Versions of tunes

[ausdag]

my op fwiw, is that: it becomes a "version" (as much as anything CAN be in an aurally transmitted body of work where improvisation & regional variation is expected) when a top flyte piper's rendition is widely imitated.
otoh, Critique of rank & file pipers who develop their own arrangements can range from nodding acceptance, to complete rejection.

Yeah, I guess so long as you're in a solo situation, you are free to play a tune however you like, and if you have enough chutzpah, even try doing things completely unexpected. You've created your own version and you'll get one of a number of reactions - rejection or imitation or something in between, the imitation bit depending on your prior credentials I guess as a bona fide piper in the eyes of others.

So in reality, to attempt to answer my own question now, it seems this notion of 'versions' is really quite fluid. For every 'accepted' version, there are probably dozens and dozens of individual musicians' versions that others might deem 'wrong', but in the end, as others have noted, what exactly is 'wrong'? except that one particular way (I'll not say version here) of playing a tune is not the 'way' it is played in a particular session context, but possibly quite acceptable in another.

At the same time, each one of these ways of playing a tune is also not meant to be set in stone as individual variation within the tune is a major component of the art of Irish music, isn't it?

I think therefore that some people may be in error when they hear a few bars of variation by an individual and think it is therefore a different version of the tune, not undertanding that that individual may never play it like that again, but next time introduce a different variation and so on and so forth.

[TheSilverSpear]

Just to clarify further. Mine have generally been positive queries, of the sort where I am asked about what version it was and then interest shown in how I played my B part for example with an aim to learn it themselves. But still it comes down to not really knowing the answer (is it the Donegal version played in the Willie Clancy style version??) other than it's from a (Rowsome) recording. So I guess the answer it 'it's the (Leo Rowsome version).
Not sure I'm familiar with the 'snippets technique'.

Maybe some discussion in cultural or regional differences to be had. I can't recall coming across anyone genuinely interested in where I learned "my" version of a tune or giving a toss whether it was from Clancy or McGoldrick or the dodgy session down the road. As I said, when I have been asked about an idiosyncratic version I have played, it is a polite way of saying, "You really should have another listen to that, dude." Though such criticism can be deflected with the caveat, "I dunno... I just make them up," which translates to, "Yeah, I probably did learn this/play this wrong but can I really be bothered to do anything about it?" Or once can simply say, "It's a variation. Get lost (while having a listen to John Carty)." Seriously, you're surely *supposed* to play variations that at least appear semi-spontaneous and, hopefully, clever and well considered, are you not? Is that not the point of achieving a certain level of competency with this music? In which case, they will be *your* variations. Not Clancy's or Ennis' or McGoldrick's or your session mate's.

The 'snippet' technique is where you play a snippet of a tune at a session in order to see if someone else knows it or to announce, "Lets play -- <snippet> -- and then -- <snippet.>" My reference was to a classic session.org thread from about three years ago, which I still think is comic gold.

[ausdag]

Compare the common setting of The Frieze Britches (e.g., that recorded by Planxty) with those recorded by Pat Mitchell.

Or Seamus Ennis - I have at least two different versions of this tune by him. His are much closer to the dots in O'Neill's than the others, by coincidence or otherwise.

It's been a long time since I saw an O'Neills. Does it have two different versions of the tune notated, and Ennis has recorded both of them?

[benhall.1]

Compare the common setting of The Frieze Britches (e.g., that recorded by Planxty) with those recorded by Pat Mitchell.

Or Seamus Ennis - I have at least two different versions of this tune by him. His are much closer to the dots in O'Neill's than the others, by coincidence or otherwise.

It's been a long time since I saw an O'Neills. Does it have two different versions of the tune notated, and Ennis has recorded both of them?

The Frieze Breeches is included as No 1051 in O'Neill's Music of Ireland (the "1850") and as No 260 in The Dance Music of Ireland, 1001 Gems. It's identical in the two collections. As far as I know O'Neill didn't include it elsewhere, in any other published collection.

