PART 2 by Jeannie Campbell MBE
This is the second part of Jeannie Campbell’s research into the letters published by the Oban Times in 1883 regarding the Argyllshire Gathering that year and the fifth in a series of annual competitions held in Glasgow.
Part one of the research can be found in the link directly below.
Three more letters appeared in the Oban Times on 29th December, the first from Vanduara again:
Letter 1 from December 29th, 1883
‘Sir, John MacColl in his letter of the 15th inst complains that I do not give my name, and adds “But I have no doubt he has good reasons for doing so.” Well, the fact is, I have no reason whatever, in the sense that John would call good, in withholding my name. I withhold it pretty much on the same principle, and for the same reason that he played the variation of MacLeod of Raasay’s salute wrong, “because” as he acknowledged in a former letter “I wished to do so.” I have written nothing on the above subject that would not be corroborated and admitted by well nigh every professional who visits our Highland gatherings. The hand writing on the wall had no name attached to substantiate the charge “Thou art weighed in the balances and art found wanting.” It is enough that what I have stated in this controversy is truth, and it cannot by any possibility or subterfuge be confuted. Where is the good in telling me “to look after my own profession in future and leave the judging and playing of pipers to parties who are more qualified.” This I think is below par, and smacks just a little of Billingsgate. At any rate I can assure John MacColl I would be very sorry indeed to be no better qualified to judge bagpipe music than are nine tenths of those who too readily lend themselves to do so. Instead of finding fault with me for exposing the gross and careless system of judging that too frequently prevails, I think John MacColl and all who attend our Highland gatherings, especially those who go to compete, ought to award me thanks for agitating this question and doing what little I can to bring about a better and more honest system of judging. Even John MacColl is alive to the fact that there is something “rotten in the state of Denmark,” and can indulge in a quiet side thrust at the expense of a judge of competitor like other mortals, only I cannot commend the way in which he does it. Quoting from his letter, this is how it is done, “May I mention to him an instance in which his professionals must have lost some of their wit, for may I say that not one of them detected that great mistake (as Vanduara tries to put it) when committed by a party competing at the northern meeting. “ Now this is not honest, it is not manly, it is nothing more nor less than cowardly thrusting at some person or other in the dark. I was not present at the northern meeting, and therefore cannot from my own knowledge say anything about this great mistake. But had such a thing taken place I am quite as certain that I would have heard of it as I am sure it would have been detected by every professional who knew the tune and was paying attention while it was being played. Again, John MacColl puts the question “May I ask if John MacBean played his piobaireachd (MacKay’s Banner) when competing for the Cup, as it is written in MacKay’s book?” John MacBean is too well versed and experienced in this class of music to have committed such as error, and when John MacColl has a few more years experience of piobaireachd he may regret that he ever put the question. MacKay’s book, although the best authority, is not infallible. The errors, however, are undoubtedly printers’ error, and nothing is more certain than this, when we look at MacKay’s Banner, as put down in the book. The groundwork of the tune is correct. When a variation does not agree with the ground it is faulty. This is what is wrong with MacKay’s Banner in McKay’s book. But neither John MacBean nor any of the living or dead authorities would play the variation as found in MacKay’s book; because they know it to be an error, and they know also that it had no foundation with MacKay. Had John MacColl paid a little more attention to this sort of thing, he would not, I presume, have played MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute, as he did from MacPhee’s book. However, it is well to remember what the poet says, “No clock that never erred a minute; No book without some error in it, Great Homer’s self did sometimes nod, All bear the sin stamp Ichabod.” And now comes the tug-of-war, and I have no doubt, as John MacColl thinks, a settler direct from the shoulder. He says “When MacBean and I were declared by the decision of the judges to be equal, we had to play over again. MacBean this time played too long in this condition. I shall leave it to Vanduara and his professionals to judge what job he made of it.” I fear my friend John MacColl is like a drowning man grasping at straws, and that some busy body has been imposing some nonsense upon him. In no other way can I understand why such a question should be put. I have not the slightest hesitation in saying that John MacBean played the tune referred to, every note, so far as he played it, just as a piobaireachd should be played, and that is saying much for him as a steady and true performer when we consider that his temper was put to so severe trial, as to be placed equal with a person that he had fairly and undoubtedly vanquished. There is no use in John MacColl trying to shuffle this card, it will not do. It is the opinion of every unbiased person who was present at the competition, and I question whether John MacColl himself would have the boldness to assert in the presence of qualified judges, that he was not put hors de combat by John MacBean. If MacBean committed any fault or blunder I know of none, except that of yielding to play a second time. This he ought never to have done under the circumstance, and my astonishment is that none of his friends interfered to stop him committing so gross an act of injustice to himself. I am., &c, Vanduara.
