Talk:Mahalia Jackson

New article

Well, I wrote this article and posted it today, February 7, 2021, and God (etc.) willing, this will be the last time I edit it. So I and the entire human race are counting on you to make sure it doesn't die the death of a thousand dumb edits. Here's the sandbox I wrote this article in and the other where I summarized the majority of sources. If someone has a question that should answer most of it. And of course the sources themselves.

A word to future editors: I used Jules Schwerin's Got To Tell It as a source but I didn't cite anything from it because I don't consider it reliable. Neither does Mark Burford, author and editor of two books about Jackson (the exception is the chapter of Jackson recalling growing up in New Orleans, but this period is well documented in Goreau's book). So I removed Schwerin from the Further reading section. Be very skeptical of anything added to the article from this source.

There's now a Mahalia Jackson discography too. Moni3 (talk) 19:18, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for your work! nyxærös 19:24, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

Wow, thanks very much; great work as usual! Thanks also for your notes re sources. I've copyedited the article and added a little tidbit about her and Duke Ellington (I'd found the ref for it before reading the source details on your sandbox talk page). I've been watching this article since the end of 2009 when I discovered some major vandalism to it and I don't intend to stop anytime soon. Graham87 14:49, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for the copy edits (I tried to get it perfect...), and thank you to everyone who watches the article to protect it. Moni3 (talk) 00:33, 9 February 2021 (UTC)

"God's word through song."

"She found a home in her church, leading to a lifelong dedication and singular purpose to deliver God's word through song."

Firstly, 'lifelong dedication', sure--but 'singular purpose' is speculative and superfluous.

Secondly, why are we using sentimental religious parlance like "God's word"? This read like a bio on a church website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.121.142.230 (talk) 15:48, 21 June 2021 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks for the note. I don't like what I replaced it with but it's probably better than the original. Agreed especially re "God's word". Graham87 03:52, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

Disagree with this. Singular purpose -- she did nothing else in her life because she was motivated to sing only gospel. She rejected all manner of opportunities when both rich and poor, to focus entirely on gospel. "Lifelong dedication" doesn't do the idea, and the language used in sources, justice. There's no sentimentality in the language and this needs to be understood. This language, "deliver God's word through song" reflects Jackson's motivations. Her mindset. This article is about, essentially, a religious figure akin to a saint, monk, or someone similar. It doesn't make sense to address the biography of someone whose entire life was dedicated to a religious cause and not be direct about why she did it. Excluding it diminishes to details of her life. She didn't sing because she was paid, for fame, or other rewards. She did it because she earnestly believed she was delivering God's word through song. It's essential to convey the how serious Jackson was about this. Service to God was her duty, and the reward was an eternal placement in heaven. The statement conveys this succinctly and accurately. Accuracy is more important than neutrality of tone here. This edit does not help the article. Moni3 (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2021 (UTC)

OK, I've self-reverted for now, until/unless we can hash out something else. To me the article does sound like it's saying that Jackson literally sang God's word through song, implying that the Christian conception of God exists and is the only correct one, in Wikipedia's voice ... which I don't personally believe ... but I can't find a way to fix it without making that passage sound clunky. Even adding something like "as she saw it"/"as she perceived/conceived it" to the end of that sentence doesn't really work for me; she sang songs written by others but she certainly put her own unmistakeable stamp on them. Graham87 02:26, 23 June 2021 (UTC)

"Queen of Gospel Music" honorific

Graham87 pinged me about this. The article before I rewrote it mentions Jackson as the "Queen of Gospel" or some similar designation. Originally I left this out of the lead and article because the sources don't refer to her this way. She was marketed by Apollo using this description. Maybe called this by MCs at concert appearances. It was a way to designate her kind of music for people who were unfamiliar with her or her style. So it seems like a marketing gimmick in the same way Atlantic Records referred to Ray Charles as a "genius" in their album titles.

Jackson didn't refer to herself this way. But gospel singer Clara Ward did while Jackson was touring and recording. Jackson also didn't refer to herself as "the world's best/greatest/etc gospel singer" but she was marketed this way by Columbia.

Also, using "Queen of Gospel etc" makes Jackson smaller than she was, confined to the gospel genre as opposed to her influence over popular music as a whole. Anyway, that's the reasoning. In the scope of the article I didn't put much thought into it as it's such a minor detail.

