|
Please note this is an archived topic, so it is locked and unable to be replied to. You may, however, start a new topic and refer to this topic with a link.
The Old Timer - Posted - 11/04/2009: 05:48:48
OK, got a startling reminder from the radio this weekend, of the vivid twangy tone Earl had on the original records of Earl's Breakdown (1951), Flint Hill Special and Foggy Mt. Chimes (~1953) and finally Randy Lynn Rag (~1956). Not to leave out the first Shuckin' the Corn...
My question, or invitation to debate a bit, is, how much of that amazing bright twangy tone is Earl's banjo set-up and technique VS recording technology? Has anyone ever personally experienced an original flat head 5 string Granada with a skin head with that kind of "zing" in the sound? Was that the "natural" sound of his Granada with the bow tie maple neck?
As much as I love the "tone" on the Foggy Mt. Banjo LP, I think most would agree it was quite a different "sound" from those earlier instrumentals on Columbia. It became deeper, more sonorous, etc. after 1959 or so. Also it sounds like Earl is playing directly into your ear, in the post-59 recordings. Whereas in the instrumentals I mention, it sounds like he's driving the notes to you from several feet away.
In addition to that "sound" being different from post-1959, it's also different from the Mercury Foggy Mt. Breakdown, Pike County Breakdown and Farewell Blues. Also different from the very first Columbia records, like Come Back to Me Little Darling.
Is it as simple as volume and reverb in the recording technique?
Interested in what folks might have to say on this. That same banjo has sure sounded different over the years on records. Thanks.
The Old Timer
"This here man is such a sap, he won't hold you on his lap, unless you are an old five string banjo!" Lester Flatt singing to Pearl about Earl Scruggs as husband material
bhrb75 - Posted - 11/04/2009: 06:35:07
Old Timer,
To my ear, I think was a combination of recoring equipment (different microphones, pre-amps, etc.) and the head tension Earl had on those recordings. When I hear the cuts you have mentioned, the banjo seemed tinnier than on FMB. I think on the older cuts, Earl had that hide head a little tighter than the later cuts. This would account for that thinner sound he got on say Flint Hill. But the real way to go back and really get the full effect of this is to listen to these records on a good high fidelity record player that has tubes instead of listening to them on cd or even a solid state record player. Recently I had the pleasure of hearing Foggy Mountain Banjo and Reno & Smiley's "Instrumentals" record (VIVID SOUND) on the record player that came out of Curtis McPeake's house. That absolutely blew me away. It sounded totaly different than any on any media I had heard these recordings played on (cd, cassette tape, mono & stereo solid state record player).
But, to sum it up I think it was a combination of the banjo set up and the recording equipment used.
Brandon
"He lives so far back in there, they had to roll 'em Martha White biscuits in in a wheelbar."
bhrb75 - Posted - 11/04/2009: 06:45:49
I'd like to add to my previous post another factor that might account for the difference in sound was the development of Earl's style. If you listen to Earl all the way from the BG Boys days to the end of the Foggy Mountain Boys in '69, Earl went from a primative, aggressive, smooth rolling style, to a more "show offy" style with the Mercury Sessions, to a more smoothed out and confident yet still aggressive style in the mid-to-late 50's all the way to a simpler very smooth style in the 60's.
I think personal development is a big part of any musician's tone and sound. Take J.D. for example, he's a lot smoother now than he was in '69 when he recorded Ramblin' Boy w/ Doyle and Larry Rice. Much the same as Tony Rice's playing is much smooth and silkier now than his playing was back in the 70's, when he played more flashy licks and with much more volume and power.
Brandon
"He lives so far back in there, they had to roll 'em Martha White biscuits in in a wheelbar."
banjobilly32 - Posted - 11/04/2009: 07:07:33
One thing for sure Earl always made his presence known. I think much of his sound was from mikes and amplification. That's what set him apart from the other up and coming pickers. I still remember seeing the F&S band in 1963 at Cornell College. The set was almost identical to the selections on the Carnegie Hall album. Earl stepped in front of that one mike and let that 4th string growl on "Hot Corn Cold Corn". I had never seen a performance where the instrument taking the lead stood out so well. It was the same for each lead break as they rotated positions on the stage. I'd guess more than 50% of Earls and the F&S sound comes from the high quality sound system. I'm sure Earl could make any of our quality banjos sound great if he was given a chance with his choice of mike.!
