i found this version also, which i think would be well received at the sort of sessions around here. (Especially the after the silly bit in the middle what's that about?). The last couple of times through where the flute kicks in. This is the version i am using now as my source (sort of) in standard tuning. It's a bit "cut and paste" but i like the feel they are getting.

Chinquapin Hunting

And thanks for checking my previous link out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

I play this version:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTtCy-6Bl8
 

I would count it - (if want to count 4 beats): 1234, 1234, 1234, 1234, 1234, 12... for first part.

---

ooopps... one too many "1234"s   

---

This points to another issue of counting; is what are you counting?

What I (many others) perceive the beat, as heard in that clip in Autumn's audible foot tap as the "beat";  at 120bpm. Tony seems be referring to and counting "beats" based on doing the double tap division; so 240bpm. 

Not to get into debate about which is right... point out that differences in how folks perceive/describe; and sometimes causes confusion in communication. 

Besides beat, can involve describing start/end/length sense, of meter and phrases and other aspects like tags, pickup. Perception and cognition can be a bit subjective.
 

quote:

---

Originally posted by alaskafiddler

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

quote:

---

Originally posted by tonyelder

I play this version:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdTtCy-6Bl8
 

I would count it - (if want to count 4 beats): 1234, 1234, 1234, 1234, 1234, 12... for first part.

---

ooopps... one too many "1234"s   

---

This points to another issue of counting; is what are you counting?

What I (many others) perceive the beat, as heard in that clip in Autumn's audible foot tap as the "beat";  at 120bpm. Tony seems be referring to and counting "beats" based on doing the double tap division; so 240bpm. 

Not to get into debate about which is right... point out that differences in how folks perceive/describe; and sometimes causes confusion in communication. 

Besides beat, can involve describing start/end/length sense, of meter and phrases and other aspects like tags, pickup. Perception and cognition can be a bit subjective.
 

---

...why I said: "if want to count 4 beats"...   and I said it that way, because it is easier to discern the extra beat (imo) counting off by 4s against the melody.

It wasn't a statement intended to indicate the meter. But - nothing wrong with pointing that out. Thanks George.

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChickenMan

If you're playing this one, and you're counting the strong beats, I'd say there's one more beat, so 9. Simple as that.

---

There are different ways perceive or describe the structure of tunes.

Both you and Tony mentioned the idea of counting one more beat (or one less), maybe... I guess as an anomaly? For me, I wouldn't count to 9, but wouldn't count to 8; typically don't perceive non-crooked tunes structure as simply linear counting to 8; nor any linear counting per se. I just use the feel, mostly involves hierarchical feel of 2 or 3, don't need to count.

But that got me thinking, how encounter tunes/phrases that get them in a knot; why that should be; that struggle possibly has something to do with expectation, anticipation about the structure. (of 8 for example). A couple that come to mind:

One is the expectation of continuity. Of course continuous steady beat... but as well involve sense of structure, or pattern; and/or in how is divided/group as into sense of meter, and perhaps into hypergroup, grouping of meters, possibly to phrases to sections/part.

With that can be another expectation of even balanced symmetry. Music is full of that, and kind of the default; even yin/yang; back/forth; up/down; left/right; call/response; question/answer... default 2ness, group or half. Usually don't have to count or think 2, can just naturally sense/feel it, and the even balance, just naturally feels right. Which can lead to an expectation of that structure. These can further reinforced by learning process; what tunes start out with, often with lots of that symmetry, sense of 2 if not 4. Dancing, or playing that dance music further ingrains sense of 2ness; as hierarchy layers of structure, as power of 2; it's creates 2/4/8/16/32/64 (so 8 usually does fit, and 9 would be one extra).

Encountering music, tunes/songs can break that expectation in continuity of even 2ness symmetry; have some aspect of imbalance. (thus why get in knot?). So might involve change expectations, to allow for that. Perhaps rather than concept of "crooked" or anomaly; might perhaps just think in terms of uneven, asymmetry to structure?

Just some thoughts, some folks might find useful.

Of course can approach (or count) anyway want.

With regard to the OP question about the first part, rather than idea of 8 with extra beat, or even about counting per se; but as in previous post, sorting out, perceiving or describing phrasing structure; and groupings or (divisions), and involves idea of what's repeated in phrasing.

One might be as the phrasing structure as AAAB.
A = There's a little line "A", with feel of 2; melody is mostly same bobbing from the fifth and fourth. Repeated 3 times.
B = Concludes with a line "B" with feel of 3; melody starts with jumps up to the octave, then descends down thru fifth, third resolving on the tonic.

Alternatively, might be similar but slightly different phrasing idea, with idea of second A' being slightly different, gives feel of midpoint, could think of as asymmetrical halves; like (AA')(AB) or first half is 4 second is 5. The 4 still has feel of 22, and the 5 has feel of 23. 

