keeper

Thanks, Graham, I have been inside the box this morning and there are two separate G reeds for the doubled-G button, not one reed sounding in both directions. It's not a great tone on this pitch because it sits with the other left-hand, bottom row reeds smack in the middle of the left hand reed pan and none of these get a decent air-flow. But I have 'voiced' them this morning so they all sound without rumbles and wheezes and I can use them as necessary evils when the fingering demands. DOUG Hi Doug You should be able to see the lever/pad for the Gs through the fretwork. I've no guidance on achieving a better arrangment, when I had "Kilroy" I found all the extras got in the way and reduced the button count to 32 ish. There was no high c natural when I first had it which is the same as yours. I'm now happy playing a 30 button Wakker G/D. I assume you could move some of the reeds around with needing to retune. I have in the past flattened reeds, with liquid metal, by a semi tone with no change in tone or response, and it is reversable with no damage to reed. Graham

Okay; sorry about my inability to post the diagram. I am gonna bite-the-bullet and revert to a letter table for the buttons, which is as follows Left In/Out 1st row B/C, E/F, G#/Bb, E/D, D#/F 2nd row G/D, D/F#, G/A, B/C, D/E, F/F(low) 3rd row F#/E, A/C#, D/E, F#/G, A/B, C#(low)/Eb 4th row Eb/C#, F/G#, A/B, G/G Drone G/G Right In/Out 1st row Bb/Ab, G#/Bb, D#/D, G#/F, E/A 2nd row C#/E, G/F#, B/A, D/C, G/E, B/F#,C(low)/D(low) 3rd row A/G, D/C#, F#/E, A/G, D/B, F/Eb 4th row Bb/G#, C#/Bb, D/C#, D#/D, E/Eb All comments gratefully recieved. Thanks to Chris for his cautionary note about tuning. I have done quite a bit of manual tuning but the point is well taken. My first priority is to get some of the obscure reeds sounding; you can imagine how complex it is inside this box and there are a couple that are leaking like a Government researcher (Colin DIpper has shown me which ones). I have not been back inside the box to check Graham's point about the double-direction G button (left side, bottom row, far right) but will do tonight. thanks, DOUG WATT

Agh! Sorry! Having a real problem managing the posting/uploading process with this forum (I don't use it much). Please ignore me until I have got my act together

Hi Doug I didn't see much of you last night. The 2 G buttons share the same reeds, ie 2 pads on to 1 reed chamber, at least they did on ''Kilroy''. Didn't you buy your Conner from Chris? I can't see the attachment either Cheers Graham

Hi. I acquired a 44-plus-drone G/D Jeffries from Chris Algar this summer and it does not have the layout that I would have expected. The reeds probably started life as different pitches because there is a lot of solder on them but each is stamped correctly with the current pitch-class and those stamps look quite old. I have attached a diagram. Overall, it looks to me as if the unexpected notes tend towards 'flat' keys. Most of the amendments are to the right hand so I am wondering if this has been adapted for a one-note-at-a-time player (Irish?). I can see some logic to some amendments (witness the bottom row, righthand, where the same notes are either on push or pull on adjacent buttons). Or maybe I do have a common layout. Any ideas? I guess where I am going with this is to wonder if I could/should retune to suit myself or whether I should just get on with it and learn to play it as it is. I do play quite complex stuff in an English chordal style so finding comfortable fingerings is quite important. And can anyone tell me why there is a G/G button, bottom right on the left hand side when the same thing lies next to it as a thumb drone? It seems wasteful to me. Like lots of Jeffries, I cannot tell you much about the provenance of the box but someone may know it and all comments would be gratefully received. DOUG WATT

I am very sorry to be so late in responding but I have been off this site for some time. I mean the 'First Steps in Music Theory Grades 1 to 5' edited by Eric Taylor. Here is the Amazon page. http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/search...1541586-1445500

I trained as a pianist so I was keen to see what could be done on the anglo by way of simple but serious keyboard pieces. I started with the Bach 2-part inventions. I tried the G major, 2-part gig first on a 40 button C-G Crabb. To be honest, several sections were just too hard. Eventually, I could have learnt all the twists and turns of bellows and button selection simply by rote but I was not enjoying that. So, I turned to the Bach cello suites and these work really well due to the similar range of the instruments (range, not tessitura!) You can find printed copies on the internet with a simple search. I find them useful because they make you look for the less obvious bellows direction and buttons in order to keep lines and phrases smooth.

