Talk:Sweet Home Chicago

California Avenue in Chicago

There is a major street in Chicago called California Avenue [1], that runs from NW Chicago to SW Chicago. Perhaps in Johnson's day, somewhere on California Avenue there were Blues clubs and/or recording studios that make that street memorable to a musician. This is a possible explanation of the "land of California" line. --rogerd 02:23, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

"THE LAND OF CALIFORNIA" - could be a reference to the Goldrush. Where you'd find your "land of California" is where you'd find your "gold". For a blues musician in the 1930's Chicago would be that place. Therefore Johnson's "land of California (gold)" would be Chicago.

12.230.248.34 (talk) 16:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)Ric Oliva

I think the article gets one of the lyrics wrong - it says, "I'm going to California, two thousand miles away". I've always heard the lyric as "I'm going to California, from there to Des Moines, Iowa". Also agree with the post above regarding Chicago as the musician's goldrush town. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.232.204.247 (talk) 09:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Couldn't "Back to the Land of California, To my sweet home Chicago" mean "With my back (turned) to California, To my sweet home Chicago"? Makes sense to me.76.16.108.112 (talk) 00:55, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Realizing that in 1926 Route 66 was built connecting Chicago to Los Angelos and, being that Johnson was a travelling man, I figure the theme of the song may have something to do with old Mother Road. -someone who likes the blues and history

Of course, there were two places in California named Chicago, Port Chicago, and Chicago (now new Chicago). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.71.170 (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Scrapper Blackwell - "Kokomo Blues"

Scrapper Blackwell plays guitar in standard style and standard tuning on the original recording of "Kokomo Blues." He does not play with a bottleneck. This is much more likely the basis for Robert Johnson's song than the Kokomo Arnold recording. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoyleo (talk • contribs) 18:38, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

White House is violating copyright?

The White House video was reverted claiming it was a copyright violation. The White House website has a copyright page [2]

• "Pursuant to federal law, government-produced materials appearing on this site are not copyright protected. The United States Government may receive and hold copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise."
• 3rd party contributions are CC-BY-3.0
• If anybody notices a copyright violation, you can do a DCMA take down request there

So where is the copyright violation?

Smallbones_(smalltalk) 00:58, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

The performance itself and the original broadcast are probably covered by a blanket Performance rights organisation license or charitable exemption (Johnson's successors hold the song copyright). However, the subsequent adding of the video of the performance to youtube is probably not covered, unless it has been licensed. Without more info, it should be treated as other copyrighted material appearing on youtube, i.e., removed. —Ojorojo (talk) 16:38, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Probably, probably? What we absolutely know for sure is that this video is produced and released by the White House for public viewing. We can reasonably assume that the White House doesn't commit copyright violations. Anything else is pure speculation. After all the guy in charge taught a course in constitutional law at the University of Chicago, and is in charge of enforcing the laws of the US. If you'd like to accuse the White House of violating copyright, I suppose you could file a DCMA request with them, or maybe even take it to court, but absent any finding like that there is no reason for us to speculate that the White House is breaking the law. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 20:25, 26 July 2016 (UTC)

Whoa, slow down. Nobody is accusing anybody of anything. Note my wording: "probably not covered, unless it has been licensed." WP:COPYVIOEL advises caution when linking to youtube. Youtube has several videos of the performance, uploaded by "Piotr Kolanowski", "WCVB Channel 5 Boston", "infomisa", etc., etc. according to the youtube tags. Anyone can upload videos and claim to be anybody. When it comes to copyrights, it is best to be safe, which is the approach that the editor took who removed the link. If it is properly licensed, then there is no problem. —Ojorojo (talk) 02:47, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

The version linked to was uploaded by the White House - not just by any "White House" but by the White House. Footnote 19 links back to the White House website, so that should be clear and the copyright page for that site applies. Just in case that's not clear, linked to in footnote 21, the White House Blog (yes, that White House) describes the video in detail and has the same video streaming from that page. And the same copyright page applies. Smallbones_(smalltalk) 03:07, 27 July 2016 (UTC)

Why no List of Artist that have recorded and Released the Song?

Seems like the article is lacking (IMHO= in my humble opinion) for not having a section listing artists that have recorded and released this song. Other could point out such a section would always be thought of as imcomplete by some? No reference at all to the "Blues Brother" - from Saturday Night Live -, and movie of the same name seems really lacking to me. Wfoj3 (talk) 23:08, 10 December 2020 (UTC)

By consensus, renditions by other artists should meet WP:SONGCOVER in order to be included in song articles. Long lists of artists may be found on websites such as secondhandsongs.[3] —Ojorojo (talk) 14:50, 11 December 2020 (UTC)

The strange California reference

The state of California is named after a mythical beautiful fantasy-land in a book. That book is The Adventures of Esplandián, written in 1510 by Garci Rodríguez de Montalvo.

It's possible that Robert Johnson knew, and possible that he expected his audience to know too. TooManyFingers (talk) 03:34, 1 January 2024 (UTC)