Scott Joplin and Treemonisha

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 28 Feb 02 - 10:40 PM

Didn't want to start a new thread, but another production utilized Scott Joplin's music. The ballet, "Prodigal Son," (based on the biblical story), using music by Scott Joplin, was performed by The London Festival Ballet, to good reviews, about 1974. The ballet was orchestrated by Grant Hossack and the Festival orchestra was conducted by him. It was choreographed by Barry Moreland. An LP was released by CBS Records. The "Joplin Group" of the orchestra consisted of saxophones, four brass and Sousaphone, and a rhythm section including banjo.

Was this ballet ever performed in North America? Does anyone know about its history after the London performance? I played the LP of the music tonight and enjoyed it.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 03:16 PM

This seems to be the most thorough discussion on the Forum to date regarding the topic of the origins of bluegrass; click here.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 03:09 PM

Interesting, Ted. There must have been a thread on this topic, eh?

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 03:07 PM

Also, I was under the impression that "no less an authority than Bill Munro" had said that Bill Munro invented Bluegrass.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 03:00 PM

He is right, you know, EJ--Earl Scruggs often explained that in bluegrass is bebop played on a banjo--

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 02:30 PM

AR282, if you'd like to leave, I'm sure the rest of us are perfectly capable of carrying on without you, and we'll try not to talk about you while you're out of the room.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 02:19 PM

Damn it, I keep trying to leave and someone brings some thing else up. Bluegrass IS African-American. No less an authority than Bill Munro has said so. So is the barbershop quartet--before anybody wants to argue about that too.

Now enough already.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Lonesome EJ
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 02:11 PM

Good discussion. Not to nit-pick, but re: your statement that Joplin incorporated banjo dominantly "thereby telling us that bluegrass too is African-American." I believe that claiming Bluegrass is afro-american because it incorporates an instrument developed by afro-americans is like claiming jazz is european because it incorporates trumpets and coronets. Each instance is more likely an example of people using available tools to perform a kind of music that was native to them. For Bluegrass, I think a much stronger case can be made that the banjo was incorporated as a well-known, portable instrument that could be used in playing melodies of a principally Scotch-Irish or English origin.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 01:25 PM

A little more trivia- Polydor International (parent of DG) holds copyright on the Schuller-Houston recording- it holds for the United States. The album got quite a lot of publicity when it came out in 1976. I remember the record store where I picked it up had had to place extra orders, unusual for any opera item.
Well so long, it's been good to know ya! And what's this about Rassmussen and Rick Fielding? Maybe MTed and I can sue for a few hundred million! He, he, he! Sign me- just a music nut who likes historical trivia.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 11:03 AM

AR--You have given us some good excercise on this one--which, even if it seems to get heated, is always appreciated--Particularly good to get people thinking about ragtime, which is such an important a part of the music that we all love and play--I don't know about Dicho (who seems to like all the same stuff I do!) but I am generally regarded as a pain in the ass--partly for wasting everyone's time with questions that no one else really cares about, partly because of my simpleminded obsession with trivial details, and partly because I never let anything go(and there is my inclination to make dry, sarcastic, and generally unappreciated remarks)--so this has been perfect for me--

One thing about Joplin, and maybe the most important thing, is that he found a simple way to use those characteristic syncopated musical ideas from African-American music in a popular music format--he made everything that came after possible--Berlin called himself a ragtime composer, and, however he may have come up with Alexander's Ragtime Band, the most important thing he learned from Joplin was how to write songs using ragtime elements--

Anyway, my last two little contribution here are that I called ASCAP. and discovered that Joplin had been dropped from their membership rolls in 1976, meaning that his works went into public domain then, and no further royalties were either collected or distributed on his works--and also that the only Olympic Records that I could find is now a Goth/Metal label--

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 08:06 AM

One final thing Dicho,

It would appear that only excerpts are available. But as the president of Olympic discovered, he could do those since only the original 1971 performances were subject to licensing under US law. To this day, all we get are excerpts. That was likely settled in the courts.

The problem with an American label putting out the full opera--and the reason why Columbia and 20 Century-Fox were likely turned down by the Lottie Joplin Trust--is that the money would not go to the LJT but to Wilbur Sweatman's estate.

It is obvious that the LTJ exploited an international or foreign loophole to get their version of the opera out and keep the money or at least a part of it for themselves. So Deutsch Grammophon got the nod. And it is obvious that what the Germans got out of it was the right to perform Treemonisha in German. I doubt that Deutsch Grammophon agreed to take on Treemonisha because of American profits being that it came out in America without any fanfare whatsoever. I think DG saw a bigger market for it in Germany. You know how the Germans are about opera.

I doubt we will ever see a full opera by an American label and I doubt any other foreign label will take it on even if there were no legalities involved.

