Talk:Ragtime

Periodicals / Newspapers / Magazines: Revival

AllyD The discussion should be added here for those editing this page: AfD The Mississippi Rag. I do not agree with those who wish to add this periodical to this article / section - (even the book source - which is superfluous in this case) - since it promotes and welcomes undue weight and excess lists for periodicals from those that (self) published these type of magazines / newsletters / etc: i.e. Zimmerman's "The Rag Times", Perf. Bill's monumental legacy of historical online research ... to say that The Syncopated Times is unreliable is PO and OR. Mentioning a periodical in this section is out of place and the inline content does not prove effective or encyclopedic for its mentioning. One source is dead: [1], the second is an obituary, and the third [2] is from the very same periodical that the above editor said was "unworthy": The Syncopated Times. I'm not doubting the importance of this periodical, but if it was deemed necessary for AfD and saved by redirect, it needs to be better incorporated into this article; and others should merit the same level of inclusion. I believe this should be under: FURTHER READING, not included in this section. It does not warrant placement higher than Jasen / Tichenor, Berlin, Waldo, Blesh, et al. Maineartists (talk) 17:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hi @Maineartists, feel free to participate in the deletion discussion. Establishing a source's reliability isn't "OR" but the bread-and-butter of editor discretion. Quality judgment on its contents aside, I'd be interested in evidence of The Syncopated Times' reputation for fact-checking and accuracy.

As for AllyD's addition, I've recast it. That a single publication was responsible for ragtime's coverage since the revival seems noteworthy, hence its mention in the book as cited (a source that is certainly not dead). (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 20:42, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

@Czar: I didn't bring up the initial "unworthiness" for The Syncopated Times, you did. I was merely referencing it in regards to its inclusion here with an inline citation source for why it should be notably mentioned. If The Syncopated Times is unworthy, it shouldn't be used as a reliable source. I'm not in disagreement with you; on the contrary. Second, I have no wish to enter into the discussion at the Afd. I thought it premature to include the entry here when the Afd has not even gone through or ended. The discussion should have been brought here first to the article's Talk Page so that others could weigh in to see if starting something that could potentially warrant an "excessive listing" and in turn garner editing warring as to which editor thinks his entry is worthy or not against another in a section that really doesn't validate the periodical. There are dozens upon dozens of periodicals that were published during the revival - that still exist today - and can claim the same merit toward the "Ragtime Revival". So far, the reliable resources are not substantial for this one periodical to outweigh the others for a singular inclusion. I still vote to include it in this article, but in a different place without so much spotlight or weight. Maineartists (talk) 22:28, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

This article's content is totally independent of the AfD discussion and if there is no future need for the redirect, that can always be deleted at another time.

There are dozens upon dozens of periodicals that were published during the revival - that still exist today - and can claim the same merit toward the "Ragtime Revival".

Do you mean that the cited book is wrong in its claim of uniqueness then? Do you have a counter-source? Feel free to move the claim elsewhere in the article. czar 23:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Hey there, @Czar:. Thanks for this discussion. As with all books on topics that are not well documented due to incomplete historical findings - even the greatest of historians on the subject are updating what they thought was authentic and to be true at the time of discovery. But what we do know today is that books written about Ragtime (the biggies): Blesh "They All Played Ragtime" and Jasen / Tichenor "History of Ragtime", etc have discrepancies that have been corrected over the last decades due to diligent sleuthing and newly discovered facts. Simply put, the book stated is not 100% gospel. A good starting point, but that's why we need more than one reliable source to back a certain claim. Especially in this case. As I wrote, Zimmerman, Morath, Perf. Bill, et al should be given equal status in this list of periodicals for the Ragtime Revival - it was / is a common practice that still goes on today. No need to counter source to disprove the claim - the claim is correct for the content; the counter source would be to claim that others existed and provided the same "unique" asset to the cause. That's all. Thanks again for this. On second though, not sure moving it to "Further Reading" would be applicable for its usage since readers cannot access its content. Maineartists (talk) 12:46, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

True Origin of term: Ragtime

The term “ragtime” in jazz originated in the brothels in New Orleans. When the prostitutes had their periods, they didn’t “work,” but instead sat in the parlor listening to the piano player. These girls were “on the rag”; hence, the term “ragtime” was used to describe their time enjoying the piano music. True story. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jules Clinch (talk • contribs) 20:42, 16 May 2020 (UTC)

That's a wonderful story -- but I'd like to see a solid reference, before I believe it. :)

74.95.43.253 (talk) 22:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)