Banjo Hangout Logo
Banjo Hangout Logo

Premier Sponsors

952
Banjo Lovers Online


Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Aug 30, 2024 - 3:08:51 PM

Kellie

USA

301 posts since 1/19/2018

What kind of banjo should I use for classic style? I'm thinking of upgrading from my deering goodtime, but I'm unsure what to get.

Aug 30, 2024 - 4:30:33 PM
like this

11431 posts since 4/23/2004
Online Now

Unless you're wanting a period correct banjo, a Deering Goodtime strung with nylon or nylgut and a light bridge is all you really need.

I would stick with cheap until you find a genre you want to invest in.

Edited by - trapdoor2 on 08/30/2024 16:31:58

Aug 30, 2024 - 5:22:45 PM
likes this

rcc56

USA

5265 posts since 2/20/2016

The best banjos for that style were the professional grade models built in the early 20th century by Fairbanks/Vega. Better grade S.S. Stewarts and Bacons were also very fine instruments.

If you were to buy such an instrument, it would be a good idea to budget some extra money in case the instrument needed work to get it into top playing condition. If so, choose your repairman very carefully. You would need someone with considerable experience working on antique instruments.

Aug 30, 2024 - 5:25:27 PM

Kellie

USA

301 posts since 1/19/2018

quote:
Originally posted by rcc56

The best banjos for that style were the professional grade models built in the early 20th century by Fairbanks/Vega. Better grade S.S. Stewarts and Bacons were also very fine instruments.

If you were to buy such an instrument, it would be a good idea to budget some extra money in case the instrument needed work to get it into top playing condition. If so, choose your repairman very carefully. You would need someone with considerable experience working on antique instruments.


Earlier this year I bought a Farland artist grand. It's fantastic if not a bit dated.

Edited by - Kellie on 08/30/2024 17:25:47

Aug 30, 2024 - 5:56:24 PM

rcc56

USA

5265 posts since 2/20/2016

I've not played a Farland, but they have a good reputation. They differ from the other instruments I mentioned because they have no tone ring and consequently will probably tend to be less bright.

I don't know of any modern makers who are making top notch instruments for that style.

Aug 30, 2024 - 7:02:59 PM

122 posts since 7/31/2012

If you're looking to achieve a period sound/technique/setup, you really don't have much choice other than a period instrument. One not-so-obvious but actually major issue is that banjos from that era (let's say 1880s to 1920s or so) were manufactured with zero neck angle, not unlike a classical guitar. Geometrically speaking, this means a rather short bridge, which in turn means that the strings -- and picking hand -- are positioned significantly closer to the head than they would be on a contemporary banjo. It seems subtle when you look at the actual distances involved but it nonetheless has a huge impact on picking technique, and consequently on sound. Basically no one today is making banjos with this geometry.

If you *don't* care about all that period stuff and just want to learn some tunes, then use whatever banjo you like. No problem with that.

Aug 30, 2024 - 9:54:17 PM
likes this

8551 posts since 9/21/2007

I suppose one could play/study “classic banjo” on any regular 5 string, though “modern” configurations might create limitations.

The ideal setup was described well by Ethan above.

To make a modern banjo work with nylon, one will need to either reset the neck or use a very tall bridge, 3/4” to 1” tall. Using this tall bridge changes the right hand position if you are using the period “anchor” of the little finger on the head. If you are floating like a Spanish guitarist this will not matter. One could also use a Hartnett tone bar type finger rest with a tall bridge.

I am sure any builder could make a suitable banjo but would require guidance, and will likely dispute the request at first. One would need to stipulate a zero angle neck, small frets (such as “vintage mandolin frets”) a reasonable scale (26 to 27” for an 11” banjo), and fully fretted (no scoop). Violin pegs or champion friction pegs would be best. As far as I know, no builder offers this as a “stock” model, likely due to no demand.

There is also no shortage of classic era banjos.

Aug 30, 2024 - 10:16:45 PM

3163 posts since 2/4/2013

I think I'd try playing it on a Farland Artist Grand rather than a Goodtime.

