What makes a rag a rag?

[hatta]

I'm learning the Red Apple Rag. My understanding is that rags involve syncopated rhythm. But it sounds straight to me. Am I listening for the wrong thing?

[ralph johansson]

Many tunes that have "rag" in the title, e.g., Panhandle Rag, are not rags at all. Not even a tune like Beaumont Rag. Harmonically it is what you might expect from the second part of a classical rag, but it repeats that same pattern over and over.

[David L]

Originally, rags had syncopated melodies over regular accompaniment, but like everything, they have evolved. Sometimes the syncopation is "secondary syncopation", meaning syncopation by grouping, not rhythm. (i.e.-groups of three eighth notes in 4/4) Rags also traditionally have fairly fancy chord progressions, so many modern pieces with complex progressions are called rags. "Rag" also implies a medium slow bouncy tempo. Almost every Joplin rag is marked "slow" or "not fast" or something like that. Most rags are also played with straight time, not swing. As ragtime piano evolved, it became faster and swingier, and became Stride piano and jazz.

[DavidKOS]

Also, like the word "blues", after rags became popular, many compositions were labeled as "rag" whether they were or not.

The previous posts were very good; one thing I'd add is that in old New Orleans, the music that was eventually called "jass" or jazz was originally called ragtime or rags by the older musicians. (musicianers {sic} they called themselves)

The term seems to be used quite loosely!

[Denny Gies]

I thought it was a T shirt that you can't wear any longer and use to wash the car. What am I missing?

[farmerjones]

Almost like the guy that asked the difference between a reel and a hornpipe.
Suitable enough to say if the song/tunes has hornpipe in the title, it's a hornpipe.

All those rag tunes mentioned, one can take the rag out them, if you play the tune (tune's beat) right on the nose.
John Hartford spoke of time being a pocket or an envelope. Anywhere within the pocket you're still playing in time. Push the beat, you get that drive/urgency. Drag the beat you get that draggy/raggy thing. Play it right square on the nose, can sound insipid.

[jaycat]

There is an interesting theory concerning the reason that the music played by piano players in brothels came to be known as "ragtime" music. But I won't go into it here.

[Fred Keller]

I don't know tons but I've learned a couple things. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that there are 2 kinds: country rags (like most of the fiddle tunes we know and play) and a more "classic" rag. The classic rag usually had 16-bar parts, almost always had 3 or more parts (with one called a Trio), and were played slow. The classic style came first, I believe, with the country rags coming later and going faster.

[JeffD]

One key ingredient would be a particular kind of syncopation.

Take a reel, with its iconic "watermelon watermelon, watermelon watermelon" rhythm. Now connect the center notes in each pair to get - "blueberry pear banana, blueberry pear banana"

Another key ingredient is 3 on 4 syncopation, like one two three one two three one two three one two three one two three ...

And then, as has been mentioned, a trio section that brings everything together.

Of course there are variations, but these are the key ingredients I expect when a tune is called a rag.

[derbex]

It's all fruit salad to me :)

[David L]

I don't know tons but I've learned a couple things. Please correct me if I'm wrong but it's my understanding that there are 2 kinds: country rags (like most of the fiddle tunes we know and play) and a more "classic" rag. The classic rag usually had 16-bar parts, almost always had 3 or more parts (with one called a Trio), and were played slow. The classic style came first, I believe, with the country rags coming later and going faster.

I wouldn't say that there are two kinds of rags, but ragtime did evolve. Classic rags (Joplin. Turpin, Scott, etc.) came first, circa 1897. They were almost always slow, with several sections. Sometimes trios, sometimes not. By 1920, urban rags had become faster and often used swing time. This became Stride piano,and ultimately contributed to jazz. Rural or country rags were more often played on string instruments instead of piano. They tended to stay slower than stride piano, but not always. They also tended toward less sections and different forms. Both styles started including elements of other styles as they evolved.

