Scott Joplin Question
Bayle
range of performance styles and quality. Of course this is confounded by
the recording quality and approach, the piano, as well as the musicianship
and individual style of the player. Also I haven't always compared them
using the same piece. And J's style definitely evolves. That said I was
hoping someone might be able to give me some information, and/or
suggestions, that would allow me to disentangle the various recordings I am
listening to an get some idea how Joplin might have been played in his own
time, i.e. pre-jazz (to some extent).
My first exposure to J was through the Rifkin Nonesuch LPs back in the
early 70s. I also heard Hamlish (how could I not have?). I haven't heard
them in a long time however and don't currently own them. I'm sure they
lurk in the back of my mind however.
I first purchased the Laserlight Complete Works by Richard Zimmerman,
because they were complete and cheap. Zimmerman's style seems rather
leaden and square. Plus the piano doesn't seem very good (possibly an
advantage in favor of authenticity) or maybe it's the recording. In any
case Zimmerman seems to me to play without feel. His tempo also seems slow,
and he likes to bang on the piano. What I am trying to figure out is am I
hearing this right or are my expectations wrong.
Next I tried Joplin Greatest Hits on RCA with both Dick Hyman and James
Levine. Hyman's Maple Leaf Rag is much faster. The piano sounds much
better, thought the recording isn't so hot. I'm guessing here, but in some
sense, as when Hyman goes into lilting mode, he appears to be play J
through Jelly Roll Morton's ears. Which, guessing again, doesn't seem very
authentic. I know it sounds great.
Levine is also interesting. I'm assuming he's the same Levine from the
classical world (he only plays three pieces). He sounds to me like he is
by far the best piano player. (I'm not making a general jazz-classical
comment here, just comparing the three at hand). His style is somewhere
between the other two. You can hear all the notes and he articulates the
variations beautifully (something I admit I like. I would love to hear
Gould play Joplin). Rhythmically he is definitely not Hyman, but he also
isn't nearly as square as Zimmerman. There is definitely movement going on
here.
Complicated issue I guess. As critics once said of Glenn Gould's Beethoven,
it may be great but you're hearing Gould not Beethoven. I'm trying to see
if I can hear Joplin. Any help would be appreciated.
Matthew Lybanon
http://www.trachtman.org/ragtime/index.htm
If you search around a bit on that site you'll find a link that will
allow you to download an interesting MP3 file. It was made from a piano
roll (the site gives a few more details on the procedure) that Scott
Joplin himself cut, performing his "Maple Leaf Rag." You can get some
idea of how Joplin played his own music by listening. It's only one
example, and the limitations of piano rolls can't be overlooked, but
it's interesting--and a nice performance, too.
Marc Sabatella
> I was
> hoping someone might be able to give me some information, and/or
> suggestions, that would allow me to disentangle the various recordings I
am
> listening to an get some idea how Joplin might have been played in his own
> time, i.e. pre-jazz (to some extent).
The obvious place to start would be with the piano rolls he recorded
himself. I don't know how many there are, but "Maple Leaf Rag" is included
in the Smithsonian Collection Of Classic Jazz.
> In any
> case Zimmerman seems to me to play without feel. His tempo also seems slow
Joplin is reputed to have insisted his rags not be played too quickly, and
indeed, the piano roll recording is not particularly fast. It is also quite
"square" by jazz standards.
--------------
Marc Sabatella
ma...@outsideshore.com
Check out my latest CD, "Falling Grace"
Also "A Jazz Improvisation Primer", Sounds, Scores, & More:
http://www.outsideshore.com/
Top Catt
says...
I like Hyman's Joplin performances; they have a certain rhythmic "bounce"
to them (thanks to his strong left hand) that suggests that stride was
soon to come (how authentic this is performance-wise, though, I can't
say). Hyman's ragtime playing has a lot of vitality, which is all to the
good, IMO--"squared-off," literal-minded rag performances are usually
boring as hell. James Levine sounds like a horrible choice for performing
ragtime, but I suppose I shouldn't judge his playing without hearing it
first. He's not a very inspired conductor or classical piano accompanist,
though ("workmanlike" is a good word for his both his playing
and conducting), and it's hard to imagine him playing ragtime very
convincingly. Hyman has a real feel for the idiom--listen to how he'll
bump up the tempo and the volume slightly when he goes into the last
chorus of any of the faster rags, bringing the pieces home with a driving
finish (but one that's still not pushed too hard, in accordance with
Joplin's instructions as to how to play them). I also prefer Hyman's long
out-of-print Zez Confrey LP to the newer Naxos CD by Eteri Andjaparize,
who takes some weird ritards in "Kitten On The Keys," slowing down when
there's no reason to (in places where Confrey himself doesn't, on his
78's) and ruining the flow of the music.
