RAc

.

.

.

.

<deleted after a personal conversation with Wolf. Resolved.>

.

.

.

I usually take apart the action pan/reed frame combo first, then turn it upside down so when I press the button from below I can see which pad lifts. I then stick some marker type or compatible non invasive indicator to the outside of the casing. After separating the reed and action pans (rappel: Never do this with the buttons on the bottom. You'll be sorry.), I can see by the markers which reeds in which chamber/s are affected. The only remaining question then is which of the two reeds it is. Simple: On push, it's the inward reed (the one on the side of the reed pan facing the bellows), on pull the other one. If in doubt use your common sense and try to visualize the air flow and try to imagine how the valves stop it. The cleaning technique can be used preventivly on all the reeds. As Wolf pointed out: No harm can be done here.

.

.

.

.

.

"Seldom Accomplished Discreetly" I had thought up "The Pleasures of In and Out", but if it comes to a vote, I would vote for wayman's over my own. sorry Jim... quote Jody: "it's going to be a bit rude and suggestive at times but nothing raunchy." So yours is out... Raunchy is muchly in the mind of the beholder, though also culturally based. Here in Scandinavia, few would consider my contribution to be "raunchy", and not just because it's a double entendre (at least for anglo and melodeon players). The summer is routinely announced by Danish tabloids with a full front page close up photo of a topless woman on the beach, which is also prominently displayed on sandwich boards outside supermarkets. Yawn. aw, cmon Jim. Even though the Gentleman in you would never come up with something as rude as I may (or may not ) have suggested (I don't know what Wolf thought of, but the phrase "in and out" can be associated with a lot of different meanings in relationship contexts everywhere on any raunchiness scale), the language afficionado in you never lets even the puniest (let alone pun-iest) double meaning escape, so the potential for abuse of your title suggestion can't be but obvious to you. In any case, apologies to Jody for taking his promotion thread astray; just like you, I just can't help jumping in on temptations to play with language. Coming back to the original topic, I'm very much looking forward to the CD, and thumbs up to Jody for his work.

.

@Wolf: I'd like to pitch in the opinion that it's not Jim's responsibility to respond to everything that's happening on this subforum. After all, it's still a peer to peer forum, and just because Jim's jump starting the threads, it's not fair to hold him accountable for all the TOTM goings-on (even though he's doing a tremendous job there, chapeau clique-claque!). Let's not turn him off by putting too much weight on his shoulders! ... I believe more or less everybody who ever contributed felt at one point or other your frustration. After all, putting out a recording of oneself is always a labor of love, and it is extremly agonizing to be left out in the rain after sharing something as intimate as a piece of self made music. But that's the way it is on the internet. I myself have pulled a number of recordings in both the TOTM and the music subforums after experiencing what felt like (although certainly wasn't meant as) icy silence, drawing the conclusion that probably it was too premature a recording every time (but I'll never know. That's the way it is). ... BTW, I'd have loved to make this contribution a private conversation between the three of us (you, Jim and myself) but haven't found a way to use the personal messenger to include more than one recipient. Does anybody know about a way to set that up?

.

.

Hi there: http://www.ruediger-asche.de/tidbits/asm_14_7_14-01.mp3 I found this little gem on Capercaillie's most recent CD, "At the Heart of It All" (2013). It's called Alistair Sutherland's March. I couldn't find out who Alistair Sutherland is or was, whether he wrote the tune and whether there's a copyright restriction on it (otherwise I'll gladly share the music), so anyone who can provide insight - please go ahead! Now for the arrangement - I did it all by ear, and it certainly needs some brushing up, but after a perceived 2 Million takes, I felt more or less ready to share (and yes, I managed to record it all in one take without cutting and pasting, both hands together, which I'm very proud of). It's a straightforward melody but intricate (at least for me) for two reasons: 1. Although it's called a March, the original recording has more of a pop groove to it which is kind of hard to mimick on the concertina. I decided to attempt this by playing the bass notes on 2 and 3 with an emphasis on 3 (it's actually fairly hard coming from oohm-pa). 2. Although the melodic pattern is fairly traditional, the melody repititions are harmonized completly different which makes the listening (let alone playing) experience quite unique. I guess in a more final arrangement, aside from sanding off the rough edges, I'd play the thing three times around and add a little guitar and percussion the second and third time through. What do you think out there? In the original recording, the tune is paired with a more stompy rhythmic march called The Foggy Stew (seriously! ) which however requires more hard core instrumental support such as a bodhran. Thanks for listening!

.

.

.

well, this is certainly well played in termes of techinque/ bellow control etc. As far as the arrangement is concerned - I do believe you are overdoing it a wee little bit. It's a rather simplistic melody, and it's easy to douse a simple melody with too complicated a chord progression. To my ear this is what happens here - there is so much going on in the bass that the ear has trouble figuring out which line takes the lead. I would take a tune like that more rudimentary with the accompaniment and leave the intricate bass lines to the more nutritious melodies. But then again, that's just my impression.

.