Alasdair, thanks for posting on this.

One thing to consider is the sound world of other traditions which
the Gaelic harpers would have been in contact with. Presumably the
Welsh cerdd dant tradition would be entirely pythagorean, being
resolutely medieval and lacking a fixed drone?

As I see it the issue is the extent to which na comhluighe might be
considered a drone, and then whether a drone might incite musicians
to tune a Just scale?

We also have Gaelic harpers travelling on the continent and
performing in consorts during the 16th and 17th century, and
presumably coming across not only just tunings but also meantone
tunings - it is an open question how much continental style they
brought back since we have no 'before' picture of gaelic harp music...

Byrne -does- mention tuning a 3rds, both in his 'common chord' of G-B-
D-G and also in his comment tuned in 3rds 4ths 5ths and octaves in
the manner of the pianoforte.

But, one does not have to explicitly tune 3rds to end up with a non-
pythagorean scale; if ones ear is listening for anything other than a
pure 5th then one can end up all over the shop!

Do you have any comments Alasdair about intonation of sean nos
singers? I am vaguely aware of some irregular intervals there -
neutral 7ths? My memory is hazy.

> out of tune, or muddied by phasing, to ears not accustomed to the
> Pythagorean values of these intervals


I think it's fair to say that a pure 3rd on its own is, in objective
terms, more 'in-tune' and more 'still' than a pythagorean ditone.
Whether the latter is 'muddy' is perhaps more open to opinion.

You have pointed out the predominance of 5ths and octaves in your
Gaelic Harmony work. But you also list some 3rds, 6ths and 10ths in
the examples you have analysed. Would you say there is any indication
that these are being used as points of dissonance or instability,
resolving to a 5th or octave?

Finally how much do we believe music theorists? Are they in ivory
towers ignoring practice and regurgitating on their classical
learning? Were musicians on the ground in their living traditions
doing all kinds of weird stuff?

Simon

A chàirdean,

The issue of Pythagorean versus just intonation on the Gaelic harp has raised
its head recently.

The question for me is, what was more important to the Gaelic harp - overall
purity of 'just' fifths in chordal harmony, or overall 'just' resonance
throughout the octave?  You can't have both in their entirety.  Do we plump for
the evidence of Gerald de Barri's quotations about harmony, the general medieval
prevalence of Pythagorean, the general thrust of the evidence of Bunting's
basses and Bunting & Bell's record of harp tuning systems, to back support for a
Pythagorean system universally applied during all periods?  Or do we plump for
the evidence of the Banks of Claudy, where thirds predominate, and the chord
charts in the 1840 introduction where thirds and fifths are roughly in equal
amounts and suggest that Pythagorean intonation was dumped, either in part or in
whole, by Bunting's time?

G A C D of the basic tuned octave of the O'Hampsey & Byrne systems are just in
Pythagorean tuning but B E F# aren't.  As a result, Pythagorean B E F (3rd, 6th
& 7th) will not resonate quite as clearly with the comhlaí as they could, to one
degree or another, and they could sound out of tune, or muddied by phasing, to
ears not accustomed to the Pythagorean values of these intervals.

There has always been a preference for thirds in Britain, even during the era
when Pythagorean tuning dominated musical theory in Europe.  Likewise,
Pythagorean tuning was still practiced in Britain even when musical theorists
who preferred just thirds were against Pythagorean thirds.

A quote in point would be from Alexander Malcolm's "A Treatise of Musick"
(Edinburgh, 1721), that "some and even the Generality ... tune not only their
Octaves, but also their 5ths as perfectly ... Concordant as their Ear can judge,
and consequently make their 4ths perfect, which indeed makes a great many Errors
in the other Intervals of 3rd and 6th."

By 'some', does he mean, 'some theorists'?  He might not have liked it, but
apparently many around him did, and this quote comes from Carolan's time and is
about spinet tuners!

I note that none of the Gaelic harp players that Bunting met seemed to have any
theoretical awareness of why they tuned the way the did. These are the people
who were playing Carolan's repertoire.  To our knowledge, they didn't give
either Bunting or Bell any overt indication that any strings were being tuned to
a string a third away.  I see the Bunting & Bell evidence of tuning systems,
where no strings are mentioned as being tuned to strings three places away, as
indicating that Pythagorean tuning was used as being appropriate to the Carolan
and Lyons repertoires.

On the other hand, we have the evidence of chromatic harps and harpers playing
in consort with musicians who may well have followed the practice of the later
theorists.  Against that, we have a general tendency amongst strings players to
tune in Pythagorean fifths, which produces a Pythagorean E at least.  Complex.

The application of the seòl slinneadh to the ceòl mór repertoire strengthens my
perception that Gaelic musicians were modally conservative, denying themselves
scalic options on theoretical grounds, a feature which many pipers remark upon
when they refer to not being able to play so many small-ranged Gaelic tunes on
the pipes.  This conservatism operated as a phenomenon of musical composition
right until the bulk of the Gaelic harpers died out in Scotland.

The same conservatism might apply to Gaelic harp temperament on account of
harmony.  Perfect dyads may always have been considered so fundamental to the
general Gaelic harp repertoire that just thirds were a secondary consideration. 
However, the evidence suggests that the harmony changed and that thirds became
ever more fashionable.

If we tune the harp to have just thirds, though, we lose a number of the just
fifths.  If just fifths were sacrificed to just thirds, why would there be no
overt mention of tuning thirds on the harp, as per meantone tuning systems for
example which do overtly mention this?

On the other hand again, perhaps it is difficult to imagine skilled harpers such
as Lyons not experimenting with tuning temperaments.

Personally, I prefer Pythagorean tuning and, if given the choice between having
a just fifth or a just third anywhere on the Gaelic harp, I'd choose the just
fifth.  I've also always been happy to take Bunting and Bell's evidence on
straightforward value as representing a continuous line of use of Pythagorean
tuning amongst ordinary practitioners of the Gaelic harp playing the native
repertoire of any period.

Beannachdan,



Alasdair

Dear Keith & Simon,

Marbhrann Mhic 'ic Ailein can be found on the album that Simon has which was
recorded by Willie Matheson under the first line, "Och, a Mhuire, mo dhunaidh",
text included.  The tune is one of those very reminiscent of keening.  I would
assign it to the slinn F as feminine D, along with Mo Rùn Geal Òg and A Bhríd
Bhéasach.

> I am surprised Alasdair that you did not react to the suggestion of evidence
for sylabic verse still being performed to a harp accompaniment in early 18th
century South Uist. <

Well, it's no surprise, and when you think about it, why would they be selling
harp keys in Barra at that time unless there was a concentration of harpers in
the region to sell to?  Mac 'ic Ailein and Clann 'ic Mhuirich were extremely
strong on the Gaelic arts, schools and literacy right up until Sheriffmuir, and
I would never doubt their fostering of the harp, especially when you remember
Niall Mór's opinion of the sound of the pipes - breim tòn an diabhail duibh!

Regarding Niall and Dòmhnall Mac Mhuirich specifically, there's an old marbhna
called "Do ttuirlinn seasuimh sioll Ccuinn" lamenting the death of the Mac 'ic
Ailein at Sheriffmuir which contains the following musical reference:

orruinn na fhiachibh dlighach
o bhás na riogh raghnallach
ccull re cceoll gan ccodlagh cceart
sleon nar cridh? gan fhurtacht

on us the lawful debts
from/since the death of the Ronald chief
back (turned) on music, without right sleep
and wound in our heart without comfort

This song sees Mac 'ic Ailein's death as a fatal blow to the Gael, and the end
of music and literacy (although Niall and Dòmhnall remain after this event). 
The lyric likewise tells of people turning their back on music in mourning, a
thing which is only possible were they to possess music before the death.

In the filidh's conception of what activities are ordained for the court of
Gaelic chiefs, the word 'seirm', which would indicate instrumental production of
music, is mentioned in tandem with the recitation of poems.  To suggest that
instrumental music was deliberately avoided as accompaniment for poems is
ludicrous to me and you don't accompany poems with the pipes or fiddle.  Niall
Bàn would have been called upon to take part, it was his job.

seirm ciuill is deachtadh dána
cleachtadh uird gach eallana

playing of music and recitation of poems
practice of the order of each art

It's a sad text in light of what happened to Clann Raghnaill and Gaelic culture
after the death.

Beannachdan,



Alasdair





--- In clairseach@..., "sanger_keith" <sanger_keith@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Simon
>
> A very open ended question. Prof Derick Thomson has over the years probably
published more on the MacMhuirich poets than anyone else, but not as an
'edition' of their poems. At the point we are looking at with the firm reference
to the harper there seem to have been at least two poets around. According to
Thomson's Companion to Gaelic Scotland,(which I think you stock, can I have a
percentage of sales for that plug?), both Domhnall, fl 1710 and Niall fl 1637 -
1726 would have been active at that time.
>
> In a paper called 'Three Seventeeth Century Bardic Poets: Niall Mor, Cathal
and Niall MacMhuirich' by Thomson published in 'Bards & Makars' edited by A
Aitken, (sorry but have ommitted to note the date on my photocopy), he gives
example verses but scattered throughout the whole article as he illustrates his
points. It does however have at the end a table of poems and sources which lists
12 attributed to Niall, unfortunately they are all referenced to the original
manuscripts rather than edited publications.
>
> The only 'edited' and printed poem that immediately comes to mind is Niall's
lament Marbhrann Mhic Mhic Ailein, on the death of Allan MacDonald of
Clanranald, (who died at Sherrifmuir) which is printed in 'Bardachd Ghaidhlig'
edited by Wm Watson.
>
> Of course if the MacMhuirich poets and harper were still functioning as a
combination at that time it would not just be the current poems that were being
'performed' and we know that the family had a large manuscript collection, some
of which some two generations down were I think being used to cut up as patterns
for a taylor by their then illiterate owner.
>
> Niall also around the 1690's contributed two poems to the bardic dispute that
flared up over the question of the heraldic Red Hand in the arms of Ulster.
Niall of course, not being biased claimed it for the MacDhomhnaill Lords of the
Isles. I would also speculate that a connection probably exists with the
piobaireachd 'Lamh Dhearg Chlann Domhnuill' (The Red hand in the MacDonald
Arms), and that it would be worth having somebody who can sing, (which lets me
out), testing the ground of the piobaireachd against the words of one of Nialls
poems,the poem in which he replied to Eoghan O Donnghaile which was in a looser
metrical form as apposed to the strict 'dan direach' reply he gave to Diarmuid
Mac an Bhaird.
>
> There exists a possibility that the harper Neill Bain may have been one of the
MacMhuirich family, when I first saw the name it struck me that in all the
Clanranald papers from that period that I have read through, Neill was not one
of the most common forenames and I recently took another look at the Judicial
Rental for the Clanranald estate from 1717, just after the 1715 rising when the
estate had been forfieted to the crown which confirmed my impression. Neill of
course was there at Stilligarry and described as poet, and historian to the
Clanranald family, and he signed with a beautiful elaborate Gaelic hand, but
apart from him there was in fact only one other person called Neill, and he did
not look like a harper.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Keith
>
> --- In clairseach@..., simon@ wrote:
> >
> > Keith, can you point us at some editions of this late Neil
> > MacMhuirich's poems so we can see what kind of thing Neil Bain might
> > have been accompanying? Who do you think the singer might have been?
> > One of the Neils? Simon
> >
>

Dear Simon

A very open ended question. Prof Derick Thomson has over the years probably
published more on the MacMhuirich poets than anyone else, but not as an
'edition' of their poems. At the point we are looking at with the firm reference
to the harper there seem to have been at least two poets around. According to
Thomson's Companion to Gaelic Scotland,(which I think you stock, can I have a
percentage of sales for that plug?), both Domhnall, fl 1710 and Niall fl 1637 -
1726 would have been active at that time.

