Chiff and Fipple Forums

benhall.1 wrote:The rhythm is reminiscent (allowing for not very good ABCs ) of Pachelbel's canon ... it couldn't be that that you're thinking of, could it?

No, not the Canon at all. There's a syncopation to the melody that the Canon doesn't have, although the meter and pace are similar. I tried to render that syncopation by "d2 B c2 d" and the like.

Nanohedron wrote:

benhall.1 wrote:The rhythm is reminiscent (allowing for not very good ABCs ) of Pachelbel's canon ... it couldn't be that that you're thinking of, could it?

No, not the Canon at all. There's a syncopation to the melody that the Canon doesn't have, although the meter is similar. I tried to render that syncopation by "d2 B c2 d" and the like.

... but that doesn't come across as syncopation - it comes across simply as a piece in 6/8.

benhall.1 wrote:

Nanohedron wrote:

benhall.1 wrote:The rhythm is reminiscent (allowing for not very good ABCs ) of Pachelbel's canon ... it couldn't be that that you're thinking of, could it?

No, not the Canon at all. There's a syncopation to the melody that the Canon doesn't have, although the meter is similar. I tried to render that syncopation by "d2 B c2 d" and the like.

... but that doesn't come across as syncopation - it comes across simply as a piece in 6/8.

Yes, I'm aware of the problem. I don't know if it was written in 4/4 or 12/8; it could be either. This is why I was hoping someone could take my poor rendering and hear the notes on their own apart from any other considerations.

Perhaps "syncopation" is the wrong term. The pulse, the accent, is on the notes with the 2; these notes obviously have twice the length of the unnumbered ones, so there is a sort of staggering effect to the rhythm.

Nanohedron wrote:Perhaps "syncopation" is the wrong term. The pulse, the accent, is on the notes with the 2; these notes obviously have twice the length of the unnumbered ones, so there is a sort of staggering effect to the rhythm.

What? Like in a piece in 6/8 you mean?

Sure, why not. Please remember that theory and I aren't even within waving distance of each other. I've always been a by-ear player first and foremost, so the way I wrote out the ABCs is how I hear it in units. 12/8 would work, maybe. It might make more sense to take out the bars altogether, if it helps.

benhall.1 wrote:I've no idea. What an odd progression ...

I've no idea either, but can't see anything remotely odd about it. Except calling it a progression, which makes me think of chords (so please don't tell me what I already know, i.e. you can have melodic progression too!)...

Never mind. Found it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5sbgMv6db4

Vivaldi, Lute Concerto in D Major, Largo. It was surprisingly easy to find once I remembered that the piece came up in a John Wayne movie, of all things. All I did was type in the keywords "the cowboys john wayne guitar", and that narrowed the search right down to a pinpoint.

Nanohedron wrote:Never mind. Found it:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5sbgMv6db4

Vivaldi, Lute Concerto in D Major, Largo. It was surprisingly easy to find once I remembered that the piece came up in a John Wayne movie, of all things. All I did was type in the keywords "the cowboys john wayne guitar", and that narrowed the search right down to a pinpoint.

That's lovely. The rhythm is very interesting (to me, at any rate). It's not X2X X2X but X>X X>X. In other words, you don't count "one, two and; one, two and"; you count "one, two, three and; one, two, three and". That makes the later inclusion of both triplets (effectively threes against twos) and then groups of four semi-quavers (? - I don't know how it's written out, so that's a guess based on the beat being a crotchet) and then demi-semi-quavers surprising, in the sense used by Quantz - interestingly different.

Peter Duggan wrote:

benhall.1 wrote:I've no idea. What an odd progression ...

I've no idea either, but can't see anything remotely odd about it. Except calling it a progression, which makes me think of chords (so please don't tell me what I already know, i.e. you can have melodic progression too!)...

Wouldn't dream of it.

I can't remember what I was thinking of when I wrote it, but I suspect that it was the chords implied by the notes as written out.

Deb said, "Ooh! That's like the mandolin concerto!"

I found this, which is beautiful, I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDbJsz2rNc

benhall.1 wrote:In other words, you don't count "one, two and; one, two and"; you count "one, two, three and; one, two, three and".

As a teacher, I'd not normally do either because they're potentially confusing (numbered) beats with beat subdivisions, though I'm guessing you've done it like that to bring out the long/short elements or articulate with the ABC.

I teach '1 & 2 &' for simple division into twos (e.g. quavers in 2/4), '1 a with a 2 a with a' for same into fours (semiquavers in 2/4) and '1 & a 2 & a' for compound (quavers in 6/8) or triplets. So might do '1 & a 2 & a' and '1 a with a 2 a with a' and/or draw something more graphic, which is obviously not so easy here.

Might add that years and years ago we had a trad concert/talk at school from (I think) Allan Henderson and others where they taught 'alligator crocodile' for reels and 'carrots and cabbages' for jigs and I've been using these ever since (even discovered you can double your cabbages for slip jigs)!

benhall.1 wrote:That makes the later inclusion of both triplets (effectively threes against twos) and then groups of four semi-quavers (? - I don't know how it's written out, so that's a guess based on the beat being a crotchet) and then demi-semi-quavers surprising, in the sense used by Quantz - interestingly different.

From checking the available scores at IMSLP, it's in common time with the pervading dotted rhythm comprising dotted semiquavers (dotted 16th notes) and demisemiquavers (32nd notes). There are no written triplets, with these all being soloist's ornamentation. The repeated bass pulse is quavers (8th notes), so long, long beats (c.25 bpm here!) and about as 'largo' as you get if you count them literally.

benhall.1 wrote:Deb said, "Ooh! That's like the mandolin concerto!"

I found this, which is beautiful, I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDbJsz2rNc

Have to say that tempo makes more sense of the notated beat!

Whole concerto, same (mandolin) soloist, all repeats observed:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5ROFFTddbi8

benhall.1 wrote:Deb said, "Ooh! That's like the mandolin concerto!"

I found this, which is beautiful, I think:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWDbJsz2rNc

Nice. And the visual contrast of the mandolin's mouse to the theorbo's elephant is fuel for comment, too, I must say.

I've heard it played on guitar, lute, and mandolin, but I believe it was originally written for the lute. The tune's lovely enough to sound good solo or accompanied on just about any instrument, although I think the kazoo would be a reach too far.

Peter Duggan wrote:From checking the available scores at IMSLP, it's in common time...

I'd claim vindication, but given my poor grasp of theory and appalling hand at ABCs, that would be futile. Ben makes a strong point that it could have been rendered in some kind of triple time. But in keeping with Peter's findings, here's another score (for drop-D guitar) in 4/4:

http://sologuitarist.net/Vivaldi.html

Nanohedron wrote:Ben makes a strong point that it could have been rendered in some kind of triple time.

Hmmm, sure Ben won't mind me jumping in before him to tell you he does nothing of the sort!