How many people actually play this style?

[Austin]

I'm curious. How many people even know about it? It seems rare to find someone who does.

[Austin]

Indeed. No denying that there's definitely a corniness to classic banjo. 

Joel Hooks said:

There is absolutely no denying that the "classic banjo repertoire" is VERY much of its time.  And of its time can often sound very corny to modern ears, particularly schottisches.  While not a large part, foxtrot type pieces can also sound very corny. 

I find that for many people, medleys come off as meaningless.  It could just be my playing of them, but I get a "meh" reaction, where when I play Grimshaw's Spanish Romance the reaction is usually positive. 

At the risk of heresy, I find much of Morley's output to be cheesy and "hippity hoppity", just my personal opinion.  I get that this stuff takes a very certain taste.  There is a reason that there is not a radio station that just plays military marches (perhaps there is and I don't know about it).   There is also a reason why so few play our music-- and I doubt it is due to perceived difficulty.  I expect that one reason is that it does not fit the preconceived idea of what banjo music should be.  The other is that, we might as well face it, the majority of people just might not like listening to this kind of music. 

That is okay, because I do.

I also, right or wrong, view the "bluegrass" and "old time" banjos to be different, but related, instruments to the "classic banjo".

[Austin]

Also I have to ask, do you know of any Bluegrass solo banjo pieces with polyphony?

Jody Stecher said:

I did not conclude that or say that. 

John Cohen said:

I don't think it's fair to conclude from period recordings that these players didn't employ dynamics and varied timbres in their concert playing.  

Jody Stecher said:

Right. And more.  Full potential as/for/with/in  WHAT?     Grimshaw and Cammeyer developed banjo composition mostly in the area of harmony. Eno seems to have been more rhythmically oriented. All were also concerned with melody of course.  All the composer/players named by Ethan and myself have utilized these things but also the banjo's polyphonic, dynamic,   and timbre potentials. The latter area is a prime characteristic of bluegrass banjo playing. A good player produces a wide range of timbres.  In the early days of recording banjo players like Ossman and Van Eps played as hard as they could so that the recording horn would pick up the sound.  There was one and only one tone quality.  They managed to produce dynamics but the right hand was frozen in one spot near the bridge.  This, for better or worse is a legacy of that era. Today's classic players sometimes do the same.  Bluegrass players achieve timbre contrast by moving the right hand as far away from the bridge as the 12th fret, as close to the bridge as nearly on top of it, and all points between. 

Ethan Schwartz said:

It's also not a fair comparison because all of these guys are excellent improvisers. You have to be, because solo breaks are a major component of bluegrass. Fleck in particular is amazingly versatile. 

[Ethan Schwartz]

That's a bit of an oxymoron. Bluegrass is an ensemble music within which the banjo plays a particular role. A piece written for solo banjo is, by definition, not a "bluegrass piece," although it may be heavily influenced by that genre's stylistic conventions. As banjoists, we tend to refer to "bluegrass banjo" (because it's specifically the banjo we care about), but this is an imprecise label. Playing a steel-strung banjo with picks does not make something bluegrass. But as it happens, most of the people today who are composing new solo music for the banjo come from a bluegrass background and are using instruments/techniques from that tradition. Guys like Fleck are versed in jazz and different forms of contemporary music, so they are doing quite complex things harmonically, but that doesn't mean you will see the same textures that were popular at the turn of the 19th century.  

[Jody Stecher]

Adding to Ethan's spot-on response:

The presence of polyphony in a musical genre  does not indicate "full potential".  It indicates the presence of polyphony.  As it happens, In bluegrass music polyphony abounds. It is ensemble music. Each instrument plays its own part. That is the polyphony, about 15% of which is pre-composed, the rest being spontaneous, and all of it rhythmically complex. With the occasional exception of the fiddler doubling the singer's melody line there is no monophony and unlike old-time music or Irish session music or Chinese Jiangnan Sizhou ("silk and bamboo") there is very little heterophony either.

In bluegrass music there are no  "banjo solos " in the classic banjo sense.  The idea of a banjo being front and center for an entire piece of music and the other instruments being accompanists,  that idea is not part of bluegrass (occasionally it occurs with fiddle, for historic reasons that are too off-topic to go into here). 

Austin said:

Also I have to ask, do you know of any Bluegrass solo banjo pieces with polyphony?

[Austin]

I get that they're versed in jazz, but that doesn't necessarily mean they're pushing harmony. 

Ethan Schwartz said:

That's a bit of an oxymoron. Bluegrass is an ensemble music within which the banjo plays a particular role. A piece written for solo banjo is, by definition, not a "bluegrass piece," although it may be heavily influenced by that genre's stylistic conventions. As banjoists, we tend to refer to "bluegrass banjo" (because it's specifically the banjo we care about), but this is an imprecise label. Playing a steel-strung banjo with picks does not make something bluegrass. But as it happens, most of the people today who are composing new solo music for the banjo come from a bluegrass background and are using instruments/techniques from that tradition. Guys like Fleck are versed in jazz and different forms of contemporary music, so they are doing quite complex things harmonically, but that doesn't mean you will see the same textures that were popular at the turn of the 19th century.  

