Talk:Magnetic Rag

New Article

This is the first article I have ever written on Wikipedia. (Not surprising that this was the one.) Please, please, don't delete it! I've worked hard to make it up to WP standards. However, since I'm new, please discuss areas for improvement on this talk page and I'll address them ASAP. Thanks! Magnetic Rag (talk) 04:13, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nice job. I have a question, though: isn't the "A" melody in B-flat major? I'd also use the word 'key' instead of 'mode' there, since 'mode' usually references something that's not Aeolian (major) mode. 157.252.71.177 (talk) 21:29, 15 December 2007 (UTC)SFTB

Thanks for pointing that out. I changed it to read B-flat major. About the key/mode thing, I thought about that quite a bit before writing it in. I looked at the articles for scale and Major_and_minor, which indicated that such terms usually denote the scale used (i.e., which notes are used out of the 12 available). On the other hand, mode indicates not only scale, but also gives reference to the primary, or tonic, note. I chose "mode" because in the "A" strain, while bars 11-12 use the same scale as the rest of the melody, they are clearly in a different mode. What do you think? Magnetic Rag (talk) 02:26, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

G minor is the relative minor of B major; modulation to and fro from the relative major to the relative minor and vice versa, even in the same phrase, has been a practice of much precedent, not only in ragtime but in much of Western music. Now had the shift been to C dorian or A locrian, you might have more of a reason to speak of mode instead of key. "Major" and "minor" are essentially different words for "Ionian" and "Aeolian".201.209.185.54 (talk) 22:37, 13 December 2009 (UTC)

That last paragraph...

Nice to see such a well referenced article about this piece. But that last paragraph seems a bit opinionated, especially as it doesn't seem to be sourced -- it reads like the end of an essay. I think it'd be best to just axe it (most articles don't summarize at the end like that), but I figure I'd ask first for opinions. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

I have to agree. Overall an great article which covers a very interesting piece of music - well done! The final paragraph is problematic. As written is does seem to be POV and therefore should be edited. However, I've just looked at the introduction to my copy of Joplin's rags which does seem to support the statements in that final para:

"Magnetic Rag fully justifies its unusual subtitle: Syncopations classiques. It covers a range of moods unusual even in Joplin's work, one that almost strains the capacity of the short form. Magnetic as pure music is an impressive, although sadly premature, close to Scott Joplin's piano works. It hints at future directions and demonstrates ragtime's potential of expressing profounder musical thought." (Scott Joplin Collected Piano works, New York Public Library 1981, pxxxvii).

I'll take a proper look at this as soon as I can, currently time is short though. If anyone wishes to use the above in some fashion in the meanwhile, please go ahead. I've used references to this work on the Scott Joplin page if you want the long form reference. Major Bloodnok (talk) 21:17, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

References

I have changed the references for cite-book & cite-web templates, and amended a couple of minor things in the Form and Analysis sections. I was going to take a run at the final paragraph (see discussion above, but ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ had deleted it while I was thinking about it. Looking back at the article, I don't think those last lines were needed, so I'll leave it at at that. The sentiments expressed are obvious but better unstated. Major Bloodnok (talk) 22:22, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Good article nomination?

I'd like the article to be nominated as a good article, but I've never been involved with the assessment process. Before I nominated it, I wanted to get a "second" from another editor. If you don't think it's time for a good article nomination, please state what should be fixed about the article first. (P.S.: I've read through much of the official advice on nominating good articles already.)

I also noticed that Wikiproject Classical Music does not have an assessment system in place, which is why I'm going straight for the GA status. Magnetic Rag (talk) 07:34, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I doubt it's GA yet, but I'd love to see the process in action. Even if we only get a to-do list out of it, that'd be a help in finishing this article and other, similar ones.

