The Lightfoot (hornpipe) on The Session

Thirty comments

Hornpipe in E flat .

Appears in Frank Converse’s " Analytical Banjo Method" 1872.
Played by Tim Twiss . Excuse me for putting it with the jigs , but I do not know anything else to get the rhythm right .

Hi Siminnoye,

Thanks for posting. Hornpipes are usually notated in 4/4, with the swung rhythm not written out (but it is still played swung), or you can notate it with a dotted rhythm. This shouldn’t be a jig, and I’m not sure you can change the tune type without asking Jeremy. Also, although Eb isn’t listed, Fdorian has the same number of accidentals.

Here it is written in 4/4

X:1
T: Lightfood Hornpipe ( Eb)
M: 4/4
L: 1/8
R: jig
K:Fdor
B,A,|:G,B,EG BGEG,|A,CEA cAFE|DFAc dcAF|Gedc (3BAF (3DB,A,|
G,B,EG BGEG,|A,CEA cAFE|DEFG ABcd|1eBGg e2B,A,:|2eBGg e2de||
|:fdBd fagf|gBef gGed|(3c=E=B (3cd_e ^fe dc|(3B,D=F (3Bdc (3BAF (3DB,A,|
G,B,EG BGEG,|A,CEA cAFE|DEFG ABcd|eBGg e4:|

I tell a lie, you can update the tune type and key. I suggest you edit the ABC notation to something similar to what I have above, and change the tune type to Hornpipe and key to Fdorian, before Jeremy puts the dots up.

Hello smashthewindows,
It does not sound as it is played on Youtube by Tim Twiss .
I ’ ll give it another try tomorrow.

All I’ve done is convert what you’ve written to 4/4, as it should be. It definitely isn’t a jig, and you shouldn’t notate it as such - the swing is implied in a hornpipe, not written.

Presumably you mean this link? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D43N4IJfsNM - I didn’t check the transcription itself.

play video

Nor is it a waltz!

This is how it appears in the "Analytical Banjo Method".

It was composed by Frank B Converse, apparently, and in the key of F. Right enough Tim Twiss plays it in E flat, and he dots and semiquavers all those groups of four.

X:1
T:Lightfoot Hornpipe
C:Frank B Converse
M:4/4
L:1/8
K:F
C3/2B,/2|A,3/2C/2F3/2A/2 c3/2A/2F3/2A,/2|B,3/2D/2G3/2B/2 d3/2B/2G3/2F/2|
E3/2G/2B3/2c/2 e3/2d/2B3/2G/2|Afed (3cBG (3ECB,|
A,3/2C/2F3/2A/2 c3/2A/2F3/2A,/2|B,3/2D/2G3/2B/2
d3/2B/2G3/2F/2|
E3/2F/2G3/2A/2 B3/2c/2d3/2e/2|f3/2A/2c3/2a/2 f2||
e3/2f/2|g3/2e/2c3/2e/2 g3/2b/2a3/2g/2|a3/2f/2c3/2f/2 acfe|
d3/2^c/2d3/2e/2 (3=B,Gf e3/2d/2|(3CGB (3ced (3cBG (3ECB,|
A,3/2C/2F3/2A/2 c3/2A/2F3/2A,/2|B,3/2D/2G3/2B/2 d3/2B/2G3/2F/2|
E3/2G/2B3/2c/2 e3/2d/2B3/2G/2|Afed (3cBG (3ECB,|
A,3/2C/2F3/2A/2 c3/2A/2F3/2A,/2|B,3/2D/2G3/2B/2 d3/2B/2G3/2F/2|
E3/2F/2G3/2A/2 B3/2c/2d3/2e/2|f3/2A/2c3/2a/2 f2|]

Note the title is ‘Lightfoot Hornpipe’.

The book can be downloaded along with others on Tim’s site:

http://www.milfordmusic.com/Banjo%20Audio.htm

I knew someone who heard and notated hornpipes as 12/8 tunes (basically the way it’s been notated here). It does work to an extent. What you have to remember when written in 4/4 is that players don’t usually hold the dotted quaver for as long as it appears in the notation. As STW says, the swing is implied, not written in precise terms.

Thank You Weeji . I did write it down by ear . By putting it in threetwo mode ( = 12/8) it should be right . Classical composers ( ex Haendel) used this notation for "hornpipes" .

3/2 ???!? Why? Apart from the time signature itself, you haven’t actually transribed it in 3/2. That would be because it isn’t in 3/2. 12/8 is bad enough, but 3/2 is absurd. It’s nearly unreadable in places as it is.