Letter 2 from December 29th, 1883
The second letter followed, ‘Sir, For some time back your columns have been well taken up by the letters of Vanduara who would have your numerous readers believe there is behind the scene in himself some McCrimmon, whose delicacy is so overpowering as to make him fearful of publishing his name; but like most valiants of his kind, is contented with a moonlighters’ ambush to screen him in his attacks on the more successful brethren of his art. Mr MacColl has been repeatedly attacked by this surreptitious critic in language insinuating prejudice to the judges who awarded Mr MacColl the Marquis of Lorne’s Cup. The names of the gentlemen who were judging on that occasion, are unknown to me, therefore, I cannot argue their capabilities of judging piobaireachds; but I can safely say they were gentlemen whose sense of honour would not permit them being partial to any one, and I think their judgement at that competition has been fully justified by Mr MacColl’s success at subsequent competitions elsewhere. This masked Vanduara it is quite evident (not withstanding his protestations to the contrary) from the feeling he gives expression to in his letters, is no other than some bumptious amateur, whose limited knowledge of the music and its execution, has so filled his breast with such insparing conceit and jealousy that (as very likely he has failed too often to make a favourable impression on the public eith his pipes) he must now seize his pen and abuse pipe juging in general, and especially the most distinuished piper of the present day. Let me advise Vanduara not to put too much confidence in his so called professionals, but to employ his time more beneficially by publishing his declamations of the Law in Skye. To Mr MacColl I would simply suggest not to take the slightest notice of Vanduara’s letters until such time as Vanduara publishes his name, then it will be seen whether it is worth while making any further reply. I must however agree with Vanduara in his condemnation of the judging at the competition held in the Grand National Halls. Mr A R MacLeod got first for piobaireachds, how well he deserved it I leave to more competent judges Onus Probandi. Apologising for intruding so much on your space. I am &c Samoena.’
Letter 3 from December 29th, 1883
Then came the third letter, ‘Sir, I think in the interest of fair play that you should not allow Vanduara to make his false accusations any longer. It is simply an untruth in his last letter about the Oban Games when he says “The judges are inexcusable for awarding the cup to MacColl. This was the opinion of every professional present.” Now the two professional judges, Pipe Major Ronald MacKenzie and Mr MacLennan, who are far more competent to judge than Vanduara, thought otherwise; and in their humble opinion awarded the cup to the player who played best and made the fewest mistakes, ie John MacColl. Here, Mr Editor, are two (and not two of the least important) professionals at the competition, who differ from Vanduara, although he asserts the opposite in his last letter. His other remarks are not worthy of comment, being simply reflections on the inability and honour of our amateur judges, who I am happy to say, can both play the pipes themselves and read music, and are above “being inspired by a spirit of one-sidedness,” as Vanduara coarsely puts it. If he is in want of their names he will find them, I believe, in the copy of the Oban Times containing a report of the games. I shall not trouble you or your readers any more Mr Editor, but in conclusion I must add that Vanduara will do better to stick to yacht racing, if he is connected with the yacht of that name, than to set up as a pipe critic, but I fear even at the former games there are better men than he is or else his vessel is too much down by the head. I am yours &c, Piobaire.’
