Maccann To Chidley Retuning?

[BruceB]

Hi,

Several years ago I had a borrowed Chidley/Maccann concertina at my house. At one point I could play several of the arrangements in David Cornell's book of arrangements. I thought it was a real improvement on the standard Maccann system.

 

Does any one know if it's possible to take a standard Maccann and have it retuned to a Chidley? Just how far can you safely retune reeds before it begins to have a negative effect on the sound or reed durability.

bruce boysen

[stuart estell]

Does any one know if it's possible to take a standard Maccann and have it retuned to a Chidley?

The Chidley keyboard layout is sufficiently different from the Maccann that my guess is that you wouldn't really want to be retuning reeds on a per-button basis, but rather moving them around in the reed pan. I imagine it would be a task similar to converting a Jeffries Duet into an anglo...

 

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, though, why bother? The Maccann, for all its foibles, is a pretty playable keyboard layout. Sure, on a big instrument, it doesn't repeat in a uniform way, but that's one of the things that makes it so interesting. It'd be cheaper to just spend more time practising

[JimLucas]

Does any one know if it's possible to take a standard Maccann and have it retuned to a Chidley?

Retune?

 

The Chidley should use all the same notes, just in different locations.

So the sensible thing would be to rearrange the reeds, not file metal off them to convert them into each other.

 

But there's another problem, some buttons would have to be relocated:

I compared Wheatsone 72-button (Wheatstone includes the air button in the count) keyboard diagrams for Maccann and Chidley layouts. Then I also looked at Don Nichols' 68-button Chidley layout. I conclude that to convert from Maccann to Chidley while keeping the same range (the diagrammed 72-button Chidley has a slightly lower range than the Maccann), one button would have to be taken from the bottom of the 4th row and one added to the top of the 6th row in the left hand; in the right hand, that would require taking from the bottom of the 3rd row and adding to the top of the 6th. (To be completely consistent, both patterns should also take a button from the top of row 4 and add one to the top or row 2, but Don Nichols' Chidley duet has the top C shifted from row 2 to row 4 in both hands, and I'll assume that was standard. For reasons of reach? A guess. I don't know.)

 

But if you insert a new button at the top of row 6, it will have to be connected to a chamber. Which one? There won't be a space to insert a new one. Try to run a lever down to the chamber that connected to the button removed from the bottom of row 3 or 4? Good luck! Besides, that's a chamber for a much larger reed. No, it will be necessary to develop a whole new pattern of levers to connect each button to a chamber of the appropriate size for the reeds that sound its note. At least some of those will undoutedly need to be freshly made.

 

If you're going to do that, why not get a new Chidley custom made? Better yet, try to find an existing one. They may not come up for sale often, but I wouldn't say "never".

[BruceB]

Does any one know if it's possible to take a standard Maccann and have it retuned to a Chidley?

The Chidley keyboard layout is sufficiently different from the Maccann that my guess is that you wouldn't really want to be retuning reeds on a per-button basis, but rather moving them around in the reed pan. I imagine it would be a task similar to converting a Jeffries Duet into an anglo...

 

Playing devil's advocate for a moment, though, why bother? The Maccann, for all its foibles, is a pretty playable keyboard layout. Sure, on a big instrument, it doesn't repeat in a uniform way, but that's one of the things that makes it so interesting. It'd be cheaper to just spend more time practising

Stuart,

Thanks for the reply. I'm not planning on getting a Maccann or a Chidley anytime soon, it's more something I've thought about for years. Chidley system concertinas are really rare plus most of them probably aren't up to the standards of the better Maccanns, which is why it might be worthwhile. It might just be my personal preference, but at some point I'd consider playing a Chidley again, but not a Maccann. I much prefer the uniform keyboard of the Chidley, the illogical layout of the Maccann bothers me. The Maccann doesn't repeat in a uniform way even on a smaller instrument.

 

I did think it would be possible to do the conversion, I just wanted to hear it from someone who knows in case a really nice Maccann falls in my lap for next to nothing. You never know, a friend of mine plays a gorgeous Wheatstone english that was bought at a flea market for 50 USD.

 

bruce boysen

[BruceB]

Thanks Jim,

 

What I'd be concerned with is keeping each vertical row consistant, with alternating notes. If the range was different or the highest note moved over that wouldn't matter, for me it's the uniform keyboard that makes it a Chidley & not a Maccann.

 

Anyway, it's very unlikely I'll ever be in a situation where I'll be doing this.

 

bruce boysen

[JimLucas]

What I'd be concerned with is keeping each vertical row consistant, with alternating notes.

OK. I'll take a different perspective. If you put the notes of a uniform Chidley pattern onto the buttons of a standard Maccann:

... 57+1 buttons

left hand: you get an A below the low C (new reed needed) without the intervening B & Bb; you'll be missing the highest Bb (you have the reed, but no button for it), though you still have the B and C above it

right hand: again, an isolated A below the C (another new reed), and no button for the highest G (but no discontinuity there, because it's the top note)

... 66+1 buttons

left hand: the "extra" note at the bottom would be D# (Eb) below the low G, without the intervening E, F, & F#; at the top you'd lose the highest Bb & C, but keep the B and pick up the D above

right hand: "extra" A at the bottom; at the top lose the Bb & C but gain the D (like the left hand)

both hands: actually, using the top C where I've indicated the extra D would be consistent with Don Nichols' Chidley, so you'd only be missing the top Bb in each hand

 

So from a button point of view, it seems feasible. It might require some cutting and filling in the reed pan, where reeds have to be moved to chambers fitted for a different-size reed, but probably very little.

 

Still, there's the story of my 80+1 button Maccann: The widow of its owner told me that her husband had gotten it at the Wheatstone shop in the 1950's, where it was awaiting assembly, and that he had had some of the notes rearranged. The changes are noted in pen on the keyboard diagram in the Rutterford tutor that came with it, and it looks very close to the Chidley arrangement (except the D's and D#'s are not reversed). The only problem is that it was never done! The actual layout is the standard one. I can only guess that when told the cost of the conversion, he decided it wasn't worth it.

[BruceB]

Thanks Jim,

 

It's more complicated than I thought it would be.

Interesting story about your 80+1 Maccann. That's A LOT of buttons!

 

bruce boysen

[Robin Harrison]

Hey Jim....I' just about to get an amboyna ended 67 key Mccann. Does your 81 key give a greater range or more cross-over ( or both) Robin

[JimLucas]

Hey Jim....I'm just about to get an amboyna ended 67 key Mccann.

Amboyna? Nice! Wheatstone?

 

Does your 81 key give  a greater range or more cross-over ( or both)

Both, with the increased overlap due to the downward extension of the right-hand range. The 81 (really 80+air) has the same top note in both hands as the 67 (66+air), but extends lower in both hands, to the next C in the left and the next G in the right. I.e., in the right hand it has 3½ octaves starting on the violin's low G (the full range of a 48-button treble English), and in the left hand it has 3 octaves starting on the cello's low C. So the 67 has an octave of overlap (from middle C to an octave higher), while the 81 has 1½ octaves (same top C, but down to G below middle C).

[JimLucas]

Interesting story about your 80+1 Maccann.

Also interesting is that is has two serial numbers in the Wheatstone ledgers. Each has a note referring to the other. No explanation, but I guess that for some reason it was returned to Wheatstone to be rebuilt. Further guess is that for some reason the person who brought it to be rebuilt couldn't take possession again, which is why it was available for sale -- though needing reassembly -- when the owner prior to me entered the Wheatstone shop.

 

That's A LOT of buttons!

It sure is!