Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [CalontirDance] Hornpipe??

Expand Messages
  • Carol O'Connell
    HITW fits the second definition on the website you supplied. Baroque and in a 3/2 time. When we play HITW, we count it in 3. (Don¹t get too hung up on the
    Message 1 of 11 , Nov 4, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      HITW fits the second definition on the website you supplied. Baroque and in
      a 3/2 time.

      When we play HITW, we count it in 3. (Don¹t get too hung up on the time
      signature on SCA music; sometimes arrangers just shoehorn things in as best
      they can.)

      Conna

      On 11/3/05 9:08 PM, "Christian M. Cepel" <christian@...> wrote:

      > I'm confused again. To my knowledge, a hornpipe is 2/4 or 4/4 with each
      > 8th note in the quarter quantized at approximately 150% and 50%, when
      > played, or more like 3/16 + 1/16, and
      > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hornpipe and all my experience with Irish
      > music & abc notation back this up. (actually there's a bit on the wiki
      > that I didn't know, the 3/2 bit)
      >
      >
      > So... how can Purcell's or HITW be in 3/4 or 6/8
      >
      >
      > Christian M. Cepel wrote:
      >> > That would be a treat! Thank you.
      >> >
      >> > Stewart, Sara wrote:
      >> >
      >>> >>Purcell's hornpipe is the same tune and was written in the 1690s.
      >>> >>I believe I have a copy of Playford 1 if you would like to see it.
      >>> >>Seonaid
      >>> >>






      [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
    • Keith McClune
      Hi there: Catching up from a few days ago ... ... Because they are not from the same source. As others have pointed out, HitW is from 1698 (9th edition of
      Message 2 of 11 , Nov 6, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        Hi there:

        Catching up from a few days ago ...

        "Christian M. Cepel" wrote:
        >
        > ... Why has such
        > a wonderful (if overly requested) tune such as Hole in the Wall been
        > ostracized so horribly, when other tunes from the same Playford Dances
        > and Ballads ~ 1651 are fair game...

        Because they are not from the same source. As others have pointed out, HitW is
        from 1698 (9th edition of "The Dancing Master", published, I think, by John
        Playford's son, Henry), and is in a distinctly different style from the earlier
        1651-1653 dances you listed.

        It is partly because dancers can easily become confused, as you did, about what
        period a dance came from that some people ... discourage ... such dances/tunes.
        Personally, I find the endless repetition of the HitW tune tedious, as well.

        BTW, it was called a hornpipe because, well, that's what Purcell called it.

        There is an excellent on line resource for studying Playford dances at:

        http://www.izaak.unh.edu/nhltmd/indexes/dancingmaster/

        This site provides a database with every dance from every edition of Playford
        (24 volumes containing 1,053 unique dances: with duplicates, 6,217 dances).
        By comparing different editions, it is obvious that some dances kept the same
        name but were utterly changed over the years (both music and steps). There was
        also a dramatic shift between the 8th and 11th editions. While many first
        edition dances are found in the 8th, I don't think any dances from 8 made it
        through to 11 (I could be wrong - I have not looked carefully).

        This site does have an index by title.

        Each dance has a facsimile of an original, but only one facsimile per dance
        (no matter how many editions it was in). I think it's the best quality print
        they could get, as it is often not the oldest. There is a coded reference to
        the figures (permitting an easy search for similar figures between dances).
        Any differences between editions are given in notes, so you have to check the
        notes to see if there was any variations between one edition and another (links
        for all editions of a dance go to the same page, unless they are significantly
        different).

        > I also don't understand why Scotland the Brave, a slightly campy tune
        > from 1891-5 is still hugged close while Hole in the Wall is beaten off
        > with a stick and the dogs are set on it.

        This must be a regional phenomenon, as I have found Scotland the Brave more
        likely to be frowned upon (if any distinction is made at all). Hopefully,
        you don't have to put up with waltzes, as I do.

        Keith / Guillaume S:}>
        Caerthe, Outlands
      • Christian M. Cepel
        Ack. This whole discussion was a mistake on my part. Sorry. First of all, the website should have been http://sca.uwaterloo.ca/Hendricks/ instead of
        Message 3 of 11 , Nov 7, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          Ack. This whole discussion was a mistake on my part. Sorry.

          First of all, the website should have been
          http://sca.uwaterloo.ca/Hendricks/ instead of
          http://sca.waterloo.ca/Hendricks/ (note the 'u' in uwaterloo).

