Concertina Newbie needs Help!!
Dennis Featherstone
them by ear on a concertina. When I did a search for "concertina" on
the web, I was amazed by the history and complexity of the subject.
Having become confused as to the best type of instrument for what I want
to do, I would like some advice as to what to buy. I just want to buy a
concertina that would be relatively easy to learn so that I can play
simple popular melodies without accompaniment. Would that be English or
Anglo?
Thanks for your help!
fred veenschoten
the sharps and flats. others will have their opinions on the Anglo so read
and think and choose.
the Anglo's are in high demand by the Irish music players and are bringing
very high prices compared to the English. go to e-bay/search and type in
concertina. there are always a bunch of both types for sale.
i recommend getting an older Wheatstone as you get a better instrument for
your money than you do with a newly made one.
good luck,
Fred
"Dennis Featherstone" <dfea...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3CEF68AB...@texas.net...
Steffan O'Sullivan
>I'm a 60 year old with a lot of tunes in my head and would like to play
>them by ear on a concertina.
>Having become confused as to the best type of instrument for what I want
>to do, I would like some advice as to what to buy. I just want to buy a
>concertina that would be relatively easy to learn so that I can play
>simple popular melodies without accompaniment. Would that be English or
>Anglo?
There are actually three types: English, Anglo, and Duet, the latter
having various fingering differences, to boot.
If you want simple melody line, I'd go with English. It *can* do
chords, but is best at melody line with some simple additional
notes included. If you're into dance music, the Anglo would suit
you better. Duets are, IMO, harder to figure out than English but
are better suited for chording, if that's your desire.
I've tried all three, and settled with English as best suited to
my own needs (eclectic musical tastes, strong on melody line, mild
chording abilities), but I'm not sure if those are the same as your
needs.
--
Steffan O'Sullivan s...@panix.com Plymouth, NH, USA
---------------------- http://www.panix.com/~sos ---------------------
"You can no more win a war than win an earthquake."
-Jeanette Rankin
DoN. Nichols
Well ... that tends to vary from individual to individual. My
own personal preference is for the English system, which has a full
chromatic scale without complexity. It is a very regular layout and
easy to learn.
However, I do not play by ear. I understand the anglo to be
easier to learn by ear. Note that the anglo typically has two columns
of buttons (they run at right angles to the rows on an English which *I*
consider "rows"), which represent the notes in two native keys. 'C' and
'G' are one of the pairings which can be found, but not all will be of
this pairing.
A third column of buttons (if present), and any other buttons
scattered around (also if present) start filling gaps to be found in the
notes presented by the first two columns. First, they supply notes not
to be found between the two columns with which we started, and after
that is satisfied, they start adding notes on the draw which are
otherwise only present on the press, and vice versa. Different people
have filled these needs in different ways, so you have variations to
deal with.
You should learn to play in each key with at least two different
fingerings -- one entirely on the draw, and one entirely on the press.
This allows you to play smoothly in any key, and if you have to change
bellows direction for lack of remaining travel, you can continue in the
other direction using the other fingering.
Note that all of this does not apply to the English, where there
is no distinction between bellows directions, but for an expert Anglo
player, can allow playing as smoothly as can be done on the English.
Where the Anglo really wins is in playing dance music in the
native keys or in keys which do not add too many notes beyond those
already available. The bellows reversals forced (if you have not learned
the two fingerings per key described above) give a drive to dance music
which is not present on the English unless intentionally added. (A
learning process akin to the learning multiple fingerings for the
Anglo).
The English is easiest to learn (in my experience) from written
music, as the pattern of the buttons maps directly onto the staff in a
way which aids transition from the "dots" on the page to the buttons on
the instrument.
Note also that each instrument will be more "natural" for some
individuals, and most difficult for others.
The various duet systems are all equipped with the same note in
both directions (akin to the English), but allow playing the entire
melody on a single hand (akin to the Anglo), thus freeing the other hand
for chording or countermelodies. These are harder to find -- some
*very* hard -- but most styles are more affordable than an English or an
Anglo of equivalent quality.
Note that I consider the relatively inexpensive Italian copies
(of both the English and the Anglo) to have serious defects which are
particularly a problem for those first learning the instrument, as they
may blame themselves for the problems which they are experiencing, when
in reality the instrument deserves most of the blame. (By "relatively
inexpensive" I mean under $1000.00 or so.) Good used instruments tend
to hold their value should you decide that it is not what you want,
while the value of the inexpensive copies described above tends to
plummet as soon as you walk out the door with the instrument.)
Good Luck,
DoN.
P.S. I note that you are on texas.net. There is one modern maker of
Anglos who is located in Mesquite Texas. I don't know where you
are located -- this may be a great distance, or quite close. (I
grew up in Cotulla, Texas.) Be warned that I think that his
computer has been recently infected with the Klez worm, so limit
your communications to voice phone or snail-mail unless you are
not using Outlook Express -- or if your system hwa a very good
and up to date anti-virus program.
--
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
(too) near Washington D.C. | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
Don Tuite
flies with a sledgehammer. I'd say to this guy, yes, an Anglo would
be ideal -- like a diatonic harmonica you can sing along with. If you
already play another instrument it will drive you crazy with the
push-pull stuff, but if you're really a greenie, it won't make any
difference.
What worked for me some 30-odd years ago, was getting a map of the
keys and learning to play some basic folk melodies from sheet music.
Sooner or later, your brain connects the sounds with the buttons and
the push-pull stuf and you;ll find you can play by ear.
As with a diatonic harmonica played in first position, you'll never be
a great stage performer, but you'll be making real music out of that
stuff in your head.
While the new boxes from the Herringtons and the Button Box are great,
if I were the poster, I'd get one of Bob Tedrow's (google for
Homewood Music in Alabama) modified Stagis for half the price.
Another Don
On 25 May 2002 23:06:36 -0400, dnic...@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
wrote:
Chris Timson
> Would that be English or
>Anglo?
I am always *very* leery of advising anyone as to what sort of
concertina they should play. The reason is that the systems are so
different that really the only way to find out which you want to play is
to try them and see, given that any of the main systems will do what you
want.
For instance, I play anglo. As I live with an English player I have
picked up the English concertina on quite a few occasions, but it seems
all wrong to me, it just doesn't appeal to me at all. Conversely Anne,
my partner, considers the anglo to be too daffy for words and is happy
to stick with the English system which suits her down to the ground. And
yet we play the same sort of music. Work out which one you most want to
play and then stick with that, you will find ways of playing the music
you want to play on it.
I know that there aren't that many players in Texas, but hopefully some
off this list will contact you. You do have a maker of excellent anglos
at reasonable prices in Texas, in the shape of Harold Herrington in
Mesquite.
Best of luck,
Chris
--
Chris Timson Have concertinas, will travel
and Our Home Page: http://www.harbour.demon.co.uk
Anne Gregson The Concertina FAQ: http://www.concertina.info
"Sir, more than kisses, letters mingle souls" - John Donne
Goran Rahm
"DoN. Nichols" <dnic...@d-and-d.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:acpjfs$ain$1...@izalco.d-and-d.com...
> In article <3CEF68AB...@texas.net>,
> Dennis Featherstone <dfea...@texas.net> wrote:
> >I'm a 60 year old with a lot of tunes in my head and would like to play
> >them by ear on a concertina. When I did a search for "concertina" on
> >the web, I was amazed by the history and complexity of the subject.
> >Having become confused as to the best type of instrument for what I want
> >to do, I would like some advice as to what to buy. I just want to buy a
> >concertina that would be relatively easy to learn so that I can play
> >simple popular melodies without accompaniment. Would that be English or
> >Anglo?
> You should learn to play in each key with at least two different
> fingerings -- one entirely on the draw, and one entirely on the press.
> This allows you to play smoothly in any key, and if you have to change
> bellows direction for lack of remaining travel, you can continue in the
> other direction using the other fingering.
Excuse me Don - What on Earth do you mean by this ??? :
- "This allows you to play smoothly in any key" -
You can not play "smoothly" (=legato?) in any key with the Anglo since you
don't have all notes on push and pull - can you?? There are certain legato
problems with the English and Duets too for that matter but that depends on
finger agility limitations.
I only know one bisonoric system that 'solves' the problem above and that is
the Blake system.
> Note that all of this does not apply to the English, where there
> is no distinction between bellows directions, but for an expert Anglo
> player, can allow playing as smoothly as can be done on the English.
Not correct according to the above...but I agree that there are differenes
between Anglo and English that often are exaggerated - like in the sometimes
inflamed discussions on "Irish"....:-)
>
> Where the Anglo really wins is in playing dance music in the
> native keys or in keys which do not add too many notes beyond those
> already available.
I would not any more say it "wins...."....
Does it win in the initial phase of learning? Maybe - since rhythmical
playing style may come in easier with the necessary push/pull work on the
Anglo while the possibility to work the English using an idle legato may be
the spontanous 'style' by the novice on the English.
Does it win in the long run and 'advanced' phase? Hardly - since there are
ways to overcome the differences completely and it seems to be accepted
today even that the English can be played with full similartity to the Anglo
for "Irish" as one example.
Further - if you pick "dance music" of other kinds you can easily find
styles where the English is much superior to the Anglo for rhythmic
expression....everything depends of *What exactly* is played and *How* it is
performed.
The major difference between Anglo and English in regard of rhythmical
capacity deals with the stability of the connection between hand and
instrument and this can be arranged completely alike so that there is NO
difference anymore !.
> The bellows reversals forced (if you have not learned
> the two fingerings per key described above) give a drive to dance music
> which is not present on the English unless intentionally added. (A
> learning process akin to the learning multiple fingerings for the
> Anglo).
It can be learnt just as well with the English as with the Anglo so it is a
matter of habits/traditions rather than a difference between the
instruments.
> The English is easiest to learn (in my experience) from written
> music, as the pattern of the buttons maps directly onto the staff in a
> way which aids transition from the "dots" on the page to the buttons on
> the instrument.
For a 'student' with any previous experience at all from reading music that
ought to be of negligable importance and IF of any importance only for a
short initial period until you know anyway where the notes are---or what do
you say Don? Did you ever think of the representation of button locations at
the note staff after the 'novice' phase??
For the matter of learning the English by ear I hardly believe this is at
all more difficult than the Anglo generally speaking. I believe opinions
about these difficulties are partly based on hearsay and prejudice but could
possibly be detected if you make some kind of 'scientific' study ....
> Note also that each instrument will be more "natural" for some
> individuals, and most difficult for others.
That however I also think may be of some importance - but you would only
know until 'afterwards' - and just a few do :-) .....and still being
'biased' by the order of practising....
Goran Rahm
DoN. Nichols
Goran Rahm <goran...@telia.com> wrote:
>
>"DoN. Nichols" <dnic...@d-and-d.com> skrev i meddelandet
>news:acpjfs$ain$1...@izalco.d-and-d.com...
>> In article <3CEF68AB...@texas.net>,
>> Dennis Featherstone <dfea...@texas.net> wrote:
>> >I'm a 60 year old with a lot of tunes in my head and would like to play
>> >them by ear on a concertina. When I did a search for "concertina" on
>> >the web, I was amazed by the history and complexity of the subject.
>> >Having become confused as to the best type of instrument for what I want
>> >to do, I would like some advice as to what to buy. I just want to buy a
>> >concertina that would be relatively easy to learn so that I can play
>> >simple popular melodies without accompaniment. Would that be English or
>> >Anglo?
>
>> You should learn to play in each key with at least two different
>> fingerings -- one entirely on the draw, and one entirely on the press.
>> This allows you to play smoothly in any key, and if you have to change
>> bellows direction for lack of remaining travel, you can continue in the
>> other direction using the other fingering.
>
>Excuse me Don - What on Earth do you mean by this ??? :
>- "This allows you to play smoothly in any key" -
>You can not play "smoothly" (=legato?) in any key with the Anglo since you
>don't have all notes on push and pull - can you??
Have you ever heard one of the really good Anglo players, like
Noel Hill? (Probably others as well, but I have *heard* Noel Hill
playing slow airs, and if I did not have my eyes on the instrument while
he was playing, I would have sworn that I was listening to a very
well-played English.
I'm not talking about the two row, or even the three-row
instruments, but things like 38-40+ key instruments. Note that I was
talking about learning at least two fingerings for each key -- one
entirely on the draw, and the other entirely on the press, so you can
pick whichever fingering fits the direction of bellows travel which you
are currently using.
I don't know for sure whether *all* keys are taken care of in
this way, but most are. It probably depends on the particular pattern
of notes on the added buttons -- in other words -- what was important to
whoever designed that particular pattern of notes.
> There are certain legato
>problems with the English and Duets too for that matter but that depends on
>finger agility limitations.
>I only know one bisonoric system that 'solves' the problem above and that is
>the Blake system.
This one I do not know. Is it a concertina, or a button
accordion system?
>> Note that all of this does not apply to the English, where there
>> is no distinction between bellows directions, but for an expert Anglo
>> player, can allow playing as smoothly as can be done on the English.
>
>Not correct according to the above...but I agree that there are differenes
>between Anglo and English that often are exaggerated - like in the sometimes
>inflamed discussions on "Irish"....:-)
Again -- listen to one of the top players. It is a true example
of rising above the limitations of the instrument.
>> Where the Anglo really wins is in playing dance music in the
>> native keys or in keys which do not add too many notes beyond those
>> already available.
>
>I would not any more say it "wins...."....
>Does it win in the initial phase of learning? Maybe - since rhythmical
>playing style may come in easier with the necessary push/pull work on the
>Anglo while the possibility to work the English using an idle legato may be
>the spontanous 'style' by the novice on the English.
It is easier to get to a level which works well for the purpose
specified -- dance music -- with an anglo. Dancers like the drive that
the frequent bellows reversals give to the music. Yes -- it can be done
on the English -- but it requires a conscious effort.
>Does it win in the long run and 'advanced' phase? Hardly - since there are
>ways to overcome the differences completely and it seems to be accepted
>today even that the English can be played with full similartity to the Anglo
>for "Irish" as one example.
I was talking about the advantages for playing dance music,
which is a special field.
>Further - if you pick "dance music" of other kinds you can easily find
>styles where the English is much superior to the Anglo for rhythmic
>expression....everything depends of *What exactly* is played and *How* it is
>performed.
I was considering group dances of various styles -- contras and
squares, and Morris dance. I'm sure that you could find a style of
dance in which the sound would be inappropriate -- but that kind of
dance would be unlikely to be done to concertina music in any case.
(Not impossible, but unlikely.)
>The major difference between Anglo and English in regard of rhythmical
>capacity deals with the stability of the connection between hand and
>instrument and this can be arranged completely alike so that there is NO
>difference anymore !.
You are back to this again.
>> The bellows reversals forced (if you have not learned
>> the two fingerings per key described above) give a drive to dance music
>> which is not present on the English unless intentionally added. (A
>> learning process akin to the learning multiple fingerings for the
>> Anglo).
>
>It can be learnt just as well with the English as with the Anglo so it is a
>matter of habits/traditions rather than a difference between the
>instruments.
It can be learned -- but requires a conscious effort on the
English. It is hard to avoid on the Anglo, and requires a lot more
learning and practice (as the cross-fingering which I described above.)
>> The English is easiest to learn (in my experience) from written
>> music, as the pattern of the buttons maps directly onto the staff in a
>> way which aids transition from the "dots" on the page to the buttons on
>> the instrument.
>
>For a 'student' with any previous experience at all from reading music that
>ought to be of negligable importance and IF of any importance only for a
>short initial period until you know anyway where the notes are---or what do
>you say Don? Did you ever think of the representation of button locations at
>the note staff after the 'novice' phase??
I learned to read music and to play English system at the same
time, and for that it is particularly nice. The person asking the
question wanted to play by ear, so I am presuming that he does not (yet)
read music. *If* he wants to learn to read music, the English will be
easier than the Anglo. But he may not wish to.
>For the matter of learning the English by ear I hardly believe this is at
>all more difficult than the Anglo generally speaking.
Perhaps playing melody on both instruments that is the case, but
many players of the anglo start just by grabbing chords from adjacent
buttons, and find that the next chord can be found by simply reversing
the bellows, or by doing so while lifting the finger at one end of the
group currently holding down buttons, and lowering the finger at the
other end. This is not a particularly musical style, but is very easy
for a novice -- and can lead to more melodic styles later.
> I believe opinions
>about these difficulties are partly based on hearsay and prejudice but could
>possibly be detected if you make some kind of 'scientific' study ....