What's the citation standard for an honorific? When I wrote Thomas A. Dorsey's article, I included mention of the honorific "Father of Gospel Music" because sources use it repeatedly if only to clarify that Dorsey didn't invent gospel or wasn't the first to use "gospel" to refer to black church music. They elaborate on his influence by discussing the honorific title. Moni3 (talk) 13:47, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

With that explanation, I tend to agree that it deserves little or no elaboration. Maybe a short paragraph in the "On music" section, if even that. I can't find an actual standard on these things but FWIW Ray Charles's article mentions the "genius" thing right in the lead and nowhere else, which is not the best practice. There's Louis Armstrong#Nicknames, but that's not exactly comparable. Hmmm ... Graham87 14:08, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Phrase

 Once AGAIN, this phrase is opinion, not fact (Popular music as a whole felt her influence .. and should be eliminated. I have said before that Wiki is the place for facts, not opinions.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.129.97.80 (talk) 02:43, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

It's part of a summary of a very well-sourced article. Graham87 (talk) 04:00, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Lead

Picking up from the conversation previously held on my talk page. I believe the current lead section is slightly overloaded and could be shortened for readability. I think that most of it could be said in a clear summary without removing any key information. I also think it’s important to highlight her accolades in the lead, not because of the importance of those accolades to modern society but because it would highlight her impact within music. For instance, she is generally referenced as a gospel singer, but adding recognition like the Gospel Music Hall of Fame as well as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame and National Rhythm and Blues Hall of Fame showcases that her impact and influence spans outside of gospel and into secular music as well, while NPR and Rolling Stone mentions justify saying she’s one of the most influential figures of the 20th century.

I also think her appearance in the 1959 film Imitation of Life is probably one of the most memorable performances of her life. And should be mentioned in her lead to highlight not only a memorable moment but how monumental that was for a black gospel singer to appear in a Hollywood film. Which was also important because her appearance was not as a maid or servant or even a blues singer but as herself. This was during the golden age of Hollywood, but also during the time of Jim Crow, which was rare if not unprecedented, for dark skinned, full figured women.

Here’s my previous edit to get an idea of what I was striving for and what changes I made. Please share your thoughts Moni3

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mahalia_Jackson&oldid=1276961817

Thanks Kanyfug (talk) 20:52, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Mahalia Jackson (/məˈheɪliə/ mə-HAY-lee-ə; born Mahala Jackson; October 26, 1911 – January 27, 1972) was an American gospel singer, widely considered one of the most influential vocalists of the 20th century. With a career spanning 40 years, Jackson played a pivotal role in popularizing gospel blues in Black churches across the U.S. Despite segregation, she achieved unprecedented success, selling an estimated 22 million records and performing for integrated and secular audiences worldwide, making her one of the best-selling gospel artists in music history.

Born in poverty in New Orleans and the granddaughter of enslaved people, Jackson found purpose in gospel music. She later moved to Chicago, where she joined the Johnson Singers, one of the earliest gospel groups. Influenced by Thomas Dorsey and Bessie Smith, she adapted blues-infused styles into traditional hymns. After years of working odd jobs between performances, her breakthrough came in 1947 with "Move On Up a Little Higher", which sold two million copies and reached number-two on Billboard, both firsts for gospel music. Jackson became the first gospel artist to tour Europe, regularly appeared on television, performed for U.S. presidents, and sang the national anthem at John F. Kennedy's Inaugural Ball. A close friend and supporter of Martin Luther King Jr., she was an active voice in the civil rights movement, singing at fundraisers and the March on Washington in 1963.

Jackson resisted pressure to record secular music, remaining dedicated to gospel. A Grammy Lifetime Achievement Award recipient, she won three competitive Grammy Awards and was inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame, the National Recording Registry, and the Rock and Roll, Gospel, and R&B Halls of Fame. She has also been honored on the Hollywood Walk of Fame, was named one of NPR's 50 Great Voices, and ranked among Rolling Stone's 200 Greatest Singers of All Time. Jackson also made a memorable on-screen appearance in the 1959 film Imitation of Life.

Renowned for her powerful contralto voice, commanding stage presence, and emotion depth, her influence extended beyond gospel, shaping rhythm and blues, soul, and rock and roll. Her success also ushered in gospel's Golden Age, paving the way for future generations of gospel artists.