Aug 31, 2024 - 12:15:17 AM
like this

518 posts since 6/20/2020

A player can play late-19th and early 20th century banjo repertoire using finger or guitar-technique on any 5-string banjo. If the intention is to hear it and experience it closer to the way those contemporary banjoists did, it makes sense to acquire a period banjo and set it up as they would've done. There are no 'rules' and by rigidly adhering to a 're-enacter' approach in what today is an expressive setting is needlessly restrictive and creative counter-productive. There is an argument that the emphasis on a 're-enacter' approach contributes not to keeping a repertoire alive, but tends to set it in amber.

Victorians and Edwardian musicians and composers were characterised by their energy, ingenuity and creativity. One way to celebrate that legacy is to emulate their spirit and creativity. The one thing for sure is that these dynamic, long-gone musicians would be trying everything we have to offer like kids in a sweet shop if they were alive today and had the opportunity. It often occurs to me while engaged in research that many of those creative individuals would be puzzled and disappointed - if not bored - at today's enthusiasts focus on 'walking backwards into the future'.

Aug 31, 2024 - 12:45:20 AM
likes this

518 posts since 6/20/2020

quote:
Originally posted by rcc56

The best banjos for that style were the professional grade models built in the early 20th century by Fairbanks/Vega. Better grade S.S. Stewarts and Bacons were also very fine instruments.

 

These are certainly fine banjos and there is doubtless a truth in regard to build quality and that, where possible, musicians have always sought the instruments they prefer. 

Unfortunately, away from the tiny group of professional recorded banjoists that are the over-focus of today's enthusiasts, that doesn't equate to contemporary experience or even necessarily a uniform preference. We know that some (not necessarily well-heeled) banjoists bought these instruments. We also know that the wider picture was far more diverse. However it is interesting as an illustrative example of modern, retrospective 'filters' that are applied that contribute to form a version of past activity in our own image and by definition have a tendency to distort.

Edited by - Pomeroy on 08/31/2024 00:51:25

Aug 31, 2024 - 6:04:33 AM

8551 posts since 9/21/2007

quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy
quote:
Originally posted by rcc56

The best banjos for that style were the professional grade models built in the early 20th century by Fairbanks/Vega. Better grade S.S. Stewarts and Bacons were also very fine instruments.

 

These are certainly fine banjos and there is doubtless a truth in regard to build quality and that, where possible, musicians have always sought the instruments they prefer. 

Unfortunately, away from the tiny group of professional recorded banjoists that are the over-focus of today's enthusiasts, that doesn't equate to contemporary experience or even necessarily a uniform preference. We know that some (not necessarily well-heeled) banjoists bought these instruments. We also know that the wider picture was far more diverse. However it is interesting as an illustrative example of modern, retrospective 'filters' that are applied that contribute to form a version of past activity in our own image and by definition have a tendency to distort.

 


Shawn McSweeny put together some excellent research tracking serial numbers and came up with an estimate of around 18,000 banjos produced by Stewart during his lifetime.  That is just one maker.

Aug 31, 2024 - 8:01:05 AM
like this

122 posts since 7/31/2012

quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy

There are no 'rules' and by rigidly adhering to a 're-enacter' approach in what today is an expressive setting is needlessly restrictive and creative counter-productive. There is an argument that the emphasis on a 're-enacter' approach contributes not to keeping a repertoire alive, but tends to set it in amber.

It often occurs to me while engaged in research that many of those creative individuals would be puzzled and disappointed - if not bored - at today's enthusiasts focus on 'walking backwards into the future'.


We could say the same thing about any of the banjo camps. Is it "restrictive and counter-productive" that most bluegrassers (including the more progressive/virtuosic ones) prefer a Gibson Mastertone-type instrument set up to sound as much as possible like Scruggs or Reno? Or moving outside of banjo land, would we really be comfortable criticizing classical guitarists for insisting on the same old Torres/Ramirez-type instrument instead of experimenting with extended range guitars, dreadnoughts, solid-body electrics, etc.?

Unless you're trying to make money, the goal of music is not to be "productive." It's to play around with sound in enjoyable ways. Sometimes that means doing "new" things, but more often than not, it means reproduction (if not reenactment; there is an important distinction to be made there). 

