Talk:Chuck Berry/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Blues

Shouldn't "Blues" be added to Berry's musical genres? Not only did he devote entire albums to blues music, but it says right in this article that he started by playing Muddy Waters songs in St. Louis music joints. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.46.8.6 (talk) 23:02, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

If you are going to make such a sensible, and thought worthy suggestion, and can find a citation/reference from a reliable source (and I would have thought that this was possible), then I for one would welcome the inclusion. Moreover, if you are able to add so constructively to the debate, I suggest you set up your own Wikipedia identity with which to contribute, and remove yourself from the current IP address, which seems to primarily specialise in vandalism. Be bold, young blood. Regards from this ancient white Englander,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 23:15, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Debate

While there is debate about who recorded the first rock and roll record, there is little doubt that Chuck Berry's "Maybellene" (1955) was the first full synthesis of the rock and roll form, combining blues and country music with teenaged lyrics about girls and cars sung with impeccable diction, smoking electric guitar solos and a dynamic and appealing stage personality.

Isn't this a little strong? --Robert Merkel

Hello again. I love meeting like this.

As for the description of Chuck, his diction was and is impeccable, his guitar playing set the standard then and now, he did combine country and blues influences with teenaged subjects, he did have and has a dynamic and appealing stage personality. These were the factors in his success. His music is still fresh and alive. What would you take out, the word "smoking"?

That is true. What I disagree with is the "full synthesis of the rock and roll form".

Name me a more likely candidate. I would be very interested in who you think had the first fully integrated rock and roll rock and roll presentation. Elvis was the first "rock god", but he did not write his own songs, and anyway rock and roll was only part of his career (and the songs he sang weren't near as good). Bo Diddley was basically a blues artist. Jerry Lee Lewis came after Chuck and never had the career that Chuck did. (He sings Chuck's songs. Chuck doesn't sing his.) Chuck took on Beethoven because he was Beethoven!

The first time I heard "Maybellene" on the R&B radio down South in 1955 when it was first released, now that was strong! Tom P. Ortolan88

I think lots of people contributed to rock and roll ("Rocket 88" sure sounds like rock and roll to me, for instance), and naming one artist as the "first full crystalization" is misleading. As you mention yourself, Elvis brought sexuality to the fore in rock and roll. The back beat started to appear in 1949 or so, I believe. Some people associate the start of rock and roll with "Rock Around the Clock".

"Rocket 88" was all that, you can see what I wrote, so was "Rock Around the Clock", but Bill Haley and certainly not Jackie Brenston lacked depth, the lyrics were much less interesting, musically it was a contributor to rock and roll (It also showed that you could sell a lot of it), but so was a lot of other stuff, Louis Jordan, washboard bands, jug bands, jazz, country music

Obviously I feel I have a lot to contribute on this subject myself, so I expect to be putting it in more context other artists, styles, sources, etc. I always try to put in lots of links in the hopes that someone will be inspired to chime in. I'm certainly going to start or contribute to a topic on the question of the "first rock and roll record". I can play you records from 1930 that sound like rock and roll to me, but I really do think that Chuck Berry's achievement was as I described it, so maybe I'll have to try to think of a better way of presentng it. If I were writing a piece on Beethoven (which I wouldn't dare) I would have to say something about the height of his achievement and his sythesis of the symphonic form and also about the contribution his personality made to his music. Chuck Berry deserves the same.

If we could cite some opinions of some relevant historians, that would be much more useful.

The quotes really built up the Louis Armstrong piece, but I'd be more interested in what musicians said than historians. If there's a good book about Chuck Berry, I would cite it.

By the way, it's fascinating to discuss these topics with people who were actually around at the time. I was born in 1976 :) --Robert Merkel

Well, I was born in 1940 and I have been paying close attention to rock and roll since I first heard "Wine Spo-dee-o-dee" when I was 9. Early adopter.

Otis Blackwell died today, a really important guy, wrote "All Shook Up", "Don't Be Cruel", "Great Balls of Fire", Elvis copied his demos on his hits. He was a crystallizer too.

