Robert Johnson slowed Wayyy Dowwwn
Posted by: Howlinhounddog on 28 April 2008
I saw this article in todays Times and the link below gives some examples
http://www.touched.co.uk/press/rjnote.htmlIt does sound a convincing argument when taken with the musical samples given.
Anyhow I've ordered a copy of the CD to give it a little listen.
Any thoughts you Bluesmen out there?
http://www.touched.co.uk/press/rjnote.htmlIt does sound a convincing argument when taken with the musical samples given.
Anyhow I've ordered a copy of the CD to give it a little listen.
Any thoughts you Bluesmen out there?
Posted on: 28 April 2008 by Noye's Fludde
I think some of the cuts are intriguing. They sound plausible at a slower speed. That said, how the #$% can this guy know how Johnson tuned his guitar ? The whole thing is conjecture. No doubt it is possible the producers manipulated the speed and the transfers we are used to are too fast. Some of them sound plausible but I must admit, they lack the sparkle and wit of the originals. " Love in Vain" sounds unnaturally slow. Like Robert Johnson woken out of drunken stupor.
The only way to authenticate the findings would be to seek out anyone who remembers what Johnson sounded like when he was alive. Even that would just be guess work...
As a footnote, I remember many years ago, a record label issued various piano roll recordings made at the turn of the last century by among others, Moriz Rosenthal. Many critics noted that the speeds of the subsequent performances from the rolls sounded impossibly fast ( almost inhumanly so) and accurate. From prevailing evidence they could gather, however, the rolls did represent authentic performances. Seems they were used to music being played faster in the olden times....
The only way to authenticate the findings would be to seek out anyone who remembers what Johnson sounded like when he was alive. Even that would just be guess work...
As a footnote, I remember many years ago, a record label issued various piano roll recordings made at the turn of the last century by among others, Moriz Rosenthal. Many critics noted that the speeds of the subsequent performances from the rolls sounded impossibly fast ( almost inhumanly so) and accurate. From prevailing evidence they could gather, however, the rolls did represent authentic performances. Seems they were used to music being played faster in the olden times....
Posted on: 28 April 2008 by u5227470736789439
You only have to listen to Elgar conduct his own music to realise that sometimes we really do have the wrong idea about tempi today. But then listen to Boult [who retired in 1979, but learned his craft in Elgar's time] in the same music and it is clearer, better phrased and has all the drive of the composer as well as the tenderness. He is frequently faster than the composer! But it does not sound it! Boult was more scrupulous than Elgar about the actual score and frequently took Elgar's metronome marks at face value as a basis for his structural approach! Elgar seemed on different days to be rather variable about this.
Two things you might note from this, perhaps.
Tempi used to be more flexible and variable than nowadays, but a style that is practically lost now is the unmarked Accelerando. Boult does this, because he takes his cue from the prevaling style when he matured as a conductor before 1914 when the flexible tempo style was as naturally understood as to not require much direction from the score, and Furtwangler also did it, but in a very crude way, not based on musical logic and structure but as Hermann Scherchen noted, "In an amateur and juvenile way, that takes forte to mean fast and loud, and piano to mean slow and quiet." To listen to great musicians like Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, and Adrian Boult achieve this natural flexibility, in an architectural way related to the build of tension is an object lesson in correct style for the then contemporary music from the mid and late nineteenth centuryright into the mid-twentieth. They did not simply take the dynamic marking as the guide but the entire muscifrom begining to end and base the build of tension and tempo on that. To listen to these great musicians is quite a lesson in what has been lost in the tendency nowadays for a style that merely involves deceleration and reversion to tempo precedente.
The real historical anti-dote to the metronome is Johannes Brahms, who initially marked his score with the metronome mark at the time of composition, but who in old age in old age wanted his publishers to remove them all as he felt that performances took the indicated speed as a basic tempo to be kept at almost any cost, and reducing the structural impact of the music, which of course diminishes the emotional impact as a direct result.
His view was that it was not sufficient to simply play the notes in a straight tempo. He took over conducting his Fourth Symphony on one occasion simply because he found the conductor could not get enough flexibility into the music - the same sort of flexibility that Elgar regularly got in his recordings, both studio and live. The great conductors I mentioned above all managed this element naturally, but it is something that has been taught against for a good eighty years in the Music Colleges, and is something that needs relearning. A case of romantic HIP style perhaps!