I don't know that blacks would reject the opera if most heard it. That has not been my experience--quite the opposite--but you might be right in that the black community as a whole might reject it. It seems odd that blacks don't seem to be aware that it exists.

From here on out, I bow out of this thread. I've said everything I can possibly say on the subject. I'm just repeating myself. But thanks Dicho and M. Ted for a most lively discussion. You guys are aces no matter what Rasmussen and Fielding say about you!

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 01:27 AM

If it had been possible to establish that Berlin had used Joplin's work--it would have been done, forget Joplin's illness, then, as now, he would have had to do no more than engage a law firm, there would have been too much money at stake not to pursue it, especially if one needed the money, say, to produce an opera--

At any rate, your passion on behalf of Joplin, while admirable, seems to get the better of the facts--

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Feb 02 - 01:01 AM

WOW! Tomorrow, I am going to add this thread to the "Origins of" Permathread. Incredible. Some of the best I've ever read on Mudcat.

Thanks!

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Tiger
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 08:53 PM

I remember encouraging Dave Van Ronk to do "A Real Slow Drag" from "Treemonisha".

Don't think that he did, though.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 08:33 PM

It won't happen. Treemonisha is over, done, cooked, finished.

Come to think of it, so is this thread.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 08:06 PM

I would imagine that anyone is now free to produce Treemonisha provided they do not imitate the Houston-Schuller DG material. Several revivals of Joplin's original score, with varying orchestration, have and are being produced.
The popularity of "The Sting" (produced in 1973) coincides with the early work on the Houston Opera production (stage design, etc. was initiated late in 1973). It undoubtedly revived interest in Joplin's music and also added to the interest in the Houston production- without this interest, it is doubtful that Deutsche Gramaphone would have recorded (and released in 1976) a production by an opera company little known to the world at large.
The audience for "The Sting", the general public, would have gone to sleep at any opera performance. Initial sales of the LP package were good but soon decreased. DG has kept it in the catalogue on cd, but it is purchased only by a small specialized audience.
Perhaps the hope for a more "authentic" version rests with a crop of new musicians such as Nevilla Ottley and small, intimate productions. Certainly the interest in the black community is low; revival of a vehicle that illustrates the superstitions and beliefs of the blacks of the late 19th C. and early 20th C. would be regarded unfavorably by many.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 07:33 PM

To M. Ted

"Alexander's Ragtime Band" in its original form was definitely NOT syncopated.

Edward Berlin (musicology Ph.D) writes in his Joplin bio "King of Ragtime" referring to "A Real Slow Drag":

"This finale is a fitting and glorious conclusion, summing up Joplin's philosophy that African Americans choose education as their guide to a brighter future. But in a perverse twist of fate, Joplin witnessed the misappropriation of his call to 'march onward.' He saw it taken by a white man and transformed into a non-syncopated ragtime song directed to white America, a song that became the greatest financial success of the time and a virtual symbol of the era. Lottie outlined what happened: 'After Scott had finished writing it, and while he was showing it around, hoping to get it published, someone stole the theme, and made it into a popular song. The number was quite a hit, too, but that didn't do Scott any good, To get his opera copyrighted, he had to re-write it.'

"Sam Patterson told a similar story, reporting that it was none other than Irving Berlin, then working in the Crown-Seminary-Snyder offices, who had stolen Joplin's 'Mayflower Rag' and 'Slow Drag.' Members of the Stark family [Joplin's original publisher] confirmed the story to Blesh and Janis in 1949, and to Trebor Tichenor some years later. They further claimed that the result of the theft was Alexander's Ragtime Band, and that, on first hearing it, Joplin was brought to tears. As reported by Tichenor: 'This is the story that circulated in the Stark family for years; that's what the grandson told me. Joplin took some music to Irving Berlin, and Berlin kept it for some time. Joplin went back and Berlin said he couldn't use it. When Alexander's Ragtime Band came out, Joplin said, 'That's my tune.'

"The verse of Berlin's song does resemble the 'Marching Onward' section of Joplin's "A Real Slow Drag".

You got dat right! I should also point out that it would not be the last time Berlin was accused of stealing numbers. Edward Berlin's (no relation to Irving as far as I know) conclusion is that we can't dismiss the possibility of unconscious plagiarism or coincidence BUT neither can we dismiss the charge of deliberate plagiarism. Edward B. tries to defend Irving B. but does admit that the rumors flew hard and fast around Tin Pan Alley that Berlin had stolen Alexander's Ragtime Band from a black man. Nor was Joplin the only black man Berlin was accused of stealing from. Lukie Johnson was one such artist but Johnson himself defended Berlin from the charge. Joplin, however, did not.

