Swing & straight rythm in Ragtime.
Benjamin Intartaglia
My good friend, A. Fauvel, a young 18-years old " Ragtime rookie ", has
asked me a difficult but very interesting question: What is the correct way
to play Ragtime music ? With swinging rythms as in Novelty and Stride or
straight rythms as in Classic Ragtime ?
Oh... I answered, I've never asked myself this question ! (although I use
the both ways when I play syncopated music...)
So... another existential question, isn't it ? I'd like to have the opinion
of Ragtime piano players about " swing and straight rythms " in Ragtime.
When did exactly the swinging manner appear in Ragtime History ? Did Classic
players from St Louis and Sedalia (Rob Hampton, Charley Thompson etc...)
play Ragtime with swingin' notes in, for example the early teens' ?
Back to our days, I believe that everybody use both ways even in Classic
Ragtime (just listen for example MIDI sequences by Irwin or Mike K. on one
hand (Swing) and Colin's and Oleg's on the other hand (Straight)?)
Please, tell me what it's all about...
Benjamin I.
Paris, France
[PS New MIDI performances I've made these last times of classic rags have
been added on my " performance page ", which have been a little changed. Now
I'm not afraid to add some originalities contrary to my very first sequences
(" as written ") : to put it in a nutshell I hope you'll like them...]
Oleg Mezjuev
> What is the correct way to play Ragtime music ? With swinging
> rythms as in Novelty and Stride or straight rythms as in
> Classic Ragtime ?
Here are my two cents... I think that classic ragtime benefits
from being played with some light swing, BUT it all depends on
the character of the piece in question. Some rags sound better
with almost no swing at all. Stride and novelty pieces require
more swing than classic rags.
> Back to our days, I believe that everybody use both ways even
> in Classic Ragtime (just listen for example MIDI sequences by
> Irwin or Mike K. on one hand (Swing) and Colin's and Oleg's
> on the other hand (Straight)?)
In my latest MIDI files I've tried to use some "quantization",
which is a midi sequencer's term for "swing". Just hear my
latest MIDI of "Krusenberg Rag", it's not as straight as my
earlier MIDI files. In terms of "quantization" classic rags
need a value of 52-60 or so, while novelty and stride music
would sound better with quant. value of 70-80. In "Krusenberg
Rag" I had a general level of quantization of about 57, if I
remember it right. Some very slow ragtime pieces doesn't need
any swing at all, which would mean a quantization level of 50
or 51.
Hope this will help.
Best RAGards!
Oleg Mezjuev
-------------------------
oleg.m...@ragtime.nu
http://www.ragtime.nu
-------------------------
Ragtimebill
>Hello all,
>
>My good friend, A. Fauvel, a young 18-years old " Ragtime rookie ", has
>asked me a difficult but very interesting question: What is the correct way
>to play Ragtime music ? With swinging rythms as in Novelty and Stride or
>straight rythms as in Classic Ragtime ?
Here's my two cents worth: Play it however it feels right to you. The early
rags were probably played mostly straight (if we are to believe the piano
rolls) and the later rags (in the teens) were probably more swung, and that is
kinda how I try to do it. As I have pointed out before, one of my published
anthems has a ragtime beat to it, and I play the thing with straight time, but
the first time I heard it performed, the pianist played it with swing time. It
sounded like a whole different piece to me, but not bad. Just different. And,
in my mind I quantify Ragtime as early or late kinda by the swing imparted to
the playing. But, to reiterate, however it feels best to you, just do it and
have fun!
-Bill Rowland
Broken Arrow, OK
BobPinsker
Now THIS is a question that is near and dear to my heart. Here's my opinion:
The basic fact is that at really fast tempos, it's not possible to squeeze
much swing into the eighth note rhythms (assuming that things are notated in
4/4 or cut time). And of course the slower one plays, the more swing is
possible. The limit of swing is the full triplet feel, which in sequencer terms
would be 66% swing. The one thing that seems pretty clear is that, like in
Baroque music, the rhythm written as dotted eighth and sixteenth would hardly
ever have been played as more extreme than a quarter-note triplet,
eighth-triplet.
See my webpage on the subject of notating swing in this kind of music
(http://www.geocities.com/bobpinsker )
Anyway, it appears to me that the thing that brought 'swing' into common
currency was the popularity of slightly slower dances in the early 'teens, most
notably the fox-trot, which calls for a swinging kind of feel, and that's when
the dotted-rhythms started appearing in published dance music. See the chapter
entitled "The Erosion of a Distinctive Style" in Ed Berlin's book "Ragtime: A
Musical and Cultural History" (UC Press, 1980).
