Re: [ARSCLIST] Robert Johnson RPM debate

[Anthony Baldwin <jazztrash@xxxxxxxxxx>]

While this ground seems to have been covered by blues researchers  
already, certainly a sensible first step would be to find out more  
about the relevant equipment and locations (e.g. did someone forget  
to pack the strobe?), and check sides cut at other Gunter Hotel  
sessions on the same 1936 San Antonio field trip —say, those by the  
Don Albert band. Blues guitar tuning may be a bit random, but if a  
big band starts swinging in B-natural, you can be pretty sure  
something's wrong.

And if there is an apparent pitch error on RJ's 1936 San Antonio  
sides, is it consistent with what happens on the 1937 Dallas ones? If  
so, the whole-pitch error theory would seem to be pretty baseless.

Tony B.


On 26 May 2009, at 12:45, Doug Pomeroy wrote:

> Vocalion probably used a spring driven cutter, and they were
> less reliable than the weight driven ones (according to Ralph
> Peer).  If we knew Johnson tuned his guitar perfectly (re:
> 'A' 440), it would be a piece of cake.  He probably didn't,
> but still it was probably not too far off, especially if he
> played with other musicians (e.g., harmonicas).
>
> Doug
>
> > Date:    Mon, 25 May 2009 11:18:13 -1000
> > From:    Malcolm Rockwell <malcolm@xxxxxxxxxx>
> > Subject: Re: Robert Johnson RPM debate
> >
> > James -
> > I've read the arguments and heard the pitch shifted samples and  
> > say it's
> > possible the recordings are pitched high. This would mean one of  
> > three
> > things: 1) Robert really sang that way; 2) the material was  
> > recorded too
> > slow; and/or 3) the final pitch was modified by dubbing prior to
> > manufacture.
> >
> > I tend to go with #1, mostly because I've always heard him the way he
> > has been presented on LPs and CDs and my ear is used to that. The
> > samples are interesting food for thought, though!
> >
> > #2 is possible mostly because machines do run slow (there's very  
> > little
> > homogenity of 78rpm recording speeds company to company, and  
> > session to
> > session within the same company. Add that to playback speed  
> > variations
> > and, well...). What was the power source in Dallas? 110 VAC? 120  
> > VAC? Or
> > was it DC voltage? If AC, was the frequency (usually 60 Hz) solid, or
> > did it wander? What kind of motor did the portable recording lathe
> > use... AC, DC or counter-weighted (mechanical)? There are just too  
> > many
> > variables here.
> >
> > #3 requires forethought and since there was seemingly so little of  
> > it in
> > #2, I doubt this scenario. Producers are not going to agonize  
> > about this
> > kind of thing; to them Robert was just another blues picker. But who
> > knew what he'd become 60 years later or that any of this would  
> > matter?
> >
> > Good luck with your research!
> > Mal Rockwell
> >
> > *******
> >
> > james mendenhall wrote:
> >
> > > Hi, Arsclist
> > > I am doing research about the rpm debate of the Robert Johnson
> > > recordings.
> > > Does anyone have any information for me?
> > > And, is this all speculation or has there been proof found that they
> > > are indeed too fast?
> > >
> > > thanks
> > >
> > > james