Chiff and Fipple Forums

Thanks Peter. For practical purposes 'grace notes' works for me. But (and having just done a bit of googling) I do find reading up about the more formal terms sheds some light on what might be happening.

I think we've been ignoring the elephant in the room. Music does have a name for these ornaments. They're not appoggiaturas or acciaccaturas, both of which, as Peter has pointed out, don't sound like the ornaments we're talking about here. The name music has is a "tap", for a grace note starting from below the "main"* note and a "cut", for a grace note starting from above the "main" note.


* I've put inverted commas around the word "main" because I don't think it's a completely appropriate word here, but I can't think of a better word.

The rhythmic note, maybe a better term(?).

The name music has is a "tap", for a grace note starting from below the "main"* note and a "cut", for a grace note starting from above the "main" note.

To a point Ben. I didn't listen to any of the examples in this discussion (although I did spot Richard linked the Bold Trainor O) but in practice/real life, for example Willie Clancy would use the note below, as an ornament, playing for example {a} G2 {D}E2. However, it would not be a tap. He would, in that example, cut the G, with A, close whistle/flute or chanter very briefly to sound the bell note and then go to the melody note, E. Which is a very common way of doing things , but there would be no tap involved.

This could be an issue of terminology ofcourse but I'd think of a tap as hitting the note below to separate two notes of equal pitch: E{D}E, a quick flick whereas my example above involves landing on the note below, very briefly, before playing the melody note. Different things.

benhall.1 wrote:Music does have a name for these ornaments.

But not all is taps (pats, strikes) or cuts any more than it's appoggiaturas, acciaccaturas or even just plain grace notes. In particular I'd suggest that usage of slower tap- or cut-like things probably varies too much to classify them by our standard (rhythmic articulation) understanding of these terms, and some things are best just felt as identifiable, but not necessarily nameable, features of whatever or whoever's style.

When I said above by "reading up about the more formal terms sheds some light on what might be happening" I was wondering if the cuts and taps are entirely rhythmic. Does the choice of which to do, the timing relative to the beat and the length of the 'extra' note ever have something to do with the way the melody (hence harmony) is moving?

benhall.1 wrote:* I've put inverted commas around the word "main" because I don't think it's a completely appropriate word here, but I can't think of a better word.

fatmac wrote:The rhythmic note, maybe a better term(?).

How about just the note?

david_h wrote:I was wondering if the cuts and taps are entirely rhythmic. Does the choice of which to do, the timing relative to the beat and the length of the 'extra' note ever have something to do with the way the melody (hence harmony) is moving?

While we might argue about whether cuts and taps as we know them have a melodic function, I'd suggest that by the time they're long enough to have a harmonic intention they've become something else.

If you want further terminology for the longer grace note, Conal Ó Gráda's flute tutor talks about 'yelping' cuts and scrapes.

pancelticpiper wrote:

oleorezinator wrote:New age fluff.

It was standard technique in the 18th century.

Not only in Baroque music: it's long been a Highland pipe ornament too, and it's standard practice in slow air playing on the uilleann pipes.

Here Willie Clancy does it right away (at 0:05)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IHr5cC9e7Hw

Of course. Call me a snob (which I am)
but in my skewed vision of music
any technique used in the practice
of such pedestrian drivel renders it
to the same level.

Peter Duggan wrote: I'd suggest that by the time they're long enough to have a harmonic intention they've become something else.

Ah, yes, but - the ones in the slow tune in OP are quite long.

Peter Duggan wrote:

benhall.1 wrote:* I've put inverted commas around the word "main" because I don't think it's a completely appropriate word here, but I can't think of a better word.

fatmac wrote:The rhythmic note, maybe a better term(?).

How about just the note?

That doesn't work. Clearly, both the grace note and the ... er ... other, following, note are notes. So you can't just call the "main" note "the note". I don't really like "the rhythmic note" for the same reason.

How about the "melody note" ?

benhall.1 wrote:So you can't just call the "main" note "the note".

See, I think you can talk about a grace note above or below the note. Not sure I do or would, but think you can if you treat 'grace note' as a single entity...

I don't really like "the rhythmic note" for the same reason.

I didn't like that one at all when some may argue it suggests the cut or tap (not for taking up the rhythmic space in the tune but for articulating it rhythmically).

david_h wrote:How about the "melody note" ?

I'd thought of that, but they're also arguably both melody.

Some folk say parent note, but I'm not certain that's any better.

Peter Duggan wrote: Some folk say parent note, but I'm not certain that's any better.

Sometimes it's referred to as a principal note. For example, search for "principal" on this page: https://thecelticroom.org/playing-irish ... ation.html

Maddie wrote:https://thecelticroom.org/playing-irish ... ation.html

Just took a look and have to say there's, um, quite a lot wrong with that page.