Glenn Tate - Posted - 11/04/2009: 07:29:30
I had a 16 track digital home recording studio up until about 8 years ago, and did lots of recording. I can truly attest that mic's and recording equipment can color the sound of any instrument, along with mic placement when recording the instrument. I always used mic's and set the equipment to change the instrument sound as little as possible.
That is why I would never buy an instrument on line, by just listening to a recording of the instrument. There are just too many factors that can color the sound, and what you get may not be what you heard. I always trust my ears rather than a recording.
"The more you know, the more you know you don't know."
Glenn
southerndrifter - Posted - 11/04/2009: 08:48:40
I attribute the mahogany vs maple necks, as having the most affect on tone. That big "fat" tone you hear on the FMB album (except for Groundspeed, which was recorded on a style 4), IMO, came from the mahogany neck on the gold-plated pot. I think maple necks typically give banjos a "tinnier" sound. Of course, all other things mentioned, makes a difference too............but I think the neck makes the BIGGEST difference.
Lynwood Lunsford
If we had some ham, we could have some ham & eggs.........if we had some eggs!
bhrb75 - Posted - 11/04/2009: 10:25:55
Lynwood I'll have to say, that when I sit down and play a banjo with a mahongany neck, and then play one with a maple neck, I can hear subtle differences between the two. But on recordings and live shows it seems like it is hard to tell the difference between in the neck. I have heard Sonny play the 3 on live shows and the next night, play the Granada. They both sounded the same. When I first started going to see J.D. at festivals, I had heard about the Rb-75 and the 3's. Little did I know that he would play a Granada the first year or two I got to see him. Whenever he did show up with one of the mahogany banjos I could tell no difference other than the increased volume and power over the Granada. Anyway I only wanted to make the point that I can hear differences in the woods when I play and am not on a sound system or a recording, but when I hear someone play on a recording or live show, it's hard to hear those differences.
Brandon
"He lives so far back in there, they had to roll 'em Martha White biscuits in in a wheelbar."
Banjophobic - Posted - 11/04/2009: 11:21:48
While neck wood alters tone, the amazing 'zing' and 'pop' on those classic recordings from that time period are the result of compressions,reverb,etc. Many players have attempted to reproduce that exact tone with a set-up. You cant get that souind from anything but that particular recording technology.
stringman711 - Posted - 11/04/2009: 11:33:38
and Earl's right hand!
dana
Studebaker Hawk - Posted - 11/04/2009: 11:40:25
quote:
Originally posted by Banjophobic
While neck wood alters tone, the amazing 'zing' and 'pop' on those classic recordings from that time period are the result of compressions,reverb,etc. Many players have attempted to reproduce that exact tone with a set-up. You cant get that souind from anything but that particular recording technology.
Whenever I listen to the Foggy Mountain Banjo album, one thing that always pops up in my mind is REVERB. Doesn't sound bad, in fact I kind of like the effect, but I have to smile when I see people chasing after the sound of the banjo heard on that album, trying to make their five-string sound like it. Like Banjophobic said, it doesn't exist. --Dean
pickNgrin - Posted - 11/04/2009: 12:18:35
quote:
Originally posted by Studebaker Hawk
Whenever I listen to the Foggy Mountain Banjo album, one thing that always pops up in my mind is REVERB. Doesn't sound bad, in fact I kind of like the effect, but I have to smile when I see people chasing after the sound of the banjo heard on that album, trying to make their five-string sound like it. Like Banjophobic said, it doesn't exist.
It does if you play in your bathroom. Poor man's reverb! Check out this guy's recording of Home Sweet Home: http://www.banjohangout.org/myhango...usicid=14431Pretty sweet indeed! -matt
Edited by - pickNgrin on 11/04/2009 12:20:45
Bill Rogers - Posted - 11/04/2009: 12:32:43
Another factor is the great auto wreck. I think that had a significant effect on Earl's speed and his attack.
Bill
The Old Timer - Posted - 11/04/2009: 16:33:42
I appreciate everyone's thoughtful comments. I guess one thing I get from this is that EVERYTHING counts, but when trying to duplicate a RECORDED sound, you also need to duplicate the recording equipment's contribution.