I strongly recommend the Associated Board (red) theory book that teaches in progressive stages that coincide with their own graded music exams. Any music shop will know it and be able to get it. In particular, at the higher grades, it introduces cadences; the harmonies that underpin standard endings to phrases. I regret to say that I have seen much nonsense written about how harmonies can be mutilated in the name of 'free expression' when just about every style of music has a legitimate vocabulary that needs to be assimilated before it can be rejected or embellished. People often get fixated on scales, which are abstract, theoretical and machanical, but understanding how real music actually works is much more useful and this book soon gets on to that.

I bought an old Lachenal G/D anglo with brass reeds from Chris Algar about 18 months ago and the major improvmeent that I made was to gently 'rough up' the chamois leather air-seals to improve compression. Whilst I know that this is not the same as directly improving the read response, any reduction in air loss will improve the overall response and the improvement was really quite considerable.

Try to make scales musical rather than mechanical. Some slow, some quick, some legato, some staccato, etc. But the main point I would like to make is that the scale on the middle row, right hand, will be used a lot and it is valuable to focus on the last few ascending notes where the fingering 'turns' back on itself to finish on the fourth button rather than the fifth. Then to extend that scale upwards on the lower row as the move between rows when extending beyond the tonic of the middle row can also be tricky. This is particulalrly useful to get into subconsious memory when trying to follow new tunes instantly, such as in a session.

In response to David Barnert's view I do believe that I took pains to cover all the issues which he mentions in my original post and a thorough, cool reading of it should disclose that. I took particular pains to 'pre-handle' the predictable issues of harmony and taxonomy such as 'scale -v-mode' and what 'dominant' means. Which does not mean that readers have to agree with me, of course. David and I clearly disagree on these issues, which is fine, but I find that the theories reproduced by me actually accord with my ear and experience and I am content to commend them rather than to defend them.

I have just found this thread and I think that it provides an example of the benefit of a formal musical training which was widely debated in the thread that I began on this topic in Teaching and Learning. This tune resolves to the pitch 'A'. In other words, 'A' is the implicit note on which the melody is expected to end. I know that it is not the actual note on which this one iteration ends but, if you use the technique of trying to hold the 'tonic' note in your head throughout this piece, I believe that 'A' is the only viable pitch-class that can claim to be the tonic (or, better 'key-note', as 'tonic' is a classical term for classical scales). I feel that the ending on 'D' is unsatisfactory at a psychological level and I wonder if some structure of repeats would offer a different ending note? In a modern scale of 'A' the dominant, (i.e., next note in importance), would be an 'E'. But, in this case, the dominant is a 'D'. In the few scales left in traditional western music, the dominant is always the fifth of the scale. But this is not the case in pre-classical music. Where the fourth note of the 'scale' acts as the second most important focus of the melody, the fourth note acts as dominant. There is a whole set of such scales (actually, 'modes'), called 'plagal' modes. This emphasis on the fourth note as the second most important structural note still gives rise to plagal cadences at the end of phrases in modern hymn music. (The 'plagal' cadence that survived into the classic period is the one to which the word 'Amen', can be sung at the end of a hymn, i.e., the progression IV-I in harmonic terms). In the case of this particular tune, the appropriate medieval mode is hypodorian*, represented by all the white notes on a piano 'from 'A' to 'A'. 'So, where does the C# come in?' I hear you ask. Well, that is the leading note that defines 'D' as the dominant in this particular mode, in the same way that 'D#s' would lead to 'E' as the usual dominant in more recent, western music. In other words, it is permitted for accidentals to lead us into keys of temporary importance, before their correction leads us back to the 'home' note. (Please spot that I am not talking about harmony here; these theories work for melodies first and harmonies then arise in support of the existing, melodic logic). None of this theory makes the tune any more or less beautiful but it will intrigue many to know that the dominant of a scale ('mode', actually) could be other than the fifth. It asks us to revisit a modern, but nevertheless deeply subconscious set of expectations when we hear such a melody. But these modern expectations were not 'givens' to the medieval ear and they would not be 'givens' to our modern ears but for the overwhelming prevalence of the three remaining scales (major, melodic minor and harmonic minor). I believe that the older, richer range of 'scales' provides a refreshing corpus of sounds to be rediscovered and assimilated. *For reference, please see 'A History of Western Music' (Grout and Palisca, London, 1988) p. 76.

