Jeffries Duets

[danersen]

Hello,

 

I have been playing a recently acquired Maccann (81 keys), and finding it much to my liking.

So I began a bit of study on the duet fingering patterns, and it appears as if the Jeffries layout may, in fact, be even more suitable to the melodic structure of music than the Maccann.

(The Crane/Triumph, BTW, is not.)

The layout of the lower notes on the Maccann (with the "A" placed in the third column adjacent and to the right of the "G" in the 2nd column with the "B" in the fifth column is hard to beat for my playing.

But , the Jeffries appears that it may be even a bit more fluid.

Hence, my question.

I am under the impression that the availability of Jeffries instruments is limited at best and so the opportunity for acquiring one to "try" is unlikely.

So, I am testing my impressions here.

Additionally, does anyone have an explanation why the Maccann layout "shifts" its pattern among the g.a.and b, notes as it ascends on both hands.

Or perhaps it changes as it descends from what I've observed in the Maccann tutors on concertina.com

 

Any and all assistance will be appreciated.

 

Be Well,

 

Dan

Edited May 13, 2009 by danersen

[Marien]

Hello Dan,

 

As far as I know, the reason for the GAB position on a MacCann is to keep the C and G buttons on the same column, so you know where to find the G if you move our hand 2 rows up.

 

I don't know why you say the Crane is not suitable to melodic structure. It depends on the music. Both duet systems (Crane and MacCann) have specific (different) melody flows that play more or less difficult.

 

The basis of both is diatonic (C scale) on the inner rows. As a result, both systems have some illogical positions of accidental buttons.

 

For example, the Crane would be more logical as a system when all buttons would go half a tone up if you move one button to the left. But it does not for the lowest D and Dis on the right hand side (keeping the D on the 3 middle rows). There are more of these quircks in the key layout.

 

For the MacCann, the low Es button on the right hand side is on a special position, and in the higher regions the button positions are less obvious. On a MacCann there are 4 columns for diatonic notes on the C scale (compared to 3 columns on a Crane). That is why a MacCann needs more buttons for the accidentals per row, to correct the pattern, so the puzzle to put buttons somewhere on a MacCann is more difficult than the same puzzle for a Crane Duet.

 

I have the feeling that the positions of the accidentals on a Crane are easier to grasp (compared to a MacCann Duet) but it is personal and it may also be a matter of how long you play a MacCann or a Crane (so I play the Crane).

 

Best wishes.

Marien

 

 

Hello,

 

I have been playing a recently acquired Maccann (81 keys), and finding it much to my liking.

So I began a bit of study on the duet fingering patterns, and it appears as if the Jeffries layout may, in fact, be even more suitable to the melodic structure of music than the Maccann.

(The Crane/Triumph, BTW, is not.)

The layout of the lower notes on the Maccann (with the "A" placed in the third column adjacent and to the right of the "G" in the 2nd column with the "B" in the fifth column is hard to beat for my playing.

But , the Jeffries appears that it may be even a bit more fluid.

Hence, my question.

I am under the impression that the availability of Jeffries instruments is limited at best and so the opportunity for acquiring one to "try" is unlikely.

So, I am testing my impressions here.

Additionally, does anyone have an explanation why the Maccann layout "shifts" its pattern among the g.a.and b, notes as it ascends on both hands.

Or perhaps it changes as it descends from what I've observed in the Maccann tutors on concertina.com

 

Any and all assistance will be appreciated.

 

Be Well,

 

Dan

[Dirge]

Dan; the only system with any sort of availability of instruments having the range and quality of your 81 is Maccan, so there's not much point in worrying about it too much if you intend to use the full range, which I sincerely hope. There is no useful alternative.

 

I asked the question ages ago and big Jeffries were not made, it seems. Also the couple I've handled didn't have any overlap to speak of, which I'd find crippling. (Clearly Michael Hibbert doesn't though...)

 

There's also the sound. Jeffries are ideal for morris, not so good for Schubert!

[danersen]

Hello Marien -

 

Thanks for the explanation regarding the notation placement.

