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

[Michael Biel]

In many major cities, elevators often were run on high voltage DC.  It 
was one of the reasons why a downtown portion of Manhattan was still DC 
into the late 1950s.  If they used elevator DC, the voltage is less 
possible to regulate it because DC voltage can not be transformer controlled

Mike Biel  mbiel at mbiel.com

On 12/13/2010 8:49 PM, Cary Ginell wrote:
> One thing that sticks in my mind is something else that Marvin Montgomery told me - he said that when they were recording in a temporary studio like the hotels and warehouses in Texas, they used a portable generator to power the recording equipment. If someone used the elevator in the building, the current would change and sometimes that had to start over. I don't know whether to believe this or not and I'm not savvy enough about electronics to reason this out, but does this make sense to anyone? Would the record company have informed the hotel staff not to let anyone use the elevator during a session?
>
> Cary Ginell
>
>> From: Philip_Carli at pittsford.monroe.edu
>> To: 78-l at klickitat.78online.com
>> Date: Mon, 13 Dec 2010 20:32:59 -0500
>> Subject: Re: [78-L] Robert Johnson records claimed to be recorded 20% slow
>>
>> They might not figure it out if it hadn't occurred to them -- if it's 110 it's 110 if you work hurriedly; also, whose equipment did they use -- what they brought or something there?  Even pros goof, and often they make the biggest goofs because they cover almost everything so efficiently that a "little" but crucial thing may slip through. Remote and not-terribly-probable possibilities, and maybe this is all hooey anyway, but pitch and speed are and will remain contentious and surprising issues.
>>
>> ________________________________________
>> From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com [78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online.com] On Behalf Of david.diehl at hensteeth.com [david.diehl at hensteeth.com]
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 8:22 PM
>> To: 78-L Mail List
>> Subject: Re: [78-L] Robert Johnson records claimed to be recorded 20% slow
>>
>> I admit the first time I heard RJ I thought there was a David Seville quality about the recording and there were major speed gaffes like Bessie Smith's One and two blues. However, the idea that recording engineers couldn't figure out power supplies on field trips doesn't hold up very well. Neither does jimmying both turntables to create this not terribly pleasing effect.
>>   DJD
>> Visit the Blue Pages: the Encyclopedic Guide to 78 RPM Party Records
>> http://www.hensteeth.com
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: David Lennick [mailto:dlennick at sympatico.ca]
>> Sent: Monday, December 13, 2010 06:12 PM
>> To: '78-L Mail List'
>> Subject: Re: [78-L] Robert Johnson records claimed to be recorded 20% slow
>>
>> Indeed, many singles were cut faster than their LP originals even in the 70s and 80s. But rarely more than a semitone if that. As well, many Capitol 78s from the 40s are on the fast side..a few years ago I transferred Sparky's Music Mix-Up, and at the end of one side we hear a bit of Mendelssohn's Violin Concerto. I had to pull it down 3% to have it in E Minor where it's supposed to be. And then there are all those Deccas that should play at 80 because the cutting tables in New York were off speed. The post-1943 recordings dubbed from 33RPM lacquers play correctly on LP but reissues of pre-1942 recordings are often slow.But TWENTY PERCENT!? Gimme a break.dlOn 12/13/2010 7:05 PM, Thatcher Graham wrote:>  Actually deliberately pressing a fast version has numerous historical>  precedents. Several of Fats Domino's sides were deliberately sped up.>  The book Blue Monday covered it in some detail. Though admittedly in>  this case, 3 semitones is hard to believe.>>  -Thatcher>>>>>>>  On
>    1
>>   2/13/2010 5:48 PM, Frank Scott wrote:>>  The technical explanations seem very thorough and impressive particularly to>>  a non musician like myself but the whole theory doesn't make sense. Johnson>>  was recorded on five different dates with about seven months between the>>  first batch of sessions and the second. Are we to believe that the recorder>>  was running slow at all those sessions? Or are we to suppose that they did>>  it deliberately to make Johnson's recordings sound more exciting?>>>>  And of course there were the people who knew Robert well like Son House,>>  Johnny Shines and Robert Lockwood who never claimed that the records seemed>>  too fast to them.>>>>  It's an intriguing idea that has been discussed at lengths on the blues>>  lists and the consensus amongst most of the blues scholars on those lists,>>  some of whom are accomplished musicians, is that the theory doesn't hold>>  water.>>>>  Frank>>>>>  -----Original Message----->>>  From: 78-l-bounces at klickitat.78online
>   .c
>>   om [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