My Adventuresome Banjo, Cammeyer

[Joel Hooks]

I picked this up a few years ago and have been stalling to scan it based on the way it was bound and printed.  There has been some zither banjo talk lately over on BHO and Facebook.  Somehow the idea that Temlett "invented" the zither banjo in the late 1860s is now a thing that is being kicked around.

With that nonsense floating around, I figured it was time to make this available.  The scan is quick and dirty but readable (if you consider Cammeyer's self aggrandizing readable). 

https://archive.org/details/my-adventursome-banjo-a.-d.-cammeyer

I also got my hands on a photo copy of Cammeyer's "Cultivation of the Hands" which people might find useful.

https://archive.org/details/cultivation-of-the-hands-for-the-zither...

[nick langton]

Joel,

This is a brief article from 1884 referring to a patent for some form of suspended pot.     

[Joel Hooks]

Temlett's knockoff of the Henry Dobson closed back banjo is not in dispute.

nick langton said:

Joel,

This is a brief article from 1884 referring to a patent for some form of suspended pot.     

[nick langton]

Yes, although it would be interesting to see the original Temlett patent if it still exists somewhere and to what extent it may have differed from Dobson's design and the typical later zither banjos.     

[Joel Hooks]

https://books.google.com/books?id=CimDozlmXFEC&q=temlatt#v=onep...

The problem of burden of proof arises as there is never any mention to the magic combination of wire/gut strings, tunneled string, or machine pegs in any of the pre Cammeyer Temlett claims. 

Thus- not a "zither banjo".

Even in Temlett's version of S. S. Stewart's "The Banjo" book, published in 1888, Temlett mentions nothing that could be interpreted as the zither banjo, kind of a big oversight considering how unique and specific the zither banjo is.

To recap, yes, Temlett made closed back banjos based on the Dobson patent.  Cammeyer developed the zither banjo.  Those two things might be related when it comes to post Cammeyer production zither banjos but the claim that Temlett was the originator of the zither banjo does not stand scrutiny. 

When this claim is made, and I ask for supporting documentation, I am either directed to some website called "Creek Don't Rise" or I am provided with the Temlett knockoff of the Dobson closed back patent. 

[Mike Bostock]

Has anyone obtained the relevant 19th century patents? The design features patented by each maker would take the discussion out of the realm of claim and agenda and lay out the facts (and any interrelationships) which are always more interesting and informative. 

As an amusing aside I did dip into the Cammeyer self-penned tome that Joel linked. Wow. Quite separate from Mr Cammeyer's innovation in regard to the zither banjo he really should have been honoured with a medal for contribution to shameless self-promotion. Order of the Name-Dropper? I guess self-publishing was the Victorian era's equivalent of the internet. A format in which anybody can project as being the best thing since sliced bread. Hard facts have a habit of reshaping self-importance and delusions of grandeur!

https://www.gov.uk/search-for-patent

[Mike Bostock]

Personally I think the gold nugget in the article Nick posted doesn’t relate to patents. It is the contemporary writer’s anecdotal identification of a specific social class distinction in regard to the predominant pattern of uptake of the early banjo in England. It is an association that even the most cursory study reveals is shot through the historical record like a stick of Brighton rock. Yet the overwhelming evidence for this key social context for the early English banjo is peculiarly still denied by some. When in fact social context is absolutely fundamental to any understanding of early banjo playing in England; far more so than an obsessively singular focus on the technology of the instrument.

[Jody Stecher]

Could you please be more specific? What is it that is denied? What exactly is the class distinction you are referring to? Perhaps there is some coded language in both the article and your comment on it  that the British members of this forum will understand but the rest of us may not (?) The article implies that banjo performers cannot be from the middle or upper classes. Based on what I read in your other posts I'm guessing that you are saying that there is a stubborn opinion that in the earliest days of banjo in England  there was no interest in banjo in any social class except amongst those who were professional players. And the article implies that there are 4 classes in England: upper, middle, working class, and banjo players.  I must have that wrong.
Mike Bostock said:

Personally I think the gold nugget in the article Nick posted doesn’t relate to patents. It is the contemporary writer’s anecdotal identification of a specific social class distinction in regard to the predominant pattern of uptake of the early banjo in England. It is an association that even the most cursory study reveals is shot through the historical record like a stick of Brighton rock. Yet the overwhelming evidence for this key social context for the early English banjo is peculiarly still denied by some. When in fact social context is absolutely fundamental to any understanding of early banjo playing in England; far more so than an obsessively singular focus on the technology of the instrument.

