JimLucas

Any or all of the above. 1) I've never seen note names on the buttons of an anglo, proably since it would require two per button, and they'd be too small to either "write" or read. 2) Lachenal had a sepearate run of serial numbers for the duets, and I've never seen a Lachenal duet with a SN of more than 4 digits. (Maybe even the Cranes and Maccanns were different, but it's hard to prove, just as it's likely but hard to prove that Englishes and anglos were separate, unless and until somebody unearths a duplicate pair.) 3) But even without the other two, the button layout is too regular right-to-left and has the wrong "arc" or placement of rows & partial rows top-to-bottom.

Well said, Clive!

Could I further speculate that Crabb and/or Co. could also have sold individual parts -- e.g., ends -- to Jeffries or others? Criticism is fine, where it's deserved. But correcting errors -- or just clarifying uncertainty -- isn't necessarily criticism, either. Excellent information. Thanks, Chris. "Journalism". That's belief in what people write down, no?

Nothing wrong with bending your fingers; I do it all the time. (The palm should simultaneously arch back toward the wrist.) I could easily play one or even two rows lower than where the lowest notes are lined up on the Jackie. In fact, on my 64-button baritone Aeola, I do. For best control, the fingers should be very slightly arched/blexed/bent even for pressing the "highest" buttons, since the finger tips should come straight down on the buttons, not approach at an angle. (I believe this is also standard advice for piano and guitar players, though I couldn't give a reference.) So work on flexibility in your fingers. Practice flexing and stretching them. It's a skill you won't regret having.

I hadn't, either. I picked that up from what you said Colin said. (Though it seems I might also have read it previously, I really don't recall.) But many of the early concertina makers started off in somebody else's shop, then struck off on their own. Lachenal, after all, first worked for Wheatstone. Well, these pages, rec.music.makers.squeezebox (no longer accessible to me, it seems; I need to contact my ISP), Neil Wayne's paper, the various erstwhile publications. Do all Crabb's sound alike? Do all Jeffries sound alike? I think not, not even with the same end material. My 45-button Jeffries both feels and sounds different from either of my 38's. Still, there *might* be something characteristic about the sound of instruments by a given maker, at least from a given period. Others have more experience with that than I do. Not that I know of. Comments and posts, essays, Neil Wayne's paper,... maybe bits in a book or two, but no book *on the subject* that I'm aware of. The Professor Maccann web site would be one place to look for some of these bits and pieces, though.

It's eBay item #2564291990 I just want to warn people to be careful about instruments with that number of buttons, since 36-40 is fairly standard for a lots-of-buttons anglo, but 35-38 is also fairly standard for minimal-number-of-buttons duets, and the difference in market price between the two could be a factor of 10. eBay item #2562816810, on the other hand, does appear to be a 40-button (+air) Lachenal *anglo*.

Hmm. I was thinking of bidding on it, to go with the Pepsi ad I got a while back. But I'd rather not get into a bidding war. I'm very curious about the instrument, though, since I didn't think Bastari was making instruments like that until some time in the 1970's, yet the seller claims the ad is from 1957, and since it appears to be in a magazine the date should be certain. I wondered briefly if it might be a "Mayfair" (by Wheatstone in the 1950's), but the only picture I have of a Mayfair (in a Wheatstone brochure) is of an English, and the fretwork is *very* different. Yeah, the guy is holding the instrument with the hands reversed. Maybe he's left-handed? At least he -- or the photographer -- had enough sense to get his fingers on the buttons in a way that looks like he *might* be playing it.

Probably. Or maybe this answer is that you have a Crabb and a Jeffries. Strictly speaking, I would think that the Jeffries label makes it "a Jeffries", even if Crabb made it, and especially if Crabb was a Jeffries employee at the time it was made. To someone who considers the identity of the person who actually built the instrument to be important, then I think you should also be concerned with other questions: At what point in his career did the builder construct the instrument (presumably they all got better with experience... at least until the onset of senility). Did different individuals work on different parts of a particular instrument? (I understand this was common practice at both Wheatstone and Lachenal.) Also, it's quite possible that parts made at one time weren't used until some time -- even years? -- later. The right end of my Crane duet by Jeffries has the oval 23 Praed St. label, but it also has the 12 ALERSHOT ROAD address stamped into the rim. but not the word "LATE" as Malcolm reports on his. If your 36-button Jeffries was modified from wooden-ended to metal-ended, and both the original work and the later metal ends were the work of Crabb, it still seems possible that the conversion may not have been done by Crabb. The metal ends *might* have been lying around the Jeffries shop... or even taken from another existing instrument (perhaps one that had been badly damaged, but from which the ends survived). Of course, we'll never know.

