On 4 Nov 2010, Gibbons, John wrote: >Reavely's set is fine but a bit short for addicts of long > variation sets.
Well, folk seem to be interested in our "workings out", so here goes. I think the three of us would agree that tunes we have from Reavely are generally a very useful source. (for this tune that's Matt's first 3 strains, or the version in the pink Bewick book if folk have that). There is a medal awaiting anyone who can manage to get a complete copy of Reavely to pass around, BTW. It might be a chocolate medal, but researchers would be very grateful, really. I am less familiar with the Crawhall MS as a source: since I wrestled with the Lister MS for the Hill book I rarely use Farne, as the pictures are so poor compared with the originals, and I haven't found time to study all the available originals (one day, maybe - ooh, look, flying pigs!) Considering just Crawhall's strain 1 & 2: X:1 T:Where Hast Thou Been A' The Day, waggin thy hand? S:Crawhall ms (Farne) M:6/8 L:1/16 E:10 K:G e2|d2B2G2 G2BcdB|d2g2B2 d4 f2|d2B2G2 G2BcdB|d2gfB2 d4 f2:|\ d2g2f2 g2d2B2|e2A2B2 c4 e2|d2g2f2 g2d2B2|G2g2f2 d4 f2|\ d2g2f2 g2d2B2|e2A2B2 c4 e2|d2B2G2 G2BcdB|d2g2g2 d4 f2||* I do like bars 2 & 6 in strain 2, which give a totally different effect to the RR version. It would be possible to produce a plausible set based on these strains: it would be different to one based on RR, in my view. What do we know about Crawhall's possible sources? I am less comfortable with his later strains which do seem to introduce the "Newmarket Races" element, particularly that last one. Is it possible he was doing something similar to what we are doing now, and these are his "thoughts" on an extension? Or was he more of a collector, and this has come from person or persons unknown? I also just realised there is a "Lord Randal" in the Clough index but I didn't publish it. This turns out to be on the same page as "Wounded Hussar", and is a basic tune only: X:1 T:Lord Randal S:Clough MSS M:3/4 L:1/4 K:G G B B|B d2|d A B|A G2|d e e|f g2|e e d|d d2|\ d e e|f g g|e d e|d B2|A G B|d D2|G A G|G G2|| Pity, but if it had been a variation set I would have printed it, I guess. But at least we know that the family were aware of the tune, which tells us something. > Your extension is very fine; many thanks for this. There are some nice stretches in this. One strain I note as using arpeggios similar in basic idea to my rushed contribution: other passages are "typical" Seattle. I wonder if some of them play better on border pipes than on nsp: both John & Matt play open ended pipes. I can't, although I have a low A chanter which plays in unison with A ssp, to try and get the effects. > The Reavely-Crawhall-Julia-me collaboration sounds ok, > but Julia's and my strain isn't quite right yet to my ear. It certainly isn't right, and I'd want to live with it and alter things before putting any more up. Judging by Matt's and my previous attempts at collaboration I would not expect the three of us to arrive at the same performance version, anyway. Which doesn't mean we can't have a lot of fun swapping trial strains, learning from each other (and nicking bits!) before arriving at our own pieces. Which will probably themselves develop over time. After all that's what happened in previous generations, it's just that we have the internet and can do it remotely, as well as in person when possible. Now I must do other stuff for a bit.Maybe I'll come back to it later. To get on or off this list see list information at http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/~wbc/lute-admin/index.html
