Tune Identities/similarities

[JimLucas]

The responses in Lemon's Topic regarding the identity or source for his tune led me to muse on just what it is we perceive or remember about tunes that makes us think they are "the same" or "different".

 

Rather than try to answer the question, I've decided to put up some sound files of various candidates that were proposed, and let each of you make up your own mind as to how similar or different you think they are from each other.

 

First, Lemon's tune, in the arrangement he posted:

Lemon's "unknown" tune

Next, the first few bars of Arthur Darley's, or "The Swedish Jig":

Arthur's

Then the first few bars of "Tomorrow Belongs to Me", as posted by David B. I find this has a similar contour, but a different modality, so I wouldn't think of even this much as being "the same".

Tomorrow...

David also wrote out "Down by the Brazos", so here it is. Here I can see that small pieces seem to match, though the tune as a whole is different. Of course, I think this supports what I said about the same bits and pieces showing up in many tunes.

Down by the Brazos

"Sidhe Bheag, Sidhe Mhor" is, as John realized when he refreshed his memory, not all that similar. But do you see characteristics in it which might have led him to remember it that way?

Sidhe Bheag, Sidhe Mhor (just the first bit)

Then there's "Maguire-Patterson", suggested by two different persons. It does start out similarly, but further comparisons require cutting and pasting, and there are major differences. Listening the the sound file Rich M. provided did jog my own memory, reminding me of an Australian sailor's song, "Little Fish", or "Yea Ho, Little Fishy". Here's the first verse.

Little Fish

And to show you just how "Maguire-Patterson" reminded me of "Little Fish", I reproduce here a copy of Rich's mp3 file of the latter... not the whole thing, but with much of it excised. I want to emphasize that nothing has been rearranged. It's only that pieces have been cut out, and the parts that were kept pushed up against each other.

Maguire-Patterson , compressed

 

So I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts as to what makes tune (or anything, I suppose) "similar" or "different".

[tony]

So I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts as to what makes tune (or anything, I suppose) "similar" or "different".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's rhythm Jim ,well that's what I was taught and it seems to work for me. Play any known tune at a constant pitch but with strict rhythm (and approximate tempo) and people will probably either name that tune or a very similar one.

 

On the other hand if you play a tune with the correct pitch but a constant rhythm ,maybe all crotchets (quarter notes), it is far less recognizable.

[JimLucas]

Some fresh comments have been added to Lemon's Topic, including some apparent disagreement between myself and Dick Miles as to what constitutes "similar", so I have decided to put my response here.

 

...Lemon's tune bears resemblance to a number of different current melodies, including more than one song tune, but is not entirely the same as any of the candidates proposed so far. One of those is the song "Yea Ho, Little Fishy". "Sweet Besty from Pike", though not mentioned in the earlier discussion, is another. Still, each shows significant differences from the tune Lemon posted, when they are compared in their complete forms.

...the opening four barsof sweet betsy from pike are indeed in waltz time th ere the similarity ends,hereis the opening four bars of sweet betsy in tonic solfah,low dohTWO QUAVERS,DOH ME SOH,DOH FAH RAY,RAY DOH DOH,ALL CROTCHETS,DOH MINIM.IT BEARS NO RESEMBLANCE APART FROM TEMPO TO, HEY HO LITTLE FISHY,WHICH STARTS ON HIGH DOH AND PROCEEDS DOWNWARDS readers can draw their own conclusions and yes it is a tune a SONG TUNEand the opening four bars are exactly the same as little fishyand not the same as sweet betsy.

Firstlly, the first four bars of Lemon's tune are not exactly the same as "... Little Fishy" as printed in The Penguin Australian Song Book, to which we have both referred (there the song is titled "The Little Fish"). Here, abc-notated in the key of F, is the first section (four full measures, except for "pickup" notes) of each of the three tunes as I understand them to be. (Occurrences of the rhythmic "decoration" of a dotted quarter-note followed by an eighth note have been "smoothed" to a pair of quarter notes, for easier comparison and because they can vary according to who is playing or singing the tune.)

