guy on the left is RJ.
Sorry if this has been done to death but this stuff fascinates me
-
Just to be clear, I mean the picture on the first page of "Robert Johnson" in the white hat with it tilted to the left. That is either a fake or it's RJ. Just look at that pic compared to the one on the boxset cover. Same eyes and facial structure.
As far as the Vanity Fair pic of those two guys, I don't think the guy on the left is RJ.
Sorry if this has been done to death but this stuff fascinates me
Fascinates me too. Perhaps the box-Set coming out in april (The Complete Original Masters: Centennial Edition) will provide new photos. Stephen Lavere has done extensive research but it's Mack McCormick who has a third picture although I read in a dutch blues magazine that it's not sure where that picture is located right now.
-
That's the one I was talking about in my edited to add part. That guy does not look like Robert Johnson. I've said this elsewhere & got in shit for it but . . . I think maybe a lot of modern folk think that black men in old photos all look the same. Or at least that really seems the case to me.
This stuff is fascinating when people who know the difference use methods & experience to make educated comments on historical material. It's depressing that anybody can find a vintage shot & baldly claim they are such & such a historical figure (& just happen to be that person's ONLY reference to the era) & the majority take it as gospel . . . as if every picture we find today necessarily HAS to be of or related to our small frame of reference. I find it very embarrassing, obviously ::)
-
No that's not the one I mean. In "Searching for Robert Johnson" (the book not the DVD) Peter Guralnick explains that McCormick showed him a few pictures (1976);
The next photograph shows a young man in a sailor's uniform, obviously pleased, obviously proud, with another man, very slightly older, standing beside him, his arm draped affectionately around the sailor's shoulder. The sailor, Mack McCormick tells me, is Robert's nephew, Louis, at home in memphis, on his first leave from the navy base in Norfolk where he was stationed in 1936-37. Later he would be transferred up to Annapolis and that was how his mother and his aunt Bessie would eventually move up to the Maryland area, where McCormick found them. Louis was very close to his uncle, and in fact, when McCormick visited Carrie in 1972, was so disturbed by the conversation that he retreated into his room and refused to come out. And the other man in the picture? The man in the sharp pin-striped suit? That, of course, is Robert Johnson. I stare and stare at the picture, study it, scrutinize it, seek to memorize it, and for my very efforts am defeated...............
-
This is the one I've seen...
-
I think maybe a lot of modern folk think that black men in old photos all look the same. Or at least that really seems the case to me.
I suppose that could be the case, but I think it's more the human tendency, when confronted with an old photograph, to want it to be of some famous person or time or place - for it to have significance to something they know about.
-
The man on the left looks more like B.B. King than Robert Johnson. The man on the right is not Johnny Shines- 100% guaranteed.
The man on the left has a circular face with high cheekbones, like a young Muddy Waters or a person from East Asia. The man in the famous RJ cigarette picture (RJ!) doesn't have such high cheekbones, and has a broader, less flattering, "flatter" nose than the handsome, young, catfish-like gentleman in Vanity Fair.
-
I think maybe a lot of modern folk think that black men in old photos all look the same. Or at least that really seems the case to me.
I suppose that could be the case, but I think it's more the human tendency, when confronted with an old photograph, to want it to be of some famous person or time or place - for it to have significance to something they know about.
DJ . . . I like your explanation better.
-
I'd second dj, but then of course he's a CBW fan ;D
-
That's the one I was talking about in my edited to add part. That guy does not look like Robert Johnson. I've said this elsewhere & got in shit for it but . . . I think maybe a lot of modern folk think that black men in old photos all look the same. Or at least that really seems the case to me.
This stuff is fascinating when people who know the difference use methods & experience to make educated comments on historical material. It's depressing that anybody can find a vintage shot & baldly claim they are such & such a historical figure (& just happen to be that person's ONLY reference to the era) & the majority take it as gospel . . . as if every picture we find today necessarily HAS to be of or related to our small frame of reference. I find it very embarrassing, obviously ::)
no, I'm sorry, but the guy with the white hat tilted looks like a dead ringer for RJ. So much so I think the pic is a fake. I take offense to anyone saying that i think all black folk look alike too. I mean, that sure as shine isn't Johnny Shines in that fake RJ pic.
but as far as the pic I have in question, was it bought? anyone know? Hell if it isn't him, where's the pic now? i want it.
sorry if i seem rude.
