Piano World Home Page Forums Our Most Popular Forums Pianist Corner a question concerning ragtime tempo

No!

I just timed my playing of the two I was talking about.

"Weeping Willow" comes in at the 63 setting on my metronome, with a quarter note getting one beat. That might be too schmaltzy for some, but to me it sings properly, and can still be played with lilt.

"Swipesy" comes in at 88 on my metronome, with a quarter note getting one beat. It's definitely peppy without being frantic.

Those are my preferences, FWIW.

--Andy

The sheet music for Fig Leaf Rag and for Pine Apple Rag both say a quarter note = 100. Both rags also warn not to play them fast. The only other Joplin rags I can find with BPM specified are Eugenia at 72 and Sugar Cane at 100. "Scott Joplin's New Rag" is Allegero moderato, which I guess is even faster (and unlike these others it has no warning to avoid playing too fast).

I love Rifkin's Joplin recordings. Rifkin plays Fig Leaf about half of 100 BPM. He plays Pine Apple slower than 100. His New Rag is less than 70 BPM according to my metronome.

I think Fig Leaf would be way too fast at 100. Listeners would miss important details at that speed. I've always wondered if the 100 is a typo, there are plenty of other typos in the original Joplin sheet music. Maybe the scores should have indicated that an *eighth* note should be 100. No way *that* would be too fast!

Hi andy, do you use pedal on this one? Do you have any recording of your playing?

cheers

Hey, al-mahed!

I use pedal a bit for a little jaunty expression. I haven't recorded it, but since you requested it, I will. However, I can't promise when. I'll try to do it at least by the end of summer. (Just for the public record, that brings to 3 the total number of things I've promised to post to member recordings by the end of summer! )

--Andy

I tend to agree with others who like Joshua Rifkin's pacing. Too fast makes for a frenetic, frantic, unappealing performance. Bright and energized is preferred. But not dreary and dragging. For me, Rifkin hits it about right. It would be interesting to know how Joplin himself paced his rags, but I don't think knowing that would change my preferences, since when I played the Maple Leaf and the Entertainer I tried various tempi but finally settled on Rifkin's choice as the most pleasing.

Hop

Then listen to the recording by Joplin I posted earlier in the thread for MLRag. It's quite a bit faster than Rivkin. Some other important present day performers of this kind of music, including Swanson and Hyman (who are far more well known than Rifkin for this kind of music), play it even faster than Joplin. Of course, what Joplin and others do in the MLR doesn't)mean they'd choose the same tempo for other rags. I always use MLR since it's the most popular.

As you can imagine, the subject of tempo often comes up at ragtime festival seminars and presentations. It seems to be a general consensus among those folks that the popular cakewalk which preceded ragtime was definitely slower. Kind of as a practical matter, due to the attire of the late 1800's. Although it's not a cakewalk, a two-step, or a dance itself, there's an illustration of how the cakewalking public dressed on the cover of the Maple Leaf Rag. Here's another really nice one on a cakewalk cover.

Ragtime, which adopted the march in the left-hand, was somewhat faster... march tempo. A lot of folks credit the adoption of ragtime into the repertoire of the Souza Band as a major factor in its early public success and that's obviously the tempo they would have played it.

Kinklets, being identified as a ragtime two-step, rather than a cakewalk two-step, seems to suggest a faster tempo than a cakewalk. I also have the impression that the slower cakewalk style faded with the introduction of ragtime, and was being displaced by a faster professional dance-form that probably inspired ragtime in the 1st place. Buck and Wing dancing. This started being popularized in the 1840's as part of circus entertainment but eventually took on a life of its own becoming a trademark of Vaudeville and eventually evolving into tap-dance. My own theory is that ragtime got its syncopation from it and that piano ragtime, particularly on the East coast, used its tempo as its starting point.

I only mention all that because Kinklets was written in 1906 when everything was speeding up. Take a look at this 1903 cakewalk tempo (apparently professional dancers) in which the male star in the middle clearly does pigeon moves while the male at the right is almost flat-footed in more traditional cakewalk garb:

http://memory.loc.gov/mbrs/varsmp/0377.mpg

So if Kinklets was intended to be played somewhat faster than that...

Btw, the general thinking in ragtime circles is that Joplin's motivation for putting his "it's never right to play ragtime fast" notices on his music was more about his own playing ability than musical considerations. Although he was a superstar composer, he just wasn't a flashy player. But he needed income from concert touring. Indications are that it was a lost cause. His earliest tempo markings were indeed march tempo. Then be followed with a few marked "not fast" and "not too fast". In 1905, beginning with Leola, he started with the notices and a tempo marking of "slow march tempo". A dozen notices later in 1909 Wall Street upped the ante with "very slow march". After which he gave it up. The notices suddenly ended forever in 1910 with Stoptime marked "fast or slow." And his New Rag in 1912 and Magnetic in 1914 got "allegro moderato." Eubie Blake, whose only admitted contact with Scott Joplin was seeing him perform once in 1915, became fond of jokingly telling audiences before he performed a Joplin piece (after Joplin's death, of course) that he met him once and got special permission to play it his own way. I think most modern ragtimers follow Eubie's lead.

