Scott Joplin - a classical composer? (yes, this one AGAIN)

[cuberdrift]

I'd posted about this before: https://www.pianostreet.com/smf/index.php?topic=64254.0 .

Okay, the simplest way to illustrate this is to do a comparison I have always thought about: Treemonisha (1915) vs. Porgy and Bess (1935).

Treemonisha (Joplin)

Porgy and Bess (Gershwin)

Opera is supposedly the "height" of "art music", along with the Symphony. Joplin had wrote both.

Gershwin is recognized as a classical composer and some of the students at my university play his works, such as the Rhapsody in Blue. His opera, Porgy and Bess, despite being incredibly controversial during his time due to racialism, is a lot more iconic than Joplin.

Not to put down anyone here, of course, but - to know that a white American writing about black Americans gets accepted in the "classical" idiom and not the black American writing about black Americans is a bit ironic lol.

That is why I wanted to specifically make the comparison between these two operas.

Incidentally how would you compare both to each other? Would you say that Porgy and Bess is much better, thus justifying its rather more widespread appeal?

In any case, the real reason why I bring these threads up is because I'm so fond of Joplin's music.

[clouseau]

To answer this question, we need a strict definition of what is classical music in a broader sense. I am not sure such a definition exists, or could ever exist. Many composers are somewhere in between. The "King of Ragtime" is one of those cases, flirting with classical idioms but not necessarily committed to the classical tradition.
I guess a critical question to ask is what he has mostly composed and what he is known for.  If he has written like 2 symphonies 1 opera but 300 rags, well lets put it this way: he is not the archetype of a classical composer.

Some people say Gershwin is jazz, which is wrong, as jazz is basically improvisation. His compositions are clear, note for note (if people improvised on them later, is a different story). Gershwin is using elements of jazz, but his classical training can't be denied. So another case which is difficult to categorize but for different reasons.

Skin color surely played a role in Joplin's publicity and recognition at that time, but I doubt this is the reason he is not generally considered classical by today's standards.

[cuberdrift]

To answer this question, we need a strict definition of what is classical music in a broader sense. I am not sure such a definition exists, or could ever exist. Many composers are somewhere in between. The "King of Ragtime" is one of those cases, flirting with classical idioms but not necessarily committed to the classical tradition.
I guess a critical question to ask is what he has mostly composed and what he is known for.  If he has written like 2 symphonies 1 opera but 300 rags, well lets put it this way: he is not the archetype of a classical composer.

Some people say Gershwin is jazz, which is wrong, as jazz is basically improvisation. His compositions are clear, note for note (if people improvised on them later, is a different story). Gershwin is using elements of jazz, but his classical training can't be denied. So another case which is difficult to categorize but for different reasons.

Skin color surely played a role in Joplin's publicity and recognition at that time, but I doubt this is the reason he is not generally considered classical by today's standards.

What is classical? A question many say is hard to define, but for me, classical music simply refers to a long, codified tradition of composers who are part of a more-or-less linear development in the Western world. I believe there is a sort of "canon" that exsists, a system of thought that does decide which music is "worthy enough" to be considered classical. Consider Erik Satie - I believe he received some instruction from the Conservatory, but for some time, he was not considered a "classical" composer. This means it is more-or-less the wider public which deems who is classical, or who is not. In a simpler view, let's ask ourselves - which music is standard repertoire in a Conservatory, and which is not? Brahms, of course - Gershwin, generally, yes - Joplin? In most cases, no.

You may be right by saying that he is not the "archetypical" composer but thank God he even wrote orchestral music (which is very sadly now lost). Chopin himself wrote tons of piano pieces but how many Operas and Symphonies? None. Well then maybe he isn't the "archetypical" classical composer, either.

There is enough evidence, I believe, to suggest that Scott Joplin desired to write "serious music", and that his associations with the popular industry may have just been a compromise. We know that he underwent training from who was apparently a classically-trained German teacher, and also supposedly studied "advanced theory and harmony" at a certain school. We also know that he feverishly worked on Treemonisha despite his illness, desperately accompanying it on the piano with a pathetically small audience. Yet he did not get classical recognition - except maybe today, and even then, admittedly not from the majority.

[clouseau]

Part of the problem is that musical genres can't be compared qualitatively. Saying for example: "Rachmaninoff is better than Eminem" is nonsensical, because you have to say in what, and the what is so different that it can't be compared. In this case, we have a genre called classical and like you mention, there are some attributes which resemble the classical style. But classical does not say anything about the quality of the music. There are a lot of classical composers who could not come up with anything special or who composed, simply put, trash.

So why aspire to be called classical? To be called "king of genre X" on the other hand, does say something about quality, and that's how Joplin went down in history.

The reason ragtime is not taught in conservatories I guess is because the form is simple,it is technically not very challenging and has not so much musical diversity/variety of emotions as classical. It was music designed to entertain. What he would write if the circumstances were different, is speculation of course. But he proved to be very inventive and successful within the confines of ragtime, so imho, he would be brilliant in classical forms as well.

[cuberdrift]

Part of the problem is that musical genres can't be compared qualitatively. Saying for example: "Rachmaninoff is better than Eminem" is nonsensical, because you have to say in what, and the what is so different that it can't be compared. In this case, we have a genre called classical and like you mention, there are some attributes which resemble the classical style. But classical does not say anything about the quality of the music. There are a lot of classical composers who could not come up with anything special or who composed, simply put, trash.

So why aspire to be called classical? To be called "king of genre X" on the other hand, does say something about quality, and that's how Joplin went down in history.

