Roger Hare

This one is possibly slightly easier/quicker to access on AA's own web page? It's the 2nd link on the page: http://www.alistairanderson.com/cds/2008-concertina-workshop.htm. The page links back to the Free Reed page, so nothing is 'lost'. Note the grammatically correct full stop after the link...😎

Thank you. That's an impressive collection of concertinas you have there - makes my small collection of Anglos look quite inadequate...😎

That's a rather splendid resource, thank you! Are you playing an English or an Anglo (I can't see an answer to this on the web page, though I may have missed it)? Thank you!

M********* Morris have been practicing via Zoom (like you, it doesn't work for me), and during the brief respite which the current lockdown clobbered, they held 3 or 4 'live' practices with limited numbers allowed to attend. B**** Band were holding open-air practices with up to 6 musicians in a local park, again now suspended. I wasn't able to attend these (too far to cycle, too time-consuming using limited public transport). So, for displacement activities, I've been steadily working through 1000 English Country Dance Tunes, edited by the late Michael Raven. If I don't count the facsimiles of Playford and The Beggars Opera, I estimate there are 1008 tunes in this book - I just looked at No. 938, so I'm getting there. The next on the list is Hardcore English, edited by the late Barry Callaghan. I've also been 'perfecting' my program for automagically generating concertina 'tabs'. I was a bit scunnered with music today, so this morning, I made some lemon curd and sausage rolls, and baked a loaf of Cajun Cornbread, and I just finished coating a set of DIY 'paper-and-card' Shogi pieces with clear varnish... You did ask...😎

That's very interesting, as I've recently been wondering about just that - what are the relative numbers of Jefferies layouts as opposed to Wheatstone/Lachenal layouts. Are there any actual figures anywhere?

[1] If I've understood the manual and the standard correctly, this is supposed to work. Indeed in GG's manual, it is cited as being a 'preferred' method. It works for sharp, flat and natural, but not for double sharp and double flat. [2] Well now, I've been cutting and pasting the characters direct from the Babelmap utility into the ABC file, or copying the hex/w.h.y. encoding into the ABC file. It works for sharp, flat and natural, but not for double sharp and double flat. Maybe I should try changing the font used for the lyric lines as you suggest (as I said, I'm putting these characters into w: lines in the ABC file). If it worked for all of 'em, no problem (obviously!). If it didn't work for all 'of 'em, there would be a problem which would be easier to identify. It's the inconsistency of it working for some of 'em, but not for others which is getting up my nose. I'm afraid I'm one of the awkward squad - I always have to know... I'll try your suggestion and try changing the font, though I suspect it's more likely to be something to do with the way EasyABC interfaces with the underlying program (abcm2ps, I guess - it's supposed to be installed with Pango support - whatever that means). Or possibly something to do with the GhostScript I have installed... Ta!

Can any expert ABC user please tell me a fool-proof method for inserting Unicode characters into the text generated by an ABC file? I want to insert sharp, flat, natural, and (occasionally) double sharp and double-flat into the w: line(s) of an ABC file. The escape sequences given in Guido Gonzato's manual (\201, \202, \203, \204, \205) work for sharp, flat and natural, but not for double-sharp and double-flat. This is as per ABC standard as far as the first three go, but unless I missed it, the standard is silent on the subject of double-sharp and double-flat in text (as opposed to music) If I use Unicode hex escape sequences (\u266d, \u266e, \u266f, \u2670, \u2671), again, they work for flat, natural and sharp, but not for double-sharp and double-flat. I can fudge the whole thing by just using two instances of the appropriate symbol for flat or sharp, or even just using the nearest keyboard characters ( ##, bb), but it would be nice to do it 'right'. I'm aware that there are different ways of encoding Unicode character escape sequences, but I am happy to admit that I do not fully understand how some of these are constructed, and may be using 'incorrect' sequences. I'm using EasyABC rather than explicitly using any of the abc??? family of programs - that may be the root cause of the problem? Any advice appreciated. Ta.

Pity. I'll try the wayback machine - I always forget that... Ta.

Drifting OT slightly, that keys survey has a link to an article on Pitch by Wes Wiilliams (https://www.concertina.net/ww_pitch.html). That link is broken. Any idea where the pitch article might be lurking? Thank you.

Aye, but as far as I am aware, the Rochelle is the same (large) size as the Jackie, which is the point I was trying to convey... The other models in the CC range are (I think) 6-14" ax the flats. They are also outwith the OP's stated price limit. I think that may be the kicker here - $500 (or £500/€500) seems to be a common upper limit for prospective new players. If it were $1000, the problem would 'go away'. Not an easy place for new players to be, which is (presumably) why the question arises so frequently, both here and on reddit/concertina...

