Talk:Banjo

Clawhammer vs. claw-hammer

Life is too short to engage in an editing war over "claw-hammer" or "clawhammer." That being said, the rationale given is that it should be spelled "claw-hammer" because otherwise people will think it's pronounced "cla-whammer". It's hard for me to believe that spelling should be changed in order to cater to those who can't read or pronounce.Tribe 17:09, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

The rationale that it's "never" spelled "claw-hammer" is clearly false, as I have seen it spelled that way many times. This is an encyclopedia, and as such is meant to provide information to those who aren't familiar with the banjo, its types of play or the vagaries of English spelling. "Clawhammer" is indisputably one way to spell it; its orthography also indisputably derives from "claw hammer". To place a dash between the two words and form "claw-hammer", then later to remove it, is a normal English practice, as in "aero-plane", which became "aeroplane" (and later "airplane"), but there is no corresponding confusion in the pronunciation of these forms of the word. It's hard for me to believe that confusion is PREFERABLE to clarification. Seems lots of other people--educated in the grammar of English, and also banjo players like me--have no problem with "claw-hammer", so what's the big deal? Doovinator 17:27, 10 Sep 2004 (UTC)

True...to say "I have never seen it spelled" the way you use it is incorrect....because I've seen you use it that way. But aside from you, I've never seen it spelled that way. Contrary to your protestations, there has never been any confusion....until now. The "big deal" is that you have decided to impose a spelling that the vast majority of banjo players do not use....and the sole reason is that you confused the pronunciation when you were a child.Tribe 17:50, Sep 10, 2004 (UTC)

I didn't write the article, and I didn't put it in originally as "claw-hammer", that was someone else--but clearly someone else who had seen it spelled that way. I'm surprised you haven't. I've seen it spelled all three ways, and if it were clear what the pronunciation were, whatever way it was spelled, it would be no big deal to me. However, I have taught English for the last three years (and played banjo for close to twenty) and I can assure you that EVERY nine or ten year old is confused by "clawhammer", along with all the non-native English speakers on the planet. I don't guess it hurts to have it both ways, though. Doovinator 02:38, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

At the risk of reopening old wounds I find I can't agree with Doovinator's argument. Google results for "clawhammer" outnumber "claw-hammer" sixty to one. English is a dumb language filled with unintuitive special cases that must be learned individually, and this is no exception. IceKarma 15:30, 2005 Apr 14 (UTC)

Oh please! Look at "Aluminum" if you think one way is the be-all and end-all of English. Google can survey, AT BEST, the past ten years. Any books or articles from twenty-five or thirty years ago, and the term "claw-hammer" will outnumber "clawhammer" sixty to one, but these won't be on Google. English is not set in stone, and to be young and stupid is not a virtue. There's plenty of room to learn it both ways. Doovinator 15:40, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

To me, it seems that a fair amount of statements are being made in this discussion that can't be proven. Maybe it would solve the issue to agree on one to use, say for example "clawhammer", but the first time it occurs in the article, put "alternate spelling: claw-hammer" in parenthesis following it. In that way, someone reading the article will know that the two spellings are the same and will be able to find what they are looking for on the page. Would that work? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.158.5.63 (talk) 02:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

The Bass String

Sweeney added the bass string, or is credited with doing so. Assuming a total of five strings, the bass string is the fourth string up from the floor counting upwards (redundancy intended); not the 5th string, which is commonly called the "drone string."

I have repeatedly read and heard it said that Sweeney added the drone; this seems rather doubtful, since many or most african-origin examples of banjo-like instruments already had strings that functioned as drones even before spreading beyond Africa. Thus, the Sweeney origin of the 5th string seems doubtful. MWBailey

I am a banjo player myself and I know that Sweeny added the fifth string up from the floor (the drone), before that was added the banjo was mostly used for strumming. Piratebob13 21:28, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Sweeney and the 5th String

I think Sweeney is generally credited as having added the 5th string, but since it has been more or less proven that he didnt, the argument goes that, well, OK, then maybe he added a 4th string. Since there is still confusion and uncertainty about which string he added (if any), I changed "bass string" to "another string". GeeMo

The infamous 5th String...