When someone like James P. Johnson recorded something really fast, like
his 1940s recordings of his "Caprice Rag", the eighth notes are going by way
too fast to get any appreciable swing in there at all. But when he plays a
similar kind of steady linear tune like his "Daintiness Rag" (also in the 40s)
relatively slowly, he swings it almost all the way to triplets.
My tentative conclusion is: classic ragtime wasn't intended to be swung.
Never let it be forgotten that of the "Big Three" of classic ragtime, Joe Lamb
told us, and showed us, exactly how he intended his pieces to be played,
recording most of them for Mike Montgomery and Samuel Charters. Listen to those
recordings if there's ever any question in your mind what Lamb, for one,
intended.
But anything published from about 1914 on could be swung, to a degree
that mostly depends on the tempo. Slow - can be swung. Medium fast - could be
swung a bit, perhaps something like 60% swing (that would be 3/5, 2/5 of the
beat). Fast - probably not much time for much swing.
How's that for a wild generalization?
Very best regards,
Bob Pinsker
MikeS
"Oleg Mezjuev" wrote in reply to Benjamin,
> > What is the correct way to play Ragtime music ? With swinging
> > rythms as in Novelty and Stride or straight rythms as in
> > Classic Ragtime ?
>
> Here are my two cents... I think that classic ragtime benefits
> from being played with some light swing, BUT it all depends on
> the character of the piece in question. Some rags sound better
> with almost no swing at all. Stride and novelty pieces require
> more swing than classic rags.
Here's my experience:
Outside of practice, my ragtime performances are 99% for an audience,
usually 40++ years of age. Functions, private parties, dinners etc. When the
audience is in Rodin's Thinker position my presentation is a gentle swing
mode with a soft beat.
When sometimes the audience becomes overcome with an urge to "cakewalk" on
the floor my beat becomes more clear/accentuated and regular, but never at a
faster tempo or heavy like a blacksmith's hand.
Swing or straight, no one's perfect. :-)
Michael Sarosi
Ragtimers do it, ostinato.
Ed Berlin
page, Bob. I had wondered about your comment on the Baroque
interpretation of dotted rhythms, but your web page makes it clear
that you refer not to all music of that era, but to the gigue, which
was certainly a tripled-metered dance even when notated in 4/4.
However, I suspect that in the Baroque French overture the dots are
held for their full, notated value.
I'm not sure if we can transfer any of this to what we know, or think
we know, about interpreting ragtime dotted rhythms. It seems
inconceivable to me that they would be performed as written . . . but
then I must hesitate. We have been so indoctrinated to consider the
jazzy swinging triplets interpretation as most natural, I suspect our
hearing has become too corrupted for us to recapture the ragtime era's
manner of hearing.
I had to pause, also, on reading your reference to my discussion in
"The Erosion of a Distinctive Style". (As mentioned a few days ago,
as I've packed my library up in anticipation of an imminent move I'm
unable to consult what I had written 20+ years ago.) Yes, dotted
rhythms enter the language of the published music in the teens, and
dotted notation seems particularly distinctive of the fox trot. But
this does not necessarily signal slower dances. The one-step of the
1910s was quicker than the earlier ragtime two-step, and the fox trot
of the teens was not the slow dance we today associate with the term.
How's that for confusion. Historic performance practice raises all
sorts of questions for which there are few easy answers.
Ed Berlin
bobpi...@aol.com.antijnk (BobPinsker) wrote in message news:<20021101014341...@mb-mu.aol.com>...
Mike Knudsen
ago. We came to the same conclusions then as now -- there are no hard rules,
do what you like best, but some guidelines as to what type of rags are more
suited to swinging.
I agree that a single ragtime strain, played with strict timing and then with
swing, is like two different strains. Just as a piece takes on a new character
if you play it very slow, or very fast.
In my own rags, I usually put little or no swing in the first play of a strain,
but add some in the repeat. I also believe in using different amounts of swing
in the various strains of the same rag. You should be able to hear these
effects on my Web page:
http://members.aol.com/knudsenmj/myhomepage/index.html
You can also hear Ben Intartaglia playing a couple of my rags on his Web site
with considerably more swing than I would use, yet I really enjoy listening to
Ben's versions.