Morton's take on Joplin is certainly worth hearing: "Maple Leaf Rag,"
tracks 33-34-35 on Vol. 1 of "The Library of Congress Recordings" (the CD
edition, that is). Morton claims that he's playing the piece in Joplin's
style, and then he "Mortonizes" it. The differences are significant--but
what's really of interest here is that Morton apparently had some
personal exposure to Joplin's playing, and of course he had a near-
photographic memory and the ability to accurately reproduce music he'd
heard decades earlier on the keyboard. Sure enough, there's a close
resemblance between Morton's 1938 impression of Joplin's style and
Joplin himself as preserved on those rolls.
...Keeping in mind, of course, that Joplin's rolls were made on a simple
player piano, rather than the more sophisticated "reproducing piano,"
which would have given us a much more accurate idea of his sound (but
that instrument was reserved for white pianists in the early 1900's).
The Joplin rolls are somewhat stiff rhythmically (which might account for
some of his more recent interpreters playing his rags that way, thinking
that they're being "authentic,") and of course there's not a hint of
dynamics--which were already being captured very accurately by the Welte-
Mignon and Ampico recording mechanisms at the same time that Joplin cut
his rolls. But Joplin wasn't Mahler or Schnabel or Rachmaninov, and so he
never got anywhere near those machines. Too bad for posterity...
T.C.
Hal Vickery
Label. Have I missed who has them out on CD?
More comments inserted into the text below:
In article <MPG.15f9bafd2...@news.speakeasy.net>, Top Catt
<top_c...@hotmail.com> wrote:
I think there is one thing one can say about ragtime, both in the case of
its original practitioners and in the case of modern players. Everybody
had his/her own style. Since no one is alive who heard Joplin play, trying
to find someone who plays in his style is going to be pretty difficult.
One thing is sure, though, and that is that the style of the players from
Missouri (Joplin, Turpin, Scott, etc.) was probably different from those on
the eastern seabord or New Orleans.
As a result of all these stylistic quirks of every player, I like to listen
to a variety just to hear the various interpretations. One player I like
who hasn't been mentioned here is Max Morath, whose mother played piano in
movie theaters in Colorado Springs (My aunt knew her well enough to get me
a comp. copy of an out of print rag collection Max had published around
1960.) Morath has several CD's out of material by Joplin and others,
including an excellent one featuring rags by female composers. Morath is
known to play all of these rags in his own interpretation which doesn't
stick to what is on the printed page. I also recommend seeing his one-man
show if it ever comes to your town. I saw it a couple of months ago here
in IL at the Fermilab auditorium. (An interesting juxtaposition: a
particile accelerator below ground, rags played above ground.)
I also like Butch Thompson's interpretations of rags. Thompson led the
trio on Garrison Keillor's "Prairie Home Companion" radio show on public
radio for several years. I saw him live a few years ago, and hope to catch
him this fall at Unity Temple in Oak Park, IL.
> Morton's take on Joplin is certainly worth hearing: "Maple Leaf Rag,"
> tracks 33-34-35 on Vol. 1 of "The Library of Congress Recordings" (the CD
> edition, that is). Morton claims that he's playing the piece in Joplin's
> style, and then he "Mortonizes" it. The differences are significant--but
> what's really of interest here is that Morton apparently had some
> personal exposure to Joplin's playing, and of course he had a near-
> photographic memory and the ability to accurately reproduce music he'd
> heard decades earlier on the keyboard. Sure enough, there's a close
> resemblance between Morton's 1938 impression of Joplin's style and
> Joplin himself as preserved on those rolls.
> ...Keeping in mind, of course, that Joplin's rolls were made on a simple
> player piano, rather than the more sophisticated "reproducing piano,"
> which would have given us a much more accurate idea of his sound (but
> that instrument was reserved for white pianists in the early 1900's).
> The Joplin rolls are somewhat stiff rhythmically (which might account for
> some of his more recent interpreters playing his rags that way, thinking
> that they're being "authentic,") and of course there's not a hint of
> dynamics--which were already being captured very accurately by the Welte-
> Mignon and Ampico recording mechanisms at the same time that Joplin cut
> his rolls. But Joplin wasn't Mahler or Schnabel or Rachmaninov, and so he
> never got anywhere near those machines. Too bad for posterity...