______________________

I tried to blockquote all that up there and I can't remember how and it's taking far longer to figure that out than communicate, so someone blockquote that for me please.

Ok, one of the things about Featured Articles is how incredibly picky the writing can get. It took me a sharp learning curve to get the hang of it. I found it extremely frustrating at times, but let's take it on.

When I write an article, I write the body of it first then summarize everything in the article for the lead. So the paragraphs that are in the article currently cover 1. Name, nationality, occupation, metrics for success 2. Biography part 1, 3. Biography part 2, 4. Style and influence.

I recommend checking out the articles for Bob Dylan, Elvis Presley, and The Beatles, as these are Featured Articles for musicians at the same level of influence as Jackson.

I put in bold the phrases I don't think improve the article. I'll try to address them as clearly as possible.

1. Despite segregation: the article is for anyone who reads English, including those who have never been to the U.S. or know much about its history, so it needs to be made clear what segregation is. A link doesn't necessarily tackle that. Sometimes you need to stick a clarifying phrase or adjective in there. The way it's written now is clearer. Also, segregation was a legal condition in some locations, not an event. So it's inaccurate to say "during segregation". Which is why it is currently worded "During a time when racial segregation was pervasive in American society"

2. Her success wasn't unprecedented. Lots of people have been successful, more than she was if record sales and money are the metrics.

3. "Born in poverty in New Orleans and the granddaughter of enslaved people" awkward and unclear. Current wording is clearer and flows better.

4. "Jackson found purpose in gospel music" I defended the current wording, "lifelong dedication and singular purpose to deliver God's word through song" in a section above and I think it still stands: she was extremely serious about what she was doing, taking the word of God to as many places as she could. Jackson, Sallie Martin, Willie Mae Ford Smith, Thomas Dorsey, they all had a very serious sense of evangelism and it's a distinction that needs to be made, to honor Jackson and her mindset. The sources describe very clearly how serious she was about her role in spreading the Gospel.

5. "later" obviously, but why remove that she migrated when she was a teenager?

6. I don't know what "blues-infused styles" means, or how it might have been adapted, but what I think you're trying to say is that she infused blues into traditional hymns. She made a larger impact with contemporary songs so it doesn't make sense to remove that.

7. "an active voice" Just active is enough.

8. The last two sentences of the second paragraph don't flow well.

9. Why remove how long she worked odd jobs? It's important to let readers know she was not an overnight sensation.

10. Current start of the third paragraph is one of my favorite sentences in the article: "Nationwide recognition came for Jackson in 1947 with the release of "Move On Up a Little Higher", selling two million copies and hitting the number-two spot on Billboard charts, both firsts for gospel music." So there's not much you can do to convince me it doesn't belong. But I don't own the article, so consensus is consensus.

11. The article doesn't mention awards she won until the Honors section, because she won so many, and she was far larger than the awards that she won. They are, in essence, inconsequential to her overall influence. This is where reading the other FAs of musicians are helpful, especially ones whose influence is massive. They are more than the awards they won or their honorifics. Sometimes listing these makes their influence seem smaller. Adding after saving to say: the leads for Elvis, Dylan, and the Beatles all mention the awards they won, so this should be considered. Moni3 (talk) 22:22, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

12. Why remove her motivation for being involved in the civil rights movement? She was directly involved with several incidents where she integrated venues, concerts, and a neighborhood. She was directly threatened and her house shot at. That's in the article. And the motivation for her to participate did indeed come later in her life.

13. Likewise, sources do not emphasize her appearance in Imitation of Life over what is currently in the article. It's one of four films she was in. She appeared on camera for the length of the song she sang. To pick it out and put it in the lead overemphasizes it. I know you think it's an important accomplishment but the sources don't.

14. In general the last two paragraphs aren't an improvement. The entire Style section of the article is not covered in the lead now.

These are my thoughts, such as they are. Moni3 (talk) 22:17, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I entirely agree with the post above. The more work that has gone in to an article, the more likely it is that editorial decisions have been made for a very good reason. Having said that, I've added the sentences about awards from the revised lead to the original one, as I think they flow quite nicely out of the sentence about her influence in fields other than gospel. Perhaps the new awards text is a bit too detailed for its current context. Graham87 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)