Comment by Trapdoor2 on May 7, 2014 at 20:03

Vague is what I do best! ;-)

Of course, there was a plethora of crap; no different than today. Whether there was a C-notation conspiracy afoot, I dunno...I haven't read much on it. There is a large volume of C-notation crap out there too...much of it is the old A-notation stuff with a new title. Sheet music must have been extraordinarily cheap to produce. Certainly most of the paper this stuff is printed on is the lowest of the low...it is surprising that it still exists at all.

Marketing banjo music in the period had to be interesting. You needed a consumer who could read notation or someone playing your music in concert or a teacher who would shill your stuff. Literate players could review snippets published in the back of many magazines, sheet music and pamphlets...although an 8 measure snippet of music usually isn't enough to really get a feel for the piece (it had to work as a marketing tool, it is a ubiquitious marketing tool). Stewart used all three, esp. teachers and/or concert players. I can't imagine buying a piece of music based on the typical Stewart ad ("Brilliant, all the rage!" etc.) but I guess some folks actually did.

The tutors and 'collections' remind me very much of today's banjo books, tutors and albums. I have bought my share of these things over the years. Most of them hold only one or two tunes that I really like and have learned. My first tutor was the seminal "Scruggs Book" and it is the only one where I learned every tune. These days, it is rare that I might learn more than one or two tunes out of any given book/source. I wouldn't doubt that same thing was true back in the heyday of CB. I've bought a number of collections...and in many you can tell which were the favored tunes and which were not, simply from the amount of dirt/grime/wear from handling. It is usually only 3 or 4 tunes out of a 100pc. collection!

Comment by Joel Hooks on May 8, 2014 at 11:03

This seems to have turned into a English v. American music battle!

To help me understand, we are talking about all the single sheet short pieces?  Or are we discussing the exercises that are in Banjo instruction books

The Scruggs book is actually a good example.  It has short pieces in it.  For grins I got my copy down and played through a few pieces.  After FMB I asked (out loud) "where is the rest?"  I was expecting a three minute complete banjo solo, not two short strains.

This discussion also reminds me of the scene in Back To The Future when Marty plays a Van Helen type solo and finishes to a slack jawed and stunned audience.  Spring one of Morley's hotter solos on to an audience of 1883 in the US and you'd likely get the same reaction.

Skills and average ability got better as time wore on.  The 1880s stuff (really when music began being published for banjo) was marketed for mass consumption.  You don't want it to be over peoples heads-- they will get discouraged and not buy any more.

There is also better strings (machine trued, silk) and the three octave necks of the mid 90s. 

Give Al Camp a listen, he gives a good example of what the people played.  He is a bit clumsy and shows his age, but it is "average music" and the sort of thing you would hear at a amateur concert...

https://archive.org/details/A.l.CampPlaysTheBanjo

Comment by thereallyniceman on May 8, 2014 at 15:55

Hey Joel,

I don't think it is a battle between English and American compositions as it is quite obvious that we Brits were the best composers and players, and still are of course ;-)

 

One thing has set me thinking about the confusion in the definition of "Classic Style".

 

I have always considered “Classic Banjo” playing to be the popular, recorded, style played in the period from the mid 1890s to mid 1920s. Trapdoor defined it as a style from the 1860s to the early 1920s.

 

Thinking about this, I don't believe that here in the UK we had the development of the guitar style (and others) as you did in the USA, so the early A tuned pieces were not played. When the banjo became popular in the UK the music, here and in the USA, was in C tuning. The style was that that had been developed over the previous 40 years in the USA.

 

I have never really considered the pre 1890s playing or scores to be of the  "Classic Style", just a development of the guitar style into what would become the popular "Classic Style".

 

The “A” pieces that Joel often plays I described, for want of a better description as "early Classic Style"

As Joel points out, playing skills improved and more polished compositions for banjo became available (including a great deal of Ragtime) when the banjo became popular over here.

