Ragtime

[presto agitato]

I got some scores because i believed that it was an easy music. Ragtime piano stuff sound easy but is kind of hard. I will have to practice more.

Have you played some ragtime?

[shasta]

Yes, ragtime extremely challenging!  So much attitude must be put into the music!  I think some people often make the mistake of assuming that if a piece isn't "classical" then it isn't a challenge.  Kissin once named Joplin in his top-5 favorite composers and mentioned how much he enjoyed playing Joplin's works.

Fats Waller, who bridged ragtime and jazz, is among my most favorite pianists to listen to, and his pieces are just incredible!  So much technique and having so much fun performing!  "12th Street Rag" is a riot --- I highly recommend hearing his recording of it!  <-- you will also appreciate his homage to Rach's Op.3no2 in it!!   

[aquariuswb]

Yes, I've played a multitude of Joplin rags in the past: Maple Leaf Rag, The Entertainer, Easy Winners, Magnetic Rag, Wall Street Rag, Gladiolous Rag, Pine Apple Rag, and Solace (I might be leaving some out but that's what I can think of right now). These were some of the first serious piano pieces I ever learned, as well as the C major Mozart sonata (K. 545) and the Rondo alla Turka. Let me tell you, playing those Joplin pieces helped my musicality TREMENDOUSLY. The sense of rhythm required to play a piece like, say, Solace, is often quite underrated. These pieces sound so easy, yet, to truly master them takes some patience. I highly suggest all the pieces I mentioned... Magnetic Rag might be the most difficult one, but it's so much fun to play!

Joplin is in my top 5 composers of all time. I recommend purchasing a recording of Joshua Rifkin playing Joplin ASAP. I'm glad someone started a thread like this!

[ted]

With the exception of one or two of James Scott's heavier rags and certainly many contemporary works by Roberts, French and others, it isn't physically difficult to play the notes.  The difficulty lies in developing extreme musical sensitivity to one particular type of syncopated rhythm. It is common for classically trained players to have trouble getting it at all. Listen to good players of ragtime such as Arpin, Roberts, French, Kirby, Morath, Rifkin, Neilsen, Reginald Robinson. Don't worry about playing the notes, that part is trivial - little by little, over weeks and months, you will find certain rhythmic sensations become apparent. When these occur to you, hang on to them mentally and treat them with the same seriousness with which some people treat classical harmony; therein lies the secret, if you can call it that.

[Brian Healey]

If you really want a workout, try playing some transcriptions of James P. Johnson, the undisputed king of harlem stride/ragtime. Everything Fats Waller knew he learned from Johnson.

Yes, ragtime is very tough to play. A lot of people dimiss it as easier than a lot of "classical music" but it is really a virtuoso style. Beyond even getting the notes right, getting the correct feel in the music is very challenging. It's not just thumping out chords in the left hand and syncopation in the right. It goes beyond that.


Boo-ya,
Bri

[aquariuswb]

If you really want a workout, try playing some transcriptions of James P. Johnson, the undisputed king of harlem stride/ragtime. Everything Fats Waller knew he learned from Johnson.

Yes, ragitme is very tough to play. A lot of people dimiss it as easier than a lot of "classical music" but it is really a virtuoso style. Beyond even getting the notes right, getting the correct feel in the music is very challenging. It's not just thumping out chords in the left hand and syncopation in the right. It goes beyond that.


Boo-ya,
Bri

I hate to nit-pick, but Scott Joplin is the undisputed King of Ragtime. James P. Johnson was a legend of Harlem stride (NOT ragtime, although heavily influenced by ragtime), but he was NOT the King of Harlem stride, either. That title goes to Art Tatum, as Fats Waller would tell you any day of the week. In fact, legend has it that while Fats Waller was playing one night, Art Tatum walked into the club and Waller stopped playing, stood up, and said something to the effect of, "Ladies and gentlemen, I just play the piano, but tonight, God is in the room!" -- referring to Tatum, of course.

I agree with everything you said in your second paragraph, though.

[lostinidlewonder]

Chopin Waltzes are good to work together with Joplin. Especially for the Lh development which is generally what troubles people with Joplin, cos he just bounces all over the place.