Then I have a good friend who loves classical ragtime, but can stand only a
tiny bit of swing. It's all very personal. Try each strain different ways,
and don't be too quick to make up your mind. --Mike Knudsen
Oscar loves trash, but hates Spam! Delete him to reply to me.
BobPinsker
>interpretation of dotted rhythms, but your web page makes it clear
>that you refer not to all music of that era, but to the gigue, which
>was certainly a tripled-metered dance even when notated in 4/4.
>However, I suspect that in the Baroque French overture the dots are
>held for their full, notated value.
>
>
Hi, Ed and all!
Yes, I should have been more specific - I did indeed mean in the gigues. In
fact, I was always taught that in the Baroque French overtures that you're
supposed to interpret the dotted rhythms as though they were double-dotted,
actually.
But of course much further discussion of Baroque performance practices is
probably a bit off-topic!
Here's a question relevant to the original topic. I have proof that at least
in certain circles all the dotted rhythms were supposed to be interpreted as
triplet rhythms, to be cited in a moment. What's the earliest such reference
that anybody can come up with, earlier than this?
"How To Play Piano Like the Roll Artists", by Roy Wetzel, published by
Stark and Cowan (no relation to John Stark of St. Louis, of course!), New York,
copyrighted by the author, 1921, (interestingly, the copyright transferred to
Pete Wendling and Max Kortlander in 1924!). On page 5:
"Another important point is this. The familiar dotted eight and sixteenth
combination, for example:
[musical example, with a "12th Street Rag"-like figure with 4
dotted-eighth/sixteenth pairs]
if played exactly as written, giving each note its exact value, makes too
jerky a movement. Perhaps one will play it more nearly correct 'by ear', but in
any event, the above measure should be played as follows:
[the musical example written in a somewhat clumsy way, with the dotted eighth
of the preceding replaced with the first two notes of a triplet tied together,
and the sixteenth replaced with the last note of the triplet]
This may look odd at first, but the dotted eighth and sixteenth figure must
be played as if the short ones were ONE-HALF the value of the long notes rather
than ONE-THIRD the value as would seem to be the case in Ex[ample] 5 [the first
of the two described examples]. Practice these two carefully until you see the
difference and then be sure to adopt the latter."
Wetzel then goes on to describe the (somewhat curious, to me) fact that tied
syncopated rhythms are usually notated (at that time) without the dots and
sixteenths, but that the rhythm that is intended is still the 'swung' triplet
feel, even on the tied-in beats written as straight eighths.
I looked in the 1920 edition of "Axel Christensen's New Instruction Book for
Rag And Jazz Piano Playing" to see if Axel has something similar to say -
nothing. I don't have Winn's book - does he, perchance say something about
this?
Of course, the very clearest evidence concerning this particular aspect of
performance practice is to analyze the piano rolls that were coming out in the
teens. I have a lot to say about that, but for the moment, it will suffice to
point out that by 1921, the convention that Wetzel refers to was quite well
established - listen to the QRS roll of James P. Johnson's Carolina Shout, and
compare it to his contemporary audio recording. They're both swung to about the
triplet level.
The most interesting thing, again, would be to find the earliest rolls that
are cut in approximately that triplet swing, and also, of course, to do a
quantitative analysis of the swing on audio recordings from the 'teens. I
believe that what one will find is that when the tunes are played at the
(sometimes startlingly) fast tempos characteristic of the period, there is not
time to swing much! (Listen to that early recording of Joplin's "Wall Street
Rag" by that band (the name of which escapes me at this moment) - not exactly
Joshua Rifken-like tempo, that!
This brings up the other aesthetic aspect that I find always very
interesting in any discussion of performance practice. Suppose one establishes
beyond a shadow of a doubt the way that a certain piece was played by the
composer in his or her prime - maybe you find a recording. Does that mean that
any other way of playing the piece is necessarily "wrong"? In the ragtime
context, I find that this question is most relevant not so much to the swing
question, but to the tempo question. I think that people like Dick Zimmerman
and others have really established the sorts of tempos that were actually used
in performance during the ragtime period pretty well - and they are FAST! Does
that mean that it's invalid to play the pieces quite a bit slower, a la Rifkin?
I personally admit to liking Rifkin's versions of the Joplin pieces, although
in general he plays the pieces WAY slower than they would have been in the
period.
So that's my set of prejudices - I like the classic rags played almost
without swing, but a fair degree slower than they would have been played at the
period.
