Placement of Flush Frets - Banjo Sightings Database

[Rob MacKillop]

I guess this is aimed mainly at Greg and George, but I'd be delighted if others joined in.

 

The wonderful Banjo Sightings Database http://www.banjodatabase.org/ has - almost - all the info I could wish for, but I feel we could do with an academic appreciation of the placement of flush frets, as I get the feeling there may be a few surprises there.

 

One of the instruments I have played and recorded in the past is the mid-17th century 'diatonic' cittern, which was characterised by having partial fretting. Some of the frets were 'missing', some only covered two or three strings, some extended over the width of the fretboard. Clearly there were favoured keys, like the 'natural' keys of the banjo, and folks' appreciation of micro intervals was developed enough to feel the need to remove those notes which would have offended their ears.

 

Here is an acdemic essay by a leading fretted-instrument academic, which should outline the importance fret placement is, and by extension how it should or might be of interest to banjo players and, especially, makers:

 

citternfretpatterns[1].pdf

 

We are well aware of the split fret found on some banjos when raised frets were introduced - which gives some indication of the subtleties involved in fret placement. I have a hunch that an analysis of flush-fret positions would yield interesting results. I'm sure there was more sublety involved than the 'Rule of the 18'.

 

BTW, Greg, I am interested in the Stichter banjo, for which you have supplied the following info:

 

The banjo was built circa November 26th 1848. The head was installed August 13th, 1852.

 

Very accurate dates! Please expound :-)

 

And, should you be interested, here is an mp3 file of a piece called The Isle of Rea from my CD, 'The Flowers Of The Forest', played on a reconstruction of a diatonic cittern from circa 1650. The manuscript is from my home town of Dundee. rea.mp3

[Trapdoor2]

Thanks for that, Rob. I have speculated more than once on these "partial fret" schemes, it is great to see a more scholarly dissertation (esp. since it agrees with my speculation). I had no clue they existed outside the banjo world...

IIRC one or more of the early banjo tutors show the location of 'commonly used notes' in the first 4 or 5 positions...and these generically outline the most common partial fret schemes. Somewhere I have a bit of graph paper where I've drawn out a similar scheme (in order to re-create one for a banjo of my own make).

[Rob MacKillop]

Interesting, Marc. There are two main issues - the placement of the fret between nut and bridge (temperament) and the length of the fret (note choices). I imagine some were haphazard, and I've read comments in some tutors suggesting the Rule of the 18, but my guess is that there were some luthiers doing something a bit more scientific. Until we make a survey of flush frets, or partial frets, or marked lines, on most of the surviving originals that have them, then we'll just be guessing. Maybe there is nothing to it? But the more I study these books and instruments, the more respect I have for them.

Of course, being essentially still a fretless instrument, one was at liberty to place a finger above or below a line, or indeed right on top of it. So there is still the historical performance practice aspect to consider too. And that we may never know.

The cittern fretting indicated regional differences. Now, in a banjo context, wouldn't that be interesting!

[Trapdoor2]

Yah, I think it would indeed be an interesting thing for "our friendly ethnomusicologist" (aka Greg Adams) to persue.

I have seen them (flush frets in partial patterns) on a lot of post-civil-war banjos but few really early ones (of course, I'm working from memory here). I wonder if there is anything in the literature that describes partial fretting from a marketing standpoint? Maybe Stewart had something to say about it in an early Journal? I don't recall ever seeing a flush-fret Stewart though.

[Ian Bell]

Flush Fret Stewart?

Joel - I don't usually have anything to contribute to threads of this nature, but...

Folkway Music in Guelph, Ontario has a banjo for sale described thus:

1888 S.S. Stewart Banjo
Serial # 4733. Built about 10 years after Samuel S. Stewart begun building banjos, this simply appointed 5 string is an interesting piece. The instrument features a 11” nickel silver over wood rim with 20 brackets; cherry (or birch) 19” neck, 27” scale ebony fingerboard with Style 1 trim, Maltese Cross ivory tuning pegs and original “Common Sense” tailpiece with ivory rosette ornament. Originally a fretless but since converted, the original ivory fret markers still accompany the banjo.

Sounds like it might be (have been) a flush-fret Stewart

There's a picture here http://www.folkwaymusic.com/images/instruments/misc/stewart-main_02...

It's for sale too. $749.





Trapdoor2 said:

Yah, I think it would indeed be an interesting thing for "our friendly ethnomusicologist" (aka Greg Adams) to persue.

