How the banjo gets its tone

[lukmanohnz]

Totally ruins the mystique, but if you really must know here's (https://medium.com/the-physics-arxiv-blog/the-secret-of-the-banjos-sound-revealed-d45f811ddf3d) the answer.

[Michael Weaver]

Hmmm, I always thought it was the devil. Guess I don't know everything.

[catmandu2]

Hmmm, I always thought it was the devil. Guess I don't know everything.

Aptly summed!

Of course, the author is presumed to be thinking of a Gibson/Scruggs BLUEGRASS banjo--although I didn't read more than a couple of sentences (with half I disagreed ; ); supplied diagram doesn't illustrate, for example, how a banjo is necessarily "metallic" if head/rim is wood, or that a mandolin is necessarily less metallic--article is missing the issue--a metal tone ring :( , (article or experiment must be presumed to have a turn-of-the-century/metal clad rim for its subject?)

[Petrus]

But what of other stringed instruments where the bridge moves relative to the fixed ends of the string like the banjo? These include the violin and the mandolin but they do not produce a metallic ring. Politzer says this is because the soundboard on these instruments is made of wood and so does not move nearly as much as the membrane on a banjo. Indeed, he points out that if the membrane on a banjo is replaced with the wood, the quintessential banjo features disappear.

Ya think!

[Ivan Kelsall]

From the article - "....he points out that if the membrane on a banjo is replaced with the wood, the quintessential banjo features disappear". Do you really need to be prize winning physicist to work that one out ?. I hope you guys in the US didn't pay for that study out of your taxes anyway !. Maybe his next project should be about 'chocolate teapots',:disbelief:
Ivan:mandosmiley:

[G7MOF]

Well, I'll go to the foot of our stairs!

[journeybear]

Pretty sure this is how:

121915

See, right there in the middle? That's a banjo in its formative stages. Oh, the horror! :crying:

[journeybear]

"When this modulation reaches the audio level — Politzer says 36 Hz should do — the quality of the note changes. 'The sound will have acquired a definite metallic plink, akin to banging on sheet metal,' he says."

This is quite true. I've heard many a banjo player achieve this effect, with little apparent effort.

[mandroid]

the picture is of one of Gold Tones big Cello Banjos

a lot of tone ring & Pot variations done in banjos over the decades ..
ball bearings springs square tubes with holes in it
thick , heavy and thin light hoops..
resonator backs

some how skipped over all that variety ..

so there still is that 42 treatise on the tone parameters of that part of the sound ..

[catmandu2]

a lot of tone ring & Pot variations done in banjos over the decades .. some how skipped over all that variety ..

Yep--lots of variety in banjos...even tone rings are made from wood, too. And my metal-clad TOTC banjo sounds eminently non-metallic, with its nylon strings...yeah, I presume author is not talking about gourd banjos either ;). Well I didn't read it all--so I must have missed the part where author explains that it's all about the metal fingerpick..

One of the salient features of Bela's flim is an opportunity to hear just how thin and metallic (specialized) is the modern BG banjo, compared to a garden of earthy instruments

WDCxaQhhL0A

[PaulBills]

Is it just me, or does a banjo require the drumskin to BE a banjo?

[allenhopkins]

But of course another variable not included in Dr. Politzer's explanation, is the composition of the string. My gut (or Nylgut) strung banjos do not have a metallic "twang." They don't sound like nylon- or gut-strung guitars, probably attributable to the greater motion of the membrane-supported bridge, but there are a bunch of other variables that might be looked at:

1. Amplification produced by the banjo resonator vs. the guitar/mandolin/violin "soundbox," where the sound reflected from the back encounters soundholes on the wooden instruments, but to some extent is passed through the vibrating membrane of the banjo. And, of course, many banjos are "open-back," which adds another set of potential variables.

2. Bridge design, which is quite different from wooden instruments to banjos, in terms of weight, materials used, etc.

3. Vibratory characteristics of wooden tops vs. animal-skin or plastic banjo heads -- beyond their respective stiffnesses' effect on bridge movement. Strike a banjo head with a drumstick, then strike a mandolin top with the same stick, and the sounds produced will be much different, even with neither bridge being involved at all.

Can't quarrel with a Nobel Prize theoretical physicist (yeah, but I've never heard him play Cripple Creek, either), but speculate there may be even more to it...

[journeybear]

There's a link at the bottom of the page that brings you to the full report. Here's the pdf: http://arxiv.org/pdf/1406.4907.pdf At some point my eyes glazed over. Among the references cited, though, is one from a familiar name:

7. R. Siminoff, How to Set Up the Best Sounding Banjo, (Hal Leonard, Milwaukee, 1999).

Yes, I'm sure that title will make some eyes roll, but there it is. all the same.

[Mandoplumb]

Wonder how long he went to school to know that a skin or plastic membrane reacts differently than a piece of wood?

[belbein]

I admit I haven't read the article, but I noted that there was only one glancing mention above about the one really significant difference between a banjo and all other stringed instruments: it's the tone ring. Add a tone ring to a mandolin, and my money says it would have a twang too ... muted because it has a wooden soundboard, not an extremely flexible skin, but twang nevertheless.

[belbein]

Can't quarrel with a Nobel Prize theoretical physicist .

I ain't believin' nothin' until Dr. Cohen weighs in.

[Ed Goist]

......Rudely.

[Ivan Kelsall]

There are so many different things that can be done to make a banjo sound different & all Bluegrass banjo players must at one time experimented with some of them. Different 'skin' thicknesses / tension. Different bridge types/thicknesses/height. Different gauges of string & if you own a Stelling with it's highly adjustable tailpiece,string 'back pressure' behind the bridge & adjusting the length of the string behind the bridge as well. Banjos can be made to sound 'ultra bright' or as 'tubby' as hades. You could perform the same 'adjustments' on say, 5 different makes of banjo, & achieve 5 different 'tones',because,as in the case of most instruments of the same type,they'll have their own individual sound,
Ivan

[Tavy]

I'm sorry, but I'm struggling with the idea that a banjo has tone.