This will be a very brief and incomplete response. I started a longer reply, which got progressively longer, and if/when I finish it and post it, I think I'll use it to start another Topic, since it concerns the English as much as the duets. But... Rich clearly has a better understanding of the Hayden than I do, but I differ considerably with his characterization of the other systems. He seems to have what I consider to be a very narrow view of what constitutes "a pattern"... or "identical". The English and Crane systems are built around patterns which are quite consistent, but which are not based on rigid geometry in space. Prompted by his comments, I tried transposing some arrangements -- not just single-line melodies -- on both English and Crane. This is something I have rarely bothered to try, and never with these particular arrangements. All I did was try to *play* the arrangements -- without preparation -- in keys other than the original. While it didn't go perfectly smoothly, I was suprised at how little stumbling I did, even when going to a key which I think Rich would consider a completely different "pattern". E.g., from G to F on the Crane. The best illustration, though, was the English, partly because I'm most familiar with it, and partly because it has -- in my opinion -- the most consistent pattern. On the English I took an arrangement in G of "Planxty Irwin" and played it F (every note in the opposite hand), Eb (every note in the same hand as in G, but the opposite side of the center line), E (the same as Eb, except the opposite button in each natural-accidental pair), Bb (like F, but with one less note in the "outside" -- or accidental -- row), and C (hardly more than shifting the hand down from G). Most of the arrangement involves two notes at a time, with three in a few places. There are sections with held notes against moving ones, others with parallel thirds, a bit with parallel sixths, and some not parallel. Interestingly, each successive new key was easier than the one before, I think because my brain became attuned to the *general* concept of what I was doing, and because to me the "pattern" of all keys *feels* the same. The reason this works for me is that I never think in terms of "right" and "left", but rather in terms of "this side" and "the other side"... a kind of enforced dyslexia. Rich says that the Hayden plays identically in 6 different keys. The way I conceptualize it, the English does that in 8 keys. But I really wonder how important that is, even to him. I.e., if he didn't have that ability, how badly would it hinder him? Would he restrict himself to learning tunes in only one or two keys?

Giving it a range from what note to what note? Always a mattter of personal preference, of course. ??? I've been playing English concertina for 30 years, and my instruments include a contrabass that weighs in at over 3 kg, which I play in a standing position without a strap or any other special support, but I have no idea what you mean by that. I can't identify any such "torque" on my thumbs when I play. How are you holding your instruments?

Here's Henrik's response to my inquiry. I think this should pretty well settle the matter.

You sure you're not thinking of "Concertina", by Tori Amos?

I can think of two other "possibilities": 1) Is it possible that they made an instrument tuned in Bb? (Did you buy it used?) 2) I've heard some rather scary stories about quality control at Stagi, including an English concertina straight from the factory with all the notes in *one* hand mirror-reversed from what they should be, and some other errors even less consistent. Is it possible that the G#'s on your instrument were tuned to some other pitch? Would you have noticed if their relative pitches didn't fit the otherwie-consistent pattern?

I guess you don't have perfect pitch, eh? Oops! That's a different thread.

Patrick, I don't know why you had trouble with your internet search. When I did a simple Google search I found so much information that I couldn't begin to report it here (partly because I didn't save the links). Well, maybe that was your trouble. I found half a dozen different keyboard layouts, only one of which is unisonoric, the others clearly not (showing the different notes for push and pull). More than one comprehensive site, with good historical/evolutionary information. For the music side, try searching on the combination of bandoneon and tango. And try also the alternative spelling "bandonion". A master builder of bandoneons, and an excellent musician, as well. I met him in 1982 (through a friend who played English concertina), and I have a fantastic casette of him playing baroque music, including Bach organ music, on the bandoneon. At the time he was just beginning his study of tango music. The bandoneon, by the way, is originally a German instrument, but became the instrument of choice for tango music in Argentina.

I *suspect* that Renaissance Fairs (or Faires) are a lot like sessions... each one is different, and the "spirit", "flavor", and rules depend considerably on both the organizeers and participants. After all, one may be a single-day, volunteer event in a local park, while another may be a summer-long commercial enterprise the size of a small town.

It might be tedious, but I can certainly do the same thing with pen and paper.

Apparently so.--> QUOTE(Apparently posted by Rich Morse on Oct 8 2003 @ 04:09 PM; do smilies work in here, too? Apparently so.) You can then quote responsively from many posts:Now if we could only learn to quote responsibly, as well. Now how did that extra " Apparently so.-->" wind up at the top? It's not in my original text, but is apparently due to some quirk of the browser. Hmm, if that's the case, maybe not everybody sees it, and it "sounds" like I'm hallucinating.

