May 26, 2006, 12:05 p.m. (Message 45385)
In the process of reexamining my music collection I am coming across tracks which I have noted as being Reels whereas something in me is trying to tell me - Hornpipe. Is there a scientific method of identifying a Hornpipe? My layman's opinion is that it has to do with the last of the 8 bars (or sometimes the 4th one) where, of the 4 beats of the 4/4 rhythm, the first two are crotchets and the third a minim (or crotchet then rest) with the second and third being the same note. Help? Alan (who's instruction in the theory of music ended some 35 years ago)
May 26, 2006, 1:39 p.m. (Message 45386, in reply to message 45385)
The dum-dum-dum ending of the phrase as a determiner is a myth. True many hornpipes have this, but many do not. I think this came from the step dancing tradition where every step starting to the left, had its mirror image to the right. So if one starts on the right foot, the last bar starting on the left, with a pause allows one to start the next phrase on the left foot. To me the "hormpipedness" is not in the notes per bar, but in the syncopation of these notes allowing for two strong beats on counts 1 & 3, with the other notes weaker as they are not on 2 & 4. Note that all hornpipes are not in duple time. If you check Playford, Purcel, Blow, Handel, and others you will find many in triple time. The common denominator is the "limp". Another way of looking at a hornpipe as a transitional step between a double jig, to a single, jig to a hornpipe, and then a reel. A double jig has notes to the bar, where a single has 4 with a ration of 2:1:2:1 moving into a hornpipe the ration becomes 3:1:3:1, and into a reel of 1: 1:1:1 or 11111111, if you like, but no syncopation. Hornpipes-jigs-reels can all be the same melody, simply a change in accent and lenght of note vallue. Strathspeys, however, are another issue, since, as we dance them, they did not exist as anything more then a slow reel. At the slower tempo, they can simply be a reel or hornpipe, or both plus a jig if the bars are combined. There is a linguistic problem in that the words reel and jig can simply mean "dance" without any reference to speed or rhythm. When it comes to reel and hornpipe, the name can refer to a particular dance at a point in time, when the tune at a later time has evolved into a different rhythm. For continuity´s sake, the RSCDS is sort of stuck with the published name, even when our modern concept no longer fits the rhythm. NB: house still "en processo" so I have no clue as to where some books are, but if you get a copy of Emmerson´s "Rantin´ Pipes ´n Treblin´ Strings", though I do not agree with all of it, you will get a pretty good explanation with examples.
May 26, 2006, 2:05 p.m. (Message 45387, in reply to message 45386)
On 26/05/2006 13:39, xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx wrote: > To me the "hormpipedness" is not in the notes per bar, but in the > syncopation of these notes allowing for two strong beats on counts 1 & > 3, with the other notes weaker as they are not on 2 & 4. Note that all > hornpipes are not in duple time. If you check Playford, Purcel, Blow, > Handel, and others you will find many in triple time. The common > denominator is the "limp". Thanks Richard. I am struggling here to determine the difference with a Reel in that case. Can it be that the reel has the emphasis ONE two three four while the hornpipe is more ONE two THREE four? Or is it that what come between one and three isn't exactly on two and four but slightly behind? Can someone perhaps describe the differences in terms of musical notation? Alan
May 26, 2006, 2:05 p.m. (Message 45388, in reply to message 45385)
Alan Paterson wrote: > Is there a scientific method of identifying a Hornpipe? No. There is a widespread misconception that hornpipe phrases always end with a pom-pom-pom but it turns out that there are lots of hornpipes that don't as well als non-hornpipes that do. >From an RSCDS-style dancer's point of view the difference between reels and hornpipes is about as important as the number of angels that can dance on the point of a pin, as the steps and tempo are 100% identical. For an RSCDS-style musician, the matter becomes somewhat more important, as when making up sets of tunes you usually want to combine hornpipes with other hornpipes, but one can usually go by the titles or by gut feeling (I know I do). Then again, there's the dance, Kendall's Hornpipe, which is a jig. Anselm -- Anselm Lingnau, Frankfurt, Germany ..................... xxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx Life can only be understood backwards; but it must be lived forwards. -- Soren Kierkegaard
May 26, 2006, 2:14 p.m. (Message 45389, in reply to message 45388)
On 26/05/2006 14:05, Anselm Lingnau wrote: > Alan Paterson wrote: > > >>Is there a scientific method of identifying a Hornpipe? > > > No. There is a widespread misconception that hornpipe phrases always end with > a pom-pom-pom but it turns out that there are lots of hornpipes that don't as > well als non-hornpipes that do. > >>From an RSCDS-style dancer's point of view the difference between reels and > hornpipes is about as important as the number of angels that can dance on the > point of a pin, as the steps and tempo are 100% identical. Which is why DanceData doesn't have dance-type Hornpipe (despite complaints in that department). > For an RSCDS-style > musician, the matter becomes somewhat more important, as when making up sets > of tunes you usually want to combine hornpipes with other hornpipes, but one > can usually go by the titles or by gut feeling (I know I do). Test for gut feeling: If anyone has the album Best Foot Forward by Sound Company (just on cassette I fear) tell me if you think the first track feels like a hornpipe. > Then again, there's the dance, Kendall's Hornpipe, which is a jig. Pretty much a conversation stopper that one <grin> Alan