[Brian Healey]

I hate to nit-pick, but Scott Joplin is the undisputed King of Ragtime. James P. Johnson was a legend of Harlem stride (NOT ragtime, although heavily influenced by ragtime), but he was NOT the King of Harlem stride, either. That title goes to Art Tatum, as Fats Waller would tell you any day of the week. In fact, legend has it that while Fats Waller was playing one night, Art Tatum walked into the club and Waller stopped playing, stood up, and said something to the effect of, "Ladies and gentlemen, I just play the piano, but tonight, God is in the room!" -- referring to Tatum, of course.

Well, I hate to nit-pick also, but Joplin is the most reknowned composer of ragtime, not neccessarily the king of ragtime in terms or performance. Yes, Johnson was one of the originators of stride, but he was also very accomplished at playing ragtime, in fact much of what he played was actually ragtime. Johnson is usually credited with being the "link," so to speak between the styles of ragtime and stride, which incidentally are very similar (it's really a fine line). 

Art Tatum actually isn't usually grouped into the stride genre. Just as Johnson served as a bridge, Tatum bridged the gap between stride and more modern styles. Tatum was certainly an accomplished stride pianist, but his style really went beyond the stride idiom.

And actually, among the pianists themselves, a man named Donald "The Lamb" Lambert was considered the king. I wrote a thesis on stride piano last year for my master's research class, and I remember reading one account of a cutting contest (a one on one competition) between The Lamb and Tatum, and apparently The Lamb tore Tatum to bits. However, The Lamb was a recluse, and wasn't the prolific recorder/performer that Tatum was, so we don't talk about him much (or even at all) today.

But really everybody during that time learned everything from James P. Johnson. He was to piano players what Louis Armstrong was to horn players.

There is a book called "Stride!" (I forget the author's name), which I think is probably the best resource on the subject. It's definitely a good read and it has great musical examples too. 


Peace,
Bri

[aquariuswb]

Well, I hate to nit-pick also, but Joplin is the most reknowned composer of ragtime, not neccessarily the king of ragtime in terms or performance. Yes, Johnson was one of the originators of stride, but he was also very accomplished at playing ragtime, in fact much of what he played was actually ragtime. Johnson is usually credited with being the "link," so to speak between the styles of ragtime and stride, which incidentally are very similar (it's really a fine line). 

Art Tatum actually isn't usually grouped into the stride genre. Just as Johnson served as a bridge, Tatum bridged the gap between stride and more modern styles. Tatum was certainly an accomplished stride pianist, but his style really went beyond the stride idiom.

And actually, among the pianists themselves, a man named Donald "The Lamb" Lambert was considered the king. I wrote a thesis on stride piano last year for my master's research class, and I remember reading one account of a cutting contest (a one on one competition) between The Lamb and Tatum, and apparently The Lamb tore Tatum to bits. However, The Lamb was a recluse, and wasn't the prolific recorder/performer that Tatum was, so we don't talk about him much (or even at all) today.

But really everybody during that time learned everything from James P. Johnson. He was to piano players what Louis Armstrong was to horn players.

There is a book called "Stride!" (I forget the author's name), which I think is probably the best resource on the subject. It's definitely a good read and it has great musical examples too. 


Peace,
Bri

I stand corrected! Except I'll stand by the fact that Scott Joplin is nicknamed "The King of Ragtime." And I also have a hard time believing that ANYBODY could cut Tatum to bits. Doesn't really seem... possible. Unless Tatum was having an off night -- a really really off night.

Either way, thanks for all the info!

[jlh]

Ragtime should be on everyone's list of things to learn.  In my earlier days as a pianist, I was absolutely obsessed with Scott Joplin's ragtime.  I got Joplin's complete book of ragtime and it became my sight-reading material for some time.   I attribute most of my comfortability with jump bass and to playing the rags over and over again.

Anyone interested in listening to Joshua Rifkin playing some Joplin should click here:

https://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/B000005IYF/002-2492973-5933619?v=glance

[Brian Healey]

I also have a hard time believing that ANYBODY could cut Tatum to bits. Doesn't really seem... possible. Unless Tatum was having an off night -- a really really off night.

That's pretty unbelievable, right?

Here's the passage, and this is actually from that book "Stride!" I mentioned:

(page 136)

"One night Tatum outdid them all by doing tunes in their respective styles better than they could.  Finally one of them said, 'Let's go get the Lamb.' So Willie Gant was sent to Newark in a cab to get Lambert out of bed.

