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
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
|