Maple Leaf Rag played by Scott Joplin himself

[konaboy]

Thought some might enjoy this, played by the great man himself. Captured and played back on piano roll.

Fascinating to hear his rendition, quite unlike the normal version we are all used to hearing.  I enjoyed his swing feel and the new orleans style ruffs and rolls in the left hand.

 

[Outkaster]

Tough to play like that.  He was classically trained by a German instructor.  Very cool.

[CyberGene]

Nice! But piano rolls should always be taken with a grain of salt because they were often heavily edited by the companies that sold them. It’s like MIDI after all. 

[ProfD]

The funniest thing is the father of Ragtime piano was considered a hack pianist by his peers.😁

 

Nevermind that Scott Joplin was the first musician to sell a million copies of instrumental sheet music with Maple Leaf Rag. 

 

I'm sure having one piece of music provide a steady stream of income gave Scott Joplin the hack, er, last laugh when it came to his fellow musicians, er, haters.🤣😎

 

 

[Chummy]

Yeah, definitely with a big grain of salt. Joplin suffered from Syphilis in his later years which heavily impacted his ability to play. All his piano rolls were issued in 1916, a YEAR before his death. Btw, Most early Cakewalk and Ragtime music wasn't usually played with a "swing" feel but after the 1900s if became gradually more fashionable to do so.

 

In 1916 technology tempo of piano rolls COULD be adjusted. Joplin was known for the "NOT FAST" indication on his Ragtime composition. Did he change his mind a year before he died and played it live this fast? or was the roll sped up deliberately post-recording?  your guess is as good as mine but I'd like to believe Joplin played slowly as he preached, and further mistakes and tempo adjustments were made later so they could sell.

 

One more thing, I'd even go as far as saying that the roll could be in fact played by somebody other than Joplin, while Joplin's name was put there for publicity reasons. Who in their right mind wouldn't buy the roll played by the famous composer himself? It's a common technique in marketing actually.

[Bobadohshe]

I was dubious. Then I followed the link to the actual recording made of the cylinder at UCSB. That recording is slower. And bad quality. But has to be legit. I would love to hear an AI version cleaned up.

[Mike Martin]

1 hour ago, konaboy said:

Captured and played back on piano roll.

 

My understanding of this and I could be completely wrong is that there really are no dynamics due to the nature of the piano roll system. So while this IS a performance by Scott Joplin, it isn't necessarily the way he would have played it if he wasn't playing specifically to create a piano roll. 

[konaboy]

some fascinating insights here, thank you!

 

had not occurred to me that the rolls could be edited, but of course, it's possible they could punch extra holes after the performance.  perhaps it was even possible to play it back and "overdub".

 

i tried playing lhat left hand pickup Eb-F-Ab (all octaves) but I found it impossible to play accurately, even at slower tempos, and was baffled how Joplin could do it, and some of the other bass patterns.

 

i saw a video about player pianos and apparanetly there are dynamics, recorded on a separate "channel", but this must be for all the notes being struck at the same time, not velocity per note. it must have controlled the opening of some valve to control the air pressure.  the tech on these old player pianos is incredible. 

 

i'd love to hear any other "played by scott joplin" performances if you have them.

[Baggypants]

2 hours ago, konaboy said:

had not occurred to me that the rolls could be edited, but of course, it's possible they could punch extra holes after the performance.

You could also close incorrect holes with a "patch"

[Shamanzarek]

The Welte-Mignon Reproducing Piano was introduced in 1904. Unlike earlier player pianos it recorded dynamic information and allowed for a more realistic rendition of what was played.

 

https://www.min-on.org/the-welt-mignon-reproducing-piano/#:~:text=The first such instrument%2C manufactured,world-renowned pianists and composers.

[CyberGene]

9 hours ago, konaboy said:

had not occurred to me that the rolls could be edited, but of course, it's possible they could punch extra holes after the performance.  perhaps it was even possible to play it back and "overdub".

Well, they sold copies and to make copies the editor prepared a master. He could basically punch out an entire master without having anyone recording it really. Just saying. Here’s what I found on Wikipedia:

 

While Joplin never made an audio recording, his playing is preserved on seven piano rolls for use in mechanical player pianos. All seven were made in 1916. Of these, the six released under the Connorized label show evidence of editing to correct the performance to strict rhythm and add embellishments,[76] probably by the staff musicians at Connorized.[77]Berlin theorizes that by the time Joplin reached St. Louis, he may have experienced discoordination of the fingers, tremors, and an inability to speak clearly—all symptoms of the syphilis that killed him in 1917.[78]Biographer Blesh described the second roll recording of "Maple Leaf Rag" on the UniRecord label from June 1916 as "shocking...disorganized and completely distressing to hear."[79] While there is disagreement among piano-roll experts as to how much of this is due to the relatively primitive recording and production techniques of the time,[80][81][82][83] Berlin notes that the "Maple Leaf Rag" roll was likely to be the truest record of Joplin's playing at the time. The roll, however, may not reflect his abilities earlier in life.