Size has been mentioned in other similar threads, but not (I think) so far in this one. The Concertina Connection instruments are 'over-size' at 7-1/4" across the flats. When I tried a Jackie at the beginning of this year, I found this a very awkward size. The Wren is 'standard' size. I note that it is not getting a very good press in this thread, but I do know two new players who bought one recently, and they seem happy with them. If your budget is limited, you are stuck with the Wren or the Rochelle or something similar. I suspect the Wren might be the better deal, but don't swallow the idea that it's a high-quality instrument - it's medium-quality at best. The alternative is to hunt around for a vintage instrument. You will almost certainly only get a 20-button instrument for your $500, but I'd rather have a decent 20-button vintage instrument than a poor 30-button instrument any day (in fact, I have my original 20-button Lachenal at my side as I type this - at least 100 years old and still going strong...)

I saw this laser-printed leg rest on the Reddit concertina forum. A 'good idea' or what? The OP is going to post the details on thingiverse so presumably anyone interested, and with suitable equipment, will be able to get at the dimensions and build their own

Aye. I worked in 'computing' for most of my working life. For the last 10 years before I retired, I worked at an institute which provided very high-level computing services to the U.K. academic community. We used Unix - and a lot of the time, wished we didn't! This example is non-OS related though - it relates to 'broken' web pages. 'We' would have regarded it as completely unacceptable for 'us' to have broken links on our own web pages... We live and learn. There are other ways to 'solve my problem'. I will now pursue these...😎

Folks, thank you for all your advice. I really do appreciate you all taking the time to respond to this query. I spent an hour or so yesterday experimenting with GitHub. Sad to relate, when I tried to start looking at the tutorial material in order to learn how to use the brute, the first things I encountered were broken links and missing pages, followed by a short 'circular' path around a couple of pages which contained little but self-congratulatory bullshit, and which simply returned me to the page I had started from. I wasn't able to establish and follow a satisfactory path through the maze of pages. Maybe I was unlucky, but I really don't need to fanny about with stuff like this - my other projects fill my time more than adequately. I'm afraid that 'the GitHub project' is now on the back-burner and likely to stay there for the medium-time future. I stress once again that I really am grateful when folks take time to answer queries such as this one. Sometimes, it just don't work...😞

Thanks. I've been mulling this over, and have already decided to start looking into the mechanics of setting up a GitHub 'account' (or whatever it's called). Later today possibly. Ta!

Ah! That's OK then. Ta!

Understood. Thank you!

Thank you alex_holden, John Wild and RAc. To keep it simple, I won't quote directly, but taking the points you made (in no particular order): 0) Much of what you say co-incides with my own view(s), I deliberately didn't state my views because I didn't want to influence any comments. Specifically: 1) My inclination is towards either SourceForge or GitHub - possibly the latter. There was some sort of rammie regarding SourceForge a few years back (4-5?). They were alleged to have been sticking 'hooks' onto contributors software, or something. Supposedly this was sorted out, but that sort of thing leaves a doubt in one's mind... 2) I note that there is a 'learning curve' for GitHub. I need to take that into consideration. However, my inclination is tending towards GitHub. I have dowloaded three applications from SourceForge and GitHub (all related to music/free-reed instruments, including EasyABC). GitHUb seems to be slightly 'better' (subjective opinion!). 3) I wasn't aware of box.com. I will investigate. Thank you. 4) My own use of Dropbox (and to a lesser extent Google Drive) has mainly been as a contributor of a large(ish) archive of documentary material relating to Japanese Chess. (Some of the material also appears on a 'private' web site.) I seem to be a trusted provider, as the 'core' document has been downloaded many thousands of times. However, I take the point about Dropbox 'reliability' and 'trustworthiness' - I have only ever downloaded two items from Dropbox - both of them hosted by a member of this parish with an impeccable reputation. I would however be a little apprehensive about downloading executables from an unknown/untrusted provider. 5) Regarding 'garage' software. I don't know much about 'garage' software - first time I've seen the expression. If I've understood the term correctly, I suspect it's unfortunately the case that very many of us are using what is possibly the world's 'finest' and most widely distributed example of 'garage' software - it's called Windows...😎 6) My own preference is towards using carefully chosen open-source software. Proprietary software is sometimes over-large, while the open-source equivalent is often much smaller. Where possible, I use the versions of open-source/free software available from the portableapps.com web site (pointed out to me about five years ago by a member of this parish). Examples from portableapps: Open Office (document preparation), Sumatra (PDF viewer), Notepad2 (editor), MuseScore, Chrome/Firefox, GIMP, Audacity, etc... My inclination at the moment is to use Dropbox as a temporary home for the prototype/manual/source code while I get myself up to speed with GitHub, and then to transfer the whole thing to GitHub, and delete the Dropbox offering. Thank you for your opinions folks, very helpful. Last minute PS: JimR - what do you mean by ...If, of course, you are willing to accept changes to your program...? Do GitHub 'change' your software or something? Ta. _________________ FWIW, my own code (whatever the application) tends towards the KISS principle - straightforward, easy to use ('drag-and-drop' where possible). Programming style (for those who would go a'venturing and a'modifying) is simple (possibly naive), and usually constructed on the 'elephant-shit' principle ('not nice to look at, but strong'). Downside for the tinkerers - I use a language no-one has ever heard of - Icon - possibly the worlds best general-purpose programming language, and the least well-known...

