I'm amazed by the number of negative comments. I thought this was fantastic! I took the Rachmaninoff theme as being simply the characteristic way he orchestrated his chords. (I guess there could have been more 6 note chords requiring a reach to an eleventh). Thank you Keeper1st!
Improvising was expected in ragtime, just as it was in baroque music. Remember, Joplin was about seven years older than Rachmaninoff, though he died at a younger age by a score years.
@Keeper1st Oh, I didn't know you were referring just to tempo or adding things not in the score. I assumed the classical vs. ragtime argument had to do with overall performance style (serious vs. non-serious). I totally agree that it isn't "blasphemous" to modify scores regardless of style as long as it's in good taste. No problem....
I totally agree, try to imagine a bunch of super-ego pianists playing in a smoky room all the ragtime pieces during the twenties.. I guess they're not thinking to play songs in the right way but in their own.
Wow! Best ever version. Pure joy. No pedantry here about how the composer may have wanted it played. Music belongs to the performer. Ravel's Bolero is invariably played too slowly because everyone is terrified of contravening Ravel's dictum: Not so fast! Performing is not only indulging one's own personality but commenting on the music. Joplin's folk opera Treemonisha was an instant hit with me when I first heard it on radio not knowing who wrote it. Particularly pleasing, this raspy bit at 2:35. Maestro Hodges has a sense that music isn't only one note after another, but a whole that has to cohere architectonically and sylistically.
@Keeper1st I totally understand the ragtime vs. classical debate, but let's just step back and analyze what is implied. Basically, this dichotomy implies that classical music is "serious" and no fun (and all slow) while ragtime is "fun and frills" without being serious (and all fast). Both of these of course are not the least bit true, which invalidates the classical vs. ragtime argument. A Brahms Hungarian Dance or Smetana Polka are just as "pop" as most ragtime pieces. Music is music.
@illidnarg Nobody in the ragtime era would have gone to hear someone play a rag as published (for they could do that themselves at home). Likewise, few today would bother to listen to a simply "straight" rendition. They're paying to hear something fresh. Rifkin's albums were not quite "as written" either; he was giving a slower, softer twist to them -- not historically accurate, as he himself would tell you. Frederick gets plenty of praise. He's plays this stuff for a living, which few can say.
This is one of my favorite rags by Joplin. I don"t know why it isn't more popular... I'm learning it now but the C section is giving me trouble. I might upload it to my channel when I get it finished.
I just finished learning the c section go figure 😂 it is my favorite section of any rag so I thought I would learn it before the B section lol that's the last one before I can play the whole song. Good luck on learning it I'll give it a watch if you upload it
@isambo400 People who don't know any ragtime beyond Joplin. Certainly Joplin was heavily influenced by European classical music. His rags are often played by classical pianists who otherwise have no interest in ragtime as pop music.
@BachScholar It's nothing to do with tempo. I think it's about the perceived sanctity of the sheet music. As you well know, there are those who think that deviating from the score on a Joplin rag is as blasphemous as doing so on a Haydn sonata. Although I agree that music is music, there is a key difference. Classical music was commissioned, thus the scores were made complete for professional musicians. Ragtime was commercial, thus the scores had to be approachable for the average home musician.
This is absolutely right. Joplin was one of the few ragtime composers who took ragtime composing seriously to a classical level and held ragtime as a serious form of classical music. Lamb (who looked up to Joplin) was another one, and so of course was James Scott, although he was located far away from the others and I'm not sure whether he even got to meet Joplin. So too apparently were Artie Matthews and Paul Pratt although they were removed from the rest and Artie Matthews was reportedly (later in life) a bit ashamed of the early rags he'd written although they were already beginning to be held in high regard. These musicians notated their pieces maybe not as heavy as the heaviest classical music like Liszt, Rachmaninoff etc, but very precisely with very correct voice-leading, pleasing textures, etc etc. In those days, these were something not often found in commercial popular music, which was either usually notated (by small one-horse-town publishers) something along the lines of the way the composer played it, but often with numerous musical spelling or engraving errors, or else notated (by thoroughly schooled professional arrangers) very correctly and usually simplified from the composer's original, but in a fairly formulaic manner using stock chord voicings, basslines etc, by large New York, Chicago, etc publishers. Often some of the popular writers in the big cities (and for that matter, in the sticks) couldn't read or write music themselves (or did on a very limited level), and so relied heavily on the staff arranger at the publishing house (or else, on a musically-trained friend) to take down their pieces and put them into some kind of readable notation that is also playable. Quite different from the classic ragtime composers who had training in harmony and laboriously worked out their own textures, voice-leading, basslines etc. This explains one major difference between the "classic" rags and most of the rest of the published rags of that time.
