Jump to content

Little John

Members
  • Posts

    551
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Little John

  1. Late to the topic but I am a Crane player with small hands, which isn't entirely a disadvantage. In one video I played the top Eb on the LHS (row 4). An anglo player remarked that I seemed to struggle to reach it. I wasn't conscious of it at the time, but on watching it he was right. I had learnt long ago what Kurt has just said: So I slide my hand through further when I need to reach high notes with my little finger. This isn't possible when standing up to play but sitting, with one end resting on my thigh, it's easy. Standing I struggle to reach F# on the RHS, often hitting the C# too; sitting I can manage the top Bb. Don't give up on the little finger, or on the Kurt's idea of inner and outer positions. Both make playing so much easier. My standard position is the outer one, but there will often be a short passage of, say, 3 to 8 notes, where a change to the inner position makes the fingering much simpler and hence the music flow more smoothly. One example: for B4 E5 D5 C5 on the RHS I would use index, middle, ring and little fingers. The last three notes are therefore in Kurt's 'inner' position. Second example: for D4 G4 A4 B4 on the RHS I would use little, ring, middle and index fingers. This is really all outer position with the little finger crossing to the fourth column. If you've got short fingers they may also be not too wide. This is useful for fingering fourths like the BE and DG in the two examples.
  2. I missed this final paragraph in RAC's reply earlier, so a couple of extra comments. I agree, though I would definitely add in Fmaj (and its modal siblings) which I find particularly useful for singing. The Hayden system has limitations of its own, but different from the Crane, so it's not necessarily a better choice. For you a power chord is a fourth, so you can usually play the two buttons with one finger. For me a power chord is the inversion of that - a fifth - thus always played with two fingers; so B and Bb are not a problem. Incidentally, earlier I said there's a lot you can do with a 35 button instrument. However the standard 35 button Crane layout isn't optimal. A couple of years ago I designed a better 35 button layout for Paul Harvey of Flying Duck Concertinas. It overcame the main limitations of the standard layout so that one could play most Morris and country dance tunes without compromise; albeit without some of the luxuries a slightly larger instrument would bring. Now the duck has flown it would be nice if someone else could produce an affordable Crane.
  3. I entirely agree! My first instrument was a 35 button Crabb Crane, and there's really quite a lot you can do with one. It lacks the two highest notes (A5 and B5) which are frequently required for dance tunes, but that wouldn't matter at all for songs. I might suggest a small modification (like having the lowest C# tuned down to Bb - great for songs in F and Dm) but that would apply equally to 48 or 55 button instruments.
  4. The first two are OK, but the ChatGPD one contains several inaccuracies.
  5. Delightful indeed! And a well balanced instrument. LJ
  6. OK, so if that's the issue then it's either follow @Clive Thorne's advice to stick within the limitations of the Anglo or to get one with more buttons or change to a duet. The English won't really help you - unless you're playing only chords or only melody (but not both at the same time).
  7. Interesting choice. With two flats and two sharps one could, theoretically, play in Bb, F, C, G and D (plus associated modes) without the need for the third 'accidental' row most Anglos have. How easy the would be in practice I don't know.
  8. The difference is that Joe Public will know whether you're playing a guitar or a trumpet (and be able to name them). I doubt if one in a million will know whether you're playing and Anglo or an English concertina; and even then will call it an accordion or a 'squeezebox'. I actually play bouzouki and fretless bass guitar as well as concertina, but all three have completely different sounds and serve different purposes. The only purpose playing both English and Crane served was to hold me back. [Apropos of nothing, I find it amusing that people happily refer to 'concertina doors' or 'concertina files' and yet can't recognise a concertina.]
  9. To play as well as the Anglo, or instead of? Very few people play more than one system. Most of us settle on one and learn to get the best out of it. So ask yourself these questions: what makes you think a different system might be better? What is it you want to do that you can't with an Anglo? (Or think you can't do?) I tried for some years to maintain proficiency on both English and Crane duet, but really it was fool's errand. In the end I ditched the English (more-or-less) to concentrate on the Crane. Should have done it sooner. LJ