I have been fortunate enough to hear Earl play in person, and in retrospect, it didn't sound like the Randy Lynn Rag circa 1956 record! Not that I'm saying Earl sounded "bad" (heavens to Murgatroyd!), but I think Columbia's recording studios are a significant part of Earl's various "sounds" through the years.
Let me phrase it differently, has anyone got an example of another banjo player's recorded sound and tone that is like those 1950s Columbia records I mentioned by Earl?
The Old Timer
"This here man is such a sap, he won't hold you on his lap, unless you are an old five string banjo!" Lester Flatt singing to Pearl about Earl Scruggs as husband material
flange5st - Posted - 11/05/2009: 04:49:29
........another factor to think about is where the banjo was tuned to open pitch.....in those earlier years, Les and Earl tuned a fret high to G# (Ab).....since the mechanical action of the strings were not shortened by using a capo, you had higher pitch with a freer distance for the strings to vibrate, i.e. a longer legnth of the scale...it gave the band's instruments more power.......and when they did "clamp-up" they still had a mechanical advantage of legnth and therefore a more open sound within the closed chord structure, i.e true Bb at two frets,true F3 at the first position F chord, F at the E position, Eb out of D and so on..... ....it was done for Lester's voice as the story goes, but it added a crispness to the sound with out the loss of volume or timbre and IMHO, it was great for Curley Sechler's amazing tenor voice....and it helped the instruments to throw out the sound.................IMHO...peace
......ad fontes..........
Ebanjo - Posted - 11/05/2009: 06:00:10
I think one factor in the 50's sound of Earl's banjo was the calf skin head. More so than the maple vs. mahogany. I remember Sonny Osborne saying in his BNL column back in the late 70's and early 80's that when using the skin heads you would have to thin the bridges to take some of the hollow sound out of the banjo. My friend Ken Landreth also informed me that the thickness of the calf skin heads would vary also
( Ken maybe you could chime in here if you read this). I think the recording techniques could have been a factor also. I could always tell a slight difference beginning around 1955 or so. Danny (flange5string) pointed out another factor: tuning up a half-step from standard. And from the few live radio show recordings I have, it sure
wasn't thin sounding. As far as a similiar tone or whatever,check out the late Joe Medford's live recordings with the Murphy Brothers. I know a lot of folks on here have not heard these recordings, but I think some of you would be surprised at how close he sounded to Earl.
One more thing, as far as the maple neck vs. mahogany neck, I have two banjos
that I go between as far as my main instruments. one has a maple neck, the other is
mahogany. It is not an in your face difference.
Eric Ellis
Edited by - Ebanjo on 11/05/2009 06:13:13
Ebanjo - Posted - 11/05/2009: 06:09:33
I forgot to mention, as Dana said, Earl's right hand was a big factor in the whole thing too as well as the change in recording techniques. As far as Carnegie Hall goes
(one of my favorite recordings too), the sound system was probably primitive compared to sound systems today. But dadgum, didn't it sound good?
Eric Ellis
banjobilly32 - Posted - 11/05/2009: 07:20:35
I think dynamics & discipline played a big role in the band's sound. They knew how to play lightly to complement the lead instrument. When it was time to hear the lead of the banjo you heard the banjo, and when it was a fiddle break you heard the fiddle. You have to say they were true professionals. They worked hard at perfecting their sound. Imagine the time spent in locating each voice and instrument around that one mike!!
Eric, I'd be happy if I could pull about half the tone from my banjo and you get!! It's gotta be in that right hand!!
rexhunt - Posted - 11/05/2009: 08:58:53
On the subject of reverb, if the Foggy Mt. Banjo album was recorded at Columbia, it could have been a real live echo chamber - a speaker and mic in an empty room which will sound different than a spring or plate reverb.
While not strictly HI-FI, the sound of Earl's banjo on those Martha White TV shows, I think, is a good representation of the way the banjo really sounded. The Carnegie Hall and Vanderbilt albums probably present a truer representation of the banjo than the studio recordings as well.
Rex
Ebanjo - Posted - 11/05/2009: 20:17:53
Thanks for the compliment banjobilly. I'm a firm believer a lot of that sound was in Earl's right hand and it's still there too.