[ralph johansson]

I suppose you could say that flashy and superficial tunes like 12th Street Rag and Black&White Rag, or some of Jelly RollMorton's compositions, evolved from classical ragtime, and possibly Beaumont Rag evolved from one section of a rag or was written in imitation of one such section (many fiddle versions incorporate quotes from Black&White). But tunes like Red Apple Rag, Tiger Rag, and Panhandle Rag have absoluely nothing in common with that tradition.

[DavidKOS]

But tunes like Red Apple Rag, Tiger Rag, and Panhandle Rag have absoluely nothing in common with that tradition.

I disagree about "Tiger Rag" - it's a very old New Orleans "jazz" tune - the players called it rags back then - and is very much part of the overall tradition. Plus the tune is in sections with key changes like many piano rags.

There are many marching band ragtime tunes that became trad jazz standards, like "Tiger Rag" - "High Society", "Panama Rag", and tunes like "Maple LeaF Rag" were very common among older jazz players.

[David L]

I suppose you could say that flashy and superficial tunes like 12th Street Rag and Black&White Rag, or some of Jelly RollMorton's compositions, evolved from classical ragtime, and possibly Beaumont Rag evolved from one section of a rag or was written in imitation of one such section (many fiddle versions incorporate quotes from Black&White). But tunes like Red Apple Rag, Tiger Rag, and Panhandle Rag have absoluely nothing in common with that tradition.

"Superficial"?

These tunes show the influence of country music and fiddle tunes on rags. (Or the influence of rags on country music and fiddle tunes.) Yes, they may have continuous eighth or sixteenth notes, but they can still be phrased and accented in syncopated ways.They can all be played in a bouncy ragtime style with syncopation. But, they can also be played faster and more like a reel. One of the other aspects of rags was the melody being faster note values than the accompaniment, as opposed to marches and songs, which had longer notes in the melody. That is certainly true of these pieces.

[ralph johansson]

"Superficial"?

These tunes show the influence of country music and fiddle tunes on rags. (Or the influence of rags on country music and fiddle tunes.) Yes, they may have continuous eighth or sixteenth notes, but they can still be phrased and accented in syncopated ways.They can all be played in a bouncy ragtime style with syncopation. But, they can also be played faster and more like a reel. One of the other aspects of rags was the melody being faster note values than the accompaniment, as opposed to marches and songs, which had longer notes in the melody. That is certainly true of these pieces.

The word I was looking for was "shallow".

These tunes do not show the influence you're talking about. The only thing that sets Red Apple Rag (and, e.g., Cotton Patch Rag)
apart form hundreds of similar fiddle tunes is that they have the word "rag" in the title, by somebody's whim. That fact alone is of no musical or historical significance.

And Panhandle Rag (like Steel Guitar Rag and Cimarron Rag, to quote just a few more tunes associated with Leon McAuliffe) are not notey at all, on the contrary rather songlike, with long notes and rests. Actually, Marle Travis wrote lyrics for Steel Guitar Rag and I'm pretty sure Tex Williams recorded a song version of Panhandle Rag. And, again, the word "rag" in the title does not create some historical connection with the ragtime tradition. (Neither does the word "blues" turn songs like Blue Ridge Mountain Blues or Wabash Blues into blues songs.)

[David L]

The word I was looking for was "shallow".

These tunes do not show the influence you're talking about. The only thing that sets Red Apple Rag (and, e.g., Cotton Patch Rag)
apart form hundreds of similar fiddle tunes is that they have the word "rag" in the title, by somebody's whim. That fact alone is of no musical or historical significance.



"Shallow"?

If the composer names something a "Rag", they may be trying to convey instructions to play the piece in the style of a rag. If that is the case, then the title certainly has "musical significance".

[Fred Keller]

I'm not sure I can think of tunes as shallow or deep. Each one possesses its own magic and that winds up being in the eye of the beholder. Joel Mabus' poem "The Fiddler's Reply" leaps to mind.

