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?

[Austin]

The Celtic women are very talented; however, they cannot be used as an example of Authentic music from the British Isles. The original is homophonic and linear. Try this:

(3) Christmas Day in the Morning, double jig - YouTube

Joplin considered his Ragtime classical music. You can really hear it in his later compositions and his Opera. 

Byron Thomas said:

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]

Samuel A Floyd Jr. 

Ethan Schwartz said:

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.

[Ethan Schwartz]

Samuel Floyd Jr is not typically described as an ethnomusicologist per se (no disrespect to him), although his work is certainly relevant. Fine. Here's how I know you haven't actually read him (or have, but didn't understand it).

In his discussion (ch.2 of The Power of Black Music) of the ring shout dance, Floyd writes:

"Central to the very structure of the spiritual, such antiphony appears in two forms: call-and-response and call-and-refrain."

Well, there you go. From the man himself.

Floyd is not making any generalizing argument about what call-and-response is or isn't. He is speaking specifically about historical black musical practices, nothing else. Does call-and-response in that particular context involve improvisation? Sure. Does that mean call-and-response, whenever and wherever it occurs in the world, is improvisational by definition? No. He's not suggesting anything of the sort. 

[Austin]

Antiphony seems like a larger classification in his mind. It may be eccentric but I still don't consider them the same. It makes no sense to me to call these two things the same thing. I'm sorry but bring me my shotgun by lightning Hopkins, and Miserere Mei Deus do not sound like the same thing nor do they behave the same

Ethan Schwartz said:

Samuel Floyd Jr is not typically described as an ethnomusicologist per se (no disrespect to him), although his work is certainly relevant. Fine. Here's how I know you haven't actually read him (or have, but didn't understand it).

In his discussion (ch.2 of The Power of Black Music) of the ring shout dance, Floyd writes:

"Central to the very structure of the spiritual, such antiphony appears in two forms: call-and-response and call-and-refrain."

Well, there you go. From the man himself.

Floyd is not making any generalizing argument about what call-and-response is or isn't. He is speaking specifically about historical black musical practices, nothing else. Does call-and-response in that particular context involve improvisation? Sure. Does that mean call-and-response, whenever and wherever it occurs in the world, is improvisational by definition? No. He's not suggesting anything of the sort. 

[Ethan Schwartz]

Austin, it's not my job to convince you that you are wrong (and when people who are older than you, more experienced, and better studied tell you outright that you are wrong, you should at least consider the possibility that you are, indeed, wrong). It's your job to convince everyone else that you are right. And "right" is not just a matter of objective truth but also utility. E.g., Why should we consider antiphony and call-and-response separate practices? What do we or anyone else stand to gain from making that distinction? I don't particularly care that it makes no sense to you when it makes perfect sense to everyone else (including the respected scholar whose work you have misrepresented). 

Throwing out assertion after assertion and hoping something sticks (and quietly abandoning assertions as they are disproven) is not how serious discussion works. 

[Jody Stecher]

There may be light at the end of this tunnel.  Yes, antiphony is a broad category. Yes, antiphony in classical music has a different feel from anything in African-American music.   No, you don't get to decide on the meaning of words. And neither do I (see next paragraph).  Call-and-response is a musicological term used to describe structure. It is not intended to describe anything else. But yeah, there is a feel to African-American antiphony (aka "call and response")  that is unique.

What happens in BMMG is by definition antiphony, and therefore is also  call-and -response.  Because of the content of the guitar phrase it would not have immediately occurred to me to call it that but I suppose it is.  What is happening there is the insertion of a guitar cliché that Lightning Hopkins had used in countless other songs before and used many times again after that one. It is not improvised. It is pre-planned. You mentioned that the response may be a quoting of other songs. That's what he is doing here: quoting himself, although this is a common guitar lick, not invented by him.  

At the risk of tediously repeating myself there is nothing uniquely American or African-American about inserting instrumental lines between sung words.   It exists on other continents and is used  by Arabs, Europeans, and Asians. 

The content of both call and response is another matter. No one is going to mistake Lighting Hopkins for an Uzbek from Bukhara.   Hopkins is from Texas. Bukhara is in Uzbekistan. Neither one is part of Appalachia.  

Austin said:

Antiphony seems like a larger classification in his mind. It may be eccentric but I still don't consider them the same. It makes no sense to me to call these two things the same thing. I'm sorry but bring me my shotgun by lightning Hopkins, and Miserere Mei Deus do not sound like the same thing nor do they behave the same

Ethan Schwartz said:

Samuel Floyd Jr is not typically described as an ethnomusicologist per se (no disrespect to him), although his work is certainly relevant. Fine. Here's how I know you haven't actually read him (or have, but didn't understand it).

