Robert Johnson....playin' too fast???

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed

After reading this & listening to the samples....someone REALLY needs to figure out what is the correct speed i think. Is Patton at the right speed then???

http://www.touched.co.uk/press/rjnote.html

Phil Dokes (sunny), Thursday, 29 January 2004 05:00 (twenty-two years ago)

Interesting.

@d@ml (nordicskilla), Thursday, 29 January 2004 05:07 (twenty-two years ago)

http://www.forcedexposure.com/product_images/YAZ2069.JPEG

Slide or no slide, Patton had no problem reaching above the 14th fret it seems...

V

V (1411), Thursday, 29 January 2004 06:03 (twenty-two years ago)

bullshit, that's assuming absolute 440Hz tuning (ie, not relative) which is NOT uncommon on early blues.

gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 29 January 2004 06:31 (twenty-two years ago)

Another mystery in the Johnson story.

Speedy Gonzalas (Speedy Gonzalas), Thursday, 29 January 2004 06:56 (twenty-two years ago)

...and the arguement could be made that "Walking Blues" is played in open C, with no capo.

V (1411), Thursday, 29 January 2004 07:07 (twenty-two years ago)

I like the blues but I've never consciously heard any
original Johnson recordings (before this).
And I'm sorry, but in my opinion, the originals sound more natural.
The slowed down recordings sound slowed down.
Without any more evidence (well, any evidence, the author's
argument boils down to "it would be hard to play" and
"it just sounds better slowed down"), I'll believe that the
original recordings are authentic.

Squirrel_Police (Squirrel_Police), Thursday, 29 January 2004 08:34 (twenty-two years ago)

I find this hard to believe also. If this were true, why didn't anyone say anything about it when the records first came out. At that time there were plenty of people around who had heard Johnson perform live, and if the records sounded that much different surely there would be some history of people at the time remarking on it.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 29 January 2004 15:16 (twenty-two years ago)

Robert Johnson: Screwed And Chopped!

Tico Tico (Tico Tico), Thursday, 29 January 2004 15:18 (twenty-two years ago)

I think this is rubbish. The slowed down versions sound totally distorted and, well, slow! There would be no reasonable explanation or logical reason to speed up the original recordings. Furthermore, I can't imagine any artist, upon hearing his work mutilated in such a fashion, allowing it to continue.

Davlo (Davlo), Thursday, 29 January 2004 16:04 (twenty-two years ago)


I find this hard to believe also. If this were true, why didn't anyone say anything about it when the records first came out. At that time there were plenty of people around who had heard Johnson perform live, and if the records sounded that much different surely there would be some history of people at the time remarking on it.

and who would have recorded their complaints for posterity?

there is little oral or other history that records the response of the audience to blues records of that time... we have to judge their response and enthusiasm mostly by the cycles of pressing and of ads taken out by the record labels. also most of the correspondence of the record labels was lost or destroyed, so we probably wouldn't know if 100s of people wrote in to complain about johnson's records sounding too high-pitched.

that said i'm not sure what i think about this. the slower recordings don't sound especially unnatural to me, and certainly in certain moments they do seem to make johnson's connecting to his forebears more evident than previously, but one could consider that a kind of experiment as opposed to a revelation of the truth.

amateur!st (amateurist), Thursday, 29 January 2004 16:15 (twenty-two years ago)

i think i was buzzing upthread. "relative" tuning was very common is what i meant to say.

gygax! (gygax!), Thursday, 29 January 2004 16:47 (twenty-two years ago)

and who would have recorded their complaints for posterity?

Well, believe it or not, some of them are still kicking around. After all, Johnson was playing right up until he died in 1938, which wasn't that long ago. Why don't we ask "Honeyboy" Edwards, for example, who played with Johnson back in the day? He's in his 80s now.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 29 January 2004 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)

I want to believe in the recordings I've loved for years, but the slowed-down ones sound way more believable to me - the voice especially sounds natural, easy, and cleanly in line with the tradition Johnson followed. What this might mean - that the ghostly, from-space, like-no-one-else Johnson didn't actually exist but was a collective interpretation - is fine by me: whole new mythos!

