When is Common Time Not So Common?

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by stanron

Cheers. My point in asking you to post another sample is to demonstrate that they do sound different but not so different that I could guarantee which was which if played separately especially at speed. The point being that for practical purposes the three ways of writing the tune are interchangeable.

Was the sheet music you posted directly linked to the Irish Rover?

The two ways are close but I would not say interchangeable. The score is the official score. I could not say what Irish Rover used.

The question on the Irish Rover recording is how the singing is timed at such points as the lyric "hol - y green" - are the "hol" and "green" each three times longer in duration than "y" or two times longer than "y". If the former (and to my ears this is the case) then they sung it like how the music score is written.

[stanron]

I'm listening to Holy green at 1.07 and 'Ho' sounds like 2 and 'ly' sounds like 1. Different ears and different perceptions I suppose.

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by stanron

I'm listening to Holy green at 1.07 and 'Ho' sounds like 2 and 'ly' sounds like 1. Different ears and different perceptions I suppose.

Can't argue with anyone's perceptions. No one is an outside observer of reality. In that case you could count 6/8 or 4/4. I like 4/4 for other reasons also, but no way am I bringing up those.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

My point all along has been that in this tune you have the following timing throughout the refrain:

and I tried to express these note durations in number form as 123-1-123-1-123-1-123-1.

OK, I understand that now, but it would be clearer to refer to those 16ths as "4" (last quarter of the beat),maybe like this:

1234-1234-1234-1234

Originally Posted by rick-slo

I thought I was being pretty clear as I made the point early on in reference to the score. This is what is in the score (by the composer of the music, but what does he know?)

Composers rarely write the published scores of their music. Pop or rock writers never do. (However, although I don't know, this composer was probably a literate professional who would probably have provided some kind of lead sheet to his publisher)

I have to say (if it hasn't been clear so far) that I no longer regard that notation as "wrong", but as as an acceptable approximation of what the intended sound of the piece is.
IMO the composer wanted to write a pastiche Irish tune with a traditional jig rhythm. Jigs, as mentioned before, are conventionally written in 6/8. (Just to confirm: this is not a reel.)
If he did indeed write it down as notated by his publisher, he presumably felt it needed a 2/2 feel, but that putting it in 12/8 (or some kind of additive 6/8+6/8) would look too fussy - and he would have been right.
So the dotted 8th beats (with triplet markings where necessary), along with that "lilt" instruction, was felt - either by him or his publisher - to express the intention well enough. One would have to pretty dumb not to recognise the idea as an Irish pastiche!
I strongly doubt the composer really intended the dotted 8ths to be played strictly as written. That would sound very stiff, and would be difficult to achieve combined with triplets, or with any sense of a "lilt". Dotted 8ths - played strictly - have a military march vibe, not a jig vibe.
Indeed, there is a tradition in popular music (I've been reading this stuff a long time!) of using dotted 8ths to indicate a 2+1 triplet rhythm in 4/4 (such blues shuffles or even swing). It's not correct, but is (or was) obviously considered near enough without getting too fiddly.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

and to my ears in the youtube video of The Irish Rovers.

Well, as we've agreed, the sound of dotted 8ths and triplet 8ths in a 2+1 rhythm is very close at that tempo. But it seems you're trusting the notation over the sound. Nobody with any sense of Irish tradition would struggle to play dotted 8th rhythms when a 6/8 feel is both easier and more traditional.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

This rhythm fits into 4/4 or 2/2, not into 6/8.

Well yes, a dotted 8th rhythm does not fit into 6/8. That isn't the point.
My point (or rather my firm opinion) is that the notation is a compromise, an approximation, that was felt - rightly or wrongly - to be clearer to read than the 6/8 feel intended.
To my ears, the Irish Rovers (like all other performers of this tune I've heard) follow the implication of jig feel. (Although others may state the 6/8 more clearly, eg, by playing full triplets in the backing behind those supposed "dotted 8th" rhythms.)

Originally Posted by rick-slo

If your ears hear (or you just prefer changing the rhythm to) two tied eighth notes in a group of three eighth notes (giving note lengths of 12-1-12-1-12-1-12-1) that is fine with me. Then you could use 6/8 as well as 4/4 or 2/2

Exactly.
Our only disagreement, then (other than our aural interpretation of beat fractions in a rather fuzzy live youtube), is about the composer's intentions. Or maybe about how accurate notation is supposed (or can be expected) to be, in music like this.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by geordie

Steve, all these figures being banded about here don't mean much to me so here's some lift, swing, call it what you will - in reel time -

http://youtu.be/AgM1mwGxLf8

http://youtu.be/2tnWxsNshZQ

http://youtu.be/MH6qSHHnTm0

Nice examples - thanks!

I hadn't thought about it too much before, but that seems exactly like jazz swing feel to me. There are occasional triplets in linking phrases (as there often is in jazz swing), but otherwise the 8ths are gently swung - not as far as 2+1 triplet feel, and certainly not further into 3+1 dotted 8th feel.

