Boney
-
Posts
687 -
Joined
Posts posted by Boney
-
-
I've been looking for mp3s of some that I like - the High Level Ranters play a great version of "Rusty Gulley" and "Lads of Alnwick". So far all I've found (that will play on linux computer!) is this border pipe version ....
You can also hear my humble versions, mostly influenced by the High Level Ranters'. Jimmy Allen / Rusty Gully is on the C.Net Recorded Tunes Link Page. And here's Lamshaw's Fancy / The Lads of Alnwick.
-
20 button chromatic could be something like a C/C# which I know at least one member has built.
M3838 (Michael?) retuned a few notes on a 20-button anglo, removing some duplicates and replacing them with accidentals to make it chromatic over a certain range.
I mostly play 30-button C/G anglo, and don't play much Irish music. Here's an "American" tune I'm working on, often heard played by bluegrassers, "Under the Double Eagle." I can't play the second part yet. Actually, I can barely play the first part. I could play the bare melody and just throw in an occasional extra note or two, and play it pretty cleanly. But I really like arranging and playing fuller parts, so, flubs and all, here's a quick recording I just made (about 675K):
-
Japanese concertina?
-
I think this is the job
Hm, 32 Kb/s is pretty low quality, even for web downloading. Especially if you edit and re-save the audio.
I recently got the (now discontinued) iRiver iFP 899 MP3 player/recorder. It's just about unique as far as inexpensive MP3 units go, being as it has a line-in jack, a mic preamp, and can record high-quality MP3 (up to 320 Kb/s!) from the mic/line in jack. The built-in mic isn't too bad, although it's limited to 160 Kb/s, which is still pretty high quality. Files transfer easily to the computer with USB2 (or USB1, if that's all you have). I downloaded the latest drivers and software from iRiver's website instead of using the CD that came with the unit.
Check out reviews on Amazon.com (or Amazon UK), or see the PDF manual on the iRiver iFP-800 Series support page.
It's discontinued, but I got mine for about $70 on eBay, try a search for iRiver 899.
One of those little plug-in T mics would probably work great with it, I use a small gooseneck stereo mic. You don't need a powered mic because of the mic preamp on the 899, which works well. Although the internal mic should be enough to get you started. One downside is you can't change the recording volume while recording, and there doesn't seem to be any sort of record level meter. But I've written down a few numbers that have worked for me in the past, that gets me in the ballpark, then I do a few tests at max volume and transfer the files to the computer to check level. This takes a few extra minutes, but it gives you a better idea of what's going on than a little meter anyway. As a general guideline, it's much better to leave some unused headroom than to risk clipping. In a live situation when I can't double-check on the computer, I just set it quite a bit lower than I think it shold be, and unless the level is ridiculously low, it can be amplified with an audio editing program with decent results. And if you set it a bit high, in Audacity, you can sometime fix small clips by reducing the volume a few dB, and using the "pencil" tool to smooth out the flat-topped waves.
You can also digitize LPs, cassettes, the audio from videotapes, or whatever, at quite high quality, which is a big plus. There's also a built-in radio, which you can record from as well, although I haven't used it. I've looked around quite a bit, and there's nothing that approaches the recording quality you can get from this unit at anywhere near the price. If there is, I'd like to know about it.
-
It does seem a single musician is often looked upon skeptically, as a possible homeless panhandler or leper. But two or more folks playing together is a "band," and that's OK. Other street musicians have shared this experience with me. You can get away with playing solo sometimes if you are extremely virtuosic, or have a lot of props and dress up, or something, so you're obviously an "entertainer" and not some lowlife who can play a bit of music.
-
I think traditional square dancing has been tainted by "western squares," with their silly costumes and recorded, hokey music.
Ew.
Tee shirts and shorts are common and comfortable for dancing.Ew.