May 26, 2006, 2:36 p.m. (Message 45390, in reply to message 45385)
In a message dated 5/26/2006 6:59:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, xxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx writes: Is there a scientific method of identifying a Hornpipe? Not really. There are lots of ways to decide a tune is a reel or a hornpipe, listening to tunes is the best start. Hornpipes often end with 3 even notes. There are very few hornpipes written in a minor key. Lots of hornpipes are written in Bb and F. More hornpipes than reels cover a range of 2 octaves. In the B part of the tune there is often a similar chord structure. To add to the confusion, the same tune is often found in different books with slightly different timing notations. For example, Cole's 1000 Fiddle Tunes has a great hornpipe section and the tunes are written in 2/4 meter. Then, Kerr's Caledonian Collection has the same tune written in 4/4 meter. If the title says 'hornpipe' it probably is one. We tend to interchange reels and hornpipes for dancing although at one time the hornpipes were played more slowly and with a dotted rhythm as they were for step dancing. And for every one of the above statements, probably there is someone saying 'No, I have a different opinion.' Listen, listen, and if you have access to tune books, study them. Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA
May 26, 2006, 3:25 p.m. (Message 45392, in reply to message 45390)
The way hornpipes and reels are played in the SCD style, there is no real difference to me and I'd happily mix reels and honpipes in a set of tunes, or dance a reel to a hornpipe track, or vice versa. There are three paces of dance -- reel, jig or strathspey -- and they may vary in speed, and straths may be slow airs or more Highlandy, but there are only really these three. A hornpipe in Scottish step dancing, Irish, Welsh and English traditions is usually most like a Highland-rhythm strathspey. It typically has a dotted rhythm -- 4/4 with bars split into dotted quaver / semiquaver -- but does not have the reverse comibnation (semiquaver - dotted quaver) as you find in a lot of bouncy straths. In the English ceilidh style, most hornpipes are danced slower with a step-hop step, and is about the same speed as a decent paced Highland strath, and if we've ever had nights with English ceilidh dancers doing SCD, they often find it easy to think of a strath as a hornpipe. Saying all that, you can get hornpipes with straight, undotted rhythms, but they are usually played at the same kind of steady pace. When I catalogued a load of SCD CDs, I just grouped hornpipes with reels. I wonder if any of that makes sense. - James -
May 26, 2006, 3:58 p.m. (Message 45395, in reply to message 45392)
James Tween wrote: > The way hornpipes and reels are played in the SCD style, there is no real > difference to me and I'd happily mix reels and honpipes in a set of tunes, > or dance a reel to a hornpipe track, or vice versa. There are three paces > of dance -- reel, jig or strathspey -- and they may vary in speed, and > straths may be slow airs or more Highlandy, but there are only really these > three. > > A hornpipe in Scottish step dancing, Irish, Welsh and English traditions is > usually most like a Highland-rhythm strathspey. It typically has a dotted > rhythm -- 4/4 with bars split into dotted quaver / semiquaver -- but does > not have the reverse comibnation (semiquaver - dotted quaver) as you find in > a lot of bouncy straths. In the English ceilidh style, most hornpipes are > danced slower with a step-hop step, and is about the same speed as a decent > paced Highland strath, and if we've ever had nights with English ceilidh > dancers doing SCD, they often find it easy to think of a strath as a > hornpipe. Saying all that, you can get hornpipes with straight, undotted > rhythms, but they are usually played at the same kind of steady pace. > > When I catalogued a load of SCD CDs, I just grouped hornpipes with reels. > > I wonder if any of that makes sense. > > - James - > Personally I don't really like this idea of not differentiating hornpipe and reel tunes in SCD. When I play hornpipes I always try to put at least a bit more of a lilt in them, to try to keep the bouncy feeling. I also don't really like mixing reels and hornpipes in a set (or reels and Scotch measures, for that matter). Regarding distinguishing characteristics for hornpipes if a tune identifies itself as a hornpipe, I can generally hear the things in it that make it a hornpipe however as others have said, there doesn't seem to be a foolproof method for identifying a hornpipe from hearing it... -Steve -- Steve Wyrick -- Concord, California
May 26, 2006, 4:15 p.m. (Message 45398, in reply to message 45395)
That's great -- I guess that just shows that it's rare to hear hornpipey hornpipes. It's that trick of doing a tune with the lift and bounce of a Highland strathspey and the speed of a reel. I know what you mean about being able to hear what makes a tune a hornpipe, but it is hard to quantify or qualify. I think that the amount of discussion on this topic just goes to show the difficulty in distinguishing one thing from another here. - James -
May 27, 2006, 9:01 p.m. (Message 45412, in reply to message 45390)