There are a few easy, specific things I'd want to see done before nominating this for GA:

• add an infobox with basic information (such as the publisher's name)
• add a photo of Joplin
• add information about tempo (often controversial for Joplin pieces)
• cite sources for key points (such as: last rag in Joplin's lifetime, his syphilis, melancholy mood, stand-out tone of B section)
• eliminate overlinking of dates, i.e. 1914 → 1914

Stepheng3 (talk) 20:28, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

This is a good list. I'll try to get these things done when I have the time. Thanks! Magnetic Rag (talk) 06:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Why do we need a picture of Joplin? There's also one VERY important point that seems to be missing, but I can't figure out where to put it (and need a ref) -- unlike every other rag by Joplin, it's in 4/4 (I thought it was 2/2, though the score here says otherwise), rather than 2/4, with the eight note being the fast note rather then the sixteenth. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 11:56, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure that the Joplin image is necessary, but I do think it improves the article. Illustrated, if possible, by images is one of the Good Article criteria. If we have images of Joplin and the sheet music cover, I think we're covered on that score (no pun intended). Interesting point about the time signature; I don't know the answer. Perhaps it has to do with this rag being published by Joplin's own company rather than Stark & Co. or Stern. If you need a cite, the Dover facimile edition (p. 173) clearly shows a "C" for common time. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:19, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Update

OK, so I've added a picture of Joplin, an infobox, and eliminated some date links. As to the other things (citing key points, as well as a section on tempo): I know that the books I used for the article made remarks about the tempo. It wasn't much, if I recall correctly. Perhaps they only mentioned that all we know about the tempo of Magnetic Rag is what's written in the score. That is, it's to be played "Fast, but not too much" (first page), and when you get to the D strain, it's to be played "at the same tempo"; in other words, without slowing down.

Melodia: I like your point about the piece being written in 4/4, or common time. It seems like a good idea to create a brief Tempo section, before the Analysis section, that mentions these ideas. I'd add that stuff now, but I checked those books out from the library when I first wrote the article, so I can't look up the information/references now. Maybe later... Magnetic Rag (talk) 17:45, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

Date

If I've followed correctly, that July 21, 1914 date at the beginning of the article is the date on which the copyright was registered. Is that the same as the publication date? If not, I think the date on the first line should be the publication date. Does anyone know the publication date? If not, I think we should just write "1914". The copyright registration date doesn't seem particularly important or notable (to me), but if we put it in the article somewhere, perhaps it should be part of the infobox. Magnetic Rag (talk) 22:45, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it's the copyright date. Copyright for ragtime pieces was generally registered just before the publisher decided to release them. For instance, "Reflection Rag" wasn't copyrighted till 1917, even though Joplin wrote it prior to 1909. Since the copyright date corresponds very closely to the publication date, it can be used to sort works published in the same year, such as "Original Rags" and "Maple Leaf Rag". Stepheng3 (talk) 17:25, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Italics?

I'm confused, isn't this a single song? If it is, the title needs to be put in quotes. If it's a long enough work to be put into italics then that needs to be explained as well. No information is given to its length: is it five minutes or an hour long?--Remurmur (talk) 14:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

It's closer to five minutes -- not long enough for italics, IMO. --Stepheng3 (talk) 01:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Magnetic Rag/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

I will be reviewing this article. Binksternet (talk) 08:28, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good Article Criteria:

• 1. Well Written. Yes, this article is fairly well written. I will be swapping the notes and reference sections to make the layout more like what I'm used to seeing in GA and A-Class articles. I will also be lower-casing the capital letters that occur in the middle of sentences.
• 2. Factually accurate. Pretty much yes, but I'd like to see URLs of google books for relevant and available texts. Readers like to click on stuff... and I think they should be directed to the appropriate reference text pages. :P
• 3. Broad in its coverage. Yes. At first I was thinking the Form heading's Intro-A-B-C-D-Coda strain sections qualified as too much detail, but they introduce some important points.
• 4. Neutral. Yes.
• 5. Stable. Yes.
• 6. Illustrated. The first image is perfectly appropriate for the sheet music. The Joplin image isn't so hot--it appears to be a sketch copy of a 1907 portrait held by the Library of Congress. I just might get in and upload that LOC image... Binksternet (talk) 09:04, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

I added the URL for each book. However, there need to be references for each and every paragraph. The "sinister tone" B section needs one and the coda section needs one. I added some wikilinks and some more detail regarding the 12-bar blues section, with reference. I will leave the review open while these two paragraphs receive references. Binksternet (talk) 10:27, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

MaGee says the rag's form is AABBCCDDA, but Jasen says the last A is repeated twice and followed by a coda. Which is correct?

