Talk:Scott Joplin

Treemonisha - was it unperformed before 1970s or was it performed in 1913??

This article contains conflicting information:

• In section 4 "Later years and death" it states "Treemonisha went unnoticed and unreviewed ... it would not be until the 1970s that the opera received a full theatrical staging."
• In section "5.1 Treemonisha" it states "... Joplin succeeded in performing Treemonisha for paying audiences in Bayonne, New Jersey, in 1913."

I'm not knowledgeable enough to adjudicate but clearly both, as they stand, cannot be correct. Thank you. Mercury543210 (talk) 11:42, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Note, FWIW I should add the main Wikipedia article on Treemonisha, aligns with 4 & against 5.1. Mercury543210 (talk) 11:45, 8 July 2021 (UTC)

Good point, however, I don't think there is a contradiction here. Berlin indicates there is some uncertainty about the performance of Treemonisha. On page 214/5 he shows that there was a performance (albeit one without staging, costumes or an orchestra) in about 1911. The dates are unclear from the evidence apparently, with Blesh dating it at 1915. The performances in Bayonne were apparently of only part of the opera, and apparently were only announced - there is no evidence (according to P222 of Berlin) that the performances actually happened - Joplin was frequently short of money at this point and his health was declining. Ultimately, the New York section needs expanding a bit and perhaps some clarity could be brought to the Treemonisha section. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:07, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Speed of "Maple Leaf Rag"

Scott Joplin always wrote on his sheets "never play ragtime fast". But the sample of "Maple Leaf Rag" – played by Scott Joplin (June 1916) is very fast indeed. IMHO the speed of the paper roll or the MIDI file was too high and should be corrected. --Plenz (talk) 11:47, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

People VERY much misunderstand what 'fast' means here (which also causes a lot of bad performances/recordings as well). Tempo#Basic_tempo_markings will show you fast is around 120+....most ragtime speeds cap around 100 (and Joplin even writes that in a couple of them). Joplin was warning against playing like those who were trying to play as far as possible -- remember that most ragtim has a lot of sixteenth notes, so it sounds fastish, however the actual beats are still moderate. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:26, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Melodia here. "Fast" is in the ear of the beholder, and the tempo markings and the appeal not to play Ragtime fast are really Joplin showing that he's against the "Stunt" pianists of the era (where pianists would compete to play the pieces fastest (Berlin p152). Don't forget, he was wasn't a great performer himself (composing on paper rather than improvising like some of his era), and he was keen to make the style of music seen respectable. So stunt pianists in brothels playing Ragtime was something he was not keen on.

More pertinently, the audio file comes from a collector who processed it and recreated it as best they could - it's not up to us to change the speed of the recording but to recreate, as truthfully as possible, the sound of the music given the evidence available. If someone has evidence that this recording should actually be played at a different tempo, then they can upload their alternative. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:16, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Discography?

Shouldn't there be a list of songs and musical pieces he wrote? FloridaArmy (talk) 15:07, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

@FloridaArmy There is: List of compositions by Scott Joplin Maineartists (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Thanks. Should it be merged here so it's easier to find and more accessible? I see it links playable songs. I didn't see the link to it looking at the bottom of this page where discography or a list of works is usually included. FloridaArmy (talk) 15:30, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Because a discography is a completely different thing from a composition list. Joplin's actual discography, I believe, consists of a few piano rolls and that's it. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 04:48, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

They were not requesting an insertion for an actual Discography for Joplin. If you read it, the OP writes: "I didn't see the link to it looking at the bottom of this page where discography or a list of works is usually included." They are simply pointing out location where normal listings occur. Maineartists (talk) 12:20, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

No. When a list of composer's works are lengthy, a separate page is created. The link is usually provided at the beginning of the section describing their output: Scott Joplin Works. i.e List of compositions by Ludwig van Beethoven Maineartists (talk) 16:11, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

"Elevate"

Binksternet I looked on pages 202-203. What quote exactly cites the inline: "With his publisher John Stillwell Stark, Joplin elevated ragtime as a form of classical music meant to be played in concert halls, from its origin as honky tonk music most common in saloons"? Thanks. Maineartists (talk) 21:21, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

Edward A. Berlin wrote on those pages, "We have seen that Joplin let it be known that he preferred 'classical' music and wanted to be considered a serious artist... We do not know whether the 'classical ragtime' concept originated with Joplin or with Stark..." That means we can't just blame Stark for the promotion; we must tie Joplin and Stark together.