When he had listened to Tatum for a while, Don said, 'A person has to excuse you, seeing that you don't see so well [Tatum was legally blind]. Move over. I'll show you how it should be done.' Then Lambert sat down and played twenty-four different choruses of Grieg's 'Anitra's Dance.'  Art Tatum declared himself beaten. He asked Don Lambert to team up with him as a professional piano duet, but Don said, 'No. You'd just try to steal my left hand.'

--------

Not only did Lambert beat him, but it also seems from the description that Tatum was in pretty good form that night. I read another description of the same battle where it said that "he tore Tatum to bits," which may have been a bit of an exaggeration. Though, to be fair, I believe Tatum and Lambert went sort of "back and forth" on a few occasions, where Tatum won some battles and Lambert won others. They were probably about equals when it comes right down to it.

Unfortunately Lambert was an alcoholic, disliked recording, and didn't go out of his way to publicly perform. He often had to be persuaded to participate in the piano battles. Tatum was the opposite, which is why today everybody is hip to Tatum but not The Lamb.


Peace,
Bri

[ted]

There is also the most interesting branch of ragtime and stride leading to swing and novelty, with people such as Confrey, Bargy, Mayerl, Turner and many other phenomenally talented players you seldom hear about these days. I just bought a CD of Ray Turner on the net from Shellwood Studios and was amazed at his accomplished playing. He isn't widely known because he did little else except play for the backgrounds of movies in Hollywood. Billy Mayerl took the style in his own eloquent and sophisticated direction. As you say, fame is proportional to publicity. As to actual musical and pianistic merit, the diversity and individuality of the playing styles makes linear comparison quite impossible. I don't think that cutting contests would necessarily be the final arbiter because they would tend to be judged by comparative virtuosity and may eliminate a first rate creator who lacked spontaneity or a good musician who didn't have a very virtuosic style.

One thing certain, there were so many incredibly talented players working in these styles during the first half of the twentieth century and it's pleasing that some of them are being heard again and appreciated as the serious musicians they were. As far as I'm concerned, the piano music of all these people is just as "serious" in its own way as that of the old masters. I cannot understand these invisible barriers between genres. For me they do not exist.

[rodrk352]

I don't like pigeon-holing composers such as Scott Joplin as simply rag-time composers, and refusing them status as serious "classical" musicians. Joplin's music has stood the test of time, it has not fallen by the wayside like other inferior music, and that is the best criteria for judging whether something is "classic." Some of Joplin's music is really beautiful. I have the two Joshua Rifkin recordings. My only reservation is that he has a tendancy to get predictable in the final parts of his pieces, where he always seems to end with the same high-stepping march rhythm as the Maple Leaf Rag. And he should have written more pieces that were not rags, considering how good Solace and the Bethana Waltz turned out. No doubt what hinders some people from appreciating Joplin is the sense that it is "bawdy-house" music, sensual but not very profound. It's hard to jump from Chopin to Joplin (though I agree that playing Joplin's stride bass will help you play the bass-line in Chopin's waltzes) because Joplin is playing to a crowd. He's the piano man in the corner trying to get noticed, while Chopin wrote only to please himself.

[Brian Healey]

I don't like pigeon-holing composers such as Scott Joplin as simply rag-time composers, and refusing them status as serious "classical" musicians.

That's very noble of you, but to be fair, Scott Joplin considered himself to be a ragtime composer. Calling a ragtime composer a ragtime composer is not an insult. It's no different than calling Debussy an impressonistic composer or Scarlatti a baroque composer. And since ragtime isn't at all simple, the term "simply ragtime" is an oxymoron.

To my knowledge, Joplin only composed rags (Solace and Bethana Waltz are considered rags), and it definitely wasn't by accident. He even wrote a rag opera. He firmly believed that ragtime was America's classical music and that it was the sound of the future. Unfortunately for Joplin, it lasted a relatively short while.


Later gator,
Bri

[rodrk352]

It my collection of Scott Joplin's completed piano works, the cover explicitly states: RAGS, Marches, Waltzes. Most are rags, several are waltzes. Solace is sub-titled a "Mexican Serenade." The difference between a rag and a waltz, or march, is of course the rhythm. And Ragtime is not a period like Baroque music: Ragtime is the music of the people, folk music. Baroque is the music of the nobility. In the hands of a serious musican like Joplin, folk music can be transformed into something more enduring, one that stands the test of time. That is why I think of Joplin as "classical," and not simply (I mean "only") a ragtime composer.