@philoso5 It depends on what ragtime you're thinking of. Later ragtime, toward the novelty era, was definitely pianistic. As recorded sound and player pianos became more prevalent in homes, and commerce thus was headed in that direction, sheet music sales were less of a factor, so some of the music was printed more fully scored than in earlier years. The daughter of the household was less and less the source of musical entertainment for houseguests, thanks to the new contraptions.
Early recordings show us that the early ragtime piano, played by the best, was no less virtuosic, but in a different style than what happened in the 1920s. There tended to be a heavy bass (though probably far fewer tenths), and much fast filigree and decorative ornamentation in the treble, also as heard in some arranged piano rolls from the same general time period. This kind of styling can be heard in the work of the early pioneer studio pianists of the earliest 1888-1906 period of commercial recordings (who have been much studied recently by Ramona Baker, Ryan Wishner, and Charlie Judkins, and for which I hope they will start making numerous transcriptions and tutorials): Charles Issler, Christopher H. H. Booth, Fred Gaisberg, Justin Ringleben, Frank P. Banta, Fred Hylands, Bert Williams, Fred Hager, etc etc. and probably several others who also recorded during this very early period, mostly as (very audible) accompanists to singers, banjoists, piccolo players, etc. Athough it appears that relatively few piano-audible recordings of non-classical music were recorded in the USA from about 1906 to 1912, leaving us with (other than just a handful of "signpost" recordings) kind of a "dark period" to trace any piano stylistic changes (besides sheet music). The very tail end of this early period of ragtime styling can be heard in the piano-audible recordings that started proliferating again about 1912, as well as the early hand-played ragtime piano rolls that were made starting in that year by such makers as QRS, Aeolian, and American.
You are correct though, that the SCORES for ragtime piano music, frequently become heavier by the end of the ragtime era and beginning of the jazz age, as more and more home pianists were gaining proficiency in basic ragtime and were ready to move up to learn at least a few of the tricks the professional pianists had already been using for some years. There WERE some "heavy" rag scores published during the era (for example: Polar Bear Rag by George P. Howard; Fluffy Ruffles by Cecil Duane Crabb; of course "Excelsior" by Joseph Lamb etc) but by and large most of the ragtime published before 1920 appears to have been simplified in some way from how the composers presumably played it (and in most cases where we have a recording or roll of the composer playing their piece, they play it in a heavier texture with more embellishments; a vintage document of them playing their piece as-published is very rare, although I know of a few).
This doesn't sound like Rachmaninoff. However, if one really wants to see how a Russian would interpret ragtime - check out Stravinsky's "Piano-Rag", or Horowitz's "Danse excentrique", which is based on the cakewalk.
Way to go -- jazz up a beautiful classic rag -- maybe butcher parts of it -- then blame it on poor old Sergei. Now, this rendition of Gladiolus is great fun, but it could have been done on a lesser rag. Sorry, I just have a real soft spot for Gladiolus, which I used to play in the "classical" style.
No, and what most people consider to be "classical" music isn't either. The Classical Period was from 1750 to 1820. Music composed before or after those (roughly) dates is of another period, e.g. the Romantic Period from 1780-1910. The preferred term for "serious" music, i.e., not folk or pop music, is "art music", i.e., music composed by academically trained individuals as a work of art.
I'm amazed by the number of negative comments. I thought this was fantastic! I took the Rachmaninoff theme as being simply the characteristic way he orchestrated his chords. (I guess there could have been more 6 note chords requiring a reach to an eleventh). Thank you Keeper1st!
I'm in awe myself, I may never play the rag again I feel so embarased shown up by this, hope I recover!!!
I'm a metal listener but rag is very under appreciated this guy is incredible
I don't hear any Rachmaninoff, but I do hear Fredrick Hodges, so it sounds good! 👍
Agreed. His “chordal” right hand is his trademark; it appears on almost all tracks of all his albums on Spotify.
I'd prefer to hear Joplin . . . just sayin'.
