Is there any consensus on the level or rhythmic detail we like for notation of tunes like barndances? I notice some folks take them down in straight eighths, and some prefer to try to capture the swing by using dotted eighths and sixteenths. To my eye, this latter is more distracting than informative, kind of like putting the tune in 12/8 would be.
The rule I'd suggest would be to reserve dotted notation for distinguishing a particular rhythmic peculiarity in the tune (ie, a strathspey or a polka where some eighths are relatively straight and some are relatively swung) but if the whole tune would be dotted, they can be omitted as understood.
Okay, granted, this is not the single most pressing issue facing the world today, but I'm glad I've got it off my chest.
I agree. Some of the older publications of hornpipes simply showed the tune in 'reel' time with a worded note at the beginning saying something like 'play with a jaunty feel'.
No two transcriptions (dots or abc) of any trad tune will be the same. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the purpose of said dots or abc is to rough out the general shape of the tune, and the musician(s) can sort out the fine detail every time it's played.
Trevor
eww... dotted. why would you write a reel or a jig with dotted 8th notes? thats retarded.
i have a book where they dont even mark the dottedness of hornpipes, and they're like, "just figure it out".
in that book they have the jig of slurs, with dotted 8th, 32nd, then 8th for every single beat. but they dont do that anywhere else in the book, for jigs or even hornpipes (like i said) does that mean ultra-uber-crazy-superman 'jaunty feel'?
As a side issue, the insertion of detailed rhythms and ornaments into the abc of a tune submitted on this site is guaranteed to mess up the "advanced search" in the Tunes database. For instance, if you're searching for "G2Bc d2" you won't find it if it's been submitted as "G2B>c d2".
For exactly the same reason chord indications should be omitted from the abc as first submitted (leaving aside any consideration of the idiosyncratic, not to say downright weird, chord progressions beloved of some tune submitters!).
Ornaments, detailed rhythmic structures and chords should be left to an alternative version submitted elsewhere in the comments.
Daiv, maybe they want you to play Jig Of Slurs with a more Scottish pipe marchey feel.
All this dotted/no dotted stuff is just convention anyway. I think tunes can be more accurately represented using dots than they are. Putting a hornpipe in 12/8 or 12/16 would only be more "distracting" because you're not used to seeing it written down that way. It'd be a better representation of the rhythm than 2/2 and especially 4/4, dotted or undotted. If you want to play them properly, that is
Dow - what you say is true. But the rider "If you want to play them properly, that is" only applies if we assume that you want to play as written and write as played. (And as for the lying, hypocritical, disingenuous smiley icon. . . .) ;o)
Seriously folks: The dots are as Trevor describes, "only for guidance". If you write in all the rhythmic detail, and even ornamentation, then you are in effect legislating that the tune should be played this way, and this way only, and that individuals may not adopt any personal style. This is something that is increasingly common in church music, simply because the composers are "writing" the music by getting a computer software to produce notation from their playing - leading to fantastically complex pages of dots for what should really be a simple tune with personal input from the person playing it.
Keep the notation simple - then put a bit of life into it when you play.
"If you write in all the rhythmic detail, and even ornamentation, then you are in effect legislating that the tune should be played this way, and this way only, and that individuals may not adopt any personal style".
No more than you would be if you didn't put in rhythmic detail and ornamentation. Nobody can "legislate" anything in writing down our precious, beloved music, however much detail is included.
What I mean is, if you learn a tune from a session recording or a CD, the notes you're picking up by ear *aren't* the bare bones you describe, Dave. They're one particular interpretation, ornamentation, rhythmic detail, mistakes and all. Whether we get our tunes by ear or from the dots, we have to make it our own anyhow.
Careful Dow! I talked about "making a tune your own" once, and all hell broke loose.
You're right in what you say about learning by ear too. Dammit - you're right about everything! In my own perception though, I believe that it is more generally understood that when someone plays, that is how they play it, but the written dot with all the details tends to imply more of a claim to be "how it should be".
