RAc

How about Jody Kruskal (an active forum member here)? He's a very experienced teacher as well as an excellent player! For face-to-face lessons he probably qualifies too (depending where in NYC you are located).

I believe what Don refers to is the fact that any mechanical switch is subject to wear and chemical processes that will eventually cause unreliable up to failing electrical contacts. This is particularly important for switches used in musical instruments as these are very heavily used (he mentioned in other places that professional instruments use gold plated contacts to counter the effect of rusting). Thus, after some time xxx the buttons will fail and need to be replaced, very likely the only parts in the entire setup that require maintenace at all. Iow, the better (and more expensive) the mechanical switches, the longer the maintenace-free lifetime of the entire instrument.

Roger, your argument misses the point that a tab system is nothing "objectively" "good" or "bad," but provides a window into the musical mind of the one who came up with the tab. Again, if the reader's individual approach to music matches the one of the tutor's author, the system will resonate, otherwise it won't. It's as simple as that. A "good review" as suggested by Alex as well as "trashing" should take this into consideration. If a tutor, say, has real mistakes in the written music such as wrong fingerings, it's fair to "trash" the tutor on those grounds regardless of whether I can make sense of the notation or not. If the fingerings and everything else is correct but the system simply doesn't resonate with me, it wouldn't be fair. If the notation does resonate, that alone shouldn't be the sole reason for a raving review (there may still be deficiencies in the tutor such as notation errors, layout problems, didactic shortcomings and so on). My impression of the OP's attitude was that he expects some kind of universal notation standard for tabs that matches his expectations and considers a deviation from those standards as ground to totally dismiss that tutor. There are several fundamental problems with that attitude that have all been pointed out here.

I would believe it's all done employing the built-in gyroscope...

Interesting that you should mention the guitar... Remember Kicking Mule Records, Stefan Grossman's acoustic guitar only label? He had every artist he produced tab out their music to include as tab booklets. Had there been an internet back then, the disussion would have been EXACTLY the same. No two artists had even remotely compatible tab systems. Some used six lines and wrote the fret numbers on the lines, some seven to write the fret numbers in between two lines, some would use vertical bar lines, some phrase lines, some would add traditional time indicators such as flags, some would use downward stemlines for the thumb and upwards for the fingers etc. In compilations of multiple artists, the tab books would look fairly, uhm, challenging just for the cifferent appearances of every piece (unless Stefan would bother to rewrite every arrangement to his notation, which would suit some pieces, but not all of them). Aside from that, every book out there on the market would also include two or three pages in the introduction explaining the notation used in that book. The only common idea behind all of them would be that they rejected traditional music notation, also ignoring the fact that even in the "classical" music world, there are very emotional debates about reforming "the" standard notation system and many people again devising their own systems. What does that tell us? 1. Always remember: Music is for the ear, not the eyes. ANY attempt to render music visually is a crutch. Some of the best artists on any instrument never learned to "read" music in any form but attacked the challenge with their ears right from the start. 2. The fact that there are so many different crutches simply reflects the fact that we are all individuals and take our individuality to the music learning path. What works well for one person may not work at all for the other. As far as guitar tabs are concerned, I remember a few colleagues who spent a siginificant amount of time rewriting every tab they could find to "their" sytem. Every minute of that time spent practicing their instrument instead would have brought them much much further. Thus, I don't see where these discussions are suppoased to lead us. Individual differences are facts of life, and all we can and should do is acknowledge this. @tunelover: If the issue bothers you, the only advice I can give you is to go through all of the notation systems, find one that suits your individual way of thinking best, and then start walking on these crutches. After a while, you'll discard them anyways. Just don't focus on them too much, because after all, walking (= playing music) is your goal.

