|
Post by Michael Messer on May 21, 2020 9:45:01 GMT
sorry ..but some of us interested and is a worthy topic IMHO .. i suggest people "scroll on" if of no interest .. ( sorry for rant) Jono, I have spent far more years than you could imagine studying this music and Robert's work has been at the forefront of much of that study. My interest has always been about the music and mastery of playing music. I have done much research over the decades and have had some of that research published. The importance of RJ's music in the history of what we all love is extraordinary, no other blues musician has had such a powerful impact and influence over what was to follow. The legacy Robert Johnson left behind is so far beyond his wildest dreams or imagination that it has become the stuff of legend and mythology. Even after all this time and all the re-releases of his work, any well packaged Robert Johnson merchandise, whether it is a book, album, movie, instructional item, tee shirt, or musical tools that bear his name, sells like hot cakes. RJ is still one of the biggest selling heritage artists on our planet. So bearing all that in mind I don't think that a cynical cautious viewpoint is a bad thing to have. With or without this new photo, I think I probably know more about his music, what it means and how it is played than many people do. I don't feel the need to prove that to anyone apart from myself and a few close friends, but that is what is important to me, not the existence of a photo. The time I have spent studying RJ's music, including being involved in remastering his catalogue, if all put together would probably go into quite a few years. Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on May 21, 2020 9:57:54 GMT
....In addition...
I am pleased that it is being discussed on here. That is what the forum is here for.
Shine On Michael
|
|
|
Post by ricks on May 21, 2020 10:08:15 GMT
Forensically speaking - if you look closely, details like the shape of the shirt collar, the way it overlaps his braces ( 'suspenders', I believe, for you colonials ), & the stripes on the braces etc are all spot on - all these years of doing spot-the-difference puzzles are finally paying off! I'm old enough to remember the hoo-ha when Blues Unlimited published RJ's death certificate, back ca 1970, so still find these kind of discoveries very intriguing - I like the fact that this pic ( if indeed genuine ) shows a nice, warm-looking individual, more so than the other known photos; -for me, it's all good ( still hoping for some more Patton pics tho ) ..
|
|
|
Post by snakehips on May 21, 2020 10:24:33 GMT
Just read a post about some guy who was hanging out backstage with Muddy Waters when the lady came in and introduced herself to muddy. She then produced this very pic, and Muddy jumped up shouting "that's him, that's him!". Obvs this is just a story, but it was told convincingly. Yeah, lockdown is sending me batty... TT I already mentioned all that, above, in an earlier post. Just curious with the non-believers - what exactly WOULD it take for you to believe a photo was a genuine photo of RJ ? And "I don't care, it's the music that counts"" would be a cop-out answer to my question.
|
|
|
Post by slide496 on May 21, 2020 11:04:48 GMT
Just curious with the non-believers - what exactly WOULD it take for you to believe a photo was a genuine photo of RJ ? And "I don't care, it's the music that counts"" would be a cop-out answer to my question. A straightforward presentation of the front and back of the photo in entirety, preferably with another from a similar photo machine would convince me of it's authenticity as a photo. The original scan and layered photoshop file would make it clearer as to whether its was restored with artistic liscence and if so, how much, or whether it was created in entirety based on the earlier photo and using elements from it.
|
|
|
Post by pete1951 on May 21, 2020 11:15:30 GMT
I guess a photo of someone we believe to be RJ is enough. Like an icon that you can focus on. Sometimes the music or words are made more real by looking at something. Pete
Some would not be satisfied without a home movie of RJ playing Crossroads,
|
|
|
Post by bonzo on May 21, 2020 11:17:16 GMT
The same background with the same creases, same lighting, same shadows and highlights, clothes, haircut, shape of face & teeth (thanks to Snakehips !) Here's a funny thing : 1930's Photobooths produced eight different poses. Six to go, folks ! Six more photo booth pictures to go. Somebody doing bunny ears with fingers,cross eyes, AND the occasional moony is not unknown! What are we like! Best wishes to you all, John
|
|
|
Post by Michael Messer on May 21, 2020 11:39:32 GMT
I don't believe in any mythical or imaginary figures.
What would it take for me to believe it is real. We would have to backtrack to the time the first two photos appeared and look into that first. As time goes by it becomes more difficult to prove anything related to this artist. That makes forgery so easy. I hope it's real, I really do, but can't people see that when it comes to stuff like this, we are like lambs to the slaughter. Make a photo of Robert and the blues world is fighting to get at Amazon's stockroom.
Having seen the Robert Johnson empire gradually build over the decades, I am unable to be anything other than sceptical about it.
One thing for sure, it gets us all talking and exchanging thoughts.
Shine On Michael
.
|
|
|
Post by davey on May 21, 2020 11:40:39 GMT
Yes, let's see the uncropped front and back of the photo so we can make our mind up.
I like the look of this pic whereas I didn't like the picture of the two boys, which was reversed and full of Photoshop gremlins, slight double images etc.
I think a happy picture of RJ is a great thing to have in the world.
(Commercial Photographer & Photoshop user)
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 12:26:25 GMT
Just read a post about some guy who was hanging out backstage with Muddy Waters when the lady came in and introduced herself to muddy. She then produced this very pic, and Muddy jumped up shouting "that's him, that's him!". Obvs this is just a story, but it was told convincingly. Yeah, lockdown is sending me batty... TT I already mentioned all that, above, in an earlier post. I don't generally read posts twice. Didn't notice your edit. TT
|
|
|
Post by snakehips on May 21, 2020 12:32:18 GMT
Yeah, just remembered I edited it by adding the thing about Muddy Waters. Fair 'nuff !
|
|
|
Post by blueshome on May 21, 2020 13:22:28 GMT
According to those that know it’s real. Same background as the dime store photo and the same source, his step-sister.
|
|
|
Post by snakehips on May 21, 2020 14:15:12 GMT
As I mentioned already, the owner of the photo is no blood-relation of RJ directly, but a step-sister of a step-sister. RJ lived in the same house as them as a "family-unit" when he would visit Memphis. So, she might use the word "brother" but would mean in a familial way but not in a genetic way.
|
|
|
Post by slide496 on May 21, 2020 15:09:16 GMT
I get a bad feeling of frustration and anxiety from the photo, like it's a restoration or creation of something for marketing purposes, especially being introduced at this late stage for effect on Vanity Fair.
That leads me to question the content of the book as well as to what the ethical standard was in getting the info, like were there leading questions, missing thoughts completed or interpreted by the interviewer. I think both the woman who's memories supposedly are being noted as well as and the interviewer were under some pressure to produce something profitable due to the crowd funding.
Maybe that's the accepted standard over the years with anything related to RJ, myths, mysterious authorities in the know, questionable artifacts.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 21, 2020 15:15:49 GMT
My cynicism doesn't stem from any question re-photographic authenticity. It's the 'new pic of RJ unearthed and --oh by the way I've got a new book out' It's just the constant milking of a subject that can never be authenticated and the naive insistence of some in believing the account of a ninety four year old woman who, I concede, may well be telling the truth. I doubt there's any forum members in their 90's but can you accurately remember events as a ten year old if your in your 60's or 70's? We don't know for sure if Led Zep had some fun with a fish or Ozzie Osbourne bit the head off a bat and they're still around. Music bios in general contain much of the apocryphal--they have to or they'd be pretty dull reading and about forty pages long. (BTW Harriet I was compiling this post while you were posting but we seem to be singing from the same hymn sheet)
|
|