saguaro_squeezer

I forgot to add this to the previous post and I'm sorry. Josh's diagram for the 80 key had the C# in the 4th column, which, to me, is inside that 3-finger ascending pattern. Since there are no accidentals in that pattern, it makes more sense to me to put the c# in one of the "accidental" (outside) columns (1 or 5).

True, perhaps, but I already have a practical Maccann and I've always wanted that impractical Crane. How does that song go" "Call me, irresponsible ..."

Little John, The only issue that I had until a few minutes ago was that you don't have a place to put either the F#2 or Bb2. I found this thread from back in 2011 where someone asked a similar question and we also got the benefit of Geoff Crabb's input on how the 'plus-size' keyboards were more individual (I think that the 69 key layout that Josh refers to in his post is my previous one) .... So, the 80 key layout in Josh's thread might be good, if you pull the C#2 out to below the F#2 in the rightmost column, just to keep the accidentals in their proper columns!

I ran into an interesting issue this morning. I'd sent a proposed layout to Alex for the upcoming MacCrane and used the Crabb 80-key layout that Geoff had provided as a starting point. I left the F and Bb outliers on the LH because I've gotten used to them on my current Crabb 57. Alex said that he thought it a bit odd and so I tried to come up with the sequence to eliminate them and stay within the 5 column format. It seems that it can be done if you start the LH on C2 and move upwards in the usual Crane fashion. But for the 80b, it appears that Crabb added rows to the standard 6 row layout of the 55b, trying to keep them intact. And therin is the rub, there's no nice way to add those rows without pulling one or more notes out of the Chevron. Any thoughts? ProposedLayoutChange.xlsx

Hi Dan. Alex is going to take on the conversion so I'm figuring that he'll do the ends. We'd talked about aluminium to save weight, since the mighty Maccann that is the donor instrument is no small concertina.

I saw the post on Alex’s site about this instrument and am really excited about possibly signing up to get one! My Connor is one of the last modern Cranes and this could be an opportunity to come up with something more like we have discussed ... less overlap and more range overall. Of course, I’m really pleased that Alex has agreed to help with my Lachenal “MacCrane” conversion. But, that’s a different thread ...

Well, with Theo and Alex's help, I'm going to have a MacCrane!

A question came up, would I want metal or wood ends? Setting aside weight, what does a metal-ended Lachenal sound like, compared to a wooden-ended one? I don't know that comparing my wooden-ended Lachenal 48 with my metal-ended Connor or Crabbs is a fair comparison. I could infer 'brighter' but that seems too obvious. Any thoughts?

Hi Dowright, One more for you, Lachenal 81 key Maccann, S/N 894? Also, I've been trying to contact you, off list. Would you be able to send me a message to saguaro.squeezer@gmail.com? Kind regards, Rod

On its way back to the Lone Star State from whence it was born. Donation to c.net sent. Thanks!

Hi Theo. I sent you a PM. Yes, that could be interesting, though ... (watching out for stones) ..., nothing beats the sound of a big Crabb!

Alex, I guess I thought ... and perhaps with quite a bit of naivete ... that since both were duets and had roughly the same placement and progression ascending the sale, that the reed chambers could stay as they were. Otherwise, you would be truly changing the instrument. Your point is well taken and I'll have a look at the reed placement. I hadn't seen your Müller conversion ... that's very nicely done!

Ever since my early Crane days, I've been searching for an 80 button Crane. Of course, no luck. But while at Kilve, Colin Dipper floated the idea of converting a Maccann to Crane. I don't really want to convert my lovely big Crabb Maccann, but what about building a new set of ends with action that you could swap out with the Maccann ends? You already have the reeds, reed pans, bellows, etc. All you'd need is the action and ends. Would any of the builders out there care to hazard a guess as to the cost? I won't consider it in any way a quote ... just an idea to see if it's even feasable.

I did manage to secure the 66 button Crabb mentioned above and it's currently with Nigel Sture for a good going over. According to Nigel, it does have the thumb F2 but both LH and RH start on G. - LH G2 and RH G3. It will be a couple of months until I get it but I'm already anxious!

I would suggest playing this way, using the last phrase as the transition this way (sorry, this would make more sense with the dots, I think) ... Note: chords in [ ] in G [G] [C] [D7] [A7] B-C-D-B-C--B-C-D-D( possibly down 8va)-E-- then into D with [D] [G] F#-G-A-F#-G-G- etc>