Some of this can be subjective, depend on how it's played. Pete's link to the VanNordstand recording, to my ears is solid example more like the former AAA,B.

Here's Where i am with Chinquapin Hunting. Obviously you can add double strings stops variations etc but this is the basic notes i am working from. Do they sound ok to you?

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

Here's Where i am with Chinquapin Hunting. Obviously you can add double strings stops variations etc but this is the basic notes i am working from. Do they sound ok to you?

---

First one was wrong. These might be wrong also?

I would think about notating first 3 measures in 2/4, then one measure of 3/4. To me, maintains idea of steady beat.

Thanks for giving it a look/listen Geo. Yeah, the metronome makes it sound and look wonky (but that's it's charm to me), but if its played without the metronome playing it sort of keeps a steady beat.

You can stick that bar of 2/4 any where you like in the A section. if you want to keep an off beat going it seems to me sticking it at the end seems to keep it going longest. But i'll try your idea out and see if that makes sense to me also.

On the recording 1st time around they put a stop there.

Maybe that's why the MK book doesn't have bar lines ( by others accounts) ? Bowings, emphasis and harmonies are a personal choice. End of the day if your in time, the different rhythms and emphasis add to it, and it becomes a living thing? More than the sum of it's parts so to speak. The Molsky et al rendition illustrates this to me.

quote:

---

Originally posted by alaskafiddler

quote:

---

Originally posted by ChickenMan

If you're playing this one, and you're counting the strong beats, I'd say there's one more beat, so 9. Simple as that.

---

There are different ways perceive or describe the structure of tunes.

Both you and Tony mentioned the idea of counting one more beat (or one less), maybe... I guess as an anomaly? For me, I wouldn't count to 9, but wouldn't count to 8; typically don't perceive non-crooked tunes structure as simply linear counting to 8; nor any linear counting per se. I just use the feel, mostly involves hierarchical feel of 2 or 3, don't need to count.

 

But that got me thinking, how encounter tunes/phrases that get them in a knot; why that should be; that struggle possibly has something to do with expectation, anticipation about the structure. (of 8 for example). A couple that come to mind:

One is the expectation of continuity. Of course continuous steady beat... but as well involve sense of structure, or pattern; and/or in how is divided/group as into sense of meter, and perhaps into hypergroup, grouping of meters, possibly to phrases to sections/part.

With that can be another expectation of even balanced symmetry. Music is full of that, and kind of the default; even yin/yang; back/forth; up/down; left/right; call/response; question/answer... default 2ness, group or half. Usually don't have to count or think 2, can just naturally sense/feel it, and the even balance, just naturally feels right. Which can lead to an expectation of that structure. These can further reinforced by learning process; what tunes start out with, often with lots of that symmetry, sense of 2 if not 4. Dancing, or playing that dance music further ingrains sense of 2ness; as hierarchy layers of structure, as power of 2; it's creates 2/4/8/16/32/64 (so 8 usually does fit, and 9 would be one extra).

Encountering music, tunes/songs can break that expectation in continuity of even 2ness symmetry; have some aspect of imbalance. (thus why get in knot?). So might involve change expectations, to allow for that. Perhaps rather than concept of "crooked" or anomaly; might perhaps just think in terms of uneven, asymmetry to structure?

Just some thoughts, some folks might find useful.

Of course can approach (or count) anyway want.

 

---

lol... George, I have never counted the beats while I'm playing. my explanation to PhilSpoectone was simply and attempt to an answer his question - that's all. I had to give some thought to how I would explain it at first. When no one else offered "rhat one", I thought I would. "Counting off" that way provides and answer the question he asked - hopefully it helped.  That simple.

Some people complained about the lack of barlines in the M-K book, as though they hadn't wanted to take the trouble to put them in, or wanted to save ink or something. I'm sure that book was created with a notation progam, which would have placed them automatically if that function wasn't turned off, so it must have been a conscious choice. I asked Walt about some other things during the creation of the book, but not about that, because I hadn't seen the finished book.
Its the use of measures and barlines that make some tunes seem "crooked" - its like viewing the world through a picket fence. It seems unusual because of the general simple regularity of traditional music, but "classical" music, and even some popular music is not so restricted, and uses phrases of differing lengths.
I meant to respond to your earlier post to say I thought your choices of models for this tune were getting worse and worse, but missed my chance. I just don't like the festival jam version of this tune - it has some chord changes and a certain exuberance that I don't think the older players would have thought of, and I wouldn't either. If you really like this version, I'd suggest you go back to the Chicken Chokers recording on the "Young Fogies" CD. That whole CD is available on YouTube, and is kind of an interesting record of what the old time "scene" was like over here at that time (why not just learn "Every Breath You Take" by the Agents of Terra?). Volume two shows how it evolved in a relatively short period of time.
As the old timers used to say "De Gustibus non Disputandum (est)".