I hope this reply doesn't seem too long or defensive, but I'm still trying to get the hang of this wiki stuff. I really enjoy doing it. Ortolan88

Not at all. If I comment adversely on an edit, it is merely in the goal of improving the article and my own knowledge of the area. I have somewhat of a bee in my bonnet about making sure articles on the arts don't overaggerate the importance of works or artists, as can happen here as it's fans who feel sufficiently motivated to write articles about it (I don't know how many articles about video games - where I have some expertise and historical perspective - I've had to rewrite to avoid this tendancy). Therefore, I'm probably scrutnizing articles in the area rather severely. However, I should hasten to add that your work has really improved this area of the 'pedia, and I hope you can write more.

By the way, I like the current edit better. --Robert Merkel

I think the page is well written. I added the materials concerning Berry Park and Blueberry Hill. They are not relevant to his music or his influence, but I think give a little bit of feeling for the man. -- a St. Louis acquaintance

Unfortunately, some mention should be made of Chuck's legal troubles, including his time in Lompoc (which he mentions in his autobiography) and the more recent charges concerning spy cameras in a friend's restaurant.

How about a discography? Redwolf24 18:14, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

The article needs some indication of when he started singing/recording. "He was released in 1963 but his best years were now behind him" is the first hint of his singing career. Shantavira 17:31, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

I removed the following: "Berry's influence on rock music is unrivalled, copied mostly by Elvis."

• Chuck Berry was playing a form of the blues with a trio 300 miles north of Memphis in St. Louis until May of 1955 when he went north to Chicago and recorded his version of a Bob Wills song he retitled Maybelline in September of 1955. By 1954, Presley was already touring the South and in October 1954 appeared on the Louisiana Hayride. At the time Presley was recording for Sun Records and touring he knew nothing of Chuck Berry. This article also needs much improvement re his background to properly explain the environment he grew up in that led to his early problems with the law. Ted Wilkes 13:15, July 31, 2005 (UTC)

The following quotes in italics are by Clive Anderson: While Elvis was a country boy who sang "black" to some degree ... Chuck Berry provided the mirror image where country music was filtered through an R&B sensibility. Perhaps these can be added somewhere. MATIA 19:11, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

voyeurism allegations

Does anyone have a source for the voyeurism allegations? I think it's especially important that something negative like that have a credible source. --Allen 02:42, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

No one responded, so I took it out. Feel free to add it back with refs. --Allen 22:07, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I remember seeing news stories about this, but unfortunately this was BI (Before Internet). 23skidoo 03:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

What about stories that he used to eat the feces of women. I heard he used to freeze the feces of women and he'd heat it up and eat it while he was out on the road.

Right, and I heard he bites heads off of live chickens, likes to sniff his socks and used to be a white woman called Martha ;) I mean LOL, people, you can't just throw this kind of allegations without any sources whatsoever. It's silly. Chuck Berry may not be the most amicable person in the world, but he is a rock'n'roll legend and deserves every respect. So please, let's tribute him by keeping nonsense like this out of the article. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 21:11, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I've now found a source, as you requested, that names the distributor and the content of the tape, but also have added a disclaimer that there is no way for knowing if it actually is berry. This has nothing to do with respect. If you are going to erase any negative info you are violating NPOV. Please leave the information. Frankly I think the info helps mr. berry as the rumor itself is extremely wide spread and out of control. Its best to explain exactly what is on the tape and how it is likely not berry. --Mark 2000 19:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

As you yourself said - it's a rumor. Wikipedia is not a tabloid, it doesn't deal with rumors. Unless you can find a reputable source that claims with absolute certainty that the man in the tape is infact Chuck Berry, I see absolutely no reason to include this rumor here. I'll revert now, please don't revert back, discuss instead. --Dr.Gonzo 21:23, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to know what gives you the right to remove something without discussing it? You want to discuss until you get your way. The reason to include it is that it is part of the mythology of the man. Everyone and his mother has heard it. And a tape infact exists. The tape is not a rumor and the Village Voice is a reputable source. Its better to inform people of the existance and possible invalidity of something as solid and real as a video tape than to not speak about it and let them assume its completely true or worse than it actually is. If you take a look at the pages for other musicians you'll find the same possible/not possible legends. Because the item is sourced and factual I am reverting it back. If you feel the info could be better stated lets work on that; however, if you revert again without a logical and dispassionate reason I'll have you blocked for making 3 reversions in 24 hours. Thank you --Mark 2000 01:00, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

