Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
lachenal74693

Push/Pull notation/tab system

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Someone has mentioned to me a notation/tab system which seems to be based on the

attached diagram. They say they found it on c.net, but I can't find any trace of it. Can

anyone help me track it down, or supply details of how it works? I assume the diagram is

intended to go below (above?) the staff. It's supposed to be for Anglo, but I was wondering

if it's intended for English...

 

Thank you

 

image.png

Edited by lachenal74693

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It looks to me like an adaptation of the French CADB system for diatonic accordeon (melodeon).  You can find an explanation here:

 

http://diato.org/expltabl.htm

 

I can see no reason why this approach couldn't be applied to anglo.  However it doesn't seem to be the most widely adopted system, most publications seem to use individually numbered buttons rather than a combination of row and button.  There are a number of discussions here about tabs, including at least one current.

 

The French versions uses P(ousse) and T(irer) for push and pull, which avoids confusion with the English words

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, hjcjones said:

 

I can see no reason why this approach couldn't be applied to anglo. 

...

The French versions uses P(ousse) and T(irer) for push and pull, which avoids confusion with the English words

The obvious reason why it's not suited to the anglo is that any Anglo notation has to take both the player's hands into account. So when you're annotating a standard stave, it's pretty intuitive to place the left-hand (bass)  tabs under the stave, and the right-hand (treble) tabs above it.That's the way the familiar piano score is structured.

If the tabs are being used independently of a standard-notation stave, a horizontal line  - as in the cited example - can be used to separate left- and right-hand tabs.

 

I'm not very keen on designating each occurrence of a given button with one of two letters. I find it more direct to assume one bellows direction - preferably the Press, because the concertina is a squeeze-box - and to use some arbitrary mark for the Draw.(My old tutor uses a circumflex, or inverted V, to indicate "Draw.") "Mark or no mark" is easier to distinguish than "P or D", IMO.

 

Cheers,

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, hjcjones said:

It looks to me like an adaptation of the French CADB system for diatonic accordeon (melodeon).  You can find an explanation here:

 

http://diato.org/expltabl.htm

 

I can see no reason why this approach couldn't be applied to anglo.  However it doesn't seem to be the most widely adopted system, most publications seem to use individually numbered buttons rather than a combination of row and button.  There are a number of discussions here about tabs, including at least one current.

 

The French versions uses P(ousse) and T(irer) for push and pull, which avoids confusion with the English words

Absolutement mon general! Since I posted, my correspondent has come back to me and said, "Ah, 'twas not on c.net I saw this, but

somewhere else, and it's an accordeon (melodeon) system called CADB...". He even sent me the same URL. I meant to post that my

question had been answered but you beat me to it!

Thank you.

 

Dead right, it's not the most widely used system - I guess one person (my correspondent)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Anglo-Irishman said:

The obvious reason why it's not suited to the anglo is that any Anglo notation has to take both the player's hands into account. So when you're annotating a standard stave, it's pretty intuitive to place the left-hand (bass)  tabs under the stave, and the right-hand (treble) tabs above it.That's the way the familiar piano score is structured.

If the tabs are being used independently of a standard-notation stave, a horizontal line  - as in the cited example - can be used to separate left- and right-hand tabs.

 

I'm not very keen on designating each occurrence of a given button with one of two letters. I find it more direct to assume one bellows direction - preferably the Press, because the concertina is a squeeze-box - and to use some arbitrary mark for the Draw.(My old tutor uses a circumflex, or inverted V, to indicate "Draw.") "Mark or no mark" is easier to distinguish than "P or D", IMO.

 

I think this chaps idea is to modify the system and produce something like the attached picture.

This would 'work' for an Anglo, but I don't think it's very practical/flexible. (note the absence of bar

lines which I think the full blown CADB system uses). I'm not sure, but I think he intends to write

this stuff in 'by hand'.

 

screenshot.1.jpg.ffd543b0ac7925ae57680caf2d21f9f6.jpg

 

It's a rotten picture which I cobbled up using an ABC file to give an idea of what he's after. This little experiment

is for a G/D instrument, so the 'a' and 'd' prefixes signify the accidental and D rows. (This little experiment is also wrong

because I haven't quite worked out how to do this particular job in ABC - I don't intend to either - I don't think it's really usable, and I've not yet

convinced myself that it's actually 100% do-able...) 

 

FWIW I use a system which produces:

 

screenshot.2.jpg.8932f96eedaaf11998ebc0fd62291041.jpg


for the same piece of music. It may not be to everyone's taste but it works for me. The pull is designated with '^', and

push is the 'default' as you seem to have used. I prefer both hands on the same side of the staff, and the accompaniment

chords (if any) on t'other, that way they don't get tangled up with each other. The price you pay for this is having an extra

letter (L or R) in the button specification...

