Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Ed Cray wrote:
>
> I recall that Anne Shapiro wrote her doctoral dissertation on the subject.
> I have a partial copy of that work, but it is at home and I am in my
> office so I cannot summarize her conclusions.
>
> Ed
> ......I think I've finally put 2 and 2 together.A nineteenth century Scots song and ballad collection from the Scottish
Text Society, 2002:
<A
href="http://www.scottishtextsociety.org/currenttitles.htm#HarrisSongs">
Click </a>  Click on top title to go back to ISBN #, and
ordering information.I think that last co-editor listed at the click-on, Anne Dhu
McLucas, ethnomusicologist and Dean of the Music Dept. of the U.
of Oregon, is the Anne Shapiro that Ed refers to above.Ed, can I trouble you for her thesis title?Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

dick greenhaus wrote:
>
> Why does this remind me of the remark: "If you've heard one Irish
> tune, you've heard them both.":?
>...
> dick greenhaus
>I've only noticed that for Kerry slides.I would certainly like to see Wilgus's 24 strains written out in music
notation so I could see some things for myself.Bruce OlsonRoots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

>Why does this remind me of the remark: "If you've heard one Irish
>tune, you've heard them both.":?
>If one make the "family" definition broad enough, it becomes
>all-encompassing and all-useless.
>dick greenhausWhat may be needed is a measure of overlap, that is, the degree to
which two tunes are similar.  I don't think that the formulation of
such a measure would be an insurmountable problem.
--
john garst    [unmask]

Bruce Olson wrote:
><A href="http://oasis.harvard.edu/html/hou00178.html"> Harris MS
</a>
> A nineteenth century Scots song and ballad collection from the Scottish
> Text Society, 2002:
> <A
> href="http://www.scottishtextsociety.org/currenttitles.htm#HarrisSongs">
> Click </a>  Click on top title to go back to ISBN #, and
> ordering information.
>A bit of background on the STS volume, 2002.
<A href="http://oasis.harvard.edu/html/hou00178.html"> Harris MS
</a>Bruce Olson

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, John Garst wrote:> >If one make the "family" definition broad enough, it becomes
> >all-encompassing and all-useless.
> >dick greenhaus
>
> What may be needed is a measure of overlap, that is, the degree to
> which two tunes are similar.  I don't think that the formulation of
> such a measure would be an insurmountable problem.
> --
> john garst    [unmask]John:You are welcome to try.Ed

> As I recall from a conversation with him, he theorized that
> there were just 12 tune familes in the Anglo-American canon.
> D.K. Wilgus - help me here, Norm Cohen - thought there were 24 (?).Something I have seen in print somewhere said that Bayard ended up
with 46 families.Phil Taylor (author of the Mac ABC program BarFly) is a former
computational geneticist, and tried using off-the-shelf gene-
comparison software to do tune comparisons on ABC instead of
codons.  The results were pretty reasonable for closely related
tunes: I gave him all the variants of "Mary Scott" I could find
(from the one in the Agnes Hume lute MS to the Kerr's version
of "The Smith's A Gallant Fireman") and the similarity rankings
the program came up with were much the same as a human would.
Whether the results would still be statistically significant at
a level of granularity that divided the whole repertoire into
46, 24 or 12 I rather doubt, but it might be worth somebody's
while trying.  The software is free and not hard to configure.
The hard bit would be assembling the corpus in the first place;
an ABC transcription of Bronson would be an essential starting
point.That might be one answer to a question I've had rattling around
my head since a thread here of a few weeks ago in which there
were comments about how *old* everybody here was (at age 54
I think I'm one of the youngsters):  What is there for a young
investigator in this field to do?  Not much fun starting in on
a subject where every conceivable angle has been covered by folks
old enough to be your grandparents.  Using new technologies for
corpus analysis (analyzing sound recordings too) is one possible
line, what are others?-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack>     *     food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files, and my CD-ROM "Embro, Embro".
---> off-list mail to "j-c" rather than "ballad-l" at this site, please. <---

Oh joy, at 53 I'm a youngster again!Jack Campin wrote:>(at age 54 I think I'm one of the youngsters)
>
>

On 8/27/03, Ed Cray wrote:>On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, John Garst wrote:
>
>> >If one make the "family" definition broad enough, it becomes
>> >all-encompassing and all-useless.
>> >dick greenhaus
>>
>> What may be needed is a measure of overlap, that is, the degree to
>> which two tunes are similar.  I don't think that the formulation of
>> such a measure would be an insurmountable problem.
>> --
>> john garst    [unmask]
>
>John:
>
>You are welcome to try.I have to agree. Think about this: How often have you heard
two tunes that are THE SAME (as far as sheet music goes)
and don't sound the same? :-)I've thought about this issue a lot. The problem is that you
have three "axes": Tones, timing -- and tune shape (2/4,
3/4, 9/8, etc., plus stresses and scales). And the three aren't
the same sort of variable. You can say that two tunes are
the same, or fundamentally similar, in one axis; this is
easy. (It really is.) But bringing the axes together is
almost impossible. Is "Yankee Doodle" still "Yankee Doodle"
if you play it as a slip jig? A Mixolydian tune may be
"the same" as an Ionian if you allow for flatted sevenths,
but is it really the same if you put it in Lydian mode?
Not to my ear.What it comes down to is, you can devise an arbitrary
measure of "sameness." It will be precise. But it won't
correspond to what we mean by "the same."--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Bob Waltz wrote:> Is "Yankee Doodle" still "Yankee Doodle" if you play it as a slip jig? A
Mixolydian tune may be "the same" as an Ionian if you allow for flatted
sevenths, but is it really the same if you put it in Lydian mode?You might not even have to change meter or scale.  I did a concert last
night at South Street Seaport Museum as part of a group.  The lead singer
who preceeded me by 2 songs sang "The Diamond."  I sang a Monitor & Merrimac
ballad to the tune of "The Old Virginia Lowlands."  The melody in the verse
is the same in both songs, the chorus melody is different.  No one, audience
or singers, recognized it.All the best,
Dan Milner

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
> On 8/27/03, Ed Cray wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, John Garst wrote:
> >
> >> >If one make the "family" definition broad enough, it becomes
> >> >all-encompassing and all-useless.
> >> >dick greenhaus
> >>
> >> What may be needed is a measure of overlap, that is, the degree to
> >> which two tunes are similar.  I don't think that the formulation of
> >> such a measure would be an insurmountable problem.
> >> --
> >> john garst    [unmask]
> >
> >John:
> >
> >You are welcome to try.
>
> I have to agree. Think about this: How often have you heard
> two tunes that are THE SAME (as far as sheet music goes)
> and don't sound the same? :-)
>
> I've thought about this issue a lot. The problem is that you
> have three "axes": Tones, timing -- and tune shape (2/4,
> 3/4, 9/8, etc., plus stresses and scales). And the three aren't
> the same sort of variable. You can say that two tunes are
> the same, or fundamentally similar, in one axis; this is
> easy. (It really is.) But bringing the axes together is
> almost impossible. Is "Yankee Doodle" still "Yankee Doodle"
> if you play it as a slip jig? A Mixolydian tune may be
> "the same" as an Ionian if you allow for flatted sevenths,
> but is it really the same if you put it in Lydian mode?
> Not to my ear.
>
> What it comes down to is, you can devise an arbitrary
> measure of "sameness." It will be precise. But it won't
> correspond to what we mean by "the same."
>
> --
> Bob Waltz
> [unmask]
>
> "The one thing we learn from history --
>    is that no one ever learns from history."What difference does Mixolydian or Ionian sound make if you're trying to
identify the tune, not the mode? Mode makes no difference as to tune
identity. Some tunes can be found in variants of as many as 4 modes
(ionian, mixolydian, dorian, and aeolian usually when this happens).
Play them in their different modes, and they will sound a bit different,
but will easily be identifiable as the same tune.With intelligent programing, the rhythm can be taken care of
automatically, except for very unusual cases. Use stressed notes.Then with dupple times one has 2 beats per time unit (occassionaly an
anomally since 4/8 time is always scored as 2/4, but see last sentence
below).The only other case is tripple per unit time, with 3 options. 1 beat per
time unit (here a measure) on simple 3/4 (stressed on first quarter note
in each measure); 2 for 3/2 (or 3/4) duple = half(quarter),
quarter(eighth), half(quarter), quarter(eighth). Else 3 per time unit,
start at 1st, 2nd, 3rd quarter note positions for 3/4; 1st, 3rd and 5th
quarter for 6/4 (eighths for 6/8); 9/8 each 3rd eighth note; for 12/8
just double 6/8. The ABC play program on my website will stressed note
code the ABCs. These timing options are already built into the stressed
note coding subroutine, so they are automatically determined from the
score.That 4/8 versus 2/4 is determined by how many notes greater than or = to
an eighth note there are in a measure, and the indicated measure time.[My program might not always do 5/4, 7/4, and other exotic timimgs
correctly].Take a look at the files on stressed note coding on my website.
I think I have simplied notation, and have as powerful a system as one
can do by these methods, but my way of coding is more time consuming
than those used on EASMES, and that in Charles Gore's 'The Scottish
Fiddle Music Index'. However, none of these systems work well for any
but small differences between variants.How big can differences be, and the tunes still be called variants of
the same tune? If I ever figure out Samuel P. Bayard's methodology I
might be able to give a bit of an answer to that. I've taken the first
step toward getting Anne Shapiro's thesis, in hopes it will give some
answers, or, at least, an intelligent guidance.Remember, the purpose these types of coding is to not to spell out minor
differences; it's to identify the tune, and find, by comparison, the
variants of it. Minor differences are already in the score, and those
are we what want to get rid of.Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

