LISTSERV mailing list manager LISTSERV 16.0

Help for ARSCLIST Archives


ARSCLIST Archives

ARSCLIST Archives


[email protected]


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  October 2014

ARSCLIST October 2014

Subject:

Re: Robert Johnson Wrong Speed?

From:

Malcolm Rockwell <[log in to unmask]>

Reply-To:

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

Date:

Fri, 31 Oct 2014 08:18:59 -1000

Content-Type:

text/plain

Parts/Attachments:

Parts/Attachments

text/plain (243 lines)

No troubles. 120 Hz is the (harmonic) frequency we hear and call 60 Hz 
anyway!
Malcolm

*******

On 10/31/2014 7:19 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
> Hey, I screwed up! I meant 60 HZ for the power system frequency in 
> Texas. 120hz hum from full-wave rectification of line AC. The point 
> about the RJ speeds being correct in the 2011 remaster are still true.
>
> -- Tom Fine
>
> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Malcolm Rockwell" 
> <[log in to unmask]>
> To: <[log in to unmask]>
> Sent: Friday, October 31, 2014 12:44 PM
> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Robert Johnson Wrong Speed?
>
>
>> Thank you. To my mind that puts an end to years of hearing about 
>> this. It seems this topic raises up from the dead every 5 years or 
>> so. Of course it's not going to keep those who question everything 
>> from not doing so again and again, possibly not even after they've 
>> discovered access to the truth.
>> Johnson's voice? Which one? He sometimes used semi-falsetto singing 
>> but I never thought his recordings were done in anything else but his 
>> natural voice. He knew when to sing from the nose, the throat or the 
>> chest depending on the effect he wanted in a particular piece (check 
>> "Hot Tamales"). Changing keys also affects how a performer will sing 
>> a piece, and can be especially apparent when he is singing in a key 
>> that's not continuously within his range.
>> As to whose guitar picking fingers can cleanly move "that fast" Doc 
>> Watson is a great example. And I won't even start on the piano pickers!
>> Now back to our regularly scheduled programming.
>> Malcolm
>>
>> *******
>>
>> On 10/31/2014 12:23 AM, Tom Fine wrote:
>>> Hi Thomas:
>>>
>>> The 2011 reissue IS the correct speed, based on the 120hz hum from 
>>> the original recording equipment. I was trying to stop this 
>>> mythology, after talking with Seth. Let me say again -- the 2011 IS 
>>> the correct speed, unless there was some freak power system present 
>>> in Texas that operated at some frequency other than 120hz (just 
>>> about zero chance of that). So, again, what you hear on that 2011 
>>> edition IS the correct speed. All other discussion of "theories" of 
>>> other speeds are not based on facts. To quote Seth Winner again, 
>>> "the hum doesn't lie."
>>>
>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Thomas Stern" 
>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 9:44 PM
>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Robert Johnson Wrong Speed?
>>>
>>>
>>>> There is a 2011 CENTENNIAL edition, 42 tracks, remastered.
>>>> Same speed transfer as the half dozen previous reissues?
>>>> Does Sony/BMG have plans to issue these track in the postulated 
>>>> correct speed?
>>>>
>>>> Thomas.
>>>>
>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>> From: Association for Recorded Sound Discussion List 
>>>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Tom Fine
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 8:17 PM
>>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Robert Johnson Wrong Speed?
>>>>
>>>> Yes, I talked to Seth today about that. He's correct that "the hum 
>>>> doesn't lie." He also recalled that Steve Lasker did slow down the 
>>>> speed, but nothing anywhere near a half-tone, in order to pitch to 
>>>> a musical-tuning reference (I assume A=440?). So it is what it is. 
>>>> I went back and listened again to the new transfers and they sound 
>>>> plausibly realistic. I guess it's hard to believe that someone 
>>>> could consistently cleanly pick notes that fast, but RJ apparently 
>>>> did. As Seth joked, "you do know he made a deal with the devil, 
>>>> right?"
>>>>
>>>> Seth mentioned that Steve Lasker did indeed check the tuning of 
>>>> other musicians recorded at the same time by the same equipment and 
>>>> found the pitch to be like something musicians would tune to in 
>>>> those days, along the same lines as RJ. Maybe not A=440, but 
>>>> plausible "hillbilly" tuning. In fact, Seth said that Lasker 
>>>> pitched his RJ transfer to musical tuning, and then Seth noted that 
>>>> the hum was almost spot-on 120hz, and thus concluded that Steve's 
>>>> pitch was also spot-on.
>>>>
>>>> Finally, the LP "King of the Delta Blues" is probably a little bit 
>>>> fast/sharp, but definitely not a whole half-tone. It's more like a 
>>>> few cents, akin to between 1/78 and 1/39 fast (somewhere between 1 
>>>> and 2 revolutions per minute, which is about how much Lasker slowed 
>>>> it down to get the musical pitch right, according to Seth). It's 
>>>> likely that the 1990 CD reissue, which won a Grammy, was 
>>>> transferred at 78RPM and thus may be slightly fast/sharp.
>>>>
>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>
>>>> ----- Original Message -----
>>>> From: "Russell Miller" <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 5:18 PM