Sorry, but someone had to say it :mandosmiley:

[catmandu2]

Yeah, I only skimmed it, but it seems apparent--by the technical omissions--that the author is talking about an idiomatic approach to playing the banjo--how the banjo is deployed--to derive his/her "metallic" thesis


121948


Big difference between deployment and the author's design/construction premise. I couldn't ascertain whether the article was intended as parody, or not. I'm still unsure.

Okay, I read it. I'll give the experiment the benefit of the doubt. But the article:

The banjo is a stringed instrument that produces a distinctive metallic sound - sometimes

What gives the banjo it’s a bell-like ring [sic]...? - incorporation of a bell-brass tone ring, for one

[lukmanohnz]

Strike a banjo head with a drumstick, then strike a mandolin top with the same stick, and the sounds produced will be much different, even with neither bridge being involved at all. OK, Allen - are you volunteering YOUR mandolin for this experiment? :whistling:

[journeybear]

Did you read the article or the study? Because the article is a little humorous, but the the study goes into some depth about the physics involved and is definitely not a joke.

[Bernie Daniel]

Hmmm, I always thought it was the devil. Guess I don't know everything.

I thought the fiddle was the devil's box?

[Bernie Daniel]

Did you read the article or the study? Because the article is a little humorous, but the the study goes into some depth about the physics involved and is definitely not a joke.

Yes always humorous to read the statement "well I didn't really read or understand the article but I can tell you what is wrong with it!" :))

[catmandu2]

Yes always humorous to read the statement "well I didn't really read or understand the article but I can tell you what is wrong with it!" :))

First impressions are salient. When an essay begins with such an equivocation (The banjo is a stringed instrument that produces a distinctive metallic sound...), my overall impression is fomented...and in this case, later confirmed by more complete reading.

[Bernie Daniel]

First impressions are salient. When an essay begins with such an equivocation (The banjo is a stringed instrument that produces a distinctive metallic sound...), my overall impression is fomented...and in this case, later confirmed by more complete reading.

Perhaps you are merely observing that the writer of the story and the Nobel Prize winner who did the theoretical analysis for the study are two different people? Most likely that description of the banjo sound has little to do with the validity of the physics employed for the assessment or the conclusions.

[catmandu2]

Perhaps you are merely observing that the writer of the story and the Nobel Prize winner who did the theoretical analysis for the study are two different people? Most likely that description of the banjo sound has little to do with the validity of the physics employed for the assessment or the conclusions.

Quite

[belbein]

I applaud your fomentation, Catman. Personally, I am happy sticking with my ignorance and reliance on Dr. Cohen, wherever he may be.

[catmandu2]

Okay, Bernie, in fairness to you, I accept redirection here. I don't dispute the conclusion of Clowning/Politzer (that the reason the banjo has extra pizazz/twang/ring is the modulating frequency produced by the unique condition of the bridge/vellum, etc). I'm just easily distracted.

But DRAT science for solving these perplexions!

Who put the bomp
In the bomp bah bomp bah bomp?
Who put the ram
In the rama lama ding dong?

[Bernie Daniel]

I understand the skepticism toward scientists and that realm by non-scientists and it goes both ways of course. There is the same tension between faith and reason for example. I like to live with one foot in each camp.

In fact, there exist, as Dante said, levels of hell. When I was a fresh new college graduate getting ready to stat a doctorate in biochemistry (previous century) one thing that seemed close to the supernatural to was how enzymes catalyze some chemical reactions rates by over a hundred-fold -- all at body temperatures -- this was magic to me.

But in the few years I was taking my grad school classes and doing my dissertation research the rest of science chipped away at enzyme mechanisms -- I followed the work, paper by paper the analysis of the enzyme(s) mechanism(s). Drip, drip drip the pieces of the puzzle came in place and one morning as I was having my first coffee at the lab and reading up on the latest published studies it dawned on me that we now essentially knew the answer to the question. It was a kind of a huge let down and I was a little miffed that the mystery went away before I had a shot at it -- I suppose I was kind of irritated at science myself at that point -- irrational though I was.

On the other side of the coin almost every advance in human life style, medical or technical, has come, directly or indirectly, from science. Likewise, anything in the world that is based on a physical phenomenon -- including banjos -- can be fair game for examination by the scientific method. I'll posit that no "philosophy" (i.e., the scientific method) has had a greater impact on humanity (not all has been for the good -- but most has). Note I mentioned banjo so I'm really OT with this. :)

[Charlieshafer]

After reading the article a bunch of times to attempt to figure out the seriousness level, or exactly what the point was, about the only conclusion I can draw is there are some things Nobel scientists really shouldn't be wasting their time with.

[bart mcneil]

"... there are some things Nobel scientists really shouldn't be wasting their time with."

Most important breakthroughs in medicine and science in general come from scientists "wasting their time".

[lukmanohnz]

I believe this thread has officially jumped the shark, but as I am the OP I really have no one to blame but myself. Carry on...

BTW Bernie - did Dante happen to mention on which level of hell the banjo ensemble was performing?

[PaulBills]

BTW Bernie - did Dante happen to mention on which level of hell the banjo ensemble was performing?

I believe it was the 7th circle?

[belbein]

My, I do feel allusive today. Ergo:


It was a kind of a huge let down and I was a little miffed that the mystery went away before I had a shot at it -- I suppose I was kind of irritated at science myself at that point -- irrational though I was.

I shall be telling this with a sigh
Somewhere ages and ages hence:
Two roads diverged in a wood, and I—
I took the one less traveled by
and that has made all of the difference.


anything in the world that is based on a physical phenomenon--including banjos--can be fair game

There are more things in heaven and earth ... Than are dreamt of in your philosophy*

Including banjos, obviously.
_____________
*Philosophy, in the 17th C. understanding, meaning what we call science.

[journeybear]

I'll see your Frost and raise you a Berra:

When you come to a fork in the road, take it.

[GRW3]

Alan Munde, a banjo player of renown, says when a banjo player talks about "good tone" he means how loud it is.

