bass clef practic music

[kevin toner]

Great thread and contributions sourced, agreed. So, Shelly, what's the actual lowest note on your TED then?

[shelly0312]

Hi Steve, I'll answer here: my 56 key TED follows the written bass clef perfectly ending in the g at the bottom of the written clef (so 2 g's below middle C) I am finding I like this range perfectly ( it also ranges up 3 g's above middle C ) But I was also curious about the range of your tenor/treble? I still do not have these ranges set in my mind. And anyone chime in: what is the "usual" range (of these unusual insturments) of a baritone/tenor??

[kevin toner]

Hi Steve, I'll answer here: my 56 key TED follows the written bass clef perfectly ending in the g at the bottom of the written clef (so 2 g's below middle C) I am finding I like this range perfectly ( it also ranges up 3 g's above middle C ) But I was also curious about the range of your tenor/treble? I still do not have these ranges set in my mind. And anyone chime in: what is the "usual" range (of these unusual insturments) of a baritone/tenor??

 

Hi there, no problem!

 

This means you indeed have the equivalent of a standard Wheatstone Baritone-Treble (aka simply: a Baritone) as previously thought! Your range is therefore G2 to G6.

 

The advantage presumably of a B-T over a T-T is that a greater proportion of lower notes will be within easier reach by 1 button-worth's distance, but this might be at the expense of the reach in the other (upward) direction towards the high treble notes. However, I've found lately that the lower rows are not a problem even with thumbs fully through!

 

The typical range of the 56k Tenor-Treble is from 1 C below middle C (C4), i.e. C3 to C7.

 

I have a modified key though, which extends my range by one full tone down to Bb2 by skipping a B2 semitone. This is being discussed at another post here as a History forum topic.

 

Basically, it facilitates playing in certain key signatures.

 

I have formed the opinion that the T-T is the most comfortable instrument for playing in a wide range (e.g. popular standards/songs) provided that ones' lower-row reaches are mastered.

 

However, I'm eager to adopt the Baritone for playing (untransposed in their written keys) certain songs that can't be accommodated by the T-T.

 

For me, the B-T will certainly be my 2nd in priority to the T-T.

 

You mentioned a 'baritone/tenor' - I presume there's no such thing and that they're called either 'baritones or baritone-trebles' (I believe that there's the same indiscrimination regarding 'Basses or Bass-Baritones').

 

It's perhaps wrong to refer to them in their hyphenated way or translation!

 

I've also conversely heard a T-T be referred to as simply a Tenor, again perhaps wrongly!

 

My understanding from the Wheatstone price-list is that the simple nomenclature of: 1) trebles and 2) baritones with 3) tenor-trebles in between; is perhaps the most valid.

[kevin toner]

"Why Bb2 to modify duplicated Eb3 on EC?"

 

Another thing in the heading that'll be discouraging discussion is perhaps the use (shorthand) of numbers to explain the key position relative to middle C (C4).

 

ps: for the avoidance of doubt on this kind of numbering: immediately below C4 is B3 and immediately above C4 is D4. This numbering is based on the piano layout counting from C0 (4 octaves down). I believe this is how vocalist's/pianists number notes and it's therefore possibly the international language (Esperanto) to be using for such discussions.

 

This makes the title/discussion less wordy, but your call folks!

 

I thought that I should quote this explanation of how to number notes. Otherwise great confusion ensues, apologies!

 

I trust that from comparing the layouts you'll see that the T-T & B-T are almost identical, the only difference being that the notes slide up by merely one row. This brings into play (reading left to right) a G#2,G2,B2,Bb2 on the LHS; and a C#3, C3, A2,Ab2 on the RHS. My particular T-T therefore has 3 out of these 8 options! ps This doesn't accord with a previous suggestion that the layouts are the same! Otherwise a 56 key Baritone would have a low F2 and F#2 on the RHS...

 

Quite possibly, therefore, the layout of a B-T is configured so that the G2 begins on a B-T where a C3 begins on a T-T...

