I was recently looking over the English 48K layout again, and noticed how there are very many elegantly simple triads on the left side (on right side too, but I was focusing on the left).

I had not noticed before just how well layed out the system works for basic triads, switching from major/minor looks straight forward (I am not an English player), the traingular fingering seems designed for making those chords, I could not see a basic triad I could not make easily on the left side.

the 7ths, 9ths, suspensions I haven't investigated yet. I never got very far with the English as I was focusing more on trying to play melody and less on chording at that time.

I may reconstitute my "Half-english, Half-anglo" box I made out of two Cheapo boxes I bought a few years ago (which happened to be the same size and actaully have matching screw holes as well) and have since shoved in my storage room after setting each half back to its proper counterpart.

Kind of makes it like an Organetto Abruzzese or button accordion with that arrangement.

Yes, it is laid-out pretty well. It would be better though, if the buttons weren't so small, or rather, not so close together. Then fingering the chords will become easier. Then there is an issue of reaching the upper octave.
But I think a reasonable compromize is dearly needed. I just made a chart with buttons of 1cm diameter and realized, that the main problem is not the vertical spacing, but horizontal. I think the buttons of .8cm in diameter, where adjascent rows are spaced wider, would render itself to much improved chordal use.
Again and again I am lost in dismay of why "we make our concertinas to exact layout of traditionally made English vintage..." is considered desireable. Improve upon it, for Goodness sake!
So you want to make a concertina, that has Anglo in 3 rows and English on the left? Why not make it Crane Duet on the left, and Anglo on the right?
I guess It makes sense to preserve choppy element of the Anglo, but give it better accompaniment.
However, going this way, you'll enter Accordion World with passage through Bandoneon Universe.
I think they'll be very nasty to you in that Bandoneon place.

I find the size and spacing most excellent and desirable.
Top notes? No problem, even on my 64-button.

Maybe your fingers are different from mine? Or is it the way you use them?

I meant the problem may arise if buttons are changed to bigger, taking more space and moving uppermost buttons further away.
But as I said, the biggest advantage will be achieved if vertical columns are spaced wider, then you can use three fingers for triads, not pressing two buttons with one finger. And using three fingers for three buttons is better, because this way fingering of inversions is more standardized, easier, more useful.

Ummm, but I think most of us already do use three fingers for three buttons on English, don't we?

(And my hands are not particularly small... )

The spacing is just about perfect. You (well I anyway) can use one finger per button if you want to or one finger on three buttons sometimes.

A few weeks back in a mixed band led by David Oliver and unsurprisingly containing two piano accordions, we were looking at a chord that started out as an E7. You can do that with three fingers on the left end of an English layout. Still get drowned by the PAs. Then David suggested getting a bit jazzy (it was a cajun tune so artististic sensibilty did not enter) and adding the 9th. I got a bit carried away and put in the 11th, 13th and 15th. Had to cheat a bit and move the G# down and play Aflat with my little finger. At this point all I can do it clamp the instrument to my left knee and pump out the rythm using my right hand but it does begin to compete with the accordions.

Seven notes using four fingers on one hand. Still not up to some of the stuff in Dancin Wtih Ma Baby.

No need for any improvement, Roger

About this whole three fingers to three buttons chords thing.....

I'm working my way thru Martyn's EC for Beginners videos on YouTube (which are wonderful by the way) and just got thru the one the other night on chord structure. He is showing us to use 1 finger for the bottom (or top) two buttons of the triad and 1 for the other. Which at first was next to impossible, but now I'm starting to get the hang of it. Should I be using 3 fingers for 3 buttons? I tried that as well and that seemed even more difficult. Is the two fingers to three buttons approach the accepted way that most people do it for ease of use and speed, but not technically correct?

By the way, 12 bar blues on baritone EC....too cool. 'nuff said.

Since I don't play the English, I don't know, that was just me looking over the key arrangements and realizing I never gave the English a fair shake, the symetry it was impresse me, although the thought occurred to me that maybe English players don't actually finger the chords that way, and actaully split the chord between sides.

As to M3838's suggestion: yes I thougth about that too, half English half Crane, but Cranes are so rare that you would have to build one from scratch or at least temporarily use a Crane half. In my case coincidently the halves fit.

