Talk:Scott Joplin/Archive 1

Treemonisha
Based on the liner notes of the '70s Houston Opera Company production of the revised "Treemonisha", the opera was in fact never staged in Joplin's lifetime. The closest he came was a brief run-through at a Harlem theatre which was more of a rehearsal than a performance, and was by all accounts a disaster. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 207.107.50.100 (talk • contribs) 17:23, January 4, 2006 (UTC)

Birthdate
I am spending way too much here... I did come across a link, it says he was born January 1867, what we have to find out exact monthm i do not expect exact date... if there is somebody who lives in the area where joplin was born, go, check historical records, it would be good to know the month, if he was 50, that would be nice, symbolic. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.220.171 (talk • contribs) 23 November 2006

Just a quick note: some one should corect the mistake which is udner the picture of this guy: Born June 1859 - January 1868

As you can see, there is 1859... Well, now, it is not, according to the article. Cheers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vuxan (talk • contribs) 22:56, 26 December 2006

Birth year
The year of Joplin's birth keeps being changed back and forth. People changing or wishing to change it, please site sources for this info, thanks. -- Infrogmation 06:33, 24 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * New Grove Dictionary of Music and Musicians has him born on November 24, 1868 in Texarkana, Arkansas. Note that Slonimsky in Baker's Biographical Dictionary of Musicians says he was born "probably near Marshall, Texas."  Maybe I should put in a note that his birthplace has not been firmly established (has it?  if someone knows of some recent research please put it in). Antandrus 03:55, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Like Antandrus, I also have a reliable reference stating he was born on November 24, 1868. However, they place him in Texarkana, Texas, not Arkansas. Though he is so close to the "borderline" it could be either or! I believe Antandrus mispoke there. This is from "American Jazz Musicians" by Stanley Mour published by Enslow Publishers. I am afraid to edit the date though, as there seems to be much confusion concerning his birthdate. (Mind meal 21:15, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

I think it's fair to say that the Scott Joplin International Ragtime Foundation probably has the date of his birth closest. He is, after all, their namesake. Check out http://www.scottjoplin.org/biography.htm. Should the birthdate possilibities listed be changed to between June 1867 and mid-January 1868?


 * Whomever did not sign that last post, I would like to say that it doesn't matter what their name is when it comes to accuracy. There are inaccuracies even in the most heavily researched of materials from time to time, and one early mistake can have a chain result; see Talk:Lionel Hampton to see how easy it is for reputable websites to "get it wrong". (Mind meal 21:19, 25 June 2007 (UTC))

The Entertainer

 * Not to disrespect "Maple Leaf Rag", but I'd think "The Entertainer" is by far the most famous of Joplin's works and I changed the characterisation of MLR accordingly. Ben-w 23:06, 3 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I'd say thats at least debatable, certainly not "by far" except for the period in the 1970s when the Marvin Hamlish version was in the pop charts. Either way, "Maple Leaf" certainly was by far the most famous Joplin piece during the ragtime era. -- Infrogmation 07:40, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Ask anyone today to name a Scott Joplin tune and it's "The Entertainer", no question. Ben-w 16:28, 4 August 2005 (UTC)


 * I think its interesting to note that Scott Joplin and George Washington Carver were born at approximately the same time and their lives are similiar; both suffering from a chronic illness and both are geniuses providing us with important American discoveries.64.12.116.6


 * Ask anyone pre-1970 and they will say "What's the Entertainer"?--68.125.35.168 09:12, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Well it is POV anyway so what's the point? TommyBoy76 02:10, 11 April 2006 (UTC)TommyBoy76

Sections
It seems to me that this article might be better served by being broken into subtopics--unfortunately, no time to do it tonight... --Dvyost 01:13, 12 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I gave it a quick go. Ben-w 22:48, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Vandalism
This page seems to me to be an unlikely target for vandalism, yet it gets far, far more than its fair share. Odd. Ben-w 07:41, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, I've noticed and wondered about that too. Sad to say, I can only (in conjecture) attribute it to racism. How twisted, considering Joplin's utter genius. --PKtm 08:22, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Joplin as a romantic composer
Much of Joplin's music, when you really analyze it appears to be more in the vain of folk-inspired Romantic music or simply late 19th-century Romantic composition, rather than ragtime. I think characterizing Joplin as solely a composer of ragtime is insulting to the man and his legacy--its very clear that Joplin always strove to be viewed and accepted as something greater than just a mere composer of toe-thumping bar tunes, but American society at the time simply couldn't accept an educated African American man anything other than that...just look at Treemonisha--it's certainly more musically and stylistically diverse and in a lot of ways fantastically better than what Gershwin was writing a bit later in the 20th century and Gershiwn is always talked about as having written the first true American opera. I think in some instances aspects of Treemonisha, for example the ballet the "Frolic of the Bears," compare more favorably to other nationalistic/folk-inspired Romantic music of the late 19th and early 20th century (i.e. Grieg's Peer Gynt incidental music) than ragtime. Another of his most complex and arguably best compositions, "Bethena", which is a concert waltz, is by any standard extremely impressive and comapres favorably to some of the great Chopin waltzes. Unfortunately, people being unable to accept Joplin as anything other than a Ragtime composer generally barbarously mis-orchestrate Bethena into some sort of ragtime jig, which is rather sad.

At any rate, I just think something is lacking in this article when there really is no mention of how diverse his compositions actually were, and the fact that his composition bears many of the hallmarks of the best of European and American romantic music being written in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, rather than just simply ordinary ragtime. -68.79.195.19 20:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree that there should be some kind of recognition of the extent Joplin was able to create works (such as "Bethena" or "Magnetic Rag") which were very much greater than mere Ragtime. Not being a musicologist I don't have the expertise to go into the technical detail, however. Should this be within the "Legacy" section perhaps if it were demonstrable, and not just POV?Major Bloodnok 23:23, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

On reflection, I think that there should be a section such as "musical development", detailing Joplin's, erm, development as a composer. I'll see what I can come up with when I have the chance. Also, it would follow that his compositions should be listed by year composed and /or thematically rather than alphabetically. Perhaps this should be on a different page as with other classical composers? Major Bloodnok 11:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Amended the "works" section to list works by publication date, in line with other composers. Major Bloodnok 12:24, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

"Founder of Ragtime"
An anon on rotating ip#s keeps putting in that Joplin was "the founder of ragtime". Once they sited. As Joplin was not the first to create works in ragtime, nor made any such claim to have founded or invented the form, this is inaccurate and inappropriate, even if some poorly written tourist site has such a claim. -- Infrogmation 22:35, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, the place of birth has been changed. Is there any proof of this? Where is the source of the information? Available information seems to indicate that there is no definitive proof either way. Also, as Infrogmation shows, it is simply wrong to say that Joplin was the founder of Ragtime. Major Bloodnok 00:20, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

If you recall alan freen, he gave name to rock n roll, black american artists called it by different names and it was not white music, but combination... ok... now... I agree with you guys, it's possible he was not THE FOUNDER BUT HE WAS INSTRUMENTAL IN FOUNDING this kind of music, the birth... www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1E1-Joplin-S.html hard to say, but current version (i corrected town) sounds much better, keep in mind, these things get lost over time you know, that's all. That's normal, sad but true. There are some sources which claim he was born january 1857, go figure. Anyways, hopefully current should be ok. But yea, ragtime belongs to him. Remember, during his time, it was called something else, there was ragtime, but it was not definitive.-Nov 20
 * The preceding unsigned comments were left by User:66.99.3.246.Kukini 22:42, 20 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think it is generally accepted by those who have studied the matter that Joplin wrote ragtime with greater sophistication and art than his predessesors. I know of no scholarly sources which agree with the statements you repeatedly put him about him being "the founder of" or giving "birth" to ragtime. This sounds about on the level, say, of a claim that Mozart "founded" European classical music. It is inaccurate and hinders rather than helps understanding of the important figure. The link you include to the encyclopedia.com article offers nothing to support your claim. (That article also includes some minor inaccuracies, as the external links at the end of the Wikipedia article correct.) Also, please sign your comments (I encourage you to choose a user name and log in if you plan to stick around.) I hope this is clearer. -- Infrogmation 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Birth place
gives his birthplace as "probably at Caves Springs, near Linden, Texas"; says "the place of his birth in east Texas is a matter of some debate." I have changed the article accordingly unless new definitive evidence has put an end to the debate. -- Infrogmation 14:55, 21 November 2006 (UTC) well, provide some evidence already, otherwise this is vandalism. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.0.3 (talk) 21-Nov-2006 13:%3


 * The two links above I think are relevent to that point. If you dispute them, please explain why. Also, I think you would be taken more seriously if you sign your comments. At present I am giving you the benifit of a doubt, but I do wonder if you you are trolling in a deliberate attempt to make trouble. -- Infrogmation 18:14, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I suggest you stop playing around with this article and STOP REMOVING relevant articles, because I will not allow that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.1.51 (talk) 22-Nov-2006 16:13

I would like to know... POSSIBLY born near Linder, WHAT IS THAT, IS THAT MATERIAL FOR ENCYCLOPEDIA? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.107.1.51 (talk) 22-Nov-2006 16:19


 * Infrogmation, I removed "probably" and just stated Linden, with a cite close to the one placed by User:64.107.0.3/User:64.107.1.51. However, looks like you have some sources which contradict.  Perhaps the whole para needs re-writing? It looks like you have some history with the article, so I'll defer to your judgment.  - (Nuggetboy) (talk) (contribs) 20:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I put the link there, which should STAY, ok... now, what are you asking me, most of the people will agree he was born in Linden, so no use to put probably. I am a ragtime musician as well.

Jazz
I have been the second one to remove anon's description of Joplin's music as "jazz". Calling Joplin's ragtime "jazz" seems about as relevent or appropriate as "rock & roll" -- a style influential on later musics, but hardly equivilent. Please, anon, either read up on the subject before editing or stop trolling. -- Infrogmation 15:44, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi Infrogmation. Technically speaking you are right, as historians usually consider ragtime "pre-jazz" as pertains to the medium. However, it is interesting to note that many of the early New Orleans jazz musicians called themselves ragtime or "rag" players; this is partly because the term "jazz" itself was not used until sometime in the 1900s. It almost seems as if historians have revised the truth to fit in accord with their concept of what jazz is and is not. Ragtime actually was a form of jazz, were we to want to tell the truth to everyone. Duke Ellington and Bennie Moten both proved that through their occasional performance of the medium. In fact, the first recorded black jazz artist in 1915 named Lionel Balasco, made his name with the song Junk Man Rag. Of course, that happened in Trinidad. Don Pullen, Henry Threadgill...and many others had performed ragtime from time to time.(Mind meal 08:30, 27 June 2007 (UTC))

Go and study some jazz
www.infoplease.com/ce6/ent/A0859013.html YOU ARE TALKING TO JAZZ HISTORIAN and do not play with me and this article. I am sick of you reverting, jazz is earliest type of music, and stop using your unorthodox excuses, because they make no sense, the above article proves my point and there are 100's just like that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.4 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 24 November 2006)


 * I much doubt you are a "JAZZ HISTORIAN". In any event, your repeated placement of http://ctmh.its.txstate.edu/location.php?cmd=detail&lid=19 at the top of the external links (where the link with the most information about Joplin should go) labled "Joplin, founder of ragtime" is simply dishonest. The subject and title of that link is clearly "Linden, Texas". Furthermore, it does not become appropriate to introduce sloppyness and inaccuracy into the article if you can find someone somewhere on the internet who has also been sloppy or inaccurate. -- Infrogmation 14:29, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok... if article is sloppy, show me, or is that your lousy defense, most of the jazz historians will agree with me that he is the founder, however, i am no longer stating that on wiki, since there are arguments, however, the link is not part of the article but it's external information, together with other information it does not destroy this page, it helps and it gives us a different angle of thought, in the link itself it says he is founder and keep in mind THIS IS NOT JUST ANY LINK, it comes from texas educational link, link is associated with colleges. So, it does not matter what you think of me as a historian or not, hopefully we can agree on something, if not, well, I know I am right. The problem with wiki is one wrong word of uncivility, even if you are right, all of a suddent you become wrong, either way go to some old jazz club and ask musicians, then I will visit there too and let's find out, according to any jazz knowledge, it was joplin (if not the founder) who made it popular and that's just as being a founder. Elvis did not invent rock n roll, there were many other black singers before him who sang it. Together with the combination of gospel, rhythm n blues, country they invented something new and had no idea how to call it. Even Hank Williams in 1947 composed move it on over, in today's terms that's rock n roll. And I suggest you stop calling me troll, that's an attack, all these replies make me think i am talking to a robot —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.99.1.243 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 25 November 2006)

- Buddy Bolden and Jelly Roll Morton made the earliest forms of jazz, not Joplin. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.105.30.62 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 27 November 2006 What are you talking about, what years are those, do you have a link? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.107.0.78 (talk • contribs)

- I'm talking about the true originators of jazz, Buddy was born only a decade after Joplin and Morton about 17 years, and you can check their respective wikipedia articles for a link. If that's not enough I can provide more later.

- I'm sorry to burst everyone's bubble (and especially Jazz Historian over there) but Jazz is 'suprisingly' NOT the earliest form of music and in fact did not even become well known until the twenties. Jazz would not be as it is today without BLUES and RAGTIME. Blues>Ragtime>Jazz. Blues has been around for probably longer than we have empirical evidence to support such a date, but was becoming well known at the dawn of the twentieth century. Sorry. Also, Joplin did not create Ragtime but did, in fact, add new elements to ragtime that were not established earlier. Very much in the way we think of yes---Elvis, W.C. Handy, and Robert Johnson —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.73.160.230 (talk • contribs)


 * Yes, we all know that. Everyone except that guy above you.  He's the reason the article is protected from anonymous editors. --Strothra 04:41, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not the same anonymous editor that claimed that jazz is the earliest form of music. And you also forgot to include march music, minstrel show music and gospel/soul music as influences in the origins of jazz. Bottom line, jazz isn't the earliest form of music (Duh!), Joplin is neither the originator of Ragtime nor Jazz, just one of the best and most popular composers of Ragtime and influenced the development of Jazz and Joplin doesn't count as a Jazz musician nor a Jazz composer. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.126.62.118 (talk • contribs) 08:45, 18 December 2006


 * Many years ago I read somewhere that Jass, was the prototype to Jazz, and possibly to Ragtime.--User:W8IMP 00:02, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Irving Berlin
Edward A. Berlin suggests that there is evidence that Irving Berlin stole "Alexander's Ragtime Band" from Joplin. Should this be entered? Discuss.--75.9.32.43 08:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a citation?--Strothra 13:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From what I've heard, "Alexander's Ragtime Band" is not actually rag, but rather a piece of music that used the word "rag" in the title to interest the buyer. It's just another "fake" rag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.162.110.254 (talk • contribs)
 * It's a song /about/ a ragtime band. Nothing really fake about it. Also, it's still pretty heavy on the syncopation. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 03:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Not fake (as you point out, it's a real song about a ragtime band), but it's definitely not ragtime. Tin Pan Alley, I'd say. +ILike2BeAnonymous 04:53, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Berlin's scholarship and research into Joplin's life are staggering. I'm inclined to give his theory serious consideration. He mentions Joplin was required to substantially change one of the songs from his opera Treemonisha to gain copyright, and a newspaper column from the period mentions Joplin was anxious to meet Berlin as he was annoyed about something.. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 125.238.79.81 (talk) 07:33, 13 December 2006 (UTC).

