Robert Johnson - Classic or Dud?

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.

always enjoy a furrowed-brow debate about what the most authentic reproduction of a reproduction is

For me, the difference between the 1990s box set and the "Centennial Collection" 2CD set that came out in 2011 was huge, and frankly good enough. Listening to the samples on the website was a little uncanny; I didn't believe what I was hearing.

Pristine Classical has a good reputation in the classical community for their remastering.

This description puts me off; it's not remastering, it's sonic Photoshop:

XR remastering was developed by Andrew Rose in early 2007 and has been in continual development and refinement ever since. Its aim is to go much further than simply “cleaning up” old recordings, using cutting edge technology and innovative, proven techniques to get as close as possible to the original sound heard in the concert hall or recording studio before it was corrupted by early recording equipment.

It starts with what has been termed elsewhere “tonal balancing”. Most of the microphones used to make historic recordings (and even more so the horns used in acoustic recordings) had very uneven frequency responses. We use advanced computer analysis of the tonal content of these recordings to “reverse engineer” and counter the impact of those tonal distortions. This results in a much more natural and realistic sounding recording, limited only by the other constraints of the original source (frequency range, noise levels etc.).

But this is just the beginning. We were the first to release recordings where wow and flutter – the inconsistencies of pitch common to all analogue playback systems, but particularly prevalent in older recordings – had been fixed using a ground-breaking German computer solution called “Capstan”. Its pricing means we remain one of the few companies working in this field to use it and its impact, particularly in piano music, can be immense.

Another innovation has been the use of a technique called convolution reverberation. A large number of older recordings were made in especially “dry” acoustics to combat the noisy, low-quality reproduction systems of the time. Yet we hear music in concert halls specially designed for acoustics that complement and enhance the sound of the musicians playing there. Convolution (a complex mathematical procedure) allows us to effectively “place” our recordings in some of the finest acoustic spaces in the world – renowned concert halls, opera houses, churches and cathedrals. When sensitively and delicately applied this can add an extra dimension and sense of sonic reality to even the oldest recordings. It’s a far cry from using echo or digital reverberation to try and hide problems in recordings!

There are many other steps involved in making an XR recording – it soon gets very complex, and it takes a lot of painstaking work to produce each of our releases. Over the years XR remastering has become increasingly recognised as producing some of the finest audio restorations around.

yeah but the older recordings are, to borrow your metaphor, pictures taken with cheap cameras under suboptimal lighting. you photoshop that to try to see what the photographer saw.

I think the question is whether the ends justify the means. We don't know what Robert Johnson really sounded like in that hotel room, or how the Hot Fives sounded in the Okeh recording studio in Chicago. The primitive recording equipment of the day tried its best to capture it, but could not do it justice. This still sounds pretty natural to me, whether it's been "Photoshopped" or not. It's not like it's fake stereo or some crap like that. I guess what I'm asking is, would Robert Johnson or his producer, Don Law, object to the sound on the Pristine remasters? We'll never know, but I doubt it.

Pfft. This guy is brazenly stealing Robert Parker's whole engineering shtick on vintage material from the same era, right down to his exact reasoning for doing so. Nothing new, nothing revelatory and every bit as dubious as it's always been. To be fair, it's a fun novelty, but in the way, say, Clint Eastwood's Bird tries to re-create a live performance that can only be known on a scratchy 78 recording - there's no shaking the fact that it's at best a simulation and at worst a forgery, which is how it sounds the more you listen to it.

yeah but the older recordings are, to borrow your metaphor, pictures taken with cheap cameras under suboptimal lighting. you photoshop that to try to see what the photographer saw.

I think what it boils down to for me is the recording, flaws and all, is the work of art. Nobody now living saw/heard Robert Johnson play live. And modern recording technology didn't exist back then. So you listen to the recordings that they were able to make, to the best of their abilities at the time, and you accept that the content is inextricable from the medium. I think cleaning up the original source material as best you can is not only permissible, it's desirable. But this goes beyond that into what amounts to colorization. You shouldn't colorize black and white movies because the cinematographers knew they were shooting in black and white and they operated accordingly. And you shouldn't add echo and reverb to make it sound like Robert Johnson was performing in a concert hall, when he was sitting in a hotel room, tucked into a corner, facing a single microphone.

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."

― TO BE A JAZZ SINGER YOU HAVE TO BE ABLE TO SCAT (Jazzbo)

authenticity narratives are super interesting to me. hmmm. let me kinda try to break down my feelings in text.

if something can be argued as being a new creative work, or at least a derivative creative work, my only real concern is whether that work was ethically sourced, if you will. if pristine classical was saying this _wasn't_ robert johnson's work, but their own original work, that would be objectionable (remember when somebody tried to do that with the beatles' records? applied some processing filter to it and claimed it as an 'original work' not subject to the beatles' copyright? very stupid.) if someone stole other peoples' copyrighted creative work and used it to feed a computer program to "enhance" robert johnson's work, that would be objectionable (some people don't find this ethically objectionable, but i do). neither seems to be the case.

so i'm inclined to judge it on its merits. the tradition of duophonic being seen as "fake stereo". my problem with duophonic isn't that it's fake, it's that it's not good sounding stereo. a stereo remix of "good vibrations", including the vocals, is just as "fake", i'd say, but it fucking sounds great.

doing an a/b with the 2011 recording, it sounds different i guess. idk. i'm a lo-fi head. i got an aesthetic preference for stuff that sounds bad. most people prefer things that sound good to things that sound bad, though. legit.

Pfft. This guy is brazenly stealing Robert Parker's whole engineering shtick on vintage material from the same era, right down to his exact reasoning for doing so.
Robert Parker was best known for creating fake, digital stereo reproductions of old mono recordings. Not the same at all.

most people prefer things that sound good to things that sound bad, though.

Yeah, but what's "good" in this case? "I want this mono recording of a dude playing an acoustic guitar in 1937 to have the rich, full soundstage of a Pink Floyd album from 1973" is not "good" to my mind.

seems a bit like colorizing a B&W film. would the filmmakers have used color if they could have? i bet in most cases, absolutely. but it still sucks to colorize a B&W film. idk about this at all.

Robert Parker was best known for creating fake, digital stereo reproductions of old mono recordings. Not the same at all.

I realize he called his label "Jazz Classics in Digital Stereo" (so logically it would make sense it would be exactly that - fake, digital stereo), but I had the Muggsy Spanier one for a while, and if you read the booklet, it has some notes that could very well be in all of his releases. Basically, the relevant part repeats a lot of what's bolded upthread - people listened to jazz in dance halls and concert halls, where the music reverberated off the walls! They didn't sound "dead" like they do on those old '78s - nobody draped carpets and blankets on the walls like they did in recording studios - so I'm putting back the ambience that you would have rightfully heard if you were there!

I'm sure the methods aren't the same, but that's exactly what they're both arguing for in print and you hear it too - far more than any modest stereo spread, the attempt at making this "live" sound from a dry sounding record is what stands out the most on Parker's CD's.

"I want this mono recording of a dude playing an acoustic guitar in 1937 to have the rich, full soundstage of a Pink Floyd album from 1973" is not "good" to my mind.
I certainly don't think the Pristine release makes Robert Johnson sound anything like that! If they sounded unnatural to me, I wouldn't be interested. You can’t tell me which versions are more “authentic” any more than I can, because none of us were in that room.