While syphilis may explain Joplin's actions in the ensuing melee, it does not explain Berlin's.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 06:56 PM

Ok Dicho and M. Ted

My source had recommended the book "This is Ragtime" by Terry Waldo and it was from this book that I got most of my story. I'll give you some direct quotes.

Referring to the 1972 performance of "Treemonisha" (arranged by T. J Anderson and Bill Bolcom), Waldo writes:

"The audience and critics were satisfied with the performance, but the controllers of the copyright were not. And who were the controllers of the copyright? The Music Trust of Lottie Joplin Thomas (Joplin's second wife, who died in 1955) claimed it was them. And who were the members of the trust? No one quite knew for sure at the time, but the advisor for the trust was Vera Brodsky lawrence, who was apparently dissatisfied with the T. J. Anderson orchestration, enough to have Bill Bolcom do another one for the next performance. 'Against my better judgment,' says Bolcom, 'I was told that if I didn't do it, the job would go to a Broadway hack. I'd had nothing against T. J.'s orchestrations.'

The opera was performed again and it was not received as well as had been hoped.

"Very little more was heard of the opera for the next few years. The controllers of the trust of Lottie Joplin effectively barred any further performances. T. J. Anderson, who was interested in establishing from the Treemonisha royalties a Scott Joplin Foundation for the furtherance of Afro-american music through scholarships, was particularly upset. As he said, 'Ninety-eight percent of pop music comes from the black community, but not two percent of the money is ever returned there.'

"The resulting acrimony over the dropping of Anderson's score had ruined the friendship of Bolcom and Anderson, and Bolcom was now sorry he had done the thing. He later stated: 'Vera Lawrence is a tragic figure who might have done more harm than good for the composer. The sad part is that I don't think she meant to do irreparable harm to Joplin. But she did by tying up his opera with legal maneuvering.'

"The trust also turned down an offer by Columbia Records to record the complete opera, and Twentieth Century-Fox was rejected in a bid to reproduce some selections in a television movie. In spite of all requests, Treemonisha remained unperformed throughout the height of the Joplin craze brought on by The Sting."

Waldo then goes into Lawrence hiring Gunther Schuller and he questions whether this produced a opera better than the Anderson-Bolcom production which he regards as truer to Joplin's vision. Then he writes:

"...I was curious as to why no one else had been doing any of this music. As it turned out, the ultimate success or failure of Treemonisha was not in the hands of the artists so much as lawyers. Upon the death of Lottie Joplin in 1955, the Joplin estate was tuned over to the Lottie Joplin Thomas trust fund with a lawyer, Robert Rosborne, as trustee. There was in 1975 one surviving descendant of Lottie--a niece, Mrs. Mary Warmley. This fact Vera Lawrence must have discovered in doing research on the publication of the Joplin works. Lawrence and her lawyer, Alvin Deutsch, then began acting as advisors to the estate in association with Mr. Rosborne. The exact arrangement was unknown, but the net result was the trust's assertion of control over who would and who would not perform the opera. Hence, the three-year absence of any performance during the crest of the Joplin fad.

"The whole business finally came to a head when the trust threatened to sue Olympic Records over the inclusion of several numbers from Treemonisha in a 1974 five-record set recorded by Dick Zimmerman--the same Dick Zimmerman, incidentally, who had published the list of needed rags in 'The Rag Times' for Lawrence's Joplin publication.

"When first contacted and informed that they had no legal right to record the Treemonisha material, Olympic offered to repackage the album without it, but Deutsch insisted on a $3,500 fee ($2,500 in damages and $1,000 in legal fees, in exchange for not suing the company). Instead of paying this, the president of the company decided to investigate the legal rights of the estate to prohibit recordings. He discovered that the numbers had been previously recorded in 1971 for a special sale at the Lincoln Center Library and by various other artists. According to copyright law, only the first recorded performance needs a license from the copyright holder. Olympic sued for $750,000 (reputation, damages, etc.); and the trust countersued in federal court for copyright infringement.

"Meanwhile Mary Warmley was interviewed by a representative of Olympic and was discovered to be an elderly woman, a former domestic, who was unaware that The Sting had ever existed, did not own a phonograph, and had never heard Joplin's music. When asked about the money she was making from the various royalties from the music, she said that every once in a while her lawyer, Mr. Rosborne, would take her to the bank and give her what she needed.