 

If this is the case, please can you let me know!...

 

If your TED (B-T) is configured in this way then conversely this will bring into play (reading left to right) a Ab2,A2,C3,C#3 on the LHS; and a G#2,G2,B2,Bb2 on the RHS... Ah, this makes more sense, I see now!

 

Again, my particular T-T would nevertheless have 3 out of these 8 options!... [Please feel free to confirm this Shelly, but I'm convinced now having done the maths!]

 

This raises an issue for players, i.e. songs would have to be re-memorised if swapping between the B-T and T-T, something I will most definitely not be doing!...

Edited May 23, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

Shelly,

 

That little impromptu maths exercise has left me with a better impression of what's available B-T wise.

 

There's something called a model 16, which is a 64 key B-T that goes down to F2. Now I know how, although don't quote me, it's of course simply because it borrows the T-T layout (unchanged pattern) and then extends the lower range by adding a full extra row of lower buttons. In which case this would bring into play (reading left to right) a G#2,G2,B2,Bb2 on the LHS; and an F#2, F2, A2,Ab2 on the RHS. My particular T-T would therefore have 1 out of these 8 options!

 

However, seeing is of course believing, can't wait!

 

The danger this would bring is that it might wean me off the T-T for the majority of songs. I don't think so though, because it'll be a heavy brute I'd suspect. I would therefore play/opt for it if necessary.

 

One more thing is that I haven't been put off my desire to acquire a standard type B-T, despite now knowing it's a different layout from both the T-T (model 19) and its variant B-T (model 16)

 

PS: I looked up the 1931 price list and seen that Wheatstone's naming system had been altered from the 1915 list. You'll be pleased to read from the later list that you in fact have a Baritone-Treble, not Baritone. The difference is that the latter are 48 key models and the former are models with 56 keys or upwards.

[kevin toner]

...One more thing is that I haven't been put off my desire to acquire a standard type B-T, despite now knowing it's a different layout from both the T-T (model 19) and its variant B-T (model 16)...

 

Shelly,

 

I'm actually in two minds over this now!

 

If only I had my Granddad's draughts (chequers) prowess! He was the last one to do my T-T justice, before him his dad. Alas, chess is no good here, otherwise I wouldn't fuss about acquiring a standard B-T like your's.

 

I hasten to think what it'd be like to mentally swap hands.

 

Probably like going from right hand to left hand guitar work in a way. I can't believe I was actually trying that earlier today on my uke for the first time!

 

I'd better stick to model 19s and 16s for the time being.

 

I was wondering about how you might feel starting out on a standard B-T first and having to think in different hands if swapping over to treble proper?

Edited May 23, 2012 by kevin toner

[shelly0312]

Whew! Kevin. That was a pretty scholarly discussion--maybe a little over me head. But I will have to say the tipping point on these extended instruments may be the physical size. (as in all matters, size does count--maybe here to the negative??) I am hoping one of these years I'll get to one of the gatherings / seminars / squeeze-ins where it might be possible to see a baritone, a t/t and whatever this beast of mine is, in a line up and actually heft them all. I do not find this TED over large to play daily; which was what I feared originally. And in fact my poor Lachenal is getting pretty lonely as it is pretty forsaken. Thanks for the comparisons. I got our my printed notes again from Jim Lucus (with the descriptions of the different "voices") And I have to agree that the term does seem to be baritone-treble for this one's voice. But I've never had a nick name for auto or insturment--so I am liking the TED thing....

[kevin toner]

Whew! Kevin. That was a pretty scholarly discussion--maybe a little over me head. But I will have to say the tipping point on these extended instruments may be the physical size. (as in all matters, size does count--maybe here to the negative??) I am hoping one of these years I'll get to one of the gatherings / seminars / squeeze-ins where it might be possible to see a baritone, a t/t and whatever this beast of mine is, in a line up and actually heft them all. I do not find this TED over large to play daily; which was what I feared originally. And in fact my poor Lachenal is getting pretty lonely as it is pretty forsaken. Thanks for the comparisons. I got our my printed notes again from Jim Lucus (with the descriptions of the different "voices") And I have to agree that the term does seem to be baritone-treble for this one's voice. But I've never had a nick name for auto or insturment--so I am liking the TED thing....