At the end of the day, it's fairly straightforward: The goal is to become a better musician, and all that counts is whether that goal is being accomplished. In other words, if all the reflections and/or novel approaches to notation, layout or whatever help you become a better musician, by all means, make 'em and take 'em. Yet, as far as I can tell, noone has ever improved as a musician without practicing. Sometimes I have a feeling that the time spent in musing about other notation systems might be better spent giving your fingers and ears the drill. I'd be very interested in a status report of yours (the thread opener) in, say, a two year time frame, evaluating how you improved as a musician and how your different approach to notation has steered that progress. I myself (like, I believe, many others) have sort of developed my idiosyncratic notation, but I look at it as a crutch to aid the way my brain works and to make it easier to memorize and practice my tunes. That's all there is to it, really. Small percentage. Everything else I must do like everybody else: Drill, listening and patience.

Bah, humbug. As long as you're not playing melodeons... <duck and cover>

well Łukasz, you certainly have my highest respect for your work. I also have cut down on my few spare cycles for practicing in favor of working on my own custom concertina, which threw me back significantly... One remark about your design: If I remember a conversation with Alex H. correctly (please jump in, Alex, if I'm wrong), the areas marked red, though aesthetically plaesing, are statically problematic as those sharp edges may easily break under little tension?... All the best nevertheless!

Oh my... now a whole buch of things fall into place. Speech recognition, auto correction, auto translation... all major contributors to the deterioration of language and its beauty. Humans enslaving themselves and one of the biggest assets that makes humanity (language) to computers. I should really get out of that field (IT) asap...

Poor professional fishermen, they are stuck in an oxymoron, aren't they? 😙 Should I feel bad now because I love my job (not a fisherman)? Nope...

In case you have access to a Windows device, this here may be of interest to you:

I'm glad I could be of help! All the best with your choice and let us know how you get on!

ok, if I understand you correctly, you confirm my statement here that there are almost no moveable chord patterns on the Jeffries but each chord pattern is a different triad inversion? By moveable I mean that (first approximation) the same order of fingers can be shifted by rows and/or columns yielding an identical chord. This is taken to extremes by the Hayden layout where there is exactly one triangular (three finger) pattern for minor and major triads, respectively, that never changes, but which chord actually sounds depends on where the root note sits. On the Crane, this is similar, but moving the chord a row up typically involves changing one finger.

Hi wunks, thanks for clarifying, much appreciated! I'll change my #1 according to your input! I don't quite understand your remark #3 though. Could you clarify so I can work that into my earlier post as well? Thanks!

That's my background as well. Back when I asked a similar newbie question on another (now obsolete) concertina forum, the user present here as anglo-irishman advised me that a duet (in particular a Crane or a Hayden) would make the most natural transition path from a stringed fretted instrument such as a guitar or banjo. I never really tried any other system, but I'd chime in with him for those reasons: 1. Like the left hand on the guitar, each hand walks up chromtically or diatonically a row of buttons like on the frets on a string until the end of the position is reached, then moves on to the next string (or button row). This holds true for Crane, Hayden and Jeffries systems (see wunk's later post) but not McCann. 2. On the guitar, the right hand thumb takes over the pianist's left hand (accompaniment), while the fingers take over the pianist's right hand side (melody). On a duet or anglo, you're back to left/right for accompaniment vs. melody. Your brain can be trained to splitting the thumb/fingers roles into the left/right hand roles fairly easily. In fact, a number of fingerstyle techniques (stride bass, Travis picking etc) can be adapted quite fast. This holds true for all duet and anglo concertinas, but not the EC. 3. Somewhat like on the guitar, you can think in terms of movable chord patterns for both hands. To my understanding, this is easiest on the Hayden and on the EC, a little more clumsy on the Crane (because when moving a chord pattern up or down a row, you'll need to adjust one finger by a semi tone for most chords), also present on the Anglo but less on the McCann and Jeffries duet systems (I'm sure someone is going to corrent me fairly soon here if I didn't do the sysems I'm not too famiiar with justice). I know about one EC player with a guitar background and another (very good) one who adapted guitar styles to the McCann duet but a fair number of Crane and Hayden players with a guitar background. I myself still "think" guitar a lot when I play one of my Cranes. To me the Anglo is not an option because I can't make heads or tails of bisonoric layouts, but that's just me. The usual advice is to "dry test" the different layouts by printing them out on paper and "air playing" them to get a feel for the playing idiosyncracies.