[journeybear]

OK, I'm going to get serious for about two minutes - that's about all I'll be able to manage here - and tell a true story. Back when I was living up north, I used to stop by George Youngblood's place pretty often. One day I noticed a banjo lying on one of his workbenches. I asked him about this, as he seemed to always be working on wooden instruments. He said it was a $50,000 banjo that belonged to Charlie Daniels. I asked him how a banjo could be worth that much, aren't they all pretty much the same. He said, "Play it, you'll see." I strummed the open strings and, man alive, that thing rang like a bell. I had never heard a banjo sound that good. (OK, never heard a banjo sound good, period. Beat you to it. ;) ) I still don't know why or how this was so, but it was so - hearing was believing. I guess that was money spent, even if it doesn't sound like a bargain.

Now, if David Politzer had done his research on a banjo of this quality, and compared his findings with the same tests performed on a standard quality banjo, his study would have that much more validity. BTW, he received the Nobel Prize in Physics (shared with two others), for his work in particle physics: "for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction." That's right, "strong interaction," not "string interaction." ;) So, since this study is somewhat out of his main field of concentration ... well, draw what conclusions you will. I've clearly lost the ability to maintain my serious attitude. :whistling:

[lukmanohnz]

Alan Munde, a banjo player of renown, says when a banjo player talks about "good tone" he means how loud it is.
I'm certain Alan has his tongue firmly planted in cheek when he says this. For a great example of Alan's tone, taste, and artistry, check out Four Leaf Clover on the Knee Deep In Bluegrass album from AcuTab.

[catmandu2]

Alan Munde, a banjo player of renown, says when a banjo player talks about "good tone" he means how loud it is.

A big rig like a BG banjer pretty much just growls, and loudly. I still have a mastertone-style (tenor) that can growl--although not like those BG machines. Heck the G-string on my little Bacon gdae-strung could punch you in the gut if it wanted to. The banjo is a powerful instrument--if one needs it; I like how it can cut like a trumpet (metallic--yes, but sheet metal no ;) ), but challenges us to sound sweet

121988

[GRW3]

Alan has a new album out with Billy Bright. "Bright Munde" is the two of them banging out some delightful mando/banjo tunes.

[journeybear]

I like how it can cut like a trumpet (metallic--yes, but sheet metal no ... )

Yeah, I didn't understand that sheet metal simile. Mr. Politzer can't be too well versed in either banjos or acoustics - which is odd, because physicists study acoustics on the undergrad level. Sheet metal produces an unfocused sound, more akin to noise than music, while a banjo - like 'em or not - produces a more focused sound. Likening the sound produced by a banjo to that produced by sheet metal is something - well, it's kind of like something a mandolin player would say. Gee, I wonder ... :confused:

[catmandu2]

Well, mine sound bit like sheet metal when they're not tuned. I take no umbrage--I think the author might have been thinking of that pinging, resonating overtone, or whatever...bit like a cymbal maybe?

[Ellen T]

Maybe it was the way sheet metal is used for sound effects and whatever that instrument from "Tie Me Kangaroo Down, Sport" that does the wappa wappa wappa (can't remember the term for those buckling metal things). Could the comparison have been more about reverberation than tone?

[catmandu2]

... wappa wappa wappa (can't remember the term for those buckling metal things).

"wackadoo" ;)


ugcZVNLie6I

[lukmanohnz]

Yeah, I didn't understand that sheet metal simile. Mr. Politzer can't be too well versed in either banjos or acoustics - which is odd, because physicists study acoustics on the undergrad level. Sheet metal produces an unfocused sound, more akin to noise than music, while a banjo - like 'em or not - produces a more focused sound. Likening the sound produced by a banjo to that produced by sheet metal is something - well, it's kind of like something a mandolin player would say. Gee, I wonder ... :confused:
'Focused' is an apt description. Sid Lewis - a great banjo picker - likes to kick off tunes with, 'OK, let's drill 'em a new ear hole...."

[Charlieshafer]

"... there are some things Nobel scientists really shouldn't be wasting their time with."

Most important breakthroughs in medicine and science in general come from scientists "wasting their time".

Don't worry, I'm aware of that. Our Wednesday picking group is all research docs, a couple on Nobel-prizewinning teams themselves..

[journeybear]

Sad fact is there is no Nobel prize awarded for music. Chemistry, Economics, Literature, Medicine, Peace, Physics - yes. But music? No. :( They are awarded "in recognition of cultural and/or scientific advances." I guess music hasn't advanced much since 1901. Oh well ...

So musically inclined scientists have to blow off steam on their own, somehow. ;)

[Bernie Daniel]

"... there are some things Nobel scientists really shouldn't be wasting their time with."

Most important breakthroughs in medicine and science in general come from scientists "wasting their time".


So so so true -- serendipity is the real mother of invention. :)

[Bernie Daniel]

I'll see your Frost and raise you a Berra:

When you come to a fork in the road, take it. :))

[Bernie Daniel]

Alan Munde, a banjo player of renown, says when a banjo player talks about "good tone" he means how loud it is.

Oh no the long knives have come out now!

[Bernie Daniel]

OK, I'm going to get serious for about two minutes - that's about all I'll be able to manage here - and tell a true story. Back when I was living up north, I used to stop by George Youngblood's place pretty often. One day I noticed a banjo lying on one of his workbenches. I asked him about this, as he seemed to always be working on wooden instruments. He said it was a $50,000 banjo that belonged to Charlie Daniels. I asked him how a banjo could be worth that much, aren't they all pretty much the same. He said, "Play it, you'll see." I strummed the open strings and, man alive, that thing rang like a bell. I had never heard a banjo sound that good. (OK, never heard a banjo sound good, period. Beat you to it. ;) ) I still don't know why or how this was so, but it was so - hearing was believing. I guess that was money spent, even if it doesn't sound like a bargain.

Now, if David Politzer had done his research on a banjo of this quality, and compared his findings with the same tests performed on a standard quality banjo, his study would have that much more validity. BTW, he received the Nobel Prize in Physics (shared with two others), for his work in particle physics: "for the discovery of asymptotic freedom in the theory of the strong interaction." That's right, "strong interaction," not "string interaction." ;) So, since this study is somewhat out of his main field of concentration ... well, draw what conclusions you will. I've clearly lost the ability to maintain my serious attitude. :whistling:

Ha ha good story. Just a few comments for our non-scientist friends.

