The English System of Tuning the Banjo, and how it originated.

[Carl Anderton]

Written for The Cadenza, Sept.-Oct. 1895.

By Douglas Sinclair,

(Editor of the "Jo," Bournemouth, England.)

______________________

The English, (and under this head I include the inhabitants of the whole of the British Isles), have rarely of late years been given the credit of excelling as players of the banjo by their American cousins, and much of this is owing I think, to the fact that they have been misunderstood.  The average American banjoist, (I speak of that class who accept doctrine and principals without troubling to fathom their meaning or trace their evolution), cannot understand why the English adopt a different system of tuning to their own, and think with pardonable patriotic pride, that this is a slur on their nation as having founded, fostered and reared to perfection what is undoubtably one of the most popular solo instruments of the present day.

That no such slur exists it will be my pleasure in this article to attempt to prove and I trust my American friends will bear with any apparent patriotism on my own part, when I assure them that my explanation  will be tendered from a genuine motive to increase to bond of good-fellowship which happily at present exists between all classes of players, on both sides of the Atlantic.

In the journal, which I have the honor of editing, the proprietors, (Messrs. Barnes and Mullins of Bournemouth, England), who are, by the way, thorough representatives of the banjo as a classical solo instrument in England, have always advocated that it is brotherhood rather than rivalry which is going to help along our cause and they have carefully avoided all petty national jealousies, which unfortunately are too apt to arise on all subjects directed in common by two or more nations.

When the banjo was first introduced into England it was tuned according to the American system, and for some little time American banjo music was the only music to be obtained for the instrument.  Now the cause of its introduction was undoubtably owing to the rapid strides it was making in the States at the time, and here I think I shall have an opportunity of proving half my case by an attempt to trace the reason why the American system was adopted in America, which reason is to me clearly apparent and easily traced.  I have said that at the time of its introduction into England it was booming in America and I don't think I am far wrong in surmising that this very "revival" was answerable for the peculiar system of tuning.  The banjo was originally an instrument with a much longer arm than at present, and with consequently longer strings which in order to give them proper tone were tuned lower than the shorter ones on the more modern instrument.  As the banjo advanced in favor, musicians began to recognize its merits, and of course began to play from music rather than from ear.  They found that the strings when tuned to their best advantage at the intervals peculiar to the instrument, gave them the notes A, E G sharp, B and E and wrote their music accordingly, the principal keys favored being of course A and E.  Naturally as musicians adopted the banjo, the public interest began to strengthen in its favor, and it soon began to grow popular.  Then, to suit the smaller hands and less dexterous fingers of the amateur, the arm was gradually shortened until at last the present standard was adopted with more or less unanimity.  Now the banjo up to this period was still an instrument of itself, and one which could and did give satisfaction to its thousands of votaries unassisted by the piano or any other instrument.  In fact its popularity was confined principally to the class who could not afford to indulge their musical taste with expensive instruments.

This, then is the reason I advance, that, though shortened and consequently tuned to a higher pitch to give proper resonance to the strings, the difference in pitch to the original remained unnoticed, until it became fashionable and the piano was requisitioned as an accompanying instrument, by which time there was so much music on the market, and so many players who were all accustomed to call the strings by the old familiar names, that to rename them according to their actual pitch would have been a leviathan task such as no one would have pluck enough to attempt and it would have been absurd on the face of it to have done so.  But there was no reason why the remedy should should not be attempted in a new country where the instrument had rarely been heard and where this very difference in tuning (now that it had become apparent) was one of the principal drawbacks to its success.  The English player not knowing of the metamorphosis worried his brain to find a reason (what agnostics we Englishmen are to be sure) for the difference and one not being forthcoming he turned away in disgust.  Then someone "struck ile" by publishing a tutor for the banjo with the strings properly named and, presto--the thing was done.

I know many people have been tempted to sneer at what they term the "English system" of tuning without troubling to enquire the whys and wherefores.  Had they done so a very little study would have shown them that the "English system" was the system.  The "American system" giving all credit to the Americans as pioneers of the art of banjo playing, may have been the system in years gone by, but as with a change in  pitch the system of tuning remained unchanged they are at present at variance with each other and consequently incomplete.  This remark may pardonably draw down upon me the wrath of some worthy American citizens who may think I am trying to disparage his nation and therefore I will hasten to assure them that I have no such intentions.  All I wish to prove is that the English would have been wrong to have adopted an incomplete system of tuning when the field was quite open for them to correct it.  That the policy of the English was a good one I will go no farther than this to prove.  The English banjoist can play from any music without transposing it and knows that he is in perfect harmony with the piano or other accompaniment, while to arrange a composition for the banjo becomes a comparatively easy matter, which on the other hand would entail a most irksome task especially if the would-be arranger has the misfortune to be anything but a good copyist.