No -- *you* make the study. I am tired of you coming up with
studies for others to do.
>> Note also that each instrument will be more "natural" for some
>> individuals, and most difficult for others.
>
>That however I also think may be of some importance - but you would only
>know until 'afterwards' - and just a few do :-) .....and still being
>'biased' by the order of practising....
That is a problem. I do know that the Anglo does not feel
natural for me, while the English does -- and so does the Hayen (which I
would like to own, but only have had a few chances to play with one for
a few minutes.)
Enjoy,
DoN.
Goran Rahm
> In article <Fn7I8.40118$n4.89...@newsc.telia.net>,
> Goran Rahm <goran...@telia.com> wrote:
> >
> >"DoN. Nichols" <dnic...@d-and-d.com> skrev i meddelandet
> >news:acpjfs$ain$1...@izalco.d-and-d.com...
> >Excuse me Don - What on Earth do you mean by this ??? :
> >- "This allows you to play smoothly in any key" -
> >You can not play "smoothly" (=legato?) in any key with the Anglo since
you don't have all notes on push and pull - can you??
>
> Have you ever heard one of the really good Anglo players, like
> Noel Hill?
Of course I have...
> (Probably others as well, but I have *heard* Noel Hill
> playing slow airs, and if I did not have my eyes on the instrument while
> he was playing, I would have sworn that I was listening to a very
> well-played English.
Naturally ! IF you pick a suitable tune and choose a suitable key for it you
can do very well indeed ! Very different from :
- "This allows you to play smoothly in any key" -
>
> I'm not talking about the two row, or even the three-row
> instruments
Who would know you do as the <33 key Anglos are by far the 'common' ones???
>, but things like 38-40+ key instruments.
Even with the 40 key you can NOT (" play smoothly in any key" )
however....! Not even in the two basic keys - unless you choose a suitable
tune !
> Note that I was
> talking about learning at least two fingerings for each key -- one
> entirely on the draw, and the other entirely on the press, so you can
> pick whichever fingering fits the direction of bellows travel which you
> are currently using.
Yes, that is what I am speaking of too....
> I don't know for sure whether *all* keys are taken care of in
> this way, but most are.
In fact *none* of the 12 major keys as far as I know ! - if you can find one
of the minors do tell me....
> It probably depends on the particular pattern
> of notes on the added buttons -- in other words -- what was important to
> whoever designed that particular pattern of notes.
Probably - yes...but it does NOT offer the complete freedom you indicated
and this described individualistic addition of buttons may explain the
'unlogic' resulting layout. From a structural view (even musically) the
Anglo keyboard would have gained usefulness by being more systematic from
the start.(The same thing happened to the German Konzertina/Bandonion until
it became completely absurd...)
> >I only know one bisonoric system that 'solves' the problem above and that
is
> >the Blake system.
>
> This one I do not know. Is it a concertina, or a button
> accordion system?
A "Diatonion" :-)
...You may find it in Concertina & Squeezebox No21.
(according to 'my' definition it would belong to the 'concertina family'...)
> Again -- listen to one of the top players. It is a true example
> of rising above the limitations of the instrument.
Well that goes for *any* instrument and *any* "top" performers - but also
keep in
mind that many "virtuosi" have a certain smartness using "short cuts" in
their playing making seemingly imposssible gimmicks 'real'....
> It is easier to get to a level which works well for the purpose
> specified -- dance music -- with an anglo.
As I said - " in the initial phase" maybe
> Dancers like the drive that
> the frequent bellows reversals give to the music. Yes -- it can be done
> on the English -- but it requires a conscious effort.
No more physical effort if the (English) handle is improved. No more
conscious
effort either as soon as you get used to it....only 'habit'...and achieving
the habit
probably is the same struggle itself either way....
>
> >Does it win in the long run and 'advanced' phase? Hardly - since there
are ways to overcome the differences completely and it seems to be accepted
> >today even that the English can be played with full similartity to the
Anglo for "Irish" as one example.
>
> I was talking about the advantages for playing dance music,
> which is a special field.
Not so special if you just say "dance music" which may include almost any
type of music if you start from the baroque in Europe only. It is too wide.
Even if you limit to the folk dance music from 1850-1950 usually related to
ethnical 'anglo folks' you can hardly generalize that the Anglo has greater
advantages (musically..) ..(it may have socially...) and What? is 'folk
dance music' after 1950 ? lindy? rock? chacha? salsa?...
> >Further - if you pick "dance music" of other kinds you can easily find
> >styles where the English is much superior to the Anglo for rhythmic
> >expression....everything depends of *What exactly* is played and *How* it
is performed.
>
> I was considering group dances of various styles -- contras and
> squares, and Morris dance. I'm sure that you could find a style of
> dance in which the sound would be inappropriate -- but that kind of
> dance would be unlikely to be done to concertina music in any case.
> (Not impossible, but unlikely.)
Not "sound". Playing facilities, just that. This above which you say mainly
deals with habits and traditions.
And that is the background of "unlikely" (=less common) which has absolutely
nothing to do with the question if this or that instrument is musically
'suitable for the purpose' or not !!
>
> >The major difference between Anglo and English in regard of rhythmical
> >capacity deals with the stability of the connection between hand and
> >instrument and this can be arranged completely alike so that there is NO
> >difference anymore !.
>
> You are back to this again.
Of course I am ! - since I find no other clue to resolve this ever returning
confusion between a) 'habit/tradition' and b) 'technical/musical' instrument
related usefulness.
I am always listening to objections .....:-) but so far I have heard nothing
substantial speaking against it...
> It can be learned -- but requires a conscious effort on the
> English. It is hard to avoid on the Anglo, and requires a lot more
> learning and practice (as the cross-fingering which I described above.)
This IS where I partly agree but even here the issue is what *can* be done
which in real IS misinterpreted by what is *spontaneously* done.
Compare the results from giving a small child either a toy flute or a
mouth-organ.The musical 'flutist' will soon play single note 'ballads' but
the 'harpist' probably will stick to full chord 'dance' tunes....despite it
isn't so terribly difficult to play single notes on the harmonica either, no
more than learning to whistle, but you have to find out...
One clue probably is that concertina players learn by themselves. If there
was some established tuition based on general musical pedagogy these
commonly perceived "differences" between various concertinas probably would
be much reduced - and becoming more realistic
> >For the matter of learning the English by ear I hardly believe this is at
> >all more difficult than the Anglo generally speaking.
>
> Perhaps playing melody on both instruments that is the case, but
> many players of the anglo start just by grabbing chords from adjacent
> buttons, and find that the next chord can be found by simply reversing
> the bellows, or by doing so while lifting the finger at one end of the
> group currently holding down buttons, and lowering the finger at the
> other end. This is not a particularly musical style, but is very easy
> for a novice -- and can lead to more melodic styles later.
There is something in that of course - like with the harmonica - but you
actually can do that with the English just as well IF you are mentally
prepared for 'harmonies' - and maybe there is some individual variation here
which matters....
>
> > I believe opinions
> >about these difficulties are partly based on hearsay and prejudice but
could
> >possibly be detected if you make some kind of 'scientific' study ....
>
> No -- *you* make the study. I am tired of you coming up with
> studies for others to do.
I never asked You to do it.....:-)
The point is not to draw conclusions without good support or to present
opinions as facts without having evidence. This is usually guiding Your own
contributions Don, so it defitinitely is not much personal critics. In this
particular matter I only mean you could possibly be victim of a couple of
habits - like we all are...:-)
Goran Rahm
Xcott Craver
>
> Even with the 40 key you can NOT (" play smoothly in any key" )
> however....! Not even in the two basic keys - unless you choose a
> suitable tune !
Perhaps you're thinking about people who play along the rows.
In the central keys and thereabouts (F,C,G,D) there's a lot
of choice regarding bellows direction, if you just use all
the buttons.
Most phrases in these keys can be played entirely on the pull,
if you have your heart set on doing so. Many phrases are also
available on the push. I usually avoid doing so because the
results sound dynamically bland.
Also, it's possible to play push-pull sequences "smoothly."
I guess you are interpreting "smoothly" as "legato," but I
take it to mean smoothly, evenly, without audible jerkiness
(e.g., "lift") or other audible indications that you are
changing bellows direction.
-X
fred veenschoten
English is that the system is totally logical where the Anglo requires
knowing which button to push and which direction to go to get the note you
want. you have to switch rows and go to odd places and then remember which
direction to go. the English is laid out more like a piano as compared to a
fiddle.
Fred
"Xcott Craver" <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> wrote in message
news:PM0003A1F...@giantH.bellatlantic.net...
Goran Rahm
"Xcott Craver" <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:PM0003A1F...@giantH.bellatlantic.net...
> Goran Rahm wrote:
> >
> > Even with the 40 key you can NOT (" play smoothly in any key" )
> > however....! Not even in the two basic keys - unless you choose a
> > suitable tune !
>
> Perhaps you're thinking about people who play along the rows.
> In the central keys and thereabouts (F,C,G,D) there's a lot
> of choice regarding bellows direction, if you just use all
> the buttons.
"Lot of choice" - well there certainly is some choice but there always is a
lack of some note(s) either on push or pull if you try to play a full octave
on push or pull respectively so "This allows you to play smoothly in any
key" remains wishful....
>
> Most phrases in these keys can be played entirely on the pull,
> if you have your heart set on doing so. Many phrases are also
> available on the push. I usually avoid doing so because the
> results sound dynamically bland.
Sure - I do not deny these possibilities and they certainly add to the
freedom of
expression and fingering but nevertheless it has to be corrected that these
options are not complete in any key. IF *all* chromatic notes were
represented both on push and pull the bisonoric concept would become a lot
more versatile. I do suggest a study of the Blake system which illustrates
this !
>
> Also, it's possible to play push-pull sequences "smoothly."
> I guess you are interpreting "smoothly" as "legato," but I
> take it to mean smoothly, evenly, without audible jerkiness
> (e.g., "lift") or other audible indications that you are
> changing bellows direction.
Well - that IS "legato" is it not ?? And despite you may cover the change
with great skill it simply is impossible to do it completely and at least
not possible to do it the same way as without changing bellows direction.
Call it "smoothly" if you like - you can never do it 'as smoothly' as with
no change :-) I do not deny the possibility it may be
tasteful/nice/satisfactory enough in a specific situation......
I advocate against unmotivated stress of the differences between models and
systems but I don' t think we shall deny the differences either if they are
significant for the potential of performance.
Goran Rahm
Dennis Featherstone
Anglo that my question inspired, however you just gave me exactly the kind of
answer I was looking for. Thanks Much!!
Dennis Featherstone
Goran Rahm
"fred veenschoten" <fred...@mindspring.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:actqba$3ct$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> i don't want to get into the fight with Goran and Don but the thing with
the
> English is that the system is totally logical where the Anglo requires
> knowing which button to push and which direction to go to get the note you
> want. you have to switch rows and go to odd places and then remember which
> direction to go. the English is laid out more like a piano as compared to
a
> fiddle.
> Fred
Well - I partly agree - in my view the 3rd row of the Anglo IS a structural
disaster.
Sad, since it could have been a lot more comprehensible, for example if
being consequently a half note down or up in relation to 2nd row. Same
principle as B/C or C/C# 2 row button accordions.
BUT - nevertheless I do not mean it is quite 'fair' to classify the English
as more 'logic' than the Anglo ( or reverse....) and definitely not as
"totally logical"...:-)...
The basics of the layouts - both for the English and the Anglo - is founded
on a diatonic scale:
a) the English distributes a diatonic scale by systematic change of
left/right hand
b) the Anglo distributes a diatonic scale by systematic change of bellows
direction
I see no difference of 'logic' in that....
This basic layout in both cases is completed by addition of chromatic notes
on separate rows, but not acccording to the progression of note frequences -
rather according to a 'general' orientation from lowest octave to the
highest.
There certainly are more irregularities from this on the Anglo than the
English but I really can NOT see any 'total logic' at the English....some
chromatic notes are higher,some lower than their adjacent keynote....the
enharmonic doublings D#/Eb and G#/Ab despite being handy for fingering and
aestetically satisfying are structurally unmotivated....and
compared to the mathematical structure of many string and wind instruments I
would say that the English and Anglo concertinas are equally
'un-logical'.....
A 'logic' chromatic structure - no doubt being mathematically attractive -
however is not always neither musically nor technically superior and related
to the practical harmonic structure of the bulk of 'western world' music
which 'we' are dealing with
you can easily find structural advantages with layouts based on the diatonic
structures and from this viewpoint the English and the Anglo just represent
'different' solutions - one is generally neither 'better' nor more 'logical'
than the other.
(disregarding the annoying Anglo 3rd row.....:-)
Goran Rahm
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
>BUT - nevertheless I do not mean it is quite 'fair' to classify the English
>as more 'logic' than the Anglo ( or reverse....)
I'll disagree with this: I'll flat out say the English is laid out
more logically than the Anglo. Note that this does not mean it's
any easier to play or a better instrument - fingering is sometimes
difficult in a more logical system ... but as far as wrapping your
mind around the layout (which is how I'm defining logical here),
the English is definitely more logical.
>The basics of the layouts - both for the English and the Anglo - is founded
>on a diatonic scale:
I'll disagree right here: English layout is founded on a chromatic
system, as a piano.
>There certainly are more irregularities from this on the Anglo than the
>English
Thank you. That is all I'm saying when I say the English is laid out
more logically.
>but I really can NOT see any 'total logic' at the English....
Just because something isn't totally logical doesn't mean it's not
more logical than something else.
>some
>chromatic notes are higher,some lower than their adjacent keynote....the
>enharmonic doublings D#/Eb and G#/Ab despite being handy for fingering and
>aestetically satisfying are structurally unmotivated
Whoa, I'll disagree here, too! You have seven notes to sharpen or
flatten: A-G. Following the circle of fifths (or fourths, if you
prefer), it is entirely logical to present F#, C#, G# and Bb, Eb,
Ab - all of which the English does, and, despite your claim, are
entirely structurally motivated. When it comes to D, you flip a
coin: do you play more in the key of E or Ab? They chose E, and
you could make an equal case for Ab, I totally admit. (But I'm
glad they sharpened the D - I use D# more than Db, myself, and am
more used to fingering the alternate to Db (C#) than the alternate
to D# (Eb).)
>one is generally neither 'better' nor more 'logical'
>than the other.
>
>(disregarding the annoying Anglo 3rd row.....:-)
:-) That's like saying "ignoring the exceptions, there are no
exceptions ..." But I'm wiling to disregard it and simply go back
to your earlier admission that the Anglo has more irregularities.
This means it's less logical. And I want to repeat: THIS DOES NOT
MEAN THE ENGLISH LAYOUT IS "BETTER." It's simply more logical.
Theodore M. Kloba
wrote:
>>I only know one bisonoric system that 'solves' the problem above and that is
>>the Blake system.
>
> This one I do not know. Is it a concertina, or a button
>accordion system?
I believe this is the experimental "uniform bisonoric" system by Hugh
Blake which could be concievably adapted to any kind of instrument.
Over the weekend at a (Chemnitzer) concertina festival, I saw a copy
of Hugh's article describing the system. Unfortunately I didn't get a
chance to take a copy to read carefully.
---
Theodore M. Kloba * hey...@yahoo.com
http://www.geocities.com/heytud/
http://www.mp3.com/boxman/
Theodore M. Kloba
in mind?
---
fred veenschoten
i should have clarified my "logical comment" with "when playing in C, G, D
and A" the English is totally logical.
Fred
"Steffan O'Sullivan" <s...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:ad022g$loi$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Dennis Featherstone
songs such as
"You are my Sunshine" and other 'round the campfire tunes.
I hope this helps!! Thanks
Dennis
Steffan O'Sullivan
>good going Steffan.
>i should have clarified my "logical comment" with "when playing in C, G, D
>and A" the English is totally logical.
And totally logical when playing in E, F, Bb, and Eb, to boot.
--
Steffan O'Sullivan s...@panix.com Plymouth, NH, USA
---------------------- http://www.panix.com/~sos ---------------------
"All history is made up. Good history is made up by good historians;
bad history is made up by the others." -David Macaulay
Chris Timson
>Even with the 40 key you can NOT (" play smoothly in any key" )
>however....! Not even in the two basic keys - unless you choose a suitable
>tune !
