Łukasz Martynowicz
-
Posts
611 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Łukasz Martynowicz
-
-
31 minutes ago, RAc said:
Hi Łukasz, great to see you are back!
your contri here is very intriguing. My own musical socialisation included standard notation, and I've come to believe that it is the easiest for the brain to translate into music for the simple reason that there is a correspondence between pitch and position on a staff. I am originally a guitar player and I can also read guitar tab, but I still find standard notation the easiest to translate "on the fly." I'm still a fairly poor translator from dots to an instrument keyboard, but one of the things I can do fairly reliably now is look at a score and decipher the corresponding melody in my head.
But your testimony again proves the point that the brain is a marvelously adaptive organ. With enough practice and some "anchor" to start the process, apparently every notation can become second nature and provide a good bridge between the eye and the ear. This would also be my advice to the thread opener: Look around and find the translation system that makes most sense to you and then keep practicing that until it has seeped into your brain stem.
That said, it's also important to understand that music also has a "swarm" component as Don has pointed out. The more individuals are familiar with one system, the more material will be available in that notation and thus the most music will be accessible to you. In one or two generations there may be more abc scores out than traditionally transcribed music, by which time it may make more sense to educate Newcomers with ABCs. Until then, I'd recommend standard notation for the pool of music available through it will be the biggest.
And finally, it should be understood that every visual music notation system must by definition by a crutch because music is acoustic, not optic. So learning by ear is still a very important and indispensable way to approach music.
Exactly because there is no exact correspondence between pitch and position on staff my brain literally hurts when deciphering standard notation but can grasp chromatic staff notations instantly. It is even more awkward for me because I play on Hayden (isomorphic layout), so same note occuring on different line/space depending on octave and chords looking different depending on root note are most annoying features of standard notation. Sadly it's been more than 6 years now since I first discovered chromatic notations and there is no progress at all in popularising any of them, despite all various open source software projects. And since this in no way relates to Anglos, I'll just stop here
But as you and Don have said, the standard notation is "common language" and one simply has to understand it to not only have access to tunes, but to be able to communicate with others or popularise own work. In regards to "how to learn standard notation" I have found that trying to arrange sheet music for your instrument on your own is far better method than simply learning to read already written scores, which I strongly advise OP to do.And thank you RAc for your welcome. Indeed I'm starting my way back into concertinas after nearly five years long forced break...
-
10 hours ago, Don Taylor said:
Forgive me but that is like saying 'I am not really able to read regular web pages. I find raw html works the best for me'.
Also, standard music notation is beautiful and abc notation is fugly. Abc notation is intended to be written by humans and then read by machines in order to produce ... standard music notation that can be read by humans.
I've spent quite a lot of time with standard notation in my life and still cannot sight read it - it just doesn't make any intuitive sense for my eyes-hearing connection. I still have to decypher it into abc first in order to play it - even more so if I have to read grand staff. So ABC format works great for me because I can read rhytm from noteheads/bars and actual notes from "raw" ABC. But what I can read on sight is chromatic notation, either in form of 6-6 Parncutt notation or common piano roll. Unfortunatelly, no easy software exist for converting common music notation formats to chromatic staff.
@ OP: abcnotation.com is a site for you if you happen to know whan exact tune you're after and musescore can label notes automatically if you have musicxml or other file format source to read. As to Anglo tabulatures, common way of presenting those is labeling notes under standard notation in L/R push/pull numbered squares. Be aware though, that different book authors may utilize different variations of such tabulatures.
-
First flaw I can see, is that the physical size of the instrument is determined by the LHS reed sizes, not the RH sizes… But I can't see the reason for not applying the same layout to both sides - with such trick you have already sacrificed some of the versality of the layout, so I can see no reason not to go one step further, and bisonorize both sides.
