Early jazz records....58 rpm?

[De Soto Frank]

Granted, there was some variation in speeds prior to the electric recroding era, but we seem to be talking in the 70-80 RPM ballpark....

Not 58 RPM....

[Henry]

Absolutely right, DSF. And your previous post regarding instrument, specifically trombone, note range is spot on. The Dippermouth Blues recording that was cited for 58 rpm would have had the trombone playing impossible low notes not on the instrument had they been playing the piece a fourth lower. As a musician, I say this 58 rpm thing is total nonsense. "Pardon my redundancy."

[Viva-Tonal]

I thought it was crazy myself. I wish I could find the link to another one of the YT clips with the slowed-down transfers, one where the music had the sound of the ODJB tracks when slowed down, but with only excerpts of some sides. The music didn't sound that odd, but the illusion was shattered when a vocalist began to sing, then there was no doubt as to the degree to which the record had been slowed down!

[syncopeter]

Also keep in mind that we now use a standard tuning of Central A = 440Hz, for orchestras sometimes even higher to produce more volume.
Pre-WWII the pitch normally was 435 and on a warm day could be as low as 425 for the piano, because of stretching of the strings. Which is a full semitone difference for the same key.
I played church organ for quite a while and during service you could hear it getting flatter and more out of tune, due to the warmth produced by the flock.
It is a well known secret that radio jocks played records at a higher speed. There was a lot of 'under the table' money involved, so if they could include one or two more records in their hour of fame there was some more drinking money in the kitty. Many cheap 1960s record players also tend to run a bit fast. That is no wear, they were intended to do so, to emulate the radio sound. I've seen one that ran 48 instead of 45 rpm. With 33 rpm it was dead on. So no mistakes there.
Even with classical music there is a continuing discussion about pitch and tempo. Did Caruso transpose certain arias or didn't he? The problem is that we will never know. The only, and very subjective, criteria are timbre and vibrato. If these sound natural, you are probably playing at more or less the correct speed. All other arguments are rubbish.

Peter

[Henry]

Higher pitch has nothing to do with more volume. Pitch is a function of the frequency in cycles per second (Hertz, Hz) of the sound wave; volume (loudness) is a function of the amplitude of the sound wave, expressed in bels or decibels (dB). Higher pitches may *sound* louder to some listeners than lower pitches, but this is a purely subjective response in the listener, not a physical attribute of the sound itself. As for A = 440 Hz, the situation historically is very complicated, and it is widely accepted by scholars that pitch was all over the map, literally and figuratively, until well into the 20th century. Even today, orchestras may have a different pitch standard for "A", despite the supposed adherence to the 440 standard. In truth, "A" equals the pitch of the principal oboist's a' (one-line a), and there's a long explication lurking behind that statement which I'm not going to go into at the moment. I've spent a lot of years playing in orchestras while married to an oboist, so I do have some first-hand experience in the matter

One of the insoluble conundrums in re: orchestral tuning is that strings "sag" (go flatter in pitch) with rising temperature, while wind instruments' pitch *rises* under the same conditions, and of course those behaviors are reversed with falling temperature. This is one reason why there is constant retuning going on in the orchestra. I'm not an organist, but I don't understand why organ pitch would go flat with rising temperature; as a wind instrument, the organ should behave similarly to the orchestral woodwinds and brasses, since organ pipes are made of wood and of metal. What am I missing here?

[hillndalefan]

As can be seen above, the speed discussion is a can of worms! My own experience as both a collector and musician, is that the standard speed didn't really happen until about 1930. The Victor Orthophonics of 1925-1930 are usually at about 76 rpm. The only commercial recordings I've encountered that seem to have been cut as slowly as indicated in the original posting here, are Berliner Gramophone discs of the late 1890s, which DO seem to be at about 56 rpm. That is roughly the speed [it varies up and down] of a banjo record I have. It plays [roughly] at the right pitch at that speed, and the piano, which is indistinguishable at 78, emerges as a decent accompaniment. The usual speeds by the 20s tend to run in the 75-82 rpm range. Bob Ault

[gregbogantz]

One of the reasons that record speed became more standardized in the 1930s was the introduction of the synchronous AC motor for both recording lathes and the better phonographs. At 60Hz power line frequency, the rotational speed of 78.260869 rpm can be obtained directly from a 46-pole synchronous motor. That would be direct drive, no gearing or belts. In the early 30s RCA sold the model R93 record playing "attachment" (it was just a turntable and tonearm meant to be attached to a radio) that was powered by such a synchronous motor. Interestingly, it was purely synchronous (not an induction torque motor), like the early electric clocks, which meant that it was not self-starting. It required that the user give the platter a twirl to get it started. And (as with all purely synchronous motors) it would run in either direction at 78.26 rpm. That is still the 60Hz world standard for this record speed, and you will notice it is so marked on stroboscope discs. In countries with 50Hz power, the closest speed of 78.947368 rpm can directly be obtained from a 38-pole motor.

[Edisone]

And I always wonder why Edison himself played his DDs at 70rpm.

Where is this information?

[Wolfe]

And I always wonder why Edison himself played his DDs at 70rpm.

Where is this information?

Well, the quote was kind of mangled to make seem like I wrote that. It was the other poster.

I'll respond anyway to say that I've never heard of Edison playing his records at 70 rpm.

In the book Edison, Musicians, and the Phonograph there's a fair bit of recounting of Edison's listening practices, and no mention of the 70 rpm thing there either.

[transformingArt]

I'll respond anyway to say that I've never heard of Edison playing his records at 70 rpm.
In the book Edison, Musicians, and the Phonograph there's a fair bit of recounting of Edison's listening practices, and no mention of the 70 rpm thing there either.

I read about it on Edison Diamond Disc Record Labels & Discography By Charles Gregory. I don't have the entire book, but I have some photocopy pages from bits and pieces of them I got from somewhere. I was also kinda skeptic about it until I had some other conversation with Mr. Jack Stanley some time ago. (Actually I'm not sure if Mr. Stanley was the one who told me about it, but that's what I remember.) He also told me the similar thing.