Accuracy tag
I have removed the accuracy tag as the issues seem to have been resolved. Capitalistroadster 06:11, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Recordings
This list could be expanded massively by an hour or two in my vinyl collection. When The Sting, with incomplete snatches of Joplin's good stuff led to the Joplin Revival of the 70's, several good recordings were released.

One was a Biograph Release of Rolls Played on a Bechstein upright, with a committee to agree on tempos, as these tended to vary on the rolls as well as between instruments. When listening to rolls there is the barely-perceptible sound of the tempo rising as the pin rolled to the bottom. In my neighborhood pizza parlor there was a well-maintained upright player and many Joplin rolls, some recorded by Joplin himself. I found it interesting how often he played lovely "grace notes" that were NOT included in his scores, and which he often reminded artists NOT to play.

Nonesuch released two LPs of Joshua Rifkin playing the best arrow-straight, (non-stylized), recordings of Joplin's piano I ever heard. I saw Rifkin in concert in La Jolla California, and he was as good or better at interpreting Joplin live as anyone ever recorded.

The release that brought me to appreciate Joplin was Gunter Schuler, and the New England Conservatory Ragtime Ensemble recording of "The Red Back Book." These were orchestral arrangements by Joplin. KPBS in San Diego played, "Sugar Cane", and "The Easy Winners", and for the first time in my life I went directly to Tower Records and bought the LP. Schuler later released, "Palm Leaf Rag", an album of his own orchestral arrangements, (played by the NECRE), of Joplin Piano Music. User:W8IMP 0524, 05 January 2007 (UTC)

Joplin had several marriages.
Could someone please do something about the above statement. As far as I can make out from the text (apologies if I've missed something), Joplin married twice, in which case, the statement is plainly wrong. Either way, its syntax is way out! Regards, --Technopat 21:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Scottjoplin.jpg
Image:Scottjoplin.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

INSTRUMENT
WHAT INSTRUMENTS DID JOPLIN PLAY? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.61.25 (talk) 15:25, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Joplin on Piano rolls
Theres is only the Plesant Moments  played by himself. The other rolls are all arranged rolls. See footnotes on de:Scott Joplin. Gerhard51 (talk) 09:56, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

This statement is incorrect. Seven Connorized rolls and one Aeolian Uni-Record roll are labelled as 'Played by Scott Joplin'. The Connorized rolls have been heavily edited, including quantized (making the tempo perfect) and having embellishments added by an editor (the walking bass) but the Aeolian roll is pretty much untouched and is probably almost exactly as Joplin sat down and played it that day in 1916. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.236.172.96 (talk) 12:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Size of Joplin's hands
By some of the massive chords and wide skips in certain piano pieces penned by Scott Joplin, I wonder if he had large hands. I have the same hunch for classical composers Robert Schumann (1810-1856), and Cesar Franck (1822-1890). Musicwriter (talk) 02:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Why does this page get vandalized?
Seriously. Some articles I can understand, but what in the world makes this article such a target? Both obvious and sneaky...is it one person who keeps using multiple IPs, or is it linked from some places very well travled by vandals? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 15:26, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I mentioned this above ... I don't understand it myself. It's not like it's a particularly high-profile page or anything. Ben-w 18:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Ben/Melodia, Every time I see vandalism on this page, I ask myself the same question. How could anyone get a thrill out of such silly, destructive rubbish?. I can understand, but will never condone racial slurs, but how does saying, "...he was gay and cr*pp*d on the lawn...", amuse this poor, lost soul? How would one suppose this poor person's mother would feel if she ever found out?--W8IMP 00:32, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

Again. I noticed a small syntax error and corrected that, but then realized the entire page had been vandalized. I'm a bit new to revisions, I hope I got it right. I think this page needs to be locked, as it appears we have ongoing attempts at pernicious vandalism. Dfrauzel 00:17, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Alright, I botched it the first time, though the revision number did seem correct the infobox was wrong. I tried again, it looks right now. Dfrauzel 00:25, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I, too, would like to see the page protected (or at least semiprotected) from vandalism. I'm not sure how to make this happen, however. Do I need admin help?  Stepheng3 (talk) 01:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * You can request page protection at WP:RFPP. -- Avenue (talk) 06:24, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I put in a request. Thanks for the pointer.  Stepheng3 (talk) 17:49, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Time Traveling Ability/Interest in Tennis
Should it be mentioned that he alledgely could travel in time? Also, he was keenly interested in popular tennis. http://snltranscripts.jt.org/02/02fjoplin.phtml http://snltranscripts.jt.org/03/03ejoplin.phtml That is all. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasJCyrus (talk • contribs) 20:18, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Should it be mentioned? I'd vote no. Please don't fill discussion pages with junk. -- Infrogmation (talk) 20:52, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

His piano-roll recordings
Quote from article: ''... he did record seven piano rolls in 1916; "Maple Leaf Rag" (for Connorized and Aeolian companies), "Something Doing," "Magnetic Rag," "Ole Miss Rag," "Weeping Willow Rag" and "Pleasant Moments - Ragtime Waltz" (all for Connorized). These are the only records of his playing we have ...''


 * I question this statement. I have in my collection an LP of Joplin's piano rolls, and as well as 4 of the pieces mentioned above it includes: Original Rags, Sunflower Slow Drag, The Entertainer, Fig Leaf Rag, Pineapple Rag, Euphonic Sounds, Stoptime Rag, and Scott Joplin's New Rag.   It doesn't have Ole Miss Rag or Pleasant Moments.  The only performer credited is "Scott Joplin - piano roll solo".  On this basis, assuming the info on the LP is correct, that makes at least 15 pieces he recorded on piano rolls.  --  JackofOz (talk) 13:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe the apparent discrepancy is due to that a number of the period piano rolls of Joplin rags published (and reissued decades later on LP and CD) were not actually recorded by Joplin himself, but rather by the house pianists at the piano roll companies. -- Infrogmation (talk) 16:01, 30 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for that enlightenment. I guess that means I won't be holding my LP in such high regard anymore.  Maybe we should say something about this in the article, to let people know that some recordings claiming to be of Joplin playing his own music are not genuine.  --  JackofOz (talk) 12:20, 1 June 2008 (UTC)


 * As a collector, I can clarify things further here. Back in the 1950-1970 period, when player rolls were really first 'rediscovered' as historical documents and copied/distributed, there was a collective lack of knowledge that has since been expanded by research/period literature resurfacing/etc. There were two main methods of creating rolls - by having an artist play a recording piano, or by manually punching notes in the paper with reference to piano or orchestral scores (or any combination of the two!). Whilst 90% of the 'handplayed' rolls contained an artist credit on the label - "played by xxx xxx", 90% of the manually created ('arranged') rolls had no credit for the arranger on the label, with rare exceptions. However, both types of roll always credited the composer. So when someone back in the 1960s discovered a musty old 'arranged' roll in their collection with 'Pineapple Rag - Scott Joplin' on the label, they assumed that meant Joplin was the pianist, and if new copies were punched of the roll, the new label often contained incorrect attributions of the sort.


 * Since original catalogs produced by every roll company of the time have been found, it's safe to say that the six Connorized rolls and the one Aeolian Uni-Record roll are the sole piano rolls ever recorded by Joplin. BTW, I'm a relatively serious collector and researcher, and for various reasons it's my considered opinion that the Uni-Record roll is far, far more truthful to Joplin's playing than the Connorized rolls - I won't bore you with the details, but in a nutshell the Aeolian roll was recorded at a far greater fidelity, and the Connorized rolls have also been quantized and edited to create a mathematically perfect performance. The bass runs and grace notes in the Joplin Connorized rolls are almost certainly the work of another Connorized 'house' artist - they are very characteristic, one of his musical signatures if you will.


 * Unfortunately, the Uni-Record version of Maple Leaf Rag is heard far less often than the Connorized one. I have scanned a copy of it to MIDI, and you can listen to it on my website by using the search engine at the site. I won't give the name of the site lest I be accused of trolling, but you can find it by googling 'pianola midi' and it's the first hit result.


 * Sorry for the lengthy and rather dry post! PlayerRoll (talk)


 * Not at all. That's very interesting information to have.  --  JackofOz (talk) 01:28, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

split out List of compositions by Scott Joplin
I'm up for doing this split. Any discussion? Stepheng3 (talk) 15:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
 * There being none, I've gone ahead and boldly split the list into a new article. Stepheng3 (talk) 23:38, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Can Freddie be explained?
The article mentions two marriages of Scott Joplin: one to Belle in 1900 or earlier, and one to Lottie Stokes in 1909.

So the following sentence is inexplicable:


 * Perhaps his dearest love, Freddie Alexander, died on September 10, 1904, of complications resulting from a cold, two months after their wedding.

"Their" wedding? Whose wedding is this? Freddie and Freddie's wife? Freddie and Scott Joplin's wedding? A wedding between Scott Joplin and an unnamed woman? Even assuming that Freddie Alexander is female, grammatically there is no antecedent for "their". &mdash; Lawrence King ( talk ) 04:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I believe that Freddie Alexander was Scott's daughter, though I'm not certain. - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)


 * After doing some research, I realize I was wrong in my belief.  explains that Freddie Alexander was Scott's second wife, whom he married in June 1904. I'll see if I can clarify this section. - Stepheng3 (talk) 19:21, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Treemonisha & music
It is described in the text as "award-winning", but there is no reference for that either in the Joplin article, or in the Treemonisha one. Joplin certainly was award winning, even if that was posthumous, but his opera? I'll remove the phrase until we have further information.

On another note, I've realised this article lacks any analysis of the music itself. I'll take a first look at expanding that section with what sources I have.Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:57, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Belle?
What happened to Belle? The article says he married her around 1900 and then it says he married Freddie Alexander in 1904. Did he divorce her? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gambit2392 (talk • contribs) 05:51, 14 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Jasen and Tichenor state that "After the death of their two-month-old girl, the Joplins became estranged and Belle died in 1906." The Edward A. Berlin biography states that "A child born to him and Belle died in infancy, and by 1903 the two had separated."  Find-a-grave says that "In June 1904, he divorced Belle and married Freddie Alexander..." - Stepheng3 (talk) 06:09, 14 October 2008 (UTC)

Composer project review
I've reviewed this article as part of the Composers project review of its B-class articles. You can find my detailed review on the comments page. Article is B-class, but might be brought to GA with some work. If you have comments or questions, feel free to leave them here or on my talk page.  Magic ♪piano 16:21, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Found Joplin's Signature.
I was looking for a picture of John Still Stark, and found it on "The State Historical Society of Missouri's" Website. It's a dot.Edu. So it should be creditable. Clicked on the "Scott Joplin Biography" link, and there it was! Not only his "Signature," but two pictures and one cartoon of him. One taken from the front cover of his sheet music “Swipesy Cake Walk,” 1900. And the other picture taken [taken from American Musician, June 17, 1907, Performing Arts Reading Room, Library of Congress].

http://shs.umsystem.edu/famousmissourians/musicians/joplin/joplin.shtml#marshall

http://shs.umsystem.edu/famousmissourians/musicians/joplin/images/joplinsignature.jpg

http://shs.umsystem.edu/famousmissourians/musicians/joplin/joplinstark.html

http://shs.umsystem.edu/famousmissourians/musicians/joplin/images/stark.jpg

http://shs.umsystem.edu/famousmissourians/musicians/joplin/images/13-LC-Joplin.jpg

So what do you guys think? I'm pretty sure it's all public domain. And we could at least use the picture of John Stark.--Morahman7vn (talk) 05:24, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

And they do have some good looking References and Resources.--Morahman7vn (talk) 05:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)

The lead
Some good additions to the lead, but there are some problems with certain passages - was the Pulitzer prize actually awarded for Treemonisha? this suggests its for his work as a whole. I removed the final sentence because it seemed too POV and without reference. For example, it called the revival of interest in Joplin's music "unprecendented". Really? Had interest in music revivals not happened before? It also made the faux pas of calling The Entertainer a song. Last time I checked it wasn't, unless you're refering to a different version. My computer cut off the comment in the edit summary so I couldn't finish the thought; sorry about that all. Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:34, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * In addition, why are the sections about Joplin's skills on the piano and musical styles in the middle of the Biographical section? This seems to be nonsensical; the biography should be kept together, with separate sections about his legacy and skills etc at the end. What does the community think? I will wait for a reply and then move them back unless there is a consensus otherwise. Major Bloodnok (talk) 15:09, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article could use some thoughtful reorganization. --Stepheng3 (talk) 15:12, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I second the motion. I tried to restructure the sections last week.  Some of the lead additions were probably premature since the sources or quotes weren't yet added within the body, although they were all from relevant books.  I'll try to carefully add the sourced material and tweak sections so the article flows nicely and stays interesting and balanced. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:47, 14 March 2009 (UTC)


 * There are some very significant improvements here. Great work! I was just aware of some issues which should be addressed - the quotes looked very promising! Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:41, 14 March 2009 (UTC)

New additions
Been making some changes to the body which I'll try to get back to in a few days. In the meantime, any suggestions, corrections, further additions, or other ideas would be helpful. Right now, a Google search for Scott Joplin gets close to a million results, with this Wiki article being #1. And with Joplin being such a vital source of our musical heritage, I think he deserves the best bio we can give him. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:54, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've had a brief look at your additions; well done on finding and adding the quotations. I do have reservations about their overuse - I feel they should augment, rather than replace information. For example, the Berlin quote at the start of the Revival is quite a excitable description of a hit single in 1976. I think he's stretching to say that only thanks to "The Sting" did Joplin have a revival in the mid 1970s. What about Rifkin's Grammy-nominated album in 1970? I'd use the Berlin quote to describe the take on the revival, but the key pieces of information should be about the Rifkin album, "The Sting" film and the Hamlisch single, rather than the quote. I can agree with Berlin's sentiment, but I think his analysis needs to be supported. The section was originally organised chronologically, and the recent version is not. I'd prefer to keep the information organised in date order. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Good points. I'll see if I can find some more sources on the revival contributions, especially Rifkin's. Keeping the section in chronological order makes sense also.  I added the Berlin quote re: The Sting to the top paragraph since it was the only all-encompassing statement about Joplin and his new popularity I came across so far. As for his feeling that the movie was the most important contributor to Joplin's revival, it's only his opinion, which is why that kind of strong POV comment, abbreviated a bit, is probably best left in quotes (but with the movie being nominated for 10 Academny awards, and winning 7, incl. Best Picture and Best Musical Score, his opinion may be right in any case.) Thanks for the feedback - more ideas are welcome. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 21:24, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Rifkin and Schuller need to be presented in chron order, not as a flashback from Hamlisch. Binksternet (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)


 * So far I haven't come across any Joplin "revival" articles that were written before The Sting. The Times article cited, with link, gave credit to Rifkin and Schuller in flashback as a "discovery" that was already underway when the movie came out. I think the quotes are valuable but can't see any way to reverse the timeline used without removing them.  Feel free to review the article and see if there's a way to do it. Note that because the article starts by discussing The Sting, the flashback writing ends up putting even greater emphasis on the earlier Rifkin recordings than the movie.  --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:47, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Personal life and marriages
This section has gotten scrambled. If Freddie Alexander died in 1904, then the move in 1900 would not have been "subsequently". --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Berlin wrote on p.138, "The second part, "Affidavit," in which bride and groom both affirm that they are single, was left blank. This again raises the question of Joplin's relationship with Belle. Was there a legal marriage between him and Belle, and if so, was there a divorce? Or was Joplin a bigamist. If Joplin was indeed single at the time of his marriage, why did he not sign the affidavit."


