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]

Byron,  I *think* Austin means treating a single banjo as an orchestra, bringing out different tone colors  and doing this at once by a single player.

This was not the norm in during the "Golden Age" of recording of classic banjo,  In the cylinder days and acoustic recording days  and on the concert stage playing as hard as humanly possible was necessary and this resulted in a monochromatic sound.  This way of playing remained for decades after it was necessary.  

By the way, the stringing of zither-banjo with different materials (gut, steel, silk, copper) resulted in a variety of timbres but it is not spectacular nor is anything transcended.

My opinion is that no compositional changes or technique changes will stop the banjo from sounding like a banjo.  Structural changes in how the instrument is built might well make changes. But will this be a better instrument? Will it still be a banjo?   

Byron Thomas said: (quoting Austin at first)

"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

[Ethan Schwartz]

This will be my last reply as this whole thing is clearly a waste of time and a distraction from what could otherwise be a productive and practically useful discussion about arranging for the banjo. 

1. This hypothetical distinction assumes that "antiphony" is a Eurocentric term, whereas "call and response" is not. Based on what? (Note: I am asking this rhetorically; please do not answer, because I do not care). We've already seen that both are used, sometimes interchangeably, by musicologists to refer to a wide variety of musical traditions. "Call and response" is not some indigenous term invented by black folk musicians to describe their own music.

2. Simply swapping out one term for another does not change anybody's point of view. Yes, our choice of words matters, and there are situations where reclaiming or normalizing a marginalized term/concept is meaningful. This is not one of those situations. Replacing "antiphony" with "call and response" is not doing anything to raise awareness of "hidden" (again, not really; lots of work has been done on this, you just aren't aware of it) black influence on conventionally white musical practices.

3. Quibbling over the definition and application of established terms is bad form. Arbitrarily redefining those terms to support an argument is worse form. 

4. Asking about my "opinion" of cultural appropriation (What am I gonna say? Oh I just love appropriating stuff from other cultures!) is disingenous and nothing more than an ad hominem disguised as a question. I should instead be asking you (and again, I do not actually want an answer) why you feel it's your place to defend cultures and musical practices you are not only not a part of but also do not understand, as evidenced by pretty much everything you've said. 

Austin said:

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? 

[Jody Stecher]

Good idea, Ethan. Let's put an end to this nonsense. I'm done as well. No point in talking to a wall. 

Ethan Schwartz said:

This will be my last reply as this whole thing is clearly a waste of time and a distraction from what could otherwise be a productive and practically useful discussion about arranging for the banjo. 

1. This hypothetical distinction assumes that "antiphony" is a Eurocentric term, whereas "call and response" is not. Based on what? (Note: I am asking this rhetorically; please do not answer, because I do not care). We've already seen that both are used, sometimes interchangeably, by musicologists to refer to a wide variety of musical traditions. "Call and response" is not some indigenous term invented by black folk musicians to describe their own music.

2. Simply swapping out one term for another does not change anybody's point of view. Yes, our choice of words matters, and there are situations where reclaiming or normalizing a marginalized term/concept is meaningful. This is not one of those situations. Replacing "antiphony" with "call and response" is not doing anything to raise awareness of "hidden" (again, not really; lots of work has been done on this, you just aren't aware of it) black influence on conventionally white musical practices.

3. Quibbling over the definition and application of established terms is bad form. Arbitrarily redefining those terms to support an argument is worse form. 

4. Asking about my "opinion" of cultural appropriation (What am I gonna say? Oh I just love appropriating stuff from other cultures!) is disingenous and nothing more than an ad hominem disguised as a question. I should instead be asking you (and again, I do not actually want an answer) why you feel it's your place to defend cultures and musical practices you are not only not a part of but also do not understand, as evidenced by pretty much everything you've said. 

Austin said:

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? 

[Austin]

"Replacing "antiphony" with "call and response" is not doing anything to raise awareness of "hidden" (again, not really; lots of work has been done on this, you just aren't aware of it) black influence on conventionally white musical practices." 

First of all, Black influences on conventionally White musical practices?  That is a horrifyingly Eurocentric way to put it. Seriously an F minus of a thesis statement. No one should write a book on that. Or at least phrase it like that. 

The phrase call and response bears centuries of a shared history, communal survival, and defiance. How could you not see the harm in lumping everything that seems similar on a surface level together? 

Ethan Schwartz said:

This will be my last reply as this whole thing is clearly a waste of time and a distraction from what could otherwise be a productive and practically useful discussion about arranging for the banjo. 

1. This hypothetical distinction assumes that "antiphony" is a Eurocentric term, whereas "call and response" is not. Based on what? (Note: I am asking this rhetorically; please do not answer, because I do not care). We've already seen that both are used, sometimes interchangeably, by musicologists to refer to a wide variety of musical traditions. "Call and response" is not some indigenous term invented by black folk musicians to describe their own music.

2. Simply swapping out one term for another does not change anybody's point of view. Yes, our choice of words matters, and there are situations where reclaiming or normalizing a marginalized term/concept is meaningful. This is not one of those situations. Replacing "antiphony" with "call and response" is not doing anything to raise awareness of "hidden" (again, not really; lots of work has been done on this, you just aren't aware of it) black influence on conventionally white musical practices.

3. Quibbling over the definition and application of established terms is bad form. Arbitrarily redefining those terms to support an argument is worse form. 

4. Asking about my "opinion" of cultural appropriation (What am I gonna say? Oh I just love appropriating stuff from other cultures!) is disingenous and nothing more than an ad hominem disguised as a question. I should instead be asking you (and again, I do not actually want an answer) why you feel it's your place to defend cultures and musical practices you are not only not a part of but also do not understand, as evidenced by pretty much everything you've said. 

Austin said:

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?