Відео

You flatter us, @Piper G! We don't think we're doing anything especially clever intonation-wise (A is at 415hz instead of 440hz for convenience, but that doesn't really matter. And not having a piano, accordion, or guitar means we don't have to deal with equal temperament). This is Tim writing, so I can brag about Jeremy and say that I love playing with him since he always has the *perfect* articulation, volume, and length on each note. That makes the beat very clear (note the crisp attack on each downbeat of the bass line), and it's easier to match dynamics and feel between two bowed-stringed instruments than other types of band. Also, our band relationship is that I tend to have (too many) ideas and Jeremy has taste. When I play I hint at various interpretive ideas I have, half of which are rubbish, and Jeremy is the great filter-if he amplifies it with his cello then we run with it, if he does something else then I know to abandon it and suggest something else. For example, we didn't plan the dynamics in this tune ahead of time-I just got a little bit quieter or a little bit louder at many different points, and I knew it was actually a good idea when Jeremy also got quieter or louder. It goes the other way too-Jeremy will start making the bass line sound broad and sweeping, or energized and crisp, or languid, or whatever, and then I have to match that idea with my own bowing and ideally figure out some ornaments that make it even clearer. A wise teacher repeatedly told me that asking what ornaments to play is the wrong question, instead ornaments should flow out of the emotion you're trying to express since the existing notes just weren't enough to express it adequately. Or maybe that's all just babble, who knows! Glad you're enjoying the tunes, at least!

Your reply is by far the most interesting and extended that I have ever gotten on youtube. I daresay others will find it interesting and therefore am delighted to have provoked it. First, you are quite right. Intonation is the wrong word to describe the allure of your (you and Jeremy) playing. I meant to convey, not pitch, but accenting by changes in intensity, timing and less prominently, decorative notes. That said, I don’t understand how anyone can possibly get the right pitch on fretless instruments or ones lacking finger holes. Amazing! Even more amazing is your revelation that the coordination of intenity between you two developes as you play, for the first time, and not through rehearsals. My fascination with your performances comes from the feeling that you two play as the composers of the 18th century envisioned as they wrote the tunes. That would mean these tunes were a product of a societal structure much more akin to that of classical music than folk. That would have required excellent musicians, a means of their support and a sophisticated audience. All that seems improbable but necessary. Or maybe it was indeed an attribute of Edinburg back in Adam Smith and James Watt days. When I first tripped over the two of you I confess I did not appreciate Jeremy’s contribution. But I am now sure you two are in a league by youselves in the Scottish genre. Even if solo. Which brings me to a perversity of the world…..the better something is, the fewer are those who desire it. That accounts, I suppose, for your low viewership. Lastly, I would love to hear you apply your talent to some of the great pipe marches….Clan MaCrae Society, MacLean’s Farewell to Oban or maybe even a 6/8 like Bonawe Highlanders. Those tunes may not permit the expession of a strathspey, but they rise far above insipid pipe tunes like Green Hills. And, following Gresham’s law, they are fading from the repertoire. (Gresham’s law was meant to apply to currency but fits so many trends: Bad drives out good.)

Aha! I finally stopped being lazy and read a bio of Niel Gow. Of course he was a contemporary of Smith, Watt, Burns and the founders of modern medicine! And, sure enough, he arose through competition and had the support of a Duke’s patronage. Talent like that doesn’t come to the fore by just popping out of the ground. That also explains the sophistication of much of his music. And, while we are at it, explains your relatively low number of listeners. Appreciatimg Gow and your renditions take, let us be frank, an uncommon amount of intellect. You probably have read How the Scots Invented the Modern World by Herman. If not, do so; you are an extention of the age he describHe describes the Scottish enlightenment centered in Edinburgh. It’s on kindle for $5.

​@@piperg6179 Yes, I've read the Herman book and several others :) Worth remembering that Nathaniel Gow, Robert Mackintosh, their predecessor William McGibbon, and many other leading lights of 18th-century fiddling were members of the Edinburgh Musical Society and/or the Gentleman's Orchestra in Aberdeen. Niel was not, but is known to have had a favorite movement of a Corelli sonata and likely had more Continental musical training/experience than he's often credited with. David Johnson's books ("Music and Society in Lowland Scotland in the Eighteenth Century" and "Scottish Fiddle Music in the Eighteenth Century") are slightly dated now but still very interesting reads on the subject. I also recommend Matthew Gelbart's "The Invention of 'Folk Music' and 'Art Music'". I just finished getting a master's degree by research at Edinburgh Uni, with a dissertation on the connections between rhetorical manuals by the likes of Adam Smith and the performance of fiddle music. In short, there was considerable effort put into speaking/writing with eloquence and persuasion, and it's pretty clear that musicians used similar techniques to compose and play music eloquently. Happy to send you a copy if you email me about it: <tim at tsmacdonald dot com>.

