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?

[Jody Stecher]

Yup.

Ethan Schwartz said:

You can't redefine terms as you please and then conclude "like it or not."

[Austin]

That's the dictionary definition of it yes but misses the cultural and ethnomusicological nuance of the phrase. Call and response can be either solo to chorus or a timbral trade between instruments. It's not literally call and response by the dictionary definition, but historically it comes from the same place. There isn't that quality in any music from the British Isles (Singing and then playing something in response) it's distinctly American so it can be inferred that this comes from the culture that did not come from the British Isles or anywhere in mainland Europe. The culture where call and response is the norm in music 

Ethan Schwartz said:

You can't redefine terms as you please and then conclude "like it or not." That's not how serious discussion (musicological or otherwise) works. Below is the entry for "Call and response" from Grove Music (emphasis added):

The performance of musical phrases or longer passages in alternation by different voices or distinct groups, used in opposition in such a way as to suggest that they answer one another; it may involve spatial separation of the groups, and contrasts of volume, pitch, timbre, etc. The term (the equivalent of which in more formal analytical language is “antiphony”) originates in descriptions of the singing of African-American work-songs, in which a leader and a chorus respectively sang verse and refrain or successive phrases in alternation. In jazz it is used of exchanges between instrumentalists, two sections of a big band, and even a singer and his own instrumental accompaniment; the most characteristic forms of call and response in jazz occur when musicians trade fours (see Forms §1, (ii)) and take part in a Chase.

The standard tune "Cripple Creek" consists of an A and B section. Neither, either, or both may be sung in performance. The only thing this singing is "in alternation" with is...not singing. The instrumental parts continue playing both sections whether or not there is any singing. The instrumentalists and the singers (who are usually also playing instruments) are not "distinct groups." There is nothing resembling "a leader and a chorus." There is no "spatial separation" or significant "contrasts of volume, pitch, timbre." Structurally/compositionally, both sections are complete melodic statements. They do not "exist in opposition" to one another. They are simply different sections of the same tune. Playing A does not demand that B follows, or vice versa. You can play them ABAB, or AABAAB, or ABBABB, etc. You could even throw in a C section if you felt like it. 

Find me one scholar who describes old time music, bluegrass, and related practices in terms of "call and response," and then we can maybe begin to have a discussion on its validity. 

Austin said:

I'm talking to two separate people about two separate things within one discussion. 

I already explained the call and response in Old time. Sing - instrumental - sing - instrumental. Like it or not, that's call and response. You may be able to argue that it's not, but it 100% is. 

Three words. Cannon's Jug Stompers 

[Jody Stecher]

I don't know why I bother responding to you because it's like talking to a deaf robot.  You are not fooling anyone with your fanciful fabrications. You've just been told by Ethan, someone who knows through experience, that the instrumental parts of old-time songs are not responses. This is so.   

As for actual musical responses, you are now saying it is purely American. Yesterday you said it was African. In fact it is both. And it is also Gaelic Scottish. And Spanish. And Austrian and German. And in South Indian Carnatic music instrumental responses to sung phrases are called niraval. When the phrases are in solfège it is swara kalpana.   This had been going on for a long time when it at last  became the norm in the 18th century. There are  printed references from the 13th century to a similar practice. It is described in the Sangita Ratnakara. I know I know, its author Śārṅgadeva rode his time machine to the part of Memphis that is in the Appalachian mountains where he stole it from Gus Cannon. 