Results from the Glasgow competition from December 29th, 1883
The results of the Glasgow competition were published in the Oban Times, 29th December, ‘The fifth annual competition of bagpipe music and Highland dancing came off in the Grand National Hall on Thursday evening of last week. Piobaireachd playing commenced at 5pm, and the chair was taken by the Rev R Thomson, Ladywell, at 7.30pm. There was a good attendance of the public and the number of competitors was above that of any preceding year. The following is the prize list: Bagpipe playing, open. Best general player, John MacColl, piper to Mr D MacPherson of Glendale. Pibroch playing: 1. A R MacLeod; 2. William Sutherland; 3. F MacRae. March or Quickstep: 1. J MacDougall Gillies; 2. D McPhedran; 3. William Robb, 93rd Highlanders. Strathspeys and Reels: 1. Robert MacKinnon; 2. M McNeil; 3. Hugh Cameron. Jig playing: 1. Roderick MacLeod; 2. James Macriman; 3. William MacLennan. Amateur piping: 1. M Pollock; 2. Roderick MacDonald; 3. Charles McKinnon. Piping, confined to Police: 1. James Macriman; 2. John McDonald. Special prizes. Best toned pipes: 1. P Henderson; 2. A R MacLeod. Best dressed Highlanders: 1. A R MacLeod; 2. P Henderson. Dancing, open. Best general dancer, J E McIntosh. Highland fling: 1. John Thom; 2. M McFeat; 3. F MacRae. Sword dance: 1. R Brand; 2. W MacLennan; 3. J McNeil jnr, Edinburgh. Shean trews: 1. John Thom; 2. J N McLeod. Sailor’s hornpipe; 1. D Anderson; 2. J N McLeod. Reels: 1. Lachlan McLean; 2. F MacRae; 3. D Macfarlane, Oban. Highland fling, confined to amateurs: 1. Robert Young; 2. William Robb; 3. D McArthur. An Assembly followed the competition.’
Letter from January 5th, 1884
Another letter appeared on 5th January, ‘Sir, I have for some time back been taking notice of a correspondence which occasionally appeared in your valuable paper from Vanduara, Samoena, Piobaire and J. C. Now, judging from what Vanduara has got to say he would have us believe he is right. I have no doubt he is right in part. He tells us he agrees with J. C. that MacColl is an educated player and powerful in expression but Vanduara says MacBain is sweeter and more powerful. His ignorance of piping accounts for his saying this. It is a well known fact as regards marches, strathspeys and reels, that MacColl is a superior player to MacBain. He is allowed however to be so by a majority of pipers, and as Vanduara tells us, what the majority of professionals say is surely right. No doubt in piobaireachd playing MacBain is allowed to be a better player but as it is only a little over two years since MacColl first began to play piobaireachd, I have no doubt in another year or two he will be as superior a piobaireachd player to MacBain as he is understood to be a march, strathspey and reel player. Perhaps I may be allowed to look a little further back in Vanduara’s correspondence in which he says MacColl did not lift the variations off the ground in his tune. Now let me remind him that there is only one variation in the tune MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute. Vanduara would have us understand that there are more variations, but such is not the case. In the thumb variation I can assure him MacColl made no mistake. The difference by MacColl from the general style of playing the tune was in the taorluadh and crunluath. No doubt Vanduara will be giving us another long letter putting myself and all others who disagree with him in the shade. But one being able to write a good letter with striking sentences and some nursery rhyming will not qualify a man to give a lecture on piping. He hits hard at MacColl for saying MacKay did not take the variations (as the word was used) properly off the ground work. However this matters not, but it is a well known fact there are a great many of our best piobaireachds with the variations not taken properly off the ground work, and also some of the most common and simplest ones, such as Chisholm’s Salute. Some of its variations are entirely wrong, and still everyone plays it the same. I think it would be advisable for Vanduara to use his pen in writing about something he knows more about than he does about piping. I am, &c, Cato.’
The results of the Grand National competition sparked another complaint, although the win by A. R. MacLeod had already been mentioned in Samoena’s letter of 29th December. This time William MacLennan was involved.
A. R. MacLeod was Alexander Rose MacLeod, born in 1854. He enlisted in the Royal Scots Fusiliers and was Pipe Major of the 1st Battalion 1884-1891 and of the Depot 1891 to 1895. In 1891 he was living in Ayr but by 1906 he was in Edinburgh and was employed from that time onwards as a warder at Holyrood Palace. John Wilson went to him for tuition during World War One and described him as a good and patient teacher. MacLeod is not known as a prize winner but he composed many tunes and published a Tutor and Collection in about 1915, with a second edition in 1917. He died in Edinburgh in 1922 aged 67 and had a military funeral to Dalry Cemetery.
