just thought I would toss in that my current teacher claims that Joplin's music IS classical and he's a jazz teacher. My previous teacher, who was a classical pianist also held Joplin's music in the repertoire. Just because it is so vastly different from what we consider "classical" it has much more in common with the classical repertoire than the jazz repertoire in terms of of performance practices and construction.

Joplin strived for his music to be considered "classical" and as a result of his rejection, he fell into a depression that lasted until his death. Was that merely a matter of semantics?

I think it's an indication of how dull things have been around here that patently risible assertions have such power to provoke notwithstanding the transparency of their purpose.

Given the dearth of "substantive, pleasant, stimulating or helpful discussions" (in the words of a member who explained to me in a PM why he no longer chooses to participate here), it's gotten even easier to succumb to the temptation to feed trolls for their entertainment value.

I guess it can be defended on the basis of Any port in a storm and One man's trash is another man's treasure, but it's equally necessary to recall the other aphorisms to which Piano*Dad alluded: Never argue with an idiot … and Never rassle with a pig ….

At least such a state of affairs tends to wax and wane, and predominantly pedestrian palaver can be predicted to improve. This, too, shall pass!



Steven

Just imagine what he could have done on the Piano if he never got syphllis .

Glad to see some voices of reason chime in. The consensus is, of course, that Joplin is in many respects classical.
His music is, unduly so, considered to be insipid by some who do not know better. However, I have only met few people who could really elicit the beauty of ragtime and make these pieces sing. It is actually not that easy to play and phrase properly. Some parts are outright virtuoso (e.g. the middle part in Cascades). Let's not forget that his music was also played in ragtime competitions where the rule of the day was: the faster the better. Even though that was a very wrong thing to do in Joplin's perception, there ARE technical challenges in these pieces that inspired people to race through them to show their technical perfection.

Unfortunately, Joplin passed away too early. If you look at later pieces such as Magnetic Rag, there is a new style forthcoming that would have developed had Joplin enjoyed more years. Doubtless, he had a great gift as a composer and a pianist.
Also, with respect to the question of whether music is classical or popular (and I do not like these terms, especially when juxtaposed with each other), let's not forget that many "classical" pieces were probably regarded as "popular" music during their time (I am just thinking of Mozart's operas for example who were considered a fad that fell out of fashion shortly after his death, but you name them...)
As a European, I really enjoy the openness of many North Americans with respect to music. The hoary European cultural rigidity is sometimes stifling to me. Thankfully, though, this is not shared by the younger generation of music lovers.

Again, I truly believe that those pieces which will somehow remain and will stir interest and enthusiasm beyond the historic period in which they were born, are classical. And Joplin will be played time and again, I feel very safe to say!

Thats fine for students aspiring to Ragtime piano who will perhaps find occasional work in some American bars.

His music reflected by and large the great American Depression of the thirties and very little else.

.
His music is, unduly so, considered to be insipid by some who do not know better...Let's not forget that his music was also played in ragtime competitions where the rule of the day was: the faster the better. Even though that was a very wrong thing to do in Joplin's perception...

What facet of Joplin's piano works would be considered unclassical?

The OPs question was why isnt Joplin considered classical.

Classical means

1] Universal appeal
2] Enduring popularity
3] Academic esteem

Joplins music simply does not qualify

I accept that Joplins music has its moments but they are soon forgotten as is the way with most popular music.

You cannot make a silk purse out of a sows ear.

I quite like some of Joplins oeuvre for its simplistic charm and occasional depressing quality and contrary to one posters assertion I have never regarded it as garbage.

The issue in this thread is can his music be regarded as classical in the accepted meaning of the term?

I am of the opinion that it cannot be so regarded.


It is simply not plausible that a minor composer such as Joplin can suddenly be elevated to the status of either a great or lesser known classical composer from the last 3 centuries.

If this is elitest then so it is.

An excessive obsession with equality reduces all musical standards
to zero.

Unfortunately some contributors are unwilling to distinguish between jazz and classical music . For those who understand, the distinction is quite clear, for those who do not ,no explanation is possible.

It is simply not plausible that a minor composer such as Joplin can suddenly be elevated to the status of either a great or lesser known classical composer from the last 3 centuries.

Oh dear. I thought the 'classical canon' of music was just like the 'classical canon' of English literature... an academic notion that some enjoy for argument's sake (which is fun in its own way).

Shakespeare was originally NOT in the literary canon because he was considered well, vulgar and perhaps even childish. He was certainly very popular in his day - much in the same way that say, Steven Spielberg is now. And maybe how Mozart was in his time and place.

So, given time, Joplin (and hey, maybe Spielberg!) will probably be included in the canon of classics in their respective art forms.

Exactly well put Wood-demon.

The problem is the dumbing down of music. The issue is connected with so called liberal philosophy where everybody and every culture is equal. This risibly nonsensical approach to life flourishes in the New World.

Unfortunately little can be done to correct it.

Well I'll avoid the political aspect of the matter, Mocheol, but I confess that I'm inclined to agree with you over the quality of Joplin's music.
I've just reminded myself of "Treemonisha" by playing my records of it. Maybe Joplin's concertos and symphonies are indeed lost masterpieces but the overture to his opera certainly doesn't suggest this to be the case; a mish-mash of Stephen Foster, cake-walks and "Perils of Pauline"-type moments which just, IMHO, add up to a rather quaint piece of corn.
Joplin's music is pleasant enough, but I can think of any number of more worthy and accomplished composers whose music is almost completely neglected by the majority of music-lovers.
In the lighter field of piano miniatures Billy Mayerl, Zez Confrey and "Fats" Waller all knock Joplin into the proverbial cocked-hat, as far as I'm concerned.

Exactly well put Wood-demon.

The problem is the dumbing down of music. The issue is connected with so called liberal philosophy where everybody and every culture is equal. This risibly nonsensical approach to life flourishes in the New World.

Unfortunately little can be done to correct it.

I would submit this is an issue of style and personal preference, as subjective as the issue of whether or not this counts as classical music. I know I'm very unlikely to compose anything like "Gladiolus Rag" so I admire this composer's talent. If I was able to do what he did, then perhaps I would estimate him less.

I disagree. I think it's an issue of ability. If the Treemonisha overture is anything to go by Joplin had little idea of putting together a piece of music on a larger scale successfully.

I'm very unlikely to compose anything like "The Phantom of the Opera" but it doesn't make me admire THAT particular composer's talent, especially when an infinitely superior work like Mascagni's "Le Maschere" is hardly ever performed.

If you think everything comes down to personal taste you might just as well rate Ethelbert Nevin alongside Bach as I'm sure there were many people who preferred (and perhaps still do prefer) Narcissus to the WTC.