|
|
Post by Brad Bechtel on Jan 30, 2013 17:44:39 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by gaucho on Jan 30, 2013 18:59:45 GMT
There was a ton of debate over this photo. Did they finally verify it was in fact RJ?
|
|
|
|
Post by snakehips on Jan 30, 2013 21:36:22 GMT
Hi there !
It's claimed that the other guy is Johnnie Shines.
Neither look like who they are supposed to be.
Why would RJ be posing with a heap of junk guitar, missing its tuners and bridge, and, oh yeah, er, eh, no strings ? !!!
I'm not even sure the neck has a nut on it !
|
|
|
|
Post by slide496 on Jan 30, 2013 23:15:53 GMT
That photo has been discussed and experts apparently verified that its him by comparing, and supposedly Johnny Shines next to him but I still question it. The two things I see now that the photo has been cleaned up is that the ear is a different shape than the known photos for him - ADDED LATER :could be from hat pushing forward. On the Johnny Shines, the bottom teeth come out further than the top, top teeth are small with spaces and unless Shines had extensive work all the photos show an overbite and a nice set of teeth for him. There's a video with a guy that is real similar in appearance to RJ, with the same spider hands. He's wearing a similar hat to the above photo. that was proven not to be RJ by a movie theater poster of the picture playing - which was after he died. Just my 2 cents. Attachments:
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 8:20:58 GMT
I agree with harriets 'eargate' theory. The young man in the new photo looks like a high-school kid, rather than a hard bitten blues star. This is someone elses pic - its fanciful thinking at best, and just plain dishonesty at worst. TT Attachments:
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Jan 31, 2013 9:52:20 GMT
I think we all agree on this one. I just want to say to all the believers and the people who so-called 'verified it'......S T O P!!!! ........please stop trying to find more Robert Johnson artefacts!
There are the recordings which are unquestionably real and there are two photographs which are probably real, and that is all.
The film footage was soon pushed under the carpet when the scholars noticed that it was taken after RJ's death.
Just enjoy the music!
Shine On
Michael
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 31, 2013 12:29:40 GMT
Probably a useless comment but one thing that struck me is a watch on 'Johnny Shines' right hand, apart from it looking like a decent one, in the pictures of Johnny showing him wearing a watch it is on his left hand. A watch on the right normally means a lefty, even though you could, of course, still play right handed (I do). RJ looks too young as well, Shines looks older than RJ but was, according to wiki, 4 years younger.
Jules.
|
|
|
|
Post by blueshome on Jan 31, 2013 14:25:44 GMT
Perhaps it was taken at the crossroads, by the devil.....
|
|
|
|
Post by oldmanblue on Jan 31, 2013 16:03:32 GMT
Ithink the guy on the right could be J.S.not sure about the R.J. fella though.,but as M.M says let it rest we will never know for certain.
|
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on Feb 1, 2013 9:06:51 GMT
We will never know for certain about any of the photos that have become accepted as the face of Robert Johnson.
I am afraid that I am sceptical about all of the peripheral artefacts that surround the recordings. There were no photos until Columbia released their box set in 1991, which happens to coincide with the launch of a publishing company to control and earn money from the recordings and the songs, called King of Spades Music. This also coincides with the two photos turning up - the first one before the release and just in time to be the front cover of the album, and the second a short time later. The Columbia box set was a worldwide hit record that sold well over a million copies and even charted in the US Billboard and UK charts. For a box set of music from the 1930s, that is very big business!
Shine On
Michael
|
|
|
|
Post by davey on Feb 1, 2013 22:07:30 GMT
It looks like a 1940's suit on the right, and wristwatches didn't have metal bracelets much before the 1950's. I think it's two lads dressed up with props from a photography studio. That 1930's Regal-type guitar looks 20 years old too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Quarterquay on Feb 3, 2013 0:19:56 GMT
Here's an article from Vanity Fair about the finding of the photo,the attempts to authenticate it and all the legal wrangling about Robert Johnson's estate and who owns what and who signed what over to whom and so on. It's an interesting read alright but in the end I think it's like you say Michael,it comes down to some great recordings that are undoubtedly real and a couple of photos that most likely are and the rest is all big business fighting each other for rights.The music's there,that's what counts. Who knows if the man in the article towards the end is the son of Robert Johnson but with all that flying about I wonder if sometimes he wishes he wasn't. www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/11/johnson200811 |
|
|
|
Post by General Savage on Feb 3, 2013 9:36:12 GMT
Interesting read thanks for the link
|
|
|
|
Post by frank64f on Feb 15, 2013 20:27:50 GMT
This photo looks to me as if it is composed of two separate exposures. Given that it is supposed to have been taken in the 1930's, the lighting seems to be coming from different directions which simply do not match from one person to the other, either in highlights or shadows.
Also the printing suggests two different exposures or development times, giving burnt out highlights on one but not the other.
Again, where the two overlap the join is not convincing.
Just a thought.
Frank
|
|
|
|
Post by davey on Feb 16, 2013 17:24:29 GMT
I've reversed the photo the guy on the right. Doesn't he look better now his buttons are all on the correct side ? The backgrounds are now identical and the lighting looks much more convincing. He also looks more natural in this position. It also explains why the headstock of the guitar doesn't leave a shadow. It's a fake.    |
|