Out of curiosity I read through my copy of Ryan's Mammoth Collection (American, 19th C) from which Cole's 1000 was later derived. It has a huge hornpipe section, 251 of them from various origins. Out of those, 205 had the stereotypical "bom bom bom" ending in at least one of the 2 parts, and most of the others had some derivation with 3 strong beats (i.e., triplets, dotted eight/sixteenth pairs, etc), so I would take from this that the 3 strong beats at the end is a reasonably reliable indicator of the tune form. I suppose this begs Goss' question though; were they originally written as hornpipes, or later classified that way because of the ending? Also some of these are newer American compositions which could be simply imitating the style. Incidentally, this book also has a section of approx. 50 Clogs, which to my eyes look like somewhat ornate hornpipes written in 4/4 time instead of 2/4. Can anyone explain the difference, which I assume has to do with the dance forms rather than the tunes (some of the hornpipes are annotated "can be played as a clog")? -Steve xxxxxxx@xxx.xxx wrote: > > In a message dated 5/26/2006 6:59:32 A.M. Eastern Standard Time, > xxxx.xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xx writes: > > Is there a scientific method of identifying a Hornpipe? > > > > Not really. There are lots of ways to decide a tune is a reel or a > hornpipe, listening to tunes is the best start. > Hornpipes often end with 3 even notes. > There are very few hornpipes written in a minor key. > Lots of hornpipes are written in Bb and F. > More hornpipes than reels cover a range of 2 octaves. > In the B part of the tune there is often a similar chord structure. > To add to the confusion, the same tune is often found in different books > with slightly different timing notations. For example, Cole's 1000 Fiddle > Tunes > has a great hornpipe section and the tunes are written in 2/4 meter. Then, > Kerr's Caledonian Collection has the same tune written in 4/4 meter. > If the title says 'hornpipe' it probably is one. We tend to interchange > reels and hornpipes for dancing although at one time the hornpipes were > played > more slowly and with a dotted rhythm as they were for step dancing. > And for every one of the above statements, probably there is someone saying > 'No, I have a different opinion.' > Listen, listen, and if you have access to tune books, study them. > Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA -- Steve Wyrick -- Concord, California
May 26, 2006, 2:58 p.m. (Message 45391, in reply to message 45385)
Your comment works for me when a reel has 4 or 8 notes of equal value, on a 4 count only the one has the natural stress of the music, with 234 more equal then if the pattern is .................. 4|1 23...4|1.. putting a stronger relative emphasis on count 3 o4 4 or 5 of 8. Using the American fractional system, a typical hornpipe starts in 2/4 time states with a 16th note on the upbeat (4th note of previous bar), followed by a dotted 8th note, on the down beat, this pattern repeated with a 16th note for the second note, and a dotted 8th for the third A reel in 2/4 would simply start with an 8th note on count 4 of the previous bar, followed by 8th notes on counts 1 2 3 of the next. The dancing result is more iregular in that the movements are of equal length as ... hop|step-close-step, where as if one was actually following all the notes in a hornpipe rhythm, one gets hop|step close-step, sort of what one sees with the slip step.
May 26, 2006, 3:27 p.m. (Message 45394, in reply to message 45385)
No, No I don´t have a different opinion on your point. However, I do disagree with your criteria for reaching the same conclusion as mine. "... if you have access to tune books, study them ..." Studyint tune books for stats is as about as logical as explaining why there so many Christian denominations claiming the same text as their authority. Most modern tune books seem to have started with an idea, and then fit the tunes into the idea, instead of the other way around. If you compare those same tunes to those attached to the sources of our contry dances, you might well come to different conclusions. I agree that "if the title says ´hornpipe´it is probably one, but the implied corolary is far from helpful in that if the title does not say hornpipe it is probably not. Here is a throw away definition I just came up with, suggest musical types try it out and come up with some exceptions. I have all of Playford in my computer, and can program it to play an entire book all the way through. I have just done this to one of them, and simply written down, which items were what on a code of s (song tune), r j hp, sj (slip jigs). Here is the definiton that fits my my responses. If the tune is in duple time and can be stretched to a jig, it is a hornpipe.
May 26, 2006, 4:03 p.m. (Message 45396, in reply to message 45385)
35 years ago - you must have been a very, very young lad!! Wes
May 26, 2006, 4:11 p.m. (Message 45397, in reply to message 45385)
When I some time ago was trying to find out what hornpipe was then I copied this explanation to one of my files about music - maybe it is of some help. Not that I understand any of it, mind you :-) PS! I wish I had written down where I found this description. With best regards, Eike (I cannot send the file with pictures in this mail, so it will look a bit plain ;-) ... The name hornpipe dates back as far as the early 16th century, but originaly for a very different dance. The modern rhythm bearing the name evolved around mid 18th century.