Speaking of those Joplin rolls, there are embellishments that were
abviously added to some of them. The weirdest of them is the later version
of "Maple Leaf Rag." Joplin's time is very shaky on this one, and he seems
to be trying to just get through it. Was this the result of a syphilis
flare-up?
One final note, the Usenet group devoted to ragtime is rec.music.ragtime.
The people over there really know their music and could probably give the
original poster here some really good responses.
Bayle
Top Catt <top_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<MPG.15f9bafd2...@news.speakeasy.net>...
>James Levine sounds like a horrible choice for performing
> ragtime, but I suppose I shouldn't judge his playing without hearing it
> first. He's not a very inspired conductor or classical piano accompanist,
> though ("workmanlike" is a good word for his both his playing
> and conducting), and it's hard to imagine him playing ragtime very
> convincingly.
I agree with you about everything above. I can only say that I liked his
playing. It surprised me too.
> Morton's take on Joplin is certainly worth hearing: "Maple Leaf Rag,"
> tracks 33-34-35 on Vol. 1 of "The Library of Congress Recordings" (the CD
> edition, that is).
Thanks for reminding me. And for the rest.
Bayle
Hal Vickery <hvic...@svs.com> wrote in article
<hvickery-ya0240800...@news.supernews.com>...
> I think there is one thing one can say about ragtime, both in the case of
> its original practitioners and in the case of modern players. Everybody
> had his/her own style. Since no one is alive who heard Joplin play,
trying
> to find someone who plays in his style is going to be pretty difficult.
> One thing is sure, though, and that is that the style of the players from
> Missouri (Joplin, Turpin, Scott, etc.) was probably different from those
on
> the eastern seabord or New Orleans.
Do you think Jelly Roll Morton would have heard players of this style?
> As a result of all these stylistic quirks of every player, I like to
listen
> to a variety just to hear the various interpretations. One player I like
> who hasn't been mentioned here is Max Morath, whose mother played piano
in
> movie theaters in Colorado Springs (My aunt knew her well enough to get
me
> a comp. copy of an out of print rag collection Max had published around
> 1960.) Morath has several CD's out of material by Joplin and others,
> including an excellent one featuring rags by female composers. Morath is
> known to play all of these rags in his own interpretation which doesn't
> stick to what is on the printed page. I also recommend seeing his
one-man
> show if it ever comes to your town. I saw it a couple of months ago here
> in IL at the Fermilab auditorium. (An interesting juxtaposition: a
> particile accelerator below ground, rags played above ground.)
I had some records by Morath too, but for some reason I didn't like them as
much as Rifkin. Don't know why? I should listen to him again?
> One final note, the Usenet group devoted to ragtime is rec.music.ragtime.
> The people over there really know their music and could probably give the
> original poster here some really good responses.
Thanks for the tip.
Bayle
Top Catt <top_c...@hotmail.com> wrote in article
<MPG.15f9bafd2...@news.speakeasy.net>...
> I like Hyman's Joplin performances; they have a certain rhythmic "bounce"
Speaking of Hyman. Have you seen his version of "Hooray for Captain
Spaulding" in French in the Woody Allen movie? It's great.
Carlos May
as well.
Cheers, -- Froggy
* Fro...@neosoft.com ** "The Information Super-Frog" [dibs] *
http://www.angelfire.com/la/carlosmay/
Chris Albertson
Vickery at hvic...@svs.com wrote on 8/31/01 8:48 PM:
> Speaking of the Joplin Rolls, I have them on an old LP on the Biograph
> Label. Have I missed who has them out on CD?
Biograph.com will get you to the CDs, I think.
Chris A
>
> --snip--
Hal Vickery
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> Hal Vickery <hvic...@svs.com> wrote in article
> <hvickery-ya0240800...@news.supernews.com>...
>
> > I think there is one thing one can say about ragtime, both in the case of
> > its original practitioners and in the case of modern players. Everybody
> > had his/her own style. Since no one is alive who heard Joplin play,
> trying
> > to find someone who plays in his style is going to be pretty difficult.
> > One thing is sure, though, and that is that the style of the players from
> > Missouri (Joplin, Turpin, Scott, etc.) was probably different from those
> on
> > the eastern seabord or New Orleans.
>
> Do you think Jelly Roll Morton would have heard players of this style?
I'm sure he would have. All of these guys travelled, and Morton, as was
mentioned by someone else, does play in what he called Joplin's style in
the LOC recordings.