Of course - there are times, when one is learning by ear, where the player might offer (or be asked) to play the tune slower and/or in a basic unornamented form to facilitate easier learning for the learner. This would be the equivalent of writing the simpler dots.
Was the "making a tune your own" a bit of a cliche then? I suppose it is pretty vague when you think about it. It's interesting what you say about dots *considered as* being more prescriptive, even if they needn't *actually* be. I think that there's definitely some truth in that, but don't you think that it's less so now that we all have access to a zillion different online settings written in dots, abc, tab etc, rather than just one big bible like e.g. O'Neill's. It's strange that sheetmusic should be considered to be "how it should be", when really it doesn't bear much relation to how it's actually played. Is there something going on with attitudes here? Something to do with classical music maybe?
It probably relates to the tradition in the academic world, where knowledge doesn't count unless it has appeared in print. One isn't allowed to think for oneself, only to gather thoughts together from previously printed wisdom. It's a control thing.
But, of course, you get that with many of 'em. That's why so many academics are/seem stuffy, rigid and overly skeptical.
Brings to mind a conversation I had with my former History of Music lecturer the other day, a really good bloke who takes his research very seriously. He was lamenting the existence of Wikipedia.org, which he'd recently had to ban his students from referencing, not because the information they'd referenced from the Wiki was wrong (though, according to Doc, some of it was), but because, really, anyone could upload anything to Wiki, and the chance of a specialist subject being rigourously verified in Wiki is not that good.
This came as a surprise to the info-anarchist in me, but it's understandable. No doubt, though, it really is all about control.
Now, about the *motives* of the controllers... I don't think a good case can be made for it being control for the sake of controlling.
No, Q, I think it's more about quality control by rigorous "interrogation of the facts" to use a scary phrase.
Notation of trad music is an attempt to be descriptive rather than prescriptive I would have thought. Even the most "composed" of trad tunes will have been played many times before they are written down.
The dotted notes on Scottish jigs is I think an attempt to record the style. You can hear it in a lot of fiddlers up this way but it tends to disappear once everyone joins in at a session, especially when I join in on mando cos I find that rhythm difficult with a plectrum :-0. It's not as heavy a dotted accent as swing-time (and not quite a march but tending slightly that way), for example and it's not always all that noticeable, you're just aware that the player has a certain Scottish accent in their playing.
It seems to have been a common practice when noting hornpipes that the first bar or so would be dotted then the rest left straight for the purpose of readability (and writeability of you're doing it by hand)
I hope they put that on my tombstone: "He was a little harsh on the academics"
"Notation of trad music is an attempt to be descriptive rather than prescriptive" - Bren that is so beautiful that I think we ought to close this thread right now before anyone clouds that beauty.
I agree with Martinfamilyband. My wife does set dancing and we spent over a week in Kilrush this August for the Mrs Crotty Festival. On 5 evenings there was 2 1/2 hours of open-air set dancing in the square, led by prestigious bands such as the Kilfenora. This Sunday (12th September) we were at a ceili in Kilburn (London) led by Johnny Reidy and his band. In my view, such dancing and music tells you what ITM is all about.
I too enjoy playing for set dancers whenever I get the chance, and, dare I say it, the experience beat most sessions hands down.
Sadly, Ceolachan, not only do I have two left feet, but one's screwed on backwards
Trevor
I've thought for some time now that a system of agreed expressions representing the rhythm of trad dance tunes would be very useful. These could be used at the start of the tune just like the Italian and French words are used in Classical music.
A friend of mine used to call triplety Hornpipes "Jigpipes"
Maybe wee could come up with a system?
We already have fairly specific names for the tune types I think only a small amount of elaboration would be necessary to form a useful system.
Any ideas?
I think MG was agreeing with "close this thread now" ...!
There's playing for dances and playing for dances. Like playing for set dancers in competitions/performances where only the trained dancers will be dancing and playing Scottish country dances and celidhs at weddings etc. Very different experiences!
Dow said,
"Putting a hornpipe in 12/8 or 12/16 would only be more "distracting" because you're not used to seeing it written down that way. It'd be a better representation of the rhythm than 2/2 and especially 4/4, dotted or undotted. If you want to play them properly, that is."