No personal attacks, please. I've removed it because it is an extremely malicious rumor, and, as you yourself said, and it's stated in the article that there is absolutely no way of knowing if it's him on that tape. Following the same logic, I could say I have a tape of you pissing on underaged girls but there's no way of knowing if it's you in that tape, however, I'll just include it in your resume when you next apply for a job or whatever, because it's "out there", and "everyone and his mother has heard it". That's exactly the kind of thing this encyclopedia SHOULDN'T deal with, and if you insist, i'll get an administrator to tell you the same. Your call. Oh, and by the way, you already violated the 3RR so don't threaten me, please. --Dr.Gonzo 10:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd like to see where there was a personal attack. I have only reverted 2 times to your three. And I am going to report you and I want a moderator. You obviously don't know the difference between hero worship and completeness. The fact is that the tape is part of the national consciousness of the person. People will come here looking for that info. They should get a full story. So please, lets get an admin. >*Update* I have put this issue up to the Moderation Cabal. Lets let this be until the check it out. Thanks<--Mark 2000 19:03, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

"I'd like to see where there was a personal attack" - "You want to discuss until you get your way"... That's assuming I somehow want to obfuscate "the truth". Also "You obviously don't know the difference between hero worship and completeness" is also Ad hominem. However - may I direct you attention to WP:Verifiability? This is not verifiable, and is as such not encyclopedia material. Infact, if we include every rumor like this, Wikipedia would pretty soon devolve into "Jimbo's Big Bag 'o Trivia" as some journalist eloquently put it. Please post a link to the moderator discussion page here so I can participate in the decision also. Thank you. --Dr.Gonzo 20:25, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

The first of all the first item you list is not a personal attack at all. Its a summing up of the situation which is that you don't want to discuss anything. You don't want to search for a solution. You want the material off period. Am I wrong? The second is an observation of your look at mr berry. you don't want any negative information. Your above comments about respect toward mr berry is proof of that. "he is a rock'n'roll legend and deserves every respect" sounds POV to me.

Verifiablity is central to this, you are right. There is no verifiable info on who is on the tape exactly, but thats mentioned in the acticle. The existance of the tape, however, is. Its not rumor, it exists. And Mr. Berry is claimed to be on it. In fact, its called "Chuck Berry's Home Movies". You can buy it here: http://www.internationalhardcore.citymax.com/catalog/item/2452087/1898567.htm . As for Wiki being a big bucket o trivia, it already is. Go look at the number of articles on the fake technology of Stargate SG-1. Its rediculous, but its legal. Sorry, your own philosophy on what wiki is shouldn't influence articles. That's POV.--Mark 2000 01:51, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

You're damn right I wan't it off! It's just this kind od hear-say nonsense that a serious encyclopedia should avoid. Ask yourself - would Encyclopaedia Brittanica have a section of its article about CB dedicated to an alleged sex tape that POSSIBLY has Chuck Berry in it, but very bloody unlikely? And besides, whatever you may think about Wikipedia there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of users like me who try their best to keep this encyclopedia respectable, NPOV, verifiable, etc. Let's put it this way - some kind of tape does exist, but since it can never be proven conclusively that the man in the video is infact Chuck Berry (unlike many other "sex tapes" like Pamela Anderson or Paris Hilton) and the man himself has denied this rumor on every possible occasion, it's only fair not to include it in the article. Besides if you read up on WP:Verifiability policy you'll see it clearly states "verifiabiltiy, not truth". It's not about "it's claimed" but "who's claiming it". So there you have it. It can't ever reasonably be verified (the act, not the existance of tape itself) so according to Wikipedia official policy it should be deleted. End of story. --Dr.Gonzo 09:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

And you still don't get the idea of informing the user as fully as possible. You also don't understand that addressing something that is part of the collective unconscious is important. This isn't some random allegation. This is a big part of the myth of the man. In fact I suggest we further expand the citation to something more full such as:

In the late 1980s and early 1990's Berry became the target of a number of rumors and allegations in the media concerning video tape. Rumors spanned the gamut of Berry spying on women with hidden cameras to actively participating in filmed sexual acts. The most prolific allegation is contained in video footage currently distributed commercially by Video Search of Miami, FL which purports to show Berry urinating on a young woman in a bath tub. While the voice sounds similar to Berry's, because the face is never seen there is no way of cofirming it actually is Berry.[1] Berry has denied all allegations against him.

