Roger Hare

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 fromthe 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

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.

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...

[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...

[1] Unless the new tab system is better, of course...😎 [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...

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 “self-evident”. 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...

Ah, thank you! That matches the figure I found quite nicely. I did think that 0.15mm sounded a bit thin... Ta!

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.

I didn't realise you were talking about a 'phone...

Deleted - OP is using a 'phone not a computer.

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!

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...

There's also a series of articles by Roger Digby about selecting chords here. This material is more strongly oriented towards concertinas...

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...😎

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 😎.

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?]

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...

Ah! OK, that makes it clear - thanks!

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.

Using the button numbering from the on-line Australian Bush Tradition tutor which you mentioned in one of your earlier posts: On my C/G Lachenal, the G on the gR1 button is the same as the G on the R4 button of my G/D Marcus. In other words, the G-Row on a C/G is one octave higher than the G-row on a G/D, which ties in with AW's observation (I was in the middle of composing this when AW posted). I hope that answers your general point - I also hope I got it right! It is confusing. It confused the s**t out of me when I first had both a C/G and G/D sitting in front of me...☹️ I think AW also answered your point about the F#/A and F#/E button configurations? The main point is to keep squeezin...😎

Crikey! You folks are sharp off your marks! I'm in the local library where the machines are the ones Noah used to design the bloody Ark! The thing was refusing to accept the URLs I was entering - fixed now!

I hope this is the right place for this... The other day, while indulging my hobby of plundering 'legacy' ABC files for good new tunes, I came across a whole directory of files which I had no memory of ever downloading. A little searching revealed the source: Tom Buchanan's Scottish Tome That link directs you to a web page which has over 1100 Scottish/Irish tunes in ABC sub-collections (jigs, reels, etc.), and individually in ABC, PDF and page scan formats. There is also a (PDF) document explaining how the project originated (on The Session ) and how it was implemented. Very interesting - if you are a computer nerd like me... It worked for me - first shot out of the box, I found a tune I had been looking for for ~3 months, (and I'm such a dozy git that I hadn't even realised I'd been looking for it...😎) I don't think this collection has been mentioned here before - apologies for the duplication if it has, but it might be worth a look... I think I'll x-post this to melodeon.net...

That is the 'Australian Bush Traditions' (ABT) concertina tutor to which I referred in my earlier post. I should have identified the site a bit more exactly in that post! As far as I know there is no exact equivalent for C/G concertina but transposition shouldn't be a problem. You can just apply the same fingering on your G/D, and the tunes on the site will be magically transposed from C to G and G to D without any further effort on your part (but I guess you knew that anyway...). Alternatively as you have (or will have) a 30-button (ie: with accidentals), you can work out the (different) fingering on on your G/D for the C/G tunes on the site. That's the point really, it's a very flexible system and you can quite easily frig it to fit your own requirements... ______________ I know that the author of that site is planning to expand the range of tunes on the site. I don't know how far his plans are advanced, or when he intends to start. I don't know if he intends to add tunes tabulated for G/D concertina. Maybe I will ask...

(Unfortunately?) there are several 'tablature' schemes used with the concertina - Coover, Bramich, ABT, Sherburn, Ives, etc. I looked at all of the systems above 5-6 years ago when I started concertina. Further down the road, I also looked at Watson and Kail. The two for which I have supplied links in the list above are the best in my opinion. Bramich's books are very easy (maybe too elementary for some-one with previous musical experience?). They are oriented towards C/G concertina, but that shouldn't cause too many problems. If you have a 30-button, I would recommend Absolute Beginners Concertina and In Between Anglo. I started with the Bramich books and progressed to: The ABT system: which is similar to the Bramich system (not immediately apparent), and is also geared to C/G concertina (again, this shouldn't cause too many problems?). It transfers easily to G/D concertina, and is my personal choice. I have adapted it (very) slightly for my own use, and I use it every day. It is simple, concise and unambiguous. It also has the advantage of being both free and immediately accessible, as the whole tutor is right there on the web site. The tablature is presented in conjunction with standard staff notation, so you can see how the two are 'merged', and there are examples of tunes in both C and G, which (I think) addresses a couple of your other points. There's also Alan Day's audio tutor (maintained by a concertina.net user) here. Again, it's C/G oriented, but it might be helpful...

Ta. That's what I feared I would hear. It's 25+ years since I saw my first scanner which could scan printed text and convert it to a simple text file. It was OK, but it completely lost the plot when presented with hand-written text. Looks as if the situation may be a bit the same now w.r.t. more complex 'text' such as printed music. (though I see that some folks appear to be having some success with whatever software they are using - that's encouraging) It's 'relevant' because I recently came across a pretty large archive of tunes for (I think) Chemnitzer concertina. They were all hand-written scores - no ABC in sight. It would be really nice if that archive were converted to ABC, it would be even nicer if there were a tool/technique to do the job reliably and accurately...