PART 3 by Jeannie Campbell MBE
This is the third part of Jeannie Campbell’s research into the letters published by the Oban Times in 1883 and 1884 regarding the judging and results at Argyllshire Gathering and the annual competitions held in Glasgow in 1883.
Part one and two of the research can be found in the links directly below.
A new voice joined the debate using the pen name Crunluath:
‘Sir,—I have carefully read week after week the productions of your various correspondents on this very interesting subject, and now crave space in your columns for the purpose of giving expression to my opinion on the various points that are not in accordance with reason or truth. I much admire and commend the sentiments expressed in Vanduara’s first letter as to the mode that ought to be adopted in selecting judges, and I’m sorry that the opposite is oftener encouraged, and am of the opinion that should the same continue we will hear nothing but comment and the disencouragement of players to take part at such contests. I believe there is none professional or otherwise but will endorse what Vanduara has said with regard to the judging at contests, and nothing will be more fruitful in preserving and fostering the love for our national music. Had his idea of selecting judges been adopted at the grand national contest in Glasgow the decisions then given would have been in many instances reversed—they, in my opinion, being far from just, although it was the giving of the judges. Notwithstanding their authority and finding, few were the professionals present who did not protest and disclaim their decisions, which did much to disencourage them from taking part in any future contest thereat. It being an undeniable fact that for pibroch the worst player fared best; but this is not the only decision I can point to, as the whole of them, with the exception of jig playing, were more or less similar. One of the other decisions I refer to further on in reply to J.C. As for the decisions at Oban games, I corroborate what Vanduara has said, that MacBain should have been the winner and not MacColl; not because the latter has admitted the authority of MacKay’s or deficiency of MacPhee’s, but as MacBain in that day’s contest was really the best player. But they were not the only players present, neither was it the only decision that Vanduara might have deemed worthy of comment, as that of the march playing was far from just. The first prize taker in that contest having little claim thereto; also the place given for MacBain for reel playing was not merited by his performance, and it is an undoubted fact amongst professionals that in reel playing he is far deficient; therefore, by his being so placed, superior players had to be content without being classed with the first three. The attack made upon Vanduara by J. C. and his puffing at MacColl as “one of the products &e.,” is altogether uncalled for, and scarcely justifiable when we look at his success in the various contests he took part in at the last grand national contest, although it was the opinion shared by many professionals present that he ought to have been more so, but will J. C. inform me how he could rightly merit the first prize as the best “general player” when he failed to take part in all the contests of the evening? What is a general player? In my opinion it is one who can perform creditably all the various kinds of playing. He further asserts “we are proud of our gifted player, MacColl, who is of the rarest promise.” In vindication of this, and the hints thrown out by Vanduara as to the selecting of judges, I point your readers to his success when last in Glasgow. He goes further, and says he is a sweet player and powerful in expression. In fairness, I admit his sweetness, but cannot allow the latter part of the quotation to pass unchallenged, as he is not a powerful player, and this, I am afraid, he will never be, judging from his experience. It is rare that such qualifications in a piper are combined, nevertheless, such can be heard, as I have heard it in the playing of D. MacDougall, Taymouth Castle; W. Murray, Dundee; W. Sutherland, Airdrie; and A. Cameron, late piper to the Marquis of Huntly. I quote these names in substantiation, so that competent persons may corroborate what I say. More could quote, but, perhaps, this will suffice, Samoena strikes out, and tries to reduce what Vanduara has said about the placing of MacColl and MacBain, and upholds the decision of the judges then given, and in maintenance of this refers us to previous decisions and previous success of MacColl. I cannot take this as a rule, but would refer him to MacColl’s reply to Vanduara, admitting certain defalcations, which should have been quite sufficient to disqualify him in any contest of the kind, but notwithstanding this, I repeat that MacBain was really the best player of that day in the pibroch contest; he also comments on the unfair judging at Glasgow, but if it be because MacColl did not get first, I hold the same opinion of his finding as I do of that of the judges, that it is wrong—Gillies of Aberdeen ought to have carried the honour. With reference to your correspondent Piobaire, I consider he was wise in his first and last production to send with same his resignation of taking no further action, or corresponding on this topic, as from what he has given us, I am of opinion that his future effusions must have rumbled as wind in a distance, when treating on this subject. He wishes Vanduara to be not allowed to tell what is