| Please CLICK HERE to go to the updated guitar forum. This version is no longer active as a discussion area, but is still available as a searchable archive. All user names and passwords have been integrated in the new forum |
|
Acoustic Guitar Forum
![]() The IGS Guitar Forum
![]() Robert Johnson's recordings are 80% too fast (Page 1)
|
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 |
next newest topic | next oldest topic |
| Author | Topic: Robert Johnson's recordings are 80% too fast |
|
Adrian Freed Member ![]() Posts: 2360 From: Berkeley, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2000 |
You may remember we have discussed the problem of knowing what speed the old 78's were recorded at. I remember grumbling that the New Transcriptions of Robert Johnson were derived by drawing conclusions based on the assumption that the recording speed was known. This provocative article suggests that we are listening to RJ 20% too fast. I have a few ideas on how to analyze the recordings to get the correct speed. Does anybody care? IP: Logged |
|
Murray Member ![]() Posts: 304 From: Nova Scotia, Canada Registered: Apr 2003 |
Yes, please proceed. most interesting for sure. M. IP: Logged |
|
BluesMcGoo Member Posts: 267 From: Louisiana, USA. Registered: Mar 2003 |
By all means... IP: Logged |
|
cmdrpiffle Member Posts: 269 From: santa cruz Kalifornia Registered: Dec 2002 |
Sally forth Adrian, You've an audience... IP: Logged |
|
cmdrpiffle Member Posts: 269 From: santa cruz Kalifornia Registered: Dec 2002 |
Actually, I just read the article and listened to all the WAV files.... Wow! We might indeed be listening to old Bob too fast. IP: Logged |
|
Adrian Freed Member ![]() Posts: 2360 From: Berkeley, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2000 |
I just listened to the wav files. Some of them are compelling, some aren't. It's pretty clear I will have to come up with some objective method to settle the question on a per song basis. IP: Logged |
|
waxwing Member Posts: 1431 From: Oakland, CA Registered: Oct 2001 |
I had just the opposite feeling, that the tempo seemed sluggish, choppy, and that the vocal wavered in an unnatural way. But you should go ahead Adrian, although I don't see how, without making assumptions about string gauge and composition, not to mention the seemingly arbitrary assumption, made by the author of the article, regarding Spanish tuning having to be at G, you might ascertain values which would not be changed equally by a change in playback speed. But, you da man for the job. Can you give us a layman's explanation? It is interesting that the author seems to be speculating that this acceleration was a treatment given to both of Bob's recording sessions, therefore not a mechanical problem but a conscious choice on the part of the record producer. Who else's performances might have been manipulated in this way? It's very hard to believe that RJ would have been the only example of such engineering. All for now. John C. IP: Logged |
|
Corn Dog Member Posts: 1765 From: Montclair, NJ USA Registered: Jan 2001 |
Cool topic Adrian. Yikes. On some tunes, slowing him down gets him closer to that Leroy Carr sound to I think. And Bukka White. Elijah Wald contends, in his new book Escaping The Delta, that RJ amongst others was a much broader and "sophisticated" player than the myth perpetuates I think (I heard an interesting interview with him on WNYC today about this topic). The deeper voice is definitely more compelling to me but I agree with Waxwing that the rhythm seems to get messed up a bit. Maybe that's why they sped it up, to clean up the rhythmic drive a bit? [This message has been edited by Corn Dog (edited January 28, 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Montgomery unregistered |
Yes, it's VERY odd that records pressed from both different sessions would be manipulated in such a consistent way. Furthermore, wouldn't RJ's contemporaries, Johnny Shines, Son House, among others, have noticed this? Wouldn't RJ himself been infuriated? Terraplane Blues was relatively popular. RJ must have been pissed that no one could tell it was him. IP: Logged |
|
Adrian Freed Member ![]() Posts: 2360 From: Berkeley, CA, USA Registered: Oct 2000 |
I am not an expert on the cutting machines but I know there was some variability through the years and yes the recordist had control over the speed. There are several cues I can use each of which involves a different and tricky set of computations. One is to build a set of vocal formant spectral envelopes and match the shapes across the songs. This would get the relative speeds calibrated.What's tricky about this is finding places where he sings the same vowel in each song. Fornuately there is a lot of redundancy between blues lyrics;man, she, lordy, lord, blues, raining/morning etc etc. Then we can look at guitar transients. Transients (from plucks, for example) have the same structure whatever pitch you pluck and become very unnatural sounding if they are stretched. There are probably some places where he knocks the guitar with the slide or places we can recover the top-plate resonance frequency. These can all be correlated assuming he played the same guitar throughout. The real trick would be to find an absolute pitch reference in the recording. The only one of those I can think of is 60Hz or some harmonic of it from power lines. This would be the best way but in those days elecricity and electrical devices were not as commonplace as they are now. Also we have to contend with such contamination that might have arrived in the transfer from 78 to CD. I may have to request that somebody who ownes a Robert Johnson 78 make a special recording that would allow me to take that factor out. IP: Logged |