William MacLennan was born in 1860 at Fairburn, Ross-shire. He was a cousin of George S MacLennan and was a champion dancer as well as a prize winning piper. He had been a member of the Dundee City Police, Piper to Arthur Bignold, trained as an Architect in Edinburgh and travelled abroad as a dancer with J Scott Skinner. He won the Prize Pipe at the Northern Meeting in 1878 and the Gold Medal for Former Winners in 1879. At the Argyllshire Gathering he won the Gold Medal in 1878. He died suddenly of meningitis in Montreal, Canada in October 1892 when on tour with Scott Skinner. His body was brought home to Edinburgh free of charge by one of Messrs MacLean’s steamers. At the funeral to Morningside cemetery, pipers from the Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders and from the Caledonian Pipers’ Society preceded the hearse playing solemn dirges. On the coffin were a number of withered wreaths which had accompanied it across the Atlantic. Much sympathy was expressed to his widow and children and to his widowed mother.
Letter from January 19th, 1884
His letter appeared in the Oban Times on 19th January 1884, ‘2 Marchmont Street, Edinburgh. Bagpipe and Dancing Competitions at National Halls, Glasgow. Sir, Much has been said lately through your correspondence column with regard to Bagpipe Competition, and to many no doubt, it would appear that sufficient has been said on a subject on which I regret to say, is not altogether a popular one beyond a few. But it is by knowing that you are always ready to sympathise with anything wherein the honour and name of the Highlander is concerned that I venture to express the sentiments which I hold on this subject, particularly on the above competitions which took place on the 20th ult, and which one of your correspondents deigned to set forth as an example and model on which other like competitions should be based. Under ordinary circumstances, this so-called competition might have passed unnoticed at this time, as a the promoters of it were hopeful that it should, but the results are of such an extraordinary character, that it cannot at all be wondered at why a lover of his art and instrument (having himself a desire to see such competitions characterised at least by respectability and honour) has been prompted to advise the public of the affair alluded to. These meetings which annually take place in the National Halls, have from the beginning been characterised, not only by the entire absence of justice, but of regard for honesty and truth, and in fact the mode of conducting this affair has made it somewhat proverbial amongst first-class men. But without making any further allusion to what has taken place in former years, we will confine our remarks to the present instance, and consider first the piping. Now, anyone on looking at the list of prize-winners, can at a glance realize how utterly ridiculous and absurd the whole thing is. There are four competitions, viz pibrochs, marches, strathspeys and reels and jigs, 12 prizes in all. Is it not singular, that in such a congregation of talent, there was not one single individual capable of winning more than one prize. But such was evidently the case, as the whole twelve prizes went to twelve different pipers, one prize each. There is another prize given to the best general player. This prize would seem somewhat difficult to dispose of, seeing that at least four competitors were equal, viz, the four first prize-winners but this prize was awarded (and no doubt justly in the proper sense) to Mr McColl, and we look in vain for this gentleman’s name among the other awards. How in the world can they hold a man to be the best general of player, if he is incapable winning a prize at all? That in itself surely suggests the motive of the promoters of this gathering. How could they truly arrive at such decisions and results. Perhaps it was arranged by ballot, (probably on the Art Union plan,) but even then it would have been most difficult to arrive at such a result. Anyone with a knowledge of pipers in general, can just look at the list observe the position some of our best men take and just judge for themselves what sort of business was done. Then the dancing was proceeded with, and resulted in much the same manner, if not even worse. What man of sense, and with a knowledge of the refined art of dancing will not agree with me, that the majority of the prizes went to the worst of the dancers? The thing is so absolutely absurd and scandalous, that any explanation or even comment would appear superfluous. The same thing happened however as in the piping, the best general dancer was a man unable to carry a prize in competition. I must mention a word too, with regard to a young competitor who claimed my admiration, by his exquisite performances, and who apparently suffered much abuse. I refer to Mr John McNeill junr. The treatment given this young accomplished artiste was, in my