Eric Ellis
Pick1949 - Posted - 11/05/2009: 21:38:03
Go back and look at the latest DVD where Earl picks Dear Old Dixie... right when he is about to end it he moves his hand towards the neck.. reveling the bridge up close to the camera.. LOOK AT HOW THIN THAT BRIDGE IS!!!!!.... It is there.. just go back and watch that particular clip on the vol 7 DVD... Dear Old Dixie.. that bridge aint at all the same size as what most pickers play today. It would make a snuffy smith (place other brand here) look like a 2 by 4 if it was beside it...
Earl's set up.. I think he changed it around, like alot of us do. Went through phases and etc.... But I think most of the time Earl played back then with a medium head tension... not too loose and not to tight, if you push if gives.... and used a thinned down bridge...
Another thing I have noticed on the new DVDs is this.. on the footage from circa 1956.. Earls banjo dosent have the bottom two thumbscrews attached to his resonator...??? I am still pondering that one... and have found several pics from that "bow tie fingerboard" era that he still didnt have them in....????? Not implying it had anything to do with sound but I thought it was unusual....
Edited by - Pick1949 on 11/05/2009 21:41:06
BR14 - Posted - 11/06/2009: 05:03:31
I ran across this quote by Bobby Thompson (who played an Ode) in the February 1989 Frets Magazine " I used to set up my banjo and fool around with the strings and bridge and head all the time. One day Earl Scruggs walked into the studio and picked up my banjo. He made it sound exactly the way he sounds. I realized then it was the man who had the sound, not the banjo".
BR14
Larry Hanshaw - Posted - 11/06/2009: 07:11:20
quote:
Originally posted by Pick1949
Another thing I have noticed on the new DVDs is this.. on the footage from circa 1956.. Earls banjo dosent have the bottom two thumbscrews attached to his resonator...??? I am still pondering that one... and have found several pics from that "bow tie fingerboard" era that he still didnt have them in....????? Not implying it had anything to do with sound but I thought it was unusual....
I noticed this too and came to the conclusion that it was for quick access to tightening the old calfskin head since Remo heads didn't exist yet. I've seen some pictures with just one resonator screw attached at the top. While experimenting with different setups and head tightening it makes a lot of sense to have just one screw attached so adjustments could be made quickly. I don't believe the lack of resonator screws had anything to do with the sound he was getting -Larry Chief #141
Pick1949 - Posted - 11/06/2009: 08:59:57
quote:
Originally posted by leftcoastbanjer
[quote]
I noticed this too and came to the conclusion that it was for quick access to tightening the old calfskin head since Remo heads didn't exist yet. I've seen some pictures with just one resonator screw attached at the top. While experimenting with different setups and head tightening it makes a lot of sense to have just one screw attached so adjustments could be made quickly. I don't believe the lack of resonator screws had anything to do with the sound he was getting
-Larry
Chief #141
Yeah, I dont think it had anything at all to do with the sound.... And I too have wondered about if maybe he didnt have them off for the same reason you said... to easily disassemble and make a quick head adjustment... it makes perfect sense...
Shimdog - Posted - 11/06/2009: 13:15:21
If you go to youtube and play the "Banjo Heroes" Foggy Mtn Breakdown clip from the Carlton Haney festival video, it is stunning how Earl's sound is so much bigger than the rest of the great pickers. Don't get me wrong, some of the others had great tone too, but Earl still sounded like Earl. It is interesting to hear the pure apples-to-apples comparison using the same simple microphone. (I would post the link here but can't access youtube from work, but it has been in other threads on BHO).