|
TM Member Posts: 64 From: Registered: Jan 2004 |
Great topic!!!! Keep at it. My response on hearing the slowed version: Sounds like the original recordings slowed down. TM IP: Logged |
|
TM Member Posts: 64 From: Registered: Jan 2004 |
I just listened to the two versions of Crossroads, To me the slow version is simply not correct, just sounds like a slowed down recording. The song labors at that speed with no natural feel to it. Still an interesting concept. Tm IP: Logged |
|
Dobrofanatic Member Posts: 70 From: New York, NY Registered: Oct 2003 |
It's real hard to tell by ear if the recordings were sped up, especially when you've heard the "fast" recordings hundreds (thousands)of times. Still...these 80% slower versions are fascinating...and to my ear, RJ's voice sounds more real on the slower versions. Great topic! IP: Logged |
|
Jeffrey Sipress Member ![]() Posts: 1335 From: Santa Barbara, CA Registered: Nov 1999 |
Perhaps 20% is too much? Try the same tune at 15, 10, and even 5% slower to get a feel for a realistic sound. I always thought RJ's voice was sooo high, yet not in falsetto, and some of those quick licks (such as in Terraplane) were played too fast, yet cleanly done. Of course, as stated here, we are all so very used to what we've heard all our lives... IP: Logged |
|
Mike D Member ![]() Posts: 1393 From: Phx, Az Registered: Dec 2000 |
Wow, that was interesting! In some ways the slow ones sound 'wrong', but that could be simply because they are unfamiliar. The slowed down versions mostly sound more like it seems they ought to, especially the guitar, which now sounds like a real wooden acoustic with overtones, instead of the tightly wound tin can it always did before. His voice seems more natural too, but a couple times I agree it did sound slow and a little draggy. That could be due to the resording machine slowing down and speeding up. Hmmm. IP: Logged |
|
Brian Kramer Member Posts: 843 From: Stockholm Sweden, via NYC Registered: Oct 2003 |
When I was around the late great Lenny Kunstadt, owner of Spivey records some years back(NYC),I inquired specifically about this & he boasted that this was more common practice than not & regarded as sort of a mastering technique, which he also applied to his own recorded artists (Larry Johnson, etc.) Listening to these slowed version examples is an ear opening experiance! IP: Logged |
|
waxwing Member Posts: 1431 From: Oakland, CA Registered: Oct 2001 |
While listening to these again I realized that one of the songs, Love In Vain, is actually tabbed in G in Standard tuning, at least by Woody and Scott Ainsley. Dave Rubin tabs it in Spanish tuned to G# (?). I checked the pitch and found that on the 1990 Columbia CD it is pitch as if capoed at the first fret if played in G. This would mean that Robert would have had to have tuned to standard tuning at D (DGCFAD) in order for the three semitone increase to bring the pitch to G#. Or Spanish at F if Rubin has it right. Although tuning low (D or even C) was popular with the likes of Robert Wilkens, Lane Hardin and others, I thought the conventional wisdom was that most of the Delta players tuned as high as possible without breaking strings. Anyway, this would sort of lead to the conclusion that RJ was in collusion with the record producer, i.e. he was tuning down on purpose in some cases to make it seem like he was playing in a normally pitched tuning after it was sped up. Sorry, I find this a little far fetched. I think he tuned Spanish to A, capoed to the second fret when his high vocal range demanded it, and played the octave at the 14th fret of his Kalamazoo with no problem. He went way beyond the octave (what, 17th fret?) on some occasions and was clearly capable of flopping his wrist to slide beyond the end of the neck, ala Bob Brozman. I'm sure an examination of the actual pitches of various sides would turn up others that would have to be tuned lower than normal for a three semitone raise to bring them to where they are. But, hell, it's fun to speculate. All for now. John C. [This message has been edited by waxwing (edited January 29, 2004).] [This message has been edited by waxwing (edited January 29, 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
zaelic Member Posts: 187 From: Registered: Nov 2003 |