First, off let me note that getting a Ph.D. only proves that you have a certain level of grey matter and that you possess the ability to apply thinking and reasoning to the solution of a problem (generally an original, hard problem).

That said having earned a Ph.D.degree does not mean said individual WILL actually use his talents later in life. For example Dr.Whomever could decide that a life spent with a continuous buzz at the local tavern is preferable to slaving away in the lab.

On the other side of the coin, if a scientist wins a Nobel prize for whatever - -it means he/she has made rather exceptional use of his/her talents and training.

Bringing it back to this thread -- to me this means that while David Politzer may not be trained specifically in banjology he certainly processes the brains and training in how to use systematic research for attacking a problem -- any problem. Scientists often make significant or important discoveries in fields they were never trained in. Including I suppose even banjos.

[Bernie Daniel]

Sad fact is there is no Nobel prize awarded for music. Chemistry, Economics, Literature, Medicine, Peace, Physics - yes. But music? No....So musically inclined scientists have to blow off steam on their own, somehow. ;)

Kind of fitting since the Nobel foundation is based on profits from dynamite?

[Bernie Daniel]

"wackadoo" ;)


ugcZVNLie6I

Not too awesome -- so simple and so divine -- it makes me sick!

[Petrus]

First, off let me note that getting a Ph.D. only proves that you have a certain level of grey matter and that you possess the ability to apply thinking and reasoning to the solution of a problem (generally an original, hard problem).

Ph.D = Piled Higher and Deeper. :grin:

I won't disagree with your definition, but I would add the important point that it represents a very specific body of knowledge about an extremely specific sub-set of some particular field. Absurdly specific to most of the general public, in fact. Many science Ph.D.s even find it difficult to get into casual discussions about their work with non-specialists (at parties, etc.) because it is so dependent on having that basis of specific knowledge first. This is true in any field, but probably most acute in the sciences.


That said having earned a Ph.D.degree does not mean said individual WILL actually use his talents later in life. For example Dr.Whomever could decide that a life spent with a continuous buzz at the local tavern is preferable to slaving away in the lab.

Indeed. I was shocked to learn that my M.A. in 17th century English poetry had limited use in the so-called "real world." (Yeah, one can write, but you don't see a lot of thees and thous or iambic pentameter in modern business writing.)


On the other side of the coin, if a scientist wins a Nobel prize for whatever - -it means he/she has made rather exceptional use of his/her talents and training.

Not gonna get too political here, but I may venture forth the idle observation that much of what goes on with the Nobel committee (especially the Peace Prize) is heavily politically motivated. And that's all I'm going to say about that. This is true of other big public awards too ... the Pulitzer, the Turner (UK art), etc.

Anyway, Politzer's observation about the resonance of the banjo being due partly or largely to the flexibility of its skin seems like common sense. I don't think it has much to do with the metal fingerpicks, as you get almost the same twang without them.

[journeybear]

Kind of fitting since the Nobel foundation is based on profits from dynamite?

Well, that would explain the motivation to award prizes in chemistry and physics, but peace? Literature? Medicine? Perhaps Alfred Nobel wanted to appeal to the more noble aspects of human endeavor. I'm not sure how economics got into the mix, 67 years later. But I understand music may have been considered to be merely for entertainment and thus frivolous, rather than a serious discipline.

Then I got this from quite another source. Seems Plato is in my corner:

122004

[Bernie Daniel]

.....I won't disagree with your definition, but I would add the important point that it represents a very specific body of knowledge about an extremely specific sub-set of some particular field. Absurdly specific to most of the general public, in fact. Many science Ph.D.s even find it difficult to get into casual discussions about their work with non-specialists (at parties, etc.) because it is so dependent on having that basis of specific knowledge first. This is true in any field, but probably most acute in the sciences......

Actually after spending some 45 years in the company of more scientists then I could ever hope to name I would reject completely the idea that scientists are any less adept at social skills or day-to-day practical communication than any other area work or any other profession. Without exception any scientist I ever knew was more than adept at explaining what they to in layman's terms. Some of the onus for successful communication/understanding is on the listener too?

[Bernie Daniel]

Well, that would explain the motivation to award prizes in chemistry and physics, but peace? Literature? Medicine? Perhaps Alfred Nobel wanted to appeal to the more noble aspects of human endeavor. I'm not sure how economics got into the mix, 67 years later. But I understand music may have been considered to be merely for entertainment and thus frivolous, rather than a serious discipline.

Then I got this from quite another source. Seems Plato is in my corner:

122004

As far as I can tell there is no "corner" here. I made a factual statement that the Nobel Foundation was based on the invention and the profits from the sale of explosives. Why do you think that means a Nobel prize cannot be awarded in music? I think it could be but the Nobel committee does not do it. I don't know why but also I don't think I ever ventured an opinion on the topic?

I said "fitting" because you said "blowing off steam" which made me think explosive for some reason.

[Ivan Kelsall]

As Bernie correctly pointed out,achieving a Uni.degree or Doctorate,only proves that you've achieved a certain level of competence, after that,you build on what you've learned,it doesn't always mean that you'll be a more capable 'whatever'. Years back,i worked with a guy who had a B.Sc,M.Sc & then went on to gain a Ph.d.. He really was quite a brilliant engineer,but if he was given a task to perform,he'd lead himself up so many garden paths that he took far too long to complete it. They eventually made him a manager,so that instead of performing the tasks himself,he collated the work produced by other engineers,something re.which,he was very capable. The same guy (a good friend of mine incidentally), wanted to buy some Hi-Fi speakers for his system. He borrowed dozens of Hi-Fi mags & read all about L/speakers of different makes/price ranges, & decided that 'these are the ones for me'. After he'd bought them,he didn't like them. Instead of reading about them,he should have gone to listen to them,but it never entered his head to do so - oh well !,:(
Ivan;)

[Charlieshafer]

Well, anyway, I can't help thinking this is supposed to be somewhat a humorous attempt on the part of the author, it's just that he's not great at satire. I mean, as a Ph.D in anything, surely he realizes his study is pretty limited in scope, especially when compared to the absurd amount of research done in the field of violins. The best part about all that is after a zillion hours of research they still have no set-in-stone explanation for anything.