May 26, 2006, 5:07 p.m. (Message 45400, in reply to message 45397)
> PS! I wish I had written down where I found this description. > > With best regards, Eike I found it: http://www.irish-banjo.com/technique/accompaniment/hornpipe.html Lydia
May 26, 2006, 4:44 p.m. (Message 45399, in reply to message 45385)
xxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx commented: | No, No I don=C2=B4t have a different opinion on your point. | | However, I do disagree with your criteria for reaching the same=20 | conclusion as mine. | | "... if you have access to tune books, study them ..." | | Studyint tune books for stats is as about as logical as explaining why=20 | there so many Christian denominations claiming the same text as their=20 | authority. Very true. A better approach is probably to understand that "hornpipe" isn't a musical term at all; it is a dance term. You can't understand it by studying any music. The only real way is to find some dancers who actually do hornpipes. They typically call themselves "step dancers", often with "Irish", "Scottish", or "English" as a prefix. Ask them to do a hornpipe, and play some tunes so they fit that dance. Ask for a few different hornpipes, because they are done at different tempos, and the music will be subtly different for the slow and fast ones. Most reel tunes will work, but you'll have to play them with uneven small notes, in a 2:1 or 3:1 ratio. Some fast hornpipes will want a 3:2 ratio in the small notes. You'll also want to add in a few extra notes at times to get triplets. If you listen to recordings that the step dancers use, you'll hear all this. But it's better to watch their feet, and note the occasional steps that make three "tap" sounds in a beat. Watching SCD dances with "hornpipe" in their name won't help. In this style (and in American contra/square dances), you'll hear the word "hornpipe", but it's just a nonsense word that's used for historical reasons. The dancers can't give you a coherent definition of what it means. The only explanation is "That's what it's called." But there are likely some step dancers in your vicinity. Look them up and ask if you can learn to play for them. Morris dancers are also good for this. When they say "reel", they almost always mean "hornpipe". They mostly don't know the difference, either, but if you can play comfortably for them, you know how to play a reel as a hornpipe. -- _, O John Chambers <:#/> <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx> + <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> /#\ in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth | | ' `
May 26, 2006, 5:24 p.m. (Message 45401, in reply to message 45385)
Steve Wyrick wrote: | Personally I don't really like this idea of not differentiating hornpipe and | reel tunes in SCD. When I play hornpipes I always try to put at least a bit | more of a lilt in them, to try to keep the bouncy feeling. I also don't | really like mixing reels and hornpipes in a set (or reels and Scotch | measures, for that matter). I'd agree. While it's true that most of the SCD crowd can't give you a coherent description of the difference, quite a lot of the better dancers (and most of the teachers) do have a feel for it. Generally, when you see "hornpipe" in a dance's name, it implies that the music should be a bit slower (104-108) than the usual reel tempo (108-112). At this slower tempo, a subtle hornpipe rhythm works. You'd play more of a 3:2 ratio in the small notes, rather than the 2:1 or 3:1 of a true hornpipe, but the "lilt" should be there. Of course, it's always good to watch the dancers, and try to get a feel for whether it should be slower or faster. Sometimes the term "hornpipe" is just a word, and it works better to play the music as a reel. And sometimes you may realize that some of the crowd are step dancers who are doing hornpipey things, in which case you want to play the music to match what they're doing. -- _, O John Chambers <:#/> <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx> + <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> /#\ in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth | | ' `
May 26, 2006, 9:16 p.m. (Message 45404, in reply to message 45401)
John wrote: > While it's true that most of the SCD crowd can't give you > a coherent description of the difference, quite a lot of the better > dancers (and most of the teachers) do have a feel for it. I'm not at all sure that I can explain the difference between a reel and a hornpipe, but I'm sure I would notice if The Sailor, West's Hornpipe, and College Hornpipe didn't have hornpipes as the music when I danced them. Malcolm Malcolm L Brown York (UK)
May 26, 2006, 9:32 p.m. (Message 45405, in reply to message 45385)
In a message dated 5/26/2006 3:18:47 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, xxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxxx.xxx writes: I'm sure I would notice if The Sailor, West's Hornpipe, and College Hornpipe didn't have hornpipes as the music when I danced them. Me too. But just as an experiment, take away the title of West's, dance those figures to John Howatt's Reel and see if it isn't great fun. In fact, just say West's, and use John Howatt for the music. Although we spend a lot of time and energy fitting tunes to specific dances, I think there are many dances that would be just fine with a tune other than the specified one, as long at the other tune was of similar character. After all, we only use that specified tune for rounds 1 and 8. Sylvia Miskoe Concord, NH USA
May 27, 2006, 9:03 a.m. (Message 45409, in reply to message 45385)
Perhaps 18c in English, but in translation hornpipet is much older and refers to a bagpipe.