  10. I'll echo the 'great playing' part. The bellows are indeed remarkably extensive, and yet Didie manages only two bars before changing direction. My Holden Crane, which measures only 6 1/4" across the flats and has only six fold bellows, can manage four bars. What are other people's experiences? LJ
  11. Indeed you did, Rüdiger! I apologise for missing it: " ... 3 sided would be about the worst of all possible worlds if you look at it from the "usuable vs.wasted space" perspective. Four seems to be ideal, everything above that degradingly worse." [My italics.]
  12. I've been back through this debate, and one aspect that hasn't been mentioned is this. For a fixed measurement across the flats (which is probably the most important for perception of size) the square offers the most internal space; particularly for reed chambers but also bellows volume. The hexagon offers more internal space than the octagon and the circle is the worst possible configuration. A second aspect is that the hexagon is an aesthetically pleasing shape and - for that reason alone - an obvious choice. Only @Anglo-Irishman touches on this when he says "The Germans, who originally built their concertinas rectangular, soon twigged that the Anglo-German, with its hex ends, just looked more classy, and began building their concertinas hexagonal, too."
  13. I assumed at first this was an Anglo concertina, but it's actually an English; demonstrating that you can put lift and bounce (and harmony) into the English system. Nice playing!
  14. Do you mean aligned with the centre of the thumb strap? So the button aligned with the top of the thumb strap is middle C?
  15. I'm with @AndyNT and @wunks on this one. There are a limited number of these instruments out there and it's a shame if some are just gathering dust in someone's collection when they could be giving joy to another potential player. I've been guilty of this myself, but over the past few years I've thinned out my collection to just those I really play and need.
  16. Chris, I note that @4to5to6 has already given a non-mathematical source for this (which I really must read more fully). Otherwise, a search for "vibration of a cantilever beam" should bring up many sources. One I just found is this: http://emweb.unl.edu/Mechanics-Pages/Scott-Whitney/325hweb/Beams.htm#:~:text=A straight%2C horizontal cantilever beam,vibrate at its characteristic frequencies. Just over half way down is a table derived from some scary mathematics. It shows the second and third modes of vibration (for this example) are approximately 6.27 and 17.5 times the frequency of the first mode of vibration. LJ
  17. Reeds don't really have a 'fundamental' in the same way that strings and wind columns have a fundamental plus harmonics based on dividing the vibrating string or air column into half, third etc. (and thus introducing harmonics at twice, three times etc. the fundamental frequency). A cantilevered beam (which is approximately what a reed is) does have different vibration modes, but they are not integer multiples of the fundamental mode. That being so, if they played any significant part in the sound of a concertina reed they would be discordant. LJ
  18. A true F tenor is a transposing instrument. When you finger a C scale it sounds as an F scale a fifth lower. But the score you are playing from would be written in C. (The same as a French Horn in an orchestra. Most brass instruments are transposing instruments, but usually in Bb or Eb.) So you're thinking in C but sounding in F. An English concertina is designed with four sharps and three flats. To maintain that as written the the Db should be changed to D#. As sounding that is changing Gb to G#. Does it matter? My C bass is actually a converted F bass. The Bs and Bbs (as sounding) have been swapped but the Dbs (as sounding) have never been re-tunes to D#. Only once has it caused me any difficulty. LJ PS If a TT is changed to an F tenor in this way it's not a "true" F tenor because the notes are displaced one row from where they would otherwise be.
  19. Congratulations on taking up the duet, but the Maccann club is far from the smallest in the world. The Crane club (to which I belong) is smaller, and the Jeffries Duet club is much smaller still. But surely the accolade of smallest duet club must go to the Vienna duet (or C5) club. There's only one instrument known, so probably only one player. That said, Alex Holden is about to complete building a second one so the membership should double in size soon!
  20. Somewhat off topic, but as I recall the frequency of a cantilever is inversely proportional to the square of its length, so an inverse square curve is what you might hope to see. In practice you don't get that as it makes the lower reeds too long to be practical.
  21. I think this unlikely - manga is almost unheard of in Britain and this is clearly a British 'fridge. I'd go with this.
  22. Yes, with middle C aligned with the top of the thumb strap.
  23. Thanks for the offer Mark. I'm really after a Tenor to match the fingering of my bass. LJ
  24. Thanks Mike. I think I need a 42 - 48 key instrument to give me a useful range. Cheers, LJ
×
×
  • Create New...