[Callers] [Musicians] worthiness of a tune for contra?

[Mac Mckeever via Callers]

I didn't have any problems with the phrasing - but would not enjoy calling to 96bpm - but that is just my preference.
Mac McKeever

      From: Martha Wild via Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net>
 To: Callers <callers at lists.sharedweight.net> 
 Sent: Friday, July 31, 2015 8:23 AM
 Subject: Re: [Callers] [Musicians] worthiness of a tune for contra?
   
All, I had no trouble in the first two videos. The third one is definitely crooked. In the second one there's accompaniment and that really defines the beat, so I wouldn't think a band with a guitar, bass, or piano would be difficult for dancers to follow this at all.
Martha

On Jul 30, 2015, at 11:54 PM, Erik Hoffman via Callers wrote:

> I, too, had no trouble hearing phrases of 4-beats, 8-beats, and the major parts. (In music speak: 2-bar phrases, 4-bar phrases, and 8-bar parts.) I would have no trouble calling to either tune in that video. Thus, I'm also curious about what makes it hard to hear, for those of you who have trouble with it.
> 
> ~erik hoffman
>    oakland, ca
> 
> 
> On 7/30/2015 6:52 PM, James Saxe via Musicians wrote:
>> After Emily Addison asked about the tunes in this video
>> 
>>      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DkJQ9xNGuU
>> 
>> several people commented that they found the phrasing of
>> the jig (Jim Rumboldt's Tune) deceptive.  I'm curious to
>> know what any of you--or other list members--think after
>> listening to it at 1.25x speed, as described in my previous
>> message (quoted below).
>> 
>> I did a little searching for other videos of the tune.
>> This one
>> 
>>      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx_E3qeZAfQ
>> 
>> is played at about 165 bpm.  If it were played at a
>> normal contra tempo and with a clear four-beat intro, but
>> otherwise in the same style as in the video, I think it
>> would be fine for dancing.  Yes, there are a couple places
>> where, if I started the video at a random point in the
>> tune, I could momentarily wonder whether a particular note
>> was a pick-up note or the true beat 1 of a new phrase.
>> But, to my ear, there are enough other places where the
>> phrasing is quite clear so that it's not a problem.  I'd
>> be interested in reading other people's reactions.
>> 
>> I found another rendition starting about 3:15 in this
>> video
>> 
>>      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCnFlmrN1mk
>> 
>> with tempo in the high 140s.  I can't make sense of
>> the phrasing in this one at all.  It seems to me it's a
>> different, and genuinely crooked, variant of the tune.
>> Does anyone disagree.
>> 
>> After watching that last video, I tried searching for abc
>> notation or pdfs of sheet music or tablature to see whether
>> I'd find notation for different versions--straight vs.
>> crooked--of the tune.  So far, however, I haven't turned
>> up any notation at all.
>> 
>> --Jim
>> 
>>> On Jul 30, 2015, at 1:58 AM, James Saxe <jim.saxe at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> 
>>> I'm a mere caller and pretty much a musical muggle, but
>>> here are some observations about the jig for what they're
>>> worth.
>>> 
>>> First off, in the video the jig is played at about 93 or 94
>>> beats per minute (based on my stopwatch timing, which also
>>> appears to agree closely with the YouTube time counter).
>>> You might get a better idea of how it would sound as a dance
>>> tuen by playing it at 1.25x speed.  (Click on the gear-shaped
>>> "Settings" button near the lower right of the YouTube video
>>> frame; then click on the Speed box (typically defaulting
>>> to "Normal"); then click "1.25" in the menu that pops up.
>>> YouTube should then play at 1.25x normal speed but with the
>>> audio pitch-shifted back down to normal pitch.)
>> <remainder snipped>
>> 
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> Musicians mailing list
>> Musicians at lists.sharedweight.net
>> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/musicians-sharedweight.net
>> 
>> 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Callers mailing list
> Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
> http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net



_______________________________________________
Callers mailing list
Callers at lists.sharedweight.net
http://lists.sharedweight.net/listinfo.cgi/callers-sharedweight.net


  
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.sharedweight.net/pipermail/callers-sharedweight.net/attachments/20150731/db7b9143/attachment.htm>