Ragtime is neither classical music nor jazz (2009)

http://www.frederickhodges.com/is%20ragtime%20classical%20music.html

by nickdrozd • 7 years ago

40 25 7 years ago

frederickhodges.com

RickJWagner• 7 years ago

I like ragtime. The syncopation, the snappy rhythm-- it's good music.

I also associate it strongly with 'The Sting'. An old movie, but a great one.

pdonis• 7 years ago

The musical score of The Sting (a great movie, I agree) was notable because of the orchestral arrangements of Joplin's music, which of course was originally written for solo piano.

joegahona• 7 years ago

For a really enjoyable contemporary ragtime, try William Bolcom's "Graceful Ghost": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-jftAt4mXFk

Ragtime isn't a style I could listen to constantly but in doses I like it too.

aluren• 7 years ago

Interestingly, ragtime had been out of fashion for 20+ years by the time of The Sting's setting (early 1930's). I also love ragtime and associate it with The Sting as well though, it's just amusing to think that our association between the music and the era was made up by George Roy Hill.

mrzool• 7 years ago

s/but/and/

pretense35• 7 years ago

I can’t remember the movie, but I recall a British character proclaiming the “Jazz is just musical wanking.” Or something to that extent. Whatever. This article is the written equivalent. I love some forms of Jazz and hate others. If you like a different set, good for you! Like what you like and ignore the haters. This was a very pretentious article.

isoskeles• 7 years ago

Looks like the author is a classical + jazz pianist, so I'm not sure why it would be pretentious for him to have an opinion about something he loves and does for a living. Can you explain?

analog312• 7 years ago

I'm a jazz bassist. The author seems to pit stereotype against stereotype. I can't fault his analysis of ragtime music, but he needn't paint me as an enemy. His description of jazz musicians and fans seems to be from a movie, not from real life.

I play in a large jazz enesmble. We tend to favor newer material when we can lay our hands on it. The musicians and audience members come from all walks of life, and at least according to my own impression, are generally a cheerful lot, just happy to be able to experience the music.

78zeros• 7 years ago

IIRC “Jazz is musical wanking” is a line from The Commitments

tptacek• 7 years ago

I like Steve Coogan as Tony Wilson (the founder of Factory Records) in _24 Hour Party People_ (one of The Great Startup Movies) saying something like "jazz musicians are having way more fun than their audiences". I like jazz! (Or: I like Miles Davis). It's just a great line.

tunesmith• 7 years ago

Stride (bass notes on 1 and 3, chord accompaniment on 2 and 4, all in the left hand) is the common accompaniment in ragtime, and is also a very common technique used in jazz for solo pianists. In jazz you might vary it up some more, mixed in with some voice leading in the comping and some walking bass lines, but anyways, while ragtime might not be jazz, they do have some common language.

slyrus• 7 years ago

I first read that as "Ragtime is neither classical nor music", which seemed a bit harsh.

vbuwivbiu• 7 years ago

Ragtime is classical music

lmm3• 7 years ago

The author derides the ahistorical, overly-respectful approach of people who treat ragtime like pre-20th-century classical music - but fails to acknowledge that this approach is just as ahistorical and overly-respectful when applied to pre-20th-century classical. Chopin, Liszt, and Beethoven were absolutely writing to put bread on the table, and absolutely did not play to the score as written.

Classical music and popular music serve entirely different purposes and have diametrically opposed motivations behind their creation. In general, a classical composer uses music to express his deepest emotions and experiences. Classical music arouses the intellect and the passions. It addresses the deepest questions of human existence. Classical music is sophisticated and intelligent. The impression is that it cannot be appreciated by the uninititated and the uneducated. Of course, classical composers were traditionally supported and constrained by the patronage system. Poverty may have obliged Mozart to accept commissions for works he might not otherwise of written, but his patrons probably never asked him to "dumb it down."

This is sheer nonsense. I'm hardly a major classical fan but I can immediately think of an example: Beethoven's String Quartet No. 13 B flat (thanks HN for eating the flat symbol) originally concluded with his Große Fuge (which was later published separately), but at his publisher's pleading he reworked it with a lighter and more accessible ending.

As far as I can see this essay draws no genuine distinction between Ragtime and Classical. Joyous improvisational play is equally authentic - and equally valuable - for (pre-20th century) classical as it is for ragtime.

mcv• 7 years ago

Chopin, Liszt, and Beethoven were absolutely writing to put bread on the table, and absolutely did not play to the score as written.

Is whether or not you play the score as written an issue? How do we even know this about composers that predate recording technology?

I'm not wondering if maybe the advent of recording technology might be the source of the modern distinction between classical, pop and jazz.

Something that struck me from the bit you quoted from the article:

> In general, a classical composer uses music to express his deepest emotions and experiences.

I think that might actually be more true of some forms of jazz and pop. Much classical music is very much an intellectual exercise, whereas blues and rock tend to be far more emotional. But again this varies wildly within each genre. Hardly a meaningful distinction.