If one listens to old popular recordings, they were full of natural tempo ebb and flow, but the modern style is a more or less [and in many cases absolutley] regular in tempo, and next to no seeming emotion being sort out in the performance. Foul intonation [tuning] seems to have become an expressive device in modern pop music singing, though often the bands are better drilled than the older ones among the instrumentalists, which makes it very hard to enjoy, at least it does for me!
George
Two things you might note from this, perhaps.
Tempi used to be more flexible and variable than nowadays, but a style that is practically lost now is the unmarked Accelerando. Boult does this, because he takes his cue from the prevaling style when he matured as a conductor before 1914 when the flexible tempo style was as naturally understood as to not require much direction from the score, and Furtwangler also did it, but in a very crude way, not based on musical logic and structure but as Hermann Scherchen noted, "In an amateur and juvenile way, that takes forte to mean fast and loud, and piano to mean slow and quiet." To listen to great musicians like Bruno Walter, Otto Klemperer, and Adrian Boult achieve this natural flexibility, in an architectural way related to the build of tension is an object lesson in correct style for the then contemporary music from the mid and late nineteenth centuryright into the mid-twentieth. They did not simply take the dynamic marking as the guide but the entire muscifrom begining to end and base the build of tension and tempo on that. To listen to these great musicians is quite a lesson in what has been lost in the tendency nowadays for a style that merely involves deceleration and reversion to tempo precedente.
The real historical anti-dote to the metronome is Johannes Brahms, who initially marked his score with the metronome mark at the time of composition, but who in old age in old age wanted his publishers to remove them all as he felt that performances took the indicated speed as a basic tempo to be kept at almost any cost, and reducing the structural impact of the music, which of course diminishes the emotional impact as a direct result.
His view was that it was not sufficient to simply play the notes in a straight tempo. He took over conducting his Fourth Symphony on one occasion simply because he found the conductor could not get enough flexibility into the music - the same sort of flexibility that Elgar regularly got in his recordings, both studio and live. The great conductors I mentioned above all managed this element naturally, but it is something that has been taught against for a good eighty years in the Music Colleges, and is something that needs relearning. A case of romantic HIP style perhaps!
If one listens to old popular recordings, they were full of natural tempo ebb and flow, but the modern style is a more or less [and in many cases absolutley] regular in tempo, and next to no seeming emotion being sort out in the performance. Foul intonation [tuning] seems to have become an expressive device in modern pop music singing, though often the bands are better drilled than the older ones among the instrumentalists, which makes it very hard to enjoy, at least it does for me!
George
Posted on: 29 April 2008 by Howlinhounddog
Mmm, I genuinely thought that this would provoke more of a response and thank you George and Noye (Mr Fludde) for your comments.
NF, you are correct the cuts do intrigue, and I do as the article suggests, find myself thinking of a sound not dissimilar to Charley Patton. Would Robert Johnson have been influenced by Patton? Almost certainly.
But this brins me to a point made by George.
You say that
I wonder if it is the recording slowed down that intrigues,or the music Bassed up (by the act of slowing down) that does so.
I will have to wait until the cd arrives to decide if the RJ voicing sounds more natural than the recordings as I know them now.
'course NF is correct. How do we know what RJ sounded without someone who was present at the time saying "YUP that's him".
Regards
Charlie.
NF, you are correct the cuts do intrigue, and I do as the article suggests, find myself thinking of a sound not dissimilar to Charley Patton. Would Robert Johnson have been influenced by Patton? Almost certainly.
But this brins me to a point made by George.
You say that
quote:If one listens to old popular recordings, they were full of natural tempo ebb and flow, but the modern style is a more or less [and in many cases absolutley] regular
I wonder if it is the recording slowed down that intrigues,or the music Bassed up (by the act of slowing down) that does so.
I will have to wait until the cd arrives to decide if the RJ voicing sounds more natural than the recordings as I know them now.
'course NF is correct. How do we know what RJ sounded without someone who was present at the time saying "YUP that's him".
Regards
Charlie.
Posted on: 29 April 2008 by u5227470736789439
In the acoustic recording days it was not at all rare to record singers flat, with the pianist accompanist playing a semi-tone or whole tone transposition downwards. The recording turntable would be running at a calculated slower than standard speed so that when replayed at the standard speed[s] of 78 [or 80] rpm the replayed pitch is what a normal performance would give, un-transposed.