Acording to the score, there is indeed a repeat in the last strain, complete with 1st and 2nd endings. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:08, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Ah, yes, there it is, followed by the eight-bar coda. Thanks! Binksternet (talk) 15:05, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

For kicks, here's the better-looking 1907 portrait of Joplin. Binksternet (talk) 10:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

A couple of Commons files already had this nicer photo uploaded. One was restored and I thought it looked better. I put it into the Analysis section, taking the old image out. Binksternet (talk) 10:56, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like User:Melodia took the photo of Joplin out. Me, I thought it was a fine addition, and I liked it better in the Analysis section. At any rate, the presence or absence of the portrait is not going to change the result of my GA Review--it just isn't that critical. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

What's the point in having a photo? I'm always for pictures to make things pretty, but the composer seems irrelevant here. Many things could be used that work much better. A snippet of a notable part of the score, an alternate cover (not saying one exists, here, just in general), or whatever. Now if there was a photo of Joplin that had specifically to do with the piece (unlikely, or even just a picture from the year it was written would make more sense than one from 7 years earlier) that would make sense. But that's just me -- I'm certainly not consensus by myself. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:21, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

I changed some verbs to past tense under the Form heading. It looks like I missed the Coda section... but now I wonder if past tense is appropriate. Comments? Binksternet (talk) 11:06, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

One other thing: the "popularity" statement from the lead is not mentioned in the body (and it will need a citation when it is). —Zeagler (talk) 15:40, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Good catch! Thanks. Binksternet (talk) 07:45, 8 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Past Tense: I think the past tense should be changed back into present tense, since the article is speaking about the piece not only as it existed, but as it currently exists, too. Magnetic Rag (talk) 18:54, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Re: Popularity Statement: When I wrote the article, I included the "popularity" statement because I saw it as common knowledge among those who are familiar with Joplin's Rags. For instance, I've noticed that 95%+ of all Ragtime recordings feature either "Maple Leaf Rag", "The Entertainer", or both, while few (perhaps less than 15%) feature "Magnetic Rag". Also, the two more famous Rags are routinely featured in piano sheet music compendia, whereas I've never found "Magnetic Rag" featured in such a publication. Finally, if you do a search for the three titles on YouTube, you will find very many results (>1000) returned for Maple Leaf Rag, and about that many for The Entertainer; however, Magnetic Rag returns 40-something results.

Certainly, none of this is cite-able, and you may think it constitutes original research. I don't think of it as OR, but if most of you still think the statement should be sourced, let's go with that. In that case, we may have to take it out, since I don't have a source for it now. (Although, if I had more time, I could check those books out from the library again and see if there's something along those lines mentioned. If any of you have the time, you may look into this...)

Anyway, thanks to Binksternet et al. for taking the time for a review. I think it's going very well. Magnetic Rag (talk) 19:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

Welcome back from your New Year's wikibreak. This GA Review is still open as I believe the article is just a step or two from GA status. First thing to do is find references for the B and Coda paragraphs. Second is to either remove the popularity comparison or to cite a source. I wonder if any sheet music sales records exist... Binksternet (talk) 00:08, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Jasen offers his opinion of the song in one paragraph in page 29 of Black Bottom Stomp. He calls the piece 'haunting' and calls the last eight bars a "smiling little coda". All he says of the B section is that it is in a minor key; thin soup, but absolutely enough for a reference here. Binksternet (talk) 00:22, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

The All Music Guide to Classical Music, page 667, adds more descriptive words to each of the sections of the song. You can use an adjective from this guide and place the reference immediately following the adjective. "Darkening" is the word used to describe the B section. Binksternet (talk) 00:39, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Here's another: They All Played Ragtime (page 243) calls the G minor B section "in the pathetic vein"... not to be confused with simply saying that the section is pathetic. 'Pathetic vein' here means sad, emotional, sentimental or even tragic. Binksternet (talk) 00:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

Binksternet, you rock. These are neat references. I'll put them in, if you'd like, when I get the time. Magnetic Rag (talk) 16:16, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Looks like I got the time first. ;^) I deleted the 'popularity' mention because I was unable to find a citation. I added refs for the two paragraphs missing them. I believe the article meets GA status now. Binksternet (talk) 06:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

FA candidate or peer review?