On 8/27/03, Bruce Olson wrote:[ ... ]>What difference does Mixolydian or Ionian sound make if you're trying to
>identify the tune, not the mode? Mode makes no difference as to tune
>identity.But this is a blatant case of assuming the solution. What is "the same"?
I might recognize Ionian and Mixolydian versions of a tune as the
same. Ditto Dorian and Aeolian. But Ionian and Dorian? Not likely.
Maybe you hear them the same way -- but is it the same tune if most
people don't recognize it? This is not quibbling. Even if the
two derive from the same original, I don't say that's "the same."[ ... ]>With intelligent programing, the rhythm can be taken care of
>automatically, except for very unusual cases. Use stressed notes.This, again, ignores the problem of crossover between the several
variables. The question is NOT to define some "coefficient of
sameness." (At least, it's not what *I* was trying to do.) It's
to actually find a way to say that "over 50% of people would say
that Tune A is the same as Tune B, but Tune C is not the same as
Tune A." Note incidentally that it is possible that this
relationship does NOT follow the rules of algebra and logic --
that is, if we abbreviate "is the same as" as a mathematical
operator "ista," the statementsA ista B
and
B ista Cdoes NOT implyA ista C(although it increases the likelihood).[ ... ]>How big can differences be, and the tunes still be called variants of
>the same tune? If I ever figure out Samuel P. Bayard's methodology I
>might be able to give a bit of an answer to that.Understanding Bayard's ideas would be helpful. But I would deny
that this translates into actually knowing which songs are "the
same."Heck, we can't even agree which TEXTS are the same (witness the
people who say that "The Half-Hitch" is a version of "The Marriage
of Sir Gawain." Yeah, right). Musical notation is not adequate
even to convey the form of a single tune (note how often two
transcribers will change their rhythmic punctuation of a particular
melody). Can we then establish identity on that basis? At the
very least, the results need to be "people tested."Which might be a good place to start, actually: Building up a
library of materials and seeing how many people say they're
"the same."
--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

----- Original Message -----
From: Clifford Ocheltree <[unmask]><<Oh joy, at 53 I'm a youngster again!>>Jack Campin wrote:>(at age 54 I think I'm one of the youngsters)
>
>Hurrah, hurray, I'm a child of 52! (Okay, 53 in two weeks.) Thank you, Jack,
for our new definition.Peace,
Paul

----- Original Message -----
From: Robert B. Waltz <[unmask]><<At the
very least, the results need to be "people tested."Which might be a good place to start, actually: Building up a
library of materials and seeing how many people say they're
"the same." >>With different groups of people -- naive subjects (non-musicians), savvy
subjects (folk musicians) and may-or-may-not-be-savvy subjects (non-folk
musicians).Some young squirt interested in a dissertation topic? Oh, I forgot, we're
the young squirts.Peace,
Paul

Sorry, I'm afraid I don't recall D.K.'s number; it probably varied with the
time of day and ....
Norm----- Original Message -----
From: "Ed Cray" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:16 AM
Subject: Re: Bayard (was: Rosin the Beau (very long))> Nigel, Bruce et al:
>
> I concur with Bruce in his evaluation of Sam Bayard's reputation.  As I
> recall from a conversation with him, he theorized that there were just 12
> tune familes in the Anglo-American canon.  D.K. Wilgus -- help me here,
> Norm Cohen -- thought there were 24 (?).
>
> I recall that Anne Shapiro wrote her doctoral dissertation on the subject.
> I have a partial copy of that work, but it is at home and I am in my
> office so I cannot summarize her conclusions.
>
> Ed
>
>
> On Wed, 27 Aug 2003, Bruce Olson wrote:
>
> > Nigel Gatherer wrote:
> > >
> > > Bruce Olson wrote:
> > >
> > > > Bayard also found the tune in the 2nd strain of "Dumfries House"
> > >
> > > I think I'd enjoy reading Bayard, although I've never seen it.
However,
> > > many of the references I've seen linking this tune and that leave me
> > > feeling somewhat suspicious. I consider some of links dubious - what's
> > > your opinion, Bruce?
> > >
> > > --
> > > Nigel Gatherer, Crieff, Scotland
> > > [unmask]
> > > http://www.argonet.co.uk/users/gatherer/
> >
> > I only know that his reputation is Sterling, and I am much too
> > ignorant of music to be able to pass any independent judgement on
> > him. It is obvious that Bayard takes a very liberal view of what
> > he considers variants of the same tune.
> >
> > This takes us to the unfinished business of what is a 'tune
> > family' that Bayard was fond of (but gets no mention in 'Dance to
> > the Fiddle, March to the Fife'). Bertrand Bronson had to sidestep
> > this in 'The Traditional Tunes of then Child Ballads' because he
> > could get no comprehensive definition of the term. I have heard
> > that musicologists were working on this, but haven't seen that
> > anything much has yet been accomplished.
> >
> > Search on Google for 'Samuel P. Bayard' for references to some of
> > Bayard's other work on folk tunes. In an obituary of Bayard that I saw
> > on the internet, but can't now relocate, mention was made that at his
> > death he was well along on a work on the tunes of numerous folk songs
> > that he had collected. No mention was made there of any attempt by
> > anyone to bring this to completion.
> >
> > I am certain that there are others here that can comment on this
> > subject much more intelligently than I can, and I wish some would
> > do so.
> >
> > Bruce Olson
> > --
> > Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
> > and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
> > <A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
> > subject index) </a>
> >
> >
> >
>

I don't like the direction this thread is taking.
Norm----- Original Message -----
From: "Paul Stamler" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Wednesday, August 27, 2003 10:22 PM
Subject: Re: Bayard> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Clifford Ocheltree <[unmask]>
>
> <<Oh joy, at 53 I'm a youngster again!>>
>
> Jack Campin wrote:
>
> >(at age 54 I think I'm one of the youngsters)
> >
> >
>
> Hurrah, hurray, I'm a child of 52! (Okay, 53 in two weeks.) Thank you,
Jack,
> for our new definition.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>
>

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
> On 8/27/03, Bruce Olson wrote:
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >What difference does Mixolydian or Ionian sound make if you're trying to
> >identify the tune, not the mode? Mode makes no difference as to tune
> >identity.
>
> But this is a blatant case of assuming the solution. What is "the same"?
> I might recognize Ionian and Mixolydian versions of a tune as the
> same. Ditto Dorian and Aeolian. But Ionian and Dorian? Not likely.
> Maybe you hear them the same way -- but is it the same tune if most
> people don't recognize it? This is not quibbling. Even if the
> two derive from the same original, I don't say that's "the same."
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >With intelligent programing, the rhythm can be taken care of
> >automatically, except for very unusual cases. Use stressed notes.
>
> This, again, ignores the problem of crossover between the several
> variables. The question is NOT to define some "coefficient of
> sameness." (At least, it's not what *I* was trying to do.) It's
> to actually find a way to say that "over 50% of people would say
> that Tune A is the same as Tune B, but Tune C is not the same as
> Tune A." Note incidentally that it is possible that this
> relationship does NOT follow the rules of algebra and logic --
> that is, if we abbreviate "is the same as" as a mathematical
> operator "ista," the statements
>
> A ista B
> and
> B ista C
>
> does NOT imply
>
> A ista C
>
> (although it increases the likelihood).
>
> [ ... ]
>
> >How big can differences be, and the tunes still be called variants of
> >the same tune? If I ever figure out Samuel P. Bayard's methodology I
> >might be able to give a bit of an answer to that.
>
> Understanding Bayard's ideas would be helpful. But I would deny
> that this translates into actually knowing which songs are "the
> same."
>
> Heck, we can't even agree which TEXTS are the same (witness the
> people who say that "The Half-Hitch" is a version of "The Marriage
> of Sir Gawain." Yeah, right). Musical notation is not adequate
> even to convey the form of a single tune (note how often two
> transcribers will change their rhythmic punctuation of a particular
> melody). Can we then establish identity on that basis? At the
> very least, the results need to be "people tested."
>
> Which might be a good place to start, actually: Building up a
> library of materials and seeing how many people say they're
> "the same."
> --
> Bob Waltz
> [unmask]
>
> "The one thing we learn from history --
>    is that no one ever learns from history."We've used a lot of non-quantative language here before on many threads
regarding "same" and "variant" texts and tunes, because, as far as I
know, we don't have any quantitative language for such. I probably
should have said 'near variants of the same' rather than 'same' but this
still leaves us which how much difference does 'variant' and 'near
variant' imply? Your "version of" can also span a wide range of
interpretations. Can you point out any source of an accurate language to
use for such discussions as these?In hopes of finding out about the real 'incomparable fiddler'
Jack Latin/ Leighton/ Latten I once requested that our Ballad-L
member Jack Campin procure for me a copy of a song and its tune
from the Euing Music Library which was on a single sheet song
with music in their possession. I've already apologized to him
elsewhere for putting him to such pain in such a useless
endeavour (a rather wretched song, having nothing to do with Jack
Latin).Let's resort to experiment here as to the possibility of
recognizing a tune in Dorian and Ionian Mode using Jack's
transcriptions below. It does seem to me that I can recognize the
two scores below to be the 'same/near variants of the same' tune in
spite of the difference of mode and key. Anyone disagree?[Base and song text deleted here]GUL N.b.23(39) [Glasgow Univ Lib., Euing Music Lib.]Jack Latten's Courtship
Set for the German FluteX:1
T:Jack Latten's Courtship [Jack Latin]
S:transcribed from a single sheet song with music by Jack Campin
M:C|
L:1/8
K:Ador
G/A/ B/ c/ d g d B B g|d B B g d2 B2|G/A/ B/ c/ d g dB g f/g/|a A
A B c2 A2||
G/A/ B/ c/ d B e c dB|G/A/ B/c/ d B d2 B2|G/A/ B/c/ d B ec d B|c
A
A B c2 A2||
G B B B B B B2|G B B B c2 B2|G B B B B B B2|c A A B c2 A2||X:2
T:Flute [score at end, transcribed by Jack Campin]
M:C|
L:1/8
K:C
B/c/d/e/ fbfddb|fddb f2d2|B/c/d/e/ fbfd b a/b/|c'ccd e2 c2||
B/c/d/e/ fdgefd|B/c/d/e/ fd f2d2|B/c/d/e/ fdgefd|eccd e2c2||
Bddddd d2|Bddd e2d2|Bddddd d2|eccd e2c2||Bruce OlsonPS: For purposes of testing the ABC player program on my website, I've
copied the first ABC tune in Vol. 1 of Aird's 'Airs' from Jack Campin's
website, "The Ranting Highlandman (= "The White Cockade") and, keeping
the key the same, made copies in all 7 possible scoring modes, and
played them. All 7 (including Locrian) are easily recognizable to me as
the 'same/near variants of the same' tune.Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