-
no, I'm sorry, but the guy with the white hat tilted looks like a dead ringer for RJ. So much so I think the pic is a fake. I take offense to anyone saying that i think all black folk look alike too. I mean, that sure as shine isn't Johnny Shines in that fake RJ pic.
but as far as the pic I have in question, was it bought? anyone know? Hell if it isn't him, where's the pic now? i want it.
sorry if i seem rude.
Fakery is a possibility.
However, the real clues only come to light when you play the photograph at half speed.
O0
-
hey jumbo pete...
I think the picture you're referring to is different from the 2 official/accepted ones in 2 ways: no lazy/sad left eye, and the guy's nose seems to be shorter, nostrils going up, a little pig-like if you will... fwiw..
[By the way, off topic... hope everybody's taken a look at the Hank Williams doc on youtube... the one from the BBC. Same sad story what coulda been. Anyhow, lots of great archival footage...]
-
Errr..
-
back again. What I want to know is if the pic of the man in the white tilted hat is a fake. Because otherwise, it's RJ for sure.
Look at the pic on page one then look at the pic from the boxset. same guy. So if that pic is real....
-
Not having been personally acquainted with either of the blokes in the photo under discussion, and thus unfamiliar with their distinctive mannerisms and facial expressions etc. All I can say is that either party in that photograph either could or could not be Robert Johnson. The expense and concomitant rarity of photography amongst underprivileged communities in pre-digital camera times, combined with the size of the African-American population during the early thirties makes it unlikely that any randomly selected photograph of musicians from that period will include both Johnny Shines and Robert Johnson.
-
The Guardian is today offering the unsubstantiated suggestion (http://m.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/03/robert-johnson-photograph-identified) that the much disputed "Robert Johnson & Johhny Shines" phot has been "authenticated." However, a close reading of the accompanying journalistic screed reveals a complete absence of anything approaching the status of evidence.
-
Don't get me started.
Some folks at the Real blues forum on Facebook are working on a letter voicing their contention that it's not Robert Johnson or Shines. Getty Images just purchased the photo so it's making its rounds again.
-
Zzzzzzzz......
-
The Guardian is today offering the unsubstantiated suggestion (http://m.guardian.co.uk/music/2013/feb/03/robert-johnson-photograph-identified) that the much disputed "Robert Johnson & Johhny Shines" phot has been "authenticated." However, a close reading of the accompanying journalistic screed reveals a complete absence of anything approaching the status of evidence.
Wouldn't this quote be the evidence part of it?
Forensic work on the photograph began in 2007, when Lois Gibson, who works with the Houston police department, analysed the features of the long-fingered figure holding the guitar. Gibson, who found the identity of the sailor kissing the nurse in the Life magazine photo of Times Square on VJ day the second world war ended, has ruled that "it appears the individual is Robert Johnson. All the features are consistent, if not identical." The only differences, she added, were due to the angle of the camera or the lighting.
-
The forensic facial work is not an exact science & there's a possibility that the suits the two gents are wearing are actually from the early '40s. Johnson died in 1938. Also, that guy to the right cannot be Johnny Shines. Lefty looks like Robert a bit but not enough to my eyes.
-
As Michael Messer pointed out on his forum the other day in response to this "story", we cant even be certain that the original two photos are genuine!
-
I was just very surprised to see the news item today, thought the story and photo had been debunked a couple of years ago.
So I thought I'd seek guidance from this learned assembly. I wasn't trying to start any speculative guessing games, just curious as to the current state of play.
-
Ha! Yeah they gotta mention the absurd selling of his soul story right off the bat, dont they. Wonder why they didn't consult with the blues historians who have spent decades researching RJ? There's still people around who knew Shines personally. I wonder if Honeyboy ever saw this particular photo. I'm certainly no expert by any stretch of the imagination, but I feel like its neither one of them in that photo. Not even close. Honeyboy said that RJ had a bad left eye, kept his hat pulled down over it.
Does anybody know why the media has always considered Eric Clapton THE authority on RJ?
Jason
-
Here we go round the mulberry bush, yet again.
This photo started floating around the web in about 2004/5 and was shown to Robert Lockwood and Honeyboy Edwards they did not recognize either of the men. I think one of them also commented that their attire was 1940s, which would rule out RJ.
