Thanks for that Philip I agree. That is why my intial request was for
   written references to Jimmy pre NPS. Matt replied almost by return to
   say there were none. My beef was there is no excuse post 1944 for
   conjuring up a name for no good reason. If Barry provides the evidence
   that Jimmy Allen and Jamie Allen are indeed different people
   my objections will evaporate.
   Warmest & best
   Anthony
   Thu, 12/3/09, Philip Gruar <phi...@gruar.clara.net> wrote:

     From: Philip Gruar <phi...@gruar.clara.net>
     Subject: [NSP] Re: J Allen (and Rants)
     To: nsp@cs.dartmouth.edu
     Date: Thursday, 12 March, 2009, 7:30 PM

   Irrespective of the origin and age of the tune, surely - as anyone who
   has
   done any research into family history knows - the spelling of names in
   the
   18th and early 19th century was subject to almost infinite variation
   (and
   how many spellings are there for Shakespeare??)
   so - when James, Jem, Jemy, Jemmy, Jamie, Jim, Jimmy, Jimmie, Allen,
   Allan,
   Alan gave his name orally to someone who then wrote it down, the clerk
   may
   have (aurally?) heard the name correctly and used any number of
   spellings to
   write it down. I suppose the question hangs on what spelling Allen
   himself
   used when (and if) he wrote it. A couple of generations before him, his
   family certainly wouldn't have been literate, and would neither know
   nor
   care about the spelling. The way it is spelt in the published "Life" is
   probably just a snapshot of one time in the name's life. More relevant
   may
   be how Allen's family said it - what accent, and did they use a more or
   less
   "Scottish" pronunciation? Does it matter, or is it a question of rival
   nationalisms either side the Border?
   Just a thought from Philip (often mispelled Phillip - preferably not
   Phil,
   and certainly not Pip if you don't mind) Gruar - whose not very distant
   ancestor, a tenant farmer on the Highland Line at the time J. Allen was
   around, was spelt at different times Gruar, Gruer, Grewar and Growar.
   Now - Rants. I can theorise endlessly about the precise relative length
   of
   paired quavers in baroque music, but I'm not a particularly good piper,
   and
   don't live in the centre of "The Tradition". For the benefit of those
   reading this who live completely outside it, could experts please
   confirm if
   I'm right that in "Rant" playing the quavers are very *slightly*
   uneven, but
   not as "dotted" as in a hornpipe, and giving a "heavier" feel than in a
   reel,
   because in a reel you feel two minim (half-note) beats in a bar - each
   beat
   made of four equal quavers (quarter-notes). In Rants and Hornpipes it's
   definitely four crotchet (quarter note) beats to the bar, each beat
   normally
   consisting of two uneven quavers, but in a hornpipe the first quaver is
   strongly accented and lengthened, and the second one is very light and
   short. The rant gives much more equal weight to the two quavers. Is
   this
   easier to understand than tomato soup and gobstoppers, or am I talking
   through my hat?
   Oh, and welcome to the list Anthony, it's great to have your
   contributions.
   Philip
   To get on or off this list see list information at
   [1]http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

   --

References

   1. http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html

Reply via email to