>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Robert Johnson Wrong Speed?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> On the ARSC website there's a video of a New York chapter meeting 
>>>>> that
>>>>> featured a panel discussion on transferring from analog sources. Seth
>>>>> Winner says Steven Lasker's transfers that he worked on for Sony's 
>>>>> Johnson
>>>>> centennial edition were right on the money. He could see 
>>>>> consistent peaks
>>>>> at 120 to 121 Hz.
>>>>>
>>>>> There were other artists who recorded on the same days and 
>>>>> locations as
>>>>> Johnson. Do their records bear any evidence of 60 Hz hum? Do these 
>>>>> records
>>>>> also sound like they should be played at a slower speed?
>>>>>
>>>>> Of the people who are known to have heard Robert Johnson perform, 
>>>>> which
>>>>> ones said his records sounded too fast?
>>>>>
>>>>> There's a video on YouTube where they slow down "Jolene" by Dolly 
>>>>> Parton.
>>>>> If we didn't know her voice and style, maybe that would sound more 
>>>>> natural
>>>>> to us than the high voice and fast vibrato she actually has. So I 
>>>>> remain
>>>>> very skeptical about the Johnson business. (Dolly's a great 
>>>>> singer, at any
>>>>> speed.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Russell
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Oct 30, 2014 at 2:02 PM, Tom Fine 
>>>>> <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> But did you guys listen to those YouTube clips? To me, both 
>>>>>> Johnson's
>>>>>> voice and the room resonances sounded more natural at the slower 
>>>>>> speed,
>>>>>> also the guitar picking sounded more like something normal 
>>>>>> fingers could
>>>>>> do, albeit after years of practice.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm with Dave in doubting there was any "conspiracy" by "them" at 
>>>>>> ARC. I
>>>>>> think it was a simple case of the recording machine running slow 
>>>>>> and no one
>>>>>> at the pressing plant knowing anything about how RJ actually 
>>>>>> sounded in the
>>>>>> flesh.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Listening to the slowed-down clips reminded me of when I realized 
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> Robert Plant overdubbed his vocals on many middle-period Led Zep 
>>>>>> songs by
>>>>>> slowing the tape down and singing in a range he could handle. 
>>>>>> Note he can't
>>>>>> sing "The Ocean" or most of the other songs on "IV" and "Houses 
>>>>>> of the
>>>>>> Holy" live -- find me a concert recording where he regularly hits 
>>>>>> those
>>>>>> high notes spot-on. I don't think the backing tracks were sped 
>>>>>> up, I think
>>>>>> the songs were designed for Plant to slow the tape down and sing 
>>>>>> in a
>>>>>> register he could handle and then the master mix was made with 
>>>>>> the music
>>>>>> tracks on-speed and the vocal tracks sped up and up-pitched.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -- Tom Fine
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Michael Shoshani" <
>>>>>> [log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> To: <[log in to unmask]>
>>>>>> Sent: Thursday, October 30, 2014 1:09 PM
>>>>>> Subject: Re: [ARSCLIST] Robert Johnson Wrong Speed?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  Playback speed was also far from uniform. Even with 
>>>>>> electrically-driven
>>>>>>> turntables, many home machines had speed fluctuations. And of 
>>>>>>> course for
>>>>>>> the large number of spring-driven turntables still in use on 
>>>>>>> portable
>>>>>>> machines, playback speed was never predictable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> How many big-band era stories have we all read of the local 
>>>>>>> musician who
>>>>>>> wanted to sit in with the famous band playing on tour that 
>>>>>>> night, boasting
>>>>>>> that he knew this or that solo by heart, only to for hilarity to 
>>>>>>> ensue as
>>>>>>> it turned out he'd learned it in the wrong key because his 
>>>>>>> machine's
>>>>>>> playback speed was completely off?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Michael Shoshani
>>>>>>> Chicago
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/30/2014 11:17, David Lewis wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I would say the notion that they were "deliberately sped up to 
>>>>>>>> make them
>>>>>>>> more exciting" is in error for the 78 rpm era. And I'm sure 
>>>>>>>> that they run
>>>>>>>> at a variety of speeds, none deliberately contrived.
>>>>>>>> Some to many of the sides were recorded in a hotel, rather than 
>>>>>>>> in a
>>>>>>>> proper
>>>>>>>> recording studio, and in that situation battery power was more 
>>>>>>>> common
>>>>>>>> than
>>>>>>>> AC.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Just my thoughts,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Dave Lewis
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>

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

March 2024
February 2024
January 2024
December 2023
November 2023
October 2023
September 2023
August 2023
July 2023
June 2023
May 2023
April 2023
March 2023
February 2023
January 2023
December 2022
November 2022
October 2022
September 2022
August 2022
July 2022
June 2022
May 2022
April 2022
March 2022
February 2022
January 2022
December 2021
November 2021
October 2021
September 2021
August 2021
July 2021
June 2021
May 2021
April 2021
March 2021
February 2021
January 2021
December 2020
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