In a paper called 'Three Seventeeth Century Bardic Poets: Niall Mor, Cathal and
Niall MacMhuirich' by Thomson published in 'Bards & Makars' edited by A Aitken,
(sorry but have ommitted to note the date on my photocopy), he gives example
verses but scattered throughout the whole article as he illustrates his points.
It does however have at the end a table of poems and sources which lists 12
attributed to Niall, unfortunately they are all referenced to the original
manuscripts rather than edited publications.

The only 'edited' and printed poem that immediately comes to mind is Niall's
lament Marbhrann Mhic Mhic Ailein, on the death of Allan MacDonald of
Clanranald, (who died at Sherrifmuir) which is printed in 'Bardachd Ghaidhlig'
edited by Wm Watson.

Of course if the MacMhuirich poets and harper were still functioning as a
combination at that time it would not just be the current poems that were being
'performed' and we know that the family had a large manuscript collection, some
of which some two generations down were I think being used to cut up as patterns
for a taylor by their then illiterate owner.

Niall also around the 1690's contributed two poems to the bardic dispute that
flared up over the question of the heraldic Red Hand in the arms of Ulster.
Niall of course, not being biased claimed it for the MacDhomhnaill Lords of the
Isles. I would also speculate that a connection probably exists with the
piobaireachd 'Lamh Dhearg Chlann Domhnuill' (The Red hand in the MacDonald
Arms), and that it would be worth having somebody who can sing, (which lets me
out), testing the ground of the piobaireachd against the words of one of Nialls
poems,the poem in which he replied to Eoghan O Donnghaile which was in a looser
metrical form as apposed to the strict 'dan direach' reply he gave to Diarmuid
Mac an Bhaird.

There exists a possibility that the harper Neill Bain may have been one of the
MacMhuirich family, when I first saw the name it struck me that in all the
Clanranald papers from that period that I have read through, Neill was not one
of the most common forenames and I recently took another look at the Judicial
Rental for the Clanranald estate from 1717, just after the 1715 rising when the
estate had been forfieted to the crown which confirmed my impression. Neill of
course was there at Stilligarry and described as poet, and historian to the
Clanranald family, and he signed with a beautiful elaborate Gaelic hand, but
apart from him there was in fact only one other person called Neill, and he did
not look like a harper.

Best wishes

Keith

--- In clairseach@..., simon@... wrote:
>
> Keith, can you point us at some editions of this late Neil
> MacMhuirich's poems so we can see what kind of thing Neil Bain might
> have been accompanying? Who do you think the singer might have been?
> One of the Neils? Simon
>

Keith, can you point us at some editions of this late Neil
MacMhuirich's poems so we can see what kind of thing Neil Bain might
have been accompanying? Who do you think the singer might have been?
One of the Neils? Simon

Dear Simon

I am assuming that the worm damage came after the harp was played by John
Robertson and before the new wood was inserted at the bottom of the forepillar,
otherwise it is back to gourmet wood worms who only ate the older wood. It is
also conceivable that the two metal straps were part of the original repair but
there was still sufficient flexing when strung to allow a fresh break. it is
interesting if you read Gunn carefully that he could be described as 'very coy'
throughout his whole description of the Lamont.

In terms of what happened to the harps after the period with the Highland
Society there is in fact a large black hole. It must be assumed that they were
returned to General Robertson, but as his family also had a house in Edinburgh,
(rented not owned), then they may have gone to him there. We know from Charles
Bell that both harps were at Dalguise when he arranged for them to be loaned to
the Museum in 1880, but Beatrice Potter whose family had been visiting Dalguise 
regularly from 1871 only refers to the Queen Mary harp which at that time was in
a cupboard at the Dower House at Stewartfield which had only been built in 1820,
the year that General Robertson died.

As the Lude estate was totally in debt unless the harps were quietly spirited
away the usual course of action would have been for everything the General owned
to be put up for auction to clear the debts. But although the estate was
advertised for sale I have yet to find anything beyond the land descriptions. 
It has been stated and I think we quoted it back in T of S that the two harps
had come to the Stewarts of Dalguise by a marriage link, and the fact that a
large chunk of the Lude papers were also in Dalguise hands suggests that may
have been the case, but I am still trying to find out what that link was. In
fact I am begining to suspect that it might have been two marriage links, from
Lude to possibly the Oliphants and from them to Dalguise.

We only really return to firm ground when in 1904 the Dalguise estate went up
for sale and at the auction the Society of Antiquaries paid £890 for the Queen
Mary harp helped by an advancement of their Westminster Parliament grant which
in typical government fashion was done in such a way that it consummed the
museums budget for buying anything else for some years after. It is interesting
to note that at that point the Society of Antiquaries did not give much credence
to the whole Queen Mary story other than it raised the price that they had to
bid.

They could not afford to go for the Lamont which was bought for £750 by Mr W.
Moir Bryce a well known antiquary who fortunately left it to the Society of
Antiquaries in his will when he died in 1919.

Returning to the inscription I have been looking through my copies of
contemporary material both 17th and 18th century still have not found anything
which would equate it with the 1665 date. On reflection the appearance of the AL
does strike a bell but not that early. From the early 18th century a half way
signature creeps in, used by people who were basically illiterate but wanted to
do something more than a cross. So they learnt to just sign with their initials
using that print type style of letters, but there is a sure sign in that the
'hand' is always shaky, which apart from the evidence of literacy from the rest
of the inscription the initial letters are not.

I am surprised Alasdair that you did not react to the suggestion of evidence for
sylabic verse still being performed to a harp accompaniment in early 18th
century South Uist.

Keith



--- In clairseach@..., simon@... wrote:
>
> > The serious woodworm damage to the bottom of the forepillar must
> > have occurred between circa 1730 and 1805, in other words after the
> > death of the John Robertson of Lude who was claimed to have had
> > both the Lude harps in a playable condition.
>
> Keith, you're assuming that the worm damage came before the pillar
> break, which I don't think can be demonstrated either way. The worm
> damage could all be later 19th century at Dalguise.
>
> The marks and compression on the pillar break and repair show clearly
> that the harp was strung up to significant tension in its current
> state, i.e. with the two crude iron straps riveted across the
> horizontal break in the pillar.
>
> Gunn's engraving does not seem to show the crack (understandably
> since it is quite thin) and does not show the three metal soundbox
> side clamps either. However it is detailed and careful enough to show
> the damage to the lower front left corner of the box, as well as the
> current arrangement of forepillar repairs, quite clearly. So we can
> suggest that in 1806 the three metal straps on the side of the
> soundbox had either already been removed, or had yet to be fitted.
>
> I would tend to suspect the former.
>
> Simon
>

> The serious woodworm damage to the bottom of the forepillar must
> have occurred between circa 1730 and 1805, in other words after the
> death of the John Robertson of Lude who was claimed to have had
> both the Lude harps in a playable condition.

Keith, you're assuming that the worm damage came before the pillar
break, which I don't think can be demonstrated either way. The worm
damage could all be later 19th century at Dalguise.

The marks and compression on the pillar break and repair show clearly
that the harp was strung up to significant tension in its current
state, i.e. with the two crude iron straps riveted across the
horizontal break in the pillar.

Gunn's engraving does not seem to show the crack (understandably
since it is quite thin) and does not show the three metal soundbox
side clamps either. However it is detailed and careful enough to show
the damage to the lower front left corner of the box, as well as the
current arrangement of forepillar repairs, quite clearly. So we can
suggest that in 1806 the three metal straps on the side of the
soundbox had either already been removed, or had yet to be fitted.

I would tend to suspect the former.

Simon

Dear Keith,

Thanks for the sumptuous information.  I don't know how you manage to get order
out of all that chaos.

First of all, a correction.  I should have typed, "Margaret, daughter of
Alexander Robertson, 8th of Lude, divorced from the son of George Robertson of
Faskally".

There are a lot of Clunies in Scotland, but there are a lot around Lude and
Faskally in particular.  The Aldcluny solution sounds likely enough.  A lot of
this hinges on the age of the writing style used for the inscription.  I
understand that the square L occurs in Scottish secretary hand and therefore
isn't necessarily a mid-18th century innovation.  As for the capital A, it looks
like Gaelic script to me.

Beannachdan,




Alasdair



--- In clairseach@..., "sanger_keith" <sanger_keith@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Alasdair
>
> Well although it has absolutely no connection with harps, well at least the
current question, that whole story you give was a classic case of marital
breakdown. Fascally was so p***** off by the event that as Lude could not afford
to redeem the wadset that he had lodged with Fascally in liu of the original
dowry, Fascally sold the wadsets onto Atholl thereby starting the second decline
in Ludes fortunes and creating massive problems for Lude everytime there was a
boundary dispute with Atholl.
>
> Atholl had already got the feudal superiority of the Lude estate when through
an earlier marriage arrangement the Earl Of Breadalbane had bought Lude from the
Ogilvy's of Inchmartin and on Alex Robertson marrying his daughter sold the
lands of Lude back to Robertson but sold the feudal superiority of Lude to
Atholl.
>
> It may seem somewhat of an academic interest but essential when trying to
track down all the surviving Lude papers.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Keith
>
> ps. Question How was Neil the last of the MacMhuirich poets to
>     compose in the older verse forms who lived in South Uist into
>     the early 18th century able to get his verse performed?
>     Answer, by using a harper called 'Neil Bain' who otherwise
>     could be got 'to drunk to tune his harp'.
>     I can see a thesis here, drinking as an occupational hazard
>     for harpers, does anybody want to take it on? the field work
>     should be fun if nothing else.
>
>
> --- In clairseach@..., "calumcille" <calumcille@> wrote:
> >
> > Dear Simon,
> >
> > Thanks for that transcription!  I'd often wondered about the 1650/1656
problem.
> >
> > Margaret, daughter of Alexander Robertson, 8th of Lude, divorced from George
Robertson of Faskally and married Alexander Stewart, 5th of Bonskeid.  The
eldest son of their second son, James Stewart, 1st of Wester Clunie, was
Alexander Stewart, 2nd of Wester Clunie (which I think is on Loch Faskally -
what a to and fro) was apparently born on 24 June 1639.
> >
> > This son was too young to be 'of Clunie' in 1650.  I have a picture of the
father promising the son the title by the age of 10 and the son staking out his
claim in English on the harp!  It might therefore be that we should read 1656
here when Alexander would have been aged at least 16.  Is this our most likely
candidate, Keith?
> >
> > This does look like mid-seventeenth century writing to me.  I'd venture that
the spelling is 'Stewart'.  At the end of the word, I think we might have a
majuscule R characteristic of that era followed by the cross-stroke only of the
't'.
> >
> > Beannachdan,
> >
> >
> >
> > Alasdair
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In clairseach@..., simon@ wrote:
> > >
> > > I have made a drawing of the inscription on the Lamont harp:
> > > http://www.earlygaelicharp.info/harps/lamontinscription.htm
> > >
> > > Anyone care to opine on whether this is a 17th century hand or a
> > > later one? Any ideas on reading the name - Stewat - Stewar - Steuut -
> > > etc.
> > >
> > > Simon
> > >
> > > PS my recital demonstration in the Museum in Edinburgh went well on
> > > Saturday. There is another on Sunday 10th January 2010 if any of you
> > > want to hear the replica Queen Mary harp in the gallery beside the
> > > original! http://www.simonchadwick.net/NMS/
> > >
> >
>

Dear Alasdair

Well although it has absolutely no connection with harps, well at least the
current question, that whole story you give was a classic case of marital
breakdown. Fascally was so p***** off by the event that as Lude could not afford
to redeem the wadset that he had lodged with Fascally in liu of the original
dowry, Fascally sold the wadsets onto Atholl thereby starting the second decline
in Ludes fortunes and creating massive problems for Lude everytime there was a
boundary dispute with Atholl.

Atholl had already got the feudal superiority of the Lude estate when through an
earlier marriage arrangement the Earl Of Breadalbane had bought Lude from the
Ogilvy's of Inchmartin and on Alex Robertson marrying his daughter sold the
lands of Lude back to Robertson but sold the feudal superiority of Lude to
Atholl.