It's more than just those two pages. Berlin writes repeatedly in his book about how Stark and Joplin promoted Joplin's ragtime as classical music. Pages 58–59 are the start of Chapter 5, and Berlin describes how Stark fought the "low regard of ragtime" by pushing it as classical music.

Was this effort successful? It certainly bore fruit. On pages 268–269, Berlin writes how Joshua Rifkin's 1970 recording cemented Joplin's ragtime as classical music as viewed by the record industry, classical musicians and music critics such as H. Wiley Hitchcock. Classical musicans embraced ragtime and started performing it in the '70s. Binksternet (talk) 21:52, 16 February 2024 (UTC)

You are using examples that benefit the line that was previously there and do not support the term "elevated" or "as a form of"; which means to achieve something within one's time. "Joplin let it be known that he preferred 'classical' music and wanted to be considered a serious artist". This never happened in Joplin's lifetime. You are seeing Joplin in 2024, not 1924. In 1924 a critic praised white composers of ragtime, saying: "Authentic ragtime has yet to be written by negroes." The fact that you point out it wasn't until 1970 that Joplin was rediscovered with the movie THE STING and Rifkin's Grammy-nominated album, shows that Joplin was forgotten - as was ragtime - and thus had not been elevated to the point where it was considered even worthy of remaining in the public interest. "Stark fought the "low regard of ragtime" by pushing it as classical music" (Sycamore - A Concert Rag, Bethena - A Concert Waltz). This may be, but he wasn't successful, as we all know with what happened to his own publishing firm; and these works were never performed in the concert hall. A few handful of classical musicians may have embraced ragtime in the 1970s and the public took an interest due to the ragtime revival; but even that was short lived. That is beside the point. The wording there now is misleading. Joplin and Stark did not achieve that accomplishment of "elevating" ragtime to point of Classical music being played in concert halls in their lifetimes. The original line: "Joplin considered ragtime to be a form of classical music meant to be played in concert halls" is correct. Rifkin elevated it. Schuller elevated it. But Joplin and Stark did not. Maineartists (talk) 15:02, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Edits

Em3rgent0rdr First: I didn't "complain" in my history summary. I found your edit unnecessary and without reason; and explained my reversion. Second: I've noticed you have made several recent edits to this article. Many of which are not supported by WP:MOS and are questionable, at the very least. For example: this edit [1] regarding the Ian Whitcomb quote was not in need of an edit. It read perfectly fine as it stood. On the contrary, your use of a block quote makes the content incredible confusing and difficult to read. Not to mention, it is an improper use of a block quote: Block Quotation. The WP:ONUS is on the editor who has introduced changes to an article to provide the proper reason and WP policy to back the need for change. You have not provided such in many of your edits. They are personal more than policy driven.

By reinstating "unsuccessfully" in parenthesis, you have created an WP:EDITWAR. You should have brought the challenged content to the Talk Page to argue your point. It still reads incorrectly. You have removed long-standing, consensus, sourced content for no reason in some cases. Your edits are poor writing and have not enhanced the article in many cases: "Eventually" (incorrect term: Def. In the end, especially after a long delay, dispute, or series of problems. At an unspecified later time.). Removed MOS:LEAD content that was later described in full within the article. Poor sentence structure and grammar: According to the Library of Congress, the "ragtime music of Joplin, Joseph Lamb, James Scott, and others (NOTE: this article is not about Lamb and Scott or others) had become nearly forgotten by 1920", (run on sentence) but while ragtime's popularity faded around his death (who's death?) with the rise of jazz, it didn't entirely disappear or get replaced – (run on again) New Orleans jazz musicians often referred to their music as "ragtime", which along with stride and novelty piano were based on traits found in ragtime. This: [2] is very poor editing. It is unnecessary MOS:OVERLINK. Maineartists (talk) 01:10, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry you can revert those edits. I did not intend to start an edit war...I was trying to address the complaint (maybe "concern" was a better word) about the grammar.

But I was mainly trying to address the vaguely-worded sentence I didn't like about his death being the "end" of ragtime which lacked context and so I added that LOC article explaining that the subsequent styles of novelty and stride piano and early dixieland heavily incorporated elements of ragtime even though the Joplin's music was forgotten...it was a long sentence I wrote because I was trying to summarize the relevant parts from that LOC article into one sentence so it was clear the citation applied to both parts of the sentence before and after the dash, and I included the entire wording with those three artists because I adding it as a quote so it was clearly attributed to that LOC article. I could of course fix that up that grammar so is clearer but I am afraid you will just revert my edit, so I am a little reluctant to bother.