Lemon: c d c | c B A | G F E | F2

Fishy: A A A | c B A | G F G | A2

Betsy: F A c | c B G | G F F | F2

 

In the first measure, Lemon and Betsy share one note, Lemon and Fishy share none. In the second measure, Lemon and Fishy share all three notes, but Lemon and Betsy share 2 out of 3. In the third measure, Lemon shares 2 of 3 notes with both Betsy and Fishy (and the same two with each). In the last measure, Lemon and Betsy share the one extended note, while Fishy differs from them by an interval of a third.

 

On that basis alone, Betsy matches Lemon on 7 out of 11 beats, while Fishy matches Lemon on 5 out of 11. But for me a simple note-for-note matching is not a particularly appropriate criterion. Instead, I judge "similarity" on such features as shared modes and "contour". These three tunes all share the same mode, but what about this thing I call "contour"?

 

Here are those same tune fragments in standard notation, which has the advantage of showing their rising and falling contours:

 

And descriptions:

... First measure - All three have very different contours, each from the other.

... Second measure - All three are simply descending, though Betsy descends slightly farther.

... Third measure - All three descend from the second of the scale to the tonic, but then each takes a different direction as a preparatory lead-in to the "final" note.

... Fourth measure - Both Lemon and Betsy settle on the tonic, but Fishy rises to the third of the scale.

 

But "contour" -- as I see it -- is broader than just one measure at a time. In Lemon the second and third measures together form a smooth descent, while each of the others only "wobbles" slightly away from that same smooth descent. And in many traditional tunes -- including song tunes -- each of those three patterns may often be found substituted for one of the others on a particular repetition of the tune, simply for the sake of variety... or in a song, to give a particular emphasis to the words of a given verse. (Rhythmic variations, which I've ignored here, are used similarly.)

 

Outside the first measure, I consider the biggest difference to be Fishy's rise to the third of the scale in the fourth measure. But in the context of the larger tune (as it continues beyond the few measures given here), I find even that to be a minor difference, in a sense merely an anticipation of the rise above the tonic that begins the second short phrase.

 

Well, that's how I view musical "similarity"... or at least part of how I view it. What do others think of that view, and what are your views, if they differ?

 

Edited to clarify some text and to add the images of the different tune fragments.

Edited June 11, 2006 by JimLucas

[JimLucas]

Dick responded in the other thread/Topic. I've returned here with those parts of my reply to him that I feel are more relevant to this Topic.

 

i prefer to use the dictionarys definition of similarity.

Which dictionary? And this particular definition that you say you prefer... what exactly does it say?

 

I have access to several dictionaries, and none of them gives only one definition of "similarity" or "similar". Nor are any of those definitions sufficiently specific to be able to discriminate musical "similarity" without making further assumptions. In my previous post I have tried to make clear what assumptions I'm using as a basis for each of my comparisons.

 

the original tune is me fahTWO quavers, SO RAY SO, SOH FA ME ,RAY SOH TE ,DOH .HOW CAN THAT BE THE SAME ASdo do ,do me so,so fa ray ,ray doh do h , doh minim.

I didn't say it was "the same"; I said it was "similar". Using Dictionary.com, the first definition given for "similar" is:

"Related in appearance or nature; alike though not identical."

on further investigation the version i have which is the same as the original tune which i learnt from chris coe is different from the version in the australian bookwhich goes do do TWO QUAVERS,ME ME ME ,SOH FAH ME ,RAY SO RAY

Aside from transposing from C to F and omitting the pickup notes -- both of which I myself noted, -- I took it directly from my copy of the original 1964 edition of The Penguin Australian Song Book. I have now dug out my second copy, a 1973 reprint, and it shows exactly the same melody.

 

as also sweet betsy from alan lomaxWHERE YOU HAVE MISSED OUT THE TWO ORIGINAL QUAVERS

there is also a two quaver start to little fish which you have also missed

Thank you Dick for not only stating the obvious, but repeating what I had already said. Specifically, what I said was, "except for 'pickup' notes". "Pickup notes" is a term which in my experience is commonly used to designate such notes that lead in to a more emphasized primary note/beat at the beginning of a musical phrase.

