Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lachenal74693

  1. Aye, I knew about that one. I tried it some time back and for some reason I can't remember, decided not to use it. Maybe I should re-visit? Thanks for the reminder. I really wanted to update what was said about SpeedShifter, as it seems to be 10 years since it was last mentioned. I put it through its paces yesterday, and it seems fine. It does mump and moan a little if you are not connected to the internet (which usually I'm not), but otherwise it all seems OK. It seems possible to wind it up to a higher volume than some other applications.
  2. [1] Me too. I just hadn't realised it - thank you for pointing up the difference. [2] Not just rank beginners ๐Ÿ˜Ž I still go for the simple approach with a bare minimum of tab-assistance, and find being in a position to easily markup already-printed single-line melodies is pretty much where I want to be. I already used the word minimalist and Steve Schulteis also used it in the context of modifying that splendidly scary system he unearthed. Minimalism is 'good medicine' in my book. [3] I think you will find this table here. I've also been looking at the (fairly) minimalist adaptation of the ABT system which I've cobbled together, and despite having said I wasn't planning to do it, I now see that if you have an ABC file (I'm an ABC user) with a simple one-line tab system incorporated, it's a doddle to change from one button numbering system to another. I've done it by applying a sequence of global edits to the tabbed ABC file, so you do need to know how to use your editor. This was a 'proof-of-concept' exercise, and I'm definitely not going to modify my software to allow for different button numbering set-ups - too fiddly, and I'm happy with what I'm currently using.
  3. I see a few references to this Royal Schools of Music software from 2011, some of which seem to indicate that it doesn't work, or at best, works very poorly. I encountered the software for the first time at Morris practice last night, and as far as I can see/hear, it's working, and looks to be rather useful. I've installed the Windoze version... It is possible to speed-up, slow-down tunes for practice purposes, plus other things. It seems to work on .mp3 files - I haven't looked to see if other formats are allowed. The current version seems to be from 2018. The software can be downloaded here. I've installed the Windoze version, I can't speak for any other OS. There's a page describing other training/learning software here, though I haven't investigated this page yet...
  4. A very brief follow-up. I lied - I had a think about it! It's possible to edit the Bramich characters for push and pull (โฌ›โฌœ) into an existing tabbed file like the one I posted earlier. It's also possible to do it in a program. The game's a bogey though, because though the characters appear in the (Easy)ABC 'score' window, they mysteriously disappear when converted from ABC->PostScript->PDF. I've no idea why... I may have a look at producing the same sort of thing using a different button numbering system.
  5. If folks stick their heads above the parapet and publish stuff for which they charge real money, they should be prepared to receive 'bad' as well as 'good' reviews? I do think that 'trashing' is a little strong. The OP was fairly critical of many aspects of existing systems, but was discreet/diplomatic enough not to name names. If it's OK to write good reviews, it's OK to write bad reviews if one sincerely believes that the book (or play, or film, or piece of music, or w.h.y) is bad. Authors should expect to get 'some roughs with the smooths' - it's the way the world wags.
  6. [1a] Yes. I flagged the ABT system explicitly in one of the posts I made in the thread from which this one is a spin-off, so I didn't bother to repeat myself. Perhaps I should have done... [1b] The non-symmetrical numbering system used by other tutors throws me off in the same way. My rationale for going with symmetry is to do with the fact that the hooman body is symmetrical (externally at least). There are precedents. The medical profession numbers the thumb and fingers symmetrically, and (some) novice piano lessons use the same numbering. There isn't an exact correspondence between the symmetric button numbering used by MB/ABT and the numbering of digits by the medical profession and by pianner teachers, but it's good enough for me...๐Ÿ˜Ž [D'ye know, the lower numbers=lower pitch argument never occurred to me...] [2a] If you try it, you should see that using even that short block of ABC code (which is included by the software I use), it is possible to radically change the appearance of the final PDF - which may (or may not) be wished for. For example, I added the box around accompaniment chords because someone said "It would be great if tabs and accompaniment chords looked a little different from one another." [2b] Yes it is pretty sneaky, isn't it? If I may be permitted to revert to 'smug bastard' mode for a moment, I have to say that I'm pretty pleased with the approach - I can add tabs like that to a file containing 10,000+ tunes in about 90 seconds, and I have tested the software on a 'joke' ABC file containing 45,000 tunes (though I don't imagine anyone would seriously use files that size).. (Correction: 40 seconds - I was thinking of another file...) There are other approaches: When I first developed the software to do this stuff(*), I 'attached' the tabs intimately to the note concerned using ABC 'text annotation' strings. That was OK, but there were some problems. One was that tabs for some things (such as staccato notes) were difficult to code. Another was that it didn't look quite right - the tabs appeared in a wavy line below (or above) the staff - I much prefer the straight line of tabs produced by entering them into ABC 'w:' fields. An unexpected consequence of rewriting code to use the 'w:' approach as opposed to the 'text annotation' approach was that the problems involved with staccato notes (and all other notes preceded by 'single-character decorations') simply went away - which was very nice...