> In hopes of finding out about the real 'incomparable fiddler'
> Jack Latin/ Leighton/ Latten I once requested that our Ballad-L
> member Jack Campin procure for me a copy of a song and its tune
> from the Euing Music Library which was on a single sheet song
> with music in their possession.
> Let's resort to experiment here as to the possibility of
> recognizing a tune in Dorian and Ionian Mode using Jack's
> transcriptions below. It does seem to me that I can recognize the
> two scores below to be the 'same/near variants of the same' tune in
> spite of the difference of mode and key. Anyone disagree?I concluded that the "flute" part was intended as a harmonization
in thirds - that is, it wasn't created to be an independent melody.
Here are the two parts zipped together with no alteration except to
the beaming.  This works in BarFly as is, and should produce a usable
score with any ABC application that can do multiple voices.  It's not
a particularly interesting arrangement (just a completely literal
transposition of the melody line), but then what would you expect
from something with a text like that?...X:1
T:Jack Latten's Courtship [Jack Latin]
S:transcribed from a single sheet song with music by Jack Campin
M:C|
L:1/8
V:1 midi program 1 71 transpose -12 % "clarinet" sound used for tenor voice
V:2 midi program 1 74               % "recorder" sound used for flute
K:Ador
[V:1] G/A/B/c/ dg dBBg|dBBg        d2B2|G/A/B/c/ dg dB gf/g/|aAAB  c2A2||
[V:2] B/c/d/e/ fb fddb|fddb        f2d2|B/c/d/e/ fb fd ba/b/|c'ccd e2c2||
%
[V:1] G/A/B/c/ dB ecdB|G/A/B/c/ dB d2B2|G/A/B/c/ dB ecdB    |cAAB  c2A2||
[V:2] B/c/d/e/ fd gefd|B/c/d/e/ fd f2d2|B/c/d/e/ fd gefd    |eccd  e2c2||
%
[V:1] GBBB        BBB2|GBBB        c2B2|GBBB        BB B2   |cAAB  c2A2||
[V:2] Bddd        ddd2|Bddd        e2d2|Bddd        dd d2   |eccd  e2c2||Flute transpositions of songs are common as footnotes to song sheets of
the period (I think it's from around 1760), but I don't recall seeing
any other where the flute was expected to harmonize with the voice.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack>     *     food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files, and my CD-ROM "Embro, Embro".
---> off-list mail to "j-c" rather than "ballad-l" at this site, please. <---

On 8/28/03, Bruce Olson wrote:[ ... ]>We've used a lot of non-quantative language here before on many threads
>regarding "same" and "variant" texts and tunes, because, as far as I
>know, we don't have any quantitative language for such.Conceded.>I probably
>should have said 'near variants of the same' rather than 'same' but this
>still leaves us which how much difference does 'variant' and 'near
>variant' imply? Your "version of" can also span a wide range of
>interpretations. Can you point out any source of an accurate language to
>use for such discussions as these?No. If there is such, I don't know of it. That's the whole point.I'm generally all in favor of formal (i.e. mathematically
quantifiable) definitions. But it must always be remembered that
a definition is only *useful* if it corresponds to how we
perceive reality. If I say that "all tunes in 3/4 time
which start on the tonic and consist of sixteen bars are the
same," I've produced a formal definition. Is it correct?
Surely not. One can define a mathematical relation by any
means one wishes. If you choose a better definition than the
one I just did, we may learn something from it. If you want to
call the result "tune deviation" or some such, fine.But calling two things "the same" implies that people will
recognize them as the same. Are a child's block painted blue
and a block painted green the same? They are to a blind kid,
not to a sighted kid. To use such language requires us to
test it -- presumably, to create a corpus of tunes people
regard as "the same" and "different" (or, perhaps, "the same,"
"similar," and "different"), and THEN to look for mathematical
relations. And, once we've found the relations, use them to
test a different set of tunes, to see whether the formula and
real people agree on "sameness."Maybe Bayard did this. But I suspect his classification was
informal (though educated, which may be the worst possible
thing). In any case, it needs to be tested.BTW -- folks, I'm 41. Youngest age I've seen stated on this list so
far. Doesn't this indicate another problem which probably needs
higher priority than defining which tunes are the same? :-(
--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

I know some members have already stated that this thread is growing tiresome, but I'm 39 and am one of the "youngsters" looking to cook up a dissertation in the near future. I have learned a great deal from the list so far!Beth Brooks
Indiana University>>> [unmask] 08/28/03 08:46 AM >>>
On 8/28/03, Bruce Olson wrote:[ ... ]>We've used a lot of non-quantative language here before on many threads
>regarding "same" and "variant" texts and tunes, because, as far as I
>know, we don't have any quantitative language for such.Conceded.>I probably
>should have said 'near variants of the same' rather than 'same' but this
>still leaves us which how much difference does 'variant' and 'near
>variant' imply? Your "version of" can also span a wide range of
>interpretations. Can you point out any source of an accurate language to
>use for such discussions as these?No. If there is such, I don't know of it. That's the whole point.I'm generally all in favor of formal (i.e. mathematically
quantifiable) definitions. But it must always be remembered that
a definition is only *useful* if it corresponds to how we
perceive reality. If I say that "all tunes in 3/4 time
which start on the tonic and consist of sixteen bars are the
same," I've produced a formal definition. Is it correct?
Surely not. One can define a mathematical relation by any
means one wishes. If you choose a better definition than the
one I just did, we may learn something from it. If you want to
call the result "tune deviation" or some such, fine.But calling two things "the same" implies that people will
recognize them as the same. Are a child's block painted blue
and a block painted green the same? They are to a blind kid,
not to a sighted kid. To use such language requires us to
test it -- presumably, to create a corpus of tunes people
regard as "the same" and "different" (or, perhaps, "the same,"
"similar," and "different"), and THEN to look for mathematical
relations. And, once we've found the relations, use them to
test a different set of tunes, to see whether the formula and
real people agree on "sameness."Maybe Bayard did this. But I suspect his classification was
informal (though educated, which may be the worst possible
thing). In any case, it needs to be tested.BTW -- folks, I'm 41. Youngest age I've seen stated on this list so
far. Doesn't this indicate another problem which probably needs
higher priority than defining which tunes are the same? :-(
--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Does everyone agree that the usual melody for "Rose Connoly" is the
"same" as that for "Rosin the Beau"?
--
john garst    [unmask]

Hmmm....Well I think I maybe the "child" of the list,  barely out of the cradle at 27!Liz HummelImage 4I know some members have already stated that this thread is growing tiresome, but I'm 39 and am one of the "youngsters" looking to cook up a dissertation in the near future. I have learned a great deal from the list so far!Beth Brooks
Indiana University>>> [unmask] 08/28/03 08:46 AM >>>
On 8/28/03, Bruce Olson wrote:[ ... ]>We've used a lot of non-quantative language here before on many threads
>regarding "same" and "variant" texts and tunes, because, as far as I
>know, we don't have any quantitative language for such.Conceded.>I probably
>should have said 'near variants of the same' rather than 'same' but this
>still leaves us which how much difference does 'variant' and 'near
>variant' imply? Your "version of" can also span a wide range of
>interpretations. Can you point out any source of an accurate language to
>use for such discussions as these?No. If there is such, I don't know of it. That's the whole point.I'm generally all in favor of formal (i.e. mathematically
quantifiable) definitions. But it must always be remembered that
a definition is only *useful* if it corresponds to how we
perceive reality. If I say that "all tunes in 3/4 time
which start on the tonic and consist of sixteen bars are the
same," I've produced a formal definition. Is it correct?
Surely not. One can define a mathematical relation by any
means one wishes. If you choose a better definition than the
one I just did, we may learn something from it. If you want to
call the result "tune deviation" or some such, fine.But calling two things "the same" implies that people will
recognize them as the same. Are a child's block painted blue
and a block painted green the same? They are to a blind kid,
not to a sighted kid. To use such language requires us to
test it -- presumably, to create a corpus of tunes people
regard as "the same" and "different" (or, perhaps, "the same,"
"similar," and "different"), and THEN to look for mathematical
relations. And, once we've found the relations, use them to
test a different set of tunes, to see whether the formula and
real people agree on "sameness."Maybe Bayard did this. But I suspect his classification was
informal (though educated, which may be the worst possible
thing). In any case, it needs to be tested.BTW -- folks, I'm 41. Youngest age I've seen stated on this list so
far. Doesn't this indicate another problem which probably needs
higher priority than defining which tunes are the same? :-(
--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>
>             Are a child's block painted blue
> and a block painted green the same? They are to a blind kid,
> not to a sighted kid.
> --
> Bob Waltz
> [unmask]Take a look at 'same' in a good dictionary. 'Identical' is the primary,
but not the only allowed definition, and one has some
leeway to interpret alternative definitions as one would like (e.g.,
'like in kind'). [For some reason I get scared when I think of the
possibility of a precise language in a mathematically sense. Irrational,
yes, but I do enjoy being irrational at times.]Incidently, I'm colorblind, so your painted blocks are all the same
(not really completely, but I would probably call some 'same' that you
wouldn't).On a trip to Europe in 1972 I got involved in a discussion of languages
(with all knowing Engish, but to few was it their native language), and
I advanced the opinion that English had so many words that were nearly
the same that is was easy to make oneself basically understood without
having to be precise. That was OK, but when I gave the further opinion
that it was difficult to be precise in English I really got shot down.
Most others said being precise was easier in English than any other
language that they knew of.Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