By the introduction of the banjeaurine, the English have been induced to follow the example of America and banjeaurine music is transposed to suit the different pitch of the instrument.  This is, I personally think, a pity, but as the banjeaurine is but little used except in banjo bands it is a point to which I am prepared to waive my opinion, with the hope that should it show signs of becoming as popular as its parent, something will be done to prevent the misnomers now existing, whereby the octave string is tuned to C yet the player plays on that string only when he sees G in the music (this of course would be E in America).

On other occasions I propose with the permission of the editor of the Cadenza, to give short papers on other English customs relative to the banjo which I think if better understood would be the means of dispelling much of the prejudice which exists in the minds of many as to English banjoists and their fads and fancies.

[Adam]

Another interesting article, Carl - thanks for sharing.

Is The Cadenza available online anywhere? And what was it? Was its subject specifically the banjo?

thanks!
Adam

[Trapdoor2]

Wow, he must have had his verbosity levels set to "max". ;-)

Very enjoyable...and probably spot on, ie, momentum is a terrible thing: "...because we've been doing it that way, that's why!"

I have a few examples of sheets printed in both A and C notation. At least one of these is two, superposed staffs (much like the common treble and bass staff) where the C notation is the top staff and the A notation is the bottom.

[Carl Anderton]

Adam,
The Cadenza was a music journal or magazine or whatever you would call it published from September 1894 until 1924. At first it was primarily banjo-focused but by the turn of the century it was equally mandolin, guitar and even violin focused.

It was published in the early years by Clarence L. Partee right here in my hometown of Kansas City. It does not, however appear to have been a "provincial" publication but one with national influence and reach. The "notes" and "correspondence" and articles indicate that it was read all over the country.

I have never seen any issues reproduced online. It would be great if someone did that, but I don't know when or how that will happen.

I have the great good fortune to live near the University Of Missouri-Kansas City library which has all the issues on microfilm. I recently visited them to print out articles of interest, which I will share here from time to time. I've never even gotten beyond 1903, so who knows what delights lay in wait.

[Jody Stecher]

Verbosity turned to the max indeed and after all that blather he still makes little sense. The banjo "arms" were shortened because amateurs had small hands? What? Then why don't we see abbreviated cellos and bass viols?

[Trapdoor2]

Sure we do, they're called "violins". Obviosly the Double Bass came first and as man evolved shorter arms, the instruments became smaller and the pitch higher. Did you know that Neanderthal Man was originally called Austrailiocellocus? The long arm bones found in this species were obviously an adaptation for Cello playing.

On the other end of the spectrum, because evolution tends to "self center", "overshot" stuff like the piccoloino died out quickly and the violin became predominant. Only when man discovered the floor could be used to support larger instruments did the Bass and Cello once again become usable. A good example of an instrument on the edge of extintion is the viola, as it requires longer-than-average arms. Getting someone like Yao Ming to play in an orchestra (instead of basketball) is often difficult, hence, the viola is rare these days.

Jody Stecher said:

Verbosity turned to the max indeed and after all that blather he still makes little sense. The banjo "arms" were shortened because amateurs had small hands? What? Then why don't we see abbreviated cellos and bass viols?

[Jody Stecher]

Silly me. And all this time I thought *viola* meant an invitation to look.

Trapdoor2 said:

Sure we do, they're called "violins". Obviosly the Double Bass came first and as man evolved shorter arms, the instruments became smaller and the pitch higher. Did you know that Neanderthal Man was originally called Austrailiocellocus? The long arm bones found in this species were obviously an adaptation for Cello playing.

On the other end of the spectrum, because evolution tends to "self center", "overshot" stuff like the piccoloino died out quickly and the violin became predominant. Only when man discovered the floor could be used to support larger instruments did the Bass and Cello once again become usable. A good example of an instrument on the edge of extintion is the viola, as it requires longer-than-average arms. Getting someone like Yao Ming to play in an orchestra (instead of basketball) is often difficult, hence, the viola is rare these days.

Jody Stecher said:

Verbosity turned to the max indeed and after all that blather he still makes little sense. The banjo "arms" were shortened because amateurs had small hands? What? Then why don't we see abbreviated cellos and bass viols?