๐Ÿ˜Ž It's worth saying that this is 'just a program'. It could be re-coded to accommodate the solid and hollow squares used by the Bramich system, or even other button numbering systems, though I stress that I have no plans to do so. [3] No, it doesn't work like that, it's 'melody-only' if you care to think about in that way - this mirrors pretty closely the 'melody-only' approach adopted by MB and ABT in the printed and on-line tutors (and in most other printed tutors?). The real beauty of this approach is that I am completely independent of any and all printed tutors or tune books. I can trawl the internet looking for 'good tunes', and can (and do) find absolute 'gems' which are simply not available anywhere else. I only wish I had the time to learn to play the buggers...โ˜น๏ธ ________________________________ [(*) Although I had made a desultory start on this programming project before Coronavirus arrived, the enforced isolation arising because of the epidemic gave me plenty of time to spend on the project - so that's one more thing for which Coronavirus can be blamed! I've also been working on a program to convert 'legacy' ABC files with a more-or-less 'random' ABC coding style into something in a more-or-less 'standard format'. This is much slower than the tabbing program, but it makes a reasonable stab at 'enforcing' a standard ABC coding style.
  7. First,although it's not directly relevant to this discussion, I agree in principle with those who say that the way forward is to learn to sight-read. Realistically though, numpties like me are (probably) never going to be competent 'on-the-fly' sight readers, so I have to compromise by using a tablature (tab) system. I think a tab system should be: correct complete compact (or concise) comprehensible If I had to describe the above using a single word, I would use the word 'minimalist'. Taking all the above into account, the practical (or 'do-able') bottom line for me is that a tab system should be capable of being represented as a single line which can be kept separate from accompaniment chords, and which can be written into an existing score without too much trouble. It should also contain enough information to allow one to play the tune. It should also not contain too much information - which (hopefully) means that the player is 'forced' to extract some further information from the conventional staff - note duration for example; or whether a note is played 'stacatto', etc. This serves to encourage the player to become at least a little more familiar with conventional staff notation (see my opening remark) - it is a step along the road to achieving the nirvana of being able to sight-read... Harking back to the opening post of the thread which started these discussions, I had already arrived independently at the same conclusion as the OP, namely that Mick Bramich's system (MB) is pretty good (augmented by the ABT system, which is functionally equivalent). I could say a lot more about the fine detail - why I prefer a 'symmetric' button numbering system, for example. I won't - I want to keep this relatively short, and I don't want to bore folks to death... So, I use the ABT system, which allows me to add tabs to an existing score. You can do it by pencilling them in by hand, or (if you are an ABC user) you can edit them in using either the 'text annotation' facility, or (my preferred method) using a modified 'w:' line. The attachments show (1) the PDF I generated for a more or less random tune from my collection; (2) the ABC code used to create the PDF. If you are so inclined, you can play with the ABC to ring the changes on the PDF. For example, to reverse the position of the tabs and the accompaniment chords, simply delete the two 'pos' lines in the code at the start of the file (which is 'self-documenting'). The ABC code is designed to produce tabs using a simple 'along-the-row' mapping for a G/D concertina. The tabs are 'correct', but not necessarily 'optimal' - a smart player will be able to modify the tabs to produce a more easily playable sequence... sssm-gdatabs.pdf sssm-gdatabs.abc
  8. It's not clear to me that the OP was saying that any particular system is confusing. I interpreted what was said as meaning that it is the multiplicity of choices which is confusing. Once a system has been chosen, it may well be perfectly clear (or understandable), and it may also be internally consistent (I suppose it would have to be), although it may also appear to be 'illogical', according to one's own perception. This interpretation may well be due to the fact that my experience seems to mirror (at least in part) that of the OP - I waded through a couple of systems, found one I liked, adapted/massaged/extended it till it fit the bill, and finally looked at a couple more just out of curiosity. The systems I didn't choose seemed to me to be 'illogical', but only one was 'confusing'... Edit: Now I think about it, I can call to mind two other systems which are 'confusing'. I don't believe they featured in any of the discussions here, so I didn't remember them at first. Both are very 'low-profile' so I won't identify them further.