Joel Walker Sweeney of The Sweeney Minstrels, born 1810, was often credited with the invention of the short fifth string. Scholars know that this is not the case. A painting entitled The Old Plantation painted between 1777 and 1800, shows a black gourd banjo player with a banjo having the fifth string peg half-way up the neck. If Sweeney did add a fifth string to the banjo, it was probably the lowest string, or fourth string by today's reckoning. This would parallel the development of the banjo elsewhere, for example in England, where the tendency was to add more of the long strings, with seven and ten strings being common. Sweeney was responsible for the spread of the banjo and probably contracted with a drum maker in Baltimore, William Boucher, to start producing banjos for public sales. These banjos are basically drums with necks attached. A number have survived and a couple of them are in the collections of the Smithsonian Institute in Washington. Other makers, like Jacobs of New York, or Morrell who moved his shop to San Francisco during the Gold Rush, helped to supply the growing demand for the instrument in the mid-1840s, as the minstrel shows traveled westward to entertain the the gold diggers.

taken from here: http://www.trussel.com/bti/banjhist.htm

--4.250.63.11 07:33, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Here is a link to the painting The Old Plantation : http://www.history.org/history/teaching/enewsletter/volume3/images/OldPlantMed.jpg

Perhaps someone can add it to the article and clear up any misunderstanding about the 5th string.

--4.250.63.11 07:39, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

It looks to me as if the banjo painted has 3 long strings and 1 short, is this so? Doovinator 02:27, 2 June 2006 (UTC)

There's a more accessible link at https://encyclopediavirginia.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/4333hpr_b5deaccd6d628b6-scaled.jpg. The short 4th string is easy to see here. Koro Neil (talk) 02:24, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Old-Time Banjo Styles

Added info on Mike Seeger's DVD. --TheListeners

Seeger long neck

Removed the reference to Vega, as it made it seem that the instrument maker invented the long neck. Seeger developed the instrument, letting Vega use his name, as cited in The Vega Pete Seeger Banjo. --scruss (talk) 11:57, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Tenor Scale Length

I am going to change the statement that says 17 fret banjos are more common in Irish traditional music is it is not true. for some evidence of this look at these threads on a popular banjo forum: http://www.banjohangout.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=66083 http://www.banjohangout.org/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=68066 i realise this does not prove much but it helps back up my statement

African American template

the banjo has origins in African American slave communities, in its modern usage (and for at least the last century) it has been predominantly played by white musicians. It is insignificant enough a part of African American culture that it is never mentioned in African American music, much less in the main African American article. This template is wholly out of place in this article, and I will continue to remove it each time it is added. Cmadler 23:49, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

And I will continue to add it. As an African American, I would argue that the fact that it is African American in origin IS significant. It is just another fashion in which the pervasiveness of African American influence is manifested in American music. Neither country music nor bluegrass would be what they are today without the introduction of the banjo and the unique musical stylings of African Americans in the playing of both the banjo and the fiddle.[1][2] The fact that this isn't mentioned in the African American music article is an omission that should be corrected -- and is, IMO, the result of ignorance or inadvertent omission rather than non-notability. Furthermore, the omission of such factual information from one article on Wikipedia is hardly an argument for the continued omission of such information elsewhere, particularly given the gaping holes in the project and widely acknowledged systemic bias vis-a-vis subject matter related to non-whites -- quite the contrary. The fact is most people are completely unaware of the banjo's origins -- all the more reason the template should remain. People commonly associate bluegrass music with only poor, Appalachian whites. However, modern musicologists, cultural anthropologists and others finally are setting the record straight, with numerous articles and monographs devoted to the pervasive influence of African Americans on bluegrass music and the role played by the banjo as an instrument and stylistically as well. There are those who disagree with you on this matter, and you are not permitted to unilaterally make such a determination -- and on such a flimsy premise! You've got to come up with something better than citing the absence of information/knowledge on a topic as a rationale for your continued deletion of the AA template from this article. Ignorance or omission is not an effective -- or even remotely rational/defensible -- argument. And unless and until you do, the template stays.deeceevoice 06:04, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

And just so there's no doubt, I've tweaked the section treating African American music to include information further bolstering the appropriateness of the African American template, as well as the addition of a link to the AA portal, and have added citations to the relevant text (starting a "References" section), including to the opening assertion regarding the AA origin of the instrument. (You will note that I earlier edited the opening back to the more accurate assertion that the banjo is of African-American, rather than African, origin -- and added a reference to Africans in Appalachia for good measure.)deeceevoice 07:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The Banjo is one of may African contributions to music. Topics on wikipedia should reflect history not just contemporary views. Please do not remove the template again. futurebird 22:27, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

