How must Scott Joplin's works be played?

[cuberdrift]

Greetings, all!

I am wondering what is the standard performance practice of playing the works of Scott Joplin. Like, what are some things to consider when playing those pieces. How do you play them in an academic setting? I know that it is often marked "not fast", so we know that it must not be played at a presto tempo...but how fast is that? I heard some of the piano roll records of Joplin and I feel that they are not that good, with minimal use of color and the whole thing honestly sounded quite mechanical. What would the explanation of this be? Would be that the piano rolls aren't an accurate record of his playing? Or could it be his declining health?

I want to know if the slow, elegant, pensive interpretations of Joshua Rifkin are close to how Joplin would have wanted it to sound like. Or should they be more lively?

Any input would be appreciated!

Regards,
cuberdrift

[ted]

There still appears to be a lot of disagreement about this, but most of the really good ragtime players do not play them too fast, and never for display purposes. The slow approach of Rifkin's interpretations is very highly regarded by many, for example David Thomas Roberts, Brian Keenan and Scott Kirby. The livelier rags, such as Pineapple, Sugar Cane and Elite Syncopations, allow considerable range of acceptable tempo, whereas ones like Magnetic Rag and Euphonic Sounds not so much. In general, it depends on whether increased speed destroys the perception and charm of the syncopation and melodic phrasing. The faster you go, the more everything tends to sound like an unaccented stream of notes, but this is also true of many classical pieces.

I have no experience of academic settings and I have not heard Joplin's piano rolls, so I cannot comment on those aspects. Personally, I vary how I play them from one day to the next, but the perception of the syncopated phrasing at the heart of all ragtime must always be present.

[clouseau]

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.

[cuberdrift]

Thank you, ted and closeau, for your input.

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.

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.

[clouseau]

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.

[cuberdrift]

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.

I agree. I think that the "classical music phenomenon" is actually a modified version of the styles of music that it has codified - "classical music" (not the 18th century style, but the entire systematized tradition) is actually a WAY of presenting what many consider to be great music. In this way, any kind of music can actually become "classical" - and when it does, it will become academized, and there will be a standardized means of performing/studying it.

I interpret Steven Mayer's attempt, for instance, of recording and performing an entire set of Art Tatum arrangements (an act that's quite impressive) as a way of turning those pieces into classical music, perhaps not unlike how Mendelssohn "resurrected" JS Bach long back.

Now, back to the ragtime discussion, it is just that ragtime compositions themselves have not yet been "classicalized" as much as Chopin, Bartok, or Debussy, which is why they are still performed in the "raw" manner. I have nothing against this, of course, though I really find it interesting to see how music can evolve from a "popular" style of performance to something more "classical". And, since I'm supposed to play the Joplin work in an academic setting, I guess it is expected that it will be played in a "classical" manner.

[j_tour]

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.

[cuberdrift]

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.

[j_tour]

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.

EXCELLENT choice!  Without going to the keyboard, I'm having a hard time thinking of what a metronome marking would be, but, for a not-too-helpful answer, the tempo's about what it sounds lke it should be.

And you make a good point I never even thought about -- yeah, there is some variation in tempo between the strains, at least when I do it (I haven't listened to a recording in years).  I think the ultimate case for that is the various interludes with the chromatic stuff in RH.

I've never heard or done anything too drastic, though -- it's tempting to do the Bm strain at a relatively good clip.  Tempting, but should probably be resisted to the extremes.  Also, plenty of opportunities for tasteful rubato, but likewise, probably not go overboard.  The rubato is similar IMHO to what you'd do on "Solace," but in that one, by contrast, the tempo should be pretty steady throughout the entire piece.

But, like they say, nobody ever got fired for playing something pretty.

I haven't really played for a little over a month, so I'll enjoy playing through it sometime soon and maybe have more helpful ideas -- although, really, the piece is so pretty and intuitive it almost "plays itself," once you have the idea.

AND you have the advantage that I would consider it unimaginable to be tempted to improvise on this one, so that question's settled!  

Neat!

I hope you have a good time with it -- that one's been a constant companion for a lot of years to me.  It's a mutha.

Bring on the juice!  Turn it loose!  