-
Jubi posted the following link over at IGS:
http://www.robertjohnsonbluesfoundation.org/sites/rjohnson/files/110414_affidavit.jpg (http://www.robertjohnsonbluesfoundation.org/sites/rjohnson/files/110414_affidavit.jpg)
Falls into the "Someone Said" category.
-
Here we go round the mulberry bush, yet again.
This photo started floating around the web in about 2004/5 and was shown to Robert Lockwood and Honeyboy Edwards they did not recognize either of the men. I think one of them also commented that their attire was 1940s, which would rule out RJ.
Ah! Thanks BH! Who would know better than those two, right? Nuff said.
-
Well if we cant be absolute certain than why try? What is the point? The experts that nab criminals are not blues researchers so their opinion is not valid. I will get some of my social network friends to write a rebuttal now to discredit the research. >:D
-
Well if we can't be absolute certain than why try?
It's not that we shouldn't try, it's just that someone's opinion--even that of someone with recognized expertise--shouldn't be passed off as certainty.
A good example is the statement that no two fingerprints are the same. In order for that to be true with absolute certainty, every fingerprint would have had to have been compared with every fingerprint that ever existed, and even then it wouldn't rule out the possibility of future fingerprints being the same as other future fingerprints, existing, or past fingerprints. Welcome to the world of "probability."
In Oregon in 2004 Brandon Mayfield arrested for the Madrid train bombings on fingerprint evidence that just wasn't true. So much for expert forensic opinion and the "absolute certainty" of the artificial assumptions it is based on.
-
Stuart I see where you are coming from but if even fingerprints wouldn't satisfy the masses about identity then really why try? By the same token one could say it wasn't Robert Johnson (hypothetically if he had a twin) even with DNA evidence because we couldn't ever be sure it was the same person since twins are so hard to tell apart with dna since they are literally a clone. At some point we either say "nope, I ain't gonna believe none of this unless RJ comes back to earth tap dancing on water admitting to it" or we can say "Sure seems plausible, the evidence would sure stand up in court" (I know people are wrongfully convicted, ger)
-
Well put, Stuart.
In answer to the "why try" question, I'd add that not every question is answerable. Sometimes the best you can say is "There's about a 50% probability that the man in this picture is Mr. X." But even if that's all you can say, research to nudge that probability to 75% or 25% is absolutely worthwhile. Adding a little to what we know is always worthwhile.
The important thing is to remain impartial when weighing the evidence about something like this. You can't just say "I'm a big Benny Goodman fan. I have a photo of a white guy from somewhere around 1940 wearing glasses and playing the clarinet, therefore it must be Benny Goodman." You have to weigh the pros and cons in the information you have and, if possible, seek out more information to validate or invalidate your hypothesis.
It seems to me that we've been through this elsewhere before, but I'll lay out the pros and cons of the Guardian's identification of this picture:
Pro:
The man on the left has fingers and facial features consistent with those of Robert Johnson
Con:
The man on the right is almost certainly not Johnny Shines
Both Robert Lockwood and Honeyboy Edwards, who knew Johnson and Shines, were shown the photo. Neither man recognized either of the men in the photo.
The clothes the men in the picture are wearing seem to date from after Robert Johnson's death
The man holding the guitar is not fingering a chord. In most posed photos of guitarists where the guitar is in playing position, the guitarist will finger a chord
To be verified:
What's the provenance of the photo? Mississippi? Atlanta? Hartford, Connecticut?
What percentage of the population of the US population c. 1940 had a squint in one eye?
How prevalent are the facial ratios that were used to ID the man on the left?
Can a fashion expert verify the date of the clothes?
And etc.
-
Journalists should not be allowed to authenticate anything.
Alex
-
Re Stuart's link...
As someone who has had occasion, professionally, to consider and make judgments about forensic reports, I was immediately taken by the very reserved assertion made in that document. "reasonable certainty" is pretty weak in the context of such reports, and certainly should not be taken as even the expert having a very firm and clear conclusion.
-
How many times has reasonable certainty been used to convict someone. Reasonable certainty - OJ Simpson
I am not saying I buy it hook line and sinker but I am open to this approach. He looks more like RJ than anyone looks on the surveillance footage from a 7-Eleven robbery...........................jus saying O0
-
I have suspicions about the photo itself, beyond my doubts about the figures represented.