 * Berlin also wrote that Belle was 19 and Joplin was 36 at the time. However, he wrote his age down as 27.  Berlin actually went to the courthouse and saw all the documents but he's still not sure about the situation.  Interesting. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 04:15, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Rewrite request
The section below was copied (not cut) from the "Music styles" section. If anyone has any suggestions for rephrasing and simplifying this paragraph, it would certainly give me great solace and felicity. My hunch is that for the average reader it's a real slow drag trying to make sense of it, and a good rewrite would give it a more euphonic sound.


 * He combined the traditions of Afro-American folk music with nineteenth-century European romanticism; he collected the black Midwestern Folk rag ideas as raw material for the creation of original strains. Thus, his rags are the most heavily pentatonic, with liberal use of blue notes and other outstanding features that characterize black folk music. In this creative synthesis, . . . the traditional march became the dominant form, and the result was a new art form, the Classic rag – a unique conception which paradoxically both forged the way for early serious ragtime composition, and, at the same time, developed along insular lines, away from most other ragtime playing and composing.[12]:83

Any volunteers? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:28, 17 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I think this is a quotation - which includes lots of information which is why it's here in its entirety. I suppose you are right in that extracting the musical information from it (and wiki-fying it) would be helpful. I'll try and take a look at it.


 * On another note - I think the organisation of the article has been scrambled. The biographical sections should be kept together at the top of the article and sections on Joplin's music and legacy should be later. Currently they are mixed together. Look at J S Bach for an example of the sort of structure we should be aiming for. Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:37, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Article structure
Below is a copy of the contents before and after new material was added. Any ideas on how the structure should be revised can be put in this discussion section. It's quick to move entire sections around or even divide or combine subsections, so restructure ideas can come anytime. You'll notice that my last edits were to pull out and combine the details about his family life, which were comingled with his music background and where he lived - sometimes within the same sentence. I split up a section to make it easier to see which areas need more detail (i.e. divide and conquer.) I'll try to add more details over time and any feedback or other edits and additions would be useful.

The Bach article structure is OK because there's enough detail to fill in for a time period. Joplin's would have a long way to go to match that kind of outline but with more additions it might work. BTW, I didn't think that having Bach's "Family members" section inserted between "Musical style" and "Works" was the best place for it. In any case, moving sections around is simple.

Outline suggestions below --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:19, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

 * i can understand why the current organisation above is appealing, and why it has been done; it's putting the music into the context of where Joplin was in his life when he wrote it. There is merit in this. The part I think really does not fit are sections 2.3 - 2.5 which are more analytical, and should go after the biographical section. Come to that, the link to "List of compositions" could (should) be moved to the start of 2.2, the "composer" section (in the form of a "See also").


 * The trouble is, if one moves the sections 2.3-2.5 to the end, I feel it would break up the info and analysis about the music too much, and therefore to keep the article coherent we end up having to move the whole lot to keep it together. Thus we end up with something like this (horses for courses, swings and roundabouts etc. Can we come up with a consensus?):

Proposed Contents 1 Early years
 * 1.1 Family
 * 1.2 Learning piano and music forms
 * 1.3 Scott's talent causing family problems
 * 1.4 Early performances and recognition

3 Personal life and marriages 4 Final years and early death 2 Music career
 * 2.1 Early career
 * 2.2 Composer (link to list of compositions)
 * 2.2.1 Ragtime music
 * 2.2.2 Operas
 * 2.3 Pianist performer
 * 2.4 Music styles

5 Legacy 6 Revival 7 Other awards and recognition 8 References 9 External links
 * 9.1 Recordings and sheet music

I haven't been clever enough to renumber the sections, but I think the idea is clear. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:16, 17 March 2009 (UTC) -
 * Haven't come across any bios that are good models yet. My quick thoughts about your ideas and looking over the text as of today, which will fill up over time:

Existing questionable sections 
 * 2.3 Pianist performer
 * 2.4 Music styles
 * 2.5 List of compositions


 * 2.3, would leave as is since it was part of his career, although I wonder if the heading phrase is correct;
 * 2.4, would rephrase, summarize, and simplify, without the massive quote, and incorporate into 2.2. There doesn't seem to be enough meat here yet to keep as separate section;
 * 2.5, move as a new External link (new 9.2) with a a simple wikilink added to text of 2.2;
 * Sections 2 - 5 feel right as is and I've seen this order in other bios. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:06, 18 March 2009 (UTC)

Treemonisha ideas
I'd like to expand on his Treemonisha opera so am giving some advance notice and thoughts:

The main factor in my upcoming additions is that they will be mostly autobiographical in nature. I presume this is fairly unusual for operas. As I add more details and sources the question will gradually arise as to how to use or categorize the related section. Some questions might relate to whether part of the details should be cut or copied to the the Treemonisha article; others could involve treating the opera as a major section of subsection (as it is now.) But obviously a lot depends on what the text will look like when it's in, so I propose and wait-and-see attitude till I get it written. As material is added, I'll probably try experimenting with different ways of laying this out and might try some section heading changes as part of it.

The good news is that I desire to leave it up to all editors to reach consensus and decide after it's in what should be cut, changed, moved, etc. And as we all know, it's a quicker to trim branches off a tree than it is to grow one. I hope to have most of my new material added over the next 3-4 days, after which time we can all sharpen out pruning shears. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm looking forward to reading what you put up; as you said quite correctly, lets take a look at it then to see what ammendments to make. My current thinking is that a small-ish summary section with a "see main article: Treemonisha" at the head might be a good goal to aim for. We'll see whether that is the best way forward. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:17, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * If the material introduced here is about Joplin's personal experience of the writing and promotion of the opera, and if this personal material isn't covered in greater detail at the Treemonisha article, then there will be no need for a template directing the reader to the "main article". Binksternet (talk) 20:43, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

I had some more material for other sections that I thought I'd better work in first.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:19, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Pruned material re piano player
In relation to the other sections, this one seems too heavily weighted and redundant of observations. It probably deserves more than simply saying he was a better composer of music than a pianist, but considering his claim to fame is more as a composer anyway, the minutiae makes it a barrier to get through the article, IMO. I'll try to trim it down so the essence is there and the issue stays in proportion to the rest. It's most all taken from the Berlin book anyway so there's no problem reinserting facts when needed. If anyone feels that I've trimmed out too much, feel free to put anything back. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:13, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

This may explain the differences in opinion of those observing Joplin's playing in the late 1890s and in the early 1910s. In the 1976 TV series All You Need is Love, Eubie Blake recalled listening to a later Joplin performance and was shocked as he performed the "Maple Leaf Rag".

While Joplin never made an audio recording, he did record seven piano rolls in 1916; "Maple Leaf Rag" (for Connorized and Aeolian companies), "Something Doing," "Magnetic Rag," "Ole Miss Rag," "Weeping Willow" and "Pleasant Moments - Ragtime Waltz" (all for Connorized). These are the only records of his playing we have, and are interesting for the embellishments added by Joplin to his Connorized performances, although studying other Connorized rolls of that era reveals they may well have been added during the production process by staff artists, rather than Joplin himself. The roll of "Pleasant Moments" was thought lost until August 2006, when a piano roll collector in New Zealand discovered a surviving copy. It has been claimed that the uneven nature of some of Joplin's piano rolls, such as one of the recordings of "Maple Leaf Rag" mentioned above, documented the extent of Joplin's physical deterioration due to syphilis. A comparison of the two "Maple Leaf Rag" player-piano rolls made by Joplin in 1916, one in April the other in June, has been described as "... shocking. The second version is disorganized and completely distressing to hear." While the irregularities may also be due to the primitive technology used to record the rolls, rolls recorded by other artists for the same company around the same time are noticeably smoother.


 * I think too much has been taken out. The article mentions Joplin as a pianist in the lead, the infobox, and the section headings, but currently provides no support for this claim.  Plus I thought the contrast between his performance skill at different stages of his life was of great interest.  I'll try to recover some scraps about his piano playing skills from the History. --Stepheng3 (talk) 04:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Reads much better now.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:50, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. Keep up the great work.--Stepheng3 (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Revival size
Although I'll be adding more details, I notice when scanning all the sections that the Revival section looks gigantic in comparison. My impression is that it looks at least three times the size it needs to be to keep it practical and the article sections balanced. Reading the material is very complex with all the dates, places, and names, and without any section breaks for organization. On the other hand, a section on Revival should be compact enough not to require sections, hence the size issue. In the alternative, we could have another article on just the revival of ragtime generally, and leave enough here for Joplin's basics and a see more link. Just my opinion.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 06:50, 21 March 2009 (UTC)


 * The reason the section appears out of scale with the rest of the article is that there's simply more information available about recent happenings. In spite of that fact, another solution could be to flesh out every other part of this article. I grant that the revival material here could be ported to the Ragtime article whose section on various revivals is missing some important steps. What I see remaining here are the parts where the revival of Joplin specifically is shown to be different than the revival of ragtime in general—just about all of the section here meets that standard. For instance, there's nothing here about tack piano and banjo old-timey jazz combos that gained some popularity in the '50s and '60s, and nothing about post-'70s revival. I think the microscopic focus on the 1970s and how Joplin fueled the fire is appropriate here. It's like Joplin owned that period of time, and readers coming here ought to see how that came to be. Binksternet (talk) 14:53, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

-
 * Suggestion 3/24/09

Reviewing the revival section, with new subheads, I think there is still too much here. Since facts have no doubt been added piecemeal over a long time, I don't think I'll mess with it. What I did was copy the section here and struck out text that I feel can be cut (except any needed cites). I think the revival section could be nicely summarized in 2 or 3 paragraphs. I would keep out any trivia and minute details since this section, coming after the main article and legacy, should be easier to read and understand. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:09, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Copied section with suggested strikeouts.

Revival
After his death in 1917, Joplin's music and ragtime in general waned in popularity as new forms of musical styles, such as jazz and novelty piano, emerged. Even so, Jazz bands and recording artists such as Tommy Dorsey in 1936, Jelly Roll Morton in 1939 and J. Russell Robinson in 1947 released recordings of Joplin ragtime compositions ragtime on 78 RPM records. Between 1902 and 1961 more recordings of the Maple Leaf Rag were released by more artists than for any other Joplin rag.

In the 1960s, a small-scale reawakening of interest in classic ragtime was underway among some American music scholars. In 1961, composer and performer Trebor Tichenor began publishing The Ragtime Review and hosting ragtime performances aboard a St. Louis riverboat named Goldenrod. In New York City, William "Bill" Bolcom learned of the existence of the opera Treemonisha in 1966 and began to search for it, finding that Rudi Blesh had published it a few years prior. Bolcom arranged with Thomas J. "T.J." Anderson for a full orchestration of the work and, in the meantime, began playing and composing rags, sending sheet music back and forth with his friends William "Bill" Albright and Peter Winkler, a mathematician and fan of ragtime. Blesh's friend Max Morath introduced them to the breadth of Joplin's rags. In 1968, Bolcom and Albright interested Joshua Rifkin, a young musicologist, in the body of Joplin's work. Together, they hosted an occasional ragtime-and-early-jazz evening on WBAI radio.
 * 1960s

In November 1970, Rifkin released a recording called Scott Joplin Piano Rags on the classical label Nonesuch. It sold 100,000 copies in its first year and eventually became Nonesuch's first million-selling record. Record stores found themselves for the first time putting ragtime in the classical music section. The album was nominated in 1971 for two Grammy Award categories: Best Album Notes and Best Instrumental Soloist Performance (without orchestra). Rifkin was also under consideration for a third Grammy for a recording not related to Joplin, but at the ceremony on March 14, 1972, Rifkin did not win in any category.
 * Joshua Rifkin

In January 1971, Harold C. Schonberg, music critic at the New York Times, having just heard the Rifkin album, wrote a featured Sunday edition article entitled "Scholars, Get Busy on Scott Joplin!" Schonberg's call to action has been described as the catalyst for classical music scholars, the sort of people Joplin had battled all his life, to conclude that Joplin was a genius. Vera Brodsky Lawrence of the New York Public Library published a two-volume set of Joplin works in June 1971, entitled The Collected Works of Scott Joplin, stimulating a wider interest in the performance of Joplin's music.
 * New York publishing

On October 22, 1971 excerpts from Treemonisha were presented in concert form at Lincoln Center with musical performances by Bolcom, Rifkin and Mary Lou Williams supporting a group of singers. Finally, on January 28, 1972, T.J. Anderson's orchestration of Treemonisha was staged for two consecutive nights, sponsored by the Afro-American Music Workshop of Morehouse College in Atlanta, with singers accompanied by the Atlanta Symphony Orchestra under the direction of Robert Shaw, and choreography by Katherine Dunham. Schonberg remarked in February 1972 that the "Scott Joplin Renaissance" was in full swing and still growing.
 * Treemonisha productions

Gunther Schuller, a french horn player and music professor, formed the New England Ragtime Ensemble in 1972 from students at the New England Conservatory. He had received mimeographed copies of individual instrumental parts of the Red Back Book from Vera Lawrence, and was introducing Joplin tunes into the middle of otherwise 'classical' concerts of American turn-of-the-century music. Angel Records approached him with a record deal and, in 1973, produced a recording called Joplin: The Red Back Book.
 * Gunther Schuller

After Marvin Hamlisch produced the soundtrack for The Sting in 1973, won an Oscar for his adaptation of Joplin's music,, and got his adaptation of The Entertainer on the Billboard Hot 100 music chart in 1974, "the whole nation has begun to take notice...", wrote the New York Times. New York Magazine, in 1979, wrote that Nonesuch Records, by giving artists like Rifkin their "first hearing" by recording Joplin's music, "created, almost alone, the Scott Joplin revival." In his interview with the Times, Rifkin stated, "Let's face it - the big factor here is the score for The Sting." However, Rifkin pointed out that the movie's score was a "direct stylistic lift from two sources. ...What you get in the movie is piano solos played exactly like mine and the orchestral arrangements done exactly like his [Schuller]." The Grammy-nominated recordings remained at the top of Billboard's classical charts for some time.
 * The Sting

Edward Berlin tends to agree that the movie was an important factor in the revival: "Led by The Entertainer, one of the most popular pieces of the mid-1970s, a revival of his music resulted in events unprecedented in American musical history." He further added, "never before had any composer's music been so acclaimed by both the popular and classical music worlds." The New York Times described some of the revival's effects on the public:


 * "Joplin's music, happily, is just about omnipresent these days. His The Entertainer ... reverberates from every jukebox and car radio; companies like Kodak and Ford are using rags ... as background music for television commercials; ragtime renditions by everybody from Percy Faith to E. Power Biggs ... crowd together on record store shelves."