opinion, nothing short of an outrage on justice. His Sailor’s Hornpipe especially, being the finest I ever beheld, with one single exception. What was the result? Mr McNeill is not awarded a place at all. A complete and finished artiste, educated in the highest stages of his art. It is this I cry out against, how long is it to continue, that the ridiculous is to give place to the refined and beautiful in our Highland and other dancing. We need not wonder, and feel amazed at foreigners sneering at and burlesquing our dancing in variety theatres and pantomimes, when an artistic and skilful exhibition of Highland dancing is to give place to what encroaches dangerously on an acrobatic performance. The dress competition was somewhat improved on, on what it was once before. On the occasion referred to, the first prize was awarded to man without a jacket, more like a savage than (I hope,) like a Highlander. Why, I wonder, did no aspirant in that direction, act on the hint the following year by painting his skin as they did of old, or to be more original still, appear in a state of nudity altogether. Now then, is such work to be tolerated, not only by pipers and dancers of undoubted reputation, but by respectable Highlanders; surely not. This affair must certainly be suppressed, both for the name of our dancing and instrument, and for our own good name. Is it not surprising that these people could have the daring to have men of reputation travel great distances, at no inconsiderable expense, on the supposition that the affair was genuine, and bona fide, and after charging enormous fees for entry money, (encouraging Highland music and dancing, or their funds,) submit them to such abuse. Can this not be accounted a criminal transaction? I venture to assert that many instances have come under my notice, of unfortunate individuals being brought to justice and punishment on fraudulent charges, and wilful imposition for little less—if any—than the promoters of this “bogus” affair is guilty of. There can be no excuse for these men, and it is impossible to regard such degrading conduct as proofs of any good intentions to promote the music and dancing of the Highlands, they should hang their heads in shame at the disgrace they have brought upon Highlanders, and the stain they have made on the word competition, without even mentioning the injury they have done to the bagpipe and dancing of our country, as no other effect but that of absolute disgust could be produced upon any respectable exponent of either; or even one interested at the depravity displayed, such as I have attempted, though mildly to describe. I am, Sir, yours &c, Wm MacLennan.’
Letter from January 26th, 1884
The Oban Times, 26th January 1884, had this: ‘The Bagpipe Competition in the National Halls. Glasgow, 21st January 1884. Sir, I feel to ask you to give space in your valuable columns to a few remarks in regard to the above competition, but as a lover of the Highland Bagpipe music, and of justice to those who make themselves proficient in it, I feel it a duty, with your permission, to give expression to what I consider just and right, by way on concurring, and fully endorsing the remarks of Mr William MacLennan, in his letter to you, and which appeared in your issue of the 19th inst. I was present at the competition, and listened minutely to all the pipers who competed there that evening, took notes and compared them with those of a gentleman, who is not only a good bagpipe player himself, but who is a thorough judge of music, and I must say both of us were in no small degree astonished at the decision arrived at. While I protest against the decision of the judges, I do so with an easy mind, that I am not single-handed in my opinion. It appears to me that an attempt was made without the slightest regard for talent, to give a prize to each competitor, so far as the number of prizes would permit. But the decision also clearly showed that the judges must either be ignoramuses so far as bagpipe music is concerned, or that they must have had favourites there. Otherwise, had the former been their whole intention, the first prizes at least would have been awarded to the most deserving competitors. This was certainly not the case. Mr MacLennan’s argument in regard to Mr MacColl’s award is based upon good sound reason and common sense, and needs no further comment. He (Mr MacLennan,) is too much of a gentleman to refer to himself personally as being one of those who had been unfairly dealt with, but I think he may be fairly said to be one of those to whom gross injustice has been done. It is usual to give the names of judges at the end of the prize list. In the present instance this was omitted. The promoters may have had a reason for doing so. Woe betide our Highland pipers and their music and dancing if they are in future to be judged in such a manner as they were at the recent competition in the National Halls. I am, &c, LEX.’