Exactly what I have done in 'Leap Over the Garter' in the Recorded Links page, but then, Brian has actually taught me in a seminar so maybe we are on the same wavelength (although, spookily, we did not discuss this technique)

I have never heard the drone used on any anglo performance so I decided to post a tune in the Recorded Links Page just for that purpose. 'Leap Over the Garter' is three repeated verses: one with drone, one with drone plus one harmonic note, one with drone plus full chords. I am not happy with the performance, which is a bit jumpy, but this is partly due to the necessity of holding the drone throughout under my left thumb, upsetting my normal 'balance.' It has taught me that to hold the left thumb along the side of the box is a little bit lazy so I now try to keep it above the buttons, ready to use, even when the piece has no casll for it.

I began anglo just under three years ago which would put me between 46 and 47 at that time. Here on the western side of England most anglo players are older than me and I have only seen one or two teenagers and virtually no people in their twenties. Observation suggests that the teenagers are already in concertina families. Because the anglo is closely related to English dance music and morris (although that was not it's original role) I guess it is mostly attractive to people in that social, dance-related scene. I envy the more 'living' tradition in Ireland. My kids are all good, young musicians and they think it is the uncoolest instruiment in the world. They cannot understand why I have become hooked on it when I already play a number of instrtuments that have much more street cred.

I would be insterested (anglo). The Director of Music at the catherdral was an old flat mate of mine at music college so I might be able to russle-up some logistics (room, pub, hall etc)

I would like to offer some ideas that are not specific to the concertina. Identify the sections which cause technical problems Try every conceivable fingering and bellows direction for those sections - often an unexpected fingering can remove the problem of uneven playing Practice the optimum fingering/bellows direction slowly until it becomes 'muscle' memory - reserve your 'conscious' performance memory for the eay bits [important, this one] Some sections of music will always be beyond our ability at any given stage of development. That does not mean that ' the piece is too hard' - it means that some sections are too hard. Professional players are never entirely satisfied with any performance; they learn to live with an [un]acceptable 'error rate.' How you approach tricky sections can make a huge difference to how they sound. One tip is to try to relax in such sections as much as possible. This releases the tension that can cause error in the first place. For example, instead of tensing as the tricky bit comes up try distracting yourself with a picture of the family or recalling a funny joke. As long as the notes are under your fingers and filed in subconsious memory you might well find yourself through the tricky bit without it becoming a stumbling block. Record and listen, even if only to a cheap analog recorder. What sounds good to us may sound different to a listener as our total experience floods in and compromises the purely auditory one. This is because there are fingerings that are physically satisfying or written phrases that are visually elegant I agree with Alan and Henk about digital remastering. If you record digitally, do not be afraid to cut unsuccessful sections and paste-in more successful attempts. If your aim is to represent the instrument, this is a different aim from producing a 'whole performance' and cutting and pasting is valid in such a case.

I no longer possess a 30 button but I do get a kick out of playing the early tunes that I learnt as if I was playing them on the 20 button that I used to learn them. It reminds me that 'less is more' from time to time.