Rifkin had also been affected by the revival: In 1974 he said, "I did a tour this fall and various other concerts since then, including two in London - there's a craze in England as well - and made something like ten appearances on BBC television this spring ... This past May I gave a concert in London's Royal Festival Hall, which seats about 3,200 people, and it was sold out within four days..."

;Ballet Also that year the Royal Ballet, under Kenneth MacMillan created Elite Syncopations, a ballet based on tunes by Joplin, Max Morath and others. In addition, 1974 also saw the premiere by the Los Angeles Ballet of Red Back Book, choreographed by John Clifford to Joplin rags from the collection of the same name, including both solo piano performances and arrangements for full orchestra.

In May 1975, Treemonisha was staged in a full opera production by the Houston Grand Opera. The company toured briefly, then settled into an eight-week run in New York on Broadway at the Palace Theater in October and November. This appearance was directed by Gunther Schuller, and soprano Carmen Balthrop alternated with Kathleen Battle as the title character. An "original Broadway cast" recording was produced. Because of the lack of national exposure given to the brief Morehouse College staging of the opera in 1972, many Joplin scholars wrote that the Houston Grand Opera's 1975 show was the first full production.
 * Treemonisha on Broadway


 * I would tend to agree with most of this. The only exceptions I think would be this:


 * After his death in 1917, Joplin's music and ragtime in general waned in popularity as new forms of musical styles, such as jazz and novelty piano, emerged. Even so, Jazz bands and recording artists such as Tommy Dorsey in 1936, Jelly Roll Morton in 1939 and J. Russell Robinson in 1947 released recordings of Joplin ragtime compositions ragtime on 78 RPM records. Between 1902 and 1961 more recordings of the Maple Leaf Rag were released by more artists than for any other Joplin rag.


 * New York Magazine in 1979, credited Nonesuch Records with creating the ragtime revival with the release of records like Rifkins', although Rifkin himself credited The Sting.  < The Grammy-nominated recordings went to the top of Billboard's classical charts in 1971.


 * The New York Times described some of the revival's effects on the public:


 * "Joplin's music, happily, is just about omnipresent these days. His The Entertainer ... reverberates from every jukebox and car radio; companies like Kodak and Ford are using rags ... as background music for television commercials; ragtime renditions by everybody from Percy Faith to E. Power Biggs ... crowd together on record store shelves."


 * Essentially I'd remove quotations where possible, unless the quote itself has value in its own right, and I think the Berlin statement of an "unprecedented" revival is useful for POV but is quite a wild claim which I don't think can be proved either way, so I'd be in favour of losing it. The info about the Maple Leaf comes from the same source as the info about Jelly Roll Morton etc, so the citation should remain.Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:41, 24 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I would definitely not advise every one of the large-scale deletions proposed. In many cases you would be taking out the helpful chronology that tells the reader how Joplin got rediscovered. You would be taking out the introduction of Rifkin to Joplin's music; you'd be removing the prominence of getting a Grammy nomination, you would eliminate the New York music critic's influence which Max Morath described as major, you'd remove Morehouse College entirely, Gunther Schuller would be completely gone even though his arrangements show up in spirit via Hamlisch in The Sting, and you'd be removing the Broadway run of the opera. I look at what's left and think "evisceration". Binksternet (talk) 00:44, 25 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree about the "evisceration" term. But I feel that the evisceration is of "the revival of ragtime" as a topic, but not really of the life of Joplin, which is what the article is. It's hard to write about the "revival" of ragtime without also writing about the subject of "ragtime today," which becomes a very big topic. They merge and grow.  The only thing I'm concerned with is the fact that there is not one paragraph in the "revival" section that is about Joplin himself; whereas there is not one paragraph in all the preceding sections that is not about Joplin. That includes even the sections of his music - somehow he is a part of the picture. A revival section can not really be about him since he's not alive, which is why having such a large section on the topic seems to take away from the person himself and splits the article too much IMO.


 * It seems that most of this would fit better within the existing "revival" section in the Ragtime article, and could have a pointer to it within the revival section of the Joplin article.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:24, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Maple Leaf Rag piano Roll
I've found a midi file of the Piano Roll recording of the Maple Leaf, as recorded by Joplin in 1916, which I think would be very suitable for inclusion in the "Performer" section as it would help to illustrate the deterioration of Joplin's piano-playing.

The file can be found here. The owner of the site is a Wikipedia user (User:PlayerRoll), so I left a note on his talk page asking if he could upload the midi (which he says is free to download). No response since November 08 so I will Be Bold. Given that the original recording is now 93 years old, it will be in the Public Domain (see also here).

There is an issue with the scanning in process done by User:PlayerRoll because it may conceivably be seen as a derivative work, however, no copyright notice exists on his site, or within the file as far as I can see. However, in the absence of clear evidence either way, I'd be cautious about this. There is a guideline here, which suggests usinig on 1 minute of the track in the event that the audio is copyrighted. I have re-recorded the midi file as an ogg-vorbis audio file, and I'll upload 1 minute of that (the Trio as played in this recording is very untidy). Few! Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:38, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Good inclusion idea. As for the "derivative work" issue, I don't see that as anything to be concerned with. If the recording was either "based on or a close copy of" the original, it might be a question.  But this is an actual copy, not a derivative.  --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:17, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi guys, PlayerRoll here (the guy who scanned the Joplin roll). I was alerted by a user posting on my guestbook. Firstly, more than welcome to offer the scanned MIDI file or an .ogg version of it in whole or in part, whatever you deem best. Secondly, it's the Aeolian Uni-Record version from June 1916.


 * As a serious researcher and collector of piano rolls, there are huge issues with comparing the six Connorized rolls Joplin made with the single Aeolian Uni-Record roll of 'Maple Leaf'. It's too dry and technical to explain, but in a nutshell Connorized performed a large amount of post-recording editing to their rolls to make them sound mathematically perfect (which made it a lot easier to sing and dance along) whereas Aeolian viewed their Uni-Record rolls as true reproductions of the artist's performance and didn't do a lot, if any, post-performance editing. The recording technology of the time wasn't perfect, and rolls had to be quantized to a certain extent anyway due to the nature of the production machinery, but the resultant Uni-Record rolls are still faithful to the original performance, whereas the Connorized ones are more like a lovingly restored axe - with a new head and a new handle! It was a simple difference in editing and producion philosophies between the two companies.


 * I think the Uni-Record roll still does tell us that Joplin wasn't a world class pianist, because other rolls recorded around the same time by professional pianists are noticeably smoother. However, the slightly irregular rhythm can't be blamed on him solely. As more has been learned about the recording machines and production methods over the past few years, I think the 'distressing to hear' school of thought can now be put to bed. There is still much that can be learnt from the roll, since it's far closer to his original performance than the six other Connorized rolls. Consider that he adds a couple of flourishes that aren't in the score, plus fails to take any of the repeats.


 * This has probably bored the casual reader to tears and I apologise - Please ask if you need any clarification - this is a particularly hard part of the hobby to explain to the interested. PlayerRoll (talk) 11:17, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Very interesting, PlayerRoll, thank you. I've really enjoyed browsing your site. In terms of discussing the Roll of the Maple Leaf rag in the article, unfortunately I don't think I've seen much informed analysis of Joplin's Piano Rolls anywhere, so we'd be limited in what we can say about them (we can't cite a wikipedia talk page!). I've only seen the Blesh quote which is currently being used in the article. I have seen some discussion about the limitations and fidelity of the piano rolls by doing a Google Book search, but nothing Joplin-specific. Unless you know differently, of course!


 * A good way forward may be to mention (citing some of the references from Google book search), saying that the piano roll could be a faithful reproduction of a performance, subject to the technical limitations of the age, and / or manual post production editing. Ultimately unless further analysis comes to light, we'll have to leave it to the reader to make up their own mind. What does everyone think? Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * For a topic like this I like the idea of a mention and using links for more details. My own guess is that the majority of visitors to the article will be wanting to learn about Joplin the person along with coverage of his compositions, so this topic ("analysis of Joplin's Piano Rolls",) might be too technical for a general wiki bio. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree - a thorough analysis of Joplin's piano Rolls would be out of place in a general article about the man. Brief coverage only, linking to books / wiki links etc where appropriate. Maybe if there are the data and the resources, a separate page about this issue. To be honest I was thinking only a sentence or two in order to put the rolls into context. Any more would be overkill. A powerful comparison could be to put up the recording of the newly discovered rag Pleasant Moments, which sounds very different in quality. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:48, 17 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm also the guy lucky enough to have rediscovered the sole known copy of the Pleasant Moments roll which had been thought lost/never issued for decades. To clarify - it is one of the Connorized rolls, edited and quantized by the company to strict tempo, like all their rolls. However, the MP3 is performed by a skilled 'player-pianist' or 'pianolist', who is manipulating the player piano's various control levers to produce the dynamics and tempo variances you hear. It's a powerful example of how the player piano can sound eerily like a human performance when used by someone practised. It's also a rather good example of proving my point that the Connorized rolls were heavily edited - if you listen, you can hear a wrong note in the performance (resulting in a dischord) which repeats whenever that passage of the piece is repeated - obviously a cut and paste job!


 * The many CDs and other recordings of piano rolls that have been released, played by an electrically powered player piano or pumped without any change in tempo or dynamics are never how the player piano was intended to sound by the designers and manufacturers of these instruments. The MP3 is an example of how good the player piano can sound when fully restored and performed by someone practised in the art (it wasn't me!) PlayerRoll (talk) 00:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Importance of performance skills
In an effort to keep the topics and sections in balance, I question whether a section of "performance skills" belongs. Note that there is little in the article about his performances besides what he did in small clubs (i.e. Maple Leaf), so the next question might be whether he "performed" or "played." Even the Irving Berlin article skipped over his "performances" and focused on his key profession - composer, as he was not noted for being a "pianist." After all, we're not discussing people noted for their "performances" as if they played Carnegie Hall, or even a playhouse. Same goes for someone like Al Jolson, who also played piano, but is never discussed as either "playing" or "performing" piano music, but simply singing.

Personally, I always assume that any piano music composer knows how to play the piano, so going into detail on their changing skill level, at least beyond mention, seems distracting and might even diminish the attention to his composition skills for the average visitor to the article. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:40, 15 April 2009 (UTC)


 * See my comment above. The article describes him as a pianist in several places, including the Infobox.  If he played in public (and there's evidence that he did) then he was a performer.  In fact, he was a touring musician at one point.  I agree that performance was much less important than composition in his career, but the section on performance skills is one I've always found intriguing.  I could see pruning it down a bit for the sake of balance, but if you remove it entirely (as happened recently) you can expect me to revert.  --Stepheng3 (talk) 03:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * IMO the recently-added 2nd to last paragraph isn't needed. I, like you, also find most of the finer details interesting - that's why I have the Berlin book, for one.  But I prefer keeping only facts that I think the "average" reader, not us afficionados, would find interesting. But deciding who's average is another issue.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 03:52, 16 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I re-added the penultimate paragraph since it helped to explain the Maple Leaf recording and commentary on it. I suppose there is an issue about how much information we need to include, and personally I think we have lost sight of the wood for the trees in places. However, I think that not to mention the existence of the piano rolls and commentary on them would be silly in the context of a discussion of Joplin's skills as a pianist. I think if the reader has made it as far as this section of the article they are interested in the information. If they weren't they wouldn't have got past the lead.


 * Wikiwatcher1 you may be right about the derivative copyright angle on the audio recording. I was being cautious (having never uploaded this kind of file before) since it's available via a roundabout route. If there is a consensus that the whole thing (scanning as a MIDI file included) is public domain, then I'll upload the rest of it. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:27, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Birth date
Although for many years his birth date was accepted as November 24, 1868, modern research by ragtime history Edward A. Berlin has revealed that this is almost certainly inaccurate - the most likely approximate date being the first half of 1867.

Yet the lede says "June 1867 - January 1868". That's the latter half of 1867. I have no idea which is correct, but these two statements are inconsistent. -- JackofOz (talk) 00:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it, and cited a source. -- Avenue (talk) 12:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I revised the Infobox to match, including replacing the {death date and age} template with plain text. Chuckiesdad/Talk/Contribs 23:38, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Stamp image removal
I have removed the stamp image File:Scott Joplin stamp 1983.jpg for a second time because the recent re-licence of the image is incorrect. This stamp image is not a public domain image. All US stamps issued after 1978 are copyright which is why it must be removed and deleted. If you doubt what I say please read the Non-free USGov-USPS stamp template carefully. It is quite clear. Because this is a non-free image of a stamp it fails WP:NFC which clearly states: Stamps and currency: For identification of the stamp or currency, not its subject, which was the use here, so it may not be used in this article. Sorry. ww2censor (talk) 01:26, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

"Copyright" date vs published
This seemed the best place to put this. Most, if not all, of the pages on Joplin's works make reference to the date it was "copyrighted", which seems very odd. Why not just say published like normal? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:24, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Here's my thinking: publication dates are usually only known to the year, whereas a copyright registrations can be traced back to particular days.  Thus, they provide a hint as to which of two pieces appeared first in a given year. However, while publication usually follows soon after copyright registration, it's not quite the same thing.
 * I think what users really want to know is, "When was the piece composed?" but that's much harder to determine.--Stepheng3 (talk) 18:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * There's an editor's note about this issue in the New York Public Library's Collected Piano Works - I think I've referenced it in the List of compositions by Scott Joplin. Essentially not all the rags had their copyright registered, and some had it done at a different time to the publication of the rag. The editor's decision in the Collected Works was to use the publication date, which incidently was the form I followed when I reformatted the list a while ago. There may be other information, and possibly a more thorough list with exact dates where available I suppose. As noted above by Stepheng3 the copyright notice uses a more exact date so maybe that's why Wiki editors chose to use it. Not sure that helps much though... Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * Well it's just something I've seen ONLY for Joplin's works, and only on WP. I've seen published date many times for his music, but for the large majority of music, saying "it was published in " works just fine, so why the difference here? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:10, 6 August 2009 (UTC)
 * It's just speculation but maybe the editors of WP's Joplin articles are a small band of editors who happen to have done it this way. That and the (possibly) interesting snippet that the publication date and the copyright date are not the same. In addition, it is probably the case that classical composers published their work but did not give exact dates (and for that matter register copyright as a matter of course). There may be a difference between copyright in the US and in the rest of the world up until the comparatively recent past (Stephen Fry discusses copyright at length in a recent "podgram"; I don't exactly recall the difference but it was striking).
 * I must admit that I did a cursory look at some of the Joplin's composition articles and I couldn't see an example of where the mention of copyright was especially prominent. Maybe I wasn't looking in the right place. Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

A new assesment?
It's been almost a year since the last assessment on this page, and there have been substantial improvements since then thanks to the work by Wikiwatcher and others. While there are a few minor things I'd like to change / improve (and a citation to support joplin's "amazing" improvisational ability in the lead, to name but one) none of these look impossible to achieve. What does everyone think? Shall we put it up for Good Article nomination? Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:26, 27 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Seems to be a good article choice. I can see demoting all the sub-sections off the "Revival" section so they don't show up in the TOC. As it looks now in the TOC they add too much apparent weight, especially since the things listed happened about 50 years after his death. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:22, 27 September 2009

(UTC)


 * Agreed - I think some of those paragraphs can be conflated and shortened. There may be an argument for having a separate page for these things, but there is too much (albeit very well sourced) information here.