We tend to remember highly creative persons from the past because they did things that were noteworthy. It also feeds our tendency to ascribe historical changes to the work of individual, identifiable persons rather than the masses, who act in messy, unpredictable ways (e.g., "JS Bach popularized equal temperament through the Well-Tempered Clavier" -- oft-repeated but factually wrong on about three or four different levels). The reality is that the vast majority of artists/musicians of any era are not innovators but rather imitators.

The "ecosystem," so to speak, of classic banjo is not healthy enough to sustain the kind of creative activities we see in bluegrass or old-time. It's hard to discover in the first place, it's hard to find an appropriate instrument, it's hard to find a teacher, it's hard to find other people to collaborate with, it's hard to sell the idea to venues, there's no real market around it, etc. Not a lot of people do it, and they're geographically disperse. So for most of us (I can think of maybe one or two exceptions), reproduction is as far as it gets. That's fine for me; when I play classic banjo for other people, it's basically "new" music for them, both the repertoire itself and as a way of playing the instrument.

 

Edited by - banjoboyd on 08/31/2024 08:05:57

Aug 31, 2024 - 1:17:11 PM

Kellie

USA

301 posts since 1/19/2018

quote:
Originally posted by rcc56

I've not played a Farland, but they have a good reputation. They differ from the other instruments I mentioned because they have no tone ring and consequently will probably tend to be less bright.

I don't know of any modern makers who are making top notch instruments for that style.


Mine definitely sounds more harp like and has a very thin neck. Probably because of the hundreds of bar positions his music uses.

Edited by - Kellie on 08/31/2024 13:24:20

Aug 31, 2024 - 1:40:43 PM

Kellie

USA

301 posts since 1/19/2018

quote:
Originally posted by Joel Hooks
quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy
quote:
Originally posted by rcc56

The best banjos for that style were the professional grade models built in the early 20th century by Fairbanks/Vega. Better grade S.S. Stewarts and Bacons were also very fine instruments.

 

These are certainly fine banjos and there is doubtless a truth in regard to build quality and that, where possible, musicians have always sought the instruments they prefer. 

Unfortunately, away from the tiny group of professional recorded banjoists that are the over-focus of today's enthusiasts, that doesn't equate to contemporary experience or even necessarily a uniform preference. We know that some (not necessarily well-heeled) banjoists bought these instruments. We also know that the wider picture was far more diverse. However it is interesting as an illustrative example of modern, retrospective 'filters' that are applied that contribute to form a version of past activity in our own image and by definition have a tendency to distort.

 


Shawn McSweeny put together some excellent research tracking serial numbers and came up with an estimate of around 18,000 banjos produced by Stewart during his lifetime.  That is just one maker.


How many are estimated to be lost to time?

Aug 31, 2024 - 8:41:29 PM

8551 posts since 9/21/2007

quote:
Originally posted by Kellie
quote:
Originally posted by Joel Hooks
quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy
quote:
Originally posted by rcc56

The best banjos for that style were the professional grade models built in the early 20th century by Fairbanks/Vega. Better grade S.S. Stewarts and Bacons were also very fine instruments.

 

These are certainly fine banjos and there is doubtless a truth in regard to build quality and that, where possible, musicians have always sought the instruments they prefer. 

Unfortunately, away from the tiny group of professional recorded banjoists that are the over-focus of today's enthusiasts, that doesn't equate to contemporary experience or even necessarily a uniform preference. We know that some (not necessarily well-heeled) banjoists bought these instruments. We also know that the wider picture was far more diverse. However it is interesting as an illustrative example of modern, retrospective 'filters' that are applied that contribute to form a version of past activity in our own image and by definition have a tendency to distort.

 


Shawn McSweeny put together some excellent research tracking serial numbers and came up with an estimate of around 18,000 banjos produced by Stewart during his lifetime.  That is just one maker.


How many are estimated to be lost to time?


No clue.  Come to the ABF rally in October, there will be a few there that you could try out.  I'll be happy to bring my #3 orchestra to let you play.

Aug 31, 2024 - 8:56:14 PM

Kellie

USA

301 posts since 1/19/2018

quote:
Originally posted by Joel Hooks
quote:
Originally posted by Kellie
quote:
Originally posted by Joel Hooks
quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy
quote:
Originally posted by rcc56

The best banjos for that style were the professional grade models built in the early 20th century by Fairbanks/Vega. Better grade S.S. Stewarts and Bacons were also very fine instruments.