I am truly happy to hear that, Peter. I play in the English tradition in England and I do not see the equivalent activity. This is not to say that the activity is absent but I think it is more noticeable by its absence than its existance. But I confess to feeling rather hurt that Peter thinks my views express those of an outsider's perspective. I am not hurt for my own sake, it's just the whole idea that a music of the people can have outsiders. One of the interesting aspects of a tradition that has no recognised development systems is that participants are always reliant on other people's sufferance as to whether they have 'paid their dues' or not. I rather hoped that this thread might throw-up synergies between genres but it may have achieved the exact opposite. Readers might like to note that I came to all music after being an untrained, 'couldn't read a note' jazz pianist for several years. So, does that put me one step nearer the sainted vaults of 'keep it real' credibility as a 'fellow' player from an aural heritage, unspoilt by the evils of understanding, or does it push me further away as a dreaded jack-of-all-trades? I have tried very hard to say that I am not restricting the concept of music theory to that of classical music but it seems that this point keeps being overlooked. My original post asked where people get their theoretical training for traditional music. It did not ask where they get their theoretical training for classical music. I propose that a theory for each traditional music does exist but the one for western traditional music is characterised by being owned at a local, personal level (example coming up) and is thought so sinful and academic a concept that it may not speak its own name. Here's the example: I played for a morris side last week; as I was playing with them for the first time I asked what chords we used for a certain tune. The existing players were adamant that certain chords were 'not appropriate' to morris. We did not have time to discuss why this was as it was a practical, playing session. But such a clear and inflexible view suggested a set of rules which, if codifed, would constitute a theory for that genre. The words one might pick to record that set of assumptions/requirements might well be the common coin of a different, well-developed genre (high/low, quick/fast, smooth/staccato, accelerando/morendo, open/closed, etc). BUt that is not saying that the thoery is the same. Jim Lucas posted... There is a highly codified music theory that comes from pre-classical, western art music in the form of pitch-modes from early monophony. (Very) basically, this allowed a much wider set of scales than we commonly use i art music today. This wider set of scales might well contain one which was a good 'fit' to the music that Jim describes (okay, I am speculating here as I have not heard Jim's pieces. But the point I am seem to be unable to convey is that the concept of a useful theory is not one that requires the imposition of classical theory. Theory exists in a wide range of musics. I just happen to know classical theory [amongst others] and I remain struck by the similarities with diatonic, strophic western traditional music. Yes, the joy lies in the differences, but when someone comes to music for the first time, you don't start by teaching them differences or what your tradition is 'not'. And without a set of basic, accepted building blocks applicable to the genre in hand I contend that things remain harder to learn.)

