Who should make my next concertina?

[Waltham]

I'm a one-handed concertina player. At the moment I play the right-hand end of a Lachenal Crane with my left hand, the other end being blanked off and fitted with a strap that goes round my thigh (ably adapted by Nigel Sture). I mainly play for morris dancing and it works well but there are a few limitations that I'd like to overcome with my next instrument:

 

- It's not as loud as I'd like for outdoor playing, exacerbated of course by the fact that I'm only squeezing it with the (limited) strength of one arm instead of two.

 

- It only goes down to middle C, I'd like to be able to go at least a fourth lower, and preferably two octaves above, i.e. the range of a violin in first position.

 

- The Crane system's been good to me but I'd like to be able to play runs in thirds more fluently.

 

So what I want is a metal-ended MacCann. I'd like a custom-made one, for a number of reasons. The MacCann system is slightly optimized for the right hand, I'd like a mirror-image one so that my left hand would be doing what the right hand of a two-handed player does. I'm confident I can adapt to the MacCann system, and I'm aware of all the other systems and happy with my choice. But a couple of questions remain:

 

1. Instruments with many buttons per side that I played in my two-handed days seemed to be less expressive than smaller ones. Have others found this? It would influence how many buttons I should go for if I had to balance range against expression.

 

2. Who should I ask to make it? Among the makers I know of who will undertake custom jobs it seems that Wakker is a good fit. Their work's very impressive, but I'm in the UK and would have to pay import duty. I don't mind doing this in principle, but it seems that one can't predict in advance how much it'll be, which makes planning hard. Or am I mistaken? In any case, would you recommend another maker?

 

Any suggestions?

[Pete Dunk]

I can't help with any of your questions but I have to say it's good to see you still active and playing.

 

Pete.

[Chris Ghent]

You can have greater control over a smaller concertina because of lbs per sq inch. For the same hand pressure you get more internal pressure or relative vacumm than in a larger one. This translates into an ability to acheive more attack when required and also allows more sublety with the fingers because the hand is not having to deliver so much force, using the limited resources in delivering pressure.

 

Given you are in the UK, why would you not go to Colin and Rosalie Dipper, given they are the most versatile makers anyway?

[Dirge]

You can have greater control over a smaller concertina because of lbs per sq inch. For the same hand pressure you get more internal pressure or relative vacumm than in a larger one. This translates into an ability to acheive more attack when required and also allows more sublety with the fingers because the hand is not having to deliver so much force, using the limited resources in delivering pressure.

 

Given you are in the UK, why would you not go to Colin and Rosalie Dipper, given they are the most versatile makers anyway?

 

 

Not my experience at all. As I have moved up in duet sizes, and I own or have owned nearly all the std maccan sizes, it seems to me that I have positively more control over the subtler nuances with the larger sizes. Only with the 81 do I get the feeling of taking a step backwards and needing to put my shoulder into it a bit. This may be just me, but I've certainly never thought of reaching for a smaller instrument for its subtelty. And I can make a hell of a racket with even the 81 if I want.

 

The other thing with a big cross section is much better air reserves, thus how loud and long you play can be based more on musical considerations, not physical limits. This is worth a lot to me; perhaps less of a consideration if you are only using one fist's worth of notes at a time.

[Chris Ghent]

Dirge,

 

it could be you are strong enough to overcome the effect I describe until the 81, or that you do not push your instrument to the edge of its attack capacity ie.play very fast music in sessions, or that your smaller instruments are of lesser reed quality than your larger ones. The air supply thing is enviable...

[Dirge]

Dirge,

 

it could be you are strong enough to overcome the effect I describe until the 81.

Well I think that's exactly the case, but I would expect most people could. Maybe they don't go to my preferred size 72 (or 39 here; RHS of it only), maybe they stop at 67. (62 is the same bellows X section anyway.) but I think you overestimate the power needed to control it. You (I) don't hit limits, you just work harder instead. The 81 can make me pour with sweat on a warm day pulling big chords FF, but never with the 72.

 

Remember we're not talking Anglos here; you don't expect to change bellows direction until the phrasing allows it naturally.

[Alex West]

As well as the issue of air volume and ability to generate appropriate controllable pressure in a large versus small concertina, I think there's something about the chamber space available for each reed.