Other opinions?
Mike Knudsen
bobpi...@aol.com.antijnk (BobPinsker) writes:
> I believe that what one will find is that when the tunes are played at the
>(sometimes startlingly) fast tempos characteristic of the period, there is
>not time to swing much!
Yes -- to me, this suggests a general rule of thumb -- less swing in fast
tempos, but the slower a piece is played, the more you need swing, not just
because you can, but to keep it from becoming too dull. And yet, I'm so used
to Josh Rifkin's rendition of "Solace" that I would boo anyone who swung it :-)
> (Listen to that early recording of Joplin's "Wall Street
>Rag" by that band (the name of which escapes me at this moment) - not exactly
>Joshua Rifken-like tempo, that!
I just imagined "Wall St." at twice the tempo, and it makes a great one-step,
albeit an entirely different piece!
> This brings up the other aesthetic aspect that I find always very
>interesting in any discussion of performance practice. Suppose one
>establishes
>beyond a shadow of a doubt the way that a certain piece was played by the
>composer in his or her prime - maybe you find a recording. Does that mean
>that
>any other way of playing the piece is necessarily "wrong"? In the ragtime
>context, I find that this question is most relevant not so much to the swing
>question, but to the tempo question.
Back in the 60s when I was in college, with access to organ periodicals,
organists were having quite an argument over whether or not the compositions of
Cesar Franck should be played with the composer's stop registrations as notated
on the scores, or whether each organist should feel free to register her own
stops according to taste. I've heard alternate registrations that fit Franck's
music much better.
I'd say to play ragtime the way you like it, and the way your audience likes
it. If you suspect these are not what the composer would have done, then tell
your audience that you're playing it slower and swinging, or whatever.
We aren't the people to put ragtime in dusty glass cases in a dim museum hall.
> I think that people like Dick Zimmerman
>and others have really established the sorts of tempos that were actually used
>in performance during the ragtime period pretty well - and they are FAST!
Did performers back then always play the way the composer intended? Did Scott
Joplin pick up his tempo when the audience was noisy and drunk, but slow down
when he felt they were really listening? Since Joplin was always notating "not
too fast!", you wonder what some of the "perfessors" were doing!
>Does that mean that it's invalid to play the pieces quite a bit slower, a la
>Rifkin?
I've already stated my opinion, no it's not invalid. But I think we each have
an obligation to play a piece a few times at the supposed historically correct
tempo, to see if maybe we don't like it at least as well that way. Give the
original tempo/style an honest hearing, then play what you like.
>I personally admit to liking Rifkin's versions of the Joplin pieces, although
>in general he plays the pieces WAY slower than they would have been in the
>period.
I wouldn't even be into ragtime if not for Rifkin. Just have to mention,
though, that for some reason Rifkin plays "S. J.'s New Rag" really fast, while
Max Morath takes it slow in live concert. Funny...
> So that's my set of prejudices - I like the classic rags played almost
>without swing, but a fair degree slower than they would have been played at
>the period.
I agree mostly, but below a certain tempo some swing is desirable to me to keep
from dragging.
Bill Edwards
A few have written me off-line asking me to weigh in on this issue. I
will do so, but somewhat reluctantly as it is so steeped in opinion. My
research in this area is not from the texts of the day, but from sound
recordings, including cylinders and discs, from 1908 to 1920 or so. But
not just piano ragtime, of which there is little. This was done from
recordings accumulated over the last few years, but expanded to popular
music outside of simply rag piano. It's a little long (really sorry),
but please indulge me if this ongoing topic is of interest to you.
Collectively I have noted that piano ragtime and piano accompaniments to
songs, with some mean of variation, slowly progressed from stiff to
swing during the 13 year period I studied. In particular, there is a
marked contrast starting around 1917, culminating with the early
recordings of Zez Confrey and Nacio Brown. Even the difference, albeit
on piano rolls, between the 1918 and 1921 takes of Carolina Shout is
telling. In just three years and three months, it appears that a
combination of experience and common performance practices loosened the
gait of Johnson to give his early stride some real momentum through the
swing. Gershwin's early roll of Rialto Ripples, and the subsequent sheet
music, is steeped in triplet figures, which automatically drive the
performer to some subdued version of swing as opposed to metrically
stiff meter.