 

I call it 'learn as you go'! and learning to crawl before you walk!

 

There's quite a difference in weight/lightness between a 48k treble & 56k T-T.

 

I suspect a 64k B-T will be venturing into the realm of heaviness rather than lightness, whilst I wouldn't know the difference in lightness between a 56k T-T & B-T.

 

My 60k treble-extended-up (TEU)*, i.e. exactly 1 octave higher than yours excepting a full tone increase to range from range G3 to A7, is marginally lighter than my T-T. Some consider this to be too heavy for a treble/piccolo ranged instrument. Not me, but I concur with this view given the typically featherweight nature of most ECs within these ranges.

 

ps: regarding the conventional Baritone layout (with middle C on the RHS presumably) Vs the conventional Treble layout (with middle C on the LHS) which I equated earlier with switching handedness on a guitar;

 

I've one more equally apt analogy: this might be a pianist playing a piano with middle C moved up to the C5 position on the keyboard without moving his/her chair along to compensate.

 

That said, these analogies are probably irrelevant to an ear player, and/or a robotic re-memoriser, when switching between treble and baritone configurations!

 

* I would concur with you on TEDs, but doesn't work for TEUs!

[kevin toner]

I've a couple of updates that relate more to the parallel discussion on treble/bass clef practise. However, one of the points involves purely bass. So I'll mention that point here:

 

I'm currently ironing-out remaining issues on "memories of You" . So far as I iron, I've not had to adjust anything on the sheet music other than to raise the odd note into my range.

 

So I'm not really ironing-out but teasing out remaining difficulties.

 

One of these is that, due to having a [highly resonant] risen metal-ended Aeola, I find myself coming to terms much better with the overall piece if I practise the bass clef separately before splicing it into the treble clef work.

 

The bass is more decipherable to the player this way when embarking on the entirety. This [apt for "MoY" too] also speeds up ones cognisance on what the rhythm/articulations are supposed to be doing.

 

It's an extra piece of work, but I feel it helps me to understand the piece quicker. I also did this on the aforementioned "MBS" and then quickly perceived that the melody had in fact belonged much more within the bass clef rather than the treble clef.

 

Now back to my treble/bass clef post where I have a further hitch to add on my developing rendition of "MoY", probably the last hitch out of a recent handful!

[kevin toner]

Having perused my 1930s songbook scores regarding the post I made on the other treble/bass discussion last night, I seen an example of a song that I will certainly be leaving to Baritones rather than the tenor treble.

 

This is "I only have eyes for you", where there is a singular [often not in octave] contrabass G note (G1) that regularly punctuates the refrain rhythm.

 

However, I urge the Baritones not to skip this number. It's absolutely ideal with nominal (minimal) re-transcribing - of affected phrases.

 

Don't worry: the G is absolutely the lowest note despite being extremely frequent within the refrain not in the verse where the notes are all over the place by comparison.

 

Looking at my excerpt (on part of the refrain) linked here you will in fact see a long G2 at the end (at "too?" and "rare") before culminating in a singular contrabass G1 to end the poco rit phrasing. Don't despair: simply raise the G2 to a G3 then hit your G2 to end the phrase. I think a G2 will be deep enough!

 

Let me know what you think!

 

However, anticipate some occasional ghosting and straddling of the treble clef at some bass progressions, where a degree of intermingling occurs due to raising some notes/progressions by an octave.

 

This is something that the ECist, not pianist, has to concede on such piano scores.

 

An example follows looking at the same excerpt at "find love" where there is a slur going into contrabass territory (going B2-B1-E1). If this, therefore, progresses B3-B2-E2 then the B3 will ghost since one is already played in the treble clef at that point.