true, and terms such false. Let him read all the correspondence MacColl’s letter included, and he will then consider himself lucky in tendering his resignation, but better would be have been had he withheld his first, and instead of his asking you to close Vanduara’s productions in your columns, I think he could, and ought, not to able to speak high enough of the services and counsel given us by Vanduara on such a subject, and at such a season; also to the correspondent Cato, I would like to advise him to resign, like Piobaire, as a musical critic. I think he has mistaken his profession. He must think that pipers can neither read nor understand, when he says that there is only one variation in MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute. It is not true what he asserts, but it is nothing remarkable for him. He is as justified as the remainder of Vanduara’s assailants to take up this course of argument; but if he will trouble himself in turning up the book (MacKay’s) he will therein find that the Taorluadh is distinctly called number two variation. He is also far from the mark in challenging some of the variations in Chisholm’s Salute as being entirely wrong. When all pipers play it alike, I consider it must be right when it is never played but as the author, composed it. What does he make of the tune The Desperate Battle the variations of which have little or no comparison with the ground work, and still it is correct, and is never played but as composed by the author. Upon the whole, and apart from all that has been said by the various correspondents on this subject, I consider Vanduara to be well worthy of the best commendations of every true son of the North, be he piper or otherwise. Much has been said about his obscurity. I consider this a strong point on his side, He entered the field first, and by his not giving his name and address he gives no encouragement to parties to gather round him and influence him either one way or another. No, by his obscurity he shows to the public that whatever he intends opposing or defending he means not to be tampered with, other than with what may be in accordance with justice, But why cry they and strike out when they themselves take up the self-same weapon, and enter the field at a period much later? It would seem as if they had lost their argument and this was their stronghold. Trusting you will give this a place in your valuable columns, I am, &c. Crunluath.’
Letter from March 8th, 1884
On 8th March Piobaire came back with this, Sir, ‘In answer to Vanduara’s long production, I beg to say that I heard Mr McLennan say more than once, after McBain and MacColl had played the second time, that he had no objection, and did not mind agreeing with Pipe Major Ronald McKenzie in awarding the cup to MacColl, and I will rather believe my own ears than Vanduara’s assertions to the contrary. The first time they played, I will admit, they did not agree, but after the second time they did, and I am sure Mr McLennan will remember having said he did not mind agreeing several times. I don’t want to run down Vanduara, but only to state facts, and I agree with him in all he says about judging in general, but not about the Oban awards. If he will look at MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute, in both MacKay’s and McPhee’s books, and compare them side by side, he will find in the seventh and eighth bars of the second part of the Taorluadh in McPhee’s book, A E C C A are the leading notes, and in the fourth bar of MacKay’s book (the bars being double length) the notes are A C E C A, and in the ground work and first variation in both books, MacKay’s and McPhee’s, in the corresponding bars the leading notes are A E C C A, ie, McPhee’s correctly taken off the ground work and MacKay’s not. Vanduara will perhaps inform the world which is right. I remain, your, &c, Piobaire.’
Letter from March 22nd, 1884
Next on 22nd March came this, ‘Handsome Presentation to Vanduara. We have been intrusted with a handsome gold medal, which came to us in a registered letter, accompanied by the following note: “Sir, Would you please transmit the enclosed medal to the person who, under the name of Vanduara, wrote letters in reference to the bagpipe competition.” Yes, we shall have pleasure in complying with the request, and beg to congratulate our correspondent on the handsome gift he has received. The medal bears an inscription, which affords a clue to the donors. It is “Presented by a few grateful professionals to Vanduara for his able letters on bagpipe competitions in the Oban Times 1883-84.”
Letter from March 29th, 1884
On 29th March Vanduara replied, ‘Handsome Presentation to Vanduara. Sir, Under the above heading in your impression of the 22nd inst, I was agreeably surprised to notice that you were intrusted with a handsome gold medal, with a request to transmit it to me, bearing the following inscription, “Presented by a few grateful professionals to Vanduara for his able letters on bagpipe competitions in the Oban Times 1883-84.” It is useless for me to try to express my thanks at all, equal to my sense of this act of kindness and generosity on the part of the few professionals who have handsomely shown their appreciation of my letters in defence of a better and more honest system of judging at bagpipe competitions. In conclusion, to the donors, let me add, thanks, thanks; and to you sir, also thanks, for the trouble you have had in this matter, and the kindly way you have gone about it. I am &c, Vanduara.’
