hjcjones

That happens every time I try to play one

Most versions have dotted quavers, and it's usually played as a rather jaunty hornpipe or English reel. However this slower and smoother version is rather lovely. It's taken from Corelli's Op2 trio sonata, and is also known as Corelli's Gavot

That's more or less what I'd imagined. Personally, it's not a position I find has any advantages for me so it's not one I would aim for, although in a session it's one I might find myself forced into. However if it works for you I'm not suggesting it's wrong. My comment was intended to make the point that what works for one person may not work for another, and that what really matters is for a player to find a position which is comfortable for them.

Your playing position should be relaxed, with your hands more or less in line with your forearms. Having them cocked as you describe is not only uncomfortable, it will hamper your playing and at worst could result in a long-term injury. Whilst I don't recognise Paul Hardy's suggestion of having the hands pointing up, if it works for him then I'm not going to say he's wrong. What is important is to find a position which works for you and which you can maintain comfortably for as long as you need (although I would urge you not to over-practice, particularly at this early stage of your playing when is is easy to overdo things) Your second problem stems directly from the first, and finding a comfortable playing position should resolve it When at rest your fingers should fall naturally onto the "home buttons" (the top four buttons on the C row).

There are audiologists who specialise in hearing aids for musicians., but of course they are not cheap. I haven't needed them because I'm coping with my NHS ones, but if the time comes when these don't work for me i may have to consider it.

Although as Chris Algar once pointed out to me, he has to pay VAT and corporation tax, and presumably has other business expenses. If this was bought at auction there would have been a buyer's premium to pay to the auction house, so the actual cost will be more than the hammer price. Barleycorn's actual profit won't have been as much as might appear at first glance. It is possible to get bargains at auction sales but often the instruments will need further work. If you buy from a reputable dealer you may pay more but should know what you are getting.

Unless they are expressly for beginners and improvers, sessions are not really the place to learn to play your instrument, although they can be good for developing your playing once you've reached a certain level. People often assume that playing accompaniment is an easy way into playing in a session. In fact playing good accompaniment is a difficult skill and needs to be learned. Not only do you have to find appropriate chords but you also need to augment the rhythm. You need to be listening, and responding, to both the melody players and other accompanists and be ready to adapt to fit in with what they are doing. Poor or insensitive accompaniment can kill a tune dead. Of course no two sessions are alike, and some may be more welcoming and more forgiving than others. If you have a receptive local session then play as quietly as possible so not to overwhelm the melody, and try to respond to the music rather than starting with preconceived ideas of what chord progressions you should be playing. be aware that tunes can change key or go in unexpected directions, and that modal tunes may require a different approach from "standard" chords. Listen to the other musicians, and try to use this as a base from which to move towards playing the melody

I was also puzzled by this. All anglos share more or less the same keyboard layout (disregarding variations and customisations) in the sense that the relative intervals between the buttons are the same. All that varies is the pitch. I can use the same fingering patterns on my C/G, G/D and F/C instruments and I will play the same tune, but in different keys. Playing in the G row on a G/D is exactly like playing on the C row in C/G, and the D row is the same as the G row on a C/G If you think of the keyboard in doh-re-mi terms they're identical, regardless of the pitch of the instrument. Of course you're starting from a different doh, but the fingerings are the same, they just sound in different keys. This is why people get instruments in different pitches - a 30 button C/G can play in most keys, but if you play a lot in certain keys it's easier to get an instrument where those are the "home" keys. What may have caused confusion is that if you want to play in the same key but on differently-pitched instruments then you will have to use different fingerings. Playing in D on a G/D uses the same fingerings as playing in G on a C/G, rather than the fingerings you would use to play in D on a C/G. So if you already play a tune in D on a C/G you will have to relearn it to play it in D on a D/G. If you play from music then you will have to learn to associate the named notes with different buttons. However many (if not most) anglo players simply treat them as transposing instruments. I mostly think in C/G terms regardless of which instrument I'm using and what key the music is actually being played. I play by ear, but with modern music software it's a simple matter to transpose a tune into a familiar key for reading purposes.

Good point. I'd been thinking you'd be limited to mainly playing along the rows, but it would offer those other options. Howe easy that would be to play, and whether it would offer the same chording opportunities, is another matter. I think we can say that the 5th-apart model is not accidental, but there are no doubt other possible keyboard arrangements for anglo, and who knows what might have been if something different had been adopted?

The practical advantage is that there is only one note difference between the two scales, the difference is just one sharp. This means that most notes in either scale can be found on both rows, and often in the opposite bellows direction, which allows for alternative ways of playing different phrases. Bb and D don't share many notes (only D, G and A) so the rows would be far more independent of each other. I don't know if it would be harder to play, but it would certainly be more limited. A similar arrangement is found with melodeons - the high and low pitches are the other way around, but the keys of the rows are related in a similar way. However some melodeons are tuned a semi-tone apart, which is fully chromatic. I'm not aware that this was ever used with concertinas, perhaps because it would limit playing chords.

It's an interesting layout. It has some similarities to a semitone-apart melodeon, but also some differences. It does seem an effective way of getting a fully-chromatic range with only a few buttons. I have only handled a couple of bass anglos, and both had the standard 30-button layout. One of them was John Kirkpatrick's, and I was surprised how easy and responsive it was to play for such a large instrument.

Thanks Geoff, fascinating stuff as always

Not from the thread title

I replied to Luke here because I thought you had taken the discussion of Katy Spicer's comment out of the original thread (which is fair enough). I'm now not quite clear what you intend this sub-thread to be for. Is to discuss Katy Spicer's comment, or only Simon's response to it? Or, since you seem to be saying that everything has already been said. is it to close down the discussion? Genuine question. I'm not sure whether I have any more to say about Spicer, but if I do I'd like to know where to post it.