Oddly enough, a couple of days ago I got an email from my friend Henrik -- an excellent player of the English (those are his hands in the picture), -- in which he said the following: Let me analyze what he says. He loves the mini so much that he's now playing it in preference to his excellent Wheatstone, but he says it's poorly constructed, and he wants more notes, better action (the mechanics of the buttons), and better quality reeds. I've also heard elsewhere that the quality and even the construction of the mini can vary erratically from instrument to instrument. His desired 27 buttons is nearly the same as the Jackie's 30. He hasn't yet seen a Jackie, and neither have I (I have put in an order), but knowing Wim Wakker's commitment to quality I expect it to be of much better quality -- in both playing comfort and sound production -- than the Stagi. In fact, the new Jackie has an improved, riveted mechanism, one of the things Henrik says he wants. I've sent Henrik an email which asks the weight of the mini (hmm, you already said 1½ pounds) and the distance between its thumb loop and finger plate. From the way it's constructed, that distance might not be any less than on a regular concertina, and so no help to small hands, while the thumb loops on the Jackie should be much more comfortable, and probably easier to adjust. I don't know what the Jackie weighs, but I'm sure Wim would tell us. The Jackie is not only cheaper, but it comes with a tutor, a help line (I'll bet they take emails), and a trade-in policy. So my recommendation would be wholeheartedly for the Jackie, unless you consider the difference in weight (whatever it turns out to be) to be crucial.

Robin said: David said: I agree with David on this one. I have mixed feelings about the "pretty" boxes, but I definitely feel that quoted original text interspersed with responses helps avoid misundertstanding, whether or not it's displayed in some fancy graphic format. (Note that I've used the second method I described to include here quotes from two separate prior posts.) And Michael Reid's response was apparently posted while I was composing mine, a wonderful example of the problem Samantha described.

It *is* possible with "handwritten" letters. In the old Forum I was in the habit of copying the portions of text I was responding to, and identifying each section -- quoted parts and my own parts -- by preceding it with the name of the person "speaking". Various other people also used this technique, which I think was quite helpful. However, many did not.

Two ways, actually: 1) First, you click on the "Quote" button at the upper right of the message (at least in my browser). This opens up a box where you can compose separate quote box just below the reply box. (You may have to scroll your browser screeen to see it.) In addition to composing your reply, you can edit what's in the quote box. I delete all the text I'm not specifically replying to, so that there's no confusion. However, as David Barnert demonstrated, one can also falsify the "quote" by altering or even completely replacing it. 2) The second way is to use the little button marked "QUOTE", above the reply-composition box. Click it once and it inserts into your text the string "[ QUOTE ]" (but without the spaces, which I had to put it so that it wouldn't actually create a text box, i.e., so you could see it). Click it again, and it inserts "[ /QUOTE ]" (again without spaces), which indicates the end of the quoted text and closes the quote box. Any text you put between those opening and closing tags (as they're called) will be displayed in the text box. Here's an example: Note that if you use the first method on something that already contains a quote, the quote-box tags will be displayed within the quoted text in the edit box, not in nested boxes. But when you post your response (or if you preview it), you'll see nested boxes instead of the tags. If I'm responding to several individual points within a post, I'll generally use the first method in order to identify the message I'm responding to, but I'll delete from the text all text except the first bit I'm responding to. Then for each subsequent point I'll use the second method, copying the text I'm responding to from the original message and putting it between paired quote-box tags, followed by my response. I have sometimes had problems with the editor's quoting mechanism getting confused when I use the second method more than once in a single post. I.e., it starts reversing the order of the opening and closing tags, with the result that most of what's shown inside and outside of the quote boxes is the reverse of what it should be. To prevent this, I start by clicking the button for the quote tag several pairs of times, and this gives me several pairs of correctly ordered tags. I then place the material I'm quoting between the pairs of tags where the tag with the slash *ends* the quote, and my own text between the quoted sections (I.e., starting *after* a tag that has a slash). By the way, I think this discussion belongs in another Forum, but I'm too lazy to try to redirect it.

Let's say I suspected, which is why I asked for your input.

Only this: Folks in the Afternoon slot -- and the Morning if it gets started early enough -- will want some sort of break in the middle, for coffee or whatever. If you plan such breaks for a specific time, then the folks in the different groups can mingle, and then return to their groups. An added benefit/danger is that some folks might want to switch groups in the middle, especially after sharing notes over coffee. (The "edit" was to correct a typo.)

Bruce B. asked me to say something about why I like the Crane system. As I composed a reply, it went way beyond that simple question and became rather long, so I've started a new Topic, "More (But Not All) About Duets", to which I hope others will also contribute.