As to practical use of such instrument - I can imagine that it would be quite similiar in capabilities to a violin, i.e. it would be good for melodic and arpeggiated harmony play. With both sides bisonoric, you sacrifice the ability to play full chords (almost all chords have a two row span, you can only play major thirds in one row) but retain the ability to play in octaves and to play some two line melodic arrangements. It might be also interesting to look at the potential repertoire and check if it would be worth to make such instrument in a way, that a LHS plays f-row notes in the same bellows direction that RHS plays c-row notes - this way you could play full chords. Basically you would have sort of a "freaky, bisonoric, "english-ish" frankenHayden concertina this way
And last but not least - couple of years ago, for a little while, I HAD similiar instrument. At that time I have deeply enjoyed the "bounciness" of playing on an Anglo, so my first DIY MIDI Hayden software allowed me to turn my instrument into "Hayglo" - I could set a desired interval between push and pull notes (same for the entire keyboard) and play on a "two offset Hayden keyboards" in a bisonoric way. But as soon as I have grasped the ease of use of a "normal" Hayden layout I have abandoned this bisonoric option, as bisonority is generally "against my brain". -
@Don: for 62 "standard double" DIX reeds in brass (with valves) I've paid around 300 euros. I think that the price for two "concerina" reeds would be slightly larger than for a single "standard" but probably you'll end up somewhere around the same sum. Harmonikas.cz won't give you any estimated price untill you send them the complete list of notes needed, as price per reed vary with size...
-
I have first designed my 66b Hayden for standard accordion reeds, so it is huge by concertina standards (22cm flat to flat), but after changing them to "standard" DIX it could be 20cm flat to flat (but I have already made the case and bellows at that point, so I have only reworked reedpans. I still have some unused "corner area" but rectangular reeds impose some arrangement issues). As I wrote above - DIX reeds are on average about 4mm shorter than standard TAM reeds.
-
2: The windows of the reedframes are not angled/vented, and they have one strange issue to them: At the corners, they are not completely sharp, but have a rounded profile, probably a product of the process of cutting it out - imagine drilling four tiny holes, and then connecting the centres with straight lines. This means that there is an escape-route for air, which perhaps is intentional to allow faster starts, or more likely a way of keeping production costs down.
The concertina reeds were marked "DIX - CONCERTINA" on the wrapping, and that's what they are. While they may not be as good as a proper clamped reed with tighter clearances, I think they will be a good alternative to hybrid reeds. Also: The riveted reeds 'could' be twisted out of the way and a vent-angle filed to the sides, if you're not afraid of the idea of setting them back in place and tightening the rivet.
This is NOT "an issue" - those rounded vents are the very core of the DIX design and suposedly are traditional to a single region in Saxony. I have tried DIX reeds in all available plate metal variants and there is very distinctive, audible difference between all types AND even between aluminum DIX sound vs aluminum tipo-a-mano accordion reeds (also from harmonikas.cz).
"Concertina" oval reeds are DIX reeds because this is the only sort of reeds that harmonikas makes in brass. To my ear, DIX reeds (especially made in brass, but also in zinc) have more "trumpet like" sound with completely different ballance of overtones compared to typical accordion TAM reeds. One feature that is worth mentioning - DIX reeds are scaled differently than TAM reeds - they are a couple of mm shorter than their TAM equivalents (except for the lowest cuple of notes, which are long scale/unweighted reeds and have 68mm long shoe), so be careful if you want to use them as a replacement.
-
I got my reeds from harmonikas.cz and I agree - a lot gets lost in translation, so it is VERY important to use their size/note sheets and make a detailed list of shoe sizes needed. They tend to go quiet for days (weeks even), but they make good quality reeds in reasonable prices and are the only manufacturer I have found that do send single sets. They have even send me free samples of different types of their reeds.
-
That is why I'm interested only in Alan's personal history with this particular passage - the note sequence that short probably was composed many times over throughout history, with probably many further variations, from which only few times gained enough recognition to be recorded or popularised in any way… I'm interested mostly because this is one of the historicaly important Polish tunes and I was wondering if it made it's way all the way to Alan.
-
@Chocolate rabbit: When I first hear it, I wondered where I knew this tune from. Then I realised, that the introduction/chorus/reccuring phrase is very similiar to the polish classic: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fhc6ZgA4hrM
I was wondering if the similiar phrase (opening and chorus note sequence) is a complete coincidence, or it is a concious (or subconcious) quotation? Alan, if you see this, could you answer if you knew "Tylko we Lwowie" at the time you were composing this tune?
-
When the reed is in rest position, the tip is not exactly parallel with the frame, but slightly bend
upwards. The gap between the frame and the tip of the reed allows air to flow past the reed to P2.
This air flow will pull the tip of the reed downwards towards the frame, just like two pieces of paper
hanging parallel which, when you blow air between them, will move towards each other. The fact
that the gap decreases when the reed moves down towards the frame is important for the start of the
cycle. As the reed starts to move, tension energy is built up which replaces the suction of the airflow.