An exercise that John Kirkpatrick proposes for the 40-button anglo is to
learn to play all the main keys and as many of the less important keys
as you feel inclined to both all on the press and all on the draw. The
40-button anglo is fully capable of this. I am not, but that is because
I have not yet spent time learning to do this, not because of
shortcomings in the instrument.
Sorry, I didn't mean to be drawn once again by one of your ill-informed
rants, but this was an error of fact. I will try and stay out of your
way in future.
Chris Timson
>I'll disagree with this: I'll flat out say the English is laid out
>more logically than the Anglo. Note that this does not mean it's
>any easier to play or a better instrument - fingering is sometimes
>difficult in a more logical system ... but as far as wrapping your
>mind around the layout (which is how I'm defining logical here),
>the English is definitely more logical.
Well, it therefore depends on one's definition of logic. I have little
difficulty in agreeing that the English is more logical, if one defines
logical here as meaning laid out according to a guiding principle based
on the rudiments of music, but I find the layout of the anglo far easier
to wrap my mind around than the English, which according to your
definition makes it more logical.
Ah, semantics! So many of these discussions come to semantics and not
much more. That is part of why I say that the only way to decide which
system is right for you is to try them out - nobody can tell you!
Goran Rahm
"Steffan O'Sullivan" <s...@panix.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:ad022g$loi$1...@reader1.panix.com...
> "Goran Rahm" <goran...@telia.com> wrote:
> >
> >BUT - nevertheless I do not mean it is quite 'fair' to classify the
English
> >as more 'logic' than the Anglo ( or reverse....)
>
founded
> >on a diatonic scale:
>
> I'll disagree right here: English layout is founded on a chromatic
> system, as a piano.
I'm afraid you are mistaken Steffan. The 'English' layout emanates from the
Symphonium keyboard and the Symphoniums were not always chromatic, some had
only one additional row for example, and the inventor specifies in the
application "The sounds or notes of this instrument are arranged in a
diatonic scale, but so that its successive notes are placed alternately on
each side of the instrument". In the 1844 patent C Wheatstone again stresses
the diatonic layout.
A chromatically based instrument will have the notes arranged according to
the frequence progression of the notes like a piano as you say, or harp,
xylophone, 5row button accordion...
> >but I really can NOT see any 'total logic' at the English....
>
> Just because something isn't totally logical doesn't mean it's not
> more logical than something else.
Well personally I don't see much sense in classifying the 'degree of logic'
at all but since we now are in it ..:-) HOW can you grade it IF you try ??
If you find 5 'unlogical' characters on one item and 5 other 'unlogical'
characters on the other *which* is more logic?? Even if it were 6 to 4 how
do you grade these factors in themselves?? Frankly I think it is pretty
ridiculous. One point is essential to *me* and that is finding out what
*does* make sense in each case. But pondering about what *does not* and why
I'm afraid is really wasting time....
It could be more constructive finding out paths of improvement...
>
> >some
> >chromatic notes are higher,some lower than their adjacent keynote....the
> >enharmonic doublings D#/Eb and G#/Ab despite being handy for fingering
and
> >aestetically satisfying are structurally unmotivated
>
> Whoa, I'll disagree here, too
Not going into too many details....IF (as you claimed) you set out for
making a chromatically based keyboard you do not bother (much) about keys,
the circle of fifths or any other tonality related system - the primary
preference will be just to arrange the progression of notes according to
frequences.
> >one is generally neither 'better' nor more 'logical'
> >than the other.
> >
> >(disregarding the annoying Anglo 3rd row.....:-)
>
> :-) That's like saying "ignoring the exceptions, there are no
> exceptions ..." But I'm wiling to disregard it and simply go back
> to your earlier admission that the Anglo has more irregularities.
> This means it's less logical
We can fight for ever about terms here but one thing is clear - we do not
speak about 'logic' in a mathematical meaning - it rather deals with
'sense' - and since it IS about *instruments* (= devices used for work...)
it is pretty meaningless not to include 'purposefulness' when grading the
'sense' of the different designs.
The 'purposefulness' of these keyboard layouts is primarily connected to the
'basic' functionality which depends upon what I called the 'basics of the
layout' - i.e. the handling of the diatonic scale respectively. The
additional complementary layout of the chromatic notes fails in different
ways both for the English and the Anglo and with both also for theoretical
structure and musical performance. It is quite easy to find advantages for
both and repeatedly there are testimonies about this resulting in this
persistent type of discussions....As I hinted before ...the basic layouts
are equally sensible/'logic' (but with differing usefulness for varying
purposes) - the additional layouts most certainly have been designed to be
'practical' firstly and not to illustrate structural 'logic'. Consequently
it does not make much sense to analyse or grade them according to their
possible 'logic' - only by their usefulness in practise.....
common sense sometimes is more useful than logic....
Goran Rahm
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
>Well, it therefore depends on one's definition of logic. I have little
>difficulty in agreeing that the English is more logical, if one defines
>logical here as meaning laid out according to a guiding principle based
>on the rudiments of music, but I find the layout of the anglo far easier
>to wrap my mind around than the English, which according to your
>definition makes it more logical.
:-) Or it means your mind works in strange ways ... but point
taken. Semantics is indeed an issue here, and I don't want to get
into it. Suffice it to say I was indeed defining logical as laid
out according to a guiding principle based on the rudiments of
western music.
>Ah, semantics! So many of these discussions come to semantics and not
>much more. That is part of why I say that the only way to decide which
>system is right for you is to try them out - nobody can tell you!
Right. And I tried to be clear in pointing out that the English
system is not necessarily better than the Anglo. Only that it's
much clearer which note any given button will produce when showed
even just a small portion of the keyboard layout with a very brief
explanation of the progression. (I actually know this from
experience, having shown an English concertina to a total novice,
shown them Middle C, explained the "white keys and black keys of
a piano" aspect, and then asked them what note a few random keys
represented, and they were able to figure it out.)
But by all means try them both - and a duet, if you can find one.
I tried all three types before I settled on one that felt right to
me.
--
Steffan O'Sullivan s...@panix.com Plymouth, NH, USA
---------------------- http://www.panix.com/~sos ---------------------
Don Tuite
what you can from the discussion you kicked off, but all I can say is
that the anglo has worked out for my similar needs over the years.
Well, maybe I can say one thing more. A diatonic "vienna style" or
"pokerwork" button-box would also serve, would be louder, would give
you an easier way to add bass rhythms and would cost less than a
grand, new.
(Let the games begin!)
Don
On Tue, 28 May 2002 17:29:44 GMT, Dennis Featherstone
Steffan O'Sullivan
>We can fight for ever about terms here but one thing is clear - we do not
>speak about 'logic' in a mathematical meaning - it rather deals with
>'sense' - and since it IS about *instruments* (= devices used for work...)
>it is pretty meaningless not to include 'purposefulness' when grading the
>'sense' of the different designs.
Meaningless it may be, but that's exactly what I stressed I was
doing. I make no claims about purposefulness or usefulness or ease
in playing - only in ease in understanding the layout. It's easier
to understand what notes the keys represent on an English than an
Anglo. This does not imply it's better for any other purpose. I
have nothing else to add.
--
Steffan O'Sullivan s...@panix.com Plymouth, NH, USA
---------------------- http://www.panix.com/~sos ---------------------
Theodore M. Kloba
concertina was what you wanted? If you are not specifically endeared
to the sound and size of the english or anglo, a Chemnitzer concertina
(what I play) will definitely work for you. It will also get you a
fuller accompaniment than english/anglo and a lot more volume if
you're accompanying a lot of singers. Button accordions can also be
quite compact (compared to piano accordions) and will do some of the
same things, but there are limited chords available on the left hand,
unlike concertinas which have a "free-bass" arrangement.
On Tue, 28 May 2002 17:29:44 GMT, Dennis Featherstone
Don Tuite
wrote:
>I suppose I should also have asked, what made you decide that a
>concertina was what you wanted? If you are not specifically endeared
>to the sound and size of the english or anglo, a Chemnitzer concertina
>(what I play) will definitely work for you. It will also get you a
>fuller accompaniment than english/anglo and a lot more volume if
>you're accompanying a lot of singers. Button accordions can also be
>quite compact (compared to piano accordions) and will do some of the
>same things, but there are limited chords available on the left hand,
>unlike concertinas which have a "free-bass" arrangement.
Ted, some of the other fellas were talking about the relative "logic"
of the anglo and the english. Where would you put the 104-button
Chemnitzer relative to those? ;8>}
In Portland, I once dragged a busker home to dinner so he could show
me how to use my box as more than an anglo surrounded by a Martian
typewriter. He was a hell of a player, but it turned out that he
played purely by instinct. He couldn't explain anything in simple
music theory-speak.
I've got whatzisname's (Silversomething) old book (NO toe-tapping,
mister!), and I suppose that if I were really motivated I could learn
to do the tab, but what I'd really like to learn is the logic of the
layout (and those weird symbols on the keys) so I could work things
out on my own.
Don
Xcott Craver
>
> Well, it therefore depends on one's definition of logic. I have little
> difficulty in agreeing that the English is more logical, if one
> defines logical here as meaning laid out according to a guiding
> principle based on the rudiments of music, but I find the layout of
> the anglo far easier to wrap my mind around than the English, which
> according to your definition makes it more logical.
Good point! Which is more "logical," a Hayden or a MacCann?
The former is logical in the sense that the notes are laid out
according to a clear pattern, whose order makes transposing
simple as well as predicting where a note would fall on the
keyboard. The latter, however, is logical in the sense that
keys are arranged to facilitate fingerwork.
Also, I must take with a grain of salt any claim that a given
kind of instrument is badly or illogically designed. It's
easy to fool oneself into seeing design flaws, which you
begin to understand after some experience with the instrument.
I used to think the anglo's 3rd row was illogical, when
I first started. At the time it just seemed like randomly
placed accidentals, sorted by pitch. But the more I play
the more I see why it's arranged the way it is.
I also thought that it was a design flaw to have two G/A
buttons on the left side; I later realized that it's the
way I play that makes the bottom G/A redundant; other
people play with the G row as their home row. I'd probably
benefit greatly from changing that bottom G/A into a G/E;
others probably wouldn't.
-X
Jack J. Woehr
> > English is that the system is totally logical where the Anglo requires
Logic ain't the only point to choose from in Concertina land, but if it's logic
you wants, it's the HAYDEN DUET by a mile.
http://www.well.com/~jax/rcfb/hayden_duet.html
--
Jack J. Woehr # Ceterum censeo
PO Box 51, Golden, CO 80402 # in herbas belli
http://www.softwoehr.com # ab idem desistamus.
Goran Rahm
"Jack J. Woehr" <jwo...@attglobal.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:3CF44284...@attglobal.net...
> Goran Rahm wrote:
>
> > > English is that the system is totally logical where the Anglo requires
>
> Logic ain't the only point to choose from in Concertina land, but if it's
logic
> you wants, it's the HAYDEN DUET by a mile.
Jack,
*I* did NOT write the above. I quoted Steffan.
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
"Don Tuite" <don_...@REMOVETHIShotlink.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:6j28fuoco5p00jvv1...@4ax.com...
> Ted, some of the other fellas were talking about the relative "logic"
> of the anglo and the english. Where would you put the 104-button
> Chemnitzer relative to those? ;8>}
Excuse me for jumping in again but I did visit the land of
Konzertinas/Bandoneons
for a while and to sum up the experience the keyboards could be classified
along with typewriters.....:-) ...no evident logic at all.....except being
handy...
Joke aside the historical development of them explains a lot - it all
started with 14 buttons each side with a 3 row layout in 3 basic keys. After
this they started to grow - Konzertinas mostly transversely, Bandoneons in
all directions, and according to the genius of numerous innovators up to
"220 (!) notes" .....
Prooved by plenty of virtuosi on Konzertinas/Bandoneons as well as on
typewriters an instrument does not need to be "logic" to be a magnificent
tool of artistry....
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
"Chris Timson" <ch...@harbour.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:M2v8YlDn...@harbour.demon.co.uk...
> Goran Rahm <goran...@telia.com> writes
> >Even with the 40 key you can NOT (" play smoothly in any key" )
> >however....! Not even in the two basic keys - unless you choose a
suitable
> >tune !
>
> An exercise that John Kirkpatrick proposes for the 40-button anglo is to
> learn to play all the main keys and as many of the less important keys
> as you feel inclined to both all on the press and all on the draw. The
> 40-button anglo is fully capable of this
WHAT do you mean ?? If you pick a 40 key C/G for example it is
(normally)chromatic from a3 (a below middle c) to c6. Where do you find a3
c4 and e4 on pull?? and where is your eb4 on push?
Did you mean only the capacity of the higher ( right hand) octave??
Maybe you did, maybe Don did also - ( but in that case it could be handy to
make an explanatory limitation from the start instead of a misleading
generalization and there is no reason getting sore if confusion arises...) -
so you could be *partly* right, but since it IS called "Anglo-chromatic" it
makes sense to discuss the capacity within the chromatic range does it not?
In my eyes it is selfevident. IF you wish to practise in *all* keys as said
you can' t manage just with the right hand anyway...
YOU are the Anglo player...I am not.....
> Sorry, I didn't mean to be drawn once again by one of your ill-informed
> rants, but this was an error of fact. I will try and stay out of your
> way in future.
> Chris
And YOU use to call my writings "arrogant" and "confrontational" ....... :-)
LOL....
Can' t you keep these unnecessary comments private yourself Chris??
...my mailbox is not blocked like yours...... do you hope to censor this
'forum' the same way like the mail list of the International Concertina
Association??
:-)
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
>
> Meaningless it may be, but that's exactly what I stressed I was
> doing. I make no claims about purposefulness or usefulness or ease
> in playing - only in ease in understanding the layout. It's easier
> to understand what notes the keys represent on an English than an
> Anglo. This does not imply it's better for any other purpose. I
> have nothing else to add.
Well - since *some* on the contrary 'understand' the Anglo easier than the
English there seems to be little fundament for generalizations so maybe we
ought to search for peculiarities ( not necessarily lack of logic....) in
our brains respectively just as well as in the instruments....:-)
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
> Right. And I tried to be clear in pointing out that the English
> system is not necessarily better than the Anglo. Only that it's
> much clearer which note any given button will produce when showed
> even just a small portion of the keyboard layout with a very brief
> explanation of the progression. (I actually know this from
> experience, having shown an English concertina to a total novice,
> shown them Middle C, explained the "white keys and black keys of
> a piano" aspect, and then asked them what note a few random keys
> represented, and they were able to figure it out.)
Also a biased experience I am afraid....
1) If you show the Anglo to a "total novice" but not referring to the piano
but to the harmonica or melodeon conditionally this "novice" has some hint
of those like your "novice" from the piano you probably experience the same
response. I have done both (English and Anglo) several times.....noone
complaining or lacking 'logic'
2) If the "novice" knows nothing of the above and is told nothing but plays
flute or vina by ear the experience may be different....
Goran Rahm
Ike Milligan
accordion. There are some pictures of them on my web page, in the
publications section.
--
www.1accordion.net/Books
"Dennis Featherstone" <dfea...@texas.net> wrote in message
news:3CEF68AB...@texas.net...
Jack J. Woehr
> "Jack J. Woehr" <jwo...@attglobal.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:3CF44284...@attglobal.net...
> > Goran Rahm wrote:
> >
> > > > English is that the system is totally logical where the Anglo requires
> >
> Jack,
> *I* did NOT write the above. I quoted Steffan.
>
> Goran Rahm
Oops, sloppy edit on my part. Apologies.
Jack J. Woehr
> Why would you play the concertina as opposed to the diatonic button
> accordion. There are some pictures of them on my web page, in the
> publications section.
For two reasons:
1. One uses both hands more on the concertina, whereas accordion is righthanded.
2. Bellows expressiveness is greater on concertina.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>Goran Rahm wrote:
>> > Goran Rahm wrote:
>> > > > English is that the system is totally logical where the Anglo requires
>> >
>> Jack,
>> *I* did NOT write the above. I quoted Steffan.
>
That's okay, sloppy work on Goran's part, too, as he wasn't quoting
me, he was quoting Fred Veenschoten. :-)
Xcott Craver
>
> WHAT do you mean ?? If you pick a 40 key C/G for example it is
> (normally)chromatic from a3 (a below middle c) to c6. Where do you
> find a3 c4 and e4 on pull?? and where is your eb4 on push?
All three of these are available on a 40 key concertina.
Go check out the fingering charts from the Suttner concertinas
web site, for his 39-key Jeffries copy.