 

I deliberately omitted them, because such pickups are generally unstressed and very often subject to variation -- including possible omission -- among repetitions of a tune or among verses of a song. E.g., in "Sweet Betsy from Pike", only the first verse you quote has a two-word "pickup" ("DID YOU") in the text leading to the first downbeat. All the other verses given in my copy of Lomax's "Folk Songs of North America" appear to have one-word lead-ins. Should that be a quarter-note (crotchet) or an eighth-note (quaver)? Lomax doesn't say. There are other versions of the words where no verse has a two-word lead-in, and at least one version which has one verse with no lead-in words: "Out on the prairie one bright starry night,...." And I have sung -- and heard others sing -- these lead-in words to different notes, as well. E.g., sol instead of do, or sol-mi instead of do-do. Similarly, verses 4 and 5 of "The Little Fish" in The Penguin Australian Song Book have only one-word lead-ins. On a two-word lead-in for that song, I would consider do-re to be as "correct" as do-do.

 

Thus, I consider such pickup notes in most tunes -- and especially song tunes -- to be not definitive of the tune itself, and so to be given little or no weight in determining "similarities" or "differences" between tunes. But if I were to include those lead-in notes in my comparisons, they would not support Dick's claim, since they are identical between the Fishy and Betsy tunes, which together differ significantly from the Lemon tune.

 

One further point: The tune I gave in my previous post for "Sweet Betsy from Pike" is one I found on more than one internet source. It's also the one I remember from my own childhood. The tune I find in the Lomax book differs slightly, going down to E on the last beat of the third measure. With this change, measure 3 of the Betsy tune becomes identical to that of the Lemon tune, thus increasing the note-for-note correspondence between those two tunes to 8 out of 11, while the Fishy tune remains at 5 out of 11. But as I indicated before, in my view that doesn't significantly affect my perception of "similarity" among these tunes.

Edited June 20, 2006 by JimLucas

[JimLucas]

i prefer to use the dictionarys definition of similarity.

Which dictionary? And this particular definition that you say you prefer... what exactly does it say?

similiar,like,resembling, uniform,exactly corresponding in shape, without regard to size .that is the chambers dictionary definition.

Dick, which edition of the Chambers dictionary do you have? Is it really so different from the current online version? I quote:

similar

adj

1

having a close resemblance to something; being of the same kind, but not identical; alike.

2

geom

exactly corresponding in shape, regardless of size.

similarity

noun

. similarly

adverb

.

In particular, does your copy really omit the phrase "but not identical", which I consider critical to my own understanding of the term? Or fail to distinguish between the everyday meaning and that used in geometry (the "geom" notation), which is the only context in which the word "exactly" appears in the online edition?

[Theodore Kloba]

So I'm curious to hear other people's thoughts as to what makes tune (or anything, I suppose) "similar" or "different".

It's rhythm Jim ,well that's what I was taught and it seems to work for me.

It's also accent and articulation. Take a known melody and shift all the measure bars and accents by one beat. It may become unrecognizable. A completely different harmony is often implied when you do this too.

[lildogturpy]

I'm often surprised by a segment of the Radio 4 show "I'm Sorry I Haven't a Clue", of which you can download past shows. The segment is called "One song to the tune of another" which not surprisingly takes the lyrics of a well known song and the participants are required to sing it with the melody of another well known tune. Often it's very difficult to remember the original tune for the lyrics but on those occasions when it's easy, I think it's because the rhythm and phrasing of the tune fits with pattern of the lyrics. I would therefore have to go with Tony and say the rhythm is perhaps the most important part.

[JimLucas]

"One song to the tune of another" which ... takes the lyrics of a well known song and the participants are required to sing it with the melody of another well known tune. Often it's very difficult to remember the original tune for the lyrics but on those occasions when it's easy, I think it's because the rhythm and phrasing of the tune fits with pattern of the lyrics. I would therefore have to go with Tony and say the rhythm is perhaps the most important part.

But you're neglecting the complementary game, which is to take a well-known tune and change it's rhythm -- e.g., play a waltz as a march, or vice versa, -- which is effective because so many tunes are recognizable that way even with radically transformed rhythm... at least as long as the measure boundaries remain at the same places in the note sequences. In fact, there are usually many different ways to transform to a new time signature, yet all still easily recognizable.

 

You can try it yourself. Try the tune to "Sweet Betsy from Pike" or "My Bonny Lies Over the Ocean" as a march, or "Nonesuch" or "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" as a waltz. I'm sure that others would still recognize which tunes they were... as well as the fact that you had "butchered" them. (Or would it more properly be considered "vivisection"?)

 

So I'll advance the same point of view that I feel fits so many questions: There's no single simple criterion that applies to all cases.