"There were more lawsuits. The Lottie Joplin Thomas trust only spoke for the rights of Scott Joplin the composer; the rights of Scott Joplin the publisher, on the other hand, were theoretically controlled by someone else. And of course there was a conflict. According to the copyright records in the United States, Treemonisha is controlled by the estate of Wilbur Sweatman, a musician friend of Joplin. When Sweatman died, his illegitimate daughter tried to pick up the copyright but couldn't, as New York does not recognize illegitimate children. It then went to his sister, Eva Sweatman, who died some years later, leaving the estate to her friend, Robert Sweeney. As of 1975 the books of ASCAP showed the Wilbur Sweatman Music Publishing Company (Robert Sweeney) still receiving money on Treemonisha and not the Lottie Joplin estate. Sweeney offered half of his rights on Treemonisha to the head of Olympic Records if he would follow their lawsuit against the Lottie Joplin Trust to a successful conclusion. As of this writing, the case was scheduled for hearing by the New York State Supreme Court.

"It appears that we may never get a chance to evaluate the full potential of Treemonisha because of what actually amounts to effective censorship of its free interpretation. Joplin never had the chance himself to experiment with the production, but maybe someone else might have been able to, possibly cutting it down to a shorter work. It would be a sad thing indeed if any one of the interpretations of Joplin's rags had been the only one permitted to be heard, but that, in effect, is what has happened to his most ambitious effort. It seems a safe bet that it will now be returned to the lifeless library shelves and museums from which it was retrieved for such a short time."

Anyway, this book is published by Hawthorn Books and was copyrighted in 1976. Things could have changed but it certainly does not appear to be so. Although I had many details wrong, Treemonisha has been virtually silenced. The public is largely unaware of it (certainly the black community knows almost nothing of it as I have yet to meet a single black person who has heard of it before I turned him/her onto it) and it doesn't appear that that is going to change. I think labels are simply losing interest.

I thought maybe the 75-year copyright thing was in effect but it appears to be nothing more than a hopelessly tangled morass of legal horseshit that has more or less killed Treemonisha. The Lottie Joplin Trust and the Wilbur Sweatman estate are simply at war and any label that attempts to take on Treemonisha will be caught in a hopeless crossfire.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 01:55 PM

My belief remains that no complete "alternative" Tremonisha has been recorded because of the cost and likelihood of financial loss. An "angel" investor would be required.
The Joplin score lacks full orchestration. Would the small versions prepared for current performances be accepted by the public in complete recorded form? I would like to see another version but I may belong to a small minority.
What were the dates on the court cases? That has a bearing on the current status as well. Court action may no longer be possible except with regard to the 1975 Schuller-orchestrated version (and old cases that are undecided- which I doubt).
The Zimmerman recordings remain available in a box set at reasonable price.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 01:01 PM

That's been probably the most common defense of Berlin. And that's fine. Could be right. But IMO, Berlin's actions strike me as shady and I think he borrowed from Joplin. If he hadn't tried to cover it up by "forgetting" about Joplin's submission of A Real Drag to his publishing house, I'd have no problem with what he did. Everybody borrows, I don't care how creative you are. But it's just my opinion and it won't change.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 09:21 AM

Another comment--"Alexander's Ragtime Band" is syncopated--even if it wasn't, I am perfectly able to hear melodic similarities even when the rhythmic phrase is different--and, oddly enough, the one piece of similarity is a rhythmic phrase--however, it moves in a very different way, melodically--AR, you point out that Joplin was in the throes of syphillis by 1911--and, paranoid dementia was a common manifestation--

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: GUEST,AR282
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 08:26 AM

Again, the St. Louis thing is excerpts and not the full opera. If you're going to put out excerpts why not the full opera except that you can't?

As I said, I hope to have something to post about the legalities today. I'm at work right now and it'll have to wait until after 4 pm.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Feb 02 - 12:44 AM

In an earlier post, you say you "know that no other label can release a version of Treemonisha--I know that." What is your evidence, other than that no complete version has been released? What is the court evidence?
A cd of excerpts from the St. Louis production is available, the order blank lists it at $15.00: order
A reprint of the Joplin score was published by Dover and is available from them for $19.95. My thought is that no one thinks that a complete recording of their version would be profitable and that is the reason none has been released. It is hard to compete with the plush (but flawed) Houston Opera production on the Deutsche Gramaphone release, which includes the libretto of the Schuller version and would be very costly to match. I know I would hesitate unless I could afford a loss.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 10:11 PM

None of these sites Dicho mentioned have any CD available that I could find. The St. Louis site is just an advertisement for a live performance. That's never been under dispute. I never said it can never be performed ever.

The midi and piano scores are not subject to the ban since they are not the opera. I have Richard Zimmerman's piano version on CD. I've had it for a couple of years at least. But I have never seen another full opera recording on the market.

