Robert Johnson - Classic or Dud?

Crazy, and ultimately disappointing. I vaguely knew about McCormick and was under the impression that the manuscript would be the definitive record, so it's a shame how much of it is apparently garbage and moreso that McCormick more or less self-destructed. Hopefully the research related to Johnson's late sisters will see the light of day soon - crazy how McCormick ultimately did Johnson a huge disservice by obstructing so much that could've been released earlier.

"“Each of us are connected by an infinite number of threads,” he told me, a thought I considered particularly beautiful."

A beautiful thought. Also eek, can you finish anything with that kind of thinking?

Placing a link to this tl;dr overview review for future reference if needed: https://www.salvationsouth.com/hellhounds-and-phantoms-biography-of-a-phantom-robert-johnson-don-mcleese/

Thanks--the vetted, published manuscript of Book One, The Story of a Phantom, even if somewhat reined in by editorial concerns, seems like it does add to the trove of info, but mainly, I'm glad to know that the Texas box set is coming out this summer---also I still need to check that Henry Thomas album mentioned in Hall's saga.

Henry Thomas rules

Yeah so that and the box and the book and the Smithsonian trove have outlived the twistedness of McCormick, though products of the same--context.

mesmerised by this playlist of someone's estimations of the correct-pitch slowdowns of RJ songs. I think some are a touch *too* slow but not by much. They feel really vivid and plausible to me. I wonder if the record company wanted to make him sound less Black?
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLqqAasxT-gbedDMhdI5xG8QqE3gDosJeA

I assume Johnson’s records were aimed at the “race” market so being “too black” may not have been an issue.

incredible Texas Monthly article, almost reminded me of the blues version of the play Proof in its bizarre unfurling.

this also inspired me to listen to Robert Johnson tunes again this week which is never a bad thing.

yeah I agree that the songs on that yt playlist sound a bit too slow. I like the Centennial Collection versions, you can compare them here for example:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aUzl6kVIzZw

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dp9jeCpMz6g

Elijah Wald, who I trust, says:

"I have no idea why this story seems to surface every few years as if it were news, but we are clearly on another round. The claim was first made back in 2004 that all of Robert Johnson’s recordings were issued at a speed that was about 20% faster than he actually played. This claim reappeared in 2010 in an article published by the UK Guardian newspaper, which added the completely spurious claim that this is a “consensus” among musicologists. So, to start at the beginning: No, it isn’t. The virtually unanimous consensus among experts on prewar blues--musicologists and musicians alike--is roughly what I outline below. Some of Johnson’s tracks may have been issued at slightly inaccurate speeds (for example, recorded at 76 r.p.m. and played back at 78), but it is wildly improbable (bordering on impossible) that all of them have been issued at a single, consistent, wrong speed."

https://elijahwald.com/johnsonspeed.html

^ indeed, this was linked 11 years ago on this very thread - so "seems to surface every few years" is OTM x 1000

:-)

haha yeah

I mean wouldn't potential speed issues by a byproduct for lots of recordings from that early 20th century time-period, due to the technology of the time? and probably not deliberate at all?

hell, even Billy Joel's true debut album was accidentally recorded at wrong speed so he sounded more chipmunky than in later years, and that was the 60s/70s!

At first I was convinced by the 'sped up' theory, but now I think it's probably wrong. The slowed down recordings can seem more realistic at first, but this is just because it makes him sound closer to a modern singer. Most music was still unamplified in Johnson's time, so the average vocal style would have reflected that. A singer would have naturally sang with a brighter sound, since they would have always been fighting with background noise.
The slowed down recordings have a bassier sound that's closer to the 'hushed' vocal tones of a modern amplified singer, but I think practical considerations would have worked against this style in Johnson's era.

Ah, good point.

hell, even Billy Joel's true debut album was accidentally recorded at wrong speed so he sounded more chipmunky than in later years, and that was the 60s/70s!

― Trout Fishing in America (Neanderthal),

thx for the new dn

whether it's true or false, I strongly prefer the keening, eerie aspect of the non "corrected" (if this is even a correction)

otm. i like it the way it is!

Miles Davis's Kind of Blue - the most famous, best-selling jazz album ever - was out there at the wrong speed for decades.

Nobody ever asks if Robert Johnson wanted his recordings sped up.

DOS never says Excellent Command or File Name

Miles Davis's Kind of Blue - the most famous, best-selling jazz album ever - was out there at the wrong speed for decades.

it definitely was not as radically different as people are suggesting with Robert Johnson

Also, it was widely known at the time: as soon as any trumpeter attempted to play along with the record (as many, many trumpeters did) they realized, ok, either I’m out of tune or the record is.

Believe that is far from the only recording where that was the case, but maybe the most notable. Think in most case things are maybe a perceptible number of cents out of tune (fifteen plus?) whereas the Johnson thing was supposedly a different order of magnitude.

I think there was some old studio trick where they would have players turn down a half step and then speed up the tape for mastering, i guess it was supposed to pop a little more?

Yes, I may have heard of something like that as well.

Kind Of Blue is a mistake though I think, only one side had the wrong speed

I mean wouldn't potential speed issues by a byproduct for lots of recordings from that early 20th century time-period, due to the technology of the time? and probably not deliberate at all?

Correct, as is Wald. Pitch correction is always an issue with music of that vintage.