[Mike Bostock]

Hi Jody, to be more specific, social context is critical to understanding. An anecdotal generalisation will have exceptions of course, but there are typically underlying social patterns to activity and engagement as well as the nature and context of that engagement. A large part of research is examining and trying to piece together the factors influencing those patterns. 

An English context even today is subject to influence of social class. In Victorian England that association was not just ‘codeified’, but inherent and defined practical everyday relationships. For example: village life was based on a hierarchical, patrician system of landed gentry and tenancy. To again be specific the village where I grew up, had in the 19th century, two landed gentry families who owned almost all the land in that village. The village inhabitants were tied to a dependency as tenants and agricultural workers employed by those two families. This system was thrust into upheaval and radical transition by the new urbanisation and growth of large urban conurbations centred around high volume industry which resulted from the industrial revolution. One can describe that a socially-separate mutual dependency was replaced by a socially-separate system of mass economic exploitation. The rural landed gentry system did not finally break up until post-WW1. 

The 1830’s saw widespread social unrest among agricultural workers (Swing Riots). Population shifted as the workforce were forced into the new industrial towns and cities in search of employment. English society underwent a profound change in the latter half of the 19th century. The stratification of society or ‘class system’ dictated associations and behaviour to an extraordinary, near total extent. No activity can be understood without reference to that context. That includes musical activity. What people engaged in was determined by their class. Urbanisation and the white-collar jobs required in a new industrial economy also saw the advent of new (lower and upper) middle classes characterised at that time by aspiration. 

That’s a woefully brief précis of a very complex social context but I hope it goes some way to answer your question.

[Mike Bostock]

There's then the risk of simplistic interpretation of social behaviour in terms of class. When in fact that stratified social context is incredibly nuanced and itself subject to change, both internally and externally driven. Seeking to better understand English vernacular music (including the new arrival of the banjo) in that context is a fascinating area of study.

[Mike Bostock]

Jody, to be even more specific in replying to your question the writer of the article does not infer, he actually states that the engagement with the early banjo in England was (in his words) 'almost exclusive' to the working class. 

[Jody Stecher]

Mike, thanks for taking the time and effort to answer my questions, which have been answered, partially indirectly, through my remembering that England and the USA are "divided by a common language" . I understood neither what was being said in the article, nor your response to the article until I read both again through a different lens. The writer of the article does not actually mention the working class by name. He mentions the class that had been the almost exclusive players of the banjo without actually naming  or otherwise identifying the class. Now I realize the context:  at the time at which that sentence was written it was widely understood that the banjo was played by working class people in England. 

But on first reading I thought that since he had already made a statement revealing himself to be a snob, having said that the banjo had only a small claim to being a musical instrument, he was being facetious and was postulating a fourth class: banjo players.  It didn't seem clever to me nor did it make sense.  

You in turn, may possibly have not understood my main American question. Your detailed answers are about the importance and significance of social context in discussing music and provide a synopsis of class in England. That's well and good but not what I was asking about. My main question was and still is :  "what are you saying has been denied by some? "   I THINK that maybe you are saying that there was an early working class participation in making banjo music in England and that some people resist that idea.  Have I got that right?    And if so, why would there be resistance? Pretend I'm from another planet, not just another culture. By the way I have visited England many times and have directy experienced the class system as well as viewed it as an outsider.  My family history is part working class, part peasant, part total outsider, depending on the country and time period.

[Jody Stecher]

You are right that he doesn't infer that there was previously a class to which banjo playing was largely restricted,

but

What he does infer is that the class that had played banjo previously was the working class. He doesn't actually say so.  

Mike Bostock said:

Jody, to be even more specific in replying to your question the writer of the article does not infer, he actually states that the engagement with the early banjo in England was (in his words) 'almost exclusive' to the working class.