Austin said:

That's the dictionary definition of it yes but misses the cultural and ethnomusicological nuance of the phrase. Call and response can be either solo to chorus or a timbral trade between instruments. It's not literally call and response by the dictionary definition, but historically it comes from the same place. There isn't that quality in any music from the British Isles (Singing and then playing something in response) it's distinctly American so it can be inferred that this comes from the culture that did not come from the British Isles or anywhere in mainland Europe. The culture where call and response is the norm in music 

Ethan Schwartz said:

You can't redefine terms as you please and then conclude "like it or not." That's not how serious discussion (musicological or otherwise) works. Below is the entry for "Call and response" from Grove Music (emphasis added):

The performance of musical phrases or longer passages in alternation by different voices or distinct groups, used in opposition in such a way as to suggest that they answer one another; it may involve spatial separation of the groups, and contrasts of volume, pitch, timbre, etc. The term (the equivalent of which in more formal analytical language is “antiphony”) originates in descriptions of the singing of African-American work-songs, in which a leader and a chorus respectively sang verse and refrain or successive phrases in alternation. In jazz it is used of exchanges between instrumentalists, two sections of a big band, and even a singer and his own instrumental accompaniment; the most characteristic forms of call and response in jazz occur when musicians trade fours (see Forms §1, (ii)) and take part in a Chase.

The standard tune "Cripple Creek" consists of an A and B section. Neither, either, or both may be sung in performance. The only thing this singing is "in alternation" with is...not singing. The instrumental parts continue playing both sections whether or not there is any singing. The instrumentalists and the singers (who are usually also playing instruments) are not "distinct groups." There is nothing resembling "a leader and a chorus." There is no "spatial separation" or significant "contrasts of volume, pitch, timbre." Structurally/compositionally, both sections are complete melodic statements. They do not "exist in opposition" to one another. They are simply different sections of the same tune. Playing A does not demand that B follows, or vice versa. You can play them ABAB, or AABAAB, or ABBABB, etc. You could even throw in a C section if you felt like it. 

Find me one scholar who describes old time music, bluegrass, and related practices in terms of "call and response," and then we can maybe begin to have a discussion on its validity. 

Austin said:

I'm talking to two separate people about two separate things within one discussion. 

I already explained the call and response in Old time. Sing - instrumental - sing - instrumental. Like it or not, that's call and response. You may be able to argue that it's not, but it 100% is. 

Three words. Cannon's Jug Stompers 

[Jody Stecher]

 The Grove dictionary is descriptive not prescriptive.  It explains terms as they are used by those who use them. 

Pretending that parts of a tune that are not sung is call and response is eccentric.  Claiming that instrumental interludes between verses is of American origin is well beyond eccentricity.  Next you'll be claiming that the Greek and Albanian musicians who do this stole the practice.   
Austin said:

That's the dictionary definition of it yes but misses the cultural and ethnomusicological nuance of the phrase.

[Austin]

Yet he used a dictionary definition instead of one rooted in musicology and history. 

I'm saying singing a line and then playing a line didn't show up in the U.S from India. It showed up when the culture that had been standardizing call and response for hundreds if not thousands of years arrived. That kind of phrasing does not, and I repeat NOT exist in Europe as the rule. It is the exception. 

Jody Stecher said:

I don't know why I bother responding to you because it's like talking to a deaf robot.  You are not fooling anyone with your fanciful fabrications. You've just been told by Ethan, someone who knows through experience, that the instrumental parts of old-time songs are not responses. This is so.   

As for actual musical responses, you are now saying it is purely American. Yesterday you said it was African. In fact it is both. And it is also Gaelic Scottish. And Spanish. And Austrian and German. And in South Indian Carnatic music instrumental responses to sung phrases are called niraval. When the phrases are in solfège it is swara kalpana.   This had been going on for a long time when it at last  became the norm in the 18th century. There are  printed references from the 13th century to a similar practice. It is described in the Sangita Ratnakara. I know I know, its author Śārṅgadeva rode his time machine to the part of Memphis that is in the Appalachian mountains where he stole it from Gus Cannon. 