As others have said, it would be a lot clearer written out in 4/4. No problem then. I would strongly suggest you do this (as suggested by others above) before this clumsy version becomes set in stone.

" 12/8 is bad enough, but 3/2 is absurd."

Have you actually tried playing it as a midi? It’s actually nearer than a dotted 4/4.

4/4 leaves a lot to be desired, 12/8 isn’t too far out for bouncy hornpipes. 12/8 isn’t just a jig/slide rhythm - just as 3/4 isn’t just a waltz rhythm, try listening to some Swedish polskas, or pipe retreats. It’s only their own familiarity with the time signature that makes some people say "jig" or "waltz" etc. Stressing different notes can change things quite remarkably.
4/4 for dotted hornpipes is just a convention. It doesn’t really capture the rhythm. 12/8 (or 3/2) doesn’t either, but I’ll suggest again that you listen to the tune through midi. If you have an open mind, you might not use words like ‘absurd’.

yes but 3/2 is plain wrong, you group the notes in 4s, and hornpipes definitely don’t have 3 (or 6) beats to a bar.

And I’m not convinced about the merits of listening to the midi files here…

Exactly what STW said. The point being that the notes aren’t grouped in 3 beats to a bar. There are 4. It’s not a question of not having "an open mind". That’s a bit like saying that, if I argue that 2 plus 2 does not equal 3 I am being closed-minded. In fact, it’s *exactly* like saying that.

The midi is irrelevant. STW is being nice. For me, I find the midis here pointless.

The point of notation, surely, is to communicate the tune clearly when read, yes? Writing it out in a syncopated, across the beat, three-in-a-bar rhythm doesn’t help to do that. So, helpfully, I and others have suggested putting it in a format that can be read and understood more easily. And one which is … um … right.

And, as I said, 12/8 is one thing, and I can half see the point of that, even if I don’t much like it. But there’s no point at all in putting the thing in 3/2. There are, indeed, 3/2 hornpipes, but this ain’t one of them.

Also, Handel’s "hornpipes" are a different kettle of fish…just because the wikipedia article on hornpipes mentions Handel doesn’t mean it’s right.

"The midi is irrelevant."

The midi is quite relevant. It doesn’t compensate. The difference in a crotchet/quaver and dotted quaver/semiquaver (12/8 v 4/4) is that the ratio of long note to short note in the former is 2:1 and the latter it is 3:1. When a player sees the hornpipe as a dotted quaver/semiquaver rhythm, he/she compensates - midi doesn’t and that is why it’s relevant.
The actual ratio of long to short notes in the tune here as played by Tim Twiss is closer to 2:1 than 3:1, so the transcription is actally more accurate if a little unconventional. As for 3/2, that can be set into exactly the same note values as 12/8 - it’s unusual, probably not a good way of notating, but not "absurd".

"And one which is … um … right."

It’s not ‘right’ it’s just the conventional way of writing that kind of tune. If the midi playback (which sounds crap, but the computer probably plays the actual note length ratios more accurately than a human - that’s one of the things about humans playing , they tend not to play like machines) sounds more like the rhythm that Tim Twiss is playing when written in 12/8 than it does if written in 4/4 (and it does - you just have to listen), then you can’t say that 4/4 is ‘right’.

I’m not advocating the writing of bouncy hornpipes in 12/8, just suggesting that you can’t put somebody down for using the ears to notate rather than convention - and quite plainly that is what the poster did. Perhaps someone finding the tune here uses a midi player to learn the tunes (ouch!) and I’d rather this tune sounded as close to the rhythm of a bouncy hornpipe as possible. It sounds pretty close when played in Sibelius as a 12/8. Obviously not all bouncy hornpipes are going to sound more accurate, but when they are in "long - short" format , with triplets thrown in, like this particular tune, 12/8 is actually closer sounding.

"and hornpipes definitely don’t have 3 (or 6) beats to a bar."

Well, it could be argued that Jämtland polskas have two stressed beats to the bar, yet they are written in 3/4. It’s all down to which notes you stress.
On this board, we have to class 2/4 marches as polkas and various other strange things. If the poster had just submitted the tune as a slide without even mentioning the word ‘hornpipe’ nobody would have complained.

This isn’t a Jämtland polska.

If someone spots the YouTube video, thinks "Ooh a hornpipe, thesession.org is a good place to find traditional tunes" and comes on here and finds it as a jig, slide, three-two or waltz, it’s really not a great help is it?