The suction of the airflow decreases as the gap gets smaller.
This is an excerpt from Wim Wakker description of free reed excitation http://www.concertinaconnection.com/concertina%20reeds.htm . I have read this only once and a long time ago, and have forgotten, that this explanation was included in Wim's article. I have just stumbled upon this today, led by a different thread on c.net, and thought it should be mentioned in this thread, that at least one profesional concertina maker thinks that gap airflow can work as I have tried do describe.
-
For me, normal handrest is even too small and I need higher/different setup. When playing with too low or no handrest at all my wrists are in constant flex, finger movement is more stiff and this causes fatigue and may lead to injury.
One further note: each concertina type (including each duet system separately) has different "wrist pivot point". On 20b anglo there is almost no need for wrist movement, e.g. on English you have a pivot point above the wrist (which also enables a linear wrist movement to some degree), and on a (large) Hayden you ideally should have two degrees of freedom, as you should be able to move your hand back and forth and up and down without changing the angle. -
There are some recent discussions about the very same question, so please take a look at those two threads:
http://www.concertina.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=17515&hl=
http://www.concertina.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=17510&hl=
-
Good idea! Lukacz, what would you regard as a sufficient number of volume steps ( 4, 8,16,32 ) for such a curve? It would be easier and quicker to use a look-up-table rather than to calculate... Switching between tables is easy enough...
If you want a simple look-up-table, without any real time calculations, then I think that your proposed values are way too small. MIDI volume has 0-127 range, so my first thought was to use 128 step look-up-tables (first map the raw pressure reading onto 0-127 integer and then read the appropriate cell in the table for getting the output level). This is fast, plain and simple, but you get some fidelity issues with such approach: with lowest sounding pressures and steep curves there is a high gain between neigbouring table values, resulting in a slight buzz at the start/end of a bellows movement and you get a lot less distinctive MIDI volume levels than 128. With even smaller look-up-table, this problem would be huge. If available memory is not an issue, I would now map the full range pressure reading onto the curve first (1024 levels or as many as you get from the sensor) and then "squeeze" just the final output onto 0-127 integer. This should smooth the result and give you the actual 128 distinctive MIDI volume levels. But if you have a lot of computing power at your disposal direct computation in real time may be a more logical option.
-
Maybe the less confusing word than "interweaving" to describe the EC will be, that it is more "mono" than "stereo"?
-
...if you don't have absolute pitch you percieve only those distances and they are the "fabric" of music for you; however if you have absloute pitch then you indeed percieve "black and white" coloured music (if you care for piano-oriented music language).
I'd doubt that! The "perception" of "black & white" will be rather generated through personal experience than "having" absolute pitch IMO. All the more lacking that absolute pitch the experienced keyboard player will "perceive" a given melody in one of the people's keys, i.e. in "black & white", avoiding to many "black" notes. At least this is true for myself, a major melody will most likley occur in Cmaj or Gmaj, regardless its "real" pitch...
There are many variations in the way individuals perceive things, and sound is one of those things. Unfortunately, it's also common for persons to assume that somehow their own way of perceiving things is not only "natural", but almost universally so, and that any differences are both anomalous and rare.
I admit, that I should phrase that statement differently (I often do this "direct translation" from polish, which often leads to improper reception, that something I write is "undoubtfull and universal truth"). What I meant was that someone without absolute pitch will not be able tell which notes of the tune he hears are "black" and which are "white". Assuming some musical training, he will hear though, which notes are accidentals (in meaning that they do not belong to the given diatonic key), but will not hear their button colour. I didn't meant that those are the only variants of percieving music, only that hearing "note colour" is one of the aspects which differentiate listeners.
[i have some strange problems with proper quoting of previous posts, so I have to go with "manual" quoting from this point]
@ Jim: "And I know a person who has "perfect" pitch but no "relative" pitch. I.e., if he learns (or reads) a song in a certain key and then wants to sing it in another key, he can't just move the starting note and then shift everything else by "feeling" the intervals, but he has to mentally transpose each note before he sings it. If you give him a guitar, piano, or concertina that's more than a half step out of tune, he can't play it, because what he hears is not what his fingers are "playing"."