Letter from April 12th, 1884
Another long letter was published on April 12th, ‘Sir, I thought that the contents of my last letter would have settled Piobaire, and that we should have heard no more of him. But he is evidently determined to die hard, so he comes to the front again, this time with what he imagines real posers, I have no doubt. He says, “I don’t want to run Vanduara down.” Well, that is good of Piobaire, and I am grateful, I am sure, and I am glad that I did not quite, as I intended, knock the wind out of his bag because he has still sufficient in him to afford me another opportunity to contradict his statements in so far as he says the judges were agreed in awarding the cup to McColl. Piobaire tells us that he heard Mr McLennan say more than once, after McBain and McColl had played the second time, that he had no objection, and did not mind agreeing with Pipe Major Ronald McKenzie in awarding the cup to McColl, and I will rather believe my own ears than Vanduara’s assertions to the contrary. I have no hesitation in saying there may be a considerable modicum of truth in what Piobaire states he heard Mr McLennan say. But does Piobaire know the meaning of the word irony? If he does, then let me assure him it was in that sense that Mr McLennan expressed himself when he agreed with Pipe Major McKenzie. But, Piobaire, why not be honest? Why not give us the whole truth and be done with it? You are not the only person who has ears to hear; and if you chose to give what suits you and withhold what does not, do not be vexed if you provoke others to state the case as it really took place. Now, here is the plain and unvarnished truth. Piobaire, of course, admits that on the first trial the judges were not agreed; but he conveniently forgets to tell us that Mr McLennan, on refusing to agree with the finding of Pipe Major McKenzie and the other amateur judges, said, “Gentlemen, it is quite reasonable to suppose you would not like to see the cup go out of Argyllshire. Give the cup to McColl, but I am quite sure that McBain has won it.” Then again on the second trial, which in all justice might be called a blind, Mr McLennan, seeing that remonstrance and reason were alike useless, that numbers and unsound judgement were against him, gave in, and said as he did so, “well, well, gentlemen, convince a man against his will, he’s of the same opinion still.” Four blacks will never make a white, and three amateur judges and one Pipe Major Ronald McKenzie will never make one judge of piobaireachd at all to be compared with Mr McLennan, and this leads me to remark that a committee of management who could commit such a gross and flagrant blunder as to appoint five judges on such a principle cannot be commended for soundness of judgement or much knowledge of bagpipe music. In this way four of the greatest fools in Christendom might set aside even the judgement of Solomon himself. The three amateur judges might be excusable in some degree, but this cannot be urged in defence of Pipe Major McKenzie. No man knows better than he does the position Mr McLennan holds as a judge and a player of piobaireachd amongst professionals, and knowing this and his own inferiority compared with Mr McLennan, as a performer of our great national airs on the bagpipe, Pipe Major McKenzie would have shown that he was not destitute of modesty, nor wanting in sound sense had he yielded to the better judgement and greater experience of Mr McLennan, and awarded the cup to John McBain. And while I am on this subject I would like to ask Piobaire whether he can give any good reason why it was that all the prizes at the Oban games were immediately made known, except the cup, which was not declared until the close of the games? If the award was above suspicion there need have been no hesitation in making it known at once. Piobaire has another grievance which he would like me to examine and “inform the world” what I think of it. He says, “Look at MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute, in both MacKay’s and McPhee’s books, and compare them side by side, he will find in the seventh and eighth bars of the second part of the Taorluadh in McPhee’s book, A E C C A are the leading notes, and in the fourth bar of MacKay’s book (the bars being double length) the notes are A C E C A, and in the ground work and first variation in both books, MacKay’s and McPhee’s, in the corresponding bars the leading notes are A E C C A, ie, McPhee’s correctly taken off the ground work and MacKay’s not.” Quite correct, Piobaire, the notes in both books just as you say you found them, and like poor McPhee you think you have found something that stands in need of tinkering when the fact is you have only discovered a mare’s nest. Had McPhee known as much about piobaireachd as he did of strathspeys and reels he certainly never would have attempted to alter a single note in any of MacKay’s tunes. Perhaps, after all, that might be said in reply to Piobaire on this point is, that all the best authorities play MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute exactly as given in MacKay’s collection, and decidedly refuse to adopt it as altered by McPhee. Angus MacRae played it as given by MacKay when he was awarded the gold medal at Oban. John McColl played it as given by McPhee when he obtained the cup. It was audacious of McColl to have done so in the face of the weight of evidence against him, and to have awarded him the cup under such circumstances clearly shows that Pipe Major McKenzie and the three amateur judges were the wrong men in the right place. The fact is MacKay had too fine a sense of harmony in music to stand on the order of the coming of a note here or there. But it requires a first class ear and thoroughly educated in this class of music to grasp MacKay’s reasons, leaving the note as he did in the tune referred to. If Piobaire had studied well what Crunluath said of Chisholm’s Salute and The Desperate Battle, he might have found a clue to the reasons why some piobaireachd have a note here or there not quite in keeping with the groundwork, and how it comes that all who try to alter these tunes so as to make them read with the ground, in the end find their books neglected and left in the cold. I am, &c, Vanduara.’