  9. I won't respond in any detail to the five posts which have been made since my last 'contribution'[*], but I do wonder if the 'best' person to write a tutor aimed at new players wouldn't be someone who is themselves a new player? Tunelover pretty comprehensively 'nailed' the problems with existing tutors in his first post. I wonder if some of those problems arise because the authors are no longer novices and have lost the ability to 'keep it simple'. That's not a criticism of the authors incidentally, but an observation. I wonder if we don't all lose the capacity to appreciate the problems of 'new entrants' in many fields of endeavour, particularly as we become more 'expert' - whatever the subject may be... Tunelover has certainly sparked a discussion dealing with matters which have been niggling me almost since Day 1... ________________________ [*] Though there are some compelling points in there. The history of musical theory and staff notation look like a real can of worms to me. I blame mediaeval monks who thought that zero was 'the Devil's' number, and who couldn't count properly in the first place. Here's the can of worms to prove it...
  10. [1] I'm the kind of weirdo, who, even though he doesn't 'like' a particular (button-numbering/tabbing) system, and never plans to actually use it, will investigate it because it's 'interesting'. That's how I acquired 8 printed tutors and PDFs of several (3/4) 'old' systems from the start of the 20th century. Harking back to what MikeFule said in an earlier post, I only ever really 'used' 4 tutors, and as Nos 2, 3, and 4 were effectively the same, I really only ever used two tutors - so I avoided the confusion he warns against, though it is surely a potential danger... [2] Thinking about what's been said in this thread, I've realised that (probably) the most important tutor one uses is the one that you eventually 'write for yourself'. That's the one which contains the tunes you want to learn coupled with the numbering/tabbing system which you have settled on. It might contain elements from more than one system, so yes, it makes sense to be at least partially 'bi-lingual' in at least two systems... How you go about creating that tutor is a personal thing? You can buy tune-books (as opposed to tutors) which contain tunes for the genres you are interested in, and pencil the tabs in below each tune[*] (starting with the ones you can already hear in your head), or you can raid the internet and download ABC tune-books, print off only the tunes you want and pencil the tabs in below each tune[*], and so on, and on... Bob's yer uncle! Job done... ________________________ [*] As the process of writing tabs in by hand is slow, tedious and error prone, if you're a real weirdo, you will write a program to do the job for you - it has the merit of keeping you off the streets and out of the public-houses, and fills in quite a bit of time during a global epidemic...
  11. [1] Unless the new tab system is better, of course...๐Ÿ˜Ž [2] Ah, there ya go - I don't like it - partly because it's 'consistent with that found in the historical tutors', (which I find really counter-intuitive). This just goes to emphasise what some-one already said - this business is largely a matter of 'different strokes for different folks'... [3] I think of it as 4 variables - hand, row, button, direction. Using ABT, it can be done with 2-4 characters (4 is the max.). Even 4 is a bit tricky, because the tab then becomes 'wider' than the note, and takes up too much space in the music. Edit: The fix is to use slightly smaller text - dead easy in ABC files. [4] There was a discussion here recently about using ABC to represent Gary Coover's tablature. If I remember correctly the idea foundered precisely because it wasn't really possible to use the 'line above to indicate a pull'. I think that attempts to do it within MuseScore barfed for exactly the same reason. I guess it might be possible using lilypond? [Yes, I go for the ASCII representation too (I just spent several hours re-coding a program to replace accented characters with their ASCII equivalents.)] Ultimately, I'm very largely in agreement with those who say that the ideal situation is one in which we can all sight-read, or play by ear... Unfortunately, I'm not blessed in this way, so I have to use a tab system. I want one which is concise, correct, unambiguous, and which can be added easily and unobtrusively onto an existing score. Ideally, it should add no more than one line of text to the existing score. I'm very lucky - I found a solution (Bramich/ABT) which works for me. It's not completely ideal, but it's a good step along the way...