May 27, 2006, 9:12 a.m. (Message 45410, in reply to message 45385)
I agree with you, especially regarding the "college" commonly, and incorrectly, probably because of two TV shows, referred to as "sailor". As played, it is a reel with dum-dum-dum added at the end of the phrase, which feeds into the myth that this is a HP indicator or requirement.
May 28, 2006, 2:56 a.m. (Message 45414, in reply to message 45385)
For those like me who are fairly satisfied with Steve's "reasonably reliable indicator," here's my (yes, of course, highly oversimplified) hornpipe mnemonic for beginning dancers (a variation of "An-i-ma-ted Al-li-ga-tor" for reels, the companion of "Beau-ti-ful But-ter-fly" for jigs): Animated alligators, HERE'S YOUR CHANCE: Animated alligators, WATCH THEM DANCE! Robb Quint Thousand Oaks, CA, USA In a message dated 05/27/2006 12:02:25 PM Pacific Daylight Time, xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx writes:
May 28, 2006, 4:10 a.m. (Message 45415, in reply to message 45414)
I like "huckleberry, huckleberry" for reels and "blueberry, blueberry" for jigs. Marian Stroh Reno, NV
May 28, 2006, 9:14 p.m. (Message 45416, in reply to message 45385)
Steve Wyrick wrote: > Out of curiosity I read through my copy of Ryan's Mammoth Collection > (American, 19th C) from which Cole's 1000 was later derived. It > has a huge > hornpipe section, 251 of them from various origins. Out of those, > 205 had > the stereotypical "bom bom bom" ending in at least one of the 2 > parts, and > most of the others had some derivation with 3 strong beats (i.e., > triplets, > dotted eight/sixteenth pairs, etc), so I would take from this that > the 3 > strong beats at the end is a reasonably reliable indicator of the > tune form. Thanks for taking this trouble, Steve (and thanks to Sylvia for suggesting it). It's the method I use myself, along with a sense that the tune wants to be played slowly and dotted (for all but the "pom, pom, pom"s) so that it has a distinctive "swing." If you'll forgive my trying to do this in text, the signature phrase ending is "yaa, di-daa, di-daa, di-daa, di-dum, dum, dum." > I suppose this begs Goss' question though; were they originally > written as > hornpipes, or later classified that way because of the ending? > Also some of > these are newer American compositions which could be simply > imitating the > style. I don't think anybody knows. Did the "waltz" name, the waltz rhythm, or the dance come first? A few miscellaneous things: * The instrument was doubtless a pipe made of horn. The Harvard Dictionary of Music (which I don't have handy) has a picture which isn't very clear, but shows no bag attached. The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Music has no picture, but says it had a reed mouthpiece, suggesting that it was blown directly, rather than via a bag. * In referring to rhythms (vs. instruments), the *term* hornpipe changed meaning some time in the late 18C. Many sources mention this change, but none that I've seen explains why. Before about 1750 the term "hornpipe" refers to a tune in 3/2 time (e.g. the famous theme in the Water Music, "Alla Hornpipe"). After about 1800 the same term refers to a tune in the rhythm Steve describes. The tunes didn't change, and the dances to them didn't change; the terminology changed. So we have to be careful when we talk about what a hornpipe is, to say which meaning of the word we are using. Steve and I are using the modern meaning. * The urge to "dot" or syncopate a hornpipe (at least in English and Irish dancing) is so strong that most of them are written as even eighth notes, with the understanding that the musician will play them dotted (long-short, long-short, etc.). You will even find references to an "undotted hornpipe," which means that the musician will play the notes evenly. (An example of the exception which proves the rule!). > Incidentally, this book also has a section of approx. 50 Clogs, > which to my > eyes look like somewhat ornate hornpipes written in 4/4 time > instead of 2/4. > Can anyone explain the difference, which I assume has to do with > the dance > forms rather than the tunes (some of the hornpipes are annotated > "can be > played as a clog")? English clog dances (vs. Irish and American) are generally danced to hornpipes. Although the judges look for accuracy of form, once that's satisfied, the showier the better. Thus, more beats per bar. Thus a trend to play the tune even slower than a regular hornpipe (no metronome nearby, but strathspey tempo is close). At this speed, BTW, the dotted nature of the tune is even more important for it to stay interesting, so the musician slightly exaggerates that character. There's a good collection of information on Colin Hume's web page: http://www.colinhume.com/hornpipe.htm. -Bruce Bruce Hamilton xxxxxxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxxx.xxx 650-328-0474 (home) xxxxx_xxxxxxxx@xxxxxxx.xxx 408-553-2818 (work) 408-553-3487 (fax)
May 29, 2006, 2:34 a.m. (Message 45418, in reply to message 45416)