[nick Kelly]

Well said ! It always is worth remembering that we here are a part of a special interest group, step outside into the wider world and banjo music (particularly classic style) is like a foreign language for the most part, a not very interesting curio, I have never been a JM fan myself, his dexterity and fluency as a player has never been in doubt, his compositions however leave me cold, many folk wax lyrical about how hard they are to play, how technically challenging they are, how prolific he was but, I believe the real proof of the pudding is that outside of this small band of players, his music is never heard anywhere at all today, conclusion ? (mine anyway) it is just not particularly good music keep the radio on for a whole day whilst going about your daily life and you are quite likely to hear a Scott Joplin rag even used as an advertising jingle but, I bet you could listen for a decade to your radio and never hear a JM composition, why would that be ? I concur with what has been said before, scores perhaps of people enjoying trying to play classic style, single figures for the players that actually succeed at it, so, a relatively small number of "players"

Joel Hooks said:

There is absolutely no denying that the "classic banjo repertoire" is VERY much of its time.  And of its time can often sound very corny to modern ears, particularly schottisches.  While not a large part, foxtrot type pieces can also sound very corny. 

I find that for many people, medleys come off as meaningless.  It could just be my playing of them, but I get a "meh" reaction, where when I play Grimshaw's Spanish Romance the reaction is usually positive. 

At the risk of heresy, I find much of Morley's output to be cheesy and "hippity hoppity", just my personal opinion.  I get that this stuff takes a very certain taste.  There is a reason that there is not a radio station that just plays military marches (perhaps there is and I don't know about it).   There is also a reason why so few play our music-- and I doubt it is due to perceived difficulty.  I expect that one reason is that it does not fit the preconceived idea of what banjo music should be.  The other is that, we might as well face it, the majority of people just might not like listening to this kind of music. 

That is okay, because I do.

I also, right or wrong, view the "bluegrass" and "old time" banjos to be different, but related, instruments to the "classic banjo".

[Austin]

You're right, but if you want an example of using an instrument to its full potential look at Ysaye's violin sonatas or Ernsts Erlkönig arrangement.

Jody Stecher said:

Adding to Ethan's spot-on response:

The presence of polyphony in a musical genre  does not indicate "full potential".  It indicates the presence of polyphony.  As it happens, In bluegrass music polyphony abounds. It is ensemble music. Each instrument plays its own part. That is the polyphony, about 15% of which is pre-composed, the rest being spontaneous, and all of it rhythmically complex. With the occasional exception of the fiddler doubling the singer's melody line there is no monophony and unlike old-time music or Irish session music or Chinese Jiangnan Sizhou ("silk and bamboo") there is very little heterophony either.

In bluegrass music there are no  "banjo solos " in the classic banjo sense.  The idea of a banjo being front and center for an entire piece of music and the other instruments being accompanists,  that idea is not part of bluegrass (occasionally it occurs with fiddle, for historic reasons that are too off-topic to go into here). 

Austin said:

Also I have to ask, do you know of any Bluegrass solo banjo pieces with polyphony?

[Jody Stecher]

These bring out the potential for what? . Music has unlimited potential. A musical  instrument can move the feet, stir the heart, stimulate the imagination, impress the intellect, confuse the listener, comfort the listener, it can arouse, it can calm, it can stupefy.  It can agitate the breath, revive memories, create nostalgia, anger, fear, love, passion, indifference, and boredom. 

 I am not familiar with your two examples but I think it is unlikely they do all these things.

What are you arguing about anyway? What do you hope to prove?  

Austin said:

You're right, but if you want an example of using an instrument to its full potential look at Ysaye's violin sonatas or Ernsts Erlkönig arrangement.

Jody Stecher said:

Adding to Ethan's spot-on response:

The presence of polyphony in a musical genre  does not indicate "full potential".  It indicates the presence of polyphony.  

[Austin]

Ysaye explores all of these emotions and more with just a violin, pushing the instrument and the instrumentalist to their very limit. I hope to accomplish the same thing with a banjo someday. 

[Richard William Ineson]

Why not just enjoy the banjo for what it is? Why do people feel the need to 'push the instrument and the instrumentalist to their very limit'? I decided to learn to play what is now known as 'classic banjo' c 1960 when I approached a local banjo teacher with a view to him giving me lessons in plectrum playing. He told me that he didn't know anything about plectrum playing as he only played the banjo with his fingers. He got his banjo out and gave me a demonstration (he used to play standing up with his right foot on a low stool) he played Grimshaw's 'A Banjo Vamp', I thought that the slides in the intro were the funniest thing I'd ever heard and I just had to learn how to do it. The banjo still makes me laugh out loud occasionally 65 years later, the latest laughing episode was brought about by listening to Charles Mansell playing Hunter's 'Jay Hawk' last week. You can take the banjo too seriously, why put yourself through through the agony? 

[IAN SALTER]

Austin, why do you want to achieve it on the banjo?

[Austin]

IDK. I've always wanted to be a composer, and I think the banjo deserves more respect than it gets. I think I just want to play my own music and I thought a fresh sound would be what was needed to make myself stand out as a musician in that world.

IAN SALTER said:

Austin, why do you want to achieve it on the banjo?