The little Spree - the ground analysis of a ceol mòr piece by means of Canntaireachd
Analysis of the Groud of the Little Spree - An Daorach bheag
This piece has various sources, but for the sake of this presentation which aims at showing the superiority of the Canntaireachd system in terms of analysis the structural characteristics of a piece, we will center this study around the ground as set in the Angus MacKay collection (c.1830) found here:
https://www.ceolsean.net/docs/AM%20titles/The%20Little%20Spree%20(You%20are%20Drunk%20You%27ve%20drank%20a%20quart).pdf
The setting is made with A as the tonic of the chanter and and 2/4 time signature in which sixteenth note + dotted eighth note is the base rhythmic unity. It has been amply convered in many works that the classical musical notation of rhythm is not sufficient to write the complex sanction system of the Ceol Mòr and here is a good exemple of that; this presentation aims at showing that converting this score into the syllabic system of Canntaireachd as used in the Netherlorn MS (Scottish National Libray, Edinburgh, MS 37 14-3716) is providing a huge additionnal array of possible obervations that help better circumscribe a piece's macro-structure and micro-structure. Without pretending to be a full methodology, nor to replace the teaching of the masters, we hope that the lines exposed here will help people more often use the canntaireachd system and additionnally help them decipher unique pieces in the Netherlorn MS.
The Macro-structure
By Macro-structure, we mean the structuration of the ground by means of full phrastic sequences, which, in their combination, form parts, which combined form the ground.
When put into the syllabic system, the ground can be written as follow:
Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi
Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi
O he vedre che he vedre ô he ôdrô o hen tro
Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi
O he vedre che he vedre ô he ôdrô ô he ôdrô
O he vedre che he vedre ô he ôdrô o hen tro
Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi
O he vedre vedre hi he ôdrô hi o hô hen tro
A first cursive reading allows to find two main sequences:
Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi and O he vedre che he vedre ô he ôdrô o hen tro
These sequences make a spatial unity which allows to understand four equal parts, each comprised of two sequences. Thus we have:
I. Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi
Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi
II. O he vedre che he vedre ô he ôdrô o hen tro
Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi
III. O he vedre che he vedre ô he ôdrô ô he ôdrô
O he vedre che he vedre ô he ôdrô o hen tro
IV. Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi
O he vedre vedre hi he ôdrô hi o hô hen tro
In analysing further how the sequences combine in each part, we can precise the structural patterns as follow:
I. exposition of the sequence 1 (Hen a ôdrô o hô odro hen chi ôdrô hi ô hi ) which opens the piece by being repeated twice, underlining its structural importance.
II. Introduction of sequence 2 (O he vedre che he vedre ô he ôdrô o hen tro) immediatly followed by sequence 1.
III. A variation of sequence 2 starts this part, it's similar to sequence two except the ending o hen tro, which is replaced by repeatition of ô he ôdrô. This variation is immediately followed by a normal sequence 2.
IV. This part is composed by sequence 1 followed by another variation of seuqnce 2, more different than the previous one but which will finish by o hen tro.
The ending formulas
If we observe how each of the two main sequences finish, we can see two ending formulas, respectively hi ô hi and o hen tro. These ending formulas are present in all the parts' ends but in the first variation of the second sequence in the third part, leading the interpretation towards a non-ending quality of the ô he ôdrô. This can therefore lead to infer that the part III is in fact a longer sequence based on 2. This informs a flowing of the music in part III from its begining straight to its end.
Hi ô hi, as the ending formula of the first sequence, is present in the two repetitions of the sequence 1 in part I, in the second half of part II, not at all in part III but in the first part of part IV. This leads to conclude that, while it's a sequence's ending part, it does not bear as strong an ending meaning as o hen tro which will end the ground. As the ending of sequence 1, hi ô hi seems to have an almost introductory role: it announces the beginning of the ground in part I, solemnly repeated, them circumscribes sequence two, enclaved between two occurences of sequence 1, thus introducting part III as a double long version of sequence 2. In part IV, it introduces the true ending made by sequence 2.
Such observations start to give valuable information about the flow of the music between the parts and the general structure which will be respected in the variations. It constitutes a first steps in working of the sanction.
The Micro-structure
By micro-structure we mean the observation of smaller elements in the sequences which can help finding a possible structuration of said sequences.
In sequence 1, it is observable that an ôdrô-like movement structures units which it ends, until the final ending hi ô hi. Thus we have:
hen a ÔDRÔ // o hô ODRO // hen chi ÔDRÔ // HI Ô HI
This final position acting as a separation of small elements of the sequence, invites to understand the ôdrô and odro as longer sound, introducing a little pause before each element and underlining beautifully the final hi ô hi.
We find a very similar structuring in sequence 2, thus leading to similar conclusions, thus:
O he VEDRE // che he VEDRE/ / ô he ÔDRÔ // O HEN TRO
In part III, as the first sequence is a non-ending variation of sequence 2, we find instead of the ending formula, the ô he ôdrô, with the last ôdrô, having the same status as those before. This reinforces our previous analysis of a lesser pause between the two sequences in part III, which therefore, as a whole, constitute a longer version of sequence 2.
The endings of each sequence, which do structure the entire ground, are constructed in the same way:a simetry of a note seperated by a central passing movement:
HI ô HI
O hen trO
There is almost a cadential value in this in the way that redundant note acts as a announcement of the ending note, it's evident the the ending note should be longer. We would there suggest that the first element morphes into the passage movement in a underlined way, which gives to the coming back to that note a strong resolutive ending value. Thus in term of time "length" the morphing HI->ô or O->hen, would have the same duration as their conclusive counterparts HI and trO.
Conclusion
Although a similar type of analysis could well be performed using the classical musical notation as a base, we find that the time signature 2/4 which irremediably adds bars, will cloud and impair the sequencing understanding as it superposes the need for an equality of rhythm demanded by the classical system but not necessarily present as such in the style of music. Thus analysing the structuration in the conditions of a classical setting makes the sanction acquisition more difficult whereas Canntaireachd removes the classical artificial rhythm frame thus empowering an understanding of scantion which is based on the music piece itself and not on a deconstruction of some parasitic information from an external system. Moreover, the syllables of the Canntaireachd enable a quicker detection of the macro-structures and micro-structures. By going from observing the larger unities of the macro-structure to the smaller ones of the micro-structure, one can reconstruct stresses, which structure the phrase and help a rich interpretation of the piece and one that does not need to first unconstruct what's passively constructed by the external system of the classical notation. This, of course, is merely proposed as a humble suggestion and does not pretend to comment on and even less replace the teaching of the masters and the marvellous edition work made by prominent specialists. We only hope we could provide here another tool, alternative, and perhaps highly complemetary, didactic and centered on the style itself.