The reason being not to spread rumors about Berry, but to bring note that for some unknown reason over the course of 5 years the man was a target of a multitude of attacks. You can help me make this sound more favorable to him if you like, but you really believe there is no basis for this? Let's get something straight: Wiki is not Brittanica. It's much more expansive. Brittanica doesn't have aulbums, individual pokemon, and Star Trek extras in it. So don't bother comparing the two. I don't see the harm. I don't see why your so emotional about it. Just calm down, man.--Mark 2000 18:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm completely calm, don't worry. But man, you're not listening to what you're saying. On one hand you say you're all for verifiability, on the other you want to include this piece of info which is nothing more than pure sensationalism. You can say reemoval of that sentence is censorship, but I implore you to wake up and smell the roses, Wikipedia is full of censorship. Besides, nothing can really ever be hidden here, since this very conversation we are leading is enough for someone interested in the rumor to get all the info he/she needs. What I'm saying is that piece of info is not encyclopedia material, since it's not a verifiable fact. People don't expect such unsubstantiated rumors in a serious encyclopedia. Let's make Wikipedia better, not worse! Besides, Mr.Berry certainly had his share of scandals, but those included in the article are all very easily verified, unlike this one. You don't see me removing any of that info do you? Bah, do what you want, i give up, but I will ask for someone to come and check this out, moderator, administator, whatever, so let's just see what they say ok? Alrighty then. --Dr.Gonzo 19:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I know exactly what I am saying, my friend. And I know that the existance of allegations in the media and a video tape is verifiable. I'm guessing the two of us are on two different ideas of verifiability. Also your ideas on make wiki better or worse are POV. Seriously, you are extremely biased. Now instead of being so cranky, help me make the above paragraph palletable. Thanks, man!--Mark 2000 19:31, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Of course I have my POV, it would be sad indeed if I had no opinions of my own. However, my POV stays here, on these pages, and not in the article. In every single edit I ever make I try to stick to NPOV policy. Besides, man, you don't know me, so please don't make any assumptions about my intentions. A wikipedian should always assume good faith on the part of others but you just entered this discussion so sure you're absolutely right. Well, where I'm from we have a saying "the smarter (one) yields". I don't agree with your POV, but since we can't come to an understanding i'll just leave this to someone else, a moderator possibly. I can't compromise on something that shouldn't be included in the first place. Bye. --Dr.Gonzo 20:59, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Thank you User:64.131.199.43 for fixing up the paragraph. I like it. I hope Gonzo likes it too. --Mark 2000 00:12, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

At this point, if there is a tape commercially available which the distributor claims is a depiction of Chuck Berry, then it is Chuck Berry's obligation to go to court about it, I should think. If he has not done so, I must assume that it is because he has no chance of winning such a suit because the claim that it is actually him in the video is true. For Berry to dispute the tape in the media is meaningless; for him to really dispute it in a meaningful way requires that the matter be brought before a judge in a court of law. Hi There 14:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a matter of legal record that the guy likes to videotape women (and girls) using the toilet. Is it that crazy that he might also enjoy these perversions in his consensual "sex" life? I saw the video of him with one woman, and I have no doubt it was Berry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.177.63.172 (talk) 23:46, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Born in St. Louis?

I'm doing a thesis on the history of rock and roll, and one section pertains to Chuck Berry. Now, from the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll, it states that Chuck Berry was born on October 18th, 1926, in San Jose, California. But here, it states that Berry was born in St. Louis, Missouri. Is there any credible source more known than Rolling Stone that can prove he was born in St. Louis, and not in San Jose and then moved to StL? I can verify it says this on page 69, under the Chuck Berry article, in the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of Rock & Roll (NS if that's the exact name, I don't have it written down, all I know is that it's the Rolling Stone Encyclopedia of ______). Until then, i'm gonna change it to San Jose, as that's currently more credible.

---Buddhist-

His offical website at www.chuckberry.com says he was born in St.Louis, so I guess they oughta know. I'm changing back. --Dr.Gonzo 12:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

--- Its interesting, there are a ton of sites that show Berry was born in San Jose, but moved to St. Louis very young. Several sites state that Berry was born in San Jose, but claims to have been born in St. Louis. The 1930 Census does in fact list him as being born in St. Louis however.

