So I can't help but noticing that many of the waltzes on this site have their notes grouped in triplets, as if they were jigs. This makes it impossible to play as written. I went through one and regrouped all the notes, and it turned out not to be a waste of time this once, but why go through all the trouble of writing out a tune and make it unreadable?
So don't play it as written, Earl. Play it as you hear it.
Many of the transcriptions here aren't very reliable. That's the problem with a wiki database: it's hard to know if the source knows what they're on about. Speaking as someone who's contributed tunes here, I know for a fact I was learning as I went.
Thanks for cleaning up the notation though! That's the kind of custodial mission that improves this site. Sort of like ceolachan, dr dow and others providing cross-reference links and comments.
Well I seem to have lost the one that I edited the other night, it's hiding somewhere in my abc collection but I'm reading one right now that has all the eighth notes grouped together called Retour Des Hirondelles submitted by pbassnote on March 14th. lovely tune which is familiar to me from somewhere but part of me is really tempted to go through and put spaces between the beats.
Oh and this has notes grouped over the beats. It seems less inappropriate but is still not ideal. Also another lovely tune and I just have come across so many of these that just should be written a little neater for posterity.
X:1
T: La Partida
M: 3/4
L: 1/8
R: waltz
K:Bmin
FGF^EF|:"Bm"d3FdF|d3FdF|"F#"de/d/c^Bc2|zEFE^DE|
"F#"c3EcE|c3EcE|"Bm"cd/c/B^AB2|zFGF^EF|
"B7"B2^A(BB)=c|B2A(GG)F|"Em"FG/F/E^DE2|zGFEDC|
"Bm"B,^A,B,CDE|"F#"FGFEDC|"Bm"B,C/B,/^A,B,DF|1BFGF^EF:|2BzF2F2||
|:"F#"feFfeF|feFfeF|"Bm"edFedF|edFedF|
"F#"dcFdcF|dcFdcF|"Bm"cBFcBF|cBFcBF|
"B7"BAFBAF|BAFBAF|"Em"FG/F/E^DE2|zGFEDC|
"Bm"B,^A,B,CDE|"F#"FGFEDC|"Bm"B,C/B,/^A,B,DF|1BzF2F2:|2B|]
I clicked through twenty or so and did indeed come onto one that had a few bars where triplets occurred, due to typos in the ABC. I don't think it's a big problem, not as far as I can see anyway.
I know I can learn from the shoddy notation, because I've heard the way these tunes are supposed to sound. but I have to rewrite the notes so I can plop them in front of musicians who want to learn my newest tunes on the fly, in an environment where I want to encourage them to do so.
Well, jigs don't naturally have 'triplets', but the six quavers are grouped in threes. A triplet is three notes in the space of two, and they fit into waltzes quite comfortably.
They've just barred the eighth notes together.... instead of barring them in groups of two. I guess someone might want to group the 6 eighth notes in a bar as 123 456 as in a jig, but because it is a waltz it's 12 34 56 (as in 1 and 2 and 3 and)
Not hard to read. and certainly not impossible to play as written.
The first search result for Ashokan farewell is an example. Yes it is just in the beginning, which is the only place where there seems to be three eighths in a row in this version. I swear I have come across many many more than this. I just wanted to bring it up because beams should never connect over the beat, it just hurts my eyes.
I don't find any problem with the note groupings in the examples you've cited, Earl, although I do find it a problem that the actual notes are wrong in Ashokan Farewell. But, as others have said, it's posted by all sorts of people. Some of it's going to be wrong.
On your main point, I'd still like to see an example of one where note groupings are wrong, though. I haven't seen one yet.
"Weejie, I think your submissions are above par but I don't agree that notes grouped this way should be written in a waltz."
Personally, I prefer the notes written as two semiquavers followed by a quaver, as it is closer to the way most play them than an actual triplet - however, it does not break any rhythmic rules, as those notes usually have the '3' written above or below them to indicate an 'artificial grouping'. An interesting example of artificial groupings is the 3rd movement of Bach's Brandenburg No 5. To all intents and purposes, much of the flute and violin parts are in 6/8 played over the other instruments playing in 2/4.
You can gather from this that the difference between those two rhythms is not quite as marked as some would tell you. Likewise 3/4 and 9/8, where in the latter, the groups of three notes are natural and in the former they would have to be written as artificial groupings (placing a '3' above or below to make them triplets). In 'real life' some find writing slip jigs as 3/4 tunes with triplets is nearer to the way they are played - and they come close to the polonaise and Swedish polska in that respect. There is nothing wrong with putting three note groupings in a waltz, but like I said earlier, most renditions I hear do not play the three notes as equal length. It's just a convention to write them as such.