 

So maybe we are not all describing exactly the same style of playing and the types of tunes played?

 

...just a thought :-)

Comment by marc dalmasso on May 8, 2014 at 16:30

 " don't think it is a battle between English and American compositions as it is quite obvious that we Brits were the best composers and players, and still are of course ;-) "

LOL , you forgot to say they made the best banjos....

Comment by thereallyniceman on May 8, 2014 at 18:02

... and we made the best banjos too.

;-)

Comment by Trapdoor2 on May 8, 2014 at 19:22

Well, Ian, I was trying to be a vague as possible, naturally. ;-)

I am an "inclusive" sort of guy. I want to include the earlier phases of CB into the universal field theory of CB...esp. since some guy named Converse thought to provide us with the documentation trail. He deserves the recognition.

This is equivalent to including, say, ancient Egypt as a precursor to modern civilization. Were they civilized? Not to a modern Brit (or even American, however degraded our poor civilization might be). Yet we call it a civilization nevertheless.

The term "Classic banjo" is already slipping thru our hands, the BG boys (and girls) have co-opted it to mean anything played by Messers Scruggs, Reno, et al, back in the 40's and 50's. It is their classic period, for their style. Sure is getting confusing.

I would not include "recorded" in any definition of CB. Whether any given piece was recorded or not seems immaterial to the definition. Such a requirement would eliminate the bulk of Morley's output...and probably 99.44% of the total sheet music output of the entire CB period.

So, generically, why not be inclusive? To the layman, it is simply banjo music...(run away!). To us insiders, we should be more specific and state: early period, late period, Epstrioassic, Precammyerian or Morleyzoic...and we could all nod and have another beer.

Comment by Jody Stecher on May 8, 2014 at 19:25

Whether it's a battle of UK versus USA, or a battle between the historical record, which shows classic banjo to be the music on the Jukebox plus its simpler antecedents, versus the view that holds that "classic banjo" means whatever one wants it to mean and ignores the social, musical, geographical, and historical evidence, one thing is clear:   this conversation is no longer about Kujawiak. Perhaps a new conversation with a new title would be appropriate.

Comment by Trapdoor2 on May 8, 2014 at 20:53

Sorry Jody, we're participating in a traditional 'thread drift'. Don't be a drift hater! ;-)

Comment by Mike Moss on May 9, 2014 at 6:43

You raise a very interesting point, Joel. From what I've seen your method of research puts a lot of stress on digging as much as possible into the historical context and, I daresay, mood of every specific period, and it shows. The scarcity of quality banjo music during the early days was such that the first actually good pieces for the banjo (such as popular Armstrong compositions that were widely published -- and plagiarised!) were met with euphoric praise, even though by "late" standards they are fairly standard.

Likewise, the "human capital" of banjo eventually reached a point in which later composers during the halcyon days of the instrument were surrounded by previously established banjo talent and material, "swimming in banjo", so to speak, allowing them to reach even further than their predecessors -- nanos gigantum humeris insidentes.

That is also one point that differentiates any previous period of Classic Banjo from nowadays -- the accumulated human capital of the period is largely lost, and our starting position when approaching Classic Style -- despite the advantages provided by digital technology -- is undeniably inferior to that of our ancestors.

That is why I believe it is crucial to maintain a humble attitude towards the historical legacy of Classic Banjo and the old masters as the framework of reference for any future Classic Banjo work and to attempt to become as immersed as is possible in the culture and mood that produced these artistic expressions, to capture a spark of the spirit that gave birth to them. That is not to say that Classic Banjo is to remain an ossified museum piece -- quite the contrary -- but that any innovations must be preceded by extensive and intimate acquaintance with the bedrock of the style, as it is with all other arts: freedom of expression only comes once one has mastered the standard boundaries of the art, like a Japanese calligrapher breaking the norms of standard writing he has learnt over so many years in the interest of producing a unique and expressive piece (I believe Eric Stefanelli will understand!).

Add a Comment

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