[Musicians] Musicians Digest, Vol 6, Issue 4

[James Saxe via Musicians]

On Aug 3, 2015, at 6:42 PM, Emily Addison via Musicians <musicians at lists.sharedweight.net> wrote:

> Jim - I tried to play the "Jim Rumboldt’S/Father’S Jig/ Esau Payne’S Tune" video but for some reason it won't play here.
> 

FWIW, what seems to be the same recording is available from Amazon
for $0.89 here

     http://www.amazon.com/Rumboldts-Fathers-Esau-Paynes-Tune/dp/B0029U6YAY

and there's also a free 30-second sample of the Rumboldt's part.  (By
the way, Emily, were you able to play video you originally asked about
at 1.25x speed, as I suggested in one of my earlier messages?  If so,
did you find the phrasing just as deceptive as it was at the original
slow tempo.)

In my earlier message, I mentioned three recordings of the tune:

    1. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2DkJQ9xNGuU
       (the video Emily originally asked about, played by the
       Dardanelles; about 93 or 94 BPM)

    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rx_E3qeZAfQ
       (played by Christina Smith and Jean Hewson, also available from
       Amazon at the URL cited earlier; about 165 BPM)

    3. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZCnFlmrN1mk
       (crooked version played by STEP fiddlers; about 147 BPM)

I have some questions for anyone who cares to answer, and especially
for any of you who found the phrasing in the Dardanelles' version to
be so obvious that you wonder why anyone else could have difficulty
with it.

    * Which do you suppose came first: straight versions such as
      the ones in the Dardanelles and Smith/Hewson videos (which,
      by the way, sound quite similar to me except for the very
      different tempos and some details of how the ends of phrases
      are punctuated), or the crooked version in the STEP fiddlers
      video?

    * If the STEP fiddlers' version is derived from a straight
      version, can you identify what someone might have been
      hearing in the straight version that would get them to
      folk-process it into a crooked version (perhaps without
      even realizing that they weren't transmitting aural
      tradition accurately)?

    * If the straight versions are derived from a crooked
      version, can you identify anything in them that might
      hint at their crooked ancestry?

I'm not asking these as vague rhetorical questions about tunes
in general.  In particular, I think it's entirely possible for
a tune to exist in straight and crooked versions where the
straight version doesn't seem at all suggest that there could
be crooked version floating around.  I'm really interested in
what anyone has to say regarding specific features of these
recordings of Jim Rumboldt's Tune.

One other question, especially for those who instantly heard
the Dardanelles' version in 4-beat and 8-beat groupings:

    * As you listen to the part from about 0:05 to 0:25--that
      is, the first 32 beats (16 bars) after the intro--can
      you get yourself to hear each 8-beat chunk as 3 beats +
      3 beats + 2 beats instead of as 4+4?

While I don't have trouble hearing that part of the tune as
(4+4)+(4+4)+..., I find that I can also get myself to hear
as (3+3+2)+(3+3+2)+...  I'm speculating that if someone's
initial reaction to the opening notes were to hear them as
3+3, then they might get started down a path of thinking
the tune is sort of like a slip-jig but keeps going crooked.
And developing that mental expectation might make it hard
to lock on to the 4-beat chunks.

--Jim