I do have to admit it is fun to make fun of doctors, though. Our occasional mountain bike group has a bunch of specialist m.d.'s, and after one crash by a member of the ride, they all stood around looking at him wondering what to do as there was no ortho doc there. The brain guy said that looked all right, the heart guy was satisfied that was working, but as to the shoulder sticking out; well, that was just going to have to wait until the e.r. visit... And for those who might take this too seriously, there was a lot of laughing going on by all concerned, even poor Travis.

[Astro]

Same as How The Leopard Got Its Spots...

...by the hand of Africa

[Bernie Daniel]

Well, anyway, I can't help thinking this is supposed to be somewhat a humorous attempt on the part of the author, it's just that he's not great at satire. I mean, as a Ph.D in anything, surely he realizes his study is pretty limited in scope, especially when compared to the absurd amount of research done in the field of violins. The best part about all that is after a zillion hours of research they still have no set-in-stone explanation for anything.

I do have to admit it is fun to make fun of doctors, though. Our occasional mountain bike group has a bunch of specialist m.d.'s, and after one crash by a member of the ride, they all stood around looking at him wondering what to do as there was no ortho doc there. The brain guy said that looked all right, the heart guy was satisfied that was working, but as to the shoulder sticking out; well, that was just going to have to wait until the e.r. visit... And for those who might take this too seriously, there was a lot of laughing going on by all concerned, even poor Travis.

You could be right maybe the author found the study humorous as well as interesting enough to write about.

However, as a Ph. D. who taught for a few years in a medical school I can testify that M.D.'s and Ph.D's are not the species -- probably not the same genus.

A medical student is forced to memorize the human body and the diseases and ailments in the known world so they can PRACTICE medicine. In theory getting a Ph. D. deals with learning, in addition to the theory of the field, a systematic approach to problem solving. At least, that is how it was in the in the last millennium when I was getting my doctorate. In general the two groups look at the world through different spectra.

Now as to having fun making fun of doctors or Ph.D's (meaning scientists?). Why so? There are many musicians on this forum -- so should we also then enjoy making fun of musicians because they happen to have cultivated a skill that we don't have? I don't see what is so peculiar about choosing a profession dedicated to solving problems, fixing injuries or curing diseases? :confused:

Upon examination one will find scientists and physicians to be pretty normal people in the main.

[Tom Wright]

I just want to say "Thank you" to the OP for spelling "its" correctly.

[journeybear]

As far as I can tell there is no "corner" here. I made a factual statement that the Nobel Foundation was based on the invention and the profits from the sale of explosives. Why do you think that means a Nobel prize cannot be awarded in music?

I believe you misunderstood me. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm not arguing with you at all. My beef is with the Nobel committees. It's not really a beef anyway (more akin to chipped beef on toast, IYKWIM), just an open-ended query tossed into the open air. I don't think that the origins of the Nobel fortune preclude awarding prizes for music. I can't begin to speculate how or why they make their decisions.(Well, of course, I am wondering about this, a bit. I can see why Nobel would be interested in furthering research into chemistry and physics, and I can't help but wonder whether some sort of guilty feelings inspired him to create the Peace Prize, but this really is just speculation.) I don't know why they include economics from their awards any more than why they exclude music or any other (to my mind) more worthy areas of human endeavor. But I wasn't asking you nor in any way putting you on the spot, just quoting that excerpt from your post in order to put my post in some sort of context.

The corner I referred to, by the way, is that part of the Agora where my soapbox is located. ;) It was by some odd coincidence that a friend of mine shared that with me while I was thinking about all this, and I was pleased to see that Plato deemed music that important.


I don't know why but also I don't think I ever ventured an opinion on the topic?

Exactly. See above. ;)

[catmandu2]

.... I don't think it has much to do with the metal fingerpicks, as you get almost the same twang without them.

Conduct your own experiment: record yourself playing the banjo using four different types of attack--flesh, fingernail, plastic plectrum, metal plectrum. The metal plectrum will be the one that sounds distinctly "metallic" among them.

All due respect to Politzer/Clowning, the metal finger picks, metal stretcher bands, metal tone rings, metal-wrapped rims, metal rim bands, metal phalanges, various metal string compositions...all serve to accentuate the natural "metallic" sound (that Politzer/Cliowning evidently observed produced by the vellum/bridge combination).

The alloy plectrum imparts an additional "metallic" sound quality--even before the string is set into motion and the effects observed (by Politzer/Clowning) are activated. You can even achieve a more "metallic" sound on a nylon-strung banjo (or other instrument) by using metal finger picks..

[mandocaster]

In the High and Far-Off Times the Banjo, O Best Beloved, had no membranous head. He had only a wooden head, as big as a boot, that he could make notes with; but he couldn't be heard over the fiddle with it. But there was one Banjo--a new Banjo--who was full of 'satiable curtiosity, and that means he asked ever so many questions.

One fine morning in the middle of the Jamming of the Festival this 'satiable New Banjo asked a new fine question that he had never asked before. He asked, 'Why is the drum so loud?' Then everybody said, 'Hush!' in a loud and dretful tone, and they spanked him immediately and directly, without stopping, for a long time.

By and by, when that was finished, he came upon a fiddler sitting in the middle of an Old Time session, and he said, 'Still I want to know why the drum is so loud!'

Then the fiddler said said, with a mournful cry, 'Go to the banks of the great grey-green, greasy Kalamazoo River, all set about with fever-trees, and find out.'

So the New Banjo went to the banks of the great grey-green, greasy Kalamazoo River and there found a Drummer. He asked 'Why is the drum so loud?' The Drummer grabbed the Banjo and pulled and pulled until his head came off, then the Drummer replaced it with a stretched disc of plastic membrane. The New Banjo tried to speak but the only thing that came out was a clashing like sheet metal and a groaning like an off-balance washing machine. The New Banjo was very happy because he was now the loudest instrument at the Jam.