It may seem somewhat of an academic interest but essential when trying to track
down all the surviving Lude papers.

Best wishes

Keith

ps. Question How was Neil the last of the MacMhuirich poets to
     compose in the older verse forms who lived in South Uist into
     the early 18th century able to get his verse performed?
     Answer, by using a harper called 'Neil Bain' who otherwise
     could be got 'to drunk to tune his harp'.
     I can see a thesis here, drinking as an occupational hazard
     for harpers, does anybody want to take it on? the field work
     should be fun if nothing else.


--- In clairseach@..., "calumcille" <calumcille@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Simon,
>
> Thanks for that transcription!  I'd often wondered about the 1650/1656
problem.
>
> Margaret, daughter of Alexander Robertson, 8th of Lude, divorced from George
Robertson of Faskally and married Alexander Stewart, 5th of Bonskeid.  The
eldest son of their second son, James Stewart, 1st of Wester Clunie, was
Alexander Stewart, 2nd of Wester Clunie (which I think is on Loch Faskally -
what a to and fro) was apparently born on 24 June 1639.
>
> This son was too young to be 'of Clunie' in 1650.  I have a picture of the
father promising the son the title by the age of 10 and the son staking out his
claim in English on the harp!  It might therefore be that we should read 1656
here when Alexander would have been aged at least 16.  Is this our most likely
candidate, Keith?
>
> This does look like mid-seventeenth century writing to me.  I'd venture that
the spelling is 'Stewart'.  At the end of the word, I think we might have a
majuscule R characteristic of that era followed by the cross-stroke only of the
't'.
>
> Beannachdan,
>
>
>
> Alasdair
>
>
>
>
> --- In clairseach@..., simon@ wrote:
> >
> > I have made a drawing of the inscription on the Lamont harp:
> > http://www.earlygaelicharp.info/harps/lamontinscription.htm
> >
> > Anyone care to opine on whether this is a 17th century hand or a
> > later one? Any ideas on reading the name - Stewat - Stewar - Steuut -
> > etc.
> >
> > Simon
> >
> > PS my recital demonstration in the Museum in Edinburgh went well on
> > Saturday. There is another on Sunday 10th January 2010 if any of you
> > want to hear the replica Queen Mary harp in the gallery beside the
> > original! http://www.simonchadwick.net/NMS/
> >
>

Dear Simon

That the inscription is earlier than the reinforcing straps provides one more
piece of evidence for the whole repair having been done by Muir Wood on
receiving the harps in 1805. The serious woodworm damage to the bottom of the
forepillar must have occurred between circa 1730 and 1805, in other words after
the death of the John Robertson of Lude who was claimed to have had both the
Lude harps in a playable condition.

What is not commonly realised is that the instruments were in the hands of Muir
Wood for a while before Gunn and Elouis came on the scene and as as the company
of Muir Wood were instrument makers and repairers and had been engaged by the
Highland Society to 'conduct tests'on them,  replacing the lower end of
forepillar, (which would have been done without needing to dismantle the top end
from the harmonic curve), no matter how sacrilegious in terms of conservation
today would not have raised an eyebrow back then.

Although the two harps today are basically as shown in the engravings in Gunns
Treatise, the drawings and engravings were actually done over a year after the
harps had first been brought down from Lude and placed in Muir Woods hands.
Certainly we know that M&W had already set up and strung the 'Queen Mary' harp
with wire strings before Elouis twice went to M&W's Leith Street premisess to
play on it for the Highland Society Committee, although it was then subsequently
delivered to his house to be re strung ' with a complete sett of different
strings which answered the the purpose infinitely better than the former ones'.

Turning to the inscription and the inscriber,there are any number of Clunie's in
Scotland but for many reasons the likely one involved here, given the Lude
connections was in fact part of the original Robertson of Lude Estate. It is in
the bottom corner adjacent to where the Allt Chluain enters the river Garry,
marked by the modern farm of Aldclune. The Allt Chluain also formed the boundary
between the Robertson estate of Lude and the Stewart estate of Urrard.

Clunie was the possession of Charles Robertson the younger son of Lude at the
time of the claimed marriage with the daughter of Lamont with which the harp was
originally supposed to have entered into Lude hands. In more recent times it can
be shown that there was a James Robertson alias Clarsair who was one of the
joint tenants of Clunie in 1706 and so at that time there would presumably have
been a harp at Clunie.

The whole area of Perthshire is very well served with archive material although
spread between public institutions and private hands. Even where some estate
records might be lacking in some areas the records can often be found mixed up
in neighbouring estates, or they have complimentary records which make up the
deficiency. So the 17th century population is fairly well covered and there is
no sign of a Stewart with forname Al in Clunie during the 17th century. The
earliest record that occurs is for 1727 when an Alexander Stewart in Clunie was
delivering a load of peats to the John Robertson of Lude who played both harps.
Alexander Stewart was clearly younger than the then Lude and between the Lude
and Atholl papers can be traced well into the 1750's.

So where did he come from, well names tended to run in families and it helps
that Alexander was not one of the most common Stewart names in that area. So
when there is a family of sub tennants on the neighbouring estate of Urrard
using that forename it becomes an obvious choice and also might explain the date
of 1656 in an inscription which bears all the hallmarks of having been written a
century or so later than that, a point I will return to later.

This Stewart family first rose to prominence when sometime before 1667 they had
gained the tack of the watermill at Orchilbeg. The mill thirlage was confirmed
by Stewart of Urrard to Alex Stewart of Orchilbeg that year so a date of circa
1656 for the original tack looks very likely and in this case appealing. The
mill itself seems to have been very near to modern Auldclune and opposite the
Lude lands of Clunie on the other side of the river.

Coming into the possesion of a mill would have been a significant family event
and certainly a memorable date and if as seems likely it was another younger son
of the miller's family who becomes a tenant in Clunie circa 1720-30 then the
date of the families rise to fortune would still been remembered when I would
speculate his young son gets to play with a harp. After all we know from Gunn's
quote from General
Robertsons letter that the 'Queen Mary' harp was despoiled while in the hands of
those to whom it had been entrusted during the period 1745/6 and I would suspect
that the inscription on the Lamont is of similar date.

Handwriting was of course evolving all the time but there were considerable
changes between that used during the 17th century and in that of the 18th.
Around 1700 as one hand dropped out of use and the newer longhand came in it is
possible to see both styles at the same period, probably reflecting the
respective generations. Even with the 'newer' style there were some older forms
of letters which did not disappear until well into the century, for example the
old dropped 'h' which looks more like a longish verticle sqiggle and the old
form of 's' which looks a little like an uncrossed 'f'. I will post a cropped
scan of a payment to a harper called Angus MacDonald from an account of 1713 for
an estate not too far from Lude and which illustrates those points as well as
having a number of references to Stewarts.

Among other features that suggest the inscription is closer to the middle of the
18th century are the almost modern capital A and hard right-angle L the sort of
hand that would be reflective of a young  mid 18th century scholar who was
learning the latest style of handwriting. And I suppose carving your name on and
old harp that was lying around was a far safer bet than carving it on your desk
and risking the dominees retribution with a belt.

There is after all at least one other example of a harp being used as a toy, the
copy of the Downhill that John Bell acquired in the 1840's had according to his
notebook been used by someones child as a 'hobby horse'

Now to see if I can manage to post a picture, don't hold your breaths.

Best wishes

Keith


--- In clairseach@..., simon@... wrote:
>
> I have made a drawing of the inscription on the Lamont harp:
> http://www.earlygaelicharp.info/harps/lamontinscription.htm
>
> Anyone care to opine on whether this is a 17th century hand or a
> later one? Any ideas on reading the name - Stewat - Stewar - Steuut -
> etc.
>
> Simon
>
> PS my recital demonstration in the Museum in Edinburgh went well on
> Saturday. There is another on Sunday 10th January 2010 if any of you
> want to hear the replica Queen Mary harp in the gallery beside the
> original! http://www.simonchadwick.net/NMS/
>

Dear Simon,

Thanks for that transcription!  I'd often wondered about the 1650/1656 problem.

Margaret, daughter of Alexander Robertson, 8th of Lude, divorced from George
Robertson of Faskally and married Alexander Stewart, 5th of Bonskeid.  The
eldest son of their second son, James Stewart, 1st of Wester Clunie, was
Alexander Stewart, 2nd of Wester Clunie (which I think is on Loch Faskally -
what a to and fro) was apparently born on 24 June 1639.

This son was too young to be 'of Clunie' in 1650.  I have a picture of the
father promising the son the title by the age of 10 and the son staking out his
claim in English on the harp!  It might therefore be that we should read 1656
here when Alexander would have been aged at least 16.  Is this our most likely
candidate, Keith?

This does look like mid-seventeenth century writing to me.  I'd venture that the
spelling is 'Stewart'.  At the end of the word, I think we might have a
majuscule R characteristic of that era followed by the cross-stroke only of the
't'.

Beannachdan,



Alasdair




--- In clairseach@..., simon@... wrote:
>
> I have made a drawing of the inscription on the Lamont harp:
> http://www.earlygaelicharp.info/harps/lamontinscription.htm
>
> Anyone care to opine on whether this is a 17th century hand or a
> later one? Any ideas on reading the name - Stewat - Stewar - Steuut -
> etc.
>
> Simon
>
> PS my recital demonstration in the Museum in Edinburgh went well on
> Saturday. There is another on Sunday 10th January 2010 if any of you
> want to hear the replica Queen Mary harp in the gallery beside the
> original! http://www.simonchadwick.net/NMS/
>

I have made a drawing of the inscription on the Lamont harp:
http://www.earlygaelicharp.info/harps/lamontinscription.htm

Anyone care to opine on whether this is a 17th century hand or a
later one? Any ideas on reading the name - Stewat - Stewar - Steuut -
etc.

Simon

PS my recital demonstration in the Museum in Edinburgh went well on
Saturday. There is another on Sunday 10th January 2010 if any of you
want to hear the replica Queen Mary harp in the gallery beside the
original! http://www.simonchadwick.net/NMS/

A chàirdean chòir,

Meala-nàidheachd air na Heymanns a tha an diugh a' cuimhneachadh an 33mh
ceann-bliadhna pòsaidh aca.  Bidh iad cuideachd a' frithealadh cuirm-ciùil an
nochd a tha am Minnesota Irish Music & Dance Association a' cumail mar urram do
dh'Ann bhon a dh'ainmich iad i mar 'Neach na Bliadhna' aca.

Airson na tachartasan seo a chomharrachadh, rinn mi na rannan a leanas do dh'Ann
agus Charlie air cuspair na clàirsich Gàidhealaich.


éisd, éisd, a nuadh chlàrsach Ghallda
cluinn a' bhànrigh bhrèagha bhreugach mheallta
guth na mnatha a b'ionmhainn le ar sinnsear
s mis' a' chlàrsach Ghàidhealach gu cinnteach
seinnidh tusa fiream faram gun duais
seinnidh mise binn binn ri cluais

cruit is clàr a theireadh iad an céin rium
s chan eil ceud nach cualas mo ghuth fhéin ann
s mi bho thùs an làmhan naomh is threun-fhear
ghabhadh laoidhean s filidheacht na Féinne
sheinneadh ormsa port is cor is cumha
s thig an t-òran mór rim theudan cruaidh

géimhleagach Mhic Aodhagain chan àill leam
casachanach coimheach b'ì do mhàthair
s mis' a sìol fìor-fhuileach Mìl na Spàinne
fóghnaidh do bhreug-shamhlachadh s ceòl atharraicht'

gu bheil odhar na greallaiche nad shìomain
air neo susbaint thruailleachail na linn seo
cha b'e sin dhomh fhìn is cha mhó a dh'iarrainn
s cruaidh a cridhe na creigeadh is a lìomh orm

straplaich bheus gun riaghladh is gun réim air
làmh gun eòlas sgioblachaidh na déidh-se
còrd is còrd ruith thairis air a chéile
mar a fhliuchar tràigh fo bhristeadh steud-thonn

bha mi greis fo éiginn, dhìobair càch mi
mhair mi beò is cha do thréig mo chàil mi
cluinnear asam ceòl nam bàrd s nan clàirseir
cheart cho beò s a bha e riamh nan là-san
buailidh Anna mo theudan mar bu dual
is seinnidh Teàrlach a-rithist air ghleus mo dhuan

bi nad thosd, a nuadh-chlàrsach Ghallda
cluinn a' bhànrigh bhrèagha bhreugach mheallta
guth na mnatha a b'ionmhainn le ar sinnsear
s mis' a' chlàrsach Ghàidhealach gu cinnteach
seinnidh tusa fiream faram gun duais
seinnidh mise binn binn ri cluais

Guma fada beò sibh, Ann agus Charlie, le chéile,




Alasdair

Thanks for posting this, Keith.  This is enormously helpful.  I was looking for
his papers.  I may end up going over there to look up these papers sometime
before the end of this year.