I was under the impression that Pappy Shaw was the father of square dance and had created it by combining moves from other traditional dances in the US: contra, clog, and buck 'n wing.From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lloyd_Shaw :
During his time teaching folk dance he noticed that all the square dancing callers were getting old, and there was no new generation to take over. He also noticed a lack of continuity in the activity in different parts of the country. Shaw came up with a solution that many believe kept the activity from dying out.Shaw traveled the country, and compiled instructions for traditional square dances from different callers all over the country. He documented them, and tried them out on the students he taught.
-
Sure, there are a few hoarders around, and jealousy can rise, and you can wonder what can be "done." But the impetus behind these hoarders is the same one that's led to an explosion of new makers over the last few years. You have to take the good with the bad, surely it's not too hard to suffer a few happy hoarders.
Maybe you don't see the effect on the ground as often as some of us do: the really good twelve to fifteen year old struggling with Gremlins and Marcus etc instruments at classes and summerschools while the middleaged guys arrive with three top class instruments under their arm, barely able to hammer out an off rhythm version of the Breeches full of Stitches. It's easy to get a feeling something has gone lopsided when you see that, that there's a certain injustice in it and that things ideally should be different. There's no point though, things being what they are. So no point complaining until the cows come home.
No, I'm sure I don't see it as often as some, and it's good to hear those first-hand accounts. But my point is: if it weren't for those middle-aged Breeches-bobblers, would there be nearly as many makers as there are today? Would there be traditionally-reeded Wakkers and Kensingtons around, which have just started being built in the last year or so? Would there be nearly as many decent-playing mid-range concertinas around? I don't think so. So my point is it's easy to see only the "bad" side of the issue, while taking for granted the recent advances that have been touched off by the very same "bobblers." For whatever reason, very few people will ever play at a really proficient level (probably by definition -- the best will always be defined as what only the very few achieve). Yet it takes a good-sized concertina "community" to support makers and repairers. I think seeing the whole picture makes it a lot easier to forgive a few over-enthusiastic people with a lot more money than talent. If there is ever a low-cost, mass-produced, professional-grade concertina, we'll have the masses of dilettante amateur players to thank. Perhaps we should encourage them?
-
Whey you say:
But in the world of above mentioned violins how whould you feel about top notch musicians playing low end chinese fiddles, while eager amateurs squeak top notch violins?are you responding to this:
EUREKA the best player gets the worst instrument.Because that was a joke. Making fun of the idea that concertinas should be distributed by some "master plan." Obviously they can't be.
Sure, there are a few hoarders around, and jealousy can rise, and you can wonder what can be "done." But the impetus behind these hoarders is the same one that's led to an explosion of new makers over the last few years. You have to take the good with the bad, surely it's not too hard to suffer a few happy hoarders.
-
Well said, Missing Song.
-
And here it is! Bob Hope singing "Buttons and Bows" from "Paleface!" Nice accompaniment, really.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Hc4dJAQOvHA
-
There's a huge scale difference between the most desired violins and the most desired concertinas, and the culture that surrounds them. A Stradavarius costs in the millions, and rarely can even a top violinist afford one. Yes, part of that is name value, but science and technology can't duplicate the deep, mysterious, intuitive genius of the best instrument makers. They've honed their craft through decades of practice far beyond what can be explained or measured, they can't even explain their unconscious skills to themselves. (Science is just starting to attempt to measure the types of skills that are subconscious, and are finding that people can learn extremely complex rules, like those in language, even though they can't explain the rules at all on a conscious level. See the studies of Steven Pinker, for example). The quality of the tools is a very minor aspect -- and very fine tools have been available for hundreds of years. FAR better than you'd find at Home Depot, just not as fast, and maybe not as easy to use.
