Comment by David Wade on May 5, 2014 at 16:57

Classic banjo has nothing to do with the "blues" I think we are encountering some fundamental misunderstanding of what the genre is.

Comment by marc dalmasso on May 5, 2014 at 17:49

Yes David but the " blues " scales ; pentatonic minor or M are already included in the ragtime compositions of the best piano players  of these early 1900 ' period

Comment by Pertti Vuori on May 6, 2014 at 12:33

To Mike Moss:

Why people use "dictionary definitions", why people define Classic Banjo as a playing style (which has nothing to do with tuning) - if it is not?

It would be easier to discuss, if there were generally accepted definitions what Classic Banjo is, and what it is not.

  *

"You seem to be unfazed by the fact that most (?) Classic Banjo music seems not to be to your liking, that you find it too difficult, too fast, etc."

If I have used "most", then I must apologize. Of course I don't know if most Classic Banjo music is to my liking or not, because I haven't heard most of the tunes. I have over 90 "books" and several tunes as pdf- or image files. There are over 3500 tunes and songs (including Minstrel tunes, tunes in old American tuning etc.). It would be impossible for me to know all of them after playing about 18 months and getting familiar with bluegrass styles and playing clawhammer.

My list of the tunes/songs is not complete and because there are different reasons why I don't like a tune (I write a short explanation if I don't like it), I can't give you the exact number of the tunes I don't like, but it's not "most".

My list is categorized by the style: reels, jigs, mazurkas, walzes etc. If no style is mentioned, then the tune belong to "misc." If I know nothing about the style, I do some research: I read about it, watch videos, and if I decide that this style is not for me, I stay away from it. If the style is not mentioned...

* * *

About blues:

"I mentioned "blues" as an example of how to search for a word in the name of a tune - that's why I wrote the three tune names."

When I wrote Grimshaw's "Banjo Blues", I did NOT add "(which has nothing to do with blues)", beacause it has - there are "very bluesy elements" in A- and B-parts (? - I tried it last summer, so I'm not quite sure anymore where they are).

Last July I tried to find a slow ragtime tune. I found Joplin's "Sunflower Slow Drag" (or "Sun Flower Slow Darg"), of course. But I also found Ted S. Barron's "The Original Blues - A Real Southern Rag". And a couple of days later Albert von Tilzer's "The Alcoholic Blues". "The Original Blues" and "The Alcoholic Blues" both include "bluesy elements".

So I think that M. Dalmasso is right.

Comment by thereallyniceman on May 6, 2014 at 14:08

Here is that great piece of Classic Style Ragtime as played by Fred Van Eps:

ALCOHOLIC BLUES by Fred Van Eps

Comment by Pertti Vuori on May 6, 2014 at 17:01

Thank You Sir,

that was really nice, but you shouldn't have bothered - I have visited Jukebox several times (of course I haven't downloaded anything from there;).

Comment by Mike Moss on May 7, 2014 at 7:24

Hi Pertti,

It would be easier to discuss, if there were generally accepted definitions what Classic Banjo is, and what it is not.

And that is precisely where tradition comes into play, as it encompasses all those intangible aspects of CB that cannot be covered in a definition, including sound, tone, repertoire... even attitude!

For instance, several well-meaning attempts at definitions have inevitable shortcomings:

One such definition is "A versatile method of fingerstyle banjo playing..." or something along those lines. This has a powerful seductive appeal, as it makes us feel that our style is versatile, unlimited, etc. compared to other, apparently less desirable traits (limited, repetitive, predictable...). However, following this definition, where do you draw the line between Classic Style and, say,  melodic or single-string style? Even arguing that nylon strings mark "the difference", there is more to it than that. You can play a banjo with nylon strings without it like sounding like Classic Banjo at all.

The fact of the matter is that any style of banjo playing writ large is defined by a multitude of intangible factors we would be hard-pressed to fit into any definition at all. Attempting to define it is akin to the Indian tale of the blind men and the elephant, who feel different parts, such as a tusk, the trunk, or the side, and end up in complete disagreement when describing the animal. Every one of them is correct about the part they are feeling, but none of them has the "big picture" as it were.