- Karen

--- In clairseach@..., "sanger_keith" <sanger_keith@...> wrote:
>
> It seems that the papers of Dr James MacDonnell are curently on deposit among
the private papers collections in the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland
under reference number D3819.
>
> Other material has been deposited by the owner (a Mrs Shorter), in the
National Library of Ireland and is described in the NLI Reports on Private
Collections No 495.(not available online).
>
> Anyone passing in either direction able to take a look?
>
> Best wishes
>
> Keith Sanger
>

It seems that the papers of Dr James MacDonnell are curently on deposit among
the private papers collections in the Public Record Office of Northern Ireland
under reference number D3819.

Other material has been deposited by the owner (a Mrs Shorter), in the National
Library of Ireland and is described in the NLI Reports on Private Collections No
495.(not available online).

Anyone passing in either direction able to take a look?

Best wishes

Keith Sanger

Dear Simon,

I see this design as a kind of European 'magic circle' and I'm not much of a fan
of a lot of attempted musical steganography.  On the other hand, it's sometimes
counter-productive to regard certain matters as things to be proven: some
people's instincts tell them that one thing is likely, other people's instincts
tell them something else.  I'd prefer to keep my mind open here, as this
particular Stirling Head pattern is so ingenious that I wonder whether it had
any cultural currency amongst artisans and artists, or even musicians, who had a
shared culture of symbols.  This design was discovered as a clearly exceptional
pattern amongst the roundels, so I wouldn't be put off regarding it as having a
singular nature.

I agree that the II, I and 0 signs are used in purely obvious patterns elsewhere
and that this roundel contains purely 'hidden' patterning, but the irregularity
in repetition only occurs in the macro-repetition and irregularity within the
macrorepetition is entirely normal for music built in such a way.  At the level
of barring, the repetitions are quite balanced, which is also a normal feature
and, as I've noted previously in the group, the squashed loop marks the the
optimum occurrence of 4/4 (as it were) pattern repetitions, producing the
following pattern.

2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1
0 1 0 2 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 0 1
2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1

1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1
1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1
1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1
1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1

(3A + 3B + 3A) + (2A + 2A) + (2B + 2B)

Only 0 1 0 2 and 1 0 1 0 are unrepeated here, but if the 2 sign is taken to
represent a variation of a 1 sign musically, then only 1 0 1 0 is unrepeated. 
Even then, it would be a reverse of the preceding 0 1 0 1.

If this pattern had any currency, musicians may have worked out this metrical
balance and considered it usable for compositional purposes.  I also take your
point concerning the creation of novel metres: the carving doesn't depict a
canonical metre as far as the Welsh are concerned but, on the other hand, it is
possible that distinctively Scottish metres unused elsewhere did exist.

There is the question of the relationship of melody to metre. The canonical
Welsh metres may have originally evolved essentially as part of the movement of
melody.  Alternatively, composers may have exercised their artifice in
developing new metres almost as it were regardless of melody and then composed
melodies upon them.  If so, it's possible that, in one case at least, Scottish
musicians may have referred to arithmetical principles when finding ideas for a
new metre.  Who created this design?  Was he an artisan knowledgeable about
musical theory?  How wholistic, as it were, did he consider its potential for
utilisation?

The Heymanns, characteristically, keep my mind open to the possibility of
musical use, or at least appropriation of this pattern for musical use, and I've
consequently been thinking about Gaelic songs that contain similar kinds of
measures to the roundel patterning we're discussing.

Naturally, several of the figures in the Gaelic songs I've been thinking of
could be interpreted as appearing as relating to the above pattern, eg, 1101,
1011, 0101.  The total number of overall digits is 68, the inevitable outcome of
all these intricate triangular and square patterns using these digits in this
way, but it didn't take me long to think of a Gaelic song apparently built on
binary sonorities which has a total measure of 68, so the overall 'irregular'
length (not being 64) also need not pose a problem.

It might be worth going through ap Huw for triangular patterns, perhaps looking
for constrasting types of I or contrasting types of 0.  I'm still at the stage
of publishing transcriptions of this.  If anyone finds any possible triangular
patterns amonst the notes of the music, do let us know!

I've also discussed the figure on the lady's breast with the Heymanns.  It
occurs to me that if it is a green man or cherub, it might mean that the lady
depicted had passed away.  The Heymanns have their own ideas on the possible
identity of the lady.

Beannachdan,



Alasdair

--- In clairseach@..., simon@... wrote:
>
> Thanks for this useful analysis Alasdair.
>
> The main thing I have felt is missing from this whole subject is a
> balanced analysis of the possibilities. Briefly, the Stirling Heads
> roundel has various design features not being discussed (e.g. the
> symbolism of the person, the cherub on their breast etc). The border
> has 2 main features: 1. it has a sequence of Is and Os; 2. the
> sequence is non-repeating.
>
> That it is non-repeating suggests it either follows a not-obvious
> pattern, or encodes some kind of information. Your "numerical
> patterning" analysis is making the former look more likely than the
> latter.
>
> If for the sake of argument we suppose it is encoding information,
> then there are many possibilities, from names, dates, etc. to music,
> geometry, etc.
>
> When considering which type of information is encoded, how do we
> prove whether we have selected the correct one? If we are looking for
> a text code then obviously we need to find a coherent translation to
> prove the textual option. A musical solution is the least
> satisfactory because any arbitrary sequence of characters can produce
> music, so successful production of music does not prove the musical
> option.
>
> That it has Is and Os suggests we look for parallels. One parallel
> suggested is the charts of measures in Welsh Cerdd Dant manuscripts.
> This is an argument in favour of music. However, Though these do use
> strings on Is and Os, they do not share extended patterns with this
> roundel - the Stirling roundel does not contain any of the canonical
> measures, nor any related sequence known from Scottish music. Also
> the Welsh sequences of Os and Is only appear in the context of lists
> of established canonical patterns, and not to my knowledge for the
> display of novel or unique sequences. These are counter-arguments
> against music.
>
> Another parallel is that I and O are common decorative motifs on the
> other roundels, many of which bear ribbons of borders with repeating,
> meaningless sequences of I and O. This means that the cerdd dant mss
> are a far less significant parallel for the non-repeating border than
> has been made out.
>
> So looking at the distinctive features: a sequence of Is and Os which
> are similar to the characyers on many of the other Stirling Heads,
> and a specific sequence which is a mathematical patterning, suggests
> to me that any musical interpretation is a red herring
>
> Simon
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On 23 Sep 2009, at 15:29, calumcille wrote:
>
> > Dear Simon,
> >
> > It appears your instincts about the roundel markings not
> > constituting music may be founded.  In a previous message to the
> > group, I have already noted the triangular numbers 28 and 36
> > appearing on the outer rings.  I had another look at the pattern
> > last night and it began to look rather more mathematical in nature
> > than musical.
> >
> > Firstly, I noticed the palindromic section which occurs 3 times
> > within the macrorepetition.
> >
> > 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2
> >
> > 2+1 = 3
> > 1+1+1 = 3
> > 2+1 = 3
> >
> > Then I realised that there were
> >
> > 5 instances of the formulation I I I appearing enclosed between 0s
> > whether you retain the II symbol or not  (so the I I formulation
> > never appears next to a II sign, because if the II symbol was
> > removed, the I I formulation could be added onto a I and become a I
> > I I formulation);
> >
> > 3 instances of I I appearing enclosed between 0s but if you remove
> > the symbol II from the pattern, there are 7 instances;
> >
> > 16 instances of I appearing enclosed between 0s and IIs but if you
> > remove the symbol II from the pattern there are 9 instances
> > enclosed between 0s.
> >
> > When the II signs are extracted, we can add up the I signs: 5 + 7 +
> > 9 = 21, the triangular number below 28 and 36 in the series.
> >
> > 5 x (I I I) = 15, the triangular number below 21.
> >
> > There are also 4 instances of the I II I formulation. (1+2+1) x 4 =
> > 16, the square of 4, another square number.  There are 4 instances
> > of the I II formulation and 1 instance of the II 1 formulation. 1+4
> > = 5 and 5 X 3 = 15.
> >
> > Between the 9 instances of the II signs, there are nine totals of
> > the sign 0.  These comprise two groups of 2+3+3+2=10 plus one
> > additional 0 sign, making a total of 21 0 signs.  10 is the
> > triangular number below 15.
> >
> > Between the 9 instances of the II signs, if you add up all the I
> > signs, the total 5 is found 5 times.  5 x 5 = 25, the square number
> > above sixteen.
> >
> > There are also 9 instances of the II signs.  If one exchanges the
> > II sign for an I sign, then a total of 9 groups of I I I are
> > created between 0s.
> >
> > The missing triangular number between 3 and 36 is 6.  I can't find
> > 6 instances of any formulation.  Perhaps 9 has usurped 6, being the
> > same sign inverted.
> >
> > All the triangular and square numbers between 3 and 36 are found
> > here, apart perhaps from a clear individual use of number 6,
> > perhaps on account of religious connotations; it does appear (for
> > example, a couple of times as number of signs found between a pair
> > of II signs) but not as part of a multiplication or sum, unless
> > I've missed something.  (It is also the number 9 inverted - had
> > arabic numerals arrived in Scotland by this time?).  This pattern
> > strikes me as highly unlikely to have been designed for musical
> > performance.  I prefer the idea that this is merely numerical
> > patterning created by the designer.  Even the crushed loop can now
> > be seen to mark the beginning of one of the 210111012 palindromic
> > sections - it roughly marks the nine o' clock position, as Ann
> > Heymann pointed out to me.
> >
> > This theory partially explains why would the designer do this
> >
> > 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2
> >
> > rather than this
> >
> > 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 2
> >
> > and so on.
> >
> > I'm very pleased with this explanation as this would explain why a
> > certain amount of apparently irregular patterning and irregularly
> > sized chunks of repetition exist.  Someone with more mathematical
> > skill than me can hopefully explain how the designer arrived at
> > this ingenious patterning.  The construct is so ingenious, one
> > wonders if it exists elsewhere.
> >
> > Beannachdan,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Alasdair
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > --- In clairseach@..., "ckeithcollins"
> > <ckeithcollins@> wrote:
> >>
> >> This is indeed a fascinating development!  I rather like the idea
> >> that the II represents a third sonority.  When I've tried to boil
> >> down some of the piobaireachd into binary notation, I've sometimes
> >> observed that employing a third sonority would have made the job
> >> easier.
> >>
> >> When I play for example "Cumha na cloinne" Lament for the Children
> >> (on keynote D, with F#) I use 3 sonorities:  D, A, and B.  If we
> >> reduce the urlar to binary (ternary?)  I is home sonority D, 0 is
> >> away A, and II is B. (I'm using 2 instead of II in the following,
> >> and the sequence is based on my conflation of several slightly
> >> differing sources):
> >>
> >> IOII OOI2
> >> OIOO IOII rpt
> >>
> >> OOOO IIII
> >> OOII OOIO
> >> 2IOO IOII
> >> 2OOI OO22
> >>
> >> Breaks several of the "rules" Alasdair observed (II does not occur
> >> next to another II, etc.)
> >>
> >> OK, this is a contrived thing in that I'm applying medieval Welsh
> >> ideas onto an C18 pipe piece, but given what has turned up in the
> >> roundel maybe it has some precedence.  This approach has helped me
> >> in memorizing the sequence of the sonorities so that I can come up
> >> with my own variations.  I should record them and post them here,
> >> but I'm headed to Canada for a gig in a few days.  Maybe next month!
> >>
> >> best,
> >> Keith Collins
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

Thanks for this useful analysis Alasdair.