 * One day it'd be great to get this up to FA status, but one step at a time. Is it worth while making an ad-hoc list of things we'd like improve here? Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:37, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Improvement ideas

 * Revival section - can be reorganized and condensed with sub-sections demoted
 * Performance skills - edited a bit as it seems long and disorganized. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:53, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
 * If it's true that he never made any recordings (just some piano rolls), it seems that this section should be condensed and summarized. It would be more useful to expand material relating to his primary field of composing. Note that Irving Berlin was also a composer who played the piano but never considered himself a great pianist — nor did he record anything. Hence, the section seems to add too much negativity to something that he never claimed to be great at.  Thoughts? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:49, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On the whole, I agree with your ideas. The article generally has very good referencing, although I'd prefer to have more paraphrasing of authors folded into the text rather than frequent quotation - the latter has its place, but shouldn't be overused.
 * The revival section should be conflated and re-organised as you've suggested, although probably not as radically as I suggested months ago. I think the sub-headings are unnecessary and distracting.
 * The preformance skills section is problematic - I'd say that if there is be discussion of his skills at all, then any recording of Joplin playing the piano becomes a notable (WP:N) point. In turn, there should be an acknowledgement of the problems associated with piano roll recordings to give some guidance to the reader that they may not reflect Joplin's skill at all. This all becomes moot if we decide to omit the section altogether which is a move I'd resist (I think the relationship between the composer and the public performances of rags in bars and clubs by Joplin is key to understanding the genre's origins, but I am happy to be shown as incorrect). I think there is a valid point about re-organising the section and shortening it. There is probably too much musical jargon in the final paragraph of the performance skills section, which can be excised. As stated above, I think that many of the quotations in this section can be paraphrased and folded into the text directly which would improve the flow.
 * There should be a section on the music itself - some brief analysis of some key works (Maple Leaf, the Entertainer etc). I know that Berlin is very good on this, although I don't have the book itself.
 * Do you have a reference for the description of Joplin's improvisational skill as "amazing" in the lead? It seems very POV and would be an issue flagged up by a reviewer, so it needs to be explained and supported.

Improvement ideas
Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Revival section - can be reorganized and condensed with sub-sections demoted
 * Performance skills - edited a bit as it seems long and disorganized.
 * Compositions' - a very important (and missing) section!

A suggested ammendment to this section:


 * ===Performance skills===
 * Joplin's skills as a pianist were described in glowing terms by a Sedalia newspaper in 1898, and fellow ragtime composers Arthur Marshall and Joe Jordan both said that he played the instrument well. However, the son of publisher John Stark stated that Joplin was a rather mediocre pianist and that he composed on paper, rather than at the piano. Artie Matthews recalled the "delight" the Saint Louis players took in outplaying Joplin.


 * While Joplin never made an audio recording, he did use the early mechanically created storage medium the piano roll. He made seven rolls in 1916; "Something Doing," "Magnetic Rag," "Ole Miss Rag," "Weeping Willow," and "Pleasant Moments - Ragtime Waltz," and "Maple Leaf Rag". He also recorded the "Maple Leaf Rag" twice, first in April and then in June.  Researcher Edward Berlin theorizes that by the time Joplin reached Saint Louis, he was already beginning to suffer the physical effects of syphilis, which would take his life in 1917. One of the symptoms, which can manifest up to 20 years prior to death, is discoordination of the fingers.  The June recording of the "Maple Leaf Rag" has been described as "... shocking... disorganized and completely distressing to hear."


 * It must be noted that the accuracy of a piano roll to reproduce a player's performance is a "contentious" issue, complicated by publishing companies' ability to edit and correct the performance before releasing the roll. While this system's ability to accurately record a player's performance have been shown to be limited, some have shown it to be a technique capable of faithful reproduction.

What do you think? I'd still want to use the Joplin Maple leaf recording in this section, to let the reader make up their own mind. The Pleasant Moments recording serves as a useful comparison.Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:41, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * My revision with reasons at the bottom:
 * While Joplin never made an audio recording, he did use the early piano roll for use on mechanical player pianos, for which he made seven rolls in 1916. Berlin theorizes that by the time Joplin reached Saint Louis he may have been manifesting symptoms of syphilis, such as discoordination of his fingers. The disease took his life in 1917. His piano-roll recording of "Maple Leaf Rag," for instance, has been described as "... shocking... disorganized and completely distressing to hear." However, piano-roll experts also note that the accuracy of recorded rolls is limited and not always a "faithful reproduction."


 * Trimmed list of songs since not that many other songs were listed in the article (not yet); trimmed medical details since we're only talking about piano rolls; Trimmed details for months and some other facts; Trimmed piano roll accuracy paragraph to one sentence.


 * Since I didn't add anything to this section originally, I don't want to edit out other's work, but I think the section if it's too long or complex becomes a distraction for average readers. But the cites are there anyway. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:09, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * On the whole, good stuff. The only reason why I wanted to have more info about the piano roll is that there is no agreement as to how accurate it was (hence the myriad of citations), which is relevant when discussing the piano roll recordings. I think it should mention the disagreement, although I think you are right in wanting to cut it down. I think we should mention that the june (second) Maple Leaf recording is the problematic one, because a reader who goes in search of it might get confused otherwise. I think use the first (suggested) paragraph, and then a slightly larger paragraph 2 (as you've suggested with minor additions) to complete the section. Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:34, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe you can put something together below and we can all see how it reads. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 07:13, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Joplin's skills as a pianist were described in glowing terms by a Sedalia newspaper in 1898, and fellow ragtime composers Arthur Marshall and Joe Jordan both said that he played the instrument well. However, the son of publisher John Stark stated that Joplin was a rather mediocre pianist and that he composed on paper, rather than at the piano. Artie Matthews recalled the "delight" the Saint Louis players took in outplaying Joplin.


 * While Joplin never made an audio recording, he did use the early piano roll for use on mechanical player pianos, for which he made seven rolls in 1916. Berlin theorizes that by the time Joplin reached Saint Louis he may have been manifesting symptoms of syphilis, such as discoordination of his fingers. The disease took his life in 1917. The second piano-roll recording of "Maple Leaf Rag" from June 1916 was described as "... shocking... disorganized and completely distressing to hear." However, there is disagreement among piano-roll experts about the accuracy of the reproduction of a player's performance.

How's this? Major Bloodnok (talk) 16:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I like it. It gives the reader plenty of cites for more details without too many facts printed for the non-expert. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Anecdotal facts
I've trimmed the paragraph below as it pertains to a single event, described in minute detail, which seems to add little to the bio. While it would work in a large book, like Berlin's, in this article it seems off topic and irrelevant to anything else, and IMO at least, distracts from the flow of the overall biography. I've tried to summarize the story but couldn't even do that without it seeming out of context. I'm placing it here for others to offer thoughts if this kind of anecdote fits anywhere. BTW, "truth" alone is not a suitable reason to add the story.

"In 1896, Joplin was performing in the region around Waco, Texas, when William Crush, a manager with the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railway, staged a publicity stunt ramming two locomotives, pulling heavily laden trains, head-on into each other at full speed in front of over 40 thousand spectators, killing three of them when the boilers exploded and hurtled debris into the crowd. Joplin commemorated the event with "The Great Crush Collision March" (which he dedicated to the Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railway). The sheet music was published in Temple, Texas, by John R. Fuller in 1896."

--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Would be useful if someone ever made a page for the march, though. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:06, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It would be useful, should anyone do it. There is plenty of information (not to mention 3 references) on the page William Crush; the two references used on this page do not site the crash as specifically as Waco, Texas. For that I had to go to the Baylor University news site referenced on the Willian Crush page. A cursory search in Edward Berlin's book on Google Books shows that he considered it merely "possible", rather than definite that Joplin had been anywhere near the crash itself (page 27 since you ask). Given that the Berlin book is probably the most reliable source we have for Joplin's life (although I am prepared to stand corrected on this) I am going with his analysis of this portion of Joplin's life; therefore the Crash is only notable on this page because Joplin wrote a composition which was inspired by it. IFAIK it is not a major work of his. So taken together I don't believe that it is notable (WP:N) enough to be included at length. A passing reference, perhaps, with links to the Willian Crush page, or the page Crash at Crush, but no more. Sadly, Truth is not a good enough test as to whether a fact or event should be included.
 * I note that the page List of compositions by Scott Joplin, now has a wiki link direct from the name of the Crush Collision March to the William Crush page. I would strongly suggest that this was amended link to the page as "see William Crush" or similar rather than what is there at present, which is misleading. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * The Crash at Crush served portentously to provide Joplin the formative occasion and opportunity to compose one of his earliest works, the "Great Crush Collision March." Note that Temple, Texas, where the sheet music was published, is only 36 mi south of Waco. Bill Edwards writes that "Joplin was said to have witnessed this event" (the Crash at Crush). Whether he was there or not, the music is highly articulated both to the event and to the geographical area.  What was Joplin's connection with the publisher, John R. Fuller, especially if Joplin was not in the area?  My preference, FWIW, is a quick mention of the 1896 march together with a link to William Crush, where Joplin's commemoration is fitting.  The Crush article is so much shorter and thus better accommodates information which can be disencumbered from the Joplin article, which IMHO yet needs more consolidation into chronological treatment, perhaps with a year-by-year timeline.  Rammer (talk) 02:54, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Further improvements
As suggested above, including:
 * Revival section - can be reorganized and condensed with sub-sections demoted
 * Performance skills - edited a bit as it seems long and disorganized. - done.
 * Composition style / technique' - a very important (and missing) section - there is almost no music theory on this page. Yes it is a biographical entry, but a brief survey of some key themes of Joplin's work should be here somewhere.
 * Improved referencing and bibliography (see below)
 * Removal of extraneous quotations, using paraphrasing more (see below)

I'm currently in the middle of smoothing out the page references; making them standardised, adding all books referenced into the bibliography with isbn numbers & google books pages where possible, and linking the references to them.

In addition, I'm unhappy with the amount of quotations used on the page - they can be powerful, but have been overused. To quote WP:Quotations:

"Third, while quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Too many quotes take away from the encyclopedic feel of Wikipedia. Also, editors should avoid long quotations if they can keep them short. Long quotations not only add to the length of many articles that are already too long, but they also crowd the actual article and remove attention from other information."

- WP:QUOTE

The article has improved immensely since Wikiwatcher1 went through the available sources. I think now is the time to streamline the text; quotations are apt if they highlight POV for example, but are generally unnecessary where there is little or no controversy over the events.

An example. I changed this:

"After moving to Texarkana a few years after Scott was born, Jiles began working as a common laborer for the railroad. Florence did laundry and cleaning for additional income. Berlin writes that they "were a musical family and provided their son a rudimentary musical education." At the age of seven, for instance, Scott was allowed to play piano in both a neighbor's house and at the home of an attorney while his mother worked at housecleaning"

into this:

"After moving to Texarkana a few years after Scott was born, Jiles began working as a common laborer for the railroad. Florence did laundry and cleaning for additional income. Joplin was given a rudimentary musical education by his musical family; at the age of seven Scott was allowed to play piano in both a neighbor's house and at the home of an attorney while his mother worked"

Others may disagree, but I think the current version of the above is tidier and flows better. The direct mention of Berlin is not needed since he is named in the citation. I think it's important that we go through the text further to remove other instances of the same, plus block quotes where they are not needed. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that too many long blockquotes can be a problem. I took care of one, and tried to paraphrase the ones in "Family problems" and "Legacy," but gave up. While they're long, each one says so much so well I dared not mess with them.  But have a go if you think you can edit them. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:04, 4 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Smoothing out the text will be a long job - I want to clean up the references & biblography first (anyone else is more than welcome to make further improvements to the text of course). I've noticed that there are a few books in the bibliography which are not referenced in the text anywhere, specifically Williams (1959), MaGee, and the two Waterman books. They were added in this edit by User:Binksternet. Not that its a big issue, but I'd be in favour of deleting them since there is no obvious reason for them to be there. Anyone any comments? Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:40, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Joplin movie documentary
Just watched a music documentary called, "All You Need Is Love: Disc 2," (5 in full set) that had close to an hour of outstanding old ragtime footage and detailed interviews with Rudi Blesh and Eubie Blake. Eubie described watching him play after the symptoms took hold. It's available on Netflix. Apparently it's from a British TV documentary from 1977, but I don't think it was ever shown in the U.S. It was recently put on DVD and the quality is excellent. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 02:44, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

Early years chronology
Some of the rephrasing would be clearer, I think, if put in a chonological order, and with some more intro. details about Weiss. As it reads now, Weiss is introduced in the paragraph without any description of who he was or why he is even mentioned - hence his connection to Joplin seems a bit abstract. It also discussed his receiving money "years later" but is followed by what he actually did to cause that, instead of the reverse order. I would try to rephrase a bit to fill in those missing areas. Otherwise, the rephrasing and shortening the material is pretty good. Since this is such a critical phase in his development, however, I wouldn't condense it too much since any details about his childhood helps readers get to know his personality and better understand his youthful world. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 20:14, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Rephrasing has been primarily aimed at reducing quotations of writers where it would read better as a paraphrase; I've left direct quotations of 3rd parties, and anything which smacks of too much-POV where a direct quote would be powerful.


 * I do agree that there should be a re-organisation of this section as a whole, and I think that a smoothing of the text is probably one step amongst many. In response to your comment about the Weiss info, I felt that too much biographical information would be not especially important, or notable (WP:N) given his impact was at the beginning of Joplin's career, and that he was a primary influence for the inspiration for the development of ragtime. I didn't feel that it was important to note the other details that were in the text as it wouldn't help explain the link between African-American music and classical music. For instance, the original text mentioned that Weiss had gone to the University of Saxony, which doesn't exist AFAIK (Saxony is a large state in Germany, and there are many universities in it), and I can't see that this and the information about Weiss' Jewish heritage deepens our understanding of ragtime's development.


