Topic: Question re Robert Johnson Complete Recordings

[Bluesygirl]

Hey guys maybe you should take it to a private room. 
Bg

[boots]

All's OK. Richard has gone for a lie down.

Boots

[M.Vidrine]

Hey Bluesygirl,

The difference is one is in a box set with a book and the other is just in a jewel case. The recordings contained are exactly the same.

Malcolm

[waxwing]

Yes, it may be that the earlier issued digitizations in the shoebox lid have been upgraded to the quality of the later jewelbox versions, but originally, according to Cohn posting on the PWBL there was an audible difference. Supposedly. as I said, all the text from the booklet in the shoebox lid is contained in the, shall I say, more convenient, jewelbox.
All for now.
John C.

[M.Vidrine]

According to Larry Cohn, who worked on the project in a capacity I can't remember, the set issued in 1996 is the closest to hearing the 78s that you can get. Apparently there were some issues with speed on the original 1990 set. This was discussed here quite a while ago but the thread may have been recycled. I believe all the text from the first set is included, but in much smaller format.

Actually, Waxwing could be correct although I was unaware of any issues with the first one. You would think that if there were major discrepancies that Sony would have pulled the first set?

I worked in the returns department for a major music distributor when this set came out. I can't tell you how many came back as defective with little post it notes stuck on them. They usually read something like - this CD sounds like an old record or CD sounds scratchy. Anyway, I see this as the burden of over-promoting.

Either way, you can't go wrong!!
Malcolm

[Bluesygirl]

I ordered the 1996 version from an independent seller.  I'll let you know what the sound quality is like when I get it.  If it's anything like the audio samples either on Amazon's website or on iTunes' website, it should be pretty good.  Bg

[Johnm]

Hi all,
I would think any version you could get of Robert Johnson's music would be just fine.  I have the two old Columbia LPs and have never felt a need to replace them or go further.  They were working from very clean copies to begin with, and the only one that was remotely whupped was "They're Red Hot!".  Certainly all of this stuff is easier to hear than Lemon or Papa Charlie's acoustic recordings.
All best,
Johnm

[Parlor Picker]

A company called Rockwell has issued the Robert Johnson cuts on heavy duty vinyl, as well as in the form of a picture disc.  I am interested in the former, but am wary of recordings that have been heavily treated with some noise reduction process, such as the dreaded CEDAR.  Some folks prefer this, but I think it compresses the sound unnecessarily and rids it of some treble.  Various CD reissues of previous vinyl releases suffer badly from this.  I have the original LPs from the 1960s and bought the CD reissue, but when played using a good record-playing system, the vinyls sounds better (to my ears anyway).

I have e-mailed Rockwell to see if these pressings have been processed in this way, but they were not able to give a satisfactory answer.

Do any Weenies have first-hand experience of this new edition?  I thought the heavy vinyl album might present these vital recordings in the best possible sound quality.

[dowling]

Hi Parlor Picker
I haven't herd the new heavy vinyl from rockwell so i cannot help you with that,but i think your right about the 60s records, the best recordings iv herd of johnsons songs comes from well respected old Lps, and i don't know anything about rockwell but that sounds like it could just be one of these gimmicks to get us blues lovers to part with some hard earned cash.The reason they haven't answered your questions could be that they cannot answer them, or they don't care about the quality as much as you do(we do) so it makes you wonder if they should be making money from these beautiful old recordings at all, but it would be interesting to know if anyone has heard these recordings and how good they are.
Paul
C*KID...

[Parlor Picker]

To be fair to Rockwell they did reply, suggesting that the recordings probably had undergone some kind of process, but they were unable to be specific.  They did say the new LPs have been taken from clean 78s.

[Johnm]

Hi all,
Unless these new releases include previously undiscovered recordings of new songs, alternate takes, etc., I can't imagine any reason for someone already owning any version of Johnson's recordings to pick up this new set.  His music can be heard perfectly well on every re-issue set of his music I've ever heard, and I've never heard the original LP versions improved upon yet.  All of the re-issues of Robert Johnson's music, with the exception of "They're Red Hot", have been exceptionally clean.  If someone comes up with cleaned up versions of Papa Charlie Jackson's recordings, or Lemon's, or Ishmon Bracey's or Tommy Johnson's, I'll be right in line, but with Robert Johnson it seems so unnecessary.
All best,
Johnm

[dj]

Hi, John,

For me, it's not a question of being able to hear Johnson's music, it's a question of the "musicality" of the sound.  I bought the first version of the Sony Complete Recordings when they came out in 1990, and, quite frankly, while the music is enjoyable, the sound of the music isn't, if you get my drift.  The CEDAR processing they used to clean up the recordings, in my opinion, left them thin and lifeless.  If there were a version of Robert Johnson's recordings that sounded as good as the Bluebird Tommy McClennan reissue from 1997, I'd go out and get it.

I guess at this point I should ask:  any opinions on the best sounding currently available Robert Johnson reissue?  I understand that Sony quietly upgraded the sound on their version a few years ago.  Anyone A/B'ed 'em?

[Richard]

I have the original LPs from the 1960s and bought the CD reissue, but when played using a good record-playing system, the vinyls sounds better (to my ears anyway

PP I agree entirely and then go one more and 78s are even better again... sadly no RJs though or I would flog 'em and buy a whole clutch of real squarenecks...

I must admit only the other day I thought should I put all my 78s onto CD and flog 'em.... a lot easier to move and wouldn't break on being dropped!

[Parlor Picker]

Richard - I agree.  I never got into buying 78s myself, but usually take relevant opportunities to replace CDs with vinyl when I can.  A friend of mine did start collecting old 78s and eventually got some fine ones.  He sold a Charley Patton last year to Richard Nevins for big bucks.

I have fond memories of being at his house (he has since moved to Ireland) and listening to a Bukka White side.  Talk about freaky!!  It was like being in the room with Bukka.  Your mind cancels out the background sound of the fish and chips frying and you listen to the music and pick up the ambience of the room.  Of course, they were recorded straight to disc then - no mixing, overdubbing, farting around and certainly no dreadful CEDAR.

By the way, apparently the technical reason that records sound better than CDs is that all the information goes into the groove, whereas with CDs, not only is it digitised, but some of the information is clipped off as well.  So there...

Guess I'll stick with my old CBS LPs.  If, like me, you are foolish enough to have the LPs and the CD reissue, just try putting them both on and switching between the two - you'll soon realise how poor the digital ones sound by comparison.  It's all a con, this digital revolution.

[Richard]

&8s rule 

CDs have a couple of advantages, you can play 'em in the car and they don't scratch like LPs and of course, I don't make copies of CDs but understand it's very easy 

Ooohhhh.... I forgot the big advantage, where would the Juke be without 'em!