Yes, I'd say it would. My smallest Crane is a 45 button, and about 90% of the "standard English dance repertoire" fits into that range, melody and accompaniment. The question of course is what keys your singer(s) sing(s) in. The Crane layout centers around the keys of D,G and C which means in those keys the fingering is easiest and you are the most likely to fit most if not all of the melody notes into the right hand in those keys. If your singer(s) need other key families, it gets harder for you the further the keys move away from the instruments' "home keys."

Hi there Wes, thanks for your input! It surprises me a little bit, though, as your statement about the mechanical switches seems to contradict Don's earlier elaborations?

Again a reminder: Alphabet may or may not follow questionable business practices, but I have to give them that: They do understand their business! If I need to search for something on this forum, I normally go to google and type into the search bar: tidder site:concertina.net/forums (replace tidder by the search term(s) you are looking for). Of course, google can only guess spelling corrections that much, but it's probaly the best way to find something reliably.

Of course you are right - thanks for pointing that out! ☺️ Just because I'm at this right now - another major trap door is the one that concerns magnetic disturbances - I am using reed switches in the matrix points, and as it turns out, already the spring, being made of metallic spring wire, transport magnetic disturbances that make the reeds switch when they're not supposed to. Fortunately there's a working relief: Self-adhesive copper foil in the spring posts (copper finish would be even easier to apply). Slowly getting there...

Actually, I remember reading your earlier very useful descriptions of the task. They were one of the steps towards my decision to use reed switches (not the same as hall sensors) for the contacts. One beneficial side effect was that my concertina still has a reed plate, even though it doesn't make a sound... ;-) Of course I totally agree that "all that remains" is a very crude euphemism, hence the quotation marks! Absolutely; if for no ther reason than for the reason to play mimick the arm action. I use that too as the sound end of fluidsynth. So your work, even though you yourself never brought it to completion, has helped other projects on their way, which I'm very grateful for!

Hi Richard, the Software is all there for you. You'd need an Arduino Due (because that one has a USB comm interface different from the programming interface). Then query the net for Arduino +USBMIDI (or MIDIUSB), and you'll get tons of sample code that you can modify (no problem if you have programmed before). What you have then is something that you can plug into any USB port of your PC (you won't even need an external power supply as the Arduino is powered by the PC). It will identify itself as a USB MIDI sound card. By shorting pins on the Arduino, you'll get a MIDI play sound command that you can feed into a MIDI synthesizer on your PC. "All that remains after that" is to build the mechanics that short the pins for you when you press your button. All of that will be in my video documentation, but currently it looks as if it'll be a while before I get around to making that. In the meantime, I'll be happy to discuss anything that may be of interest to you either by PM or in the public part of the forum. Granted, bisonoric is an additional level of complication. Once I get to the bellows, I'll add a pressure sensor. It would be possible to evaluate the pressure based on the "resting pressure" to distinguish push from pull.

Yep, one of the trap doors I fell into... we should have discussed this a month earlier... 😏 anyways, ghosting can be countered with Zener diodes in every matrix cross point. Other issues are not that easy to solve...

Actually, the programming/Software part is a complete no brainer. With today's computing infrastructure, you can build the IT part for pretty much ANY instrument with neglectable computer knowledge in lass than a day's work and with < 50 EUR/$/BPs worth of investment. The interesting/challenging part is to build the mechanics. I've worked at it for about four months now (not full time, fortunately) and still struggling.

Whether intended or not - I LOVE the pun! SCNR 😊

Where was that advertised? At the very least not on your web site, and it looks like you didn't do that in this forum either. Bummer, would have loved to drop by...