That said, I have to take my hat off to siminoye for being faithful to the way it is played by Tim Twiss.

Although analysing the swing an individual player puts into a tune to that extent is a bit pointless.

"This isn’t a Jämtland polska."

And? The point is that time signature is not necessarily an accurate way of expressing tunes that are played by ear. The polska was just an example. I could give you more but if you couldn’t understand that this was an example, there’s probably no point.

"If someone spots the YouTube video, thinks "Ooh a hornpipe, thesession.org is a good place to find traditional tunes" and comes on here and finds it as a jig, slide, three-two or waltz, it’s really not a great help is it? "

Well, is it a good thing if somebody finds a cracking 2/4 pipe march on YouTube and comes on here to find it as a polka?

The thing is, these kind of hornpipes are not accurately represented as dotted quaver/semiquaver 4/4 tunes. It’s just that that is the way they are notated and those who know how this kind of hornpipe sounds will take that style of notation and play it as it should sound (unfortunately there are those who don’t know how it should sound too). If the way of writing these hornpipes happened to be as 12/8 tunes, someone would recognise that it was a hornpipe and play it accordingly, ironing out the inaccuracies of notation the same way.
As I said, it’s convention rather than accuracy.

Well if time signature isn’t necessarily an accurate way, then just say that. Quoting Jämtland polskas just because you can doesn’t add anything.

I’m sure it’s great for it to be notated in 12/8, but given that every other hornpipe on here is in 4/4. I suggested notating it in 4/4 so Jeremy actually puts the sheet music on and the tune doesn’t disappear. Even classical notation doesn’t usually notate the swing, as it varies from player to player. Notating it in 12/8 is worse from that point of view.

In summary: 12/8 is a poor choice for what seems to be an ordinary hornpipe. It’s misleading. Arguably an attempt to capture the swing, but an unusual attempt to do so and, in my opinion, unhelpful.

3/2 is absurd. There are not 3 beats in the bar; there are 4. Admittedly, 3/2 has the same number of quavers in a bar as 12/8, but it is organised internally completely differently. It’s not "unusual" to set a 4/4 tune in a triple time signature; it’s absurd.

Write it all out in 4/4 with triplets if you think people are going to be confused by a dotted rhythm.

Other errors

While getting the ABCs right, siminnoye might want to note that the name is not the "Lightfood" hornpipe, but the "Lightfoot" hornpipe. Interestingly, Tim Twiss’ website gives the date of Frank Converse’s Analytical Banjo Method as 1886, but his YouTube posting gives 1872, as in the OP here. I’ll have a look later and see if I can find which is right …

"Well if time signature isn’t necessarily an accurate way, then just say that. Quoting Jämtland polskas just because you can doesn’t add anything."

I quoted polskas because it is an example of how the stress in a 3/4 tune can alter the feel - and it doesn’t have the beats as expected. What’s wrong with quoting examples (especially an example that I’m familiar with)?

"I suggested notating it in 4/4 so Jeremy actually puts the sheet music on and the tune doesn’t disappear."
There is merit in that. Even though, strictly speaking, if you want to group those notes in fours, the timing should be 2/2 - the C with a stroke down the middle - as used by many publishers.

"Even classical notation doesn’t usually notate the swing, as it varies from player to player"

Well, to take a leaf from your book, this isn’t classical music. Why bring classical music into it? If you are transcribing a tune from the playing of a particular musician, it isn’t unusual at all to try and capture every nuance, and the ‘swing’ (I would rather call it a ‘bounce’ when it comes to these tunes) would be encompassed in that respect.

"In summary: 12/8 is a poor choice for what seems to be an ordinary hornpipe. It’s misleading. Arguably an attempt to capture the swing, but an unusual attempt to do so and, in my opinion, unhelpful."

Perhaps that is because you are conditioned to think of things otherwise. Setting the tunes with a dotted quaver and a semiquaver is also misleading - hence the people who read them from notation and play them wrongly.