Heck, I only have a 30-button box, and I got a3 in both
directions.
> Goran Rahm
-X
Theodore M. Kloba
<don_...@REMOVETHIShotlink.com> wrote:
>Ted, some of the other fellas were talking about the relative "logic"
>of the anglo and the english. Where would you put the 104-button
>Chemnitzer relative to those? ;8>}
There's plenty of logic. It's just so complex a logic that it appears
to be random. But serously folks, it's not about logic. You just
have to learn where the notes are.
>In Portland, I once dragged a busker home to dinner so he could show
>me how to use my box as more than an anglo surrounded by a Martian
>typewriter. He was a hell of a player, but it turned out that he
>played purely by instinct. He couldn't explain anything in simple
>music theory-speak.
Your martian typewriter analogy is apt. When you learn to type, you
don't wonder why the Q is next to W. You just learn that it is.
There are a lot of musicians in general who can't explain things in
music-theory-speak. There are a also lot of musicians who can't
explain things in Turkish, because they don't speak Turkish.
My mother is a self-taught pianist who mostly plays from sheet music,
reading the melody and chord symbols and ignoring the left hand
notation (and sometimes ignoring the rhythm, but don't tell her I said
so!). She instinctively knows that if she's playing a F7 and the
phrase is about to end, she's probably headed towards B flat, but she
doesn't know a circle of fifths from a wheel of gorgonzola. The fact
that she plays an instrument whose keyboard is arranged chromatically
doesn't make her interested in doing things any differently.
>I've got whatzisname's (Silversomething) old book (NO toe-tapping,
>mister!), and I suppose that if I were really motivated I could learn
>to do the tab, but what I'd really like to learn is the logic of the
>layout (and those weird symbols on the keys) so I could work things
>out on my own.
I became impatient with Silberhorn early on. It helped with the
basics of learning the tablature but not much more. I already knew
how to construct scales and chords from my piano training, so mostly I
just had to learn where the notes are.
The symbols are for the most part arbitrary, but they match the
tablature directly. Again, instead of worrying about the "logic" of
the layout, just learn the layout.
I'm trying to get away from the tablature for reading (unless I get a
song that's already written out with tablature), but I still use it to
transcribe my arrangements for friends who rely on it. Personally I
find it visually difficult compared to standard notation. I've never
been much of a sight reader (and have had little motivation to improve
that skill), so reading standard notation slowly and memorizing is not
a bother to me.
As far as working things out on your own, it depends on what kind of
music you're trying to work out. If the song has a left hand that can
be thought of in terms of chords, I've found it best to start with the
"standard" versions of the chords, which will determine bellows
direction, and then work the right hand out from there.
By "standard versions" I mean that there are chord charts published
that show the most common versions. Many chords are substantially
easier to play in one bellows direction than the other. Some (e.g.
those containing D#/Eb) are impossible to play on press since D#/Eb is
only available on draw on the left hand. Of those that can be played
in both directions, voicing is not always good in one direction. I
take exception to some of the choices in these charts, e.g. for Dm, Am
and Em, which to me can be played well in either direction. In those
cases, I choose direction to fit with phrasing of the right hand and
to reduce use of the air valve. Also, there are a few notes on the
right hand at the upper and lower reaches of the range that are only
available in one bellows direction. Obviously, the melody will
dictate in these cases.
When doing as I've described, some of the logic becomes more evident,
especially if you're playing folk tunes in one of the main keys (G, D
or A):
The tonic major and dominant seventh chords end up in opposite bellows
direction. The right hand tones that are consonant with major chords
are usually fairly easily articulated.
Of course there are plenty of notes that were placed where they are
simply because they had to go somewhere...
Goran Rahm
> "Jack J. Woehr" <jwo...@attglobal.net> wrote:
> >> > Goran Rahm wrote:
> >> > > > English is that the system is totally logical where the Anglo
requires
> That's okay, sloppy work on Goran's part, too, as he wasn't quoting
> me, he was quoting Fred Veenschoten. :-)
Oh Dear.....
Awfully sorry Steffan - but since you and Fred basically belong to the same
logical part of the population I hope you are not offended...:-)
These >>>>>>>> have annoyed me before (and not only me I think...)
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
"Xcott Craver" <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:PM0003A22...@giantH.bellatlantic.net...
> Goran Rahm wrote:
> >
> > WHAT do you mean ?? If you pick a 40 key C/G for example it is
> > (normally)chromatic from a3 (a below middle c) to c6. Where do you
> > find a3 c4 and e4 on pull?? and where is your eb4 on push?
>
> All three of these are available on a 40 key concertina.
> Go check out the fingering charts from the Suttner concertinas
> web site, for his 39-key Jeffries copy.
You are quite right that this "Jeffries" has got an a3 on pull 1st button
1st row. There are several variants of layouts on Anglos particularly with
the 39 or 40 key models.
This existance or not of a3 does not change much since the lacking doubling
of c4 (unless you use the drone..) e4 and eb4 is more significant as it
reduces the available lower 'complete range' limit - depending on which key
you play in - from c4 to f4/ f#4 and since it belongs to the 'regular'
layout of the more common 30/32 key instruments.
> Heck, I only have a 30-button box, and I got a3 in both
> directions.
THAT is more unusual....Where is the pull one located? 2nd button 2nd row
where you 'normally' have a b3 or somewhere else?
Anyhow, back to basics......the issue IS that the capacity for 'playing
smoothly in all keys by playing either on push on pull' is quite restricted
and highly depending on the piece of music and which key is used.
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
"Theodore M. Kloba" <hey...@yahoo.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:3cf4e3b4...@news.jump.net...
> On Tue, 28 May 2002 23:09:39 GMT, Don Tuite
> <don_...@REMOVETHIShotlink.com> wrote:
> >Ted, some of the other fellas were talking about the relative "logic"
> >of the anglo and the english. Where would you put the 104-button
> >Chemnitzer relative to those? ;8>}
>
> There's plenty of logic. It's just so complex a logic that it appears
> to be random. But serously folks, it's not about logic. You just
> have to learn where the notes are.
That's about what I learnt from my trials with bandoneons....:-)
Another thing Theodore.....not going into deep analysis of chord and melody
patterns....could you tell me why ( from what I have noticed....) tango
bandoneonists do say 90% of the work on pull? Do you and your Chemnitzer
friends prefer playing on pull too as long as it works with the fingering?
Goran Rahm
Theodore M. Kloba
it to the NG once I see it.
On Tue, 28 May 2002 14:59:58 GMT, hey...@yahoo.com (Theodore M. Kloba)
wrote:
>On 26 May 2002 17:39:42 -0400, dnic...@d-and-d.com (DoN. Nichols)
>wrote:
>>>I only know one bisonoric system that 'solves' the problem above and that is
>>>the Blake system.
>>
>> This one I do not know. Is it a concertina, or a button
>>accordion system?
>
>I believe this is the experimental "uniform bisonoric" system by Hugh
>Blake which could be concievably adapted to any kind of instrument.
>Over the weekend at a (Chemnitzer) concertina festival, I saw a copy
>of Hugh's article describing the system. Unfortunately I didn't get a
>chance to take a copy to read carefully.
Theodore M. Kloba
wrote:
>That's about what I learnt from my trials with bandoneons....:-)
>Another thing Theodore.....not going into deep analysis of chord and melody
>patterns....could you tell me why ( from what I have noticed....) tango
>bandoneonists do say 90% of the work on pull? Do you and your Chemnitzer
>friends prefer playing on pull too as long as it works with the fingering?
I think most Chemnitzer players go back and forth as chords change,
especially when playing polka music solo. In cases where they're
playing with a band and don't have to carry the accompaniment, I have
seen more air valve use, but with no particular preference for press
or draw that I can tell.
Do you know what keys are common for tango music on bandoneon? I
could see how certain keys would be more comfortable in one direction
only.
Also, you can get a different attack out of the instrument when
playing on the draw. This may be the greater motivator for tango
players.
Xcott Craver
>
> You are quite right that this "Jeffries" has got an a3 on pull 1st
> button 1st row.
*And* a pull E4, *and* a pull C4, *and* a push Eb4.
According to the fingering charts on the site, all three of these
are available on the two left hand buttons below the G row.
>>
>> Heck, I only have a 30-button box, and I got a3 in both
>> directions.
>
> THAT is more unusual....Where is the pull one located? 2nd button 2nd
> row where you 'normally' have a b3 or somewhere else?
The same place it's located on that 39-key Jeffries: 1st button,
G row, left side. I use it a lot when I play. When I discovered
that other concertinas didn't have an A there, I was relieved
that mine was different.
> Anyhow, back to basics......the issue IS that the capacity for
> 'playing smoothly in all keys by playing either on push on pull' is
> quite restricted and highly depending on the piece of music and which
> key is used.
No, the issue is *whether* this is true, not *that* it is true.
You are arguing that it is, others, that it is not.
-X
DavBarnert
>>The basics of the layouts - both for the English and the Anglo -
>>is founded on a diatonic scale:
>
>I'll disagree right here: English layout is founded on a
>chromatic system, as a piano.
Without getting into the argument about how many angels can dance
on the head of a pin, I must point out that this statement
manifests fuzzy thinking.
Both the English Concertina and the piano have their "white notes"
in different places than their "black notes." As this is the
definition of a diatonic scale, I would hesitate to disagree with a
statement that they are founded on a diatonic scale.
______ /\/\/\/\
<______> | | | | | David Barnert
<______> | | | | | <davba...@aol.com>
<______> | | | | | Albany, N.Y.
<______> \/\/\/\/
Ventilator Concertina
Bellows Bellows
(Vocation) (Avocation)
Chris Timson
> I used to think the anglo's 3rd row was illogical, when
> I first started. At the time it just seemed like randomly
> placed accidentals, sorted by pitch. But the more I play
> the more I see why it's arranged the way it is.
Exactly so.
Chris
--
Chris Timson Have concertinas, will travel
and Our Home Page: http://www.harbour.demon.co.uk
Anne Gregson The Concertina FAQ: http://www.concertina.info
"Sir, more than kisses, letters mingle souls" - John Donne
Chris Timson
>Well, maybe I can say one thing more. A diatonic "vienna style" or
>"pokerwork" button-box would also serve, would be louder, would give
>you an easier way to add bass rhythms and would cost less than a
>grand, new.
I wouldn't disagree with that, either. By all means add the melodeon to
your play list. I used to play melodeon, I now play anglo. I know others
who have gone in the opposite direction, or play both! At the end of the
day, I think it is most important to find the instrument you want to
play and then play it, whether it is a free-reed instrument or not!
Goran Rahm
> On Wed, 29 May 2002 18:17:30 GMT, "Goran Rahm" <goran...@telia.com>
> wrote:
>
> >That's about what I learnt from my trials with bandoneons....:-)
> >friends prefer playing on pull too as long as it works with the
fingering?
>
> could see how certain keys would be more comfortable in one direction
> only.
I have seen far too little to say really but maybe soem dominance for G,D,A
?
>
> Also, you can get a different attack out of the instrument when
> playing on the draw. This may be the greater motivator for tango
> players.
Precisely what I was actually thinking of and the 'draw style routine' does
seem to
be most prominent when playing 'fat' staccatto chords.
I have pondered about the reason that you get better attack on draw....if it
is only caused by (button-)valves closing more efficiently , if the (long)
bellows are more stable and if the width of the bellows make arm work more
efficient on draw.
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
"DavBarnert" <davba...@aol.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:20020529184540...@mb-fq.aol.com...
> SOS wrote:
>
> >>The basics of the layouts - both for the English and the Anglo -
> >>is founded on a diatonic scale:
> >
> >I'll disagree right here: English layout is founded on a
> >chromatic system, as a piano.
>
> Without getting into the argument about how many angels can dance
> on the head of a pin, I must point out that this statement
> manifests fuzzy thinking.
>
> Both the English Concertina and the piano have their "white notes"
> in different places than their "black notes." As this is the
> definition of a diatonic scale, I would hesitate to disagree with a
> statement that they are founded on a diatonic scale.
Quite right Dave that is a clear way to see it being manifested for 2500
years .....
....chromatic being a matter of discussion ever since....
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
> Xcott Craver <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> writes
> > I used to think the anglo's 3rd row was illogical, when
> > I first started. At the time it just seemed like randomly
> > placed accidentals, sorted by pitch. But the more I play
> > the more I see why it's arranged the way it is.
>
> Exactly so.
>
> Chris
Exactly what ??
- Do you see how 'logically' it is arranged after all ?
- Do you see how 'practical' it is arranged ?
- Do you mean that 'logical' means 'sensible' or 'practical' in this
particular case ??
:-)
Oh , Perikles - where art thou.....?
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
"Xcott Craver" <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:PM0003A22...@giantH.bellatlantic.net...
> >
> > You are quite right that this "Jeffries" has got an a3 on pull 1st
> > button 1st row.
>
> *And* a pull E4, *and* a pull C4, *and* a push Eb4.
> According to the fingering charts on the site, all three of these
> are available on the two left hand buttons below the G row.
Great! - I did miss them. Apologies for some of the stubborness....All of it
proof of the logic of Anglos....:-) and maybe the genious of Jeffries
having taken care of the defects I had noticed in the ordinary layout....:-)
> >>
> >> Heck, I only have a 30-button box, and I got a3 in both
> >> directions.
> >
> > THAT is more unusual....Where is the pull one located?
> The same place it's located on that 39-key Jeffries: 1st button,
> G row, left side. I use it a lot when I play. When I discovered
> that other concertinas didn't have an A there, I was relieved
> that mine was different.
Does that same button offer you b3 on push as well instead of the common g3
which I regard as a bit redundant ?
Well you can be happy about that a3 but you don't have the 'missing' c4 e4
eb4 so you better get yourself a 39 key Jeffries...:-) or an English....:-)
>
> > Anyhow, back to basics......the issue IS that the capacity for
> > 'playing smoothly in all keys by playing either on push on pull' is
> > quite restricted and highly depending on the piece of music and which
> > key is used.
>
> No, the issue is *whether* this is true, not *that* it is true.
> You are arguing that it is, others, that it is not.
Hm,. am I?... I haven't spoken of "truth" at all as far as I know - I have
opposed against generalizations and that ought to be different.....
The above as far as I can see really illustrates the risk to generalize with
concertinas.
To sum up a little
- 39 and 40 key instruments are likely to be more 'irregular' than 30/32 key
instruments. Different makers used different layouts and very likely these
'top range' instruments were originally ordered by advanced players with
specific demands or have been used later by evenly innovative individuals
making modifications
- this referred Suttner/Jeffries for example differs from other 39 key
instruments which may have 0,1,2,3 extra buttons below the ordinary rows
and with varying note representations
- 40 key instruments as far as I have seen more often do not have any extra
buttons below on the left side but having even more on the right side
- the 'bulk' of 'Anglos' are 30-32 key instruments so anyhow when speaking
of playing capacities of "the Anglo" it seems reasonable either to
'understand' 30-32 key models or specify 39 Or 40 key models or one specific
model otherwise this confusing discussion probably will repeat itself......
Does anyone want to discuss in how many keys you actually can play a certain
tune
on "the Anglo" or a "certain Anglo" :-) ?
Goran Rahm
Theodore M. Kloba
wrote:
>Precisely what I was actually thinking of and the 'draw style routine' does
>seem to
>be most prominent when playing 'fat' staccatto chords.
>I have pondered about the reason that you get better attack on draw....if it
>is only caused by (button-)valves closing more efficiently , if the (long)
>bellows are more stable and if the width of the bellows make arm work more
>efficient on draw.
At least for myself, I would tend to believe that it's arm mechanics.
It's not only easier to get more bellows force on the draw when your
hands are relatively close, but it's also easier to control that
force.
When using the air valve in this 'draw-style' playing, you can just
push the valve lever and exhale *all* the air and you'll have as much
bellows available as the instrument can offer. If you were to try
'push-style' playing, you'd have to guess how much air to take in on
each phrase, unless you wanted to be playing with your arms way out
all the time. That is very tiring.
Steffan O'Sullivan
>
>Both the English Concertina and the piano have their "white notes"
>in different places than their "black notes." As this is the
>definition of a diatonic scale, I would hesitate to disagree with a
>statement that they are founded on a diatonic scale.
