The philosophy behind Ragtime is not as strict as in classical music. Jazz, an improvisatory genre evolved from ragtime to a certain extend. And thats what many ragtime pianists do, they improvise on the rags by adding ornaments, by playing an octave higher, sometimes by altering the notes slightly or the tempo. Its not that you have to do exactly what the composer wanted. This is why there is no academic school of ragtime playing. Other pianists use the pedal sparringly, others more, some play at breakneck speed, others slow, with pedal and some rubato even. I am learning some Joplin right now, and I think its great that you have that liberties which you can apply according to the situation. If you want to show off a bit (for whatever reason), it sounds great to play Mapple Leaf Rag crazy fast, or if you want a nostalgic touch to Entertainer, you could try playing it a bit slower with pedal. Three things I have found critical in playing Ragtime. Shaping the phrases (it sounds so much better than just hitting the right keys), having a good sense of rhythm and balance between the hands.
Thank you, ted and closeau, for your input.Yes, but if I can improvise on ragtime, does that mean I can improvise on a Mozart theme as well? Because that is what they did back then. There is some amount of confusion on how much one should imitate the playing styles of the time period of the music.The thing is that there is a difference between "academized" music and "raw music", I believe. And if I play it in an academic setting, say, a conservatory, the common practice seems to be to just stick to the score unless suggested otherwise. If it were my own recital, maybe it would be more acceptable.
You have a point. While musicians improvised a lot in the 18th century (and of course Mozart himself) if you look at performers of today, there are very few who add some improvisation to Mozart (ex. Gulda). Ragtime pianists however, do take liberties and I think it is generally acceptable to do so. However, it must be in style, no irrelevant modern voicings or playing "outside" etc.
How?Good, that's how.IMHO, while obviously anyone can improvise or at least include a few improvised flourishes, I don't think that's the way.However, including some ruffs in the LH à la Janice Scroggins doesn't hurt.The "classical strict method" as in Rifkin just does not work for me -- it's not part of the genre, and it's boring as hell. As much as the revival owes to people like Dick Hyman and Josh Rifkin.Play it pretty!There's no cops who are going to come beat the hell out of you if you do it legitimate, and in a personal fashion that fits your idiom.Even though I do occasionally, just screwing around, just play off the harmonies, and add some goofy stuff, I would not think that is the way that people would enjoy hearing it, usually.True fact: "Easy Winners" A-Strain <--> "Show me the Way to Go Home" (and a million other tunes). So, why not have some fun.I don't think anybody wins any high-class competitions from playing ragtime, so, whatever your audience wants to hear is the right answer.
Thanks, j_tour!I'm actually going to play "Bethena" in a conservatory setting. The assumption is that my audience will be mainstream listeners. What tempo could I play this? Will there be shifts in tempo between the "strains" - as some versions employ?The thing about Joplin pieces is that they're so simple, and there aren't a ton of markings as in a Chopin score. This leaves the player to decide on how to shape it, because I feel that if a person just plays through it it may be kind of boring.
Thanks for posting this visitor, I had not heard her or that beautiful Lamb piece before. I am reminded of John Arpin's playing and Hal Isbitz's compositions, very pretty.
It would have been during Joplin's lifetime that the fashion would have been to play with swung quavers. In Jelly Roll Morton's Library of Congress recordings he demonstrates how most pianists would have played Joplin's rags faster and with a much more jazz-like swung feel. I find Ralph Sutton's performance of James Scott's Climax Rag totally convincing: Would you get away with playing like this in a classical conservatory setting? All too often 'academic classical' piano teachers are contemptuous of jazz. Would they kick you out and tell you to do a jazz course instead?
Scott Joplin was the most sophisticated and tasteful ragtime composer of the era. But he aspired to more. His goal was to be a successful composer for the lyric stage and he continually worked toward this end.That he called himself “King of Ragtime Writers,” omitting a claim for his piano playing, reveals his recognition that not all of his music musical skills were on the same high level. His piano playing was described as mediocre, perhaps due to early effects of syphilis. He also played cornet and violin, but put little effort into developing himself on those instruments. He is reported to have had a fine singing voice, and performed at times as a singer. He also had perfect pitch and, on becoming proficient at music notation, composed away from the piano.As a person, he was intelligent, well-mannered and well-spoken. He was extremely quiet, serious and modest. He had few interests other than music. He was not good at small talk and rarely volunteered information but if a subject interested him he might become animated in his conversation. He was generous with his time and was willing to assist and instruct younger musicians. He had a profound belief in the importance of education.
Well worth reviving the thread. The best edition of James Scott is the large volume by DeVeaux and Kenney, published by Smithsonian. It discusses the scores and their interpretation very thoroughly, and there is a large section about Scott himself. As I understand it, a major difference between Joplin and Scott was that Scott was completely unconcerned with the musical processes of the European masters, whereas Joplin had a deep love of classical music, the influence of which was crucial to his beautiful opera Tremonisha. I cannot think of a Scott rag as profoundly tragic as, say, Joplin’s Magnetic Rag, or one as musically forward thinking as, say, his Euphonic Sounds. Scott’s life, towards the end, was almost as sad as Joplin’s, but his last rags are just as exuberant as his first. Neither did his forms, harmony, rhythms and keyboard formations change much, whereas Joplin’s did. I still enjoy playing James Scott. The common temptation as I see it, is to play him too heavily because of the thick chords, when a light, bouncy touch is more effective. At first this is hard to do, but once the knack is acquired you never forget it.
It is also a curious fact that more good ragtime has been written over the last couple of decades than in its entire history since Joplin. David Thomas Roberts, Frank French, Reginald Robinson, Scott Kirby, Hal Isbitz, Brian Keenan and several others have contributed an enormous number of beautiful compositions in the idiom. David Thomas Roberts, judging from his recent pieces on Youtube, appears to have returned to the ragtime styles of his younger years, after a time creating a brilliantly explorative collection of works in modern idiom. He, like many modern ragtimers is nothing if not eclectic, and has an immense knowledge of music in general. Frank French has recorded the forty-eight and the complete output of Gottschalk in addition to the complete Scott and his own works.
...Though despite all the enthusiasm for this piano style, it remains a novelty, a "niche" among music enthusiasts. Conservatories still do not recognise this "crossover" of jazz-like and "classical" piano music. Perhaps it has always been a music better left to touch the hearts of some, while entertaing and thrilling the numerous rest. Or perhaps it simply never grew into the intricate and sophisticated world of "classical" music. Or maybe there simply aren't enough scholars on it. Who knows.
Topic: How must Scott Joplin's works be played? 