Early jazz records....58 rpm?

[Viva-Tonal]

I thought this might kick off a bit of discussion....

http://www.sandybrownjazz.co.uk/whatsnew.html

1920s Jazz: At 78 RPM?

Many of us assume that old jazz recordings were made just as we hear them. Richard Alabone writing in the journal of the City of London Phonograph and Gramophone Society Ltd (CLPGS) begs to differ:

Over the years there has been considerable controversy in jazz circles regarding the correct speed of old jazz records; there seems to be something wrong. In the jazz press there has been discussion about particular records: should they be played a bit faster or a bit slower? I am of the opinion that this discussion was way off the mark, and believe that most recordings during the 1920s were deliberately mastered at about 58 RPM! Many jazz lovers consider this an outrageous suggestion and will not even consider the possibility. On the other hand, some will say the records all sounded manic. What is the truth?

Sixty years ago I had a wind-up gramophone and used to play a trumpet along with recordings of Louis Armstrong. The only way I managed, was to turn the speed control to very slow, that is about 58 RPM, making the key lower by about two and a half musical tones. Nowadays I re-record CDs on to cassette on a karaoke machine, which has variable speeds, and have now studied much of the popular recorded jazz of the twenties, and this discrepancy persists. From the Original Dixieland Jazz Band in 1921, to the West End Blues of Louis Armstrong in 1929, the recordings were deliberately made to sound fast and jazzy, it was good for business as the records sold well. The musicians liked it, because improvised playing at a relaxed slow speed was much easier, and led to fewer mistakes and expensive re-takes.

If this really was the case, the questions to be addressed are: Why has this not come to light before? Why was it such a well kept secret?

In 1925, it was not a secret. Gramophones had a governor control to set the speed where you liked. This new music had to sound jazzy and people played it at the speed they needed to dance the Charleston. Perhaps the first band to be recorded in this way was the Original Dixieland Jazz Band (ODJB) and everyone liked it. The records sold well and although the label said 78 RPM no one complained, so from then on, jazz was mostly recorded at 58 RPM which was fine for about 10 years. After that, the governor control mechanisms became obsolete, but jazz lovers had become used to the music sounding this way; jazzy and fast.

Today if we see '78 RPM' on an old shellac, it is played at 78; no questions are asked. In fact, any suggestion that jazz recordings of the 1920s are all too fast is generally met with surprise and disbelief. But I have re-recorded a selection of tracks at 58 RPM with each one followed by a few bars at 78, and most listeners are amazed and convinced at the time, although they might not be so sure later, while some older jazz lovers cannot change their years of indoctrination and are hard to convince. Clearly there is something amiss with the speed of 1920s jazz. By 1929 it seems that the recording speed started to be altered: Bix Beiderbecke's recordings in New York, April 1928, were slightly faster, but it was only after 1930 that the Armstrong recordings were approaching 78 RPM. Even today the speed of some popular music is incorrect.

Analysis is made more difficult by the fact that the speed sometimes varied during the cutting of a track due to more power being needed on the outside grooves, or during loud passages. Also, there was absolutely nothing standard about this; the speeds seem to vary from 56.6 to 60.2 RPM for no very good reason. It seems that all records were made in easy keys, and very slow, allowing musicians time to improvise. Jazz playing is not rehearsed note for note, nor written down, even though most have head arrangements and some, for example the later Beiderbeckes, had written backing for spontaneous jazz improvisations.

During the Armstrong Hot 5 and 7 recordings they played in a deliberately relaxed style which sounds fine at 78 RPM; but at 58 RPM Armstrong's vocals appear to be somewhat ponderous, and sung at the lower end of his range, which I believe was all quite deliberate. On the other hand, Lil Hardin's vocals seem fine at 58, but sound mouse-like at 78 RPM. Interestingly, a large cymbal was used for these recordings which achieved a wonderful but false sound at 78 RPM.

The speed of a batch of Armstrong Hot 5 recordings, made by Okeh in early 1926, has been investigated by Norman Field who concluded that all these records were recorded at 82.17 RPM so should be replayed even faster than 78 RPM. In my opinion this particular set of recordings was made at 60.2 RPM. Clearly Norman and I have not been able to agree on this point, but we do agree that 'there was something curious going on' and that 78 RPM was not the recording speed.