Nevertheless it remains true that titles of traditional American tunes often deceive. We receive tunes from tradition called "hornpipes" which bear no relation to the dance from Britain or Ireland; we have a regional tradition of 6/8 tunes in and around Pennsylvania that are called Quadrilles for some reason (the word that reels--4/4--derives from); and so it doesn't surprise me that we have tunes called rags that only peripherally resemble a Scott Joplin composition.

This doesn't really pose a problem or an opportunity for valuing or devaluing. It's what happens when tunes pass orally and I can't help but find it charming and endearing.

[SincereCorgi]

"Shallow"?

If the composer names something a "Rag", they may be trying to convey instructions to play the piece in the style of a rag. If that is the case, then the title certainly has "musical significance".

There's not really a rag 'style' for these fiddle tunes, though, it's just a term that gets applied to tunes that tend to have a lot of syncopated figures and secondary dominants. If a bluegrass band does them, they don't drastically change the rhythm roles of any of the instruments.

I don't know if you can get too strict about what a 'rag' is, and something can be 'ragtime' and not a 'rag'. Ragtime is like the genteel sibling of minstrel shows and coon songs that American music historians can talk about without too much embarrassment.

[tkdboyd]

Not really contributing to the subject but have been getting into Rags of late, and found this site (http://www.ragsrag.com/pr/pr.html) Has mp3 and scores.

[Joel Glassman]

I think the designation "rag" tells you how to play the music. You can choose not to play it that way. Beaumont Rag can be played as a breakdown, but you can play it with the stately shuffling swing feel of ragtime. Western swing and Texas style fiddlers do. Red Apple Rag is part of a tradition which doesn't play it that way. Maybe its because of how it was adapted, by Arthur Smith--an oldtime fiddler whose playing was a transition to Bluegrass.

[ralph johansson]

There certainly is a difference between the way Texas fiddlers and , e.g., Bluegrass guitarists, approach Beaumont Rag. But the difference is not just in the the phrasing of a given melody but in the melody itself. Bluegrassers will use long runs of eighth notes, Texas fiddlers will use a lot more varied note values. I would call BR a "folk rag", because of its relatively simple, repeated, harmonic form. Another example would be Lone Star Rag that uses some typical ragtime rhythmic figures, in two sections, one base on a simple I-IV-V form, the other using a circle of fifths form that some people tend to associate with ragtime (although I don't know of a single classical example!)

But, really, if the composer intends that his work be played "like a rag" he will compose a rag. There's absolutely no way you can impose a ragtime feel on a fiddle tune with long series of eighth notes. You'd have to recompose it to exploit the typical rhythmic figures of ragitme, such as tying the 4th and 5th eighth note. And I don't think the result would be very convincing given its simple harmonic form.

And, again, here a relots and lots of tunes with "rag" in the title where the word "rag" gives no indication whatever taht the tune be played "like a rag", because it's impossible. To the long list above I could add Fat Boy Rag by Lester Barnard, a simple riff tune with improvised blues choruses and Texas Playboy Rag (by Noel Boggs, I suppose) which is very songlike, a variation on the first part of San Antonio Rose. And outside Western Swing the first tune that comes to my mind is Johnson Rag, a riff tune with a Honeysuckle Rose bridge.

[farmerjones]

There you go: When is a tune still the same tune, and when is it to be considered something else?
Example - Red Apple Rag could be played like a Texas style fiddle contest tune, or slow it way down to a rag time, but would it still be the same tune? Slow the Woody Woodpecker theme down and you have the Theme to Star Wars. I've got a 78rmp record titled Doodletown Piper. Every jam I attend calls it Year of Jubilo. Seems like musicians live for the exception to the rule. Like the use of D major chord in the key of C. ;)

[JeffD]

There's absolutely no way you can impose a ragtime feel on a fiddle tune with long series of eighth notes..

Yes I agree.

Take for example Poppy Leaf Rag. Its not a rag, its a hornpipe. Apple apple / apple / apple // apple apple / apple apple //

I don't care what the title is.