"Why go through all the trouble of writing out a tune and make it unreadable?.." (Earl Cameron)
The person writing out the tune is probably a newbie at this, and is unaware of the mistakes he is making; he will go on being unaware of them till he turns on the midi to listen to the tune he has transcribed, and goes "Oh, ****!" when he hears what sounds like several piles of tin boxes being kicked down a staircase instead of an inspirational tune.
This will probably go on for a long time until the tune transcriber finally gets the hang of entering the abcs properly, down to the last damn little niggly detail and snag. By that time you and I will probably have got the hang of understanding just what he *meant* to enter when he was in error. Then along will come another newbie. It never ends.
I know all this because I've been a newbie at entering tunes and also at reading them - or guessing how they ought to read.
i am ok at using abc's for pitch, and i can puzzle out putting them in measures. but the timings are hard to write, and the "grouping" discussion above leaves me guessing. i think i grasp timing by ear better than i remember notes (til i play some strathspey and get things mixed around).
i think my ear learning benefits from the fact that i find the written stuff hard to follow. so maybe that's a good thing.
well grouping the notes across the beat will not make the abc player sound any different, It just affects the way a human reader will perceive where the beats are. In 3/4 there are three beats per measure, so more than two eighth notes grouped together without a "triplet" has too many counts in the beat. The reader must figure out if there is a triplet marking missing or if the beams are going across the beat. The most instinctual way to read is to play a triplet, while more often than not in 3/4 timing it is actually because the notes are beamed over the beat, the computer will just play a standard length note no matter how it is beamed unless you put in the "(3" symbol. To those still asking for examples, the Ashokan Farewell you get first when you search this site has more than two eighth notes beamed together. I find that because this is an easy and well known tune that it is still fine to read, but when it comes up in more complicated waltzes it is just a mindfeck. I am still glad that these tunes were posted, just a heads up that grouping notes in beats makes your postings more readable, of course those that would do such a thing probably have no idea what I'm talking about anyway, just thought I would at least say something.
I think I know what you're talking about (and don't much like the implied "if you don't know what I'm talking about you must be ignorant so it's a waste of time talking to you" contained in your last but one post), but that Ashokan Farewell example has nothing wrong with it. It is standard practice, in classical music (where you're coming from I guess) as well as in any other kind of music, to group those three notes together, or any other pattern where there is a dotted crotchet followed by quavers for the rest of the bar. If it isn't your taste, fine, but it is within normal parameters. If, however, there were examples where there were 6 quavers in the bar, and they were grouped in threes ... hmmm ... even that's possible (see Brahms, any Brahms) but it would imply syncopation, which may or may not be present. so, depending on the particular tune, that might not be so good - hence my request for examples, which you have yet to supply.
But aren't there more important things to worry about? Oh, and for me, completely wrong notes, as in that first Ashokan Farewell example, are a way worse problem because, unfortunately, there are quite a few people around who are prepared to learn tunes off this site and then wheel them out in public. Stupid, but there ya go.
EF || G>F E | D B,>A, | B, E D | E2 E/F/ | G>A B | d B A | G A B | A2 E/F/ |
G>A B | d B>A | G A B |D2 B/A/ | G>F E |D B, A, | B, E>D | E2 E/F/ ||
G B, B, | D B, B, | G B, B, | D4 E/F/ | G>F E | D B, A, | B, E>D | E2 E/F/ |
G B, B, | D B, B, | G B, B, | D2 B/A/ | G>F E | D B, A, | B, E>D | E2 ||
just realized the abcs here have twice as many barlines as the printed music on the site, so the music must have been modified later to be correct, which it is now. Just one I randomly found.
Ethical you go far to make assumptions about where I'm coming from or what I meant by putting what I said into your own words. Maybe if you read ABC in data form you don't really need to group the notes for readability? People that pay attention to these things tend to maybe just be more picky.
Most of what I play is Irish, I do attempt to play baroque music on occasion. I don't play any classical music at all. You insinuate that I am wrong for learning tunes from this site? What are these tunes here for if not to play them. I am merely pointing out that I think to group notes like this is wrong, and I am finding that a few people like yourself disagree, so I guess that's that.
I just find this;
X: 2
T: La Partida
S: "A Little Couple-Dancemusik", transcribed, edited and chorded by Peter Barnes, Canis Minoris, 1992
Z: ErikT - with corrections and removal of chords...