This is a different feel from Christmas in Killarney (as I think you're saying).

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Then you would have to be saying the official score of this music is written incorrectly

I won't speak for Paikon, but that's what I'm saying, yes.
You're betraying your prejudice here with the word "official". Notation is not "official", however prestigious the publisher is. As a famous conductor once said (with regard to a classical piece, I think, or at least an orchestral arrangement of some kind), a score "is not the music. It's merely some information about the music."
The accent being on "some" as much as "information". The "music" is what happens when performers interpret the score; which means following their instinct and experience, as much as the dots on the page.

The notation - strictly speaking - is incorrect (IMO). But it doesn't have to be strictly correct, especially not in vernacular music like this. It just has to be near enough; easy to read and interpret.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by stanron

This is kinda turning into an argument over nothing. The dotted eighth and sixteenth rhythm is a shorthand for triplet time. It is easier to write and, when you know it, it is easy enough to read. It happens in folk music particularly. It is not meant to be read literally.

My sentiments entirely! (And expressed far more succinctly than I managed )

[Mr Fixit eh]

Thanks for all the most interesting replies - I learned alot.

Steve

[rick-slo]

Originally Posted by JonPR

I won't speak for Paikon, but that's what I'm saying, yes.
You're betraying your prejudice here with the word "official". Notation is not "official", however prestigious the publisher is. As a famous conductor once said (with regard to a classical piece, I think, or at least an orchestral arrangement of some kind), a score "is not the music. It's merely some information about the music."
The accent being on "some" as much as "information". The "music" is what happens when performers interpret the score; which means following their instinct and experience, as much as the dots on the page.

The notation - strictly speaking - is incorrect (IMO). But it doesn't have to be strictly correct, especially not in vernacular music like this. It just has to be near enough; easy to read and interpret.

Well I guess stubborn is as stubborn does. The score is correct as written. It would have been just as easy to score it as tied triplets if that was the rhythm intended and to say they would have written it otherwise if that was the timing they meant is an extreme stretch of plausibility. You have already admitted that the timing in the midi of this score sounds like the timing in Irish Rovers recording. Of course you said the midi did not match the written score, but my posted examples showed that it did. You may now try to backtrack from that, but the is case closed as far as I am concerned.

[PlaysGuitar]

Interesting thread - especially that the sheet music is only an indication of what the intention of where the composer wanted the music to go.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Well I guess stubborn is as stubborn does.

Not sure how I can be "stubborn", if I'm also "backtracking" (as you say below).
I'm not the one here who is sticking firmly to one unaltered position... (one man's "stubborn" is the next man's "principled stand" .)

Originally Posted by rick-slo

The score is correct as written.

That's your opinion, because (as I see it):
(a) you hear no difference between it and the performance (very reasonable)
(b) you trust the notation as literally (in its dotte 8th+16th rhythms) what the composer intended (less reasonable (IMO).

It's a common observation that there is a tradition in published sheet music (over many decades, although less common today) of using dotted 8ths to indicate a triplet or shuffle feel in pop, rock and blues. IOW, they are - or were - very often not meant to be taken literally.

Of course we don't know the composer's intention here. It may well be that you are correct, and he really did intend performers to play some of it with dotted 8ths and 16ths, and some of it with triplets. That would be a bizarre choice, but then composers are Artists and Artists can sometimes be a bit weird...
But this is not a piece of Art music, with intricate rhythmic changes. It's a song called "Christmas in Killarney", clearly meant to be a jolly light-hearted reference to Irish jigs. Irish jigs are played with a consistent triplet feel, however they might be notated. And that's clearly the spirit in which all the versions of this song I've heard are performed.

So my money is on the dotted 8ths being in the tradition of a shorthand indication of a jaunty 2+1 triplet feel, not a hard and fast 3+1 16th feel.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

It would have been just as easy to score it as tied triplets if that was the rhythm intended

Well, that's the question. That was my thinking when I first posted in this thread, and was why I said the notation was "wrong" (which I now heartily regret ).

It would be rhythmically correct (according to tradition) to write the whole thing in 6/8, and not significantly fussier or harder to read. Maybe even easier to read.
But that suggests a constant 2-beat rhythm, and would miss the implication that there is also an underlying 4-beat rhythm (double-length bars), or 2+2, as indicated by the cut time sig.
That might well be something that the composer (or the publisher) regarded as important - even if it's not that obvious in performance - and would explain the choice of 2/2.
Once the music is in 2/2, then a compound time sig would have to be 12/8, or 6/8+6/8 (additive sig). The latter is plain silly (IMO), and 12/8 is - IMO - harder to read than what they actually went for: 2/2 with dotted 8ths and triplets where necessary.

IOW, I'm coming round to the view that the notation is fine, provided we view the dotted 8ths as not literal, but as an easy-read shorthand for a lilting jig rhythm.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

and to say they would have written it otherwise if that was the timing they meant is an extreme stretch of plausibility.