Analysing old Klezmer records has led a lot of us Klez players to realize that early recording techniques were far from accurate. A lot of the old 78 rpm records, expecially pre 1930, can be way sped up. Since we know how fiddles are tuned, and what keys and fingerings the lead clarinetist is using, a lot of us have approached the old Klez stuff completely differently once we realized that the recording speeds are deceptive. Many of the "difficult" old fiddle pieces that modern musicians learned from playing along to old 78s play in keys like B or Bb are actually played as fiddle pieces in A, a normal fingeriung for non-classical violin. Similarly, if I hear a Cajun tune from 1928 and it sounds in D, I know that the accordion was probably a C accordion. I guess referring to the old recordings as "78s" is misleading. The can be anything from 67's to 93's. IP: Logged |
|
Eddie Punch Member Posts: 1361 From: Freiburg, Germany Registered: Nov 1999 |
Great topic ! I do know for a fact that some of Bling Boy Fullers recordings were speeded up. Try playing with BBF. A song could typicaly start in E. That's using C first position shapes with a capo on the fourth fret. By the end of the song, it's gone up to F. That's manipulation ! Eddie IP: Logged |
|
snakehips Member Posts: 1042 From: Edinburgh, Scotland, U.K. Registered: Feb 2003 |
Hi there ! I don't really know what to believe! Pitch at which the guitar is tuned (no guitar tuners then) Speed of 78 when played for transfer onto Digital Recording Medium for manufacture of CD's
Also, I don't buy the idea that the old Delta blues guys tuned their guitars as high as they could go without breaking strings, for extra volume. I would have thought that in those days (Depression etc etc) the lack of cash and availabilty of guitar strings (?) would mean that the last thing a guitarist would want is to risk breaking strings left, right and centre !! Not think ? Cheers IP: Logged |
|
Jack Cook Member Posts: 343 From: Cape Cod, MA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 |
VERY interesting article (and thread). I've always thought Johnson's voice was quite high, but that's not all that unusual -- all males do not have deep voices. I listened to the samples, and I think most of them sound quite natural and very possibly might be the "correct" RJ voice, but who really knows? It seems to me there ought to be a way to know this. After all, it wasn't all THAT long ago; there's constant speculation in the classical music world about how the music really sounded in Mozart's time, for example. But there were no recordings then, and no surviving witnesses to tell us how it really was. Johnson is at least still in living memory of some people (Robert Lockwood, Honeyboy Edwards). Wouldn't it be great to ask them for their input? And how is it that recording methods or procedures from less than a hundred years ago are so mysterious as to make this something for speculation? What are the implications of this, if it's true, for what the "correct" sound would be for Blind Lemon Jefferson, Charley Patton, and all the other people of that time? If this was done for RJ's recordings, then it might have been common practice, and all our impressions of prewar blues players might be altered a little bit. Jack IP: Logged |
|
resonator Member Posts: 18 From: Vancouver, BC, Canada Registered: Jan 2004 |
Perhaps it was not uncommon to speed up the recordings somehow. I recall reading somewhere about an interview with MJH in the 1960s. I don't remember the exact details, but the gist of it was that someone commented on the fact that he didn't play one of his tunes as fast as he had in the original recordings, and was his old age affecting his fingering ability? MJH, with a wry smile, admitted that the original recordings had been sped up because the producer? had felt they were too slow to gain popular acceptance. IP: Logged |
|
BluesMcGoo Member Posts: 267 From: Louisiana, USA. Registered: Mar 2003 |
I'll have to go back to Montgomery's post earlier in the thread (Jack Cook's post also touched on this). Why haven't we heard any comments on this subject from Robert's contemporaries? After listening to the samples, if there really was THAT much difference between his recorded voice and his actual voice, wouldn't SOMEBODY who knew him have made mention of this at some point? I watched "The Search For Robert Johnson" not too long ago. If anyone hasn't seen it, there's a scene wherein John Hammond plays Robert's recording of "Love In Vain" for Willie Mae Powell. (It was supposedly written for her) She didn't bat an eye. She didn't say "Gee, his voice wasn't that high!" Wouldn't you think someone as intimate with the man as she was, and probably saw him perform as much as anyone, would have made that observation? I've listened to the clips, and I'm not buying the theory at this point. I'll await Adrian's computations. IP: Logged |
|
Rick Aiello Member ![]() Posts: 224 From: Berryville, VA, USA Registered: Jan 2004 |
Here's a related item ... Mictrotonal Analysis of Robert Johnson's Drunken Hearted Man IP: Logged |
|
toremainn Member Posts: 806 From: Bodø, Norway Registered: Jan 2003 |