[SincereCorgi]

But, really, if the composer intends that his work be played "like a rag" he will compose a rag. There's absolutely no way you can impose a ragtime feel on a fiddle tune with long series of eighth notes. You'd have to recompose it to exploit the typical rhythmic figures of ragitme, such as tying the 4th and 5th eighth note. And I don't think the result would be very convincing given its simple harmonic form.

I agree, the melody of a tune like Billy in the Lowground (thinking of the A part) would need to be reworked to make it sound like a stereotypical rag. Of course, historically, that's exactly that's a lot of what early ragtime was- recomposing march and quadrille tunes to dial up the syncopation.

[Paul Kotapish]

Here's a pretty good overview of the components and characteristics of the classic ragtime repertoire: http://www.perfessorbill.com/ragtime1.shtml

The moniker "rag" is attached a whole bunch of tunes that meet only a few of those criteria, but I reckon that syncopated phrasing is the common element. Whether or not a syncopated 32-bar fiddle tune should or should not be called a rag is the stuff upon which forum threads are built.

[pointpergame]

Thanking everyone here. This stuff great! In general, it's really hard to talk about music, but rhythm is a little easier.

[DavidKOS]

Here's a pretty good overview of the components and characteristics of the classic ragtime repertoire: http://www.perfessorbill.com/ragtime1.shtml


Good link - including the list of types of tunes under the "Style" section.

[ralph johansson]

Here's a pretty good overview of the components and characteristics of the classic ragtime repertoire: http://www.perfessorbill.com/ragtime1.shtml

The moniker "rag" is attached a whole bunch of tunes that meet only a few of those criteria, but I reckon that syncopated phrasing is the common element. Whether or not a syncopated 32-bar fiddle tune should or should not be called a rag is the stuff upon which forum threads are built.

Nice link. But please observe that the OP's point was the lack of syncopation in Red Apple.

[DavidKOS]

Nice link. But please observe that the OP's point was the lack of syncopation in Red Apple.

Almost any tune can be "ragged", that's how come so many tunes from common sources are in the traditional ("Dixieland") jazz repertoire. Though the tune may not have had much if any syncopation originally , the early jazz masters could adapt nearly any melody by what they called "ragging" it. Jazz it up, so to speak.

So even a tune that lacked syncopation such as "Red Apple" could wind up pretty swinging in the hands of the right players.

[ralph johansson]

Almost any tune can be "ragged", that's how come so many tunes from common sources are in the traditional ("Dixieland") jazz repertoire. Though the tune may not have had much if any syncopation originally , the early jazz masters could adapt nearly any melody by what they called "ragging" it. Jazz it up, so to speak.

So even a tune that lacked syncopation such as "Red Apple" could wind up pretty swinging in the hands of the right players.

Oh, yes, you can goose up any tune indefinitely, just look at what Spade Cooley did to Devil's Dream-

I just found a transcription of Arthur Smith's (original?) version where he does indees tie the middle eighths in a couple of bars.

I don't know where the TS found his version, a tab bank? The version given under "rags" on mandozine is free of syncopation, ragged down, as it were. Maybe a bluegrass version? Actually its only distinguishing feature is the lack of distinction. There are fiddle tunes that give themselves away within the first bar, e.g., Sailor's Hornpipe, Devil's Dream, St Annes' Reel, and Red Apple really is not among them.


In all modesty I'd like to give an example of a pseudorag that I wrote 47 years ago (link below). I say "pseudo" because the guitar in no way manages to imitate the groove of ragtime piano - it's much looser. And there are only three parts. But I used all the typical rhythmic and harmonic tricks I knew of, explaining why I never attempted anything like it again.

Incidentally, ragtime really does not swing. I was reminded of this on Youtube where someone presented a supposedly ragtime version of Für Elise. As someone pointed out, it was not rag, but stride. Entirely different grooves.

Link: http://www.mandohangout.com/myhangout/music.asp?id=22331

[Beanzy]

I wonder if those older name only 'rags' were expecting people to rag them and notating in a simple form, (like you do in Irish music or baroque where you add the understood vernacular to the written dots) or were they just bandwagon hopping like people do in other forms of popular music to this day? My guess would be the latter, but I've not looked into it yet.

