Early Banjo? Minstrel Banjo? What to call them..
George
I am not suggesting that the following should be adopted as is, but I
am suggesting that we begin a conversation here.
I know this group is called the minstrel banjo group and I understand
why. Many collectors, scholars and others refer to these banjos as
"minstrel" as it seems that the minstrels in the post 1830 time period
were responsible for the popularizing of the banjo on the stage a mass
audience. It seems that the post 1843 minstrel stage also ushered in
an era of banjo manufacturing. BUT.. we also know that there is a
pre-minstrel tradition that ranged from the south to at least
Providence Rhode Island by the second half of the eighteenth century.
These were not played by minstrels. We also know that many
non-minstrel ( soldiers, sailors, farm workers, laborers, machanics,
etc.) also played the banjo.
With this in mind what do we call these instruments?
I have proposed calling them by the following terms:
Proto banjos - pre 1750 ( We find references to the "banjo" during
this decade in several places around he colonies)
Early banjos 1750- @ 1870 (These are mostly hand made and show
continueing development of gneral design through the end of this era)
Golden age 1870 - 1940
Modern 1940- today.
Just and idea, what do you all think?
trapdoor2
I like everything but the "Golden Age" of 1870-1940...if only to reel
the modern banjo back to 1920 rather than 1940. 1920 is a fine, round,
number and hails the successful introduction of the modern 'resonated'
banjo. This also is a fine time to place the 5-string into its 30-yr
Jazz/Big Band induced coma...so I think 1920 is a good spot to drive a
'generic' nail into the timeline.
I have been chatting up the "Early Banjo" designation in my various
hauntings around the net. Have had some good (and not so good)
discussions re: "minstrel" vs "early". Many see the change as simply
PC-gone-wrong, but these tend to be the same folks who continue to
believe in the tenor banjo as the 1890's archetype.
Keep up the good work, George.
===Marc
Dan'l
I feel it would be of benefit that we adopt this kind of general
definition if only for the sake of conversational shorthand.
It would also help avoid the misunderstandings here arising from the
perceptions of what constitutes early banjos generally - their players,
techniques and music sources - and what constitutes the subset of stage
Minstrel banjos specifically - their players, techniques and music
sources.
Am I correct in assuming that Minstrel banjos are examples of Early
banjos under your definitions?
- Dan'l
George
Thanks to both of you for jumping in.
1) 1920 is as good a date as 1940. I can certainly see your point. I
was thinking pre-war Gibson as my cut off but resonated banjos are a
good cut-off as well.
2) there is NO pc here. I am not trying to go PC but rather
historically accurate. It is hard to define minstrel unless we go all
the way to 1920 and include all of the post war golden age manufactured
models. This is not an attempt to get minstrel out..but rather to get
a true grasp of the pre-mass production banjos.
3) Dan'l, you are right on the money, the minstrel banjos (as they are
currently called) are all in the early range as far as we are
concerned. That is why I called the banjo gathering the "Early) and
why we define early in the data base.
I hope more will jump in with their thoughts.
Thanks again!
George
Erich Schroeder
whatever comes out as a consensus. To me the term "Golden Age" brings
a little too much of a value judgement to be a generically useful
term. It makes it sound like some sort of Garden of Banjo Eden from
which we have fallen from grace.
Perhaps a "classic age" title? In this case I use "classic" because
during that period technology & decorative styles were developed which
have turned into models for later builders.
Erich
--
--
eks
razyn
It seems to me -- and I may be misinterpreting something I haven't been
continuously involved in -- that the "minstrel" terminology came into
the modern literature and vocabulary more in reference to a body of
music than to the physical instrument. That would be in the works of
Bob Winans and a few others who were studying the tutors as a way into
earlier styles. We don't have tutors earlier than the minstrel ones;
but we do have such instruments (and pictures, descriptions etc.
sufficient to persuade that they had long been present as named,
recognized instruments).
By extension, the banjo on which minstrel music was played is a
minstrel banjo. And by that time (1840s) it does tend to have a good
many features that are -- if not universal -- at least widely shared
and accepted. "Early" banjo as here proposed would be a good bit more
varied; and to me, that seems a good thing. It wouldn't out of hand
exclude future discoveries, like a "mountain" or "Dixie can" instrument
with a firm date in the early period. (Which, I believe, has already
turned up.) Or other forms with a small head, at variance with the
"minstrel" norm -- but maybe meaning little more than that the maker
had at his disposal the skin of a cat, or a squirrel; but not of a
goat.