Re: Jack LatinJack Campin wrote:
>
> >
> I concluded that the "flute" part was intended as a harmonization
> in thirds - that is, it wasn't created to be an independent melody.
> Here are the two parts zipped together with no alteration except to
> the beaming.  This works in BarFly as is, and should produce a usable
> score with any ABC application that can do multiple voices.  It's not
> a particularly interesting arrangement (just a completely literal
> transposition of the melody line), but then what would you expect
> from something with a text like that?...
>> Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
>.....Instead of just listening to the normal and flute scores as I
originally gave them (ADor and Cion), I've now used the ABC
player program on my website to make a graph of note frequency
(vertical) versus total time to note (horizontal). (Sorry, I don't know
how to copy it and post it.) [If you download the program you can do the
same.] Offsetting the lower (#1, normal) score up to overlap the upper
(#2, flute) shows that the last 1/3 of the two scores (measures 9-12)
are quite different. Below, we will return to this.The first 8 measures show many differences. The small ones I take
to be from the mode difference, and the larger ones (almost
always the same difference) I would take to be harmonic
substitutions. In spite of the differences, the similarities are
striking, and I think it's clear that the first 8 measures
are reasonably close variants of the 'same' melody for the two
scores (if we leave 'variant' imprecisely defined). Going back
now to measures 9-12, most of the differences here are the same
as the big ones in the first 8 measures, so the flute score here,
seems to me to be nearly pure harmonization with the normal score.I've done little such previously with what is possibly a new technique,
so I can't be very confident of my interpretation.Bruce OlsonRoots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

dick greenhaus wrote:
>
> For an example of how modality can affect tune recognition, consider
> "The Red-Haired Boy (Gobby-O)" and "Gilderoy".
> Clearly related; different modes.
>
> dick greenhaus
>.......From my website:X:1
T:T062- The Gobby O
S:Aird's Airs, IV (c 1794)
Q:1/4=120
L:1/8
M:6/8
K:Am
B|c2A AcA|E2AA2c|B2G GBc|dBG GAB|c2A AcA|E2AA2f|edc BAB|\
E2AA2::B|A2Bc2d|e2^fg3|^faf gfe|dBGG2B|A2Bc2d|e2^f aga|\
edc BAc|E2AA2:|]X:2
T:B159-  Gilderoy
S:Stuart's 'Musick' (for TTM), c 1726
Q:1/4=120
L:1/4
M:C
K:Am
E|A3/2B/2 (c/2B/2)(c/2d/2)|ed/2c/2dc/2d/2|\
eG(c/2A/2)(G/2E/2)|G3/2A/2Gc/2B/2|\
(A/2^G/2)(A/2B/2) (c/2B/2)(c/2d/2)|\
ed/2c/2df|e(d/2c/4B/4)cB/2A/2|A2A||e/2f/2|\
g3/2a/2 (g/2f/2)(e/2d/2)|(f/2e/2)(d/2c/2)dc/2d/2|\
eG(c/2A/2)(G/2E/2)|G3/2A/2Ge/2f/2|\
g3/2a/2 (g/2f/2)(e/2d/2)|(f/2e/2)(d/2c/2)df|\
e(d/2c/4B/4) (c/2d/2) B/2A/2|A2A|]Dick, sure you've got the right tunes? I suspect you were given a
mis-labeled tune somewhere along the line.
Stressed notes codes for these two tunes are in file COMBCOD3.TXT on my
website, and could hardly be more different. Plotting them (with program
CODEDSP9.EXE on my website) we can get close to the
"Gilderoy" one by reflection of the "Gobby O" one off of a
horizontal mirror. ["Gobby O" is close to "Gilderoy" upside-down]Bruce OlsonRoots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

dick greenhaus wrote:
>
> For an example of how modality can affect tune recognition, consider
> "The Red-Haired Boy (Gobby-O)" and "Gilderoy".
> Clearly related; different modes.
>
> dick greenhausFrom my website:X:1
T:T062- The Gobby O
S:Aird's Airs, IV (c 1794)
Q:1/4=120
L:1/8
M:6/8
K:Am
B|c2A AcA|E2AA2c|B2G GBc|dBG GAB|c2A AcA|E2AA2f|edc BAB|\
E2AA2::B|A2Bc2d|e2^fg3|^faf gfe|dBGG2B|A2Bc2d|e2^f aga|\
edc BAc|E2AA2:|]X:2
T:B159-  Gilderoy
S:Stuart's 'Musick' (for TTM), c 1726
Q:1/4=120
L:1/4
M:C
K:Am
E|A3/2B/2 (c/2B/2)(c/2d/2)|ed/2c/2dc/2d/2|\
eG(c/2A/2)(G/2E/2)|G3/2A/2Gc/2B/2|\
(A/2^G/2)(A/2B/2) (c/2B/2)(c/2d/2)|\
ed/2c/2df|e(d/2c/4B/4)cB/2A/2|A2A||e/2f/2|\
g3/2a/2 (g/2f/2)(e/2d/2)|(f/2e/2)(d/2c/2)dc/2d/2|\
eG(c/2A/2)(G/2E/2)|G3/2A/2Ge/2f/2|\
g3/2a/2 (g/2f/2)(e/2d/2)|(f/2e/2)(d/2c/2)df|\
e(d/2c/4B/4) (c/2d/2) B/2A/2|A2A|]Dick, your tune names can't be right. Stressed notes codes for
these tunes are in file COMBCOD3.TXT on my website, and could
hardly be more different. Plotting them (with program
CODEDSP9.EXE on my website) we can get close to the
"Gilderoy" one by reflection of the "Gobby O" one off of a
horizontal mirror. ["Gobby O" is close to "Gilderoy" upside-down]Bruce OlsonRoots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

All of this stuff has been over my head but I can't imagine the sense in
which the melodies of "Rosin the Beau" and "Rose Connelly" are the same.
The first two lines are close enough and so is the last.  Otherwise, even
aside from the verse structure being different, I can't hear any of the
third line of "Rose Connelly" in what's left of "Rosin the Beau".
What am I missing here?
----- Original Message -----
From: "John Garst" <[unmask]>
To: <[unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, August 28, 2003 10:03 AM
Subject: Re: Bayard> Does everyone agree that the usual melody for "Rose Connoly" is the
> "same" as that for "Rosin the Beau"?
> --
> john garst    [unmask]
>

>All of this stuff has been over my head but I can't imagine the sense in
>which the melodies of "Rosin the Beau" and "Rose Connelly" are the same.
>The first two lines are close enough and so is the last.  Otherwise, even
>aside from the verse structure being different, I can't hear any of the
>third line of "Rose Connelly" in what's left of "Rosin the Beau".
>What am I missing here?Maybe nothing, but I think that the first, second, and last (double)
phrases are identical and the third (double) ones are closely related.
--
john garst    [unmask]

This could prove to be very interesting:** BBC To Put Huge Archive OnlineThe Independent ( http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/media/story.jsp?story=436915 )
is one of the many places reporting that the BBC is planning to put a giant television and radio archive online. This project will be called the BBC Creative Archive. According to the BBC's statement about it (
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/tv_and_radio/3177479.stm ),
"The service, the BBC Creative Archive, would be free and available to everyone, as long as they were not intending to use the material for commercial purposes." There is no clear date on when this archive will be available.There's some good Weblog commentary on this news at
http://www.hangingday.co.uk/archives/000603.shtml and
http://www.oblomovka.com/entries/2003/08/24#1061749500 .

On 8/28/03, John Garst wrote:>Does everyone agree that the usual melody for "Rose Connoly" is the
>"same" as that for "Rosin the Beau"?If you hadn't pointed it out, I would never have noticed any
similarity between the two other than being in triple time.Of course, I may know a different "Rose Connoly" tune than you
do (I would assume we know the same "Rosin the Beau").
--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

On 8/28/03, Bruce Olson wrote:>Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>>
>>
>>             Are a child's block painted blue
>> and a block painted green the same? They are to a blind kid,
>> not to a sighted kid.
>> --
>> Bob Waltz
>> [unmask]
>
>Take a look at 'same' in a good dictionary. 'Identical' is the primary,
>but not the only allowed definition, and one has some
>leeway to interpret alternative definitions as one would like (e.g.,
>'like in kind'). [For some reason I get scared when I think of the
>possibility of a precise language in a mathematically sense. Irrational,
>yes, but I do enjoy being irrational at times.]We're still talking past each other, and I don't know how to make
this clearer. The precise definition of "same" is not at issue;
I'm willing to allow, e.g., that "Roll On, Columbia" is the same
as "Goodnight Irene" even though a few notes are changed. I'm
not willing to allow that "Goodnight Irene" is the same as "My
Bonnie," even though they too have been equated. How do I know?
I just do.You can try to measure "sameness" somehow, by some mathematical
or other definition -- but if you just say "X and Y are the
same because they share this, that, and the other characteristic,"
you aren't showing they're "the same"; you're showing that they
share those characteristics. Sameness is a common sense
commodity; a person will say that two tunes are the same, or
they aren't, and any measure of sameness has to produce nearly
the same result as the common-sense definition, no matter how
strange the latter may be.A formula may help us trace tunes' histories (though I have
doubts even about that), but it's just a formula until and
unless it agrees with our common sense.--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

