Philippe Varlet <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> O'Neill himself confesses to putting his version together by using parts
> from different sources. The tune was recorded by Michael Coleman, so
> there's your benchmark performance...
And the version Coleman recorded was essentially the O'Neill version,
six parts, in the same order, with a few phrasing differences that are
well within the "artistic license" of the trad. musician.
So the mystery:
- Did Coleman learn the tune (or at least new parts to the tune) from
O'Neill's dots, or
- Was the "new" 6 part tune widely played in the US in Coleman's time?
Of course only our ethnomusicologists really care...
But for the listeners and stylists among us:
Does the Coleman recorded version seem a bit "herky jerky"
and/or rushed to you? Does to me. Wonder why...
If I recall, he plays the 6 parts through twice and
ends on the third rep of part B or C. Must have gotten the
"cut" signal from the engineer - space on the master disc
used up. Were they trying to get all 18 parts (6 x 3) onto
the single master side by going very fast?
Did the speed detract from his usual fluidity? Or was learning the
tune from a book not the best way (if he indeed did so)?