Tunes in twos and threes

Subject: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 02:30 PM

Whent to see Peggy Seeger, Martin Carthy and Mike Waterson the other week. Excellent all round.

I think Martin generally plays tunes one at a time and as only he does. Is the practice of tune players playing tunes in sets of 2 or 3 old or recent?

One at a time or two and three?

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Ed.
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 02:44 PM

Good question.

Whenever I've seen Martin Carthy perform with Eliza, they have always played tunes in 'sets'

I have no idea how old the practice is.

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 02:50 PM

True enough. Most current groups who play tunes do seem to do that. I guess early Cheiftains played that way. Early High Level Ranters did too.

Is a good tune not worth a spot on its own?

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: treewind
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 02:51 PM

In the context of playing for dances, it's common practice but according to John Kirkpatrick's controversial Medley Mania article the practice is neither traditional nor desirable.

So maybe Martin has taken that to heart, but I notice that JK himself plays tunes together as part of a set for listening, I would guess because that's a different situation from dancing.

I rarely perform a single tune, but usually don't go over two, whether it's part of a folk club set or for a dance.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: treewind
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 02:55 PM

PS
John Kirkpatrick's last paragraph in that article starts:
"So, next time I am invited to lead a musicians' workshop, I shall pick a tune and play it for a whole hour"...

He did, and I was there. It was an interesting experience.

Anahata

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 03:12 PM

The JK article is excellent and explores the issues well.

I seem to remember Bob Davenport singing songs in pairs for a bit. When this blood war is over going into Hanging on the Old Barbed Wire I think. On hearing this I went for Close the Coalhouse Door into The Coal Owner and the Pitman's Wife, seemed a good idea at the time.

A case of suck it and see I suppose. It is always tempting to go from an air to a jig or reel they do something for each other.

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Banjo-Flower
Date: 30 Oct 04 - 05:14 PM

I think this could be a regional(U.K)difference

Oop North we tend to Play in Sets Dahn sarf I think they think otherwise(that's my two pen'orth any road)

Gerry

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 03:31 AM

At some point in time past did each country dance have its own tune? Yes I know that's a stupid question with no chance of a simple answer but as a generalisation?

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: GUEST,greg stephens
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 03:57 AM

A very simplistic answer to that question would be a qualified "yes" I think. The qualification being that in some cases the answer is "no". Does that clarify things a bit?
Playing at sessions would be a lot more of a collective experience if people stuck to one tune at a time played many times, give everyone a chance to learn it and find their way round some of the nuances.

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Micca
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 06:33 AM

Could it be from the Scottish piping tradition of Reel, Strathspey, Piobroch, which is the traditional tune set for pipers?

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: GUEST
Date: 31 Oct 04 - 04:44 PM

No.

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: PoppaGator
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 10:26 AM

I know less than nothing about English folk dancing and traditional intrumental music, but I found myself very interested in, and very much in agreement with, John Kirkpatrick's article.

Even within the context of a completely different culture -- late sixties American college-hippy acoustic jam sessions -- I recall the difference of opinion between, on the one hand, singer-strummers who liked to move quickly from one number to the next vs, on the other hand, instrumental improvisors who preferred to repeatedly -- indefinitely -- explore the structure of each song without abandoning it so quickly.

I was never a flashy "lead"-type guitar player, but I was always willing to stretch out a song, if only to listen to the other jammers while running through the chord changes over and over again, maybe managing a few subtle little variations to my rhythm-guitar fingerpicking. And I was always glad to sing one verse, then play two or three instrumentally, sing one, play several (one per soloing player), etc. The best musical moments always seemed to come *after* all the participants had achieved hypnoism-by-repetition.

(PS --Wrote this Sunday night, previewed, forgot to submit. Sending now, Monday morning...)

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Les in Chorlton
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 01:23 PM

Clearly their is a difference between informal sessions in which people play together for the fun of it, performance for an audience to listen and performance for dancers.

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: semi-submersible
Date: 01 Nov 04 - 11:40 PM

My father Billy Griffith recalls the practice in Canada from 1920 (probably before, but he's too young to vouch for that) to 1960 or so. Billy grew up on the coast, but his mother from Manitoba was used to the same custom. He says:

        In the old days dances were always played in sets of three: it was three waltzes, or three schottiches [did I spill that wright?] or polkas, two-steps, or square dances, or whatever, so you knew what you were into when you got up to dance. If you got up partway through the first number, you could expect it to be followed by two more like it.