But, in my experience, in many parts of Ireland, hornpipes are played with no more 'swing' or 'lilt' than reels, sometimes even less - the distinction is more a matter of the way the tune is accented. So notating a hornpipe in 12/8 would be no more informative than notating it in 2/2. Why change one convention that almost works for another that almost works? I thhink it is sufficient to accept that this music cannot be learned off the page, because the notation in question was intended for - and evolved parallel to - a different kind of music altogether (If staff notation had not come about, would classical music as we know it exist at all today? But that's another question).
To me, there seems little point in trying to capture every rhythmic nuance of a tune on paper (with the exception of studies on particular players) when the fiddler in the next village might play it completely differently. Best to keep it simple and ambiguous. (Who actually plays a hornpipe with dotted 1/8 - 1/16 groupings, anyway?)
Well in that case the Irish should notate hornpipes how they want to notate them and everyone else can play them properly and notate them realistically. LOL
I am in an agony of indecision - should I post the fact that I agree with Michael's "Duh" - or would the act of posting go against the agreement I wish to demonstrate? I'll place the cursor on the post button, shut my eyes and throw a bun at the mouse. If this appears, then I hit the mouse.
Rhythmic detail in notation
Rhythmic detail in notation
Is there any consensus on the level or rhythmic detail we like for notation of tunes like barndances? I notice some folks take them down in straight eighths, and some prefer to try to capture the swing by using dotted eighths and sixteenths. To my eye, this latter is more distracting than informative, kind of like putting the tune in 12/8 would be.
The rule I'd suggest would be to reserve dotted notation for distinguishing a particular rhythmic peculiarity in the tune (ie, a strathspey or a polka where some eighths are relatively straight and some are relatively swung) but if the whole tune would be dotted, they can be omitted as understood.
Okay, granted, this is not the single most pressing issue facing the world today, but I'm glad I've got it off my chest.
# Posted on September 12th 2004 by Jon Kiparsky
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
I agree. Some of the older publications of hornpipes simply showed the tune in 'reel' time with a worded note at the beginning saying something like 'play with a jaunty feel'.
Jim
# Posted on September 12th 2004 by Worldfiddler
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
No two transcriptions (dots or abc) of any trad tune will be the same. I'm rapidly coming to the conclusion that the purpose of said dots or abc is to rough out the general shape of the tune, and the musician(s) can sort out the fine detail every time it's played.
Trevor
# Posted on September 12th 2004 by lazyhound
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
Here, Here, Trevor - I agree completely.
# Posted on September 12th 2004 by Bannerman
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
eww... dotted. why would you write a reel or a jig with dotted 8th notes? thats retarded.
i have a book where they dont even mark the dottedness of hornpipes, and they're like, "just figure it out".
in that book they have the jig of slurs, with dotted 8th, 32nd, then 8th for every single beat. but they dont do that anywhere else in the book, for jigs or even hornpipes (like i said) does that mean ultra-uber-crazy-superman 'jaunty feel'?
# Posted on September 12th 2004 by daiv
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
As a side issue, the insertion of detailed rhythms and ornaments into the abc of a tune submitted on this site is guaranteed to mess up the "advanced search" in the Tunes database. For instance, if you're searching for "G2Bc d2" you won't find it if it's been submitted as "G2B>c d2".
For exactly the same reason chord indications should be omitted from the abc as first submitted (leaving aside any consideration of the idiosyncratic, not to say downright weird, chord progressions beloved of some tune submitters!).
Ornaments, detailed rhythmic structures and chords should be left to an alternative version submitted elsewhere in the comments.
Trevor
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by lazyhound
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
Daiv, maybe they want you to play Jig Of Slurs with a more Scottish pipe marchey feel.