This would be the most radical ilustration of hearing "black and white music" from my previous post. But I didn't knew that such separation of absolute and relative pitches can even occur. I always thought, that absolute pitch was something like a "permanent anchor" for relative pitch. And I think it would be quite interesting to know, what this particular person thinks about isomorphic keyboards, how does he "feel" them and if he finds them intuitive/usefull or an even more complication.
Having a narrowed spectrum of hearing has nothing to do with what I wrote. To differentiate: inside the scope of ones hearing range you are either "musically aware" and can hear either relative or absolute pitch of notes (or both) and can name the notes (in an absolute or relative way) or at least tell which of two given notes is higher, or you are what you call "tone deaf" - you hear the sound but you cannot make any distinction of its relative or absolute pitch. Some of those capabilities can be learned/trained/shaped to any "music description language" and with some you are simply born with.
One of the strangest case of percieving of music I have encountered in my life is one person I know, who doesn't like to listen to any kind of music, because she has absolutely no musical memory. Each tune or song is always completely new to her, and because she cannot anticipate any "incoming" note or phrase, listening to music is one of the most annoying things for her.
-
So probably another hint may proove helpfull: it is usefull to have a few different pressure-to-volume curves to choose from, depending on the sample used at a particular moment, style of play, and whether it is volume or velocity you controll - especially if you intend to comercialize your design. I have 4 different curves and I use all four of them (but some more than others).
-
Probably because "intuitiveness" isn't inherent, but depends on a person's prior experience. In particular, it's probably fruitless to try explaining why note names or the black-white distinction are irrelevant when the person receiving the explanation doesn't even know what they are. But similarly, trying to explain how "intervals" are consistent across different keys makes little sense to someone who has never thought of musical pitches as having "distances" between them.
This leads to an interesting distinction between listneners in general: if you don't have absolute pitch you percieve only those distances and they are the "fabric" of music for you; however if you have absloute pitch then you indeed percieve "black and white" coloured music (if you care for piano-oriented music language). But in both cases, it is relative "distance" between notes that makes the melody, while "button colour" is a cultural construct - an artificial language, no matter how popular. And this "language matter" was the point of my previous comment: Hayden layout (and any other isomorphic layout for that matter) may teach you a different, geometry based language to describe music, if only you're not particulary attached or fluent in a piano&staff "common language". As another example: lately there was a thread about new MIDI instrument, which has two spiral inputs - such spiral (and even better a conical-spiral) three dimensional representation of music is IMHO far more natural than linear piano representation.
It seems to me that your conceptualization would be more compatible with a completely different form of notation. But an interval-based notation could run into a different sort of problem, i.e., disagreements over which note should be used as a basiss/tonic.
True. I find traditional staff notation very obscure and favor Parncutt 6-6 tetragram over it, as for me it's more intuitive and straightforward to read http://musicnotation.org/system/6-6-tetragram-by-richard-parncutt/ - mostly because it shares the same "key independence" (in form of consistent geometric shapes of all intervals and chords. The notation itself has a very clever way of representing black and white piano keys "built in", but this is again a "cultural overlay" as this is simply a semitone notation with clever position of ledger lines). And the concept of marking the key of a tune and distinctive sharp/flat notes can be reintroduced into this notation via what I like to call "opposite" flat/sharp signs - instead of marking that the pitch of the note should be lowered/risen while playing, it can be marked that this particular note has been lowered/risen to the noted pitch while composing (for non-equal temperament use, microtonal instruments and other practical reasons in which there should be distinction between flats and sharps).
In fact I had couple of attempts to learning music theory in my life, and I could not make any logic from standard piano&staff language. I have percieved it as requiring heavy memorisation of quite arbitrary rules which made very little logical sense for me. It was only when I found Wicki-Hayden layout (and later other isomorphic arrays like various CBA systems) and started to orient my understanding of music around isomorphism, when I made it past the point of simple melodies to the world of harmony and all other aspects of music theory.
[i think that it should be noted here, that a carefully chosen slant of a Wicki-Hayden keyboard makes it possible to "overlay" the traditional staff notation directly to the keyboard - if you were to move a line parallel to the hand rest over such slanted buttons, they will cross such line in a chromatic order. But this concept is not (at least not for me] all that usefull in real practice]
E.g., E minor has the same key signature as G major. I don't have access to a Hayden. Do you position your hand as for a G major scale but then just consider the "tonic" to be at a different location in the scale? Or do you position your hand relative to E the way you would position it if you were playing in E major, but then reach in different directions for the intervals that differ from the major scale? Or maybe something else entirely?