 * Perhaps it would read better to swap the information you mention about Weiss' teaching and Joplin's gifts - but the text seemed to go together in the order I put it. Horses for courses, I suppose.Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:57, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * True, but his "early years" were the most crucial phase of Joplin's music style development. But the "Early years" section is now less than 1/3 the size of the "Revival" section, which began over 40 years after his death and adds nothing about Joplin or his bio. Since there's already a ragtime article, this material in that much detail would be fine there. What happens now is that one begins reading about Scott Joplin as a person but ends with a lengthy section that's only about recent ragtime music. Older ragtime music is already discussed as a music type throughout the article, so to conclude with so much about just its revival changes the overall balance of the article away from Joplin the person to ragtime music, another topic. Actually, an entire article about the revival of ragtime could be created. In any case, I think biographies are best when the focus is kept on the person, especially when it's so simple to link to ragtime. By the same token, a bio on Henry Ford's early years when he began developing his cars would seem out of balance if it summarized his bio with a lengthy discussion of the latest models of Ford cars, with their colors, engines, body styles, etc. BTW, the Univ. of Saxony may have existed in the mid-1800s as the source did refer to it as such.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:43, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I know what you mean about the current weighting of the article, but there is still work to be done to simplify the way the text reads. I'm all in favour of adding important bio information to the early years, but I don't think that adding what I consider extraneous info about Weiss is the best way to go about it. More about joplin's family and the musical groups he was in would be great in there. I think you have a point that some of the very thorough information we have in the revival section could go into ragtime, be shortened, or removed in great chunks. I know it's a biographical article but I think that not to have any mentioning of joplin's music in terms of patterns, structure and other musical theory would be a mistake (albeit we should link elsewhere for a more in depth discussion of that)Major Bloodnok (talk) 23:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Gaps to be filled / futher explained
In addition to the above, there seem to areas in the text which need further explanation because I don't think the current text is as clear as it could be. I'll add it to our list of things to improve:
 * Performance skills - edited a bit as it seems long and disorganized. - done.
 * Improved referencing and bibliography - done
 * Removal of extraneous quotations, using paraphrasing more - still in progress
 * Revival section - can be reorganized and condensed with sub-sections demoted
 * Additional info about Joplin's musical family and his performances in groups as a youth
 * Composition style / technique' - a very important (and missing) section - there is almost no music theory on this page. Yes it is a biographical entry, but a brief survey of some key themes of Joplin's work should be here somewhere.
 * Clarification of Joplin's role in the development of ragtime at the Chicago world's fair - How much did he contribute a scene which was already in existence, if in fact it was? The text is unclear - is there debate about this? Is there speculation about this, or are the biographers definite? This should take us to the Maple Leaf Rag in 1899.
 * Other biographical details Joplin's later life is rather light on detail - the New York section for example is taken up to a large extent with Treemonisha; an important part of his life at this point no doubt, but there is almost no mention of anything else. I'm trying to get hold of a copy of the King of Ragtime book by Berlin, but does anyone with access to this and other sources have any significant to add?
 * Piano Rolls I know there has been a bit of back-and-forth about this, but I've finally managed to get hold of the Berlin biography, and upon a cursory glance through have noticed that he discusses at some length the Joplin rolls, their creation, and how accurate they are. At some point soon hopefully I'll get a chance to put that opinion into the text (p236-7 if anyone else gets there first), mainly to join the dots in that section. Currently that area has gone about as far as it can without straying into Original Research. I think now we can help the reader further.
 * Lede Berlin has some great detail about the Maple Leaf Rag and its sales which should go into the article, and improve the Lede too. He also discusses Joplin's improvisational skill (or lack of it), which contradicts the quote we have there. If there is a major disagreement about this aspect of Joplin's musical skill then it should be in the article, and reference to it in the Lede should reflect that or be removed entirely. According to Berlin Joplin composed on paper rather than improvising and writing it down - more classical than Jazz in other words. The mention of his amazing improvisational technique sounds to me like over-romanticised nonsense from a non-specialist who has read too much Blesh. But that's only my opinion. As ever, when time is with me I'll go at it.
 * If any others occur, I'll add them here.Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:03, 29 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I've followed the advice on WP:BOLD and changed the structure of the article significantly - hopefully tidying it in the process. Does the community agree? I was following the structure suggested by J. S. Bach; what we had previously was unnecessarily confusing.Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:08, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

American vs African-American
In the article of Michael Jackson, he is described as "American" and not "African American."

The article should be modeled after the MJ article, with the primary mention as "American" and following elsewhere that he is African-American.

Here is what I've done: He is described as "American" in the first sentence, and then "African-American" in the biographical section of the main article, moved along with the post-slavery generation tidbit.

Scott Joplin and MJ should be described fairly and equally.Facial (talk) 20:12, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * Well, it should have nothing to do with Joplin vs. Michael Jackson. Each Wikipedia article should stand on its own merits.  However, each should also follow the guidelines for WP:BIO.  Those clearly state that ethnicity does not belong in the lead unless it has some bearing on the subject.  I think the case can be made that Joplin, being of African descent in the 19th Century, would have been a very unusual figure to be seen as a composer of piano rags, not to mention his opera.THD3 (talk) 20:28, 4 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I do feel that his ethnicity has bearing on this article, but not for the reasons THD3 gives above. There were dozens of African-American ragtime composers who were contemporaries of Joplin. What is unusual about Joplin is that his work achieved lasting popularity.  Perhaps writing opera was also unusual; I'm not sure.  --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)


 * I think it should be mentioned for both of the reasons mentioned by Stepheng3 (talk) and THD3 (talk). If it's any guide, the back cover of my Berlin biog mentions that he was a "black ragtime composer" and that he was "African American". At the time, it is likely that his identity as an African American was important to him more than simply his identity as an American (only speculation, but he did write "Treemonisha" about life as an African American). I could be wrong, of course. There is still room to discuss when and where to mention these issues. I'd favour calling him an American composer in the lede, at least initially, with explanation of his ethnicity later on. My reasoning is that today it can be argued that he is primarily seen as an American composer, who just happens to be an African American, although at the time it is likely that this ethnicity was important to him and his contemporaries. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

What is Joplin's second opera?
From all the sources that I have read, Joplin only composed one opera: "Treemonisha". Did he really compose two operas as this article states? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.148.195.61 (talk) 19:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Sources mention a second opera, A Guest of Honor, for which the score is apparently lost. --Stepheng3 (talk) 00:46, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Scott vs Joplin in the first section
I changed mentions of "Scott" in the first paragraph after the lede to "Joplin" to keep it consistent with the rest of the article. Stepheng3 (talk) has requested that I revert the change - not that I wish to go against the opinions of editors who watch this page but I think that keeping a consistency throughout benefits the article and what existed before did jar. I can see merit in having "Scott" in the paragraph mentioning the parents and the rest of the Joplin family, but I thought it would be obvious who we were talking about given the context. I am more than willing to change back should others disagree with me on this. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:15, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

New Lead
A suggested improvement to the Lead:


 * Scott Joplin (between July 1867 and January 1868 – April 1, 1917) was an American composer and pianist. He achieved fame for his unique ragtime compositions, and was dubbed the "King of Ragtime." During his brief career, Joplin wrote 44 original ragtime pieces, one ragtime ballet, and two operas. One of his first pieces, the Maple Leaf Rag, became ragtime's first and most influential hit, and has been recognised as the archetypal rag.


 * He was born into a musical African American family of laborers in eastern Texas, and developed his musical knowledge with the help of local teachers. He travelled around the Southern States of America as an itinerant musician, and went to Chicago just as Ragtime became a national craze after the World Fair of 1897.


 * His composition the Maple Leaf Rag brought him fame and a steady income for life with Joplin getting once cent per sale. During his lifetime Joplin did not reach this level of success again and frequently had financial problems, which contributed to the loss of his first Opera, A Guest of Honor. He continued to write Ragtime compositions and moved to New York in 1907. He attempted to go beyond the limitations of the musical form which made him famous, without much success. His second opera, Treemonisha, was not recieved well at the single semi-staged performance in 1911. He died of tertiary Syphilis in 1917.


 * Joplin's music was rediscovered and returned to popularity in the early 1970s with the release of a million-selling album of Joplin's rags recorded by Joshua Rifkin, followed by the Academy award–winning movie The Sting, which featured several of his compositions, such as The Entertainer. The Opera Treemonisha was finally professionally performed to wide acclaim in 1972. In 1976 Joplin was posthumously awarded the Pulitzer Prize.

What does the community think? I didn't think the Lead as it stands fully discusses the biographical element, and in some places (like the mentioning of his improvisational ability) is not supported by all the sources.Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:43, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I have replaced the lede with a slightly amended version of the above. What I felt were the problematic paragraphs I'll put here just in case we can use the quotations and references elsewhere in the article.

He was "blessed with an amazing ability to improvise at the piano," writes opera historian Elise Kirk, and was able to enlarge his talent "with the music he heard around him," which was rich with the sounds of gospel hymns and spirituals, dance music, plantation songs, syncopated rhythms, blues, and choruses. After he studied music with several local teachers, his talent was noticed by aGerman immigrant music teacher, Julius Weiss, who chose to give the 11-year-old boy lessons free of charge. Joplin was taught music theory, keyboard technique, and an appreciation of various European music styles, such as folk and opera. As an adult, Joplin also studied at the George R. Smith College, a historically black college (HBCU), in Sedalia, Missouri.

"He composed music unlike any ever before written," according to Joplin biographer Edward Berlin. Eventually, "the piano-playing public clamored for his music; newspapers and magazines proclaimed his genius; musicians examined his scores with open admiration." Ragtime historian Susan Curtis noted that "when Joplin syncopated his way into the hearts of millions of Americans at the turn of the century, he helped revolutionize American music and culture."


 * While I was in the mood I finally had a go at tidying up the revival section, removing various superfluous sub-headings, and trimming slightly.Major Bloodnok (talk) 10:46, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

To do list & missing page numbers
Added to do list for discussion and aid while editing.Major Bloodnok (talk) 20:30, 17 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm trying to remove the tag wherever possible, and I've come across some refs which don't have page numbers; all the citations leading to Kirk, such as this one although there is one page ref among them, this by Crawfurd,this by Davis, and this citation of the long quote by Curtis. If anyone has access to the original sources, could they add the page numbers? It would be the sort of thing noticed if (when) we ever go for FA level with this article. There may be more I haven't noticed! Major Bloodnok (talk) 14:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Per page numbering format, I changed a few for consistency and what I think is the typical format. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:03, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * Page cites, ✅, but all formatting not changed. Is there consensus to change rest? --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 18:22, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding the page refs. In answer to your query about the formatting, I've been working with WP:CITESHORT in mind, with page numbers in the footnote rather than in the Bibliography section or within the text itself. I'm not wedded to it, but I do prefer it to other options. If there was a consensus to change to another style, then of course I'd be happy to accept it. I realise there are a couple of page refs in the bibiography that I hadn't noticed - for consistency I think they should be moved in to the references section (I think it allows for more flexibility in in referencing pages). As it says in the citation page, it doesn't matter what style we use, as long as it's consistent on the page.


 * I've found a couple of Google books URLs which I'll add to the bibliography section when I have a moment. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:15, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * While tidying up some of the references and finding URLs for Google book search, I've come across some useful stuff in the Max Morath article about Joplin's musical form which we could add to the "works" section. Kirk has some useful stuff too about the music of Treemonisha which we could flesh out a bit more I think. I've some misgivings about how the "works", and "legacy" sections are structured; there may be some mileage in combining them in some way, but I think a re-structure of these sections will have to wait until they are expanded a bit more. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:13, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Makes sense. BTW, you might want to shorten that last lead addition a bit (1897 craze,) since it shifts the focus of the subject to ragtime, and away from Joplin.  I'd cut it off at "which played." You might also find this section in Irving Berlin amusing. I don't think ragtime was too big a hit in Germany back then. ;-)--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:35, 2 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I do see what you mean, but I think that its important to try and put Joplin into context of the music scene at the time, and therefore a mention of the origins of ragtime is necessary. Afterall it's important to show that he wasn't responsible for starting ragtime off, even though Maple Leaf was a highly influential piece. You are right to say that its important not to loose focus on the subject, but I don't think it does at the moment. Thanks for pointing out the info about Berlin too! Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:05, 7 August 2010 (UTC)

Speculation - no-one in the house
There appears to be disagreement over the mechanics of how Joplin was playing the piano while his mother was working. Does anyone have access to the source? What does it say with regards to this? Unless it is in the source, it is speculation and shouldn't be in here! I'll try and check the sources I have. Major Bloodnok (talk) 06:36, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
 * If it helps, Berlin cites Texakarna lawyer saying that Joplin was given permission (Berlin p6), while Blesh in his essay "Black American Classicist" says that Joplin played "surreptitiously" without mentioning his sources. My money is on Berlin as the more reliable source (as explained in his Preface). I think we can remove the offending sentence. Major Bloodnok (talk) 07:24, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Name
I found it hard to follow who was who in his childhood because it would have sentences talking about Scott's family members and then the next sentence would start with the name "Joplin" only. I'm unsure whether this is referring to the family member that was just spoken of (which, grammatically, it is) or if it is referring to Scott Joplin himself. A first name would help here. 205.208.213.99 (talk)


 * Thank you for that. The reason for using Joplin in the first section was to keep it uniform with the rest of the article. Obviously if there is confusion then the section should be clarified. In defence, I thought that given the article is about Scott Joplin and the paragraph itself is about him then in that context "Joplin" should be enough. Which parts specifically were unclear? Major Bloodnok (talk) 09:21, 13 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The Manual of style mentions surname use (WP:SURNAME). Essentially, after the first mention of a name, the surname should be used. Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:46, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Racial aspects
It seems important to include any uncommon racial aspects to his bio. Joplin himself, born right after the Civil War ended, felt the black-white dimension was important enough to write his final and most important opera, Treemonisha, with that as a basis:
 * "The plot centers on an 18 year old woman Treemonisha who is taught to read by a white woman, and then leads her community against the influence of conjurers who prey on ignorance and superstition. "

For the same reason, the fact that he was taught music when a child by a white person, with the added dimension of religious differences, and was taught for free, adds relevant depth to his childhood, and as his biographers pointed out, may have influenced his writings. Maybe this kind of relationship is less significant in 2010, but it clearly was back then. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 19:33, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree that ethnicity is an important dimension of any American biography. As far as I can see, however, Weiss's religious beliefs are not documented; the speculation amounts to old gossip.  I, being descended from Texas Germans (assumed Jewish because of their surname and educational accomplishments), have scant enthusiasm for preserving the gossip of a 19th-century Texas town in an encyclopedia article.--Stepheng3 (talk) 21:16, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
 * I also agree - I think that Weiss's religion is not relevant here, especially since it was his nationality rather than his beliefs which helped encourage Joplin to broaden his musical horizons. However, I think that Wikiwatcher1 is right to say that Joplin's race and whether or not he was a pioneer in African-American society (rather than in purely musical terms) should be explored in the article as long as the sources support anything we say here. We should be careful, as there is an awful lot of over-enthusiastic nonsense written in some of the sources, and we should be wary of straying into WP:OR as well. I would favour either creating a separate section within "legacy" or simply having a discussion of race for a paragraph or two in that section. I'd be very wary of going into too much depth as we could stray away from the point of the article.


 * For example, it may be enough to cite a source or two which demonstrate that Joplin was significant because of his race and what the impact was. I would be very surprised to discover if he had a wide and significant impact once ragtime had become less well known, especially since he was forgotten about for 40 years. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * The background of Weiss is clearly not "gossip." The source was a detailed treatise/article by a music historian who found and read the town's records in order to learn about what he called "Joplin's first teacher." It's doubtful that even Edward Berlin, if he were here helping edit this bio, would dare call another historian/researcher's writings "gossip." In any case, OR would be created by cutting some cited facts and leaving others, as much of the bio is based on heresay, not town records. Editors don't selectively debate reliable sources and remove ones we feel are "gossip." That's clearly giving our personal opinion, and editors don't override those with personal experiences.