The key question is not whether the banjo is or is not an African-American (or even an African) contribution to music. The question is how useful the inclusion of this template is. If someone reading this page is interested in learning more about the African ancestry of the banjo, there are links in the article lead, and the template does not provide any. If someone is interested in learning about African American music, there is a link in the lead, which is repeated farther down in the template. If someone wants to learn about the banjo in minstrelsy, again there is a link in the lead. The real effects of the template are to provide direct links from the banjo article to pages such as Reparations, Rastafari movement, Nation of Islam, Black nationalism, NAACP, HBCU, and AAVE, to name a few. Is it really a useful addition to have this directly linked from this article? NO! We might just as well link to the Irish potato famine, because the banjo today is mainly used in bluegrass music, which has some Irish ancestry, or to the DuPont company, which originally developed the PET film which is now widely used on banjo heads. This "six degrees" approach is not helpful to readers, nor to the development of Wikipedia. Tell us what the direct connection is between the banjo and some of the other African American topics, please! Cmadler 14:40, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, why didn't you say so before -- instead of advancing the ridiculous arguments of "insignificance" and omission elsewhere? Blackface, African American culture, African American music, minstrel show. deeceevoice 23:30, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I got no problem with the roots music template instead. But, gee. Didja notice? Alphabetically, "African American music" comes before the others? I just love the alphabet. Don't you? :p deeceevoice 14:53, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

Origin

user:199.172.214.103 changed "of African American origin" in the first sentence to "of African origin". I'm not sure which version is better, mainly because of the ambiguity of the word origin: The banjo itself was created by Africans (or African Americans) in America, but its origins go back to Africa. Rather than revert, I decided to post the question here. ---Sluzzelin talk 00:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

maybe... "The banjo is an African American adaptation of a musical instrument of African origin. " ? futurebird 00:23, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! Including both origins sounds like a good solution. I think the what (a stringed instrument) should be the focus of the first sentence. How about: "The banjo is a instrument and is so not lol of African American origin adapted from one or several African instruments." ? Or is it too clumsy? ---Sluzzelin talk 00:53, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think it sounds fine. Tweak: "The banjo is a stringed instrument of African American origin adapted from several African instruments." futurebird 00:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Done. Thanks again. ---Sluzzelin talk 01:00, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Is it really African in origin? To make this leap one would have to ignore numerous similar stringed instruments in Europe that predate any (one) source of it being an African instrument from the 1600. In modern times its often better to feel good than be factual. This claim of African origin is shaky at best. I can find more pictures showing whites using this instrument painted in the 1700's than Africans in America. Early forms of guitars had no reverberation opening and were covered in skins as well. Even with all that the minstrel show claims prompting sales or growth of banjos is also absurd. Blue grass was in full swing as well as rural Americans playing sheet music written for the banjos was extremely common through the 1800's. No one wants to buck the trend or speak out against this because its held dear as an icon of African American contributions in American music. I honestly could randomly pick any culture and make a better case that they invented the banjo because of x y or z similar instrument.But the proof is in the pudding on who actually used and spread said use, British (Uk) settlers. If anyone wants a constructive convo about this I have lots of sources and am happy to make my case that popular modern history is emotion driven and not fact based. 98.19.68.151 (talk) 21:27, 15 September 2022 (UTC)

Well, I would be interested in a conversation. You'd have to really work to convince me, but I but I'm open to examine new ideas. I can be reached on my talk page. Best wishes, ~~~~ Jacqke (talk) 01:30, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I tend to agree. There is ample evidence of English settlers using a banjo type instrument in America long before black slaves. Bluegrass was not a black invention but was a musical style based on Irish and Scottish traditional music. I would prefer to see an actual historical handling of the topic rather than a clearly political apologist view. Is this saying that black slaves didn't bring musical traditions with them, certainly not. But the African instruments mentioned in the article sound like, or are played like a traditional banjo. This historical evaluation needs a lot more work. 2601:645:102:90F0:115F:7F05:ABAE:64B5 (talk) 23:10, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You might want to look into exactly when African slaves were first brought to America. It predates English settlers. Beach drifter (talk) 02:50, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

The Akonting is introduced in two different paragraphs. That should probably be cleaned up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:980:C000:2E30:D45C:7B4:2444:953F (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Banjo jokes

Would it be allowed to put a section in on well known banjo jokes (maybe under Trivia) ?--SpectrumAnalyser 22:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean the alternative 'banjo string', namely a part of the human male genitalia? ;):P 1812ahill (talk) 18:11, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Image Correction

Note that the image labelled "5-string banjo" in the section titled "5-string banjo" is clearly a 4-string banjo. Surely someone has a good image for this section? Crubins 14:56, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree. As a 5-string player myself, I immediately guessed that it was added by someone not too familiar with banjos. The trumpet in the image is also an obvious tip-off as they are typically associated with 4-string banjos in Dixieland Jazz, not 5-string banjos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.87.186.68 (talk) 13:20, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so how do we get a good picture? If I have to put up my own, you will all be sorry, 'cause I'm pretty ugly!Crubins 01:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to Empirecontact for loading a pleasant image. Crubins (talk) 12:34, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Image/Tuning Discrepancy