Though I did, I didn't mean to say that the Crane system is not suitable for melodic structure.

I meant to say that it is not well suited to the melodic structure of the music that I play which incorporates many accidentals.

The typical scale in F is: F,G,Ab,Bb,C,C#,E,F; in C it's: C,D,Eb,F,G,G#,B,C.

The relative locations of the accidentals in the lower portions of the Maccann layout lend themselves to exceptionally easy access and flow.

It also allows for playing in either direction relatively easily, e.g., starting with the root of the key in the 2nd column or the 5th column.

 

Hello Dirge -

 

Thanks for your insight on the Jeffries.

For most melodies, a 58 key Jeffries would likely suffice.

I must admit that I love the 81 Maccann, but am also a bit overwhelmed by it - especially, given the shift in the layout.

I would be far more comfortable - and more likley to use the full range, I suspect - if the button layout progressed consistently and fully throughout the courses.

The shift in the layout in the upper registers really bungles up the flow compared to the layout in the lower registers.

As for the sound of a Jeffries, how might you rate it for Chassidic dance music?

 

I welcome any further advice and instruction.

 

Be Well,

 

Dan

[Stephen Chambers]

To understand the reasoning behind the Jeffries duet, I think you have to bear in mind that it was designed (supposedly overnight, at the request of a customer) as a duet for Anglo players, and that the layout is based on that of an Anglo - so that, in itself, imposes limitations, including that (like an Anglo) they can only play in a limited range of keys, so are transposing instruments.

 

The man who first explained it to me (former ICA Secretary, Jim Harvey) had had his 4-row Jeffries Anglo converted to a duet by Jeffries themselves, though these days people more commonly get them converted the other way...

Edited May 14, 2009 by Stephen Chambers

[Dirge]

If what you are doing is playing a melody and busking accompaniment as you go, an 81 is much too much of a lump, I'd say. I play a 71 and my reserve is a 67; they allow me to tackle written piano music and that's why they need to have the range, but although the 71 is a 'special' with dural frames and ends and so lighter than the 67, I would play the 67 for choice; it's easier to drive; smaller cross section hence the leverage is better. My frustration is a lot of my party pieces I can only play on the 71, the 67 lacks the range, but I have resisted 'trading up' so far because of the penalties involved. (I spend my playing life vacilating between "I'd better get an 81" and "You know, a 71 is all I really need...")

 

You get very used to the big ones with time but I can't imagine why it would be worth doing if you didn't need the range. The 67 is smaller than the 71, which is smaller than your 81...mind you, even if you went to a 58 or 61 the pattern still changes over the octaves. The core keyboard stays the same. You just have to learn it.

 

Where are you, anyway?

[JimLucas]

Dan; the only system with any sort of availability of instruments having the range and quality of your 81 is Maccan,

True. I once saw an 81-button Crane, and I've heard that a few more may have been made, but "available"? No. And I do have an 81-button "Maccann" (though made by Wheatstone, who never used the Maccann name).

[JimLucas]

To understand the reasoning behind the Jeffries duet, I think you have to bear in mind that it was designed (supposedly overnight, at the request of a customer) as a duet for Anglo players, and that the layout is based on that of an Anglo - so that, in itself, imposes limitations, including that (like an Anglo) they can only play in a limited range of keys, so are transposing instruments.

That's not quite right, Stephen. Like the (30-button or more) anglo, the Jeffries keyboard is fully chromatic -- at least in the central two octaves, -- and so can be played in any key, though some accidentals are missing at both the high and low extremes (at least in this 44-button version). However, as with the anglo, the number of keys where the scale is the simplest, "in a line" pattern is limited. And in the Jeffries duet that pattern involves a pair of rows. Even the arrangement of the accidentals looks fairly well ordered, IMO.

[JimLucas]

Though I did, I didn't mean to say that the Crane system is not suitable for melodic structure.

I meant to say that it is not well suited to the melodic structure of the music that I play which incorporates many accidentals.

The typical scale in F is: F,G,Ab,Bb,C,C#,E,F; in C it's: C,D,Eb,F,G,G#,B,C.