 

This is why I was glad in being prompted to interpret that thankful blemish here on "MoY" as previously discussed on the Music/Video forum, i.e. to avoid the ghosting of any bass notes in this particular instance to respect the slurring of the treble notes without detriment to an accented Bb3 bass note as explained in my later post below.

Edited May 26, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

Having perused my 1930s songbook scores regarding the post I made on the other treble/bass discussion last night, I seen an example of a song that I will certainly be leaving to Baritones rather than the tenor treble.

 

This is "I only have eyes for you", where there is...

 

Excuse Robbins Music Corp's dyslexic misprint of the year 1934, which could have been easily excused as '43 due to the score's longevity!

 

link

Edited May 26, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

...An example follows looking at the same excerpt at "find love" where there is a slur going into contrabass territory (going B2-B1-E1). If this, therefore, progresses B3-B2-E2 then the B3 will ghost since one is already played in the treble clef at that point.

 

This is why I was glad in being prompted to interpret that thankful blemish here on "MoY" as previously discussed on the Music/Video forum, i.e. to avoid the ghosting of any bass notes.

 

Let me explain once again the latter example as I can't remember what post I discussed it in.

 

In fact I see that this dilemma in this instance is not due to raising notes. It's therefore one that affects pianists and ECists.

 

It's simply perhaps one of those clashes/blunders by the transcriber(?), thankfully raised to our attention c/o a mid 1970s printing machine error (?)

 

Hoards of other printouts throughout the decades on this number, which I've seen from library, have [wrongly to my mind] interpreted the blemished note as a Bb3, which I conversely consider to be a middle C (C4) to avoid losing the prominence of the accented Bb3 that follows in the next beat on the bass clef, i.e. since the bar is deliberately slurred on the treble clef.

 

Ergo the blemish was a veritable raison d'etre for helping me explore and uncover the truly intended bass-line.

 

Another sign that I may be right, which I'll also reiterate, is that this particular bar, being a variant of the first bar, would be best played simply as the dropped thirds that appear throughout the bar - a Bb3 is, therefore even visually, very out of place here (at the blemish).

 

Perhaps the actual original transcription or Blake's handwriting was misconstrued, which is very odd given the extremely and repetitively articulated nature of the bass-line throughout the entire stave.

 

Calling all musicologists!

 

ps: I'll post a little more of this stave in a moment here, so that you can judge for yourselves!

 

I'll also provide a 1956 print showing the LWMCo's long interpretation of this [surely blundered Bb3] note here!

 

Had this blemish not been there and I had been strung along with the conventional sheet music, then I might have lost the impetus to progress the bass!

 

Many on the forum have mentioned how unreliable sheet music transcriptions can be. I must admit (or confess) that I'd easily confide in the conventional LMWCo sheet music if it were not for this rogue Bb3. I'd argue at this stage in my development that such transcriptions are near watertight. I will of course post back on any others that I come across.

Edited May 26, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

...

 

...However, anticipate some occasional ghosting and straddling of the treble clef at some bass progressions, where a degree of intermingling occurs due to raising some notes/progressions by an octave.

 

This is something that the ECist, not pianist, has to concede on such piano scores.

 

An example follows looking at the same excerpt at "find love" where there is a slur going into contrabass territory (going B2-B1-E1). If this, therefore, progresses B3-B2-E2 then the B3 will ghost since one is already played in the treble clef at that point.

 

This is why I was glad in being prompted to interpret that thankful blemish here on "MoY" as previously discussed on the Music/Video forum, i.e. to avoid the ghosting of any bass notes in this particular instance to respect the slurring of the treble notes without detriment to an accented Bb3 bass note as explained in my later post below.

 

 

...An example follows looking at the same excerpt at "find love" where there is a slur going into contrabass territory (going B2-B1-E1). If this, therefore, progresses B3-B2-E2 then the B3 will ghost since one is already played in the treble clef at that point.

 

This is why I was glad in being prompted to interpret that thankful blemish here on "MoY" as previously discussed on the Music/Video forum, i.e. to avoid the ghosting of any bass notes.