 

Some tunes in their common form have distinctive rhythmic patterns, some have distinction melodic contours, some have both. I think it's even possible that there are tunes with neither, though I can't think of any at the moment. I.e., they would be tunes whose rhythmic patterns and melodic contours are each used in so many tunes that only the combination is distinctive.

 

But are these the only two characteristics that we recognize in music, consciously or subconsciously? Change the mode of a tune -- e.g., from major to minor -- and it may still be recognizable. Well, that's still only a ripple in the "contour", as I see it. Are there tunes that we would recognize because of their range? Or because of their pitch/key?

 

The pitch question reminds me of playing a recognition game as a kid with Christmas carols. My father would play the first note of a carol on the piano, pause, then the next note, pause, and continue until one of us kids correctly guessed which carol it was. The pauses were to give us a chance to guess., but they also destroyed any semblance of rhythm or tempo. The surprising thing was that for something like a third of the tunes, we could consistently guess correctly after hearing only the first note.

[lildogturpy]

But you're neglecting the complementary game, which is to take a well-known tune and change it's rhythm -- e.g., play a waltz as a march, or vice versa, -- which is effective because so many tunes are recognizable that way even with radically transformed rhythm... at least as long as the measure boundaries remain at the same places in the note sequences. In fact, there are usually many different ways to transform to a new time signature, yet all still easily recognizable.

 

You can try it yourself. Try the tune to "Sweet Betsy from Pike" or "My Bonny Lies Over the Ocean" as a march, or "Nonesuch" or "It's a Long Way to Tipperary" as a waltz. I'm sure that others would still recognize which tunes they were... as well as the fact that you had "butchered" them. (Or would it more properly be considered "vivisection"?)

 

I've not tried that version of the game, but I will

 

I suppose one place to find ways of altering a tune that still leaves a recognizeable core are the classical variations. I often find myself recognizing the underlying piece by the emotional feeling that comes through which I suppose comes down to Jim's idea of the "contour" of the phrasing, rising, descending.

 

Another aspect that hasn't been mentioned so far is distinctive jumps of interval. One tune that I have been told always made me cry as a toddler was the song "Golden Slumbers". My chin would start to wobble as soon as they got to the phrase with the octave jump

 

M:3/4

L:1/8

K:D

DD | d4 BG | A4 FD | G2 A2 B2 | FA3 DD | d4 BG | A4 FD | G2 F2 E2 | D6

 

My older brother and sister would get told off for sneaking into my room and singing it just to watch me cry. Ah, the joys of music

[JimLucas]

YOUR OMISSION OF THE LEAD IN NOTES IS WRONG, THEY ARE A VITAL PART OF THE TUNE AND THE SONGAND ADD FURTHER TO THE DISSIMILIARITIES,now im finding this rather boring so i shall say no more.

Dick, we disagree. You have a right to your opinion, but I also have a right to mine.

 

You are welcome to say that you feel or believe that my point of view is wrong, but I do not accept that you have any authority to declare it categorically to be "wrong". Others, of course, may make up their own minds.

 

Edited to insert a missing "to".

Edited June 14, 2006 by JimLucas

[JimLucas]

...you cant just leave off lead in notes, they are an integral part of the tune...

I can, and I frequently do. I often vary lead-in notes -- in number, pitch, or both -- to vary the mood among repetitions of a tune or from verse to verse of a song. And it's a common technique to improvise "extra" lead-in words in a song. Among the more common additions are, "oh", "well", "then", "now", and "and". E.g., in the following verse from the song "Strike the Bell", I have highlighted various optional lead-in words and syllables in blue:

Oh

, down on the main deck,

a-

working at the pumps,

There is the larboard watch,

a-

longing for their bunks.

But

looking out to windward, they see a great swell,

And now

they're wishing that the second mate would strike, strike the bell!

The version of "Sweet Betsy from Pike" in The Songs of the Gold Rush (University of California Press, 1964), the first verse goes:

Oh

, don't you remember sweet Betsey from Pike,

Who crossed the big mountains with her lover Ike,

With two yoke of cattle, a large yellow dog,

A tall shanghai rooster and one spotted hog.