And that is how the Banjo got its tone.

[journeybear]

Now I'm wondering, exactly what waveform(s) constitute(s) a metallic sound? Is this caused by a sine, square. sawtooth, or triangle wave, or some particular combination of any of the above? Can we dial it in? Is this quantifiable? And while we're at it, what waveform(s) produce(s) a woody tone? :confused:

And thanks, Mitch. It's about time someone came up with a Just So story to explain this. ;)

[Bernie Daniel]

I believe you misunderstood me. I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm not arguing with you at all. My beef is with the Nobel committees. It's not really a beef anyway (more akin to chipped beef on toast, IYKWIM), just an open-ended query tossed into the open air. I don't think that the origins of the Nobel fortune preclude awarding prizes for music. I can't begin to speculate how or why they make their decisions.(Well, of course, I am wondering about this, a bit. I can see why Nobel would be interested in furthering research into chemistry and physics, and I can't help but wonder whether some sort of guilty feelings inspired him to create the Peace Prize, but this really is just speculation.) I don't know why they include economics from their awards any more than why they exclude music or any other (to my mind) more worthy areas of human endeavor. But I wasn't asking you nor in any way putting you on the spot, just quoting that excerpt from your post in order to put my post in some sort of context.

The corner I referred to, by the way, is that part of the Agora where my soapbox is located. ;) It was by some odd coincidence that a friend of mine shared that with me while I was thinking about all this, and I was pleased to see that Plato deemed music that important. Exactly. See above. ;)

Sorry my error! :redface:

[Bernie Daniel]

I just want to say "Thank you" to the OP for spelling "its" correctly.

It's one of the top ten most common errors in English grammar. I make it all the time even though I know better. :)

Maybe the best aide is to remember "its" is the neutral to his and hers -- no apostrophe?

[lukmanohnz]

I just want to say "Thank you" to the OP for spelling "its" correctly.

It's my pleasure...

[journeybear]

Maybe the best aid is to remember "its" is the neutral to his and hers -- no apostrophe?

Unless you're thinking, it's like just like John's and Jane's, or by extension him's and her's ... similar to, as is actually said sometimes, "mine's." Oh wait - I began by positing the speaker would be thinking. Never mind ... :whistling:

BTW, I don't want anyone to think I'm implying banjo pickers speak or write this way. :cool:

[belbein]

Many science Ph.D.s even find it difficult to get into casual discussions about their work with non-specialists (at parties, etc.) because it is so dependent on having that basis of specific knowledge first. This is true in any field, but probably most acute in the sciences.

Most acute in the sciences? Really? Let me just reach over to my bookshelf and pull out one of the bibles of the field that is the queen of social sciences (semiotics, of course), and pull out these concepts more or less at random: differance; deconstruction; privilege; destinateur; vouloir-dire; suppleer; signifier/signified; bricoleur ... Unless you're at a party with PhDs in English/Structural Anthropology/Structural Linguistics/Semiotics nobody would ever know what you were talking about.


Indeed. I was shocked to learn that my M.A. in 17th century English poetry had limited use in the so-called "real world." (Yeah, one can write, but you don't see a lot of thees and thous or iambic pentameter in modern business writing.)

I did not get either an MA or PhD in 17th Century poetry--I decided I needed to make a living--but I don't remember "thee" or "thou" in Donne, Skelton, Shakespeare, Wyatt, Surrey, et al, unless necessary for a rhyme. NEvertheless, your point about the uselessness of being able to write gracefully, in these days of telegraphic neologisms, is rite 4 shur, which is to say, +1.

[Ellen T]

I'll see your physics PhD and raise you a history or urban studies PhD. I worked with several of them for twenty years, and never have I met such a gaggle of vague, impractical beings. It was fun to watch them walk purposefully across the reading room of our research library, slow down, eventually drift to a halt, and stand in one spot looking around to see where the lost thought had landed. Direct questions would cause shaking, pallor, and a deer-in-the-headlights expression. They were mostly kind, gentle creatures, but needed such careful handling.

Besides a Nobel prize for music, there should be one for cooking. What could be more important?

[journeybear]

I was shocked to learn that my M.A. in 17th century English poetry had limited use in the so-called "real world."

Really? Should be of immense help talking with customers while driving a cab or pouring a drink. ;)


Besides a Nobel prize for music, there should be one for cooking. What could be more important?

Yikes! Then they'd be putting their stamp of approval on molecular gastronomy or whatever they call the sub-zero stuff. It's bad enough that exists at all. But then again, George Foreman would have to get one for his grill. ;)

[Ellen T]

[QUOTE=belbein; I did not get either an MA or PhD in 17th Century poetry--I decided I needed to make a living--but I don't remember "thee" or "thou" in Donne, Skelton, Shakespeare, Wyatt, Surrey, et al, unless necessary for a rhyme. NEvertheless, your point about the uselessness of being able to write gracefully, in these days of telegraphic neologisms, is rite 4 shur, which is to say, +1.[/QUOTE]

Andrew Marvel (1621-1678), The Picture of Little T. C. in a Prospect of Flowers, from verse v.: ...Lest Flora angry at thy crime, To kill her Infants in their prime, Do quickly make th' Example Yours; And, ere we see, Nip in the blossoms all our hopes and Thee...

Abraham Cowley (1618-1667), Written in Juice of Lemon, from verse 2: Alas, thou think'st thy self secure, Because thy form is Innocent and Pure...

John Cleveland (1613-1658), The Antiplatonick, opening line: For shame, thou everlasting Wooer...

Those are from a very quick dip into Seventeeth Century Poetry: The Schools of Donne and Jonson, ed. Hugh Kenner. I'm sure there are more.