> > As a result of all these stylistic quirks of every player, I like to
> listen
> > to a variety just to hear the various interpretations. One player I like
> > who hasn't been mentioned here is Max Morath, whose mother played piano
> in
> > movie theaters in Colorado Springs (My aunt knew her well enough to get
> me
> > a comp. copy of an out of print rag collection Max had published around
> > 1960.) Morath has several CD's out of material by Joplin and others,
> > including an excellent one featuring rags by female composers. Morath is
> > known to play all of these rags in his own interpretation which doesn't
> > stick to what is on the printed page. I also recommend seeing his
> one-man
> > show if it ever comes to your town. I saw it a couple of months ago here
> > in IL at the Fermilab auditorium. (An interesting juxtaposition: a
> > particile accelerator below ground, rags played above ground.)
>
> I had some records by Morath too, but for some reason I didn't like them as
> much as Rifkin. Don't know why? I should listen to him again?
I like both, but to my ears, Rifkin comes of as a classically trained
player playing the rags like a classically trained player. If I were a
decent piano player, having no talent in improvisation at all at the
keyboard, I'd probably come of sounding more like Rifkin than like Morath.
I think Morath's Vanguard recordings might be worth a rehearing just so you
can take a look at how his playing varies from the written notes, thus
giving him a distinct style. I don't think I could say the same about
Rifkin.
> > One final note, the Usenet group devoted to ragtime is rec.music.ragtime.
>
> > The people over there really know their music and could probably give the
> > original poster here some really good responses.
>
> Thanks for the tip.
You're welcome. It's a small group with relatively few posters, but I love
reading what they have to say.
nsmf
Hal Vickery
<calbe...@nyc.rr.com> wrote:
Thanks, Chris. I'd like to finally get them on CD (along with a ton of
other stuff).
nsmf
Bayle
Hal Vickery <hvic...@svs.com> wrote in article
<hvickery-ya0240800...@news.supernews.com>...
> In article <01c13298$9cbe0080$2a541cd0@ilzyausv>, "Bayle"
> <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> > Hal Vickery <hvic...@svs.com> wrote in article
> > <hvickery-ya0240800...@news.supernews.com>...
> >
I think that is what I liked about Rifkin. He sounded cleaner and less busy
than Morath, if that makes any sense when applied to ragtime. I know I had
the Vanguard Morath (a twofer I think). I think I might appreciate Morath
more now.
> > > One final note, the Usenet group devoted to ragtime is
rec.music.ragtime.
> >
> > > The people over there really know their music and could probably give
the
> > > original poster here some really good responses.
> >
> > Thanks for the tip.
>
> You're welcome. It's a small group with relatively few posters, but I
love
> reading what they have to say.
Any sense of whether they came to ragtime from jazz or form classical? One
of the reasons I posted on rmb was I wanted to hear the opinions of those
familiar with Joplin's descendants.
Hal Vickery
<nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
I came into ragtime at roughly the same age I came into jazz, around the
age of 10 or 11. That's when I really started listening as to whether or
not I liked music. I had heard jazz, at least swing and traditional jazz,
before that all of my life. The first person I ever remember playing
ragtime piano, however, was Morath, so I have to say I have a bias towards
him.
That being said, when the first Rifkin LP of Joplin's tunes came out when I
was in college, it blew me away, maybe just because I was so glad to hear
music I loved being treated with respect. However, a lot of Rifkin's
interpretations of tunes really seemed to drag to me. On a lot of piano
rags (I have the Joplin collection the the NY Public Library put out in the
'70s and a collection of another 100 rags by edited by Morath), the tempo
is give is "Tempo di Marcia." Marches are not played slowly. I've also
seen "<quarter note> = 120" on some rags. That's pretty damn fast! It's
an oom-pah with the left hand every half second.
I've also read where the warnings Joplin put in his sheet music about not
playing ragtime fast were a response to players who would literally whiz
through the pieces at much faster tempos than march tempo.
One further comment, "cleaner and less busy" sounds like a classical
approach. On the other hand, Joplin was given to writing operas, so we know
he had aspirations towards what was then regarded as high art, as opposed
to what the vast majority of Americans thought of ragtime as being.
> > > > One final note, the Usenet group devoted to ragtime is
> rec.music.ragtime.
> > >
> > > > The people over there really know their music and could probably give
> the
> > > > original poster here some really good responses.
> > >
> > > Thanks for the tip.
> >
> > You're welcome. It's a small group with relatively few posters, but I
> love
> > reading what they have to say.
>
> Any sense of whether they came to ragtime from jazz or form classical? One
> of the reasons I posted on rmb was I wanted to hear the opinions of those
> familiar with Joplin's descendants.
