181:
If there was a more realistic sample of this file in quality condition I'd support without a doubt but I'm not sure I can support a MIDI file as a faithful example of a music recording. Normally I'd oppose but the fact that the original recording is on a piano roll (and therefore subject to different
110:
page. There is an issue about how accurate Piano Rolls were, but there is another roll from the same year, again cut by Joplin, which is much smoother (although it feels as though it's been corrected in the editing process). Should there be more about this on the description page? Would that help?
105:
I would generally agree with you; conversion from one format to another can throw up peculiarities and the copy may not match. In this case, however, we have a very good source (Joplin's first biographer) who heard the original roll and thought that it was "distressing" and "disorganised"; further
52:
A recording made by Scott Joplin in 1916 of his most famous Rag, the Maple Leaf Rag. The recording was made on piano roll in June 1916 just prior to the composer's death from
Syphilis in April 1917. The recording demonstrates his physical deterioration from the disease has affected his ability to
348:
Granted, a piano roll rarely is a digital record of the keys struck. They were commonly "corrected" at the factory, as evidenced by audio recordings versus piano rolls by other period pianists such as
Gershwin. But it is a nice rendition and probably shows some of the technique of the
89:
I can't say I'm an expert on piano playing. However, I do fear that the peculiar sound of his playing may simply be due to the fact that it was recorded on piano roll and then converted into midi. The source of the file doesn't mention anything about the playing that I could see.
284:
article there is reference to the fact that Joplin wasn't directly recorded. So the expectation of having this file be generated from a player piano seems excessive. The player piano and the computer are equally unable to reproduce the quality of the original.
261:
211:
page - another rag he wrote, which has since been discovered by the same collector who had the Maple Leaf Rag. This time it's a recording of a player piano. It's interesting mainly because it was thought lost. I'll nominate that when I get a
46:
158:. As far as possible the article attempts to show the various points of view about the nature of piano rolls, and this one in particular, and letting the reader make up their own mind. Thanks for your help!
37:
280:, I disagree about the realism. It sounds pretty good to me, actually better than the other nomination. In terms of EV, the context within an article would be important. In the
45:
302:
I know player pianos. The rolls are "digital", as it were, and there is no issue to my mind in transferring them to mp3. This is a valuable historical artefact.
393:
256:
per the lack of realism mentioned by
Themfromspace. If a more advanced software piano was used to create the sound, or the piece was run through an actual
376:
358:
340:
315:
294:
272:
244:
221:
200:
167:
145:
120:
98:
81:
238:
194:
17:
53:
play the piano smoothly. The roll was scanned into a MIDI file by a collector in New
Zealand, then converted into a Piano soundfile by
64:
One of the few recordings of Joplin by Joplin we have. It also demonstrates his physical condition prior to his death.
290:
217:
163:
116:
77:
233:
189:
286:
372:
213:
159:
112:
73:
54:
228:
184:
226:
Wow, that would be a valuable addition! Its scarcity alone would make it a prized sound file.
369:
354:
266:
139:
92:
310:
133:. I think the file description page is fine, as long as the statements are cited from
387:
332:
281:
257:
208:
155:
151:
134:
130:
126:
107:
44:
350:
326:
182:
authentic playbacks) complicates things. I have to think about this for a bit.
303:
366:
Promoted Maple Leaf Rag - played by Scott Joplin 1916 sample.ogg
129:
article, thank you. Wanted to make sure we weren't conducting
28:
File:Maple Leaf Rag - played by Scott Joplin 1916 sample.ogg
111:
Forgive me, but this is the first time I've done this!
8:
38:Maple Leaf Rag - played by Scott Joplin 1916
323:- for its rarity and historical value. —
125:Okay, now I see that information in the
7:
394:Knowledge featured sound nominations
207:There is another sound file on the
18:Knowledge:Featured sound candidates
24:
42:
1:
377:01:06, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
359:00:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)
264:, I could possibly support.
245:12:52, 16 December 2009 (UTC)
222:23:20, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
201:01:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
341:05:43, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
273:21:30, 19 January 2010 (UTC)
168:22:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
146:20:29, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
121:19:51, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
99:18:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
82:10:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
410:
316:17:23, 19 July 2010 (UTC)
295:10:33, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
106:information is on the
349:composer/performer.
328:Ancient Apparition
152:original research
131:original research
47:
401:
339:
335:
329:
313:
308:
287:Case Craver 2010
269:
262:other nomination
241:
236:
231:
197:
192:
187:
156:reliable sources
142:
137:in the article.
135:reliable sources
95:
49:
48:
409:
408:
404:
403:
402:
400:
399:
398:
384:
383:
333:
327:
324:
311:
304:
267:
239:
234:
229:
195:
190:
185:
140:
93:
62:
61:
60:
59:
58:
50:
43:
40:
31:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
407:
405:
397:
396:
386:
385:
381:
364:
362:
361:
343:
318:
297:
275:
250:
249:
248:
247:
214:Major Bloodnok
204:
203:
175:
174:
173:
172:
171:
170:
160:Major Bloodnok
113:Major Bloodnok
102:
101:
84:
74:Major Bloodnok
55:Major Bloodnok
51:
41:
36:
35:
34:
33:
32:
30:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
406:
395:
392:
391:
389:
382:
379:
378:
375:
374:
371:
367:
360:
356:
352:
347:
344:
342:
338:
336:
330:
322:
319:
317:
314:
309:
307:
301:
298:
296:
292:
288:
283:
279:
276:
274:
271:
270:
263:
259:
255:
252:
251:
246:
243:
242:
237:
232:
225:
224:
223:
219:
215:
210:
206:
205:
202:
199:
198:
193:
188:
180:
177:
176:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
150:I'm aware of
149:
148:
147:
144:
143:
136:
132:
128:
124:
123:
122:
118:
114:
109:
104:
103:
100:
97:
96:
88:
85:
83:
79:
75:
71:
68:Nominate and
67:
66:
65:
56:
39:
29:
26:
19:
380:
373:
365:
363:
345:
325:
320:
305:
299:
282:Scott Joplin
277:
265:
258:player piano
253:
227:
209:Scott Joplin
183:
178:
138:
127:Scott Joplin
108:Scott Joplin
91:
86:
69:
63:
57:using Cubase
27:
370:Bencherlite
268:Jujutacular
141:Jujutacular
94:Jujutacular
337:• 4:43pm •
334:Champagne?
260:like your
388:Category
300:Support.
346:Support
321:Support
278:Support
212:chance.
179:Neutral
87:Comment
70:support
351:Edison
312:(talk)
254:Oppose
240:Space
196:Space
16:<
355:talk
306:Tony
291:talk
235:From
230:Them
218:talk
191:From
186:Them
164:talk
154:and
117:talk
78:talk
390::
368:--
357:)
331:•
293:)
220:)
166:)
119:)
80:)
72:.
353:(
289:(
216:(
162:(
115:(
76:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.