I guess it depends on what use you want to make of your definition.
One that is sufficiently broad to embrace reality is not sufficiently
precise to distinguish among dissimilar examples in a museum
exhibition. I generally think precision is good, if it doesn't get in
the way of common sense. Distinctions, when made, should distinguish
between things whose differences are meaningful.
In my youth in Hopkinsville, KY the Kiwanis Club still put on an annual
blackface minstrel show. I've been to them; my dad (a liberal white
preacher) blacked up, to sing in the quartet. There was some racist
humor, notably in the routines of the end men. But mostly there was a
variety show, featuring local talent; and if anybody had known how to
play a banjo he'd have used a modern one. (Farby was not a word, let
alone an issue, in 1953.) One might legitimately have called that a
minstrel banjo; but not an early one, I hope.
razyn
banjosnapper
body of music more than the physical instrument. The term "Early
Banjo", which I find myself using more and more in describing what I
play. My understanding is that there were a lot of players who did
things other than Minstrel shows. "Minstrel" may actually be inclusive
to "Early Banjo" .
Tommy
> My $0.02...
>
> I like everything but the "Golden Age" of 1870-1940...if only to reel
> the modern banjo back to 1920 rather than 1940. 1920 is a fine, round,
> number and hails the successful introduction of the modern 'resonated'
> banjo. This also is a fine time to place the 5-string into its 30-yr
> Jazz/Big Band induced coma...so I think 1920 is a good spot to drive a
> 'generic' nail into the timeline.
Yes - and by this time the thicker modern shell had become the norm as
well.
The prewar/postwar seems somewhat Gibson and bluegrass oriented to me.
By 1940 Gibson's designs had stabilized or become stagnant depending
upon ones POV. The prewar/postwar designation is more quality then
design oriented, which may be a valid designator.
Further I might suggest an additional category, one to include the
"renaissance" builders, both the factory builders such as Stelling and
the rebirth of artisan builders. Perhaps a 1920 - 1975 and 1975 -
present? There may be a better division point than 1975 but there have
been major changes in recent years.
Just another $0.02
> Keep up the good work, George.
Agreed!
George
It seems that we are all in agreement with the "early" part of this
classification. I think we can lave the others to debate as collectors
and students of those instruments can better classify those banjos.
So, if we are talking about banjos of the early two periods, let us
begin to refer to them by the proto-banjo (pre 1750) and early banjo
(1750 1870) titles. I think that it will help us in our conversations
here and it will help us define these banjos for our less fanatic
freinds.
If you have any more input, please let us know.
George
Daniel Partner
I'd like us to find another term than "golden" or "classic," however. Those
two words are loaded with other meanings that color the idea we'd like to
get across -- imho -- DP
Erich Schroeder
use the term to identify a time period during which a particular
culture has all the traits which are used to define that culture. For
example the classic Maya period vs post-classic Maya. I agree that the
term "classic" has marketing overtones--as much as does "golden".
What are the attributes of the 1870 to 1920 (or 40) time period that
we want to define?
Increased to almost universal use of frets?
Development of large instrument manufacturers?
Change from down-picking to guitar style?
An increasingly mechanical nature of the banjo?
A "modernization" or "civilization" of the instrument and associated music?
Erich
On 1/26/07, Daniel Partner <d...@danpartner.com> wrote:
>
> "Proto" and "early" work well for me. Let's do it!
>
> I'd like us to find another term than "golden" or "classic," however. Those
> two words are loaded with other meanings that color the idea we'd like to
> get across -- imho -- DP
>
--
--
eks
Daniel Partner
it is used, how about this:
Proto banjo
Early banjo
Completed banjo
Modern banjo
Although I need someone to tell me the difference between the "completed"
banjo and the modern banjo.
trapdoor2
period was certainly one of transition for the banjo, the music and the
industry.
Proto Banjo = before-1750
Early Banjo = 1750-1870
Transitional Banjo = 1870-1920
Modern Banjo = 1920-to date
Tommy, I would prefer to keep the taxonomy as gross as possible.
Subsets abound and I'm agreeing with George: these are fine for our
purposes, let the collectors/researchers of the later eras come up with
their own classifications! ;-)
===Marc