@@TimandJeremy My goodness! You are way ahead of me. I was groping with something like the postulate of your thesis. That’s what made me stumble into the mine field of intellectual capacity. I shall write you tonight. This is too delicious to allow it to dissipate.

In fact we know from anecdotes and the famous Raeburn portrait that Nathanial's father Neil played with a transitional bow, at least in his maturity. Given the period, Nathaniel would have almost certainly played with a modern bow. Having said that, we also know that they played the Baroque composers and we can see the Baroque influence in their compositions. So they likely never played in the pure Baroque style that Tim uses here, though they were probably less Italianate than the Skinner style. They lived during the transition from Baroque to Classical. But to me none of that really matters much - I love the freshness and depth of Tim's playing, and it stands on its own right.

Glad it helped! Curious which song you were researching.

@@TimandJeremy It's a long story. There's an american old time tune called "Sweet Sixteen" that I had heard was originally of Burns origins, so for Burns night this year I decided to see if I could find out which one. Went from there to Waukrife Minnie, then traced that back to the US with Bertha Hubbard Beard's song New Orleans, which is apparently a combination of that and "Here's to thy health my Bonnie Lass", also known as "Pretty Pink", done to the tune "Lady Shaftsbury's Strathspey".

Hello, thanks so much! We're tuned to A=415hz, but there's nothing magical about that-feel free to play at A=440hz or whatever else!

@@TimandJeremy - Thank you sooo much! I was guessing Baroque tuning, but wanted to make sure. 🥰🥰🥰

Hello @ELCBK, just saw your forum thread talking about our tuning so thought I'd give a little more information. Feel free to contact me directly (tim@tsmacdonald.com) if you want more details: 1. As you heard, we're tuned to A=415hz. Nowadays that's thought of as "Baroque pitch", but of course in the actual 18th century A could be anywhere from 392 (or lower!) or as high as 466 (or higher!). Sometimes your hand is forced by, e.g., playing with an organ that can't change pitch, but generally speaking there's no special reason to choose one pitch over the other. The gut strings I use are gauged to sound especially nice at 415hz, but one time I played a gig at 466hz and bought new strings for it that sounded especially nice there. On a modern setup you can play at 440 or 415 with no problems and the same strings. Gut strings tend to be a little less forgiving on that front. Anyway, we chose 415hz because a) We sometimes use our same instruments with other groups that play at 415. b) Sometimes other people play with us, and their assumption is that we'll be at 415 c) It's sort of a signal to modern-day early music people that we're serious and competent. 1.5 All that said, feel free to tune your own modern fiddle down half a step (to 415) if you want to play along with us. Your instrument will be fine (though you might have to retune more frequently). Or if you're not playing directly with us you can stay at 440, it doesn't matter! 2. I sometimes use cross-tuning (scordatura), but it so happens that any video online of me playing with Jeremy is in standard tuning: GDAE. I particularly like scordatura for certain solo pieces since I can get a big sound out of the instrument (the G string tuned up to A is sort of a makeshift cello). But I've also put a lot of effort into being able to play big chords or double stops with standard tuning (and clever finger placement). For example, I can fairly reliably make an A chord by putting my first finger on the G and D strings (fingering an A and E) and the either playing open A and E or a C# on the A string and high A on the E string. Other chord patterns I use frequently are G (0-0-1-2: GDbg), E minor (2-1-1-0: BEbe), D (1-2-3-x: AF#d), C (3-1-2-2: C-E-c-g) or (0-1-2-2: GECg), and so forth. I like it because it gives me more flexibility-and I don't have to keep futzing around with retuning my fiddle. But, of course, it's a lot easier to play out of tune if you're not using open strings! Takes some practice! 3. Nobody can honestly claim to be reproducing any historic music. There's just too much we'll never know about exactly what happened 200+ years ago (not that there was a single standard back then anyway!). That said, Jeremy and I are at least making a good-faith effort to try. I've done quite a bit of research on 18th-century Scottish music (I did a master's degree on it, I'm presenting at the conference of the British Forum of Ethnomusicology tomorrow, etc.) so it's a well-educated guess, but it's all just guesswork. And the reason we bother with it at all is because we think it can create good music. There are loads of 18th-century sources emphasizing individual creativity when playing, making an emotional connection with the audience, playing interesting and exciting music, etc. Those are things we'd like to do, regardless of era! 4. We first started playing this music with period instruments (mine is an original: made in Edinburgh in 1807 and effectively unaltered since then. Jeremy's is a modern reproduction of an early 18th-century instrument) and bows and whatnot because it seemed like an obvious thing to try. But we've stuck with it since we actually like the way the music turns out more than when we play with our modern equipment. The type of bowing I do for both dance music and slow music is much easier with a Baroque bow. The warmth and articulation of gut strings works for us. Sometimes the ergonomics of the period instrument suggest ways of playing a tune that we wouldn't have thought of otherwise, and that can be very fun. 5. The one exception to #3 is Jeremy standing to play and propping the cello on a bench. This is a 16th-century idea (which is an era Jeremy has a lot of expertise with) that wasn't really used in 18th-century Scotland. But we think Jeremy sounds better when standing up, so he does it that way! And I enjoy that we can both stand, it's easier to communicate while playing. (And we communicate a lot, though it's not always obvious. We very rarely play a tune with a clear plan ahead of time-all the videos you see are almost improvised.) Playing at 415 (and on quieter gut strings) can be anti-social when dealing with other folk musicians, which is part of why we each own both a period and a modern instrument. I personally use a Baroque bow for everything these days: the right Baroque bow on a modern violin can sound quite nice. For this music, I think a Baroque bow gets you 60% there, gut strings get you 30% there, and a proper Baroque violin (different neck angle, etc.) gets you the last 10%. I've seen a lot of folk wisdom about playing without a chinrest or shoulder rest (neither of which existed in the 18th century) and am not sure I buy it all. For me it works on a gut-strung violin, but on my modern violin I like the support. The added friction of gut strings somehow makes the violin easier to hold-when I've tried playing a metal-strung violin without support I feel like I'm about to drop it. I did find that playing without a chin/shoulder-rest dramatically improved my posture and technique-it hurt too much to do it wrong! ---- Regarding strathspeys, I grew up playing them in a very northeast way (think Hector MacAndrew and, now, the Royal Scottish Country Dance Society). But some research I did persuaded me that in the 18th-century they were much faster and hoppier (unless played "slow"). I wrote about it in a paper you can find on my website (tsmacdonald dot com). Go to the reading list, then look for “Strathspeys, Reels, and Strathspey Reels: Clarifiying Dance Music in Lowland Scotland 1750-1833”.