 

These are certainly fine banjos and there is doubtless a truth in regard to build quality and that, where possible, musicians have always sought the instruments they prefer. 

Unfortunately, away from the tiny group of professional recorded banjoists that are the over-focus of today's enthusiasts, that doesn't equate to contemporary experience or even necessarily a uniform preference. We know that some (not necessarily well-heeled) banjoists bought these instruments. We also know that the wider picture was far more diverse. However it is interesting as an illustrative example of modern, retrospective 'filters' that are applied that contribute to form a version of past activity in our own image and by definition have a tendency to distort.

 


Shawn McSweeny put together some excellent research tracking serial numbers and came up with an estimate of around 18,000 banjos produced by Stewart during his lifetime.  That is just one maker.


How many are estimated to be lost to time?


No clue.  Come to the ABF rally in October, there will be a few there that you could try out.  I'll be happy to bring my #3 orchestra to let you play.


I already have a Farland, and I did try out a special thoroughbred. It was in pretty bad shape though at elderly. Definitely needed a new skin and potentially a new bridge. Unfortunately I'm quite far out from New York.  Thank you for the offer though. I would love to meet people from the American banjo fraternity. Thank you for keeping the legacy alive, Joel. 

Aug 31, 2024 - 11:25:31 PM

518 posts since 6/20/2020

quote:
Originally posted by banjoboyd
quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy

There are no 'rules' and by rigidly adhering to a 're-enacter' approach in what today is an expressive setting is needlessly restrictive and creative counter-productive. There is an argument that the emphasis on a 're-enacter' approach contributes not to keeping a repertoire alive, but tends to set it in amber.

It often occurs to me while engaged in research that many of those creative individuals would be puzzled and disappointed - if not bored - at today's enthusiasts focus on 'walking backwards into the future'.


>We tend to remember highly creative persons from the past because they did things that were noteworthy. It also feeds our tendency to ascribe historical changes to the work of individual, identifiable persons rather than the masses, who act in messy, unpredictable ways...The reality is that the vast majority of artists/musicians of any era are not innovators but rather imitators.<
 


I feel I need to respond to this specific comment as there s a particular resonance in relation to research on 19th century  English contexts:

>"We tend to remember highly creative persons from the past because they did things that were noteworthy." <

Actually in relation to the banjo in diverse English contexts the opposite is the case in regard this loose generalisation. Such assumptions divorced from specific research contribute to reinforcing and the selectivity on which a version of past activity is formed. The actual pattern we can observe is one of omission.  This process is not a conscious ;editing'; it is largely cultural and the product of a cultural bias that by definition has never bothered with evidence to the contrary. What results is effectively a 'cultural erasing'. Omission in research terms is inevitably a distortion.

>"...It also feeds our tendency to ascribe historical changes to the work of individual, identifiable persons rather than the masses"<

This conflates two quite specific dynamics as an 'either-or' when quite clearly individual agency and sociall factors are simultaneous and the former occurs within and is mediated by the latter. Actually it is the observable habit of modern selectivity that I persistently refer to that resorts to cherry-picking the narratives of high profile individuals and thereby constructing a selective narrative. Individual dynamic is only partially known and can be virtually meaningless unless analysed and understood in relation to detailed picture of social context. This complex relationship is almost entirely absent in American studies of the banjo to date. That's a separate omission. What concerns researchers o 19th century English contexts is the basic error of (if mentioned at all) applying grotesque generalisation (i.e. the simplistic 'minstrel/ to Royal patronage narrative) in academic papers. Again a failing clearly attributable to unconscious cultural bias. The pattern we cam plainly observe is one of American academics having fallen over themselves to attribute significance in their own cultural sphere but in the process completely neglecting evidence contemporary 19th century activity outside their narrow focus. This pattern of 'research blindness' and omission then influences, and maybe even subliminally encourages, a similar pattern of selectivity in the manner that non-academic special interest music groups present today.