"The search for R.J." and an interview with a girlfriend 60 years after isn't what I call relieable. She didn't even seem to remember it (IMHO). I think and have often thought that RJ sounded a bit "Smurfy". After listening to the slowdowned samples, I think Adrian is right. IP: Logged |
|
sigurdd44 Member Posts: 396 From: Madison, Wisc., USA Registered: Nov 2003 |
I think everyone is being silly. Stuff that happened a long time ago happened that way cause it was a long time ago. Woulda been cool to have been there and seen it/heard it all happening in real time... but those artifacts is what wees got. I dig that old scratchy mojo IP: Logged |
|
Chris M unregistered |
@Tore - Just to add, the reason Willie Mae seemingly didn't remember was, from what she said, she had never heard the song before. Robert told her would write it and record it, but apparently never finished it in time to play it for her himself (I'm assuming they didn't see each other after the recording sessions) Either way, it is an interesting point. I'd like to hear more on the subject, however I don't think I will be completely satisfied with this theory untill one of RJ's contemporarys speak up. IP: Logged |
|
Dennis Roger Reed Moderator Posts: 1901 From: San Clemente, CA USA Registered: Sep 2000 |
Very few of RJ’s contemporaries are around. Is there someone I'm missing besides Honeyboy Edwards and Robert Lockwood? And it was a long time ago, and neither gentlemen, despite their musical talents, are known for their great veracity. Could you remember whether someone played a song in A or F# 65 years ago? And although the slowed vocals do some a bit different, they are not earthshaking dissimilar. After years of hearing them one way, the tunes do sound a bit wrong at the lower speeds. Johnson sounds a bit more like a mortal, and his guitar work a touch more pedestrian. But even today, speeding or slowing recordings is done quite often. I’ve done it a few times to slow down an adrenalin laced tempo, or to get a backing track closer to the singer’s range. This is an interesting topic, and well suited to most of our specific tastes here on the forum. I would love Adrian to come up with a understandable layman’s method of comparing the recordings. In the meantime I will return to my scrutiny of the photo of Charlie Patton, which I now find to be completely legitimate. [This message has been edited by Dennis Roger Reed (edited January 29, 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
JohnyBB unregistered |
I've always felt that the tunes were too fast. The words are too dark to play at the speed you hear them in. When I play love in vain I've got to slow it down etc. Also, My Black Mama sounds so much like Son House's phrase form Deathletter blues that you can't help but know that's Son's influence shining through. At full spead I never heard that influence except in the words themselves. Now I hear it musically too. Finally I think there is so much more nuance to the voice at these speeds. This article blows me away. I want to by the CDs of the complete works slowed down now. Hopefully someone will do that for us. IP: Logged |
|
Hambone Member Posts: 642 From: Chicago, IL, USA Registered: Jan 2000 |
I'm certain that Columbia Records will be happy to repackage the Complete Works of Robert Johnson Remastered at a Lower Pitch and Slower, so that we can all buy it again. But seriously, I'm blown away by the samples that accompany the article. I discussed the matter with two engineers today and they both said, unprompted, that you've got to find that 60 cycle electrical hum on the original recording and take things from there. IP: Logged |
|
Jeffrey Sipress Member ![]() Posts: 1335 From: Santa Barbara, CA Registered: Nov 1999 |
Take a look at the films of Chaplin and Keaton, etc. I can't remember a silent movie that wasn't sped up. Perhaps music recordings were affected in a similarly appropriate fashion of the times, although these exact times may not perfectly overlap. IP: Logged |
|
zaelic Member Posts: 187 From: Registered: Nov 2003 |
I listen to a lot of pre-1930 recordings of many different types of music, including blues but also a lot of klezmer, balkan, and various east European folk musics which still are alive in their non-commercial folk forms. A lot of these are "folk" dance music, and I can tell you that you simply could not (or would not) dance at the speeds heard on a lot of the old gramophone releases. The old shellac discs could only hold three minutes of music. In many cases the musicians were encouraged to speed up their songs to fit them on the platter. In others, I am pretty sure the engineer intentionally sped some up to make them fit the three minute template. IP: Logged |
|
Jack Cook Member Posts: 343 From: Cape Cod, MA, USA Registered: Sep 2003 |