@@TimandJeremy THANK YOU! THANK YOU! I really appreciate your videos and your generosity with this info - it helps me have a much better understanding & I'm sure will help many others too! I'm definitely looking forward to reading the info on strathspeys you mentioned! Woo Hoo! 🥰🥰🥰

Thanks so much!

Thanks so much! We did indeed play it at the Glenfiddich, both there and in this video at A=415hz (but what's a hertz between friends?)

@@TimandJeremy I love your playing indeed, At the time I "discovered" you both, I had two fiddles. The "best one" was tuned to concert pitch, thre "bad one" was tuned ti baroque pitch. After a very unfortunate accident, and a disgraceful divorce; I only have the "bad one"- Is not that bad. indeed. Is bad being an old factory German fiddle, compared to the "good" one, that wasn't anything but a decent Mirecourt French factory apprentice fiddle. You see, I'm a factory worker. I'm not posh enougjh to spend six or seven grand on a fiddle... But I'd love to :D

Thank you!

Good to be back in gear!

Coronatide hit our videomaking pretty hard. There's a lot up in the air for the next two months, but expect a lot of solo Tim content in the late summer!

@@TimandJeremy It's wonderful to hear more of your music any time! I still think fondly of the concert of yours that I got to attend a few years ago. All the best to you both!

Thanks so much! We hadn't known about the Dopper symphony, that's good to know about!

@@TimandJeremy Dopper unfortunately has been nearly forgotten, but I’m personally a big fan of him. But I saw in the comments of his second symphony someone asking why the symphony was titled “Scottish”, and someone mentioned how Jenny Nettles was used in it. So, from there, I discovered this, and I am certainly not complaining

That, dear Calliope, is an understatement.

Thanks! We got it from Charles MacLean's collection, which you can download here: imslp.org/wiki/A_Collection_of_Favourite_Scots_Tunes_with_Variations_(MacLean%2C_Charles) It's a fantastic collection in general, but the tune itself is on page 23.

We are always happy to hear people learning tunes from our videos!