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Thursday, 29 January 2004 17:00 (twenty-two years ago)

especially the speech-rhythms of "Can't you hear that wind howlin'" on "Come On In My Kitchen" - slowed down they don't sound like an aside off-mic, but something he meant to put in.

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Thursday, 29 January 2004 17:03 (twenty-two years ago)

To think that the impressions of people who knew Robert Johnson have not been documented is far from the truth. Many of the bluesmen who played with him and knew him have gone on record at length describing their times with him. So it does seem very strange that none of them ever mentioned this odd mastering problem with his records. Also, there are other bluesmen from the same period who sang in an even higher-pitched voice than Johnson, Skip James for instance. And we know he really sang that way, because he was "discovered" again in the 60's, and he sounded the same way.

o. nate (onate), Thursday, 29 January 2004 17:09 (twenty-two years ago)

ever hear the first album by san fran psych band Mad River? it's way too fast cuz of a recording/playback glitch. but it sounds really cool!( it even makes sense cuturally as the haight would make the transition from acid to methamphetamines) i don't know if they ever fixed it for cd reissues.

scott seward (scott seward), Thursday, 29 January 2004 18:46 (twenty-two years ago)

It doesn't make sense that ALL his records would have been sped up. The theory advanced on the website that "a possible motive...might have been to try to make them more exciting for an age in which the Delta tradition he came out of was already a thing of the past," doesn't seem right. I mean, they recorded the guy (acoustically, I believe) in a hotel room...and they're thinking about what's the most exciting way to master the record?

Not That Chuck, Thursday, 29 January 2004 19:13 (twenty-two years ago)

well, the only way to know would be to compare tapes, but as far as I know, that'd be impossible. Robert Johnson recorded five sessions total. I think they were recording direct to acetate then (any experts here?), and I'm pretty sure all repressings from King of the Delta Blues on have been transfers from the 78s. So If the people who recorded him had their settings off, the error would have been preserved in future transfers - it's not like there'd be a box reading "R. Johnson, 'Love in Vain' master, 15 IPS (tones@ tail)" or anything. Subsequent remasters have also been from the 78s, I think.

Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Thursday, 29 January 2004 19:37 (twenty-two years ago)

six years pass...

Back in the news - heard about in on today's Soundcheck from WNYC, where they talked to Jon Wilde of the Guardian who wrote about it a few weeks ago (available here: Robert Johnson revelation tells us to put the brakes on the blues).

It's an interesting idea, and a fun one to play with regardless of it's relevance.

EZ Snappin, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 21:41 (sixteen years ago)

ha, why is this suddenly back in the news again? has anything been actually figured out since this thread started six (!) years ago? anyway, i listened back then, and wasn't really convinced.

tylerw, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 21:44 (sixteen years ago)

No idea - I guess Jon Wilde just discovered it, and the WNYC crew thought it interesting enough to talk about. I'm not convinced either, but it's a good way to blow an hour flipping back and forth.

EZ Snappin, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:02 (sixteen years ago)

oh yeah, i think it's interesting, but also kind of horrifying ... what if they found out that, i don't know, Louis Armstrong's Hot Fives were supposed to be played this slow!

tylerw, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:04 (sixteen years ago)

The Tepid Fives would suck.

However, Blind Willie Johnson would be even more apocalyptic, if that's possible.

EZ Snappin, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:11 (sixteen years ago)

ha, totally.
i guess i can see robert johnson's record label speeding things up a *bit* to make things a little more peppy, but nothing that radical -- he's pretty much unrecognizable in those clips. why even record the guy if you didn't want someone who sounded like that?

tylerw, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:15 (sixteen years ago)

holy fuck, that wilde blog post is infuriatingly terrible. everything is rong in terms of fact. it's like a guy in a bar bullshitting to make a more impressive story.