In the parent thread, Luke Hillman said: Honestly, I don't think she's arguing that Morris *is* slightly racist, old and white. If the perception—however inaccurate—exists, it should be okay to talk about it, especially to draw attention to the ways it's evolved in the past hundred years. Any tradition that's been around hundreds of years is going to have a fairly intricate history. I don't think this is about history, it's about morris as it is now, or was until recently, and implies that the new generation of dancers have rescued it. I find that insulting and unwarranted. My own team found it necessary to publish an anti-racism statement a couple years ago. I'd be interested to know what it says, and why your side thought it was necessary.

My objection is to the "slightly racist" bit, which is an unwarranted slur on dancers of my generation. I think this is a disgraceful comment coming from someone in her position, especially when made to the mainstream press.

The NYT often has a frankly bizarre view of life in the UK, but this is a surprisingly good article. However as on old, white former dancer I was frankly appalled by the quote from Katy Spicer, chief executive of the EFDSS, that “Morris dancing is still synonymous with slightly racist, old white men flicking handkerchiefs”. I said as much on the EFDSS Facebook page where they had posted the article, but unsurprisingly they have not responded. The drawback with the new popularity of morris is that most of the sides now aren't worth watching. They're obviously having great fun but are unable to dance with any style or precision. Of course, even in the "good old days" most sides were of only average standard, but few were the sort of shambles which I so often see now. On the other hand those sides which are at the top of their game are perhaps better than ever.

Do you find Sheet Music Scanner works reliably? The problem I have found with other scanners is that they require so much subsequent tidying up that it would have been easier simply to copy out the score in ABC.

If it's something you'll use and get pleasure from then go ahead. You can always sell it again, and concertinas are unlikely to lose value., and you'll have had the use of it in the meantime. I try to think of it as not spending money, simply moving it from one asset class to another. I know someone who regards his collection of concertinas as his pension fund. Whether he'll be happy to sell them when the need arises remains to be seen.

Of course. I found the process of setting it up quite interesting, but I can understand that someone might see it as hassle. The first time is the hardest. I don't think the length of time need be a consideration. This is music which doesn't quickly fall out of fashion and where there can be interest in, and demand for, an album long after it was published. However I take your point that a musician might be more interested in looking forward than back.

It doesn't cost much to put an album online ($9.99 with CDBaby) and whilst there is a certain amount of work involved it isn't really that onerous or difficult. Whereas you'd only reissue a CD if you were confident of high demand, once it is online you can expect a small but steady stream of sales, and whilst these may not generate large amounts (a typical stream earns around $0.0012) they do add up, especially if people purchase tracks or entire albums. I've put three albums online, including one which stopped being available in the early 1990s. Over about a dozen years that album has earned $214. Not spectacular, but these are sales we would never have achieved without it and has been well worth the initial cost and small amount of effort. You also gain a global audience - it's also taken our music to places we'd never have imagined people would listen to it. For the band's most recent album about 27% of our income has come from online sales, although most of that is sales of physical CDs through Bandcamp. Nevertheless streams and downloads, despite the puny amounts, do make a welcome contribution. I don't know Tim's reasons for not putting his album online, but I would urge anyone thinking of publishing their music to do so. These days it is an important way to bring your music to an audience, and it can generate a "long tail" of sales which can continue for years, even decades, after the physical product is no longer available.

According to Geoff Crabb's list 9272 is in the possible range for 1936, although not previously recorded. However Geoff's "red list" is speculative and assumes the first number known for a year is the first in the range. It could be that 9282 was not actually the first instrument to have been constructed in 1937, and the range Geoff has put for 1936 could in fact be extended into the following year. Or is it possible that it was started and and given the ledger number 9272 in 1936 but not completed until 1937, when the year was added? Either way, it suggests it was probably finished in 1937. Geoff Crabb is a member on here and takes a close interest in all mentions of Crabb. Or you could PM him with the details of your instrument.

The difficulty with modifying layouts is that one change then leads to another. If you want a low pull E, where will that go? It needs to be in an accessible position where it can be reached without interfering with the flow of your playing. What note will you then be sacrificing, and how will that affect the way you play other tunes, or make chords, which need that note? Anglo playing is all about making compromises, and solving one problem can easily just mean creating a different one. Most apparent problems can be resolved by changing your playing technique. An instrument with more than 30 buttons may be useful, as the additional buttons are mostly reversals which offer more options for playing phrases in different ways. Why do you want a low pull E? I've been playing for more than 40 years and I can't say I've felt that need. If it is to avoid awkward bellows changes in the middle of a phrase which includes E, perhaps think instead about alternative fingerings so that you can play those phrases all on the push, without having to change bellows direction.

What notes do you want to change, and why?

The "three chord trick" is the most basic chord progression, and guitarists will be familiar with a number of more complex (and arguably more interesting) "standard" chord progressions. Progressions are used to add harmonic movement to a piece and do more than just sympathise with the melody notes - indeed at times they may clash with them, but that provides tension which should then be released by the next change of chord. A "polished" folk group with some knowledge of music theory would probably look to these standard chord progressions when arranging a tune. Even where players don't know music theory they have probably absorbed these progressions from listening to a wide range of music and will use them because that is how their sense of harmony has been formed. Kimber probably had no knowledge of music theory, and when he was developing his playing he would have been far less exposed to music which might have allowed him to build up an understanding of it through osmosis. Instead, his approach is a very natural and intuitive way to play the instrument, but whilst they are sympathetic to the melody his chords often don't provide harmonic movement, which an organised chord progression would. It is not only the chords he uses, but when he uses them. They are of course musical in the sense that they accompany the melody very effectively, but his chord choices are possibly not ones which a trained musician would make - which is what makes his playing so refreshing.