LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST@LISTSERV.LOC.GOV


View:

Message:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Topic:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

By Author:

[

First

|

Previous

|

Next

|

Last

]

Font:

Proportional Font

LISTSERV Archives

LISTSERV Archives

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST Home

ARSCLIST  May 2009

ARSCLIST May 2009

Subject:

Re: Robert Johnson RPM debate

From:

Michael Biel <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>

Date:

Tue, 26 May 2009 10:53:13 -0700

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (96 lines)

From: Malcolm Rockwell <[log in to unmask]>

> James -
> I've read the arguments and heard the pitch shifted samples

Were these samples actually "pitch shifted" or were the speeds changed. 
So many younger collectors use the term "pitch shifting" incorrectly. 
It should ONLY mean electronically changing the pitch of a recording
without changing the speed or tempo.  That is entirely different than
changing the rotational speed of a record which changes the pitch and
the tempo at the same time.  Some modern turntables allow you to change
the rotational speed and keep the same pitch while changing the tempo,
and also changing the pitch while keeping the same tempo.  Computer
programs also allow these three different changes while using the wrong
names for them.  

THE ONLY PROPER WAY TO CHECK THIS QUESTION HERE IS TO LOCK THE PITCH AND
TEMPO TOGETHER, AND THAT IS NOT PROPERLY CALLED "PITCH SHIFTING". 
Younger computer-based collectors don't always know that.  

> and say it's possible the recordings are pitched high. 

Do you mean that the tempo would also be faster?  Do THEY mean that the
tempo would also be faster or are they only concerned with the pitch of
his voice???????

> This would mean one of three things: 
> 1) Robert really sang that way; 
> 2) the material was recorded too slow; and/or 
> 3) the final pitch was modified by dubbing prior to manufacture.

When dubbing at that time, the master disc would usually be played at
the same rotational speed as the new master, which means that the
pitch/tempo will remain unchanged.  

> I tend to go with #1, mostly because I've always heard him the way he 
> has been presented on LPs and CDs and my ear is used to that. The 
> samples are interesting food for thought, though!

The Columbia LP reissues were dubbed using a 16-inch Gates rim-drive
broadcast turntable which not a variable speed turntable.  Columbia
always did all of its LP reissues during that era at 78.26 .

> #2 is possible mostly because machines do run slow 

I had a big surprise a year or two ago.  The January 1925 Columbia
Atlanta session yielded an Ed and Grace McConnell side that was
announced by Lambdin Kay of WSB including chimes.  The actual chimes Kay
used are on display at WSB.  Michael Shoshani has collected all of these
Degan chimes, and using the model chimes that Kay used, the ONLY way the
chimes match is playing the disc around 72 RPM.  I also have a disc of
McConnell from an electrical Atlanta session later that year and his
voice matches the rotational speed of the earlier acoustical session. 
Maybe all those Atlanta sessions -- and others from the same trips --
were recorded at 72 RPM.

And please everybody, lets use the proper phrases from now on?  If they
are really just pitch shifting the recordings (which should only mean
that the tempo is not changed with the pitch) then this exercise is
improper.

Mike Biel   [log in to unmask]  


> (there's very little 
> homogenity of 78rpm recording speeds company to company, and session to 
> session within the same company. Add that to playback speed variations 
> and, well...). What was the power source in Dallas? 110 VAC? 120 VAC? Or 
> was it DC voltage? If AC, was the frequency (usually 60 Hz) solid, or 
> did it wander? What kind of motor did the portable recording lathe 
> use... AC, DC or counter-weighted (mechanical)? There are just too many 
> variables here.

> #3 requires forethought and since there was seemingly so little of it in 
> #2, I doubt this scenario. Producers are not going to agonize about this 
> kind of thing; to them Robert was just another blues picker. But who 
> knew what he'd become 60 years later or that any of this would matter?

> Good luck with your research!   Mal Rockwell

*******

james mendenhall wrote:
> Hi, Arsclist
> I am doing research about the rpm debate of the Robert Johnson 
> recordings.
> Does anyone have any information for me?
> And, is this all speculation or has there been proof found that they 
> are indeed too fast?
>
> thanks
>
> james
>
>

Top of Message | Previous Page | Permalink

Advanced Options


Options

Log In

Log In

Get Password

Get Password


Search Archives

Search Archives


Subscribe or Unsubscribe

Subscribe or Unsubscribe


Archives

November 2020
October 2020
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
May 2020
April 2020
March 2020
February 2020
January 2020
December 2019
November 2019
October 2019
September 2019
August 2019
July 2019
June 2019
May 2019
April 2019
March 2019
February 2019
January 2019
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
September 2018
August 2018
July 2018
June 2018
May 2018
April 2018
March 2018
February 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
November 2012
October 2012
September 2012
August 2012
July 2012
June 2012
May 2012
April 2012
March 2012
February 2012
January 2012
December 2011
November 2011
October 2011
September 2011
August 2011
July 2011
June 2011
May 2011
April 2011
March 2011
February 2011
January 2011
December 2010
November 2010
October 2010
September 2010
August 2010
July 2010
June 2010
May 2010
April 2010
March 2010
February 2010
January 2010
December 2009
November 2009
October 2009
September 2009
August 2009
July 2009
June 2009
May 2009
April 2009
March 2009
February 2009
January 2009
December 2008
November 2008
October 2008
September 2008
August 2008
July 2008
June 2008
May 2008
April 2008
March 2008
February 2008
January 2008
December 2007
November 2007
October 2007
September 2007
August 2007
July 2007
June 2007
May 2007
April 2007
March 2007
February 2007
January 2007
December 2006
November 2006
October 2006
September 2006
August 2006
July 2006
June 2006
May 2006
April 2006
March 2006
February 2006
January 2006
December 2005
November 2005
October 2005
September 2005
August 2005
July 2005
June 2005
May 2005
April 2005
March 2005
February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003
November 2003
October 2003
September 2003
August 2003
July 2003
June 2003
May 2003
April 2003
March 2003
February 2003
January 2003

ATOM RSS1 RSS2



LISTSERV.LOC.GOV

CataList Email List Search Powered by the LISTSERV Email List Manager