I doubt there would be enough interest to warrant a forum of its own, but I could be wrong. Let's see how many, if any, agree with you.

quote:

---

Originally posted by EEB

But surely warranting specific mention in one of the other sections, even if it does not have a section to itself.

There are a wide range of questions that would be catered for and easily findable by this inclusion: history, vintage banjo repair, style-specific set-up and playing guidance. It might even encourage fingerstyle players to share recordings and notation.

---

If by "finger style" you're referring to the three-finger "classic" era and canon that came just before the public debut of Earl Scruggs (and which he must have heard on the radio), seems to me if it's not clear enough that people can discuss it here in the All Other Styles forum (as you're doing), then certainly adding appropriate words to the description on the Forums home page would do the trick.

Words such as "Classic era" or ""late 19th-early 20th centuries finger style" might work.  The description under All Other Styles already says "classical," but of course that's not the same thing.

Perhaps you could post specific wording in the Banjo Hangout Website /Improvements and Suggestions forum or send a request directly to Eric.

I think All Other Styles is the best place for discussions of playing this genre or canon.

As to vintage instrument repair, no. That's already covered in the Banjo Building, Setup and Repair section. There's nothing in that forum's title or description that suggests discussion of vintage instruments doesn't belong there.

I believe this has been proposed before in the past.

"Old time banjo" has various "styles" of plucking strings with fingers, often with rules as to the number of fingers and which finger one must always start with. These come up often in the "old time banjo" section of the website.

If the OP "fingerstyle" is, as Old Hickory asked, reference to what was called "guitar style" but is now called "classic banjo" then I believe there is not enough support or active posting participants to merit a specific classification.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Old Hickory

If by "finger style" you're referring to the three-finger "classic" era and canon that came just before the public debut of Earl Scruggs (and which he must have heard on the radio), seems to me if it's not clear enough that people can discuss it here in the All Other Styles forum (as you're doing), then certainly adding appropriate words to the description on the Forums home page would do the trick.

---

You understand me perfectly. I agree that numbers of active fingerstyle players doesn't warrant a standalone section.

But 'All Other styles' with the relative banjo tumbleweeds of '6-string' (Guit-Jo), 'Classical' and 'Rock' mentioned and mention of fingerstyle omitted is completely neglectful of the formative cultural influence that fingerstyle represents. At the barest minimum a style that has been popularly known and referenced since the early 1850's  and for over a century of far greater trans-Atlantic commonality even than modern Old-Time or Bluegrass.

I believe passionately that conscious acknowledgement is the basis of respect. And if the Hangout has one fundamental ethos it is love and respect for banjo in all it's forms.

Personally, though I use the term ‘finger-style’ the alternative ‘guitar style’ is appropriate too.

My issue with ‘classic’ is based on also playing 6 (5+1)and 7 (6+1)-string banjos using exactly the same playing technique. Classic enthusiasts have directly expressed the vehement opinion that 6 and 7- string are not part of the ‘classic’ canon. If we take the 1950’s U.S. origin of the ‘classic’ label it’s possible to see where this exclusivity derives.

Use of ‘fingerstyle’ or 'guitar-style' simply side-steps dogma and opinion and incorporates early 5, 6 and 7-string playing, zither banjo, the 5-string finger-style heyday of Ossman, Van Eps, Morley and Grimshaw et al, and the various non-genre forms of finger-style playing up to the present day. Either are a neutral, non-contentious term based on technique alone.

I am with EEB - I do not necessarily need to see a dedicated "classic" section on BHO but would still appreciate something more defined than "all other styles." I don't see an issue with a "fingerstyle" section being inclusive of classic banjo, 3-finger OT picking, and whatever else. What I'm less sure of (as Ken mentions) is whether it should be defined historically (i.e., pre-bluegrass) or left open-ended.

Who knows, maybe the existence of the section would stimulate some activity? If it introduces people to something new (because they otherwise would never browse the murky "all other styles"), then there is at least some benefit. 

I also wanted to add... It would seem to me that by virtue of having grown to be the main banjo website with considerable traffic from around the world, BHO as an entity has some responsibility toward properly informed outreach, education, representation, and such. The fact that (as it stands) relatively few users are interested in classic fingerstyle and related practices -- practices that were absolutely fundamental to the development of the instrument we all know and love -- does not abdicate BHO's responsibility to at least encourage/facilitate (but not promote, as most content is user-generated) discussion in that area. The creation of an appropriate forum section, regardless of its anticipated traffic, is really the bare minimum action in this regard. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoboyd

What I'm less sure of (as Ken mentions) is whether it should be defined historically (i.e., pre-bluegrass) or left open-ended.

---

Musically I would question why a playing technique would be defined historically when it is simply an available option? 