This brightened the singer’s voice in replay, and got a clearer sound more approaching a real performance. The actual speed of the resulting performance might or might not reflect reality though, and one wonders which is preferable to do in transferring. To attempt to recreate the intended pitch or replay the actual pitch [and speed] of the original recording.
This still divides opinion as modern EQ techniques allow for the correct brightness in the voice to be brought out of the recording [it is still there though dulled somewhat in relation to the fundamental tone, by the recording process], so the option is there to recreate the actual slow performance, provided, and here lies the problem, the original pitch of the low pitch recorded performance is known. The other option is to retain the speed and pitch that was intended in replay, by keeping the standard replay pitch and [obviously the faster than actual at the session] speed but approved by the artists for issue in the standard replay speed.
Both approaches work with variable success. The real problem is that if the original session pitch is not known then it becomes complete guess-work, and it is probable that standard replay speed and a recreation of the intended replay result is probably safer, as at least this will be what the artists approved for issue.
Fascinating stuff that was rendered un-necessary with the introduction in recording of the electric microphone in 1926, where the EQ characteristsics of the recorded master came under significant control for the first time.
I could not access the link, but I imagine someone has theorised that this approach may have been applied in slow recording at lower pitch. I guess it is a question of listening and assessing the result. When were the recordings actually made?
Hope that helps a bit! George
This brightened the singer’s voice in replay, and got a clearer sound more approaching a real performance. The actual speed of the resulting performance might or might not reflect reality though, and one wonders which is preferable to do in transferring. To attempt to recreate the intended pitch or replay the actual pitch [and speed] of the original recording.
This still divides opinion as modern EQ techniques allow for the correct brightness in the voice to be brought out of the recording [it is still there though dulled somewhat in relation to the fundamental tone, by the recording process], so the option is there to recreate the actual slow performance, provided, and here lies the problem, the original pitch of the low pitch recorded performance is known. The other option is to retain the speed and pitch that was intended in replay, by keeping the standard replay pitch and [obviously the faster than actual at the session] speed but approved by the artists for issue in the standard replay speed.
Both approaches work with variable success. The real problem is that if the original session pitch is not known then it becomes complete guess-work, and it is probable that standard replay speed and a recreation of the intended replay result is probably safer, as at least this will be what the artists approved for issue.
Fascinating stuff that was rendered un-necessary with the introduction in recording of the electric microphone in 1926, where the EQ characteristsics of the recorded master came under significant control for the first time.
I could not access the link, but I imagine someone has theorised that this approach may have been applied in slow recording at lower pitch. I guess it is a question of listening and assessing the result. When were the recordings actually made?
Hope that helps a bit! George
Posted on: 30 April 2008 by Howlinhounddog
Thank you for that George.
The recording sessions were held between November 1936 and June 1937 so a little later than the electric microphone was introduced however it is unlikely that any of the recordings actually take place in a studio. Indeed hotel rooms seem to be the general consensus as to the whereabouts of the sessions.
The unfortunate thing is that so many legends have built up around the artist. Musically these may have some justification. Variously described at the time of recording as being 30ish or 17 or 18 by others,his age may be relevant when considering the timbre of the recorded voice.
On some of the recordings it would appear that Johnson employs a clear falsetto. However this need not be the case if we are considering the recordings of a seventeen year old.
Similarly, there is the legend of a shy artist who when asked to play for a group of musicians allegedly turned his back on them and faced the corner never turning to face his audience.
Ry Cooder describes this as 'corner loading', a means of enhancing vocal power (?)
I will listen to the slowed down recordings and reserve my opinion until then.
Noye might well be correct about the unnaturalness of some of these recordings and I imagine that Robert Johnsons spoken word on the slowed down 'take' could give the biggest clues.
regards,
Charlie
The recording sessions were held between November 1936 and June 1937 so a little later than the electric microphone was introduced however it is unlikely that any of the recordings actually take place in a studio. Indeed hotel rooms seem to be the general consensus as to the whereabouts of the sessions.
The unfortunate thing is that so many legends have built up around the artist. Musically these may have some justification. Variously described at the time of recording as being 30ish or 17 or 18 by others,his age may be relevant when considering the timbre of the recorded voice.
On some of the recordings it would appear that Johnson employs a clear falsetto. However this need not be the case if we are considering the recordings of a seventeen year old.
Similarly, there is the legend of a shy artist who when asked to play for a group of musicians allegedly turned his back on them and faced the corner never turning to face his audience.
