
Ragtime is neither classical music nor jazz (2009) - nickdrozd
http://www.frederickhodges.com/is%20ragtime%20classical%20music.html
======
lmm
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
> _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.)

~~~
lmm
> 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).

~~~
brobdingnagians
What most people call "Classical" music now is really an large umbrella term
for instrumental art music written in tonal forms prior to the 20th century on
a certain class of instruments and with vaguely homogeneous views on what
music should be and includes Baroque, Classical, Romantic and a few others. It
is semantic nonsense to quibble about whether Ragtime is classical as much as
it would be nonsense to quibble about whether D is in the set of {A,B,C}. They
are all letters, and D has lots of qualities close to {A,B,C}, but it isn't in
the set, maybe we could define the set {A,B,C,D} and say D is in that, but
then we have a new set. Pick a new word and move on in life. Or you can co-opt
the word "Classical" and add new things into the label, but that would be
different than what we are talking about. Is Beethoven Classical or Romantic
era? His early works are Classical, his later works become more and more
Romantic and he is basically the father of the Romantic era, but we have to
take a more nuanced view of everything he wrote. He isn't "just Romantic" but
was influenced and influenced a whole host of ideas and areas. We can define
attributes of a class and maybe we can say that anything that walks and quacks
is a duck, but it is all simply splitting hairs and re-definitions. It is
useful to have classes of things and distinctions of things that look alike,
because then we can hope to reason about them, but ultimately we should look
at Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, and Romantic as separate things and
understand them separately.

In my view, one of the aims of a lot of classical music was to have highly
structured music which could evoke a complex tapestry of emotion and ideals.
It takes deeper understanding to get and appreciate a lot of art music ("music
snobs"), but it was written for a _purpose_ and _ideal_, often ideological,
religious, or emotional. Pop music is fun, lighthearted, easy to appreciate
for most people and evokes feelings that we all know. But art music can be
amplified by knowing the ideals and desires of those who wrote it. Beethoven's
Eroica symphony has a complex background, symbolic and stylistic reasons for
the way it is with the original desire to tribute Napoleon as a representative
of Republican ideals (before he crowned himself Emperor... which made
Beethoven erase that...). It is similar to appreciating why the Fairie Queene
was written and appreciating the deeper symbolic meaning and cultural ideals,
rather than reading the Hardy Boys or Nancy Drew as pleasant detective
fiction. That's my take on it.

~~~
lmm
> It is semantic nonsense to quibble about whether Ragtime is classical as
> much as it would be nonsense to quibble about whether D is in the set of
> {A,B,C}. They are all letters, and D has lots of qualities close to {A,B,C},
> but it isn't in the set, maybe we could define the set {A,B,C,D} and say D
> is in that, but then we have a new set.

Our definitions should reflect the underlying reality; otherwise we will be
mislead by them ( [https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-
th...](https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-that-words-
can-be-wrong) ). "Do we refer to ragtime with this particular pattern of
letters" is indeed an uninteresting question, but "does ragtime have as much
in common with these other forms that we call classical as they do with each
other" is meaningful and ultimately grounded in objective reality.

> ultimately we should look at Renaissance, Baroque, Classical, and Romantic
> as separate things and understand them separately.

Yes and no. "All models are false; some are useful". Of course
baroque/classical/romantic have differences, and if you zoom in on any one
you'll find further distinctions within that group. But all models are
simplifications, and as long as that simplification genuinely corresponds to
reality - there is a lot that baroque/classical/romantic have in common with
each other in a way that they don't with, say, rock - then it's useful to
group them together in a category with a name.

------
vanilla-almond
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](https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p04z0qqt)

------
RickJWagner
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
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.

------
tunesmith
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.

------
pretense35
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
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?

~~~
analog31
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.

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

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

------
vbuwivbiu
Ragtime is classical music