That person who I mentioned earlier, who heard and notated bouncy hornpipes as 12/8 tunes was in fact a highly educated musician who became the principal organist of a cathedral. When I questioned him on the choice, he explained that the ‘bouncy hornpipe’ has two common motifs: The long- short bounce, which he reckoned was just as valid written as a crotchet/quaver (and is, in fact, closer to the way it is normally played) as a dotted quaver/semiquaver, and the triplets, which can fill a complete bar (as they do in the Lightfoot Hornpipe), and writing these as artificial groups (three in the space of two) is more clumsy (some might exclaim "absurd!" in hyperbole) than the natural groups of three that occur in compound quadruple time (i.e. 12/8). I couldn’t really find a constructive argument against that. The only real argument appears to be "it’s not the done thing", but the "done thing" is actually lacking in many respects.
Yes, 3/2 is not really a good way of notating the tune (this was suggested, not actually undertaken) but, given the fact that the established method of notating these tunes is inefficient (it is - even though it is established), it’s not ‘absurd’ IMO, just ‘probably not a good idea’.
This tune submission has brought about some interesting reactions if nothing else. I hope it doesn’t get zapped. It shows how people think within and outside the box.

"While getting the ABCs right, siminnoye might want to note that the name is not the "Lightfood" hornpipe, but the "Lightfoot" hornpipe. Something I pointed out earlier.

"Tim Twiss’ website gives the date of Frank Converse’s Analytical Banjo Method as 1886, but his YouTube posting gives 1872, as in the OP here. I’ll have a look later and see if I can find which is right …"

That’s possibly because the original ‘Analytical Banjo Method" was published before the 1886 "revised and enlarged edition" offered as a download by Tim Twiss.

"Write it all out in 4/4 with triplets if you think people are going to be confused by a dotted rhythm. "

Yep, you could use triplets presented as a crotchet and a quaver - and all those little ‘3s’ would tell you something. It’s not really within the time signature maybe?

There is some discussion on the 12/8 theme here:

http://www.thesession.org/tunes/11140

A further investigation into this subject revealed this (an extract from a paper):

[In 1997 I had occasion to play ʻThe Newtondale Hornpipeʼ with its composer David Shepherd. This
melody, it transpires, is a minor key re-working of the reel form, ʻGoathland Square Eightʼ, a melody
in common time. David and I played the melody together without recourse to any form of notation.
Shepherd asked where I had learned it and I confessed to having transcribed it from a recording of his
playing. Examination of my transcription, however, revealed that I had notated the tune in the standard
2/2 time. Shepherd had written it as an example of a melody in 3/2 time in the manner of the ʻold
Englishʼ hornpipe. Despite these differences the melodies scanned perfectly in a playing context but
looked different in a written form.
Further experiments in barring melodies in 3/2 time as if they were the later 2/2 form revealed that, for
all practical purposes, they are one and the same. The effect is obvious in listening where the element
of two beats in place of three gives that curious and distinctive feel which is the modern hornpipe. My
suggestion is that the hornpipe in 2/2 is nothing more than an attempt to quantise a hornpipe played
in 3/2. This takes up a third less space on the page which, in earlier times when paper was scarce or
expensive, may have been an economic consideration. This is then a matter of notational convention
rather than an actual change in practice. The placing of twelve quavers in the space of three minim
beats is entirely consistent with the way in which the melody manifests itself to the traditional player
and gives the element of syncopation so noticeable in practice. Where this occurs there can be seen
again the six beat structure occurring across the pattern but articulated by the player in a single bar in
the ʻcut timeʼ form.]

The Quintessentially English Tune
An appraisal of the ʻCut-Timeʼ Hornpipe, using examples from the Burnett Ms. c.1840
By Paul Davenport, Cert.Ed., M.Mus.

http://www.hallamtrads.co.uk/Downloads_files/Hornpipe.pdf

The whole paper makes an interesting read - some might call it "absurd", however!

Listening to various "hornpipes" reveals to me that only very rarely they are played consistent the dotted notation . It seems to be mostly restricted to concertina players and accordionists. In the contrary , all hornpipes played by bands and others , are singlejig-a-like ( like "Smash the windows" ). Convince Yourself and try to lilt together with them . You won’t be able to do it the dotted way !. And the simple explanation is that it is EXTREMELY difficult to play such a thing fast and TOGETHER in a band of not professional musicians , if it includes quavers as well . ( And how to dance on it ? ).
So I think 3/2 or 12/8 is the closest . Ex; : listen to this and count the tabs : it is clearly dideldadideldadum al the way .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG4H4t4PROE&NR=1

play video

Greetings , Sim
PS I like light food!

Sorry , I meant " difficult to play together if it includes TRIPLETS ."

Thank You Weejie for helping me with the possibilities of ABC notation , witch I never used until 2 weeks ago . I did post this tune as a kind of "penance" for having posted an own composition ,not aware that this was not really the purpose of this site .

The Lightfoot hornpipe

Two settings

Thirty comments

Hornpipe in E flat .

Other errors