Why do we play A & B parts to so many songs?

[dbennett]

Why do we play A & B parts to so many songs?

It seems in many, if not most cases, that is not the way the songs would be sung.

I don't have any heartburn with it other than I sometimes forgit if I've done 2 As or 2 Bs and then it throws me off (I know...practice).

David

[folkfan]

Dave, I tend to associate the idea of A and B parts with tunes, not songs. For me songs have verses and sometimes choruses with either the same melody for both or different. I get confused and lost by the ABAB or AA BB or AB AA BB AB marks on some tunes I've seen. Don't think I'll ever think of "Men of Harlech" as AABC AABC. It's just 4 verses, sung twice.

[Seane]

I think it has to do with the fact that most fiddle tunes were dance tunes. To fit the dance it needed X amount of measures, so the tunes were written (or made-up, whatever the correct terminology is) to work with the dance. Sixteen measures of the same melody would get extremely monotonous, so it was split into A and B parts.

Just my 2¢.

[Robin the Busker]

I think that the AABB may have something to do with dances and also ease when musicians playing together. With AABB everyone knows where the tune is going (if you pay attention ). If a tune steps outside of this pattern then you have to be on your toes!

If I'm playing a tune like say Angeline the Baker and singing as well then I may well step outside of the AABB patern as the fancy takes me. But if anyone is playing along with me then the A to B changes need some anouncement of some kind if they stray from AABB.

I've been listening to Tommy Jarrell and Fred Cockerham recently and they don't change strictly on AABB, particularly if there is singing involved. I found a nice article on the pair and here is what it says about changes (Charlie is Charlie Jarrell, Tommy's uncle):

Tommy and Charlie had a special form of communication when they played together. The common way of playing fiddle tunes is to play the high part twice, followed by the low part twice. Tommy and Charlie would sit close, facing each other. When one got tired of whichever part they were on, he'd give the other a push with his leg. Tommy and Fred continued this tradition, however it was simplified to a raise of the fiddle when Tommy wanted to change parts.

I've listened to quite a lot of old recordings recently and AABB is the most prevelant form I've heard for fiddle tunes, particularly in bands. But for solo players or if singing or hollerin' is involved then this pattern may change.

Mind you - A to B changes are simple to follow compared to those players who randomly throw in a 9th or 17th measure on the turnaround

Robin

[harpmaker]

Because playing just the A part over and over again would get boring?

To make sure everyone is paying attention?

To annoy those with short attention spans?

Who knows?

[rendesvous1840]

Some of these old songs had lyrics which have been lost as the songs were played as instrumentals. One section may have been the verse, and the other the chorus. Soldiers Joy has lyrics, as does Flop-Eared Mule. Red Haired Boy has several sets of lyrics associated with some of it's several names. In the case of dance tunes, the songs were played for an extended period of time. Think how tiresome a simple 8 bar tune would be for listeners and musicians when repeated for 5 or 10 minutes. In most old dances, each couple swaps partners each time through the dance, so the song has to last long enough for each male to dance with each female and return to their original partner the last time through. I suspect alternate parts evolved to give the ears a break. The dancers, listening to the caller and preoccupied with dancing, may not have noticed as much. But listeners and musicians would certainly have grown tired of the repetition. Medleys may have been created for the same reason. The connection with dance has become obscured as this music becomes less commonly used for dancing, and many of us who play these songs didn't grow up with the tradition, so we don't recognize the connection. I grew up in a house filled with my father's Enrico Caruso and Mario Lanza recordings, my mothers Dean Martin and Perry Como, and my brother's Beatles records. The connections were hidden until I stumbled into them.
Interestingly, many of the old ballads had a great number of verses, some without a chorus. These were sung, often without instrumental accompaniment, and survived without a B part ever evolving. The story was the important thing, and the songs perhaps were not used as dance pieces. The lyrics to the dance tunes tend to have less involved story lines, often the verses don't connect in any way. Old Joe Clark comes readily to mind. The order of the verses can be changed at will, and the song loses nothing from the change. You can't change the order of The House Carpenter, or Matty Groves without messing up the story.
Paul

[Gardenplayer]

Thanks for the insights. I especially like the short attention span theory.

[folkfan]

One point with the difference in singing a song and playing it as dance music is that songs change melodies a bit as they are sung, to fit the pattern of the words. I just tabbed out a Scottish Lullaby that if I had to put it down using an A,B pattern would be A for verse and B for chorus. It would have to go B A B Amodified B, Amodified B. And with a song that has a lot of verses these modification of the verse (usually not the chorus) become more frequent, especially on the older ballads (IMO).