Paddy Fahey tune names

I see that someone or someone’s added numbers to the Fahey’s tunes (I assume consistent with Holohan dissertation) as Aka’s and I thought it would be nice if the numbered versions be reprogrammed to the top of the tune page so that we can all find them easier. I am myself starting a project to figure out which recorded versions actually match the tune pages. I’ve been so confused with his tunes and have decided to get myself organized. Is it possible to change the tune page header or can it only be done by an administrator or the original creator of the page?

I guess I’m really just wondering if people generally feel this is worth doing. It it even feasible.

I’d rather keep the numbered version as aliases—same with Ballydesmond polkas and the like.

@JWiseman. I tried to reconcile the Fahey tunes here on thesession with the Holohan transcriptions ( http://www.thisoldtractor.com/guzzi007/Celtic/Paddy_Fahey’s_by_Maria_Holohan.abc ) a few months ago and eventually gave up. Too much variance. If you do manage to get a good correlation, just start a thread with links since the Jeremy isn’t going to change the underlying structure of thesession. I know it’s confusing as all get-out to search Tunes for “Paddy Fahey’s” and get 29 pages with multiple jigs, reels and whathaveyou and I wish like crazy that they were sorted into appropriate entries but that just isn’t going to happen. Should you desire Maria Holohan’s original cassette recordings of Paddy Fahey, you can find them here: http://www.thisoldtractor.com/guzzi007/Celtic/Paddy_Fahey_recordings.zip

We must respect Mr Fahey’s wishes and call them all ‘Paddy Fahey’s’.
He said he did this is to avoid confusion.

I understand and appreciate your position on this Jeremy - which is why I asked.

I have started my project and I see what callison is referring to in terms of variance (You’ve been helping me out a lot lately - thx) I’m going to go forward with my project using the Hollohan dissertation as a framework. I don’t expect I will figure out all of the tunes but hopefully I can at least clear up the recorded versions for the most part.
Can someone explain the discrepancy of the reel PF no 14 on this site? I’ve always known it as No 3 and it is listed as so by Hollohan as well. Is the Hollohan paper not as definitive as I was lead to believe?
I’ll probably be asking more questions to members and ultimately offer my results to whoever wants them when I finish. Probably as some sort of spread sheet and possible a PDF tune book.
Callison - If you’re ever in my part of the country look me up. I’d love to share some tunes. If you’ve already done some of this work perhaps we can coordinate our efforts.

callison - I meant to tell you thanks for the recording link. I got it awhile back from University of Limerick but the file was corrupted and un-listenable - actually I think it was the tape they recorded the file from by the sounds of it. Hopefully this one is better as i haven’t heard it yet.
Your first link is dead.

The URL problem for the ABC file appears to be the right parenthesis at the end. If you delete that, it works fine.

My first reaction at seeing the title of this thread was “well, this will be short!”

Thanks for the Fahey link there callison, great stuff. Cheers

The collection of Paddy Fahey tunes on this site seems to be notably difficult to navigate. Regardless of how they are numbered (for a title search) doesn’t it make sense to provide a way to search Paddy Fahey compositions with some indication (other than the sequential submission link #) which would be helpful in finding them individually; rather than all under the same title [i.e. "Paddy Fahey’s]?

I advise resisting the urge to add numbers of any sort to the Fahey tunes. The man, himself, is still alive and he asked that this not be done. They are Mr. Fahey’s tunes. Adding numbers seems very disrespectful. Just leave them be.

With all due respect to Mr. Fahey his tunes are posted here in thesession.org database and people are discussing how to search this collection. It would help to hear from him directly about this significant collection of his compositions and the recurring discussions on the website.

We should respect his wishes if that is the case but I suppose I assumed that he must have been aware that Maria Hollohan indexed them in her dissertation. They obviously spent a fare amount of time together at the time. This is not the same as naming them and it would seem that there are those on this site with intimate knowledge of Mr. Fahey’s wishes that know we should not name them thus. It would be interesting to hear first hand accounts of these conversations as well as Maria Hollohan’s take on the matter. I certainly meant no disrespect to anyone including the administrators of this site and especially Paddy Fahey. I suppose I should have realized that this had been gone over before.