Letter from February 16th, 1884
Another letter from Vanduara appeared on 16th February. ‘Bagpipe Competition. Sir, I have piped all hands on deck; I have cleared my ship for action; I have shaped my course, and I am going to run into Samoena. Piobaire, I intend shall also suffer in the collision, and I hope to smash the wind out of his bag, so that the expiring grunts of his drones may resemble the feeble squeak of a drowning porker. Now then, Samoena, you are like a great many more of your kind, too readily found in this naughty little planet of ours. You can see the beam in your brother’s eye, but you cannot detect it in your own. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander, you know. If I have done wrong in withholding my name, why do you imitate that which you condemn in me? You accuse me of being a “surreptitious critic”. I have done nothing by stealth, nor without authority made or introduced, anything fraudulently into any of my letters on the above subject. To me it is very funny and exceedingly amusing to read the vain and silly efforts to prove my identity. Samoena advises me to employ my time more beneficially by publishing my “declamations of the law in Skye,” another thinks I would do better to stick to yacht racing; again I am taken for some poor soul who has “failed too often to make a favourable impression on the public with his pipes.” And I am also advised to mind my own business and let pipe music alone. Cato, who ought to be a good reasoner, thinks it would be advisable for Vanduara to use his pen in writing about something he knows more about than he does about piping. Well, if Cato has not got about that advice, it is not his fault in trying to get about it. At any rate I have had several good hearty laughs at the expense of the writers of these very childish, but nevertheless amusing spurts to throw odium on a person the: know less about than a dog knows of his grandfather. It matters nothing who I am. It is with my statements my statements they have got to deal. My identity would assist nothing in proving whether what I have asserted be right or wrong, true or false. What I want to bring about is a better and more honest system of judging at our Highland games, and I selected the case of John MacBean at Oban as a notable case. I asserted from the beginning of these letters that he did not get justice, and I maintain so still; and the consequence is that I have brought down upon me a few Don Quixotes whose attacks have proved quite as impotent as was the charge of the mad Don upon the windmill. But I am not done with Samoena. He says, “the names of the gentlemen who were judging on that occasion are unknown to me, therefore, I cannot argue their capabilities of judging piobaireachds; but I can safely say they were gentlemen whose sense of honour would not permit them being partial to any one, and I think their judgement at that competition has been fully justified by Mr MacColl’s success at subsequent competition elsewhere.” Samoena, I have no doubt, is a dear good soul when it suits him to be so. What a broad and expanded view he takes of mankind. According to his logic, all persons called gentlemen are honourable. The judges at the Oban games were gentlemen, therefore, the judges at the Oban games must be honourable. I myself say nothing about the honour of the judges, further than I have already said in connection with this controversy. I only wish to prove to him that the persons called gentlemen who ruled the City Bank had also been honourable. In that case what an amount of misery would have been prevented. But the drollest and most ridiculous part of Samoena’s letter, is where he thinks the judgement of the judges was fully justified by MacColl’s success at previous competitions. Had MacColl taken more honours than any of the other persons who competed against him in the piobaireachds’ class at Oban, there might have been some reason for ignorant judges to go or be led by, but such was not the case. John MacBean has taken more honours than, perhaps, any living professional. He hold three gold medals from the Highland Society of London; the Glasgow Celtic Society’s gold medal, and in 1883 took the seven year’s champion gold medal at Inverness, besides many other valuable prizes I need not trouble with here, the least of these last noticed were preferable to anything carried off by MacColl except the Oban cup, which he did not deserve and ought not to have got. Samoena ought to know that a bad defence worse than no defence at all, and he would have done his friend more good had he kept his counsel to himself and practised what he suggested to John MacColl, not to take the slightest notice of Vanduara’s letter. After having made these statements, I am not sure there is any use in my noticing what Samoena says about me “abusing pipe judging in general, and especially the most distinguished piper of the present day.” This is so absurd as not to require contradiction further than to say let MacColl’s prizes be the proof between himself and other professionals, and it will then be seen his true position amongst pipers. I am glad, however, to find that Samoena and myself are agreed on one point, at least. He says, “I must agree with Vanduara in his condemnation of the judging at the Grand National Halls, Mr A R MacLeod got first for piobaireachd; how well he deserved it I leave to more competent judges.” What a pity he did not act as wisely in the case of John MacColl. And