Austin said:

That's the dictionary definition of it yes but misses the cultural and ethnomusicological nuance of the phrase. Call and response can be either solo to chorus or a timbral trade between instruments. It's not literally call and response by the dictionary definition, but historically it comes from the same place. There isn't that quality in any music from the British Isles (Singing and then playing something in response) it's distinctly American so it can be inferred that this comes from the culture that did not come from the British Isles or anywhere in mainland Europe. The culture where call and response is the norm in music 

Ethan Schwartz said:

You can't redefine terms as you please and then conclude "like it or not." That's not how serious discussion (musicological or otherwise) works. Below is the entry for "Call and response" from Grove Music (emphasis added):

The performance of musical phrases or longer passages in alternation by different voices or distinct groups, used in opposition in such a way as to suggest that they answer one another; it may involve spatial separation of the groups, and contrasts of volume, pitch, timbre, etc. The term (the equivalent of which in more formal analytical language is “antiphony”) originates in descriptions of the singing of African-American work-songs, in which a leader and a chorus respectively sang verse and refrain or successive phrases in alternation. In jazz it is used of exchanges between instrumentalists, two sections of a big band, and even a singer and his own instrumental accompaniment; the most characteristic forms of call and response in jazz occur when musicians trade fours (see Forms §1, (ii)) and take part in a Chase.

The standard tune "Cripple Creek" consists of an A and B section. Neither, either, or both may be sung in performance. The only thing this singing is "in alternation" with is...not singing. The instrumental parts continue playing both sections whether or not there is any singing. The instrumentalists and the singers (who are usually also playing instruments) are not "distinct groups." There is nothing resembling "a leader and a chorus." There is no "spatial separation" or significant "contrasts of volume, pitch, timbre." Structurally/compositionally, both sections are complete melodic statements. They do not "exist in opposition" to one another. They are simply different sections of the same tune. Playing A does not demand that B follows, or vice versa. You can play them ABAB, or AABAAB, or ABBABB, etc. You could even throw in a C section if you felt like it. 

Find me one scholar who describes old time music, bluegrass, and related practices in terms of "call and response," and then we can maybe begin to have a discussion on its validity. 

Austin said:

I'm talking to two separate people about two separate things within one discussion. 

I already explained the call and response in Old time. Sing - instrumental - sing - instrumental. Like it or not, that's call and response. You may be able to argue that it's not, but it 100% is. 

Three words. Cannon's Jug Stompers 

[Ethan Schwartz]

The entries in Grove are written by professional musicologists and reviewed by an editorial team of other professional musicologists. It is literally the standard English-language reference for the field of musicology. To suggest that anything in Grove is "not musicological" is comically false.

[Jody Stecher]

There are lots of African elements in both oldtime and bluegrass music but call and response (as the term is actually used by everyone but you) is not a prominent one of them.  Call and response is an exchange of short phrases.  It is not the absence of vocals in portions of a song.

Now here is an old time song done by a white band that does have call-and response features. It is a song with likely black origins. When the group comes in to sing  that is the response to the call. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jXqk2mPtPo0

Ever I get my new house done.  that's the call

Sail Away Ladies Sail away, That;s the response 

Give me old one to my son ,  Another call

Sail Away Ladies Sail away, That's the response again.

By and by the singing stops and the instruments play the chorus.  That is not a response. That's the chorus being played And the recording begins with instrumental music That is not a call or a response. 

The Grove Music dictionaries *are* musicology. 

In that same dictionary look up "antiphony" and then tell me that the thing you mistakenly think is call-and-response did not exist in Europe.  

As for actual African-derived call-and-response , that is obviously and unquestionably a feature of African-American music and it certainly has been incorporated into other American musics to the benefit of these musics.  Since you want to be a champion of call-and-response maybe you should find out what it actually is. 

like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yvgx6odssdA

and another kind

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdjxvM9KU8g

and this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFWRcXYsYMo

Austin said:

Yet he used a dictionary definition instead of one rooted in musicology and history. 

I'm saying singing a line and then playing a line didn't show up in the U.S from India. It showed up when the culture that had been standardizing call and response for hundreds if not thousands of years arrived. That kind of phrasing does not, and I repeat NOT exist in Europe as the rule. It is the exception. 

[Jody Stecher]

True. Veracious. On-the-money, Correct. Aligned with reality.

Ethan Schwartz said:

The entries in Grove are written by professional musicologists and reviewed by an editorial team of other professional musicologists. It is literally the standard English-language reference for the field of musicology. To suggest that anything in Grove is "not musicological" is comically false.

