collapse

* Member Info

 
 
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?
I got Sonny up to Harlem, and we started street playin' in New York. We did that for three or four years and survived. We brought it back to the streets again - Brownie McGhee

Author Topic: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?  (Read 9199 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline repeater

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #15 on: June 08, 2010, 10:33:14 PM »
But what we really need is a scientific appraisal.  The closest I've come across is Gibbens' tuning/note analysis.  And that's quite damning.

There is absolutely nothing scientific about poet Gibbens' appraisal, which seems to be that of a beginning guitarist, maybe. Most players in the pre war era tuned Spanish at A not at G. I believe both House and Waters were recorded stating tunings they used were "Spanish A". There is no reason whatsoever to claim as fact that RJ was tuned Spanish at G as Gibbens unscientifically seems to assume (because some mook said so in a book?). In fact, given his high singing range he would have more likely tuned to A or possibly higher. It is somewhat accepted (from interviews) that Patton did not use a capo yet played in this tuning as high as B!. By Gibben's logic he would be capoed at the 4th or sped up by, what somewhere around 25%? Ridiculous. Patton would have to be singing 4 semitones lower than the deep baritone we already hear? Not! Johnson could have been tuned anywhere and capoed anywhere. Many modern players play easily above the neck join and there is no reason to think that RJ couldn't.

Nor was Gibbens scientific enough to test his theories on all of RJ's material, a rather simple task. Take Love in Vain for instance. It's pitched at about G# I believe. There seems to be some discrepancy as to whether he played this in Standard with G forms or in Spanish, but either way, he would have to be tuned two frets below either Standard or "Open G" for the three semitone boost to end up at G#. So does that mean that RJ was in collusion with the A&R guy and tuned down?

Virtually everything Gibbens states is based on the totally unprovable assumption, entirely unscientific, that RJ was tuned to "Open G". I can't imagine any musicologist would concur in this.

Let's look at the logistics of how this would have been done. First, watch this, paying attention to the process of replication from the original disc:



From this you can clearly see that the final disc sold to the public was essentially a mold of the first "wax" cut in the studio. There was no chance to speed up the recording after the fact. If there was a decision to speed up the recordings it had to have been made before the first recording of Kindhearted Woman, of which we actually have two takes both at the same pitch. So, this is where the Devil comes into it, whispering into the A&R guys ear, "Sure he sounds good. But sped up about 20%, you'll sell millions." And they make a decision to slow down the turntable by 20% to around 63 rpm, so that when RJ is played back at 78 rpm he will sound like, what proponents of this theory call "a chipmunk". Yeah, that'll sell records! How can people believe this? And then, they would have told Robert he was gonna sound a little, uh, different, yeah, that's it, when he heard his records. And they wanted him to tune down for some of his songs, because...well, they thought they needed to cover up some how? It just doesn't make sense as a conspiracy. Sorry. And it couldn't have been an accident, obviously, because they wouldn't have duplicated the same accident at the second session. And would RJ have gone back to record for a company that made him sound like a chipmunk on his records??? He listened to a lot of records. He knew Son House sounded like Son House on his records, If RJ sounded like Son House, don't you think he'd be a little miffed if he sounded like "a chipmonk" on his records? This is just too goofy.

Unfortunately for Gibbens, he was listening to the LPs that Columbia put out in the '60s. IIRC Larry Cohn mention that the engineers for those issues, which were taken from transfers often made by the owners of the 78s, upon noticing that some songs were not pitch exactly on key, bumped them up to the next key. So, the ones Gibbens was listening to may have been bumped up by a couple percent, but nowhere near the 20% he claims. But the argument rages across the internet that the issues we hear today, which are as close to the 78s as Larry Cohn could get them, are sped up 20% and that is just not the case.