The image at the head of the article is of a 5-string, but the tuning given is the standard tenor tuning (CGDA) rather than the usual GDGBD (or GCGBD) for 5-string. One or the other should change, surely... Paul Magnussen (talk) 21:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

• I noticed that as well; clearly no one has revisited this issue in 5 years. I don't know where there is an available public domain illustration of 5-string tuning, else I'd fix this myself.
• Also, the tuning given is for a very specific kind of 4-string banjo, the tenor--I've corrected that in the caption, at least. (Just "4-string" implies the plectrum banjo, which is tuned the same as the 5-string, minus the short 5th string).
• Another problem with the image is the label "playing range". If the illustration is intended to give the range of the instrument, it's wrong. On the (usually) 22-fret neck of teh 5-string banjo the highest note would be nearly two octaves above the highest open string. On the (usually) 19-fret tenor (for which the tuningly is currently given), the highest note would be an octave and a tritone above the highest open string, or an octave higher than the note shown.

I, too, have noticed the range mistake. Assuming the tenor banjo (my favorite!) is the instrument to use, the highest note should be D (17-fret) or E (19-fret) — and it should be an octave above the D# presently shown. In addition, I suggest that we not use the treble clef with the "8" at the bottom (since banjo music is not written with this clef) but rather simply use a normal treble clef and include a note that the sounding pitch is an octave lower. I have created a good SVG file (in Finale) for this, but I don't know how to upload it. If anyone knows how to upload it, I release it to the public domain. Can anyone help? This SVG is available at tenor_banjo_range.svg. Tptasev (talk) 09:04, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Never mind, I eventually figured out how to upload it, and have done so. Tptasev (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

First Sentence

"The banjo is a stringed instrument developed by enslaved Africans in the United States, adapted from several African instruments."

So, Sweeney (white) may have added a string, another European-American developed steel strings, Henry Dobson developed the frets and the resonator, yet this was an instrument solely "developed by enslaved Africans"?

I would say the opening sentence is biased and demonstrably wrong. HedgeFundBob (talk) 15:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Tweaked it. Hopefully found a middle ground that will please all.Kww (talk) 13:08, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to revert, just for now, since I suspect this wants more discussion first. As for me, I'm quite certain that a fretless banjo with gut strings and no resonator is still a banjo. I'm less certain, but still comfortable with the idea that a banjo with fewer strings is still a banjo. So, all of those innovations are important in the history of the banjo, and most of them are post-Sweeney. I'd still give the origin credit to black slaves. (Of course that credit may only be due to the fact that we're fuzzy on the banjo's African ancestor(s), which may have quite simply been banjos themselves.) So, in terms of innovation, I'd put Sweeney in the "History" section, rather than single him out in the lead. The lead could somehow refer to ongoing development, but I'm not sure how that should be done. Cretog8 (talk) 17:59, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a difficult line to draw, and I thought I had done it by giving credit to African slaves for the "development" and to others for "refinement". If mentioning Sweeney in the lead is going too far, I'm OK with crediting the "refinement" to a larger group. Kww (talk) 19:57, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Scale Length Diagram

I drew up this diagram to illustrate the different scale lengths. Anyone else think it would be useful? Criticisms?
Kww (talk) 20:28, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Good start, but it also need metric scale lengths, and you're missing banjo-uke, pony, A-scale and Seeger styles --scruss (talk) 02:49, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I like it, but if you're going to have a schematic neck, you might as well put in the frets, number of strings, and neck lenghth. It would be nice to have a minstrel banjo and dates for the first exemplar of each type.ThomasLucas (talk) 06:48, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

Basic construction

This article seems to be missing the basic description and construction of a banjo, and jumps right into obscure (to a non-musician) variations. Is the face really drum-like as it appears? How is its construction different than a Guitar?

