Recent article on classic banjo (that doesn't mention classic banjo)

[Ethan Schwartz]

https://daily.jstor.org/the-nineteenth-century-banjo/

I just submitted a comment to the editorial staff; I would invite you to do the same. Unfortunately, there is a 500 character limit, so you'd better focus on 1-2 points. I said something to the effect of, "It's unfortunate that you traded the opportunity to give an informative overview of classic banjo in exchange for rehashing points by Linn and Hamessley about gender and class politics." 

For context, JSTOR is one of the main (if not the main) online repositories for academic research in the humanities. Any free-to-read editorial piece will be read by potentially millions of people. 

[Joel Hooks]

This article relies heavily on Lynn and Conway.  That is what you get.  They could have focused on class in explaining that the truth was the working class was the driving factor in banjo popularity.  I believe this is a pseudo fluff piece with the goal of promoting Giddens and Blount. At least that is how it comes off.  Giddens seems to specifically avoid the classic era, or passively dismiss it.

This article is typical, and while not exactly false, spins in interesting tale.

[Steve Harrison]

The writers seem to guilty of a bit of 'over think' and having their own agenda..Steve.
Joel Hooks said:

This article relies heavily on Lynn and Conway.  That is what you get.  They could have focused on class in explaining that the truth was the working class was the driving factor in banjo popularity.  I believe this is a pseudo fluff piece with the goal of promoting Giddens and Blount. At least that is how it comes off.  Giddens seems to specifically avoid the classic era, or passively dismiss it.

This article is typical, and while not exactly false, spins in interesting tale.

[nick stephens]

I read it as an article about "women" and the banjo not, about classic style banjo, it is what it is, a feminist article.Since most oft cited classic style players were men I can see no particular reason for them or the classic style to be discussed here at all. it appears to be only about the "new woman" movement of the 19th Century, so some played banjo, some rode bicycles so whats new ?

Steve Harrison said:

The writers seem to guilty of a bit of 'over think' and having their own agenda..Steve.
Joel Hooks said:

This article relies heavily on Lynn and Conway.  That is what you get.  They could have focused on class in explaining that the truth was the working class was the driving factor in banjo popularity.  I believe this is a pseudo fluff piece with the goal of promoting Giddens and Blount. At least that is how it comes off.  Giddens seems to specifically avoid the classic era, or passively dismiss it.

This article is typical, and while not exactly false, spins in interesting tale.

[Ethan Schwartz]

Of course, there's no problem with writing an article on women and the banjo, whether from a feminist perspective or otherwise. But the takeaway from this particular article (if we can step into the shoes of the average reader who knows nothing about banjo history) is that banjo manufacturers, through clever advertising, were able to dupe high-society ladies into picking up the banjo, and that this commercial enterprise was then co-opted by the New Woman movement. Fine. That's an interpretation. But then to frame this phenomenon as a defining feature of late-19th century banjo (as the article's title and first section imply) is absurd. The article provides virtually no context for what music these women were playing and in what performance context, how their banjos differed from what came before or after (other than being given "swishy" names, as the author puts it), where they were geographically (it just mentions "America"), and most significantly, how this phenomenon fit into banjo playing in general and popular music as a whole at that point in history. 

nick stephens said:

I read it as an article about "women" and the banjo not, about classic style banjo, it is what it is, a feminist article.Since most oft cited classic style players were men I can see no particular reason for them or the classic style to be discussed here at all. it appears to be only about the "new woman" movement of the 19th Century, so some played banjo, some rode bicycles so whats new ?

Steve Harrison said:

The writers seem to guilty of a bit of 'over think' and having their own agenda..Steve.
Joel Hooks said:

This article relies heavily on Lynn and Conway.  That is what you get.  They could have focused on class in explaining that the truth was the working class was the driving factor in banjo popularity.  I believe this is a pseudo fluff piece with the goal of promoting Giddens and Blount. At least that is how it comes off.  Giddens seems to specifically avoid the classic era, or passively dismiss it.

This article is typical, and while not exactly false, spins in interesting tale.