Finally, remember that Alexander's Ragtime Band is not syncopated and A Real Slow Drag is. It makes a difference. BUT there ARE marked differences between the 2 songs. I don't believe Berlin ripped off the whole song. I think he had a skeleton written but didn't feel it was ready and used a bit from Joplin's piece to flesh it out. People borrow from one another all the time. I think Berlin figured it would not be a big deal since he only took pieces of the Joplin's tune and modified them to disguise them a bit. I don't think he realized that Joplin would still instantly recognize his own bits in someone's song and would flip his lid.

Normally, I wouldn't even blame Berlin for anything. BUT he took Joplin's piece and then just set it aside hoping Joplin would forget about it and then when Joplin showed up, gave it back and said no dice even though it was good enough for him to steal from it. THAT is callous!

I don't buy the defense that Berlin was too talented to need to borrow from another's music. Garbage! It happens all the time! Even great classical composers have done it. I just read something the other day that proved that Mozart's "Magic Flute" was not written straight out of Mozart's head; he borrowed the basic idea from someone else's opera--although Mozart's is much better.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 05:42 PM

Nice work, Dicho! And, at the first site, a CD of the new version is available! ! Also, a midi of "A Real Slow Drag", which, to my ear, has minimal similarity to "Alexander's Ragtime Band"--anyway, this is turning into a very interesting exposition--I am eager to hear the story from your sources, AR--

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 05:11 PM

Treemonisha, different version than the 1975 production, produced by the St. Louis Opera Theater: St. Louis
It seems that there are and have been several productions of Treemonisha. In other words, no restrictions on performance exist as long as the 1975 version is not used.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 04:59 PM

Another reference, to a German concert version, with midis: Treemoni

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 04:46 PM

The piano concert version of Treemonisha by Joplin is here: concert vers

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 04:02 PM

Found an interesting website which has midis which are "direct and uncut transcripts of the 1911 published piano/vocal score...with passages NOT included in the 1975 production." These are edited by Gary Davis. The complete libretto, etc. are on the site: Tremonisha
I haven't gone through the site yet, so can't comment on it.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 02:48 PM

It seems to me that an obstacle to a NEW production is the cost itself including orchestration, choreography, staging, costumes, cast, etc. etc. which cannot imitate the 1970s production as well as the copyright problem. Can finances be found?
Renewal was in 1938. What is the term and content of this renewal? Whether this can be extended would depend on the bill before Congress.
If © is still in effect a financial deal must be made with the executors. Another problem- did the executors agree NOT to give permission to a competing version as long as the © holds? Without knowledge of the contracts, terms of © coverage, etc., we can't judge the problem.
As to the German radio production, I will make a guess that the © is ended for the original as written by Joplin and that the production took place without more than a studio audience, and without costumes, staging or use of any part of the 1970s Tremonisha production (thus at minimum cost). I would also presume that the German performance was on State radio with costs paid by the government corporation. The tape may be obtainable if the proper contact is found.
I can't help thinking of the zarzuela format (set production with singing cast in costume but without the movement or choreography of an opera or play type production and attendant high costs. It might be effective for Tremonisha.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 02:07 PM

I don't know that recording is all right and not distribution. As I said, I am just supposing. I don't know. Again, maybe it was a live broadcast or maybe the laws are different overseas. I just don't know. But I don't see why you can't record it. Whose going to know? But if you attempt to distribute, they'll find out about that in a big hurry.

The copyright extension deal was just another way for some rich guy to buy copyrights to old material whose original 50-year copyright had already expired and then you and I have to pay him if we want to record it. That's nothing but the most unscrupulous robbery. Sonny Bono should have been hung even after he died.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 01:24 PM

OK, now I am completely lost--recording is all right, but not distribution? It's not that I don't believe you, it's just that I can't imagine what the legal foundations for the ban would be--as for the Sonny Bono deal, it showed us that Democrat or Republican, our elected representatives are primarily concerned with the needs of the special interests who fronted them campaign money-Never underestimate the ability of the monied interests to manipulate the law--

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 12:08 PM

I don't know that a performance of Treemonisha couldn't be performed and recorded, just not distributed. As I said, I have a German performance on cassette that a guy in Sweden recorded off a shortwave broadcast and mailed to me. It's not very good (they actually turned some of the numbers into out-and-out jazz and some are stereotyped ragtime with pratfall sound fx--neither of which Joplin ever dabbled in) and is not available anywhere I've looked. But it was recorded and broadcast, so I don't think the ban extends to recording, only to distribution of the recording. Then again, maybe the laws are differnt overseas.

So there may be recordings ready to go as soon as the copyright runs out. Who knows?