I agree with Dana. I truly believe that 90-95% of Earl's sound is Earl, and the other differences you may hear could be due to instrument or set-up variations, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." - Friedrich Nietzsche
bigmr_clean - Posted - 11/06/2009: 20:32:20
It's very interesting to see all the replies. I don't really think anyone or anything mentioned here was wrong. I believe it had very little to do with recording. I believe SOME of it was recording and a lot of it meaning most of it was the maple neck on the banjer verses the mahagony neck that he made famous in the 60's. Personally I think the sound that he had on the famous carnagie hall performance..(Live CD version)..I think that is the best sounding banjo I've ever heard in my entire life......that and earl was in his prime and he was the feller picking it. That mohagany neck on that maple rim with the type resognator he had with maple binding and all in it..man it was just amazing. Now that freakin' Gibson put the maple neck back in it in the early 80's I guess it was it's just not like it was and sounds like the heads real loose..but hey who cares? He's done what he needs to do and has proved all he needs to prove...he doesn't care anymore. He just picks it. But that sound he had in the 60's on the martha white grand old opry show..all those dvd's...that's the best sounding 5 string I've ever heard. I put a mohagany neck on a maple rim with a dannick tone ring and got very similiar results...Not exact obviously but very similiar. Earl wasn't stupid for sure and knew what he was doing very much so in depth. But those old twangy sounds is more what a standard granada sounds like in my opinion anyways..when he put the other neck on there (mohagany) he had nothing more than a style 3 with a granada rim. Like shimdog said..you listen to that video on you-tube..the timing of earls right hand back then was unbelievable and no one could copy it nor make it sound exactly like him..I don't care what anyone says there will never be another man on this earth that can make a banjo sound like he could back then. The good lord put him here for that reason and he used it. I played a 34 ALL ORIGINAL granada at IBMA and it had the twangy sound just like earls did when it was original..or had the maple neck on it with the head tightened up perty snug. This is a real neat discussion and I've enjoyed reading everyones posts. This was just my 2 cents.
Mike Smith
bigmr_clean - Posted - 11/06/2009: 20:40:06
One more thing to add..I also seen someone post earl's right hand is what it is. I defiantly agree with that! He could make a 40 dollar banjo sound like a 4000 dollar one. But there is a line to where that stops. I seen earl live a few months back this year and his banjo now..sounds nothing like what it did when it was pretty much an rb3 with the granada rim and ring. It sounds good and all but nothing like the sound he had in the 60's. Maple verses mohagany...and 40 years of age.
Mike Smith
Ebanjo - Posted - 11/06/2009: 20:42:42
Mike, I'm a big fan of Earl's tone with the mahogany neck too, but the biggest difference in that time (imho), was the change from calf skin to plastic heads. There is a little difference when the neck wood changed, but not that much. As I've told friends about the Carnegie Hall and other recordings of that era, it always sounded like Earl just reached down and grabbed a handful of banjo when he played.
Eric Ellis
Ebanjo - Posted - 11/06/2009: 20:46:15
As far as Earl's current tone. He seems to play with the head way more loose than I think he ever has. I wonder if as he has aged , the way he hears his banjo has changed. It sure don't have the sparkle it had for years.
Eric Ellis
dorse - Posted - 11/06/2009: 21:13:25
quote:
Originally posted by Shimdog
If you go to youtube and play the "Banjo Heroes" Foggy Mtn Breakdown clip from the Carlton Haney festival video, it is stunning how Earl's sound is so much bigger than the rest of the great pickers. Don't get me wrong, some of the others had great tone too, but Earl still sounded like Earl. It is interesting to hear the pure apples-to-apples comparison using the same simple microphone. (I would post the link here but can't access youtube from work, but it has been in other threads on BHO).
I agree with Dana. I truly believe that 90-95% of Earl's sound is Earl, and the other differences you may hear could be due to instrument or set-up variations, etc.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music." - Friedrich Nietzsche
I just looked up that youtube video. It's awesome to see some of the greats on on stage like that. Ole, JD's pulling some tone on that too. There's the link to the video you were talking about. I'd love to find a better quality version of that video. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gngPuKOBfcU--Dorse
banjophil - Posted - 11/06/2009: 23:13:49
To Me, Earl would always sound Like Earl no Matter what good banjo he played. He was the greatest there ever would be. If he played my banjo or your banjo He wood still sound better than anyone else . The only others that could sound even close was Jd sonny or big K. It's more in the players hand than in the instsurment itsself
Phil
Ebanjo - Posted - 11/07/2009: 04:56:51
Right On Phil. You hit the nail on the head.
Eric Ellis
dorse - Posted - 11/08/2009: 00:55:28
...and I've found a better quality version of the youtube video listed above. It shows a bit more of Earl talking and the quality is tons better. Earl really stands out from the rest of the crowd on that stage in tone, timing, etc. Good stuff.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJOIqmlI65Y
--Dorse
banjobilly32 - Posted - 11/08/2009: 05:25:19
I keep reading opinions that it was the mahogany neck that contributed to Earl's sound. It would be interesting if someone would post clips of the same type banjo, with both maple and mahogany necks to see if there is a discernible difference? The question could be: Which is the mahogany neck? The members of the BHO could then vote and give their reasons.