A consequence of the 'classic' designation has (inadvertently) been to fix the technique in aspic like a suspended and flightless Jurassic mosquito. People engaging with and gaining pleasure from 're-enactment' type activity has its place whether that is replicating the superficial conduct of Gettysburg or the agricultural and entertainment applications of steam traction engines. But that retrospective focus  slips into illusion if we lose sight that there is an unbridgeable social and cultural separation that exists in time. A playing technique is both its history and its potential. To respect and enable potential the historical interest focus has to come under the 'umbrella' of the technique and not vice versa. Music is flight.

I meant to say ‘amber’ not ‘aspic’ but too late to edit.

In regard to the wider relevance of finger-style and non-genre playing, it is a very practical approach for musicians looking to play a huge range of popular repertoire from Irving Berlin to Beatles and Gershwin to Grunge. The chordal possibilities open up an extraordinary flexibility for the banjo free of the straight-jacket of rigid genre-related style.

The "pre-bluegrass" thing is just a convenient (if overly simple) way of describing a lot of the classic and OT 3-finger repertoire. It's a useful framing for people coming from bluegrass or mainstream OT (95% of BHO) and looking backward to see what preceded those styles. The risk is that, yes, it has the effect of arbitrarily stuffing everything into a historical box.

I honestly don't have a good sense of how many people out there are playing original/contemporary fingerstyle banjo. There are certainly people playing decidedly non-bluegrass/OT music on the 5-string, but the majority seem to use a bluegrass setup (steel strings and fingerpicks). But again, maybe if there was a dedicated place for them, those contemporary fingerstylists (?) would appear.

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoboyd

I also wanted to add... It would seem to me that by virtue of having grown to be the main banjo website with considerable traffic from around the world, BHO as an entity has some responsibility toward properly informed outreach, education, representation, and such. The fact that (as it stands) relatively few users are interested in classic fingerstyle and related practices -- practices that were absolutely fundamental to the development of the instrument we all know and love -- does not abdicate BHO's responsibility to at least encourage/facilitate (but not promote, as most content is user-generated) discussion in that area. The creation of an appropriate forum section, regardless of its anticipated traffic, is really the bare minimum action in this regard. 

---

Very well set-out. I agree 100%. I nearly 'clipped' a section of your post to quote, but I realised that it deserves to be read in its full context.

As banjo players we will all quite naturally follow our interest. Inclusion and presence is not promotion. But omission is a form of neglect that can function to passively distort.

When I post a video of a Beatles song (or in fact, any ballad) I am forced to categorize it either as Scruggs or Other. Both feel unsatisfying and I would welcome a ‘finger style’ option, as a more accurate description of what I’m doing. But it wouldn’t occur to me to trace my technique back to the 1850’s,more an attempt to render a melody on the fly.
I suppose this is my long winded way of saying - is finger style just one thing, or is it a more nebulous umbrella term?

Regarding "reenactors", I know of no reenactor or "living historian" (as they like to call themselves) that is playing classic banjo.

In fact, VERY few even attempt any level of historically informed stroke style or "banjo style".

The vast majority of "living historians" default to the post war form of "old time" with the minimum effort (if any) of using a "period like" smooth arm banjo. They thrive in the historical vagueness of "folk music".

Gentle recommendations of perusing historically informed music accompanied with easily accessible source material is often taken as a personal insult.

Okay, I'm convinced and on board with the ambiguous "fingerstyle" designation getting a place here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurence Diehl

When I post a video of a Beatles song (or in fact, any ballad) I am forced to categorize it either as Scruggs or Other. Both feel unsatisfying and I would welcome a ‘finger style’ option, as a more accurate description of what I’m doing. But it wouldn’t occur to me to trace my technique back to the 1850’s,more an attempt to render a melody on the fly.
I suppose this is my long winded way of saying - is finger style just one thing, or is it a more nebulous umbrella term?

---

I'm as interested as you to read player's opinions on this.

I'm probably very conventional in that I play with three fingers and thumb. Pads of fingers rather than the nails. Rectified nylon or gut strings. 
But there is surely a lot of latitude. Frank Lawes or 'Fifthless Frank' as he was known, dispensed with the fifth string which clearly influenced his sound, yet was without doubt a finger-style player. Rolling patterns occur, but typically not to the extent that they form a consistent underlying basis from which melody notes are emphasised as happens with Scruggs-style.

I'd much rather be surprised by innovation and creativity than confine my thinking to an overly narrow definition. If our finger-style predecessors had one stand-out attribute above all, it is that they were creative innovators. I'll be fascinated to read other's take on this.

I often post video playing with three fingers but not in the bluegrass/Scruggs style nor in the old time picking style… it could be figerstyle of course anyway I use the ‘other’ option…

I think the ambiguity of "fingerstyle" further obscures what we call classic style banjo, though I agree with Mike that the latter is an unfortunate moniker. I also agree with Mike that labeling the way of playing as "historic" ossifies what is, in fact, a living tradition with near-boundless potential.