I confess I have never studied music formally, so it's easy for me
to believe my understanding of the terms chromatic and diatonic
are flawed. "It ain't the things we don't know that gets us in
trouble... It's the things we know that ain't so." -- Artemus Ward
I was told, many years ago, that a diatonic instrument is one that
is made for a specific key or couple of keys. Examples include
Anglo concertina, button accordian, tin whistle, and lyre.
I was also told that a chromatic instrument is one that is made to
be played easily in many different keys, such as a piano, piano
accordian, and violin.
If these definitions are inaccurate (and they may very well be!),
then I would appreciate accurate ones.
At any rate, even using the "folk" definitions above (in that I
learned them by ear rather than formally), I can see that I'm not
quite accurate in calling an English concertina *fully* chromatic.
It's really only set up to play easily in eight major keys (plus
relative minors and other modes, of course): C, G, D, A, E, F, Bb,
and Eb. I guess that makes it octuply diatonic rather than fully
chromatic. Still closer than an Anglo which is only set up to play
easily in - what? - two to four keys?
Although I do note with pleasure that the Button Box distinguishes
between the English and Anglo by using the terms chromatic and
diatonic: http://www.buttonbox.com/newtina.html
Goran Rahm
> On Thu, 30 May 2002 08:54:26 GMT, "Goran Rahm" <goran...@telia.com>
> wrote:
> >I have pondered about the reason that you get better attack on draw
> When using the air valve in this 'draw-style' playing, you can just
> push the valve lever and exhale *all* the air and you'll have as much
> bellows available as the instrument can offer. If you were to try
> 'push-style' playing, you'd have to guess how much air to take in on
> each phrase, unless you wanted to be playing with your arms way out
> all the time. That is very tiring.
Sounds reasonable...and these effects are expected to be more evident with
the bigger and longer bellows too. One thing I found difficult with the
bandoneon particularly with bellows fairly wide was to control the pumping
on push since you have to keep the whole thing straight - on draw you just
'draw' and that's it. With the 'small' concertina I do prefer pull anyway
and partly from the same reason I think - it feels more stable and
efficient.
Further - you do expect the valves to close better on draw too so that ought
to add to the efficiency at least in theory.
Goran Rahm
Xcott Craver
>
> Does that same button offer you b3 on push as well instead of the
> common g3 which I regard as a bit redundant ?
Yes, b3 on the push.
> Well you can be happy about that a3 but you don't have the 'missing'
> c4 e4 eb4 so you better get yourself a 39 key Jeffries...:-) or an
> English....:-)
Or, I can just use the bellows.
> To sum up a little
> - 40 key instruments as far as I have seen more often do not have any
> extra buttons below on the left side but having even more on the right
> side
I don't know what boxes you have seen, but this is pretty
common. The exact # of buttons may be less common, but
you can find several photos of 38+ button boxes on concertina.net
with buttons below the G row. Once you get that many buttons,
it's hard to find other places to put them!
I had a 40-button Stagi once, which also had 2 buttons below the
G row on the left side, just like the Jeffries.
-X
Goran Rahm
> davba...@aol.com (DavBarnert) wrote:
> >
> >Both the English Concertina and the piano have their "white notes"
> >in different places than their "black notes." As this is the
> >definition of a diatonic scale, I would hesitate to disagree with a
> >statement that they are founded on a diatonic scale.
> I was told, many years ago, that a diatonic instrument is one that
> is made for a specific key or couple of keys. Examples include
> Anglo concertina, button accordian, tin whistle, and lyre.
>
> I was also told that a chromatic instrument is one that is made to
> be played easily in many different keys, such as a piano, piano
> accordian, and violin.
>
> If these definitions are inaccurate (and they may very well be!),
> then I would appreciate accurate ones.
>
> At any rate, even using the "folk" definitions above (in that I
> learned them by ear rather than formally), I can see that I'm not
> quite accurate in calling an English concertina *fully* chromatic.
> It's really only set up to play easily in eight major keys (plus
> relative minors and other modes, of course): C, G, D, A, E, F, Bb,
> and Eb. I guess that makes it octuply diatonic rather than fully
> chromatic. Still closer than an Anglo which is only set up to play
> easily in - what? - two to four keys?
Diatonic from ancient Greece relates to a tone system of 7 notes, 5 whole
and 2 half steps in various combinations but at least 2 whole steps must be
joined.
Chromatic steps are those additional to these i.e. combinations between
other half steps and the fundamental diatonic scale notes. The terminology
has been subject to intricate further development for 2500 years and in
different musical environments there are lots of additional meanings. By
reading some dozen pages on diatonic in one of the bigger musical
encyclopedias one will know quite a bit and possibly get even more
confused.....
One of the main practical consequences in squeezebox world is NOT to mix
these ( diatonic/chromatic) terms with presence of same note ( unisonoric) /
different note (bisonoric) at changing bellows direction push/pull.
Once again - the English as well as the Anglo and the Duet concertinas are
all based on diatonic patterns despite they may have more or less added
capacity of chromatic notes and they may be more or less founded on some
specific diatonic scales. When all possible half steps between notes are
represented an instrument may be called 'fully chromatic' - like a piano but
even the piano has a fundamentally diatonic design. When getting into all
the various half steps arising from different tuning/tempering systems one
meets an interesting variant of chaos......
The 'normal' English concertina is based on a C major scale but it could
just as well be another one and in the Symphonium patent papers of 1829 one
described instrument is based on Eb.
I don' t quite see why you find the English "easily playable" in those 8
keys above?
When playing the scales I think you find the best 'flow' in C and Eb. For
'music' it may depend very much on 'what' it actually is and one factor is
fingering where you get more options in keys with many signatures so you
could just as well argue that it plays easily in Ab Db Gb/F# H......
Goran Rahm
Steffan O'Sullivan
>I don' t quite see why you find the English "easily playable" in those 8
>keys above?
Sorry, "playable" isn't the right word - it's simply that the keys
are laid out like a piano for those eight keys (Eb, Bb, F, C, G,
D, A, E). That is, if you're reading sheet music in any of those
eight keys, when you see a note in a given position (say for example,
F) you will either play the F key itself (keys of Eb, Bb, F, C) or
slide your finger over one button to the F# (keys of G, D, A, E).
The same with every note in those eight keys: if you're reading
something in key of E and you see a note on the staff in the "D"
position, you slide your finger one position over to play the D#.
Like a piano.
But in other keys, you can't do that on the English Concertina,
though you can on a piano. For example, let's look at Ab Major.
The notes in an octave in the Ab Major scale are:
Ab, Bb, C, Db, Eb, F, G, Ab
No problem on a piano - when you see a note in the "D" position,
you slide your finger over one key and play it. But it's now
different with the English concertina. You *have* all those sounds
on an English concertina, but if you're reading sheet music, when
you see a note in the "D" position on the staff, you have to mentally
translate it to C#. You can no longer just slide your finger over
one key as that gives you D#, not Db.
So "playable" is clearly the wrong word, sorry, as that can imply
ease of fingering. I have never meant ease of playing in this
entire thread, though my words must have come across as if I were,
as some folks interpreted my posts that way. Indeed, I've played
the Ten Penny Bit jig on both English and Anglo, and it's *much*
easier to play on an Anglo, honest. But I still believe the English
is laid out in a pattern in which the buttons are more easily
identified...
--
-Steffan O'Sullivan | "I have always made it a point of not
s...@panix.com | carrying grudges over from one life
Plymouth, NH, USA | to the next"
www.panix.com/~sos | -Mehitable, quoted by Don Marquis
allen watsky
Cleff. The natural notes follow the grid exactly, then the method of
naming and determining weither the interval will be a half step up or down
is determined by the enharmonic accidentals that are needed to fulfill the
somewhat arbitrary pattern of major and minor triads that appear,
symetrically laid out . They are the reason for the D# rather than the Db
is so that the Bmajor triad is voiced using the correct enharmonic. That is
the pattern. That is what we have. It works, sort of , but you need to
accomodate yourself to it. If this seems unclear, have a look at a EC
fingering chart overlaid on a staff. If you know how to spell your triads
its all there to see. I guess thats what Wheatstone wanted. Thats why its
"organized" the was it is. So the player can have all those major and minor
triads laid out with that particular symmetry. It works out well enough. I
can read most music naturally enough. If you open a book of Gershwin,Porter
or other "American Song Book" type tunes , it all goes down pretty well in
the orrigional keys. Its a pattern you learn it , then you play with what
you have. The only logical instrument is a one stringed violin, or a slide
whistle. Cordially, Al Watsky
Goran Rahm
"allen watsky" <awa...@nj.rr.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:2zyJ8.1224$uH6.3...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
> Hello folks, It seems the EC is organized around the layout of the Treble
> fingering chart overlaid on a staff. If you know how to spell your triads
> its all there to see. I guess thats what Wheatstone wanted. Thats why its
> "organized" the was it is.
Hmm Well Allen.....what you say is correct in principle of course but
concerning Wheatstones intentions/wants I find it a bit dubious. I rather
think this correlation with the staff is a later 'construction' or
'trade-off'. You see it appears only in the 1844 patent ...but the keyboard
was designed for the symphonium and the 1829 patent mentions nothing of the
above. On the contrary it stresses that it can be represented in any key and
as a matter of fact the application presents an instrument in Eb. The
relations between fundamental note and respective sharp/flat also varies and
various symphonium keyboards do not have the same set of accidentals and not
in the regular places that occur in the 1844 keyboard.
>The only logical instrument is a one stringed violin, or a slide
> whistle.
I incline to your opinion there.....:-)
Goran Rahm
>
Goran Rahm
> "Goran Rahm" <goran...@telia.com> wrote:
> >I don' t quite see why you find the English "easily playable" in those 8
> >keys above?
>
> Sorry, "playable" isn't the right word - it's simply that the keys
> are laid out like a piano for those eight keys (Eb, Bb, F, C, G,
> D, A, E). That is, if you're reading sheet music in any of those
> eight keys, when you see a note in a given position (say for example,
> F) you will either play the F key itself (keys of Eb, Bb, F, C) or
> slide your finger over one button to the F# (keys of G, D, A, E).
> The same with every note in those eight keys: if you're reading
> something in key of E and you see a note on the staff in the "D"
> position, you slide your finger one position over to play the D#.
> Like a piano.
Hmm - I'm afraid I only to a part see what you mean but even if I miss some
point I do think maybe you expect something (pianolike if you wish..) that
isn't available in the system. When looking at the 'playability' of
different keys with the English I would say that some other angles are more
productive:
A) Looking at keyboard structure
For playing scales or runs there is not much doubt that it is 'easiest' to
use only 2nd and 3rd row (=white keys on the piano) Like running a ladder -
same straight regular steps all the way.
When you come to keys with 3-4 signatures the distribution of notes will
engage 1st and 3rd row or 2nd and 4th row with varying balance and you may
find that Eb and E offer the best 'flow'.
You definitely wish to avoid the particularly awkward steps C-C# and F-F#
which rules out Gb/F# , Db and Ab.
For polyphonic music the advantagous enharmonic doublings of D#/Eb and G#/Ab
will make keys with more than 3 signatures more efficient but for chord
playing there may also be benefits when playing with few signatures IF you
wish to press 2,3 or even 4 buttons with the same finger.
B) Looking at fingering method
a) If playing with just 1st and 2nd fingers C is outstandingly the 'easiest'
key
b) If using the common 3 fingermethod and having 4th finger on the
fingerplate keys with few signatures may be preferable
c) If liberating the 4th finger from supporting the instrument there are 3
variants
1) Having the 4th in the air only using 1st 2nd and 3rd for buttons
2) Using the 4th for buttonwork when it comes in handy mainly on 4th row and
2nd row still being the 'home' for 1st figner
3) Using the 4th as much as possible and 1st row 'home' for 1st finger
Method 3 inevitably means that to engage the superior 1st and 4th fingers
optimally you have to use keys with at least 3 signatures
According to the above that leaves us with Eb E and B.Eb is more efficient
than E since the main chords engage rows 1 and 4 more. B seems attractive by
using as many notes on rows 1 and 4 as possible but you will have to
transpose almost all written music....though playing say Chopin's Etude op.
25:6 in G#minor could be an interesting challenge for a 'showing-off'
piece......
Suming up I would say that C and Eb are the most 'playable' keys on the
English....
> So "playable" is clearly the wrong word, sorry, as that can imply
> ease of fingering. I have never meant ease of playing in this
> entire thread, though my words must have come across as if I were,
> as some folks interpreted my posts that way.
Admit I don't quite get you here since according to the above I mean that
'playability' and 'efficiency' really are the issues in first place
> Indeed, I've played
> the Ten Penny Bit jig on both English and Anglo, and it's *much*
> easier to play on an Anglo, honest.
I don't know the origin of this piece but I do get the impression it could
be a 'box' tune - at least as it is written in a tune book I've seen. What I
mean is a tune composed usually by a melodeon ( or even a 'German'
concertina- ) player which may explain its 'suitablility' for the Anglo...
But I still believe the English
> is laid out in a pattern in which the buttons are more easily
> identified...
As I said before - for my part it is difficult to find much difference when
regarding the basic 2x10 button layout on 1st and 2nd rows on the (Anglo)
German. The 3rd row and additional buttons make up the confounding
bit.......
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
"Xcott Craver" <c...@B-r-a-i-n-H-z.com> skrev i meddelandet
> Goran Rahm wrote:
> >
> > Does that same button offer you b3 on push as well instead of the
> > common g3 which I regard as a bit redundant ?
>
> Yes, b3 on the push.
Interesting - efficient 30 keys!.....what make is it and do these 'unusual'
notes seem original or later modifications?
>
> > Well you can be happy about that a3 but you don't have the 'missing'
> > c4 e4 eb4 so you better get yourself a 39 key Jeffries...:-) or an
> > English....:-)
>
> Or, I can just use the bellows.
True...that was what 'we' should not do here however....:-)
>
> > To sum up a little
>
> > - 40 key instruments as far as I have seen more often do not have any
> > extra buttons below on the left side but having even more on the right
> > side
>
> I don't know what boxes you have seen, but this is pretty
> common. The exact # of buttons may be less common, but
> you can find several photos of 38+ button boxes on concertina.net
> with buttons below the G row. Once you get that many buttons,
> it's hard to find other places to put them!
Hm - I think we have to be specific here but I admit a) my memory may fail a
little and b) I have only checked two sets of diagrams The Wheatstone
catalogue from 1950s and J.Wetstone's tutor.Those and my memory indicate
that for some reason there seem to be 40 key instruments without extra
buttons or just the drone (below 1st row)left side and 39 key instruments
with 1,2,3 extra buttons left side like the Jeffries copy we have spoken of.
So "38+" is not the whole issue. Either there is some different tradition
for 39 and 40 key instruments respectively, some diffrence between makers,
or a general hotchpotch. Sometimes evidently references include the
airbutton sometimes not which doesn't make it easier. Can we find some more
diagrams of 39 key and 40 key variants respectively on some website?
> I had a 40-button Stagi once, which also had 2 buttons below the
> G row on the left side, just like the Jeffries.
With the same notes like the Jeffries on both? Any button below 1st row
right side?
"40-button" with or without the air button? Called W-40?
Goran Rahm
Jim Lucas
> Hello folks, It seems the EC is organized around the
> layout of the Treble Cleff. The natural notes follow
> the grid exactly,...
Correlation is not the same as causation. I suspect that the connection
has to do with the fact that both are organized around the concept of the
diatonice scale (and the key of C in the standard configuration of both
the clef and the concertina).
> ...then the method of naming and determining weither
> the interval will be a half step up or down is
> determined by the enharmonic accidentals that are
> needed to fulfill the somewhat arbitrary pattern of
> major and minor triads that appear, symetrically laid
> out. They are the reason for the D# rather than the
> Db is so that the Bmajor triad is voiced using the
> correct enharmonic. That is the pattern.
There are other ways to describe this pattern. Triads aren't needed.
Scales are enough:
In playing the C-major diatonic scale on the English concertina two
fingers on each side of the instrument "climb" the rows in a simple
zig-zag "walking" pattern, alternating sides. (This has advantages for
playing scales, trills, even arpeggiated chords rapidly, but I don't know
if Sir Charles thought that through in advance.) The same pattern works
for other modes, but to play in different "keys", some other notes need to
be added. Where? Well, to keep as close to the same pattern as possible,
the sharps and flats should be on the same buttons as the "natural" notes
they modify, but that's not really possible.