My 77 year old ears can't hear the difference!!
bigmr_clean - Posted - 11/08/2009: 10:47:00
Well just listen to clips from the 60's and early to mid 70's and then listen to clips from the early 80's and on. It's not even the same banjo...No comparison. I think maybe earl wanted to get the banjo back how it came...with a maple neck. If you recall a few years back his kids put that mohagany neck on ebay and it jumped up to 250,000 dollars in a matter of hours. It scared them to death and they took it off. Like I said I've got a dannick ring on a maple rim and a mohagany neck. I've tested time and time again and swap to a maple neck. The difference is just impecible. I've talked to paul hopkins about this 100 times and he always tells me that's that mohagany neck on that maple rim. Since then I have tested it...played it...re tested it..played some more and dang it he is right! Also like Ebanjo said when they switched to the heads we have now..I agree that made a big difference as well AND earls fingers can pull tone out of a 50 dollar saga. It's ALL these components together, then you have earl scruggs in his prime...tearing the paint off the wall! If you watch that video up there...check out Randy scruggs pickin that archtop with his deddy!!! ain't that neat!!!??? Randy is very talented too! As well as Gary. I tell ya..If I could get a banjo to sound like his on that carnegie hall cd...there wouldn't be a need for to ever post another thing on here...lol.
Mike Smith
robbie macdonald - Posted - 11/24/2009: 11:41:43
Earl's "big" tone was primarily from his fabulous touch. I have a tape of a live show from the 50's where Lester announces that Earl is playing his brand new "Veega" banjo. I think Earl got everything he could from the Vega but it has a conspicuously shallower and even tinny sound. I played on a radio show about '73-4 that featured Earl in San Francisco promoting the Earl Scruggs Rervue (sons + Josh). My band, The "Phantoms of the Opry" were his backup group for the handful of tunes Earl performed. Earl wasn't at his best that day and was playing someone else's banjo but the deep long-sustained notes were there: the tone had such depth and timbre it sounded almost amplified.
I recognize the variation in tone on Earls recordings but, to my ears, his notes always filled more space (reverb or not) than any other banjoist- the subtlety and variation in tone in support of the band was exquisite and its hard to think of anyone who has been able to do that as well. I think Earl has been given his due for perfecting the fingerpicking style that now bears his name but his contributions were also refining the range of tones available and applying them so well in the ensemble. I like lots of other banjo players for their individual contributions to the instrument but the word that comes to mind for Earl is "elegance": in science, elegance is the simplest way to accomplish a complex experiment. For me, Earl is still the most elegant banjo player I know of.
Robbie Macdonald
Goldstarman - Posted - 11/24/2009: 21:50:54
His banjo now does sound pretty bad Ithink, just way to tubby and loose..
wrangler - Posted - 11/25/2009: 06:42:00
I have seen a machine that drives golf balls. We need a machine that picks only one song and plays it the same exact way every time. Then we could change banjos and argue about the picks making a huge difference because the latter samples had a more used pick.
jfb - Posted - 11/25/2009: 08:03:08
and Earl's right hand!
ya got that right...
MickG - Posted - 11/25/2009: 14:49:30
John Hartford relates a story on his instruction DVD.
He said Earl invited him to come over and pick a few tunes. So John took his banjo and tape recorder over to Earl's. Earl pulled out a banjo from under a bed and when he opened the case it had a big rip in the head. John seeing the rip thought to himself that he was going to sound better than Earl on the recording he was going to make of their playing. When John got home and played the tape he was amazed at how much better Earl sounded than himself. Earl's tone was fat and full of mid-range energy and John's was thin, tinny, and weak. John said that was when he became aware of "mid-range" and threw away the thin pointed picks and thin bridge he was using at the time. From then on he chose his equipment and banjo setup to emphasize that "mid-range".