Ry Cooder describes this as 'corner loading', a means of enhancing vocal power (?)
I will listen to the slowed down recordings and reserve my opinion until then.
Noye might well be correct about the unnaturalness of some of these recordings and I imagine that Robert Johnsons spoken word on the slowed down 'take' could give the biggest clues.
regards,
Charlie
Posted on: 30 April 2008 by Noye's Fludde
quote:Originally posted by Howlinhounddog:
Mmm, I genuinely thought that this would provoke more of a response
Me too. I expected a raging debate about the slowed down vs original with everybody whipping out their well worn vinyl copy from 1970 to prove their point... Well,...it is a hi fi forum after all, so I guess it's not to hard to understand a lack of interest in something recorded 70 years ago.
I hope Charlie will give us his opinion of the 'new' version when he gets a chance. Great topic, by the way, and a fascinating link.
Noye
Posted on: 30 April 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Noye, and Charlie,
It is a shame that there seems relatively little interest in this, and the historic aspects of what might reasonably be called the "gramophone."
In Hifi circles, there is a firm consideration that the approach to perfection is more important than what is reproduced. I personally find this very sad, and though I had not heard of Robert Johnson before this Thread, I have a great interest in the history of the recording, because so much of the highest significance was recorded early on. Nowadays the recording companies and their recording artists have an aim of technical perfection in performance, which is then edited to produce what I think might reasonably be seen as artificial pseudo-perfection, and also a fascination which recorded artificiality, with the production emphasis being too much towards artificial effects like pin-point stereo, rather than the much more important issue of fundamentally lucid and just balances between the lines of music sung or played by different people. These aspects of recorded performance and recording technique have the unfortunate effect of building false ideas and expectations of what a live performance a might be like. You would be surprised how many Hifi aficionados have not the first clue how what they listen to being reproduced relates to the same music and musicians heard live! Most people play recordings of natural un-amplified music making not just a little bit too loud! I once heard a grand performance of Beethoven's Choral Symphony being criticised as "being much quieter than on the record!"
The best recordings in the musical sense were in mono, as no amount of fiddling would produce anything other than a diminution in the quality of the musicality of the result. Thus the recording had to major on the important musical aspects, as there was nothing else that it could do!
Here is a nice Thread on the history of recording in the earlier electrical days: -
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3801938...422981217#5422981217
Please do post your reactions to the new transfers.
George
It is a shame that there seems relatively little interest in this, and the historic aspects of what might reasonably be called the "gramophone."
In Hifi circles, there is a firm consideration that the approach to perfection is more important than what is reproduced. I personally find this very sad, and though I had not heard of Robert Johnson before this Thread, I have a great interest in the history of the recording, because so much of the highest significance was recorded early on. Nowadays the recording companies and their recording artists have an aim of technical perfection in performance, which is then edited to produce what I think might reasonably be seen as artificial pseudo-perfection, and also a fascination which recorded artificiality, with the production emphasis being too much towards artificial effects like pin-point stereo, rather than the much more important issue of fundamentally lucid and just balances between the lines of music sung or played by different people. These aspects of recorded performance and recording technique have the unfortunate effect of building false ideas and expectations of what a live performance a might be like. You would be surprised how many Hifi aficionados have not the first clue how what they listen to being reproduced relates to the same music and musicians heard live! Most people play recordings of natural un-amplified music making not just a little bit too loud! I once heard a grand performance of Beethoven's Choral Symphony being criticised as "being much quieter than on the record!"
The best recordings in the musical sense were in mono, as no amount of fiddling would produce anything other than a diminution in the quality of the musicality of the result. Thus the recording had to major on the important musical aspects, as there was nothing else that it could do!
Here is a nice Thread on the history of recording in the earlier electrical days: -
http://forums.naim-audio.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3801938...422981217#5422981217
Please do post your reactions to the new transfers.
George
Posted on: 30 April 2008 by Noye's Fludde
quote:Originally posted by GFFJ:
the production emphasis being too much towards artificial effects like pin-point stereo, rather than the much more important issue of fundamentally lucid and just balances between the lines of music sung or played by different people. These aspects of recorded performance and recording technique have the unfortunate effect of building false ideas and expectations of what a live performance a might be like.
George,
A most interesting thread, thanks for the link.