I find it absolutely amazing that anyone would request that their tunes not be put in any order and then give them all the same name. Imagine a session that gets started with “Paddy Fahey’s” - and two hours later they’re just getting to the last one in some random order. ;^)

Some people give their children their name, like George Foreman the boxer. George has 5 sons, all “George Foreman.” It’s motivation to keep in shape so they can’t beat the crap out of him, I’d guess.

Last night per request I played a reel in D minor and then loudly announced “Paddy Fahy’s #1”! So this system is good for a joke, at least. Also, to be honest, having listened to his corpus, there are about 10 tunes of his that I quite like, and the rest are just strange, so keeping them straight isn’t a big deal for me.

Ha! When I opened up the ABC link Google wanted to translate it, thought it was Portuguese. Thanks for those links Callison.

The full Fahey repertoire isn’t common in local sessions where I live. Just a few of the better ones float to the top and show up here and there. So as a practical matter, it’s not a big deal to just call ’em “Paddy Fahey” when someone asks. Then have a laugh about knowing several with the same name.

I can see where it’s frustrating when you try to learn many of the tunes, or look them up here on the mustard database.

I only know two PF reels and IAW Maria Holohan, they’re the first and the last (#1 & #26) so perhaps I can get away with just calling “First and last!” and see what kind of commotion I can give rise to!

FWIW, is there anyone that knows the full Fahey repertoire?

You can number them for your own reference, but don’t expect anyone else to know it by your numbers. The snippet system will take care of that

Transcripts of the Paddy Fahey Tunes referred to, and numbered, in Maria Holohan’s thesis (12 jigs, 2 hornpipes, and 29 reels) can be found as .PDF files in the Tune Library pages of www.rudemex.co.uk. I have always assumed that the numbering given by MH is generally accepted as a way of identifying them, but perhaps someone familiar with him and his compositions could confirm this, or otherwise.

https://thesession.org/recordings/3399

Thank you Kenny. Very nice music.

A good example of the proper way to reference the Fahey tunes is on the recordings of the Kane sisters. They simply refer to the tunes as “Paddy Fahey’s”. They do not use any other name and certainly do not number them. On their CD, “The Well tempered Bow”, they include seven Fahey tunes, all of them listed identically as “Paddy Fahey’s”.

https://thesession.org/recordings/252

Knowing how a tune goes is more important than knowing what it is called.

True, Yhaal.

“The Hop Down”
By Breda Keville

https://thesession.org/recordings/2085
But if anyone knows how the tunes in Tracks 6 & 11 go I don’t see what it would hurt to correct {i.e. EDIT} any inaccurate links.

I’ve been reluctant to post my thoughts on what seems like a bit of a touchy subject for some people. I’ve started to do my research and cannot help but voice my opinion on a couple matters.
First of all, there are more the just a few of his tunes that are not “just weird” as someone noted. There is a lot of value in most of if not all of his tunes. They take some getting used to is all but it is worth listening to good interpretations.
There seem to be more than just a few tunes outside of Maria Holohan’s paper that are named Paddy Fahey’s. In fact I am having a difficult time varifying the Kane Sisters Fahey tunes. Were they written after the dissertation? Mis-identified? Did Paddy not remember at the time the dissertation was written. These are questions I am interested in. Furthermore, I am interested in this as a musician but also a budding amateur ethnomusicologist. The Fahey ‘song collection’ has become important to me in it’s entirety. Knowing the melodies of the tunes is certainly more important but the collection of tunes has real value and in my opinion there should be an easier way to find them and understand them for everyone. I would suggest this will only help preserve his music which has to be a good thing.
In the case of Dave Flynn who’s album has 20 Fahey tunes of which he uses the Holohan index system, there are two jigs and two reels that he uses numbers higher than her index. He is a scholar so I am certain he identified them correctly, and labeled them as the next two added to Holohan’s index. I’ve tried to contact him to know where he
Picked them up.
I will use Holohan’s index for myself. I know in my own heart that it does not disrespect Paddy Fahey. I really cannot wrap myself around the idea of why we can’t just refer to the numbers as an index, not a tune name. All of Paddy’s tunes are indexed by the tune number on this sight anyway.