          And either a) it's been fixed since I first sent out this note, or b) I
          misread it and started the discussion on HITW based on my own mistake.

          Either way, it does indeed say Playford 2, 1698 on that site now.

          *embarrassed look*

          My apologies.

          Still, it does seem a treasure trove.

          Thanks to all.

          Stewart, Sara wrote:
          > Purcell's hornpipe is the same tune and was written in the 1690s.
          > I believe I have a copy of Playford 1 if you would like to see it.
          > Seonaid
          >
          > -----Original Message-----
          > From: CalontirDance@yahoogroups.com
          > [mailto:CalontirDance@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Christian M. Cepel
          > Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 4:47 PM
          > To: CalontirDance@yahoogroups.com
          > Subject: Re: [CalontirDance] Website with lots of well engraved music.
          >
          >
          > So does this guy have it wrong? His site says Hole in the Wall -
          > Playford 1 - 1651?
          >
          > Could he be instead referring to Purcell's "Hornpipe" which the music
          > from Lilies XIV Ball states it's a 6/8 variant of? This guy's is in
          > 3/4, but looks very similar from a quick glance.
          >
          > On the top of that same Lilies Ball page it does say Playford(1698).
          > How should I resolve the discrepancy?
          >
          > Thanks.
          >
          > I guess that I just hate that one of the few songs I know how to play
          > and play well, and enjoy playing and ornamenting is out on its
          > collective ear, with a bootprint on to boot.
          >
          > //Philippe Sebastian LeLutre
          >
          > Stewart, Sara wrote:
          >
          >>I am sorry I meant the music for Hole in the Wall was composed in
          >
          > 1695.
          >
          >>Good questions though
          >>Seonaid
          >>
          >>
          >>-----Original Message-----
          >>From: CalontirDance@yahoogroups.com
          >>[mailto:CalontirDance@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Stewart, Sara
          >>Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 4:34 PM
          >>To: CalontirDance@yahoogroups.com
          >>Subject: RE: [CalontirDance] Website with lots of well engraved music.
          >>
          >>Hey
          >>The dance for Hole in the Wall is from 1698 which I believe is
          >>Playford 3. We tend to try and do dances from Playford 1 (1651) The
          >>music was composed in 1695.
          >>Sellinger's Round by the way is from Playford 2. I do not know about
          >>trenchmore, but all the other's you listed are Playford 1, I think.
          >>I would not agree that Scotland the Brave is still hugged close.
          >>
          >>Seonaid
          >>
          >>-----Original Message-----
          >>From: CalontirDance@yahoogroups.com
          >>[mailto:CalontirDance@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of Christian M. Cepel
          >>Sent: Thursday, November 03, 2005 4:30 PM
          >>To: CalontirDance@yahoogroups.com
          >>Subject: [CalontirDance] Website with lots of well engraved music.
          >>
          >>I expect folks already know of this, but if not, it seems a treasure
          >>trove to me. Looks to be notated in Finale to me.
          >>
          >>http://sca.waterloo.ca/Hendricks/
          >>
          >>This leads me to a question I've been having for a while. Why has
          >>such a wonderful (if overly requested) tune such as Hole in the Wall
          >>been ostracized so horribly, when other tunes from the same Playford
          >>Dances and Ballads ~ 1651 are fair game... I.e., Heart's Ease, Black
          >>nag, Jenny Pluck Pears, Nonesuch, Parson's Farewell (I think),
          >>Gathering Peascods (I think), Rufty Tufty, Sellenger's Round,
          >>Trenchmore to name all the ones I recognize from that list.
          >>
          >>Is it because there are earlier sources for all these works other than
          >
          >
          >>Hole in the Wall, than the 1651 Playford?
          >>
          >>I don't understand.
          >>
          >>I also don't understand why Scotland the Brave, a slightly campy tune
          >>from 1891-5 is still hugged close while Hole in the Wall is beaten off
          >
          >
          >>with a stick and the dogs are set on it.
          >>
          >>Thanks for any elucidation!
          >>
          >>
          >
          >

          --
          //Christian

          Christian Marcus Cepel | And the wrens have returned &
          christian@... icq:12384980 | are nesting; In the hollow of
          371 Crown Point, Columbia, MO | that oak where his heart once
          65203-2202 573.999.2370 | had been; And he lifts up his
          Computer Support Specialist, Sr. | arms in a blessing; For being
          University of Missouri - Columbia | born again. --Rich Mullins
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.