The old films of Chaplin, et al., were not sped up on purpose. It's an artifact of the technology of the time. When we look at these films today in a theater they are projected at the standardized frame rate of 24 frames per second. But when they were shot in the 20's the frame rates were not standardized, so the camera frame rate was 18 or 12 fps or less. When played on today's projectors at 24 fps they speed up. Also, cameras in those days were often hand-cranked, so the frame rate was not necessarily consistent. The technology was in its infancy then, and there were very few standards applied. Today a lot of these movies are slowed down when shown on TV so that they look more normal. At least with films you have a reference point you can see: the frames; with sound recordings I don't know what the reference point would be. It may be that recordings were sometimes sped up on purpose in order to get more music on them, but I wonder also if the recording speeds had not yet been standardized and we're hearing artifacts of the technology. Recording technology was still pretty young, even in the 30's. Jack IP: Logged |
|
D330R unregistered |
I headed the team that produced "Robert Johnson: The New Transcriptions" for the Hal Leonard Corporation and I wrote a companion book for Guitar School that analyzed 15 of the most popular songs. We approached the tunings (A add 9 for "Dust My Broom" and "Phonograph Blues" take 2, open Em - like Skippy James - for "Hellhound On My Trail," etc) and keys with fresh ears and came up with new findings which I believe to be correct. Most importantly, we had access to virtually all of the original 78s as owned by Steve LaVere. It was quite a thrill to hear these recordings in person. It sounded as if RJ was in the room playing and singing. Steve had corrected the speed with his variable pitch turntable so that the platters turned at exactly 78 RPMs. This produced slower tempos and pitch, resulting in Johnson having a deeper voice and, in my opinion, it gave the songs (especially the uptempo ones like "Preachin' Blues" and "32-20 Blues") a better groove. The 1996 version of the Columbia CD set basically reflects these corrections. The problem started in the 1960s when they original engineers "corrected" their original source material by bringing all tunes up to natural keys like G and A, not realizing that Johnson really was playing in F#,G#, etc. remember, Johnson was playing SOLO guitar and likely tuned by ear before each session (perhaps each take) without a reference tone like, say, from a piano. Why would he care about concert pitch or A 440? In additon, with a new guitar with new strings, for example, in a hot environment, his guitar may have gone flat. In addition, he capoed extensively like most of his contemporaries. Re; "Love in Vain Blues": I maintain that it is his only song in Spanish (open G) tuned up a half step. Check out our transcription on page 192, the last measuer, where he ends with the tonic chord "open" (actually capoed - the dead giveaway of the tuning. Dave Rubin IP: Logged |
|
BluesMcGoo Member Posts: 267 From: Louisiana, USA. Registered: Mar 2003 |
Great info, Dave. That explaination makes sense to me. IP: Logged |
|
BluesMcGoo Member Posts: 267 From: Louisiana, USA. Registered: Mar 2003 |
Great info, Dave. That explaination makes sense to me. IP: Logged |
|
Paul Norman Member ![]() Posts: 1601 From: Cambridge, MA, USA Registered: Aug 2003 |
Actually, time was different back then. Everything really was speeded up. That's why the 20th century passed so quickly. IP: Logged |
|
Corn Dog Member Posts: 1765 From: Montclair, NJ USA Registered: Jan 2001 |
Alright Dave! I have the above mentioned book and have found the transcriptions very helpful. Also in your book you provide an interesting note about pitch changing due to re-tuning during the recording of two sequences of songs: on page 96 in your comments on Last Fair Deal Gone Down and page 170 in your comments on Traveling Riverside Blues. I just hadn't paid much attention to it before! So many interesting twists to this story! [This message has been edited by Corn Dog (edited January 30, 2004).] IP: Logged |
|
Jeffrey Sipress Member ![]() Posts: 1335 From: Santa Barbara, CA Registered: Nov 1999 |
Thanks, Dave for the informative reply. I gather from your post that if I listen to the same song from the 1996 CD release package, and from my old vinyl LP, there will be pitch differences? IP: Logged |
|
waxwing Member Posts: 1431 From: Oakland, CA Registered: Oct 2001 |
Thanks for your post, Dave. I wanted to clarify two things: One is to point out that, indeed, John Gibbens was using a version of the '61 vinyl release for his comparisons in the original article that started this thread. Second, as there was some discussion of this, actually involving Larry Cohn, on the PWBL, the boxed set, about the size of a shoebox lid, contains the '90 version of his remastering, and the 2 CD jewelbox issue contains the superior '96 remastering, even though the jewelbox has a '90 copyright on it. So, how many of us are just gonna have to run out and get that set? All for now. John C. IP: Logged |
This topic is 3 pages long: 1 2 3 All times are PST (US) | next newest topic | next oldest topic |
![]() |
|
©1999,2000,2001,2002, 2003,2004,2005,2006 IGS. All Rights Reserved
Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board