[ausdag]

Ahh...which is what I'm getting at....An Draighean says he has 'two different versions' by Ennis but (both?) are close to the O'Neill dots - of which there is only one entry - ie, one version. So in actual fact, they aren't different 'versions' but rather the same 'verison' but recorded by Ennis on two separate occassions in which he added different variations. And if he were to record that same version again 3, 4 or 5 or so on times, the variations within that version would be different - which is to be expected because that is the fluid nature of Irish music? So it could be that when I'm asked about my 'version' people should really be asking about my variations?

[CHasR]

So it could be that when I'm asked about my 'version' people should really be asking about my variations?

yes, (hahaha, very clever! )...but only other musicians would get the distinction between 'version' & "variation"...
Even with a non musician that has an appreciative "musical" ear, ...the FIRST way they encounter a piece will always be the 'right' way, the way its 'supposed' to sound to them, the way they recognize it.

[Kevin L. Rietmann]

Oh, no, not snippets again! *runs away*

More seriously, does anyone seriously play a tune note for note, variation for variation, exactly as - insert name of famous player here - on one recording? I hope not.

A friend of mine recently learned Bonnie Kate from Kevin Burke. She was talking about how happy it was to play the tune with some variety in it, making things a bit less humdrum; I need to ask her tomorrow if she knows about the whole spontaneous variations aspect of Irish music in the first place. Seriously, where do you learn about that if you don't do a bit of digging? I got it first from the Clancy book, but no fiddler's going to buy that - they likely all think Willie's the guy who got the School started originally...and also, a lot of people just want to have some tunes with friends and all this variation business is just something they likely don't have time for.

I mean to write an article about this for the Pipers' Review - show 20 different ways of playing the first two bars of the Donnybrook Jig.

"I Buried My Wife" etc is another version of the Breeches, notice. The Collier's/Do You Want Any More are close cousins. No end of different versions of all of these. Willie's various Breeches are fascinating. In the original printing of the book I think I Buried was listed as one of them, IIRC.

Ennis said that he learned tunes out of O'Neill's but many of his settings are are anything but bookish, the Flannel (=Peeler's) Jacket is the one I always think of, with that roll on C natural in the first bar of the 2nd part. Maybe this was a setting from his Da, some other musician, or his own spin on a printed version - we'll never know.

I've always gotten settings from old recordings, which will lead you precisely nowhere when you venture out into public, of course. Figuring out what the "correct" (=mob ) setting is makes for a fresh challenge though. And where did those come from? Some are definitely from Michael Coleman's old records. This would make for a nice doctoral thesis from the U of L, if it hasn't been done already of course.

[benhall.1]

I'll tell you what gets me about this whole subject, and makes Irish music endlessly fascinating: this variations/versions business - not only do different people have different versions/settings, but they change markedly over time. Fashion is a big driver in this. So tunes that were played one way this year may not be played the same way, even by the same musicians, the following year. Sometimes - mostly - it's a slow process - but sometimes it isn't.

Still, I think it's worth distinguishing between different settings of tunes that are essentially 'the same' but played a bit differently, from different versions of tunes which recognisably share the same root, but which have become, in effect, like different tunes. I may not have chosen the right words here ("settings" and "versions"), so please substitute your own.

[TheSilverSpear]

A friend of mine recently learned Bonnie Kate from Kevin Burke. She was talking about how happy it was to play the tune with some variety in it, making things a bit less humdrum; I need to ask her tomorrow if she knows about the whole spontaneous variations aspect of Irish music in the first place. Seriously, where do you learn about that if you don't do a bit of digging? I got it first from the Clancy book, but no fiddler's going to buy that - they likely all think Willie's the guy who got the School started originally...and also, a lot of people just want to have some tunes with friends and all this variation business is just something they likely don't have time for.

I mean to write an article about this for the Pipers' Review - show 20 different ways of playing the first two bars of the Donnybrook Jig.