My guess is that neither Vanity Fair, nor anyone else for that matter, has ever seen or handled the "actual" photo. I would be very surprised if anyone has ever seen anything other than a scan. I say this because, if you look at the full image in the original Vanity Fair story, it looks very much like TWO photos spliced together (probably not physically spliced, but merged together using PhotoShop). The two figures simply appear to be from different photos -- the lighting is different, the placement of the feet is different (the "Johnny Shines" figure, for instance, has his right foot raised and resting on something -- right where "Robert Johnson's" left foot is placed!) Shines' right foot and leg are in front of Johnson, but Johnson's left arm, upper torso, and guitar are in front of Shines. It just looks completely unnatural and faked. The background, too, looks different, though this is obscure. Many of the "tears," I suspect, were strategically added via PhotoShop to cover some of the more noticable mistakes. (I believe much of this has been discussed elsewhere on the forum.)
There has long been rumored to be (by some Robert Johnson or Johnny Shines acquaintance) a missing photo of the two men together. It had supposedly been taken outside, by a newspaper photographer, and it supposedly showed Robert and Johnny "horsing around" and wearing each other's hats. I think someone found two photos that looked like he could manipulate to "become" this missing photo -- the clincher being that each of these guys is wearing a different colored hat. Of course, this "combined" photo is not taken outside, nor are they horsing around.
The photo itself, as a representation of two men standing side by side (no matter who they might be) looks faked, which begs the question: if you have a REAL photo of Robert Johnson, why fake it into a photo of Robert Johnson AND "Johnny Shines"?
At any rate, I too thought this photo and its debate had been settled, or at least allowed to fade away. But if Getty Images has purchased it, you can bet we will be seeing more instances of this picture being used as a representation of Robert Johnson.
-
@ Jeff there's several other things and yes I don't think its been made available front and back. I noticed that the alleged Shines face has an underbite, small teeth whereas Shines had nice big teeth an an overbite and in the original alleged photo the lower bout of the guitar is patched in over the "Johnson" hand, which looks like no hand I have ever seen - the fingertips are flush and photos of young people with that "spiderhand" that I found resemble the ones in the first two photos, not alot wideness to them.
Additionally The Guardian quote and referred to affidavit are not the whole story, they did not include the the report she made both verbal and written to Mr Kitchens. Ms. Gibson is quoted in the Vanity Fair article about her written results as reported to Kitchen as saying on page 6 -
?My only problem with this determination is the lack of certainty about the date of the questioned photo,? she wrote in her report to Kitchens. But, she continued, if Schein?s photo ?was taken about the same time as, or a little earlier than,? the photo-booth self-portrait, ?it appears the individual in [Schein?s photo] is Robert Johnson. All the features are consistent if not identical.?
That the report was not posted along with the affidavit, then I am both a skeptic and a cynic about this photo -IMHO the goal was not an unbiased examination of the photo to determine its truth but rather what would it take to get people to believe what the owners of the property wanted them to, which to my mind explains why so may things that are wrong with it are being ignored.
http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/11/johnson200811 (http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/11/johnson200811)
-
Reasonable certainty, legally, ought never to convict someone in either US or UK law... You need "beyond reasonable doubt".
-
wreid75:
I think that you may have misunderstood the point I was attempting to make. It isn't that we shouldn't try--it's just that we should proceed with both eyes open and not misinterpret expert opinion for "certainty." The same is true for assumptions that are not grounded in fact. I'm not suggesting that fingerprint or DNA evidence shouldn't be used in the investigation of crimes. And "probability" was under emphasized. Sorry for the confusion.
What Lois Gibson based her conclusions on is evidence, but to many it is not convincing, given the counter evidence.
I happen to like the photo, but what I wonder about is why the guitar with no strings or tuning machines?
-
Much more interesting IMO is they found the remains of Richard III. And confirmed with DNA. And he might not have been a total dick.
-
Lawd I'm sick of these photo threads! :P But don't let that stop anyone.
It strikes me that all the hype that continues to envelop RJ does him a great disservice. He was good, and so were a lot of other people. The fact is that he's the only country blues player that most uneducated proles have ever heard of due to all the bulletproof b/s that continues to magically swirl around the bowl in a kind of "CB perpetual bowel motion". I am clearly helping to perpetuate it by even bothering to mention this obvious fact but some people never seem to get it.
At this point I have to ask "if Robert Johnson had never existed, who really cares?" Not me, for one. Not Robert's fault. The guy himself is sadly lost in history while his image and all the stupid folklore that goes with it, perpetrated by those with a financial interest and aimed at the terminally credulous, has become a serious distraction.
All this is to the absolute detriment of his music, which was always really good. But not that freakin' good.
-
Much more interesting IMO is they found the remains of Richard III.
I heard about that. Word is they are currently marinating in jalapenos and garlic for a big pit barbecue next Saturday. Yum!
-
I'll second Uncle Bud's comment: Zzzzzzzzz.....
Ok, I need to add a couple of things:
1) It was because of Robert Jonson that I discovered country blues. The more BS I hear about him though, the less interested I am. The problem is like others have said is that he's lost to history now. If you actually listen to the music it's pretty good, but I would much rather listen to Son House, Charley Patton, Blind Boy Fuller, Blind Blake, etc, etc.
2) Seems to me the point of going through all this hoo ha of finding an 'expert' who will verify this or that is money. Getty images is a big company with lots of money and that means a nice payday for the owner of the photo.
That's my 2 cents anyways. Oh wait, I'm in Canada and no more pennies, guess it's my 5 cents ;-)
-
It's the perpetuating of false information & shoddy research work that keeps me in the dialogue. Our little world very rarely interests the larger world, I would like for those who know better be the caretakers to make judgements on the material & share it with the popular media. The misrepresentation irks me endlessly it seems ::)
-
I still think it's B.B. King to the left, Willie Nix to the right! "In their younger days!"
pbl
-
Speaking of Richard the Third:
http://youtu.be/pbS2WJdav6c (http://youtu.be/pbS2WJdav6c)
-
Anyone knows the kind of guitar the fella on the left is holding?
-
Don't know, but no strings and four of the six tuners are missing. An obvious prop.
Alex
-
Nicely observed Alex. This is the final proof we needed that Johnson did a deal with the devil at the crossroads, and how he got that cranked-up sound.
-
.......or maybe satan broke all his strings and bit off his tuners. I'm just saying. >:D
-
Be interesting in knowing if forum members would consider the following. The features line up compared to the photobooth picture in photoshop. MAybe forums member won't want to look at it, but here it goes.
There are shoulder indications in the original that I've pointed out in examples A and C and in the proposed photo I've tried to show what the photo would be like if they were the actual shoulder. To my eye that is where the shoulders should be.
Secondly, there appears to be a tear on the right cheek which distorts his face - I defined the face and hairline a little - it doesn't take much to make it seem like it was a 3rd photo patched in.
-
Remind me again . . . why would anyone think this is Robert Johnson in the first place (other than it's a photo of a black youth with a guitar coupled with a heavy dose of wishful thinking)?
If that's the reason, does it mean that every time a similar photo emerges we have to go through this (it seems to me) unproductive debate? If Edwards and Lockwood immediately dismissed the notion that this was a photo of Johnson (or Shines), that's conclusive in my book.
-
If Edwards and Lockwood immediately dismissed the notion that this was a photo of Johnson (or Shines), that's conclusive in my book.
That's it. End of story. I asked Tim Williams who had met Shines and he said there were no resemblance. Shines was well over six feet
Alex
-
Robert Johnson played a 7 string guitar when he returned from being gone, according to Son House.
I agree with PBL, he resembles a young BB King... if anyone
-
I remember this one being in question last year...
What was the verdict on it?
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fdb.tt%2FbzAH5bK8&hash=e5d3d7ed730bc86080dd681290c607076ddbcf80)
-
This photo was a hot topic on the discussion forum Blues-L when it was first shown about a decade ago. From memory numerous enlargements of this were furiously debated. I think the membership declared "Hoax". If you know somebody who is a member of that group see if they'll perform a topic search.
Whilst I'm at it anybody remember the silent film supposedly of RJ which was shown in 1998 at some conference or another? The Blues mags of the time covered it publishing a "still" from the footage. It turned out the film was shot in 1942 by Lomax (I think).
-
what happened to the Honeyboy Edwards footage that was discovered a while back?
-
Whilst I'm at it anybody remember the silent film supposedly of RJ which was shown in 1998 at some conference or another?