 

Let me explain once again the latter example as I can't remember what post I discussed it in.

 

In fact I see that this dilemma in this instance is not due to raising notes. It's therefore one that affects pianists and ECists.

 

It's simply perhaps one of those clashes/blunders by the transcriber(?), thankfully raised to our attention c/o a mid 1970s printing machine error (?)

 

Hoards of other printouts throughout the decades on this number, which I've seen from library, have [wrongly to my mind] interpreted the blemished note as a Bb3, which I conversely consider to be a middle C (C4) to avoid losing the prominence of the accented Bb3 that follows in the next beat on the bass clef, i.e. since the bar is deliberately slurred on the treble clef.

 

Ergo the blemish was a veritable raison d'etre for helping me explore and uncover the truly intended bass-line.

 

Another sign that I may be right, which I'll also reiterate, is that this particular bar, being a variant of the first bar, would be best played simply as the dropped thirds that appear throughout the bar - a Bb3 is, therefore even visually, very out of place here (at the blemish).

 

Perhaps the actual original transcription or Blake's handwriting was misconstrued, which is very odd given the extremely and repetitively articulated nature of the bass-line throughout the entire stave.

 

Calling all musicologists!

 

ps: I'll post a little more of this stave in a moment here, so that you can judge for yourselves!

 

I'll also provide a 1956 print showing the LWMCo's long interpretation of this [surely blundered Bb3] note here!

 

Had this blemish not been there and I had been strung along with the conventional sheet music, then I might have lost the impetus to progress the bass!

 

Many on the forum have mentioned how unreliable sheet music transcriptions can be. I must admit (or confess) that I'd easily confide in the conventional LMWCo sheet music if it were not for this rogue Bb3. I'd argue at this stage in my development that such transcriptions are near watertight. I will of course post back on any others that I come across.

 

Perhaps a final lesson mustered on “MoY” (as follows) having stumbled upon the above topic:

 

After a quick perusing of the “MoY” score there is in fact simply one instance that involves extremely minimal ghosting, i.e. at a particular low note that is played in octave with its treble counterpart.

 

There is merely ‘1 of 3’ potential instances in the chorus and it is where a low note (G2, which a T-T has to play as G3) is unslurred at the word “Spite” as shown here. [i’ve overmarked/ticked “OK” at the other 2 instances here where there's no such problem.]

 

Blake, overall though, has been immensely kind enough (to T-Ts) not to octave the G3 generally (with a G2), by-&-large across the rest of the piece. I however find myself doing a lot of straddling/intermingling with the G2 as a result, but it’s not detrimental and sounds harmonic.

 

[G2 indeed belongs on the bass clef stave despite the treble clef often borrowing the note for treble progressions – I definitely have no qualms in raising it/these, i.e. provided the adjoining notes can be likewise progressed. If the latter can’t be done, then that’s when I say a B-T is necessary!]

 

I indeed remain inclined to tackle this song in T-T in lieu of B-T (even if I had a model 16 B-T) as there’s a way around the “Spite” one might [not quite!] say (as follows below); and after all, because the T-T might be significantly lighter and of course is my first instrument.

 

Albeit a relatively insignificant and unaccented one-off variant bar, it’s easy enough to wean from the treble ‘tying/slurring’ of the chorded G3 notes whilst raising an unslurred G2 minim up to G3 without any detriment or even noticeability.

 

[i wouldn’t say the same applies for those choosing to interpret the aforementioned blemished note in the conventionally wrong way – as per the above quoted post!]

 

Here’s how:

 

Simply ghost the treble G3s [as circled] or in other words release the G3 momentarily before it due to progress onto the next note.

 

So, definitely deserving of a special mention, but is hardly “spiteful” at the end of the day

 

Especially if conducting this very minor modification!

 

There’s indeed though a noticeable difference having tried and adopted the modification!

 

I’m sure the arranger would have approved.

 

ps: makes you wonder - that the only modification arguably on the entire score [for a T-T EC] is because of an unslurred note occurring at the word "Spite"!

