Comment by Trapdoor2 on March 28, 2017 at 16:09

Paul, I'll see if I can get to it over the next few days. You'll need to get to that E at the 17th fret if you're tuned eAEG#B.

Comment by Trapdoor2 on March 28, 2017 at 16:37

Jody, although the scale-length of the banjo did get somewhat shorter over time, I'm not at all sure what exactly drove that. I mean, the modern 'average' of 26" (and change) isn't all that far from what was common in the 19th cent. The bulk of manufacturers were hovering between 27 and 28 inches for "concert" instruments...but shorter (down to 22" and still tuned to C) was pretty routine. While changes in string technology were ongoing, I think it was more driven by basic human ergonomics than from advancing technology. Stabilizing the 5-string at ~26" was likely more about "who survived The Depression" than "what was technically/acoustically best". Yes, strings played a part...but when I think of an industry trend, I think "cheaper" first and "comfort" second..."best" tends to be way in the back.

I tend to think of "total instrument depth" in the same lines. Really deep instruments (like the Trujo) were just uncomfortable to play. Even though they had some acoustic advantages, playability outweighed them.

Comment by Tim Twiss on March 28, 2017 at 16:42

I have done this piece on 3 different instruments of varying tension and lengths and tunings. The greater the tension and shorter the scale length, the easier it is to play. Did the instrument follow the repertoire of increasing skill and virtuosity.....or the other way around? 

Comment by Trapdoor2 on March 28, 2017 at 17:20

If it did, we'd all be posting on Mandolin-Banjo.ning. ;-)

Comment by Paul Draper on March 28, 2017 at 19:09

Absolutely no rush, Marc! Thx..

Comment by Joel Hooks on March 29, 2017 at 0:49

I might know something about this stuff, but I could be wrong.  I'll start with pitch.

By the late 1870s the pitch was raised to B flat.  Some accounts say this was to play with brass orchestra accompaniment, others because it sounded better.  It was also in the late 1870s that statements like "the pitch should match the banjo size" make it into print.  The smaller the banjo the higher the pitch.  As a rule, at least according to what made it into print, banjos were commonly pitched to A until the late 1870s then B flat.

By the early 80s banjoists began to raise the pitch to C to play with pianos (though I have piano accompaniments written in B flat to go with A notation)  By 1884 SSS was publishing (as was others) that the common pitch to tune a banjo to was C.  Yet as was stated, notation was still written as if it was tuned to A.

Many explanations to justify this were written but the fact that printed music had been established in A really set the standard.  On the other side of the pond, the banjo really did not get started until the 1880s.  C was the standard pitch and the English printed that way from the start (this also allowed for plagiarism of "arrangements" by publishers).

Banjo technology v. repertoire and skill.  Skill first, then banjos.  The improvements in banjos came on the heels of new techniques and a demand for banjos to keep up with the new music. Tone got "thinner" with each generation as well as the velocity with which they played.  This makes sense.  A parallel can be drawn with rock music and guitar.  Buddy Holly paved the way for hair metal bands in the 1980s.  Each generation draws from the last and adds to it.  Players modified their banjos to match their skills and the changes made it into production.

One exception to this is the three octave fretted neck.  In a pre "Journal" circular, Stewart proclaims that a pro level banjo should have a 22 raised fret neck.  This was in about 1878.  Then shortly after he goes into production the starts to declare that no real banjo should have raised frets!  What happened?

My thoughts are that as a manufacturer motives can change.  He was selling a product to a larger market.  One that would not understand what a false string was.  The strings they were using were just double length violin strings and were notoriously false.  So instead of having people complain or bring back their banjos for being "fretted wrong" every time they changed a string, he solved the problem by not selling fretted banjos-- oh, he'd sell you one, but they were for tyros and you were on your own with false strings.  By doing away with the top three of four frets on the banjos he did sell fretted they were less likely to note out of tune with a false string.

With a new manufacturing processes for strings (rectifying or "truing," then lacquering) better strings could be had in the mid 1890s.  SSS then releases the "Special Thoroughbred" which was a Thoroughbred model sized as a "Special" (meant to be pitched to D).  Farland played Special banjos and SSS makes him one with a three octave neck.

Shortly after he started building the "20th Century" that looks like a three octave Universal Favorite.  This opened the flood gate and other makers started selling 22 fret necks too.

What is strange is that I have several pieces of music from the early 1880s and early 1890s that use all three octaves.  Hall's "Blue Ribbon March" was one of these (published by Gatcomb in 1891).  E. M. Hall was playing a 21" smooth arm banjo!

Comment by Joel Hooks on March 29, 2017 at 0:56

RE "Classic banjo."  For this "we" consider fingerstyle banjo from the 1850s/60s+ to be part of it.  If one must play by rules that is all fair game.  The loose "rule" is popular fingerstyle banjo from about 1860 to the 1930s (and plus in England).  Where it gets blurry is with the so called "old time" fingerstyles.  Much of that is basically "classic banjo" in a nostalgia wrapper.  Play it on nylon strings and it counts too.

Comment by Jody Stecher on March 29, 2017 at 1:55

Well Joel, yeah you *could* be wrong about the relationship of banjo size and pitch and history and manufacture and notation and all that. But I think you are probably right. Especially I think you are right about the motives of SS Stewart. I did not know that Special meant high-tuned. Thanks for that!

About old time finger style I think you are somewhat right when it comes to that music in revival. In the larger historical context virtually all rural banjo players, be they white, black, Native American, or all of the above, whom I have met or read about or heard about who were born in the 19th century and who learned their music without the printed page called their music old-time. Some of course had contact with the classic players of their time and their place. But others in the rural south learned their music and their techniques from the same community from which the first classic and stroke players learned their music: African-American banjo players. I think it is likely that the direct-from-Black-players Method was the headwaters of the central stream for self-described old-time banjoist's technique and repertoire as well. Of course this holds true for old-time players of all races.  I think the classic influence on early rural banjo players is a tributary branch but not the big river.  Could I be misremembering this? Sure.

Comment by Tim Twiss on March 29, 2017 at 2:20

It is interesting that Converse kept this "high end" Stroke Style going, even with the Fingerstyle tide coming in and overwhelming it it. What do you think drove him to produce a volume of work with such respect to each genre?

Comment by Tim Twiss on March 29, 2017 at 2:25

The Analytical that is......it seems to have historical value to the development of the banjo.

Add a Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page