Sevesteen (talk) 23:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Great Idea Sevesteen. The banjo's construction is different than most other stringed instruments. I have heard the banjo descried as a drum on a stick! That's part of its appeal for me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jumpinbean (talk • contribs) 22:35, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I think there needs a section on tone rings, many players assert that the rim/tone ring construction brings different sound qualities. A short web search brings names for the different varieties, but I have not found yet, any descriptions illustrating the physical details, I'll keep looking. Davemoser123 (talk) 00:39, 14 April 2011 (UTC)

Yes, the article comes up way short regarding construction. How in fact can the basic structure and function be described when the article does not even contain the word 'bridge'? For an idea of the possibilites, please see Violin construction and mechanics.CountMacula (talk) 16:13, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Zither Banjo Caption

The zither banjo caption states that the instrument is a six sting. This is false, the zither banjo was always a five-stringed instrument. British builders typically used a set of guitar tuners as they were cheap and made the headstock symmetrical, the sixth tuner was attached to nothing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.166.14.45 (talk) 17:24, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Four-String Banjo

Who is this lovely young lady playing what appears to be a Deering Good Time 5-string banjo at the head of this section? I would hate to move this picture, but it is certainly misplaced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.80.246 (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Tuning anomaly

"This new banjo came to be tuned g'cgbd'. This is a feature that forms a different mode of tuning from the e'aeg#b' tuning of the banjar (note the G# has been flattened)."

Erm? e'aeg#b' is exacty a minor third lower than g'cgbd'. Thus the mode is the same, too. Paul Magnussen (talk) 19:51, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that this is a more generic sense of the word "mode", more or less synonymous with "method" or "manner" of tuning, and not the musical term. 69.29.207.109 (talk) 04:06, 28 December 2009 (UTC)

That passage confuses me too--in what sense has the G# been flattened? Not relative to the other strings. It's just a straight transposition. --Matt McIrvin (talk) 14:06, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh, I see--it's (relatively) down by a whole octave. "Flattened" to me conveys lowering by some smaller interval, which was why I was confused. Maybe it could be rephrased... --Matt McIrvin (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Changed the wording to make it a little clearer. I'm also not so sure about the use of capital and lowercase letters in the section further down--interpreted as Helmholtz notation, it would imply that the low strings are an octave lower than I think they actually are. But I'll leave that to people who know more about the conventions. --Matt McIrvin (talk) 14:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Currently, the article says it uses Helmholtz pitch notation to define tunings, but it doesn't. It uses scientific pitch notation.104.129.196.70 (talk) 20:59, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

Modern forms

"The banjo is tuned with tuning pegs or planetary gears, rather than the worm gear machine head used on guitars."

Although most modern banjos use planetary gears, worm gears are used by some. In fact, two of the photos attached to this article ("A modern 5-string banjo" and "A five-string banjo") show examples of this. Also, depending on your definition of modern, friction tuners (tuning pegs) are pretty much obsolete. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.70.244.179 (talk) 15:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Grover "Champion" friction pegs show up in banjo headstocks pretty often, I believe. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:18, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

"Hillbilly" connotations of Banjo Playing

Often banjo playing is humourously associated with hick, hillbilly or redneck "culture" - for example here in Australia Queensland (probably our equivalent of Louisiana and other Southern States of the USA) is often regarded as hick or lower class by many southerners and references to Queenslanders being "banjo players" are common - despite the fact that banjo playing is not actually all that widespread, the reference is more to try to compare Queenslanders to "Hillbillies". Is this common in the USA as well? Maybe a reference in the article to sarcastic references to banjo playing? --MichaelGG (talk) 02:48, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

It would need to be reliably sourced as notable. A while ago, the viola article went through some discussion about whether to include viola jokes or not. Viola players have a name for being the blondes of the orchestra... it is really mean to twist one of the pegs on a viola and not tell her which one, that kind of thing. Difference between a banjo and a trampoline? You don't need to take off your shoes to jump up and down on a banjo. How can you tell if the stage is level? The banjo player is drooling out of both sides of his mouth. Much as I enjoy it, I don't think that belongs in an encyclopedia; it didn't stick, not in the viola page. __ Just plain Bill (talk) 04:13, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I agree - more or less. A number of musical instrument jokes are crude or cutting, like the second example given by Just plain Bill, and these have no place in an encyclopedia. But some are not: A group of terrorists captured a bus full of banjo players. They threatened to release one every hour until their demands were met. That simply pokes fun at the REPUTATION of the banjo, not the BANJO PLAYERS. A number of pages, my example being the Ray Kroc page, have sections devoted to humor. Why shouldn't the banjo page? It would need to be checked and weeded regularly, but it seems to me that it should be possible.

tenor banjo often used in Celtic music?