I should have said the generally simple regularity of Anglo-American instrumental music, which was meant for dancing. Not so true in other parts of the world, or of traditional singers anyhere.

Yeah notation has it's limits, especially mine. Personally i don't read from the notation much, even my own. i use it to make a midi file, then i learn it by ear from that. And to remind myself of any fancy bits etc, also as a general outline of a tune that people will most likely recognize.

i chose that version with the fiddle, flute and the accordion/harmonica etc, because they are the instruments i am most likely to play along with if i happen to play it with others. And it is more than likely the version they will be most familiar with... if at all.... Also i like it.

All good reasons, Pete. Sometimes a version of a tune just appeals to us, regardless of how quirky or "non standard" it might be. Enjoy learning it, and I hope you find some people to play it with.
PS - I still think you might find that "Young Fogies" CD interesting. There's a playlist for the whole CD on YouTube. My old band contributed a track that kind of took on a life of its own, as did several others, including "Chinquapin Hunting."

quote:

---

Originally posted by DougD

Its the use of measures and barlines that make some tunes seem "crooked" - its like viewing the world through a picket fence. It seems unusual because of the general simple regularity of traditional music, but "classical" music, and even some popular music is not so restricted, and uses phrases of differing lengths.

---

Whether or not it's true that the use of measures and barlines make some tunes seem crooked, measures and barlines also make straight tunes seem straight. Nothing is being "restricted" by using those tools. That's their function, making printed music understandable. Walt's book makes no sense to me, though apparently it does to some.

i don't like bar 3 of my transcription . Think i'll change that.

I reckon the bar lines are there to be adhered to or ridden over at will.

BTW does the M-K collection indicate "Sections"?

I personally don’t consider this tune crooked but I guess that’s all in how you define it. It’s perfectly symmetrical. Each half of the first part has an extra beat. End of story for me. Flannagans Dream, now that’s a crooked tune!

i cant find "Flannagans Dream"

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

i cant find "Flannagans Dream"

---

You might mean Flannery's Dream? It's crooked, but not very. I have music for it. I call a tune straight if it has 32 bars of the same time signature. If you add or a 2/2 bar or anything deviating from the straight 32 bars, I call it crooked. 

quote:

---

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

i don't like bar 3 of my transcription . Think i'll change that.

I reckon the bar lines are there to be adhered to or ridden over at will.

BTW does the M-K collection indicate "Sections"?

 

---

The M-K collection does indicate "sections" from a sample I saw. I disagree with you on bar lines. Or maybe not and we're just thinking of it differently. Bar lines are rigid but notes can go where they want to. Use tied notes to cross bars when you need to.

32 bars, no time sig change, and ties over the bar lines is straight to me also.

Maybe deliberately missing the bar lines out and marking the sections indicates that a player should phrase and emphasize it how they like/ hear it?

As O/T tunes have elements of polyrhythms, which would make the music difficult to notate or read.. Better to leave it to the player? But still have the general outline of the tune in notation.

I usually just count it by feel rather than strict beats-kind of like: 4 - 4 - 2 - 4 or something close to that. Best way is to listen to a bunch of versions and tap it out slowly until it clicks.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Peghead

I personally don’t consider this tune crooked but I guess that’s all in how you define it. It’s perfectly symmetrical. Each half of the first part has an extra beat. End of story for me. Flannagans Dream, now that’s a crooked tune!

---

                        and...

quote:

Originally posted by pete_fiddle

32 bars, no time sig change, and ties over the bar lines is straight to me also.

Maybe deliberately missing the bar lines out and marking the sections indicates that a player should phrase and emphasize it how they like/ hear it?

As O/T tunes have elements of polyrhythms, which would make the music difficult to notate or read.. Better to leave it to the player? But still have the general outline of the tune in notation.

https://oldtimefiddletunes.net/tunes/ChinquapinHunting.pdf

...depends on how you define symmetrical.    I look for symmetry between measures, not the "parts". There is symmetry between the "rounds" (pass) of each part. But - when a 3/2 measure is added to a score written in 2/2 - I would say that qualifies as being crooked. There is a time signature change (in this notation). I hear it this way / play it this way. No "rest" in the last phrase in the A part. To me - it isn't "square". 

But of course, this is a score written as Bruce's version of the tune, so ... that probably isn't the version you are referring to.  

i think you could also write that 1st part out as 9 bars of 2/4 (repeated), with no time signature change. The rest of the tune is square. Maybe the simplest way?