Bruce Hamilton wrote: > * In referring to rhythms (vs. instruments), the *term* hornpipe > changed meaning some time in the late 18C. Many sources mention this > change, but none that I've seen explains why. Before about 1750 the > term "hornpipe" refers to a tune in 3/2 time (e.g. the famous theme > in the Water Music, "Alla Hornpipe"). After about 1800 the same term > refers to a tune in the rhythm Steve describes. The tunes didn't > change, and the dances to them didn't change; the terminology > changed. So we have to be careful when we talk about what a hornpipe > is, to say which meaning of the word we are using. Steve and I are > using the modern meaning. I've been curious about the change from 3/2 to common or cut time as well. 3/2 hornpipes show up in some of the old Scottish tunebooks and are great fun to play; there's a neat rhythmic thing going on because of the opportunities the time signature provides for syncopation. I really wish there was a place for that tune form in modern SCD! -- Steve Wyrick -- Concord, California
May 28, 2006, 10:42 p.m. (Message 45417, in reply to message 45385)
Triple time music either 3 (as in a typical waltz), or 6 (as in a typical minuet) notes to the bar has been around long before the term "waltz". The word "Waltz" is associated with the turn or rotation of the couple in the style of dance and does not apply to the 3/4 beat necessarily. For example in Spanish country dances, the word "Valse" is the name for the figure we associate with the non progressive pousette (our 8 bar progression, is a Milliganism) as indicated by the dancers positions (Petronella - already progressed), or musical notation (4, instead of 8 bars). The use of "hornpipe" in translation to refer to a bagpipe fits in that many mediterranian pipes I have seen, specificly from Calabria and Sardinia recently have wooden drones, but animal horns for the one or two chanters. Possibly the syncopation is related to the need to use non melodic passing tones when moving up and down the scale without the ability of tonguing as one would use a flute or oboe, or the little "plunger" on some types of Irish pipes. Having a reed mouth piece has nothing to do with the difference between a mouth blown or sack blown instrument. Here in Mallorca, the president´s band (dressed as one would for an original reenactment of the Watermusic Suite), uses ancient instruments, including a "xeremia" (Mallorcan bagpipe), basic difference is that the drones (bordons, 1, 2, or 3) hang down in front. Its leader, "pipe major" if you will often plays as one would expect, however some renaissance music is not correct with passing tones. In this case, he simply unplugs the chanter (grai) from the bag which he drapes over his shoulder, and plays it like a simple oboe, which it is (the air in the lungs substituting for that in the bag, the pressure of the cheeks substitution for that of the arm on the bag. The grai, an ancient folk instrument of Catalunya, now may have keys attached to increase its musical possibilities, but in its simplest form, still used, has an indentation for string or cork for plugging it into a bag. In both the 3/2 and 2/4 hornpipes, there is the sense of syncopation. As I mentioned before the "dum dum dum" at the phrase or half phrase seems to be more modern. One should be careful when using old music texts to justify such traditions as the syuncopated (dot and flag) rhythms. Using language as a parallel, no alphabet perfectly fits its language as spoken when considering dialects and exceptions, no matter how phonetic. The same goes for music. When working with the School of Scottish Studies in the late 70´s to early 80´s, I was involved with transcribing traditional music from field recordings, and reconciling these with printed sources. This was very difficult for several reasons. 1. In the same recordings, folk musicians would float from single jig to hornpipe, without changing the tempo of the two basic beats (only the ration from 2:1 to 3:1 when all four notes were analyzed). Because most of us "know" the difference between a jig and a hornpipe, it is very difficult to deal with music played by musicians who learned by ear and play it as they heard it, as opposed to how it "should" be played. 2. Many tunes were transcribed quickly, or from memory and simply are lacking in the more sophisticate rhymic notations, such as the "dot and flag" pattern. As a result the written tunes are simply an aid to the melody, not as actually played. You can find this by analyzing classical solo musicians as compared to the scores from which they are playing. 3. Many historic transcriptions are only strings of notes without bar lines or length indicated. In some cases, even the pitch is indicated as up or down without indicating how far. To see evidence of this even in tutored modern times one has only to compare the notation in Playford I, with that in Playford XVIII. As far as "Strathspey" is concerned, from a music history, this is not relevant, though it is in RSCDS dance history. A strathspey is a duple style associated with a particular region in Scotland, and considered "Scotch" by many outside that region, to the extent that its distinctive rhythmic patterns were incorporated into later music considered Scottish. The hornpipe pattern is one of these patterns. Thus a trend to play the tune even slower than a regular hornpipe (no metronome nearby, but strathspey tempo is close). At this speed, BTW, the dotted nature of the tune is even more important for it to stay interesting, so the musician slightly exaggerates that character.
May 29, 2006, 7:23 a.m. (Message 45419, in reply to message 45385)
As I said before, if the "horpipedness" is in the syncopation, then this was not a change in definition just the fact that one style of rhythm simply became less popular since both the 3/2 and 2/4 existed at the same time.
