Duet Or Anglo?

[craig]

wondering if anyone has an opinion on the relative merits of an anglo vs duet for a second concertina. i've played the english for years.

[bill_mchale]

wondering if anyone has an opinion on the relative merits of an anglo vs duet for a second concertina. i've played the english for years.

 

It all depends on what you want to play with it.

 

--

Bill

[Alan Day]

Craig ,this may sound rude reply to your question, but after listening to some recent playing of the English Concertina,even without hearing you play,there is so much that can be done on an English why change systems?

I tried what you are suggesting with a duet and soon switched back to the Anglo.It will pay dividends to work on new ideas for the instrument you have,rather than lose time working out another system.

Al

Edited March 2, 2006 by Alan Day

[Chris Timson]

There are a few people aeound who play more than one system. To be honest, I've always wondered why. I can see that playing a different system can give different musical insights, but you could get that [heresy warning] by playing a different instrument entirely, which has the added advantage of not sounding like a concertina. To explain that last point, to the average punter two concertinas sound the same regardless of the system, it's only the congnoscenti who realise that the player is in fact playing two different kinds of instrument. Whereas if the second instrument is, I don't know, a flute, well then you're a multi-instrumentalist and the gosh factor goes right up.

 

Chis

[JimLucas]

There are a few people aeound who play more than one system. To be honest, I've always wondered why. I can see that playing a different system can give different musical insights, but you could get that [heresy warning] by playing a different instrument entirely, which has the added advantage of not sounding like a concertina. To explain that last point, to the average punter two concertinas sound the same regardless of the system, it's only the congnoscenti who realise that the player is in fact playing two different kinds of instrument. Whereas if the second instrument is, I don't know, a flute, well then you're a multi-instrumentalist and the gosh factor goes right up.

My purpose in working with different kinds of concertina is musical, not trying to impress an audience with my versatility. I'm already a "multi-instrumentalist", playing pretty well on English concertina, whistle, and bones, and less well on other concertinas, winds, and percussion.

 

Your "heresy", Chris, is in implying that the insights obtained from playing a different instrument come from its being different, not from the nature of the differences. In fact, each different instrument brings its own insights. That's why in addition to the English I'm not only working with the anglo and duet, but with different kinds of duet: Crane, Maccann, Pitt-Taylor, and I hope some day the Jeffries and Hayden. Two other systems I'd love to try are the Wheatstone "double" and the Linton (usually described as a "duet", but it's not). And I should really learn to play the piano, too.

 

On each concertina I work with I've discovered harmonies, ornaments, or other techniques that I found I could transfer to others, but which I wouldn't have discovered instinctively on those others. (The Pitt-Taylor, e.g., has made me aware of some previously unnoticed advantages to cross-row playing on the anglo.) And trying to understand why I was unable to transfer other things has still led to additional insights as to what I can do.

 

In addition, though they all look pretty much alike to the untrained eye, when played to their best advantage each sounds quite different from the others. One doesn't normally say to a fiddler who also plays banjo, "Why didn't you take up saxophone, instead? The fiddle and banjo are so much alike; after all, they both have strings." No, just as the fiddle, banjo, and guitar are all quite different from each other, so are the English, anglo, and each of the duets.

[Chris Timson]

Your "heresy", Chris, is in implying that the insights obtained from playing a different instrument come from its being different, not from the nature of the differences.

Nope. My somewhat tongue-in-cheek heresy was intended to be in suggesting playing a different instrument on, of all places, concertina.net. That different instruments offer different insights seems to me, I am afraid, self-evident and thus not in need of belabouring to make the point.

One doesn't normally say to a fiddler who also plays banjo, "Why didn't you take up saxophone, instead? The fiddle and banjo are so much alike; after all, they both have strings." No, just as the fiddle, banjo, and guitar are all quite different from each other, so are the English, anglo, and each of the duets.

Now you've lost me.

 

The thrust of my (again I say tongue-in-cheek) argument is that the Great Unwashed Public is more impresssed by appearance than substance. So a banjo-playing fiddler (or even a mandolin-playing fiddler) would be onto a winner. If I wasn't being tongue-in-cheek I would have said different things. Nevetheless, I would still say that anyone considering a different system should also consider the possibilities offered by a different musical instrument entirely. There is an interesting discussion to be had, I think, as to what would be a good complementary choice, and if I wasn't just going out I'd start it now.

 

Chris

Edited March 3, 2006 by Chris Timson

[PeterT]

On each concertina I work with I've discovered harmonies, ornaments, or other techniques that I found I could transfer to others, but which I wouldn't have discovered instinctively on those others. (The Pitt-Taylor, e.g., has made me aware of some previously unnoticed advantages to cross-row playing on the anglo.) And trying to understand why I was unable to transfer other things has still led to additional insights as to what I can do.