CHUCK BERRY - THE LEGEND

he is been over 50 years on stage,he's the greatest songwriter,good guitarman,duckwalk, a huge experience what else you want?he's definitely the legend in music.one of biggest showmans of all time.without a doubt one of most influenced musician on 20th century. he's only real rivals are Fats Domino and Little Richard.Chuck Berry changed the image of rock&roll.

Two potential errors

In the section on Chuck Berry songs, it's claimed that the song "Route 66" is "commonly associated with Berry". Er, not by me or anyone I know. The "common association" for this song is with Nat King Cole, end of story. I'm not denying Chuck recorded it, nor that his fans find it to be a good cover version, but giving him the credit for being "commonly associated" with "Route 66" smacks of fanboy overkill.

Far more people would associate "Route 66" with Berry than with Cole, and considering that virtually all of the cover versions of the song recorded after the 1950s are based on Berry's version rather than Cole's, it's perfectly fair to say that the song is associated with Berry. At the very least, let's say it's associated with Cole and Berry. Death2Objectivism 00:58, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

Uh, no. It's commonly associated wth Cole, and maybe (to younger listeners) some other acts that had hits with it: The Manhatten Transfer and Depeche Mode. Neither of whom based their versions on Berry's, by the way. Sorry, but while "Route 66" is a Chuck Berry performance that's appreciated by Chuck Berry fans (and I'm one of 'em), it's flat out absurd to claim that "Route 66" is "commonly associated" with Chuck Berry. It was never a hit for Berry, was not released as a Chuck Berry single, and does not appear on the most common compilations of his greatest hits. In short, this is an ex-parrot. 172.134.33.122 19:15, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I gotta agree. I've been a performing country/rock musician for 35 years and have played Route 66 hundreds of times. I wasn't aware until just now that Chuck Berry ever recorded the tune. The "hit" was by Nat Cole. Chuck Berry is known mostly for the songs he wrote, not the songs he covered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by B0blee (talk • contribs) 02:52, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

As well, the section on "Influence" claims that Berry had 30 Top Ten records. By my count, he had only 7 US top 10s, or 13 Top 10s if you go by the US R&B chart. ("My Ding-A-Ling" and "Nadine" went Top 10 on the US Hot 100 without going Top 10 on R&B charts, so you could argue that 15 different records made a US Top 10 chart -- if you want to stretch things. If you *really* want to stretch it, you can add the two additional songs that went top 10 in the UK but not the US, to get 17 "Top Ten" hits. But 17 still doesn't equal 30.)

Unless someone can effectively defend the statements in question, I'll change them accordingly. Fair enough?

Guitar Skills

Reading this line: "His guitar skill is legendary, and many later guitar musicians acknowledged it as a major influence in their own style" made me wonder if perhaps the original writer is confusing "having an instantly-recognizable style" with "being a top-flight guitarist" because I have never heard anything that he did that made me admire his technical skills; all his stuff is VERY easy to play. I have never heard or read of anyone calling him a technically-proficient or advanced guitarist. The statement that "his guitar skill is legendary" needs some source or some qualification, or both. In fact, one could say that one of the reasons for his wide influence is that his guitar licks were easy to play and so everyone who liked them was able to play them. Furthermore, he never seemed to have developed as a guitarist - although I have not listened to everything that he has done, I wonder how much advancement there was from his first "signature sound" records to his latest recording, but I am not sure, of course. Hi There 14:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, actually, maybe "his guitar style is legendary" would be better... It should, however, be viewed in context. In 1955 his skill was amazing, noone else was playing anything quite like it. It may have been "easy" to play but it was inovative and creative... Sure, he never went much beyond that with his music, but it's fair to say he gave Rock'n'Roll it's sound... In that sense he is as musicaly significant as Robert Johnson or Elvis or the Beatles, if not more. And while we're on the subject, music media frequently lists him as one of the top guitarists of all time... See Rolling Stone's "100 Greatest Guitarists of All Time" list... --Dr.Gonzo 02:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism / Hacked !!

Page displays with this intro sentence: "Chuck Berry is a retard and an immensely influential figure, and one of the pioneers of rock & roll music."