I watched the DVD that included the film and there was a big build-up about "authenticity" until they asked Lockwood. I recall his response - which may have been at the conference you mention - in effect was "stop wasting everyone's time, NFW it's Johnson".
-
There was a movie poster behind the proposed Johnson character from 1942 or thereabouts & of course Johnson died in 1938 so . . . The footage was shot by the theater owner.
-
Isn't it time the mods put this thread to bed? It really hasn't gone anywhere new.
-
I would like to suggest a radical idea to those desperate for another photo of Robert Johnson. The field of forensic recreation sculpture has reached a level of sophistication that is truly amazing. Starting with a skull, forensic sculptors are able to recreate accurate likenesses of everything from Homo Habilis, Neanderthals and even Queen Nefretitti. I suggest borrowing Robert Johnson's skull, having his head recreated and photographing it. One could even attach it to a mannequin, clothe it, put a guitar in its forensically sculpted hands, maybe some animatronic facial movements, a speaker in its mouth and voila! Or maybe Madame Thussaud's already got one in the works? >:D
-
Now yer talkin' O'Muck. :P
-
I saw a cgi animation of the photo booth portrait a few years ago, it shouldn't be hard to google it.
In a way, I'm sorry to have started this thread. I really didn't mean to be the cause of another endless game of "it's him!" No, it isn't" etc.
As soon as I was informed about the image rights having changed hands, I was convinced that that was the reason for the photo's reappearance, which was the real mystery to me.
I'll try to avoid picture quizzes from now on.
-
Hi all,
Since there appears to be a consensus that new ground is not being trod here, I thought to merge the new thread with the old one dealing with the same topic.
All best,
Johnm
-
I believe this photo was once a part of the old thread. No longer accessible Worldblues.com had it listed as a young BB King. I don't know the history of the photo, but with all this discussion of a what a very young BB looked like, i bring this up as a reference. Even if it's someone else, it shows with the white hat and baby face, just how close another can look in similarity to "RJ" in the Vanity Fair pic.
-
everybody, who think it`s R.J. in this photo should take the next plane to Sudan, Somalia or rhodesia, and he will see 2o or more R.J. like people during one day . when I was there, I did see 5 Meade Lux Lewis.......
regards
mike
-
How about this one? The infant RJ circa 1918. I think there's a strong resemblance (especially when compared to the photo booth picture).
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ft3.gstatic.com%2Fimages%3Fq%3Dtbn%3AANd9GcSsdYIGmd2DFAg4MKobSZsFKDUFqGvU5aq75ZYJkKSNm6It7CrlpOV_Bmk&hash=4c4eb3021fc80d6c9a7bf4b693aff7809aec4e9e)
-
Does anyone else have anything totally useless to add before the moderators' endless patience is finally exhausted and we lock the thread due to the continual noise it generates on this forum?
-
In the straw that finally broke the camel's back department, I am about to pontificate on the usefulness of the useless...
Over and out.
-
Does anyone else have anything totally useless to add before the moderators' endless patience is finally exhausted and we lock the thread due to the continual noise it generates on this forum?
Ease up. It was a joke. I thought it might generate a chuckle or two rather than the vitriol one would expect in response to a serious attempt to extend the RJ photo debate. That's the last such attempt at levity you'll see from me.
One thing we can agree on . . . over and out for me, as well.
-
Uuumm...
-
Guys, I know this topic has been covered, beaten to death in fact but I wanted to add my two penny worth, it's become a bit of a mission, I should get out more to be honest! Any way here it is,
This first one shows the distinctive shape of BB Kings mouth, identical to the photo, the nasal bridge is also the same. RJ has a wider mouth and a wider bridge that isn't set as deep as BB's. Also note the high cheek bones and round face, RJ has lower cheek bones and a much longer face. Also note the pencil moustache on some of the pics, I can't tell whether RJ had one.