Improvising was expected in ragtime, just as it was in baroque music. Remember, Joplin was about seven years older than Rachmaninoff, though he died at a younger age by a score years.
@Keeper1st Oh, I didn't know you were referring just to tempo or adding things not in the score. I assumed the classical vs. ragtime argument had to do with overall performance style (serious vs. non-serious). I totally agree that it isn't "blasphemous" to modify scores regardless of style as long as it's in good taste. No problem....
I totally agree, try to imagine a bunch of super-ego pianists playing in a smoky room all the ragtime pieces during the twenties.. I guess they're not thinking to play songs in the right way but in their own.
Wow! Best ever version. Pure joy. No pedantry here about how the composer may have wanted it played. Music belongs to the performer. Ravel's Bolero is invariably played too slowly because everyone is terrified of contravening Ravel's dictum: Not so fast! Performing is not only indulging one's own personality but commenting on the music. Joplin's folk opera Treemonisha was an instant hit with me when I first heard it on radio not knowing who wrote it. Particularly pleasing, this raspy bit at 2:35. Maestro Hodges has a sense that music isn't only one note after another, but a whole that has to cohere architectonically and sylistically.
Actually essentially an orthodox rendition of Gladiolus with some added octaves and decorations. One has to admire Hodges' technique whatever else.
Man, this is such a good rendition!
Dude.. this was clutch. Nice job.
@Keeper1st I totally understand the ragtime vs. classical debate, but let's just step back and analyze what is implied. Basically, this dichotomy implies that classical music is "serious" and no fun (and all slow) while ragtime is "fun and frills" without being serious (and all fast). Both of these of course are not the least bit true, which invalidates the classical vs. ragtime argument. A Brahms Hungarian Dance or Smetana Polka are just as "pop" as most ragtime pieces. Music is music.
@illidnarg Nobody in the ragtime era would have gone to hear someone play a rag as published (for they could do that themselves at home). Likewise, few today would bother to listen to a simply "straight" rendition. They're paying to hear something fresh. Rifkin's albums were not quite "as written" either; he was giving a slower, softer twist to them -- not historically accurate, as he himself would tell you. Frederick gets plenty of praise. He's plays this stuff for a living, which few can say.
Wonderful.
I have no idea who Rachmaninoff is, but I love this here video.
This doesn't sound so Rachmaninoff-ish, but more Frederick Hodges-ish. haha. I really enjoy this rendition, though!
This is one of my favorite rags by Joplin. I don"t know why it isn't more popular... I'm learning it now but the C section is giving me trouble. I might upload it to my channel when I get it finished.
I just finished learning the c section go figure 😂 it is my favorite section of any rag so I thought I would learn it before the B section lol that's the last one before I can play the whole song. Good luck on learning it I'll give it a watch if you upload it
Bottom line - does it sound good?
Yes.
@isambo400 People who don't know any ragtime beyond Joplin. Certainly Joplin was heavily influenced by European classical music. His rags are often played by classical pianists who otherwise have no interest in ragtime as pop music.
@BachScholar It's nothing to do with tempo. I think it's about the perceived sanctity of the sheet music. As you well know, there are those who think that deviating from the score on a Joplin rag is as blasphemous as doing so on a Haydn sonata. Although I agree that music is music, there is a key difference. Classical music was commissioned, thus the scores were made complete for professional musicians. Ragtime was commercial, thus the scores had to be approachable for the average home musician.
This is absolutely right. Joplin was one of the few ragtime composers who took ragtime composing seriously to a classical level and held ragtime as a serious form of classical music. Lamb (who looked up to Joplin) was another one, and so of course was James Scott, although he was located far away from the others and I'm not sure whether he even got to meet Joplin. So too apparently were Artie Matthews and Paul Pratt although they were removed from the rest and Artie Matthews was reportedly (later in life) a bit ashamed of the early rags he'd written although they were already beginning to be held in high regard. These musicians notated their pieces maybe not as heavy as the heaviest classical music like Liszt, Rachmaninoff etc, but very precisely with very correct voice-leading, pleasing textures, etc etc.
In those days, these were something not often found in commercial popular music, which was either usually notated (by small one-horse-town publishers) something along the lines of the way the composer played it, but often with numerous musical spelling or engraving errors, or else notated (by thoroughly schooled professional arrangers) very correctly and usually simplified from the composer's original, but in a fairly formulaic manner using stock chord voicings, basslines etc, by large New York, Chicago, etc publishers.