The best test which has been suggested is to examine an actual 78 recording sonically and find the spike at 60Hz. All electricity at the time of RJs recordings was supplied at 60Hz and light bulbs and other electric appliances in the room, including the recording equipment, would give off a hum at this frequency and it should be detectable. If there is a spike at about 72Hz than it has been sped up by 20%. To my knowledge no one has put together an original RJ 78 and an oscilloscope. Andrew, at Pristine Sound, who has done remasterings of most of RJ, used existing transfers but claims he discerned that they were approximately at the correct playback speed. You can find discussion about that either at the Pristine site or on the Blind Man's Blues Forum, which I think you are familiar with.

You can sleep soundly tonight, safe in the knowledge that RJ sounded just like the chipmunk you hear.

Wax

If you could please provide a citation to a credible source for each of your assertions, I will take your analysis and spread it as gospel.  As I said, I'd very much like to believe that what I hear is pure Robert Johnson and not some studio shenanigans.

Offline waxwing

  • Member
  • Posts: 2804
    • Wax's YouTube Channel
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #16 on: June 08, 2010, 10:38:25 PM »
Look, you're the one who needs to show one shred of proof that your and Gibbens' assertions hold any water at all. The 78s stand for themselves. You prove that they are sped up. So far there is not one provable fact.

Case closed.

Wax
"People who say it cannot be done should not interrupt those who are doing it."
George Bernard Shaw

“Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they aren't after you.”
Joseph Heller, Catch-22

http://www.youtube.com/user/WaxwingJohn
CD on YT

Offline banjochris

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 2578
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #17 on: June 08, 2010, 10:49:10 PM »
But seriously folks what was the verdict on MJH's Frankie? Last I heard that HAD been speeded up. Is that still the general consensus? Speed irregularities have been known to occur, usually in transferring for reissue.

Found this on the internets:

I found the Dave Van Ronk story, page 189 of Dave Van Ronk with Elijah Wald, The Mayor of MacDougal Street. In this excerpt, "John" refers to Mississippi John Hurt (as Mark Ross wrote several posts upthread).

"Spike Driver's Blues" was one of two songs by John that had been included on the Anthology. The other was this gorgeous piece of fingerpicking called "Frankie's Blues." It was a beautiful arrangement, and when those albums came out in the early 1950s, we all immediately set ourselves to learn that thing. It was incredibly fast, though, and after a week or two I dropped by the wayside. A few persisted, and my friend Barry Kornfeld, for one, disappeared into his chambers and emerged six weeks later, blinking like a mole, and he had it. Note for note, just as clean and fast as on the record.

When I saw John at the Cafe Yana, there he was playing "Frankie's Blues." However, I noticed that it was a lot slower than on the record. Of course, he was a good deal older, but it also struck me that it sounded better at that tempo. I wanted to ask him about it, but I wanted to be as diplomatic as possible --- I didn't want to just say, "So, Pops, can't cut it any more, eh?" Very tentatively, I said, "You know that 'Frankie' thing you played..."

Apparently I was not the first person to have asked, because John intervened and saved me any further embarrassment. He just smiled and said, "Oh, you want to know why it's so much slower than on the record."

I said, "Yeah..."

He said, "Well, you know, that song was so long that they had to speed it up to get it all on one side of a 78."

All I could think of was Barry, sidelined with acute carpal tunnel syndrome.


Good story, who knows if it's true or if MJH or Van Ronk were embellishing. That said, something is definitely wonky with Hurt's 2 Memphis recordings, and only that 1 record ("Frankie" and "Nobody's Dirty Business") was issued from them. I believe he made something like 8 sides in Memphis. I remember reading somewhere that technical problems were one reason Hurt was sent to New York for his second session.
Chris

Offline Mr.OMuck

  • Member
  • Posts: 2596
    • MuckOVision
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #18 on: June 08, 2010, 10:56:53 PM »
Thanks Chris, I didn't remember where I had heard about this but you pulled up the very source.
My loathings are simple: stupidity, oppression, crime, cruelty, soft music.
Vladimir Nabokov (1899 - 1977)

http://www.youtube.com/user/MuckOVision

Offline Stuart

  • Member
  • Posts: 3177
  • "The Voice of Almiqui"
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #19 on: June 08, 2010, 11:05:13 PM »
Gibbens only describes and suggests one possibility. There are others. His piece is not scientific analysis. It is impressionistic, not analytic. Both his reasoning and his argumentation are unsound. His presuppositions are arbitrary at best. His syllogistic formulae are flawed. I'm surprised that you did not pick up on this at first glance.