        But if they played the Waltz Quadrille or the French Minuet, they could go on their own, because there weren't three of them. Most of the others went in sets. The Home Waltz (Home Sweet Home) was played by itself, because that was the one they played when it was time to go home.

        The supper waltz was played last in a set to signal when to stop for a meal. I think it was not a particular song, but someone would call for the supper waltz. You could ditch the person you were with and go dance with your husband or partner for the supper waltz; otherwise it could hurt someone's feelings to beg off before the end of the set (unless you were tired or your feet were hurting or something).

        Nowadays they don't stop for a meal, but in the old days when people had come from miles around, you stopped halfway through and had a light supper. You made coffee in the old copper wash boiler, a pound of coffee in the boiler if I remember right, with sandwiches, and maybe cake.

        When they had what they called a box social they had fancy meals made up instead. They were fundraising things. Ladies made up the boxes, and hopefully their boyfriends would know which ones they were and be able to outbid the other hopefuls - or else someone else might get the privilege of sitting and eating the box with the cook.

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Les from Hull
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 10:15 AM

Interesting points made here. Some tunes are great for playing lots of times, especially planxties and slowish waltzes. It's great fun to play variations, harmonies, swap in and out instruments and so on. I've sometimes referred to these as 'last one with the tune is a sissy!' It's fine for those players who are just learning the tune (or an instrument) as they get lots of goes, and it's fun for players who can do variations and harmonies. I'm not sure it would be so much fun for players who are midway, though - that is they can play the tune well enough but can't move too far away from it. Just playing the same old notes again and again isn't really that interesting (unless it brings on the trance effect mentioned by JK). But that could be counter-productive anyway. Will publicans still allow us the use of their premises if we never stop playing to go to the bar, and we achieve the desired effect without the use of their stock in trade? (hehe)

The point about tunes in sets is that some tune sets are wonderful in the way that one tune builds on the previous tune to take the music further on. Play 'The Tar Road to Sligo' after 'Tripping up the Stairs' (as we do here in East Yorkshire) to appreciate this. Playing a random set of reels or jigs doesn't really do it for me, but a nicely organised set is a work of art.

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: GUEST,Ghost of McCrimmon
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 11:44 AM

Reel, Strathspey, PIBROCH !!!! Never in the history of piping. Even Gordon Duncan or Martyn Bennett would never play that set. I think you mean 2/4 March, Strathspey and Reel.
Very good - must remember that.
[ The Ghost Of McCrimmon, spinning at about 200rpm!!!!.]

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: semi-submersible
Date: 02 Nov 04 - 12:52 PM

BTW, tunes in sets are played at normal, appropriate length, not to be confused with medleys. I've never enjoyed medleys much. I agree with John Kirkpatrick that their main appeal is to the shallow sensibilities that give us Muzak.

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: John in Brisbane
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 06:13 AM

It's been a lot of years since I've played for serious dances like the Lancers, but it's absolutely crucial to the flow of the dance that different time signatures and tempi are used. Even the Virginia Reel employs different tunes for this reason.

My wife's grandfather has been dead for 50 years and played fiddle for dances circa 1914. The sounboard of his fiddle still has the dance bracket tunes/songs roughly scratched into the surface. It's a long time since I've seen it but they always seemed like tune lists for the Pride of Erin and Canadian Two Step.

My impression is that there has long been a tradition of playing tunes in sets for dances in Australia.

Regards, John

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: Mary Humphreys
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 06:33 AM

It is interesting that some tunes are only known by names such as Fred Pigeon's Number 1, 2 & 3 and Bill Hall's number 1 & 2. It makes me think that they were always played one after the other.
Mary

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: SarahNash
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 07:58 AM

I do play Scan Tester's 1 and 2 as a set, and they fit together beautifully, so I agree with this. Some tunes feel like they are meant to be played together; other times just one will hold the audience's interest. All down to which tunes you're playing I guess.

Subject: RE: Tunes in twos and threes
From: treewind
Date: 03 Nov 04 - 08:23 AM

John Kirkpatrick was talking about medleys of tunes in the same rhythm and tempo as played for a dance, not medleys of different tunes. I'm sure that's what he meant, whether you choose to call it a set or medley.

As for numbered tunes like Walter Bulwer's #1 and #2 - I thought that was just collectors numbering them because the original players didn't have names for them. The three Polkas from Fred Pigeon that Mary's talking about have become a set in certain areas of North London, but I don't think Fred played them as a set. We've heard at least one of them played on its own and with a real name (Hopscotch Polka?)

I'll have to find the tape and check now!

Anahata