I get what you're saying. When these Johnson recordings were first issued, in the 60's and 70's, they inspired the likes of Eric Clapton and the Rolling Stones to produce some of their more durable covers. But what were they responding to if the recordings were so bad ? Obviously they were able to hear the music through the technology with no difficulty. I often used to find it strange that the people who are least fussy about 'hi fi' production tend to be musicians. That's because they are not interested in pinpoint effects, bass, treble or frequency response. In a way, these old shellacs, by offering nothing in the way of hi fi virtues, offer a purer experience for those seeking musical virtues.
I also agree with your other comments concerning the potential advantages of mono. Look at the two Klemperer Eroica's. The first is often considered the classic but the stereo remake is almost every bit as distinguished, though it is a different approach. The mono mix, limited in frequency extremes and offering scant sound stage, is actually more enjoyable because we have the music hitting us directly, right in the gut, without any hi fi distractions. By contrast, in the stereo effort, we are assaulted on all sides by sounds and instruments we would never hear in any natural musical setting.
Sorry to get off track but you're comments got me to thinking....
Noyes
Posted on: 01 May 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Noye,
It is fantastic for me that you mention both the 1955 Mono recoring of the Eroica under Klemperer and the 1963 stereo remake. The older recording is much easier to follow and such is the precision in matters of instrumental balance and clarity of phrasing that it would make a perfect source to transcribe the music from without loss or inacuracy, should every printed or written score somehow disappear!
I had the later recording given me for my eleventh birthday, and agree that it is an estimable performance in every way, but not one I particularly warm to after all these years. I think a good deal of the problem stems from the confused stereo recording from the begining of the period of multiple microphone technique. If one finds the 1955 stereo recording of the Seven led by Klemperer that was fortuitously captured in parallel to the mono recording, then one sees hove much worse were stereo recordings by 1963. The answer is simple. The older system was pure Blumlein stereo with his notion of perfect stereo which summed to perfect mono. This is only possible with what is in effect a single point microphone that has directionality of capture in its two channels. [The actual way it works is described in a link in the history thread linked above].
Comparing the mono and stereo versions of that recording of the Seventh it becomes clear that the balance is identical, but that there is more lucidity in the mono.
Another old thread on the issue of mono for you!
Is Mono More Musical?
ATB from George
It is fantastic for me that you mention both the 1955 Mono recoring of the Eroica under Klemperer and the 1963 stereo remake. The older recording is much easier to follow and such is the precision in matters of instrumental balance and clarity of phrasing that it would make a perfect source to transcribe the music from without loss or inacuracy, should every printed or written score somehow disappear!
I had the later recording given me for my eleventh birthday, and agree that it is an estimable performance in every way, but not one I particularly warm to after all these years. I think a good deal of the problem stems from the confused stereo recording from the begining of the period of multiple microphone technique. If one finds the 1955 stereo recording of the Seven led by Klemperer that was fortuitously captured in parallel to the mono recording, then one sees hove much worse were stereo recordings by 1963. The answer is simple. The older system was pure Blumlein stereo with his notion of perfect stereo which summed to perfect mono. This is only possible with what is in effect a single point microphone that has directionality of capture in its two channels. [The actual way it works is described in a link in the history thread linked above].
Comparing the mono and stereo versions of that recording of the Seventh it becomes clear that the balance is identical, but that there is more lucidity in the mono.
Another old thread on the issue of mono for you!
Is Mono More Musical?
ATB from George
Posted on: 02 May 2008 by JamH
Speed .. A friend of mine [who died a few years ago but who played Scott Joplin] said that Joplin's marking 'not too fast' meant 'don't play it as fast as you possible can [and get it wrong]' which was the style at the time.
James H.
James H.
Posted on: 03 May 2008 by u5227470736789439
Dear Munch,
I have sudden "got" your post! Eric ... Clapton!
ATB from George
I have sudden "got" your post! Eric ... Clapton!
ATB from George
Posted on: 03 May 2008 by Briz Vegas
To my ears the guitar does not sound right slowed down. My "King of the delta blues Vol 2" CD, which I think has amazing sound quality given its age, sounds like the right speed. The slowed recordings are still interesting, as is the technical stuff that GFFJ posts.