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi722.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww225%2Fterrencejones%2FRobert-Johnson-photo_zps5445ba0e.jpg&hash=c4ad511f71871ae5558c93ed9037272e3fda6eb3) (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/terrencejones/media/Robert-Johnson-photo_zps5445ba0e.jpg.html)
Some more photo's of BB King,
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi722.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww225%2Fterrencejones%2Fbbking16_zpsdc2efa5b.jpg&hash=20e7cce21ff1df10a680541b5b8abf4c8d8e245d) (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/terrencejones/media/bbking16_zpsdc2efa5b.jpg.html)
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi722.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww225%2Fterrencejones%2FBBKingwithElvis_zps5669f77a.jpg&hash=b83a5b1a8558e7e06844f247fc7d04a873f31d18) (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/terrencejones/media/BBKingwithElvis_zps5669f77a.jpg.html)
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi722.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww225%2Fterrencejones%2FBBKingagain_zps6f5bd619.jpg&hash=f0a68e94e0e9bced23ebad87ff852f70dbdb6a4f) (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/terrencejones/media/BBKingagain_zps6f5bd619.jpg.html)
Here's an interesting photo from http://petesprintshop.net/ (http://petesprintshop.net/) Is there an original photo with just one guy?
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi722.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww225%2Fterrencejones%2Ftumblr_m1ip8gHnrZ1r46glko1_500_zps7321a190.png&hash=c36bd717232915626864423ed56247a25ce466b8) (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/terrencejones/media/tumblr_m1ip8gHnrZ1r46glko1_500_zps7321a190.png.html)
Sorry to bother you with this guys, I feel much better now.
Cheers,
Terry
-
Terry - why not ask BB?
Sent from my GT-I9100 using Tapatalk 2
-
Certainly looks much more like BB than Robert for sure, Terry.
-
Apparently it took 8 years to authenticate the photo and at no point did the expert feel it necessary to contact any other likely candidates. She just looked at the startling resemblance of Robert Johnson's forehead and the missing piece of forehead on the photo and along with the eyes, nose and mouth being in the same place concluded it was Robert Johnson! I've painted a lot of portraits and I can honestly say I've never come across any one with their eyes, nose or mouth placed any differently. I can also say, having studied many faces that the shape of a head, mouth or nose is as distinct a facial characteristic as the eyes and the guy in the photo shares all the same characteristic shapes as BB King and unfortunately none of Roberts.
Terry
PS. Pof Scratchy, I asked BB if it was him and he said it was "Just look at how I'm holding the guitar" he said O0
-
You're right, this topic has been beaten to death.
-
The ears say BB to my eye, definitely NOT RJ in any case, but I'll do a more extensive ear analysis when I have the time.
We crossed electro - message paths John.
-
Here's the link to the IGS thread:
http://www.guitarseminars.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2539 (http://www.guitarseminars.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=2539)
-
Ok and when we've decided that it's not BB King, what famous guitar player are we gonna go with next?
-
Zzzzzzzzz....
-
Ok and when we've decided that it's not BB King, what famous guitar player are we gonna go with next?
Johnny Winter? ;D
-
I read the previous thread and thought I'd throw the images in that I'd put together a few weeks back.
I appreciate some of you guys being bored with it but I thought some of you might still be interested in having a look at a comparison.
Terry
-
Ok and when we've decided that it's not BB King, what famous guitar player are we gonna go with next?
Johnny Winter? ;D
Ya know, now that you mention it.............
-
Certainly looks much more like BB than Robert for sure, Terry.
Thank you for your reply, I appreciate you taking the time to have a look and leaving your opinion on the images I posted.
Cheers,
Terry
-
Ok and when we've decided that it's not BB King, what famous guitar player are we gonna go with next?
Would that be the Royal we or just some tossers on this forum?
Terry
-
Everyone's patience & interest on this subject seems to have passed its limit but I'm always riled by it. RJ is also a bit overkilled for the Weenie crowd as well, don't sweat the negative reaction too much. I haven't seen anyone do such a comparison with images as you have Terry, good job. Without doing such a close comparison the gentleman just never looked like RJ to me, for the reasons you've already stated.
-
I still find this interesting from an anatomy point of view. All the pics of BB King have a heavier glabella (between the eyebrows and above the nose) than any of the pictures of RJ. But then i don't think the two pics of RJ are the same person either.
-
My guess is that Henderson Chatmon and two or three other badass wandering dudes of his era fathered 95% of the top Southern players.....hence lots of confusion since..... ;)
-
Based on this and other analyses and conclusions on this topic - here and elsewhere- please remind me if I should ever commit a crime and get caught and have an alternative to a jury in the form of plea bargain deal, to plead guilty and take the plea bargain deal. Thank you. :(
-
For those that are still interested in the photo that ain't Robert Johnson.
1. BB King looking left instead of straight ahead.
2. BB King now looking straight ahead instead of left.
Swapped the eyes, clever in it.