had he done so, MacColl need not have prayed to be saved from his friends. But it may be that Samoena got served at the Grand National pretty much the same as he suspects I got served at piping and pipe judging, failed to make a favourable impression on the Nationalists. Well, well, we know “a touch of nature makes the whole world akin,” and I am glad to get this opportunity of a getting a cut at the Grand Nationals. I said in a former letter, that these Halls was not a proper for judging piobaireachd, and the result of the last competition there has fully proved my objection on that point. To say that the judging in the piobaireachd class was disgraceful conveys no just sense of the wrong done to the deserving performers. In fact, had the judges done their very best to give the first prize to the worst performer, they could not have been more successful. I am rather inclined to think that the judges, whoever they were, knew nothing about the duties they had undertaken to perform, else why did they not notice that A R McLeod, the person to whom they awarded the first prize, lost himself completely when playing the “Glen,” and got into a regular fog, and for four or five seconds played a number of notes that had no connection whatever with the tune. Besides this, he stuck the pig, and as if pleased with the discordant sound, kept it up long enough I fear, to cause the unskilled to think it was all in the programme. But apart from this, McLeod is not a piobaireachd player, and what is more never will be. I cannot understand why so able a performer as J McDougall Gillies would have risked his reputation at a gathering such as takes place at the Grand Nationals. Gillies is indeed a true piobaireachd player, and is, without doubt, a superior and grander performer to even John McColl who competed in the same class; and yet this same Gillies is over and no notice taken of him. Who were the judges? Oh, for their names that I might lash them with a scourge of scorpions, and hold them up to just ridicule! Is the whole thing a farce, a catch-penny? Or has it got into the hands of a few imbeciles who mean well but lack the power to manage aright? I might add a great deal more on this subject did space permit, but I pass on to give Piobaire his quittance. He charges me with being untruthful when I said that almost every professional present declared that MacBean ought to have been awarded the cup and thus adds “Now the two professional judges, Pipe-Major Ronald MacKenzie and Mr MacLennan who are far more competent to judge than Vanduara, thought otherwise.” Now, Piobaire, never again charge any man with telling an untruth until are certain that you are yourself speaking the truth. Now, here is the truth, and I dare and I dare you or the judges to deny it. Pipe-Major Ronald MacKenzie and Mr MacLennan were not both agreed in the cup being awarded to MacColl. The amateur judges had no right to be where they were had due regard been paid to the requirements of the case. The cup was an honour which demanded the very best possible judges to decide the merits of those who competed for it. Instead of amateurs, had there been other three professionals as qualified as MacKenzie and MacLennan, the award would have been reversed, and that, I doubt not, was the opinion of everyone who was present at the competition and listened to the competitors while playing. Now, I come to cross swords with Cato. He too has taken a stand in defence of MacColl and a very sorry defence he makes of it. He says, “No doubt, in piobaireachd playing MacBean is allowed to be a better player than MacColl.” Now, this is what I have been contending for all along. But when he adds “I have no doubt, in another year or two he will be as superior a piobaireachd player to MacBean, as he is undoubtedly a march, strathspey, and reel player.” If John MacColl approaches, MacBean in anything as a player, it is certainly in reels and strathspeys, and in this class of music it might be awkward for judges to say which deserved first honours. As a march player, all things considered, MacColl has never yet deserved higher than second to MacBean. As piobaireachd player, MacColl is not adapted by nature to shine as a star of any great magnitude. Indeed, he can never hope to play even so true and genuine as did Gillies at the Grand National. Again, Cato says there is only one variation in MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute, and that one is the thumb variation. Oh, Cato, Cato, I hope your brain has not got muddled by an over indulgence in the festivities of the season. What do you make Taorluadh and Crunluath, are these not variations, and are they not marked so in every good authority? Again, what of the Crunluath Mach? Is that not also a variation? Are all these parts of the tune not played different from each other? And still are they not all in harmony with the ground of the tune. A variation in music is the different manner of singing or playing the same air or tune, by sub-dividing the notes into several others of less value, or by adding graces, yet so the tune itself may be discovered through all its embellishments. Cato, thou reasonest not well in this matter, and you appear to be a better judge of nursery rhymes than you are of bagpipe music. What do you think of this? “Humpity Dumpity sat on a wall, Humpity Dumpity had a great fall, All the king’s forces and all the king’s men, Couldn’t set Humpity Dumpity up again. I am, &c., Vanduara.’