>"The reality is that the vast majority of artists/musicians of any era are not innovators but rather imitators."<

Floppy and misapplied truisms can by their non-specific nature, function to conceal patterns of activity and relationships whose characteristics are highly significant both in their contemporary social context and when compared to modern activity. While statistically a superficial glance at data will always confirm that a majority are not engaged in a particular activity, that lack of detail can contain significant patterns of activity  and behaviours that are informative and, in historical terms, completely neglected. Such is the case with original composition among working class musicians in 19th century English contexts. Not just in compositions which made it to print circulation, but also in the many references to original composition in accounts pf local performance.

Floppy and insipid don't cut it when confronted by and needing to comply with academic standards.

Edited by - Pomeroy on 08/31/2024 23:42:43

Sep 1, 2024 - 12:44:11 AM
likes this

518 posts since 6/20/2020

Maybe food for thought...

Reference to cherry-picking and the effect of unconscious modern selectivity has, for example, huge relevance to the modern 'visibility' of common patterns of 19th century banjo  in ensemble playing with other instruments. Our research focus is mid-19th century English and British Isles contexts. Here we find plentiful evidence that banjo was typically played with a specific, but quite wide range, of other instruments. With the exception of piano, these small portable instruments were typically sold by music retailers who also sold banjos. Primary source evidence clearly indicates that the repertoire played in these setting s cannot be neatly categorised; it is a product of the specific Victorian social context. Neither are there neat' easily delineated 'genre' boundaries. The most appropriate sub-heading we can apply might be 'social entertainment'.

What can be described as a 'collector narrative' has lent a peculiar myopic focus singularly on the banjo. The effect of this has been to distill and isolate the banjo from its' diverse social contexts and associations apart from those with other banjos e.g. the late -century trend for banjo orchestras. Our primary research focus is mid-Victorian England , however I would be very surprised if more detailed and inclusive research in the US did not indicate a far more diverse set of musical contexts for the banjo than have previously been acknowledged. If this does prove to be the case then their erasure in modern awareness would be comparable to the cultural erasure of activity outside the US.

Who knows? What we do know from precedent is that the tendency is for such an impetus in a particular direction to subsequently become self-reinforcing. One only needs to visit Ciifftop and other settings today to witness the almost universal modern focus on fiddle and banjo in the US. Great fun...but fun and research and a sound understanding of the past are quite different motivation.

Edited by - Pomeroy on 09/01/2024 00:49:37

Sep 1, 2024 - 8:31:29 AM

122 posts since 7/31/2012

Pomeroy I have to say, you've written me a long and detailed response that somehow misses (or avoids?) the point I am trying to make.

This is not an academic forum, and most people who play historical banjo styles are not approaching it as academic researchers. Your criticisms of extant research on banjo history are valid but out of place. A refusal to consider this music on anything other than strictly historical terms, an inability to differentiate between nostalgic sentiment (which is integral to all traditions of banjo playing) and preservationism ("walking backwards into the future"), and a curious hostility toward musicians talking shop instead of considering the "big picture" (as you envision it) have seemingly left you blind to the double standards at work here.

Please go back and read the first paragraph of my comment. Given that you consider the current state of affairs to be "restrictive and counter-productive," I assume you have some idea of what "non-restrictive and productive" would look like. Keep in mind, the subject here is not how academic research is conducted but how living people engage with musical materials (whether physical, as in the case of instruments, or abstract, as in the case of repertoire and performance context). So what exactly would it look like? In what way is classic banjo uniquely astray in this regard?

Sep 1, 2024 - 6:11:59 PM

Kellie

USA

301 posts since 1/19/2018

quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy

Maybe food for thought...

Reference to cherry-picking and the effect of unconscious modern selectivity has, for example, huge relevance to the modern 'visibility' of common patterns of 19th century banjo  in ensemble playing with other instruments. Our research focus is mid-19th century English and British Isles contexts. Here we find plentiful evidence that banjo was typically played with a specific, but quite wide range, of other instruments. With the exception of piano, these small portable instruments were typically sold by music retailers who also sold banjos. Primary source evidence clearly indicates that the repertoire played in these setting s cannot be neatly categorised; it is a product of the specific Victorian social context. Neither are there neat' easily delineated 'genre' boundaries. The most appropriate sub-heading we can apply might be 'social entertainment'.