dick greenhaus wrote:
>
> Bruce-
> Your comments reflect what I was saying--I'm not sure abot the ABCs
> you sent (I haven't had time to decode them yet) but listeners have no
> trouble seeing that they're closely related, although they seem to
> have virtuallyt no stressed notes in common.
> dick
>
> Bruce Olson wrote:
>
>      dick greenhaus wrote:
>
>
>           For an example of how modality can affect tune
>           recognition, consider
>           "The Red-Haired Boy (Gobby-O)" and "Gilderoy".
>           Clearly related; different modes.
>
>           dick greenhaus
>           .......Dick,We've still got a tune title mix-up here. Let's start over, and
keep it simple and direct.X:1
T:T062- The Gobby O
S:Aird's Airs, IV (c 1794)
Q:1/4=120
L:1/8
M:6/8
K:Am
B|c2A AcA|E2AA2c|B2G GBc|dBG GAB|c2A AcA|E2AA2f|edc BAB|\
E2AA2::B|A2Bc2d|e2^fg3|^faf gfe|dBGG2B|A2Bc2d|e2^f aga|\
edc BAc|E2AA2:|]X:2
T:B159-  Gilderoy
S:Stuart's 'Musick' (for TTM), c 1726
Q:1/4=120
L:1/4
M:C
K:Am
E|A3/2B/2 (c/2B/2)(c/2d/2)|ed/2c/2dc/2d/2|\
eG(c/2A/2)(G/2E/2)|G3/2A/2Gc/2B/2|\
(A/2^G/2)(A/2B/2) (c/2B/2)(c/2d/2)|\
ed/2c/2df|e(d/2c/4B/4)cB/2A/2|A2A||e/2f/2|\
g3/2a/2 (g/2f/2)(e/2d/2)|(f/2e/2)(d/2c/2)dc/2d/2|\
eG(c/2A/2)(G/2E/2)|G3/2A/2Ge/2f/2|\
g3/2a/2 (g/2f/2)(e/2d/2)|(f/2e/2)(d/2c/2)df|\
e(d/2c/4B/4) (c/2d/2) B/2A/2|A2A|]X:3
T:The Redhaired Boy
S:O'Neill's 'Music of Ireland', #1748
Q:1/4=120
L:1/16
M:2/4
K:A
(AG)|EAAG ABcd|efec d2(cd)|edcB ABcA|BGEF G2(ED)|EAAG ABcd|\
efec d2(cd)|eaab aged|c2A2 A2:|\
(ef)gfga g2(ef)|gfec d2(cd)|edcB ABcA|BGEF G2(ED)|EAAG ABcd|\
efec d2(cd)|eaab aged|c2A2 A2:|]"The Redhaired Boy" (major mode) is a variant of "Gilderoy"
(minor mode).
"The Gobby O" is not a variant of "Gilderoy" (or "Redhaired Boy"").To see this very directly use the ABC player program on my
website, and use it to plot a graph of log frequency (vertically)
versus time (horizontally) for all three of the above tunes
simultaneously.Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Robert B. Waltz wrote:> Sameness is a common sense commodity;
> a person will say that two tunes are the same, or
> they aren't, and any measure of sameness has to produce nearly
> the same result as the common-sense definition, no matter how
> strange the latter may be.
>
> A formula may help us trace tunes' histories (though I have
> doubts even about that), but it's just a formula until and
> unless it agrees with our common sense.
>
> --
> Bob Waltz'Common sense' is a self-adulation concept that one shares with
his peers, and is derived almost solely from that peer group.It has been said that "One man's common sense is another man's
chaos". Had we all 'common sense' we wouldn't have wars.Keep your common sense. I just want good data. (I'm experimentalist 1st,
analysist 2nd, and theoretician last.) I'll try, but probably never get
far, to devise scientific methodology, starting from an experimental,
not theoretical approach (my forte since 1960, and essentially that
recommended in the following).'Common-sense' was dispensed with in a long note 'A word on
hypothesis', by Anne and Norm Cohen in 'The Journal of American
Folklore', #344, April-June, pp. 156-60, 1974. (The brief outline
in this long note about the way good science really works is one I
heartily recommend that one study. This is not an outsider's
theoretical view of how he thinks science should work, it's the
"real McCoy".)Quoting the Cohens from JAF, p. 158:"To reiterate our own position, however, we see no need for
qualifying folklore (or folkloristics) as a science. It is
sufficient that the discipline distinguish itself by following
the path of scientific inquiry rather than common-sense inquiry,
and this is an approach that can be taken by textually oriented
or behaviorally oriented folklorists alike."Norm Cohen, do you have you any subsequent additions or revisions
you'd like to add?Bruce OlsonRoots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

On 8/28/03, Bruce Olson wrote:>Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
>> Sameness is a common sense commodity;
>> a person will say that two tunes are the same, or
>> they aren't, and any measure of sameness has to produce nearly
>> the same result as the common-sense definition, no matter how
>> strange the latter may be.
>>
>> A formula may help us trace tunes' histories (though I have
>> doubts even about that), but it's just a formula until and
>> unless it agrees with our common sense.
>>
>> --
>> Bob Waltz
>
>'Common sense' is a self-adulation concept that one shares with
>his peers, and is derived almost solely from that peer group.
>
>It has been said that "One man's common sense is another man's
>chaos". Had we all 'common sense' we wouldn't have wars.This is once again to DODGE.If you come up with any rule that says, Tune A is the same as
Tune B, and everyone says it's not the same, IT'S NOT THE
SAME.I don't care what the sorting criterion is. I don't care if it's
scientific or not (though I won't believe it if it isn't
scientific). Tunes are the same because people agree they're
the same. That's it.
--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

> Sameness is a common sense commodity; a person will say that two
> tunes are the same, or they aren't, and any measure of sameness
> has to produce nearly the same result as the common-sense definition,
> no matter how strange the latter may be.
> A formula may help us trace tunes' histories (though I have
> doubts even about that), but it's just a formula until and
> unless it agrees with our common sense.There are two DIFFERENT concepts of sameness involved here.  You're
talking about perceived sameness, which is a pretty tough one to
provide theoretical explanations for.  Bruce is talking about
(various kinds of) objective information-theoretic similarity,
which may or may not correlate with perceived similarity but is
more likely to relate to the historical facts.One sort of situation where this will come up is when tune A has
been borrowed from culture X across a cultural boundary marked by
political, religious or ethnic hostility to become tune B in
culture Y.  To an outsider, A and B are the same tune.  To someone
within culture Y - how could you dare suggest such a thing, X's
culture is rubbish and has had no influence on ours at all.  You
aren't going to get a formal model of that process.I recall getting into an argument on Usenet once with someone of
the Celtic-is-the-greatest-the-English-are-all-bastards school of
thought about the origins of the Gaelic song tune "Chi mi na Mor-
Bheanna", "The Mist Covered Mountains".  I pointed out that it was
derived from the English "Johnny's too long at the fair"; she wasn't
having it, as nothing was to be allowed to detract from the total
originality and autonomy of Celtic culture, and she couldn't see
any resemblance between the two.  This despite the fact that in the
original Gaelic publication of the words the author said to use
"Johnny's too long at the fair" for it, naming the tune in English;
what did he know...I spent most of my life thinking that "The Minstrel Boy" and "The
Girl I Left Behind Me" were the same tune.  I first heard both at
around the same time, on the radio when I was about six, and somehow
never got round to separating them in my mind.  Apart from metre
they don't have a lot in common.  The explanation of the perceived
identity here has to be from my psychology and personal history, not
from any formal similarity.-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
<http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/jack>     *     food intolerance data & recipes,
Mac logic fonts, Scots traditional music files, and my CD-ROM "Embro, Embro".
---> off-list mail to "j-c" rather than "ballad-l" at this site, please. <---

I've been thinking about what I wrote last night, and want to
apologise to Bruce Olson and to the list. I spoke much too
strongly. (I can only confess to having been on the computer
for most of the past twelve hours before I wrote what I wrote.)I stand by the statement that "sameness" must be defined
by what human beings collectively perceive. But I could
have said it in a quieter tone of voice.--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

On 8/29/03, Jack Campin wrote:> > Sameness is a common sense commodity; a person will say that two
>> tunes are the same, or they aren't, and any measure of sameness
>> has to produce nearly the same result as the common-sense definition,
>> no matter how strange the latter may be.
>> A formula may help us trace tunes' histories (though I have
>> doubts even about that), but it's just a formula until and
>> unless it agrees with our common sense.
>
>There are two DIFFERENT concepts of sameness involved here.  You're
>talking about perceived sameness, which is a pretty tough one to
>provide theoretical explanations for.  Bruce is talking about
>(various kinds of) objective information-theoretic similarity,
>which may or may not correlate with perceived similarity but is
>more likely to relate to the historical facts.You are of course correct (though you're responding to the
wrong person here). But this still doesn't get to the root of
the problem. There are two parts. The first is historical
continuity. Take a case: Is "High Barbary" the same song
as "The George Aloe and the Sweepstake"? There is historical
continuity -- but there is also recension: Charles Dibdin
rewrote the latter to produce the former. Same song? Uh....The one clear answer I can give to that is that classical
scholars are now universally agreed: When a manuscript
work exists in several different recensions (rewrites),
they should NOT be edited into one. You print the "A"
text, or the "C" text, but you don't combine them. They
are "editions of" the same work, but they are not "the
same" work.Classifying by some method other than having people say,
"yes, that's the same tune" has historical value -- though
even should be verified. (There is no law that says two
tunes can't evolve independently. It won't happen often.
But tunes are relatively simple, compared to, say, the
complete works of Shakespeare, and we all know about the
monkeys and Shakespeare.) But if one says two tunes are
"the same," without qualification, people naturally
will expect that they will sound the same to them.If you say two tunes fall into the same TYPE, that's
a different matter, implying neither identity of origin
nor identity of history. That is useful research (though
I'd like to see the mathematical rules one uses). But
that sort of classification doesn't really imply anything
except what it says: Same TYPE of tune.
--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

>..."sameness" must be defined
>by what human beings collectively perceive....
>
>Bob WaltzIt is my observation, I think, that people will often not recognize
similarities between tunes until they are pointed out.  Then they
will have one of two reactions: (a) "That's amazing!  I never
realized it before."  (b) "No!  These tunes are different."
Suppliers of reaction (b) will often stubbornly stick to their view
no matter how many specific similarities are pointed out to them.
--
john garst    [unmask]