I find the statement that tenor (or any) banjo is usually associated with Celtic Music a bit outrageous, Kww, because it just isn't so. You're going to have to find a citation for that. Elodoth (talk) 02:29, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

How about these:

• http://archive.banjosessions.com/dec03/irishmusic.pdf
• http://www.deeringbanjos.com/artists/irish-artists
• http://www.standingstones.com/banjo.html
• http://www.newschool.ie/Introducing_Irish_Tenor_Banjo/Default.2940.html
• http://www.allcelticmusic.com/music/66d40964-f870-102a-8020-000f1f67beb1/Irish_Tenor_Banjo_Techniques.html

and here's how it sounds: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oaqgJbRFBE —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

And one is needed for the claim that banjo is associated with country music. Elodoth (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm with you on this one. The Country Music Club in our town lets banjo players in, but they must play in the stairwell at the other end of the building with the door closed, with the other bluegrass musicians. However, there seem to be many people who believe that bluegrass is a kind of country music, and, of course, there are plenty of banjos in bluegrass. —Anne Delong (talk) 17:29, 5 March 2013 (UTC)

HeHe thanks Anne got a chuckle there! Beach drifter (talk) 04:01, 21 March 2013 (UTC)

Bluegrass is a commercialized form of country music. I'm referring to real cointry music, also known as old time, traditional, etc. The more modern stuff they call "country" is just s form somewhat countrified pop. Country music is the traditional music of country folks, not pop music played only in studios and concert halls by people wearing sideburns snd cowboy hats.

184.100.131.53 (talk) 11:57, 15 February 2014 (UTC)

Bluegrass is more accurately described as a roots music genre. Although there are a lot of musicians who play both traditional country tunes and bluegrass, the latter was developed from a combination of old mountain folk songs, Scottish fiddle tunes and African banjo rhythms. It is played to different rhythms, uses different instruments, and the themes of the songs (at least the traditional ones) are different from country music. I'm not sure that I agree about it being all commercialized, though. While it's true that bluegrass has seen a surge in popularity in the past few years, and quite a few bluegrass musicians actually make a living playing it, bluegrass festivals are the only ones that I know of where at any given time there are more people playing, singing and listening out behind the trailers than there are in front of the stage. I've even been to several where there were no paid bands at all. —Anne Delong (talk) 09:53, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Possible Bluegrass Wikiproject

If there is anyone who is interested in being involved in a Wikiproject about bluegrass music, please leave me a message at this page: User talk:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics, or check out what I've done so far at: User:Anne Delong/Bluegrass Topics. There are about 500 pages linked to the article "Bluegrass music" and many could use a little sprucing up.

6 Strings not "usual"

The very first sentence of this article needs to be edited, but "edit" currently seems to be broken. Banjos are usually 4- or 5- string instruments. 6-string models were extremely rare until very recently (the last 20 years), and most of those are hybrid "guitanjos" or "banjitars". Like guitars, banjos can, and do come with any number of strings, but the most usual instruments are 4-string tenors and plectrums, and 5-string bluegrass models. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 18:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, the reason you can't edit the page is because it is semi-protected at the moment. Braincricket (talk) 19:27, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I fixed it. —Anne Delong (talk) 20:12, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

I see; thank you.

Something else I've noticed is that wood-top banjos don't seem to be mentioned. The article strongly suggests that all banjos have membrane tops, but wood tops have been around since at least the 1850s. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:49, 24 May 2013 (UTC)

One other point: Shouldn't the 6-string that basically bolts a guitar neck onto a banjo body properly be in the section on "hybrids"? It fits the generic description given for other hybrids in that section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.95.43.249 (talk) 23:13, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Material moved from article

Louise Scruggs writes about the history of the banjo in the book, "Earl Scruggs and the 5-String Banjo". I am uncertain of her resources but suspect she has good reason to believe the veracity of her own report, all things considered. According to her, the ancient ancestor of the banjo is the Rebec, an instrument originated in Arabia thousands of years ago. The Rebec's range grew with the growth of Islam. It was brought to the United States by negro slaves from North and West Africa. Thomas Jefferson reports in 1785 that the "banjar" was the principle musical instrument of the American Negroes. By this time, it had developed into a four stringed instrument. In 1831, a banjo enthusiast named Joel Walker Sweeney added the unique fifth string to complete the true American banjo.

This information disagrees with the information i found here in Wiki about the Rebec. The Rebec is discribed as a kind of bowed Lyre. I found that odd, as a lyre is by design a plucked instrument. I hope someone can add some conclusive information here. I have always assumed it was an African instrument until reading this book. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Billsoflo (talk • contribs)

Separate Articles

I am interested in making expansion articles for the four and five string banjos, just to delve into the differences through music theory and playing styles. I just wanted to get thoughts before I did so... Carwile2 ^{*Shoot me a message*} 21:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

BanSitar

I can add a reference to support the brief mention in the article of this. Is it acceptable to also add a reference to a BanSitar stub article which is under development? Editors might want to contribute to it with a view to moving it the the main Wikipedia. G J Coyne (talk)

Hello G J Coyne. It's fine to mention the draft article here on the talk page, but not in the article until the page hits mainspace. At that time the article name will be changed. You can also mention it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Musical Instruments and ask for help there. —Anne Delong (talk) 04:04, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

Anne Delong, thank you for your helpful guidance.G J Coyne (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:49, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Page hacked?

