Quality of Modern Rolls
By Thomas Henden
My response to Rob DeLand's answer to my question on the quality of modern rolls, in this case QRS-rolls:
> Thomas, this could be a _very_ broad & deep subject, so I'll try to keep
> my comments close to your issues. I haven't had any personal experience
> with many QRS rolls since I bought everything I was interested in from
> their catalog about 10 years ago, so I can't speak for the quality of
> their rolls today. I do want to share two thoughts on your comments,
> though.
I'm pretty new in this game, and didn't know many roll sources, but I realize that there are MANY more sources than QRS on new rolls, so I'll better change to another deliverer when I have evaluated the quality of their rolls.
> First, while I agree that the Themodist perforations are important and
> should be preserved when reissuing old rolls, I'm guessing they're not
> important to most QRS customers so I doubt if QRS is terribly concerned
> about them. You can't fault QRS for not adding accents to non-Themodist
> rolls, and you can't fault them for not cutting specific roll types
> you're interested in, if that's not where the bulk of their sales are.
> It's unfortunate, but I think you have to be fair to QRS in this
> respect.
I didn't want to be unfair to QRS, but I thought that there was no reason to omit perforating those extra holes -- of course, if there aren't any technical complications to it, when duplicating old rolls. One comparison would be that record companies sold LP-records in stereo also playable at mono, but I understand now that maybe a majority of piano owners don't have those extra functions built in.
> As far as the Joplin Connorized rolls go, I think it's important to
> know that the original Connorized rolls do not suffer the problems you
> described. It sounds like the QRS masters currently in use are
> different from the Connorized originals. Remember how, over time, QRS
> has reissued many titles with updated arrangements, and kept the same
> catalog numbers?
This, I would consider as messing with the original tune, as long as they use the same roll number. One should then expect to get the original tune. One example where I got disappointed on this was on the "Black and White Rag" roll, which is made in a much more "straight-forward and boring" fox-trot version than the well known version that Winifred Atwell plays.
> Think of all the old pop tunes that were reissued in the 1950's with
> "modern" swinging arrangements by J. Lawrence Cook. This is a known
> practice, and again in their defense, it is smart marketing: keep the
> music current and appeal to your customer base. I don't have a problem
> with that, but I (like you?) am more of a vintage roll collector, and
> I'm not generally interested in many of those interim "improved" rolls!
> There are exceptions, of course -- some of those "hot" JLC rolls are
> really good.
I understand what you mean, but I have to admit that I have great problems with the reissuing of "classic" pop-music, some 10 or 15 years old, and also with nice tunes, e.g. for children, which now are reissued with a full pop-band orchestra instead of the e.g. single guitar and voice in the original tune. Many times this re-issuing is done with synthetic instruments too, even worsening the mess. In the same manner, I don't like to get a swing, or fox-trot version of what originally was classic, even though I like fox-trot and swing. I think that QRS maybe isn't stating this too clear, so you risk getting something you didn't expect.
> I have a recent (10-year-old?) QRS recut of the Connorized Joplin roll
> of Maple Leaf Rag, and _guess what_: it's a 1950's swing arrangement!
> The original roll is a straight march beat; I don't think Joplin knew
> how to swing!
I'm sorry to say I'm very near to calling it "vandalism", and this is also a good example that you think you get the re-cut, but instead you get a re-edition.
> [ Did Scott Joplin _really_ play the roll? Certainly the arrangers at
> [ Connorized didn't swing in that era! -- Robbie
>
> This reissue subject is actually a touchy area because I and others
> recut vintage rolls, including some from old QRS sources, and QRS's
> policy with us has been to not have an issue with us about it, as long
> as we do not compete with them and issue material that is currently in
> their catalog.
>
> So what is a guy like me to do when something like this Maple Leaf Rag
> roll comes up?
I'm more curious about what QRS should do. I would guess they have to sort their rolls into two new categories then, re-cut or re-issued, and re-edited rolls!
> I went ahead and recut it on my BluesTone label because I wanted to have
> a copy that came directly from the Connorized original, and I wanted to
> make the same available to my customers. I trust QRS has no problem
> with this, because I think we are dealing with 2 completely different
> customer bases: they don't sell many rolls to us specialty collectors,
> and recutters like me keep those collectors from nagging at QRS to issue
> rolls that do not appeal to QRS's main customer base! This is my
> opinion, anyway, and I think it's generally true.
To be clear: QRS usually "re-editions", and you usually re-cut the old tunes? If this is true I would like to order your catalogue.
> I realize I'm not speaking to your issues about pedaling perforations or
> melody tempo, and I really don't know what's going on there. Apparently
> somebody did _something_ to the master, 'cause it ain't that way on the
> Connorized original. Knowing whether it was a production problem or a
> problem with the new roll master might help answer your question.
The only problem on that certain roll, was that the tempo on the "foreplay" didn't match with the tempo on the rest of the tune; every- thing else seemed reasonable. I don't how rolls are duplicated, but I guess that either the master or the duplicated roll didn't run at the right tempo at the start of the duplication in this case. (To newcomers, this is about QRS's "reconnorized" Scott Joplin rag, "Magnetic Rag" which I complained about in Digest 970123).
However: how are rolls effectively duplicated, and how exact is this being done?
Thomas Henden
[ I share Thomas's anger over QRS rolls with misleading and false
[ marking. We are used to seeing "Played by Thomas 'Fats' Waller", and
[ then hearing J. Lawrence Cook instead. That's old history. But it's
[ terrible when QRS labels a roll as a recut of an old classic, and
[ the music disagrees violently with the original roll.
[
[ High-quality recuts (mostly punched by Richard & Janet Tonnesen) match
[ the data of the original roll very well. "Precision Replicas" have
[ been made by Wayne Stahnke and others which indeed match hole-for-
[ hole. I consider QRS recuts sloppy at their best -- and beware:
[ all of QRS's production of pre-1940s rolls are recuts ! -- Robbie
|
(Message sent Mon 3 Feb 1997, 18:53:07 GMT, from time zone GMT.) |
|
|
Mechanical
Music Digest™ Archives