Something else entirely
This may be suprising to you, but when playing in E minor I position my hand as in playing in C major (index finger on C), but start a scale with my ring finger instead of an index finger. On a Hayden a major scale has a shape of 4-3 buttons (4-3-4-3… when repeated through octaves), while a minor scale has a shape of a 2-3-2 buttons, which when repeated in more than one octave fits into the same 4-3-4-3 shape as the major scale and it is most logical to place your hand in a way that enables you to play a 4 button row with 4 different fingers. I could not position my hand as in playing in E major and "reach in different directions", as E major is located over entirely different part of the button array. And I realy don't treat intervals of e.g. major third an minor third as closely related: they are completely different vectors on a keyboard, used in different contexts and for different purposes, and I would even say that I treat them more like "opposites" than "neighbours". Again - Hayden keyboard is more geometric than arythmetic and gives you a completely different view on harmony and note relations.This leads to another fundamental difference between the Hayden layout and the piano (or in fact many of the other isomorphic layouts): different keys and modes of the scale you're playing in does not matter in regards to fingering, however the scale you're playing do matter a lot in regards to practical playability. On a piano each scale, key or mode is just a bit different pick from the straight line of 12 buttons. But on a Hayden, each scale is a completely different thing. For example, it is very difficult to play a gypsy/klezmer scale on a Hayden as it consists of notes scattered "all over the place". It is doable, but much harder than a major/minor scale.
-
Speaking in favor of the Crane again, it's vaguely analogous to a piano in that the natural "white key" and accidental "black key" notes are clearly distinguished, with the natural notes in the center three rows and the accidentals in the outer rows.
Of course, the whole point of the Hayden is that you shouldn't have to worry about which notes happen to be white or black, just how the notes relate to the key you're playing in.
Two different concepts, each making sense in its own right I'd guess...
This is something I have the hardest time explaining to someone, who have never heard of/tried a Hayden layout and/or learned to play on a piano - that Hayden layout (and in fact any other isomorphic layout like 5 row CBA systems or Harmonic Table layout) is completely transparent in regards to note names. You realy don't have any reason (at least any related to playing on this layout) to think in terms of white keys, black keys, accidentals, key you're playing in etc - only plain intervals matter (which you even don't have to count, as they are geometry-based), so the whole percieving of music theory becomes quite different than on any other instrument or layout I have encountered.
[This comment is in no way intended to impress anyone that Hayden layout is utterly superior to everything else, but simply to point out how much different it is on a conceptual level. It has been discussed extensively in various previous threads, that isomorphism may be a curse in certain situations, as there is no "escape" from awkward or difficult fingerings by transposing a tune to a different key; or that separation of accidentals from "base" notes is a concept that does not suit everyone and may be considered a huge drawback for someone comfortable with piano keyboard]
-
One of the characteristics that duets share with the piano is that the sound origin is imbalanced, meaning one side of the instrument produces one range (the lower) and the other side produces another range (the higher). This is a frequent gripe with recordings; after valuable input of Geoff, I sort of resolved to adjust the sitting position relative to the microphones such that the melody side is closer to the mics while recording.
But this added degree of freedom with recording while using single mic can be used to your advantage - it can act as a "virtual baffle" or with two mic recording you can manipulate the ballance later in DAW, or create DUB effect [There is a music genre caled DUB which relies heavily on spatial "soundscape" effects]
I once had a quite frustrating problem with finding piano music recordings done from the perspective of a player (large high-low stereo separation) and not the audience (pianos are usually placed sideways to the audience to reduce the separation), as is the case with most piano recordings. And If I'm thinking correctly, the EC players often move the concertina around while playing to "restore" some of that stereo spatial effects that other concertinas or accordions have?
This is the layout of the DIY Hayden I'm building. My goal was to be able to play accordion or piano pieces with least "cropping" or octave switching in bass runs necessary, hence the huge overlap and range going down to F on both sides. And I don't mind transposing the more exotic keys, as I'll mostly play solo, so only Eb's are doubled (which will be done by links and not doubled reeds).