In his discussion (ch.2 of The Power of Black Music) of the ring shout dance, Floyd writes:

"Central to the very structure of the spiritual, such antiphony appears in two forms: call-and-response and call-and-refrain."

Well, there you go. From the man himself.

Floyd is not making any generalizing argument about what call-and-response is or isn't. He is speaking specifically about historical black musical practices, nothing else. Does call-and-response in that particular context involve improvisation? Sure. Does that mean call-and-response, whenever and wherever it occurs in the world, is improvisational by definition? No. He's not suggesting anything of the sort. 

[Austin]

A non-eurocentric point of view that's what we stand to gain from making the distinction 
What is your opinion on cultural appropriation as An ethno musicologist? 
Ethan Schwartz said:

Austin, it's not my job to convince you that you are wrong (and when people who are older than you, more experienced, and better studied tell you outright that you are wrong, you should at least consider the possibility that you are, indeed, wrong). It's your job to convince everyone else that you are right. And "right" is not just a matter of objective truth but also utility. E.g., Why should we consider antiphony and call-and-response separate practices? What do we or anyone else stand to gain from making that distinction? I don't particularly care that it makes no sense to you when it makes perfect sense to everyone else (including the respected scholar whose work you have misrepresented). 

Throwing out assertion after assertion and hoping something sticks (and quietly abandoning assertions as they are disproven) is not how serious discussion works. 

[Austin]

It has no use in the cultures where the people of Appalachia came from in majority. Irish tradition, Scottish tradition, and English tradition. Or if we were to get really specific the Ulster-Scots. 

Call and Response is what the culture calls it. It's the Hip Hop term.

Jody Stecher said:

There may be light at the end of this tunnel.  Yes, antiphony is a broad category. Yes, antiphony in classical music has a different feel from anything in African-American music.   No, you don't get to decide on the meaning of words. And neither do I (see next paragraph).  Call-and-response is a musicological term used to describe structure. It is not intended to describe anything else. But yeah, there is a feel to African-American antiphony (aka "call and response")  that is unique.

What happens in BMMG is by definition antiphony, and therefore is also  call-and -response.  Because of the content of the guitar phrase it would not have immediately occurred to me to call it that but I suppose it is.  What is happening there is the insertion of a guitar cliché that Lightning Hopkins had used in countless other songs before and used many times again after that one. It is not improvised. It is pre-planned. You mentioned that the response may be a quoting of other songs. That's what he is doing here: quoting himself, although this is a common guitar lick, not invented by him.  

At the risk of tediously repeating myself there is nothing uniquely American or African-American about inserting instrumental lines between sung words.   It exists on other continents and is used  by Arabs, Europeans, and Asians. 

The content of both call and response is another matter. No one is going to mistake Lighting Hopkins for an Uzbek from Bukhara.   Hopkins is from Texas. Bukhara is in Uzbekistan. Neither one is part of Appalachia.  

Austin said:

Antiphony seems like a larger classification in his mind. It may be eccentric but I still don't consider them the same. It makes no sense to me to call these two things the same thing. I'm sorry but bring me my shotgun by lightning Hopkins, and Miserere Mei Deus do not sound like the same thing nor do they behave the same

Ethan Schwartz said:

Samuel Floyd Jr is not typically described as an ethnomusicologist per se (no disrespect to him), although his work is certainly relevant. Fine. Here's how I know you haven't actually read him (or have, but didn't understand it).

In his discussion (ch.2 of The Power of Black Music) of the ring shout dance, Floyd writes:

"Central to the very structure of the spiritual, such antiphony appears in two forms: call-and-response and call-and-refrain."

Well, there you go. From the man himself.

Floyd is not making any generalizing argument about what call-and-response is or isn't. He is speaking specifically about historical black musical practices, nothing else. Does call-and-response in that particular context involve improvisation? Sure. Does that mean call-and-response, whenever and wherever it occurs in the world, is improvisational by definition? No. He's not suggesting anything of the sort. 

[Byron Thomas]

I'm presenting the song "I saw three ships" as part of my argument, not the Celtic Woman group. They just happen to be the vessel but are representing the style of call-and-response for this song that comes from the British Isles. Searches online keep turning up that this song is call-and-response. It may not be done in the same way as the blues, but call-and-response is not defined by any one genre. It's a way to structure part of a song or the whole piece. As for Joplin, how he felt about his music is irrelevant to my point. He studied the music that came before him and didn't write it off as antiquity. Instead, he learned from the piano music before him and carried on with what he wanted to create. Similar to how someone like Tony Trischka knows how to play classic banjo pieces but has used the knowledge of these songs to better his foundation as a banjo player versus deciding to be a primarily Classic Style banjoist. 