 * One of the significant facts about "Treemonisha" is that Joplin wrote an entire opera based on crossing racial barriers. We can only diminish who Joplin was by censoring the research of one historian over another. Nor do editors decide whether skin color or religion is important. Both aspects about Joplin are mentioned in his bio, and contrary to 75% of the bio as it reads now, are not based on heresay, gossip, or speculation. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * An encyclopedia article cannot include every fact about a subject. It must therefore focus on the highlights.  We're trying to present a balanced view while including the facts that readers are likely to be most interested in.  I certainly have no desire to diminish Joplin.
 * I'm curious about Joplin's views on race, if they can be deduced from reliable sources. So I can see how Weiss's skin color is relevant--but not his religion.  Was it unusual for Jews and non-Jews to mingle professionally in 18th-century Texas?  (For that matter, is there any evidence that Joplin was not himself Jewish?  But I digress.)
 * How did Joplin feel about the caricatures of Afro-Americans that appear on the covers of his early sheet music? Did he pen (or approve) the (to me, embarrassing) "coon lyrics" that accompanied the first edition of "The Ragtime Dance"?  Was there a pedogogical intent behind the plot of "Tremonisha"?  These are all questions I'm interested in.  Whether or not the tutor with whom he had a lifetime friendship was Jewish seems like a side-issue.
 * When we say "presumed to be Jewish" without saying who made the presumption and when, it sounds like gossip, even if it isn't. Not having read Albrecht, I'm at a disadvantage here.  How was Weiss's Judaism deduced from town records?  What does the cited source actually say about Weiss's religious background?  An excerpt from the source would be welcome here. --Stepheng3 (talk) 23:43, 14 August 2010 (UTC)


 * Best to have Major Bloodnok reply, as I think it was he that trimmed material that actually answers many of those questions. The word "presumed" was used because Albrecht was obviously not able to ask Weiss. But everything that was known about him, including where and how he lived, his religious associations, roommate, etc. pointed to that "presumption," a word I used to avoid a detailed rehash of his onsite research. Albrecht researched, traveled, and wrote detailed treatise for the expressed purpose of learning about Weiss. I summed up one of his "key" personality findings with one word - in an effort not to digress. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 01:16, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Any of the trimming I have done hasn't omitted anything currently in the article; I have folded some quotations into the text, removed some where the point made was not helpful to the sense of the text, and improved some where I felt the sense of the original had been lost. I don't think we have addressed racial issues in Joplin's life very much at all, and I think you are right Wikiwatcher1 to point it out. I haven't read Albrecht, and a Google Book search did not allow me to see the article (there is a $90 subscription to the web-site of the College Music Symposium which I didn't feel willing to put out for), and Berlin doesn't mention Weiss' religion. I think there are various things which we should consider when moving forward:


 * We can't mention everything about Joplin's life, but merely help the reader by showing what the significant parts were, and show where they can find other information.


 * Is Weiss's religion notable (WP:IINFO) in itself? I would say it wasn't for the main reason I've mentioned above.


 * Should we mention and highlight for the reader aspects of Joplin's life and work which demonstrate some challenge to the status quo in terms of race-relations? I think we should mention aspects (such as the "coon lyrics" or the race issues in Treemonisha) where they are important in the understanding of the work in question. We should only highlight and draw conclusions if sources highlight them too, and where they are shown to be significant (see WP:UNDUE and WP:SYN).


 * Have we discussed Joplin's significance as an African-American? We've suggested some impact I think, but not explicitly said so.

I would favour removing the reference to Weiss' religion. I think we should add another item to our "to do" list; explore Joplin's impact and significance as a composer who happened to be African-American.Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:20, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
 * We should keep it all in the context of Joplin being a composer of note within a musical genre which was forgotten and ignored by most people until the 1970s; he may have had an impact culturally and ethnically at the time, but once ragtime became less popular he lost significance to those around him. Treemonisha, for example, was not properly performed until the 1970s so what impact on wider society can it have had at its first performance in 1915?
 * Personally, I see two separate topics being discussed: Joplin's race, and Weiss, his teacher. Before I began expanding part of the bio last year, Treemonisha was only briefly mentioned. But after adding the section on that opera, it became apparent that it was a significant event in his life, and may have contributed to his early death, as he became seriously depressed and impoverished by its failure. That was one of the few subjects where race was seriously described as a factor in his career. If you feel that a separate section on "race" is important, and you have material to support it, it can easily be added. Berlin's chapter on "Treemonisha" might be a good place to start.


 * As for the separate subject about his teacher, there were details about it which were removed and condensed (too much IMO,) with a sample of the original material here for reference (I just went back a year, but don't know if more was removed.) All of Joplin's biographers have discussed Weiss, his key teacher, in detail. The only one who focused his extensive travels and research to learning more about Weiss was apparently Albrecht, whom Berlin also relies on. However, they all imply in various ways that having a white music teacher may have helped define Joplin's later goals. As far as I can see, the only clear proof that Weiss was white, came from the facts that he was of German and Jewish heritage. There seems no logical reason to note his German background as opposed to his Jewish background. There is also a category for German Jews, i.e. Albert Einstein. Joplin's teacher was presumably a German Jew, a definition so distinctly different from the black culture Joplin was bought up in (his father was a former slave,) that leaving it out would actually injure the connections and chronology of Joplin's life, especially "Treeemonisha." Now that I think about it, weren't there some  performance clips in the links section at one point also? In any case, isn't this lengthy discussion a bit extreme, as we're discussing a single descriptive, and probably relevant, word?


 * There are two things I would recommend to help give substance to Joplin's bio: Add back whatever details are known about Joplin's early music education; and trim or condense esoteric details, for example, "Of the seven rolls attributed to Joplin, the 6 rolls released under the Connorized label show evidence of significant editing, probably by Connorized staff arranger, William Axtmann." Such details about tangentially-related details actually harms the bio by cluttering it with minutia. The article is way too short for such trivia, IMO. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 00:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)


 * I've been reflecting on our conversation so far and I think, as we have discussed, that when describing parts of Joplin's life, we should highlight key aspects which sources see as unusual for an African-American in the States in late 19th & early 20th century. If we need to explore any of these further, we can do so in a separate section (lets see how we do). I agree with Stepheng3; we should discuss things like the "coon lyrics" of the songs for example, and do this in the section "works" unless they need to be developed in the chronology of the first part of the article. In the "legacy" section we should probably put any relevant summation of these issues.
 * I can appreciate why Wikiwatcher1 thinks Weiss is important, but we don't need to explore the German's background to demonstrate his importance on Joplin's development. Berlin's references to Weiss are pretty scanty and don't touch upon the race issues which Wikiwatcher1 mentions (the only place he comes near is p29, but even there he does not say explicitly that Weiss went beyond opinions at the time that "it was especially important for the African American to grow beyond 'Negro' music"). Albrecht may explore these in full, but Berlin didn't go into detail so he evidently didn't feel the need to do so. Yes, he names Albrecht in the Bibliography but that isn't the same as "relying" on it. The focus of the article is upon Joplin and his works, so to go into further detail about tangential issues seems to be a mistake. I'm happy to live with the reference to "German-Jewish". In Blesh's 1971 essay he doesn't even give the Weiss' name.
 * Trimming and condensing of the article which you mention took the above into account and (as I explained at the time) was intended to make it easier for the reader. As I explained above, I was interested in shortening quotations which broke up the text, explaining them rather than merely quoting them and re-organising the text. Of course, if you think you can improve it further, go ahead.
 * In terms of the "trivia" about the rolls, I'm willing to accept that we don't need the name "William Axtmann", but the piano rolls exist, they could be seen as evidence of Joplin's skills as a pianist, and they need to be put into context as they are highly unreliable sources. Joplin's skill as a pianist is no small matter, given that some critics have praised it highly, but some have cast doubt. If the rolls were all the same, then we wouldn't need explanation of the different types, but as they aren't, we do. If the rolls were a traditional audio recording then we would have less need for commentary. What we have are two fairly short paragraphs in the "performance skills" section, and the reader can use the references and bibliography to more fully explore the issues.  I'm not clear why you should think these issues were tangential as they also have a bearing on his composition style and technique.
 * There are many areas of Joplin's biography which need fleshing out, but I am wary of not reflecting the sources fairly (see WP:UNDUE). After all, we aren't synthesising a new biography, but trying to explain as best we can what the sources say already, especially where the existing biographies are contradictory (see WP:SYN). What do you think should be put (back) in? Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:28, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Italics and quotes: titles
Album names are italicized, but simple song titles are put in quotes, not italicized, per MOS:MUSIC. For instance, "Maple Leaf Rag" was one of the songs on Rifkin's Scott Joplin Piano Rags album. Binksternet (talk) 22:44, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Personal to do ideas
In response to the Major's last question, in 2009 I stumbled upon Irving Berlin's article (another ragtime composer, by coincidence,) and felt it needed some improvement. So that article is a pretty good example of what I would do here if we had the sources. But I don't believe we do. I was able to add about 25 new cites, mostly books, to the Irving Berlin article, but there are only a few about Joplin - so were' quickly limited.

What I do think Berlin and Joplin have in common, it would appear, is the importance of including any details - even some minutia - about their early years before and immediately after they took up writing music - the formative years. I've heard that 75% of the average person's personality is settled by the time they're 5 years old. For both Joplin and Berlin, they clearly had their minds set to be music writers in their teens. That's why I feel expanding that period, especially with 2nd. hand quotes, would help a lot. We even had some 1st hand quotes from Joplin's wife, I believe, but they were trimmed. I would add them back in context. It helps make him a real person.

The piano roll topic strikes me as tangential because it is used merely to support another somewhat tangential topic: his playing skills. But like Berlin, he was not primarily noted as a recording artist, and for Berlin, therefore, I only briefly mentioned his customized piano and the fact that he used mostly the black keys. For the piano roll material on Joplin, it seems a bit distracting as it changes the focus onto minute details about the evidence that implies Joplin's piano skills, good or bad. But again, I don't think many readers would even think about Joplin as a piano player over being a composer, so I'd condense it and keep the focus on Joplin.

I would probably do the same with the "Revival" section, and for the same reasons: let's write about Joplin the person; his life, family, friends, environment, associates, etc. There was, before some trimming, more details about the conflicts that Joplin's love of music had on both his early and later life. Edward Berlin surmises that it may have caused the breakup of his parents, remember. His mother, with little income as a housecleaner, bought him a piano. More details like those for his formative period I feel will help the article greatly. Most of the rephrasing you've done has been a valuable improvement and you've cleaned up a lot of disorganized material. Nice work! --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 23:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Shall we go for GA status?
I'll flag this up here for anyone who watches this page; I've had a quick look through the article as it stands and I think it is in pretty good shape overall. The "to-do" list is still valid I think, but I would like to put this article up for GA nomination; at the very least it would be very useful to get an outsider's opinion on it. Any thoughts? Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:06, 27 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article ought to be GA-level—the man is a major figure in American music—but I think the to-do list should be addressed before nomination at WP:GAN. Cheers! Binksternet (talk) 19:26, 27 February 2011 (UTC)
 * I am willing to help --Guerillero &#124; My Talk  20:51, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Many thanks Guerillero. I appreciate that there are a great many things which various editors have discussed as missing from this article, and in due course it would be great to get to them. My initial thought was to see if others were willing to put this page on WP:GAN. Binksternet has made clear his / her opinion. I was hoping to find out what other editors thought; perhaps getting a peer review on this might be useful as it has gone through some major re-writes, but has not really changed in about a year or so I think. I haven't looked but perhaps we could include more sound files to illustrate key work - I am thinking I guess of the Maple Leaf Rag initially, but the performance we have (not the one by Joplin) is pretty woeful I think, so I do intend to try and find another somewhere.Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:15, 20 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I would like to see this article nominated. I could contribute a recording of Maple Leaf, if that will help. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:13, 21 April 2011 (UTC)
 * A good (and traditional) recording of the Maple Leaf would really help. I listened again to the recording we have, and I still didn't think it was what we should have as an illustration of Joplin's music. I thought the tempo was uncertain and while some of the flourishes were fun there was significant blurring of the notes in places. From memory the literature shows there was some debate about how much augmentation Joplin's music and ragtime in general should have. Rifkin doesn't include any, for example. At risk of being pedantic, a better performance which stuck to the music as written would be ideal I think. When I have the opportunity I will put this article on the list asking for peer assessment, as I think that would be very helpful guide for improvement. Major Bloodnok (talk) 08:11, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Despite the fact I much prefer no embellishments, one has to consider that Joplin's own piano rolls do contain them. Still, I agree the example should be as 'clean' as possible. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:35, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That's true as far as it goes; but the Maple Leaf Rag we have recorded by him shows no embellishments as far as I can see. The other piano-roll recording was heavily edited, and this included changing the tempo and adding things like bass-runs. But I agree with you, on the whole I would prefer a recording without augmentation, unless the recording itself was notable in some way.Major Bloodnok (talk) 18:12, 25 April 2011 (UTC)

Birthday
I saw a picture of Scottie J's grave and it said his birthday was November 24th 1868. COULD SOMEONE PLEASE ADD THIS IN????? Thanks, Cthornton799 (talk) 16:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)
 * As the article explains, there has been much confusion about his birthday, so that for many years November 24th was understood as the correct date. Joplin's biographer Edward Berlin explains in some depth why this is incorrect, and that he was born in the latter half of 1867. That's why the article has the birthdate as c. 1867. Thanks for your interest. Major Bloodnok (talk) 19:51, 18 March 2011 (UTC)

Use of MIDIs of Joplin's music
OpenTTD offers two sets of "base music", and one of them is "Scott Joplin's Anthology". It is unknown to me, wheither the use of those MIDIs there is legal or not - OpenTTD itself is of questionable legality. Yura87 (talk) 22:23, 14 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Joplin's music is now in the public domain, so people are free to arrange his music. This includes producing Midi versions of his music- that doesn't mean that one can distribute arranged music as any arranger will have their work copyrighted unless they too have released it into the public domain under licence. I don't know anything about OpenTTD so I can't judge. Hope that helps. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 07:15, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Peer Review & GAN
The peer review highlighted a couple of things, much of which I have fixed or tried to fix. The reviewer thought that the page could get through GAN, and I do agree with them. I think the New York section which is the part that is most obviously lacking in detail and needs expanding. I would like to take some of the cite news templates we have in the bulk of the text and put them into the bibliography section just to be tidy, but that's not a GA-critical thing. As per an earlier discussion I think it would be useful to see whether there is an assessment of Joplin's roll in the African-American community, specifically whether his experience was typical of the era (I don't think it was, but we need sources to say that), and whether he has been seen as a pioneer. Again, I don't think this is a GA-critical issue, but it's one we should address if / when we go for FA-status. I've put other things which were mentioned on to the "to do" list and I'll add this race one too.