So a collector and music afficionado can satisfy his "selfish" desire to own a Stradivarius, and also gain "high society" prestige by loaning it out, and pleasure from hearing it played well. There are no concertinas that are unobtainable enough to need this sort of patronage. Noel Hill can afford, and has, as good an instrument as can be had. The resonances of a fine violin are much more complex and elusive than the qualities of even the best concertinas. And the concertina playing tradition comes nowhere close to the world of obsessively driven, "olympic-level" virtuosity that the classical tradition has, or the level of big-dollar, high-culture, status-seeking patronage.
-
in the past 3 years I have attended workshops with Noel Hill, Micheal O'Raghaillgh, Geroid O'hAllamhrain, and Edel Fox, and have taken lessons from Tim Collins at his house, and now take lessons weekly at Comhaltas, and attend one or two slow sessions a week.
Folks like you are helping the concertina community grow and prosper. There are a lot of you. Thanks. If there weren't, people like Suttner and Dipper wouldn't be making concertinas at all.
-
I can see what you're saying; it's just that for me the images conjured by those four verses are so very idyllic that it seems such a shame to spoil their fun completely by bringing them back down to earth with a crash
Maybe you could do it either way, depending on the audience and your temperament at the time...
Nice (as usual) Jeff. It is the same as the ABC file that I have attached in a previous mail. The URL should be http://concertina.jeffleff.com/audio/nightingale.mp3Thanks and thanks...I edited my post too. There are quite a few small differences, but yeah, the tune is essentially the same.
-
I'd love to hear a short audio sample, do you have one? I first heard the Dubliners do this song, and I've heard a few others since. I read somewhere it was originally English, but who really knows? I do like the lyrics in your version. Although, would you reconsider this part?
Our version leaves off the final verse, largely because it feels to me as though the song needs a happy - or at the very least slightly ambiguous ending - which the original closing verse denies itI have to say I consider that the essence of the song...the pleasant, happy, swingy feel of it, yet it's "business as usual" at the end. A very satisfying combination in my mind. Maybe partly because 90% of the audience probably won't be listening close enough to catch it...
I was working on this tune on anglo a while back, but haven't played it much because I don't like my singing. But here's an instrumental version I recorded with whistle early this year. It's pretty much exactly the Dubliners' version, including some notes which are held over to an extra measure, making the structure not quite even. Played on my old Geuns-Wakker anglo and a Sweetheart C whistle:
-
My C/G Wakker Anglo is just a few months old, and has 7 folds in the "extra light bellows" style. It can play so quietly I have to put my ear next to the right end to hear a faint pitch. It's hard to keep it that quiet, though. And the reed won't start at that low pressure, it need to be quite a bit louder to start crisply. I tried a few times, keeping the volume from getting too whisper-quiet, and got these numbers:
Opening: 115 seconds
Closing: 105 seconds
-
Boney, it's a brand new AC Norman.
Hm! So, can you describe exactly what's happening? It really shouldn't be difficult at all. If you open it up all the way and press the air button and a note, how hard do you have to press to have the note sound? How long does it take to close at that pressure, from full open to full closed? Does it matter if the note is on the left or right side? The only time I've ever heard a note disappear when pressing the air button is when trying an extremely leaky instrument...in which case it was hard enough to get a note without the air button!
-
However, most times when I do this, the note seems to vanish completely
I've never had this happen on any anglo I've tried, even cheap ones. There's no trick at all to it. Although you do have to close the bellows faster than normal -- think of keeping the pressure against your hands steady, ignoring the speed of the bellows. Maybe your air button closes the bellows REALLY fast? Try a really quick jab at the air button perhaps? What kind of concertina do you have, and what kind of shape is it in?
-
Hifull arrangements are what I find most inspiring, the sound a single concertina can make with the bass and treble in full force. This style limits available keys, but I find it satisfying.
