Talk:Robert Johnson

message: The current :Robert Johnson discography is more like a sessionographyit's organized by recording date, includes unissued recordings, and only mentions the albums in the lead. There was a minimal attempt at a "Robert Johnson's recording sessions" a while back that was redirected. Johnson only recorded 29 songs (42 recordings including alternate takes), so a more detailed article may be workable.  Rather than try to squeeze everything into one table, maybe split it up into a separate sections: "Sessionography", "Discography", "Commercial performance", and perhaps a sortable "List of songs" in a "Robert Johnson recordings" article.  "List of songs recorded by..." articles usually include a "Songwriter(s)" column. All of his recordings list Johnson as the songwriter, but biographers have shown that most are based-on/reworkings-of previous songs, so identifying Johnson alone as the songwriter seems misleading (although the official credit/copyrights should still be reflected in the prose).  I've put together a rough draft here, which still needs a lead and some introductory prose for the sections. Suggestions/comments? —Ojorojo (talk) 18:45, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: As he only recorded 29 different songs - most of which have their own articles - would it not be simpler to set out most of the detailed information (on alternative recordings and inclusion on compilations) in those articles - with the existing Discography article reformatted, to include a list (but not every detail) of the commercial releases, including compilations?  Information on the antecedents of the songs he recorded should be in the article on each song, and I think there would probably be little opposition to all of his songs having their own article.  Re-reading your message, is that close to what you are suggesting?   Ghmyrtle (talk) 19:20, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: This would not change the existing individual song articles, which should include the antecedents, first album release, etc., although I don't think all of his songs meet NSONGS (not much written about ":Dead Shrimp Blues", "Little Queen of Spades", "Malted Milk", "Drunken Hearted Man", "Honeymoon Blues"). Including the List of songs section may be too much, so I re-ordered the sections to give a better idea of having just the Discography, Commercial performance, and Sessionography sections.  Are you in favor of retaining the one-table discography format? One problem is how to format it to include the session info, since many of the recordings were only released on the compilations (24 on singles vs 18 on albums) and some single A- and B-sides were recorded at different sessions. Another is how to identify the albums for songs that were not released on singles. Do you have any solutions?  —Ojorojo (talk) 00:01, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text:  What you've done looks really good so far, in my opinion.  To be clear, we're talking about a major rewrite -- and possible renaming -- of the existing "Robert Johnson discography" article, right?  — Mudwater (Talk) 00:34, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Rather than have separate articles for a "Robert Johnson discography", "Robert Johnson recording sessions", and "List of songs recorded by Robert Johnson", the idea was to include them as separate sections on a master-type "Robert Johnson recordings" article. Since he recorded only 29 songs (42 recordings), a combined article would actually shorter than many WP discographies alone. The existing "RJ discography" would be a redirect to the new article section and the existing "RJ recording sessions" redirect would be changed from the existing discography to the new article section. If the "List of songs" is left off, perhaps the new article could still be called "Robert Johnson discography", but it would be a major rewrite. The existing discography has been tagged for needing additional citations for 2+ years, is poorly formatted, and lacks details. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:10, 15 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that makes sense to me.  And as I said, I think the draft looks good.  — Mudwater (Talk) 02:48, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It's looking very good to me, though I wonder whether the "Sessionography" section should come first, as we are prioritising the importance of listing his recordings, rather than his commercial record releases.  Ghmyrtle (talk) 07:58, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'm getting a better idea on how to present this. I'll continue to work on the prose for the lead and section. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:10, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: If the draft looks OK, I'll move it to "Robert Johnson recordings", with redirects as noted above. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me - I just tweaked a couple of minor typos.  Thanks for your efforts!   Ghmyrtle (talk) 15:42, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, done. An image at the top would help, but his copyrighted photos don't meet :WP:FUR. I'm sure others will have things to add/tweak. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:37, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice!  I'll go back and study it more closely when I get a chance.  — Mudwater (Talk) 21:57, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: In writing the new article, I purposely didn't read the main RJ article. Now, I see that a few details differ and probably they should be harmonized. Also, perhaps some would be better in the new article, such as the "facing the corner" and playback speeds debates. —Ojorojo (talk) 14:02, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please proceed accordingly.  You're all over it, like maple syrup on pancakes.    — Mudwater (Talk) 22:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed "Robert Johnson recordings" article 

message: Hi. Semi-retired professional audio professional here, credit as engineer on many CDs, awarded a Grammy for Best Historical Recording some years ago.
The current text of this article says that Robert Johnson "... participated in only two recording sessions [ ... ]. These songs, recorded at low fidelity in improvised studios, were the totality of his recorded output." The part about improvised studios is well-documented. "Low fidelity", however, is an opinion given without evidence, and I would like to remove it from the text.
The LP and early CD re-issues of those 78 rpm recordings were indeed muffled and distant sounding. Unfortunately, they were the only versions available to the public for many years, and a lot of people's opinions were formed by them. But more recent re-issues, such as the "Centennial Collection" CDs on Legacy Recordings and the excerpts used in the PBS series "American Epic", sound wonderful--one might say astonishingly so. They're clear, present, life-like and well balanced. And that's not due to any artificial processing; rather, the dull, limited sound of the earlier re-issues was due to overly aggressive filtering to remove noise. (Copies of the old 78s still exist, and when played back on proper equipment they, too, sound good.)
If I had time, I would add a sentence or two in an appropriate section about these more recent re-issues, giving references to favorable, published reviews. But I don't have that kind of time right now. So am I justified in simply removing those three words of unsupported opinion, "in low fidelity", from the current text, even though, being honest, I realize that I am motivated by my different opinion from whoever wrote those words?
Best regards to all. DSatz (talk) 18:10, 24 April 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Just seeing your comment (I've been on a break) and agree. I went ahead and removed "at low fidelity".  Any comments on the "corner loading" and increased playing speed ideas that have been floating around for awhile (now in the Sessionography and Discography sections of :Robert Johnson recordings)? —Ojorojo (talk) 15:34, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: This is cool; if the text in the body does not have cited support for the statement in the lead, it's fine to remove it.  --Jayron32 15:48, 26 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alleged "low fidelity" of his recordings 

message: The 1st paragraph of the "Early life" section is a bit weird. When did Charles Dodds leave Hazlehurst - before or after he married Julia; before or after Robert was conceived? Nurg (talk) 08:41, 15 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charles Dodds and Robert's conception