Little John

Lots of good advice and common sense from Mikefule. "If you simply want to take an existing arrangement of a piece of music in any key and transfer it to a concertina as unchanged as possible, then the Anglo is probably not for you." ​I would go further than this. It's not just about whether the notes exist on your particular concertina, it's about how it sounds. Each instrument has it's own characteristics and timbre, and rarely does a straight transcription work. For example, dissonances that sound great on a guitar often sound horrendous on a concertina. "You would constantly be battling it, frustrated that you need to transpose to different keys, and grumbling at the compromises. A duet would probably suit you better, or possibly an English." I play mainly Crane duet, but even on that compromises are necessary; even when "copying" the playing of another concertina. But this statement itself needs two big caveats. (1) "even on that" suggests that the Crane is more capable than the Anglo; but as has been pointed out in another thread, the number of alternative fingerings on an Anglo suggest that might actually be the more capable instrument; with enough buttons and in the right hands. Listening to Cohen or JK should convince anyone of that; and in fact it was also brought home to me watching Adrian Brown's video on mean tone vs equal temperament tuning. For all that, my brain is more attuned to the logic of the Crane layout, so I'll stick with that and work within the characteristics (or "limitations" if you prefer) of that instrument. (2) "compromises are necessary" is the wrong way of thinking about it. It's more the challenge of "how do I make this work for me on this instrument?" Most if not all of the suggestions Mikefule makes for the Anglo apply equally to the Crane. For me, one of the most satisfying aspects of learning a new tune is working out an accompaniment that really complements it. And although the same principles apply to both instruments, the end results are likely to be different because of (i) different people's ideas of what sounds good and (ii) the options afforded by the particular system you're playing. I'm far from the first to say "necessity is the mother of invention". And therein lies the fun.

On Sunday I shall be going to a West Gallery workshop with my single-action English bass. I shall join a variety of other bass instruments: bassoons, bass clarinets, a serpent etc. I've got an advance copy of the music, but rather than try to practise each piece I'm just going to practice scales and arpeggios in the keys they use; which range from two flats to two sharps. This is basically to remind me where all the notes are since, I regret to say, this instrument gathers dust for the other 51 weeks of the year.

Thanks for that pointer, Gary. I particularly liked the "Oakpit Waltz". Certain I'd heard it before, I searched and found it on and Aly and Phil CD, but called the "Ookpik Waltz", with the explanation that Ookpik is the Inuit name for a Snowy Owl. Written by Canadian Fiddler Frankie Rodgers. I'll have to learn it. LJ

"Thought you all might enjoy one of the last photos taken of Harold when he talked about making concertinas at the Old Pal Festival in Palestine, Texas, in 2012. Sadly, he passed away shortly before the event in 2013. Gary" Is that Jody Kruskal on the right hand edge? LJ

Blimey. We're in danger of having to rename Concertina.net as OldCodgersClub.net! I, too, remember the Home Service, Light Programme, Third Programme and pirate radio with fondness. I also appreciate internet radio where I can listen to folk programmes on Radio Scotland and Radio Ulster, which are rather better then the "folk" offering on Radio 2. Or on iPlayer if I've missed them while doing something more interesting. Without the wonders of modern technology we wouldn't be having this discussion! Don - this is an interesting perspective. I know fewer than a quarter of my followers personally, and they are a tiny fraction of my real social circle. The rest of my followers are spread across the globe from Korea to Canada. What we have in common is some interest, whether that's concertinas, traditional crafts or just nice photographs. I treat the conversations we have on Instagram just the same as these on C.net. Cheers, LJ

Before Christmas a friend ask for some help with a short film he'd written. Some singing and a bit of acting. He also asked for some melancholy music for the credits to roll over. I played this truncated version of Herr Roloff's Farewell. [if you're not an Instagram user, tap the cross on the dark bar at the bottom to get rid of it; then tap the image and it should play. I hope!]

Hi Ceemonster. I'm sorry you've been having trouble. I'm not that IT literate myself so I was simply going by my own experience; which is that I used Instagram without problem for a couple of months before I decided to sign up. But I did start by following Alex Holden's own link (as at the bottom of the above post, and as he describes). My thanks to Alex for his clearer explanation of how to work it.