[Paul Kotapish]

Nice link. But please observe that the OP's point was the lack of syncopation in Red Apple.

While it's true that "Red Apple Rag" as played by a lot of contemporary bluegrass fiddlers and mandolinists is pretty darn straight, if you listen to the original Fiddlin' Arthur Smith and the Dixieliners version, his bow phrasing and left-hand ornaments are subtly syncopated far more than is typically heard in most versions today.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWuwX_uASoA

Some of those bars sound (to me, anyway) like any number of phrases from Joplin and Johnson rags. Whether or not that alone justifies calling it a rag is open for debate, obviously.

[DavidKOS]

Some of those bars sound (to me, anyway) like any number of phrases from Joplin and Johnson rags. Whether or not that alone justifies calling it a rag is open for debate, obviously.

In the fiddle part yes- the backup guitar is nowhere near playing ragtime.

[ralph johansson]

While it's true that "Red Apple Rag" as played by a lot of contemporary bluegrass fiddlers and mandolinists is pretty darn straight, if you listen to the original Fiddlin' Arthur Smith and the Dixieliners version, his bow phrasing and left-hand ornaments are subtly syncopated far more than is typically heard in most versions today.

(video not available)

Some of those bars sound (to me, anyway) like any number of phrases from Joplin and Johnson rags. Whether or not that alone justifies calling it a rag is open for debate, obviously.

Justifies? Explains, perhaps, just as there is an explanation for the designation "rag" in Lone Star, Beaumont and Peacock Rag.

The video is not available to me, possibly because I'm on the wrong continent, but I've read Stacy Phillips' transcription, and he is usually very accurate. The syncopations are there but I think the phrases are a bit square compared to at least the best of Joplin's rags, e.g., with strong emphasis on chord notes.

[ralph johansson]

I wonder if those older name only 'rags' were expecting people to rag them and notating in a simple form, (like you do in Irish music or baroque where you add the understood vernacular to the written dots) or were they just bandwagon hopping like people do in other forms of popular music to this day? My guess would be the latter, but I've not looked into it yet.

I´m not sure how you "rag" a piece that is nothing like a rag to begin with. Take the two examples I gave from Bob Wills' repertoire of the 40's (long after the ragtime craze). It's not notated music - we know the tunes through recordings, not scores, and they were probably worked out, and head arranged, by members of the band just before the recording session. Texas Playboy Rag is, unlike almost any true rag, very songlike, and typically, Cindy Walker added words later on. And both pieces, of course have ample room for improvised sections.


As for Johnson Rag it was published in 1917 and it seems it had lyrics from the very beginning, about "doing" (dancing?) the Johnson Rag. But, again, I don't know how you could turn that piece into a rag.

[DavidKOS]

I´m not sure how you "rag" a piece that is nothing like a rag to begin with.

Simple, any Dixieland player worth his gin can rag any tune by re-phrasing the rhythm of the melody.

As for Johnson Rag:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sHrqmbHEiGY

typical piano ragtime - you don't have to turn it into a rag, it already is!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=umXXBPDvT0Q

even more jazzed up

[ralph johansson]

"Even more jazzed up" - but that's NOT playing the piece "like a rag". Even if you include novelty rags, folk rags, and the advances of, e.g., Jelly Roll Morton and Eubie Blake in your definition there is not the slightest trace of ragtime in this 1940 version and the Dorsey band's treatment certainly does not turn it into a rag.

Again, rag is not the way you play a tune,
the characteristics of ragtime are in the tune itself. Or not. Playing the 1940 version of
Johnson Rag "like a rag" would mean
a complete restructuring of the tune, perhaps a reconstruction of the 1917 original. I'll return to that matter in my next post.