M: 3/4
L: 1/8
R: waltz
K: Bmin
F GF ^EF |:\
d3 F dF | d3 F dF | de/d/ c^B c2 | zE FE ^DE |
c3 E cE | c3 E cE | cd/c/ B^A B2 | zF GF ^EF |
B2 ^AB- B=c | B2 AG- GF | FG/F/ E^D E2 | zg fe dc |
B^A Bc de | fg fe dc | Bc/B/ ^AB df |[1 BF GF ^EF :|[2 Bz F2 F2 ||
|: fe Ff eF | fe Ff eF | ed Fe dF | ed Fe dF |
dc Fd cF | dc Fd cF | cB Fc BF | cB Fc BF |
BA FB AF | BA FB AF | FG/F/ E^D E2 | zg fe dc |
B^A Bc de | fg fe dc | Bc/B/ ^AB df |[1 Bz F2 F2 :|[2 B |]
Yeah, that one's messed up, all right. No-one would have corrected it; it's just that, because the time signature is shown as 3/4, it will fit as many quavers into each bar as 3/4 implies, wherever the bar lines are shown in the original. (At least I think that's how it works.) But the thing with that one is - it ain't a waltz anyway, and those quavers (if that's how you want to show them) should, in fact, be grouped in threes, as indeed they are.
So, back to waltzes, and tunes where the quavers are grouped wrongly in threes - any examples? Any at all? I mean, I haven't looked, so there might be ...
X:27
T:The Brown Thorn, correctly set
M:3/4
L:1/8
Z:Petrie's #451
K:Dmaj
GAG|:A2 F ABc|d2 AA BA/2G/2|F2 EF E>D|D3:|
|:GAG|A2 F ABc|(d2 d)d ed|c2 Ac BA|A3 GAG|
A2 FA Bc|d2 AA BA/2G/2|F2 EF E>D|D3:||
It's rare to ever find wholly correct notation on any web site. You almost always have to fix something.
But that's a good thing--it compels us to go to the aural source and use our ears. Plus we can arrange a piece just how we want it (assuming you need that sort of "arrangement," for a band, say). If you play in any sort of ensemble, those are skills worth earning--transcribing from aural sources, and arranging down to the details.
Funny.... Retour des Hirondelles is a musette parisian waltz, and la Partida is Venezuelian, also know as "Quiero ser tu sombra" (a much nicer title...).
Not very ITM, eh ?
Waltzes
Waltzes
So I can't help but noticing that many of the waltzes on this site have their notes grouped in triplets, as if they were jigs. This makes it impossible to play as written. I went through one and regrouped all the notes, and it turned out not to be a waste of time this once, but why go through all the trouble of writing out a tune and make it unreadable?
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
Any examples?
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: Waltzes
So don't play it as written, Earl. Play it as you hear it.
Many of the transcriptions here aren't very reliable. That's the problem with a wiki database: it's hard to know if the source knows what they're on about. Speaking as someone who's contributed tunes here, I know for a fact I was learning as I went.
Thanks for cleaning up the notation though! That's the kind of custodial mission that improves this site. Sort of like ceolachan, dr dow and others providing cross-reference links and comments.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by fidkid
Re: Waltzes
Not sure what you are talking about, none of the waltzes that I clicked on had it grouped the way you described.
Yes, examples, please....
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Wyogal
Re: Waltzes
Well I seem to have lost the one that I edited the other night, it's hiding somewhere in my abc collection but I'm reading one right now that has all the eighth notes grouped together called Retour Des Hirondelles submitted by pbassnote on March 14th. lovely tune which is familiar to me from somewhere but part of me is really tempted to go through and put spaces between the beats.
http://www.thesession.org/tunes/display/11117
Oh and this has notes grouped over the beats. It seems less inappropriate but is still not ideal. Also another lovely tune and I just have come across so many of these that just should be written a little neater for posterity.