The relative locations of the accidentals in the lower portions of the Maccann layout lend themselves to exceptionally easy access and flow.

It also allows for playing in either direction relatively easily, e.g., starting with the root of the key in the 2nd column or the 5th column.

Have you actually tried a Crane? I would say that your judgement is wrong, at least with regard to the scales you give above. I've just played them, and they flow quite nicely.

 

In particular, your "C" scale uses only three columns (those "rows" parallel to the length of the fingers) in the first octave, repeating in sequence: 2,4,5,2,4,5,2,4. On the Maccann, the pattern of column shifts is 2,4,4,5,2,1,5,2. (What fingers do you use for the D-Eb sequence?) The Crane sequence for the "F" scale is 2,4,5,1,4,5,2,4, which is the same as the pattern for "C", except for the fourth button being shifted sideways by one column. (It feels almost the same.) On the Maccann, it's 5,2,1,6,2,1,3,5, which looks (and feels) more like a mirror of the Crane pattern than like the "C" pattern for the Maccann.

 

Now I'm not trying to claim that the Crane is superior to the Maccann, but I do think you've done a disservice in claiming that it's inferior, even (or especially) for the purposes you've stated. What I would say is that if the Maccann suits you, go with it, and enjoy!

[Stephen Chambers]

To understand the reasoning behind the Jeffries duet, I think you have to bear in mind that it was designed (supposedly overnight, at the request of a customer) as a duet for Anglo players, and that the layout is based on that of an Anglo - so that, in itself, imposes limitations, including that (like an Anglo) they can only play in a limited range of keys, so are transposing instruments.

That's not quite right, Stephen. Like the (30-button or more) anglo, the Jeffries keyboard is fully chromatic -- at least in the central two octaves, -- and so can be played in any key, though some accidentals are missing at both the high and low extremes (at least in this 44-button version). However, as with the anglo, the number of keys where the scale is the simplest, "in a line" pattern is limited. And in the Jeffries duet that pattern involves a pair of rows. Even the arrangement of the accidentals looks fairly well ordered, IMO.

Jim,

 

Both may be "chromatic" in theory, but who uses them that way?

[Robin Harrison]

As a non-technical comment, I tried a Mccann years ago and found it to be a sensible layout and was able to play some simple tunes with simple chords on the left hand. It took much practise but everything fell naturally to hand ( or fingers).

I imagine a Crane system would be similar.

However, being a Jeffries fan, I wanted to try a Jeffries duet and so bought one. After six weeks of hard work I could barely play a basic scale...............even as an anglo player it made no sense to me at all and so got rid of it.

I have no basis for this assertion, but having tried and found it to be difficult to play or make practical sense of the layout ( in spite of what people say about it being an anglo players duet), I wondered if in fact it was just developed as a piece of marketing to expand the Jeffries Brothers market share. .

It was developed at a time , (1920-25 to guess, ) when duets were a reasonably popular choice for a concertina and anglos becoming less so, the two other main systems were covered by copyright, and the Jeffries workshop was already set up by the brothers to produce concertinas. The decision to make a layout similar to an anglo would not cost much in re-tooling etc and they could increase the number of instruments sold with minimal investment......thus I wondered if the layout was based on a practical decision rather than a musical one. ie the business imperative is to produce a layout based on what our workshop can already produce.

I found it hard to imagine a musician thinking this is a useful alternative to other succesful layouts. Having tried to play one and found it so illogical after trying a Mccann, this seemed to me a not-unreasonable picture.

But, as I said, just speculation.

Regards Robin

[JimLucas]

Both may be "chromatic" in theory, but who uses them that way?

Dunno.

I do know that there have been a number of discussions here about playing anglos in other than the "home" keys. How many folks actually do that, and to what extent, I'm not sure. Certainly the South African players seem to use the chromatic potential, particularly in "complex" chords, though I haven't noted what keys they play in.

 

As for the Jeffries duet, there are few enough players, and I don't know any of them. Are there any here on C.net who could tell us whether they've tried playing in more than just a couple of keys, and if so, how difficult they found it? Without trying it, I would still expect it to be easier than on the anglo, since all the notes are available in both directions, and in the same location on both push and pull.