 

Hi Jim,

 

It's not often that I am TOTALLY lost when trying to understand a point about concertina systems. A Google search for Pitt-Taylor revealed an article by Brian Hayden (perhaps I should ask him to comment), but I have extracted the following:

 

Some people see the "square form" of keyboard as different from the ones that have set intervals in triangles, however I see this as a special case with right angled triangles, where one set of intervals is about to form into another. Take for example the Pitt-Taylor 1922 Pat.No. 208274 keyboard. with semitones along the rows of notes and half octaves above them, i.e. a rows of notes:

 

F F# G G# A Bb

B C C# D Eb E

 

What I'm wondering, is what this system taught you, in terms of cross-row playing on the Anglo?

 

Thanks and regards,

Peter.

[JimLucas]

The Pitt-Taylor, e.g., has made me aware of some previously unnoticed advantages to cross-row playing on the anglo.

It's not often that I am TOTALLY lost when trying to understand a point about concertina systems. A Google search for Pitt-Taylor revealed an article by Brian Hayden (perhaps I should ask him to comment), but I have extracted the following: ...

What I'm wondering, is what this system taught you, in terms of cross-row playing on the Anglo?

In brief, nothing, because my instrument is a later and very different Pitt-Taylor design.

 

I've created a new Topic to elaborate on what I meant. It can be found here.

[JimLucas]

Your "heresy", Chris, is in implying that the insights obtained from playing a different instrument come from its being different, not from the nature of the differences.

Nope. My somewhat tongue-in-cheek heresy was intended to be in suggesting playing a different instrument on, of all places, concertina.net. That different instruments offer different insights seems to me, I am afraid, self-evident and thus not in need of belabouring to make the point.

Different perspectives. What I meant was that I didn't agree with you as to what was "heresy" (acknowledging the quotes to indicate non-literal intent). I don't recall that there's any general feeling here that concertina players should not play anything else, but I felt/feel that your wording -- "I can see that playing a different system can give different musical insights, but you could get that [heresy warning] by playing a different instrument entirely,..." -- could be (mis)contrued to imply what I suggested as "heresy" (also intended somewhat tongue in cheek).

 

One doesn't normally say to a fiddler who also plays banjo, "Why didn't you take up saxophone, instead? The fiddle and banjo are so much alike; after all, they both have strings." No, just as the fiddle, banjo, and guitar are all quite different from each other, so are the English, anglo, and each of the duets.

Now you've lost me.

I like to compare the "three different kinds" of concertina -- English, anglo, and duet -- to the three kinds of stringed instrument -- fiddle, banjo, and guitar -- because of the styles most often used on each. My point was that just because the English and anglo superficially look very similar is not a good reason to speak of them as if there's little of no difference. E.g., I've never heard anyone ask someone who plays both fiddle (or even mandolin) and guitar, "Don't you get the fingerings confused?"

 

You yourself implied that the flute is more different from a concertina than the different concertinas are from each other, and I think that in musical terms that just isn't true. If you meant that tongue in cheek, it didn't come through clearly to me.

 

The thrust of my (again I say tongue-in-cheek) argument is that the Great Unwashed Public is more impresssed by appearance than substance.

I certainly agree with your statement, but I consider it a good reason for ignoring them. Your opening statement -- "There are a few people aeound who play more than one system. To be honest, I've always wondered why," -- left me to expect that something in what followed was not tongue in cheek. If not that, then what? If I -- who know you -- might take you seriously on that point, then what about others? I felt that whether or not you intended to suggest that taking up the flute really is preferable to taking up a second kind of concertina, the idea needed a counterbalance.

 

That's all.

[PeterT]

do you ever find any time to play,have you tried the song rabbit rabbit you got more rabbit than sainsburys.ho ho ha ha .

 

Hi Dick,

 

I thought that this was a discussion forum. No-one mentioned about playing! Now where did I leave my concertina?

 

Regards,

Peter.

[JimLucas]

have you tried the song rabbit rabbit you got more rabbit than sainsburys.ho ho ha ha .

Sainsbury's? Izzat anything like Cadbury's? I loooove chocolate!

 

And chocolate rabbits is a topic that hasn't been very active lately.

[Cream-T]

We're getting into the dangerous season for chocolate rabbits. The ones in our garden usually disappear down their burrows come March and don't re-appear before the first of May!

[Animaterra]

Chocolate rabbits are alive and well but very, very busy!

 

But to get back on-topic- I would love to get back to adding English to my anglo playing. I never had a decent English instrument, and once I got ol' Jeff I just wasn't playing the other. I do miss the key versatility, and the smooth, mellow tone (not a tone that was available to me on my Mayfair, but one I hear whenever in the presence of a good player with a good instrument...). And I enjoyed the challenge of the difference in fingerboard and bellows! I could easily be lured back, if a nice Wheatstone or other was set down in the ol' briar patch! But my current budget simply won't allow it!