X:1
T: La Partida
M: 3/4
L: 1/8
R: waltz
K:Bmin
FGF^EF|:"Bm"d3FdF|d3FdF|"F#"de/d/c^Bc2|zEFE^DE|
"F#"c3EcE|c3EcE|"Bm"cd/c/B^AB2|zFGF^EF|
"B7"B2^A(BB)=c|B2A(GG)F|"Em"FG/F/E^DE2|zGFEDC|
"Bm"B,^A,B,CDE|"F#"FGFEDC|"Bm"B,C/B,/^A,B,DF|1BFGF^EF:|2BzF2F2||
|:"F#"feFfeF|feFfeF|"Bm"edFedF|edFedF|
"F#"dcFdcF|dcFdcF|"Bm"cBFcBF|cBFcBF|
"B7"BAFBAF|BAFBAF|"Em"FG/F/E^DE2|zGFEDC|
"Bm"B,^A,B,CDE|"F#"FGFEDC|"Bm"B,C/B,/^A,B,DF|1BzF2F2:|2B|]
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
I clicked through twenty or so and did indeed come onto one that had a few bars where triplets occurred, due to typos in the ABC. I don't think it's a big problem, not as far as I can see anyway.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: Waltzes
x post
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Prof. Prlwytzkofski
Re: Waltzes
I know I can learn from the shoddy notation, because I've heard the way these tunes are supposed to sound. but I have to rewrite the notes so I can plop them in front of musicians who want to learn my newest tunes on the fly, in an environment where I want to encourage them to do so.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
Well, jigs don't naturally have 'triplets', but the six quavers are grouped in threes. A triplet is three notes in the space of two, and they fit into waltzes quite comfortably.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Weejie
Re: Waltzes
They've just barred the eighth notes together.... instead of barring them in groups of two. I guess someone might want to group the 6 eighth notes in a bar as 123 456 as in a jig, but because it is a waltz it's 12 34 56 (as in 1 and 2 and 3 and)
Not hard to read. and certainly not impossible to play as written.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Wyogal
Re: Waltzes
The first search result for Ashokan farewell is an example. Yes it is just in the beginning, which is the only place where there seems to be three eighths in a row in this version. I swear I have come across many many more than this. I just wanted to bring it up because beams should never connect over the beat, it just hurts my eyes.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
Weejie, I think your submissions are above par but I don't agree that notes grouped this way should be written in a waltz.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
oh sorry, I misunderstood, because I mispoke initially. I am talking about note groupings. 12 34 56 instead of 123 456.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
I don't find any problem with the note groupings in the examples you've cited, Earl, although I do find it a problem that the actual notes are wrong in Ashokan Farewell. But, as others have said, it's posted by all sorts of people. Some of it's going to be wrong.
On your main point, I'd still like to see an example of one where note groupings are wrong, though. I haven't seen one yet.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by ethical blend
Re: Waltzes
"Weejie, I think your submissions are above par but I don't agree that notes grouped this way should be written in a waltz."
Personally, I prefer the notes written as two semiquavers followed by a quaver, as it is closer to the way most play them than an actual triplet - however, it does not break any rhythmic rules, as those notes usually have the '3' written above or below them to indicate an 'artificial grouping'. An interesting example of artificial groupings is the 3rd movement of Bach's Brandenburg No 5. To all intents and purposes, much of the flute and violin parts are in 6/8 played over the other instruments playing in 2/4.
You can gather from this that the difference between those two rhythms is not quite as marked as some would tell you. Likewise 3/4 and 9/8, where in the latter, the groups of three notes are natural and in the former they would have to be written as artificial groupings (placing a '3' above or below to make them triplets). In 'real life' some find writing slip jigs as 3/4 tunes with triplets is nearer to the way they are played - and they come close to the polonaise and Swedish polska in that respect. There is nothing wrong with putting three note groupings in a waltz, but like I said earlier, most renditions I hear do not play the three notes as equal length. It's just a convention to write them as such.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Weejie
Re: Waltzes
"oh sorry, I misunderstood, because I mispoke initially. I am talking about note groupings. 12 34 56 instead of 123 456."
Different ball game altogether, and could be put down to bad spacing in ABC.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Weejie
Re: Waltzes
"Why go through all the trouble of writing out a tune and make it unreadable?.." (Earl Cameron)
The person writing out the tune is probably a newbie at this, and is unaware of the mistakes he is making; he will go on being unaware of them till he turns on the midi to listen to the tune he has transcribed, and goes "Oh, ****!" when he hears what sounds like several piles of tin boxes being kicked down a staircase instead of an inspirational tune.
This will probably go on for a long time until the tune transcriber finally gets the hang of entering the abcs properly, down to the last damn little niggly detail and snag. By that time you and I will probably have got the hang of understanding just what he *meant* to enter when he was in error. Then along will come another newbie. It never ends.