Often some of the popular writers in the big cities (and for that matter, in the sticks) couldn't read or write music themselves (or did on a very limited level), and so relied heavily on the staff arranger at the publishing house (or else, on a musically-trained friend) to take down their pieces and put them into some kind of readable notation that is also playable. Quite different from the classic ragtime composers who had training in harmony and laboriously worked out their own textures, voice-leading, basslines etc.
This explains one major difference between the "classic" rags and most of the rest of the published rags of that time.
@philoso5 It depends on what ragtime you're thinking of. Later ragtime, toward the novelty era, was definitely pianistic. As recorded sound and player pianos became more prevalent in homes, and commerce thus was headed in that direction, sheet music sales were less of a factor, so some of the music was printed more fully scored than in earlier years. The daughter of the household was less and less the source of musical entertainment for houseguests, thanks to the new contraptions.
Early recordings show us that the early ragtime piano, played by the best, was no less virtuosic, but in a different style than what happened in the 1920s. There tended to be a heavy bass (though probably far fewer tenths), and much fast filigree and decorative ornamentation in the treble, also as heard in some arranged piano rolls from the same general time period.
This kind of styling can be heard in the work of the early pioneer studio pianists of the earliest 1888-1906 period of commercial recordings (who have been much studied recently by Ramona Baker, Ryan Wishner, and Charlie Judkins, and for which I hope they will start making numerous transcriptions and tutorials): Charles Issler, Christopher H. H. Booth, Fred Gaisberg, Justin Ringleben, Frank P. Banta, Fred Hylands, Bert Williams, Fred Hager, etc etc. and probably several others who also recorded during this very early period, mostly as (very audible) accompanists to singers, banjoists, piccolo players, etc.
Athough it appears that relatively few piano-audible recordings of non-classical music were recorded in the USA from about 1906 to 1912, leaving us with (other than just a handful of "signpost" recordings) kind of a "dark period" to trace any piano stylistic changes (besides sheet music).
The very tail end of this early period of ragtime styling can be heard in the piano-audible recordings that started proliferating again about 1912, as well as the early hand-played ragtime piano rolls that were made starting in that year by such makers as QRS, Aeolian, and American.
You are correct though, that the SCORES for ragtime piano music, frequently become heavier by the end of the ragtime era and beginning of the jazz age, as more and more home pianists were gaining proficiency in basic ragtime and were ready to move up to learn at least a few of the tricks the professional pianists had already been using for some years. There WERE some "heavy" rag scores published during the era (for example: Polar Bear Rag by George P. Howard; Fluffy Ruffles by Cecil Duane Crabb; of course "Excelsior" by Joseph Lamb etc) but by and large most of the ragtime published before 1920 appears to have been simplified in some way from how the composers presumably played it (and in most cases where we have a recording or roll of the composer playing their piece, they play it in a heavier texture with more embellishments; a vintage document of them playing their piece as-published is very rare, although I know of a few).
Sounds wonderfull to me! Thanks to Keeper 1st and of course Frederick .
This doesn't sound like Rachmaninoff. However, if one really wants to see how a Russian would interpret ragtime - check out Stravinsky's "Piano-Rag", or Horowitz's "Danse excentrique", which is based on the cakewalk.
I think Frederick's intent was how Rachmaninoff might have played the piece, rather than how he might have composed it himself.
Where is Rachmaninoff there? I don't understand.
+Víctor Hugo Morales Seemingly in the tempo that Joplin would have labelled anathema for ragtime.
+Uisce Preston Uh, Joplin himself labeled "Slow March Tempo" as 100 beats per minute...
This sounds like novelty piano of the 20s.
Jup, it's a novelty nowadays!
Way to go -- jazz up a beautiful classic rag -- maybe butcher parts of it -- then blame it on poor old Sergei. Now, this rendition of Gladiolus is great fun, but it could have been done on a lesser rag. Sorry, I just have a real soft spot for Gladiolus, which I used to play in the "classical" style.
people consider ragtime classical?
No, and what most people consider to be "classical" music isn't either. The Classical Period was from 1750 to 1820. Music composed before or after those (roughly) dates is of another period, e.g. the Romantic Period from 1780-1910. The preferred term for "serious" music, i.e., not folk or pop music, is "art music", i.e., music composed by academically trained individuals as a work of art.
There is nothing of Rachmaninoff