What can be described as a 'collector narrative' has lent a peculiar myopic focus singularly on the banjo. The effect of this has been to distill and isolate the banjo from its' diverse social contexts and associations apart from those with other banjos e.g. the late -century trend for banjo orchestras. Our primary research focus is mid-Victorian England , however I would be very surprised if more detailed and inclusive research in the US did not indicate a far more diverse set of musical contexts for the banjo than have previously been acknowledged. If this does prove to be the case then their erasure in modern awareness would be comparable to the cultural erasure of activity outside the US.

Who knows? What we do know from precedent is that the tendency is for such an impetus in a particular direction to subsequently become self-reinforcing. One only needs to visit Ciifftop and other settings today to witness the almost universal modern focus on fiddle and banjo in the US. Great fun...but fun and research and a sound understanding of the past are quite different motivation.


What other instruments were there?

Sep 1, 2024 - 6:13:59 PM

Kellie

USA

301 posts since 1/19/2018

quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy
quote:
Originally posted by banjoboyd
quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy

There are no 'rules' and by rigidly adhering to a 're-enacter' approach in what today is an expressive setting is needlessly restrictive and creative counter-productive. There is an argument that the emphasis on a 're-enacter' approach contributes not to keeping a repertoire alive, but tends to set it in amber.

It often occurs to me while engaged in research that many of those creative individuals would be puzzled and disappointed - if not bored - at today's enthusiasts focus on 'walking backwards into the future'.


>We tend to remember highly creative persons from the past because they did things that were noteworthy. It also feeds our tendency to ascribe historical changes to the work of individual, identifiable persons rather than the masses, who act in messy, unpredictable ways...The reality is that the vast majority of artists/musicians of any era are not innovators but rather imitators.<
 


I feel I need to respond to this specific comment as there s a particular resonance in relation to research on 19th century  English contexts:

>"We tend to remember highly creative persons from the past because they did things that were noteworthy." <

Actually in relation to the banjo in diverse English contexts the opposite is the case in regard this loose generalisation. Such assumptions divorced from specific research contribute to reinforcing and the selectivity on which a version of past activity is formed. The actual pattern we can observe is one of omission.  This process is not a conscious ;editing'; it is largely cultural and the product of a cultural bias that by definition has never bothered with evidence to the contrary. What results is effectively a 'cultural erasing'. Omission in research terms is inevitably a distortion.

>"...It also feeds our tendency to ascribe historical changes to the work of individual, identifiable persons rather than the masses"<

This conflates two quite specific dynamics as an 'either-or' when quite clearly individual agency and sociall factors are simultaneous and the former occurs within and is mediated by the latter. Actually it is the observable habit of modern selectivity that I persistently refer to that resorts to cherry-picking the narratives of high profile individuals and thereby constructing a selective narrative. Individual dynamic is only partially known and can be virtually meaningless unless analysed and understood in relation to detailed picture of social context. This complex relationship is almost entirely absent in American studies of the banjo to date. That's a separate omission. What concerns researchers o 19th century English contexts is the basic error of (if mentioned at all) applying grotesque generalisation (i.e. the simplistic 'minstrel/ to Royal patronage narrative) in academic papers. Again a failing clearly attributable to unconscious cultural bias. The pattern we cam plainly observe is one of American academics having fallen over themselves to attribute significance in their own cultural sphere but in the process completely neglecting evidence contemporary 19th century activity outside their narrow focus. This pattern of 'research blindness' and omission then influences, and maybe even subliminally encourages, a similar pattern of selectivity in the manner that non-academic special interest music groups present today.

>"The reality is that the vast majority of artists/musicians of any era are not innovators but rather imitators."<

Floppy and misapplied truisms can by their non-specific nature, function to conceal patterns of activity and relationships whose characteristics are highly significant both in their contemporary social context and when compared to modern activity. While statistically a superficial glance at data will always confirm that a majority are not engaged in a particular activity, that lack of detail can contain significant patterns of activity  and behaviours that are informative and, in historical terms, completely neglected. Such is the case with original composition among working class musicians in 19th century English contexts. Not just in compositions which made it to print circulation, but also in the many references to original composition in accounts pf local performance.