 

In Jeffries anglos of "standard" size (around 6" across the flats) a 46 or 50 button instrument will sound more constrained than a 38 or 32 button instrument. The volume will be comparable, but the sound is somewhat thinner in the larger instrument which may limit the amount of expression you can get into it. Is this because there's less air mobilised by the reed in the chamber?

 

I'm not sure if the same is true in Wheatstones with the radial reedpans; I've never been able to compare instrments of the same size with 32, 36, 40 or more buttons.

 

If you're getting a custom instrument built, you have the opportunity to optimise chamber size per reed and overall size of instrument to get the sound quality you're looking for I'd reckon. However, the sound outcome might be even less predictable than the price.

 

As a moris musician, it's laudable that you're trying to maximise expression, but that's usually low down the list of priorities!

 

Alex West

[Geoff Wooff]

I have two MacCanns here that have the same range but are quite different in size;

 

One is a standard Wheatstone Aeola 57key 7.5" across flats and the other is a lachenal New Model 55keys but starting at C on the right hand side and it is 6.5" across flats. Both have metal ends. It should be possible to draw some conclusions in a similar way to those of Alex. Reed chamber sizes, reed lengths and all that being different.. but this would be inconclusive for two reasons... firstly different makers with different ideas about the wood used, the steel used for the reeds etc etc and secondly one is in a played-in state and the other freshly dug out of Grandma's attic.

 

I do agree that size is important with regard to accessible dynamics and when all things are equal the smaller instruments are quicker to respond to changes in applied force. Having said that the larger instruments are more controlable in the subtleties of their dynamic range albeit with greater amounts of strength needed at the Forte end.

 

I would think that with the range of keyboard you are looking for Waltham, the instrument would not need to be over large.

 

It would also appear that you will not have much choice of maker for this instrument, or will any of us desiring a 'special'.

 

Good luck with your quest ,

Geoff.

Edited March 21, 2012 by Geoff Wooff

[Ken_Coles]

Dipper made a custom Maccann for Bob Webb of the northeast U.S. and I can vouch that it (and he) sound very fine. It looks great too. Good luck, it's a quest for all of us.

 

Ken

[Waltham]

Thank you all. I hadn't considered the Dippers only because the mythical 'man in a pub whose identity I can't now recall' once told me they only did Anglos. I'm delighted to hear he was wrong, or out of date. Any other likely candidates? Apart from the duty issue is anyone in a position to compare Wakker and Dipper instruments? I'm aware that a custom instrument is a long term proposition, but length of wait could be an issue if there was a difference.

[Geoff Wooff]

Perhaps Steve Dickenson ?

Looks like you are a very deserving case but even for the rest of us the outlook is sparse in the field of makers of anything else but Anglos.

[David Barnert]

I hadn't considered the Dippers only because ... they only did Anglos.

Twenty years ago I held (and played) a Dipper Hayden duet. Dickinson, of course, also does Haydens. I don't see why either shouldn't be able to do a one-handed Maccann. But neither will be inexpensive or quick.

[david_boveri]

dipper is a good bet, but if you want it any time soon, i might get myself on another list as well. have you contacted wim wakker? he makes good concertinas and is more flexible than some of the other makers.

[JimLucas]

At the moment I play the right-hand end of a Lachenal Crane with my left hand....

How many buttons?

 

- It only goes down to middle C, I'd like to be able to go at least a fourth lower, and preferably two octaves above, i.e. the range of a violin in first position.

That range would require 31 buttons (not counting optional air button). My New Model Crane has 30 buttons in the right hand -- range from middle C up to F nearly "2½" octaves higher, -- and it's 6-3/4 inches (17.15 cm) across the flats. Since the range you want is a fourth lower, it can be expected to have bigger reeds, but only slightly bigger. I think it should still fit nicely within a hexagonal end that's 7" -- or at most 7-1/4" -- across the flats. You might even be able to squeeze in an additional "half octave" octave at the top (5 buttons to the F, 7 buttons to the G) if 7-1/4" is a size that can work for you

 

There have also been reports of a few instruments in bodies smaller than "normal" for their range, including a couple of treble Englishes in piccolo-sized bodies and Juliette Daum's bass-baritone English which is the same size as my own baritone-treble, but that must mean smaller scale reeds and so probably less volume.