Howard

What a great post Howard!

Howard,

Thanks for the terrific post!

Now, for an innocent question. Did rags morph into fox trots? Fox trots have impressed me as being "rhapsodic rags."

Yes? No?

--Andy

Yes, I think Ben nailed it, there is a sweet spot you will find by playing it yourself.

The more I read about and listen to ragtime the more I feel you can play at any speed you want as long as it's not so slow it drags. Play with little or no rubatto. Also not to fast to muddy up the harmonies; unless you’ve got the chops to play cleanly, precisely and clearly. “Kinklets” is probably meant to be played slower than a classic rag. The key thing is to make sure the syncopation is felt. Go ahead, tap your foot. As we know Scott Joplin advised not to play too fast, but I suspect the tradition was pretty fast considering where this music came from. These guys did want to show off.

A couple of good sources of information on classic piano ragtime are:

“Ragtime Its History Composers and Music” by John Edward Hasse

Bill Edwards’ website: Bill is a professional ragtime player whose website includes midi performances of hundreds of rags, blues, stride and early 1900 popular piano music. He devotes a page on his website specifically to speed and pedaling. Like most musical genres, ragtime can be an all consuming passion on its own.
http://www.perfessorbill.com

Besides listening to Rifkin, Eubie Blake, Hyman etc. listen to Butch Thompson who has also devoted much of his career to early 20th century piano music. Also Jelly Roll Morton in his Library of Congress Recordings plays Maple Leaf Rag in St. Louis style (Joplin style) and New Orleans style. Oh and Max Morath.

I play a few rags, not as fast as I’d like.

Hi, Andy. Didn't know a whole lot about fox trot but this page clued me in:

http://www.centralhome.com/ballroomcountry/foxtrot.htm

Harry Fox, of course, of course. Mentions his debut of it was to ragtime music. Sounds like a Yes to me. Think he might have used Castle House Rag? Written the same year. And Ragtime Nightingale written the following year. James Reese Europe certainly knew Harry Fox and Joe Lamb probably did too.

Howard

Some of the fastest ragtime piano players I've ever had as piano lessons students are junior high boys. Not the most accurate, not the most musical! But fast baby fast - I have almost given up trying to slow them down.

A few + years ago, when I was a junior high boy, I used lay a big chalkboard eraser on our Scott Joplin record as it was spinning around. This would slow it down considerably so I could hear all of the notes. But then when I heard all of the notes and got them under my fingers, I was off to the races.

I wonder if Scott Joplin himself actually played slowly as a junior high boy? I know he sure lamented all the speed demons playing his rags through the years. I've actually always kind of felt sorry for him about that. Ha.

One stunt that I'm not really so proud of any more is the evening when my folks were both gone and I decided that if there was just a little cooking oil on the piano keys I might be able to play faster! Yep - tragedy. My niece and her family now have that piano, and if you look at the sides of the keys, you can still see the cooking oil stains. Ha ha, I laugh and cry.

LOL! Perfectly reasonable thinking!!!

Thanks, hv! This is super-duper, and did not appear in the Oxford English Dictionary definition I read. I am going to quote your reply in the thread "My Piano in EBVT III" (page 6) in the Tuner/Tech forum, where Grandpianoman has posted numerous recordings of fox trots played on his 1925 Mason & Hamlin RBB. Have you heard them?

--Andy

Just asked my wife who's the musician in the family and she says Castle House Rag would have been perfect for foxtrot. And that he probably wrote it with that in mind... being the band leader for Vernon and Irene. But Ragtime Nightingale, not so much.

Howard

Howard,

Al-mahed,

Jerry Groot just posted this link in the Tuner/Tech forum. I thought you'd like to have it.



The sound is not to my taste, nor are the tempos, but at least the notes are all there! You might find it useful for some of your other studies!

Best,
--Andy

Thank you Andy! Efficiency Rag is great, the second one on my preferences after joplin is James Scott. Efficiency Rag is his, as Quality. Both sound terrible difficult.

There is another rag of Arthur Marshall (who wrote swipesy, with Joplin, and Kinklets) called "Ham And!", I don't recall where I found. The title is silly, but the rag is very nice. If you have the time search for the MIDI file on google.

There is NO piano version of this rag on youtube!! New oportunity to be original!