Floppy and insipid don't cut it when confronted by and needing to comply with academic standards.


Also there was nothing academic about this conversation  It was really just a simple casual question. "Should I upgrade?"

Sep 2, 2024 - 12:08:39 AM

518 posts since 6/20/2020

quote:
Originally posted by Kellie
quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy
quote:
Originally posted by banjoboyd
quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy

There are no 'rules' and by rigidly adhering to a 're-enacter' approach in what today is an expressive setting is needlessly restrictive and creative counter-productive. There is an argument that the emphasis on a 're-enacter' approach contributes not to keeping a repertoire alive, but tends to set it in amber.

It often occurs to me while engaged in research that many of those creative individuals would be puzzled and disappointed - if not bored - at today's enthusiasts focus on 'walking backwards into the future'.


>We tend to remember highly creative persons from the past because they did things that were noteworthy. It also feeds our tendency to ascribe historical changes to the work of individual, identifiable persons rather than the masses, who act in messy, unpredictable ways...The reality is that the vast majority of artists/musicians of any era are not innovators but rather imitators.<
 


I feel I need to respond to this specific comment as there s a particular resonance in relation to research on 19th century  English contexts:

>"We tend to remember highly creative persons from the past because they did things that were noteworthy." <

Actually in relation to the banjo in diverse English contexts the opposite is the case in regard this loose generalisation. Such assumptions divorced from specific research contribute to reinforcing and the selectivity on which a version of past activity is formed. The actual pattern we can observe is one of omission.  This process is not a conscious ;editing'; it is largely cultural and the product of a cultural bias that by definition has never bothered with evidence to the contrary. What results is effectively a 'cultural erasing'. Omission in research terms is inevitably a distortion.

>"...It also feeds our tendency to ascribe historical changes to the work of individual, identifiable persons rather than the masses"<

This conflates two quite specific dynamics as an 'either-or' when quite clearly individual agency and sociall factors are simultaneous and the former occurs within and is mediated by the latter. Actually it is the observable habit of modern selectivity that I persistently refer to that resorts to cherry-picking the narratives of high profile individuals and thereby constructing a selective narrative. Individual dynamic is only partially known and can be virtually meaningless unless analysed and understood in relation to detailed picture of social context. This complex relationship is almost entirely absent in American studies of the banjo to date. That's a separate omission. What concerns researchers o 19th century English contexts is the basic error of (if mentioned at all) applying grotesque generalisation (i.e. the simplistic 'minstrel/ to Royal patronage narrative) in academic papers. Again a failing clearly attributable to unconscious cultural bias. The pattern we cam plainly observe is one of American academics having fallen over themselves to attribute significance in their own cultural sphere but in the process completely neglecting evidence contemporary 19th century activity outside their narrow focus. This pattern of 'research blindness' and omission then influences, and maybe even subliminally encourages, a similar pattern of selectivity in the manner that non-academic special interest music groups present today.

>"The reality is that the vast majority of artists/musicians of any era are not innovators but rather imitators."<

Floppy and misapplied truisms can by their non-specific nature, function to conceal patterns of activity and relationships whose characteristics are highly significant both in their contemporary social context and when compared to modern activity. While statistically a superficial glance at data will always confirm that a majority are not engaged in a particular activity, that lack of detail can contain significant patterns of activity  and behaviours that are informative and, in historical terms, completely neglected. Such is the case with original composition among working class musicians in 19th century English contexts. Not just in compositions which made it to print circulation, but also in the many references to original composition in accounts pf local performance.

Floppy and insipid don't cut it when confronted by and needing to comply with academic standards.


Also there was nothing academic about this conversation  It was really just a simple casual question. "Should I upgrade?"


...which others, including myself, simply and helpfully replied to earlier. The consensus is that choice is up to you.

In regard to a thread moving on from an OP in response to a subsequent post, if you look around you'll find that's perfectly normal here on BHO.

Edited by - Pomeroy on 09/02/2024 00:16:54

Sep 2, 2024 - 12:41:21 AM

518 posts since 6/20/2020

quote:
Originally posted by Kellie
quote:
Originally posted by Pomeroy

Maybe food for thought...

