Banjos in England

[Michael Wright]

Hello.  New member from Philadelphia in the US.  I've written numerous books of guitar history, am a columnist for Vintage Guitar Magazine, and am a presenter at the annual Banjo Gathering.  If you don't know of the latter, it is a 25-year-old meeting of banjo enthusiasts that moves mostly up and down the East Coast of the US.  There is always a display room for dealers and collectors, but the main activities are historical presentations, a field trip (this year we met in Williamsburg, VA, and were given an up close and personal viewing of The Old Plantation, which is not on display otherwise), and lots of good fellowship and conversation among good people.  Virtually all of the recent books on banjo history have been written by Banjo Gathering members.  My presentation this year was on how banjos (and guitars) got wire strings.

For next year I will be speaking on the 1890s running argument between American banjoists and English banjoists over notation.  Banjos evolved from being tuned in F around 1850 to being tuned in C by around 1885.  When banjos hit A tuning around 1865 they had become enormously popular and music publishers began publishing tutors and sheet music written in the key of A.  Out of stubbornness (and built up inventory), when banjos rose further to the key of C, the music continued to be notated in A, continuing up until the 1920s.  When C banjos came to England, English musicians said, "What the heck is this?  The banjo's tuned in C, but the music is in A.  No way, Jose."  And music became C Notation in England.  Hence the ongoing skirmishes seen in the banjo press of the time.

So, what I'm interested to learn is if you can steer me to any good sources on the history of banjo in the UK.  I know the Virginia Minstrels came over in 1843 and that blackface minstrelsy became popular, but beyond that I know very little.  The subject is rarely much addressed in American books on the banjo.  I don't intend to focus on that story, but I have to paint some background of how there came to be any English banjoists at all, much less how the C Notation controversy came about on that end.

Thanks in advance if you can be of help!

Michael

[Jody Stecher]

Well said!  

Mike Bostock said:

Here's where we land bang on the crux issue in regard to what is history. As a banjo player I had exactly that personal 'hunch' when I first set eyes on Tunbridge decorated banjos. The care that has gone into their build, their numbers and the deviation from other examples seemed to me suggestive of something 'other' than blackface and fixed adherence to a new Americanism. They appeared assimilative in some characteristic way. But that is mere 'hunch'. No reliable research should be based on seeking to prove a hypothesis or a pre-existing agenda. We have to look with a clear and open view and assess the facts presented by the evidence.

When engaged in research we have to be ready for what is; that may be uncomfortable and disappointing. But in regard to early English banjo playing the evidence appear far from disappointing. What even basic banjo fabrication research does is reveal that the Tunbridge banjos were relatively consistent in appearance and form and were sold at dealers well away from their place of manufacture. But we also find evidence for a wide range of non-Tunbridge banjos (some home-made or one-off) at that time. Social research into the culture and use of the banjo in this early period in England increasingly supports that these banjos had a function other than just blackface minstrelsy and an American repertoire.

Yet unfortunately still we have to field occasional dismissive comments that these were 'toys' and not to be taken seriously. I can speak from personal experience as a long-time banjo player and early English 7-string banjo player (including a Tunbridge model) that these banjos are definitely not toys. To the extent that I have a passion for playing those that I'm fortunate to own. They have a sound and feel that is unique and, we are learning, a repertoire and technique that is characteristically their own too. As I do that I have an innate sense of playing in a strange void between what we are currently led to believe was the 19th century narrative; neither minstrelsy nor the gentility, sophistication and virtuosity of the 1880's and onward.

That is incomplete. To research this period of English banjo playing is not to rewrite banjo history, it is simply to provide evidence an aspect that has been overlooked and is missing and give it the light it deserves.

Joel Hooks said:

Mike, this sounds like a good project to pursue.  Perhaps it would offer an explanation for all those Tunbridge Ware type banjos that are extant.

[Mike Bostock]

I think most genuinely interested banjo folks are on the same page and as you say, want to know more about what happened back in the early banjo days. An effort to research and hopefully more fully understand shouldn't be a reason for anyone to get upset (although unfortunately I'm aware that sometimes happens). For my part I'm just passionate about banjo and curious as heck.

Jody Stecher said:

Thanks for clearing all that up. Mike. And now we're all on "the same page" about which C tuning was referenced so early. 

Thanks for including the page from the tutor. I was thinking "three fingers and thumb" might be another typo, but no, it really is thumb, index, middle and ring finger. Which makes it truly "guitar style".