I know all this because I've been a newbie at entering tunes and also at reading them - or guessing how they ought to read.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by nicholas
Re: Waltzes
relative newbie at abc here.
i am ok at using abc's for pitch, and i can puzzle out putting them in measures. but the timings are hard to write, and the "grouping" discussion above leaves me guessing. i think i grasp timing by ear better than i remember notes (til i play some strathspey and get things mixed around).
i think my ear learning benefits from the fact that i find the written stuff hard to follow. so maybe that's a good thing.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by full measure
Re: Waltzes
well grouping the notes across the beat will not make the abc player sound any different, It just affects the way a human reader will perceive where the beats are. In 3/4 there are three beats per measure, so more than two eighth notes grouped together without a "triplet" has too many counts in the beat. The reader must figure out if there is a triplet marking missing or if the beams are going across the beat. The most instinctual way to read is to play a triplet, while more often than not in 3/4 timing it is actually because the notes are beamed over the beat, the computer will just play a standard length note no matter how it is beamed unless you put in the "(3" symbol. To those still asking for examples, the Ashokan Farewell you get first when you search this site has more than two eighth notes beamed together. I find that because this is an easy and well known tune that it is still fine to read, but when it comes up in more complicated waltzes it is just a mindfeck. I am still glad that these tunes were posted, just a heads up that grouping notes in beats makes your postings more readable, of course those that would do such a thing probably have no idea what I'm talking about anyway, just thought I would at least say something.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
And I really do find incorrect note groupings to be more insidious than wrong notes, because it deals with the perception of the rhythm.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
I think I know what you're talking about (and don't much like the implied "if you don't know what I'm talking about you must be ignorant so it's a waste of time talking to you" contained in your last but one post), but that Ashokan Farewell example has nothing wrong with it. It is standard practice, in classical music (where you're coming from I guess) as well as in any other kind of music, to group those three notes together, or any other pattern where there is a dotted crotchet followed by quavers for the rest of the bar. If it isn't your taste, fine, but it is within normal parameters. If, however, there were examples where there were 6 quavers in the bar, and they were grouped in threes ... hmmm ... even that's possible (see Brahms, any Brahms) but it would imply syncopation, which may or may not be present. so, depending on the particular tune, that might not be so good - hence my request for examples, which you have yet to supply.
But aren't there more important things to worry about? Oh, and for me, completely wrong notes, as in that first Ashokan Farewell example, are a way worse problem because, unfortunately, there are quite a few people around who are prepared to learn tunes off this site and then wheel them out in public. Stupid, but there ya go.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by ethical blend
Re: Waltzes
X: 1
T: Gan Ainm
M: 3/4
L: 1/8
R: waltz
K: Emin
EF || G>F E | D B,>A, | B, E D | E2 E/F/ | G>A B | d B A | G A B | A2 E/F/ |
G>A B | d B>A | G A B |D2 B/A/ | G>F E |D B, A, | B, E>D | E2 E/F/ ||
G B, B, | D B, B, | G B, B, | D4 E/F/ | G>F E | D B, A, | B, E>D | E2 E/F/ |
G B, B, | D B, B, | G B, B, | D2 B/A/ | G>F E | D B, A, | B, E>D | E2 ||
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
just realized the abcs here have twice as many barlines as the printed music on the site, so the music must have been modified later to be correct, which it is now. Just one I randomly found.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
Ethical you go far to make assumptions about where I'm coming from or what I meant by putting what I said into your own words. Maybe if you read ABC in data form you don't really need to group the notes for readability? People that pay attention to these things tend to maybe just be more picky.
Most of what I play is Irish, I do attempt to play baroque music on occasion. I don't play any classical music at all. You insinuate that I am wrong for learning tunes from this site? What are these tunes here for if not to play them. I am merely pointing out that I think to group notes like this is wrong, and I am finding that a few people like yourself disagree, so I guess that's that.
I just find this;
X: 2
T: La Partida
S: "A Little Couple-Dancemusik", transcribed, edited and chorded by Peter Barnes, Canis Minoris, 1992
Z: ErikT - with corrections and removal of chords...
