Jan 17 2005
Slow Down, Mr. Johnson
This is a response to J-Walk’s recent post about Robert Johnson. (Read the post, read the essay, read the comments on J-Walk’s post, then read on.)
Robert Johnson’s “32-20 Blues” is 2:54 long. Play it back 20% slower, and it becomes 3:29 in length. But when we play back the slowed-down version, what does it sound like? Better?
You decide. This clip contains 20 or so seconds of the original recording, followed by the same portion of the recording slowed down by 20%.
Update: In his essay, Mr. Gibbens theorizes that to reproduce what Robert Johnson actually sounded like, the original recordings should be played back at 80% of their normal speed. He writes:
I accomplished this [in the slowed-down samples provided with his essay] by playing my old
King of the Delta Blues Singers LPs with the pitch control on the turntable turned as low as it would go and taping them with the pitch control on the cassette deck turned as high as it would go, then turning the pitch control down slightly while I dubbed it to another cassette deck. The end result was the equivalent of a 33-1/3-rpm record playing at 26-2/3-rpm.
26.66-rpm is indeed 80% of 33.33-rpm — but the process Mr. Gibbens describes doesn’t seem to have actually accomplished that. The slowed-down recording samples he provides are played at 31-rpm, which is only 93% of the normal speed (or 7% slower, not 20%).
This sample from “Cross Road Blues” contains a 41.10-second clip of the original recording. Slow that down by 20%, and it should be 49.32 seconds. But Mr. Gibbens’s sample of exactly the same segment of the recording is 43.97 seconds long, which is 6.97% slower (not 20%).
This sample from “Love in Vain” contains a 32.43-second clip of the original recording. Slow that down by 20%, and it should be 38.91 seconds. Mr. Gibbens’s sample is only 34.86 seconds long, which is 7.48% slower (not 20%).
For comparison, both of the above samples also include Mr. Gibbens’s 31-rpm sample (not 22.66-rpm as he states), followed by the same segment of the song actually played at 22.66-rpm (which sounds awful).
Conclusion: Mr. Gibbens may need to re-think his theory.
LOL, man he sounds like he’s on drugs!!!! I dont think that’s how it’s was ment to b lol!!!!
I’m listening more closely the slowed-down samples in Gibbens’s essay to determine exactly how much they’ve actually been slowed down — either his calculations are off or his methods are faulty.
I.e, “slowing the recordings to 80 per cent of the speed at which they normally play. (I accomplished this by playing my old King of the Delta Blues Singers LPs with the pitch control on the turntable turned as low as it would go and taping them with the pitch control on the cassette deck turned as high as it would go, then turning the pitch control down slightly while I dubbed it to another cassette deck. The end result was the equivalent of a 33-1/3-rpm record playing at 26-2/3-rpm.)”
Wouldn’t it be easier, and more accurate, to simply copy the original recordings to a computer and have the computer adjust the speed?
Conclusion #2: I have no life (i.e., any excuse to get away from my thesis is always welcomed).
Good work Phillip, the description he gives of slowing down the LP doesn’t fill one with confidence does it!
One thing, which i dont know very much about is how the effect of RPM of a LP disk set to play at 33.3. and pitch would work - thats to say would changing the pitch reduced the RPM - whats the effect ete, etc, etc
Man, I must have had a lot of time on my hands to write this post.