[78-L] Robert Johnson records claimed to be recorded 20% slow

[Malcolm - Venerable Music]

Even though I doubt this was done for the Johnson records, have you ever 
listened to the Gennett sides issued for Chubby Parker (usually found on 
Supertone and Silvertone)??
Compared to his Columbia sides, they are so fast that even when I decrease 
the speed on my turntable 10% (as slow as it goes), I still have to hold my 
finger against the platter to have them have a similar sound.
I'm guessing they are recorded at least 20% fast! Not sure why it was done, 
but I suppose there is at least some previous precedent to the idea?
Malcolm in GA

Venerable Music - http://www.venerablemusic.com/
78rpm Auctions - http://www.vmauctions.com/
Venerable Radio - http://www.venerableradio.com
On Myspace - http://www.myspace.com/venerablemusic

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "David Lennick" <dlennick at sympatico.ca>
To: "78-L Mail List" <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:43 PM
Subject: Re: [78-L] Robert Johnson records claimed to be recorded 20% slow


> There is just no way the ARC would issue records recorded 20% too fast, 
> even
> for ignorant southern peasants. These people are idiots. As one comment 
> wisely
> points out, "neither Johnny Shines, nor David 'Honeyboy' Edwards, nor 
> Robert
> Lockwood, Jr. nor anyone else who we know heard Robert or played with 
> Robert,
> has ever mentioned that the recordings were too fast. On the contrary, 
> everyone
> of those folks have said, in so many words, 'Yup. That's little Robert.'"
>
> Victor issued a recording of the Prokofiev Second Violin Concerto played 
> by
> Heifetz which they'd accidentally recorded with the cutters set to 80RPM,
> figuring that nobody would actually notice since the music was new. I 
> believe
> they rerecorded what had been done of the Brahms at the same session when 
> that
> error was discovered. Even Brunswick/Vocalion, which would wait for some 
> client
> business to come in before purchasing a new cutting stylus, wouldn't make 
> a
> goof of this magnitude. Speed variations do occur on recording equipment,
> possibly more so on remote locations, but not through entire 
> sessions..SOMEBODY
> would have noticed when the tests were played back.
>
> dl
>
> On 12/13/2010 5:19 PM, Jeff Lichtman wrote:
>> When I found the following article several weeks ago I paid it little
>> attention, as it seemed like a crackpot theory. The claim is that
>> Robert Johnson's records were originally recorded three semitones
>> slower than how they're typically played back (i.e. people have been
>> playing them back about 19% too fast). Assuming that they're usually
>> played at 78.26 RPM, that would mean the proper playback speed would
>> be around 65.8 RPM. Here is the article, along with samples of the
>> recordings slowed to the speed the author believes is correct:
>>
>> http://www.touched.co.uk/press/rjnote.html
>>
>> Now I see that this article has gotten attention from The Guardian:
>>
>> http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/musicblog/2010/may/27/robert-johnson-blues
>>
>> and something called The Daily Swarm:
>>
>> http://www.thedailyswarm.com/headlines/everything-you-know-about-robert-johnson-wrong/
>>
>> I think the idea is nonsense. I can believe that the correct playback
>> speed for Johnson's records is something other than 78.26, but I
>> highly doubt that the difference is three semitones.
>>
>> Thoughts?
>>
>>
>>                          -        Jeff Lichtman
>>                                   jeff at swazoo.com
>>                                   Check out Swazoo Koolak's Web Jukebox 
>> at
>>                                   http://swazoo.com/
>>
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
>