Jump to content

Anglo tablature and the English Concertina


dmksails

Recommended Posts

I'm a  beginning EC player.  I've found that there are several books out there with music I'm interested in that are written for anglo.  Should be no reason I couldn't play these if I could understand the tabs.

I've uploaded an example.  I understand that the numbers correspond to the anglo's keyboard and I've downloaded an image that shows the keyboard for a 20-key C/G anglo.  As I understand it, the 5-4 under the second note refers to keys 5 & 4 on the left of the concertina and the notes would be associated with a push.  That suggests that 5&4 are notes G & E.  Here's the question - where on the scale are these E&G notes?

What I need is a diagram showing buttons and the corresponding note on a scale.  If I had an instrument I could probably figure it out, but since I don't I'm guessing.  I've tried mapping them, but it's not looking right and doesn't sound right when I try to play them.

TabExample.thumb.PNG.c2195e0bda9846c4807f247808d55f81.PNG

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are diagrams mapping the EC buttons to the notes of the scale. There is even a shortcut for EC (thanks, Mr. Wheatstone) where notes on lines of the staff are on one hand and notes in spaces are on the other. One of the EC players here will post the diagram for you, I'm sure.

 

There are also the concertina apps for iPad by Michael Eskin, which would let you practice (and map out notes for yourself) if you have an iPad.

 

Ken (AC player)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My apologies for misunderstanding.

 

There are coded diagram of anglo layouts by octave...let me see if I can find one online...both copies that I knew of on C.net are no longer linked...back in a bit.

 

Ken

 

Edited to add: The color charts by Marc Lamb have vanished. The concertina faq chart gives notes but not octaves.

 

OK, I'll upload a copy from an online archive. 20 key is the bottom 2 of the 3 rows. C2 is Middle C and A2 is A440.

 

 

Anglo_chart_Lamb.jpg

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, dmksails said:

I'm a  beginning EC player.  I've found that there are several books out there with music I'm interested in

that are written for anglo.  Should be no reason I couldn't play these if I could understand the tabs....

You may need to be  a bit careful here! If you have a selection of Anglo books from different sources, you will already have

clocked this one, but just in case:

 

Different books use different button numbering systems - a potential source of confusion - whatever the actual notes may be...

 

Books by Mick Bramich and the online Anglo tutor on the Australian Bush Traditions web site use symmetric button numbering:

 

5 4 3 2 1 Left     Right 1 2 3 4 5 - repeated for each row

 

The book by Chris Sherburn uses an asymmetric, discontinuous numbering system:

 

0 4 3 2 1 Left     Right 5 6 7 8 9 - repeated for each row

 

The book by Pip Ives uses an asymmetric numbering system (I think):

 

1 2 3 4 5 Left     Right 1 2 3 4 5 - repeated for each row

 

While the books by Gary Coover use the numbering system shown in the diagram in an earlier post, which spreads across two

rows. I presume that at least one of your books is by GC as the diagram in your OP appears to be from one of his books, but you

don't say if you have books from different sources.

 

There are other books which may use different numbering systems. What fun...

 

 

Edited by The Crimson Avenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, it's a huge problem with Anglo tablature often being so erratic. I've been "collecting" the various methods I run across and there are at least 20 that have been proposed. Most of the early 1800's tutors were fairly consistent in their numbering systems (1-10 on both sides), but in the last 50 years there have been several folks who thought they could improve on that, coming up with some really difficult (and sometimes really bizarre) numbering and notation systems in the process.

 

As for indicators of bellows direction, well, that has been all over the place since the get-go. I show nothing for push, and draw a simple overhead line for notes and phrases on the draw. But I must say I'm sorely tempted to use "P" for push and "P" for pull!

 

Gary

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, gcoover said:

As for indicators of bellows direction, well, that has been all over the place since the get-go. I show nothing for push, and draw a simple overhead line for notes and phrases on the draw. But I must say I'm sorely tempted to use "P" for push and "P" for pull!

 

I think it would be much easier if you used 'S' for Suck and 'S' for Squeeze.

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, gcoover said:

Yes, it's a huge problem with Anglo tablature often being so erratic. I've been "collecting" the various methods I run across and there are at least 20 that have been proposed. Most of the early 1800's tutors were fairly consistent in their numbering systems (1-10 on both sides), but in the last 50 years there have been several folks who thought they could improve on that, coming up with some really difficult (and sometimes really bizarre) numbering and notation systems in the process.

 

As for indicators of bellows direction, well, that has been all over the place since the get-go. I show nothing for push, and draw a simple overhead line for notes and phrases on the draw. But I must say I'm sorely tempted to use "P" for push and "P" for pull!

 

Gary

 

Me too! Some of the tutors published at the turn of the 19th/20th centuries are available on the concertina.com

web site.

 

In the field of human anatomy, 'fingers' are often numbered 1-5, starting at the thumb and working outwards.

In beginning piano tutors, the same numbering system seems to be in use. (Probably on fairly shaky grounds)

I use those 'precedents' as the basis for my personal preference for the symmetric system, but yes, it's different

strokes  for different folks, I guess, and it's a bit of a can of worms with all the different systems...

 

The OP says he is a beginning English player. Is he aware of the English tutors available here and here? If not,

they may be helpful...

-------------------------------------

The Bramich/ABT systems are essentially the same. One uses ■ and □ for push and pull, and t'other uses 'nothing'  and '^',  so L1■ and L1□ mean

the same as L1 and L1^. I can also recommend the Scottish terms 'Sook' and 'Blaw'...?

Edited by The Crimson Avenger
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It will be interesting to see if the OP can eventually adapt harmonic-style Anglo arrangements to EC, since the two instruments are laid out so fundamentally different.

 

Bass note and chord accompaniments are super easy on Anglo, but on EC will be cause for much finger jumping and leaping about between the two sides as well as up and down each side.

 

When I first met Jim Lucas back in 1979, he was working on playing EC so it sounded like an Anglo - a very daunting task, especially with all the jumps and the forced bellows changes to mimic the push-pull dynamics. 

 

Instead, I would highly recommend the Butler book for learning EC, and then work on which harmonies make sense with the EC's layout - simple thirds and fifths typically work quite well, listen to folks like Louis Killen, Tony Rose, Alf Edwards, etc.

 

Gary

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, gcoover said:

he was working on playing EC so it sounded like an Anglo - a very daunting task, especially with all the jumps and the forced bellows changes to mimic the push-pull dynamics. 

This is a good point!

I'm a multi-instrumentalist, being self-taught on all my instruments. While I have found that each instrument teaches you something that is useful for the others, it is also true that my personal arrangement of a given tune differs from one instrument to the other. I'm a folkie, so the melody is inviolable, and when I've worked on a tune for a while, the chord sequence is also pretty well cast in concrete. However, the actual notes that I play, which chord inversions and chord voicings I use, depend on what falls most easily on the keyboard or fingerboard of the particular instrument. My Anglo and 5-string-banjo arrangements of the Psalm tune Crimond obviously sound very different because of the timbre of the instruments, and in spite of the same melody and chord sequence. My Anglo and Crane Duet arrangements of The Greenland Whalers, on the other hand, probably slound pretty similar to a listener because of the simliarity of timbre, and in spite of the fact that I use parallel thirds at some places on the Anglo, because they're simple, and at other places I use suspended notes on the Crane, because they're easy.

 

I reckon you'll get the best results if you exploit the specific strengths of your instrument!

 

In short, if you want to use an arrangement that was made for a different instrument from yours, do so at an abstract level, i.e chord structure and rhythmic treatment, and not at the note-by-note level.

Cheers,

John

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...