Not sure that he died at 19. Here is another version of events
http://www.deltahaze.com/johnson/bio.html
and a somewhat odd event more than 60 years after his death.
http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/cases/20000615/9801573.html
Not sure that he died at 19. Here is another version of events
http://www.deltahaze.com/johnson/bio.html
and a somewhat odd event more than 60 years after his death.
http://www.mslawyer.com/mssc/cases/20000615/9801573.html
Posted on: 06 May 2008 by Howlinhounddog
Great second link Briz. I've never seen this before. I thought dogging was a recent phenomenon 
Posted on: 07 May 2008 by jcs_smith
Maybe it's because I'm so used to the originals but I prefer them to the slowed down versions.
I have heard this theory before but I'm not really convinced. I suspect they may have been speeded up maybe 2 or 3% but not significantly more. The technlogy then wasn't that accurate and I also heard that engineers routinely set the recording equioment at 80rpm to allow for stylus drag
I have heard this theory before but I'm not really convinced. I suspect they may have been speeded up maybe 2 or 3% but not significantly more. The technlogy then wasn't that accurate and I also heard that engineers routinely set the recording equioment at 80rpm to allow for stylus drag
Posted on: 10 May 2008 by Howlinhounddog
Slowed down cd arrived today and first impression was that it sounded like Charly Paton. Could be interesting as I believe Charly was the man that all the delta bluesmen of the time tried to copy (listen to Bukka White talking about this on, I think, BUKKA WHITE: Mississippi Blues, the complete takoma recordings cd. tak 1001)
This of course maybe the effect that the production of a slower version of the songs brings to the party.
Ah well... more to come after a detailed study.
C.
This of course maybe the effect that the production of a slower version of the songs brings to the party.
Ah well... more to come after a detailed study.
C.
Posted on: 13 May 2008 by jcs_smith
quote:Originally posted by Howlinhounddog:
Slowed down cd arrived today and first impression was that it sounded like Charly Paton.
Ah yes but you've opened up a can of worms here. Maybe the Charley Patton recordings were speeded up as well. Or maybe even slowed down
Posted on: 14 May 2008 by Howlinhounddog
quote:Ah yes but you've opened up a can of worms here. Maybe the Charley Patton recordings were speeded up as well. Or maybe even slowed down
DOH !May I firstly appologise for the spelling of Charley Patton on my previous post (thanks JCS)
I have to say after a few listens this 'alternate R.J. is growing on me.
I gave Mrs. Howlinhounddog a little listen to both versions of Me and the Devil Blues and guess what, she felt the slowed version was much more articulated.
This , I should mention almost constitutes a blind test as this was exposure to a lover of Opera who usually leaves the room if blues is even mentioned and would have little or no knowledge of Johnsons music.
I'm sticking with this cd a little longer and will give what I hope passes for a definative critique then.
All the best
Charlie.
Posted on: 24 May 2008 by AikeaGuinea
Well my CD of Robert Johnson "slowed" has arrived and my early impression is that it "feels" right.
Avoiding all the well worn cliches about "blues with a feeling" I just get the impression that it puts him nearer to his contemporaries in sound ,diction and pace of delivery.
Like Howlinhounddog even my better half,who cannot see why anyone would ever want to listen to Ishmon Bracey,reckons that it sounds much better than the original release.(and in this house that is some recommendation!)
By the way I believe that the reason that Johnson turned his back on a live audience was not through shyness but to conceal his fingering.
Avoiding all the well worn cliches about "blues with a feeling" I just get the impression that it puts him nearer to his contemporaries in sound ,diction and pace of delivery.
Like Howlinhounddog even my better half,who cannot see why anyone would ever want to listen to Ishmon Bracey,reckons that it sounds much better than the original release.(and in this house that is some recommendation!)
By the way I believe that the reason that Johnson turned his back on a live audience was not through shyness but to conceal his fingering.
Posted on: 27 May 2008 by Pete M
Hi Howlinhounddog
Thanks for the absolutely amazing link. Records being speeded up is not that uncommon. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue being an example. I really may have to check out the Johnson cd with the slowed down versions.
Thanks again.
Peter
Peter
Thanks for the absolutely amazing link. Records being speeded up is not that uncommon. Miles Davis' Kind of Blue being an example. I really may have to check out the Johnson cd with the slowed down versions.
Thanks again.
Peter
Peter
Posted on: 29 May 2008 by Howlinhounddog
My pleasure Peter, I think you may enjoy it.
For me the jury's still out. Maybe it's 30 years of pre-programming.
For me the jury's still out. Maybe it's 30 years of pre-programming.