Mick
Bronx banjo - Posted - 11/25/2009: 14:53:29
It's interesting to me how the 2 benchmarks (my opinion) of banjo tone, Earl Scruggs and Don Reno have polar opposite opinions about thickness of the banjo bridge. Don advocates thinning the bridge, basically down to a sliver, while Earl looks for the thickess bridge he can find. The difference can easily be heard in their recordings and both know how to get the best sound out of a banjo. Don's tone seems to fit the music that he chooses and likewise for Earl. With the availability of the Flatt and Scruggs DVDs, we get a prime example of why Earl's tone is so captivating. While it doesn't have the crispness of Reno, it is so well balanced. I find the phrase, "snap, crackle and pop" apt in describing the balance he achieves; pop on the 4th string, snap in the middle strings and crack on the 1st string up and down the neck. I find this quality rare even in the most popular prewars from the most popular pickers. Banjo pickers have to decide which tone to go for. If you want your banjo to sound like Don's as Jason Skinner does, you require a totally different setup than if you want that Scruggsy sound. While through the years, Earl's tone has varied, it consistantly has that balance.
25bbr - Posted - 11/25/2009: 15:49:19
If you review an older clip of Earl playing Fireball Mail from the early 60's, you can see how he "attacks" the the strings. Note that his armrest is almost pointing to his elbow, the resonator is mostly free to vibrate because it does not rest on his belly, and his ring and pinky are not planted to the head of the banjo.
I am sure there are other things to point out but these are probably easily imitated for those looking to improve their playing.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pWnZFrdQFE
Keith
WildJimbo - Posted - 11/25/2009: 16:02:24
quote:
Originally posted by 25bbr
... his ring and pinky are not planted to the head of the banjo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pWnZFrdQFE
They sure look planted to me. Yeah, he lifts his hand on the hard pinches, but that's the only time I don't see them on the head.
The Old Timer - Posted - 11/25/2009: 16:50:35
That's fascinating to watch when his right hand "hops" up and loses contact with the head -- I wonder if that's a way to prolong sustain on certain notes?? Never really noticed that before. He's consistent when he does it on certain licks/notes!
I also notice how little his left hand moves around, using open notes as much as possible.
Ebanjo - Posted - 11/25/2009: 21:10:12
As far as Don Reno liking a tighter head, I think it was because it made his single string playing stand out better. That's just my opinion. Also, as I think I stated in an earlier post in this thread, when Don, Earl, and the other banjo players we like from the late 40's and 50's were using calf skin heads, you had to get them a little tighter than the plastic heads because they were thicker.
Eric Ellis
bhrb75 - Posted - 11/26/2009: 05:20:05
Eric,
I absolutely agree. Another thing to remember is, when they had those hide heads , they also thinned the bridges way down. Plus I think Earl used to have his action pretty high back then too. I remember Crowe saying they did that a lot to over compensate for a bad PA system.
Happy Thanksgiving everybody!
Brandon
Ebanjo - Posted - 11/26/2009: 06:11:49
Brandon, You're right, and if he hasn't changed, Earl still keeps his action high. The last I heard according to the old Frets magazine in the late 80's, Earl said his action was 3/16 at the last fret. I forget if he was measuring from the fingerboard or the top of the fret. I prefer it that way myself so as the late C.E. Ward used to say " So the banjo can breath". And Sonny always said when using the skin heads all the banjo players would thin the bridge down to take the hollowness out of the sound.
Eric Ellis
banjobilly32 - Posted - 11/26/2009: 07:36:43
Earl sure pulls great tone in that video. Makes me wonder if he had a towel bunched up inside like Bobby Thompson used to do? I've tried it when recording with my Granada and it seems to remove some of the aftertones. Problem is I don't have Earl's right hand!!
bhrb75 - Posted - 11/27/2009: 13:58:11
Seems like Crowe, Earl and Sonny all played much much harder back then too compared to they way they play now, sans Sonny, since he don't play anymore. I have one show from '57 at Sunset Park and boy was Earl digging at it.
B.
bhrb75 - Posted - 11/27/2009: 13:58:27
Seems like Crowe, Earl and Sonny all played much much harder back then too compared to they way they play now, sans Sonny, since he don't play anymore. I have one show from '57 at Sunset Park and boy was Earl digging at it.
B.
jmori - Posted - 11/28/2009: 10:25:30
I have wondered if Earls later tone and attack was in part trying to compete? with all of the amplified instruments springing up around him at the time.
|
Feeds