Next best thing? Put them right beside their associated naturals. The
side-to-side alternation is still there; the zig-zag walking is still
there; the only difference is that some of the "steps" of the walk are a
little wider. But should it be the flat or the sharp next to each
natural? One possibility might have been to put both, but that would have
resulted in a keyboard six "rows" wide; an arbitrary decision would be
necessary as to whether the sharps or flats should be closer to the
naturals; and some of those "steps" would become *very* wide. Instead,
put next to each natural note its *most commonly used* accidental. I.e.,
F# next to F, Bb next to B, etc., based on the assumption/observation that
the keys with fewer sharps or flats in the key signature are more commonly
used than those with more. This retains the pattern in many keys, though
not quite all.
At some point in adding sharps or flats to a key signature one will reach
a key where the side-to-side alternation breaks down, because in the
position where the next sharp or flat is needed we find instead its
opposite. The note we want is still there on the instrument, but it's on
the "wrong" end of the instrument. (This problem doesn't occur on the
piano, because with its linear arrangement each "black" note is
simultaneously the sharp of the note below it and the flat of the note
above.) Still, the fact that the concertina has as many *outer* ("black")
buttons as *inner ("white") means that we can have two duplicates per
octave, and therefor two more keys where the alternating pattern still
works, instead of breaking down. That's eight standard key signatures
where that same pattern works.
> That is what we have. It works, sort of , but you need
> to accomodate yourself to it. If this seems unclear,
> have a look at a EC fingering chart overlaid on a staff.
> If you know how to spell your triads its all there to see.
> I guess thats what Wheatstone wanted. Thats why its
> "organized" the was it is. So the player can have all
> those major and minor triads laid out with that
> particular symmetry.
Well, the triads are there, nice little triangles in all the common keys.
But I think that's an artifact. I don't think it's the primary reason for
the design any more than I think triad chords were the reason for
designing the musical clefs so that triad chords consist of three equally
spaced lines or spaces. (I suspect the concept of a linear scale had much
more to do with it, and with the design of the piano, too, for that
matter.) If there's any truth to the tale that the English concertina was
intended as a parlor instrument for playing violin music, then chords
would certainly not have been the motivation. Now, chords and scales
*are* intimately related: Any system designed to make scales easy should
probably also do the same for chords. However, the reverse is not
necessarily true, as I think the piano accordion's Stradella bass
demonstrates.
It might be worth noting that while the pattern on the standard English
concertina has four sharps and three flats, this is an arbitrary choice,
presumably based on what keys are most "common". One could have made the
selection three sharps and four flats, or in fact any other combination
adding to seven (selected in the standard key-signature order, *not*
randomly), including seven sharps or seven flats. Full chromatic coverage
would still be there, and there would still be eight keys fitting the
pattern (and four that break the pattern); it would just be a different
selection of which keys fit. In fact, some jazz players might prefer the
all-flats pattern. Which keys are "common" depends partly on the musical
milieu. For use as a Victorian parlor instrument, the choice of which
flats and sharps were included makes perfect sense. But for some sorts of
music the key of B is more common than Eb, so one less flat and one more
sharp should be more convenient. Brass band music, on the other hand,
tends to favor flat keys.
> The only logical instrument is a one stringed violin,
> or a slide whistle.
Eh? How do you play triad chords on either of those? "Logical" depends
entirely on context... or purpose. 8^)
/Jim
Jim Lucas
> > > I used to think the anglo's 3rd row was illogical, when
> > > I first started. At the time it just seemed like randomly
> > > placed accidentals, sorted by pitch. But the more I play
> > > the more I see why it's arranged the way it is.
> "Chris Timson" responded:
> > Exactly so.
"Goran Rahm" then wrote ...
> Exactly what ??
> - Do you see how 'logically' it is arranged after all ?
> - Do you see how 'practical' it is arranged ?
> - Do you mean that 'logical' means 'sensible' or 'practical'
> in this particular case ??
> :-)
> Oh , Perikles - where art thou.....?
1) Pericles? What does Pericles have to do with this?
2) From my online Encarta encyclopedia: "Logical validity is a
relationship between the premises and the conclusion such that if the
premises are true then the conclusion is true." Pretty much the
definition I'm used to. In other words, logic has only as much to do with
truth or reality as the premises one starts with. If one doesn't state
any premises, then there can be no *logical* conclusions.
;-) /Jim
Jim Lucas
> SOS wrote:
>
> >>The basics of the layouts - both for the English
> >>and the Anglo - is founded on a diatonic scale:
> >
> >I'll disagree right here: English layout is founded
> >on a chromatic system, as a piano.
>
> Without getting into the argument about how many
> angels can dance on the head of a pin, I must point
> out that this statement manifests fuzzy thinking.
>
> Both the English Concertina and the piano have their
> "white notes" in different places than their "black
> notes." As this is the definition of a diatonic scale,
> I would hesitate to disagree with a statement that
> they are founded on a diatonic scale.
As with many instruments -- e.g., wind instruments ranging from flute to
saxophone, etc. -- the piano and concertina both seem to have been
designed adding the "accidentals" into a diatonic scale. The result is
that all the notes of the chromatic scale are there, but the basic
framework is still diatonic. Most modern fretted stringed instruments, on
the other hand, are truly chromatic, with one fret per chromatic
"half-step" interval.
The piano is actually a hybrid sort of a beast, simultaneously both
diatonic and chromatic: The fronts of the white keys are all equally
wide, and they thus form an equally-spaced *diatonic* scale. However, at
the *backs*of the keys, each white key is the same width as each black
key, and together they form an equally-spaced *chromatic* scale.
/Jim
Jim Lucas
>
> > > English is that the system is totally logical where
> > > the Anglo requires
"Jack J. Woehr" responded...
> Logic ain't the only point to choose from in Concertina
> land, but if it's logic you wants, it's the HAYDEN DUET
> by a mile.
The Hayden duet layout does follow a consistent pattern, which helps to
simplify attainment of certain musical desires. But I believe the English
concertina layout is equally consistent in following a different -- but
equally reasonable, in my opinion -- pattern, which helps to simplify
satisfying a different set of musical desires.
/Jim
Jim Lucas
> I understand the anglo to be easier to learn by ear.
Wasn't for me. First time I had an English in my hands I was playing in
2-part harmony within minutes (one song, anyway). No dots. No
instruction.
And now that I'm more experienced, I find the English "perfect" for
playing by ear, since the pattern of the scale is the same in most keys.
Thus, if I can feel where the tune is going, I know where my fingers
should go. On the anglo, that "where" is *very* dependent on what key I'm
in.
But I'm sure it's different for different people. Probably the instrument
that's most natural for a particular person is also the instrument that's
most natural for them to play by ear on. And Chris Timson's post is an
excellent description of how/why that's very different for different
folks.
/Jim
Jim Lucas
> ...simple music theory-speak.
Oxymoron !!
Jim Lucas
> ...the Anglo has more irregularities. This means it's
> less logical.
No. It means it's less regular. (The 20-button version, by the way, is
not even less *regular* than the English, but I am aware that this
discussion is mainly centered on those versions with at least a partial
third row, where that row departs from the original diatonic pattern.)
Logic is about drawing conclusions from assumptions. If your *assumption*
is that adherence to a regular pattern is desirable, then you might
logically conclude that the English is "better" (something you didn't
claim), but not that it is more "logical". Because if someone starts from
the premise that it is desirable for consecutive musical notes to be
physically close to each other on an instrument, then it is equally
*logical* for them to conclude that the anglo is "better", since musically
adjacent notes are often at opposite ends of the English. On the other
hand, if the starting premise is that the best instrument is that one can
learn most easily or on which one can most comfortably play the music one
desires to play, then *logically* that's different instruments for
different people.
And the pattern of the English, while quite regular, is to some people an
insane kind of regularity or patterning, which they call "illogical".
:-) /Jim
(who is still happiest with the English)
Jim Lucas
> Ah, semantics! So many of these discussions come
> to semantics and not much more.
And if one takes "logical" to mean "consistently fits a simple pattern" --
as some folks here seem to be doing, -- then the *English* concertina is
more "logical" than the *anglo* concertina, which is more "logical" than
the English *language*.
:-)
Jim Lucas
> >
> >...I find the layout of the anglo far easier to wrap
> >my mind around than the English, which according
> >to your definition makes it more logical.
>
> :-) Or it means your mind works in strange ways ...
Or maybe yours does, and that's what makes you think his does? ;-)
[...]
> I actually know this from experience, having shown
> an English concertina to a total novice, shown them
> Middle C, explained the "white keys and black keys
> of a piano" aspect, and then asked them what note
> a few random keys represented, and they were
> able to figure it out.
One example, and someone who apparently already had some understanding of
music as related to the piano. As a statistician, you would be very
dangerous.
I once showed a total novice how to play the bones, and within minutes she
was playing them better than I could. But she was an exception. Most
people find them completely impossible; even when they know the rules (of
how to control the bones) they can't seem to act on those rules.
> But by all means try them both - and a duet, if you
> can find one. I tried all three types before I settled
> on one that felt right to me.
But we agree on this, which is what really matters.
/Jim
Jim Lucas
>
> ...maybe we ought to search for peculiarities ( not
> necessarily lack of logic....) in our brains
> respectively just as well as in the instruments....:-)
Peculiarities? In OUR brains? No way!
;-)
Jim Lucas
>
> > ...the thing with the English is that the system is
> > totally logical where the Anglo requires knowing
> > which button to push and which direction to go
> > to get the note you want. you have to switch
> > rows and go to odd places and then remember
> > which direction to go. the English is laid out more
> > like a piano as compared to a fiddle.
"Dennis Featherstone" replied...
> Fred, It's been very interesting trying to follow the
> debate of English vs. Anglo that my question inspired,
> however you just gave me exactly the kind of answer
> I was looking for. Thanks Much!!
But what's the point? I play and love the English. But the fact that I
can easily figure out on paper which notes are where doesn't particularly
help me with either sight reading or playing by ear, no more than being
able to compute the trajectory of a baseball improves either my pitching
or my batting. What helps is that I have learned a brain-muscle
coordination that does what I want when I want. And that I found that to
be easier on the English than on the anglo. Others have had the contrary
experience.
/Jim
Jim Lucas
> > Goran Rahm wrote:
> > >Even with the 40 key you can NOT (" play smoothly
> > >in any key" ) however....! Not even in the two basic
> > >keys - unless you choose a suitable tune !
> Chris Timson replied:
> > An exercise that John Kirkpatrick proposes for the
> > 40-button anglo is to earn to play all the main keys
> > and as many of the less important keys as you feel
> > inclined to both all on the press and all on the draw.
> > The 40-button anglo is fully capable of this
Goran responded:
> WHAT do you mean ?? If you pick a 40 key C/G for
> example it is (normally)chromatic from a3 (a below
> middle c) to c6.
"Normally"? As in a "normal" 40-button C/G anglo? Unfortunately, I'm not
sure there is such a thing, and *that* may be responsible for some of the
further misunderstandings.
In another message, Goran said:
> I have only checked two sets of diagrams The
> Wheatstone catalogue from 1950s and J.Wetstone's
> tutor... and my memory...
At the moment I can't find my copy of the Wetstone tutor, but I do have
the George Jones tutor. Its diagram of the 40-button keyboard has five
notes different from the diagram in the Wheatstone catalog. I also have
two 38-button Jeffries which are more different than same outside the
30-button "core", and even differ on five buttons within that "core". And
Jürgen Suttner's published 39-button "Jeffries" layout differs on several
buttons from both of mine.
Goran again:
> Where do you find a3, c4 and e4 on pull?? and
> where is your eb4 on push?
The Wheatstone design has the a3-pull on the first button of the G row,
even in the 30-button version. I've seen this in a number of instruments
and had it copied for my 30-button Ceili. The 30-button Jeffries layout
in Bert Levy's book also has it, and my G/D Jeffries has it (or its
equivalent, but for comparison I'll name the notes on the G/D as if they
were transposed up to C/G). But my C/G Jeffries has the d4 of the
Lachenal layout in that location. (I also have 20-button German C/G that
has a low D [d3?] there. I almost decided to put *that* on my Ceili.)
I would say that c4-pull on the drone key counts. After all, it *is*
there. Besides, my G/D doesn't have a drone on that left-thumb button,
but two other notes.
The e4-pull and d#4-push are both missing from the Jones/Wheatstone
layout, but they are found on both my C/G and G/D Jeffries, sharing a
button inside the G row. On the other hand, these instruments are both
missing other notes that I consider important.
My impression is that while "standard" layouts were *published* for
40-button instruments, personal customization was possibly more the rule
than the exception for anything over 30 buttons.
Goran:
> ...the issue IS that the capacity for 'playing smoothly
> in all keys by playing either on push on pull' is quite
> restricted and highly depending on the piece of music
> and which key is used.
AND *which instrument* is used!
Perhaps some anglos *are* capable of being fully chromatic in one or both
directions through enough of their range to satisfy Göran's criteria for
legato playing. Probably most 40-button instruments come close, but
aren't quite complete.
Furthermore, there are undoubtedly other things that can be done
reasonably on the English which can't quite be done on the anglo, and vice
versa.
But for virtually any style of music (as opposed to a particular note
arrangement) there are those musicians on either instrument who are a
pleasure to listen to, and who make us *feel* as if there are no
limitations.
And that's good enough for me.
/Jim Lucas
Jim Lucas
>
> Well you can be happy about that a3 but you don't
> have the 'missing' c4 e4 eb4 so you better get
> yourself a 39 key Jeffries...:-) or an English....:-)
Better make it a tenor-treble, or you'll be missing the C/G anglo's low C,
E, and F. :-)
> Does anyone want to discuss in how many keys
> you actually can play a certain tune on "the Anglo"
> or a "certain Anglo" :-) ?
Not me! :-o
/Jim
allen watsky
the sharps and flats arranged as you say with the first 4 sharps and the
first 3 flats from the cycle to facilitate playing in the common keys. Its a
clever arrangement. And functions well . I am working towards playing
across the rows, I hope to develop mastery of the "potential" for chromatic
playing on the instrument. I think the aspect of the layout the interests me
is the fact that the
staff enables the notation of the chromatic scale over the 4 octaves. The
Wheatstone layout splits these notes between the hands, that forms patterns
that are circumstantial. The patterns are a sort of native language the
instrument speaks. I base improvisations on the patterns and use the
patterns as a harmonic language. I try to play the sides off against
each other.
I try to work on
playing across the rows. Trying to develop an awareness of the flow across
rows is what I want to hear on the instrument. I would like to improvise on
the concertina the way I Improvise on the violin or guitar. To do that I
will need to play the chromatic scale , 2 diminished forms and all the
modes of Major, Melodic minor and Harmonic Minor. So My interest in patterns
is really an interest in motifs that are based on the physical lay out of
the instrument. Concertina doesn't seem to want to be played chromatically.
I do wish Wheatstone gave some thought to the chromatic scale when he
developed the instrument it seems to have a diatonic major bias.
I chose to play the English system Concertina because I am not
comfortable on the bisonoric instrument. Its not a matter of my thinking
that the Anglo/German system is illogical, I found it confusing,so I started
playing chromatic harmonica and that greatly aided my understanding of the
Anglo. Want one for Polkas.Preferably a 3 voice one.
I want to use the E concertina to improvise. I like the sound of the
thing. Especially the baritone.Particularly the baritone.Just infact got a
"New Model" Bari from Wim and Harry at Geuns/ Wakker. The larger instrument
,( its about the size of a traditional Bari but is larger than the first G/W
bari.) is very nice, very musical and is the fastest Baritone that I have
tried. I hope that it will become my main instrument concertina wise as I
would not be able to put a traditional baritone instrument to use. I am
grateful for all the efforts of the various builders are making to provide
players with modern instruments based on the latest accordion reeds, in the
long run it may be that these instruments (which I consider hybrids) will be
the future of concertina . For my uses the modern accordion reeded
instruments are preferable to the antiques. Though I love my Edeophone. So
then , off to practice, cordially, Al Watsky
Goran Rahm
"Jim Lucas" <j...@danbbs.dk> skrev i meddelandet
news:bfcK8.21$5l1.2381371@news1...
> > > Xcott Craver wrote:But the more I play
> > > > the more I see why it's arranged the way it is.
>
> > "Chris Timson" responded:
> > > Exactly so.
>
> "Goran Rahm" then wrote ...
> > Exactly what ??
> > - Do you see how 'logically' it is arranged after all ?
> > - Do you see how 'practical' it is arranged ?
