I've found very useful the http://www.reavy.us/Reavycom.abc link, but opening it I found for each Ed Reavy's tune one corresponding number (i.e. Beyond Ballybay 95). Can someone help me to understand the meaning of that number? Is it referred about one particular publication (as i.e. in O'Neill's)? Or is an Ed Reavy Opus number?
Osvaldo,
Did you try emailing to the address provided on the site and asking whether the X numbers indicate the order in which the tunes were composed, or are simply a running total of the tunes? Lines 13 and 14 have the email address for questions.
Osvaldo, the numbers in the Reavy abc colleciton are just part of the abc code. The "x" field separates one tune from the next.
From the ABC tutorial:
"The X: field is primarily for computers' benefit, as they (computers) have much more trouble than human beings in telling where one tune stops and the next starts. Many software packages therefore rely on the X: field to signify the start of a tune, even if there's only one tune in a file, and a blank line, followed by an X: field, delimits one tune from the next. It is therefore good practise to include an X: field at the head of your abc tune(s).
The X: field is put on the first line of the notation of a tune, and takes the form
X:<number>
It is good practise (but not absolutely essential) for the X: field to be incremental, eg the first tune in a file is X:1, the second tune in the file is X:2, etc."
Perhaps the Reavy tune abcs follow the order of tunes in Ed's books? I don't know. The point is, Reavy himself gave names to his tunes. The X: numbers are irrelevant to Reavy's own sense of the tunes.
I opened all the tunes and I discovered that the numbering tunes follows only the need to set the tunes in a logical printing book (exactly as in O'Neill's). So, by this hand you can find the numbering tunes in this way: 1/77 reels; 78/95 jigs; 96/117 hornpipes; 118/123 highlands; 124 barn dance; 125/127 airs.
But, again, my doubts increases more looking at the title-tunes and about that publication "The collected compositions of Ed Reavy". Are we completely sure that all these tunes are by Ed Reavy? We are sure that Ed played all them and so that publication justify all this, but I always played i.e. "The Irish washerwoman" thinking it was Traditional. Can we recognise him a sort of paternity? I can say OK, but Francis O'Neill printed only a collection of Traditional tunes he knew in his own life story. I am very sorry for my futile reflections, but can someone help me to understand all this?
In conclusion, if someone can assure me about the complete authority by Ed Reavy of those 127 tunes, I will accept it forever and don't disturb anyone more.
Reavy's tunes are in fact numbered in the collection. The abc's posted seem to line up with the numbers that were assigned to each tune.
As regards the appearance of "90. The Irish Washerwoman" in the collection - there are notes given in the back of the collection for each of the tunes. For this particular tune we read:
"The original setting of this all-too-familiar tune has been thoroughly played out. Ed's setting elevates the strains of the old tune and gives it a more dignified footing. There is no 'KissMe, I'm Irish' in Ed's verison of this popular St. Patrick's Day tune."
And yes there are names that go along with each number/tune.
Ed Reavy's numbers tunes
Ed Reavy's numbers tunes
I've found very useful the http://www.reavy.us/Reavycom.abc link, but opening it I found for each Ed Reavy's tune one corresponding number (i.e. Beyond Ballybay 95). Can someone help me to understand the meaning of that number? Is it referred about one particular publication (as i.e. in O'Neill's)? Or is an Ed Reavy Opus number?
# Posted on April 6th 2006 by OsvaldoLaviosa
Re: Ed Reavy's numbers tunes
Osvaldo,
Did you try emailing to the address provided on the site and asking whether the X numbers indicate the order in which the tunes were composed, or are simply a running total of the tunes? Lines 13 and 14 have the email address for questions.
# Posted on April 6th 2006 by joesmith
Re: Ed Reavy's numbers tunes
Osvaldo, the numbers in the Reavy abc colleciton are just part of the abc code. The "x" field separates one tune from the next.
From the ABC tutorial:
"The X: field is primarily for computers' benefit, as they (computers) have much more trouble than human beings in telling where one tune stops and the next starts. Many software packages therefore rely on the X: field to signify the start of a tune, even if there's only one tune in a file, and a blank line, followed by an X: field, delimits one tune from the next. It is therefore good practise to include an X: field at the head of your abc tune(s).
The X: field is put on the first line of the notation of a tune, and takes the form
X:<number>
It is good practise (but not absolutely essential) for the X: field to be incremental, eg the first tune in a file is X:1, the second tune in the file is X:2, etc."
Perhaps the Reavy tune abcs follow the order of tunes in Ed's books? I don't know. The point is, Reavy himself gave names to his tunes. The X: numbers are irrelevant to Reavy's own sense of the tunes.
# Posted on April 6th 2006 by Will CPT
Re: Ed Reavy's numbers tunes
I opened all the tunes and I discovered that the numbering tunes follows only the need to set the tunes in a logical printing book (exactly as in O'Neill's). So, by this hand you can find the numbering tunes in this way: 1/77 reels; 78/95 jigs; 96/117 hornpipes; 118/123 highlands; 124 barn dance; 125/127 airs.
But, again, my doubts increases more looking at the title-tunes and about that publication "The collected compositions of Ed Reavy". Are we completely sure that all these tunes are by Ed Reavy? We are sure that Ed played all them and so that publication justify all this, but I always played i.e. "The Irish washerwoman" thinking it was Traditional. Can we recognise him a sort of paternity? I can say OK, but Francis O'Neill printed only a collection of Traditional tunes he knew in his own life story. I am very sorry for my futile reflections, but can someone help me to understand all this?
In conclusion, if someone can assure me about the complete authority by Ed Reavy of those 127 tunes, I will accept it forever and don't disturb anyone more.
# Posted on April 7th 2006 by OsvaldoLaviosa
Re: Ed Reavy's numbers tunes
Reavy's tunes are in fact numbered in the collection. The abc's posted seem to line up with the numbers that were assigned to each tune.
As regards the appearance of "90. The Irish Washerwoman" in the collection - there are notes given in the back of the collection for each of the tunes. For this particular tune we read:
"The original setting of this all-too-familiar tune has been thoroughly played out. Ed's setting elevates the strains of the old tune and gives it a more dignified footing. There is no 'KissMe, I'm Irish' in Ed's verison of this popular St. Patrick's Day tune."
And yes there are names that go along with each number/tune.
# Posted on April 7th 2006 by _Steph_