But the question remains: Are the recordings we have of RJ accurate reproductions of how he actually sounded at the time he made them? If so, why so? If not, why not?

We seek the truth in facts grounded in objectively verifiable evidence, not in self-validating theories.

Offline repeater

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #20 on: June 08, 2010, 11:32:52 PM »
Look, you're the one who needs to show one shred of proof that your and Gibbens' assertions hold any water at all. The 78s stand for themselves. You prove that they are sped up. So far there is not one provable fact.

Case closed.

Wax

Take it easy.  I'm not asserting anything.  I'm simply asking.  If you don't like that I don't accept your answers without credible sources backing them up, that's really too bad.

As for "provable facts," it's incontrovertible that Johnson's songs, on average, are significantly shorter than the standard three-minute side.  This may not be prima facie evidence that his recordings are sped up, but it is, nonetheless, evidence to that effect.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 11:47:45 PM by repeater »

Offline repeater

  • Member
  • Posts: 20
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #21 on: June 08, 2010, 11:36:55 PM »
Gibbens only describes and suggests one possibility. There are others. His piece is not scientific analysis. It is impressionistic, not analytic. Both his reasoning and his argumentation are unsound. His presuppositions are arbitrary at best. His syllogistic formulae are flawed. I'm surprised that you did not pick up on this at first glance.

But the question remains: Are the recordings we have of RJ accurate reproductions of how he actually sounded at the time he made them? If so, why so? If not, why not?

We seek the truth in facts grounded in objectively verifiable evidence, not in self-validating theories.

Strong accusations.  Please elaborate:  How are Gibbens' reasoning and argumentation unsound?  What are his presuppositions, and what makes them arbitrary?  What syllogisms does he employ, and what are their flaws?

Anyway, "truth in facts grounded in objectively verifiable evidence" is what I seek as well.  Else I would not have raised the issue.
« Last Edit: June 08, 2010, 11:38:27 PM by repeater »

Offline unezrider

  • Member
  • Posts: 393
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #22 on: June 09, 2010, 12:22:31 AM »
hello friend,
this is absurd. i remember coming across this maybe a few years back somewheres on the inter web, & i was quite intrigued by it at first. but after hearing a couple of cuts, i quickly lost all interest. johnson is at, or very close to the correct pitch on those records. listen to 'come on in my kitchen' slowed down 20%. listen to 'last fair deal' that way. & in regards to johnson's songs being slower than most, he almost never took a guitar break. & you'll notice 'kind hearted woman', which clocks in at 2:51 has one. his second take, which he adds another verse, does not. it seems he was very aware of the three minute rule.
& if any of you will remember a john hammond film where he went searching for johnson's grave (i think) i don't remember the name. in it he interviews willie mae. & he plays her 'love in vain', which is supposedly the first time she has heard this record. she breaks into tears while listening to it. i know this isn't scientific proof, but it would suggest she was hearing a voice she hadn't heard in years. not something that sounded like a chipmunk or whatnot.
let it go.
"Be good, & you will be lonesome." -Mark Twain

Offline banjochris

  • Administrator
  • Member
  • Posts: 2578
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #23 on: June 09, 2010, 01:43:23 AM »
Interestingly, I just sped up Johnson's recordings 20%, and it turns out he's really John Jacob Niles.