There's a massive difference between pre-20th century classical music, which was very much the pop music of its day, and modern classical music, which is often far less accessible and more elitist. (Though there are still many beautiful and accessible modern classical pieces. Interestingly, many draw inspiration from jazz.)

lmm3• 7 years ago

Is whether or not you play the score as written an issue?

It's a question discussed extensively in the essay, and one that the essay sees (ahistorically, but perhaps descriptively true in modern practice) as defining the distinction between classical and jazz.

How do we even know this about composers that predate recording technology?

Accounts from people who saw multiple performances, evidence of composers reworking written pieces after experimenting during performance, composers' own diaries...

I think that might actually be more true of some forms of jazz and pop. Much classical music is very much an intellectual exercise, whereas blues and rock tend to be far more emotional. But again this varies wildly within each genre. Hardly a meaningful distinction.

Yeah, agreed. Indeed I'd say pop often expresses the emotions that are most fundamental and deeply held (which by the same token are often the simplest and clearest).

0815test• 7 years ago

Is whether or not you play the score as written an issue? How do we even know this about composers that predate recording technology?

Sometimes they pretty much tell us directly, e.g. in treatises which discuss performance. Other times, we can look at early recorded media to figure out what the style was. But there's no question that classical used to have a hugely important tradition of improvisation, which was only gradually lost throughout the 19th-c., as technical ability in performance was regarded as more important than well-rounded musical aptitude. It survives today, e.g. among organists, who are still trained in both performance and composition.

There's a massive difference between pre-20th century classical music, which was very much the pop music of its day

Well, not totally true. On the one hand, by the 19th century, pop music did exist already, e.g. Stephen Foster's songs; on the other hand, it was not yet radically different from classical music, being published in sheet music form, for a musically-knowledgeable public. It would be hard to tell apart a Stephen Foster song from the 19th c., from a classical "arietta" or "canzonet", of the sort that even e.g. Joseph Haydn composed, by any inherent criteria. Classical music forms did vary widely in "intellectual" ambition ("arietta's" and "canzonet's" being on the low end, together with dance suites, "divertimenti's" and "cassations"), but for a long time that ambition wasn't regarded as incompatible with some degree of reasonably-widespread appeal - for something on the "high" end, consider symphonies, instrumental concerti or opera overtures.

circlefavshape• 7 years ago

Classical music and popular music serve entirely different purposes and have diametrically opposed motivations behind their creation. In general, a classical composer uses music to express his deepest emotions and experiences. Classical music arouses the intellect and the passions. It addresses the deepest questions of human existence. Classical music is sophisticated and intelligent.

Please. The difference between classical and popular music is primarily the funding model

qlm• 7 years ago

This reads like the sort of elitist drivel a teenager would write about their favourite prog rock band.

analog312• 7 years ago

There's a purely practical side to the distinction, which is that both composers and performers tend to divide themselves along informal but generally understood lines, according to their skill sets and interests. So if you meet a music student and ask them if they are studying "classical or jazz," they will probably have a definite answer for you, without having to stumble over precise definitions. Of course the answer might be "both." The terms become useful, even if loosely defined, for hiring or getting hired.

Likewise, a musician who has focused solely on one genre might find it difficult -- even prohibitively so -- to function in another genre without a great deal of effort.

In my observation, debates over these distinctions tend to become more polarized, the further the debaters get from direct involvement in the music as players or listeners.

golergka• 7 years ago

This is sheer nonsense.

My impression from this article was that author was talking about popular perception of classical music, not necessarily the historic truth. I don't know enough to argue about historical events, but I do know that popular perception is certainly very close to that description.

vanilla-almond• 7 years ago

Joplin is the most famous of the ragtime composers. He aspired to be taken seriously as a classical composer. Although some of his rags were popular when they were published, recognition as a serious composer never came during his lifetime. Other composers of rags may not have aspired to elevate their pieces as serious compositions, but Joplin certainly did.

Also, contrary to what this article states, ragtime pieces are not all "happy, joyful, playful, danceable, and uplifting". To take Joplin as an example again, although many of his piano pieces are lively and melodious, there are also melancholy pieces like Solace and Bethena Waltz perhaps reflecting the troubled life he led.

The article is also wrong when it states Joplin had no intentions in the way his work is performed. Joplin did not want his rags to be played at fast speeds. This is often the case in many recordings (including, in my opinion, with Joshua Rifkin). My favourite performer of Joplin's music is the late Canadian musician John Arpin.

I listen mostly to classical music and love Joplin's piano music, but even today, there's a lot of snobbishness about Joplin's music from some quarters in the classical music field.

But wherever you start with Joplin's music, the sound of a rag is irresistible.

By the way, if you are in the UK you can listen to an 2017 episode of Composer of the Week on Joplin on BBC Radio 3 here. BBC Radio 3 is the BBC's classical, jazz and world music radio station.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04z0qqt

BentFranklin• 7 years ago

This whole article and discussion reinforces my decision to remove any and all genre tags from my music files.

Ragtime is neither classical music nor jazz (2009)

Related Stories