I didn't think you had to dig that deeply to find out about the "whole spontaneous variations aspect." There was me thinking it was common knowledge amongst Irish trad players. It certainly appeared that way when I was learning how to play. While it certainly seemed unattainable from my perspective at that time, it was the norm amongst the musicians I knew who were actually good. No digging was required. I picked up knowledge and awareness of it because it was simply there, amongst the musicians I was hanging out with at the time -- same way I picked up a lot of other aspects of the music and session etiquette. And we are talking Colorado here. Not deepest darkest Clare.

When I listen to someone playing, I am always tuned into their variations and how they play with the tune. That whole playfulness with the melody is a key aspect separating the mediocre players from good ones. I don't think of it as so-and-so's "version," though -- just and so-and-so felt like playing it in that one moment.

I remember Mr. Spear and I were trying to learn a tune and could not agree with one another on a tricky phrase in the B part. We went to trusty iTunes and found about half a dozen recordings of the tune and half a dozen totally different ways of playing the B part. We looked at each other and said, "Oh, F-- it. It obviously doesn't matter anyway!"

I agree with Ben that there is another meaning to "versions" which can be interchanged with "settings." If two tunes by the same name have vague melodic similarities but if I played one and you played the other, it would be a total trainwreck... well, that's not variation. That's another version/setting that makes it into a different tune!

[Nanohedron]

...what the "correct" (=mob ) setting is...

I like that.

[NicoMoreno]

When I teach, I try to pare down the tune to a "base" version. This "base" version could be thought of as the structural base of a tune or the bones of the tune, or whatever. Often people when varying tunes still have a skeleton that is never played on its own, but is the root of the variations or the base of the tune... all of these analogies are not exact, I hope you're catching. The concept of a "skeleton" isn't super helpful, because for tunes the skeleton is fuzzy and fluid.

Sometimes people have different skeletons of tunes. Sometimes these are different enough that you can't play them together. Sometimes it's obvious the skeleton is that of a cow, when everyone else is playing with horse skeletons... ie it's still the same basic shape, but something's a bit off. Most of the time when someone recognizes that you're playing a certain tune, but your version is different, it likely has something to do with this skeleton. Not that anyone ever pares the tune down like that in a session, and talking about what the skeleton is isn't even necessarily fruitful. I may have a "base" version one day and another a different day. Or it may be a matter of bigger differences.

I also wrote elsewhere recently the following:
I think of tunes in three categories of relatedness (and there's obviously a spectrum along these lines so it's pretty hard to draw hard lines between them):
1. Minor variations (pretty much identical, but maybe with some small turns, ornaments, or notes a little different.) Ex: Doody's version of the Glen Cottage Polka #1 vs the Murhpy's
2. Variants (still the same tune, but you couldn't play them together) Ex: Doody's two part Box the Monkey vs the regular three part Behind the Haystack (vs the four part Box the Monkey from the Goodman collection). Another example might be the Frieze Britches 5 vs 6 vs 7 part (session vs Willie Clancy vs Leo Rowsome).
3. Related (and here I'd never worry about the mechanism of how they were related, but I'd lump all of Alan's mechanisms in here) Ex: I buried my wife vs Frieze Britches. Or all of the tunes in the Lark in Morning family (the yellow haired boy, lark in the morning, lark's march, galway tom, etc etc).

Another way to think of it is that the first category you can play together, the second you can't, but you wouldn't really be able to play them one after the other and have it sound or feel like two tunes, and the third you could play them in the same set and it'd be two distinct tunes. For example: Willie Clancy's #57 and Tom Busby's; Winnie Hayes and the Cordal; I buried my wife and the frieze britches (this is the hardest for me). Why are they all jigs?

[Kevin L. Rietmann]

Why are they all jigs?

Oh, reels get confusing too. Played a few with Joey Arbata after he and his crew did a house concert the other night, we played the Kildare Fancy hornpipe and then Joey went into a whole string of reels that just pedaled around the A, Beauty Spot, Merry Harriers, the Gauger or Gouger or Dan McCarthy's or whatever it's called, and I forget what else. When we were done I complimented him on the confusing selection.