That's the style I've been starting to work on too. Here's my arrangement of "Whistling Rufus," a Cakewalk tune (or "Ragtime March") that I adapted from the 1899 sheet music. It's played on a 30-key CG anglo.
http://concertina.jeffleff.com/graphics/rufus.gif
http://concertina.jeffleff.com/audio/WRufus.mp3
I'm working on a few other tunes too, and I'll post them when I've got them arranged and can actually play them...so don't hold your breath. One is a classical guitar piece that is going to take quite a while, but it's promisingly possible so far. I've been playing a touch over three years, and this stuff is pretty tricky for me (the above file was recorded with a few errors edited out). I'd love to see other arrangements as well.
-
-
Does anyone play in three octaves at once? That's what I thought when I saw "double octaves" -- thinking playing in octaves would be playing notes an octave apart, so double would naturally be the octave below AND above the main note. I'll have to give it a try. On my slightly modified C-G 31-key anglo, I can play from middle C to the B almost two octaves above in the key of C. Or from G to that same B, a little over an octave's range, in G or D.
-
I'd try #1 with the mics a bit closer, maybe even just half as far. I don't like as much reverb as you have in these, especially #4. It sounds a bit cheezy to my ear, and masks the subtleties in the playing. You can almost get away with it in a tune this slow, but it does come across to me like a "soft focus glamour portrait."
You could also try a stereo pair (possibly set up XY) fairly close, and a mic or two a good distance away, mixed in at a low level. I do hear some strange artifacts in the second recording (probably the comb filtering Dana mentioned).
Or, try recording quite a bit closer in the hall, and you can always add a hint of artificial reverb later if you want. You can also get very good artificial reverb by playing back a close-miked recording on decent spearkers in the hall, and recording that at a good distance, and mixing it in at a very low level.
Here's something that's helped me a lot: after taking a while mixing, don't listen to the result for a while, at least a few days. Then listen again and review your effects levels -- they'll probably sound much more exaggerated than you thought, the ear gets used to effects in long mixing sessions, and it's very easy to get heavy-handed.
I also agree with Jody, even with no reverb it sounds pretty good.
-
I think if I just know the chord changes in the tune, it's going to be best this way.
This confuses me a bit. I don't know a lot about music theory. But you say "the" chord changes. Certainly many traditional tunes weren't written with chords in mind, right? And even those more chordal in nature might work with more than one choice of chord at any given time, right? Or extra harmony notes outside the main chord, or substituted for those in it? Are there accepted chord changes people tend to use for common session tunes? Or do you mean the simplest set of chord changes that would work? Or those most highly implied by the melody? Or something else?
-
um.....again---do you have an age for this instrument? it's a no-brainer, basic fundamental question about an item which is for sale, not to mention a used hybrid concertina priced at $2800.00. "certainly not old" would "certainly" be a red flag for this shopper. thanks.
Okay...let me see if I can clear this up a bit. David doesn't play concertina. He had a hankering to try, and offered to trade a half set of uilleann pipes for a concertina. I decided to go for it. I sent him the concertina in April (2006). Things have changed from him since then, health and financial mishaps. He hasn't been able to play it, and needs the cash.
This is Geuns-Wakker #117, previously owned by "richard" on this board. It's the same one most of my postings on the "C.Net Recorded Tunes Link Page" was recorded on. It's quite a nice instrument. David doesn't know when it was made, it didn't come up in our transaction. I bought it around the middle of 2004, Richard had had it for about a year, so it's from 2002 or 2003, I'm not sure. The Geuns-Wakker concertinas haven't been made for that long. I compared it to my new Wakker concertina just yesterday, and in my review of the touring Tedrow anglo last year. It's the nicest of the accordion-reeded concertinas I've tried.
Make a fair offer, I'm sure David will consider it. I'll take the time to answer some other questions here, as long as they don't require access to the instrument!
-
Review of my Wakker A1-Drone Anglo Concertina
The specs: flat rosewood ends, standard fretwork, radial reedpan, C drone, traditional handstraps, extra light all-leather bellows with 7 folds. I made one custom button layout modification: a low D replaces the low pull G on the first button of the C row in the left hand. I'll miss that extra G a little bit, but having a low D adds a lot of possibilites. I haven't used it or the C drone much yet, but you'll hear both in future recordings, I already have plans for them.