I have seen them (flush frets in partial patterns) on a lot of post-civil-war banjos but few really early ones (of course, I'm working from memory here). I wonder if there is anything in the literature that describes partial fretting from a marketing standpoint? Maybe Stewart had something to say about it in an early Journal? I don't recall ever seeing a flush-fret Stewart though.

[Trapdoor2]

Yah, Ian, my Stewart Orchestra #3 is a similar 'conversion' from fretless to fretted. All of the "fretless" Stewarts I have encountered over the years have side-dots (fret markers) along the neck at every position...rendering them pretty much useless. Still, they're an excellent tell-tale that the banjo was once fretless.

Well...here's a flush-fret Stewart! http://www.billsbanjos.com/1886Stewart.htm

[Joel Hooks]

Old Stewart referred in the Journal to "Smooth boards," "Smooth frets," and "Professional frets" the latter are the side dots. Early on he preferred the professional frets... seems he favored plain banjos leaving and fancy work for the peg head. He wrote about how they were preferable to the working and traveling banjoist as the less work on the fingerboard, the less to go wrong.

I'm no expert, but I'll admit that I am suspicious about the pedigree of the Billsbanjos Stewart. It has a very thin fingerboard (Sam was fond of reminding up how thick the veneer that he used was, mine is almost 1/4"), the inside of the rim lacking the standard rosewood pant and the slotted screws securing the brackets. The tailpiece looks correct, if not new. And the peg head looks large.

But as we know with SSS, all bets are off cause he'd make anything you wanted.

[Greg Adams]

What a great conversation Rob, et al!

This is one of the things that I deeply appreciate about our community is that everyone brings their own knowledge, expertise, and ideas to the table to raise good points that should be applied to banjo-focused research.

Focusing on Rob’s initial post, because I cannot offer a definitive answer beyond an anecdotal response, I would like to contribute to the mix by adding some thoughts about what might contribute to a banjo-focused study based on his suggestion. The cittern article is absolutely wonderful and data driven. Its use of diagrams, tables, source information, and explanations are impressive. I will definitely be working more carefully through this article to see how it might contribute to my own work and what I see in the work of others.

Regarding the banjo, it would be an amazing feat to see a similar type of study performed, but one that might reflect the structural relationship between 1) visible wear marks on extant instruments (on the fingerboard and behind the neck) and 2) original or retro-fitted position markers (neck shape [e.g., Boucher’s ornate double ogee], inlaid fret markers or other shapes, or

raised frets). Knowing that bridge placement (and other factors) shape an instrument’s responsiveness and intonation, this potential study would be valuable in that it would allow for a more comprehensive analysis of nineteenth century instruments that have raised frets, fret markers (and other types of position markers/inlays), no frets, or combinations (e.g., raised frets and fretless, such as this Boucher that was retrofitted with frets). This type of documentary work would be incredibly invaluable because it may allow us to rethink how we talk about the banjo in the nineteenth century as pertains to our perceptions of tuning systems, repertoire, regional differences/similarities, etc. More importantly, it would help us to more deeply contextualize our knowledge of the banjo so that we highlight its more unique attributes and, where reasonable, move away from broad generalizations.

One of the major hindrances, however, will be the fact that we have so little provenance for each instrument. It would also be nearly impossible to account for how multiple players over time might have contributed to the instrument’s patina and wear. As Marc notes, a number of the tutors include figures showing the “gamut” of the instrument with the most commonly used notes. I have handled over 100 of the 200+ extant early banjos and can say, once again anecdotally, that quite a number of them show distinctive wear features on the fingerboard. For example, some of them do align with rudimentary gamut presented in the Rice or Buckley book. Yet, as we all know, when looking at the actual repertoire within and beyond the tutors, it would require the player to move well beyond these basic positions. This only accounts for what is in the written record and I’m sure that I would be able to find instruments that evince a broader range of wear marks.

Ultimately, if I can do anything with this thread, it would be to show my solidarity with the thinking that our members raise. We should all be paying this close attention to such details. It is important.

Regarding the Stichter banjo, the specificity of the dates come from what was written on the bottom side of the

head.

This is great! Can't wait to see those who make it to George's AEBG III!

Best Regards,
Greg

[Ian Bell]

Those are amazing photos Greg.
I have a question about partial fretting. Why frets on the bottom and not further up? I've only ever played fretted banjos but (based on my experience playing fiddle) it strikes me that up the neck might be where I'd really want those frets. There's obviously some good reason. Am I missing something here?



Greg Adams said:

What a great conversation Rob, et al!