Well, you can always put “no. 9” in the tune search section and then pick out the Fahey specific hits. One page vs 29 pages. I haven’t tried more than two numbers to see what comes up but I suspect that positive results will be few.

callison - Yep. That’s what I intend to do. But before you can do that you really have to know the collection better. I thought there were more numbers as akas but there are really only a few of which a couple do not coincide with the Holohan index (e.g. Reel No. 3 is listed as No. 14, Jig No. 1 on this site is listed twice - one the very well known Martin Hayes in g min and the other the a min that was not in the dissertation but which Dave Flynn calls No. 14 as an apparent extension of Holohan’s index. I’ve been working on this daily and it’s fun and the music as I come to know it is exceeding my expectations.

At least one of the Fahey tunes on the Kane sister’s Well-Tempered Bow CD (2002) must have been written after the Holohan dissertation (1995) because the notes (to track 7) say “this is one of Paddy’s most recent compositions”.

That’s what I’ve been wondering about with that track as well as some others I’ve found - good information. On Dave Flynn’s album he was two jigs and two reels that are numbered higher (sequentially) than Holohan’s dissertation (Reel No. 30, 31 & Jig No. 13, 14). Jig No. 1 (of two)(aka Jig No. 14 per Dave Flynn) was added to this site 16 years ago and seems to be one of his more famous jigs - I’ve found it on several recordings. I wonder if that is older but not remembered at the time she wrote the dissertation or written after and became popular quickly. It’s a great Jig.

I also think there was at least one other that I couldn’t identify from the Kane sisters. When I have more information gathered I’m going to try to contact them and see if they’ll share with me what they know.

“We must respect Mr Fahey’s wishes and call them all ‘Paddy Fahey’s’.” as someone said earlier in that discussion.
Where is the evidence that Paddy asked for that ?
Why has he authorized Maria Holohan to do so ?
AFAIACWT, and in lack of this evidence, if Paddy said something about numbering, it was to signify he did not care about that or found it too complicated to manage himself. That is understandable. The contrary is just rigmarole.
AFAIACWT : as far as I am concerned with that ; and yes, I am concerned as I posted yesterday 20210414 the “missing” jig #7 in MH thesis under the name Paddy Fahey #7 (MHI) which as been short after changed to the unsignificant Paddy Fahey title…
The search engine of this site is not 100% liable, and many times I didn’t find what I was looking for but discovered later with other criteria. Not simple. I am not sure that in the case of the PF compositions the aliases which are allowed to be numbered (incidentally if it is disrepectfull to put numbers in the main title, it is not less disrepectfull to put them in aliases) will help to find them easily.
I just checked about another tune composed by Charlie Lennon this time. It is the one that is titled, in his own compositions’ book “Musical Memories Volume 2”, Lennon’s No 4 (sic). Why is it published here under the Charlie Lennon title ? Where is the respect of the composer’s willing ?

I posted “Charlie Lennon’s #4”, and it is listed as such - 4 alternatives - in the “alternative titles”, so what’s your problem ? As far as I can recall, I posted it as “Charlie Lennon’s #4”, but the use of “#” was not permitted in titles at that time. That may no longer be the case - I will try to change it.

“”We must respect Mr Fahey’s wishes and call them all ‘Paddy Fahey’s’." as someone said earlier in that discussion.
Where is the evidence that Paddy asked for that ?"
Perehaps the fact that in all his years of composing, he never gave any of his compositions a title other than “Paddy Fahey’s”. I would have thought that obvious.

Did he name them all “Paddy Fahey’s” though, or did he just not name them at all?