Dear Folks,When we talk about tunes being the same, we are entering into a
conversation that has been going on for quite a while.   They chose those
words to express a perception, and we enter the conversation because we
want to discuss that perception. I think we have to use the words,
therefore, in the way that the people who started the conversation used
them. Else why enter the conversation?What Bayard (whom I used to visit regularly in his office) and others were
interested in, I think, was descent, evolution, familial relationship among
various renditions of a tune idea.  Sometimes he used the term tune family
to express that relationship, as did Bronson.The discussion is not about songs, but about tunes.  Tunes, as we know, can
go with different songs.  Only recently, for example, have I noticed the
connection between Streets of Laredo and Bard of Armagh, and between
Twinkle Twinkle Little Star and the Alphabet Song.  Clearly, in cases like
these, someone used one familiar tune to set a different set of words.  And
people familiar with Irish and American folksong can think of many similar
cases.We also know that in oral tradition a person who learns a song can learn
the tune in a distinctly different way from the way the person who sang it
to him/her sang it.  I, for instance, long sang Banks of Ohio in 3/4 time
because I don't have a great sense of rhythm, and I thought that was the
way I was hearing it..  I also tended to even out the rhythm of other
songs.  And  I am not peculiar in this regard.  3/4 time versions of that
tune idea are also found in field collections.  It is also common to change
intervals, especially odd intevals, to more familiar intervals (a 7th to a
6th or 5th, but also a 5th to a 3rd, etc,) go from chromatic to pentatonic
or the other way, drop phrases of the tune and substitute repetition of the
first phrase, rearrange phrases, go from authentic to plagal, shift mode
(especially if one is using a guitar and singer one learned the song from
sang unaccompanied) and perform many other operations on the tune, all
quite unconscious.  The sum total of these changes, over time, can produce
variants far removed from the shape of the tune in 16th or 17th
century.  (We also know what jazz and blues musicians do with tunes)But within this conversation, using the word "same" the way it is used in
this conversation, we can say that these many variants are variants of the
same tune.  And people trained to look for such connections, or with
certain types of very good ears, can hear the connections -- though a tin
ear like mine took many years to perceive the tune connection between Bard
of Armagh and Streets of Laredo, though I am very fond of both songs.So I think Bayard and Wilgus and Bronson were asserting a historical
connection from signer to singer when they spoke of tune families or "the
same tune."  But the terms are not defined precisely.  Indeed, there is an
element of speculation in all this:  How can we __prove__ that a certain
melody derives from another melody if we were not there when that certain
melody was first sung, to question the singer (or fiddler or
whistler)?  And so there is probably no way to define the term
operationally or "scientifically."  It is perfectly conceivable that a
convergence from two distinct source tunes might produces two tunes that
are not "the same" in the sense I have just used it, but are measurably
more alike than are two other tunes that are in fact variants of one and
the same source tune.-- Bill McCarthyBill McCarthy

----- Original Message -----
From: John Garst <[unmask]>>..."sameness" must be defined
>by what human beings collectively perceive....
>
>Bob Waltz<<It is my observation, I think, that people will often not recognize
similarities between tunes until they are pointed out.  Then they
will have one of two reactions: (a) "That's amazing!  I never
realized it before."  (b) "No!  These tunes are different."
Suppliers of reaction (b) will often stubbornly stick to their view
no matter how many specific similarities are pointed out to them.>>Indeed. I had the (a) reaction when my girlfriend pointed out that two tunes
I'd known for decades -- "Boll Weevil" as sung by Lead Belly and the most
common pop version of "Frankie and Johnny" were very close to being the same
tune.Peace,
Paul
Just a-lookin' for a home,
But he was doin' her wrong--
john garst    [unmask]

Paul:Woody Guthrie was a great borrower, often unaware he had done so.  Leadbelly's "Goodnight, Irene" furnished the tune for "Roll on, Columbia" -- a fact Guthrie didn't realize until Pete Seeger pointed it out.  ('Course, neither Guthrie nor Ledbetter gave a rat's ass about the "theft.")Ed----- Original Message -----
From: Paul Stamler <[unmask]>
Date: Friday, August 29, 2003 8:46 am
Subject: Re: Apologies to All (Was: Re: Bayard)> ----- Original Message -----
> From: John Garst <[unmask]>
>
>
> >..."sameness" must be defined
> >by what human beings collectively perceive....
> >
> >Bob Waltz
>
> <<It is my observation, I think, that people will often not recognize
> similarities between tunes until they are pointed out.  Then they
> will have one of two reactions: (a) "That's amazing!  I never
> realized it before."  (b) "No!  These tunes are different."
> Suppliers of reaction (b) will often stubbornly stick to their view
> no matter how many specific similarities are pointed out to them.>>
>
> Indeed. I had the (a) reaction when my girlfriend pointed out that two tunes
> I'd known for decades -- "Boll Weevil" as sung by Lead Belly and the most
> common pop version of "Frankie and Johnny" were very close to being the same
> tune.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
> Just a-lookin' for a home,
> But he was doin' her wrong
>
> --
> john garst    [unmask]
>

Dear Readers,Recently, a nine year old girl pointed out that the theme from the1960's tv
show "Gilligan's Island" is, in fact, the same tune as "Days of '49," a song
from the California Gold Rush.  And I think she's quite correct.-Adam Miller

Robert B. Waltz wrote:
>
> I've been thinking about what I wrote last night, and want to
> apologise to Bruce Olson and to the list. I spoke much too
> strongly. (I can only confess to having been on the computer
> for most of the past twelve hours before I wrote what I wrote.)
>
> I stand by the statement that "sameness" must be defined
> by what human beings collectively perceive. But I could
> have said it in a quieter tone of voice.
>
> --
> Bob Waltz
> [unmask]
>
> "The one thing we learn from history --
>    is that no one ever learns from history."Thanks Bob, and I apologize too. My doctor put me on a new medicine
11 days ago, and its done wonders for me physically, but mentally I've
been hyperactive, impatient, short tempered, etc,etc,etc. Dosage reduced
yesterday, and I have hopes for a return to (relative) sanity.
[Challenge: define 'sanity". Whose?]My position is that our words of description, if we want to be
reasonably accurate for our purposes here, must be referenced to some
body of data that gives at least an approximate range of validity to
start from. For short lets just call this the context. My position is
that arguments about meanings but without a reasonably known context is
a pointless waste of time for our purposes.I'm going to need that time to unravel how to get at the database
of 1.8 million records at Dissertation Abstracts, seaching on a
keyword that I can understand, in order to find a thesis: [The
keywords that I understand are those that aren't connected to a
data file, and those that do click to a data file don't seem to
include proper names and music as searchable items.]From Ed Cray:Anne Dhu Shapiro [now McLucas], 'The Tune-Family Concept in
British-American Folk-Song Scholarship', Harvard, Music
Department, May, 1975.Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

Folks:I am forwarding this announcement from Clary Croft in Halifax.  While I have not heard the CD, any release of Helen Creighton's archive material is good news.Ed-------------------------------------------------------------------------From     Clary Croft <[unmask]>
Sent    Friday, August 29, 2003 7:38 am
To      Ed Cray <[unmask]>
Cc
Bcc
Subject         Creighton CDThe Helen Creighton Folklore Society is proud to present Songs of the
Sea - the first in a series of field recordings from the Helen Creighton
Collection.  The material on this double CD is a small representation of
the English language sea songs and narratives found in the vast
collection of ?Canada?s First Lady of Folklore?.FOR A SNEAK PREVIEW, LISTEN TO OLGA MILOSEVICH?S RADIO PROGRAM.  SHE
WILL BE FEATURING CUTS FROM BOTH CDS.  CBC RADIO 2, SATURDAY, SEPTEMBER
6TH BETWEEN 11AM AND NOON; AND SUNDAY, SEPTEMBER 7TH ON CBC RADIO 1
BETWEEN 4-5 PM.The CD was officially launched on August 21st at Evergreen House, 26
Newcastle Street, Dartmouth. [Helen?s former home and now the operations
base for the Dartmouth Heritage Museum Society.] The launch was part of
an exhibit on Dr. Creighton?s life and career, currently on display
until September 27.  For more information on the exhibit contact the
museum at 464-2300.Copies of the CD can be purchased at the museum for $25.00.To order additional copies of the CD contact the Helen Creighton
Folklore Society at http://www.CorvusCorax.org:8080/~gseto/creighton/and for additional information concerning the project, contact Clary
Croft at  423-5759 or http://www3.ns.sympatico.ca/cs.croft/

edward cray wrote:
>
> Paul:
>
> Woody Guthrie was a great borrower, often unaware he had done so.  Leadbelly's "Goodnight, Irene" furnished the tune for "Roll on, Columbia" -- a fact Guthrie didn't realize until Pete Seeger pointed it out.  ('Course, neither Guthrie nor Ledbetter gave a rat's ass about the "theft.")
>
> EdThat is practically the whole point of the search of a method of
coding tunes by distinguishable characteristics and putting these
distinguishing characteristics in quantative form in a searchable
database where one can search out 'same' and 'variant' tunes (like file
COMBCOD3.TXT on my website, which has only a trivial 6000 or so tunes
plus variants).However, independent reinvention isn't all that uncommon, and we
will still be left with some false derivations, that I doubt we
will ever discover the truth of. [And we can't always know the
earliest date that a particular variant was first used,
(particularly with traditional tunes) and so we can't fully trust
a chronological order as implying the order of sucession of
'variants'.]Bruce OlsonRoots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

Adam:Good catch!  My kids watched that stupid show interminably, yet I never picked up on the thematic music.  I guess "Days of 49" sounded nautical to the music director.Ed----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Miller <[unmask]>
Date: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:51 am
Subject: Sameness of tunes> Dear Readers,
>
> Recently, a nine year old girl pointed out that the theme from the1960's tv
> show "Gilligan's Island" is, in fact, the same tune as "Days of '49," a song
> from the California Gold Rush.  And I think she's quite correct.
>
> -Adam Miller
>
>

Bill wrote, among other cogent things:...>So I think Bayard and Wilgus and Bronson were asserting a historical
>connection from signer to singer when they spoke of tune families or "the
>same tune."  But the terms are not defined precisely.  Indeed, there is an
>element of speculation in all this:  How can we __prove__ that a certain
>melody derives from another melody if we were not there when that certain
>melody was first sung, to question the singer (or fiddler or
>whistler)?  And so there is probably no way to define the term
>operationally or "scientifically."  It is perfectly conceivable that a
>convergence from two distinct source tunes might produces two tunes that
>are not "the same" in the sense I have just used it, but are measurably
>more alike than are two other tunes that are in fact variants of one and
>the same source tune.I am unsure (although I definitely suspect) of Bayard and Bronson,
but of Wilgus I feel safe in venturing to say that - while the
"historical" connection may be the most common - what was important
to him was the structural affinity, thus definitely recognizing the
possibility of convergence adding a tune to a family.  I would submit
it works as well - or better! - for melody as it does for text.Of course that does not solve Bruce's and Bob's problem: how could
one develop relatively objective criteria for "familiarity" (to avoid
the "samness") and still make sense to the ear.  Strange bedfellows,
objectivity and orality!--David G. Engleemail:  [unmask]
web:    http://www.csufresno.edu/folklore
        http://www.csufresno.edu/forlang         The Traditional Ballad Index:
         http://www.csufresno.edu/folklore/BalladIndexTOC.html---

>  From [unmask] Fri Aug 29 06:21:09 2003
>  Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2003 10:55:58 +0100
>  From: Jack Campin <[unmask]>
>  Subject: Re: Bayard
>  Comments: To: Forum for ballad scholars <[unmask]>
>  To: [unmask]>  I spent most of my life thinking that "The Minstrel Boy" and "The
>  Girl I Left Behind Me" were the same tune.  I first heard both at
>  around the same time, on the radio when I was about six, and somehow
>  never got round to separating them in my mind.  Apart from metre
>  they don't have a lot in common.  The explanation of the perceived
>  identity here has to be from my psychology and personal history, not
>  from any formal similarity.Actually, "The Minstrel Boy To War Has Gone" & "Forgive Me If All Those
Endearing Young Charms" are very similar.  Dunno "Girl I Left Behind Me".