> > - Do you mean that 'logical' means 'sensible' or 'practical'
> > in this particular case ??
> > :-)
> > Oh , Perikles - where art thou.....?
>
> 1) Pericles? What does Pericles have to do with this?
Nothing = as little as *logic*...:-)
> 2) From my online Encarta encyclopedia: "Logical validity is a
> relationship between the premises and the conclusion such that if the
> premises are true then the conclusion is true." Pretty much the
> definition I'm used to. In other words, logic has only as much to do with
> truth or reality as the premises one starts with. If one doesn't state
> any premises, then there can be no *logical* conclusions. ;-) /Jim
One side of it.... if I understand you right your 'conclusion' from the
discussion
however seems to be about the same as mine - that this all is not much about
'logic' at all ....:-)
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
Ok - restart from GO again....
How do YOU explain why some players repeatedly testify that
"The English is more logical than the Anglo - which is completely unlogical"
and others
"The Anglo is more logical than the English - which is completely unlogical"
;-)
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
>
"Logical" depends
> entirely on context... or purpose. 8^)
>
> /Jim
Not according to your encyclopedic referrence in another message today -
does it?
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
> Excerpting from multiple messages:
>
> > > Goran Rahm wrote:
> > > >Even with the 40 key you can NOT (" play smoothly
> > > >in any key" ) however....! Not even in the two basic
> > > >keys - unless you choose a suitable tune !
>
> > Chris Timson replied:
> > > An exercise that John Kirkpatrick proposes for the
> > > 40-button anglo is to earn to play all the main keys
> > > and as many of the less important keys as you feel
> > > inclined to both all on the press and all on the draw.
> > > The 40-button anglo is fully capable of this
>
> Goran responded:
> > WHAT do you mean ?? If you pick a 40 key C/G for
> > example it is (normally)chromatic from a3 (a below
> > middle c) to c6.
>
> "Normally"? As in a "normal" 40-button C/G anglo? Unfortunately, I'm not
> sure there is such a thing, and *that* may be responsible for some of the
> further misunderstandings.
Not unlikely - as I said also later on. I am starting to believe that both
the 39 and 40 key Anglos have been 'special made' or modified so frequently
that the published standard pattern have a reduced validity. One hypothesis
is that Lachenals and Wheatstones have had the most consistent layouts while
makers like Jeffries , Jones and Crabb may be responsible for more
'specials' ?? That ought to be possible to check to some part.
Furthermore I made a misstake in the passage before - the chromatic range
goes from a3 to d6 (not c6) on the C/G on my charts.
>
> In another message, Goran said:
> > I have only checked two sets of diagrams The
> > Wheatstone catalogue from 1950s and J.Wetstone's
> > tutor... and my memory...
>
> At the moment I can't find my copy of the Wetstone tutor, but I do have
> the George Jones tutor. Its diagram of the 40-button keyboard has five
> notes different from the diagram in the Wheatstone catalog.
The points are these
a) does the 40-button keyboard have 40 buttons without airvalve
b) does it have any 'extra buttons' below 1st row left side? right side?
c) if so what are the notes on these on a C/G model?
One crucial matter is IF you have the notes c4 e4 eb4 on pull or not
(and if you got a3 on push)
> I also have
> two 38-button Jeffries which are more different than same outside the
> 30-button "core", and even differ on five buttons within that "core". And
> Jürgen Suttner's published 39-button "Jeffries" layout differs on several
> buttons from both of mine.
Just stick to these notes above again for a start ...
>
> Goran again:
> > Where do you find a3, c4 and e4 on pull?? and
> > where is your eb4 on push?
>
> The Wheatstone design has the a3-pull on the first button of the G row,
> even in the 30-button version.
Yes I've seen that on the catalogue chart. And there are NO buttons below
the 1st row left side so it misses the c4 and e4 on pull and eb4 on push
I've seen this in a number of instruments
> and had it copied for my 30-button Ceili. The 30-button Jeffries layout
> in Bert Levy's book also has it, and my G/D Jeffries has it (or its
> equivalent, but for comparison I'll name the notes on the G/D as if they
> were transposed up to C/G). But my C/G Jeffries has the d4 of the
> Lachenal layout in that location.
That I think has been the case on most/all? Lachenal 30 and 32 ones I've
had and the chart coming with some SA Lachenal instruments. Could we guess
that is a 'Lachenal standard'?
What about that Jeffires C/G with it....does it have a3 pull somewhere
else...and c4 and e4 ? and what about its eb4 push ?? how many buttons lefts
side below 1st row?
> I would say that c4-pull on the drone key counts.
In theory I agree - what about 'playability' of these oddly located notes
when playing tricky melody stuff?
> The e4-pull and d#4-push are both missing from the Jones/Wheatstone
> layout, but they are found on both my C/G and G/D Jeffries, sharing a
> button inside the G row. On the other hand, these instruments are both
> missing other notes that I consider important.
Would you guess that these - as located on places in the 1st row - could be
'modifications' rather than belonging to the original layout?? Where are
they
situated?
>
> My impression is that while "standard" layouts were *published* for
> 40-button instruments, personal customization was possibly more the rule
> than the exception for anything over 30 buttons.
That's about where I've got at this stage too and it would be interesting to
see some distribution of these 'irregularities' between different makes.
ARE there any 'standard' 38/39 key Lachenals and Wheatstones at all for
example?
Who came up with the 'odd' buttons below the 1st row first??
>
> Goran:
> > ...the issue IS that the capacity for 'playing smoothly
> > in all keys by playing either on push on pull' is quite
> > restricted and highly depending on the piece of music
> > and which key is used.
>
> AND *which instrument* is used!
Exactly....so generalizations will be hazardous indeed...
>
> Perhaps some anglos *are* capable of being fully chromatic in one or both
> directions through enough of their range to satisfy Göran's criteria for
> legato playing. Probably most 40-button instruments come close, but
> aren't quite complete.
The slightly confusing thing in my eyes is that the 40 key instruments
according to these mentioned charts ( Lachenal, Wheatstone) actually may
have less capacity in this respect than (some at least) 39 key instruments
(Jeffries). These 40 key instruments have more capacity in the top range
which to me is of more dubious value. Anyone around who really uses them??
(highest B6 and C7 for example)
Goran Rahm
DavBarnert
>The piano is actually a hybrid sort of a beast, simultaneously
>both diatonic and chromatic: The fronts of the white keys are
>all equally wide, and they thus form an equally-spaced
>*diatonic* scale. However, at the *backs*of the keys, each white
>key is the same width as each black key, and together they form
>an equally-spaced *chromatic* scale.
Not quite, Jim. Look carefully at a real *Piano* keyboard. Not a
Piano Accordion, not an electronic PLO (Piano-Like Object). Note
that the black keys are actually spaced wider apart than the white
keys, and therefore the notches cut into the backs of the white
keys to make room for the black keys are not symmetrical (except
for the D key, which fits symmetrically between C# and Eb).
But your point is a good one. The frequencies of the notes are
logarithmically equally spaced, even if the hunks of wood aren't.
______ /\/\/\/\
<______> | | | | | David Barnert
<______> | | | | | <davba...@aol.com>
<______> | | | | | Albany, N.Y.
<______> \/\/\/\/
Ventilator Concertina
Bellows Bellows
(Vocation) (Avocation)
Jim Lucas
> >
> > "Logical" depends entirely on context...
> > or purpose. 8^)
"Goran Rahm" responded...
>
> Not according to your encyclopedic referrence in
> another message today - does it?
But it definitely does. Logic is a means of reaching conclusions based on
assumptions. The "context" I refer to is the assumptions. The "purpose"
would be the motivation behind starting from a particular set of
assumptions. But once the assumptions are selected, a "logical" is
conclusion is any conclusion which can be reached by proper logical
argument from those assumptions.
E.g., if I assume that 1) musical instruments with a national designation
as part of their name can only be played by persons of that same
nationality, and 2) Göran Rahm plays English concertina, then I can
*logically* conclude that Göran Rahm is English. My conclusion is
*factually* incorrect, because the first assumption is false, but it is
*logically* correct.
/Jim
Jim Lucas
>
> One hypothesis is that Lachenals and Wheatstones
> have had the most consistent layouts while makers
> like Jeffries , Jones and Crabb may be responsible
> for more 'specials' ?? That ought to be possible to
> check to some part.
In theory, one could check it. In practice, I think it would take a lot
of work. It would be great if the various repairers kept detailed records
of every instrument that passed through their hands, but I suspect that
none did... or do. Maybe asking the question here or on concertina.net
would get enough responses to cross-correlate... or maybe not. And who
will cross-check all the different diagrams to see which differ from which
and to what extent?
> > At the moment I can't find my copy of the Wetstone
> > tutor, but I do have the George Jones tutor. Its
> > diagram of the 40-button keyboard has five notes
> > different from the diagram in the Wheatstone catalog.
>
> The points are these
> a) does the 40-button [Jones] keyboard have 40
> buttons without airvalve
Yes.
> b) does it have any 'extra buttons' below 1st row left
> side? right side?
Left side: one (thumb button for drone)
Right side: two (arranged as in the Wheatstone diagram)
> c) if so what are the notes on these on a C/G model?
Left side: c4/c4
Right Side: d5/a4 (W'stone is d#5/a4); f#5/e5 (vs. d5/e5)
[I hope I'm getting your octave designations correct]
> One crucial matter is IF you have the notes c4 e4 eb4
> on pull or not (and if you got a3 on push)
I think you got a3 and eb4 reversed in that paragraph (reversing them back
would give the same question you asked in a previous post). On that
assumption, the answer is: e4-pull, no; a3-pull, no; eb4-push, no;
c4-pull, yes, on the "drone" button.
> > I also have two 38-button Jeffries...
>> [...]
> Just stick to these notes above again for a start ...
> Could we guess that [d4-pull on 1st G-row button] a
> 'Lachenal standard'?
I have long understood that to be the case. Did you note the "Lachenal"
layout on concertina.net?
> What about that Jeffires C/G with it....does it have a3
> pull somewhere else...
No.
> ...and c4...
Yes, on the "drone" thumb button.
> ...and e4 ? and what about its eb4 push ??
They are together on the extra button inside the G row. This seems to be
standard on Jeffries instruments, e.g., see Jürgen Suttner's published
39-button "Jeffries" layout.
> ...how many buttons lefts side below 1st row?
Drone under thumb, and one more, noted above.
> > I would say that c4-pull on the drone key counts.
>
> In theory I agree - what about 'playability' of these oddly
> located notes when playing tricky melody stuff?
I don't like the L.H. thumb button (not on my 59-button Crane, either),
nor the other button inside the G row in the left hand. But I'm not as
flexible with my left hand as with my right.
> > On the other hand, these instruments are both
> > missing other notes that I consider important.
>
> Would you guess that these - as located on places
> in the 1st row - could be 'modifications' rather than
> belonging to the original layout??
Maybe some, but hardly all. On some buttons a very different size of reed
would be needed to match my C/G to my G/D. No evidence of that in the
reed pan.
> Where are they situated?
Various places. But enough. Maybe someday I'll publish the layouts, but
right now I'm not going to give you each instrument button-for-button.
/Jim
kes...@attglobal.net
play _either_ Anglo or English. There aren't a lot who have deep
experience with both. This makes getting a really useful comparison
difficult. (There are more who've tried to move from one or the other of
those to some variety of duet and can comment on those differences.)
As far as I can tell, the trade-off seems to be that Anglo makes some
things easier at the expense of making some others harder. I suspect
that may make Anglo easier to achieve basic competence on (if your mind
is wired to be able to handle the push/pull alternation; some folks seem
to have real trouble with that) but harder to completely master.
Anglo happens to be what I picked up (after some playing-around exposure
to many other instruments), and it "spoke to me" so I decided to stay
with it. I honestly don't know whether that was the _right_ choice...
but it was a choice and so far it's kept me suitably amused.
I don't tend to play "melodies without accompaniment" very often -- I
generally wind up working up an arrangement that permits me to accompany
myself. Sometimes that's a challenge; on Anglo you can't always sound
all the notes you want simultaneously and have to arrange around that,
though a fancier member of this family gives you more options and escape
hatches.
--
Joe Kesselman, http://www.lovesong.com/people/keshlam/
{} ASCII Ribbon Campaign
/\ Stamp out HTML mail!
Goran Rahm
> > "Jim Lucas" wrote...
> > >
> > > "Logical" depends entirely on context...
> > > or purpose. 8^)
>
> "Goran Rahm" responded...
> >
> > Not according to your encyclopedic referrence in
> > another message today - does it?
>
> But it definitely does. Logic is a means of reaching conclusions based on
> assumptions. The "context" I refer to is the assumptions. The "purpose"
> would be the motivation behind starting from a particular set of
> assumptions. But once the assumptions are selected, a "logical" is
> conclusion is any conclusion which can be reached by proper logical
> argument from those assumptions.
That's fairly ok- Let's not dig much into this....usually 'purpose' is not a
big deal in formal logic or logistics.....but there is more in logic than
that.....
maybe the Anglo could be called 'a-logic' .....?
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
> "Goran Rahm" wrote ...
> >
> > One hypothesis is that Lachenals and Wheatstones
> > have had the most consistent layouts while makers
> > like Jeffries , Jones and Crabb may be responsible
> > for more 'specials' ?? That ought to be possible to
> > check to some part.
>
> In theory, one could check it. In practice, I think it would take a lot
> of work. It would be great if the various repairers kept detailed records
> of every instrument that passed through their hands, but I suspect that
> none did... or do. Maybe asking the question here or on concertina.net
> would get enough responses to cross-correlate... or maybe not. And who
> will cross-check all the different diagrams to see which differ from which
> and to what extent?
Some of us freaks occasionally out of better things to do ? :-)
I'm a little bit tempted by curiosity but can't we at least think of it in
the future and see what we may collect ? Instrument descriptions pop up now
and then. I am quite a bit disappointed that the descriptions at the
Horniman website are so poor and even more that the instruments are not
accessible and will not be in foreseeable time.
> > The points are these
> > a) does the 40-button [Jones] keyboard have 40
> > buttons without airvalve
>
> Yes.
>
> > b) does it have any 'extra buttons' below 1st row left
> > side? right side?
>
> Left side: one (thumb button for drone)
> Right side: two (arranged as in the Wheatstone diagram)
>
> > c) if so what are the notes on these on a C/G model?
>
> Left side: c4/c4
> Right Side: d5/a4 (W'stone is d#5/a4); f#5/e5 (vs. d5/e5)
> [I hope I'm getting your octave designations correct]
Wheatstone as you say has got the d5 on 'the other' button and I find its
push f#5 on 1st button 3rd row. Has the Jones got the push d#5 some other
place??
>
> > One crucial matter is IF you have the notes c4 e4 eb4
> > on pull or not (and if you got a3 on push)
>
> I think you got a3 and eb4 reversed in that paragraph (reversing them back
> would give the same question you asked in a previous post). On that
> assumption, the answer is: e4-pull, no; a3-pull, no; eb4-push, no;
> c4-pull, yes, on the "drone" button.
You have understood me right anyhow and the conclusion seems to be that this
40 key Jones follows the Wheatstone left side concept and is 'not fully
chromatic both push/pull in its "chromatic range" (which is from a3 - d6
(?))
>
> > > I also have two 38-button Jeffries...
> >> [...]
> > Just stick to these notes above again for a start ...
>
> > Could we guess that [d4-pull on 1st G-row button] a
> > 'Lachenal standard'?
>
> I have long understood that to be the case. Did you note the "Lachenal"
> layout on concertina.net?
No - there may be more than one. Can you advise me to it?
>
> > What about that Jeffires C/G with it....does it have a3
> > pull somewhere else...
>
> No.
>
> > ...and c4...
>
> Yes, on the "drone" thumb button.
>
> > ...and e4 ? and what about its eb4 push ??
>
> They are together on the extra button inside the G row. This seems to be
> standard on Jeffries instruments, e.g., see Jürgen Suttner's published
> 39-button "Jeffries" layout.
Yes it seems so - could we find some more 'real' Jeffries to compare??
>
> > ...how many buttons lefts side below 1st row?
>
> Drone under thumb, and one more, noted above.
>
> > > I would say that c4-pull on the drone key counts.
> >
> > In theory I agree - what about 'playability' of these oddly
> > located notes when playing tricky melody stuff?
>
> I don't like the L.H. thumb button (not on my 59-button Crane, either),
> nor the other button inside the G row in the left hand. But I'm not as
> flexible with my left hand as with my right.