Many of you have contributed to this article, and it looks great, it my opinion. As its champion, I'd like to nominate it for FA. However, I'm not a frequent wikipedian, and certainly have never sought a FA nomination. What do you all think? Should we nominate it for peer review first, or go straight to the FA nomination? Magnetic Rag (talk) 06:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

My GA review was on the tough side, and it passed. I think the article is ready for FA. Binksternet (talk) 14:32, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Great work on this article everybody; I was inspired by this to do an article myself on the concert waltz Bethena, which I welcome any input - I've put it up for WP:GAN. Any help / advice etc would benefit it. Best of luck with the FA! Major Bloodnok (talk) 11:50, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

"only three other rags"

The cyclic structure is also found in his posthumously-published "Silver Swan Rag." That makes four rags, I believe. I don't have a source for this, but it's trivial to verify if you read the sheet music or listen to a recording. --Stepheng3 (talk) 05:19, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I looked at it, and you're right. What are we to do? If I recall correctly, that reference only refers to the 3 that are currently mentioned in the article. Do we need a reference to add the fourth?

P.S. You may want to comment on this on the article's FA review, currently ongoing. Thanks for everything, Stepheng3! Magnetic Rag (talk) 06:28, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

We all want this article to be exactly right, but if there are no sources saying that Silver Swan Rag was without a doubt composed by Joplin, then we are left with conjecture. The sheet music for Silver Swan Rag was found on Joplin's piano after his death, but could have been composed by someone else. How about we say that the cyclic pattern AABBCCDDAA was only published by Joplin in three other songs? We can leave the swan song out. Binksternet (talk) 14:52, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Not wanting to drag down the FA review, I'll continue the discussion here.

I realize there's some confusion about whether Joplin really wrote Silver Swan. However, I see that Jasen and Tichenor's Rags and Ragtime lists it as one of his compositions without qualification. Even though it didn't appear as sheet music until the 1970's, it was issued on piano rolls by QRS and National in 1914, three years before Joplin's death. While Joplin's name got attached to unrelated works during his lifetime, I think the claim that he really composed Silver Swan has to be taken seriously. (Having done this research, I guess I should start an article about it.)

Compare at the structures of the five rags in question:

• Magnetic Rag (Joplin 1914): Intro AA BB CC Vamp DD AA Coda
• New Rag (Stern 1912): Intro AA BB A CC Intro2 Interlude A Coda
• Euphonic Sounds (Seminary 1909): Intro AA BB A CC A Coda
• Kismet (Stark 1913): Intro AA BB A CC DD
• Silver Swan (QRS/National 1914, Maple Leaf 1971): Intro AA BB A CC Intro A

As noted in the article, Magnetic's structure is unique.

Of the five, only Magnetic Rag was published by Joplin himself, so that criterion won't serve to exclude Silver Swan.

While I don't have Waterman's book in front of me, I can't take his analysis (as currently reported in the article) seriously, since Kismet has the classic rag structure and does not revisit the opening melody at the end. Perhaps somewhere along the line, Kismet got confused with Silver Swan. It would be great if someone would double-check Waterman's book and report back.

For now, I think the safe thing to say would be simply that the cyclic form is rare in Joplin rags.--Stepheng3 (talk) 19:05, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I like your proposed resolution, Stepheng3. So, let's replace 'The form is cyclic: the opening melody is revisited at the end of the piece, a practice used by Joplin in only three other rags: "Kismet" (1913), "Scott Joplin's New Rag" (1912), and "Euphonic Sounds"' with, 'The form is cyclic, that is, the opening melody is revisited at the end of the piece. This cyclic form is rare among Joplin's rags', followed by the Waterman reference. What does Binksternet think? Magnetic Rag (talk) 01:18, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

That solution works for me. Binksternet (talk) 04:38, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Done! Thanks, you two. Magnetic Rag (talk) 05:16, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

I made one small tweak, and now I'm satisfied. Thanks for the cooperation.--Stepheng3 (talk) 01:02, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

Image

I've removed the section headings from the form section and added an image of the D section; I'd love to add a few bars of another section, but haven't done it yet. I uploaded the file onto the Commons, but managed to screw up the file name, and so I have requested a file move - I'll check back tomorrow and make sure the image is correct or correct it myself. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 22:42, 21 July 2011 (UTC) Done. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 06:12, 22 July 2011 (UTC)