I sent Thomas Henden a brief, private response to his email.  Now that I
see it and other comments in MMD, I feel obligated to answer a bit more
completely.  I don't want this to turn into a rag session against QRS
(pun intended!).

First, Thomas' problem with the reissued QRS roll relates to the
introduction to the Connorized roll of "Magnetic Rag" (pb Scott Joplin).
A very slow introduction leads to the rest of the piece, which plays at a
considerably faster tempo.  That's actually the way the Connorized roll
was originally issued!  I don't know why.  If the roll is played at the
right speed for the "A" section, then the introduction is very slow.
That's how I play it when I get the roll out.

(I'm on the road just now and don't have access to my roll.  I have a
laptop PC but not a laptop Vorsetzer; I wonder how the hotel management
would like me playing a few rolls in the lobby?!)

Next, the Themodist topic.  Unfortunately, this is the _reverse_ of the
stereo/mono issue: newer recordings & playback equipment are all stereo,
and compatible with earlier mono equipment.  As I said before, it's no
surprise that QRS would pay little attention to this compatibility
matter, since player pianos, on the other hand, are almost all
non-Themodist.  (I can hear the arguments already; this is obviously not
true in the UK, and I suspect most QRS customers have no idea what
"Themodist" means.)

Further, I doubt if many (if any) of their current rolls were ever issued
with Themodist perforations, so they would have to add them.   (Fat
chance of that happening!)  Add to that the fact that the snakebites
likely _are_ a technical complication since they would probably require
extra maintenance and/or care on the perforator operator's part.  It just
isn't worth it, if you are QRS.  The same argument applies to Recordo,
Ampico, Duo-Art, Welte, Apollo, Artrio-Angelus, you name it -- why would
they want to bother with this market?   Most of their customers probably
couldn't care less, and I'm sure that's why they dropped Ampico & other
rolls.

Lest we put QRS through the ringer as we recently did Player Piano Co.
let me remind everyone that they have provided a valuable service to the
player field for MANY, MANY years after everyone else had given up.  Max
Kortlander kept QRS alive through the Depression & 1940's into modern
times; that in itself probably saved dozens (hundreds?) of players from
being scrapped.  I just don't think that's fair for us to get on their
case for possibly misrepresenting their product.  I would _not_ make any
such blanket statements putting down their reissues of older material,
even after the specifics we've mentioned in MMD.  There are many 1920's
reissues (the Q- series) which I believe are all (?) unmodified from the
originals.

And they include the lyrics on their word rolls -- look at all the agony
we've put into that topic in MMD, and still no new solutions!  QRS is
still the only game in town on that count (unless you want to consider
Play-Rite).  Where else are you gonna buy a new Fats Waller word roll?

Come to think of it, I would generalize by saying that most or all of the
titles QRS updated over time are those played by house artists such as
JLC, and I see nothing wrong with these updates.  It would be more
convenient for us collectors today to be able to differentiate different
arrangements by updated catalog numbers, but again we're imposing our own
outlook here rather than looking at it as it occurred over time: QRS was a
business responsible for issuing material which would most appeal to its
customer base.  I don't know of _any_ rolls offhand by Waller, James P.
Johnson, or even Pete Wendling which were updated over time like the
Kortlander, Baxter & Kortlander, Walter Redding, JLC, etc. rolls were.

Notice how these are generally later piano roll arrangers, as opposed to
known recording artists?  I think it's almost safe to say you can assume
all of these (the very early, raggy Kortlander rolls being the exception)
are JLC arrangements which we roll collectors should be knowledgeable
enough to know are likely to be subjected to this kind of treatment.  Let
me put it another way.  If you ask General Motors to make you a cool car
that's fun to drive they're gonna sell you one of the models they sell
today, not a '57 Chevy or a Cadillac convertible with fins!

To this day, QRS issues current music for customers who are looking for
that, and I bet they sell a lot more rolls than all of us making
"specialty" recuts COMBINED!  And I say, more power to them.  I'm
personally not a fan of the paper and boxes they use these days, but they
probably need to make more of a profit than I do so I can understand them
making a business decision that keeps them from going bankrupt!  And if
they continue to sell rolls in satisfactory quantities, I trust they have
customers who are satisfied.  I've also seen some perforations that look
a bit rough, but the market will have to determine whether that's
acceptable or not.  I don't like it, but as I said I haven't bought a new
QRS roll for a few years now so what do they care about my opinion?  It's
their current customers that matter, and who will decide if the
perforations are acceptable.  Can you imagine what their prices would
have to be if they went back to 1920's paper-wrapped, embossed boxes?  I
guess we could ask Eric Bernhoft what those beautiful boxes of his cost
[but modesty would prevent us from being so bold, right?  ;-)  ]

But I digress!  The Waller example Robbie stated is particularly ironic:
all of the "real, hand-played" Waller rolls state clearly on the label
that they are played by Thomas Waller (no "Fats") while all of the later
JLC arrangements are clearly labelled "Played by Fats Waller" which of
course really means JLC!!  Has it been mentioned in MMD that Cook knew
Waller, and that many of these arrangements were issued during Waller's
lifetime without Waller arguing?  I think the 1930's JLC/Waller rolls are
just another example of economics, and of QRS issuing rolls to satisfy
their current customers.  Remember the alternative in 1935 was no new
rolls at all!  Their process (i.e.. JLC vs. royalty, time & editing to
issue a true hand-played roll) was a business decision necessary during
the Depression.  Thank god they kept things going.  We specialist
collectors may object, but I bet the average QRS customer doesn't care,
so why would QRS even bother trying to explain all these details?  This
has been their procedure for 60+ years now, and I see no reason for us to
come along and tell them they have done something wrong.  We're the ones
with the problem, not them.  And I don't really think we have much of a
problem, either.  I know what I'm buying, and that's always the
responsibility of the advanced collector in ANY field.

One last quick point, about rolls read by Richard & Janet Tonnesen and by
Wayne Stahnke: I'd suggest looking at earlier MMD's for details on this.
Both systems are impressively accurate (Wayne's was designed with
particularly precise readings in mind) and worth reviewing in detail.
I remember Richard e-mailing to MMD about his system about this time last
year.  Richard's are the only commercially-available rolls cut from
computerized reading (are there some UK perforators I've overlooked
here?).

I hope I've made my point here without ruffling any feathers.  I believe
QRS has every right to reissue their material as they see fit, and that
it really does us no harm - instead, it keeps their catalog up-to-date so
they can continue to offer their customers what they want.  I think it's
unnecessarily harsh to write off all QRS reissues as alterations - I know
of NO other examples of this particular problem (the Connorized / Joplin
roll of Magnetic Rag) in the QRS catalog today.  Have I overlooked
anything?  How about the Jelly Roll Morton rolls they list?  Let's get
the facts out on the table!  Who knows, maybe Ginny Billings can use it
for another volume of QRS rollography material!  Sorry if I got too
long-winded.  I guess I just don't feel like sitting in the hotel bar
drinking tonight.

Cheers,¶
Rob DeLand¶
(deland_robert@macmail1.csg.mot.com)