Although my wind-up gramophone has long since gone, I listen to jazz on CDs, but it is easy to check the recording speed. This can be done by noting the key at 78 RPM, by playing my cornet with the record, then varying the speed to find the key that sounds plausible, noting the key in order to find the pitch difference in semitones at the two speeds. A quick calculation using the ratio of frequencies of musical notes, from an acoustic table, gives me the speed at which the disc was cut. For example, Dippermouth Blues by King Oliver in 1923, is in C at 78 RPM, but appears to be correct in the key of G. C is 523.25 cycles/sec, and G is 392 cycles/sec, so the original cutting speed is 78 x 392, divided by 523.25; that is 58.4 RPM. The question then arises: Why were all the records cut at about 58 RPM? The answer is that any intermediate speed would result in some very unlikely keys at 78; whereas at 58 to 75 equates to all keys being reduced by one flat, for example G to C.

Many musicians and jazz enthusiasts to whom I have spoken have mixed feelings about the theory that all recordings were made at such a slow speed. My analysis of possible keys indicates that all the records were made at approximately 58 RPM, at which speed they sound relaxed and carefully improvised. Where there is no proof or written evidence, it is only the recordings themselves that can tell the true story. First, listen to a track at 58 RPM, which sounds perfectly plausible; then follow it by the last few bars again, but at 78 RPM, and you will probably be quite convinced.

However, there are no sound samples on the source page with which to judge the differences in sound of any of the records cited when played back at 58 rpm versus 78 or any other speed.

[syncopeter]

I disagree with you. Don't forget that the 20s were fast and furious and frantic tempos belonged to that era. Early acoustic 78s may have been recorded at any speed between 70 and 85 rpm, but by 1925 the speed was more or less standardised at 78 rpm or 80 for Columbia. Armstrong's OkeH hot 5 and 7 should be played at 78rpm. He really was that fast and was able to blow and sustain those high notes. In later days his voice went down from a tenor to baritone, also because of heavy smoking (including a lot of pot) and high living. Also remember that tuning went up, from around 430-435 to 440 for the Central A during that period.

[transformingArt]

I totally disagree with this 58rpm thing. I can think of many supporting examples on 78rpm speed, especially about Louis Armstrong. First, there are lots of early 1930s film featuring him (including a Universal Short and some Betty Boob cartoons on which he provided the 'live' soundtrack), and there is the legendary 1933 recordings of his live concert in Denmark which was originally recorded at 33rpm and still pretty 'fast'. Now you know, you can't screw up with this one.

Armstrong's OkeH hot 5 and 7 should be played at 78rpm. He really was that fast and was able to blow and sustain those high notes.

Regarding Armstrong's Okeh Hot 5 & 7 sessions, I recently read an article about this subject of correct playing speed; Cornet Chop Suey obviously had some inconsistent speed, and Potato Head Blues could be played plausibly around 82rpm. Of course, Okeh recording apparatus was came from British Columbias, so it would be possible to believe that they were recorded somewhere between 78 and 83.

Also, you should know that the speed wasn't THAT consistent until around 1932 - There are lots of early electrics which has some crazy speed, I have dealt with some of them many times. Stuffs came from British Columbia/Parlophone were the worst - I even have a Columbia record from 1947 which should played at around 76rpm. It's simply because they used the weight-driven cutting turntable for all those years. (In fact, Parlophone used those archaic things as late as 1967, even cutting some Beatles 45s with them!) Also, the French HMV stuffs are problematic. They had those chronic illness of turntable "WOW"s, first shown in 1901 ~ 1905, then again in 1927 ~ 1935.

[Swing Band Heaven]

There was a great deal of variety of recording speeds by all companies to some gegree or other for many different types of music. This is an accepted fact. Even HMV were doing it well into the 1930's. This isn't peculiar to jazz recordings. Some may well of been recorded at a slower speed but then so were lots of other recordings. I think to suggest that it was done this way specifically so people could dance to fast and furious is laughable. These bands were not just "studio" bands they also played live and if the only way they could achieve this fast and furious sound was by recording at a slower speed and playing back faster then it would of become obvious.

I am wholly unconvinced by this "conspiracy" theory.

[Wolfe]

Flibbery floobety floo.

This reminds me of the whole recent thing about Robert Johnson's records supposedly being 30 percent slower than we're used to hearing them.

This writer may appear to trying kick up some dust by generating a little controversy and attention for himself.

[syncopeter]

That British society is running on its last legs and is desperately looking for attention. With complete nonsense like this they won't get their once good reputation back. If OkeH recorded Armstrong at 58rpm, evey other company would have to do that too. Speeds varied, sometimes deliberately to be able to record a full aria on one side, but often due to atmospheric conditions. Those weight-driven cutting tables were far more stable than electric ones at the time, because the electric power supply could vary wildly well into the mid '30s, both in voltage and in frequency. Amps could cope with that, direct drive cutting machines definetely not. Also weight-driven tables were near noiseless, unlike the electric motors of that time.