I remember Mr. Spear and I were trying to learn a tune and could not agree with one another on a tricky phrase in the B part. We went to trusty iTunes and found about half a dozen recordings of the tune and half a dozen totally different ways of playing the B part. We looked at each other and said, "Oh, F-- it. It obviously doesn't matter anyway!"

Another pet project of mine would be to do a podcast with just that, multiple takes of some given tune. Helps that I have all this rot on my computer, all labeled, all I have to do is enter some title and every instance of it shows up in the results; also I can remember all the different titles of tunes. Know another title for the Silver Spear, for instance? Martin Wynne called it either "Ennis's Fancy" or "Carney's Fancy," forget which, but hey, give me a break.

I made big MP3s of these tunes once for demonstration purposes but that was way too much work; I could cue things up one after another and save the whole mess as a big audio file though. That wouldn't be much of a chore.

[ausdag]

It's wonderful to wake up on this Antipodean morning to find the thread has carried on over night with all these great contributions.

I was fortunate in my early days of piping to have access to the Willie Clancy book and also the other writing by Pat Mitchell as found on theSRS journals (before there was this internet full of easy to access downloads), so I too always just assumed the whole idea of playing a tune was to add variations on the fly, either by skillfully making something up (based on certain conventions some of which Pat Mitchell outlines) and hoping it doesn't send your fingers completely off the rails, or by adding in a 'riff' that was picked up from another player.

Listening to Willie Clancy play Rakish Paddy (Track 10, CD 2, 'The Gold Ring') is a prime example where he plays the thing some 4 or 5 times over and each time he varies it remarkably. Listen to Felix Doran's playing of Rakish Paddy, you can see where Clancy got some of his ideas, but I like to think there's a lot in there that Clancy just made up on the fly too.

Had Pat Mitchell been able to record and notate every instance that Clancy played Rakish Paddy, lets say there were 235 instances, I imagine that each of those 235 annotations would have something different about them whilst all still being the same verison of the tune.

[ausdag]

I also wrote elsewhere recently the following:
I think of tunes in three categories of relatedness (and there's obviously a spectrum along these lines so it's pretty hard to draw hard lines between them):
1. Minor variations (pretty much identical, but maybe with some small turns, ornaments, or notes a little different.) Ex: Doody's version of the Glen Cottage Polka #1 vs the Murhpy's
2. Variants (still the same tune, but you couldn't play them together) Ex: Doody's two part Box the Monkey vs the regular three part Behind the Haystack (vs the four part Box the Monkey from the Goodman collection). Another example might be the Frieze Britches 5 vs 6 vs 7 part (session vs Willie Clancy vs Leo Rowsome).
3. Related (and here I'd never worry about the mechanism of how they were related, but I'd lump all of Alan's mechanisms in here) Ex: I buried my wife vs Frieze Britches. Or all of the tunes in the Lark in Morning family (the yellow haired boy, lark in the morning, lark's march, galway tom, etc etc).

Interesting stuff Nico. I've just reminded myself of the tune Lord McDonald. Commonly played as three part tune, but where the parts, as far as I can remember are ordered: A/B/A/C and so on. Now I listen to Leo Rowsome on 'King of the Pipers' and he plays what amounts to the commonly-heard tune, ie the melody is recognisably that which one hears in sessions or sees in tune boooks, but with the major exception being his order of the parts goes C/B/A/C/B/A.

To me that would be the 'common version', but played with a different 'setting' but I guess falling into your category #2 (plus of course a few of Rowsomes additional #1s within the tune). Oi vey!

[NicoMoreno]

Oh, reels get confusing too.

Well, yeah. I meant "why are all my examples jigs?" Of course there was a polka example, so the joke was a little facetious.

@Ausdag:
I guess my point was that the fuzzy skeleton may be different enough (perhaps due to one or two accent notes in a different, odd, or unusual place) to warrant the questioning of where the version came from.

There's plenty of talk of versions to be found online, in sessions, and among good musicians, for example "Mike Rafferty's version", "The east clare version" and so on, so I'm sure you can find out more information.