May 30, 2006, 3:18 p.m. (Message 45420, in reply to message 45385)
Hi, As I understand it reels are in 2/2 and hornpipes are in 2/4 time. Best Regards, Alan & Julie Harrison RSCDS Leeds Branch http://www.piper-alan.co.uk
May 30, 2006, 3:32 p.m. (Message 45421, in reply to message 45385)
I've always considered reels to be in 2/4 meter and hornpipes can be 2/4 or 4/4. And then there is 'cut time' which is written as 4/4 but instead of designating the meter as 4/4 or C the C has a vertical line through it (the cut) and you are supposed to play the tune as though it were 2/4. Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA
May 30, 2006, 4:18 p.m. (Message 45423, in reply to message 45421)
Sylvia wrote: > > > I've always considered reels to be in 2/4 meter and hornpipes > can be 2/4 or > 4/4. And then there is 'cut time' which is written as 4/4 > but instead of > designating the meter as 4/4 or C the C has a vertical line > through it (the cut) > and you are supposed to play the tune as though it were 2/4. I'm glad you brought this up. I frequently see reel music with time signature of C or 4/4. Susie Petrov's book uses the former, while Liz Donaldson's first book (pink cover) uses the latter. Liz' second book (blue) uses the C with the line drawn through it. Then there's the individual sheets we've collected from Elke Baker (through the Potomac Valley Fiddle Club) with no time signature given at all. Both the C and the 4/4 indicate to me that there are 4 beats to the bar, yet we dance to 2 beats per bar. I don't understand this at all. Can you, or anyone, explain this? Pat
May 30, 2006, 3:50 p.m. (Message 45422, in reply to message 45385)
Tempo indications have no predictive value in this discussion in that while RSCDS published reels are generally in 2/4 time, often their source tunes are found in 2/2 or 4/4. The same can be found for hornpipes, except for the 3/2 hornpipes already mentioned. As posted before it is not the time signiture that makes the difference between a duple time tune a reel or a hornpipe, but the syncopation. And even there it is the predominance of such that makes the difference, in that a mostly really reel can have hornpipe syncipation occasionally, as can a hornish hornpipe, have occasional bars without syncopation. This follows over into the differench between single and double jig. While they have the same tempo indications, most of the single jigs have a syncipated 4 note rhythm (often shading into a hornpipe when played by traditional musicians - and noted as such on occasions), where the double jig has 6 notes to the bar. As in the above, this is the norm, for a piece of music, and has nothing to do with the exceptions occasionally found.
May 30, 2006, 6:02 p.m. (Message 45424, in reply to message 45385)
My easiest answer is It's all part of being traditional music. We want our reels to be a particular tempo, we want 2 beats to the bar so no matter how the tune is notated, we play it the way we want it to sound. When I create a dance set I will often change the time signature, and therefore the notation, so it is the same for each tune. Saves confusing the musicians. But when I'm making sets for the musicians I work with a lot I don't bother because WE know how the music should be played for the dance. Sylvia Miskoe, Concord, NH USA
May 30, 2006, 7:53 p.m. (Message 45425, in reply to message 45385)
Pat wrote: | Both the C and the 4/4 indicate to me that there are 4 beats to the bar, yet | we dance to 2 beats per bar. I don't understand this at all. Can you, or | anyone, explain this? Very simple: It's wrong. ;-) Reels are conventionally written, with 4 8th-notes and two beats per bar. So the correct time signature is 2/2, or the C-with-a-bar (M:C| in ABC), which is a synonym for 2/2. It would be better to write them with 8 16th-notes per bar, and 2/4 as the time signature. Sometimes you see that, but not often. To understand why, you have to study the history of musical notation. The reason isn't logic; it's history. But musicians can be quite sloppy about such things. They often write 4/4, implying four beats per bar. Among other things, this shows that they really have no idea what a "beat" is. This is something that can be rather subtle, and lots of musicians can play it right without knowing the right terminology or notation. Few musicians are ever really taught much about music notation. The result is a real mess. So you have to learn to try to figure out what was meant by music notation despite all the errors. And it doesn't help that dancers often count things differently from the musicians. -- _, O John Chambers <:#/> <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx> + <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> /#\ in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth | | ' `
May 31, 2006, 3:29 a.m. (Message 45431, in reply to message 45425)
John, a minor correction: I'm pretty sure you meant _8_ 8th-notes and 2 beats per bar (which works out to cut time). Incidentally, this business of confusing common (4/4) and cut time signatures isn't a new issue. Looking at facimiles of Robert Petrie's and William Marshall's tunebooks from around the turn of the 18th/19th century, reels in both collections are notated in either cut or common time, with no apparent reason for the choice of one or the other! -Steve John Chambers wrote: > Reels are conventionally written, with 4 8th-notes and two beats per > bar. So the correct time signature is 2/2, or the C-with-a-bar (M:C| > in ABC), which is a synonym for 2/2. It would be better to write them > with 8 16th-notes per bar, and 2/4 as the time signature. Sometimes > you see that, but not often. To understand why, you have to study the > history of musical notation. The reason isn't logic; it's history. -- Steve Wyrick -- Concord, California
