Talk:Maple Leaf Rag

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Links to other ragtime pieces[edit]

It would be great if somebody could add links here to other ragtime pieces (if that's what you call them.) I'm not knowledgeable enough to do this myself.  :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.23.137 (talk) 20:14, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Use in games[edit]

In which video game was the piece used apart from the Bally Midway game? I'm racking my brains about it, but I can't for the life of me remember it. Can you help? -andy 80.129.92.18 00:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure about Maple Leaf, but other Joplin music, including Heliotrope Bouqet, Easy Winners, and something else I can't remember was used in the Atari 8-bit game, Clowns and Balloons. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 02:23, 17 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Maple Leaf being used in some basketball game for the Commodore 64. It was called "One on One: Dr. J vs. Larry Bird" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_on_One:_Dr._J_vs._Larry_Bird. A Pattern O (talk) 04:58, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Arresting Syncopations[edit]

In the section "Structure", it says that the syncopations were "arrestingly novel at the time", especially those coming "between the first and second strains". Is "strains" a technical term in ragtime music? I know the piece but don't know what part is referred to by this expression: that might be made clearer. Also, a period document noting that the syncopations seemed "arrestingly novel" could be cited to support this claim: the syncopations do still seem fresh nowadays, but are no longer "arrestingly novel".--70.107.173.227 17:53, 22 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A strain is an episode in march music. See March (music) A Pattern O (talk) 05:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tempo[edit]

Should someone add something about the fact that people disagree about the tempo?24.218.46.235 21:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like you already did. I reverted it, because it was an opinion. The disagreement stems from that people don't realize that "not fast" means "not at 120 or even 140" -- 100 is very well within "slow march tempo" range, as the marking is noted on many of Joplin's pieces. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ 22:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is "Maple Leaf Rag" similar musically to The Entertainer (rag)?[edit]

I have heard both a version of Scott Joplin's Maple Leaf Rag on a CD and various versions on The Entertainer(rag) song(on a computer, from an ice cream truck back when I was very young etc. etc.), which is also written by Scott Joplin. Could these two songs be related in some way either rhythmically,in musical notes or in just the sound or the "tune" of the song? Maybe, I don't really know. I just wanted to put that suggestion out there for people to think about, maybe someone could, with the information discovered or researched based on this suggestion and others, someone could maybe add the new information to the "Maple Leaf Rag" article and/or "The Entertainer(rag)" article.

24.250.174.91 03:43, 1 November 2007 (UTC)[reply] 

i do not understand how that it ones opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.152.71.122 (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They do indeed sound similar, and I'm sure they have several common elements. However, I'm not really sure there's much about it to be mentioned in the article. It's not like one is a spin off of the other, or some such. They're both mentioned in the introduction to the article "Ragtime". (Frazz (talk) 06:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Back To The Future III ![edit]

Did anyone of you guys notice in the movie that the piano player played this ragtime in the bar in the "year 1885" part? If the song was composed in 1899, this is really odd. -andy 92.229.170.244 (talk) 07:19, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Does the error in the film have anything to do with this article? -Stepheng3 (talk) 23:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Re-write[edit]

I have been knocking a few ideas around, and have taken a run at re-writing much of the existing article at my user space. I'll copy it over to this page and replace what is here currently. There is still much room for improvement; I have bulked up the Background and legacy sections, but I haven't yet touched the "Structure" section. I was aiming for something akin to the Magnetic Rag or Bethena. I hope any editors who watch this space will approve! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 21:06, 29 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Background section[edit]

The Background section is currently cluttered with trivia that seems (to me) only tenuously connected with the piece itself, such as the population of Sedalia, the politics of the town, and a fire in 1925. For an encyclopedia article, such details should be trimmed. —Stepheng3 (talk) 20:49, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

True - I made the background section more substantial than it was, but I think the page probably doesn't need quite so much information about Sedalia. Feel free to trim; I haven't sat down to read the page in a while so there are probably other things we could do without. Adding more to the "structure" section is on my ever increasing list of things to do. Sadly real life things are top of that list. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 00:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've taken a stab at it. Please check that the facts are still accurate and the source citations still make sense. —Stepheng3 (talk) 01:42, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
With a brief look it all seems to make sense still, and the citations seem to be in order. Good job, well done for getting rid of the clutter. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 18:43, 10 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Trinity Guildhall Sylibus[edit]

What is that? Sorry if I am misinformed, but isn't that vandalism? Under Structure, "The piece was featured on the Trinity Guildhall Grade 8 syllabus." --Computerchippo (talk) 20:10, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely not vandalism in the true sense, but rather just someone adding pointless info in good faith. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 20:56, 16 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Structure example[edit]

This is the end of the piece. Compared to the apparent original [1], there seem to be various errors as displayed and sounded:
the time signature should be 2/4, not 4/2;
the last 2 right-hand notes of the 2nd bar have their durations reversed;
the 3rd right-hand note of the 3rd bar should have d-natural, not an implied d-flat;
the last right-hand note of the final bar is spurious;
there should be 2 beams per bar instead of 1.
2.27.50.110 (talk) 00:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing this out; I for one hadn't noticed that there are in fact significant problems with this image (4/2 is a rather rum time signature!). We should, of course, use accurate information. I'll remove the image and at some point when I get the chance add a screen-grab from the original score. If anyone is able to do this sooner, please do! Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 07:02, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Please do take the opportunity to register and become an editor and fully-fledged member of the community - I'm sure there are many areas of Wikipedia which would benefit with input from someone with your knowledge. Ben (Major Bloodnok) (talk) 16:57, 17 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Maple Leaf Rag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Maple Leaf Rag. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:27, 1 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Maple_Leaf_Rag&oldid=1204625781"