As a folk/blues player of guitar for many years I got into minstrelsy and banjo because of early Hokum blues/medicine show and jug band music- Gus Cannon, Daddy Stovepipe, Uncle Dave Macon etc. I picked up a minstrel banjo because I used to hear gut strung banjos on old records from the 1920's and before quite frequently- did a google search and found this page and fell in love with the music and the beautiful looking and sounding instruments.
To cut a long story short I guess Im asking whether people here consider it appropriate or "period" correct to be playing older american folk songs, hokum, very early blues roots etc on these instruments or do you prefer the more certain songs from the books and banjo instructors of the period. I have no doubt that some of the songs I play date back much further than the minstrel era, most back to British and European folk songs much older.
I would like to get others opinions on this!
Music is a living thing - play what you want on what you want. If 19th century musicians had been hide-bound about not mixing styles this type of Afro-European fusion music and the instruments it has been played on would never have developed in the first place. I think this horse is already way out of the barn...if there ever was a barn. (If there wasn't we probably shouldn't build one now)
That said, I think it's best to actually know and understand the musical traditions an instrument grew out of if only to get the most out the instrument and make it speak to its full potential. I guess it also depends on what you say you're "representing". An excellent can of worms - I'm sure others will have lots of opinions about this too.
Another Old Folksinger
Speaking as one who actually got a PhD in folklore (dumb career move, let me tell you), I'd have to say this battle has been fought way more times than necessary. But it's always a draw, so I suppose somebody will keep finding reasons to fight it again.
Wearing the folklorist garb, I'd say you probably aren't a tradition bearer, particularly when you learn to play some such instrument as the "minstrel" banjo, and pick tunes out of a book by some member of the Lomax family, who also wasn't a tradition bearer. So, if it were still my job to pick talent for the Festival of American Folklife (or some similar venue with at least the pretense of academically respectable standards of authenticity), I wouldn't pick you. I'd pick some old farmer from Lascassas, TN who learned the same tune from his ole grandpappy -- though he probably doesn't play it nearly as well as you do. And his banjo may even have frets, eeew.
Happily for this hobby, there are fewer people left wearing folklorist garb with each passing year, and most "folk" festivals have almost no standards of authenticity, as such. Most of them are quite reasonably concerned with their attendance figures (ticket sales) and other practicalities; and their selection criteria, if any, are aesthetic (not folkloristic) in nature.
On the other hand, the dark shadows of Tom Briggs, Phil Rice, Frank Converse and that crowd loom over our every move. (Especially of the right hand, as Greg kept reminding me last weekend in Harpers Ferry.) The Authentic Campaigner mentality is about as hard on the folk process, such as it is, as were the Ballet Folklorico de Anyplace; the Tamburitzans at Duquesne U.; or the Necheporenko school of balalaika technique.
There will always be those who feel that one specific way of doing something (usually, some virtuoso performer's way) is best, and therefore correct. Some of those people end up on the panels that review your grant applications, etc. Don't look for a lot of encouragement of a career as a "folk" performer of the recently resurrected minstrel banjo tradition. But it's kind of fun, it's a niche -- and especially from now until 2005, there should be a lot of gigs for "correct" musicians at CW reenactments: the 150th anniversaries of everything that happened.
If your heart is in reenacting the French and Indian War (Chuck Krepley has suffered from that), or something that happened even longer ago than that -- maybe on the other side of the Atlantic -- this just isn't really the right instrument.
from now until 2005, there should be a lot of gigs
I'd like to chime in here and point out that I don't play folk music. In fact, I don't play folk instruments. I play popular music from a given era, on the popular instrument of that time.
"Period correct" insinuates that it can be supported by documentation from the "period" represented and not reminisces.
Memory, as well as "oral tradition" are so incredible inaccurate and corrupted that it is silly. I always point out the current string of exonerations from rape cases in Dallas. These are men who were convicted of rape and imprisoned based almost always on eyewitness testimony. Yet, turns out they were innocent. Their lives ruined by the "memory" of the victim.
Google "eyewitness accuracy" to read just how worthless it is.
As to the Lomax family, John produced a great collection of cowboy poetry, later added music to some of the pieces, thus setting off a series of anachronisms constantly perpetuated by so called authentic "cowboy bands" attempting to pass off country music as late 19th century PEC entertainment.
The folk music recorded and documented by AlanLomax is a perfect record of the folk music as played at the moment when it was recorded, no earlier. Of course it is completely out of the realm of possibility that the people being recorded really put on the folksiness thick so to give the people what they expect, thus altering the accuracy of the presentation.
When the argument comes up that reading music was not common place, or reading words for that matter, I always ask, what the heck did they do with their one day off? Watch the plaster peel?
It is amazing that of the hundreds of thousands+ of pieces of sheet music published in the 19th century, only a few people could read them. Seems strange that publishers would bother printing all those copies of music if only a few could read.
Sorry I don't buy it.
To the subject at hand...
Play what you like, it is yours. Keep in mind that when someone asks "is that how it sounded in the 18--?" you are now the educator, like it or not. If you say yes, you have knowingly lied. If you reply that you are just playing "folk music" not depicting a specific time period then no harm.
There is also the question of what is an "old American folk song?" Many people think that Stephen Fosters body of work are "folk songs," they ain't.
Are they still "folk" songs of they have been performed for money? Published in sheet music (tab, whatever) form? Recorded and sold for money? Do all of those not break the folk tradition?
Documented sources, particularly the period tutors in our case, are the best we have if our goal is to authentically re-create what we know some people in those times played and heard.
But playing by rote from the tutors isn't especially more certain than playing the tunes from other, far more common and numerous sheet music available at the time, since there's no indication the tutors were widely purchased and used. Other music was written for other instruments and voice but the melody and inflection are in there, if not finger placements and other specific techniques.
The aural tradition is worthwhile in context with the tutors or other printed music. Far from being worthless, it's standard musicology fare. Early recordings are also worthwhile in context with the tutors and other printed music. In our case many of these early recordings were made well within the lifespans of the Minstrel era performers and their publics, and some of the recordings were specifically marketed to that age segment, veterans of the Civil War for one, to be played at G.A.R. (Imagine a Vietnam vet being satisfied with a poor cover of All Along the Watchtower by Hendrix).
If the goal is to have a definitive answer, you have no choice but to take the hard line. There is no other source than the tutors. Human behaviors such as the oral tradition, other more popular sheet music and artifacts of early recordings are not to be factored in. It's a comfortable place.
For others, period players were not some sort of automotons in a Disney diorama of the 19th century, programmed by their little tutors. Of course they learned in many other ways, oral tradition and raw reckoning included (mimicking stage minstrels). And however they learned and played, the sounds they made were as different from each other at the time as they were from later players. That's not a comfortable place but I feel more authentic.
some of the recordings were specifically marketed to that age segment, veterans of the Civil War for one, to be played at G.A.R.I would just add, there was also UCV. Within living memory the two organizations and their members were so much alike, their commemorative postage stamps (UCV in 1949, GAR in 1951) used the same picture. Anyway, my folks in Middle Tennessee didn't do GAR -- but they did sing this stuff, and played it on banjo, among other instruments.