Brendan, I was not intending to be in any way cryptic. Though it may read that way. We see versions of this same ‘comparative difficulty’ debate from time to time.

A perspective of interest primarily in the banjo itself, rather than restricted specifically its role within the conventions of bluegrass or old time, would be far more informative in relation to creative range and technical difficulty.

The banjo in a finger-style context (modern or historical) offers exactly this meaningful comparison. Yet finger-style does not feature even when the specific subject of a technical comparison of banjo playing arises.

I’m aware that complexity does not equate to ‘better’; simplicity is often the holy grail sought by creatives in many fields. But it is rather perverse that any discussion relating to technical difficulty and the banjo, omits or is unaware of, finger-style playing that historically and consistently demonstrates greater demands on a player's technique and ability.

I first learned to play three-finger Scruggs or bluegrass. I'm a long-time OT clawhammer player. I also play fingerstyle. Fair to say that is a relevant breadth to have gained a perspective. A debate on banjo comparative difficulty without reference to fingerstyle is a bit like a debate on board games that focus on snakes and ladders and draughts (checkers) but ignores chess.

EEB I think you must have quite a rare perspective, being conversant with that many styles. Personally, I took to finger style quite naturally but found clawhammer quite awkward. My hands didn’t want to do what was required. When I hear someone like Allison de Groot playing, I am flabbergasted at the skill involved. I don’t hear a lot of jazz or classical played with clawhammer though. I’m sure someone has tried.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Laurence Diehl

EEB I think you must have quite a rare perspective, being conversant with that many styles. Personally, I took to finger style quite naturally but found clawhammer quite awkward. My hands didn’t want to do what was required. When I hear someone like Allison de Groot playing, I am flabbergasted at the skill involved. I don’t hear a lot of jazz or classical played with clawhammer though. I’m sure someone has tried.

---

Maybe that serves to highlight? The two techniques that today are generally presented and understood as if the only 5-string choice, are actually each the result of stylistic convention that is a cultural feature.

Yet beyond that dominant cultural assumption exists the scope of the banjo as a musical instrument independent of that narrow cultural convention. The banjo in a fingerstyle-style context has a broader history; critically a far wider geographic base and consequently is largely independent of cultural insularity and its associated stylistic convention - in much the same way as say, the violin or acoustic guitar.

This observation is prompted by a sub-text that emerged here. I don't wish to hijack an interesting thread. Maybe another thread could pick up this theme?

The banjo in a fingerstyle-style context is almost non-existent today, perhaps because few want to hear the music associated with that style. I understand the difference between technique and repertoire but with the banjo the two are intertwined. If anyone today wants to learn a versatile instrument capable of playing a wide variety of music; they are very unlikely to choose banjo as their instrument. Other instruments are more suited to that role than the banjo. New banjo players today are drawn by the unique sound of the banjo playing one of the two styles heard today. That is two very different sounds, and techniques. Classic fingerstyle is not associated with any music that is very popular today, and does not produce a sound that motivates new players to say "I want to learn to do THAT."

For jazz, classical, and other genres played clawhammer style, check out the work of Michael J. Miles, who runs the gamut from Bach to Brubeck, and convincingly so.

Ha!
Banjo played in either/any style is difficult a first......Jack

Does this need to devolve into the ad nauseam “this or that” which is better/ which is harder contest?

My general problem with “clawhammer” as it currently exists is the ridged and fixed “bum ditty” pattern which things must be forced to fit in or around. A recent post even has a guy teaching phantom strikes where you continue the pattern but just don’t strike strings.

Why not just play the notes needed? Why the constant repetition of “bum ditty”?

Where is the economy of motion?

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjo bill-e

The banjo in a fingerstyle-style context is almost non-existent today, perhaps because few want to hear the music associated with that style. I understand the difference between technique and repertoire but with the banjo the two are intertwined. If anyone today wants to learn a versatile instrument capable of playing a wide variety of music; they are very unlikely to choose banjo as their instrument. Other instruments are more suited to that role than the banjo. New banjo players today are drawn by the unique sound of the banjo playing one of the two styles heard today. That is two very different sounds, and techniques. Classic fingerstyle is not associated with any music that is very popular today, and does not produce a sound that motivates new players to say "I want to learn to do THAT."

---

The automatic assumption forming the basis of your post perfectly illustrates the negative effect - in practical playing terms - that results from the artificial and arbitrary 'classic' designation.

'Classic' relates to a niche group, first self-titled in the 1950's, whose special interest is only (selective) historical playing and repertoire. This group has no input in regard to modern composition. A consequence of this inherently retrospective focus is the misconception of the historical  as a technique.

This misconception is, subject to any analysis, nonsensical. There is no reason that finger-style technique equates to playing or composing as if we are a frozen-in-time 1900 banjoist. Yet this thoughtless deceit has been unwittingly absorbed by the modern banjo community as evidenced by Bill's post.

The simple reality is that the mimetic repetition of historical  playing and repertoire is a niche special interest. Fingerstyle is a technique. The two have no necessary association.

The creative harm is caused when ignorance and neglect is perpetuated by this false construct.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Joel Hooks

Does this need to devolve into the ad nauseam “this or that” which is better/ which is harder contest?
 

---

When 'the ad nauseum this or that' routinely neglects a technique that proper recognition and comparison would actually be meaningful, that perpetuates both misinformation and neglect. That negative mechanism is then unavoidably relevant.
I have no problem with clawhammer or three-finger pick techniques. They have a profile and a place  I do however, take issue with any culture or mechanism that excludes through ignorance.

Watch out everyone you are literally making Joel sick…
I’m actually not sure what this whole thread is about, but everyone (including myself) presents their necessarily subjective and self-centered viewpoint. I think that’s unavoidable. I enjoy all the comments anyway.