[Henry]

Rubbish: I'll join the skeptics on this one. As a trombonist, I say that there is NO WAY that the Armstrong Hot 5/7 or the ODJB or anything else jazz, for that matter, could have been recorded at 58 with the intention of 78 playback. And why would he want to, anyway? Armstrong REALLY DID play all those notes at those pitches and tempos that you hear on the originals and on the LP and CD reissues; lots of people heard him play live back in the day. It's nonsense to suggest that the recordings were made at 2-½ steps lower pitch and MUCH slower tempos so they would sound "natural" at 78. Of course, I can't *prove* that they weren't, but then I also can't prove that they weren't recorded at 98 and then slowed down to 78, either. But I haven't posited any theories about 58 or 98. It seems to me that the burden of proof rests with those who so assert. Otherwise, it's balderdash. Not to mention poppycock. There are simply too many improbabilities involved.

P.S. Maybe the spectacular recordings of Herbert L. Clarke and Arthur Pryor were faked in this way, too? Unfortunately for the theory, lots of people heard those guys perform in concert with the Sousa and Pryor bands, so we know they could really do it.

P.P.S. The only way Sandy Brown *could* play his trumpet along with Louis Armstrong was by slowing it down to Brown's own playing level, which I'm absolutely sure was considerably less than Armstrong's!

P.P.P.S. What does it mean that King Oliver's " 'Dippermouth Blues' *appears* to be correct in the key of G"? "Appears" to whom? To ME it *appears* to be correct on the CD re-issue, although I should point out that the key of C concert is not a usual one for this kind of early jazz group, as it puts the Bb instruments (cornet/trumpet, clarinet) in the key of D (two sharps; the Bb instruments sound a whole step lower than the notes they play), unusual for them in jazz. I'm willing to assert and accept that this particular recording would be correct in the key of Bb concert, i.e., a whole step lower than C. But G to C is huge stretch, the interval of the perfect fourth, and if recorded in G concert would put the Bb instruments in the key of A (three sharps), practically unheard of in jazz. OTOH, if they had recorded at the pitch of Bb concert, the cornet and clarinet would be playing in *their* key of C, which is the "easiest" key to play in (at least it is for the cornet; you'd have to ask a clarinetist about that.) (If all this pitch business is confusing, I apologize. Took me years to figure it out!)

[Lenoirstreetguy]

The " slow jazz records" thing seems to be the flavour of the month in jazz circles but 58 rpm is really pushing it ( maybe he means 68). But to play devil's advocate, remember hardly anything was recorded at 78 until about 1929. The definitive McCormack discography says that NONE of McCormacks's 78's were recorded at 78 until 1932. The speeds were really all over the map. This was discussed on the old board and didn't someone quote an interview with one of the old jazz players who stated that recording the jazz sides a tad slow was done on purpose to give them pep when played on the home phonograph? I suspect this is how this guy got the idea that he could slow things down even more.
I have referred to the Paul Whiteman discography a lot ...the one that gives the keys of the original arrangements....and I'll tell ya, a lot of the Victor acoustics were recorded as slow as 71 rpm , especially in the New York studio in 1924 ( oil that cutter, please!!)
A lot of the Victors in the early twenties have the unpleasant characteristic of the cutter speeding up as the side progresses. Drives me nuts: but then that's the curse of being a piano tuner: pitch is the bane of my life !
Funny Herbert L Clarke should be mentioned: his Victors sound like a kazoo at 78.: 74-75 is more like it I think.


Jim

[syncopeter]

I once did a slowdown of a Coleman Hawkins solo for a saxophone playing friend. I reduced the tempo with a factor four, while keeping the pitch (computers can do that nowadays). Even at that speed we missed some of the fast figures he played.
When Armstrong changed the cornet for trumpet he was so amazed with the versatility of the instrument that you can actually hear his sheer joy on some of the earlier recordings. Like a child stepping over from a three-wheeler with square wheels to a really good bike.
These records may not have been made at exactly 78 or 80 rpm, but the real speed was at least very close.

[Henry]

My sentiments exactly! No way could the speed have been very far from 78; certainly not enough to make more than a whole tone pitch difference, at most.(Mmm, now I'll have to find out what that means on my XI.)

As for Herbert L. Clarke sounding like a kazoo, that would suggest a great deal of distortion on playback, rather than the small speed difference that Lenoirstreet guy suggests. BTW, I have both the LP and the CD re-issues of Clarke's solo cornet recordings, and they sound terrific. He was quite a player!