... brief pause ...

Okay. I just tried playing a bit of air concertina on a virtual Jeffries duet keyboard with a central key of C (the one linked in my previous post):

• Tune to "Maid of the Sweet Brown Knowe", in Eb... no problem.
  
• Chords for "Whose Garden Was This", in A... pretty easy.
  
• Diminished 7th chords in A, Bb, B, C, and further up the cycle... I had to think about fingerings, since they're 4-note chords and I can only use 4 fingers on each hand (except for that F# thumb button on the left), but no real difficulty. Should be easy to get used to.
  

I think I should get back my own Jeffries duet and give it a try.

[Stephen Chambers]

......thus I wondered if the layout was based on a practical decision rather than a musical one. ie the business imperative is to produce a layout based on what our workshop can already produce.

Except the Jeffries workshop made all systems, including English, Maccann and Crane...

[JimLucas]

...being a Jeffries fan, I wanted to try a Jeffries duet and so bought one. After six weeks of hard work I could barely play a basic scale...............even as an anglo player it made no sense to me at all and so got rid of it.

Robin, did you know what the scale was supposed to look like in the central key... i.e., alternating between two rows?

 

If not, I wonder whether your difficulty may have been because you were trying to play in keys other than the central one. It seems that many people have little trouble with having "accidentals" scattered about, as long as the main scale has a simple pattern. But if the instrument's "main" (simple-pattern) scale is different from what you think is the "main" one, the simple pattern could be hard to recognize.

 

From comments I've seen and heard about Jeffries duets, many -- perhaps even the majority? -- had Bb as the central key, and not C. Playing in C or G on a Bb instrument is (fingering-wise) like playing in D or A on a C instrument, and those patterns on a C Jeffries duet are far less regular than for the key of C, or even G. So if you had a Bb Jeffries duet and were expecting a simple pattern for the key of C, it may have been your expectations that were at fault, not the concept behind the layout.

 

Of course, I don't know whether that was the case. Do you remember enough of your experience to be able to say?

[Larry Stout]

T

The typical scale in F is: F,G,Ab,Bb,C,C#,E,F; in C it's: C,D,Eb,F,G,G#,B,C.

Have you actually tried a Crane? I would say that your judgement is wrong, at least with regard to the scales you give above. I've just played them, and they flow quite nicely.

 

I tried these scales on my Crane and found the C quite easy. I think I'd be able to get used to the F as well. I'm not particularly fluent on the Crane keyboard (mostly I play EC) so they'd have to be easy for me to manage them quickly. They are no worse than a standard D major on the Crane.

 

Can you give any examples of the music you play in these scales? I'd love to try them out.

[Stephen Chambers]

[*]Tune to "Maid of the Sweet Brown Knowe", in Eb... no problem.

You remind me of a friend of mine here, who once worked out how to play a hard reel in Eb on his 38-key Jeffries. He wanted to prove to himself that it could be done, and (truth to tell) to impress a certain famous Irish concertina player that he was going to be playing in concert with - but he wouldn't dream of making a habit of playing in Eb on a "concert pitch" (i.e. C/G) box, when it's a million times easier to do it on one in the proper pitch ...

[Robin Harrison]

Jim , I honestly can't remember very well but I think I was trying G & D scales on a Bb centred duet. I had been shown this by Nick Robertshaw ( who naturally made everthing look easy!)

ie see below

 

After all this struggle, what with the Mccann seeming somehow logical, and given the vanishingly small number of Jeffries duet players, I moved on and now try to apply duet thinking to the anglo.............and am happy I did.

Your point about my expectations is well made though but I still would suggest to people they avoid this system unless they are totally committed to it or own one. Nick said he only played a Jeffries duet because he bought one and thought this is what a concertina was.

Robin

Edited May 14, 2009 by Robin Harrison

[Marien]

I once saw an 81-button Crane, and I've heard that a few more may have been made, but "available"?

 

Hey Jim,

 

Next time you see one give me a hint...