[konaboy]

so it can be done without punching extra holes!

Paul shows us how to play MLR in a variety of styles.

 

 

Transcription of the "Joplin played version" here:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/13v-j0PeBXS0HfaxqTDfQmksplzwHwpqE/view

[JamPro]

"The funniest thing is the father of Ragtime piano was considered a hack pianist by his peers."

 

He was also a black man living in post-reconstruction America.  As such, he was also considered by his "peers" to be lazy, stupid, sub-human, smelly, dirty, criminal, a threat, a boy, unfit for polite society, hyper-sexual, and a fair target for murder or lynching.

 

Scot Joplin had no peer, then or now.  He invented and popularized a uniquely American music form.  He single-handedly authored over 40 rags, two operas, and one ballet.  And he did all that despite the vicious racial oppression under which he lived and worked.

[PianoMan51]

The description I read of Joplin’s playing as ‘childlike and unsophisticated ‘ came from Eubie Blake.

[ProfD]

3 hours ago, JamPro said:

"The funniest thing is the father of Ragtime piano was considered a hack pianist by his peers."

 

He was also a black man living in post-reconstruction America.  As such, he was also considered by his "peers" to be lazy, stupid, sub-human, smelly, dirty, criminal, a threat, a boy, unfit for polite society, hyper-sexual, and a fair target for murder or lynching.

 

Scot Joplin had no peer, then or now.  He invented and popularized a uniquely American music form.  He single-handedly authored over 40 rags, two operas, and one ballet.  And he did all that despite the vicious racial oppression under which he lived and worked.

I should have clarified peer musicians within his community.😎

[CyberGene]

I am not familiar with the racial connotations in the American music (it's a sad story, regardless of where it happens 😕) but I want to say jealousy in music (and in any art, or actually everywhere in life) can come from any place and is rarely a racial thing. I am most familiar with classical music and one of my side-hobbies within that field is reading composer biographies and I can assure you these were all white guys and hated each other like worst enemies and would denigrate and dismiss competitor's work on a daily basis 😀 Not sure why I put that emoticon, it's not funny but, well, it's funny, means we're all human after all. Ego is a driving force in arts and so, it's pretty common to find complete lack of humility, to put it mildly, even in the greatest composers of our civilization. I can only think of a few exceptions: Bach and Bruckner.

[El Lobo]

This video of the original piano roll is slower and sounds more "natural" to my ear. The youtube poster's note says "Although I have a perfect re-cut of this roll, I felt that viewers would rather see my original roll from 1916, the year it was first issued. Sorry about the discords at the beginning, but the roll was patched poorly by some moron, and I have to fix it one of these days. You will notice that Joplin's left hand is more complex than the sheet music that was issued to the general public."

 

 

[jerrythek]

Thanks for this - very interesting. I first came to Joplin from the Nonesuch recording by Joshua Rifkin, so it's a bit dry and straight. But I've absorbed it and played many of the rags for so long that the overly swung version sounds a bit corny to my ears. My taste lies somewhere off of straight, but more subtly swung. 

 

 

I did get to see Eubie Blake play once, when he was (I think) around 100 years old. Still an amazing pianist even then.

 

[El Lobo]

I always want to hear it (and The Entertainer) in more "ragged" time. It's Black American roots music, the roots of jazz and blues. I always want to hear it with more soul.

[analogika]

On 5/25/2023 at 9:48 PM, Bobadohshe said:

I was dubious. Then I followed the link to the actual recording made of the cylinder at UCSB. That recording is slower. And bad quality. But has to be legit. I would love to hear an AI version cleaned up.

so was it swung, or straight, as in the 1916 piano roll posted by El Lobo just above?

 

Anybody know? 
 

Because that wax cylinder recording is an abridged version that ends with an announcement that it was recorded in Maryland in 1992 — so it’s just a new recording of an old piano roll… 

[Floyd Tatum]

Wherej in that UCSB link does it mention 1916?   I see only the year 1992.   Even if the piano roll comes from a university, that doesn't necessarily prove its authenticity for me.  Found in the wrong box on Ebay?   C'mon.    Still a big grain of salt, afaic.

