Tweet
This is in no way meant to open a can of worms nor is it an attempt to bait or cause discomfort. If you respond to this thread, please be respectful of ALL opinions cast and give proper thought to you answer before posting. If we all show constraint and courtesy we may be able to have a deep, meaninful, discussion about a what is or is not acceptable in musical interpretation at living history venues.
In the rules of this board therre is a strong warning to avoid "farbism". I think that by ourr participation on this board we all agree with this point. We all want to avoid in-authenticity in our impressions and in our oral presentations. That is somewhat easier to o when it comes to material culture issues dealing with clothing and arms since the source material for these itmes is varied and fairly widespread. There are hundreds of photos of shirts, original patterns in period publications and collections and more than a few preserved examples in both public and private collections. Arms, and equipment have not only these sources but also allow us to use plans, arsenal specifiactions and patent materials and technical drawings to assist us in our interpretation. Even in matters of writing and linguistics we have some very good sources to help guide our interpretation. Music and period "folk" instruments becomes a much harder case.
When I use the word folk here I specifically mean instruments that do not fit into the military or civilian classic ensambles (orhcestral, brass, fife and drum) but rather, those instruments played by small groups, amature individuals or professionals, that do not fit into the description above. Banjos, dulcimers, guitars, harmonicas, melodeons, violins, bones, fire tongs, accordeons, flutes, whistles, etc, all fall into this latter category.
Here is the problem for me: what level of "farbism" is accpetable to this group and how do we define it? So that the discussion can be meaningful we need to have a starting point. I will stick to banjos as it is the subject with which I am most familiar.
I can tell you that with less than 250 known examples of early banjos to use for research, it is quite hard to define clear parmeters for "authenticity". If we use the paradigms of other instrument collections research we can see clear trends and characteristics that can help us define a vocabulary of design elements. The problem is that such a work, if strictly followed, would eliminate all but a few of the instruments currently in use in the hobby. For the sake of disclosure it should be known that my early banjos would fall into this category as well. Most of the banjos out there (including a number of mine) simply do not measure up. Let me be even more specific.
Banjos made by William Boucher fall into two distinct groups: painted and unpainted. Those that were painted are either false grained (indian red and black glaze) or simlply red and a few (at least three) have stencils in addition to paint. Those not painted (and showing no sign off ever being painted) are all made of birds eye maple. If we understand this fully then is a cherry Boucher without paint acceptable? Even though there is no evidence exists that such an instrument was ever made?
I wish I was not personally torn on this matter. I can see both sides and indeed I have made justt such a banjo so it is not my intent to point a finger at anyone besides myself.
So here then is the question at hand and, I hope we can have a meaningful discussion on it. What rises to the level of "farbism" in music?
In the rules of this board therre is a strong warning to avoid "farbism". I think that by ourr participation on this board we all agree with this point. We all want to avoid in-authenticity in our impressions and in our oral presentations. That is somewhat easier to o when it comes to material culture issues dealing with clothing and arms since the source material for these itmes is varied and fairly widespread. There are hundreds of photos of shirts, original patterns in period publications and collections and more than a few preserved examples in both public and private collections. Arms, and equipment have not only these sources but also allow us to use plans, arsenal specifiactions and patent materials and technical drawings to assist us in our interpretation. Even in matters of writing and linguistics we have some very good sources to help guide our interpretation. Music and period "folk" instruments becomes a much harder case.
When I use the word folk here I specifically mean instruments that do not fit into the military or civilian classic ensambles (orhcestral, brass, fife and drum) but rather, those instruments played by small groups, amature individuals or professionals, that do not fit into the description above. Banjos, dulcimers, guitars, harmonicas, melodeons, violins, bones, fire tongs, accordeons, flutes, whistles, etc, all fall into this latter category.
Here is the problem for me: what level of "farbism" is accpetable to this group and how do we define it? So that the discussion can be meaningful we need to have a starting point. I will stick to banjos as it is the subject with which I am most familiar.
I can tell you that with less than 250 known examples of early banjos to use for research, it is quite hard to define clear parmeters for "authenticity". If we use the paradigms of other instrument collections research we can see clear trends and characteristics that can help us define a vocabulary of design elements. The problem is that such a work, if strictly followed, would eliminate all but a few of the instruments currently in use in the hobby. For the sake of disclosure it should be known that my early banjos would fall into this category as well. Most of the banjos out there (including a number of mine) simply do not measure up. Let me be even more specific.
Banjos made by William Boucher fall into two distinct groups: painted and unpainted. Those that were painted are either false grained (indian red and black glaze) or simlply red and a few (at least three) have stencils in addition to paint. Those not painted (and showing no sign off ever being painted) are all made of birds eye maple. If we understand this fully then is a cherry Boucher without paint acceptable? Even though there is no evidence exists that such an instrument was ever made?
I wish I was not personally torn on this matter. I can see both sides and indeed I have made justt such a banjo so it is not my intent to point a finger at anyone besides myself.
So here then is the question at hand and, I hope we can have a meaningful discussion on it. What rises to the level of "farbism" in music?
Comment