> It is my observation, I think, that people will often not recognize
> similarities between tunes until they are pointed out.  Then they
> will have one of two reactions: (a) "That's amazing!  I never
> realized it before."  (b) "No!  These tunes are different.">There are two DIFFERENT concepts of sameness involved here.  You're
>talking about perceived sameness, which is a pretty tough one to
>provide theoretical explanations for.   I used to occasionally play the tune from "Shule Aroo  / Johnny Has Gone
For a Soldier".   I used the same melody as the tune "When Johnny Comes
Marching Home again, and thought of it as a sweet sad lament expresed by an
abandoned girl whose lover has gone off to the wars.
  Then I noticed a John Wayne movie in which the background theme was "When
Johnny Comes Marching Home Again":  powerful, strident, blusterous.  The
notes used were exactly those I'd played for Shule Aroo.  Later I used it as
demonstration for students, playing the same notes two ways, first thinking
one thing, then thinking the other.  It sounded very like two different
pieces, but the notes were precisely the same: the intent was different.  Comment?--
Truman Price
Monmouth, OR 97361

On 8/29/03, David G. Engle wrote:>Bill wrote, among other cogent things:
>
>...
>
>>So I think Bayard and Wilgus and Bronson were asserting a historical
>>connection from signer to singer when they spoke of tune families or "the
>>same tune."  But the terms are not defined precisely.  Indeed, there is an
>>element of speculation in all this:  How can we __prove__ that a certain
>>melody derives from another melody if we were not there when that certain
>>melody was first sung, to question the singer (or fiddler or
>>whistler)?  And so there is probably no way to define the term
>>operationally or "scientifically."  It is perfectly conceivable that a
>>convergence from two distinct source tunes might produces two tunes that
>>are not "the same" in the sense I have just used it, but are measurably
>>more alike than are two other tunes that are in fact variants of one and
>>the same source tune.
>
>I am unsure (although I definitely suspect) of Bayard and Bronson,
>but of Wilgus I feel safe in venturing to say that - while the
>"historical" connection may be the most common - what was important
>to him was the structural affinity, thus definitely recognizing the
>possibility of convergence adding a tune to a family.  I would submit
>it works as well - or better! - for melody as it does for text.
>
>Of course that does not solve Bruce's and Bob's problem: how could
>one develop relatively objective criteria for "familiarity" (to avoid
>the "samness") and still make sense to the ear.  Strange bedfellows,
>objectivity and orality!Just as a footnote here, there IS a way to prove ancestry in the
genetic sense: Analysis of variants into a stemma (chart of
ancestry), which can be made rigorous through the use of a
mathematical tool known as chladistics. This has been done for
manuscripts (of Chaucer, and I know a guy who is applying it
to the New Testament). I hope later this year to offer a paper
showing some of the relevant techniques (only some because I
don't know them all). To date, the material has been applied
only to texts and genetic sequences, but there is no reason it
shouldn't be applied to tunes.Chladistics is a method of finding the archetype of a group
of relatives. It also tells how things got from point A to
point B. But it won't tell us which versions are the same --
in fact, strange as it will sound, things closely related often
seem by their appearances to be quite distinct.Yet another reason why I worry about this topic....--
Bob Waltz
[unmask]"The one thing we learn from history --
   is that no one ever learns from history."

Oh wise ones:
   Please come to my aid once again. I have completed my research paper on the history and variants of "Pretty Polly"  (and thank you all for your insight into filling in the gaps).  It's fairly substantial and the research is thorough and legitimate.
  The question is, to which publication should I submit it? It's got a lot of musical information on meter, tonality, rhythm, key, etc., but it's also got a lot of text information in a folklore vein, as well as collection information and geographical and historical considerations.
   Journal of American Folklore? British Journal of Ethnomusicology? Southern Folklore Quarterly? Something I haven't heard of?
   Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I've not gone through the process before.Beth Brooks
Indiana University

J M F wrote:
>
> >
> >  I spent most of my life thinking that "The Minstrel Boy" and "The
> >  Girl I Left Behind Me" were the same tune.  I first heard both at
> >  around the same time, on the radio when I was about six, and somehow
> >  never got round to separating them in my mind.  Apart from metre
> >  they don't have a lot in common.  The explanation of the perceived
> >  identity here has to be from my psychology and personal history, not
> >  from any formal similarity.
>For "Minstrel Boy" tune apparent origin, a MS of 1787, see Moreen2
in the Irish tune titles on my website. And, there, "My lodging is on
the cold ground" for "Endearing young charms" Moreen1 is an older bawdy
song found in my Scarce Songs 2 file.Most of commentary on "The girl I left behind me" in Wm.
Chappell's PMOT seems to be purely from his imagination as far as
the 18th century goes. See EASMES for very late 18th century
copies of the tune. A song of 1799 to the tune was "The Girls
we love so dearly".Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

> J M F wrote:
> >
> > >  I spent most of my life thinking that "The Minstrel Boy" and "The
> > >  Girl I Left Behind Me" were the same tune.  I first heard both at
> > >  around the same time, on the radio when I was about six, and somehow
> > >  never got round to separating them in my mind.  Apart from metre
> > >  they don't have a lot in common.  The explanation of the perceived
> > >  identity here has to be from my psychology and personal history, not
> > >  from any formal similarity.Tunes for "Minstrel Boy" and "Believe me..endearing young charms"
are similar but not variants. "Girl I left behind me" is quite
different. These results come from plotting stressed note codes
(as you can do on your computer screen) already available in:File COMBCOD3.TXT on my website,with cross reference#5340 are 4 variants of the tune for "The Minstrel Boy"
2048 "   4    " .   .   .           "Endearing youg charms"
5244 "   7    " ...................."Girl I left behind me"With Program CODEDSP9.EXE on my website you can graphically
display the stressed note codes of any 12 of these
simultaneously on your computer scren.Steps to find them:
1: Find one title from word search (a word, phrase, or fragment
that you know, any place in the tune title) in Option 5, 1 (= search in
title)
2: find cross ref# from display.
3: With cross ref# entered in Option 3 you will find all variants
of the tune regardless of title
4: Save all found (with one click) into the display fileClick 0 twice to plot first 12 stressed note codes on you computer
screen, else: Pick the 12 you want to display using the editing option
to delete items or rearrange them in the display file. You can go back
and forth between editing and display as you like.['Sames' tunes are listed in the index files, but would it be a
useless repeat of much data that just wastes space in the
stressed note code file, so are not included there.]Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

You could try any of those--also Ethnomusicology and the yearly journal published by the English Folk Dance and Song Society.        Marge-----Original Message-----
From: Beth Brooks [mailto:[unmask]]
Sent: Friday, August 29, 2003 5:23 PM
To: [unmask]
Subject: journal publication questionOh wise ones:
   Please come to my aid once again. I have completed my research paper on the history and variants of "Pretty Polly"  (and thank you all for your insight into filling in the gaps).  It's fairly substantial and the research is thorough and legitimate.
  The question is, to which publication should I submit it? It's got a lot of musical information on meter, tonality, rhythm, key, etc., but it's also got a lot of text information in a folklore vein, as well as collection information and geographical and historical considerations.
   Journal of American Folklore? British Journal of Ethnomusicology? Southern Folklore Quarterly? Something I haven't heard of?
   Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. I've not gone through the process before.Beth Brooks
Indiana University

Folks:I would suggest -- as others have posited in the last two days -- that your did not have on your analytical cap, but was instead wearing your emotive toupe.Ed----- Original Message -----
From: Truman and Suzanne Price <[unmask]>
Date: Friday, August 29, 2003 2:16 pm
Subject: Re: Sameness of tunes/ different attitude> > It is my observation, I think, that people will often not recognize
> > similarities between tunes until they are pointed out.  Then they
> > will have one of two reactions: (a) "That's amazing!  I never
> > realized it before."  (b) "No!  These tunes are different."
>
> >There are two DIFFERENT concepts of sameness involved here.  You're
> >talking about perceived sameness, which is a pretty tough one to
> >provide theoretical explanations for.
>
>   I used to occasionally play the tune from "Shule Aroo  / Johnny Has Gone
> For a Soldier".   I used the same melody as the tune "When Johnny Comes
> Marching Home again, and thought of it as a sweet sad lament expresed by an
> abandoned girl whose lover has gone off to the wars.
>  Then I noticed a John Wayne movie in which the background theme was "When
> Johnny Comes Marching Home Again":  powerful, strident, blusterous.  The
> notes used were exactly those I'd played for Shule Aroo.  Later I used it as
> demonstration for students, playing the same notes two ways, first thinking
> one thing, then thinking the other.  It sounded very like two different
> pieces, but the notes were precisely the same: the intent was different.
>
>  Comment?
>
> --
> Truman Price
> Monmouth, OR 97361
>

edward cray wrote:
>
> Folks:
>
> I would suggest -- as others have posited in the last two days -- that your did not have on your analytical cap, but was instead wearing your emotive toupe.
>
> Ed
>Stressed note coding of tunes the way I do it is time consuming
enough, already. No new 'emotive' index unless you do it yourself.Songs: Ed hasn't even made a 'horniness' index of the songs in
his 'The Erotic' Muse'.Tunes: For an 'ungodliness' index hymn tunes all get a 0, but
Ed's tunes all get a 10. [The devils tunes are best, so we
have to use 'ungodliness' rather than 'godliness' to get the
index to point us in the right direction.]Now, back to the so far futile search for Anne Shapiro's 'tune-family'
thesis. She's only 3000 miles away, and I still remember a little about
the campus, so I may just drive out and ask her if I can make a xerox
copy her copy.Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

