Thank you for the detailed information, Joel. \u00a0\u00a0<\/p>\n
Physics is absolute and holds true in all eras. The pitch of a vibrating string is determined by three factors. They are diameter, tension and vibrating length. \u00a0The capacity of the resonating chamber has no affect on the pitch. To say so is not an example of presentism.\u00a0<\/p>\n
It is not for another person to say what has to make sense to me. It is understandably unimportant to you whether or not I understand \u00a0something from the past.<\/p>\n
It matters to me.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Trying to understand the past has long been important to you. Please don't talk down to me or any other member of this forum and wag the finger of \"presentism\".\u00a0<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
Now then,<\/p>\n
\u00a0I did not say or mean to imply that a banjoist can tune higher for a concert. What I meant to convey is that except for a few of the very highest pitches, \u00a0the pitches of the higher tuned banjo are ALREADY present and frequently played and heard on a banjo tuned gCGBD without retuning and that these pitches sound good at that tuning without switching to a smaller pot. \u00a0 For instance the open bass string of D tuning is D. Well that is found at fret 2 of a banjo in the lower tuning. The third fret of the third string of a D-tuned banjo is C. That is found at fret 5 of the 3rd string or fret 1 of the second string. And so on. \u00a0<\/p>\n
Physical laws of the present 21st century were fully operative in the 19th and 20th century. \u00a0And those past times were populated by intelligent innovative people who were not ignorant of these laws. There must have been a reason for the smaller body. In the case of the violin family we see smaller sizes for higher pitched instruments and bigger ones for those tuned lower. This is to give the best resonance for most of the gamut of pitches and to create a characteristic sound. But the viola is tuned a full 5th below the violin and the cello is tuned a full octave below the viola. The size change is necessary. For one thing, the instrument had to be bigger to accommodate longer strings.<\/p>\n
\u00a0Mr. Weaver had a reputation as a skilled luthier. He was no idiot. \u00a0If he found an advantage \u00a0 in reducing the ssize of the pot by a quarter of an inch for a tuning one step higher, there must have been a scientific reason. I can't see him doing it because the public expected it.\u00a0<\/p>\n
One more thing, and we have discussed this topic before: The short scale banjo designed for playing a particular regional style of Appalachian mountain music was not created to sell banjos. It started in a small region that spanned the border of SW Virginia and North Carolina. In this small area a small group of banjo players sought to replicate the sound and style of a local guy named Charlie Lowe. \u00a0The strings were taut, the tuning high, the frets nonexistent. \u00a0Kyle Creed began making banjos intended for this way of playing \u00a0in order to meet a local demand. The price was low. The fingerboards were formica! After a while people from outside this particular region began ordering banjos and then others starting making them. The repertoire in this region was mostly in D and A so the short scale made sense because the laws of physics were operating in the Blue Ridge Mountains just as everywhere else.<\/p>\n
You are right about the prevalence of misunderstandings within festival culture, including the follow-the-fiddle idea. But that notion did not operate in the culture which originated fretless A-tuned banjos. No indeed. It was follow the dominant musician. And that guy was Charlie Lowe. And he was a banjo player.\u00a0<\/p><\/div><\/div>\n <\/dd>\n