Re: "Defining Ragtime"
By Robbie Rhodes
Dear Tim,
You're right on target -- kudos! Here's just a little nit-picking and comments:
1. Your three book references are just fine. I do hope you are in personal contact with Ed Berlin and his resources.
2. Mention that "Ragtime = Ragged Time", and that the medley pieces are "scraps and rags of tunes stitched together."
3. In "The music was chiefly developed by Afro-Americans ... " , I have a modest objection to "chiefly", if you are speaking of "Classic Ragtime", which I define as the format derived from the classical music that was prevalent in the era. The talented, hence important black composers kept moving "with the money", just as today. I feel that, after the likes of Joplin, Scott and Artie Mathews, the further development of Classic Ragtime was chiefly by white composers.
Contrarywise, if you are speaking of the broadest use of the term "Ragtime", wherein it includes the bulk of the pop music, then I agree.
As I see it, the "Classic Ragtime" of Joplin, Scott and Lamb, had a relatively brief interest span to the public masses -- the public being those folks that define what's popular. In a pretty short while Tin Pan Alley had picked up the style and was running with it in simpler formats. (I can imagine an Alley publisher saying, "Why have four or five strains when the public can only whistle two?")
To me, the REAL development following_on "ragtime" was in the hands of guys like Jelly Roll Morton and Eubie Blake -- composers who were already tired of the quaint sound of the classic ragtime, but used its best characteristics in their new compositions which were aimed squarely at getting recognition from the public.
4. Re "Few melodies of instrumental rags are suitable for vocals..."
Good observation, but not relevant. The rags that aren't suitable were written specifically for orchestra, and the composer was not constrained to keep it "singable".
[See also the comments by Stephen Kent Goodman in digest 951014.]
5. Yes, "12th St. Rag" IS probably a rag, and it was/is undeniably popular. But I find it largely boring when contrasted with other jolly pieces.
6. "As ragtime developed, harmonies grew increasingly complex ...". Again, Tim, which context of "ragtime" are you referring to?
7. Why all the chatter about guitar players? The only reason they don't appear on records before 1926 (the beginning of electric recording) is that the acoustic recording machines couldn't record 'em. I'm sure the guys were around in 1900, but when they recorded for the old squeaky cylinder they picked up their banjos. Check this aspect out with the ragtime banjo historians.
8. The early Ragtime was ORIGINALLY played by bands, because that was the best way to advertise the publisher's product. The sheet music sales to pianists and guitar pickers at home made the money.
I maintain (with guarded agreement from Trebor Tichenor) that Scott Joplin conceived and scored his early pieces for the town band in the sharp keys like "D" and "A", as in the "Red Back Book". But, in that same era the wind instruments for the town band (but not the symphony) were changing from "Low-pitch in A" to the new "High Pitch in B-flat", and so the publishers soon followed suit. (This idiotic business of changing the standard pitch of horns is closely related to the equally idiotic rise in Concert Pitch, and it's promulgated by instrument manufactures and salesmen!)
Hokay. That's enough time on the soapbox! You have a tough enough task to say all the right things, in too little space, for a specialized audience. Tuck my comments in the corner of your notebook for a bigger article someday.
And finally: your draft on this topic, for the black audience, is as well-balanced as any I've come across. Good job, Tim!
Best Wishes,
Robbie Rhodes
cc: Ed Berlin (via mail) |
(Message sent Fri 20 Oct 1995, 06:58:21 GMT, from time zone GMT-0700.) |
|
|
Mechanical
Music Digest™ Archives
