The Talking Machine Forum — For All Antique Phonographs & Recordings

Syncopeter,

Since you are in the Netherlands, you might see if you can get in touch with Gert Jan Blom (spelling?), who has put together several excellent CDs of the film music of LeRoy Shields ( Hal Roach Studios -Laurel and Hardy, Our Gang comedies) and the music of Raymond Scott, and get his opinion on the jazz recording speed controvery.

In an NPR interview, Jan-Blom mentioned that Raymond Scott's stuff was fiendishly difficult, in part due to tempo ( usually very fast ), and complication of the arrangements.

In addition to being a talented musician & arranger, Ray Scott was a "techno-geek" and was very much hands-on in the recording process.


The only "jazz" record I've heard that sounds "unnaturally" fast, is my Victor Blue Label of Rhapsody in Blue, with Paul Whiteman and George Gershwin at the piano; they pushed the tempi and made some cuts ( I think), and managed to cram it onto 2 sides of a single 12-inch disc. But there's no doubt in my mind that the band and Gershwin really played it that fast ,and that it was not some "trick" by manipulating the platter speed.
Gerswhin's reproducing-piano roll recordings of Rhapsody bear this out.

I have a Columbia recording of Rhapsody from the 1940's with Philadelphia Orchestra / Eugene Ormandy and Oscar Levant ( notable Gershwin friend and protege), and this version occupies 3 sides on 12-inch discs, the 4th side filled-up with Gershwin's Preludes #2 and #3.

Frank,

I assume you are talking about the Beau Hunks who made two CD's with music from the L&H movies and also did a CD of Raymond Scott music. With regard to the latter, British Ambrose recorded quite a few of his numbers in the same frantic tempo. But then he had the cream of players, because he payed huge salaries. I'm more than 100% sure these were recorded in real time, because the sound of the band, including the vibrato of the different solos is exactly the same as on slower numbers.
Fiddling with recording speeds only became popular around the middle 1930s when sound effects for movie cartoons were needed, e.g. Disney's Chip & Daisy, or Donald Duck's cousins. But these were pre-recorded, so the anmimators were able to lip-synchronise.
In the 1920s and early 1930s music wasplayed at breakneck speed. Whether musicians used controlled substances to be able to do this will probably never be disclosed. There is just too much proof, even from very obscure labels, to claim that a world wide scheme of recording at lower speeds is a hoax.

Peter.

For your amusement: Assuming that Muskrat Ramble was transferred at 78.26, here is Mr.Armstrong at 58rpm ! http://www.box.net/shared/vos95rsem5

Edisone wrote:For your amusement: Assuming that Muskrat Ramble was transferred at 78.26, here is Mr.Armstrong at 58rpm ! http://www.box.net/shared/vos95rsem5

That was tortuous to listen to!

I agree - that was Tortoise-ous to listen-to too !

No way the trombone player would have popped-out all those low notes on a period pea-shooter trombone... at this speed, that places the tune in the key of D major (concert pitch); lowest note on a standard trombone is E natural.

Louis's solos almost sound like they were played on a trombone.

Let's face it, this notion of recording at 58 rpm is silly... it's not the same deal as "slow-cranking the camera" like film-makers did in the silent era, when they wanted a frenetic scene in play-back....

And, simply put, musicians had real "chops" (ability) back then... some still do.

The whole 58 rpm theory seems very far fetched to me. However, most of the pre 1930 records shouldn't be played at 78 rpm either! Most Victor records that I have (both acoustic and pre -1928 electrics) play too fast at 78 rpm. I can tell because I play along on my keybord and they sound terribly off-key! It isn't until 1928 that Victor finally got their act together, and from that moment on 78 rpm is about right. Especially the early electric Victors vary from 75 to 77 rpm. I don't know if this was deliberate, or due to the recording technique still being less than perfect.

However, the suggestion that studios recorded at a speed below 78 so that it would sound a little faster when played back at the recommended speed of 78 (for Victor at least), doesn't sound that crazy to me. I once read that even today, radio DJ's play their singles a little bit too fast in order to make them sound bright and peppy. It's called pitching. And years ago, when I was still into modern music, I indeed noticed that several hit singles I bought played a little slower on my equipment, and at a lower pitch than when I heard them on the radio. And we are talking about cd's here.

But the question remains that if this was indeed intentional, why did they abandon this practice during 1927? And, if people wanted to dance a little faster they could easily set their gramophone to a higher speed.

And in some cases I really doubt if it was intentional. I have several acoustic Billy Murray records, and when played back at 78 rpm he starts to sound a little like a chipmunk: I admit that he has a somewhat peculiar voice, but not that peculiar! A little playing along on my keyboard usually leads to the conclusion that 75 rpm is the right speed.

bart1927 wrote: Most Victor records that I have (both acoustic and pre -1928 electrics) play too fast at 78 rpm.

Yup. Sometimes also they're too slow at 78. A Victor playing properly at, say, 80 rpm isn't unheard of either.

I don't bother with trying to ascertain playing speed beforehand. I throw the speed regulator on about 78 and then adjust by ear, sometimes using a pitch pipe. Unless it's Edison, one never really knows.

The guy who thinks any 78's should be played anywhere near 58 rpm should just collect 14" Victors, and then he'll be a smooth operator.

Those weight driven cutting tables were pretty stable by the time electric recording was introduced, but they had to be set up by hand. The engineer put a mark on the table, set a stop watch and counted the number of revolutions during a fixed period of time (a bit like taking your own pulse). So speed deviations of as much as 5% could be possible. Stroboscopes were already in use back then, but with a mains frequency that could vary as much as 10% depending on the power load and your location, were pretty useless. It wasn't until the advent of regulated power supplies that things started to level out.

Peter.

Many recordists used a speed meter which they pressed against the spindle, and the indicated speed varied with the amount of pressure applied. So, not very accurate.

Wolfe wrote: Unless it's Edison, one never really knows.

Umm...some of the earliest Edison DDs were not recorded at 80rpm - Jacques Urlus' first recordings sounds correct at around 75rpm, also some Lucrezia Bori sides from 1914. And I always wonder why Edison himself played his DDs at 70rpm.