I think some “modern” players like Bela, Wes, Noam, etc pick far from the bridge, rather than the hard-as-nails approach right in front of the bridge. Could be that others are loosening their heads too.

quote:

---

Originally posted by 1935tb-11

is it just me or does it sound like the banjos on alot of recordings now are tubbier sounding then the old recordings ?   remember how the banjo would cut and now it seems like it is almost subdued .... softer ...
i ain't saying it sounds bad ,, in fact it blends better with todays bluegrass but it just seem like it has changed ... thoughts ???

---

Could it be the recording and banjo construction technology is all completely different? The banjo heads are different, the bridges, the tailpieces and so on. 

I agree, it is different, but personally , I like it better. The old stuff just sounds plinky to me. I prefer to hear the tone of the instrument in the music.

This definitely seems to be the case. Bluegrass players these days seem to go for a full, fat tone. I think a lot of it comes from emulating JD Crowe rather than the old Scruggs recordings, which were definitely tighter and brighter.

I like a lot of different sounds, but a well-rounded setup is the most consistently satisfying for me.

I feel like a lot of the difference in tone has something to do with the recording equipment of today vs. the more primitive recording gear from 3/4 of a century ago.
As far as a difference in the banjos themselves, it could have a lot to do with set up. Some of today's players are still playing prewar instruments. I expect a lot of people have been drawn to the more mellow sound of modern recordings and want their banjos set up for that sound. Components like heads and bridges can make a certain amount of difference.

I think it's two things.
One, it' has to do with blend and two, amplification.
Just about everyone has " plugged-in" to an amp of one sort or another.
You don't have to play as hard to be heard.
You tend to play away from the bridge or use lighter gauge strings.
Step on a foot switch to be heard, then step on again to play your back-up.
This translates into the studio, too. A more homogenized sound.
Folks used to say " mash-it" when the pickers were bearing down, pulling tone.
Now the term that should be used is" smash -it"
Just a little fun.......

Hmmm, uh, could it be that maybe seeing as a few of us now have "matured" ears and all, quite a lot of things don't sound the way they used to...

In my case, what Bart says is definitely one factor in what I hear. Without my hearing aids, my banjos sound quieter and less trebly to me. Truthfully, it's pleasant. I tend to practice with my hearing aids our. With my hearing aids, the banjos have volume and tone that cut through. But I doubt what I'm hearing is really what my banjos sound like.

All that said, I think banjos in modern recordings I hear do have a rounder, fuller, sound than the super bright tone we used to go for decades ago with our tight heads, thinned bridges, and  cranked-down tailpieces.

I bought a banjo that was made in the '70s and it brought up old memories when I found that it had a collection of sanded Bridges. Some were so thin that they had broken. Ah those were the days!

I think that tastes and preferences in banjo tone have evolved over time. However, significant hearing loss is resulting in my hearing things very differently from how I did in the past. I have used National Health Service (free) hearing aids for three years, and while they're good for speech they just can't cope with music, especially banjos! I've consulted an audiologist privately and tomorrow I collect some state-of-the-art (expensive!) hearing aids which I hope will mean my recordings of Seldom Scene sound as I remember them. Wish me luck!

As one who has hearing aids, I see a great business opportunity. You can adjust hearing aid frequencies to match your needs. Imagine a JD, Earl, Reno, etc. setting on your new improved 5 String Hearing Aid. There is also a Tenor and Plectrum version for those of you who as missing a string. Muffled setting for Old Timey, no rag needed.

I’d say, All of the above plus strings have changed a little. I have come across old strings in cases like Black Diamonds and so on. From what I can tell the new offerings are very different. Obviously they have improved over time. After all the strings are your engine. 

In the recording studio, compression is the word of the day! In the "good ol' days", recording studios didn't use much compression, which allowed the highs and the lows to be heard.

Secondly, head tension. In the "good ol' days" banjo heads were tuned to "A", which is 440 pitch. In fact, during the prewar years, Gibson banjos left the factory with heads tuned to "A". Nowadays, the preference seems to be a much looser head. Many players have the heads tuned to down to G# or even G now.

Lastly, thicker bridges. In the "good ol' days" bridges were much thinner, but in recent years the trend has been (facilitated by Snuffy Smith I believe) to use bridges that are way thicker.

All of these factors will definitely cause a banjo to sound more "muffled" with less high-end tone. Sometimes this helps with overtones and probably helps in amplifying the banjo too.

I may not have been there and I may not have as much experience as most of the others posting on this forum so please remeber these are just my thoughts and they most likely aren't correct. I personally think it has to do with running more neutral settings all the way around. This includes a head thats not very tight, a tailpice thats not too low, and a stock(usually very thick bridge). I think this is partially because more players are starting to prefer this sound and partially because this is how many banjos are set up when you get them from the music store. You also seee way less archtops, ive looked at photos from old festivals and it seemed that nearly every other banjo was an archtop, I just left a festival where I saw dozens of banjos and only one was an archtop.

a lot of these things mentioned above do bear into the reason for the change in sound. but i am not really talking bout recordings from the 40s thru the 70s.. i mean as late as the the 80s and early 90s . i know recording equipment is changed since 1985 and technics have also.
but go back and listen to hot rize,, johnson mountian boys with tom adams ( i know richard underwood used an archtop). JD on the early BAB albums. terry baucom.. those recordings still had some pop and crackle to them.
i think its is like most said ,, the set up and a desire for a more kinder gentler sounding banjo for the mix . most of todays top artist have a smoother more homogenized sound when you hear them on the recordings.
i am not saying its better or worse just different.... but once in a while don't you want to hear a young kid making a banjo pop and crack like a ball of fire ???????

Good topic. For years the holy grail sound was the foggy mountain banjo album. But i think it may have had more to do with how it was recorded than with the actual banjo.
I still live that archtop sound ralph had on recordings like midnight ramble and fling ding.

Oh yes… that “crunchy” Archtop tone. Less pingy…. Crunchy is the only way I know how to describe it really. Hard to beat that... no matter what type of tune you wanna play!

Yes sir.  Two kinds of music, with the hearing aid and without.   I often dont wear them when I am at home practicings but when I go to pick with someone I can be two loud without them.

I think Bela was the first player to introduce that loose, tubby sound. Noam Pikelny and Alison Brown also use it. When I first heard it I didn’t like it and I thought that it was a waste to spend thousands of dollars on an instrument only to set it up to sound like a cheap bottle cap banjo. I thought a banjo constructed like a Mastertone was meant to be bright and loud. Even the old Gibson catalogs recommended a tight head for maximum tone.

But I’ve come to realize that modern players like Bela are not playing bluegrass and are reaching an audience not necessarily familiar with the genre. So it makes sense to a use a softer sound. And in the end, it’s a matter of which sound you prefer. I personally prefer a brighter sound and I think it’s more suited to bluegrass and the music I like to play. I guess I’m still stuck on that elusive Scruggs tone that is never harsh or pingy sounding, but rather rich and clear.

I’m not so sure ‘bout that,, I don’t like the harsh ping on Groundspeed,, but that’s likely from the studio maladjustments. I prefer Earl’s big tone of the early Columbia recordings.  At 00:50

https://youtu.be/WLGG7fy_-iM?si=B_N8XOM_5aay6YiO