I've been volunteering for some time now at the Scott Joplin House in
St. Louis, Mo., and, given the fact that we have a player piano there
which gets frequent use, I thought I'd reopen the whole can of worms
related to the piano rolls credited to Scott Joplin.

To my mind these rolls are quite perplexing.  For one thing, given the
late date of their release, coming during Joplin's periods of decreased
ability brought about by his end-stage syphilis, it is at best highly
doubtful that these rolls are in any way truly representative of Jop-
lin's playing, at least at the time they were released.  I have been
told that contemporary accounts of Joplin's playing as early as 1915
indicate that he was suffering severe impairment of his abilities as a
pianist.

I understand -- and I may be wrong about this -- that in the later
stages of syphilis the dementia and other impairments can be episodic:
at one time the patient may be fine, and a few days or hours later,
not.  If that is the case, I've heard it postulated that perhaps
Joplin's recording sessions could somehow have taken place when he was
possessed of his faculties, fleeting as those times may have been.

Another thing to consider is the role of the roll editor.  Those who
have edited hand-played performances recorded by a live performer for
release as a piano roll can attest to the considerable amount of edit-
ing to be done.  Indeed, according to accounts, by the late 1920s at
QRS J. Lawrence Cook found the process of editing hand-played rolls so
laborious that he constructed the step-perforating piano he used from
the 1930s onward to create rolls from scratch that sounded hand-played.

Given both Cook's and the late John Farrell's ability to create rolls
from scratch that sound convincingly like performances by a specific
artist, is it not possible that Connorized, the firm which released the
Joplin-credited rolls, had a similarly talented arranger on staff who
was familiar with Joplin's playing style and who could have created
these rolls to sound like they were played by Scott Joplin, putting
Joplin's name on them?

If this scenario is the case, then what are we to make of his roll "Ole
Miss Rag"?  His "Ole Miss Blues", composed by W. C. Handy, is remark-
ably similar.  The copyright date is the same for both rolls.  If one
agrees with the hypothesis that Joplin was too ill to have recorded the
rolls and that they are the work of a talented arranger creating rolls
in Joplin's style, why then would they bother to issue a piece by
another composer in Joplin's style?  Was this a piece Joplin had been
known for playing?  Perhaps, but since the copyright date is the same
year the roll was issued, and Joplin's public performances had already
been curtailed for some time, that is somewhat unlikely.

Is it possible, instead, that "Ole Miss Blues" was included to help
publicize the music of W.C. Handy, an up-and-coming name on the musical
landscape, by having one of his pieces "performed" by a more estab-
lished and recognized artist?  One would assume that most of the roll-
buying public wouldn't have been aware of the nature and severity of
Joplin's illness, and therefore would have assumed that he, in fact,
did play the piece, which would presumably impart some "star status" to
a piece by an up-and-coming composer.

Another topic somewhat related to these rolls is the matter of tempo.
In ragtime in general, the tendency has long been to play many pieces
as fast as possible.  Indeed, some rags, such as Johnson's "Steeple-
chase," are intended to be played at a pretty good clip.  Conversely,
with the academic approach to ragtime playing we've seen since the mid
to late 1960s, there has sometimes been a tendency toward over-analy-
sis, toward forgetting that most rags were not written as "art songs"
but simply as effervescent popular music, with the unfortunate result
that they sometimes become overly pompous and almost dirge-like in
performance.

If we are to accept the idea that the Joplin-credited rolls are actu-
ally the work of a talented arranger, then the tempo indicated on these
rolls as being the correct performance tempo would, one would assume,
be a speed either based on the arranger's knowledge of Joplin's play-
ing, or simply reflective of performance  norms for these pieces at the
time they were released (1916).  I know, however, that earlier piano
roll performances of these pieces exist.  Indeed, I have a 65-note roll
catalog from before 1905 that lists "Maple Leaf Rag" among the titles.
One would assume that tempi of arranged rolls from the 65-note era is
reflective of performance tempi at the time.  I think it would there-
fore be interesting to see whether there is any discrepancy between
tempi on the "Joplin" rolls and the rolls of his pieces issued a decade
or more earlier.  The "proof in the pudding" would be an aural compar-
ison of the two rolls, instead of merely comparing the tempo numbers
stamped on the rolls, which merely indicate rate of paper travel.

All this leaves more questions than answers.  I am by no means an ex-
pert on Joplin, on rolls, on ragtime, or on early 20th century popular
music.  What I am, however, is curious, interested, and working in a
position where the perplexing questions posed by these rolls is
presented to me on a regular basis.  Forgive my opening this can of
worms yet again; but it is something very much on my mind, and I felt
that revisiting this topic might be a good idea.

Bryan Cather