It seems clear to me that both the word "Oh" and the note it is sung to are optional here. Leave them out, and the story doesn't change at all, nor does the melody seem awkward or incomplete. And in this version it's only one word/note, not the two of the version you quote, a further indication that the details of the lead-in melody aren't significant in this particular song. Omitting the lead-ins on the other lines would leave awkward gaps in the story text, but that's because of the words that would be missing, not the notes.

[JimLucas]

YOUR OMISSION OF THE LEAD IN NOTES IS WRONG, THEY ARE A VITAL PART OF THE TUNE AND THE SONGAND ADD FURTHER TO THE DISSIMILIARITIES,now im finding this rather boring so i shall say no more.

Dick, we disagree. You have a right to your opinion, but I also have a right to mine.

...YOUR OMISSION OF THE LEAD IN NOTES IN MY OPINIONION IS WRONG, THEY ARE A VITAL PART OF THE TUNE AND THE SONGAND ADD FURTHER TO THE DISSIMILIARITIES,

... [about 100 additional words]

,now i will let readers decide ,dick miles,

 

This post has been edited by dick miles: Jun 14 2006, 07:45 PM

Dick, I see you changed your mind about "say[ing] no more".

 

I'm not complaining. In fact, I'm glad to see that you edited your post to reflect the updated state of affairs. And to say that your opinion is, like mine, an opinion, and that the other C.net members may decide for themselves whether to agree with either of us, or neither.

 

Meanwhile, it looks like neither of us is quite ready to stop presenting arguments for our respective points of view, so I guess I'd better get to that.

[chris]

at the risk of being hit by a flying quote or capital letter! The Joshua Jackson manuscript lists a tune called 'Lovely Nancy' which is given in 2 versions- the normal one and one where Jackson is thought to have copied the tune incorrectly by starting it on 'B' rather than on 'G' the original was in the key of G and he has left his incorrectly copied notes in the key of G. I think it should have been changed to the key of B with the incorrect start note but it makes a very pleasant tune regardless. I wonder how many 'original' tunes were 'written' like this.

[JimLucas]

at the risk of being hit by a flying quote...

Well, Chris, I tried to make that a "flying quote", but but the fonts that can be specified in this Forum don't seem to include "WingDings".

 

Besides, I wouldn't want to hit you with it.

 

The Joshua Jackson manuscript lists a tune called 'Lovely Nancy' which is given in 2 versions- the normal one and one where Jackson is thought to have copied the tune incorrectly by starting it on 'B' rather than on 'G' the original was in the key of G and he has left his incorrectly copied notes in the key of G. I think it should have been changed to the key of B with the incorrect start note but it makes a very pleasant tune regardless. I wonder how many 'original' tunes were 'written' like this.

Inaccurate transcription is always a possibility, though it can often be hard to tell. Fashions in what is "pleasant" or "unpleasant" tend to vary widely, yet individuals often give their own standards the names "right" and "wrong".

 

I'm curious about that tune, though. Are the two versions absolutelly parallel, except for being separated by an interval of a third, or are there a few slight differences aside from that? Two possibilities that occur to me -- aside from simply an error in transcription -- are 1) that Jackson had sources which played the tune in two distinct modes, or 2) that the "version" that starts on B is intended as a harmony part.

 

The various versions of "Princess Royal" from different Cotswold Morris traditions are a fine demonstration of how a tune has developed versions in different modes. The harmony hypothesis could be tested by playing the two "versions" together. If that sounds "wrong", then it's probably not what was intended. If it sounds "good", then that might have been the intent, though there's probably no way to be sure. (Súre or not, you could have fun playing it that way. )

[chris]

Jim,

the tune is a third apart thruout. The published book 'Tunes,Songs & Dances from the 1798 Manuscript of Joshua Jackson, North Yorkshire cornmiller and Musician' (that's what I call full value in a title) comments that -'A similar mistake elswhere in the MS is noticed and corrected'. There is a version on the CD 'Trip to Harrowgate Tunes and Songs from Joshua Jackson's Book-1798' (another good value title) played, I think, by Gerry Murphy and Dave Hillary. A very pleasant arrangement I feel but thats only my opinion I guess taste is subjective.

[JimLucas]

A very pleasant arrangement I feel but thats only my opinion I guess taste is subjective.

Taste is subjective.

But subjectivity is not necessarily "wrong".

[chris]

Jim

variety is a wonderful thing. Long live 'other' ideas and opinions