Classic style composing and arranging

[Byron Thomas]

I listened to the Gordon Dando's Classic Banjo documentary a while back on Chris Sand's youtube channel and it's a real treat. Within the video at about 1:08:35 Horace Craddy plays his arrangement of Duke Ellington's Caravan. I'm having a hard time hearing Caravan in his arrangement. I know there are obviously more songs that have been interpreted into the classic style, but this is the only jazz piece that I have seen. Besides the styles of music that are clearly marked (Schottische, Waltzes, Mazurka, Polka, Marches, Patrols, Rags, etc...) what are the compositional rules of classic banjo that makes a piece fit within the medium?

[Steve Harrison]

Hi Byron, there aren't any rules as such, I've arranged over 800 pieces of music for classic banjo which have included most genres of music. I enjoy the challenge of arranging tunes that wouldn't necessarily be associated with the banjo. My personal preference is music from the ragtime era (or tunes that can be given the 'ragtime' treatment)', my most recent postings demonstrate this. Nothing is really off limits, with a bit of thought, it's possible to cobble together an arrangement of sorts for most (but not all) tunes. Have a look at some of my arrangements that are in the library to see the variety of genres for which I've written arrangements.....Steve.

[Byron Thomas]

Thanks, Steve, for replying! I see your many arrangements, and I must agree with you that a lot of styles are covered. Do you happen to have a side-by-side comparison of an original sheet versus your arrangement that I can compare? I'm trying to get a sense of the phrasing so that, like Craddy, I may interpret a piece from outside of the genre of classic banjo. I have a melody that I like (I know that you know, by Anne Caldwell and Vincent Youmans) but I'm not sure where to start. 

[Russ Chandler]

Steve, could you talk a bit about how you approach arranging a piece?

[Ethan Schwartz]

That arrangement of Caravan is pretty interesting. I can hear the connection but the feeling is just totally different. That's something to consider when arranging for banjo (or any other instrument). Beyond the question of whether or not you can, there is the question of whether or not you should. That debate was going on during the heyday of the classic style: Should we push the limits of what the banjo can do stylistically (into the classical repertoire and beyond) or should we accept that banjos are best suited to (for lack of a better term) banjo-ey music? Another consideration with an arrangement like Caravan is that it wouldn't really work without piano accompaniment. That steady oompa in the background contextualizes whatever weird stuff the banjo is doing rhythmically. So that decision, whether the accompaniment is integral or just optional, has a major impact on how you arrange. 

[Steve Harrison]

Hi Russ, Firstly I trawl the web looking for tunes that might work on the banjo. There are a plethora of sites available with downloadable sheet music, billsaudioreferencelibrary.com and lets-rag.com are two that I use but there are many others. Many of the American Universities have on-line libraries.

I nearly always work from a piano score because they contain  all the musical info I need and I can incorporate the piano LH and RH in the arrangement, often using second voice. I print out the music and in pencil, number all the measures. This helps me to keep track of where I am  in the score and I'd recommend anyone trying arranging to do the same. Finding a suitable key that's banjo friendly comes next, the given key doesn't always fit the banjo. I can always experiment at the end by using my software to change key if needed. I then set up the score using my software and the hard slog begins. I usually write an rough draft before I take my banjo out of its case. 

After that its a case of working through the score with the banjo, measure by measure, until I arrive at something I'm happy with. It's very much trial and error but as you would expect, after writing so many arrangements, the 'usual tricks', learned by experience come into play. My software doesn't have banjo tab which is why I use my own annotation to help players navigate the score. I don't know if anyone else finds it useful but it's a great aid memoir for me for tunes I don't play very often. That's about it really but you will find that the more you do, the easier it becomes.....Steve.

Steve, could you talk a bit about how you approach arranging a piece?

[Austin]

As a composer, I have struggled with that question about whether pushing the banjo into classical music is a good idea or even possible, lol.