 

The button numbers are inserted as ABC 'text annotations' - I need to look at doing it with the w: field - that way they would

all be on the same line...

 

It's possible to make this look like 'Mick Bramich' tabs, but I haven't tried with 'Chris Sherburn' or 'Pip Ives' tabs...

 

 

Edited by lachenal74693

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/20/2020 at 8:21 PM, Anglo-Irishman said:

I'm not very keen on designating each occurrence of a given button with one of two letters. I find it more direct to assume one bellows direction - preferably the Press, because the concertina is a squeeze-box - and to use some arbitrary mark for the Draw.(My old tutor uses a circumflex, or inverted V, to indicate "Draw.") "Mark or no mark" is easier to distinguish than "P or D", IMO.

 

For clarity, in CADB the letters P and T are not applied to each button.  The buttons are numbered, with "  '  " marks to indicate the row eg 3' indicates button 3 on the first row,  4'' means button 4 on the second row. These are then placed above or below the line to indicate Push or Pull.

 

This works well for melodeon as the keyboard is continuous.  It seems to be fairly widely used in France.  Being a melodeon player I was aware of this system and did consider whether it could be adapted for anglo, but as you say having the keyboard split between two hands adds a further level of complexity.  It can be made to work, as Roger's example shows, but as hardly anyone seems to use it there didn't seem any point in pursuing it.

 

When exploring concertina tabs I was disappointed to find that there seems to be several different systems in use.  This means that whenever you look at a piece of tab you first have to find what system it is using and how the buttons are numbered.  Sometimes they appear to be similar but are quite different.  Some use violin bowing marks, but not being a violinist I don't find these helpful, and don't instinctively associate up and down bowing with push and pull bellows.  It's interesting that your tutor uses an inverted V for a draw, wheres "V" fiddle mark represents a down bow.  It can all get a bit confusing, unless you are able to stick with a single system.  It doesn't help in my case that my anglos have more than 30 buttons so I have to extend the numbering, and my melodeon starts the scale on the 4th button whereas CADB assumes a third button start.

 

To be honest, I'm not a great fan of tab, on any instrument.  Sometimes, when it's taken me a long time to work out the best way to play a particular phrase it can be useful as a way of recording that so I don't forget it, but as a way of learning tunes I find it only occasionally useful.  I am principally an ear player, so I'll figure out a tune for myself rather than directly from dots or someone else's tab.  However tab is undoubtedly a useful addition to the toolbox.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, hjcjones said:

(1) ... It can be made to work, as Roger's example shows, but as hardly anyone seems to use it there didn't seem any point in pursuing it....

 

(2) ...When exploring concertina tabs I was disappointed to find that there seems to be several different systems in use....

 

(3) ...To be honest, I'm not a great fan of tab, on any instrument...However tab is undoubtedly a useful addition to the toolbox.

 

Yup!

 

(1) ...but the 'system' disintegrated early on. I was using the w: field, and it doesn't extend far enough to the left to allow the insertion of the "Push" or "Pull".

Text annotations are no good either because they follow the base of the note ('following the bouncing ball...'). This is what happens in the system I use, but it

don't work here. Interspersing text (%%text...) in the middle of the music was just too messy, so yes, 'there didn't seem any point in pursuing it'. I guess that

someone could write a CADB-based 'tablature' file specifically for ABC, but not this pilgrim...😎

[I should add that all this blew up because I'm acting as a low-profile 'mentor' for a new player (if you knew how rotten a player I am, you would larf, and larf, and larf at that idea!). I still don't know

exactly how this chap intends to use this CADB system (email only at the moment...).]

 

(2) Me? I was outraged. How dare these folk make life even more difficult for me than it already is?😎 I've looked at 5 systems (6 if you count this CADB system).

Let's call the first 5 the MB, ABT, PI, CS and GC systems. I elected (~4-5 years ago) to go for MB and finally ABT (which looks very much like MB if you pull the two

apart and look at the fine detail). These 2 both have the advantage of simplicity and brevity, and are easy to integrate into an existing score. I do have 5 pages

of closely packed notes about my 'experiments' though - I read them when I want to fall asleep quickly...😏

 

(3) I entirely agree with what you say. I quite deliberately looked for a system which would provide me with the minimum information to allow me to get some

sort of a tune, but which would force me to: (a) sharpen up my 'ear'oling' skills, and (b) learn to sight-read. Getting there - very slowly, but getting there...

 

I never though about 30+ button instruments. Bother!

Edited by lachenal74693

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...