[78-L] Robert Johnson SAN ANTONIO [1936]

[Cary Ginell]

I have Vo 03426 and Vo 03434. Will try them out later tonight or tomorrow morning, but I'm highly skeptical.

Cary Ginell

> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:01:25 -0500
> From: rockined1 at aol.com
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Robert Johnson SAN ANTONIO [1936]
> 
> 
> anybody have any original Chuck Wagon Gang 78s to try out this theory??
> 
> Ed
> 
> 
>  Angeles, and a number of other US cities, had 
> 10v/50cycle electric service, and when they changed to 60 cycle Southern Calif. 
> dison offered an exchange program of electric appliances affected by the change 
> - the most significant were electric clocks, because the cycle change would 
> ake the earlier-manufactured ones run incredibly fast.  I don't know whether 
> he cutting equipment used was DC or AC, but this might be a factor.  Or not
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Philip Carli <Philip_Carli at pittsford.monroe.edu>
> To: 78-L Mail List <78-l at klickitat.78online.com>
> Sent: Mon, Dec 13, 2010 7:10 pm
> Subject: Re: [78-L] Robert Johnson records claimed to be recorded 20% slow
> 
> 
> This is waaaaay out of my league and I generally hold that the low pitch theory 
> ounds crackpotty, but I'll throw one thing in, and don't kill me: what cycle 
> urrent were San Antonio and Dallas on in 1937?  I mention it because of one 
> ase: in the early 1930s Los Angeles, and a number of other US cities, had 
> 10v/50cycle electric service, and when they changed to 60 cycle Southern Calif. 
> dison offered an exchange program of electric appliances affected by the change 
> - the most significant were electric clocks, because the cycle change would 
> ake the earlier-manufactured ones run incredibly fast.  I don't know whether 
> he cutting equipment used was DC or AC, but this might be a factor.  Or not.
> ________________________________________
> rom: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com [78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] 
> n Behalf Of Frank Scott [scottfrank at toast2.net]
> ent: Monday, December 13, 2010 5:48 PM
> o: '78-L Mail List'
> ubject: Re: [78-L] Robert Johnson records claimed to be recorded 20% slow
> The technical explanations seem very thorough and impressive particularly to
>  non musician like myself but the whole theory doesn't make sense. Johnson
> as recorded on five different dates with about seven months between the
> irst batch of sessions and the second. Are we to believe that the recorder
> as running slow at all those sessions? Or are we to suppose that they did
> t deliberately to make Johnson's recordings sound more exciting?
> And of course there were the people who knew Robert well like Son House,
> ohnny Shines and Robert Lockwood who never claimed that the records seemed
> oo fast to them.
> It's an intriguing idea that has been discussed at lengths on the blues
> ists and the consensus amongst most of the blues scholars on those lists,
> ome of whom are accomplished musicians, is that the theory doesn't hold
> ater.
> Frank
> > -----Original Message-----
>  From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com [mailto:78-l-
>  bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of Jeff Lichtman
>  Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 2:19 PM
>  To: 78-l at 78online.com
>  Subject: [78-L] Robert Johnson records claimed to be recorded 20% slow
> 
>  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
> 
> ______________________________________________
> 8-L mailing list
> 8-L at klickitat.78online.com
> ttp://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
> This email message and any attachments may contain confidential information. If 
> ou are not the intended recipient, you are prohibited from using the 
> nformation in any way, including but not limited to disclosure of, copying, 
> orwarding or acting in reliance on the contents. If you have received this 
> mail by error, please immediately notify me by return email and delete it from 
> our email system. Thank you.
> ______________________________________________
> 8-L mailing list
> 8-L at klickitat.78online.com
> ttp://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 78-L mailing list
> 78-L at klickitat.78online.com
> http://klickitat.78online.com/mailman/listinfo/78-l