Ethan Schwartz said:

That arrangement of Caravan is pretty interesting. I can hear the connection but the feeling is just totally different. That's something to consider when arranging for banjo (or any other instrument). Beyond the question of whether or not you can, there is the question of whether or not you should. That debate was going on during the heyday of the classic style: Should we push the limits of what the banjo can do stylistically (into the classical repertoire and beyond) or should we accept that banjos are best suited to (for lack of a better term) banjo-ey music? Another consideration with an arrangement like Caravan is that it wouldn't really work without piano accompaniment. That steady oompa in the background contextualizes whatever weird stuff the banjo is doing rhythmically. So that decision, whether the accompaniment is integral or just optional, has a major impact on how you arrange. 

[Joel Hooks]

What I struggle with is the use of the language "push the limits of what the banjo can do stylistically (into the classical repertoire and beyond)" and similar "higher levels" type comments.  This insinuates that "classical" music is better than our banjo repertoire, which I do not believe to be true.  It is also much too broad of a statement.  There is a lot of garbage "classical" music.  Then there is the consideration that a large part of "classical" music is only complete as ensemble works and solos rely heavily on orchestral accompaniment. 

 

Taking Farland's setlist, he is playing a lot of extracts of violin pieces (many romantic) relying on tremolo to imitate the violin. He eventually went to the pick to continue this violin imitation, add his harp attachment and steel head, and it starts to be a novelty act and no longer a banjo.  He is not playing banjo, he is imitating violin.  Now, by all accounts, he could play banjo, and very well.  He composed some solid fingerstyle solos.  But his focus and attempt to push the violin imitation novelty often fell flat despite industry backing and promotion. 

 

Then we have banjo compositions like Paul Eno's Polonaise #2, composed on the banjo, using banjo type phrases, but stands up as a great composition.  There are plenty of these.

 

So I say phooey to all this "higher level" "push the limits" rhetoric, our classic era composers already did this on and for the banjo.  Compose for the banjo, but match that level of composition and playability.  I'd like to hear someone try to compose at the level of "You and a Canoe", "Gypsy Dance," "Cupids Arrow", or Cammeyer in general. 

[Ethan Schwartz]

Joel, you and I are on the same page with this. I don't bring up that type of language to insinuate one thing or another but just to recognize that these issues were thought about and argued over (and in some ways are still being argued over but in a rather different context). 

But really, the examples you bring up illustrate what I was trying to get at. Farland's arrangements of violin pieces were not "successful" (however we want to define that) because "he wasn't playing banjo, he was imitating violin." And so when we decide to arrange something, we should be asking, "Can this actually be made into something that works as a 'banjo piece,' or will it come off as a gimmicky imitation?" Composition is self-correcting in a way because even though the possibilities are wide open, you will intuitively opt for those that sound/feel best on the instrument. 

It's just my opinion, but I don't consider that "Caravan" to be a successful arrangement, however well performed. It doesn't particularly sound like something composed for the banjo, but it doesn't capture the character of the original either. I'm not sure it could be done in a satisfactory way. Arranging a jazz combo tune for solo banjo is pushing the stylistic limits, but perhaps not in a very productive direction. 

Could "I Know That You Know" be reworked into a satisfactory banjo solo? Possibly. A challenge with vocal music is that there is frequently "empty space" between melodic phrases that would normally be filled in by the orchestra. So you have to figure out how to fill that space on the banjo in a way that doesn't interrupt the flow but that also sounds distinct from the main melody. 

[Jody Stecher]

A corollary: Dick Fegy was an excellent multi-instrumentalist who played well in any genre.  I was told he had been a banjo student student of Paul Cadwell. Dick summarized the situation from the opposite end, saying that there were no  bad types of music, only bad musicians. 

Joel Hooks said:

What I struggle with is the use of the language "push the limits of what the banjo can do stylistically (into the classical repertoire and beyond)" and similar "higher levels" type comments.  This insinuates that "classical" music is better than our banjo repertoire, which I do not believe to be true.  It is also much too broad of a statement.  There is a lot of garbage "classical" music.  Then there is the consideration that a large part of "classical" music is only complete as ensemble works and solos rely heavily on orchestral accompaniment. 

