Toward Standardized Pans
by Bert Boldon
Some say that given pan music’s relative newness, which makes ongoing exploration in the tuning area a foregone conclusion, any move toward standardized instruments would be premature. For others, such talk just doesn’t wash. Today’s fast-moving, high-tech pace, they say, demands that, as a category of instruments, steel pans should be no less conventional that other vehicles of musical sound.
So the battle is joined, and associate editor Bert Boldon has here unleashed the initial broadside in what should be some interesting give and take. More important, it should all prove to be of immense value to the art form.
Some fifty years or so down the road of steel band music, a very important step must now be taken. We have, during this time, been through a plethora of styles; different combinations and groupings of notes making up instruments of the steel orchestra.
Let us isolate the sections of the orchestra and first deal specifically with the lead instrument or soprano. In Trinidad, the steel band’s birthplace, this has traditionally been called the lead pan or tenor pan, the latter being a misnomer. There were many different combinations of note placement on these instruments. Indeed, at certain points in their evolution it was impossible to visit another band as lead player and come to grips even basically with the lead instrument in that band.
This dilemma of varied groupings of notes was a direct result of individual differences, as tuners diligently groped with the painstaking task of searching for ideal combinations to perfect their model. It is important to understand that the surface of a steel drum was never designed to be a conductor of musical sound waves. Unlike the prepared string for violin, viola, etc. or brass instruments, whose properties and qualities were understood, measured, and tested before being used, the steel pan surface was not.
Informed sources would probably have considered it preposterous, if not altogether impossible, to perfect an instrument from so crude a base, never mind the stupendous task of faithfully reproducing so-called “serious music” from it. This was the task faced by the early tuners who were actually artisans, not trained in any special way to meet this special challenge. They were learning as they went along, working basically on an extremely intuitive level on a medium (steel surface) that would baffle the most formidable formal instrument makers of today We begin, therefore, with the double negative of uninformed tuner and untried and untested musical medium: steel drum surface. In light of this background, the present day steel orchestra is even more remarkable.
Of all the sopranos utilized in the early period, two are central to our discussion at this point.
Replies
Re standardization of note layout according to the circle of 4ths and 5ths:
This is a layout with musical significance in itself, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_fifths, where there is a diagram showing the notion of circle of 4ths and 5ths laid out in a circular diagram, and this remark: "In 1679 a treatise called Grammatika was written by the composer and theorist Nikolai Diletskii. ... Within the Grammatika treatise is where the first circle of fifths appeared and was used for students as a composer's tool."
This diagram is literally embodied in Copeland's G-pan standard layout (see Fig. 1 at http://www.panonthenet.com/news/2011/jul/PATENT-12_171_634_G_Pan_Mu...).
The difference is only that C-major is at the bottom, and the direction of increasing pitch is upwards and anti-clockwise on the pan, while the Diletski diagram shows C-major at the top, and the direction of increasing pitch is clockwise.
The G-pan layout improves on the diagram, in the sense that moving upwards, from the player's point of view, is the direction of increasing pitch. That is obviously the right "kinesthetic".
The kinesthetic of pan is easy, consistent, and repeating as we go from one octave to the next. The geometry of the pan encodes, in playable form, the diagram of 4ths and 5ths.
Here now is the key: the diagram of 4ths and 5ths is a guide to composition!
Quoting again from the article on the circle of 4ths and 5ths: "Pitches within the chromatic scale are related not only by the number of semitones between them within the chromatic scale, but also related harmonically within the circle of fifths. Reversing the direction of the circle of fifths gives the circle of fourths. Typically the circle of fifths is used in the analysis of classical music, whereas the circle of fourths is used in the analysis of Jazz music."
So the panman working with the 4ths and 5ths layout has the perfect musical model to understand at an intuitive level, both chromatic progression, and harmonic relation. He can understand the classical and jazz polarities. And he has a consistent kinesthetic to tie every thing together. He can be expressive. He can "dance the pan". The music and the motion are one.
No wonder that musically illiterate panmen can do so much without reading a note! The geometry of the pan itself, is a diagram of the music, in chromatic, harmonic, classical, and jazz aspects.
With the G-pan patent, we now know that the same pattern may scale across all instruments in the ensemble.
What further argument does one need to conclude that the 4ths and 5ths layout is the way to go?!
- Big Sid
Who will bell the cat? Now that the analysis is complete and consensus from the WHEN STEEL TALKS cognoscenti dictates the drastic shift to standardization with the implemenation of the 4ths and 5ths layout across the land from mountain to plain to coast, who is going to fly down to Trinidad and enforce the top-down directive?
Claude
Good question, Claude.
Good luck telling a tuner who've been tuning high quality pans for fifty years that someone else's way is better!
Human nature being what it is, It will be a hard sell.
Glenroy:
We don't need to make assumptions and we don't need to speculate. Tuners like Kellman and Harrigin are already building G-pans.
The point about a standard is to set a consensus *direction*, in which to move. The powers that be can *talk* a standard into effect in terms of direction. They can also *fund* the standard into effect.
The G-pan patent and associated innovations is one such product of funding. Tuner training and certification programs are already happening I believe, and that requires funding, and a policy framework, i.e. a direction to follow.
Compliance will obviously be voluntary. No player or band has to throw out all their non-conforming pans. Gradual introduction is what will happen: when old pans are tossed out, players and bands will consider whether to replace them with the G-pan standard, or not.
Tuners are the least affected by the introduction of the G-pan. Tuners are like custom tailors. They will give the customer what the customer wants, rather than turn away business. Plus I doubt they could resist building a "sweeter" pan, which the G-pan template makes possible, based purely on size (bigger playing surface to work with) and materials (better quality steel).
