No-knot tailpiece questions

[carrie horgan]

What is the best method to tie strings to a no-knot tailpiece?  I have a banjo which came strung with nylaguts and I want to replace the fourth with a silverwound (however, it looks too narrow!). Or is it better to get a different type of tailpiece.  I love the one on my CE Special - so easy to use.

Here is the tailpiece and a rescued knot!  Wish I hadn't started tinkering now....I haven't got the necessary Scout's skills….

[Jody Stecher]

In my opinion the best tailpiece for the XX is the Clifford Essex tailpiece it had when it was new. I wonder what happened to it. I don't like the narrow version of today's No Knot tailpieces. Too difficult to use and the sound is not as good as with other tailpieces. I find this to be true for all banjos, strings, heads, and bridges. If the original tailpiece is lost and/or you can't find another, there are other options, new and old.

No such consistency can be found with nylgut strings. The original two formulations were were good or excellent on some banjos and just awful on others. Aquila never heard the adage "If it ain't broke, don't fix it".  Newer formulations sound worse on more banjos, no matter what head, bridge, or tailpiece.  The red formulation seems to be the most consistent in that it sound bad on more banjos.   The unwound 4th string of all formulations seems to sound dead on most banjos.  

Meanwhile their Uke strings seem to be consistently good.

You haven't mentioned nylon strings as a possibility, That's where I would start.   If I remember right, I tried gut, nylgut, and nylon on my XX and nylon was the best.  I don't remember the brand or whether it was rectified or not.

[Joel Hooks]

The OEM tailpiece on Rob's XX would be like this one:

My guess is that years of wire strings eventually pulled off a post or two.  Wire strings will pull apart tailpieces designed for wire, those intended for gut do not stand a chance.  In my experience tailpieces tend to get destroyed and discarded, not "lost".

Rob's XX has been modified with the usual "hack repair" of adding a block of wood to the dowel change the neck angle for wire strings.  Additionally it has had a strange name plate made of wood added for some reason.  It is possible that the Far East "no knot" was added when these "repairs" were done. 

It also looks like it was refretted with very large guitar fret wire.

[Jody Stecher]

Right. And I think that sound is the best for 19th century repertoire.

The CD double XX Special is a *Special* case. Its heavy tone ring and half clad rim etc create a sound that is complex, sweet, and deep, as well as clear. Its design is based on the American Fairbanks/Vega Whyte Laydie model but that is just a starting point. Its sound is deeper than the typical 11 inch pot WL and its sustain is shorter. The short sustain gives clarity without shrillness. Meanwhile a natural vellum or a Fiberskyn can be over-dark sounding The original CE tailpiece design provides a bit of downward pressure which causes the strings to leave the bridge at a steeper angle than a floating tailpiece would create. The result is a reduction in "mud".  That's why I think the original tailpiece really works well on this model.  

On the other hand there is no One Sound that all metal tailpieces cause. And some metal tailpieces are very light in weight. It was even discovered that banjos fitted with the metal tailpieces that have a cover sound remarkably different with the cover open than when it is closed!

Mike Bostock said:

I guess it depends on the sound we're looking for. I get the impression that most if not all fans of the Morley, Grimshaw, Van Eps era playing favour that cutting, chirruping, somewhat harder or more brittle tone. A heavier metal tailpiece will likely help sound in that direction.

My own preference on 19th century banjos is a 'floating' ebony tailpiece (even on a Dallas which didn't have a wooden tailpiece originally). That set-up contributes to a sound that is something else entirely and that, combined with fretless or flush fret arm, my hands, ears - and heart - like very much. Doubt that my antiquated musical Luddite-ism would've passed muster in 1890's London professional banjoist circles though. ;-)

[Rob MacKillop]

Yes, Joel, that OEM tailpiece is what I have in mind for it. I just can’t locate one at the moment. As for the rest, it remains the best banjo I’ve ever played, so I’m in no rush to completely change it. 

Jody, I agree with everything you say about Aquila. One day they make the string of my dreams, and the next day discontinue it, replace it with something useless. My favourite gut these days is made by Pirastro. Eventually I’ll get around to furnishing the XX with that. In the meantime it is like a slightly surreal zither banjo, with nylgut 2 and 3, steel 1 and 5, and a steel-wound 4th. 

[Jody Stecher]

I think we are equally reasonable and equally subjective using our respective versions of the English language. In the USA to say one thinks something is best means, in certain contexts, the same as " I prefer it this way".  "I think" is a qualifier that indicates an opinion, not an objective statement of fact.  

Mike Bostock said:

'Preferred' by identifiable individual banjoists (when we know their personal choice of instrument) seems a reasonable statement that can be justified contextually. We need to be far more careful in regard to the use of generalised, highly judgemental assessments applied to vague, non-specific terms such as '19th century repertoire'. People's concepts of desirability and choice are also influenced and shaped culturally. To ignore that complex influence is where we confront an obstacle to understanding of our own making. What the use of the word 'best' (and other similar colloquial labels) does is to unwittingly fall into the trap of adhering exclusively to one cultural influence and thereby 'occupy' a constructed 'stylistic high-ground'; and, crucially and more importantly from a research perspective, that constructed adherence functions to distract from an understanding of diversity of context.

It's tempting to make comparison with the characteristic rigid assertions of many modern bluegrass musicians in relation to aspects of their music. However, bluegrass is a known context and genre. The 19th century banjo and it's contexts and repertoire is nowhere near as well-understood. Therefore the magnification of what is contemporary 19th century banjo makers interested voices and the tiny percentile of recorded musicians (the majority recorded post-1900) is more problematic.

An interesting subject for discussion particularly in relation to it's relevance to research, maybe for another topic? Rather than hijack this thread! :-)

Jody Stecher said:

Right. And I think that sound is the best for 19th century repertoire.