Letter from April 19th, 1884
A reply came on April 19th, ‘Sir, As Vanduara has asked me two questions, and doubted my honesty, I hope you will afford me space to answer him. In reply to his first accusation, in which he says that I conveniently forget to tell him in my letter that Mr McLennan said, “Gentlemen, it is quite reasonable to suppose you would not like to see the cup go out of Argyllshire. Give the cup to McColl, but I am quite satisfied that McBean has won it.” I beg to say that I never heard Mr McLennan say anything of the sort, and I think that I might add safely, that if the judges had heard him say such a thing they would have waived their opinion, submitted to his superior judgement, and given the cup to McBean; but I am of the opinion that the other judges thought that the two professionals were agreed. Of course, the judges themselves can verify what I say. I can only speak for myself and say that when I heard them agree there was irony or satire in Mr McLennan’s remarks, and he and Pipe Major McKenzie were talking it over in the luncheon tent. And now I cannot help calling attention again to Vanduara’s first letter to the Oban Times, in which he says that John McColl at Oban, in playing MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute, did not lift the variations off his ground work correctly. In his last letter he played it according to McPhee’s book, and quotes my words in saying that the variations are correctly taken off the ground work in that book (rightly or wrongly) I do not say. Now here is a direct contradiction. I make no further comment. Now as regards the difference of the one note in the two books, I did not, as Vanduara describes it, find a mare’s nest, but I have always considered it possible that McPhee may have been right, I do not presume to say he is, and that the change in the Taorluadh may have been a printer’s error in MacKay’s book, as it differs entirely from the style of alterations in other piobaireachd from the ground work. No book has been written yet without some printer’s error, and I do not see how MacKay’s can be exempt. There is one in Glengarry’s Lament, for under the first bars of the Crunluath there is no “bis,” and there is under the same bars of urlar, variations, Taorluadh and the doubling of Crunluath,. This is clearly an omission, for all pipers double those bars. If Vanduara judges by MacKay’s book alone, how does he judge those piobaireachd which are not to be found in it? Apart from style, I think the judges were perfectly fair in their award of the cup at Oban, as a dubious reading of a note of pipe music, like a dubious reading of any Greek or Latin author, ought not to “pluck” the competitor as either way may be right. There is one point in which, perhaps, Vanduara will coincide with me, viz, that for piobaireachd judging at competitions there should be three of five professionals not having pupils competing, and that if amateurs are allowed to judge with professionals in marches, reels etc, they ought to be able to play themselves well on the national instrument and have a thorough knowledge of music. And now having, I hope, convinced Vanduara that I have nothing that I want to conveniently conceal, and am only writing what I am that the whole truth may come out, for unless Vanduara heard Mr McLennan say what he says he did, himself, I should be inclined to think that someone had been stuffing him. Apologising for the length of my letter. I am etc, Piobaire.’
Letter from May 10th, 1884
Then on May 10th he wrote again, ‘Sir, since writing my last letter I have had the opportunity of consulting a great authority on piobaireachd, viz, an old pupil of Duncan MacKay’s, cousin of Angus MacKay, and he says he had some lessons from Angus MacKay himself. He tells me that he has often heard both Angus MacKay and Duncan MacKay say that when they were young the variations of all piobaireachd were played according to, or correctly lifted off, the urlar, and that any that were not so were wrong, and not as they had learned them, and even the style of playing had altered also. This was before Angus MacKay published his book, and is to my mind conclusive evidence that the difference of the note in the Taorluadh of MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute is a misprint in MacKay’s book. In fact, we have the authority of the author himself for saying so. I have often heard old pipers say the same thing, but could never get conclusive evidence before. I am, etc, Piobaire.’