However, since this was a cultural trend in popular music I stepped
outside of the upright box and into the bandstand. Bands were more
widely recorded than piano or guitar solos, in part because of the
characteristics of horn recording, which created superior recordings
when superior volumes were achieved. This even bears true to the early
days of electronic recording and reproduction. Listen to the soundtracks
to Jazz Singer or Broadway Melody of 1929; much less the original
acoustic recording of Rhapsody in Blue, and you will hear orchestral
settings that feature banjos and tubas since they cut through better. I
just wanted to establish why there seemed to be such a preference among
companies to record bands over piano solos. They were also easier to
dance to.
Still, listening to band ragtime or dance music from the 1908 to 1920
period, the level of swing introduced was in a marked curve behind the
piano soloists. Even the early recordings of ODJB and King Oliver
exhibit stiffness, very much so in the group sections, and somewhat
notably with certain instrumental soloists who had not yet grasped the
joys of improvisation. It is a somewhat known fact that James Earl Jones
stutters in normal speech. Yet when he has a script to read, or know to
some extent exactly what he is going to say, his delivery is very
smooth. The same can be said for reed and brass soloists who were
charting new territory in the late teens, and hadn't quite loosened up
like their ivory-driven colleagues.
But then I went a step further. There were a lot of decent
instrumentalists from Chicago and New York who had to be doing more than
just working for The Clef Club or the white equivalent. In fact, many
were session musicians. So backing Sophie Tucker, Al Jolson and others
were musicians such as these. When Jolson was working with his own group
from the Winter Garden as opposed to the sight-reading session guys at
Columbia, the music tends to swing a bit more, even with pieces cut in
the same year. Rock-A-Bye Your Baby swings in part because Jolson makes
it so, but also because there were some of his boys there who were
driving the others in the same direction. I find it unlikely that
ragtime musicians just sat in the bars in the big cities, where some of
these trends were set (with great respect to cultural influences
introduced from the rural south and Midwest) sat around and picked out
Matthews and Botsford pieces all night. They were likely involved with
some of the song hits of the day as well. That's why I feel listening to
a broad spectrum of syncopated recordings from the ragtime era that also
cover popular song is educational.
The end result - pretty much the current one that seems to be adopted
here. It's a matter of preference. However, in 1908 to 1910 the choice
wasn't as clear for the same reason that musicians in the 1880s didn't
need to choose between galops and cakewalks. Evolution had not taken its
course yet. But before the end of the ragtime era, pieces like 12th
Street Rag were likely swung as much as A Good Man Is Hard To Find was
played not-so-swung. Personal preference. I wonder, given the timing of
prohibition, what role alcohol played in the development of the relaxed
swing rhythm, and what role the alleged abstinence of it played in
fueling the jazz age. Knowing the historical relationship of musicians
and drinking establishments (yes, back to and likely before the
Baroque), there must be some correlation. But this is speculation on my
part, not research.
As for my personal preferences - my site says much of it, but that
requires diligent listening. I rarely swing Joplin or Scott, much less
Botsford. George Cobb I like to add a little lilt to. Lamb varies. I
feel that Bohemia is interesting with a slight swing. Poker Rag has been
stuck in swing for me since I hard Max do it that way. 12th Street
depends on speed. It makes for a great slow swing or a nice rousing fast
straight-rhythmed rag. Eubie needs swing. Europe as well. Castle House
Rag is not the same without the lilt. Luckey Roberts can go either way.
E.T. Paull - well, that's another post.
And the big recent issue - Bolcom - my entry was put in just the other
day with the Three Ghost Rags. Graceful Ghost works either way, so I
mixed it with some emphasis in particular areas. Poltergeist does not
work with swing, so I did it as "techno-rag". Dream Shadows absolutely
needs it since it seems so steeped in Monk, although I did a couple of
sections in nearly-straight meter. Again, personal preference.
Final thought/horror. Has anybody heard a wretched little 12" novelty
from the 1970s (do ya miss 'em) called Plugged-In Joplin? The
Entertainer in swing I can deal with, but Elite Syncopations as a boogie
in full swing time - yeccch.
I'm getting verklempt. For an interesting point of view on Joplin in
particular - Marcus Roberts - Joy of Joplin. Discuss amongst yourselves.
In full swing - well, sorta - Bill E.
Ed Berlin
intriguing window to how some people viewed swinging rhythms. Great
find, Bob.
Ed Berlin
bobpi...@aol.com.antijnk (BobPinsker) wrote in message news:<20021104011004...@mb-fe.aol.com>...