<<Good catch!  My kids watched that stupid show interminably, yet I never
picked up on the thematic music.  I guess "Days of 49" sounded nautical to
the music director.>>I've always identified "Days of 49" as being part of the "Star of the County
Down" family, which does include a lot of nautical songs as well.Peace,
PaulEd----- Original Message -----
From: Adam Miller <[unmask]>
Date: Friday, August 29, 2003 7:51 am
Subject: Sameness of tunes> Dear Readers,
>
> Recently, a nine year old girl pointed out that the theme from the1960's
tv
> show "Gilligan's Island" is, in fact, the same tune as "Days of '49," a
song
> from the California Gold Rush.  And I think she's quite correct.
>
> -Adam Miller
>
>

I discussed the recent thread on the "Treasury of Field
Recordings" (77 Records) with Mack McCormick last night. He
dismisses the "99 copies" claim as a fantasy, stating that
everyone invovled received at least one copy (that would have been
about 30-40 people), and moreover, he received royalties on copies
sold from Dobell for many years -- throughout the sixties if not
the 1970s. He estimates that actually 2-4 thousand were sold over
a period of time.He wanted to know if Dobell was still living. That didn't come up
during the thread, I don't think.He claims the Joel & Lightning Hopkins album on Heritage (1001)
was in fact a limited edition of 99 copies.--Andrew________________________________________________________________
Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net

Paul Stamler wrote:
>
> <<Good catch!  My kids watched that stupid show interminably, yet I never
> picked up on the thematic music.  I guess "Days of 49" sounded nautical to
> the music director.>>
>
> I've always identified "Days of 49" as being part of the "Star of the County
> Down" family, which does include a lot of nautical songs as well.
>
> Peace,
> Paul
>That Scots tune, "Gilderoy" was around for over a century and a half
before there was a "Star of the County Down" song to give it its new
Irish name.Bruce OlsonRoots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

A few comments:1.] I can't speak for Mr. McCormick's memory but, as cited in one of my
postings, during 1959 he referred to these recordings which appeared on
"Doug Dobell's limited-edition '77' label." That he recalls "everyone
involved received at least one copy" fits with with some of the comments
made by Brian Harvey in another article I cited in the thread.
Worth noting as well. I read the sellers description of the two discs
when they were listed on E-Bay. In that description mention was made of
a red hand stamped number [36 I believe] on the rear cover. This
corresponds with Les' memory of each copy being numbered.2.] As for royalties and sales of 2-4 thousand. Is it possible that
Dobell arranged the licensing for the American issue on Candid [at least
of volume one] and, in turn, reported these sales to Mr. McCormick?3.] Doug Dobell is deceased.Andrew Brown wrote:>I discussed the recent thread on the "Treasury of Field
>Recordings" (77 Records) with Mack McCormick last night. He
>dismisses the "99 copies" claim as a fantasy, stating that
>everyone involved received at least one copy (that would have been
>about 30-40 people), and moreover, he received royalties on copies
>sold from Dobell for many years -- throughout the sixties if not
>the 1970s. He estimates that actually 2-4 thousand were sold over
>a period of time.
>
>He wanted to know if Dobell was still living. That didn't come up
>during the thread, I don't think.
>
>He claims the Joel & Lightning Hopkins album on Heritage (1001)
>was in fact a limited edition of 99 copies.
>
>--Andrew
>
>
>
>
>________________________________________________________________
>Sent via the EV1 webmail system at mail.ev1.net
>
>
>

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Start:Anne Dhu Shapiro, 'The Tune-Family Concept in British-American
Folk-Song Scholarship', Harvard, Music Department, May, 1975.Slightly extended background, but probably not progress.
DDM-online (Univ. of Indiana) cites it thus:Anne Rondeau Shapiro, 'The Tune-Family Concept in
British-American Folk-Song Scholarship', Harvard, Music
Department, May, 1975. 2 vols; 394 pages.
DDM Code 02etShaA   DA no.   RILM no. 76:11931ddLittle of this is useful at wwwlib.umi.com/dissertations/search,
where one should be able to purchase a copy of the thesis. For
search you specify author and date range for degree. But it
ignores your date range, and only searches 2002 and 2003. I
think the $25 they want to do the search for you may be the only
way, and if your time is worth as much as $25 per hour it begins
to look like a bargain.Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

----- Original Message -----
From: Bruce Olson <[unmask]><<That Scots tune, "Gilderoy" was around for over a century and a half
before there was a "Star of the County Down" song to give it its new
Irish name.>>I used the name by which it's most commonly known to fiddlers, at least
American fiddlers.Peace,
Paul

Paul Stamler wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Bruce Olson <[unmask]>
>
> <<That Scots tune, "Gilderoy" was around for over a century and a half
> before there was a "Star of the County Down" song to give it its new
> Irish name.>>
>
> I used the name by which it's most commonly known to fiddlers, at least
> American fiddlers.
>
> Peace,
> PaulGood advice I've found is, when in Rome do as the Romans do.Bruce OlsonRoots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Sorry, your browser doesn't support iframes.

Hi!        Here I am again - with more items for your bidding (and
discussion)!        SONGSTERS        2553928999 - The Gipsy Songster, 1844, $10.50 (ends Sep-02-03
14:07:38 PDT)        3623812335 - JOHN FOSTER'S NEW YORK GREAT CIRCUS SONGSTER, $9.99
(ends Sep-03-03 10:20:42 PDT)        SONGBOOKS, ETC.        2553162272 - Early Spanish-Californian Folk-Songs by Hague,
1922, $9.99 (ends Aug-31-03 10:00:00 PDT)        3546672328 - Smiling Jim Waters - Singing Cowboy Song Folio,
1940, $5 (ends Aug-31-03 12:39:03 PDT)        3546722803 - Folk Songs of the Blue Ridge Mountains by Shellans,
1968, $7.99 (ends Aug-31-03 16:12:54 PDT)        3547189725 - Steamboatin Days Folk Songs of the River Packet Era
by Wheeler, 1944, $9.99 (ends Aug-31-03 19:27:39 PDT)        3546780452 - A HANDFUL OF PLEASANT DELIGHTS, 1924, $22 (ends
Aug-31-03 20:31:11 PDT)        3546880469 - Ballads From The Streets and Jails of Ireland by
Shannon, 1966, $11.50 (ends Sep-01-03 11:11:57 PDT)        3546885390 - A Book of Shanties by Smith, 1927, 10.50 GBP (ends
Sep-01-03 11:29:22 PDT)        3546844916 - Sea Songs and Shanties by Whall, 1948 edition,
$17.95 (ends Sep-01-03 18:00:00 PDT)        2553773826 - Reliques of Ancient English Poetry by Percy, 1887
printing, 3 volumes, $38 (ends Sep-01-03 18:55:38 PDT)        3547124332 - Folk Legacies Revisited by Cohen, 1995, $4.99 (ends
Sep-02-03 13:43:39 PDT)        3547194727 - American Negro Folk Songs by White, 1928, $5 (ends
Sep-02-03 19:50:15 PDT)        3547245080 - THE BROADSIDE BALLAD. The Development of the Street
Ballad From Traditional Song to Popular Newspaper by Shepard, 1962,
$9.99 (ends Sep-03-03 06:15:23 PDT)        3345138287 - Bradley Kincaid's Collection Mountain Ballads,
1939, $3 (ends Sep-03-03 16:00:43 PDT)        3546807935 - EIGHTY ENGLISH FOLK SONGS by Sharp & Karpeles, 1975
edition, 8.50 GBP (ends Sep-04-03 02:11:20 PDT)        2554488122 - Songs Under Sail by Heaton, 1963, 8.50 GBP (ends
Sep-04-03 12:32:38 PDT)        3547689783 - Popular Music of the Olden Time by Chappell, 2
volumes, 1965 Dover reprint, $4 (ends Sep-04-03 15:04:53 PDT)        3547713493 - Scottish Ballads by Lyle, 1995, $4.99 (ends
Sep-04-03 16:45:08 PDT)        2554625101 - Simmons Family Songbook, 1976 printing, $4.95 (ends
Sep-04-03 17:54:21 PDT)        3547754851 - Journal of American Folklore, winter, 1995, $2.50
(ends Sep-04-03 20:22:07 PDT)        3547756276 - The Ballad And The Plough by Cameron, $7.99 (ends
Sep-04-03 20:30:42 PDT)        3547756913 - British Ballads From Maine by Barry, Eckstrom &
Smyth, 1929, $19 (ends Sep-04-03 20:35:06 PDT)        3547855989 - Book of British Ballads by How, 2 volumes,
1842-1844, 1.76 w/reserve (ends Sep-05-03 11:50:11 PDT)        3547574187 - Jacobite songs and ballads by Scott?, 1887 edition,
$10.75 w/reserve (ends Sep-07-03 10:37:36 PDT)        3547605043 - Ballads From The Pubs Of Ireland by Healey, vol. 1,
1996 edition, 3 GBP (ends Sep-07-03 11:45:50 PDT)        3547634691 - Folk Song in England by Lloyd, 1975 edition, 1.50
GBP (ends Sep-07-03 12:46:42 PDT)        3547679886 - HOLROYD'S COLLECTION of YORKSHIRE BALLADS, 1892,
$20 (ends Sep-07-03 14:34:33 PDT)        MISCELLANEOUS        2553572141 - YONDER GO THAT OLD BLACK DOG/BLUES,SPRITUALS AND
FOLKSONGS FROM RURAL GEORGIA by Jones & family, 1974 Testament LP, $2.99
(ends Aug-31-03 19:03:48 PDT)                                Happy Bidding!
                                Dolores--
Dolores Nichols                 |
D&D Data                        | Voice :       (703) 938-4564
Disclaimer: from here - None    | Email:     <[unmask]>
        --- .sig? ----- .what?  Who me?

Anne Dhu McLucas (nee Shapiro) says she alone can provide a copy of her
thesis, and will do so for me for costs of duplication, and postage.
Her offer has been accepted.Bruce Olson
--
Roots of Folk: Old British Isles popular and folk songs, tunes,
and broadside ballads at my no-spam website
<A href="http://www.erols.com/olsonw"> Click here for homepage (=
subject index) </a>