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi722.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww225%2Fterrencejones%2Fftghftyftyfty_zps4633aebe.jpg&hash=9dc5da380b9d30002a3aa4ae356dd948713c51dc) (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/terrencejones/media/ftghftyftyfty_zps4633aebe.jpg.html)
And a little bonus, BB king looking down at the photo taken of him earlier and wondering how the fuck Johnny Shines got there O0
(https://weeniecampbell.com/yabbse/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fi722.photobucket.com%2Falbums%2Fww225%2Fterrencejones%2Fbbking_zps235639d6.jpg&hash=66688f8528c823d5799ee46fa1d07b4b3d290f70) (http://s722.photobucket.com/user/terrencejones/media/bbking_zps235639d6.jpg.html)
Cya,
Terry
-
whatchutalkinboutwillis?
-
Moved my thread to one that was locked, well pissed me off! and me being a newbie, how very dare they! >:(
-
So Junior is it BB King or not?
-
Terry,
1: BB King has apparently said it's not him. He ought to know.
2: If you read through the original posts on this photo, you'll see that the way the clothes button indicates that the photo has been reversed, and the guy with the guitar is holding it as if he's a lefty.
This is two unknown guys who were not guitar players getting their picture taken with an old prop guitar. End of story.
Tenaciousness will only get you so far if you're driving down a dead-end street. It's time to give this topic a rest.
-
Just shoot me :D
-
1. Do you have any evidence of BB King saying it's not him? I doubt it.
2. It was suggested that the other guy was reversed. Johnnie Shines daughter said it was him, she ought to know.
I've provided you with a wealth of evidence that clearly shows the guy to be BB King, it's only your stubbornness to take a proper look at the evidence that prevents you from seeing that. It's quite clearly him O0
Terry
-
Terry, you come onto this forum, your first post is the equivalent of an Obama birth certificate thread that the entire internet is tired of, some understandable sarcasm ensues, you call members tossers, the thread is locked, and you start a new thread and then get belligerent again. You've clearly made what you believe is your point. Now it's time to move on or we -- meaning the administrators of the website and forum -- will have to ban your account.
-
Topics merged once again, and I've unlocked the topic for a short period of time.
-
lol...
-
Terry, you come onto this forum, your first post is the equivalent of an Obama birth certificate thread that the entire internet is tired of, some understandable sarcasm ensues, you call members tossers, the thread is locked, and you start a new thread and then get belligerent again. You've clearly made what you believe is your point. Now it's time to move on or we -- meaning the administrators of the website and forum -- will have to ban your account.
I am not belligerent. I joined this group with an open mind and with good intentions and was treated with disdain, I merely responded in accordance with that.
Terry
-
It's all good Terry, it's just a topic that's been done to death here. Don't take it personally, folks are just burnt on it.
-
Even a brief reading of this place before joining and posting would show it to be a calm and scholarly sort of site with very little drama and noise of the sort normal on most of the interwebs. I'm a newb but it's obvious most have heard this debate beaten to death and don't know why someone would join up just to get it going again.
Personally I don't care much for RJ and don't need to see any more photos of BB (though I'd sell my soul in order to better remember the one and only time I saw him play - in a triple bill with Bobby "Blue"Bland and Albert King...). But if you have any photos of Hezekiah and Dorothy Jenkins or a young Boss Crump bring 'em on! ;)
-
It's all good Terry, it's just a topic that's been done to death here. Don't take it personally, folks are just burnt on it.
Thanks mate and for your earlier reply. I can understand the reluctance to carry on with this having battered it earlier, I was just taken aback by the level of ridicule I was getting.
I haven't seen any other comparisons like those I posted and thought they provided a convincing argument that the guy is in fact BB King. I put a lot of effort in putting the earlier images together and thought they at were at least worth consideration. Incensed by the comments I got yesterday I went about looking to provide more evidence and I found I could swap the eyes of BB King with those on the photo and neither person looks any different, just looking in a different direction. The unfortunate thing I believe has been my timing. Had I posted these images earlier they might have gained a better response.
Anyway, for what it's worth, they are here for anyone who wants to have a look.
Cheers,
Terry
-
OK, everyone has had their say and I'm re-locking the topic. Let me repeat.
The Topic is Closed.
Thank you all for your cooperation.