Maybe there is a better way I could have dealt with the "end" of ragtime sentence...I'm looking at Ragtime#The heyday of ragtime and see it says it talks more about ragtime incorporated in other styles and for example mentions "in the early 1940s, many jazz bands began to include ragtime in their repertoire and put out ragtime recordings"...so maybe the "end" of ragtime sentence should have just been deleted from this Joplin article and maybe I should move the runon sentence I added in this Joplin article and put it instead in the Ragtime article itself since it mentions those other artists too. But I will let you revert my edits here or do whatever you want to them for now so I'm not getting in the way. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 04:01, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I've avoided the run-on now by not mentioning the other ragtime composers and by having the LOC cited stuff as its own paragraph of two sentences. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 07:28, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Em3rgent0rdr First: "I was mainly trying to address the vaguely-worded sentence I didn't like ..." WP is an encyclopedia based solely on facts backed by sources. No personal preference should enter into the writing or creation. I see that your edits reflect more of this style of writing than WP:MOS or policy; which tends to create overly worded, dense run-on sentences filled with too many facts that confuse the reader more. The recent edit over at the page Ragtime: [3], you have completely changed the original content (which was fine); and frankly, yours is now more confusing and is incorrect historically. 2. This article is about Scott Joplin. Not about Lamb, Scott or even Ragtime as a whole. 3. No offense, but reading your reply above, sentence structure, grammar, etc does not seem a strong suit; and reading your corrective edits after publication on article pages reveal that perhaps a better way of editing from sources would be to simply "quote" directly from the source, rather than paraphrase on your own. I realize your edits are WP:GOODFAITH. I have no intention of reverting or entering into an edit war. Just keep these things in mind as you continue. Maineartists (talk) 14:39, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I didn't like that vaguely-worded sentence. But my not liking of it is not simply the reason it should have been taken out of the lede. It doesn't belong in the lede because it was vaguely worded, it uses a weasle word phrase which I flagged, it was not cited, it was not specify who is is making the consideration, it an oversimplification that obscures the fact that many elements of ragtime were incorporated into the newer styles which were gradual evolutions of ragtime, it assigned an abrupt end year to what was really more of a gradual waning of popularity while the other successor styles which adopted it traits became more popular, it doesn't use some metric for popularity, it would require a more indepth discussion about what "ragtime" specifically is, etc. For instance, the LOC article I cited says, "It is not easy to define ragtime. Like jazz, another distinctly American musical art form, ragtime's composers, practitioners, and admirers each see its boundaries differently. However, these groups are distinguished by subgroups of purists who generally agree on, and stand by, a precise definition..." For instance there were transitional composers such as Fats Waller who started off composing ragtime but whose jazz career didn't use the strict ragtime form but whose rhymical playing utilized the "ragged time" feel of ragtime (which is quite pronounced in these early 1922-24 Fats Waller recordings). Similar things can be said for "novelty piano" which is even sometimes called "novelty ragtime" and the 1920s New Orleans jazz musicians who called their music "ragtime" and played songs with "rag" in the title. Anyway, a frustrating and funny thing about using "widely considered" is that whatever follows it doesn't have to be true in order for a statement starting with "widely considered" to be true. So while ragtime according to the purist definition did gradually waned in popularity, saying it ended in Joplin's death year is too much of a can of worms to get to in the lede of this article. I did remove the "Joseph Lamb" and "James Scott" last night because it did make the sentence too much, and instead made it into its own paragraph so it reads now like:

"While ragtime's popularity faded around Joplin's death with the rise of jazz, it didn't entirely disappear or get replaced. New Orleans jazz musicians often referred to their music as "ragtime", which along with stride and novelty piano were based on traits found in ragtime."

But frankly the LOC source is a reliable source and what I have above is much better job than the problematic "widely considered" sentence I removed from the lede. Any grammatical errors can be fixed by subsequent edits by anyone as often occurs in wikipedia. And I'm sorry my writing in the talk page may have grammatical errors too, but this is just a chat.

There is another problem paragraph of this article I'm looking at now which currently reads:

"A stronger performance, by Joplin, is held in the University of California at Santa Barbara's cylinder archive. It was apparently found in a mislabeled box of wax cylinders sold on eBay, long after Blesh examined the June 1916 recording, and is likely to date from earlier in Joplin's life, in April 1916. Although that recording is severely damaged, a cleaned-up MIDI version reveals a considerably stronger performance."

