Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About JimLucas

  • Rank
    Ineluctable Opinionmaker

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    all systems
    all kinds of music

    My main squeeze is the English -- in various sizes, but principally the standard treble, -- but I also play some Crane duet and anglo, and a wee bit on the MacCann duet, which I hope soon to devote more time to. I'll try my Jeffries duet and Chemnitzer once I get them into playing condition, but that may be a while.
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Yep. Technical problems! I got the same, except barely audible. I've already contacted Jody about it, privately. Let's hope they can figure out what went wrong and try again.
  2. A long shot, perhaps, but maybe you could contact Fabbrica Concertine and see if they would be interested in helping you on the Italian end. I would think that they should at least want to work to eliminate (from the internet) any references which could lead others to being similarly cheated in trying to buy a product which is now properly associated with their name.
  3. You could both be right. During Playford's time, the tunes and dances travelled widely all around the North Sea (also to Ireland and the American colonies), sometimes keeping the same name for the tune and dance but claiming different composers/authors. 8^o I know from my own experience that at least a couple of tunes that I learned as "Playford" playing for dances in NYC are still in use -- though for a very different dance -- on the island of Fanø on the west coast of Denmark.
  4. Others will have to answer your question. I'll only quip in passing about the danger of acronyms. I finally decided that your "ISO" means "In Search Of". For me, since before the first personal computer, it has always meant "International Organization for Standardization". 8^)
  5. But it's not entirely "circular". Those who only play by ear are unlikely to compose a tune with the intent of easy reading-writing in a common clef. Instead, they're likely to simply have it fit in the range of other tunes with which they're familiar. And the commonly-known clef will also have been chosen to comfortably cover that same range. Of course, many tunes will also have a range that is limited by the composer's instrument. E.g., a flute player is unlikely to compose a tune that goes down to a violinists' low G, and somebody with only a 20-button anglo is unlikely to compose a tune with accidentals.
  6. I'm rather with Newbie Anglo on this. I learned long ago to read "standard" notation, and I play tunes on many differrent instruments. I find it much more sensible to have a single form of notation and then learn how to finger each note on each instrument (flute, saxophone, trumpet, guitar etc.) than to try "translating" among mandolin, banjo, and anglo "tabs", especially "on the fly". Or for that matter, translating between "Wheatstone" and "Jeffries" button numbers. And if I and my friend who plays melodeon want to play together, it doesn't seem reasonable that either of us should have to learn to translate the button-number tablature of the other's instrument. Instead, we should have a single, shared notation for sharing music. As for ambiguity, I believe it's only on the push for the main G and A in each hand (on a 30-button C/G) that there is an actual choice. Other "duplicate" choices are forced by bellows direction, if that's specified. And if your're playing more than one note at a time, the bellows direction is usually forced either by one of the other notes or by the hand in which the "ambiguous" note is notated.
  7. I'm only an occasional anglo player (the English is my main squeeze), but my answer would be "no" to both. When I have printed out stuff for either my own use or for others, I have used an actual-pitch treble clef for the left hand (as in your upper example) and an octave-lower 8va -treble clef for the right hand (as in your lower example). Neither I nor those with whom I've used this system have found any confusion with regard to which octave we were reading, since that is determined by which hand we are using, with one hand per staff = one staff per hand. The problem with each of your examples is that each one notates a hand in a region of the staves which is unfamiliar to many who may have been trained to read treble clef in public school but haven't progressed farther, i.e., either to bass clef or high ledger lines. I think that "readability" (as I perceive it) is far more important than having the musical distance between the notes (i.e., the octaves) accurately represented by the distance on the page when the two staves are logically separate (separate hands), anyway. I say this even though I'm personally comfortable reading both bass clef and ledger lines. (I did, however, have to "remind" myself that what you notated in the bass clef was actually to be played in the treble clef. In my experience it's not uncommon to notate bass-clef parts alternatively in a higher octave, but not the other way around.)
  8. Do you think that collectors without recording equipment would necessarily be less fastidious? Judging from the various books I have, those who recorded folk songs did not transpose them into "standard" keys, but transcribed them in the keys in which they were sung by their informants (who did not all have the same vocal range). So I'm sure that they had means of determining the pitch they were hearing... e.g., a pitch pipe, if they themselves didn't have "perfect pitch". Actually, a couple of my folk song collections do have all the songs transposed into one or two "standard" keys, but their authors say that that is what they have done. In at least one case, they even specify for each song the key in which their informant sang it. I would guess that the same was true for those who collected tunes, though the keys would be less varied because "standard" instruments were used. Melodeons, concertinas, and flutes are built around "fixed" keys, but even fiddles (in a given tuning) have a particular range -- of both notes and keys -- where they are most "comfortable" for non-virtuoso players. So if all the tunes noted from a particular village are in only one or two keys, I weould guess that that's probably because they were played by the same person on the same instrument, and not in a variety of keys but transposed by the transcriber. Presumably? I would think the range of a tune would most reflect the ease of playing it on an instrument, not the ease of notating it on paper. Do you really think that flute and fiddle players were in the habit of playing in "odd" keys, which transcribers then troubled themselves to transpose in order to avoid writing ledger lines? Fiddles in standard tuning go down to G, but the usual keys (and lowest notes) for flutes and whistles were either C or D, so common tunes which went lower would likely be rare in the repertoire. Similarly, a fiddle rarely plays above a "high G" in first position, so why would a "fiddle tune" go beyond that?
  9. Such a limited classification "excludes" a great deal of the folk song repertoire, where in a great many songs, both major and minor, the lowest note is neither the tonic nor the fifth,, but often the sixth or seventh (and on rare occasions, something else). I'm particularly fond of song tunes which are in a major key, including the major seventh of the scale everywhere except for the lowest note, which is a flatted seventh, a full step/tone below the lowest tonic. I don't view such limited classifications as helpful in "understanding" broader systems, but more as attempts to make the task of classification more important than the music itself and even to direct attention away from (reject the validity of?) anything which sounds unfamiliar to the classifier.
  10. This reminds me of the discussion of "modes". And also the garmmar of spoken languages. I.e., a certain repertoire is studied in order to find a structure in it. If such a structure can be found (and sometimes even if not), it is used to construct a set of rules which can then be used to generate further "valid" examples of that repertoire. Problems can arise when those rules are subsequently applied to a different musical repertoire, language, etc., which those rules don't fit. Or even when someone else derives a different set of rules which are equally valid in describing the original repertoire but may generate something different when extended beyond the original.
  11. "Proper"...i.e., real pirates back in sailing ship days were plunderers and murderers. They were no more "romantic" than modern street gangs or drug cartels. Some contemporary pirates, though not all, prefer kidnapping and ransom to outright murder, but they are still far from admirable members of our society. I've never been a professional sailor, but I love sailing ships and the sea, and I have many friends who have been professional. A few have actually had to fight off real, modern-day pirates. So I pass on this message from them (which I tend to agree with)... Please don't romanticize pirates. Sailing ships are cool, but real pirates are not. I'm not going to go around staging protests, not even when folks imitate romanticized "priates" at maritime festivals or celebrate "Talk LIke a Pirate Day". And I won't make a habit of bringing this up here on concertina.net. But the entirety of the above quote, if taken literally, was just too much, and I felt it needed to be "clarified"..
  12. I just got this email from my friend Rickard in Stockholm: I've also asked Ken to post this in the "Lost or Stolen" thread in the "Buy and Sell" forum.
  13. Lost... hopefully not stolen, but...