I'm glad to see this lively discussion here on this website and also glad that no is getting upset. We're all motivated by the same thing I think. We want to know what really happened back in the early banjo days. 

[Mike Bostock]

Here is a rather unusual reference to 'English Method' incorporated within a (finger style) tutor book itself: A. Dobigny (Ed), Evans & Co. Ltd, London 1890. The majority of 19th century references to 'English' or 'American style' or 'method' appear in advertisements for banjo tuition placed by individual teachers or prospective pupils. That has a logic as the reader would want to know at a glance what form of tuition was being advertised or sought, whereas a physical tutor book can be examined before purchase and is self-explanatory. 

Joel Hooks said:

Hi Mike, are you able to provide print examples and citations to "English Style" for guitar style and "American Style" for stroke/banjo style?  I would like to have those to add to my notes for future reference.

Thanks.

[Jody Stecher]

Here at the Ning classic banjo site there has been the occasional kerfuffle but not too often.

There are people in the USA who can't stand the idea that the world is not as they imagine it to be.  The reality of the African origin of the banjo makes them feel weak and insignificant. The reality of the transAtlantic origins of some of the old-time and bluegrass repertoire is intolerable to them. Tell them that The Dream of The Miner's Child started out not in West Virginia or East Kentucky but in the London Music Hall and they simply will not accept it.  Some will accept so-called "Celtic" origins but not the obvious Germanic influence. Some will go in the opposite direction and claim Irish (for instance) origin for 100% of the repertoire.  Evidence? What's that?  Sweet Georgia Brown? Irish!  Under the Double Eagle? Irish, Malagueña? Irish. See See Rider?  Irish!It gets equally crazy in the UK. I know one feller who insisted that Bluegrass Music originated and was developed entirely in England.  Not a distant root. The thing itself. 

Mike Bostock said:

I think most genuinely interested banjo folks are on the same page and as you say, want to know more about what happened back in the early banjo days. An effort to research and hopefully more fully understand shouldn't be a reason for anyone to get upset (although unfortunately I'm aware that sometimes happens). For my part I'm just passionate about banjo and curious as heck.

Jody Stecher said:

Thanks for clearing all that up. Mike. And now we're all on "the same page" about which C tuning was referenced so early. 

Thanks for including the page from the tutor. I was thinking "three fingers and thumb" might be another typo, but no, it really is thumb, index, middle and ring finger. Which makes it truly "guitar style".

I'm glad to see this lively discussion here on this website and also glad that no is getting upset. We're all motivated by the same thing I think. We want to know what really happened back in the early banjo days. 

[Joel Hooks]

Dobigny's method, page 6, "roll indicates that the thimble be passed across the strings from 4th to last."  That said, I did not find another reference to stroke style or even the use of "roll" in the rest of the book.

[Mike Bostock]

Joel, as described below the Dobigny tutor instructs a straightforward finger style:

"The right hand should be lowered to the vicinity of the bridge; the little finger (straightened) should rest upon the vellum, about half an inch from the first string, and about an inch to the left of the bridge. The thumb should be lowered on to the short string;  the point of the first finger to 2nd string; and the point of the second finger on to the 1st string. Then gently pull the short octave string by taking the thumb off and place it (the thumb) on the 3rd string; (care must be taken not to take the first and second fingers off the 2nd and 1st strings.) Then gently pull the 3rd string by taking the thumb away and return to the short octave string, (pull), return to 3rd string; again and again." Page 5.

Page 5 goes on to describe the signs and abbreviations used in the notation to indicate: "1,2, or 3 (when below the notes) indicates 1st, 2nd and 3rd fingers, R.H."

Nothing particularly new or revelatory there and I'm sure most of us will have seen the Dobigny tutor before. The reason I chose to post it in response to your request is solely in regard to colloquial usage as an example of a text where an oblique reference to 'English Method' in the title coincides with that method described. 

The relevance from a research POV is that usage; specifically as an example of an English banjo publication for an English banjo audience containing that association of finger style as "English style" or "method". In contrast to what was, in similar fairly common colloquial usage, referred to as "American style" or "method". We know from our modern wider geographic perspective that finger style wasn't exclusively English. The fact that by English 19th century banjo players finger style was commonly referred to as such is indicative of a cultural perspective at the time.