The main thing I have felt is missing from this whole subject is a
balanced analysis of the possibilities. Briefly, the Stirling Heads
roundel has various design features not being discussed (e.g. the
symbolism of the person, the cherub on their breast etc). The border
has 2 main features: 1. it has a sequence of Is and Os; 2. the
sequence is non-repeating.

That it is non-repeating suggests it either follows a not-obvious
pattern, or encodes some kind of information. Your "numerical
patterning" analysis is making the former look more likely than the
latter.

If for the sake of argument we suppose it is encoding information,
then there are many possibilities, from names, dates, etc. to music,
geometry, etc.

When considering which type of information is encoded, how do we
prove whether we have selected the correct one? If we are looking for
a text code then obviously we need to find a coherent translation to
prove the textual option. A musical solution is the least
satisfactory because any arbitrary sequence of characters can produce
music, so successful production of music does not prove the musical
option.

That it has Is and Os suggests we look for parallels. One parallel
suggested is the charts of measures in Welsh Cerdd Dant manuscripts.
This is an argument in favour of music. However, Though these do use
strings on Is and Os, they do not share extended patterns with this
roundel - the Stirling roundel does not contain any of the canonical
measures, nor any related sequence known from Scottish music. Also
the Welsh sequences of Os and Is only appear in the context of lists
of established canonical patterns, and not to my knowledge for the
display of novel or unique sequences. These are counter-arguments
against music.

Another parallel is that I and O are common decorative motifs on the
other roundels, many of which bear ribbons of borders with repeating,
meaningless sequences of I and O. This means that the cerdd dant mss
are a far less significant parallel for the non-repeating border than
has been made out.

So looking at the distinctive features: a sequence of Is and Os which
are similar to the characyers on many of the other Stirling Heads,
and a specific sequence which is a mathematical patterning, suggests
to me that any musical interpretation is a red herring

Simon






On 23 Sep 2009, at 15:29, calumcille wrote:

> Dear Simon,
>
> It appears your instincts about the roundel markings not
> constituting music may be founded.  In a previous message to the
> group, I have already noted the triangular numbers 28 and 36
> appearing on the outer rings.  I had another look at the pattern
> last night and it began to look rather more mathematical in nature
> than musical.
>
> Firstly, I noticed the palindromic section which occurs 3 times
> within the macrorepetition.
>
> 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2
>
> 2+1 = 3
> 1+1+1 = 3
> 2+1 = 3
>
> Then I realised that there were
>
> 5 instances of the formulation I I I appearing enclosed between 0s
> whether you retain the II symbol or not  (so the I I formulation
> never appears next to a II sign, because if the II symbol was
> removed, the I I formulation could be added onto a I and become a I
> I I formulation);
>
> 3 instances of I I appearing enclosed between 0s but if you remove
> the symbol II from the pattern, there are 7 instances;
>
> 16 instances of I appearing enclosed between 0s and IIs but if you
> remove the symbol II from the pattern there are 9 instances
> enclosed between 0s.
>
> When the II signs are extracted, we can add up the I signs: 5 + 7 +
> 9 = 21, the triangular number below 28 and 36 in the series.
>
> 5 x (I I I) = 15, the triangular number below 21.
>
> There are also 4 instances of the I II I formulation. (1+2+1) x 4 =
> 16, the square of 4, another square number.  There are 4 instances
> of the I II formulation and 1 instance of the II 1 formulation. 1+4
> = 5 and 5 X 3 = 15.
>
> Between the 9 instances of the II signs, there are nine totals of
> the sign 0.  These comprise two groups of 2+3+3+2=10 plus one
> additional 0 sign, making a total of 21 0 signs.  10 is the
> triangular number below 15.
>
> Between the 9 instances of the II signs, if you add up all the I
> signs, the total 5 is found 5 times.  5 x 5 = 25, the square number
> above sixteen.
>
> There are also 9 instances of the II signs.  If one exchanges the
> II sign for an I sign, then a total of 9 groups of I I I are
> created between 0s.
>
> The missing triangular number between 3 and 36 is 6.  I can't find
> 6 instances of any formulation.  Perhaps 9 has usurped 6, being the
> same sign inverted.
>
> All the triangular and square numbers between 3 and 36 are found
> here, apart perhaps from a clear individual use of number 6,
> perhaps on account of religious connotations; it does appear (for
> example, a couple of times as number of signs found between a pair
> of II signs) but not as part of a multiplication or sum, unless
> I've missed something.  (It is also the number 9 inverted - had
> arabic numerals arrived in Scotland by this time?).  This pattern
> strikes me as highly unlikely to have been designed for musical
> performance.  I prefer the idea that this is merely numerical
> patterning created by the designer.  Even the crushed loop can now
> be seen to mark the beginning of one of the 210111012 palindromic
> sections - it roughly marks the nine o' clock position, as Ann
> Heymann pointed out to me.
>
> This theory partially explains why would the designer do this
>
> 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2
>
> rather than this
>
> 2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 2
>
> and so on.
>
> I'm very pleased with this explanation as this would explain why a
> certain amount of apparently irregular patterning and irregularly
> sized chunks of repetition exist.  Someone with more mathematical
> skill than me can hopefully explain how the designer arrived at
> this ingenious patterning.  The construct is so ingenious, one
> wonders if it exists elsewhere.
>
> Beannachdan,
>
>
>
>
> Alasdair
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> --- In clairseach@..., "ckeithcollins"
> <ckeithcollins@...> wrote:
>>
>> This is indeed a fascinating development!  I rather like the idea
>> that the II represents a third sonority.  When I've tried to boil
>> down some of the piobaireachd into binary notation, I've sometimes
>> observed that employing a third sonority would have made the job
>> easier.
>>
>> When I play for example "Cumha na cloinne" Lament for the Children
>> (on keynote D, with F#) I use 3 sonorities:  D, A, and B.  If we
>> reduce the urlar to binary (ternary?)  I is home sonority D, 0 is
>> away A, and II is B. (I'm using 2 instead of II in the following,
>> and the sequence is based on my conflation of several slightly
>> differing sources):
>>
>> IOII OOI2
>> OIOO IOII rpt
>>
>> OOOO IIII
>> OOII OOIO
>> 2IOO IOII
>> 2OOI OO22
>>
>> Breaks several of the "rules" Alasdair observed (II does not occur
>> next to another II, etc.)
>>
>> OK, this is a contrived thing in that I'm applying medieval Welsh
>> ideas onto an C18 pipe piece, but given what has turned up in the
>> roundel maybe it has some precedence.  This approach has helped me
>> in memorizing the sequence of the sonorities so that I can come up
>> with my own variations.  I should record them and post them here,
>> but I'm headed to Canada for a gig in a few days.  Maybe next month!
>>
>> best,
>> Keith Collins
>>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>

Dear Simon,

It appears your instincts about the roundel markings not constituting music may
be founded.  In a previous message to the group, I have already noted the
triangular numbers 28 and 36 appearing on the outer rings.  I had another look
at the pattern last night and it began to look rather more mathematical in
nature than musical.

Firstly, I noticed the palindromic section which occurs 3 times within the
macrorepetition.

2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2

2+1 = 3
1+1+1 = 3
2+1 = 3

Then I realised that there were

5 instances of the formulation I I I appearing enclosed between 0s whether you
retain the II symbol or not  (so the I I formulation never appears next to a II
sign, because if the II symbol was removed, the I I formulation could be added
onto a I and become a I I I formulation);

3 instances of I I appearing enclosed between 0s but if you remove the symbol II
from the pattern, there are 7 instances;

16 instances of I appearing enclosed between 0s and IIs but if you remove the
symbol II from the pattern there are 9 instances enclosed between 0s.

When the II signs are extracted, we can add up the I signs: 5 + 7 + 9 = 21, the
triangular number below 28 and 36 in the series.

5 x (I I I) = 15, the triangular number below 21.

There are also 4 instances of the I II I formulation. (1+2+1) x 4 = 16, the
square of 4, another square number.  There are 4 instances of the I II
formulation and 1 instance of the II 1 formulation. 1+4 = 5 and 5 X 3 = 15.

Between the 9 instances of the II signs, there are nine totals of the sign 0. 
These comprise two groups of 2+3+3+2=10 plus one additional 0 sign, making a
total of 21 0 signs.  10 is the triangular number below 15.

Between the 9 instances of the II signs, if you add up all the I signs, the
total 5 is found 5 times.  5 x 5 = 25, the square number above sixteen.

There are also 9 instances of the II signs.  If one exchanges the II sign for an
I sign, then a total of 9 groups of I I I are created between 0s.

The missing triangular number between 3 and 36 is 6.  I can't find 6 instances
of any formulation.  Perhaps 9 has usurped 6, being the same sign inverted.

All the triangular and square numbers between 3 and 36 are found here, apart
perhaps from a clear individual use of number 6, perhaps on account of religious
connotations; it does appear (for example, a couple of times as number of signs
found between a pair of II signs) but not as part of a multiplication or sum,
unless I've missed something.  (It is also the number 9 inverted - had arabic
numerals arrived in Scotland by this time?).  This pattern strikes me as highly
unlikely to have been designed for musical performance.  I prefer the idea that
this is merely numerical patterning created by the designer.  Even the crushed
loop can now be seen to mark the beginning of one of the 210111012 palindromic
sections - it roughly marks the nine o' clock position, as Ann Heymann pointed
out to me.

This theory partially explains why would the designer do this

2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 1 0 1 0 2

rather than this

2 1 0 1 1 1 0 1 2 0 1 0 1 0 1 2

and so on.

I'm very pleased with this explanation as this would explain why a certain
amount of apparently irregular patterning and irregularly sized chunks of
repetition exist.  Someone with more mathematical skill than me can hopefully
explain how the designer arrived at this ingenious patterning.  The construct is
so ingenious, one wonders if it exists elsewhere.

Beannachdan,




Alasdair











--- In clairseach@..., "ckeithcollins" <ckeithcollins@...> wrote:
>
> This is indeed a fascinating development!  I rather like the idea that the II
represents a third sonority.  When I've tried to boil down some of the
piobaireachd into binary notation, I've sometimes observed that employing a
third sonority would have made the job easier.
>
> When I play for example "Cumha na cloinne" Lament for the Children (on keynote
D, with F#) I use 3 sonorities:  D, A, and B.  If we reduce the urlar to binary
(ternary?)  I is home sonority D, 0 is away A, and II is B. (I'm using 2 instead
of II in the following, and the sequence is based on my conflation of several
slightly differing sources):
>
> IOII OOI2
> OIOO IOII rpt
>
> OOOO IIII
> OOII OOIO
> 2IOO IOII
> 2OOI OO22
>
> Breaks several of the "rules" Alasdair observed (II does not occur next to
another II, etc.)
>
> OK, this is a contrived thing in that I'm applying medieval Welsh ideas onto
an C18 pipe piece, but given what has turned up in the roundel maybe it has some
precedence.  This approach has helped me in memorizing the sequence of the
sonorities so that I can come up with my own variations.  I should record them
and post them here, but I'm headed to Canada for a gig in a few days.  Maybe
next month!
>
> best,
> Keith Collins
>

Dear Simon,

Well done for spotting that.  It's lovely that so much of this stuff is online
and allowed to influence people.  I liked the tale of the gatling gun.

Playing the melody on the regulators is apparently an old technique.  The 1943
recording of Richard O'Mealy playing the Mountains of Pomeroy is a good example
of this although you can also hear a degree of magadising on his version of the
Donegal Reel which is more like the effect produced by McAuliffe here.

It is noteworthy that the chomping along of thirds, or even triads, is lacking
on the cylinder recordings, as are the drones.  I wonder if the drones were left
out because the recording equipment couldn't cope with the number of decibels if
they were used.

This McAuliffe set is particularly interesting as it uses diagonal hand pressing
of the regulators to produce harmonies which contain no thirds.  Regulator keys
are matched horizontally to produce mostly thirds and sixths, but in this set,
no thirds are ever used, only fourths and fifths: D & G(like a tonic chord of
G), D & A (like a dominant chord of D) a tone up from it and F# & B (like a
mediant chord of B).

Bernard Delaney uses the same G A B lower notes in the regulators in the Cook in
the Kitchen in 1898 but he harmonises mostly with sixths.  He has a chord of D &
G and a chord of G & B (like a tonic major), F# & A (like a dominant major).

McAuliffe's diagonal regulator chords here are probably interesting attempts to
get away from more obvious contemporary harmonisation, eg diagonal F# & B
instead of horizontal G & B, and diagonal D & A instead of horizontal F# & A.

The use of magadisation in the regulator notes in both cases could well derive
from the historical use of such harmonies on the Gaelic harp and other
instruments at the time that pastoral pipes were invented; it certainly relates
to the technique of playing the melody in the bass.

Which recalls Bunting's MS6 quote,

"The Irish played the Treble with the Left hand for this reason that the major
parts of the tune were given by the Right hand <playing in the Bass which in
general being more strong than the Left to stroke the strings> which from being
on the Loudest and most sonorous strings was more likely to be taken notice of
than the Treble which played the symphonal parts.  the Welsh in [like manner?]
play in <exactly> the same way xstylex but they improved on our style making
their Basses more melodious and playful which distinguishes their music."

No clunky ap Huw chords in 1792, it seems!

Beannachdan,



Alasdair





http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rja14/music/#Irish-MP3s

--- In clairseach@..., simon@... wrote:
>
> I came across this very interesting recording of Irish piper James C.
> McAuliffe - I had not heard his stuff before. The thing I noticed was
> his use of the regulators for a magadising effect, very different
> from the vamping style that I have heard from modern day players and
> indeed on all the old recordings I've heard right back to the '50s. I
> wonder if this magadising style is an older tradition? Simon
>
> http://tinfoil.com/cm-0008.htm
>
> There's a great photo of him as well - check the bow tie
> http://tinfoil.com/mcauliffe.htm
>
> Simon
>

I came across this very interesting recording of Irish piper James C.
McAuliffe - I had not heard his stuff before. The thing I noticed was
his use of the regulators for a magadising effect, very different
from the vamping style that I have heard from modern day players and
indeed on all the old recordings I've heard right back to the '50s. I
wonder if this magadising style is an older tradition? Simon

http://tinfoil.com/cm-0008.htm

There's a great photo of him as well - check the bow tie
http://tinfoil.com/mcauliffe.htm

Simon

This is indeed a fascinating development!  I rather like the idea that the II
represents a third sonority.  When I've tried to boil down some of the
piobaireachd into binary notation, I've sometimes observed that employing a
third sonority would have made the job easier.

When I play for example "Cumha na cloinne" Lament for the Children (on keynote
D, with F#) I use 3 sonorities:  D, A, and B.  If we reduce the urlar to binary
(ternary?)  I is home sonority D, 0 is away A, and II is B. (I'm using 2 instead
of II in the following, and the sequence is based on my conflation of several
slightly differing sources):

IOII OOI2
OIOO IOII rpt

OOOO IIII
OOII OOIO
2IOO IOII
2OOI OO22

Breaks several of the "rules" Alasdair observed (II does not occur next to
another II, etc.)

OK, this is a contrived thing in that I'm applying medieval Welsh ideas onto an
C18 pipe piece, but given what has turned up in the roundel maybe it has some
precedence.  This approach has helped me in memorizing the sequence of the
sonorities so that I can come up with my own variations.  I should record them
and post them here, but I'm headed to Canada for a gig in a few days.  Maybe
next month!

best,
Keith Collins

Notice the patterns with this interpretation, the spaces are to point out the
1101 pattern similar to Bryt Odidawg, 0010 0010 1101 1101:

101 1101

0 1101 0
1010 1101

101 1101

01 1101
010 1101
0101 1101

101 1101

101

1011101 is symmetrical and repeated three times.  After the first time around
you get one, then two , then three phrases after it.  It could be the theme.

Peter Wilson



--- In clairseach@..., "calumcille" <calumcille@...> wrote:
>
> Dear Peter,
>
> That's a clever idea that would deal with the question of why the II and O
symbols aren't doubled up and why the II symbols are almost always kept quite a
distance from each other with normally between six and eight intervening
symbols.
>
> /
> 2-1-0-1-1-1-0-1-
> 2-0-1-1 0 1 0
> 2 1 0 1 0 1 1-0-1-
> 2-1-0-1-1-1-0-1-
> 2-0-1-1 1-0-1-
> 2-0-1-0-1 1-0-1-
> 2-0-1-0-1 1 1-0-1-
> 2-1-0-1-1-1-0-1
> 2 1-0-1-
>
> As my diagram shows, the II symbol regularly takes the fourth and twelfth
position from the start of the macrosections of repetition which I've marked
here with hyphens. Where the II sign appears outside the macrorepetition, it
seems to mimic taking the fourth or twelfth position.  This feature would need
explaining too.
>
> Beannachdan,
>
>
>
> Alasdair
>
>
>
>
> --- In clairseach@..., "harpharpharp" <larixx@> wrote:
> >
> > Damn! Yahoo garbled my pretty pictures.  You get the idea.
> >
> > Pete Wilson
> >
> > --- In clairseach@..., "harpharpharp" <larixx@> wrote:
> > >
> > > The artist in me says that the II symbol is a space to separate the
grounps of I's and O's so that attention isn't drawn to the pattern.  That is, a
different symbol like a diamond or triangle or dot would not blend in and make
the whole "secret" arrangement stand out, as well as being different from the
decorative motif of IOIOIOI etc.
> > >
> > > That would give you:
> > > IOIIIOI
> > > OIIOIO
> > > IOIOIIOI
> > > IOIIIOI
> > > OIIIOI
> > > OIOIIIOI
> > > IOIIIOI
> > > IOI
> > >
> > > Let's make up our own patterns like a thistle,
> > > IIIIIIII
> > > IOOOOOOI
> > > IIOIIOII
> > > IIIOOIII
> > > IOIIIIOI
> > > OIIIIIIO
> > > IOIIIIOI
> > > IIIOOIII
> > >
> > > or a glass of scotch,
> > > IIIIIIIIII
> > > IOOOOOOOOI
> > > IOIIIIIIOI
> > > IOIIIIIIOI
> > > IIOIIIIOII
> > > IIIOOOOIII
> > > IIIIIIIIII
> > >
> > > Peter Wilson
> > >
> > >
> > > --- In clairseach@..., "calumcille" <calumcille@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > A chàirdean,
> > > >
> > > > This was on the news yesterday in Scotland.
> > > >
> > > >
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209371/Secret-code-etched-Stirling-Cast\
le-revealed-oldest-written-music-Scotand.html
> > > >
> > > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8079126.stm
> > > >
> > > > Several things strike me as significant about this.
> > > >
> > > > The first is that there are three elements to the 'notation' rather than
two: O, I and II.  It seems obvious to assign the usual Welsh meanings to the 0
and I element.  The II element could represent
> > > >
> > > > i) a third set of sonorities
> > > > ii) a specific way of playing either 0 or I sonorities, or
> > > > ii) the presence of, for example, two crotchet beats within the left
hand in the measure if 0 and I represented a minim beat.
> > > >
> > > > The sculptor has planned his sculpture very carefully to produce
even-numbered sequences of 28 outer shapes, 36 inner shapes (the loops) and 68
elements inbetween them.  There are twenty one 0 elements, thirty eight I
elements and nine II elements.  The 0 and II elements taken together number
thirty.  There is therefore no direct numerical correspondence between the
number of outer and inner shapes and the number of the various elements
sonorities.
> > > >
> > > > Outer shapes: 28     Number of O and II elements: 30
> > > > Inner shapes: 36     Number of I elements: 38
> > > > Total: 64            Total: 68
> > > > Difference: 4
> > > >
> > > > No 0 sits beside another 0, likewise no II sits beside another II.  As
extended Welsh measures usually contain pairings of 0, this might indicate that
the two sonorities 0 and II are closely related and, to some degree, substitutes
for each other.
> > > >
> > > > As John Donaldson has noted, one of the inner loop shapes is
deliberately squashed thin.  Its strange positioning might indicate that it is
the solution to the 'musical circle' puzzle left by the original sculptor, ie,
where does the sequence begin?
> > > >
> > > > If the elements are grouped together into groups of four elements, eg.
II I 0 I, the internal patterns of the groups created can be seen to be repeated
here and there in other groups.
> > > >
> > > > One can treat the element II as actually being two I elements notated
more closely together, or see it as a distinct element in itself.  Regardless of
which approach is taken, it is significant that most repetition of four element
groups actually occurs only when one starts at the squashed loop, rather than
two, three or four steps away from it.
> > > >
> > > > If II is taken as a distinct element in itself, the following pattern
appears, starting at the squashed loop.  I express 0 I II as 0 1 2 here and
organise the lines to optimise the appearance of repititions.  This is reading
clockwise; reading anti-clockwise flips the pattern but does not affect the
amount of repetition of patterns.
> > > >
> > > > 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1
> > > >
> > > > 0 1 0 2 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 0 1
> > > >
> > > > 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1
> > > >
> > > > 1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1
> > > >
> > > > 1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1
> > > >
> > > > Only 0 I 0 II and I 0 I 0 are unrepeated under this arrangement.  The
sign II appears regularly at the beginning or end of a group.
> > > >
> > > > If II is taken as an unusual way of writing two I elements, the
following pattern appears, starting at the squashed loop but, importantly, at
the second I of the II element.
> > > >
> > > > /1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0
> > > >
> > > >  1 1 1 0 - 1 0 1 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 1 0 1 1
> > > >
> > > >  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 0
> > > >
> > > >  1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 0 1 1 1
> > > >
> > > >  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1/
> > > >
> > > > Only I I I 0 is unrepeated under this arrangement.
> > > >
> > > > This is perhaps a more foursquare shape than the previous pattern but
is, at least with regard to the total number of elements, uneven.  This might
add weight to the notion that II is to be taken as a distinct element in its own
right rather than a (perhaps inexplicable)doubling of I.
> > > >
> > > > The II element, which I indicate below with a tilde connecting two I
elements, can be seen to appear in this pattern in three positions within each
group rather than two, pairing the beginning and end elements of groups, pairing
the first two elements of a group, and pairing the last two elements of a group.
This could also be seen as unevenness.
> > > >
> > > > /1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1~1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0
> > > >
> > > >  1~1 1 0 - 1 0 1 1 - 0 1 1~1 - 1 0 1 1
> > > >
> > > >  1 0 1 1~-~1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1~-~1 0 1 0
> > > >
> > > >  1 1 0 1 - 1~1 0 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 0 1 1~1
> > > >
> > > >  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1~-~1 1 0 1 - 1/~
> > > >
> > > > Unevenness is not the be all and end all for musical structure, however,
nor for musical notation.  There are three distinct elements to this notation,
for example.
> > > >
> > > > If this is music, and if the piece works for the most part using four
element groupings, then I'm quite convinced that the squashed loop most likely
indicates at least where the four element groupings break; this is because the
squashed loop coincides with the point where 4 element patterns produces the
greatest amount of repeated patterns.
> > > >
> > > > I'm also convinced that the squashed loop also indicates the beginning
of the piece; the resultant shape of the overall measure would seem to support
this.
> > > >
> > > > What I remain unsure of is whether II is to be taken as a single
element, or a pairing of I elements which would have indicated some unknown
feature related to the I elements.  Do the group members have any preferences?
> > > >
> > > > Beannachdan,
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Alasdair
> > > >
> > >
> >
>

Dear Peter,

That's a clever idea that would deal with the question of why the II and O
symbols aren't doubled up and why the II symbols are almost always kept quite a
distance from each other with normally between six and eight intervening
symbols.