As for the Sonny Bozo copyright extension, that was the biggest fraud ever perpetrated upon the music industry. I can't believe that was even allowed. That ranks up there with Michael Jackson buying the rights to the Beatles' songs.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 10:12 AM

"Someday" may be later than sooner, at least unless the Sonny Bono Copyright Extension is thrown out in court--What really puzzles me is why, assuming that profit is a motive, the holders of the rights are not eager to let anyone that wants to record or perform the piece--actually--sad to say, there are many things that no one has access to because the rights are tied up as part of some other legal issues--we could start a thread on musical instrument related patents that are tied up this way, and probably many other things as well--

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 09:49 AM

It may be that the 1938 date is now the official one and perhaps that's all is--the public domain status doesn't apply yet. That's good in that it will some day then go into effect and versions of Treemonisha may then abound but that will depend on the mood of the country by that time. Labels may lose interest by that time and figure there's no money in it may not record it. The point is, it was botched royally. It was supposed to have come out when public attention was focused on Joplin but it didn't and when you let moments like that slip away from you, it's damned hard to get them back. If and when multiple Treemonisha versions come out, it may very well be that no one will notice.

Hopefully, I'll be able to print up something about the legalitites tommorrow.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 24 Feb 02 - 01:11 AM

I am eager to hear as much of the story as you can put together, AR, including any information on the issues presented to the court and the opinions handed down--music copyright cases, are, I believe, always handled by the same court--so even if you get the names of the plaintiffs and defendents, it will be possible to look it up--the 1938 date would probably have been a renewal date rather than the initial filing date--

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 10:36 PM

To Dicho

I never said Lottie Joplin was the old lady that didn't know anything about Joplin. She was his wife after all. This old lady I refer to lived in the 70s when Joplin became popular after "The Sting" (Lottie was long since dead). She was a distant relative (Joplin had no children that survived him) and so became the legal inheritor of the estate.

But she knew nothing about the legal ramifications of heading an estate and didn't care. She was just some old lady who was given a little money by the lawyers that were really running the whole thing and she was happy enough with that. She had nothing to lose by going along with it. So she certainly was not going to fight these lawyers. As I said, she admitted that she knew nothing of Joplin's music. She was just a figurehead put there so that it didn't look like the Joplin estate were really nothing but greedy lawyers (a redundancy--I know).

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 09:50 PM

Lottie was his third wife. Edward Berlin found the 1904 marriage cerificate that listed Freddie Alexander as Joplin's wife after the breakup of his first marriage. A newspaper article mentioned her death some 2 months later and called her "Mrs. Scott Joplin" and this at a time when Joplin had divorced his first wife and before he was married to Lottie. So he had to have married Freddie Alexander. Berlin even printed the marriage certificate in his book "King of Ragtime" and so there can be no doubt that Joplin married 3 times and not 2.

Freddie was 18 when Joplin met her. Treemonisha is 18 in the opera. Freddie was born in Arkansas according to the marriage certificate. The opera takes place in Arkansas. There is no doubt that Joplin was memorializing his 2nd wife.

But most sources will still say that Lottie was Joplin's 2nd wife. She was not. Berlin's evidence is undeniable and the opera itself strongly hints that Berlin is right.

Glad you're checking up on Joplin. Too bad more people don't.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 09:26 PM

"A Guest of Honor" was a ragtime opera that Joplin experimented with. It may have spun out of his work with "The Ragtime Dance". I believe his two brothers, Robert and Will--both famous vaudevillians, helped Scott to stage it and it received good response and this encouraged Joplin to keep exploring opera.

Unfortunately, Joplin couldn't get a publisher for "A Guest of Honor" (Stark wouldn't touch it--he didn't even want to publish "The Ragtime Dance" except that his daughter Nellie--who loved Joplin--twisted his arm) and it fell by the wayside and is now lost. That's too bad. It would be extremely interesting to hear. I imagine it probably sounded like the stuff in Treemonisha that was raggy such as "We're Goin' Around", "Aunt Dinah Has Blowed the Horn", "A Real Slow Drag" and so on. Treemonisha, I should point out, is NOT a ragtime opera but an opera with some ragtime in it.

Whether Joplin recycled anything from "Guest" is not known. In short, we know next to nothing about "A Guest of Honor". A lot of Joplin's stuff has been lost and we don't even know how much.

"Pretty Pansy Rag" is lost, for example, but we know definitely that Joplin composed such a piece. One newspaper article from 1901, I believe, mentioned a Joplin composition called "A Blizzard" but no other mention of it exists and no trace of the piece itself has ever been found. Joplin and Lamb collaborated on a rag once and I would kill to hear it. Unfortunately, Stark wouldn't publish it because he and Joplin had had a falling out and Lamb gave up trying to find a publisher. It is now lost. What an incredible shame!

In 1971, a pianola expert named Albert Grimaldi was rummaging around in an old pianola he had purchased 15 years before and let sit in his garage. He found some extra piano rolls stuffed away in it. One was "The Silver Swan Rag" and it was "attributed to Scott Joplin" (and has since been confirmed to be genuine Joplin). No date on it although it is now believed to be from 1914--the last year Joplin published any rags.