I've been using this forum for a few years and, like Tradewinds Ted, find it a useful source of inspiration. But that's also true of Instagram, which I've been using for only two or three months. In fact, the OP of this topic is here partly because of a discussion we had on IG, and I only started posted videos in IG (with links from here) because of a remark he made there. So for me there's value in both. I've been on Facebook the same length of time as I have Instagram. I find the experiences quite different. To me, FB is random and messy; IG is organised and simple. I get only posts (photos or videos) from those I've chosen to follow. Anyone interested can see my few posts by searching for "craneduet" on IG. You don't need to sign up, but you can only leave comments if you do.

David - many thanks for the Spotify link. It would let me listen to only 30 seconds, but on comparison it seems my B music differs from the original, which itself seems to have two versions; one of 8 bars and one of 7. I seem to have lifted a bar from the second and inserted in between bars 4 and 5 of the first. [so is that "wrong"? Did the musicians I picked it up from get it "wrong"? Or is it just the "folk process" at work? Whatever, after 31 years I'm sticking with my version. It might be slightly different but I feel it captures the spirit of the original.] Robin - as you will probably have guessed from the above, I learnt it by ear and don't have a transcription. If there were sufficient interest I could transcribe the tune as I play it which is, incidentally, in C rather than the G of the original.

Ruediger and Robin - thank you both! Fair comment Robin, as a morris dancer myself I really ought to know what speed they should be played at.

Wow! Thanks Mitch, that's incredible. Makes perfect sense, too: I took part in a production of Lark Rise in 1987 so must have internalised the tune then. At the time my part was mostly off-stage singing, though I also sang The Outlandish Knight in the pub scene. I remember this well, because I had only recently taken up the duet concertina and hadn't transferred the song to it yet. Never did, in fact! So I had to borrow an English from a friend for the performance since I'd sold mine.

You're most welcome, Ruediger! Thanks for the link. I'm glad I started working on it before hearing the original though; I'm playing it somewhat slower which I feel gives more room for the harmonies.

Jim - I think you can just close the box inviting you to sign up, which I did for a few months before actually signing up myself. But perhaps people with better knowledge of these matters could advise.

Anyone know the name of this tune? I've played it for years. No idea where I got it from. The first part of the music is seven bars long and the second part is nine.

Hope this isn't too off-topic but while searching for something unrelated I came across a tune on The Session called Shave The Monkey written by Paul James: https://thesession.org/tunes/1661It may be well known but it's new to me. At first sight the A music is in G major and the B music in G dorian (hence the link to this topic). However, there's no C natural in the A music but there are three C sharps, giving it a strong flavour of D major (even though it ends on a G note). The B music has neither E nor E flat making it dorian/minor indeterminate. The C# C Bb passage towards the end sets an interesting challenge for harmonisation! I suspect it's open to a variety of interpretations, so would have made a good candidate for TOTM.

"... easy on an English concertina since it only requires a slight sideways shift of the finger between the inner and outer columns of buttons for certain notes of the scale." This is true of the Crane system duet too.

Vaguely following on from discussion in a couple of other threads about different ways to accompany melody, I've recorded Young Collins with four different left hand styles here: https://www.instagram.com/craneduet/ 1. Counter melody in the bass. 2. Simple root chords (I, II, IV, V), vamping style. 3. Same chords but substituting first inversions for some root chords to add variety. 4. Similar to 3 but without the vamping. Each chord is a two-note interval of a fifth or a sixth (except for the final triad).

Hereward, Wolf - Thanks! I've just added Auld Lang Syne, Burns's tune. (So I guess the topic title is strictly no longer correct.) It was a last minute inspiration, so just a simple version with no real practice.

For some years I've stolen ideas and gained inspiration from other players, many on or through this forum. I've made my first posting here https://www.instagram.com/craneduet/ If it at least interests a few people I'll have made a small step towards paying back the community.

Do you have a chart showing layout and pitch?

"How should I interpret this frequency analysis?" With caution, I would suggest. Surely a decent frequency analyser would show clear lines at 220, 440, 660 Hz etc. not the blurred mess shown here? "... wouldn't we have to take the combined amplitudes of the root tone and the first harmonic into account which will - to our human ears - clearly define the tone against the fifth ...?" The human ear is more subtle than this. I think it's almost the reverse - our brains interpret the fundamental from the overtones even when the fundamental is missing. This is why we have no problem identifying a man's voice on the telephone, even with the British telephone system which cuts off below 300 Hz. Here's an experiment: play two notes together, as high as possible, a fourth apart. What do you hear? Two notes or three? Your ear is "hearing" the "fundamental" two octaves below the top note; interpreting the two played notes as the second and third overtones. (This works best on a "bright" or "harsh" instrument.)