[Trapdoor2]

The french term you refer to is simply an incorporated idiom. It origninated as a direct result of of the rarity of these instruments. In the 19th century, they had grown so rare that audiences would point and shout "Viola!" when one happened to appear on the stage. This was eventually corrupted into "voila" thru poor editing and the French propensity to never admit to mispronouncing anything. ;-)

Jody Stecher said:

Silly me. And all this time I thought *viola* meant an invitation to look.

[Jody Stecher]

I stand corrupted, I mean connected, I mean connecticut, that is....

Trapdoor2 said:

The french term you refer to is simply an incorporated idiom. It origninated as a direct result of of the rarity of these instruments. In the 19th century, they had grown so rare that audiences would point and shout "Viola!" when one happened to appear on the stage. This was eventually corrupted into "voila" thru poor editing and the French propensity to never admit to mispronouncing anything. ;-)

Jody Stecher said:

Silly me. And all this time I thought *viola* meant an invitation to look.

[thereallyniceman]

You are both wrong! A Viola is a little flower

Helpful Ian in the UK

Jody Stecher said:

I stand corrupted, I mean connected, I mean connecticut, that is....

Trapdoor2 said:

The french term you refer to is simply an incorporated idiom. It origninated as a direct result of of the rarity of these instruments. In the 19th century, they had grown so rare that audiences would point and shout "Viola!" when one happened to appear on the stage. This was eventually corrupted into "voila" thru poor editing and the French propensity to never admit to mispronouncing anything. ;-)

Jody Stecher said:

Silly me. And all this time I thought *viola* meant an invitation to look.

[Jody Stecher]

That's a varlet !

thereallyniceman said:

You are both wrong! A Viola is a little flower

Helpful Ian in the UK

Jody Stecher said:

I stand corrupted, I mean connected, I mean connecticut, that is....

Trapdoor2 said:

The french term you refer to is simply an incorporated idiom. It origninated as a direct result of of the rarity of these instruments. In the 19th century, they had grown so rare that audiences would point and shout "Viola!" when one happened to appear on the stage. This was eventually corrupted into "voila" thru poor editing and the French propensity to never admit to mispronouncing anything. ;-)

Jody Stecher said:

Silly me. And all this time I thought *viola* meant an invitation to look.

[Joel Hooks]

Our old friend SSS adresses this argument (notation not the rarity of string insturments) in his "Observation on the Banjo and Banjo Playing," page 28. He points out that the "banjo enthusiast, who possesses more volubility than knowledge, and like the empty vessel, 'maketh a great sound.' Yet, the self same person will take the banjo and go boldly upon the stage, -tune the banjo in the pitch of B♭, with the piano, and 'thump' out a March in the key of B♭, whilst his music is written for his English banjo in the key of C."

His point is that the banjo is a transposing instrument, and that forcing the student to learn to play in the natural keys with three and four sharps gives a better understanding of theory. Also that the standard has been set, so lets keep it that way. Seems that he wrote in his journal that he thought the English standard was just created as a slap in the face to American banjoists.


I think that they are both correct... and wrong. It was only natural that banjo notation would be standardized in actual pitch, but even in current times the banjo is transposed with all sorts of unnecessary tunings and patent capo de astros.

This argument has also been taken into the modern era in that because of all the constant altering of string intervals and clamping devices, notation should be abandoned all together and the simple method made king, and music publishers could not be more happy, simple method humbugs being protected under copyright, pre-23 notation in the PD.


History is want it is, after Briggs' to March 26, 1907, American music was written in "A," and as that is the era of my focus, that is what I read in.

This stuff is very interesting to read, Carl. Keep em coming.

[Jody Stecher]

Apples and oranges. Today's plethora of tunings are also yesterday's and they are necessary to provide the requisite sonic atmosphere. Music that is based on key changes and chord changes generally needs but one tuning or maybe two ("elevated bass" on five string banjo). But modal music (for instance) generally benefits from various tunings to sound its best on string instruments. The whole point of using only one tuning is to be able to apply a similar logic in all keys and chords. When there are no chords it's a whole nother ball game. Oranges and apples. Certain chord-based music benefits from altered tunings as well and especially from the use of a capo. On a gut or nylon string the difference between an open string and the same pitch on a closed (fretted/fingered) string is not as striking as on steel strings. Capos are used by bluegrass banjo players (for instance) in order to get a desired sonic atmosphere produced by certain open strings and especially by the overtones (upper partials) of the lower open strings. It has little to do with making things simpler and everything to do with tone and timbre and how the banjo works as a complete sonic system.

deuceswilde said:

in current times the banjo is transposed with all sorts of unnecessary tunings and patent capo de astros.