[sblock]

Sorry my error! :redface:


Actually, I think there is a bit if a misunderstanding here. Let me try to correct a few minor misconceptions. The terms of the Nobel Prize are NOT decided by "The Nobel Committee": actually, there's no such thing, and there never has been; there are multiple bodies in Sweden, plus one in Norway, however, that oversee these awards. There is also a Nobel Foundation, but it doesn't make any of the prize choices. The terms of the Nobel Prizes were laid out in Alfred Nobel's last will & testament. He endowed just five prizes in his will: (1) peace, (2) literature, (3) chemistry, (4) physics, and (5) physiology or medicine. There's also something called the "Nobel Prize in Economics", which came about very much later (1968), but it was set up to honor Nobel, and it was endowed entirely separately, by the Swedish National Bank. It's not really a part of the other (true) Nobel prizes, although all these get announced together in early October each year, and (except for the Peace Prize) get awarded together in December in Stockholm. However, the Nobel Foundation has since regretted the inclusion of the Economics Prize, and it has ruled that no more "outside" prizes would ever be allowed to join these six, so there would seem to be zero chance of a Nobel Prize in music!

However, there is no good reason why another big prize, with a worldwide reputation, could not be endowed by some benefactor (are you listening, Bill Gates?!). But it would not carry the "Nobel" imprimatur, alas. But I agree that music deserves more recognition.

[journeybear]

Yes. I've been steering clear of what seems a rather convoluted conglomeration of various groups by using the term "committees." Each prize is awarded by a different group, and indeed, the only one to use the term "Nobel Committee" is not even Swedish, but the Norwegian Nobel Committee, which awards the Peace Prize. This was a bit of shorthand on my part, not meant to cause any confusion (it's pretty confusing) but to simplify matters for the purpose of the discussion. I wouldn't consider what we're doing here to be terribly scholarly, anyway, even though I'm generally fond of accuracy.

[Bernie Daniel]

Actually, I think there is a bit if a misunderstanding here. Let me try to correct a few minor misconceptions. The terms of the Nobel Prize are NOT decided by "The Nobel Committee": actually, there's no such thing, and there never has been; there are multiple bodies in Sweden, plus one in Norway, however, that oversee these awards. There is also a Nobel Foundation, but it doesn't make any of the prize choices. The terms of the Nobel Prizes were laid out in Alfred Nobel's last will & testament. He endowed just five prizes in his will: (1) peace, (2) literature, (3) chemistry, (4) physics, and (5) physiology or medicine. There's also something called the "Nobel Prize in Economics", which came about very much later (1968), but it was set up to honor Nobel, and it was endowed entirely separately, by the Swedish National Bank. It's not really a part of the other (true) Nobel prizes, although all these get announced together in early October each year, and (except for the Peace Prize) get awarded together in December in Stockholm. However, the Nobel Foundation has since regretted the inclusion of the Economics Prize, and it has ruled that no more "outside" prizes would ever be allowed to join these six, so there would seem to be zero chance of a Nobel Prize in music!

However, there is no good reason why another big prize, with a worldwide reputation, could not be endowed by some benefactor (are you listening, Bill Gates?!). But it would not carry the "Nobel" imprimatur, alas. But I agree that music deserves more recognition.

Thanks for the excellent dissection of the process and the history. Indeed it is a pity Nobel had not originally selected music instead of "peace" as that prize has become totally political because who is a peacemaker is in the eye of the beholder I think.

[Charlieshafer]

This is way too complicated. I was going to nominate myself, but now, forget it.

[belbein]

Andrew Marvel (1621-1678), The Picture of Little T. C. in a Prospect of Flowers, from verse v.: ...Lest Flora angry at thy crime, To kill her Infants in their prime, Do quickly make th' Example Yours; And, ere we see, Nip in the blossoms all our hopes and Thee...

Abraham Cowley (1618-1667), Written in Juice of Lemon, from verse 2: Alas, thou think'st thy self secure, Because thy form is Innocent and Pure...

John Cleveland (1613-1658), The Antiplatonick, opening line: For shame, thou everlasting Wooer...

Those are from a very quick dip into Seventeeth Century Poetry: The Schools of Donne and Jonson, ed. Hugh Kenner. I'm sure there are more.

Thanks, correction noted. I did say "unless necessary for the rhyme" but have since realized that's tautalogical. Nevertheless, I think I was wrong--I think by this period it eas only used in formal writing, but the proposition did specify" literature." I also thought of a couple of Shakespeare's sonnets.Glad that at least 3 of us have at least s passing familiarity with this wonderful stuff.

[lukmanohnz]

A double-shark-jumper. Just... wow. This began as a link to an article about BANJOS.

[Bertram Henze]

Holidays have one advantage: they keep me from joining threads where physicists get beaten. Now that I'm back, however, I'll point out the central flaw in the argumentation (no matter which).
I understand the result of this research is that the banjo sounds like a banjo because the frequency of string vibration is modulated (changes) with an equally audible albeit much lower frequency coming from the drumskin. So far so good.

The funny angle comes in with the word "metallic" - names like that heavily depend on personal associations of other aural experiences which are hardly transferable between persons. They say it won't do to describe one taste with another, thus debunking wine tasting/reviewing or, come to that, single malt tasting/reviewing; the same applies here. I'll say a banjo sounds like a banjo sounds like a banjo, give or take variants, but you hear it, you recognize it, you turn and run and don't talk about what you heard....:cool:

[John Ritchhart]

Banjos have tone. So does a Main Battle Tank.

[journeybear]

The funny angle comes in with the word "metallic" - names like that heavily depend on personal associations of other aural experiences which are hardly transferable between persons. :

That's why I posed the question of whether the term is quantifiable; that is, if a certain waveform or combination produces a metallic sound. If so, then this could be recreated artificially (if so desired).

I think the writer tossed that term in without thinking much about it.


Banjos have tone. So does a Main Battle Tank.
The difference is, you can tune a tank.

[Dave Cohen]

That's why I posed the question of whether the term is quantifiable; that is, if a certain waveform or combination produces a metallic sound. If so, then this could be recreated artificially (if so desired).

I think the writer tossed that term in without thinking much about it.


The difference is, you can tune a tank.