Reference to cherry-picking and the effect of unconscious modern selectivity has, for example, huge relevance to the modern 'visibility' of common patterns of 19th century banjo  in ensemble playing with other instruments. Our research focus is mid-19th century English and British Isles contexts. Here we find plentiful evidence that banjo was typically played with a specific, but quite wide range, of other instruments. With the exception of piano, these small portable instruments were typically sold by music retailers who also sold banjos. Primary source evidence clearly indicates that the repertoire played in these setting s cannot be neatly categorised; it is a product of the specific Victorian social context. Neither are there neat' easily delineated 'genre' boundaries. The most appropriate sub-heading we can apply might be 'social entertainment'.

What can be described as a 'collector narrative' has lent a peculiar myopic focus singularly on the banjo. The effect of this has been to distill and isolate the banjo from its' diverse social contexts and associations apart from those with other banjos e.g. the late -century trend for banjo orchestras. Our primary research focus is mid-Victorian England , however I would be very surprised if more detailed and inclusive research in the US did not indicate a far more diverse set of musical contexts for the banjo than have previously been acknowledged. If this does prove to be the case then their erasure in modern awareness would be comparable to the cultural erasure of activity outside the US.

Who knows? What we do know from precedent is that the tendency is for such an impetus in a particular direction to subsequently become self-reinforcing. One only needs to visit Ciifftop and other settings today to witness the almost universal modern focus on fiddle and banjo in the US. Great fun...but fun and research and a sound understanding of the past are quite different motivation.


What other instruments were there?


My references refer to the British Isles and more specifically an English context. Here we see from the early appearance of the banjo c. late 1840's evidence of a wide range including (in no particular order of importance) harp, cornet, Anglo and English concertina, accordian, violin, violoncello, guitar, clarionet, flute, piccolo, pianoforte, dulcimer, ocarina. Combinations of these instruments from duet to larger ensemble remain consistent until after the First World War. The post-war culture that came into being in the 1920's pretty much swept these relationships away in terms of the general population. Interestingly we do see aspects of this playing surviving in regional pockets until as late as the 1950's among older musicians who learned and played in this fashion in the 1890's and early 1900's. 

Hence my previous comment that it would be surprising if the 19th century combination with banjo in the US wasn't more diverse than has resulted from successive folk 'revivals'. Particularly so when considering the huge influx of emigres throughout this period from a much wider cultural base than was the case in England.

Of course today's musicians can play in combination as they prefer. There is no requirement at all to emulate historical settings. However, it becomes more problematic and ought not to go unchallenged, if/when what are modern choices are misrepresented as historical 'fact' - then (and only then) modern choice and the research community tend to come into contact.

Edited by - Pomeroy on 09/02/2024 00:56:29

Sep 5, 2024 - 2:14:49 PM

Brodoh

USA

34 posts since 2/25/2017

Pardon me, but what is "classic style"?

Sep 5, 2024 - 2:51:12 PM
likes this

Kellie

USA

301 posts since 1/19/2018

quote:
Originally posted by Brodoh

Pardon me, but what is "classic style"?


What is Classic Banjo? - Classic-Banjo (ning.com)

Sep 5, 2024 - 3:49:34 PM

518 posts since 6/20/2020

quote:
Originally posted by Kellie
quote:
Originally posted by Brodoh

Pardon me, but what is "classic style"?


What is Classic Banjo? - Classic-Banjo (ning.com)


According to the link you posted "Classic banjo is played on a 5-string banjo". I'm curious whether specifically in regard to you being an interested newcomer you take that statement at face value?

The reason that I ask is that the statement omits vast numbers of contemporary 19th century banjo players who played banjos that did not have 5 strings. The most relevant dictionary definition of the word 'classic is "serving as the established model or standard". We need to identify whose 'standard' and whose 'established model' to gain a more accurate understanding of the nature of the selectivity on which this modern presentation of 'classic' is based.

Edited by - Pomeroy on 09/05/2024 16:20:05

Page: 1  2   Last Page (2) 

Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Privacy Consent
Copyright 2024 Banjo Hangout. All Rights Reserved.





Hangout Network Help

View All Topics  |  View Categories

0.2851563