I'll put this in for GAN once the New York section has been fleshed out. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 07:45, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I've had a think, and I think I'll be WP:BOLD and nominate this for GAN. Yes, as noted above there are plenty of things which should be improved, but it would be good to see this as a Good Article (at least until such time as the issues can be addressed by anyone who watches this page and so this page can be taken further and become an FA. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:10, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

Protection warranted?
The article seems to continually attract vandals. Maybe 99% of the time they're IPs, so page protection should help. I have a feeling that this article will need continual protection based on the number of different IPs and types of edits, mostly rude kids. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 08:13, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

the ship
One of his songs "solace" is used in the video game the Ship. It is mostly used in the main menu theme. I can tell because of the main piano piece. You can recognize that anywhere. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.216.249.141 (talk) 01:55, 14 October 2011 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks. I'm not sure this information can be used here. Perhaps if there is a page for "the ship" that would be relevant. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)

GA prose suggestions
Rereading the article after a long pause, I tend to understand some of the issues listed. Unfortunately, calling sentences "clumsy" doesn't explain problems with precision. But IMO I think some serious pruning would help. However, pruning facts is tricky since they were added by someone who felt they improved the article, and becomes a subjective edit.

My guess is that about 15 - 20% of the article can be pruned and consolidated. I see a lot of complex sentences, many relying on semicolons to expand details. More than a few have unnecessary minutia, trivia, or irrelevant details, and trimming them might help unify and simplify the readability. Taking a few sentences from the 1st paragraph of the 1st section gives an example:

"Although for many years his birth date was accepted as November 24, 1868, research has revealed that this is almost certainly inaccurate – the most likely approximate date being the second half of 1867.[3] In addition to Scott, other children of Giles and Florence were Monroe, Robert, Rose, William, and Johnny."

The 1st sentence can be simplified, and the 2nd one doesn't need the name of his siblings, IMO. I don't mind helping a bit, and would have no problem with anyone undoing anything. Joplin is an icon of American music history and deserves a GA designation if possible. --Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 22:07, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * All good ideas - the Peer review and the GAN review are very useful guides how to improve the page. Thorough copy-editing and judicious pruning are esential things to do at this point. Extraneous detail can be removed as long as there is a reference to indicate where more information can be found. As ever, it is a group effort that is needed.


 * Thinking about it quickly I think the first 5 sentences could be reduced from:

"Scott Joplin, the second of six[1] children, was born in eastern Texas, outside of Texarkana,[2] to Giles Joplin and Florence Givins. His birth, like many others, represented the first post-slavery generation of African-Americans. Although for many years his birth date was accepted as November 24, 1868, research has revealed that this is almost certainly inaccurate – the most likely approximate date being the second half of 1867.[3] In addition to Scott, other children of Giles and Florence were Monroe, Robert, Rose, William, and Johnny.[4] His father was an ex-slave from North Carolina and his mother was a freeborn African American woman from Kentucky.[5]"


 * to something like:

"Scott Joplin, the second of six children, was born in eastern Texas, outside of Texakarna at some point in the second half of 1867, and not as previously believed November 24th 1868[3]. His father Giles Joplin was an ex-slave from North Caroline and his mother, Florence Givins, was a freeborn African-American from Kentucky."


 * I'd want to leave in the reference to the birthdate debate, since that's one of the things that gets changed most often by anonymous editors. I think there are other web-sites which still put the date as 24th Nov. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 09:48, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Infobox
I've replaced the musical artist infobox with the Classical composer infobox. There is much discussion WikiProject_Composers here and elsewhere in the projects' pages. It seems sensible to replace the infobox with a shorter one as much of the information in the previous infobox is available in the lead or is subject to qualification - having it in the infobox is misleading. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 15:53, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

The stated purpose of the removal of the longer infobox style for musical composers is as follows:

1.   They often give trivia undue emphasis and prominence at the head of the article 2.   They tend to become redundant (by duplicating the lead) 3.   They can, conversely, become over-complex and thus vague, confused, or misleading, often compounding errors found elsewhere in the article, e.g. by confusing style and genre, setting forth haphazard lists of individual works, or highlighting the subject's trivial secondary or non-musical occupations.

However, none of these are the case in the "Scott Joplin" article: several of the instruments played by the composer are never mentioned elsewhere in the article, none of the occupations listed are non-musical or biographically trivial, and the historical era -- 1895-1917 -- is much more accurate and precise than simply "20th century". This infobox does not duplicate the lead; rather, it summarizes it in less than 50 words, vs. 500 words. In addition, there is no argument to be made concerning music genre vs. style, as the Wikipedia articles of Ragtime and march define both as "genres". Please discuss. 99.232.8.194 (talk) 03:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there 99. Thanks for your contributions; assuming you aren't an existing editor and simply forgot to sign in, please do consider setting up an account - I do hope you stay. You are right to say that these are the guidelines for infoboxes. It does also say elsewhere in relation to these things that infoboxes are not compulsory but should be agreed by consensus (I don't off-hand remember which page said that). The infobox as it stands at the moment, the one you reverted back to, has been on the page for quite some time, and I was following WP:BOLD by trying to improve it.


 * Essentially, I'm not wedded to either version, but here is my reasoning. Much of the information in the current iteration is already in the Lead, so there is duplication, and therefore redundancy. In addition, I don't think that having a list of all the instruments we have note of Joplin having played at some point in his life is especially helpful (I may even have added to that list at some point in the past, I don't recall). He is known as a composer, and not as an instrumentalist. It is misleading to have that list in the infobox as it implies (amongst other things) that he is known for playing the mandolin, which he demonstrably is not. At various points in his life he was a travelling musician, and so it was likely that he turned his hand to a variety of instruments. I don't feel that this the best information to put into the infobox as it all requires clarification and caveats. Others (including you I think) disagree. That's fine. Lets discuss this and come to a consensus. An infobox is a useful tool, but not place to put uncertain or unclear data. In this instance, less is more.


 * With this in mind, having is occupations down is unclear to the general reader too; he is known as a composer, not a music teacher. In any case it seems that towards the end of his life he lost his students and with his 3rd wife ended up running a boarding house which became some kind of unofficial brothel. That certainly should be put into the article (I will when I have time), but not in the infobox as this is not the most notable thing about him.


 * I think you have a stronger case when it comes to the "genre"; I was just following the guidance on the infobox I put into place; I would prefer to leave in Ragtime at the very least. Ragtime and March, sure, but why not Waltz? Isn't this form of dance a genre too? Joplin wrote many waltzes.


 * If the lead does not summarise well the article that follows it, then the lead should be improved. In addition there are many aspects of Joplin's life which need to be enlarged and developed (especially the New York period), please feel free to get involved with that. I think the infobox is not a great place to have this information.


 * Although there is room for discussion here, I will not in the first instance be reverting your reversion as I don't want to escalate this. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Any comments from other editors about the above? I think that there is probably a useful discussion to be had about the genre Joplin worked in, but I think that having a list of instruments he played in the info box is misleading to the casual reader, as is a list of other jobs he had. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * With the above discussion in mind. How's this for a change to the info box? removing the (for me) redundant list of instruments that Joplin played at some point in his life, and the other jobs he had apart from composing.

We could of course decide to do without one; I'm not sure one way or the other. Classical composers Bach, Beethoven and Mozart don't have an infobox, while modern composers John Barry (composer), David Arnold, and Hans Zimmer do. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

List of recordings
Would it make sense to have a list of significant recordings of Joplin's music? we have mentioned a number of them in his article, but i think a list would be nice.(mercurywoodrose)75.61.130.86 (talk) 06:49, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi there MWR. If there are any especially notable recordings which are not mentioned, then they probably should be included. If there is enough material, it might make sense to create a separate page, but I don't think a list of recordings would be suitable for this page. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 19:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Reference to Joplin as *African*-American
The argument that Joplin should be referred to as an American pianist and not an African-American pianist, because African-American "is not a nationality", is redundant: please see the pages Malcolm X, Rosa Parks, Booker T. Washington, Harriet Tubman, etc. Additionally, quite apart from the fact that Joplin lived in a society that was totally segregated by race, and would never have been seen as indistinctly "American", his own ethnic identity is a constantly recurring theme in his publications, with numerous references to "negro music", "genuine negro ragtime", and to audiences as "colored folks", "dark-town", "darkies", and so on, and is therefore very significant to the composer's biography and body of work. Joplin emphasizes the ethnic identity associated with ragtime, and was set to prove that black music was not necessarily trashy or "crude", as was the popular opinion of the time.

Please discuss here before editing the article. Brownsc (talk) 04:40, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree. Everything I've read about Joplin suggests that his "color" was an important facet of his identity. —Stepheng3 (talk) 19:47, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree too; both the Biography by Berlin and "Scott Joplin" by James Haskins indicate his race was an important part of his identity and is integral to an understanding of his music and its role. Well done for raising this. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 20:10, 2 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Race is critically important to the topic. Binksternet (talk) 20:39, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

The guidelines are simple: I am not wading into this because of the stated arguments. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:20, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:MOSBIO: "Ethnicity or sexuality should not generally be emphasized in the opening unless it is relevant to the subject's notability." He was notable because he was a musician, not that he was or wasn't an "African American". Rosa Parks was notable because she was an "African American".
 * WP:OVERLINK: do not link "the names of major geographic features and locations" So if you list them against the former guideline, don't link them.
 * The second paragraph, where it states that he was African-American is a good place to introduce this topic. It is already listed there. --Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:22, 5 December 2012 (UTC)


 * This is probably not the best place to mention this, but WP:MOSBIO seems silly in this case. It's okay for the lede to mention his date of death, but he'd have been notable even if he'd died on a different day.  It's fine for the lede to mention that he was an American, but he'd have been just as notable if he'd been French.  It's fine for the lede to mention that his career was brief, but he'd have been just as notable if it had been long.  Why should his ethnicity been treated differently?  Is this really how WP:MOSBIO was intended to be applied?  Perhaps WP:IAR applies here. —Stepheng3 (talk) 07:06, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I disagree with Walter Görlitz in that I think Joplin struggled against the color barrier his whole life. His race is of foundational importance to his biography. We must say he was an African American. Binksternet (talk) 07:57, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think perhaps from a different perspective, it's less important - /to his notability/ - that he was black and "struggled against the color barrier", etc; however, the very reason he became such a notable and influential composer stems from the fact he's black, if that makes any sense. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:34, 7 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Absolutely in agreement with the general consensus here, Joplin would have *never* ever in his own time, in his home country, simply been an "American", and quite aside from that, his race is critically important to his own body of work and his biography, as has been discussed above. Ragtime is uniquely African-American, and inspired generations of specifically African-American musicians, spawning new musical styles which were uniquely African-American. I don't think that at any point during his biography, at any point in this article, or in any one of his compositions, is the ethnicity of the composer irrelevant, not even slightly; in fact, it is always relevant. 99.232.23.5 (talk) 23:51, 11 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Walter Gorlitz said he wasn't going to wade into this, but he apparently did... I'm going to change it back within a week if no one else objects, because of all the reasons stated above, and the general consensus. Brownsc (talk) 21:57, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Although I agree it is correct to explain that his race was important, the Lead now has two references to "African-American" - for the sake of style I think there should only be one. In addition (and this is something I think needs putting in the lead and in the article itself) there should be an explanation of the importance of his race to his music as has been discussed. Otherwise the reference to "African-American" might not be fully understood in context. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 07:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Notice of revisions made in March, 2009
The article underwent a major revision during March, 2009. Therefore many of the comments made below are no longer relevant.--Wikiwatcher1 (talk) 05:31, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

This is an assessment of article  by a member of the Composers project, according to its assessment criteria. This review was done by.

If an article is well-cited, the reviewer is assuming that the article reflects reasonably current scholarship, and deficiencies in the historical record that are documented in a particular area will be appropriately scored. If insufficient inline citations are present, the reviewer will assume that deficiencies in that area may be cured, and that area may be scored down.

Adherence to overall Wikipedia standards (WP:MOS, WP:WIAGA, WP:WIAFA) are the reviewer's opinion, and are not a substitute for the Wikipedia's processes for awarding Good Article or Featured Article status.

Origins/family background/studies
Does the article reflect what is known about the composer's background and childhood? If s/he received musical training as a child, who from, is the experience and nature of the early teachers' influences described?
 * Good.

Early career
Does the article indicate when s/he started composing, discuss early style, success/failure? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?
 * Good.

Mature career
Does the article discuss his/her adult life and composition history? Are other pedagogic and personal influences from this time on his/her music discussed?
 * Good.

List(s) of works
Are lists of the composer's works in WP, linked from this article? If there are special catalogs (e.g. Köchel for Mozart, Hoboken for Haydn), are they used? If the composer has written more than 20-30 works, any exhaustive listing should be placed in a separate article.
 * Good.

Critical appreciation
Does the article discuss his/her style, reception by critics and the public (both during his/her life, and over time)?
 * Good stylistic discussion and popular reception. Critical reception implied by awards and honors.

Illustrations and sound clips
Does the article contain images of its subject, birthplace, gravesite or other memorials, important residences, manuscript pages, museums, etc? Does it contain samples of the composer's work (as composer and/or performer, if appropriate)? (Note that since many 20th-century works are copyrighted, it may not be possible to acquire more than brief fair use samples of those works, but efforts should be made to do so.) If an article is of high enough quality, do its images and media comply with image use policy and non-free content policy? (Adherence to these is needed for Good Article or Featured Article consideration, and is apparently a common reason for nominations being quick-failed.)
 * Good, although even more would be better. Possible WP:COPYVIO on the stamp image (USPS license may preclude use in this context, and/or image page is missing a fair-use rationale template).  The top image is also undated, which would likely be flagged in FA review.

References, sources and bibliography
Does the article contain a suitable number of references? Does it contain sufficient inline citations? (For an article to pass Good Article nomination, every paragraph possibly excepting those in the lead, and every direct quotation, should have at least one footnote.) If appropriate, does it include Further Reading or Bibliography beyond the cited references?
 * Article is reasonably well-referenced, though not sufficient for GA.

Structure and compliance with WP:MOS
Does the article comply with Wikipedia style and layout guidelines, especially WP:MOS, WP:LEAD, WP:LAYOUT, and possibly WP:SIZE? (Article length is not generally significant, although Featured Articles Candidates may be questioned for excessive length.)
 * Lead is short (should be 2-3 paragraphs for article this length). Legacy section has short paragraphs; expand or combine.

Things that may be necessary to pass a Good Article review

 * Article requires more inline citations (WP:CITE)
 * Images and media may have copyright/fair-use issues (WP:IUP or more specific GA/FA criteria) (stamp image use)

Summary
This is a nice article about one of my favorite composers. From a content perspective it seems reasonably complete, although there are some odd personal bio defects (what happened to the first two wives? I've seen the talk page -- get it in the article). Its structural issues (as well as the bio quirks) would probably be raised in a GA review: it needs more citations, the lead needs expansion, and the legacy section especially needs prose work.

Article is B-class; if it actually passes a GA review, it might be considered A-class.  Magic ♪piano 16:18, 18 November 2008 (UTC)