No single waveform quantifies any instrument. The strings have many modes of motion (aka "harmonics"). The body has many normal modes of motion, which, btw, are not harmonic. Hence the body of any string instrument, including that of the banjo, is essentially a drum. The air in the body cavity also has numerous modes of motion, though only the first few are important. A banjo with a resonator back has an air cavity. Even an open-backed banjo has an air cavity; it is partly formed by the head plus pot, and completed by the banjo player's body. Politzer reported some experiments in an earlier paper showing how the body depth and the position of the banjo relative to the player's body affect the banjo's first air resonance. Anyway, the output of any string instrument is the sum of all of those motions. It doesn't look like any simple waveform that you would recognise.

One of the problems with Politzer's papers is that he is self-publishing. When a scientist self-publishes, there are a couple of possibiities. One is that your paper will be invisible, and will be ignored. Another is that it might catch the attention of the press or of the lay public, in which case it may be sensationalized without the benefits of peer review. There is great benefit in peer review, a learning experience not unlike taking a test. You get reminded of things you hadn't previously thought about, and weaknessess in your argument, terminology, data, literature citation omissions, etc., are brought to your attention. Kinda like some free outside help from the reviewers and the journal editors.

I was away at the GAL convention, and happily offline. I returned to my computer to find this thread. To those of you who think making fun of physicists, academics, etc., is sport, why stop at physicists? There is a vast array of groups out there to be made fun of. A long-standing preoccupation for some.

Full disclosure: I am personally acquainted with David Politzer. He is a nice person and a more than decent theoretical physicist. Doesn't deserve to be made fun of. Criticised maybe, but not made fun of.

http://www.Cohenmando.com

[Ellen T]

A double-shark-jumper. Just... wow. This began as a link to an article about BANJOS.

Hey, with four pages of banjo discussion, we had insert some literature and other classy diversions to keep from falling into a lethal twang hole.

[journeybear]

Full disclosure: I am personally acquainted with David Politzer. He is a nice person and a more than decent theoretical physicist. Doesn't deserve to be made fun of. Criticised maybe, but not made fun of.
You're right, of course. I'm not sure, but I think more jocularity has been directed at the writer of the article than Politzer or his study. Whoever wrote the article took parts of the study and ran with it, and we ran with that. It's what we do. Sometimes. The only thing Politzer said that got some tweaking was his use of the word "metallic" to describe the sound a banjo makes. That is pretty subjective term, as you and others have pointed out. My question regarding what would constitute a metallic noise's waveform (as different from a woody or other tone) still has me curious. I agree with you that no single waveform would suffice; I am hoping that there may be some combination of waveforms in certain proportions that would at least approximate a metallic sound.

This is all pretty far off the rails, though. I don't think a banjo sounds metallic to begin with.

[catmandu2]

Dave - I'm not sure if you've read anything into what I've been posting (I think a lot of miscommunication ensued--Bernie's post implied an inordinate skepticism or ambivalence toward science. I work in the social sciences--in which there is some degree of adherence to s. method. (Frankly, I think there exists generally greater ambivalence and hostility toward Art)

I'm critiquing an essay, not the study on which it is apparently based.

[David Lewis]

I thought ithe original article was enlightening?

[Petrus]

I was away at the GAL convention, and happily offline. I returned to my computer to find this thread. To those of you who think making fun of physicists, academics, etc., is sport, why stop at physicists? There is a vast array of groups out there to be made fun of. A long-standing preoccupation for some.

Well, we gotta start somewhere. Might as well be banjoists and physicists. Give us a list of groups to make fun of and we can start going through them one at a time. Mandolinists not exempt, obviously. :grin:

[Petrus]

Speaking of that metallic twang, how to explain Terry Mead banjos, that also seem to have it (afaik / iirc) yet have wooden faces? Maybe the open back contributes something to it too. :confused:

[Ivan Kelsall]

Having the 'skin' stretched over a tone ring made from bell bronze,must add some metalic element to the tone (IMHO),otherwise why would they do that. Deering banjos made a banjo without a bronze tone ring for John Hartford, the 'Wood tone', & that certainly didn't sound metallic in tone - it sounded 'woody',just how JH wanted it. Quote " ...Grenadillo tone ring it has a more woody ringing tone.".
Talking about 'tone' in general,how would you classify the tone of a typical 'Dobro' - metallic / woody / .......?. I'm not a great lover of the instrument,but when i listen to Rob Ickes play,his Dobro sounds unlike most others i hear & i love it,:confused:
Ivan~:>

[journeybear]

What I hear in a banjo's tone (other than the distant roar of the fires of hell, which you'll never completely remove), is a combination of the strings and skin, not what is holding it in place. Yes, I'm sure, as you said, the tone ring contributes, or else why would they do it. There are different types of tone rings, too, each with different characteristics. The metallic parts used to stretch and hold the skin serve to put tension across it, but how much do they contribute to its sound? I think they are used because of their functionality more than acoustic characteristics; that is, their stiffness and durability are what makes them desirable. If a skin were held in place with wooden parts, say, it would greatly change the way the instrument sounds. So it's the metal tone ring that affects the vibrations of the strings and skin, and variations in its shape and composition cause variations in the overall tone.

The terms "metallic,' "woody," "bell-like," and so forth, are very subjective, and mean different things to different people. Heck, different metals and woods sound different when struck. This ain't rocket science, but I do appreciate someone tried to apply science in this way. As I say (hopefully for the last time), I'm curious to see if this stuff is quantifiable through a scientific analysis of waveforms. These terms are really vague.

But to answer the OP's question, I did a little surfing - just a little, as my computer kept crashing, the subject matter somehow interfering with its well-being - and found, among other analyses, this (http://www.musicfolk.com/docs/Features/Feature_BanjoParts.htm). Seems a pretty straightforward and clear explanation.

[Bertram Henze]

This ain't rocket science...

Actually, rockets ar far better understood, IMHO. That's why they used rockets to get men on the moon, instead of just playing the banjo to them.

[journeybear]

Well, yes, playing banjos have been known to get people to leave the room, even quite rapidly sometimes. But not so fast they were able to achieve escape velocity.