In any case, we don't need to speculate. If there is a better standard to suggest, let's hear it. If you agree with 4ths and 5ths, the only question is what measures to take, and not to take, to move in that direction.
Nobody is suggesting a Global Pan Police to enforce the G-pan, or any other standard. All we on this blog can do is share ideas, information, and knowledge. That is an important part of the picture too, in terms of moving forward.
Ol' talk is fine too, but I prefer to be constructive.
- Big Sid
"Where there is no vision, the people perish." (Proverbs 29:18).
Yes, Sid.
One thing is certain ... any replacement of current pan inventory by the G-Pan (or any other) will be gradual, and as players witness the benefits of the new they will turn quite naturally (without being coerced) to the new.
Peter
Peter:
Exactly. I think the useful thing about the discussion is that it's a way to dispel misconceptions.
One of the good things about the G-pan patent is, that it not only secured to the country, the many, many innovations introduced by Copeland and his team, it also secured to the country the (unpatented) prior art built upon by the G-pan patent.
We need to be clear that, as to note layout, the G-pan patent merely follows prior art. It is *not* suggesting something new, out of the blue.
The 4ths and 5ths layout goes back to the spider-web pan of Anthony Williams. Look at this clip of a rather young Ray Holman talking about it, explaining the "harmonic organization" to it, and suggesting that it might be the "pan of the future":
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mQu5Unc_TNY
- Big Sid
Sid, I never thought about the fact that the G-Pan patent also inculcates the "prior art" in its claim(s), since, as you rightfully point out, it is based entirely on said prior art. To the extent that the patent admitedly draws upon and describes said prior art, then it is essentially a claim for all forms of pan. This is a new and intersting take on the whole discussion.
Thanks, Peter
PS. Fantastic video clip, by the way, illlustrating all the various original stages in making a pan (from sinking to tuning).
Peter,
Yes, once the prior art is documented, no one can claim it as new and get a patent.
The G-pan patent is actually a collection of many innovations. Not all of them have any relevance for an industry standard.
As to an industry standard, the most important is the note layout (4ths and 5ths). And that is not new. (But I doubt Anthony Williams can now claim a patent on it.)
However, Copeland does the math in his patent, to figure out that for the G-first pan to span three octaves (36 notes), it has to have a diameter of 26.5 in., to give three concentric circles of 12 notes each. By comparison, a 22 in. traditional first pan will only cover 28-30 notes.
Copeland also does the math to figure out, for the 26.5 in. drum, that all the multi-drum instruments in the ensemble, also will span thee octaves, except the six-bass, which will span two and a half.
Moreover, with this ensemble architecture, a band needs only to have four instruments -- G-first, G-seconds, G-mids, and G-six-bass -- to cover 8 semitones more than the entire musical range now covered by ten or more traditional instruments.
That is a useful contribution, and obviously can be the basis of an industry standard.
It's like auto industry standards. The auto industry has standardized placement, look and feel of the main driver controls -- steering wheel, operator pedals, gear shift, light controls, window controls, etc. But the different builders can innovate to their heart's content with devices under the hood, starting with the engine itself.
With the G-pan standard, tuners likewise would be still free to tune them as they like. But I think that point is already well enough made.
After the misconceptions are dispelled, I think Glenroy and Claude will find there really is nothing for tuners not to like. It is players, not builders, who will have to consider whether they want to learn a new layout. Glenroy's example of the Dvorak typewriter is a good one, but it applies to typists, not keyboard manufacturers, who merely fall into line with what the market dictates.
- Big Sid
Hey, Sid I'm not speculating.
I'm just saying as a human being some of the feelings that I would have if it were me, and I would expect some arrangers to have the same feelings.
I try to be honest with myself about such matters , and i expect others to do the same.
I could pretend to be a hero and decry others for being obstacles to progress, but instead i try to see the human side of it.
It is real easy to be intellectual about such matters, it is more difficult when it affects you personally.
Please don't get me wrong I am strongly in favor of standardization for all the obvious reasons, I and I do believe it is inevitable.
I'm just saying that I understand why some veteran arrangers may be reluctant to make changes in their way of doing things.
So please don't shoot the messenger!
Glenroy: A man spends his entire life dedicated to building pans (fifty years as you say). Nobody knows the circumstances of his life or how he came to choose that design pattern, but this is how he spends his life and makes his living while everybody else is doing WHAT THEY ARE DOING. I don't think that you are speculating nor do I think that you have to be TOO HONEST WITH YOURSELF to conclude where he will tell you to go with your plan for him to switch his methodology to meet some accelerated top-down Utopian vision for the pan.
I know a pan tuner who made a living and became broadly successful from tuning the pan venturing into other administrative arenas. He could build a circle of fifths pan starting from low D and get praise for it. Demand that he build his pan from low C and he would have had to go take a job at McDonalds to make a living because he could only build a pan from low D.
So yuh could rest assured dem fellahs eh leaviing dey wok or wasting time at dis stage in dey life to go learn some new techinque.
The G-PAN was a Solyndra-like project which is never going to find another $35 million for the production phase, so I don't see it as a state-of-the-art industry leader. Now, I am a proponent of standardized pans, especially when I see the long delays between performances on Panorama night but there is very little that fence sitters can do to accelerate standardization other than to develop hands-on, one-step-at-a-time projects starting from the bottom and not from the top.
Claude
-
1
-
2
-
3
-
4
-
5
of 11 Next