Well, I wasn't trying to defend the "quality" of Joplin's music. I do agree that not all "classical" music generally has to be of "high quality". "Quality" is something I did not really intend to discuss here - such a term is too broad.

Rather, it is the "genre" I'm bringing up. I tend to separate "classical" music from "art" music, and this is also why I kind of disagree with the Wikipedia page that claims that classical music is art music - it does not have to be. Lots of classical composers wrote pieces that aren't "art music" at all. Art music, I feel, is by nature something that is intended to be highly aesthetic. A lot of "classical music", as we know, was in fact written more for utilitarian purposes.

Knowing that the term "classical music" implies something different from "art music", we return to the question of why Joplin is not considered as "classical music". I tend to think that there is really little reason not to consider him to some degree a classical composer. This does not mean that his works are as hard as the Transcendental Etudes or Rachmaninoff concerti - just because it's "classical" does not mean it is hard. I'm pretty sure his Euphonic Sounds is "harder" than a Minuet by Bach, which by all accounts IS classical.

The reason ragtime is not taught in conservatories I guess is because the form is simple,it is technically not very challenging and has not so much musical diversity/variety of emotions as classical. It was music designed to entertain. What he would write if the circumstances were different, is speculation of course. But he proved to be very inventive and successful within the confines of ragtime, so imho, he would be brilliant in classical forms as well.

I agree somewhat, but as I said, classical music doesn't have to be "challenging". Clementi Sonatinas are classical music; Chopin's famous short A major prelude is classical; as is Fur Elise. All of these are far easier than many of Joplin's ragtime pieces.

Many classical composers also wrote music designed to entertain as well, and, again, by all accounts these "entertainment pieces" ARE classical music. I doubt Scarlatti wrote his 555 Sonatas to be listened to by music professors in a silent concert hall - or am I mistaken?

To summarize, here are some reasons to ask why Joplin is not "classical";

1) Why is Joplin not classical if he wrote a symphony, an opera, and a piano concerto - the three highest forms of traditional classical music composition?
2) Why is he not classical if Erik Satie, a composer apparently far less "serious" than he is, is one - if we take that "classical music" is by nature serious, complex music?
3) Why is he not classical if he has become very famous today - fulfilling the need of a classical composer to be somehow widely regarded, fulfilling the "test of time" - and was obviously influenced by classical music? *

And finally - this is quite essential - try listening once more to his Magnetic Rag, Gladiolus Rag, or Bethena - or the Treemonisha video, if you haven't clicked it. Then try to ask yourself again, why it isn't "classical".

I think that, perhaps, the answer to this is quite simple, and to be expected - he was a black. How many black classical composers do we know of?

* The fact that his ragtime music was "designed to entertain" I think is not reason enough to forfeit him from "classical" recognition. Gershwin did the same. I think that in many ways Gershwin and Joplin are incredibly similar - both were initially known as "popular" composers but then tried their hands at "serious music".

[clouseau]

It is really one of those cases in between. The problems with labels are that they are generalizations. Saying Joplin is a classical composer is a generalization, that doesn't fully represent the diversity of his work but just a small part of it. He composed in classical forms, but again, how many? He is mostly known for his rags, and those where his main activity as a composer.
And Ragtime is a blend of African, American and European music, neither classical nor Jazz. In a sense, you can say Ragtime is Ragtime.

[indianajo]

I like Scott Joplin. I play Scott Joplin. Even when it is not the fourth of July, which is the only day that WFMT-FM will play him.  
I learned three of his rags without going to the conservatory. So shall we say they are not difficult?
Conservatories exist to attract students who pay, perhaps in hope of getting a professional job in music.  So they have to teach what the target organizations are playing.  Scott Joplin? Not on your life.  
Irving Berlin, Stephen Foster, Johnny Mercer, blah blah, extremely popular, not taught by the conservatories.  Your opinion is not going to move them. Even though Mercer founded Capitol records and made a ton of money.  Likewise IB.  There are university courses that do cover popular music but they don't call themselves conservatories.  Like Belmont in Nashville.  I haven't heard them do Scott Joplin yet, but probably they wouldn't laugh one out of the room If you played one of his pieces.  
During black history month (feb) WFMT did play some symphony movements of Florence Price, finally.  Her pieces did fit in the recognizable style of Haydn etc.  The melodies were not as compelling IMHO as SJ.  However SJ's best work (the rags) fit in the ABAtrio style drawn from circus marches, which were popular in his time.  It is a valid format, extremely popular in the late 18th & early 19th century, but with the masses, not the upper class.  Thus the "highbrow" and "lowbrow" distinction.JP Sousa was about the end of this style.   Even more forgotten than SJ are Fuchs and King the circus march kings, who I wouldn't know about except the U Houston music ed dept instructed my band directors in their work.  SJ did some great work but IMHO Treemonisha is not part of it - I've heard some of it.   

[cuberdrift]

However SJ's best work (the rags) fit in the ABAtrio style drawn from circus marches, which were popular in his time.  It is a valid format, extremely popular in the late 18th & early 19th century, but with the masses, not the upper class.  Thus the "highbrow" and "lowbrow" distinction.

Hmm, so was the waltz, which, during the time of the Minuet, was more of a "lowbrow" dance. I think we just have to concede that SJ is one of those "awkward" cases where the (perhaps still primarily Caucasian) "classical" community is still undecided whether to include a composer in their Olympus.

[dogperson]

Why does it matter if SJ Is classified as a classical composer or not? His work is well respected, is  played  frequently and he has secured his place in musical history.   There are many classical composers that have  not had this level of success and are long forgotten.

[ca88313]

.

[visitor]

no jazz needed. inrpov alive.and well