Jon Wilde has worked for Melody Maker, Blitz, Loaded, Uncut, the Independent, Esquire, Uncut, Elle, Marie Claire, GQ and is a regular contributor to the Mail on Sunday, the Guardian and Quintessentially

unbelievable to me that he has got so much work

harbly formed dn pun (zvookster), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:21 (sixteen years ago)

agree that the original speculation and the slowed down versions are interesting.

harbly formed dn pun (zvookster), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:22 (sixteen years ago)

i guess just his thing saying "musicologists agree" is misleading -- has there really been any agreement on this issue?

tylerw, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:29 (sixteen years ago)

no. he's basing it on the six year old piece linked above in the OP, and discussions thereof since.

And now, nearly 50 years after Columbia first packaged his work as King of the Delta Blues, we discover that we've been listening to these immortal songs at the wrong speed all along. Either the recordings were accidentally speeded up when first committed to 78, or else they were deliberately speeded up to make them sound more exciting. Whatever, the common consensus among musicologists is that we've been listening to Johnson at least 20% too fast. Numerous bloggers have helpfully slowed down Johnson's best-known work and provided samples so that, for the first time, we can hear Johnson as he intended to be heard.

just bullshit. how does he get to write for the website of a national newspaper? do they pay him?

On one memorable occasion, Peel distinguished himself by playing an entire side of Fripp and Eno's No Pussyfooting backwards.

no one remembers this. it's just a story.

When Kind of Blue was first released on CD it received ecstatic reviews despite the fact that Miles Davis' trumpet was at the wrong speed on half the tracks.

wrong and nonsensical.

in comments he says Only two, possibly three, photos of the great man exist. No capo in sight. He had lovely long fingers though. Beautiful they were. Of course the OG article itself contains and refers to a photo with capo.

how do you get to be a writer of any prominence writing like this? just amazing to me.

harbly formed dn pun (zvookster), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:44 (sixteen years ago)

http://www.matadorrecords.com/matablog/wp-content/uploads/2009/03/harvey_head_big.jpg
ITEM! Famed jazz singer Richard Johnston played his music too fast!

tylerw, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:48 (sixteen years ago)

cant wait for the Bad Brains controversy 50 years from now

apparently not the band, but the lifestyle (jjjusten), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:50 (sixteen years ago)

i take back the "no one remembers this" part, i don't know that's bullshit

harbly formed dn pun (zvookster), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:51 (sixteen years ago)

There was a doc about Stiff Records on BBC Four recently where somebody said Dave Robinson was convinced that Radio 1 slowed everything down (??!) so he purposely sped up all his acts' songs after they'd been recorded by like 10% so that it would be the "right speed" on the radio..!!

The Clegg Effect (Tracer Hand), Wednesday, 9 June 2010 22:54 (sixteen years ago)

Interestingly enough, the globalgroovers blog posted "correct to his ear" versions on May 21 - right before this Guardian piece. His are not slowed 20% (I don't think even close to it) but they do sound pretty good. The voice in particular.

EZ Snappin, Wednesday, 9 June 2010 23:30 (sixteen years ago)

Is the story that Peel *accidentally* reversed that LP? Because that would be very hard to do, and you'd have to start off by cueing the record in the center.

Mark, Thursday, 10 June 2010 00:26 (sixteen years ago)

I believe Peel played it off a reel to reel tape.

spastic heritage, Thursday, 10 June 2010 00:30 (sixteen years ago)

Ah, ok.

Mark, Thursday, 10 June 2010 00:33 (sixteen years ago)

Also, a 20% change in speed is a lot, has to be more than the examples in that original post.