Letter from May 31st, 1884
A reply to this came on May 31st, ‘Sir, an old toper, after indulging quite freely in his accustomed beverage, amused himself in teasing a mettlesome horse. The animal, not fancying his familiarities, suddenly reared, and the disciple of Bacchus found himself sprawling in an adjacent mud puddle. Gathering himself up as composedly as his situation would allow, he shouted to his son John, who was standing by, “John, did you see me kick that ‘ere hoss?” “Why, no, Dad, the hoss kicked you.” “Reckon not, John, one or t’other of us got badly hoisted. Tain’t me, John, for I’m here!” Oh! Yes, you are there, Piobaire. No doubt about it, and a very sorry exhibition you are making of yourself, and much cause you are giving to those in whose defence you have taken up the pen to pray fervently to be delivered from their friend. Why did you not take a hint from Crunluath when he made the following remarks? “With reference to your correspondent Piobaire, I consider he was wise in his first and last production to send with same his resignation of taking no further action, or corresponding on this topic, as from what he has given us, I am of opinion that his future effusions must rumble as wind in the distance, when treating on this subject.” Rumbling and windy they are, in all conscience, alike destitute of reason, argument, or ability; harping continually upon one or two pet subjects, and seeking for faults where really none exist until it may be truly said of him – “For faults alone behold the savage prowl. With reason’s offal glut his ravening soul; Pleased with his prey, its inmost blood he drinks, And mumbles, paws, and turns it, till it stinks.” And now, I must pass on to take up and deal with Piobaire’s arguments in detail, and I hope, this time, to effectively knock the wind out of his bag that we shall hear no more of him. In my letter of the 13th I stated that Mr McLennan said: “Gentlemen, it is quite reasonable to suppose you would not like to see the cup go out of Argyllshire. Give the cup to McColl, but I am quite satisfied McBean has won it.” Piobaire takes objection to this, and here is how he does it, “I beg to say that I never heard Mr McLennan say anything of the sort, and I think I may add safely, that if the judges had heard him say such a thing they would have waived their opinion, submitted to his superior judgement, and given the cup to McBean” but I am of opinion that the other judges thought that the two professionals were agreed. Of course the judges themselves can verify what I say. I can only speak for myself, and say that when I heard them agree there was no irony or satire in Mr McLennan’s remarks, and he and Pipe Major McKenzie were talking it over in the luncheon tent. Now, will any man who has the slightest pretention to reason or common sense be willing to accept evidence of this kind as conclusive, and settling? Piobaire does not tell us what office or position he held at the Oban Games. Was he one of the judges? Was he the secretary? Or was he there merely as a tolerated loafer about the luncheon tent? Had he been secretary or judge there would have been no hedging of the question, but an implicit denial, without reservation and with authority. As it is, the declaration of Piobaire rests on no better foundation than could be raised by any Tom, Dick, or Harry, or other hanger-on about a luncheon tent. Perhaps after all it may turn out that Piobaire held some office or other at the games, and if so, I am sure his brother officials are greatly indebted to him for pointing out their little short-comings, and so also are professionals, and other who take an interest in our Highland Games, for the light he has thrown on the workings of the “inner circle.” Now, what are we to think of the decision of judges come to in a way like this “but I am of the opinion that the other judges thought the two professionals were agreed.” Was this a question to rest on doubt? After all were the amateur judges merely present for show, and nothing more than tools in the hands of the two professionals? If so, how much better would it have been had the committee retained the best man out of the five, and trusted to his judgement and honesty. Again, referring back to what I have stated was said by Mr McLennan to his brother judges, Piobaire says by way of denial, it will be noticed above. “I beg to say I never heard Mr McLennan say anything of the sort; and I think I may safely add, that if the judges had heard him say such a thing they would have waived their opinion, submitted to his superior judgement, and given the cup to McBean.” Now, Piobaire, this time you have over-leaped yourself, and fallen on the other side. On the 8th, you write thus, “The first time they played I will admit they did not agree.” Is it necessary Piobaire for me to go further and deal you another kick as the spirited “hoss” did to the “old toper?” Like him you appear not to know whether you kicked or were kicked by the horse. This time at all events there is no doubt about you being left “sprawling in a mud puddle.” And I intend to keep you, keep you there Piobaire. On the 19th you wrote, “Vanduara’s first letter of the Oban Times, in which he says that John McColl at Oban in playing MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute did not lift, not lift, the variations off his ground work correctly. In his last letter he played it according to