Edit this page shows the sentence as: "Chuck Berry is an immensely influential figure, and one of the pioneers of rock & roll music."

So can not edit out vandalism. never seen this before but rather disturbing.

-Never mind, someone else changed this after i loaded the page i think because it was gone on reload.

Chuck Berry userbox

Just thought I'd show everyone the userbox I created:

CB	This user never ever learned to read or write so well, but can play the guitar just like a ringin' a bell

Here's the code for putting it on your userpage: {{User:HK51/Userboxes/User Chuck Berry}} ĤĶ51→^Łalk 12:32, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

It should say RINGIN' not "ringing". Wahkeenah 13:36, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Changed. ĤĶ51→^Łalk 17:17, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Kudos. Unfortunately, it literally describes a significant number of wikipedia editors (not me or thee, though). 0:) Wahkeenah 17:33, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

:D ĤĶ51→^Łalk 17:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Great 28

this is out of print. there is a replacement i saw on itunes called the definitive collection

Lennon's Quote

John was actually reading this off a teleprompter[2], should it still be attributed as his quote? Spencewah 17:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

That's a great question, because I've always wondered if a Mike Douglas staff person wrote it by himself, or if John thought it up and had it printed on the cue card for him. And by the way, a cue card is probably what Lennon was reading -- I don't think they had teleprompters then. mr b Nov. 2008

I am primarily interested in Berry's early years, but I have to say the introduction at this point is filled with verbage that adds little to our understanding of the man and his music. OK, he was important. How many times does that have to be repeated? Do we really need to see a list of who was inducted into X in the same class? 23:53, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The leader to any article is difficult, I think, to get right in terms of 'balance'. Make no mistake, Berry's influence/importance is massive, and it is important that this is stressed in the opening paragraph. His early years are more difficult to source (WP:Verifiability), but I would have thought that reading beyond the opening few lines would give a decent impression of those times. You - like anyone else in the world - is welcome to contribute IF a decent reference (WP:Citations) can be found. Please sign your comments [4x~ (tilde)] as I am about to do, so that everyone knows who is who - as it where. Very best wishes,

Derek R Bullamore (talk) 00:27, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

History shows that I signed, but for some reason it doesn't show up on this page? Note my earlier contributions. Let's see if my name shows up this time! Steve Pastor (talk) 21:16, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Phrasing

"In December 1959, after scoring a string of hit songs and while touring often, Berry had legal problems after he invited a 14-year-old Apache waitress whom he met in Mexico to work as a hat check girl at Berry's Club Bandstand, his nightclub in St. Louis."

Although I tend to follow {{sofixit}}, im running out the door right now. Anyone want to try and make this sentence less run on/confusing? JoeSmack ^Talk 14:33, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I've tried to correct this, as well as re-arrange the article so that the chronolgy actually flows. (As it stood, it jumped around from era to era a fair bit.) 172.135.1.236 (talk) 04:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Alternative Date of Birth

This says "Sources used to say he was born January 15, 1926, but it later became clear that October 18, 1926 is the correct date".

January 15 still appears in various places eg. [3]. Anyone know how the wrong date got out there in the first place? -- JackofOz (talk) 13:59, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Here's another one - "Charles Edward Anderson Berry was born on October 18, 1926, in St. Louis, Missouri (some sources--Berry himself is not among them--claim that he was born on January 15, 1926, in San Jose, California, where his parents lived before relocating to Missouri)".

It still doesn't explain where the erroneous information came from. It could well be the day he was conceived (9 months and 3 days before he was born), but that's just pie in the sky. I'm interested in this because Nicolas Slonimsky, the doyen of music lexicographers, shows his birth date as 15 January 1926. Slonimsky was renowned for his original research in establishing the true dates of events, births, deaths etc, by not relying on what was reported elsewhere but by going to the original documents, eg, birth certificates. I'm prepared to accept that he may have got his facts wrong in Chuck Berry's case, but he must have had a very good reason for believing 15 January was the correct date. Any ideas, anyone? -- JackofOz (talk) 23:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Citations & References

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the <ref(erences/)> tags Nhl4hamilton (talk) 04:22, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

"Chuck" Berry"

was born Charles Edward Anderson Berry 62.88.80.49 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC).