Quality of Modern Rolls
By Rob DeLand
I sent Thomas Henden a brief, private response to his email. Now that I see it and other comments in MMD, I feel obligated to answer a bit more completely. I don't want this to turn into a rag session against QRS (pun intended!).
First, Thomas' problem with the reissued QRS roll relates to the introduction to the Connorized roll of "Magnetic Rag" (pb Scott Joplin). A very slow introduction leads to the rest of the piece, which plays at a considerably faster tempo. That's actually the way the Connorized roll was originally issued! I don't know why. If the roll is played at the right speed for the "A" section, then the introduction is very slow. That's how I play it when I get the roll out.
(I'm on the road just now and don't have access to my roll. I have a laptop PC but not a laptop Vorsetzer; I wonder how the hotel management would like me playing a few rolls in the lobby?!)
Next, the Themodist topic. Unfortunately, this is the _reverse_ of the stereo/mono issue: newer recordings & playback equipment are all stereo, and compatible with earlier mono equipment. As I said before, it's no surprise that QRS would pay little attention to this compatibility matter, since player pianos, on the other hand, are almost all non-Themodist. (I can hear the arguments already; this is obviously not true in the UK, and I suspect most QRS customers have no idea what "Themodist" means.)
Further, I doubt if many (if any) of their current rolls were ever issued with Themodist perforations, so they would have to add them. (Fat chance of that happening!) Add to that the fact that the snakebites likely _are_ a technical complication since they would probably require extra maintenance and/or care on the perforator operator's part. It just isn't worth it, if you are QRS. The same argument applies to Recordo, Ampico, Duo-Art, Welte, Apollo, Artrio-Angelus, you name it -- why would they want to bother with this market? Most of their customers probably couldn't care less, and I'm sure that's why they dropped Ampico & other rolls.
Lest we put QRS through the ringer as we recently did Player Piano Co. let me remind everyone that they have provided a valuable service to the player field for MANY, MANY years after everyone else had given up. Max Kortlander kept QRS alive through the Depression & 1940's into modern times; that in itself probably saved dozens (hundreds?) of players from being scrapped. I just don't think that's fair for us to get on their case for possibly misrepresenting their product. I would _not_ make any such blanket statements putting down their reissues of older material, even after the specifics we've mentioned in MMD. There are many 1920's reissues (the Q- series) which I believe are all (?) unmodified from the originals.
And they include the lyrics on their word rolls -- look at all the agony we've put into that topic in MMD, and still no new solutions! QRS is still the only game in town on that count (unless you want to consider Play-Rite). Where else are you gonna buy a new Fats Waller word roll?
Come to think of it, I would generalize by saying that most or all of the titles QRS updated over time are those played by house artists such as JLC, and I see nothing wrong with these updates. It would be more convenient for us collectors today to be able to differentiate different arrangements by updated catalog numbers, but again we're imposing our own outlook here rather than looking at it as it occurred over time: QRS was a business responsible for issuing material which would most appeal to its customer base. I don't know of _any_ rolls offhand by Waller, James P. Johnson, or even Pete Wendling which were updated over time like the Kortlander, Baxter & Kortlander, Walter Redding, JLC, etc. rolls were.
Notice how these are generally later piano roll arrangers, as opposed to known recording artists? I think it's almost safe to say you can assume all of these (the very early, raggy Kortlander rolls being the exception) are JLC arrangements which we roll collectors should be knowledgeable enough to know are likely to be subjected to this kind of treatment. Let me put it another way. If you ask General Motors to make you a cool car that's fun to drive they're gonna sell you one of the models they sell today, not a '57 Chevy or a Cadillac convertible with fins!
To this day, QRS issues current music for customers who are looking for that, and I bet they sell a lot more rolls than all of us making "specialty" recuts COMBINED! And I say, more power to them. I'm personally not a fan of the paper and boxes they use these days, but they probably need to make more of a profit than I do so I can understand them making a business decision that keeps them from going bankrupt! And if they continue to sell rolls in satisfactory quantities, I trust they have customers who are satisfied. I've also seen some perforations that look a bit rough, but the market will have to determine whether that's acceptable or not. I don't like it, but as I said I haven't bought a new QRS roll for a few years now so what do they care about my opinion? It's their current customers that matter, and who will decide if the perforations are acceptable. Can you imagine what their prices would have to be if they went back to 1920's paper-wrapped, embossed boxes? I guess we could ask Eric Bernhoft what those beautiful boxes of his cost [but modesty would prevent us from being so bold, right? ;-) ]
But I digress! The Waller example Robbie stated is particularly ironic: all of the "real, hand-played" Waller rolls state clearly on the label that they are played by Thomas Waller (no "Fats") while all of the later JLC arrangements are clearly labelled "Played by Fats Waller" which of course really means JLC!! Has it been mentioned in MMD that Cook knew Waller, and that many of these arrangements were issued during Waller's lifetime without Waller arguing? I think the 1930's JLC/Waller rolls are just another example of economics, and of QRS issuing rolls to satisfy their current customers. Remember the alternative in 1935 was no new rolls at all! Their process (i.e.. JLC vs. royalty, time & editing to issue a true hand-played roll) was a business decision necessary during the Depression. Thank god they kept things going. We specialist collectors may object, but I bet the average QRS customer doesn't care, so why would QRS even bother trying to explain all these details? This has been their procedure for 60+ years now, and I see no reason for us to come along and tell them they have done something wrong. We're the ones with the problem, not them. And I don't really think we have much of a problem, either. I know what I'm buying, and that's always the responsibility of the advanced collector in ANY field.
One last quick point, about rolls read by Richard & Janet Tonnesen and by Wayne Stahnke: I'd suggest looking at earlier MMD's for details on this. Both systems are impressively accurate (Wayne's was designed with particularly precise readings in mind) and worth reviewing in detail. I remember Richard e-mailing to MMD about his system about this time last year. Richard's are the only commercially-available rolls cut from computerized reading (are there some UK perforators I've overlooked here?).
I hope I've made my point here without ruffling any feathers. I believe QRS has every right to reissue their material as they see fit, and that it really does us no harm - instead, it keeps their catalog up-to-date so they can continue to offer their customers what they want. I think it's unnecessarily harsh to write off all QRS reissues as alterations - I know of NO other examples of this particular problem (the Connorized / Joplin roll of Magnetic Rag) in the QRS catalog today. Have I overlooked anything? How about the Jelly Roll Morton rolls they list? Let's get the facts out on the table! Who knows, maybe Ginny Billings can use it for another volume of QRS rollography material! Sorry if I got too long-winded. I guess I just don't feel like sitting in the hotel bar drinking tonight.
Cheers,
Rob DeLand
(deland_robert@macmail1.csg.mot.com) |
(Message sent Wed 5 Feb 1997, 05:55:58 GMT, from time zone GMT-0800.) |
|
|
Mechanical
Music Digest™ Archives