On the contrary, it's not only plausible (that dotted 8ths stand for jig triplet feel), but quite likely. As I say, that shorthand is (or was at that time) common elsewhere.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

You have already admitted that the timing in the midi of this score sounds like the timing in Irish Rovers recording.

Yes, but it doesn't sound like dotted 8ths. Admittedly that seems odd to me. When I put that notation into MIDI it sounds different.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Of course you said the midi did not match the written score, but my posted examples showed that it did.

Except it didn't. It was very close, of course, but no cigar. Your examples were very legato, which tended to obscure the distinction a little.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

You may now try to backtrack from that,

Not at all. I'm backtracking from my original "wrong" assertion, but not from the difference in the midi.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

but the is case closed as far as I am concerned.

Yes, but that's what you said some pages back.
I'd say the same, but I'm not sure this horse is quite dead yet. I'd like to post some examples of the other notation options for this tune - just for visual comparison, but maybe with MIDI audio - but before I work out how to do that some mod may run out of patience and close the thread. (we can always hope...)

In case that happens, I want to get this cartoon in (take it any way you like - no hard feelings - but I think it applies to both of us ):


P.S. - take a listen to the MIDI performance of the music on this site (just press play), which clearly is from the notation as presented:
http://www.musicnotes.com/sheetmusic...?ppn=MN0046056
- the feel of the dotted 8ths is unnaturally stiff and quite different from the triplet feel. You won't convince me the composer really intended it to be played like that. And I don't hear any performers playing it like that.
But YMMV, obviously .

[brahmz118]

Originally Posted by stanron

This is kinda turning into an argument over nothing. The dotted eighth and sixteenth rhythm is a shorthand for triplet time. It is easier to write and, when you know it, it is easy enough to read. It happens in folk music particularly. It is not meant to be read literally.

Originally Posted by rick-slo

Not true at all.

Yes, what stanron wrote is very true. Dotted 8th + 16th is very often a shorthand for triplet time - and the strict playing of the dotted rhythm would be considered incorrect performance practice. There's really no basis to argue with this if you look at the literature and the authentic performers.

Here's some Eubie Blake for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHJyE4U0t_8

Historian / musician Terry Waldo created the official transcriptions in the 70's, though Blake had been composing rags since the early 1900s. In Waldo's edition - he explains in the preface that the dotted 8th + 16th is meant to played as triplets, and that this is a tradition in jazz and ragtime notation. So all those swingy passages are notated as dotted rhythms.

Obviously this doesn't mean that -every- instance of a dotted 8th + 16th is meant to be interpreted in this way. But it's easy enough to tell when that's the case. Again, look at the literature. This is a well-established convention.

[JonPR]

Originally Posted by brahmz118

Yes, what stanron wrote is very true. Dotted 8th + 16th is very often a shorthand for triplet time - and the strict playing of the dotted rhythm would be considered incorrect performance practice. There's really no basis to argue with this if you look at the literature and the authentic performers.

Here's some Eubie Blake for example:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iHJyE4U0t_8

Historian / musician Terry Waldo created the official transcriptions in the 70's, though Blake had been composing rags since the early 1900s. In Waldo's edition - he explains in the preface that the dotted 8th + 16th is meant to played as triplets, and that this is a tradition in jazz and ragtime notation. So all those swingy passages are notated as dotted rhythms.

Obviously this doesn't mean that -every- instance of a dotted 8th + 16th is meant to be interpreted in this way. But it's easy enough to tell when that's the case. Again, look at the literature. This is a well-established convention.

Thanks - that was always my understanding, but good to have more evidence. (To be fair, this means I should not have accused the notation of being "wrong", as I first did. It's simply following this tradition. It's only "wrong" if one believes notation should always be literally accurate, and if one interprets the dotted 8ths as literally that.)

[Mr Fixit eh]

Originally Posted by JonPR

In case that happens, I want to get this cartoon in (take it any way you like - no hard feelings - but I think it applies to both of us ):

That's WAY too funny

I began to view this differently when I realized the original score included an intro in a slow 4/4 time. I think you're right in stating that there is an underlying 4/4 supporting the cut time.

Steve

[rick-slo]

The score was meant to be played as written and that is how it is being played in the examples previously given.



The score is more readable in 6/8 than 2/2, not less.



That the publisher would change the timing in the published sheet music to fit 2/2 even though it should be "understood" to be something else (and in most cases to be understood to be something else by the general public no less) makes no sense at all and is an absurd claim IMO.


From the original publisher here is sheet music (orchestrated) from 1950 (the year the tune was written)




The song is performed with this timing in the recordings I have come across, not modified into something else.

Here is a very nice recording of Barra MacNeils where the lyrics are very distinct.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SdUrdZmzFPo


Here is a section of this recording with a drum track using the same rhythm as in the score (dotted eights plus sixteenths, and it matches):
http://dcoombsguitar.com/Guitar%20Mu...cNeilsDrum.wav

I might add for any lingering doubters that the wavefore of the recording (as seen in Audacity for example) shows the time given to each word, which again matches the score).