Edited May 27, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

...One more thing is that I haven't been put off my desire to acquire a standard type B-T, despite now knowing it's a different layout from both the T-T (model 19) and its variant B-T (model 16)...

 

Shelly,

 

I'm actually in two minds over this now!

 

If only I had my Granddad's draughts (chequers) prowess! He was the last one to do my T-T justice, before him his dad. Alas, chess is no good here, otherwise I wouldn't fuss about acquiring a standard B-T like your's.

 

I hasten to think what it'd be like to mentally swap hands.

 

Probably like going from right hand to left hand guitar work in a way. I can't believe I was actually trying that earlier today on my uke for the first time!

 

I'd better stick to model 19s and 16s for the time being.

 

I was wondering about how you might feel starting out on a standard B-T first and having to think in different hands if swapping over to treble proper?

 

Actually, c/o an email by Geoff, I now know the layout patterns of the model 16 B-T relative to other B-Ts:

 

I was correct regarding the mod 16, but wrong regarding the standard B-t layouts. Apparently, there'd be no need to swap hands as first imagined!

 

The slightly different outline of button areas that B-Ts have was what was throwing me. I suspected this previously, but got carried away with a much simpler assumption, not citing more than one possibility, i.e. to an already complicated subject.

 

So, glad that's cleared up then.

 

The implication is that I'd be less averse than previously to normal (non model 16) B-T's. I might still find the slightly varied outline of buttons a little alien to begin with.

 

I imagine, for me, that some of the songs in my repertoire might necessitate a B-T even although "Memories of You" has proven to be a thoroughly T-T suited piece.

 

More on my repertoire in a moment, in the tunes forum, as I've bought the entire LWM "Songs the World Sings" series!

Edited June 19, 2012 by kevin toner

[chris]

When I first took my Serpent to a West Gallery weekend I was surprised (don't know why!) to find the music written in Bass clef. I ended up writing, below, the Bass clef notes the note letters. Having done that for a couple of tunes, I realised that I could read Bass clef, so didn't bother with the note names again and I managed to remember them when I played Bassoon for a while. If I started using Bass clef again I guess that I would have to do it again for a couple of tunes as all this was some time ago

chris

[kevin toner]

I've a couple of updates that relate more to the parallel discussion on treble/bass clef practise. However, one of the points involves purely bass. So I'll mention that point here:

 

...One of these is that, due to having a [highly resonant] risen metal-ended Aeola, I find myself coming to terms much better with the overall piece if I practise the bass clef separately before splicing it into the treble clef work.

 

The bass is more decipherable to the player this way when embarking on the entirety. This [apt for "MoY" too] also speeds up ones cognisance on what the rhythm/articulations are supposed to be doing.

 

It's an extra piece of work, but I feel it helps me to understand the piece quicker. I also did this on the aforementioned "MBS" and then quickly perceived that the melody had in fact belonged much more within the bass clef rather than the treble clef...

 

 

I still concur with the above, but have something rather disheartening to report.

 

• 
   
  
• An aside: I think whoever's been unnerving me by bouncing the structure where I'm sitting writing doesn't like the fact I'm now wired up and able to hear my instrument properly (in amongst the hellish site noises) because when the shop opened the thumps were 1 per 1-4mins, which I could barely feel because of where I'm positioned, but conversely as I write this I'm feeling them as very unnerving although they've stopped in the last 10 20 30 40 50mins - great - it's been generally much less frequent over the last month compared with 1 March '12 through to mid May, but is still unacceptable, I wish they'd take their business elsewhere, but hopefully not below another studious person.
  

I think I now know why my Granddad, Danny, always favoured the prowess of a piano over that of the concertina "ye canny beet the piana", as often said following an occasional performance during parties or when 1-to-1 with him discussing concertina!

 

Here goes, although this is something I've known in the back of my mind, but not wanting to accept:

 

I appreciate how no one on the forum has mentioned the following issue perhaps not to stop me short of what I've been tackling, but in piano scores it appears that accenting notes are often prescribed in one of three ways, of which one is doable on concertina i.e. when both clefs are to be accented rather than one or the other.