M: 3/4
L: 1/8
R: waltz
K: Bmin
F GF ^EF |:\
d3 F dF | d3 F dF | de/d/ c^B c2 | zE FE ^DE |
c3 E cE | c3 E cE | cd/c/ B^A B2 | zF GF ^EF |
B2 ^AB- B=c | B2 AG- GF | FG/F/ E^D E2 | zg fe dc |
B^A Bc de | fg fe dc | Bc/B/ ^AB df |[1 BF GF ^EF :|[2 Bz F2 F2 ||
|: fe Ff eF | fe Ff eF | ed Fe dF | ed Fe dF |
dc Fd cF | dc Fd cF | cB Fc BF | cB Fc BF |
BA FB AF | BA FB AF | FG/F/ E^D E2 | zg fe dc |
B^A Bc de | fg fe dc | Bc/B/ ^AB df |[1 Bz F2 F2 :|[2 B |]
Easier to read than this;
X: 1
T: La Partida
M: 3/4
L: 1/8
R: waltz
K: Bmin
FGF^EF|:"Bm"d3FdF|d3FdF|"F#"de/d/c^Bc2|zEFE^DE|
"F#"c3EcE|c3EcE|"Bm"cd/c/B^AB2|zFGF^EF|
"B7"B2^A(BB)=c|B2A(GG)F|"Em"FG/F/E^DE2|zGFEDC|
"Bm"B,^A,B,CDE|"F#"FGFEDC|"Bm"B,C/B,/^A,B,DF|1BFGF^EF:|2BzF2F2||
|:"F#"feFfeF|feFfeF|"Bm"edFedF|edFedF|
"F#"dcFdcF|dcFdcF|"Bm"cBFcBF|cBFcBF|
"B7"BAFBAF|BAFBAF|"Em"FG/F/E^DE2|zGFEDC|
"Bm"B,^A,B,CDE|"F#"FGFEDC|"Bm"B,C/B,/^A,B,DF|1BzF2F2:|2B|]
but I will check out Brahms and see how he does it in an attempt to enlighten myself.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
Yeah, that one's messed up, all right. No-one would have corrected it; it's just that, because the time signature is shown as 3/4, it will fit as many quavers into each bar as 3/4 implies, wherever the bar lines are shown in the original. (At least I think that's how it works.) But the thing with that one is - it ain't a waltz anyway, and those quavers (if that's how you want to show them) should, in fact, be grouped in threes, as indeed they are.
So, back to waltzes, and tunes where the quavers are grouped wrongly in threes - any examples? Any at all? I mean, I haven't looked, so there might be ...
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by ethical blend
Re: Waltzes
"X: 1
T: Gan Ainm
M: 3/4
L: 1/8
R: waltz
K: Emin"
Well, in spite of the fact that this tune is wrongly written out, I'm able to identify it, so thanks for that, Earl.
BTW, it might help if you give examples like this, to give the link too. It saves having to search for it.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Weejie
Re: Waltzes
X:27
T:The Brown Thorn, correctly set
M:3/4
L:1/8
Z:Petrie's #451
K:Dmaj
GAG|:A2 F ABc|d2 AA BA/2G/2|F2 EF E>D|D3:|
|:GAG|A2 F ABc|(d2 d)d ed|c2 Ac BA|A3 GAG|
A2 FA Bc|d2 AA BA/2G/2|F2 EF E>D|D3:||
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
It's rare to ever find wholly correct notation on any web site. You almost always have to fix something.
But that's a good thing--it compels us to go to the aural source and use our ears. Plus we can arrange a piece just how we want it (assuming you need that sort of "arrangement," for a band, say). If you play in any sort of ensemble, those are skills worth earning--transcribing from aural sources, and arranging down to the details.
# Posted on August 28th 2011 by Will Harmon
Re: Waltzes
Funny.... Retour des Hirondelles is a musette parisian waltz, and la Partida is Venezuelian, also know as "Quiero ser tu sombra" (a much nicer title...).
Not very ITM, eh ?
# Posted on August 29th 2011 by Nikita Pfister
Re: Waltzes
I'm sure that cross-post of mine above wasn't there when I first posted it last night ... scratches head ...
# Posted on August 29th 2011 by ethical blend
Re: Waltzes
no, they're here because they've been recorded by musicians who also play ITM.
# Posted on August 30th 2011 by Earl Cameron
Re: Waltzes
"also known as "Quiero ser tu sombra" (a much nicer title...)"
if a little creepy...
# Posted on August 30th 2011 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Waltzes
"Don't stand...don't stand....don't stand so close to me...."
# Posted on August 30th 2011 by Will Harmon
Re: Waltzes
I'm sticking with you
'Cos I'm made out of glue
Anything that you might do
I'm gonna do too
# Posted on August 30th 2011 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Waltzes
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CyEf1Lp7Byk
# Posted on August 30th 2011 by Will Harmon
Re: Waltzes
http://www.archive.org/details/stalky_tb_librivox
# Posted on August 30th 2011 by Jon Kiparsky