 

Taking Farland's setlist, he is playing a lot of extracts of violin pieces (many romantic) relying on tremolo to imitate the violin. He eventually went to the pick to continue this violin imitation, add his harp attachment and steel head, and it starts to be a novelty act and no longer a banjo.  He is not playing banjo, he is imitating violin.  Now, by all accounts, he could play banjo, and very well.  He composed some solid fingerstyle solos.  But his focus and attempt to push the violin imitation novelty often fell flat despite industry backing and promotion. 

 

Then we have banjo compositions like Paul Eno's Polonaise #2, composed on the banjo, using banjo type phrases, but stands up as a great composition.  There are plenty of these.

 

So I say phooey to all this "higher level" "push the limits" rhetoric, our classic era composers already did this on and for the banjo.  Compose for the banjo, but match that level of composition and playability.  I'd like to hear someone try to compose at the level of "You and a Canoe", "Gypsy Dance," "Cupids Arrow", or Cammeyer in general. 

[Jody Stecher]

Yes....All true....and......

Sometimes it works. Imitation can be handled skillfully. It doesn't have to be a gimmick.

It was said that the vibrato of bottle neck slide guitar in the blues genre began as an imitation of violin. And the vibrato of violin was in imitation of the human voice.  The plectrum technique developed by mandolinist  Jesse McReynolds, which is now widespread, was in conscious deliberate imitation of the patterns of bluegrass banjo. The thrilling rhythmic alap of some of the dhrupad singers in India's Dagar family (and its disciples )is in imitation of the jor of rudra vina, which is in imitation of the human voice which is imitation the vina etc.  It's a chicken and egg situation.

Fred Van Eps began playing banjo in imitation of the same instrument, as played by Vess Ossman. But he ended up with something different.

Which is to say that "it all depends".   

Ethan Schwartz said:

Joel, you and I are on the same page with this. I don't bring up that type of language to insinuate one thing or another but just to recognize that these issues were thought about and argued over (and in some ways are still being argued over but in a rather different context). 

But really, the examples you bring up illustrate what I was trying to get at. Farland's arrangements of violin pieces were not "successful" (however we want to define that) because "he wasn't playing banjo, he was imitating violin." And so when we decide to arrange something, we should be asking, "Can this actually be made into something that works as a 'banjo piece,' or will it come off as a gimmicky imitation?" Composition is self-correcting in a way because even though the possibilities are wide open, you will intuitively opt for those that sound/feel best on the instrument. 

It's just my opinion, but I don't consider that "Caravan" to be a successful arrangement, however well performed. It doesn't particularly sound like something composed for the banjo, but it doesn't capture the character of the original either. I'm not sure it could be done in a satisfactory way. Arranging a jazz combo tune for solo banjo is pushing the stylistic limits, but perhaps not in a very productive direction. 

Could "I Know That You Know" be reworked into a satisfactory banjo solo? Possibly. A challenge with vocal music is that there is frequently "empty space" between melodic phrases that would normally be filled in by the orchestra. So you have to figure out how to fill that space on the banjo in a way that doesn't interrupt the flow but that also sounds distinct from the main melody. 

[Austin]

I agree that the banjo definitely had found the music that works best on it. The banjo's nature has well been explored but not transcended. They treated the banjo like a classical guitar but failed to think orchestrally. In texture rather than melody. Treating the banjo like a genteel piano is one thing. Treating it like an orchestra? That's new territory.

Classical music is all about architecture. You can admire the long-term construction of a carefully crafted blueprint of sound by one architect and realized by one Artisan. (Player or conductor) Nicolo Paganini crafted altars with one violin. Franz Liszt made castles with one piano. Gustav Mahler created cathedrals with an orchestra. This is the point of classical music. Not melody most of the time, but craft and spectacle. So, the question is does classic banjo or any other type of non-art music share the same goal? If it's just about what's pleasing to the ear that's fine, but music goes so much deeper than that on a philosophical level. 

Joel Hooks said:

What I struggle with is the use of the language "push the limits of what the banjo can do stylistically (into the classical repertoire and beyond)" and similar "higher levels" type comments.  This insinuates that "classical" music is better than our banjo repertoire, which I do not believe to be true.  It is also much too broad of a statement.  There is a lot of garbage "classical" music.  Then there is the consideration that a large part of "classical" music is only complete as ensemble works and solos rely heavily on orchestral accompaniment. 