I think most duets players would frown upon such an arrangement, as it means one side is dedicated to chords which I believe goes agianst the duet concept.

Half anglo, I think could work, but maybe a better way of saying it is "Half-bisonoric" as you may need a different arrangement to maximize the use of notes. Maybe with half a 40 button anglo as opposed to a 30.

This weekend I'll get my junky boxes out of storage and re-assemble the beast.

Since there is no official school of concertina playing, there is no accepted way to play it, as I see it.
Two fingers on three buttons may seem like easy way out, but only if you plan to stay within some easy simplified music and folk. You try to play chordal arrangements, where you press 4 buttons, then , while keeping 3 depressed, move 4th, then, while keeping the 4th and 2nd depressed, moving 1st and 3rd and then change the hole position - and we'll talk then. When listening to people's advices, it is always recommended to visit C.net recording page and search for those people's playing examples. It clears what they are talking about.
One thing - ocasionally play a chord with two fingers, and another - to play an arrangement that requires complicated maneuvres.
Try both ways, you'll find applications for all of them.
But your example just proves that wider spacing of the buttons would have been more handy, than many respondents, having used to traditional layout, are keen to believe.
I'll try to provide the example of score, which is impractical to play with two buttons under one finger.
But remind me if I didn't do it next week.

This is all very true. Rob Harbron often does something where he holds on the common note whilst changing the others. For instance, when going from a C chord to a G chord the G note is common. You cannot do that with one finger on three buttons.

The advice to try both ways and see which you prefer for this case seems to hold good for many aspects of concertina playing (and probably much more). Allan Atlas says much the same in his book. The only bad way to play is one that causes injury.

But I do not agree about wider spacing. Obviously different players have different fingers. In just about every case where Allan describes his way to cross fingers, I would cross the other way round. Does not mean that either of us is wrong: just different. But nor does it mean that changing the design would be a good idea. The beauty of English concertinas is that they are all the same (well, nearly) unlike Anglos where finding two the same is a surprise (am I allowed to say that here?)

Roger, ducking and running

On the contrary. Since there is no "official" authority, there are multiple accepted ways to play it... essentially any way that someone accepts.


Misha, today your apparent condescension annoys me. Not all simple music is simplified. Nor is all "folk" music -- as you seem to imply -- contemptibly easy.


Don't hold your breath. I'm not a big fan of "wall of sound" arrangements.


On the other hand, I agree with you completely on this point. Any chance you could point us to some examples on the RTLP (or elsewhere) which demonstrate the sorts of arrangements you think can only be done with a separate finger for each button?


I agree with that statement. Like Roger, I find that sometimes using one finger for more than one button works best, while other times using a separate finger for each button works best. That can be true even for the same chord at different times, depending on what comes before and after, on speed, and on other factors, even personal ones.


Doesn't prove any such thing. What Badger described seems to be merely an example of someone who is still training their hands, fingers, etc. to control the instrument.


I'm sure it's possible to provide such a score. But it's just as possible to produce a score where two or more buttons under one finger is not only possible, but helpful in many places. And if you want to play 5 notes simultaneously in one hand, at least two will have to be done with a single finger.


Depends on just which notes you're trying to play, and how legato, I think. Using one finger for the basic C-major triad, it's not that hard to jump or slide to the G-major triad above, using either the same finger or a different one (e.g., index finger on the C chord, middle finger on the G). I admit that I find it more comfortable to use at least two fingers on each chord, but what I describe can certainly be done, and I'll bet it would become easier for me if I practiced it.

But maybe what you meant was to hold the G while dropping the C and E to play B and D in the other hand? I can do that, too, and even alternate back and forth. When doing that, I have better control if I do the C chord with 2 fingers, rather than just one, but with 2 fingers it's almost as easy/comfortable/fast as with three. And I frequently -- though certainly not always -- play bits where with one finger I play the lower note of a fifth interval intermittently while holding the upper note. (So far, I find it awkward to hold the lower while playing the upper intermittently. I think that has something to do with the way my finger joints bend. )

well ,you all appear to be very knowledgeable.
I wouldnt describe the triads as elegant, just triangular or geometric,and of course depending upon the inversion they are not always triads,one can have a chord with one note on the left and two on the right.