Comment by thereallyniceman on May 13, 2013 at 7:27

It looks like this banjo has provided years of enjoyment. Superb instruments!

Comment by thereallyniceman on May 13, 2013 at 12:17

Andrew sent a message about his Regal banjo:

"This banjo belonged to my Dad who bought it around 1936 in Sheffield.   I kept all his original sheet music when he died, mostly by Grimshaw and Morley. I know what his favourites were because they are worn and have notes written on the edges. I also remember listening to them every night at home. Banjo Vamp was one he played all the time. I have just pulled out a copy of BMG from 1936 where the Regal was advertised for £15. He saved up for a long time to buy that banjo and had lessons from a banjo teacher.

The internet has enabled me to progress learning the classic style. It helps to listen to the tune and have tablature. I have bought the 3 books How To Excel on the Banjo. Switching to nylon strings has made the barre chords easier. Thanks for the excellent videos on Youtube.

 

Andrew"

If you need any help with anything Andrew there are many experienced players on here and they are always pleased to help out.

Ian

Comment by Mike Moss on May 14, 2013 at 19:49

That's a great story. Grimshaw did a lot to keep the banjo popular in the 20's amd 30's and there are plenty for us to rediscover. Thanks to Andrew for sharing!

Comment by Jody Stecher on May 14, 2013 at 23:49

That's at least 3 CE Regals accounted for: Andrew's, mine, and Marc Dalmasso's. I know of another in Tennessee. Any others? Has anyone played a CE "New Paragon" top tension model? 

Comment by Richard William Ineson on May 15, 2013 at 6:47

I've had at least two 'Regals' as for the 'Paragon' I've had all kinds, top and bottom tension, silver/nickel and gold plated. My impression of the 'Paragon' model was that it was supposed to be a rival to the Gibson 'Mastertone' and didn't quite make it, having tried most banjos out in the past fifty years, I always go back to the plain, 'spun over hoop' kind of banjo for classic playing with gut/nylon strings. The most successful innovation for this kind of playing was the 'Whyte Ladie' tone ring, other than that, everything else has been very expensive 'smoke and mirrors' which, in some cases, just made the banjo heavier/sound worse/quieter/harder to play/more expensive.

Comment by Jody Stecher on May 15, 2013 at 12:00

Thanks for your reply, Richard. I have questions, observations, and a few disagreements.

I have thought that the Paragon, as the sound of its name suggests, was intended to be an equivalent of a Paramount. Gibson copied several design features of the Paramount as well and incorporated them in their early Mastertones. The tone ring of Paragon and Paramount have similarities whereas none of the Gibson mastertone tone rings are like that of the Paramount (although the raised head with its plateau may look the same when looking from "the outside").  The Paragon in its tenor banjo form is considered by many to be a a successfully engineered banjo. The one Paragon plectrum banjo I played (I think it was an "Artiste" or another of the "Paragon Plus" models) was the best sounding plectrum banjo I have ever heard. This was steel strung of course.  A friend of mine has a Paragon five-string banjo strung with Savarez nylon strings. It's a viable instrument for classic banjo music. The steel strung Paragons I've played were not equal to Mastertones or Paramounts.

 No doubt the Regal is heavier than an open back banjo but the ones I have played are not quieter. My Regal is very loud. Perhaps this is because of the hollow rim. Of course louder is not always a virtue.

I have found the Bacon "donut" tone ring very good for classic banjo as well. The Whyte Laydie tone ring seems to me to have been more successful on smaller pots. Most 12" Whyte Laydie pots sound vague and boomy to me, even with the most careful set up. But the Tubaphone tone ring is fantastic for classic banjo in a 12" pot.  This has been my observation and opinion anyway. The Clifford Essex version of the Whyte Laydie tone ring, that was used in the XX Special/Concert Grand model is another matter. Most of these sound better to my ears than what they copied. Not only that, they sound equally good with steel strings.  