 

Unlike the Piano the concertina can't hit notes harder (accent) than other notes when more than one note is depressed without all the notes being accented

 

Fortunately this does not affect clef specific legato/staccato articulation when playing both clefs together

 

"Memories of You" has indeed been an excellent testbed.

 

The chorus is almost unaffected ergo with unified accents per clef per bar, but 50% of the verse is a different kettle of fish where the clefs are doing very different things.

 

I can therefore pursue my dilemma with a number of approaches:

 

1) accept that a degree of double layering is necessary (I might want to multi-layer voice/guitar/uke anyway - not in my current noise environment though, unless perhaps at 3am; this approach might also get me thinking about acquiring a model 16 B-T or an actual bass depending on their tone compatibility) - the degree of which depends on the percentage factor: i.e. if a piece is 50% compatible I'd choose to learn bass/treble together for the compatible bars, but if the piece demands that 75% or more must be played independently (clef-wise) then I'd simply revert back to single stave reading;

2) ignore such nuances when they occur by either: i) accenting both clefs when they're not doing such different things; or ii) accenting neither i.e. when prompted to do so. (the latter approach could permit minimal layering afterwards to correct, perhaps to give the concertinist a greater sense of achievement than otherwise working optimally as layerist.);

3) find my clone to assist when/where required (if I were a Fayre Sister then problem solved!...).

 

I think 1 & 2 will have their place in my development in the absence of 3.

 

The piano scores I'm going to persevere with are simply too intoxicating to give up on over a mere technicality.

 

And I though a recording of my rendition of "MoY" next week would be a simple affair, silly me!

Edited June 20, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

...I think I now know why my Granddad, Danny, always favoured the prowess of a piano over that of the concertina "ye canny beet the piana", as often said following an occasional performance during parties or when 1-to-1 with him discussing concertina!

 

Here goes, although this is something I've known in the back of my mind, but not wanting to accept:

 

I appreciate how no one on the forum has mentioned the following issue perhaps not to stop me short of what I've been tackling, but in piano scores it appears that accenting notes are often prescribed in one of three ways, of which one is doable on concertina i.e. when both clefs are to be accented rather than one or the other.

 

Unlike the Piano the concertina can't hit notes harder (accent) than other notes when more than one note is depressed without all the notes being accented

 

Fortunately this does not affect clef specific legato/staccato articulation when playing both clefs together

 

"Memories of You" has indeed been an excellent testbed.

 

The chorus is almost unaffected ergo with unified accents per clef per bar, but 50% of the verse is a different kettle of fish where the clefs are doing very different things...

 

NB in exercise 74a ("Romance" by Beethoven) of Frank Butler's "Concertina" tutor there's an accent above the 4th beat in the 2nd bar, which obviously has to apply to both the very low note and the high note, which have to play simultaneously.

 

So my aforementioned observation on concertinas not being able to accent notes separately within a chord is basically discussed here and again in the Mozartian exercise 75.

 

Looking at my '30s songbook, no transcribers appear to go beyond separating on a per clef basis, i.e. they invariably don't - as Butler shows in E74a for ECs - stipulate which of the 2 (or more) notes should be accented in spite of the notes doing very different things.

 

So, although the piano is capable of accenting on a per note basis: scores invariably don't go beyond a per clef basis when separating accents. I guess it's the pianists' choice to single out any particular keys they wish to accent more than others. The transcriber therefore merely indicates where attention is (or might be) due.

 

I've scanned both the Butler example here and a classic example from "Stormy Weather" here where the transcriber leaves it to the pianist, which note/s to accent.

 

That puts a little less weight on the concertinist wishing to play to the tee or by the letter.