[Byron Thomas]

I don't really want to feed into this too much as everyone has basically thwarted your efforts of explanation. I really wish that you would do more research into the claims that you make so that it wouldn't be so simple to go against your claims. I offer you examples of what you claim does not exist. Call and response from the British Isles. I Saw Three ships (a traditional song of the British isles) and Lord Randall. Both of these are song of the British region with no connection (so far as I know) to African descendants. I don't know what else needs to be stated in regard to shifting your opinions, however I do wish that you would use your skills at composition to aid in understanding the classic banjo style instead of pushing ill researched claims. By answering this, one can hope to disseminate this info unto others to either add well-made new pieces to the library (like the ragtime revival that happened in the U.S.) or at the very least expose others to the study (Like how joplin studied the romantic classics to better his understanding of music, but played a different style)

Austin said:

Yet he used a dictionary definition instead of one rooted in musicology and history. 

I'm saying singing a line and then playing a line didn't show up in the U.S from India. It showed up when the culture that had been standardizing call and response for hundreds if not thousands of years arrived. That kind of phrasing does not, and I repeat NOT exist in Europe as the rule. It is the exception. 

[Austin]

It uses antiphony as a synonym for Call and response when they're not the same thing. Antiphony is like what you would find in Allegri's Miserere mei deus. Clearly not ethnomusicological and very Eurocentric if they see no difference between the two. Call and response is largely improvisational. Lyrics being swapped out with other lyrics or lines from other songs on the fly. One singer, one close to immediate response. It's not structural it's functional. Ethnomusicologists make this distinction explicit.

Ethan Schwartz said:

The entries in Grove are written by professional musicologists and reviewed by an editorial team of other professional musicologists. It is literally the standard English-language reference for the field of musicology. To suggest that anything in Grove is "not musicological" is comically false.

[Ethan Schwartz]

Oh? Which ethnomusicologists exactly? I am in the middle of getting my PhD in ethnomusicology. Surely, I have heard of them.

Austin said:

It uses antiphony as a synonym for Call and response when they're not the same thing. Antiphony is like what you would find in Allegri's Miserere mei deus. Clearly not ethnomusicological and very Eurocentric if they see no difference between the two. Call and response is largely improvisational. Lyrics being swapped out with other lyrics or lines from other songs on the fly. One singer, one close to immediate response. It's not structural it's functional. Ethnomusicologists make this distinction explicit.

Ethan Schwartz said:

The entries in Grove are written by professional musicologists and reviewed by an editorial team of other professional musicologists. It is literally the standard English-language reference for the field of musicology. To suggest that anything in Grove is "not musicological" is comically false.

[Jody Stecher]

If call-and response is largely improvised how do you account for the music in the links I posted  being memorized songs? Is everyone but you mistaken in calling this call-and-response?   And if the instrumentals between the verses in old time and bluegrass is call-and-response how do you account for it being the same melody over and over?  Where is the improvisation? 

You remind me of the mother watching her son in the school parade and saying "Everyone's out of step but Johnny".

or the old feller on the freeway who gets a phone call from his wife telling him to avoid the freeway because she just heard on the radio that there's some lunatic going 90 mph the wrong way. And he replies:

"Some lunatic? There are hundreds of them!!!!"

Austin said:

It uses antiphony as a synonym for Call and response when they're not the same thing. Antiphony is like what you would find in Allegri's Miserere mei deus. Clearly not ethnomusicological and very Eurocentric if they see no difference between the two. Call and response is largely improvisational. Lyrics being swapped out with other lyrics or lines from other songs on the fly. One singer, one close to immediate response. It's not structural it's functional. Ethnomusicologists make this distinction explicit.

Ethan Schwartz said:

The entries in Grove are written by professional musicologists and reviewed by an editorial team of other professional musicologists. It is literally the standard English-language reference for the field of musicology. To suggest that anything in Grove is "not musicological" is comically false.