Anyway, if you locate a copy of "A Guest of Honor" don't lose it!!!!! You have a one-of-a-kind piece of music that you will be offered a large sum for. But don't count on finding it any time soon. My boss believes a mnauscript might exist somewhere in the attics and archives of old money. Could be. But who do you start with and where?

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: Dicho (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 09:10 PM

Sorry, I meant Berlin.
The ragtime opera I mentioned was never published, according to a biographic sketch I just found. I don't know if a Ms. exists or if it was ever copyrighted.
More trivia: Lottie Joplin was Joplin's second wife, and apparently gave him much encouragement. Her maiden name was Stokes.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 09:00 PM

Gershwin? How'd he get into this?

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: GUEST,Dicho
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 08:46 PM

Getting used to Internet Explorer, forgot to put my name on my question about "A Guest of Honor." Don't have to fill in the name with Netscape.
I have heard the story about "A Real Slow Drag," but Gershwin wrote too much good music on his own; I tend to doubt it. Certain simple musical lines can appear coincidentally. I don't know how you would go about "proving" it one way ot the other.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 08:21 PM

Here's something else very interesting about Treemonisha:

When Joplin first wrote "A Real Slow Drag", the finale of his opera, he had just a ragtime piano score in 1911. He took it to the publishing house of Crown-Seminary-Snyder in New York and an executive there took the song and kept it for a few months.

Having heard nothing from them in some time, Joplin went back and inquired as to whether they would publish it. The executive instead returned the piece to Joplin saying that he was sorry but it wasn't quite up to snuff. Joplin was miffed that they kept the piece so long if they didn't want it.

Shortly after, a new song began to sweep the nation. It just happened to be written by the executive who had handled "A Real Slow Drag" at Crown-Seminary-Snyder. The song was called "Alexander's Ragtime Band" and the executive's name of course was Irving Berlin. "Alexander's Ragtime Band" was an enormous hit during that era perhaps second only to "Maple Leaf Rag" (even though, strictly speaking, Berlin's piece was NOT ragtime).

There was only one problem: When Joplin heard Berlin's piece, he became so infuriated that he burst into tears yelling, "That's my tune!" Mr. Berlin, it appeared, had "borrowed" a bit from "A Real Slow Drag" and removed the syncopation from it.

There is no doubt that both songs bear uncomfortable resemblances, especially at the beginning. Word quickly spread around Tin Pan Alley. The November 1911 edition of "American Musician" stated, "Scott Joplin is anxious to meet Irving Berlin. Scott is hot about something."

Berlin kept silent, hoping the hullabaloo would die down but it did not and finally by 1916, he was forced to publicly acquit himself. In the April 1916 edition of "Green Book Magazine" Berlin wrote, "If the other fellow [he wouldn't mention Joplin by name] deserves credit, why doesn't he go get it?" Joplin never did and many use this as a defense of Berlin.

But Joplin had an opera to write and prepare, he was already feeling the first deleterious effects of syphilis by 1911 and by 1916 was certainly far too ill to "go get it". Eubie Blake reported meeting Joplin in 1915 and stated that Joplin was so ill that he could hardly play his own rags anymore.

Comparing the two songs, there are marked differences. But then Joplin was forced to change "A Real Slow Drag" in order to publish it. Berlin's defenders say that Joplin certainly wouldn't have had to change "A Real Slow Drag" very much to get it published but I don't quite understand that. If he had to change the song to publish it, it had to have bore more than a slight resemblance to "Alexander's Ragtime Band".

Finally, then, we have to ask if perhaps Berlin unconsciously plagiarized Joplin. That kind of thing happens all the time. Well...maybe. But then we have to ask why Joplin had to go to Crown-Seminary-Snyder to ask about his piece and why they had kept it so long and how Berlin could have handed the piece back to Joplin without ever thinking that it bore no resemblance to anything he had written or was planning to write. It smells a bit fishy. Moreover 5 years of silence on Berlin's part didn't kill the rumors--they increased.

I think Berlin used Joplin's piece and did so consciously. I think he deliberately removed the sycopation so as to disguise his theft a bit. What it sounds like to me is that he may have had a skeleton song that he couldn't finish and used Joplin's piece to put flesh on it. Then I think he intended to keep Joplin's piece under wraps, hoping the composer would forget about it. That's why the publishing house had the song so long and why Joplin finally had to go see them to find out what they were planning to do. They were hoping he would forget he had turned the piece over to them. But Joplin didn't forget...and he didn't forgive either. He was convinced that Berlin ripped him off and believed it to his dying day.

What about you?