    From my friend Rickard, in Stockholm:

    Something horrible happend last saturday, I lost my bag with my two
    favorite concertinas on Underground Stockholm.
    My Whetstone G/D 30735 and my Crabb made Ball and Beavon C/G.
    I have reported this to police and to the Underground section for lost
    things, havn't heard anything yet.


    Of course, we want everyone everywhere to be alert for anyone trying to sell something which fits the description, even though the likelihood of them being simply tranported out of Sweden during the current restrictions is remote.


    And we hope that we'll soon be able to remove this notice, but it's already been most of a week with no luck.




  14. I would almost certainly be aware of the approach of a bus. I would in most cases not be able to see whether the coronavirus was approaching.
  15. There's that delusional (my own characterization) word... "average". It goes along with the word "normal", and is often used to define the latter. The "average" tells me nothing about the upper and lower limits or the shape of the distribution. The fact that most individuals may be "safe" after a certain period of time does not guarantee that any particular individual will be, especially when essentially nothing is known about whether other factors might interact. I'm reminded of an incident (long ago, now) when I was feeling unusually stressed, physically. My doctor checked my blood pressure and told me it was "normal", to which I responded, "Then you'd better check me over thoroughly, since what is usual for me is 30 points below what is generally assumed by the medical profession to be 'normal'." BTW, I'm not attacking your personal analysis of the situation. But I am criticizing the way the media -- and even the scientific community in general -- misrepresent what can and can't be logically concluded from research data.
  • Create New...