Well, it seems that my first thread has engaged some of the C-net populace quite deeply. I will say again that I am very grateful to those who took the time to tell us how they came to learn what they have learnt as players and (an - unexpected bonus this) as listeners. These (usually brief) posts don't form a good statistical sample but I think that I glean the following:- People who have had a formal training have found that it added value to learning traditional music. When the training came after the learning, it lifted a veil. If it came before, it speeded the process. Yes, the contrary opinion has ben expressed in this thread but mostly from people who can only assume that they know what they have missed. Few who actually had formal training said that it was of no use. There is no prevalent approach to learning traditional music but... ...individual, existing performers have been more influential on learners than broader, 'schools' or styles. This still worries me, to be frank. I find existing masters to be insiprational but I would hate to have learnt from the 'you only play it this way' school of excessive confidence. It takes an initial confidence of one's own to put such assertions in true perspective. However, it seems to me that many concertina players come to the instrument as adults so there is hope that they take all initial advice with a 'pinch of salt' and reach their own conclusions. Individual performers have 'taught' as an outcome of their performances, not as their prime aim. This also worries me. I spent several years as a music lecturer. It has its own best practice which produces its own improved results. I guess I could have deduced many of these conclusions but I have learnt many other unexpected things from this thread: I have learnt that terminology can divide as well as unite. A benefit of formal training is that the common language that is used reduces the confusion that exists when trying to force local words into global concepts - 'variation' has been a good example in this thread. There are those who still think that theory is an obstruction but there are differences as to what it is that is obstructed. For some, it hampers performance. For others, listening enjoyment. For others, playing enjoyment. It reminds me of the story that, if a bee knew how it was able to fly, it would fall down in shock. I don't see it that way. I think that, if a bee knew how it was able to fly it would get a kick out of being more efficient than a fighter 'plane. I would say that anything that produces confidence is beneficial and theory can only be positive from that point of view. True, many classical players say that nerves are an asset when performing because they focus the mind on the job in hand. Personally, nerves have always been a performance barrier for me and I do not welcome them. When I hear a nervous, traditional musician these nerves do seem to get in the way of their own enjoyment and the quality of the performance. So, I do concur that traditional music requires a spontaneity that is not such a strong feature of art music. But I still don't see what this has to do with knowing or not knowing the theory. Performance is an activity - theory is a state: they don't exist in the same time-frame. One does not compete with the other for mental 'elbow-room.' I liked Kurt Braun's analogy of the canoe and the Queen Mary (see thread). If I read him correctly, he compares a complex vessel like an ocean liner to a complex piece of art-music, the canoe standing for a simple, traditional tune. I cannot claim to know how to build a (musical) Queen Mary but my training does allow me to read the blueprints. That knowledge would allow me to see the big, load-bearing structures as well as the small details. And my musical training allows exactly the same insight to traditional music. This benefit of being able to transfer knowledge from style to style is not the same as trying to see all styles from a single perspective. I only see what is there in the first place. For example, I have never seen a passamezzo structure in a traditonal piece so that particular aspect of music theory is not applicable. But I have seen a pazzamezzo chord sequence in traditional (English dance) music; so knowing where it comes from, historically and how it was intended to be performed, assists me to choose the right performance practice in that traditional context. Much of the thread has been instrument-specific. Okay, it's a concertina forum. But I would point to the violin as (arguably) the core instrument of both classical and traditional music in the western canon. I hope that any musical examples that have been presented by posters could be stress-tested against that instrument. My music school had a well-developed ethnomusicology department but it only studied existing traditions - it did not teach them. I believe that someone somewhere in England is working on performance examinations for concertina. I expect that these will require some theory to support elements like sight-reading and aural tests. This theory will probably be the generic classical theory used for exsiting instruments. But who will teach this theory and who is teaching the instruments? I would like to contribute to this development if anyone can point me in the right direction as I think that theoretical issues, such as selecting appropriate pieces for sight-reading, or for harmonisation, or similar could be enhanced by having a working knowledge of concertinas, certainly at higher grades of examination. If not me, then someone nominated by the concertina community, whatever that is. I don't think that threads actually die on this forum but I feel that we have had thesis, antithesis and synthesis, at least to my satisfaction. Thanks again.

Hi. We discussed this a bit in an anglo workshop at Witney this year. Personally, I use the little finger in the right hand extensively but much less in the left hand. If I am playing an unaccopmanied tune the left hand little finger comes into play but I find that I much prefer the third finger for low notes when playing chords or 'oompah' type figures. I have long fingers and getting the little finger to flex inwards accurately and in time is something I find quite hard.

Are these two sentences connected?

Hi, Mike. Thanks for responding. I am not picking on you but you are the most active at the moment. What I mean is that theory makes it is easier for me to know that a certain note ('pitch', to be accurate) lies in a certain place relative to its tonic. In folk music, the tonic ususally does not change during a piece as full modulation is not common (although I do know of several examples) So, if I the note that I am trying to find sounds like it is four notes above the tonic I will find it regardless of the key in which it is being played. Having said that, I find it much more quickly in certain keys than in others when it comes to the anglo. On the piano', I am quicker due to better familiarity.

Yep. I was a music major at college and one of the best tools given to me was to reference every discrete interval with a memorable extract from a song. Couple this with a subconscious 'drone' holding the tonic, you get a powerful combination to identify a pitch-class. BTW, I tried to develop perfect pitch by attempting to pitch an A=440 first thing every morning for about ten years, then checking it with a piano'. I found that I did get consistently closer to the correct pitch after several years.