Any Dixieland player … No. Perhaps the most instructive thing to do
is listen to a Dixieland rendition of a rag.
Take e.g., Sidney Bechet's treatment of Maple Leaf Rag; long sections of four feel, sketchy treatment of the tune, collective improvisation, improvised breaks in place of written material (e.g., bars 7-8). It's a jazzed-up rendition of the tune, hence no longer ragtime.

[ralph johansson]

About Johnson Rag:


I used to believe that the 1940 song version of Johnson Rag - the one that the swing bands played - was the original. Thanks for the correction. I've checked up on the history.

The original that David KOS linked to is a rag of sorts. It's unusual in several ways. Firstly, the rest in the middle of the first bar makes the f in the bass part of the melody, producing an unusual groove. Secondly, all three sections are in the same key; the second is a variation on the first and both are mainly tonic and dominant. The third section is more advanced, a 32 bar form, with expanded harmony. This is where everything happens, and that section has no counterpart in the 1940 version.

Nor does it in the song version, "That Lovin' Johnson Rag" that was published the same year. You can find it here:

http://pitt-payne.com/midi-downloads.html?func=fileinfo&id=4179



It's in two parts only.
The second part has the chromatic figure of the A part of the 1940 AABA version - we're beginning to recognize that version. But the B part, the Honeysuckle Rose bridge, of the latter has no counterpart in the original. In fact, in this guise the song does not differ structurally or stylistically at all from many other pieces of the swing era, such as Stomping at the Savoy and Don't Be That Way - simple harmony and riffs in the A part, harmonically active B part. Who would think of these tunes as rags or go about ragging them up?

I've tried to explain, by NUMEROUS examples that the use of the word "rag" in song titles is often whimsical. I'm pretty sure that Bob Wills titled Fat Boy Rag,
and certainly not as an instruction that *everybody else* play the piece like a rag, whatever that means. Fat Boy is a syncopated riff tune (in the beginning; when the violins enter it becomes a blues) but, again, there's not the slightest trace of ragtime in it. There's more to rag than just syncopation.

Now, the TS wanted to know what makes a rag a rag, As I've pointed out before, the ragtime characteristics are in the tune as such. I suggest listening to two of Joplin's most beautiful rags, Eugenia (no rag in the title!) and Magnetic Rag. There are several renditions of varying quality on Youtube.

[catmandu2]

One of my favorite rags - Gershwin's Prelude No 2...which I've posted before and had everyone (here) tell me that it's not a rag ;) .. albeit it has other elements too, but GG provides a brief B section to clarify it for you -

[JeffD]

So once again fuzzy sets seem appropriate.

There are tunes that are definitely rags, by anyone's definition, others some would consider a rag, some not, and others everyone would agree are not rags.

There are some characteristics that identify ragtime, but not all of them need be present, and no one of them need always be present.

Fuzzy edges.

That does not mean no edges - there are tunes that are not rags, and there are ways of playing tunes that nobody would identify as ragtime.

[DavidKOS]

Take e.g., Sidney Bechet's treatment of Maple Leaf Rag; long sections of four feel, sketchy treatment of the tune, collective improvisation, improvised breaks in place of written material (e.g., bars 7-8). It's a jazzed-up rendition of the tune, hence no longer ragtime.

Except that the players of this style called it ragtime! They ought to know! But yes it is different from the classic Joplin piano rag version.

For those of you that do not know Bechet's killer version,


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mr2aT9NSiDQ

[SincereCorgi]

Except that the players of this style called it ragtime! They ought to know! But yes it is different from the classic Joplin piano rag version.

Yeah, I agree with this. Joplin, one has to remember, wasn't the inventor of ragtime, although he was arguably the first to successfully to capture its intricacies of syncopation in notation and the guy who wrote the bestseller that won the style national attention from a broad audience. He was also, of course, an extremely talented composer who pointedly strove to make ragtime respectable, which meant writing pieces that conformed to what was expected of tasteful parlor piano music, pieces that later became the formal model for thousands of Tin Pan Alley imitations (i.e. basically march form with a modulation to the subdominant). Joplin's success as an art composer has meant that the traditions of ragtime bands (as Bechet would have grown up in) and ragtime banjo have been eclipsed.