It is funny though -- I have never been a huge fan of RJ compared to others from that era, and I kinda feel like those records always seemed a little trebly or something & his voice did always seem a little off somehow, unless this is just the power of suggestion (very possible). So on the one hand, it makes some sense. But it's weird that different sessions would be changed in just the same way too.

Mark, Thursday, 10 June 2010 00:40 (sixteen years ago)

as someone who's never listened to much Robert Johnson (the mythologizing always put me off), I have to lol at the people upthread saying the slowed-down versions sound "unnatural" when, in fact, they sound about as natural as can be.

INSUFFICIENT FUN (bernard snowy), Thursday, 10 June 2010 01:29 (sixteen years ago)

- I have never been a huge fan of RJ compared to others from that era, and I kinda feel like those records always seemed a little trebly or something & his voice did always seem a little off somehow, unless this is just the power of suggestion

same here. The slowed down recordings make him seem more like a follower of Patton, more in line with the rest of the tradition. But maybe I'm projecting that. I've always liked the songs more than the performances.

bendy, Thursday, 10 June 2010 02:11 (sixteen years ago)

Patton often played in open 'A' instead of the more frequently used Hawaiian open 'G' presumably so the sound would be a bit brighter. I suspect Johnson would have gone for a similar tonal effect rather than the opposite.

ImprovSpirit, Thursday, 10 June 2010 03:00 (sixteen years ago)

eight months pass...

Pretty good takedown of this theory: http://www.elijahwald.com/johnsonspeed.html
And hey, it's the dude's 100th birthday or something this year! cue the reissues: http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/legendary-bluesman-robert-johnsons-100th-birthday-on-may-8-2011-inspires-two-centennial-sets-116398629.html

tylerw, Friday, 18 February 2011 23:44 (fifteen years ago)

There's a lame tribute to Johnson out now by jam band Big Head Todd & the Monsters. They do have Honeyboy Edwards, Hubert Sumlin and others guesting on it, but Todd's singing of Johnson songs is terrible.

curmudgeon, Saturday, 19 February 2011 00:01 (fifteen years ago)

two months pass...

cant wait for the Bad Brains controversy 50 years from now

― apparently not the band, but the lifestyle (jjjusten), Wednesday, June 9, 2010 6:50 PM (11 months ago)

stars on 45 my destination (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 11 May 2011 15:22 (fifteen years ago)

hahaha

goblin in the doorway (upper mississippi sh@kedown), Wednesday, 11 May 2011 15:23 (fifteen years ago)

On one memorable occasion, Peel distinguished himself by playing an entire side of Fripp and Eno's No Pussyfooting backwards.

no one remembers this. it's just a story.

The full story is on the 2CD version of "No Pussyfooting", along with both tracks also played backwards, and one of them played half-speed.

Also, how "exact" were those old 78rpm record players? Those old blues guys might have just adjusted the gramophone's speed to play it the way they thought it should be.

Mark G, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 15:29 (fifteen years ago)

when you slow down bad brains to the correct speed they sound just like toots and the maytals.

tylerw, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 15:30 (fifteen years ago)

haha

stars on 45 my destination (James Redd and the Blecchs), Wednesday, 11 May 2011 15:31 (fifteen years ago)

Except for the hardcore songs that sound like Sabbath.

AaronHz, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 15:32 (fifteen years ago)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwEeyttneKM

jay lenonononono (abanana), Wednesday, 11 May 2011 17:15 (fifteen years ago)

Holy shit that sounds exactly like GG Allin!

AaronHz, Wednesday, 11 May 2011 17:17 (fifteen years ago)

three years pass...

The Robert Johnson story just showed up on my Facebook feed, 10 years after it was first discussed here, with an October, 2014 date like it's a new theory.

Deliciously hard yet very accessible (Dan Peterson), Thursday, 6 November 2014 21:27 (eleven years ago)

yeah it pops up from time to time. guess it works for the clickbait era. it is a dumb theory.

tylerw, Friday, 7 November 2014 03:15 (eleven years ago)


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.