@Steven: most of the limitations you point out come from Peacock being a small duet - with it's 42 buttons it is less than "standard" 46 button Hayden layout. This was my largest disapointment when it was released, as I hoped for a moderate priced, "full standard" hybrid box. I think that you'll find yourself considerably less constrained by a Beaumont and even less by Wakker H2 and least by an old square Bastari, with it's range and all those repeated accidentals.
-
IMHO the duet system that might be closest to piano experience is Tona's Dipper Custom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MYPTWxpKp0, but you should ask Tona directly about such comparison. If I recall correctly this is one of CBA layouts fit on a concertina and is next closest to "two row" piano after Jedcertina.
But IMHO Jedcertina this big (button number wise) would be completely unplayable, large and would require a wrist band like the left hand CBA keyboard to be able to freely move your wrist. Even Tona's box has a very elongated button array. -
But I did print out the keyboard layout for different systems and sizes and I've gone a bit nerdy on them..they're all color coded now and I've been figuring out the shape of different chords and whatnot. That doesn't hold a candle to actually playing an instrument, but it's better than nothing (or than studying for finals, which I really should be doing...)
I will repeat myself, but since you have printed those different layouts and are trying to do something useful with them, you should try them on the actual box - i.e. on the sides of a cube, to see which layout orientation is most ergonomical for your fingers. Flat printouts can mislead heavily on which layout would be easiest to play when you have a handstrap around your palm and must reach outside or closest/furthest buttons. I have used my MIDI Hayden in flat keyboard arrangement, and I can do very different things with it than on the actual concertina.
-
With large enough duets adapting the keyboard music to contertinas is quite straightforward realy, but there is a "finger limit" factor to consider - you can only use 8 fingers on a concertina, while 10 on a keyboard. And with each duet system you get different constraints on using a single finger to play several notes at once (on a Hayden you can play fourths and fifths with single finger (but each is easy to play only on one side of the instrument) and 1-4(or 5)-8 triads).
-
You have misunderstood me
What I meant is that having a bellows driven MIDI dynamics you can use it either as a volume dynamics or velocity dynamics. Volume dynamics is essential to achieving natural sound with all free-reed samples, bowed string instruments, woodwinds, brass etc… But it sounds strange an unnatural with plucked string samples, piano and percussive instruments (both xylophone-like chromatic percussive instruments and drum kits). And it is just a flip of a switch away when you have bellows driven, pressure dynamic sensor, which you can easily connect as either option, so why not have both in the same instrument? And my "simple MIDI volume" suggestion was only reffering to your own statement, that at this point the synthesiser software you're using does not recognize channel pressure control and your video lacks any dynamics at this point.
-
And it should be added that you might want to try out specimens of the different systems - doing well with one or another appears to be a very personal and hardly predictable matter...
I had similiar problem to your's when I wanted to switch from Anglo to something chromatic and unisonoric. I have finally landed with Elise and don't regret (it is true that you'll run out of buttons quite fast, but it is a quite versatile box, especially in regards to harmony building and linking it with independent melody, and you have a Peacock upgrade path available now). But as Wolf said, you should try all different instruments prior to making choice. And if it is not possible you might consider making "dummies" to try: just take a "concertina sized" cardboard box, stick some pins in it to fake buttons in different layouts and try to "mind play" something. I have ruled out English concertina this way, because it had too awkward ergonomics for my long fingers and interleaved sides were completely unnatural for me (and this indeed have saved me money (or time) and frustration, as I was seriously considering buing Jack instead of Elise back then…)
Building Hayden Duett
in Instrument Construction & Repair
Posted
I was half way through making action parts when my back gave up on me and I could not play anymore. Frustrated, I shelved this project and stopped my activity here, I even stopped listening to free reed music for some time. A long series of unfortunate events and nearly five years later, with "blank slate", completely new ear for music and having to relearn how to play (in new, standing position so my back does not have to be constantly strained by slight twist), I open up this project once again.
Getting reacquainted with my workshop took some time, but hopefully in the coming months I'll manage to make the action and finish this damned box - the goal now is to have it ready for the autumn, with october being a self imposed deadline.
During those five years on the shelve fretwork eased out - it warped a bit after cutting this layered design and screw holes become slightly misaligned - it is not the case anymore. I have dumped my old buttons (I have done some poor material/fabrication method choices and they ended up being pretty, but too laborous and heavy) and abandoned some aesthetic goals of the past in favor of having an actual chance at finishing this instrument
So, hello again to all of you!