That said, I suppose that a "fingerstyle" forum would be better than nothing, so long as it excludes bluegrass and "old-time three finger" playing (both of those styles already have dedicated forums).

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurence Diehl

When I post a video of a Beatles song (or in fact, any ballad) I am forced to categorize it either as Scruggs or Other. Both feel unsatisfying and I would welcome a ‘finger style’ option, as a more accurate description of what I’m doing . . . an attempt to render a melody on the fly.

---

It's been so long since I posted my two show tune videos, I had to look to see how I categorized them. I chose "Bluegrass (Scruggs)" for the style and Popular for the genre. Have to agree with Laurence that Bluegrass (Scruggs) doesn't really describe the technique. Yes, there are recognizable rolls. But not every phrase. Yes, there are occasional slides, hammers, or pull-offs. But mostly as a way to articulate a note without having to pick it. Not for any bluegrassy sound.  I'm simply calling on the technique I know to render a melody (with harmony and self-accompaniment). But never on the fly! More like pulling teeth.

I guess "Other" would have been a better choice, and "Fingerstyle" even better were it available.

And to tell the truth, when I describe to friends or others what I've been trying to do the past past decade, I say it's playing popular, non-bluegrass, pieces much in the way a fingestyle guitarist might.

My repertoire of this Great American Songbook (or adjacent) material is only seven pieces so far, not all of them fully realized.

It’s interesting to note that in 20th century British banjo publications, where there was a need to distinguish an arrangement from plectrum style, the use of ‘finger-style’ was the convention. That long/time precedent does reinforce that it’s not a random modern description.

Point of clarification: Are we treating non-bluegrass music played with fingerpicks as fingerstyle?

Suggestion posted:

banjohangout.org/topic/409454

quote:

---

Originally posted by csacwp

I think the ambiguity of "fingerstyle" further obscures what we call classic style banjo, though I agree with Mike that the latter is an unfortunate moniker. I also agree with Mike that labeling the way of playing as "historic" ossifies what is, in fact, a living tradition with near-boundless potential.

That said, I suppose that a "fingerstyle" forum would be better than nothing, so long as it excludes bluegrass and "old-time three finger" playing (both of those styles already have dedicated forums).

---

A designated home for finger-style technique would actually provide a signposted space (that doesn't currently exist on BHO) in which specific interest in playing and players from the heyday of 5-string fingerstyle and early recording can be shared and enjoyed. 
The key difference being that rather than seen in isolation this extraordinarily rich period would be seen as part of a continuum.

That inclusion and relevance, far from 'obscuring', actively highlights the connection to, and sits side-by-side with, contemporary finger-style playing and possibly contemporary composition. That inclusion and connection has a fundamental bearing on the potential of finger-style playing that is being discussed here.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoboyd

Point of clarification: Are we treating non-bluegrass music played with fingerpicks as fingerstyle?

---

This is the key question. So much non-bluegrass music played with fingerpicks falls under "progressive bluegrass" or "classical" (i.e., what Fleck and Bullard do). Maybe it's best to exclude it unless it's played on gut/nylon strings a la Carey or Spaulding.

What about spoons - they’ve been in use since 1900 haven’t they?
Steel strings yes/no?
You will have a helluva time coming up with an airtight definition.

I think your best chance of success would be to have a single term like finger style and see where the center of gravity lands. You will get a few strays, but over time you might be able to crowd them out. The content would define the space, instead of the other way around.

I don’t mean to sound negative about this. It’s not my style but I think it could make for some fascinating reading.
Good luck.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurence Diehl

I think your best chance of success would be to have a single term like finger style and see where the center of gravity lands. You will get a few strays, but over time you might be able to crowd them out. The content would define the space, instead of the other way around.

I don’t mean to sound negative about this. It’s not my style but I think it could make for some fascinating reading.
Good luck.

---

This is exactly how I see it working. Content defines what is appropriate. As you already identify - discussion threads of a formative style are likely to be of interest to a much wider group of members who don't play finger-style. Pretty much how the rest of the Hangout functions. If mods see a misplaced post it's moved where it is more suitable.

My opinion - and that's all it is - if someone pops up who plays finger-style on steel strings he or she is absolutely welcome - and of interest. It's a two-way process; the poster also chooses whether it's a space to stay or move elsewhere.

The element that excites me is the opportunity for a single designated space where discussion and examples of historic finger-style repertoire (original cylinder and shellac recordings and member's own MP3 or video playing of that historical repertoire) sit side-by-side with contemporary fingerstyle and possibly new compositions and varied repertoire. In my view that cross-fertilisation has the potential to breathe life and be very inspiring.