[MathOfInsects]

The 1992 recording is of a player piano playing the piano roll Joplin recorded in 1916. I'm not sure how that makes it inauthentic; it is literally the only way to hear the piano roll. The roll IS the performance. It would be like saying a record doesn't count as being from a band because you have to play it on a record player in order to hear it.

 

[CyberGene]

32 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

The roll IS the performance. It would be like saying a record doesn't count as being from a band because you have to play it on a record player in order to hear it.

While that’s a valid analogy, see some of the quotes earlier in the discussion regarding piano roll authenticity in general. These are basically rudimentary MIDI recordings and unlike an audio recording, they can be edited completely without leaving a trace. Try editing an audio performance of a solo piano by changing pitches, timing and velocity. It’s possible only with relatively recent software (including ML/AI algorithms) and I’m still not sure it would sound convincing.

 

Also, Joplin was really harmed neurologically by the syphilis by the end of his life, so in 1916 by many accounts he was almost unable to play, so those piano rolls were certainly edited. 

[MathOfInsects]

1 minute ago, CyberGene said:

While that’s a valid analogy, see some of the quotes earlier on the discussion regarding piano roll authenticity in general. These are basically rudimentary MIDI recordings and unlike an audio recording it can be edited completely without leaving a trace. Try editing an audio performance of a solo piano by changing pitches, timing and velocity. It’s possible only with relatively recent software (including ML/AI algorithms) and I’m still not sure it would sound convincing.

 

Also, Joplin was really harmed neurologically by the syphilis by the end of his life, so in 1916 by many accounts he was almost unable to play, so those piano rolls were certainly edited. 

They may have been, but so is every record we listen to. Practically the whole point of Midi recording is that you can easily change or edit without requiring a new take. And for "live" recordings, by the time they get to you have they been worked on extensively in any number of ways. I don't see the issue on any level. 

[CyberGene]

3 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

I don't see the issue on any level. 

I don’t see issue with editing in any music recording either but the accent here is “this is how Joplin played his rags in terms of feel, rhythm, tempo, ornamentation…” and that’s where we should be rather conservative. 

[analogika]

40 minutes ago, MathOfInsects said:

The 1992 recording is of a player piano playing the piano roll Joplin recorded in 1916. I'm not sure how that makes it inauthentic; it is literally the only way to hear the piano roll. The roll IS the performance. It would be like saying a record doesn't count as being from a band because you have to play it on a record player in order to hear it.

 

The 1992 claims to be a wax cylinder recording of an original Scott Joplin piano roll (not dated). Something something wrong box eBay blablabla fishy fishy fish. This version is shuffled, and it's a heavily abridged version of the piece. 

 

The link by El Lobo is a roll supposedly from 1916. This one isn't shuffled, and it's actually the complete piece. 

So…how did Scott Joplin play it? 

[MathOfInsects]

4 minutes ago, CyberGene said:

I don’t see issue with editing in any music recording either but the accent here is “this is how Joplin played his rags in terms of feel, rhythm, tempo, ornamentation…” and that’s where we should be rather conservative. 

I mean...yeah, I suppose that very specific language could use some asterisks. I just can't help but wonder why we feel so compelled to apply them in this case. It doesn't feel any different from any other recording of any other artist, to me anyway.

[MathOfInsects]

2 minutes ago, analogika said:

 

The 1992 claims to be a wax cylinder recording of an original Scott Joplin piano roll (not dated). Something something wrong box eBay blablabla fishy fishy fish. This version is shuffled, and it's a heavily abridged version of the piece. 

 

The link by El Lobo is a roll supposedly from 1916. This one isn't shuffled, and it's actually the complete piece. 

So…how did Scott Joplin play it? 

If it's a hoax, surely the people whose literal job it is to weigh in on such things would have as much to say about it, no? Its perch in a university library would suggest to me the purview had been investigated and verified. These are the exact people you would need to check with to make any claims of authenticity.

However, if it's just part of a collection, placed there with no investigation, then sure, I guess some skepticism is warranted until someone who knows more than us has a crack at it. 



 

[Floyd Tatum]

I'll ask again:   Can someone point me to the place in that Youtube video, or in the UCSB link, where it mentions 1916?   I looked, and I can't find it.    Anyone?

[CowboyNQ]

I popped this video in another thread recently.  I really love listening to this interpretation of the song.