Section 2.1 "Music ==" is opinionated and contains bad grammar and capitalization. I also don't see it show up anywhere in the edit interface. Did a clever bluegrass evangelist figure out a way to hack the page? Existentialmutt (talk) 03:02, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Tuning / Playing Range Inconsistency

The illustration shown at the top of the article is of a 5-string bluegrass banjo, but the tuning given in the "Playing Range" notation directly below it is for the 4-string tenor banjo, as is the palying range shown. The 5-string bluegrass instrument is tuned: G4-D3-G3-B3-D4 (occasionally G4-C3-G3-B3-D4, when used for folk styles), and the rage of a typical 22-fret instrument is to C6. I suggest either changing the "Playing Range" illustration to correspond to the instrument shown, or else changing the banjo illustration to show a tenor banjo, to keep the box content consistent.

I fixed this.

74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)

Notable Players

I did some work on the "notable players" section, adding some detail, references, and a couple of historic players. Will do more here when I find the time.

I urge caution in developing this section. Too often these lists become overly large and unweidly, as everybody and their brother adds their personal favorites to the list. I strongly suggest listing no more than one or two key proponents for each stylistic category, at most (e.g., bluegrass; plectrum; Irish; classic; etc.). If need be, a list of all the banjo players in the world could be developed separately and linked from here, but the list in this article should remain lean. :)

I did some more work on this section, cleaned it up, reworded some ambiguous phrases, and added a bunch of references. Also relocated the section to -- what seemed to me -- a more logical position in the article. I think it's now a lot tighter than it was, so I removed the "warning" header, though it could probalby still use some polishing.

74.95.43.249 (talk) 01:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC) Barney McKenna is now mentioned three times in Notable Players; first, last, and about half-way down. Some editing needed.Dean1954 (talk) 12:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Bad References

The first three reference links don't work. I haven't checked the rest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.129.200.79 (talk) 10:54, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

Order of Strings and Tuning Direction

Nowhere in the article does it state whether the tunings on 4-string plectrum and tenor banjos are listed from the highest note to the lowest, or vice versa. I know it is assumed to be "common knowledge", but newcomers like me, who have no experience with the banjo, reading this article might not know. Assuming all tunings are listed the same way, one clarification inserted once near a tuning in the top half of the article is all it would take to clarifiy this. S. Jenkins (talk) 17:06, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

There are numerous tunings used on the five-string banjo, most or all of them re-entrant, so the strings are not in low-to-high order. Other types of banjo have their own tunings. See Stringed instrument tunings. Just plain Bill (talk) 17:44, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

The question was intended for 4-string banjos. So, according to that article, for 4-string plectrums and tenors, if we say the original tuning is C3 G3 B3 D4 (plectrum) or C3 G3 D4 A4 (tenor), we are indicating that C3 is the lowest pitch which is usually assigned to the largest or leftmost string on a right-handed instrument when it is standing vertical, correct? (Yes, I know 5-string banjos are the exception, but plectrums and tenors typically don't have drones, and thus may or may not be re-entrant.) S. Jenkins (talk) 10:40, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

(Ah, I see you've edited the question after I responded. No worries...) Yes, in that article the strings/courses are listed from left to right, as viewed from the instrument's front with the scroll or headstock pointing up. In most cases, that means the heaviest, lowest-voiced string is on the left. (I say heaviest instead of thickest because sometimes a silver-wound string can be thinner than an aluminum-wound string meant for a higher pitch. For example, the G3 string of a widely used Thomastik "Dominant" violin set is thinner than the D4 string in that set.) I am most familiar with the Irish tuning of the tenor banjo, or GDAE. I keep the courses of my octave mandolin tuned G2G2 D3D3 A3A3 E4E4, only sometimes putting it into GDAD.