There are a few issues. None of the entire second sentence is attributed by the cited link http://www.library.ucsb.edu/OBJID/Cylinder13259, so I suggest that entire second sentence be flagged as "citation needed". Rather all that the link directly supports is that the recording is wax cylinder recording of a player piano recording of Maple Leaf attributed to Joplin, so I suggest moving that UCSB link to just be the first sentence instead. The cylinder recording is also really a wax rerecording of a roll. The above current wording didn't mention that and so was a little hard to follow, cause earlier the wiki article was talking about "rolls" but immediately jumped to "cylinders". The relative strength of the performance is also something a listener may infer but is not a statement made by an author in links to the recordings, so I suggest moving the "stronger performance" wording to not be written before a citation (though if some reliable author talks about the performance being stronger, then that can be used as a citation for the "stronger performance" part).

So I am considering rewording that paragraph to be like the following, though I though I'd best run it by you first:

"A wax cylinder rerecording of a "Maple Leaf Rag" piano roll recording attributed to Joplin is held in UC Santa Barbara's cylinder archive. That roll was likely from April 1916 and apparently found in a mislabeled box of cylinders sold on eBay, long after Blesh examined the June recording. A cleaned-up MIDI version reveals a considerably stronger performance." Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 17:38, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

Em3rgent0rdr 1. You wrote: "it was not cited". Please reference MOS:LEAD. Lead content should not be cited. It is a summary of what the article states with cited sources. It should not go into detail but merely highlight the most important parts of the article; which the original line that you deemed "unnecessary" did. You wrote: "it was not specify (sic) who is is making the consideration, it (sic) an oversimplification." Yes. That is what lead sentences do. It gleans what the article then goes on to say. In addition, you are harping on a specific word, which in truth, scholars and historian do believe: [4], [5], [6], etc. It is not a "weasel" word; it is a "descriptor" based on sources. And lastly, this article is not about Ragtime. Please understand that. You are trying to merge the two articles and present information not relevant to Joplin's life. "While ragtime's popularity faded around Joplin's death with the rise of jazz, it didn't entirely disappear or get replaced. New Orleans jazz musicians often referred to their music as "ragtime", which along with stride and novelty piano were based on traits found in ragtime." Even the article on John Stark states: "[Stark] continued to publish new rags until 1922, well after ragtime had succumbed to jazz." The sentence is very important to this article and is a main point that should remain in the lead.

2. "Any grammatical errors can be fixed by subsequent edits by anyone as often occurs in wikipedia." That's not how WP works when editing correctly.

3. I agree that the extracted information from the "wax cylinder" link is incorrect mainly because it is "translated" rather than "quoted". I would be careful in "translating" into your own words as well. When presenting information at WP like this, it is not necessary to "use your own words" for fear of copyvio. Do not try and "guestimate" what happened, where and when. Joplin never made a wax cylinder. Simply present what the page states on the link and leave it at that.

4. Your lengthy explanations in the History Summary are sometimes longer than the edits themselves. This reveals "personal" over "policy". History Summary should be short and backed by WP (policy) as a reason. If you have to explain in depth and length the reason for changing something minor, then it really should be questioned or challenged. Maineartists (talk) 16:48, 18 April 2024 (UTC)

Ok, points taken. I've decided to avoid the word "widely considered", as enough scholars and historians consider it a marker that the word "marks" suffices: "His death in 1917 marks the end of the ragtime era."

I deleted "and the following year was admitted to a mental asylum, where he died" because it was too much for a LEDE, as "descended into dementia" is sufficient to capture that and it is almost overdue weight to delve into the sequence of events as he died from dementia (the body's "Later years and death" just says "On February 2, 1917, he was admitted to Manhattan State Hospital, a mental institution" anyway).

But I am leaving an abbreviated sentence on ragtime's traits being adopted because is indeed relevant to Joplin's legacy section and I've positioned it after a sentence his death, hopefully this avoids too much emphasis on ragtime itself while still his importance on subsequent genres and shows that its wasn't an abrupt end, but while still being brief on ragtime:

"While ragtime's popularity faded around then, New Orleans jazz, stride, and novelty piano subsequently adopted many of its traits."

I'm going to let you do the honors on the "wax cylinder" bit because it is late and I'm afraid I'll mess up a detail. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 05:30, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

Regarding the block quote, I've tried looking it some more without blockquote, but I must say the blockquote formatting is indeed needed. Without the blockquote, the reader has to parse nested quotation marks, which really is a pain. But instead of moving the block quote, I should have made the "According to music historian Ian Whitcomb," to be earlier instead...I've done that now, and I do think it flows and reads much better than before I made the blockquote. Em3rgent0rdr (talk) 06:19, 19 April 2024 (UTC)