In short, it's a very nice concertina. I'll compare it mostly with my old Geuns-Wakker accordion reeded concertina, which cost about half as much. It was quite a good concertina, but this one's a little bit better in many ways. The reeds respond just a bit quicker. The action is just a bit lighter and more even. The tone is noticably nicer, and less accordion-sounding. The Wakker is capable of quite a bit more dynamics. The bellows seem a bit quicker and are more airtight. The fit and finish are just a bit nicer. Each improvement isn't all that much on its own, but when you add them all together, it makes a significantly better instrument. It's definitely easier to play faster and with more dynamic control than I ever have.
There are a few issues. First of all, it's taking a while to "settle in." Some of the reeds were buzzing at first. I emailed Mr. Wakker about this, and he suggested I just wait for them to acclimate to the new environment on their own, but offered to re-set the reeds free if I wanted. I didn't want to be without my concertina, so I waited, and the buzz went away. There's still a bit of a metallic edge to a few of the notes, for example the push G on the G row on the left hand, and the pull Bs on the C row on the right hand. But this has diminished a bit, I'm pretty sure it should sort itself out soon enough.
There also seems to be a bit more key noise than my Geuns concertina had. If I release a button quickly, there's a quiet "slap" as it comes up. This is pretty minor. The leather also squeaks a bit more, I presume that's just because it's new.
The keys have a different spacing than my Geuns -- they're slightly further apart, and have a slightly different angle. Some things seem to be easier with this spacing, and some things more difficult. I had to relearn how to play a part of "Whistling Rufus," but it wasn't a big deal. A few runs are a little more difficult. But, my hands don't get "cramped" as much when doing closely spaced chords across the rows, and it seems like it'll be easier to do things like quick triplets by hitting the same button quickly with different fingers (although I haven't done that much). I also tend to accidentally "bump" wrong keys less often.
By analyzing the grain, I can tell my concertina is one of those pictured on the Wakker anglo webpage. It's famous!
I like the extra light bellows. I've tried a few vintage concertinas with very supple bellows before, and always felt it gave me more speed and control. These bellows seem very supple right away. There's no issue with them being "wobbly" for me. I was told that people who play in a more "Irish" style might prefer the standard bellows.
I've made a few recordings, sorry if it's mostly tunes you've heard before. I tried to especially show off the dynamic range on Gateshead Waltz. Playing with such light pressure (around 1:50 in the recording) takes some getting used to! And the Lads of Alnwick is meant to show off a quicker tune than I've posted before (especially the end bit...whew!). The first three were recorded with a stereo microphone to an iRiver MP3 recorder, and have no effects or EQ added. The rest were recorded in mono directly to my computer, which sounds a bit duller.
Lamshaw's Fancy; The Lads of Alnwick
The Road to Lisdoonvarna (with whistle on right, concertina on left)
Jimmy Allen; Rusty Gully (with whistle and bones)
As a special comparison to my old Geuns-Wakker concertina with accordion reeds, I recorded "Whistling Rufus" on the Wakker using the microphone and recording method for an old recording I made on the Geuns. They both have a touch of reverb. I made a "composite" recording, editing parts of the two takes together. It starts with the Geuns-Wakker, then changes to the Wakker at certain points. This graphic from Audacity shows where the cuts are. My old Geuns-Wakker concertina is the top line, and the bottom line is the new Wakker concertina:
I'll let you know of any new developments. Any questions?
Playing In 3/2
in Teaching and Learning
Posted
Yeah, it took a few takes to get that down...
I play those runs all on the push, I think Lads is probably the most "English Concertina" sounding tune I play (probably influenced by the superb Mr. Anderson). Note the gasping hiss as the air button is engaged on the slower pulled notes after the runs...
Bones, actually...