That the innovations caused price elevation is indisputable. A resonator banjo with a heavy tone ring may be harder to hold (more weight on the leg) than an open back model but why should it be harder to play? If the neck angle, bridge height, scale length and string type are the same (and maybe they are not) then what is the cause of difficulty?

Comment by Richard William Ineson on May 16, 2013 at 10:34

It's just my view Jody, I don't want to fall out with anyone about the merits, or otherwise, of any kind of banjo. Violins attained what most violinists would agree, was the best form for that particular instrument in the 17th century, and it has not been improved upon in the intervening years.

I think that the gut strung banjo reached its peak in the late 19th century and has not been improved upon, likewise.

Heavier banjo = harder to play, for me.

Technicolor/heavily inlaid fingerboards = harder to play for me - I can't decide where I am when playing up the fingerboard B&D are the worst culprits for this.

Resonators make the banjo wider so again = harder to play, for me.

It is all a very individual thing, one man's meat etc. and of course, and, like any manufacturer of anything, the banjo makers had to keep claiming that their latest creation was 'new and improved' to maintain demand for their instruments, sometimes the claims were true, but mostly, just hype.

Essex probably, as you say, chose 'Paragon' as the model name because it played on the 'Paramount' name, it was a happy coincidence that it also meant 'supremely excellent'.

What does everybody else think?

Comment by Jody Stecher on May 16, 2013 at 14:18

Me fall out with you, Richard? Not a chance! All my comments and alternate views were intended with the utmost respect. Now I understand what "harder to play" means.  

That respect remains as I point out that in the late 18th century almost every existing violin had its neck altered to produce a longer scale and a different angle. This was true for instruments by Amati, Guarneri, Stradivari etc. There are some violinists in the Baroque camp that think the old way was better but most (more than 95%) think the change was an improvement. I think this provides a clue. The clue is *better for what*? The changes in violin construction were made to make an instrument suitable for playing new kinds of music. I believe the changes in banjo construction reflected a similar change in music and in the times and in the people who lived in them. Although resonators and tone rings were introduced in the era of soft banjo strings and five-string banjos, the changes and developments in resonators and tone rings were made with steel strung tenor banjos and plectrum banjos in mind. A few five-string models reflecting these changes were also made. This was certainly the case in the USA. You would know better than I whether that was the case in the UK, where five-string banjo music held on much longer than on this side of the Atlantic. (On a recent visit to France I met an excellent five-string banjo player who had the impression that  five-string banjo clubs with high membership all over the UK were still meeting regularly). Perhaps for the music that the non-tone-ringed open back banjo was designed, that form of banjo is the best tool. It is not the best tool for playing chords with horns on an instrument with four strings.  In the violin world the various opinions can be summarized as two camps, although there are more shades than the following black and white: one group says that the best tool for playing Bach's music (for instance) is the form of violin that existed in his time. He composed for *it*, not for the far-projecting instrument that supplanted it in later years. The other group says that the modern (c 1880) violin allowed for Bach's music to at last be heard as the composer heard it in his mind and as he would have wished to to sound had the violin of his era been capable of it. I am in no position to agree or argue with either point of view.  My half-formed opinion about banjo makers is that the changes that were touted as improvements were sometimes intended as such and sometimes intended as a way of cutting corners and saving money in production. My personal philosophy is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it". This applies to banjos, clothing,  transportation, and especially to food. I don't want "improved" bread and butter or fruit with no taste. But I think that in a heated house refrigerators are better  than pantry shelves for storing a raw fish.

Comment by Jody Stecher on May 16, 2013 at 14:24

Whoops, I somehow clicked the wrong button or Ning "decided" I was done with my post and yanked my words off my computer and posted them on the forum before I was done. I was about to edit my comment about fish! Oh well, I hope it is understood and causes no offense. What i meant was that although many changes that are claimed to be improvements are not changes for the better at all, *some* actually are.

Comment by Jody Stecher on May 16, 2013 at 15:03

aaargh! typo alert. "c. 1880" was meant to be "c.1800" .  Can I blame Ning for this?

Add a Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page