This is one of the things that I deeply appreciate about our community is that everyone brings their own knowledge, expertise, and ideas to the table to raise good points that should be applied to banjo-focused research.

Focusing on Rob’s initial post, because I cannot offer a definitive answer beyond an anecdotal response, I would like to contribute to the mix by adding some thoughts about what might contribute to a banjo-focused study based on his suggestion. The cittern article is absolutely wonderful and data driven. Its use of diagrams, tables, source information, and explanations are impressive. I will definitely be working more carefully through this article to see how it might contribute to my own work and what I see in the work of others.

Regarding the banjo, it would be an amazing feat to see a similar type of study performed, but one that might reflect the structural relationship between 1) visible wear marks on extant instruments (on the fingerboard and behind the neck) and 2) original or retro-fitted position markers (neck shape [e.g., Boucher’s ornate double ogee], inlaid [fret markers or other shapes], or

raised frets). Knowing that bridge placement (and other factors) shape an instrument’s responsiveness and intonation, this potential study would be valuable in that it would allow for a more comprehensive analysis of nineteenth century instruments that have raised frets, fret markers (and other types of position markers/inlays), no frets, or combinations (e.g., raised frets and fretless, such as this Boucher that was retrofitted with frets). This type of documentary work would be incredibly invaluable because it may allow us to rethink how we talk about the banjo in the nineteenth century as pertains to our perceptions of tuning systems, repertoire, regional differences/similarities, etc. More importantly, it would help us to more deeply contextualize our knowledge of the banjo so that we highlight its more unique attributes and, where reasonable, move away from broad generalizations.
One of the major hindrances, however, will be the fact that we have so little provenance for each instrument. It would also be nearly impossible to account for how multiple players over time might have contributed to the instrument’s patina and wear. As Marc notes, a number of the tutors include figures showing the “gamut” of the instrument with the most commonly used notes. I have handled over 100 of the 200+ extant early banjos and can say, once again anecdotally, that quite a number of them show distinctive wear features on the fingerboard. For example, some of them do align with rudimentary gamut presented in the Rice or Buckley book. Yet, as we all know, when looking at the actual repertoire within and beyond the tutors, it would require the player to move well beyond these basic positions. This only accounts for what is in the written record and I’m sure that I would be able to find instruments that evince a broader range of wear marks.

Ultimately, if I can do anything with this thread, it would be to show my solidarity with the thinking that our members raise. We should all be paying this close attention to such details. It is important.

Regarding the Stichter banjo, the specificity of the dates come from what was written on the bottom side of the

head.
This is great! Can't wait to see you those who make it to George's AEBG III!

Best Regards,
Greg

[Rob MacKillop]

I thought you would find it interesting, Greg. I wish I lived closer to the source, and had the technical know-how to undertake such a task. Impossible from here in Edinburgh. I've contributed papers and book chapters on the history of the lute and guitar in Scotland, and rubbing shoulders with other researchers has been illuminating. The broad reach and depth of analysis into all areas associated with an instrument or manuscript is astonishing. Much has been done already with the banjo, especially as regards social history, publications, technique and instruments, but there is much more that could be done. We need more Gregs!

[Jim Dalton]

Great topic, Rob -- and lovely cittern playing, as always. AND -- allow me to add my thanks for the article, as well -- very interesting and useful.

I’m currently working on an article (which may expand into two or more) in which I am examining the various issues of tuning and intonation as exemplified by the early tutors -- everything from the nominal tunings (eAEG#B, raised fourth string, the minor tuning in Briggs etc.) to the positions of the flush-fret markers and other evidence from the actual pieces and instructions.

Intonational systems (equal temperament, meantone, Pythagorean, just etc.) are a special interest of mine. My “day job” is professor of music theory at a conservatory and I teach a course in tuning theory among other things.

I can’t believe that I came out of the “theory professor closet” here -- I try to avoid that on most instrument-related discussion boards. It marks me as a member of a despised class. (I can tell you stories…) This group doesn’t seem to be a prejudiced as most -- so I guess I’ll be ok.

Well, in addition to my theory work I perform (with my wife) and specialize in 19th-early 20th c. performance practices for American music -- so, this topic is the intersection of several of my favorite subjects.

To the point:
You are correct in the assumption of there being “more subtlety than the ‘Rule of the 18’” but, there is a marked inconsistency in several of the sources which leads me to believe that a gap exists between what the authors preached and what they, themselves, practiced.

In Converse’s Instructor, there is clear evidence of just intoned major triads as well as the necessary instruction to achieve them. In his Method, published the same year, he gives “rule of 18” for fret markers and instruction that reinforces that and would achieve 12-tone equal temperament.

