On Fri, Jun 15, 2018 at 10:34 AM Shachar Shemesh <shac...@shemesh.biz>

> You forgot to answer about the lack of "Ragtime" category :-)
I don't know what it would take to create a new category.  I'd be all for
it but I don't have that authority.

> On 15/06/2018 16:08, Knute Snortum wrote:
> I would frown upon changing the pitch of a note that "sounds wrong" to you
> unless you have some evidence to back it up.  I would want the piece
> exactly how Joplin wrote it.  A footnote would be acceptable, I think.
> You do realize that there is a difference between "How Joplin wrote it"
> and "How it was first published", right?
> The case is not so obvious in The Easy Winners, but in Maple Leaf Rag
> there is a place where there is obviously a note they forgot to print while
> type-setting it. It is missing from the first seuence, but present in the
> second time the sequence is given one octave down. It is also present in
> the first sequence the second time the notes are given (the second time
> part A is played).
> As such, it is fairly obvious that the piece as published does not reflect
> how Joplin wrote it.
> Having said that, and assuming you're using the same source as me for the
> notes (the yellow book bundling all of Joplin's works), the editorial at
> the beginning claims they have already incorporated all erratas they could
> find.

As I said, if you have  evidence to backup the change, them make it.
Mutopia-discuss mailing list

Reply via email to