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: GUEST
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 08:13 PM

In 1903, Joplin wrote a ragtime opera called "A Guest of Honor." Does anyone know anything about this work?

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: GUEST,Dicho
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 08:01 PM

Several corrections to posts above including mine.
1, It was Ben Harney; credit my faulty memory of his name for the mistake. AR282, I agree that he did a good job as Zodzetrick. Carmen Balthrop's performance of Tremonisha turned me off.
2. Joplin copyrighted Tremonisha in 1911. Lottie Joplin renewed th copyright in 1938. I don't know if any additional renewals were undertaken. MTed, this is the date to reckon with, not the 1911 original copyright.
3. I would like to some details of court challenges to the release of other versions of Tremonisha and the dates of these challenges. These would have to be based on the copyright held by Lottie Joplin's estate and the Thomas Trust, if still valid.
4. The statement that Lottie Joplin was "some old lady who knew nothing" and did not listen to Joplin, I believe is wrong. I believe that she made an arrangement of "Solace," but I lack other details.
5. I was surprised to learn that the orchestrator of the production of Tremonisha, Gunther Schuller, arranged orchestra versions of The Entertainer, Easy Winners, Pine Apple Rag, and Rag Time Dance for "The Sting." He also arranged a piano version of The Entertainer. Marvin Hamlisch wrote the final score for the film, using Schuller's arrangements. The film was copyrighted 1973 by Universal and MCA released the soundtrack in 1974.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 07:37 PM

Treemonisha was only written by Joplin as a piano/vocal score. He never got around to dividing it up into separate parts for an orchestra and so no one is sure what Joplin had in mind. That piano score was the only one ever produced by Joplin and if Lawrence held a copyright to it, public domain or not, the score belongs to her.

The public domain argument from what I understand was done to death in the courts but to no avail. Every argument you can use has been used and it has done no good. The only good thing is that it will probably always be challenged and maybe one of these times we might get results.

And there are those who say that Schuller's version was too grandiose and not really what Joplin envisioned. I don't necessarily agree, but I would love to hear what someone could do with that idea. But unless I attend a live performance, I doubt I'll ever hear it.

I'll prepare a more factual and more detailed account of all the legal bs soon. I'll need a chance to consult some books and talk to some people who were intimately involved in the original Treemonisha revival project. But if you know of other versions available please let me know as I would love to hear other interpretations.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 05:56 PM

If the original score was published before 1920, it is public domain now, and nobody has any control over it--the Gunter Schuller score would be copyrighted, though, and he, or his publishers, would have control over performance and recording rights--Apparently, Lawrence prepared a piano/vocal score which she held a copyright to, and perhaps the difficulties arose be cause she promised to assigned the orchestration to two different places, then stiffed one--

It is amazing how entangled these publishing.performance rights can get--

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 04:49 PM

To Dicho

Are you sure that a Ben Hanley played Zodzetrick? I thought his name was Ben Harney--which, ironically, is also the name of an early ragtime pioneer who wrote "You Been A Good Old Wagon But You Done Broke Down".

Anyway, I think Harney did a great job as Zodzetrick. My complaint is that Treemonisha and her mother sound too much alike.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: AR282
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 04:42 PM

It is the Joplin estate that holds the power. The Joplin estate however are just lawyers. The Joplin relative that was named as the Joplin estate was some old lady that knew nothing of what was going on and did not herself listen to anything by Scott Joplin. Any profits of the CD just go to this little cabal of lawyers.

The original score was published before the 20s. Joplin himself paid to have it published and he died in 1917. Had he not done so, the score probably would have been lost by the 1920s. By the 20s, you understand, Joplin was already forgotten. Only "Maple Leaf Rag" was remembered because it was one of the very few rags redone as a jass song.

I don't claim all the details I gave were right but I do know that no other label can release a version of Treemonisha--I know that. And I know that this has been challenged in the courts a number of times but it has never been successfully overthrown. I'll check with my sources, but I'm sure I have that much correct.

Subject: RE: Scott Joplin and Treemonisha
From: M.Ted
Date: 23 Feb 02 - 02:59 PM

AR,

The account that you gave makes no sense, legally--so I suspect, as often happens, the real nature of the conflict and its ramifications never was conveyed to you--there are many conflicts that occur in the production of a show, often many feet stepped on, and in the end, many questions about what could or should have been done--

I have always understood that the original Joplin score was published, in the 20's, and that copies still exist--given that, there was nothing that Lawrence could have done, legally, to prevent it's performance or recording--though the Joplin estate would have had veto power--

As to the list of things that you say could have happened, that is all speculation--truth be told, Tremonisha was never successfully produced in it's time, and may never have been theatrically viable--Joplin's rags are his real legacy, and not a bad one, at all--