[visitor]

she is one of my absolute favorite pianists
apply what she says and does here towards Joplin

[ Invalid YouTube link ]

[ted]

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.

[visitor]

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.

hi Ted glad you liked that!
I'm the process of.catching up on back scanning and back ripping music so i have an old Japanese edition w some rare recordings of Joplin that came as super thin vinyl 33 lp  records and I'm ripping them to mp3 from the analog record player audio so once I'm through I'll see if I can make them available perhaps by YouTube or something incase you'd like to listen. names of the pianists escape me at the moment

[mousekowski]

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?

[ted]

Thanks for that link, Sutton was a marvellous player, such an exhilarating sense of rhythm. In the end what academics might think matters little. Life is too short not to play anything you like, in whatever way you like. I don’t know about anyone else, but I am broadminded enough to enjoy James Scott either played straight or swung. His rags have an athletic exhuberance lacking in those of Joplin and Lamb, and to my mind admit of a much more varied interpretation.

[cuberdrift]

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?

Okay, sorry, I'm aware that this is an old thread, but I've decided to revive it.

Interesting recording! It's quite fascinating how he treats the "Climax Rag". I get your point that it must be "dance-like" and this kind of syncopation is what separates an "African-American" piece from a traditional European waltz or march.

However, wouldn't this "Climax Rag" recording be a little more on the stride side? It sounds like Fats Waller to me. However...I noticed it was published in 1923. That's quite later than any of Joplin's rags so perhaps the style changed quite a bit in that span of time, as jazz developed.

My imagination is that Joplin's rags were always on the "middle" part of things...not too slow and Chopin-like, but also not too dancelike and "festive". That is why I like players like Benjamin Loeb...and the African-American William Appling best. You have to bring out that rare, beautiful sophistication reminiscent of Mozart but also that groove unique to "black" music.

Then again, James Scott (who I discovered was one of the "triumvirate" of ragtime composers Joplin, Lamb, and Scott) sounds a little different than Joplin. I've got limited knowledge of his output, but the impression I get is that it is quite more "optimistic" and easygoing than Joplin's more "painful" approach to rag. Reminds me slightly of James P. Johnson who marked the transition from ragtime to stride.

I came across this article. Here's an anecdote to it that you guys might find interesting:

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.

[ted]

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.

[cuberdrift]

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.

Thanks. From a simplistic perspective, it would then seem that Scott's style might be more remimiscent of the popular notion of ragtime as "ice cream truck" music (or honky-tonk vaudeville can-can dancer music) than Joplin's somber, "serious" approach. Nothing wrong with that of course...though I can't yet accurately assess him since I haven't actually spent time checking out his output as of yet.

It looks like Joplin was a visionary and idealist, judging from my own quotation from the biography website. He was concerned with education and the liberation of the black people, and this is in fact the central theme of "Treemonisha" (itself a seeming a combination of racial identity and feminism, seeing as the main character is an educated female). He also went to far ends trying to take up large-scale classical forms, leaving behind a lost and unpublished piano concerto as well as symphony.

It is said he had a deep relationship with his mentor Weiss, a German Jew whose ethnicity helped the two relate to each other. I actually think that while.Joplin was a fine ragtime writer, that his skills wouls be truly exploited in orchestral or operatic works, like Mozart. There is a sense of "story" in his rags, as if each rag is in itself an aria of sorts. I believe he would perhaps been an even more excellent composer of symphonic works. Well, we can't change history and that's that, unfortunately.

I wonder if there is a free downloadable version of the Scott collection you mentioned? I may look into it if ever this is the case.

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.

Good to know there's a big number of ragtime enthusiasts. To that list would be added Tom Brier, who's been (of what I know) recovering from a dreadful accident. I pray for a faster and complete recovery for him. Of course, there is also Dick Hyman, whom I admire for his amazing technique and his scholastic approach to jazz and ragtime...pianist, composer, educator all rolled into one.

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.

[ted]

...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.

There are those among us who do not consider the conservatory the epitome of musical knowledge, or the classical concert the finest manifestation of piano playing. Just follow your heart and "do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law", at least in music. Life is too brief to do otherwise.