Offline Lyndvs

  • Member
  • Posts: 137
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #24 on: June 09, 2010, 02:10:15 AM »
"As for White, his initial recordings were done, if not in the heyday of recorded country blues, then at least before the market dropped off.  His later prewar recordings were done for the Library of Congress, not a record label."
 said Repeater.
Actually with the exception of his two L.O.C. sides(23rd may 1939)all Booker`s later pre-war recordings were done for Vocalion a commercial record label(7th march 1940).His earlier pre- L.O.C. sides being recorded for Victor(26th may 1930) and Vocalion(2 sept.1937).
   Lyndvs

Offline dj

  • Global Moderator
  • Member
  • Posts: 2833
  • Howdy!
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #25 on: June 09, 2010, 03:40:09 AM »
Quote
he's really John Jacob Niles.

There's someone I haven't thought of in 35 years!  Thanks, Chris. 

Offline uncle bud

  • Member
  • Posts: 8306
  • Rank amateur
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #26 on: June 09, 2010, 06:19:25 AM »
I heard Robert Johnson really recorded on a grassy knoll, not some hotel in San Antonio.

Offline Lyle Lofgren

  • Member
  • Posts: 245
    • Lyle & Elizabeth Lofgren
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #27 on: June 09, 2010, 07:06:28 AM »
I remember reading a discussion (don't remember where -- perhaps the Old-Time Newsgroup?) that hardly any of the early 78s were recorded at 78 RPM, but varied a lot from company to company -- there was no standard. Also, the old gramophones (at least the one I grew up with) had a speed control, so you could adjust the playback speed to your own taste. If the same equipment was used for the two recording sessions, it probably had the same speed, but it might not have been 78 RPM. The discussion I'm remembering certainly didn't call that situation "fraudulent."

It seems to me that pitch would help indicate what might be true. At least some of the musicians (particularly those who played with others) tuned close to standard pitch.

But, of course, you can't count on it. I have two copies of Prince Albert Hunt's "Blues in a Bottle," one on reel-to-reel tape and one on a CD. One of them is in B-flat, and the other in B. I'm almost positive the fiddle was being played in C, but the only thing I can tell for sure is that the two recordings are at a different pitch, not where the speed variation might have occurred. And, worse yet (although not part of this discussion), I've never been able to get the timing right, particularly when I try to play it with our band -- it remains a futility piece.

I was feeling bad about that, until I got a copy of the Texas Sheiks' CD, and found that even those talented musicians had regularized the time so they could play it. I wonder what Hunt's timing secret was?

Lyle

Offline Mike Brosnan

  • Member
  • Posts: 376
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #28 on: June 09, 2010, 07:16:13 AM »
Seriously?  Are we really doin' this right now?  Again?  Of all the ridiculous discussions I've read on guitar forums....  This one definitely ranks up in the top 5.  I'm completely dumbfounded every time it comes up again.  But it's always good for a quick laugh, so....  Who am I to stand in the way of some harmless repetition?  Though it would be fun if someone came up with a new country blues conspiracy theory that had nothing to do with Robert mother-f#@in' Johnson.

Offline Lyle Lofgren

  • Member
  • Posts: 245
    • Lyle & Elizabeth Lofgren
Re: Are Robert Johnson's recordings fraudulent?
« Reply #29 on: June 09, 2010, 07:29:53 AM »
In my earlier post, I didn't mean to imply that I somehow knew that the band was playing in Standard C -- only that it sounds to me as if the fiddler is using C fingering.

As to why everyone wants to pick on Robert Johnson -- if you'd traded your soul to the devil for the ability to play guitar like that, they'd pick on you, too. At the time he was alive, the same story was current about Paganinni, and there were a lot of people who didn't like him, either. Perhaps we're all a little jealous of musicians who are able to play their instruments better than everyone else.

I enjoyed the RJ character's comment in "Oh, Brother, Where Art Thou?" on selling his soul to the devil: "I wasn't using it, anyway."

Lyle

Tags:
 


SimplePortal 2.3.7 © 2008-2024, SimplePortal