As you explained to me in a previous conversation that you hadn't ever seen/noticed reference to finger style as "English style" or method" in the 19th century English context previously, nor 'American style" or method used to describe minstrel or stroke style I'm now a little confused as to why you refer to the absence of stroke style detail in the Dobigny tutor?

As I've previously mentioned the majority of this fairly common English19th century usage referring to "English style" or "method" and "American style" or "method" occurs where we might expect, in advertisements for banjo teaching. Labels, or how activity is described by the people who are participants is fundamental to gleaning an understanding of how they viewed their contemporary context i.e. it provides one window on early English banjo culture and how 19th century English players described/identified themselves in relation to the banjo. In research terms it's usefulness is as an evidenced pattern of reference - a voluntary distinction - that can make sense of other contemporary references and possible patterns.

[Mike Bostock]

...where no evidence for voluntary distinction exists one would expect there to be little or no differentiation in that activity. Where evidence for voluntary distinction does exist one would reasonably expect that it was a precursor for some degree of differentiation of that activity.

[Mike Bostock]

The Dobigny tutor contains another interesting reference. The fingerboard chart on page 10 below makes specific reference in gCGBD tuning to playing the high G on the 1st string rather than on the drone string. Most earlier English finger style instruction was to play that G note on the drone sting.

[Joel Hooks]

Because there was a specific reference to using a thimble for a roll in a book being claimed that it is exclusively finger style.

That was one of two books that were photocopies sent to me for scanning, the other was the Morley Tutor (but not Joe). Before that I had not seen or heard of it.  I don’t know how common it is or how wide of a circulation it had.  I’ve also not heard before getting this or the author or seen any sheet music with their name as composer or arranger.

[Joel Hooks]

In J.E. Brewster's "Banjoist", 1885, Brewster advertises his "American Banjo Studio" along side of the medals he won for over-stamping Stewart banjos that he claimed were built by J. E. Dallas (and which Brewster did not pay Stewart for).

That book is mostly fingerstyle pieces, but 4 pieces are marked "play with a thimble."  While he does not use "American Style" he does operate the "American Banjo Studio".

[Mike Bostock]

There are numerous examples of combinations of method within some English banjo texts: stroke style and finger style instruction; A and E tunings recommended for fingerstyle playing; 5, 6, and 7-string technique together.

An individual such as Mackney who was well-known to the mid-Victorian English public for his stage performances made definitive pronouncement to English students of the banjo in his 1863 tutor book on what constituted proper 'banjo style" i.e. stroke style with no mention at all of finger style instruction. And yet the colloquial evidence outside of book publication still coalesced around the association, and endured, that finger style (or guitar style) equated to "English style" or "Method". I draw no conclusion at that, but evidence supports that there was more diverse early banjo activity than a simplistic minstrelsy-to-classic era narrative allows for. 

Joel Hooks said:

In J.E. Brewster's "Banjoist", 1885, Brewster advertises his "American Banjo Studio" along side of the medals he won for over-stamping Stewart banjos that he claimed were built by J. E. Dallas (and which Brewster did not pay Stewart for).

That book is mostly fingerstyle pieces, but 4 pieces are marked "play with a thimble."  While he does not use "American Style" he does operate the "American Banjo Studio".

[Joel Hooks]

This Mackney?

Mike Bostock said:

There are numerous examples of combinations of method within some English banjo texts: stroke style and finger style instruction; A and E tunings recommended for fingerstyle playing; 5, 6, and 7-string technique together.

An individual such as Mackney who was well-known to the mid-Victorian English public for his stage performances made definitive pronouncement to English students of the banjo in his 1863 tutor book on what constituted proper 'banjo style" i.e. stroke style with no mention at all of finger style instruction. And yet the colloquial evidence outside of book publication still coalesced around the association, and endured, that finger style (or guitar style) equated to "English style" or "Method". I draw no conclusion at that, but evidence supports that there was more diverse early banjo activity than a simplistic minstrelsy-to-classic era narrative allows for. 

Joel Hooks said:

In J.E. Brewster's "Banjoist", 1885, Brewster advertises his "American Banjo Studio" along side of the medals he won for over-stamping Stewart banjos that he claimed were built by J. E. Dallas (and which Brewster did not pay Stewart for).

That book is mostly fingerstyle pieces, but 4 pieces are marked "play with a thimble."  While he does not use "American Style" he does operate the "American Banjo Studio".