May 31, 2006, 4:20 a.m. (Message 45432, in reply to message 45431)
Thanks to John and Steve for, um, kinda sorta clarifying this matter of the time signature. At least now I know I haven't been misunderstanding some important and perhaps obvious fact about what 4/4 time means. Pat
May 31, 2006, 1:20 p.m. (Message 45434, in reply to message 45432)
This issue of time signatures goes across the board and doesn't just apply to reels and hornpipes. The same occurs in maches 2/4 and 4/4. For some reason, I think purely due to the whims of the composer, many 4/4 marches are written as 2/4 which when sight reading for the first time can cause an amusing moment. 3/4 retreat marches are another source of confusion for novice musicians. I remember the first time I saw a 3/4 pipe march and played it as a waltz until I was suitably chastised. Rod Johnston, Fort Willaim Patricia Ruggiero <xxxxxxxxx@xxxxxxxxx.xxx> wrote: Thanks to John and Steve for, um, kinda sorta clarifying this matter of the time signature. At least now I know I haven't been misunderstanding some important and perhaps obvious fact about what 4/4 time means. Pat
May 31, 2006, 3:07 p.m. (Message 45435, in reply to message 45434)
Rod wrote: >I remember the first time I saw a 3/4 pipe > march and played it as a waltz until I was suitably chastised. As I can well imagine!!!! Pat
May 31, 2006, 3:24 p.m. (Message 45436, in reply to message 45385)
Steve Wyrick wrote: | John, a minor correction: I'm pretty sure you meant _8_ 8th-notes and 2 | beats per bar (which works out to cut time). Yeah; of course. It can be hard to spot typos like that. | Incidentally, this business of confusing common (4/4) and cut time | signatures isn't a new issue. Looking at facimiles of Robert Petrie's and | William Marshall's tunebooks from around the turn of the 18th/19th century, | reels in both collections are notated in either cut or common time, with no | apparent reason for the choice of one or the other! -Steve Part of what's going on is that there has been a very slow change to the use of shorter notes over the centuries. If you look at music from the 1500s and 1600s, you'll see that what we call a whole note was the usual way to write a "beat". By the 1700s, a beat was more often written as a half note, and the cut-time notation for reels is a relic of this. In the 1800s, it became more common to use a quarter note for the beat, and that's the standard way to write polkas and waltzes. But there has always been confusion or disagreement on this. A few years ago, I got curious and went through my music books, and counted the key signatures for a few rhythms. The one that really stood out was marches, which were almost evenly divided between 2/4 and cut time. It got even more confusing because of a third, rarer choice: 4/4 with a quarter note for the beat and half as many bar lines. I've seen a few cases of cut-and-paste pages for SCD that had marches in all three notations. This sometimes causes problems when you reach the 4/4 tune, and part the band plays it twice as fast as the others (as if it were a cut-time reel). Some marches have sufficiently long notes that you can double the speed and they work, though they're no longer marches. (It's one reason to have rehearsals. ;-) The Early Music crowd sometimes has problems with this. There are some pieces of music for which the tempo isn't known, and the music works at several different speeds (and with a different note value for the "beat"). Of course, if it's music for a dance that can't be reconstructed, it doesn't matter, and you can play it any way you like. But if you're a dedicated Early Music sort, you probably find this worrying, because you want to play it "right". I ran across a case like this a few months ago. I also play for ECD, as well as for the local New England "vintage" dancers who like to do 18th-C dances. Not surprisingly, these two crowds tend to be the same people. Anyway, the dance leader had sent us a tune he wanted, but there was no clue to the tempo. We played it at both a fast "reel" tempo and a slower "walking" tempo, and we liked it both ways. Email asking him about it didn't help; we didn't have enough terminology in common to get across the problem. What we did was, before the dance was taught, we played both versions and asked which was right. He picked the "walking tune" version, so we played that one. Most ECD musicians can probably tell similar stories, as this is a common problem with the notation for that music. -- _, O John Chambers <:#/> <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx> + <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> /#\ in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth | | ' `
May 31, 2006, 3:36 p.m. (Message 45437, in reply to message 45385)
Pat commented: | Thanks to John and Steve for, um, kinda sorta clarifying this matter of the | time signature. At least now I know I haven't been misunderstanding some | important and perhaps obvious fact about what 4/4 time means. ;-) It can't really be completely clarified, because both musicians and dancers are hopelessly sloppy and inconsistent in their terminology and notation. For example, the terms "reel" and "jig" are used by both musicians and dancers, but with unrelated meanings. And most of them aren't even aware of the problem. -- _, O John Chambers <:#/> <xx@xxxxxxxx.xxx.xxx> + <xxxxxx@xxxxx.xxx> /#\ in Waltham, Massachusetts, USA, Earth | | ' `