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

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."

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."

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.!

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

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!

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."

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.

Posted - 11/04/2009 :  11:33:38      

and Earl's right hand!

dana

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.

---

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.

---

Edited by - pickNgrin on 11/04/2009 12:20:45

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

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

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..........

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

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

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!!

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

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

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

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

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....

---

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

---

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

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

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