 

Taking Farland's setlist, he is playing a lot of extracts of violin pieces (many romantic) relying on tremolo to imitate the violin. He eventually went to the pick to continue this violin imitation, add his harp attachment and steel head, and it starts to be a novelty act and no longer a banjo.  He is not playing banjo, he is imitating violin.  Now, by all accounts, he could play banjo, and very well.  He composed some solid fingerstyle solos.  But his focus and attempt to push the violin imitation novelty often fell flat despite industry backing and promotion. 

 

Then we have banjo compositions like Paul Eno's Polonaise #2, composed on the banjo, using banjo type phrases, but stands up as a great composition.  There are plenty of these.

 

So I say phooey to all this "higher level" "push the limits" rhetoric, our classic era composers already did this on and for the banjo.  Compose for the banjo, but match that level of composition and playability.  I'd like to hear someone try to compose at the level of "You and a Canoe", "Gypsy Dance," "Cupids Arrow", or Cammeyer in general. 

[Jody Stecher]

Why should the banjo's nature be transcended?  The limitations of every last thing on this earth is a major factor in what defines each thing as itself. A carrot is not a pebble, not a shoelace, not a Tuesday afternoon, and not the mayor of Oshkosh, Wisconsin.  The moment the banjo is transcended it will cease to be a banjo.  I like banjos that sound and behave like banjos. 

Yes, some classical music is not about melody. That is its great weakness and why some practitioners of some other musical cultures consider its melodies to be childish.

There is no such thing as art music. Each music has its own type of art and its own craft.

If you think there is no craft in how a bluegrass banjo player accompanies a vocalist or how an Ottoman tanbur player transitions from one makam to another, or how a professional pop or rock musician builds a set,  you are mistaken.  

As for "so much deeper than that",  spectacle, by definition, since it concerns itself with surface, has width but not depth.

Austin said:

I agree that the banjo definitely had found the music that works best on it. The banjo's nature has well been explored but not transcended. They treated the banjo like a classical guitar but failed to think orchestrally. In texture rather than melody. Treating the banjo like a genteel piano is one thing. Treating it like an orchestra? That's new territory.

Classical music is all about architecture. You can admire the long-term construction of a carefully crafted blueprint of sound by one architect and realized by one Artisan. (Player or conductor) Nicolo Paganini crafted altars with one violin. Franz Liszt made castles with one piano. Gustav Mahler created cathedrals with an orchestra. This is the point of classical music. Not melody most of the time, but craft and spectacle. So, the question is does classic banjo or any other type of non-art music share the same goal? If it's just about what's pleasing to the ear that's fine, but music goes so much deeper than that on a philosophical level. 

Joel Hooks said:

What I struggle with is the use of the language "push the limits of what the banjo can do stylistically (into the classical repertoire and beyond)" and similar "higher levels" type comments.  This insinuates that "classical" music is better than our banjo repertoire, which I do not believe to be true.  It is also much too broad of a statement.  There is a lot of garbage "classical" music.  Then there is the consideration that a large part of "classical" music is only complete as ensemble works and solos rely heavily on orchestral accompaniment. 

 

Taking Farland's setlist, he is playing a lot of extracts of violin pieces (many romantic) relying on tremolo to imitate the violin. He eventually went to the pick to continue this violin imitation, add his harp attachment and steel head, and it starts to be a novelty act and no longer a banjo.  He is not playing banjo, he is imitating violin.  Now, by all accounts, he could play banjo, and very well.  He composed some solid fingerstyle solos.  But his focus and attempt to push the violin imitation novelty often fell flat despite industry backing and promotion. 

 

Then we have banjo compositions like Paul Eno's Polonaise #2, composed on the banjo, using banjo type phrases, but stands up as a great composition.  There are plenty of these.

 

So I say phooey to all this "higher level" "push the limits" rhetoric, our classic era composers already did this on and for the banjo.  Compose for the banjo, but match that level of composition and playability.  I'd like to hear someone try to compose at the level of "You and a Canoe", "Gypsy Dance," "Cupids Arrow", or Cammeyer in general.