Buckley (1860) gives rather poor and misleading tuning instruction (copied verbatim from the Rice book) and, yet, adds a partial fret marker on the first string that would give a fair approximation of the just major third between that pitch and the second string, first fret. To complicate matters further, unlike Converse, his tuning directions would produce an equal tempered major 3rd between the open second and third strings.

As I said, very inconsistent.

I’ll try to keep you all posted as the research progresses and would be happy to help study the flush-fret distances along these same lines.

[Rob MacKillop]

Excellent post, Jim, and glad to see you coming out of the closet! About time. I love studying theory, but I'm not so hot on fractions for temperaments. As a lute player I would adjust the frets (they were tied on and therefore moveable) for different keys, and am aware of the difference, sometimes, between theory and practice. [As an aside - is there any evidence of tied-on gut frets?]

Well, I'm very pleased at the response so far to this topic, and I do hope any research carried out will be shared here. Seems like quite a few of us are interested in such things.

A good place to start would be a comparative illustration of those fingerboards with partial frets. But I don't know who could carry out such a project, but there might be a research grant available for someone here... I'd like to add more, but I'm falling asleep...

Rob

[Jim Dalton]

I’ve been thinking about this a bit more and have some other comments about frets.

In the early tutors, I’ve found only two different types of partial frets mentioned -- with two very different reasons for existing.

I alluded to one of these uses in my previous post. It probably needs a bit of clarification.

(If you know all of this, pardon my “detail.”) I’ve noticed in three decades of teaching that most otherwise knowledgeable and experienced musicians are, at best, only vaguely aware of the realities of equal temperament; and, of the reasons behind different temperaments and tunings in history.

The tuning that can be considered to be completely “pure” is what we call “just intonation.” Rather than go into a long, detailed description of it here, I’ll just say that its intervals are based on small whole number ratios (either of string lengths or of vibrations per second). Accurate just intonation would require a very large number of pitches per octave, hence, many more frets than the twelve to which we are accustomed.

Many compromises have been proposed and used over the centuries. The most recent is equal temperament.

Equal temperament (many theorists, myself included, prefer the term “12 part equal division of the octave” [12EDO] as being more precise) is not really purely in tune. It is a compromise that makes all keys usable with the fewest pitches. The only intervals that are purely in tune are the octaves. Everything else is “tempered” (adjusted out of pure tuning) into compromise intervals by dividing the octave into twelve equal semitones. We describe other intervals by reference to 12EDO with a measurement called cents. Each 12EDO semitone is 100 cents, making the octave 1200 cents. This gives us a small enough increment to fairly accurately describe intervals from many tuning systems.

12EDO intervals vary from pure or “just” intervals by different amounts. 12EDO perfect fifths are 2 cents narrower than just, making their inversion, perfect fourths 2 cents wider. This miniscule amount (2% of a semitone) is negligible.

12EDO major thirds, on the other hand, are 14 cents too wide. This is quite audible. If you’ve never noticed, it’s because we’ve become quite used to the compromised thirds of 12EDO -- it has been, after all, the most common temperament for fretted and keyboard instruments since long before any of us were born.

The “rule of 18” fretting rubric outlined in most of the early tutors approximates 12EDO. Banjos that have a partial 2nd fret for the first string that is a bit lower than the “regular” 2nd fret (see the photo of an Ashborn in Greg’s post above) are an attempt at a better intonation for the major 3rd in one of the most used keys (A major in the eAEG#B tuning and G major in the dGDF#A tuning).

In his 1860 book, Buckley describes this as well and also gives a fingerboard diagram. He first lays out the Rule-of-18 process but adds this wrinkle:

“The Frets are all to be put the entire width of the finger-board, with the exception of the 2nd, which only crosses the 2nd, 3rd and 4th strings. On the 1st string you must have a small fret ⅛th of an inch nearer the first fret.”

This small fret will give a decent approximation of the just major 3rd above the 2nd string A (in Buckley’s eAEG#B tuning, that is). It’s not exact but it is “better” than the 12EDO major 3rd and it increases the chances that a player would “tweak” it into a really pure 3rd by a slight shift of the finger.
------------------------------------------------------------

A few words about the Rule of 18:

It isn’t perfect equal temperament but rather a very close approximation of it. For clarity’s sake, I’ll describe it here. Simply put, you divide the sounding length of the string (nut to bridge) into 18 parts and put the first fret at 1/18th of the distance. Then, divide the remaining distance (from the 1st fret to the bridge) and put the 2nd fret at 1/18th of THAT distance. You would proceed in the same manner for as many frets as you wish to have. It’s a logarithmic progression in which the frets get closer together as you go up the neck but the half steps are all the same size.