[StuartE]

Interestingly enough, Charles Johnson (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_L._Johnson) was one of the most prolific ragtime composers, but it appears that he didn't write "Johnson's Rag." One can't be certain because Johnson used many pseudonyms.

According to wikipedia, Johnson played mandolin along with piano, violin, guitar and banjo.

[DavidKOS]

according to wikipedia, johnson played mandolin along with piano, violin, guitar and banjo.

yes!

[JonZ]

It's an eternal debate. She says it's a rag. I say it's my favorite T shirt.

[ralph johansson]

Except that the players of this style called it ragtime! They ought to know! But yes it is different from the classic Joplin piano rag version.

For those of you that do not know Bechet's killer version,



That only illustrates the arbitrariness in the use of the word "ragtime". Musicians crate history, to be sure, but they don't write it. Stylistic labels often stabilize themselves only in hindsight.

Bechet claimed that there were only two kinds of music, "classical" and "ragtime".
He ought to know? I wonder in what respect Petite Fleur or his beautiful renditions of "Indian Summer" or "What Is this Thing Called Love" qualify as ragtime.

On the other hand, Jelly Roll Morton, claimed he invented jazz in 1902. What about Buddy Bolden? No, he was not a jazz musician, he played ragtime.

So what kind of music did Bechet and Morton play together?

And, of course, if some of the early New Orleans jazzers labeled all of their music "ragtime" I don't see how the word "rag" in a song title could be interpreted as an instruction of how to play that specific piece (that was the issue).

In all of Bechet's output for Victor there are only two pieces with "rag" in the title, a classical rag and a novelty rag.

[ralph johansson]

So once again fuzzy sets seem appropriate.

There are tunes that are definitely rags, by anyone's definition, others some would consider a rag, some not, and others everyone would agree are not rags.

There are some characteristics that identify ragtime, but not all of them need be present, and no one of them need always be present.

Fuzzy edges.

That does not mean no edges - there are tunes that are not rags, and there are ways of playing tunes that nobody would identify as ragtime.

Indeed. For instance, stride evolved parly out of ragtime - where does one end and the other begin? In retrospect we see that stride in the hands of the great Harlem pianists has a lot of features that aren't present in classical ragtime - richer harmony, greater rhythmic variety in the left hand, improvisation, and, above all, swing. Enough to motivate a separate label.

[maudlin mandolin]

I´m not sure how you "rag" a piece that is nothing like a rag to begin with. Take the two examples I gave from Bob Wills' repertoire of the 40's (long after the ragtime craze). It's not notated music - we know the tunes through recordings, not scores, and they were probably worked out, and head arranged, by members of the band just before the recording session. Texas Playboy Rag is, unlike almost any true rag, very songlike, and typically, Cindy Walker added words later on. And both pieces, of course have ample room for improvised sections.


As for Johnson Rag it was published in 1917 and it seems it had lyrics from the very beginning, about "doing" (dancing?) the Johnson Rag. But, again, I don't know how you could turn that piece into a rag.

How about Blind Blake's version of Champagne Charlie? This tune is about as far away from ragtime as you can get but when Blind Blake plays it, because he is a ragtime guitarist par excellence, it sounds like a rag.
Here is a link to youtube. www.youtube.com/watch?v=u-P420343Nw

[jhowell]

A really good complementary read to this thread is "Empire of Sin" by Gary Krist. Reads like a fast paced crime novel, except that it comes from the public record. I found it to be an interesting take on the the meld of New Orleans music from the 1880's to the 1930's.

[JeffD]

A valuable resource in this discussion:

The Ragtime Songbook / songs of the Ragtime era by Scott Joplin, Hughie Cannon, Ben Harney, Will Marion Cook, Alex Rogers and others / compiled and edited with historical notes concerning the songs and times by Ann Charters / 1965 Oak Archives