All this dotted/no dotted stuff is just convention anyway. I think tunes can be more accurately represented using dots than they are. Putting a hornpipe in 12/8 or 12/16 would only be more "distracting" because you're not used to seeing it written down that way. It'd be a better representation of the rhythm than 2/2 and especially 4/4, dotted or undotted. If you want to play them properly, that is
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Dow
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
Dow - what you say is true. But the rider "If you want to play them properly, that is" only applies if we assume that you want to play as written and write as played. (And as for the lying, hypocritical, disingenuous smiley icon. . . .) ;o)
Seriously folks: The dots are as Trevor describes, "only for guidance". If you write in all the rhythmic detail, and even ornamentation, then you are in effect legislating that the tune should be played this way, and this way only, and that individuals may not adopt any personal style. This is something that is increasingly common in church music, simply because the composers are "writing" the music by getting a computer software to produce notation from their playing - leading to fantastically complex pages of dots for what should really be a simple tune with personal input from the person playing it.
Keep the notation simple - then put a bit of life into it when you play.
Dave
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by showaddydadito
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
"If you write in all the rhythmic detail, and even ornamentation, then you are in effect legislating that the tune should be played this way, and this way only, and that individuals may not adopt any personal style".
No more than you would be if you didn't put in rhythmic detail and ornamentation. Nobody can "legislate" anything in writing down our precious, beloved music, however much detail is included.
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Dow
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
What I mean is, if you learn a tune from a session recording or a CD, the notes you're picking up by ear *aren't* the bare bones you describe, Dave. They're one particular interpretation, ornamentation, rhythmic detail, mistakes and all. Whether we get our tunes by ear or from the dots, we have to make it our own anyhow.
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Dow
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
Careful Dow! I talked about "making a tune your own" once, and all hell broke loose.
You're right in what you say about learning by ear too. Dammit - you're right about everything! In my own perception though, I believe that it is more generally understood that when someone plays, that is how they play it, but the written dot with all the details tends to imply more of a claim to be "how it should be".
Of course - there are times, when one is learning by ear, where the player might offer (or be asked) to play the tune slower and/or in a basic unornamented form to facilitate easier learning for the learner. This would be the equivalent of writing the simpler dots.
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by showaddydadito
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
Was the "making a tune your own" a bit of a cliche then? I suppose it is pretty vague when you think about it. It's interesting what you say about dots *considered as* being more prescriptive, even if they needn't *actually* be. I think that there's definitely some truth in that, but don't you think that it's less so now that we all have access to a zillion different online settings written in dots, abc, tab etc, rather than just one big bible like e.g. O'Neill's. It's strange that sheetmusic should be considered to be "how it should be", when really it doesn't bear much relation to how it's actually played. Is there something going on with attitudes here? Something to do with classical music maybe?
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Dow
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
It probably relates to the tradition in the academic world, where knowledge doesn't count unless it has appeared in print. One isn't allowed to think for oneself, only to gather thoughts together from previously printed wisdom. It's a control thing.
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by showaddydadito
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
A little harsh on the academics, Dave!
But, of course, you get that with many of 'em. That's why so many academics are/seem stuffy, rigid and overly skeptical.
Brings to mind a conversation I had with my former History of Music lecturer the other day, a really good bloke who takes his research very seriously. He was lamenting the existence of Wikipedia.org, which he'd recently had to ban his students from referencing, not because the information they'd referenced from the Wiki was wrong (though, according to Doc, some of it was), but because, really, anyone could upload anything to Wiki, and the chance of a specialist subject being rigourously verified in Wiki is not that good.
This came as a surprise to the info-anarchist in me, but it's understandable. No doubt, though, it really is all about control.
Now, about the *motives* of the controllers... I don't think a good case can be made for it being control for the sake of controlling.
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Q
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
No, Q, I think it's more about quality control by rigorous "interrogation of the facts" to use a scary phrase.
Notation of trad music is an attempt to be descriptive rather than prescriptive I would have thought. Even the most "composed" of trad tunes will have been played many times before they are written down.
The dotted notes on Scottish jigs is I think an attempt to record the style. You can hear it in a lot of fiddlers up this way but it tends to disappear once everyone joins in at a session, especially when I join in on mando cos I find that rhythm difficult with a plectrum :-0. It's not as heavy a dotted accent as swing-time (and not quite a march but tending slightly that way), for example and it's not always all that noticeable, you're just aware that the player has a certain Scottish accent in their playing.