I have a piece of music-related software, a draft version of which is (almost) in a state where it could be released to an unsuspecting world. Question: What is the most 'suitable' location for such software? I am wondering about SourceForge or GitHub. Do any readers of this forum have any observations/opinions about these locations? The (simpler) options are, I suppose, DropBox or GoogleDrive. I already have archives of Chess material on these locations, but I'm not entirely convinced that they are the best locations for actual software (as opposed to simple documents). Any thoughts? Thank you.

I think maybe it is being held between flat palms, with the thumb and index finger 'bracketing' the thumb loops giving rise to the illusion that the index fingers are passing through the thumb loops?

Bearing in mind the fact that I rather hi-jacked the thread to ask about Anglos, both of those observations are very helpful, and will allow me come to some sort of 'rational' decision about how to proceed with my own project. I guess the second comment might be re-cast for the Anglo as something like: "Beyond four sharps and three flats on the Anglo keyboard, the frequent need to shift to and from the accidentals row rapidly causes the whole exercise to breakdown."? It's certainly giving me a headache when I've tried it - albeit briefly. I did a very rough count of the number of tunes in 3-flats in a couple of large (~13,000 and ~8000 tunes) ABC files , and it came to ~170 and ~120 - in the order of 1.5%, so maybe it's not worth bothering too much about 3-flats. It was a bit of a shove to include 4-sharps... Ta.

I hope this isn't wandering too far off-topic, but this has some relevance for me at the moment. Does this apply to the 30-button Anglo too? I have a project in hand which involves looking at tunes in 1-, 2-, etc. sharps, and 1-, 2-, etc. flats. I've 'intuitively' stopped at exactly the range of sharps and flats Don mentions, and am wondering whether to go any further - for example. there seem to be a reasonable number of tunes kicking around in Eb or Cm (3-flats). They certainly become increasingly difficult to play on an Anglo. Should I just shrug my shoulders and transpose to an Anglo-friendly key(*), or should I soldier on with the weird keys? ------- (*) 'Friendly' for G/D. C/G. or Bb/F instruments. Obviously, something in Bb is fine for a Bb/F, but may be awkward on a G/D...

(1) I did wonder, but I'm always a little reluctant to come to a 'conclusion' like that, because basically, I'm still a musical numptie - almost everyone knows more about this stuff than me. There is some ABC stuff out there though which looks a little peculiar, whether you look at it as a musician, or as a programmer... (2) Montreal Sessions web page: http://www.montrealsession.ca/collections/minstrelsy.php The tunes are presented piecemeal though, not as a single collection. (3) It was the slightly peculiar title which I spotted first - the "Bonny/Bonnie Lad" is what I've known for about the last 50 years. I only saw the (now notorious) M:4/4l later. (4) Yup! Dozens... (5) Which is a damn sight further than I would have taken it. You must be even more persistent than me...? Ta! PS. Oh, yes, I think the original source of these occurrences of M:4/4l may be the ABCEdit database? That wasn't where I found the original example I cited, but most of the others I spotted seemed to be in that database.

Fair comment. Here's an example. As it happens, it's from a source which no longer exists (or I couldn't find it just now when I tried to download a fresh copy, which is a pain!). I wasn't actually 'working on it'. I just spotted it and was curious. That 'l' sure do look like a '|' don't it? The only other thing I can think of is that the file has been corrupted ever so slightly at some time...

Which just about wraps it up, I think! I always forget to look at the standard...?