How "small" and "lightweight" do you "need"? As I've mentioned elsewhere, my 55-button Lachenal New Model Crane/Triumph is exactly the same weight and size across the ends as my 48-button Crane & Sons. My 51 button Dipper is 6 5/8 inches AF and weighs more that 4 pounds. My Crane and Sons 42 is 6 1/4 inches AF and weighs less than 3 pounds. The Dipper is a wonderfully dynamic, responsive instrument but I have to rest it on my knee to play. So my ideal would be 6 1/4 inch AF and weighing 2 1/2 pounds or less, but with the playing characteristics of the Dipper. And how many buttons? In my experience, a Lachenal New Model in as-new condition is very responsive and dynamic. My own 55-button, ebony-ended New Model Crane is 6-9/16 inches across the flats, has a 6-fold bellows, and weighs 1380 g (just a hair over 3 pounds). So if you could find a New Model with fewer buttons, you might be able to get close to your ideal. I haven't seen or heard of any New Model Cranes with fewer than 55 buttons, but maybe some of our members who are restorers or dealers have? (My suspicion is that Lachenal wouldn't build a top-quality instrument with a lesser range, except as a special order.) Your last point is very true - "small" and "top-quality" don't go together for duets; yet that's probably the ideal for today's folk musicians. But your question was "how many buttons"? On my 51 button I've used all but one (top F) at some time or other, but often only for one or two tunes. For all my songs and for the majority of my tunes I don't need that many. So, starting with a 48 button Crane, I reckon you could lose the top three notes from the treble side and the top two accidentals (E flat and F sharp) on the bass side without too much trouble. So that's 43 buttons. I should also confess (and here we're in danger of going off-topic and setting a few hares running) that I have three modified buttons on all my Cranes - one on the right and two on the left - to extend the range down slightly. So a 43 button with those modifications would be perfect for me. I have, in fact, got a 48 button Crabb which, with its aluminium (or alloy) ends and reed frames, is an ounce lighter than the 42 button. It's a good instrument which I use for singing (standing up), but I think it would take a lot of effort (and money) to bring it up to the standard of the Dipper - if it could be done at all.

I disagree. You do not need more and more buttons to play really well. By that logic, it would be impossible to play a 1 row melodeon or a harmonica well because they have even fewer notes. What the extra buttons give is versatility: a wider range of keys, chords and chord shapes. Mikefule - I entirely agree with you. Poor choice of words on my part. When I said "to play well" I was really thinking "to do the things I want" which, as you say, is versatility.

Indeed. Even the "more logical" criterion should usually be described more accurately as "more familiar". There's an element of both familiarity and logic here, and perhaps "logical" was not the best word to use. But let me illustrate. A few days ago I learnt Gaudete (just for fun - it's Christmas) in A minor on the Crane. Last night I tried it on my G/D Anglo. It translated surprisingly easily. However ... On the third note the G in the melody is on the G row, but for the sixth note the same G (now in the accompaniment) has to be picked from the D row while the low C has to come from the "accidental" row. Later on (first syllable of "Maria") the D has to be taken from the reversal button in the "accidental" row, even though the same note is in both the G and D rows. Perfectly playable, but for an instrument whose original intention was one row for each key (like a mouth organ), not entirely "logical". Then I tried to play it on my baritone English. I couldn't get through to the end! Even at the third note, when the hand that's played the melody for the first two notes suddenly has to jump to playing the accompaniment (and the other hand vice versa) I stumbled. To my poor brain it was illogical, even though the English layout is entirely logical. Since I'm at least as familiar with the English as with the Anglo, this illustrates that familiarity is important but not everything. My brain is definitely wired for melody-plus-accompaniment and I can't cope with that on the English. If I'd come to the Anglo first I'd have probably stuck with it. Likewise if fate had led me to the Hayden or Maccann I'm sure I would have been content; which answers the part of Anglo-Irishman's question I omitted with my first response. (I'm not so sure about the Jeffries duet, which strikes me as rather random once you get away from the home octave.)

How "small" and "lightweight" do you "need"? As I've mentioned elsewhere, my 55-button Lachenal New Model Crane/Triumph is exactly the same weight and size across the ends as my 48-button Crane & Sons. My 51 button Dipper is 6 5/8 inches AF and weighs more that 4 pounds. My Crane and Sons 42 is 6 1/4 inches AF and weighs less than 3 pounds. The Dipper is a wonderfully dynamic, responsive instrument but I have to rest it on my knee to play. So my ideal would be 6 1/4 inch AF and weighing 2 1/2 pounds or less, but with the playing characteristics of the Dipper.