The more accurate number that most modern luthiers use is 17.817. Vincenzo Galilei, lutenist, composer, theorist and father of the astronomer Galileo, first described this technique around 1600 and claimed to have come to the number 18 by intuition rather than calculation. This makes sense. The just tone (whole step, major 2nd) has a string length ratio of 9:8. This simply means that the higher pitch of a whole step uses 8/9ths of the vibrating string length of the lower pitch. By approximately halving a whole step (using 18 parts instead of 9), Galilei was able to use 18:17 as a viable half step.

This seems like a “no brainer” to us at first glance but the question of semitones is a complex one. In many intonational systems, including some used in Galilei’s time (and up to the time of the early piano recordings), there are two sizes of semitone. The most common just semitone is 16:15. This is 13 cents larger than Galilei’s 18:17. So, what he was suggesting, and what still survived centuries later in most of the banjo tutors, was a system with only one size semitone, which was significantly and audibly smaller than just.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
You’ve probably noticed that I keep emphasizing that these are approximations of ideal tunings. That, I suppose, is the scientist side of my music-theorist persona. But it is also true that the measurements and tuning formulas are made considering ideal strings, perfect set up, and zero displacement of the string by the left hand -- none of which ever occur. Bottom line: they’re approximations, but very good ones.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The point of all of this is that there is evidence (the Ashborn instrument, Buckley, Converse, etc.) that the equal-tempered intonation of the Rule-of-18 fretting was not considered adequate (for major thirds, at least) by a number of musicians and builders in the 1850s and ‘60s.

This is a fairly complex subject -- I’ll avoid the impulse to go that route and look at another issue.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This whole subject of partial frets reminded me that there was something about that in some of the Dobson books. So, I pulled them out and found some interesting things.

In a number of George C. Dobson’s books dating from 1877-1887, he outlines various different approaches to the issue of fretting.

In his 1877 New School for the Banjo, Dobson first instructs the “fretter” (frettist? fret monger? intonational technician?) to place the bridge about 3 inches from the rim on the head and mark the position with a pencil. He then goes through the Rule of 18 directions and calls for the placement of 16 frets “of fancy wood, about an 8th or a 16th of an inch in width, inlaid level with the surface of the fingerboard.”

“The first, third, sixth, ninth, and thirteenth frets, should be inlaid half the width of the fingerboard. The second, fourth, fifth, seventh, eighth. twelfth, and sixteenth, should be inlaid the full width of the fingerboard, while the rest of them should taper from two-thirds a little less than each other as shown in the following cut.”

“By this manner of fretting, the positions on the Banjo can be readily committed to memory, and greater facility in performing can be attained in less time, than where the frets extend the entire width of the fingerboard.”

So, with this pattern of different length frets, Dobson was giving the student/player visual cues to recognize the positions more easily. In this case, at least, the partial frets have nothing to do with intonation, scale or note choice -- aside from the equal temperament afforded by the rule of 18.

Over the next ten years Dobson’s approach to frets changed a bit.

In his 1879 Star Instructor and Simplified Tunes for the Banjo, he gives directions for frets “inlaid level” but no discussion of partial frets. However, the cover image shows a banjo with the same fretting system described in the previous book.

In the 1880 Complete Instructor for the Banjo, Dobson gives the same basic instructions (rule of 18 etc., no partial frets mentioned) but he describes both inlaid flush frets and raised frets with no preference given to either:

“If the frets are inlaid of wood they should be from one-eighth to one-sixteenth of an inch wide...If raised frets are used, the fret wire may be procured at any music store.”

The fingerboard diagram shows an instrument with the partial fret layout as described and illustrated in the earlier book.

Interestingly, in the 1887 “Victor” Banjo Manual, Dobson reverts back to the partial fret directions (nearly verbatim from the earlier publication -- including the “greater facility” sentence quoted above) but directs that the partial frets are only for the level inlaid frets:

“The latest and most modern manner of fretting the Banjo is with raised frets. They should extend the full width of the finger-board and the positions should be inlaid in front of the 5th, 7th, 8th, 12th, and 18th [by which he meant “16th”] frets… We give the instruction for fretting a banjo both ways, our preference is for the raised frets.”

So, in 10 years, Dobson’s preferences changed, possibly in response to popular fashion.