I claim for evidences that Paddy strictly did not “wish/want” his tunes to be numbered which is slightly different from what you want to let me understand. This said, the obviousness of his Gan Ainm compositions is actual. Shouldn’t we name them rather with that widely used title (ie gan ainm) and precise with the aliases the number, according to Maria Holohan index ?
Furthermore I can regret that some valuable standard ABC fields are prohibited here while submitting a tune, particularly the C: which allow to precise the composer’s name and could help. Same for the S: (source) field which should be mandatory !!!
Concerning the Lennon’s #4, you’ll probably be surprised to discover that the original main title you gave has been changed to a laconic “Charlie Lennon”. That’s “my” problem !

NB : Lennon’s No 4 appears in volume 1, and not in volume 2 as I previously said

I’m interested in Fahey’s No. 7 jig, anyone know the one below, I though it might be No.7 but Didier has a different tune, where did you get that from Didier

|: DFA dcA | AGE AGE | DFA dcA | AGE =C3 |
A,DD EFG | AdB =c3 | dfd AFF | GEC D2 A :|
DFA fed | dcA AGE | AGE DdA | =c3 GE=C |
A,DD EFG | AdB =c3 | dfd AFF | GEC D3 :|

Please see comments there https://thesession.org/tunes/20659

I saw your tune update in https://thesession.org/tunes/20659, but do you know what fahey tune the one I copied above is ?

‘It avoids confusion.’

You’re right. At least I feel so, Yhaal House. This being a forum I doubt his name will be the final word here.
{Brief aside; recently I happened to have watched episode 1 of the TV series “The Prisoner” w/Patrick McGoohan (1967).}

My understanding is that Paddy explicitly named them all “Paddy Fahey’s” so people would know who composed them. And also, certainly, to indulge a quirky sense of humor and maybe even hint at the notion that tune names are mostly random and shouldn’t be taken too seriously. But if you want to call one of his tunes The Blacksmith’s Anvil or Fahey’s No. 9 it’s certainly traditional for you to do so. You can even spell it “Fahy” if you want. Just don’t get all incredulous that another person uses another name. Or can’t remember where they heard it and have no name at all.

All of Paddy Fahey’s compositions have a name, none are “Gan Ainms”, every single one was given the title “Paddy Fahey’s” by the composer. If someone wants to ascribe numbers to them, that’s up to them. Whether or not those numbers will be accepted by the community of traditional musicians, now or in the future, only time will tell.

Theirlandais, the jig with the index MHI # 7. When I play the recording from MH´s tape, labelled Jig #7, I clearly hear a voice identifying it as Jig #3 at the beginning, so the confusion creeps into this situation very early on. At some point in arranging her thesis, Maria appears to have settled on another number, #7.
My understanding is that this entire project was undertaken over quite a period of time, involving Paddy´s wife and children, with them often prompting to call to his mind various compositions that might have passed out of his active recollection. And of course, various variations. . . .

when I listen to the jig mp3 numbered No.7 she clearly says number 7 and it’s the one that Didier transcribed, I have another .abc file which has no. 7 and it’s the same as the one I copied above, unless Maria made a mistake when recording which is of course possible, I think the number 7 is the Didier’s version, I have a number of missing jig recordings 3, and 9 and I have two different files that say jig No. 7 and they are both the same…..

If anyone doesn’t want to name Paddy Fahey tunes by numbers, then don’t, but don’t stop people doing it if they want to, just like you can get away with calling apples, pear and oranges, fruit, everyone to their own. numbers are handy though for finding tunes and linking them to recordings etc.. there aren’t many people out there if you said we’ll play 18 followed by 27 would have any idea what tunes you were going to play.

(in response to postie asserting “When I play the recording from MH´s tape, labelled Jig #7, I clearly hear a voice identifying it as Jig #3 at the beginning”)
Please go here https://thesession.org/tunes/20659?newcomment#comment919695 and make your own opinion.

but Didier you have an MP3, it’s quite possible that there was some correction that happened when the recordings we’re moved from cassette to MP3. and she clearly says seven on the recording you uploaded.