To me these locations seem a bit desparate. IF you started making some kind
of '40 key Anglo' from scratch (from 20 keys...) I would have located them
differently I think
>
> > > On the other hand, these instruments are both
> > > missing other notes that I consider important.
> >
> > Would you guess that these - as located on places
> > in the 1st row - could be 'modifications' rather than
> > belonging to the original layout??
>
> Maybe some, but hardly all. On some buttons a very different size of reed
> would be needed to match my C/G to my G/D. No evidence of that in the
> reed pan.
>
> > Where are they situated?
>
> Various places. But enough. Maybe someday I'll publish the layouts, but
> right now I'm not going to give you each instrument button-for-button.
OK thanks anyway. It IS tedious to sort it out particularly when you come to
other basic keys as well like Ab/Eb.....
I think we know know enough to call some Anglo layouts hotchpotch, jambalaya
or something like....nothing demeaning in that....
Goran Rahm
Chris Timson
>I am
>grateful for all the efforts of the various builders are making to provide
>players with modern instruments based on the latest accordion reeds, in the
>long run it may be that these instruments (which I consider hybrids) will be
>the future of concertina .
That's an interesting thought. I think you are at least partly right.
While there are concertina players I would hope and expect that there
will also be makers willing and able to make instruments of the highest
quality, like the Dippers, Dickinson or Suttner. Instruments to aspire
to, if you will. But the accordion-reeded boxes are I believe critical
to the future of the instrument, by giving the average less pecunious
individual a way of buying a quality instrument at a price that (while
not cheap) at least doesn't call for a second mortgage. That's why I was
very glad to see the Button Box's new Albion English concertinas. Up
until now the anglos have made all the running in this market.
Chris
--
Chris Timson Have concertinas, will travel
and Our Home Page: http://www.harbour.demon.co.uk
Anne Gregson The Concertina FAQ: http://www.concertina.info
"Sir, more than kisses, letters mingle souls" - John Donne
Chris Timson
>One thing to keep in mind when you read through this: Most 'tina players
>play _either_ Anglo or English. There aren't a lot who have deep
>experience with both. This makes getting a really useful comparison
>difficult. (There are more who've tried to move from one or the other of
>those to some variety of duet and can comment on those differences.)
OK, this may be interesting. I went to a workshop just yesterday
entitled "The Concertina That I Like" run by Keith Kendrick. This is
significant because Keith is one of the few people that I know of who
play both English and anglo, and he does both excellently well.
I asked the question "What decides you to play English or anglo on a
particular piece?", and got a long reply. So far as I remember it, he
said that originally he took up the English concertina, not realising
there was any other sort of concertina. He then heard records by people
like Scan Tester and William Kimber and tried to play like them, again
not realising that they weren't playing English. This led to him
developing a rhythmic way of playing the English, but it still didn't
sound like them. This lasted about 4 years until someone introduced him
to the anglo, and he went straight out and bought one. He finds that the
anglo gives him things in its sound that he just can't get from the
English, however hard he tries, but that conversely the English can do
things that the anglo can't very easily do. He has never felt any urge
to give up one in favour of the other.
Now his choice is driven by which system seems to him to give him most
easily the effect he wants for the particular song or tune he is working
on. For song accompaniment he plays a nice Wheatstone Aeola, plus,
unusually, a Dipper D/A anglo, a lovely but quite high-pitched
instrument that seems to suit his voice well.
Cheers,
Chris Timson
>"Normally"? As in a "normal" 40-button C/G anglo? Unfortunately, I'm not
>sure there is such a thing, and *that* may be responsible for some of the
>further misunderstandings.
I cannot say about Jeffries, but the Wheatstone 40-button layout appears
to have been standardised. Both John Kirkpatrick's Crabb 40-button and
my Dickinson Wheatstone have identical layouts (which means, in theory,
that I can play anything on my anglo that JK can play on his - ah, if
only it were true!).
However, outside of this brief blip of standardisation there is a long
an honourable tradition in the anglo world of having instruments built
to suit the players preferences (Robin Scard's anglo for instance, which
he built himself, is at core a G/D, but it has an inner and outer row
which have completely different assignments from anything I have met
before). I can't think of another instrument offhand of which this is so
true. Can anyone else? For me, it is part of the dun of the instrument.
Goran Rahm
Just got a message from Vic Tromp concerning a thread on concertina.net
saying that his two 40 key Crabbs from 1970s have exactly the layout of
Wheatstones in the blue catalogue we have
Goran
Jim Lucas
> Jim Lucas <j...@danbbs.dk> writes
> I cannot say about Jeffries, but the Wheatstone 40-
> button layout appears to have been standardised.
> Both John Kirkpatrick's Crabb 40-button and my
Which may well mean that they were both built after the published
Wheatstone layout for players who didn't have a great desire to design
their own. I seem to recall that Harry Scurfield also has a 40-button C/G
Dickinson Wheatstone. I wonder if his is also standard, or if he had some
customizing done.
Certainly, Wheatstone had a *standard* layout for each *standard* size,
for those players/buyers who weren't interested in designing their own. I
presume that for the same reason Lachenal and Jeffries did, as well, and
any other maker who made lots (in relative terms) of instruments. No
reason why any two makers should have the same "standard" in all details,
not up in the "professional" 40-button range.
Imagine this scenario: 1) One pro, unsatisfied with his 30-button, asks
Wheatstone to build him a 40-button; he may or may not have been specific
about what notes he wanted where. 2) Another pro, seeing or hearing of
the first, decides he wants one, too. He prefers Jeffries instruments, so
he has them make it. Not having a detailed layout of the first
instrument, they collaborate on a design, which may be quite different
from Wheatstone's outside the "original" 30 buttons. (Actually, the
Wheatstone and Jeffries 30-button designs differ significantly, as well,
and even a note or two in the two rows that would comprise a 20-button
instrument.) In fact, maybe they find they only need 38 buttons; he
apparently remembers the drone on a left-hand thumb button, though. Each
design became the standard for the respective maker. Then similar things
happened with Lachenal, Crabb, etc.
Oh, but then somebody else wants Jeffries to make them a 40-button G/D,
but with a number of differences (i.e., not just transposed down). Well,
it's a lot of work designing a proper layout of reed chambers and levers
for a new combination of reed sizes, so this arrangement becomes "the"
standard for Jeffries G/D's. (That could explain at least some of the
differences between my C/G and G/D. E.g., the G/D's left-hand thumb
button is not a drone, nor even a tonic on either push or pull. Is this
"standard"? I don't know.)
Well, it's a fun flight of the imagination. (I certainly have no
*evidence* that Wheatstone was first, or even that anything like my
scenario actually happened.)
> However, outside of this brief blip of standardisation
> there is a long an honourable tradition in the anglo
> world of having instruments built to suit the players
> preferences (Robin Scard's anglo for instance, which
> he built himself, is at core a G/D, but it has an inner
> and outer row which have completely different
> assignments from anything I have met before). I can't
> think of another instrument offhand of which this is so
> true. Can anyone else?
Yes, indeed. I once had a 30-button Lachenal (which I now regret parting
with) where the 3rd row was simply a half step off from the middle row.
And there's the legend that Packy Russell had deliberately rearranged a
number of the reeds in his instrument, in part to avoid being shown up by
strangers: "You say you play the concertina? Give us a tune then, will
you? Ah, that's too bad! Are you sure you know how to play?" ;-)
Then there was an instrument -- metal-ended Lachenal, I believe -- that I
saw once, which had a full four rows in each hand. (I only saw it once,
so my memory's not clear, but I think it may have been 4 rows x 5
buttons/row on each side.)
I seem to recall an extended discussion (either here, or on
concertina.net) some time back about the relative merits of different
arrangements of buttons in the 3rd row. Clearly, the idea that one might
choose a "personal" arrangement is considered something of a standard in
itself. (And I also made a few custom choices when I ordered my Ceili
from the Button Box.)
/Jim
Jim Lucas
> Jim Lucas wrote...
> > Did you note the "Lachenal" layout on
> > concertina.net?
>
> No - there may be more than one. Can you advise
> me to it?
I found it the same place as the Suttner Jeffries layout.
[...]
> ...could we find some more 'real' Jeffries to compare??
You might want to see what you can find with some internet research.
E.g., a while back there was a discussion (here or on concertina.net, I
forget which) of the relative merits of different anglo note layouts. I
think there may have been some descriptions of actual instruments in that.
[...]
> To me these locations seem a bit desparate. IF you
> started making some kind of '40 key Anglo' from
> scratch (from 20 keys...) I would have located them
> differently I think
Me, too. But most probably differently from you, too. Some day I should
tell about my attempt to design a layout where the "extra" buttons are
incorporated as part of a unified pattern, rather than just being
additional notes "stuck" around the outside of the 30-button pattern.
/Jim
Goran Rahm
"Chris Timson" <ch...@harbour.demon.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:h14HogAz...@harbour.demon.co.uk...
> Jim Lucas <j...@danbbs.dk> writes
> >"Normally"? As in a "normal" 40-button C/G anglo? Unfortunately, I'm
not
> >sure there is such a thing, and *that* may be responsible for some of the
> >further misunderstandings.
>
> I cannot say about Jeffries, but the Wheatstone 40-button layout appears
> to have been standardised. Both John Kirkpatrick's Crabb 40-button and
> my Dickinson Wheatstone have identical layouts
Chris said (28/5) ..."learn to play all the main keys and as many of the
less important keys as you feel inclined to both all on the press and all on
the draw. The
40-button anglo is fully capable of this"
Fully capable of what? - it seems evident by now that this is depending on -
what key? - what tune? - what instrument? - the capability is fairly limited
in reality and
saying that you can play on either press or draw is a very relative
statement.*Your* 40 key ( Wheatstone/Crabb pattern) is expected not to have
the doublings of A3 E4 and Eb4 left side and C4 only by use of the
drone.This means that the 'fully chromatic' compass on both sides goes from
F4 to D6 - an octave+a sixth.
I quickly checked about 200 popular folk dance tunes and about A) 20% had a
compass of 1 octave, B) 60% 1 octave+ a fourth or fifth, C) 20% 2 octaves.
You can not expect to be able to play any of the category C) and from
category B)
at best maybe in 3 or 4 keys unless you are lucky that the compass of the
tune fits particularly well. Only in category A) containing firstly some of
the very easiest Morris tunes you can expect to be able to play in greater
part of the keys but even here you will get problems with some tunes and
some keys
From this aspect the 39 key Jeffries/ Suttner Jeffries having been discussed
here offers much greater capability since it is 'double chromatic' down to
C4.
This was just one of my "ill-informed rants" but give it a thought Chris....
Goran Rahm
Chris Timson
>any other maker who made lots (in relative terms) of instruments.
Lachenal normally used the Wheatstone layout (there was a Lachenal
40-button on sales on eBay recently and I checked this for that
instrument).
Goran Rahm
> "Goran Rahm" wrote ...
> > Jim Lucas wrote...
>
> > started making some kind of '40 key Anglo' from
> > scratch (from 20 keys...) I would have located them
> > differently I think
>
> Me, too. But most probably differently from you, too. Some day I should
> tell about my attempt to design a layout where the "extra" buttons are
> incorporated as part of a unified pattern, rather than just being
> additional notes "stuck" around the outside of the 30-button pattern.
The best theoretical patterns I can come up with is a)what you actually had
on that instrument you mentioned - 3rd row a half tone up (or down) from
2nd row. It has been successful on melodeon. Or b)some variant of the Hohner
Club system Or c) the Blake system..... but that demands a bigger box
Goran Rahm
Goran Rahm
> "Chris Timson" wrote ...
> > Jim Lucas <j...@danbbs.dk> writes
> > I cannot say about Jeffries, but the Wheatstone 40-
> > button layout appears to have been standardised.
> > Both John Kirkpatrick's Crabb 40-button and my
> > Dickinson Wheatstone have identical layouts...
> but with a number of differences (i.e., not just transposed down). Well,
> it's a lot of work designing a proper layout of reed chambers and levers
> for a new combination of reed sizes, so this arrangement becomes "the"
> standard for Jeffries G/D's. (That could explain at least some of the
> differences between my C/G and G/D. E.g., the G/D's left-hand thumb
> button is not a drone, nor even a tonic on either push or pull. Is this
> "standard"? I don't know.)
This type of history seems quite plausible to me and very much the sort of
chaotic development met with in Germany too causing the growth of keyboards
up to the "220 note" model....
>
> Well, it's a fun flight of the imagination. (I certainly have no
> *evidence* that Wheatstone was first, or even that anything like my
> scenario actually happened.)
Wheatstones are supposed to have been late in Anglo production but this
swelling of variants and enlarged instruments mainly is a post 1900 or so
phenomenon is it not?
> Then there was an instrument -- metal-ended Lachenal, I believe -- that I
> saw once, which had a full four rows in each hand. (I only saw it once,
> so my memory's not clear, but I think it may have been 4 rows x 5
> buttons/row on each side.)
Another type than the one described in Concertina magazine No 11 ?
Lachenal 200925.
Goran Rahm
kes...@attglobal.net
> anglo gives him things in its sound that he just can't get from the
> English, however hard he tries, but that conversely the English can do
> things that the anglo can't very easily do. He has never felt any urge
> to give up one in favour of the other.
That certainly matches my own expectations/guesses/biases...
DavBarnert
>The piano is actually a hybrid sort of a beast, simultaneously
>both diatonic and chromatic: The fronts of the white keys are
>all equally wide, and they thus form an equally-spaced
>*diatonic* scale. However, at the *backs*of the keys, each white
>key is the same width as each black key, and together they form
>an equally-spaced *chromatic* scale.
I responded:
>Not quite, Jim. Look carefully at a real *Piano* keyboard. Not a
>Piano Accordion, not an electronic PLO (Piano-Like Object). Note
>that the black keys are actually spaced wider apart than the
>white keys, and therefore the notches cut into the backs of the
>white keys to make room for the black keys are not symmetrical
>(except for the D key, which fits symmetrically between C# and
>Eb).
>
>But your point is a good one. The frequencies of the notes are
>logarithmically equally spaced, even if the hunks of wood
>aren't.
Then there was much private e-mail back and forth between me and
Jim, Jim pointing out how I was wrong and me insisting we were
saying the same thing.
But he was right: I was wrong. The back ends of the keys, white
and black, are each the same width and equally spaced, dividing
the linear length of the octave into twelve equal divisions, while
the front ends of the keys (all white) are also each the same
width and equally spaced, dividing the linear length of the octave
into seven equal divisions.
This makes for a certain asymmetry in the way the black keys line
up with the white keys (it's more complicated than I describe
above, see below).
Jim clinched it with a diagram like the one below, which must be
viewed in a fixed-width font such as Monaco or Courier. It is 85
characters wide, so if it doesn't look reasonably like an octave
of a piano keyboard, try making your screen wider, and if that
doesn't help, some software between my screen and yours must have
inserted line ends which you'll have to edit out. It should start
with a continuous line of 85 = signs.
Here's his description:
>It has 12 "back" keys, each of width 7 characters and 7 front
>keys, each of width 12 characters. Those back keys corresponding
>to the black keys of the piano are filled in with stars. (To
>make sure the ratios are correct the divider lines are part of
>the total widths, not inserted, except that left-side boundary
>is added.)
>
>The only apparent differences from a real piano keyboard are
>that the line between E and F isn't straight, and the cuts in
>the D key aren't quite symmetrical. The latter is at least
>partly because the boundary characters overlie the right-most
>column of each key. The shift in the E-F line is 1/7 the width
>of a back key or 1/12 the width of a front key, or 1/84 the
>width of the octave. But any adjustment to make the line
>straight can be distributed over all the keys, so the actual
>discrepancy from true equality on each key should be negligible,
>and less than the side-to-side play in the key's position.
>
>So I conclude that for all *practical* purposes the white keys
>are equally spaced at the front, while all the keys are equally
>spaced at the back. If there's a tiny bit of fudging away from
>that in order to create two symmetrical subsections, it's not
>enough to matter.
And here's the diagram. It's not exactly Jim's (which I seem to
have deleted) but my reconstruction of it:
[View in a fixed-width font such as Monaco or Courier]
==========================================================================
===========
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| |******| |******| | |******| |******| |******|
|
| \------/ \------/ \ \------/ \------/ \------/
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
| | | | | | |
|
\-----------^-----------^-----------^-----------^-----------^-----------^-
----------/