Some brief explanation of string order could go in this article, as you suggest. I might have a go at it soon, unless somebody else gets there first. Just plain Bill (talk) 15:15, 3 May 2018 (UTC)

That would be handy. Thanks for answering this question. S. Jenkins (talk) 01:24, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

I went and did it. I find it interesting that strings are conventionally numbered from right to left in the front view (i.e. usually highest to lowest) while tuning descriptions conventionally go from left to right (or low to high.) That is probably more info than is appropriate for this article, though. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Improvised fifth-string capo

A fellow in a group I play with sometimes puts an ad hoc capo made from the cap of a cheap ballpoint pen on his fifth string's second fret. While this anecdote is by no means a reliable source for encyclopedic purposes, if someone finds an acceptable source for such a gadget being commonly used, it might deserve to be mentioned in the article. Just plain Bill (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2018 (UTC)

Nothing about 'Classic Banjo'?

For those unfamiliar with the style known as 'Classic Banjo', I should point out that it has very little to do with classical music. Considering its popularity (see Joe Morley) I'm rather surprised to find this omission. As if to rub it in, the Joe Morley article mistakenly included the term 'classical' banjoist (I've since edited it). I'm probably not the person to kick off a new section but I would like to see it added, especially since the style is still very much alive. Ophir (talk) 23:27, 31 July 2018 (UTC)

Invitation, a new article with room for banjo related content

To anyone interested in expanding general knowledge of the banjo's place among musical instruments, you might be interested in an article I have started, History of lute-family instruments. By myself it will take some years to write this. Possibly the scope of the article will be too large and have to be focused. If any would like to work on it, please join me. Jacqke (talk) 10:42, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Sources for future article expansion

• Allen, Greg (23 August 2011), "The Banjo's Roots, Reconsidered", All Things Considered, National Public Radio.

 — LlywelynII 20:46, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

American Banjo Museum

After visiting the American Banjo Museum in Oklahoma City, I have begun The American Banjo Museum. I have photos to add once I have better internet (later this week). I am looking for any critique you may offer. There is still much to do on the article, but I would like to get something published this week. Thanks,Jacqke (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

Early History

Dear God, the early history section is a mess. I have never heard of a Portugese instrument called the "Banza", and can only find information on a Haitian one, but that doesn't fit the description at all. The man in the picture is just holding a vihuela, and it too doens't fit the description. The sources are also a mess: The Banjo Guru may have had a nice site, but he doesn't seem reputable or scientific, and doesn't cite his sources. The etymology of the Banjo has long been disputed, but the facts claimed on here are really outdated. Also, the first paragraphs seem to disprove the banjo's African ancestry, while the later just go on like it has been established. As you can probably tell, I'm not a native english speaker, so I'm not the right person to rewrite the section, but I might just revert it to an older, more sensible version or ask somebody who knows how to write to fix it.And if you need sources, just look at the MGG and New Grove articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MrNiggle (talk • contribs) 09:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)

MrNiggle, thanks for mentioning this. I find it grossly concerning that an article so extensively researched can leave out the Haitian banza, which is the closest offshore bridge to the main continent with African/Caribbean influences. I don’t even know how this is possible but I cannot say I am surprised. I’ve seen a pattern over a 10-year span in numerous instances where Haitian contributions could have but were not mentioned for reasons that only seem exclusionary. Could it be that extracting information from French sources is cumbersome? While we have Moroccan, Persian even Chinese and Japanese banjo-like instruments researched and regarded, it just doesn’t make sense. There is even intricate details on a how a gourd banza was made dating back to 1810, which was neither uncovered or bothered while there was a single sentence (without a follow-up) in regards to the decree in 1678 in Martinique (another French holding) which forbad blacks from gathering to play it. Obviously, I had added further detail onto the shortcomings of this article in some recent edits. Savvyjack23 (talk) 09:59, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

Daniel Laemouahuma Jatta and the akonting theory

Following on the comment by MrNiggle, we have Daniel Jatta's recent well-supported theory that the Gambian akonting is currently the strongest candidate for the most direct ancestor of what we know as the modern banjo. It's based on good research and strong evidence and scholars have been quite welcoming of this news. Yet there is no mention of this at all in the article. Is anyone available to touch up the intro paragraphs and the history section to reflect this important discovery? I certainly think the African origins of the banjo should be valued more in this article than loving references to the Eagles and the rest of white culture, prevailing readership notwithstanding. Zelchenko (talk) 03:33, 29 October 2021 (UTC)

Merging Banjo with Banjo Music?

Banjo music is a short article that it seems would be better suited to merge with this article as an additional section than to have two separate articles. 18.29.15.212 (talk) 01:12, 18 February 2023 (UTC)

I tend to agree. The other article is an under sourced stub that includes a list of songs with no clear inclusion criteria, and mention of three players, also with no specific reason they are chosen. It's a pretty lousy article that should just be merged unless a major well-sourced expansion happens. oknazevad (talk) 05:00, 6 November 2023 (UTC)