The same is true with Classic Banjo: people can argue until the cows come home about some different aspect of Classic Banjo ("It is a versatile style of playing", "its repertoire involves a lot of Ragtime", "It has a particular tone", "nylon-strung banjos are used") but the fact is that Classic Banjo, like the elephant, is the sum of its parts. This knowledge can only stem from direct experience.

I have over 90 "books" and several tunes as pdf- or image files. There are over 3500 tunes and songs (including Minstrel tunes, tunes in old American tuning etc.). It would be impossible for me to know all of them after playing about 18 months and getting familiar with bluegrass styles and playing clawhammer.

A word of advice: the tutor books and tune books are fine, but not entirely representative of Classic Banjo music. These compilations, which are found on Classic-Banjo.com, do not represent the vast body of individually published solos which were immensely popular, and they leave out the majority of the works of the most representative authors (Morley, Grimshaw, Cammeyer, for instance) who had hundreds of published solos. For the 3,500 or so pieces found in the books, there are yet another 3,000 individually published ones, which are generally of higher quality than the ones included in tutors and compilations. I personally do not care for 90% of the selections included in tutor books.

Comment by Trapdoor2 on May 7, 2014 at 13:55

Ah, the old "pornography" definition. "I can't define it...but I know it when I see it!" ;-)

I would disagree (to a minor extent) that the tunes and books on classicbanjo.com are not representative. They were printed/sold in the period and compiled by authors who were players and enthusiasts. They contain popular music...else they would have neither sold nor turned a profit. That a modern individual likes or dislikes their content is immaterial, they are what they are and it is up to the player to choose.

I find the Jacobs collection books to be a great source, I wish I had every one of them. It is primarily American music and thus does not contain much in the way of the great Brit composers. I find the JAT collections to be less appealing, much of it is light "music hall" stuff, lots of songs and odd bits. The JAT March collections are reasonable but do not generally contain the really good ones from the great Brit banjo composers.

Over my period of collecting "classic banjo" sheet music, I have found a wide variety of music in individual collections. Amatuer players chose what they liked (duh!), much of it is the most popular stuff. I must have a dozen copies of "A Darkies Dream", "Whistling Rufus", "On The Mill Dam", etc. Grimshaw sold a lot of stuff over here and I have a good selection of Morley...drawn from the collections of American players (who, presumably, had excellent taste).

So, pooh-pooh the old tutors and tune books if you like, I consider them an excellent slice of the pie...and don't forget, classicbanjo.com was put together when virtually no-one had broad access to any CB music. Sites like this one have really taken our virtual library to a new high (thanks, Ian!). We still have quite a ways to go... 

 

Comment by Mike Moss on May 7, 2014 at 14:00

I would disagree (to a minor extent) that the tunes and books on classicbanjo.com are not representative.

By not representative I mean that they do not give a global overview of the style or of the best it has to offer. They are representative of what they are.

Comment by Trapdoor2 on May 7, 2014 at 16:04

Yes, but neither do the typical Grimshaw, Camm and Morley represent a global overview or "the best" (whatever that is). This is like asking what the best of any genre is...a very subjective and personal thing.

When I tell people what "Classic Banjo" represents, I tend towards this generic: "Popular music, stylistically of the 1860-19teen period, played fingerstyle on the 5-string banjo." CB is a hugely broad and varied genre...something that really appeals to me.

Comment by Mike Moss on May 7, 2014 at 16:08

Yes, but neither do the typical Grimshaw, Camm and Morley represent a global overview or "the best" (whatever that is). This is like asking what the best of any genre is...a very subjective and personal thing.

But the fact is that banjo players at the time were conscious that there was a large amount of trashy music that was of little value published for the banjo. In fact, one of the reasons the change to C notation was seen as a good thing in America was that it would be a way of separating the wheat from the chaff, allowing only those pieces that had withstood the test of time to be re-published in C. I do believe there is such a thing as better music and worse music, especially in the banjo world, when the gap in supply faced with huge demand was met with the publication of a vast amount of questionable material that they knew would get bought up in the flood of banjo euphoria. Also, cunning authors in tutor books seldom ever included their best pieces in the books, instead offering snippets to entice the buyer to get the whole thing (Ellis did this a lot, I think).

I also agree with your definition, but only because it is vague enough to cover it all without contradicting many of the style's complex and often contradictory aspects.

Add a Comment

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• Next ›
• Page