Austin said:

The Celtic women are very talented; however, they cannot be used as an example of Authentic music from the British Isles. The original is homophonic and linear. Try this:

(3) Christmas Day in the Morning, double jig - YouTube

Joplin considered his Ragtime classical music. You can really hear it in his later compositions and his Opera. 

[Jody Stecher]

You're still banging on about Appalachia?  

Austin said:

It has no use in the cultures where the people of Appalachia came from in majority. Irish tradition, Scottish tradition, and English tradition. Or if we were to get really specific the Ulster-Scots. 

Call and Response is what the culture calls it. It's the Hip Hop term.

Jody Stecher said:

There may be light at the end of this tunnel.  Yes, antiphony is a broad category. Yes, antiphony in classical music has a different feel from anything in African-American music.   No, you don't get to decide on the meaning of words. And neither do I (see next paragraph).  Call-and-response is a musicological term used to describe structure. It is not intended to describe anything else. But yeah, there is a feel to African-American antiphony (aka "call and response")  that is unique.

What happens in BMMG is by definition antiphony, and therefore is also  call-and -response.  Because of the content of the guitar phrase it would not have immediately occurred to me to call it that but I suppose it is.  What is happening there is the insertion of a guitar cliché that Lightning Hopkins had used in countless other songs before and used many times again after that one. It is not improvised. It is pre-planned. You mentioned that the response may be a quoting of other songs. That's what he is doing here: quoting himself, although this is a common guitar lick, not invented by him.  

At the risk of tediously repeating myself there is nothing uniquely American or African-American about inserting instrumental lines between sung words.   It exists on other continents and is used  by Arabs, Europeans, and Asians. 

The content of both call and response is another matter. No one is going to mistake Lighting Hopkins for an Uzbek from Bukhara.   Hopkins is from Texas. Bukhara is in Uzbekistan. Neither one is part of Appalachia.  

Austin said:

Antiphony seems like a larger classification in his mind. It may be eccentric but I still don't consider them the same. It makes no sense to me to call these two things the same thing. I'm sorry but bring me my shotgun by lightning Hopkins, and Miserere Mei Deus do not sound like the same thing nor do they behave the same

Ethan Schwartz said:

Samuel Floyd Jr is not typically described as an ethnomusicologist per se (no disrespect to him), although his work is certainly relevant. Fine. Here's how I know you haven't actually read him (or have, but didn't understand it).

In his discussion (ch.2 of The Power of Black Music) of the ring shout dance, Floyd writes:

"Central to the very structure of the spiritual, such antiphony appears in two forms: call-and-response and call-and-refrain."

Well, there you go. From the man himself.

Floyd is not making any generalizing argument about what call-and-response is or isn't. He is speaking specifically about historical black musical practices, nothing else. Does call-and-response in that particular context involve improvisation? Sure. Does that mean call-and-response, whenever and wherever it occurs in the world, is improvisational by definition? No. He's not suggesting anything of the sort. 

[Byron Thomas]

Examples of use from these cultures has been presented. While it's great to have these discussions, keeping it on topic would help out. At this point you would be better off starting a new discussion(s) so that you can get more concise answers to the questions that may be plaguing you. At the end of the day this discussion was to aid in understanding composing and arranging in the classic style. But that is layers away from (not separate from) opinions on cultural appropriation.

I don't know why Hip-Hop has entered the fray but again this would be better in another discussion. Call and response predate Hip-Hop by too many musical examples and genres to just start listing.

As to a point that you made earlier:

"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."

May I direct your attention to our humble Original Recordings where one may go and experience these "new" orchestral textures of the banjo via the London Banjo Club. Syncopatin Shuffle

Austin said:

It has no use in the cultures where the people of Appalachia came from in majority. Irish tradition, Scottish tradition, and English tradition. Or if we were to get really specific the Ulster-Scots. 

Call and Response is what the culture calls it. It's the Hip Hop term.

[Austin]

This is orchestral texture

Byron Thomas said:

Examples of use from these cultures has been presented. While it's great to have these discussions, keeping it on topic would help out. At this point you would be better off starting a new discussion(s) so that you can get more concise answers to the questions that may be plaguing you. At the end of the day this discussion was to aid in understanding composing and arranging in the classic style. But that is layers away from (not separate from) opinions on cultural appropriation.

I don't know why Hip-Hop has entered the fray but again this would be better in another discussion. Call and response predate Hip-Hop by too many musical examples and genres to just start listing.

As to a point that you made earlier:

"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."

May I direct your attention to our humble Original Recordings where one may go and experience these "new" orchestral textures of the banjo via the London Banjo Club. Syncopatin Shuffle

Austin said:

It has no use in the cultures where the people of Appalachia came from in majority. Irish tradition, Scottish tradition, and English tradition. Or if we were to get really specific the Ulster-Scots. 

Call and Response is what the culture calls it. It's the Hip Hop term.