Ragtime is neither classical music nor jazz (2009)
frederickhodges.com
frederickhodges.com
> 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.
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.)
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).
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.
Our definitions should reflect the underlying reality; otherwise we will be mislead by them ( https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/FaJaCgqBKphrDzDSj/37-ways-th... ). "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.
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.
Please. The difference between classical and popular music is primarily the funding model
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.
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.
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.
I also associate it strongly with 'The Sting'. An old movie, but a great one.
Ragtime isn't a style I could listen to constantly but in doses I like it too.
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.