One comment on this regarding Morath. In the one-man show I saw a couple
of months ago, he made note of the fact that in college many years ago
(he's in his 70's now, iirc), he made money playing jazz piano, so that's
at least partly his approach. However, as an expert on the turn of the
20th century, I'm sure he's as authentic in his playing as he can be. And
I think that has a lot to do with your final question here.
Ragtime and jazz come out of similar cultural milieus (if that's the
correct spelling of the plural...I don't speak French, so perhaps it's with
an "x" or something.) Style, i.e. establishing your own identity as a
player, was important in both. People would talk about how Tom Turpin or
Joplin or James Scott or Louis Chauvin played as much as they would about
the music. Musicians playing in both forms had some form of cutting
contests where the best player won. That was the tradition Joplin grew up
in, his other aspirations notwithstanding.
That being said, though, I think you'd have to ask the regulars on
rec.music.ragtime that question yourself. I know some of them like Morath.
I've rarely seen anyone mention Rifkin in the 3-4 years I've been reading
the group. Several of them have made MIDI's of classic rags and original
compositions in the ragtime idiom.
So I guess what I'm saying is that there are several people over there, and
you'll probably get more than one view, but to get some kind of feel for
it, I think you'll have to ask them yourselves, and then listen to what
they've produced online, on CD, etc. Not a bad copout on my part, eh?
nsmf
Bayle
Not a copout at all. Thanks so much for your thoughtful and informative
posts. I'll start lurking on the other group.
Robert McKay
>From: hvic...@svs.com (Hal Vickery)
>Date: 9/1/01 7:33 PM Mountain Daylight Time
>Ragtime and jazz come out of similar cultural milieus (if that's the
>correct spelling of the plural...I don't speak French, so perhaps it's with
>an "x" or something.)
In English it's entirely correct. The word's been in our tongue long enough
that we don't do it the French way anymore, just as we don't speak of «Lohs
AHN-hehl-ehs» but instead talk about Los Angeles.
Noo gin ye tak tae spikin Scots... :)
Robert McKay
AOL - Goffs California, E-mail - goffsca...@aol.com
"Take Five" ----Dave Brubeck
Marc Sabatella
> On a lot of piano
> rags (I have the Joplin collection the the NY Public Library put out in
the
> '70s and a collection of another 100 rags by edited by Morath), the tempo
> is give is "Tempo di Marcia." Marches are not played slowly. I've also
> seen "<quarter note> = 120" on some rags. That's pretty damn fast! It's
> an oom-pah with the left hand every half second.
Are these rags written with the left hand playing quarter notes or eighth
notes? If quarter notes, then we really only have an "oom" every half
second; a full second for an "oom-pah". I suppose it's all relative, but I
don't think of that as all that fast. I similarly don't think of marches in
general as being particularly quick, and indeed, 120 bpm is often considered
optimum march tempo. I've even heard people recommend singing "Stars And
Stripes Forever" to yourself as a reliable way to count off a tempo of 120
bpm. Anyhow, I've certainly heard people try to rags much faster than this,
and that is probably what Joplin was objecting to in his comments.
Hal Vickery
<ma...@outsideshore.com> wrote:
> Hal Vickery <hvic...@svs.com> wrote:
>
> > On a lot of piano
> > rags (I have the Joplin collection the the NY Public Library put out in
> the
> > '70s and a collection of another 100 rags by edited by Morath), the tempo
> > is give is "Tempo di Marcia." Marches are not played slowly. I've also
> > seen "<quarter note> = 120" on some rags. That's pretty damn fast! It's
> > an oom-pah with the left hand every half second.
>
> Are these rags written with the left hand playing quarter notes or eighth
> notes? If quarter notes, then we really only have an "oom" every half
> second; a full second for an "oom-pah". I suppose it's all relative, but I
> don't think of that as all that fast. I similarly don't think of marches in
> general as being particularly quick, and indeed, 120 bpm is often considered
> optimum march tempo. I've even heard people recommend singing "Stars And
> Stripes Forever" to yourself as a reliable way to count off a tempo of 120
> bpm. Anyhow, I've certainly heard people try to rags much faster than this,
> and that is probably what Joplin was objecting to in his comments.
These rags were in 2/4 time, so the "oom" and "pah" were eighth notes. So
you have to move your left hand pretty fast. I've read opinions of people
who play the music who have said that what you've described is exactly what
Joplin objected to. Apparently there were a lot of pianists who were
playing the rags at breakneck speed. I'm not good enough to even dream of
playing faster than q.n. = 120. (Well, at least I wasn't when I could
still see the spots on the page, in my pre-bifocal days.)
nsmf