/
2-1-0-1-1-1-0-1-
2-0-1-1 0 1 0
2 1 0 1 0 1 1-0-1-
2-1-0-1-1-1-0-1-
2-0-1-1 1-0-1-
2-0-1-0-1 1-0-1-
2-0-1-0-1 1 1-0-1-
2-1-0-1-1-1-0-1
2 1-0-1-

As my diagram shows, the II symbol regularly takes the fourth and twelfth
position from the start of the macrosections of repetition which I've marked
here with hyphens. Where the II sign appears outside the macrorepetition, it
seems to mimic taking the fourth or twelfth position.  This feature would need
explaining too.

Beannachdan,



Alasdair




--- In clairseach@..., "harpharpharp" <larixx@...> wrote:
>
> Damn! Yahoo garbled my pretty pictures.  You get the idea.
>
> Pete Wilson
>
> --- In clairseach@..., "harpharpharp" <larixx@> wrote:
> >
> > The artist in me says that the II symbol is a space to separate the grounps
of I's and O's so that attention isn't drawn to the pattern.  That is, a
different symbol like a diamond or triangle or dot would not blend in and make
the whole "secret" arrangement stand out, as well as being different from the
decorative motif of IOIOIOI etc.
> >
> > That would give you:
> > IOIIIOI
> > OIIOIO
> > IOIOIIOI
> > IOIIIOI
> > OIIIOI
> > OIOIIIOI
> > IOIIIOI
> > IOI
> >
> > Let's make up our own patterns like a thistle,
> > IIIIIIII
> > IOOOOOOI
> > IIOIIOII
> > IIIOOIII
> > IOIIIIOI
> > OIIIIIIO
> > IOIIIIOI
> > IIIOOIII
> >
> > or a glass of scotch,
> > IIIIIIIIII
> > IOOOOOOOOI
> > IOIIIIIIOI
> > IOIIIIIIOI
> > IIOIIIIOII
> > IIIOOOOIII
> > IIIIIIIIII
> >
> > Peter Wilson
> >
> >
> > --- In clairseach@..., "calumcille" <calumcille@> wrote:
> > >
> > > A chàirdean,
> > >
> > > This was on the news yesterday in Scotland.
> > >
> > >
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209371/Secret-code-etched-Stirling-Cast\
le-revealed-oldest-written-music-Scotand.html
> > >
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8079126.stm
> > >
> > > Several things strike me as significant about this.
> > >
> > > The first is that there are three elements to the 'notation' rather than
two: O, I and II.  It seems obvious to assign the usual Welsh meanings to the 0
and I element.  The II element could represent
> > >
> > > i) a third set of sonorities
> > > ii) a specific way of playing either 0 or I sonorities, or
> > > ii) the presence of, for example, two crotchet beats within the left hand
in the measure if 0 and I represented a minim beat.
> > >
> > > The sculptor has planned his sculpture very carefully to produce
even-numbered sequences of 28 outer shapes, 36 inner shapes (the loops) and 68
elements inbetween them.  There are twenty one 0 elements, thirty eight I
elements and nine II elements.  The 0 and II elements taken together number
thirty.  There is therefore no direct numerical correspondence between the
number of outer and inner shapes and the number of the various elements
sonorities.
> > >
> > > Outer shapes: 28     Number of O and II elements: 30
> > > Inner shapes: 36     Number of I elements: 38
> > > Total: 64            Total: 68
> > > Difference: 4
> > >
> > > No 0 sits beside another 0, likewise no II sits beside another II.  As
extended Welsh measures usually contain pairings of 0, this might indicate that
the two sonorities 0 and II are closely related and, to some degree, substitutes
for each other.
> > >
> > > As John Donaldson has noted, one of the inner loop shapes is deliberately
squashed thin.  Its strange positioning might indicate that it is the solution
to the 'musical circle' puzzle left by the original sculptor, ie, where does the
sequence begin?
> > >
> > > If the elements are grouped together into groups of four elements, eg. II
I 0 I, the internal patterns of the groups created can be seen to be repeated
here and there in other groups.
> > >
> > > One can treat the element II as actually being two I elements notated more
closely together, or see it as a distinct element in itself.  Regardless of
which approach is taken, it is significant that most repetition of four element
groups actually occurs only when one starts at the squashed loop, rather than
two, three or four steps away from it.
> > >
> > > If II is taken as a distinct element in itself, the following pattern
appears, starting at the squashed loop.  I express 0 I II as 0 1 2 here and
organise the lines to optimise the appearance of repititions.  This is reading
clockwise; reading anti-clockwise flips the pattern but does not affect the
amount of repetition of patterns.
> > >
> > > 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1
> > >
> > > 0 1 0 2 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 0 1
> > >
> > > 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1
> > >
> > > 1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1
> > >
> > > 1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1
> > >
> > > Only 0 I 0 II and I 0 I 0 are unrepeated under this arrangement.  The sign
II appears regularly at the beginning or end of a group.
> > >
> > > If II is taken as an unusual way of writing two I elements, the following
pattern appears, starting at the squashed loop but, importantly, at the second I
of the II element.
> > >
> > > /1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0
> > >
> > >  1 1 1 0 - 1 0 1 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 1 0 1 1
> > >
> > >  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 0
> > >
> > >  1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 0 1 1 1
> > >
> > >  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1/
> > >
> > > Only I I I 0 is unrepeated under this arrangement.
> > >
> > > This is perhaps a more foursquare shape than the previous pattern but is,
at least with regard to the total number of elements, uneven.  This might add
weight to the notion that II is to be taken as a distinct element in its own
right rather than a (perhaps inexplicable)doubling of I.
> > >
> > > The II element, which I indicate below with a tilde connecting two I
elements, can be seen to appear in this pattern in three positions within each
group rather than two, pairing the beginning and end elements of groups, pairing
the first two elements of a group, and pairing the last two elements of a group.
This could also be seen as unevenness.
> > >
> > > /1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1~1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0
> > >
> > >  1~1 1 0 - 1 0 1 1 - 0 1 1~1 - 1 0 1 1
> > >
> > >  1 0 1 1~-~1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1~-~1 0 1 0
> > >
> > >  1 1 0 1 - 1~1 0 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 0 1 1~1
> > >
> > >  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1~-~1 1 0 1 - 1/~
> > >
> > > Unevenness is not the be all and end all for musical structure, however,
nor for musical notation.  There are three distinct elements to this notation,
for example.
> > >
> > > If this is music, and if the piece works for the most part using four
element groupings, then I'm quite convinced that the squashed loop most likely
indicates at least where the four element groupings break; this is because the
squashed loop coincides with the point where 4 element patterns produces the
greatest amount of repeated patterns.
> > >
> > > I'm also convinced that the squashed loop also indicates the beginning of
the piece; the resultant shape of the overall measure would seem to support
this.
> > >
> > > What I remain unsure of is whether II is to be taken as a single element,
or a pairing of I elements which would have indicated some unknown feature
related to the I elements.  Do the group members have any preferences?
> > >
> > > Beannachdan,
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > Alasdair
> > >
> >
>

Damn! Yahoo garbled my pretty pictures.  You get the idea.

Pete Wilson

--- In clairseach@..., "harpharpharp" <larixx@...> wrote:
>
> The artist in me says that the II symbol is a space to separate the grounps of
I's and O's so that attention isn't drawn to the pattern.  That is, a different
symbol like a diamond or triangle or dot would not blend in and make the whole
"secret" arrangement stand out, as well as being different from the decorative
motif of IOIOIOI etc.
>
> That would give you:
> IOIIIOI
> OIIOIO
> IOIOIIOI
> IOIIIOI
> OIIIOI
> OIOIIIOI
> IOIIIOI
> IOI
>
> Let's make up our own patterns like a thistle,
> IIIIIIII
> IOOOOOOI
> IIOIIOII
> IIIOOIII
> IOIIIIOI
> OIIIIIIO
> IOIIIIOI
> IIIOOIII
>
> or a glass of scotch,
> IIIIIIIIII
> IOOOOOOOOI
> IOIIIIIIOI
> IOIIIIIIOI
> IIOIIIIOII
> IIIOOOOIII
> IIIIIIIIII
>
> Peter Wilson
>
>
> --- In clairseach@..., "calumcille" <calumcille@> wrote:
> >
> > A chàirdean,
> >
> > This was on the news yesterday in Scotland.
> >
> >
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209371/Secret-code-etched-Stirling-Cast\
le-revealed-oldest-written-music-Scotand.html
> >
> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8079126.stm
> >
> > Several things strike me as significant about this.
> >
> > The first is that there are three elements to the 'notation' rather than
two: O, I and II.  It seems obvious to assign the usual Welsh meanings to the 0
and I element.  The II element could represent
> >
> > i) a third set of sonorities
> > ii) a specific way of playing either 0 or I sonorities, or
> > ii) the presence of, for example, two crotchet beats within the left hand in
the measure if 0 and I represented a minim beat.
> >
> > The sculptor has planned his sculpture very carefully to produce
even-numbered sequences of 28 outer shapes, 36 inner shapes (the loops) and 68
elements inbetween them.  There are twenty one 0 elements, thirty eight I
elements and nine II elements.  The 0 and II elements taken together number
thirty.  There is therefore no direct numerical correspondence between the
number of outer and inner shapes and the number of the various elements
sonorities.
> >
> > Outer shapes: 28     Number of O and II elements: 30
> > Inner shapes: 36     Number of I elements: 38
> > Total: 64            Total: 68
> > Difference: 4
> >
> > No 0 sits beside another 0, likewise no II sits beside another II.  As
extended Welsh measures usually contain pairings of 0, this might indicate that
the two sonorities 0 and II are closely related and, to some degree, substitutes
for each other.
> >
> > As John Donaldson has noted, one of the inner loop shapes is deliberately
squashed thin.  Its strange positioning might indicate that it is the solution
to the 'musical circle' puzzle left by the original sculptor, ie, where does the
sequence begin?
> >
> > If the elements are grouped together into groups of four elements, eg. II I
0 I, the internal patterns of the groups created can be seen to be repeated here
and there in other groups.
> >
> > One can treat the element II as actually being two I elements notated more
closely together, or see it as a distinct element in itself.  Regardless of
which approach is taken, it is significant that most repetition of four element
groups actually occurs only when one starts at the squashed loop, rather than
two, three or four steps away from it.
> >
> > If II is taken as a distinct element in itself, the following pattern
appears, starting at the squashed loop.  I express 0 I II as 0 1 2 here and
organise the lines to optimise the appearance of repititions.  This is reading
clockwise; reading anti-clockwise flips the pattern but does not affect the
amount of repetition of patterns.
> >
> > 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1
> >
> > 0 1 0 2 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 0 1
> >
> > 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1
> >
> > 1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1
> >
> > 1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1
> >
> > Only 0 I 0 II and I 0 I 0 are unrepeated under this arrangement.  The sign
II appears regularly at the beginning or end of a group.
> >
> > If II is taken as an unusual way of writing two I elements, the following
pattern appears, starting at the squashed loop but, importantly, at the second I
of the II element.
> >
> > /1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0
> >
> >  1 1 1 0 - 1 0 1 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 1 0 1 1
> >
> >  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 0
> >
> >  1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 0 1 1 1
> >
> >  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1/
> >
> > Only I I I 0 is unrepeated under this arrangement.
> >
> > This is perhaps a more foursquare shape than the previous pattern but is, at
least with regard to the total number of elements, uneven.  This might add
weight to the notion that II is to be taken as a distinct element in its own
right rather than a (perhaps inexplicable)doubling of I.
> >
> > The II element, which I indicate below with a tilde connecting two I
elements, can be seen to appear in this pattern in three positions within each
group rather than two, pairing the beginning and end elements of groups, pairing
the first two elements of a group, and pairing the last two elements of a group.
This could also be seen as unevenness.
> >
> > /1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1~1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0
> >
> >  1~1 1 0 - 1 0 1 1 - 0 1 1~1 - 1 0 1 1
> >
> >  1 0 1 1~-~1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1~-~1 0 1 0
> >
> >  1 1 0 1 - 1~1 0 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 0 1 1~1
> >
> >  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1~-~1 1 0 1 - 1/~
> >
> > Unevenness is not the be all and end all for musical structure, however, nor
for musical notation.  There are three distinct elements to this notation, for
example.
> >
> > If this is music, and if the piece works for the most part using four
element groupings, then I'm quite convinced that the squashed loop most likely
indicates at least where the four element groupings break; this is because the
squashed loop coincides with the point where 4 element patterns produces the
greatest amount of repeated patterns.
> >
> > I'm also convinced that the squashed loop also indicates the beginning of
the piece; the resultant shape of the overall measure would seem to support
this.
> >
> > What I remain unsure of is whether II is to be taken as a single element, or
a pairing of I elements which would have indicated some unknown feature related
to the I elements.  Do the group members have any preferences?
> >
> > Beannachdan,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Alasdair
> >
>

The artist in me says that the II symbol is a space to separate the grounps of
I's and O's so that attention isn't drawn to the pattern.  That is, a different
symbol like a diamond or triangle or dot would not blend in and make the whole
"secret" arrangement stand out, as well as being different from the decorative
motif of IOIOIOI etc.