McPhee’s book, and quotes my words in saying that the variations are correctly taken off the ground work in that book (rightly or wrongly I did not say). Now here is a direct contradiction.” My reply to Piobaire on the above was as follows, “Quite correct Piobaire, the notes are in both books just as you say you found them, and, like poor McPhee, you think you have found something that stands in need of tinkering, when the fact is you have only discovered a mare’s nest.” I have always declared that McPhee’s alteration of MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute was in bad taste, and a liberty no man in his senses would have dared to take, seeing that the tune is in McKay’s book as it is played by Mr McLennan, and was played by him long before McKay’s book was given to the world. So also is it played by the descendants of the old worthies and authorities, such as the Camerons, the MacKenzies, and McKays. I did admit that there were printers’ errors or mistakes in McKay’s book, but the one I pointed out was in McKay’s Banner and not in MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute, as Piobaire would like to put it. I am asked another question by my most extraordinary critic, which, like almost all the others, need not have been put had my letters been carefully studied. The question is, “If Vanduara judges by McKay’s book alone, how does he judge those piobaireachds which are not to be found in it?” Just on the same principle as those in McKay’s book were judged long before the book was thought or dreamed of. If I find that the descendants of the old authorities all play a given tune alike, note for note, I am justified in accepting that tune as having been handed down from one generation to another in its purity. And, again, piobaireachd is a dangerous kind of composition to tamper with or alter, and not difficult of detection when so interfered with, a grand proof of the genius and peculiar talent of the person who first produced that class of music. And now, here is another little grievance Piobaire would like to ventilate. But this time, how nice it is, we are partly agreed. Here it is, “There is one point in which perhaps Vanduara will coincide with me, viz, that for piobaireachd judging at competitions there should be three or five professionals not having pupils competing.” There is, I have no doubt a pretty well-meant sideswipe in this, Piobaire, but, unfortunately for you, it cuts much keener in a direction, I dare say, you did not dream of. Perhaps, after all, I may be doing you an injustice, and like myself, it may be Pipe Major R McKenzie you have in your eye when you speak of judges judging their own pupils. McKenzie judged three of his own pupils at Oban, McColl, McRae and Meldrum, and each took a first prize. But what is Piobaire’s opinion of this? John McBean played in two classes against Pipe Major McKenzie at Fort William the day previous to the Oban Games, and took first prize in both classes, and next day at Oban, McKenzie sat in judgement upon the man by whom he had been thus vanquished. I think I may safely say few men would care to place themselves in such a questionable position, no matter how pure their motives, or upright their intentions. There is a taint of suspicion about it that few men would care to encounter, and cases of this kind committees should take care to guard well against, as they value their good name and reputation. And now, Piobaire, I have done, and I take this opportunity of saying that I do not object to a fair and honest criticism, but to be misquoted, and made to say things never thought of by me, will not do, and in future will not be noticed by, Vanduara.’
Notes: The results at the Lochaber Gathering on the day previous to the Oban Games were, Piobaireachd: 1. John MacColl, Oban; 2. Ronald MacKenzie, Fort George; 3. J MacDougall Gillies, Aberdeen. Marches: 1. John McBean, York; 2. Ronald MacKenzie, 3. R MacKinnon, Glasgow and PM Meldrum, 93rd Highlanders equal. Highland Reels and Strathspeys: 1. John McBean; 2. John MacColl; 3. R Meldrum.
When the Piobaireachd Society began setting tunes, at first only the settings from the Society’s first series of books were to be played. These books were later discredited and from 1914 onwards notices of the set tunes stated, ‘The tunes will be accepted as correctly played, if played according to the settings in the published collections of Angus MacKay, William Ross, David Glen, Donald MacPhee, The Piobaireachd Society, or in Ceol Mor. Competitors must, if asked, give the judges their authority for the settings to be played. Any setting other than those above mentioned may be played; but in this case if the judges do not think that the authority quoted is sufficient, they may take into consideration, in making their award, the merits of the setting adopted.’
In the Piobaireachd Society Book 8 the notes for MacLeod of Raasay’s Salute don’t mention Donald MacPhee but include a note about Peter Reid’s manuscript saying, ‘in line 2nd, bar 4, the first C and the E are transposed; a transposition which follows the urlar more faithfully. It is often heard played nowadays by pipers, although MacDonald and MacKay both have C first and E second. This agreement between MacDonald and MacKay would answer any suggestion that the placing of the notes is a clerical error in MacKay’s book. Possibly it may not be correct, but it is manifestly deliberate.’