http://www.touched.co.uk/press/rjnote.html
http://www.guitarseminars.com/ubb/Fo...ML/004431.html
Have you seen this? I find it interesting; slowed down RJ does sound more like a person and less like a celestial (or perhaps, according to legend, infernal) spirit. To my ears, that is. What do you others think?
And Merry Christmas, everybody!
That is nicely analyzed.
I always just assumed that the speed, and ergo, pitch was inaccurate but I've never really considered just how much, and how profound the difference would be if heard at the "right" tempo/pitch.
I'd seen this once before and forgotten. To my ear, the slowed down versions sound more like a recording of the day, and more like a blues performance of the day as well. I think this guy may be right.
The slowed down versions are more natural sounding. It's a bullseye for the cat who analyzed this...:yay
Yeah, definetely sounds more natural.Originally Posted by fezz parka
You ain't even the beginnings of a pimple on the late, great Robert Johnson's ass! You might have a little bit of lightning in you but you're missing everything else.
s'all goof.
I've been sitting here slowing down full versions. Very cool.
Most take a 10% reduction to get the sound right. He estimated roughly with his, slowest phono to fastest tape. Using 10% puts sweet home chicago in "E" and it sounds right.
20% less as he mentions in his article makes his voice very low and odd sounding and not open "G" for other tunes mentioned. 10% gets open "G" capoed 2 frets for "A".
RJ recordings always bugged me. I appreciated what he was doing, but always thought the sound was to antiquated and never tried to do anything about it.
It would be somewhat ironic if this is true. One reason that has been advanced for Clapton and his cohorts being drawn especially to Robert Johnson is that they could sing in the same key as him, while they could not reach the lower keys of his contemporaries.
Of course I don't know if that's any more true than the the claim that the Johnson recodings are sped up.
Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy.
--Albert Einstein
Wow, that is really different.
The voice and the pace and the breathing all sound, more felt.
He definitely sounds more mature. It's subtle, yet it's really a big, essential difference. Alters the mood quite a bit.
Makes you wonder what some of the early British blues kids would have sounded like had they been obsessing over this RJ.
Ooo-hoo, oh weedy whoa...:wail2
"Well, I used to be disgusted, now I try to be amused..."
Elvis Costello
Wow...It makes perfect sense to me. The slowed down versions sound more natural, more real.
I have to wonder what the thought process might have been (to want to speed the recording up). I seriously doubt that those recordings would have been made to market to poor black folks at the time (how many families in the rural south could even afford a phonograph?) It makes sense to me that the voice of a grown black man singing this "new" type of music might frighten the white record buying public at that time in history, so, like that article says, speed it up, make him sound less imposing and more up tempo.
Thanks, matsb, for this very cool link!
"If you're cool, you don't know nothin' about it. It just is...or you ain't." - Keith Richards
Youre welcome, cooltone! Sorta exciting, don't you think?
However, this music was evidently not so modern when it was recorded (I've been reading about this quite a lot today). One reason for speeding it up can have been to make it fit better in the "juke box repertoire". More lively uptempo, not so much "emotional texture" - goes well with drinking . ..
Years later, they discovered a young man named Elvis, who sounded exactly like they wanted this guy to sound.
"If you're cool, you don't know nothin' about it. It just is...or you ain't." - Keith Richards
So who's I idea was it to speed up the recording then?
The second link in the first post will take you to a forum where they discuss this at some lenght and depth. Some of the problem with this theory that the pitch and speed's been manipulated lies in the fact that with the not so sophisticated equipment they had, the decision would probably have had to be taken before the actual recording.
I've just been doing some slowing down of "Hellhound on my trail", "Stop breaking down" and "Me and the Devil blues". When I lower it a whole tone (don't know how many % that is) it sounds just right. And, you get what sounds like open D and G tunings. With "Love in vain" a half tone seems to do it.
I guess one could only speculate that it may have been sped up intentionally.
For all we know, they may have used recording equipment that was not calibrated correctly.
"If you're cool, you don't know nothin' about it. It just is...or you ain't." - Keith Richards
I've come across this theory before. IIRC, some "experts" believe that it was done to distinguish Johnson from his contemporaries, i.e., make him sound different. I'm not saying that's true, but its a theory I've heard.
Once you can accept the universe as matter expanding into nothing that is something, wearing stripes with plaid comes easy.
--Albert Einstein
This makes absolutely perfect sense.
Explains better why, "... people wept as they stood in the street around him."
I've heard that they sped up recordings in the 50s to gain a little more top end, but never that they did it back in the 20s or 30s. Considering all vintage blues records - R.J. would have be pretty much the only suspect by now and I doubt that they could do this back then.
Wasn't "Layla" sped up a great deal in the mastering process?
I mean, these things happen.
Just watched it again a few days back, Curtis
If you leave the house, you're just asking for it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote