lachenal74693

Deleted - no longer relevant. Sorry folks!

Demonstrated more than adequately in your own list - see the following post from 2014 for those who haven't seen this list before: Anglo Notation Comparison Chart The link to the list is at the bottom of the post - 27 to choose from - plus one which isn't listed...

Precisely! I've seen (both here and elsewhere) posts from new players who blithely say they are planning to use tutors from two different authors, who use different button numbering systems. Ultimately, it doesn't matter which system is used, but I always advise using only one system and sticking with it, to avoid ending up with a severe headache... I've had one myself (a severe headache), because I've spent quite a lot of time looking at this over the last couple of years - comparing ABT and GC numbering (plus at least one other system), and also playing with 'modified' ABT numbering. Because it's something I look at frequently, I'm reasonably adept at shifting from one to t'other, but basically, it's a nightmare!

I suspect you won't easily find fingering for many tunes 'on line'. You don't say what type of concertina you have, or what button numbering system you use. Bearing that in mind, I've attached a PDF showing suggested fingering for both these tunes using the Australian Bush Traditions button numbering system, for a G/D concertina, using a simple 'cross-row' fingering strategy. (1) Briefly, the numbering layout used by this system is: G/D Anglo button numbering - Australian Bush Traditions system. Summary: aL5 aL4 aL3 aL2 aL1 aR1 aR2 aR3 aR4 aR5 | 'pull' is differentiated from 'push' L5 L4 L3 L2 L1 R1 R2 R3 R4 R5 | with '^', thus: L1^, aR1^, dR2^, etc. dL5 dL4 dL3 dL2 dL1 dR1 dR2 dR3 dR4 dR5 | For C/G, simply replace 'd' with 'g'. I haven't tried this yet - it's 0600 here and I don't want to wake the neighbours, but the suggested fingering is 'advisory' - there's always a different way of playing a tune... The attached PDF is produced from an ABC script. I've used 'text annotations' to insert the tabs, which 'follow' the notes. They can also be added as a straight line of tabs. I haven't included the ABC script... If you have a C/G, use the same fingering and you'll end up playing the tunes in G and C respectively... ____________ (1) Generated using my own 'experimental', but reasonably tested software... RogersTuneBook-TDrowsyMaggieFermoyL-oldgdx-tabs.pdf

At the risk of drifting off the immediate topic, I'll say that I do exactly this with ABC scripts. Trawling through old (20+ years in some cases) ABC resources on the internet, I often stumble across real gems, many of which seem to exist in only one (20+ year old) version. I then incorporate these into my own personal tune book so I have immediate access to them... Learning to play the b*ggers is an entirely different matter...

That's the one I was looking for when I posted earlier. I've bookmarked it so I don't lose it (again!). Thanks!

Edward Jay's 3-D printed concertinas might do? Here... I think he may do Anglo as well as English...

Don, and others, thanks for all those responses, suggestions. I think I need to try all this out, but it will of necessity be a little further down the road, as I need to thoroughly digest the suggestions so far, and let the ideas ferment a little. It's great that sound fonts are available in the latest version of EasyABC though. I've long thought that EasyABC is only missing two features which would make it 'perfect' (from my point of view): sound fonts, and automagic chord generation (à la ABCExplorer/ABCMus). Roger

Don, thank you for that! Brilliant! I have a question relating (I think) to your "Issues" point: I use the 'ABC settings>Voices' menu to explicitly select Flute (MIDI 74) and Fiddle (MIDI 111) as the 2nd and 3rd voices for my multi-voice tunes. Am I right in thinking that this will not work using your scheme, and that the 2nd and 3rd voices will play back using the concertina sound font? Or will the explicit voice selections over-ride the concertina font for these voices? I haven't tried this yet because (a) I'm currently using EasyABC 1.3.7.7; (b) I'm currently up to the earballs in other music programming tasks. If you are in a position to answer that question, I'd be grateful for your thoughts before trying this out. Thanks! Roger. PS: I use Tango Accordion as my 1st voice - of the available MIDI instruments, it's the one which sounds most like a concertina, to my tin ear, at least...

Thank you. As I said at the time (getting on for 2 years ago), I did have a look on WBM - and I found it! I should have said so at the time - my apologies. I took a copy of both this item and the 'Known keys...' article, so I didn't lose 'em again!

Me too! There's a pretty wide-ranging collection of Australian music here, all available in ABC format...

That is fascinating - just about the most interesting thing I have read this year! Thanks. _______ I tried to follow this up, and found this short item on Wikipedia - nothing specific to Ireland, Scotland, Appalachians though...

Deleted - on second thoughts, it wasn't really relevant...

Yes, that's the sort of problem I encountered when I tried to do this with the Coover-style tabbing program when I looked at this yesterday. It wasn't a problem with the ABT-style tabbing program because that only uses one w: line to accommodate the tabs so there's no 'alignment' problem, whereas the Coover program uses two w: lines and lining 'em up is 'awkward'. It's 'do-able' but needs detailed alterations to note-button mappings for 3 different concertina configurations, 3 different tabbing strategies and several different keys - messy in other words... Forcing the notes and tabs to line up (as opposed to just the tabs) is similarly problematic. It involves re-writing the actual ABC music line which is something I try to avoid... This one goes on the back-burner for the time being...

Australian Bush Traditions (ABT) tablature for (Anglo) concertina is described on the ABT web page which is a jolly interesting page if you like Aussie music (I do). You can cut to the chase, and go straight to the tablature/tutor page by following this link. This is the tab scheme I use by choice, though I tend to put the tabs under the staff, rather than over the staff as shown on the web page. Here, for comparison, is Owen's original example, tabbed using the ABT system. This is my own preferred option, so the program which generates this sort of stuff is the one on which I have spent most time. The other versions of the program, including the one to generate Coover style tabs lag a bit behind this one... The end-of-line tags tell me that this tune has been tabbed using the Australian Bush Tradition system (ABT), for a C/G concertina (CG), using a cross-row note/button mapping (X). I also attached the PDF. McQuillen's Squeezebox.pdf

(1) Heh! I fully understand. I hit the ABT-style tabs after the Coover-style tabs, but still very early on in my musical 'career' - early enough for me not to have invested a lot of time with the Coover tabs, so it was easy to make the decision to go with the ABT tabs which, as you suggest, seem more intuitive. (2) Me too, but I'm inherently lazy, and am not actually familiar with the sort of programming techniques needed to do this sort of job. It would be difficult enough to 'optimise' the fingering, let alone doing the chords as well! My own project had limited objectives (1: generate 'advisory' fingerings for 'simple' tunes, but do it for a range of concertina configurations (G/D, C/G, Bb/F), 2: do it for a range of simple note-button mappings (along-the-row, X-row, mixed), 3: capability to add simple note-name tabs, 4: handle key-changes 'on-the-fly'). I've done all that, so I'm done - apart from tidying the whole thing up. Basically it's just scanning a line of ABC music and generating a tab every time I hit a character which was a musical note. No suggestion of doing an exhaustive 'parse' of the ABC code... (4) I may have misunderstood what you mean, but I get a 'live preview' using EasyABC. Note that I'm not for one moment suggesting that you do the same - folks work the way they want/need to - long may it continue... A closing point: I saw later that your ABC code had lined-up bar lines which serve as handy 'place markers' in the line of tabs. I presume that makes it easier when doing 'hand-editing'? I never thought of that! I'm now trying to work out how to reliably add the bar lines to my program. I already got it working for the ABT tabs, but the Coover tabs are a bit more problematical (they use two w:lines). The point being that you took the 'lyric' model and modified it slightly to meet your own needs, and now I am looking at incorporating your modification into my program. This sort of cross-fertilisation is a 'good thing'!

1: Yes, I did post an example a while back as a partial answer to another query. It probably used ABT-style tabs, but it's the principle that counts. 2: I started out doing this stuff 'by-hand' but it was slow, tedious and error-prone. I got pissed off with this, so I wrote a program. The 'project' kept me sane(?) during Coronavirus lockdowns. I have no plans to add automatic chord generation, or any other fancy stuff which requires me to write a 'complete' ABC-parsing tool... 4: The 'text-annotation' model looks different on the page, and has some dis/advantages when compared to the 'lyric' model. I haven't created a 'text-annotation' version of the program which uses 'over-bars' to indicate 'pull'. It would be possible, but messy. I don't have any plans to actually do this, my (preferred) ABT-style tabs use '^' to indicate a 'pull'. I don't use abcjs, or any web-based applications, but that's an interesting point. I'm an EasyABC user, and it seems to handle everything I've thrown at it so far. Basically, I'm a card-carrying dinosaur, I guess... Thank you for the speedy reply!

I missed your original 30 June post - must pay more attention! That's very interesting - to me at least! Here's the modified ABC code generated when I present the untabbed ABC to my own software: On first inspection, it's exactly the same as your tabbed ABC code (apart from some fine detail like the number of over-bars over each note). I see you have gone for a single line of tabs using L and R to distinguish between left and right hand. I had to do the same. I don't think it's 'possible' in ABC to keep them separate (as in the printed books, and in your later hand-written score). (I can think of a way to do it, but it would be so messy that I can't be ar*ed...) I had to modify your basic ABC code very slightly to get it right (my program doesn't like |[1 or :|[2 at the start of 1st and 2nd plays, it prefers |1 and :|2). The end-of-line 'tags' in my version tell me that the tune has been tabbed using Gary Coover-style tabs (GC), that its for a C/G concertina (CG) and that a cross-row mapping has been used (X). So - questions: 1) How did you arrive at what I call the 'lyrics' model for adding concertina tabs to a simple ABC tune specification? 2) Do you have a program to do this, or did you lovingly create that tabbed ABC 'by hand'? (your second post makes me think you do have a program?) 3) If you do have a program, how 'flexible' is it (ie: different note/button mappings. different concertina configurations). 4) There is an 'alternative' - the individual tabs can be added to the ABC code as 'text annotations'. Did you try that? I should declare an interest - I don't normally use GC-style tabulation - the program to generate GC-style tabs (melody only) was 'spin-off' from my project to add ABT-style tabs to ABC tune files.

It's a smaller forum (fewer members, much less traffic), but the headline post on the Reddit concertina forum has some advice/information for 'new entrants' which you may find useful - it is located here.

Looks pretty active to me: https://www.bushtraditions.org/tunes.htm https://www.bushtraditions.org/tutors/concertina.htm... Later edit: Hmm. Off-topic, but you got me interested, so I interrogated my ABC Tune book. First approximation is that there are: 1046 Australian tunes in there 708 should be playable on a 20-button G/D 445 should be playable on a 20-button C/G so there's plenty to go at...

I'm a 'June Hare' rather than a 'March Hare', but never mind... My first instrument was a vintage 20-button C/G Lachenal - which had been restored to a state where it was probably better than the day it came off the production line (~1895), so there are 'good' vintage 20 button Anglos out there, even if they didn't start out that way. There's a story (probably apocryphal?) that Kimber was given a 30-button in his old age, but carried on playing his 20-button because he preferred it. (Oh! I now see MF already commented on this - let it stand...). I recently acted as 'intermediary' in arranging the sale of a modern 20-button Anglo to a friend of mine. It was an Andrew Norman 'special' - a 'non-standard' configuration (I think AN had made two such instruments). I had my hands on it for a few minutes after the sale was completed - a lovely instrument! So, there are 'good' modern 20-button instruments out there, but some of them are 'non-standard' configuration - which may not be what Mikefule has in mind... I wonder if the low-cost instruments produced by Flying Duck Concertinas might meet Mikefule's criteria for 'good'? I haven't got mine yet, but reviews are encouraging. (Look at the Duckling and Dabbler models.) If Mikefule does produce an item for his group's newsletter, I hope he also posts it here... Roger Hare 🐇

I think you have made a wise decision! If you can afford to wait, do so. You will find a brief comparison of Rochelle vs. Rochelle-2 on the Rochelle-2 page on the CC web site here. I'll throw a bit more petrol on the fire: You may care to consider upping your game still further, and acquiring an instrument with leather bellows? You'll find an interesting article about bellows, also on the CC web site, here.

I sometimes see what I think of as 'interesting' claims made by companies operating in this sector of the market. Claims verging on 'sharp practice' IMO. One of these companies claim that "anything with a bird's name is made in China" which is clearly aimed at disparaging one of their competitors (some of whose models are named after birds), but which totally ignores the fact that they themselves market a concertina named after a bird... I regard this as vastly entertaining, but then, I'm never going to buy their kit.

I think it's likely that this concertina is actually made in China? I think if you are going to buy a concertina like this, you will find suppliers within North America - far easier than dealing across the Atlantic? This is an extract from the 'FAQ and buying your first concertina' post on the Reddit concertina forum: Inexpensive Chinese concertinas: NOT RECOMMENDED IN MOST CASES, IF YOU BUY, BUY WITH AN IRONCLAD RETURN POLICY IN CASE YOU GET A LEMON the basic $150-350 (new) concertinas you see on eBay or Amazon are almost invariably Chinese-made. There are some that are badged by various names, including somewhat famous ones like Hohner, and other Italian or Irish names bought from defunct manufacturers. The better brands are okay-ish for a total beginner, but you'll quickly outgrow it, and it's maybe better to save for a used Italian or Concertina Connection. You can occasionally find used ones cheap on eBay or Craiglist. With any of these cheapies, if bought new, make sure it's somewhere with a good return policy, so you can return it if it's a lemon. These are mostly Anglo, occasionally a Scarlatti (now made in China) 30b or 48b English, not usually Duets.

Thanks! I think this is what I am going to do - or to some other maker nearer to home who will be able to do the job. Fortunately, the playing of the beast isn't affected, so (within reason) I can take a little time to come to a decision.