It seems to have been a common practice when noting hornpipes that the first bar or so would be dotted then the rest left straight for the purpose of readability (and writeability of you're doing it by hand)
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Bren
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
I hope they put that on my tombstone: "He was a little harsh on the academics"
"Notation of trad music is an attempt to be descriptive rather than prescriptive" - Bren that is so beautiful that I think we ought to close this thread right now before anyone clouds that beauty.
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by showaddydadito
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
PS. Couldn't agree more
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by llig leahcim
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
Wow oh my god, Michael just agreed with someone, was it you Dave? You must have finally reached enlightenment
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Dow
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
!
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by showaddydadito
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
That's it then.
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by BegF
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
This music is mostly dance music. To get a real feel for the rhythms, play for dances.
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Martinfamilyband
Better yet, take your two left feet out on the dance floor...
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by ceolachan
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
I agree with Martinfamilyband. My wife does set dancing and we spent over a week in Kilrush this August for the Mrs Crotty Festival. On 5 evenings there was 2 1/2 hours of open-air set dancing in the square, led by prestigious bands such as the Kilfenora. This Sunday (12th September) we were at a ceili in Kilburn (London) led by Johnny Reidy and his band. In my view, such dancing and music tells you what ITM is all about.
I too enjoy playing for set dancers whenever I get the chance, and, dare I say it, the experience beat most sessions hands down.
Sadly, Ceolachan, not only do I have two left feet, but one's screwed on backwards
Trevor
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by lazyhound
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
I've thought for some time now that a system of agreed expressions representing the rhythm of trad dance tunes would be very useful. These could be used at the start of the tune just like the Italian and French words are used in Classical music.
A friend of mine used to call triplety Hornpipes "Jigpipes"
Maybe wee could come up with a system?
We already have fairly specific names for the tune types I think only a small amount of elaboration would be necessary to form a useful system.
Any ideas?
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Pied Piper
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
I think MG was agreeing with "close this thread now" ...!
There's playing for dances and playing for dances. Like playing for set dancers in competitions/performances where only the trained dancers will be dancing and playing Scottish country dances and celidhs at weddings etc. Very different experiences!
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by Bren
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
Dow said,
"Putting a hornpipe in 12/8 or 12/16 would only be more "distracting" because you're not used to seeing it written down that way. It'd be a better representation of the rhythm than 2/2 and especially 4/4, dotted or undotted. If you want to play them properly, that is."
But, in my experience, in many parts of Ireland, hornpipes are played with no more 'swing' or 'lilt' than reels, sometimes even less - the distinction is more a matter of the way the tune is accented. So notating a hornpipe in 12/8 would be no more informative than notating it in 2/2. Why change one convention that almost works for another that almost works? I thhink it is sufficient to accept that this music cannot be learned off the page, because the notation in question was intended for - and evolved parallel to - a different kind of music altogether (If staff notation had not come about, would classical music as we know it exist at all today? But that's another question).
To me, there seems little point in trying to capture every rhythmic nuance of a tune on paper (with the exception of studies on particular players) when the fiddler in the next village might play it completely differently. Best to keep it simple and ambiguous. (Who actually plays a hornpipe with dotted 1/8 - 1/16 groupings, anyway?)
# Posted on September 13th 2004 by granama
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
PPS. Duh
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by llig leahcim
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
Well in that case the Irish should notate hornpipes how they want to notate them and everyone else can play them properly and notate them realistically. LOL
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by Dow
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
I am in an agony of indecision - should I post the fact that I agree with Michael's "Duh" - or would the act of posting go against the agreement I wish to demonstrate? I'll place the cursor on the post button, shut my eyes and throw a bun at the mouse. If this appears, then I hit the mouse.
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by showaddydadito
Re: Rhythmic detail in notation
Good shot !!
# Posted on September 14th 2004 by BegF