[Brian Healey]

Ragtime and baroque are no different. They both ARE periods. During the time of baroque composers, nobody thought, "What we are composing only comprises a period in the larger scope of classical music." They only composed the music that they knew. The same is true of ragtime composers, even though today ragtime is thought of as an early period in jazz. We only classify them after the fact.

As for Solace, the "Mexican Serenade," it's really just a tango, and the tango rhythm was used in rags quite frequently. A waltz can also be a rag. A march can be a rag, and in fact marches and rags are very closely related. Many pieces labeled "marches" could be considered rags, and vice-versa. True, the calling card of ragtime is the syncopation, but also so is the form. The typical ragtime form is similar to a rondo, except often the main theme isn't repeated at the end. Although, "ragging" was also a stylistic thing that could be applied to virtually any other kind of music. There are a lot of grey areas, I know.

I see what you mean now, though. Ragtime is not "classical" so much in the European tradition, but Joplin did consider it to be America's classical music. But then, it depends I guess on your definition of "classical."


Peace,
Bri

[Nordlys]

One difference between ragtime and classical styles is maybe that ragtime was not composed music, it was pianists improvising over tunes and the ragtime rhythm. When they started to notate the ragtimes, like Joplin did, the music became more like "classical pieces". But it could be said that it lost at the same time some of its freshness.

I just listened to recordings of Jelly Roll Morton, done 1938. He still improvises. He also plays the ragtimes quite slowly. I don't know if that is because he was not that young anymore (He was almost 50, sorry to you who think that is still young!) or because the ragtimes shouldn't be played fast?

Brian, could you say something about the difference betweeen ragtime and stride? Could be interesting to know.

[Brian Healey]

Actually, most ragtime is not meant to be played fast. The idea of playing fast ragtime is probably a result of the intense competition of stride players. In order to beat out the competition, pianists would play rags and improvise on them at fast tempos to show off their skill, but that wasn't the ragtime composers' intention.  James Scott's published music frequently advises "Not Fast," and he even published a rag with the title "The Don't Jazz Me-Rag (I'm Music)" as a reaction to all of this.

As to the difference between ragtime and stride, there is no definitive, black and white answer, but maybe this will help:

Stride was really an elaboration on Eastern Ragtime, but it was more rhythmically sophisticated, more knowledgable in its use of harmony, and usually more skilled in execution. True ragtime was much less improvised. Joplin wrote his rags as composed music to played "as is". Performers began adding improvised variations, and eventually the improvisation became the main focus. Quite honestly, improvisation had a lot to do with *** house pianists. Pianists often accompanied the "deed," shall we say. The customer would request a song, and the the pianist had to keep playing until the "deed" was done, so *** house pianists became adept at improvising variations. Jelly Roll Morton, in fact, starting out playing in *** houses.

Ragtime used relatively simple harmony, whereas stride players brought in the use of more adventurous harmony as part of their improvisations (again, mainly because of competition). Many pianists, especially James P. Johnson and Donald Lambert, would play classical pieces in rag style and improvise on them. Johnson sometimes will quote a piece by Beethoven within his improvisation, and once he used Liszt's "Rigoletto Concert Paraphrase" as an introduction to a tune.

The use of the left hand is very similar, but the feel is different. Ragtime is in "cut-time" (2/4), whereas stride is usually 4/4. Stride players often added tenths to the bass notes, whereas ragtime consisted of either a single note or octave in the bass. And, as mentioned before, stride players used more advanced harmonic knowledge in their chord voicings, making more use of extensions and tensions, rather than just using triads and dominants. Stride players also like to "turn the beat around" in order to create excitement, and that's not really characterisitc of ragtime.

For instance, a rag left hand might go:
bass-chord-bass-chord-bass-chord-bass-chord

and a stride left hand by James P. Johnson might go:
bass-chord-bass-bass-chord-bass-chord-bass-chord-chord-bass-bass-bass-chord

I hope that helps. Like I said, there are some grey areas, but those are some general characteristics of the two styles.

BTW, it seems the word *** gets automatically sensored, so where you see a *** above, I'm talking about "one who sells sex for money." 


Peace,
Bri