  12. Thank you for your post. I have been playing Anglo for coming up to seven years, and have been thinking about the problems you outline in your post since about Day 2! I have been thinking about posting something similar for at least two years, but laziness (amongst other things) has dissuaded me from doing so. Thank you for taking the plunge! Cut to the chase: I have seven printed tutors; photocopies of the relevant parts of an eighth; and PDF copies of a few earlier tutors, so we are starting about even. Your post has no diagrams, so is very confusing - but that's the whole point, isn't it? The situation is very confusing! I have spent many, many hours considering the problems you outline, and basically, I am in agreement with everything you say, although I use different terminology: For example, I think in terms of 'symmetric' (Bramich) and 'asymmetric' (all the others) button numbering systems. To me, the 'symmetric' system is intuitive, the 'asymmetric' systems are counter-intuitive. I think in terms of the 'Home row', the 'Accidentals row' and the 'D-row' (on a G/D) or the 'G-row' (on a C/G), and so on. The details are different; the results/conclusions are the same. I could go on and on, picking up all your points and giving my take on them, but I won't. Instead, I will jump straight to your conclusion: Yes! Mick Bramich's tutors are first rate - I used them when I started (after an unsuccessful attempt to use another very popular tutor). However, MB's tutors are not the only ones with a schema that deserves to be called โ€œself-evidentโ€. There is a free online tutor on the Australian Bush Traditions web site[1] which uses a similar symmetric button numbering layout. It can be found here. In fact, when you look at it closely, the two systems are more or less functionally equivalent, they just use different symbols for 'push' and 'pull', and position the tabs differently. I 'graduated' from MB's system to the ABT system with no problems whatsoever. There is a fairly detailed comparison of the bewilderingly different button numbering systems here. There is a list of printed tutors here. ________________ [1] In your opening paragraph, you mention several online tutor sites for anglo concertina. It's not clear if you have discovered this one, so I mention it specifically, just in case...
  13. Ah, thank you! That matches the figure I found quite nicely. I did think that 0.15mm sounded a bit thin... Ta!
  14. Hm! That's extremely interesting - I could have a non-musical use for that. Thank you. However, Does it come in different thicknesses? The only information I can see gives a thickness of '...approx. 0.29 - 0.34 mm...'. Ta.
  15. I didn't realise you were talking about a 'phone...
  16. Deleted - OP is using a 'phone not a computer.
  17. Yeah. Because it's driving me nuts, I just checked my copy of The Anglo Concertina - Absolute Beginners by Chris Sherburn and Dave Mallinson. It has different button numbering... The combined Wheatstone/Jeffries layout diagram on page 5 shows the same configuration as in MB's In Between Anglo, though the diagram is a little - well - confusing. It also has D# rather than Eb. So, not only do different tutors use different button numbering systems, they also use different layouts - sometimes... What fun!
  18. Aah... Does that get us any forrarder? In In Between Anglo, Mick Bramich uses a different layout diagram for a Jeffries (both style and content): Buttons 1 & 2 on the Right-hand Accidentals row are reversed when compared to the diagram in the previous post. So we have the same author using two different layouts in two different books, which seem to correspond to the two different layouts described by the OP. Whether one calls the first layout 'Irish' and the second 'English' I dunno, but certainly I am confused - but I don't have a Jeffries...
  19. There's also a series of articles by Roger Digby about selecting chords here. This material is more strongly oriented towards concertinas...
  20. Heh! Apart from alerting Mac users to some possible problemettes with the Mac machines using these new architectures, the 'hidden agenda' was to make folks aware that 'ABCusers' existed. I dunno the full story, but I think the original forum/group/list died a slow lingering death, and it was revived on a new platform some time last year. The really bad news is that I joined, and now sometimes post there as well as here - there is no escape...๐Ÿ˜Ž
  21. Aye, I had another look. I freely admit that I know so little about Macs, that I couldn't really work out whether the problem had been fixed or not. It was just a 'heads-up' to alert folks to another potential bump in the road. If a fix has been found, that's good news ๐Ÿ˜Ž.
  22. More 'good news' relating to potential problems with Apple Macs! Seems as if the processors in new model Macintoshes are an entirely different architecture, leading to further problems, specifically with EasyABC. I haven't really followed it, as I'm not a Mac user, but a discussion on the ABCusers list can be found here. _______________________________________ [On the subject of running non-Macintosh software in general, I have an acquaintance who system has flatly refused to install/implement a language compiler using these "System Preferences" options. This compiler comes from a reputable U.S. university research group with an international reputation. So much for Macintosh! I'm really glad I don't have a Macintosh, and hope and pray that the same sort of situation never arises with Windoze machines... Is this bloody company called Apple or Macintosh, or what?]
  23. Is this what you are referring to? Someone once told me they were aware of at least one instrument which had been modified by a professional fettler for a player who only had the use of one arm...
  24. I was just looking at he Akkordoline video. I noticed that the buttons are actually numbered - clearly shown in the attached 'still' from the video. Anyone know any details of this numbering system, in particular why it's not continuous, and if it's the same on the other end, or if it goes 7-10-8-11-9-12 - and why - is there an accompanying tutor or something? Ta.
  • Create New...