Well, I'm back and I would like to pick-up on some of Mike's points in particular, after thanking others for their posts (particulalry the useful link to Kimber's performance practice). Mike said: Let us not forget, that this discussion is mostly about people picking the instruments to play folk music late in life. Knowledge for knowledge sake is not on the map, be it good pleasure or bad. Let's stay away from professional exclusiveness. I reply: I do not think that knowledge is exclusive to professionals. Mike said: I'm not sure it is legitimate to talk about freedom or liberalism in conjunction to European tradition. I reply: I assume that any view is legitimate unless it is offensive. But I am not sure how we jumped from the liberating and democratic power of musical notation to a history of western civil liberties. Mike said: ... you link notation to theory. I don't think it's possible. I reply: Well, yes, I did, but this was not what I wnated to investigate. My original post refers to 'formal training' and does not suggest notation as such. Personal tutoring is formal training if it promotes a muscial grammar. I guess it was inevitbale that a thread concerning formal training and traditional style would rehearse some ongoing discussions about issues such as notation compared to aural transmission. One thing that strikes me is that this is all relative. I remember heated discussions at music college about whether only performers were legitimate musicians compared to theorists or composers, (even). Yet to some of our readers the clearest distinction seems to be between 'classical' musicians and 'traditional' musicians. As I can claim a foot in both camps (not on ability, just devotion) I would plead for generosity of heart. I know a composer who creates fine works of great integrity but he is tone deaf, cannot play a note and works entirely from concept, via 'theory' to composition. Someone somewhere had to write every traditional tune that we know. Until every note was completed, they were working within a formal frame that had some sort of independent musical grammar. And every time they wrote one more note, they closed several doors to other notes due to the increasing inevitability of the overall shape of the tune. Mike said: Blues is not a musical genre per se, no matter what learned musicologists, mostly whites, are saying. It's a chant, complain of poor people of particular region, of partiular time. I reply: Sorry. I simply disagree. Maybe you believe that only blues 'worthy of the name' is grounded in these social issues but I think it underlines my point that blues which is seeking to say something else is still recognisable as blues. Why? Well, because a generally agreed definition for blues describes a (reasonably set) harmonic sequence allied to some performance requirements such as ostinato base figures and a leisurely speed. There is an old expression: 'if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and swims like a duck, it's probably a duck.' [sorry, but Mike started the 'duck' thing!] Mike said: Grammar changes because the intuitive ways of people speech changes. I reply: Does it? I am not sure. Usage and idiom change but grammar does not change as far as I am aware. The attempt to re-write musical grammar at the turn of the last century using atonalism has substantially failed in all musical fields, in my opinion. And it seems very curious to use organic change as a defence [?] of traditional music. I accept that traditional music performance can be as vibrant as that of art music (devotees would say 'more vibrant') but I think that this performance spontanaeity comes at some loss of organic development as a genre. Mike said: My child's two piano teachers despised Suzuki method. But their own teaching is rigid, technical, classical and strict. Gives good result, if the pupil gets over, but most pupils drop early. So much for musical education. I reply: I have three children. They have all had formal musical training from paid teachers (i.e., not me). The only teaching method out of five instruments that failed completeley was Suzuki. One example proves nothing on its own but I think I know why it failed in the case of my child. She got bored with being a 'monkey grinding an organ' and wanted to know what was going on in the music. This was aggrevated by her traditional training on another instrument which told her that there was, indeed, fascinating stuff going on in the music and the Suzuki repetition drove her nuts. Mike said: Today Keeper has C/G Anglo. Tomorrow he will get G./D. And after tomorrow Bb/F. Is he going to learn to read on all of his instruments? - Good Lord! I reply: I have a G/D anglo and a C/G anglo.They have slightly different button placements. I also dabble on G/D melodeon. Without my working knowledge of musical theory I would, indeed, have to learn which button represented which written note, on every instrument. But because I know that Bb is the major third of Gb, which is the same as F# on fixed-pitch instruments, I can move with relative ease between keys. At least, in my head I can. My original post mentioned that I have only been playing for 30 months and the layout of the anglo still confuses me at times. But what I am not confused about is what note I am trying to play!