 

I still contend that a minimal degree of layering will be necessary on "Memories of You" to make it feel as intended despite the do-ability of doing it in a oner. "I only have eyes for you" looks like it will be likewise, but transcribed pieces are generally not as fussy. I understand why Blake's "MoY" is so fussy after seeing/hearing his own rendition on his 96th birthday on YouTube: ergo a further indication he was his own transcriber like McHugh (one of his contemporaries). The treble clef of he verse should be layered in separately so that the accented bass clef notes do not interfere with the beautiful sounding fluency of the unaccented treble clef, i.e. again for 50% of the verse.

 

• 
   
  
• An aside: Butler has indeed wet my appetite for classical, e.g. violin part for Mozart's K376, but that's another post topic, later! All I would say here on the topic at the moment is that for classical I most certainly won't be doctoring the pianoforte bass clef for EC. I don't know about anyone else, but while I'm playing the violin section I can mentally feel the pianoforte accompaniment as I play, through a familiarity of listening to published recordings. I don't know what it is about classical, where you don't have to listen too many times to cerebrally embed the different parts/instruments' sections, i.e. orchestration in a word. No one really dares to doctor the classics (official transcriptions) as generations pass. I suppose this helps in the learning of classical work. All one needs then is a pianist to accompany your soloing provided the (occasionally long) intervals of silence have also been well practised.
  

Edited June 24, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

...One more thing is that I haven't been put off my desire to acquire a standard type B-T, despite now knowing it's a different layout from both the T-T (model 19) and its variant B-T (model 16)...

 

Shelly,

 

I'm actually in two minds over this now!

 

If only I had my Granddad's draughts (chequers) prowess! He was the last one to do my T-T justice, before him his dad. Alas, chess is no good here, otherwise I wouldn't fuss about acquiring a standard B-T like your's. STET.

 

I hasten to think what it'd be like to mentally swap hands.

 

Probably like going from right hand to left hand guitar work in a way. I can't believe I was actually trying that earlier today on my uke for the first time!

 

I'd better stick to model 19s (TTs) and 16s (BTs) [ps: and models 14s (BTs) to a lesser extent] for the time being, i.e. the treble-tenors' and treble-baritones' family.

 

I was wondering about how you might feel starting out on a standard B-T first and having to think in different hands if swapping over to treble proper?

 

Actually, c/o an email by Geoff, I now know the layout patterns of the model 16 B-T relative to other B-Ts:

 

I was correct regarding the mod 16, but wrong regarding the standard B-t layouts. Apparently, there'd be no need to swap hands as first imagined!

 

The slightly different outline of button areas that B-Ts have was what was throwing me. I suspected this previously, but got carried away with a much simpler assumption, not citing more than one possibility, i.e. to an already complicated subject.

 

So, glad that's cleared up then.

 

The implication is that I'd be less averse than previously to normal (non model 16) B-T's. I might still find the slightly varied outline of buttons a little alien to begin with.

 

I imagine, for me, that some of the songs in my repertoire might necessitate a B-T even although "Memories of You" has proven to be a thoroughly T-T suited piece...

 

Please excuse my Stet. in bold above on my original comment. It does so happen that there is actually a further model of Baritone within the same range as the model 14/16 B-Ts that does indeed swap the sides over as I'd first surmised, which you might have a variant of as follows [i.e. if yours is a model 20].

 

These are the model 9/9a/10/10a (48k) or 10b (56k). A standard one has been posted on Ebay for 1.2k and is currently being discussed on the 'Buy & Sell' forum. Possibly the model 20 Baritone is the Aeola equivalent of these, i.e. the model 20 (48k) and 20a (56k), which might also mean an opposite handedness from the treble & "B-T" families proper.

 

The original Wheatstone pricelists state such opposite handed models as simply Baritones rather than Baritone-Trebles despite having the exact same range.

 

Therefore Shelly you might well actually have the opposite handing to the B-T family of models. Again, one of the ways you'd be able to tell us is by saying what side your 'middle C' is on.

 

Again, "learning the hard way as it were", but scholarly so !

 

• 
   
  
• The Ebay example looks like a model 9 (walnut 48k)!
  

Edited June 26, 2012 by kevin toner