For example, when Sony had Phil Schaap produce that Louis Armstrong box set of the complete Hot 5's and 7's recordings, one of the things he actually got right was correcting the pitch. He even had the brilliant idea of getting Wynton Marsalis's help and having him confirm those pitches through his own musical ability. When I was reading about this in the liner notes, pitch correction was still a new concept for me. I then found John R. T. Davies's email address and asked him about it since I just bought the collection he mastered for JSP. (This was when he was still responsive to emails - sadly, his health declined soon after.) Great guy, he went through the trouble of explaining to me how any good mastering engineer will ALWAYS check for pitch when mastering 78-era material because that music will rarely be pitch perfect due to the way those records were manufactured. (IIRC back in the day, any good phonograph player would have a switch that allows you to adjust the pitch incrementally when you played back a record.) He always checked, using original sheet music but also through his own abilities as a musician. The one mistake he made was on "Cornet Chop Suey," which is a testament to Louis Armstrong's extraordinary talent. There were two possible keys - Davies pitched it lower because he tried playing the higher pitch, and it was tricky enough that he thought it was more likely Armstrong improvised his solos at the lower pitch. He later realized he was mistaken, but he did note that even Schaap had enough reservations that he included that track in two different keys, just in case Armstrong really did play it at the lower pitch. (Maybe some historian will uncover definitive evidence someday, but it's probably extremely difficult without Armstrong and anyone else from that time still alive to remember for us.)

I get the feeling some people think Johnson's records need to be lower or slower for reasons that have nothing to do with reality - like they're used to hearing blues (probably modern blues from decades later) in lower pitches and slower paces, and the music also becomes easier to play, so for some misguided logic, it MUST be 20% slower, but that's a ridiculous margin of error. I don't think those who remember and knew Johnson's music (not just on record, but in-person) ever made that argument about his records, and I'm sure they would've said something because enough historians and blues enthusiasts have grilled them many times over, playing Johnson's records for them and asking them about what they hear.

Also another major project that was pitch corrected for a box set in the '00s - Charlie Parker's Savoy and Dial recordings. Those date from the '40s whereas Johnson's came from the '30s and those Armstrong records came from the '20s. I only point that out just to emphasize how it's the format, not age, that's a factor.

Great posts, bitw!

For a split second I thought I was in some one thread reading about Ray and Dave Davies.

“Some things are best left unsolved”

“The solo on “You Really Got Me” was actually recorded 20% slower and then sped up.”

“‘Tired of Waiting for You’” was actually recorded by Ray using his Howlin’ Wolf voice.

LOL

Imagine an interviewer meeting Davies and hearing something like Burnett's voice coming out of his mouth. "Oh yeah, we always speed up my vocal track for our records! Didn't you know?"

xxpost Yeah, great posts, thanks bird--reminds me, that Down Beat used to/may still run ads for a tape recorder, with a slider, I think, so you could copy something you wanted to learn, and adjust the pitch accordingly, just to whatever increment sounded right to you---also, I've still got a solid state portable stereo from the late 60s (though now it groaaans when I play it), with 16-33/13-45-78 speeds, which used to be fairly common. Jerry Garcia told an interviewer about learning old-timey and bluegrass: he would turn the record speed down 'til the banjo sounded like bells.

that is, such a record player used to be fairly common.

I want one

lol wait this is just a fancy name for pitch control!

but for 78s you'd need something special

fascinating

The first item you will need is a suitable turntable with variable speed. This is because so many 78s were not recorded at exactly 78rpm: speeds of between 72 and 85 rpm are quite common, with a few higher or lower. Probably the cheapest option is a second-hand variable-speed Goldring-Lenco unit, one of the ‘GL’ series. They are still easy to find and relatively cheap. They always benefit from some basic maintenance, which will include a new idler wheel. (see end for details of suppliers). The biggest problem with the Goldrings is the incidence of rumble. That new idler wheel will help, as will removing, cleaning and re-greasing the main bearing. If you cannot tackle this yourself, many specialist hi-fi shops can do it for you. Other turntables types include the STD, which has a useful digital read-out, but which can be a nightmare to repair, since spares are hard to find. Many other types can be found that will play 78s, but not usually with the required speed variation. Garrard 301/401 as they stand only have something like a 3% variation, although can at some expense be modified by Loricraft to give very wide speed control. It is perhaps worth mentioning that the Goldring and STD turntables are capable of almost infinite speed variation up to 90 rpm and are thus ideal if you play Pathé discs.

https://www.therecordcollector.org/articles/aguidetoplaying7.html

how would you know if you were at the right RPM, just judgment by ear mostly and get as close as makes sense? or would there be a way to figure it out

I think that's why they use the sheet music as a reference?

ahhh makes sense

Remastered, mint test pressings. This is the best he's ever sounded, to my ears. You can buy a CD or download high-quality FLACs.
https://www.pristineclassical.com/products/pabl010

That's just a 10-song sampling. The same label also has the rest of his works here, but I didn't download these because I don't think they're from the same sources.
https://www.pristineclassical.com/collections/artist-robert-johnson/products/pabl001
https://www.pristineclassical.com/collections/artist-robert-johnson/products/pabl002

lol almost sounds too good tbh

oh man this sounds tremendous. I bought the LP everybody had when I was young & then had the complete on tape, the one that came out in the 90s, like a lot of people I spent a whole lotta time with those. Love hearing the noise cleaned up, it's just great -- you can hear the quality of his singing so much better

There's actually a lot of debate about these remasters among audiophiles. Someone in this forum writes that "anything that reverse engineers is fabricated and thus not the original recording anymore. It is a synthetic re-creation based on elements of the original recording."

https://forums.stevehoffman.tv/threads/pristine-audios-robert-johnson-transfers-of-test-pressings-made-from-original-metal-parts.1014579/

However they were achieved, I just found these versions to sound so dramatically different that it was worth mentioning.