That would give you:
IOIIIOI
OIIOIO
IOIOIIOI
IOIIIOI
OIIIOI
OIOIIIOI
IOIIIOI
IOI

Let's make up our own patterns like a thistle,
IIIIIIII
IOOOOOOI
IIOIIOII
IIIOOIII
IOIIIIOI
OIIIIIIO
IOIIIIOI
IIIOOIII

or a glass of scotch,
IIIIIIIIII
IOOOOOOOOI
IOIIIIIIOI
IOIIIIIIOI
IIOIIIIOII
IIIOOOOIII
IIIIIIIIII

Peter Wilson


--- In clairseach@..., "calumcille" <calumcille@...> wrote:
>
> A chàirdean,
>
> This was on the news yesterday in Scotland.
>
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209371/Secret-code-etched-Stirling-Cast\
le-revealed-oldest-written-music-Scotand.html
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_pictures/8079126.stm
>
> Several things strike me as significant about this.
>
> The first is that there are three elements to the 'notation' rather than two:
O, I and II.  It seems obvious to assign the usual Welsh meanings to the 0 and I
element.  The II element could represent
>
> i) a third set of sonorities
> ii) a specific way of playing either 0 or I sonorities, or
> ii) the presence of, for example, two crotchet beats within the left hand in
the measure if 0 and I represented a minim beat.
>
> The sculptor has planned his sculpture very carefully to produce even-numbered
sequences of 28 outer shapes, 36 inner shapes (the loops) and 68 elements
inbetween them.  There are twenty one 0 elements, thirty eight I elements and
nine II elements.  The 0 and II elements taken together number thirty.  There is
therefore no direct numerical correspondence between the number of outer and
inner shapes and the number of the various elements sonorities.
>
> Outer shapes: 28     Number of O and II elements: 30
> Inner shapes: 36     Number of I elements: 38
> Total: 64            Total: 68
> Difference: 4
>
> No 0 sits beside another 0, likewise no II sits beside another II.  As
extended Welsh measures usually contain pairings of 0, this might indicate that
the two sonorities 0 and II are closely related and, to some degree, substitutes
for each other.
>
> As John Donaldson has noted, one of the inner loop shapes is deliberately
squashed thin.  Its strange positioning might indicate that it is the solution
to the 'musical circle' puzzle left by the original sculptor, ie, where does the
sequence begin?
>
> If the elements are grouped together into groups of four elements, eg. II I 0
I, the internal patterns of the groups created can be seen to be repeated here
and there in other groups.
>
> One can treat the element II as actually being two I elements notated more
closely together, or see it as a distinct element in itself.  Regardless of
which approach is taken, it is significant that most repetition of four element
groups actually occurs only when one starts at the squashed loop, rather than
two, three or four steps away from it.
>
> If II is taken as a distinct element in itself, the following pattern appears,
starting at the squashed loop.  I express 0 I II as 0 1 2 here and organise the
lines to optimise the appearance of repititions.  This is reading clockwise;
reading anti-clockwise flips the pattern but does not affect the amount of
repetition of patterns.
>
> 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1
>
> 0 1 0 2 - 1 0 1 0 - 1 1 0 1
>
> 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 0 1 1
>
> 1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 2 - 0 1 0 1
>
> 1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 2 1 0 1
>
> Only 0 I 0 II and I 0 I 0 are unrepeated under this arrangement.  The sign II
appears regularly at the beginning or end of a group.
>
> If II is taken as an unusual way of writing two I elements, the following
pattern appears, starting at the squashed loop but, importantly, at the second I
of the II element.
>
> /1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0
>
>  1 1 1 0 - 1 0 1 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 1 0 1 1
>
>  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 0
>
>  1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 0 1 1 1
>
>  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1/
>
> Only I I I 0 is unrepeated under this arrangement.
>
> This is perhaps a more foursquare shape than the previous pattern but is, at
least with regard to the total number of elements, uneven.  This might add
weight to the notion that II is to be taken as a distinct element in its own
right rather than a (perhaps inexplicable)doubling of I.
>
> The II element, which I indicate below with a tilde connecting two I elements,
can be seen to appear in this pattern in three positions within each group
rather than two, pairing the beginning and end elements of groups, pairing the
first two elements of a group, and pairing the last two elements of a group. 
This could also be seen as unevenness.
>
> /1 1 0 1 - 1 1 0 1 - 1~1 0 1 - 1 0 1 0
>
>  1~1 1 0 - 1 0 1 1 - 0 1 1~1 - 1 0 1 1
>
>  1 0 1 1~-~1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1~-~1 0 1 0
>
>  1 1 0 1 - 1~1 0 1 - 0 1 1 1 - 0 1 1~1
>
>  1 0 1 1 - 1 0 1 1~-~1 1 0 1 - 1/~
>
> Unevenness is not the be all and end all for musical structure, however, nor
for musical notation.  There are three distinct elements to this notation, for
example.
>
> If this is music, and if the piece works for the most part using four element
groupings, then I'm quite convinced that the squashed loop most likely indicates
at least where the four element groupings break; this is because the squashed
loop coincides with the point where 4 element patterns produces the greatest
amount of repeated patterns.
>
> I'm also convinced that the squashed loop also indicates the beginning of the
piece; the resultant shape of the overall measure would seem to support this.
>
> What I remain unsure of is whether II is to be taken as a single element, or a
pairing of I elements which would have indicated some unknown feature related to
the I elements.  Do the group members have any preferences?
>
> Beannachdan,
>
>
>
>
> Alasdair
>

Dear Simon,

I am not a fan of drawing barlines across the knotwork carved into standing
stones myself either.  If you draw barlines wherever you want over a winding
rope, then of course you can procure a line of melody.

Having now seen an image of this plaque, though, there are good reasons for
treating this as being of a different order.  This is not a case of a musician
looking for music where there is none but of a sculptor working on a replica who
notices that there is something unusual about the 'inner circle' design
features; he realises that it must be a coded pattern rather than a simple plan
and his problem is not the assessment of whether it has been planned or not, but
what the intention was behind its coding.

It is not a simple on-off-on-off binary pattern and neither is it entirely
random, as he would expect; the pattern is not regular enough to be
straightforward, nor irregular enough to be meaningless: it is formulaic:
portions of it can be seen to be not only very repetitive but foursquare, split
into groups of twos and fours making up even groups of eights. Why should it be
so formulaic?  And why occasionally put two or three I signs in a row while
never putting two or three O or II signs in a row?

The odds against this being accidental are sufficiently large to command our
attention and suggest that the inscription had specific import to the engraver.

Having examined the possibilities, it is clear to me that the squashed loop
coincides with the very point at which the repetition of patterns is most
prevalent.  What are the odds that the patterns were made unintentionally,
turned out to have such surprisingly regular features, and that the squashed
loop then unintentionally marked the very digit out of four that would mark the
optimum patterning?

Then there are the two triangular numbers on either side of the 'inner circle'. 
Now what are the odds that this is also an accident rather than a studied
approach?

I am absolutely convinced that these three elements are intentional.  We know
that Stonehenge, a circle of stones, doesn't just happen to relate to solar
movement by accident but even if we didn't have the evidence of other stone
circles which bear a relationship to the sun, Stonehenge itself would
nevertheless suggest the relationship for itself.

The question of this carving comprising musical measure may be debatable but I
at least can't come up with a better possible explanation for the formulaic
nature of the markings and the position of the squashed loop in relation to the
optimal number of formula repetitions, which is sufficiently potent arithmetical
evidence to merit an attempt at explanation of purpose.

Beannachdan,




Alasdair












--- In clairseach@..., Chad McAnally <chadmcanally@...> wrote:
>
>
> Hi Simon,
>
> The Stirling Heads roundels...is this what your talking about??  I have been
out of the loop of late...
>
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209371/Secret-code-etched-Stirling-Cast\
le-revealed-oldest-written-music-Scotand.html
>
>
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1209574/For-500-years-carving-castle-cei\
ling-hid-magical-musical-secret-Then-man-solved-Da-Tinkey-Code.html
>
> CM
> To: clairseach@...
> From: simon@...
> Date: Fri, 28 Aug 2009 19:51:55 +0100
> Subject: Re: [clairseach] Re: roundel notation
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>                   Here's some forwards from my thoughts earlier this year, I
have not
>
> yet seen anything that makes me change my mind:
>
>
>
> > Looking more closely at the photos of the originals (it's a 1960
>
> > book called "The Stirling Heads" published by HMSO if you want to
>
> > follow it up) no. 20 is our one. No 26 is its pair, however I was
>
> > wrong to say it has another non-repeating inscription... I am
>
> > reading 26 as IOIOIOIOIOIOIOIOIO all the way round... which also
>
> > dampens the enthusiasm.
>
> >
>
> > The photo of no 20 is hard to read, I have one different reading
>
> > from the replica woodcarver, I see one of the IIs as a I.
>
>
>
> ===========
>
>
>
> > while it is certainly intruiging I was fairly sceptical all round.
>
> > I have to say though that it is amazing that these things have been
>
> > on public display for over 100 years and no one has noticed or
>
> > commented on this before! It makes me wonder what else is out there
>
> > in full view being ignored by everyone!
>
> >
>
> > Though I dont think this is music in the end, I think it is a lot
>
> > less flakey than the Rosslyn cubes...
>
> >
>
> > No. 7 looks to me like a repeating pattern of I  )(  I  )(  I  )
>
> > (  I  )(  I  )(
>
>
>
> ============
>
>
>
> > the most important thing I would say is to get art historians who
>
> > know about renaissance allegory etc. to comment on who or what the
>
> > various characters represent. So far it all seems a bit vague in
>
> > that regard. Who are those women with helmets,. and cherubs on
>
> > their breasts? It's a bit of a cop out to say they are 'classical
>
> > style medallion heads' which is all we have so far. If someone
>
> > could bring in secure continental comparative materials etc. to
>
> > start to get a grip on what makes the figures who have numbers
>
> > different from the figures without it might give some useful context.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows Live: Make it easier for your friends to see what you're up to on
Facebook.
>
http://windowslive.com/Campaign/SocialNetworking?ocid=PID23285::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:\
en-US:SI_SB_facebook:082009
>