Hayden Chords

[squeezegirl]

Mike K wrote - "Welcome to the wonderful world of the Hayden Duet! There aren't very many of us yet, but we're growing. I bought a Stagi from Button Box 18 months ago (at NESI) and am having a great time with it. Is yours also a Stagi? Best wishes" --

 

Thanks for that greeting, Mike. Yes, mine's a Stagi. As I understand it, there's only the Stagi and the Tedrow, up to now. I have 21 buttons on the left hand and am managing most chords very nicely except F Minor and C Minor, meaning I have to 'split' the chord between both sides.

 

Example: to play C Minor I have to play C G on the left and Eb on the right, or vice versa.

 

But I'm finding things sound a lot better if I don't try to play 3-note or 4-note chords every time. I'm finding that 2-notes of the chord often makes things sound less cacophonous - or should I say 'muddy' ?

 

Playing the C D and E on the first row of the left hand is also challenging.

 

The Hayden layout is simplicity itself. I'm having to get used to it of course. I also play an Anglo. On the Anglo someone can call a song and I can play it straight off. Can't do this on the Hayden as yet.

 

Right now I'm working on that jazz classic : All Of Me - and having fun!

 

MC

[Richard Morse]

I have 21 buttons on the left hand and am managing most chords very nicely except F Minor and C Minor, meaning I have to 'split' the chord between both sides.

I play both those chords completely on the left side. Try using the D# for the Eb in the Cm chord and the Bb for the A# in the Fm chord (though that probably would be more difficult for you as the Stagi's buttons are further apart and at a greater slant than my Wheatstone's are).

But I'm finding things sound a lot better if I don't try to play 3-note or 4-note chords every time. I'm finding that 2-notes of the chord often makes things sound less cacophonous - or should I say 'muddy' ?

That seems to be generally the case, especially for lower note chords. I also often spread out the notes in chords so that they're further apart (such as playing a C chord as C,G,E with the E being above the G rather than between the C and G).

Playing the C D and E on the first row of the left hand is also challenging.

It doesn't seem so for me. What fingers are you using for them? I use my R,M,I fingers for those first three notes.

[JimLucas]

Try using the D# for the Eb in the Cm chord and the Bb for the A# in the Fm chord...

Uh, do you mean G# for the Ab in the Fm chord?

[squeezegirl]

quote]Playing the C D and E on the first row of the left hand is also challenging.

It doesn't seem so for me. What fingers are you using for them? I use my R,M,I fingers for those first three notes.

 

Yes, I'm using those fingers as well but (I don't know if it's my instrument) the concertina is hard to 'push' and get a sound to come out from the low C E and E.

 

Yes to your observation... because of the wide spacing on the notes I can finger the C Eb and G with one hand... thus requiring me to 'split' the chord betwen the two sides.

 

MC

[Richard Morse]

Try using the D# for the Eb in the Cm chord and the Bb for the A# in the Fm chord...

Uh, do you mean G# for the Ab in the Fm chord?

Yes, your right. I don't know what I was thinking/typing!

[Richard Morse]

Yes, I'm using those fingers as well but (I don't know if it's my instrument) the concertina is hard to 'push' and get a sound to come out from the low C E and E.

Are you talking about it being difficult to finger those buttons, difficult to squeeze the bellows, or that those reeds are hesitant to speak? Keep in mind that Stagis have much less less responsive bellows, action, and reeds than do "traditional" concertinas (even after adjusting things to be a good as they can be) and some Stagis are designed/constructed better than others but even the best are far behind "traditional" concertinas.

Yes to your observation... because of the wide spacing on the notes I can finger the C Eb and G with one hand... thus requiring me to 'split' the chord betwen the two sides.

I'm still confused. If you can finger those 3 notes on one hand why do you "require to split the chord between the two sides"? Or maybe the "can" was a typo and you meant "cannot"?

 

I usually play Cm, Eb major, etc. using my thumb for the D#. I find that I can easily reach both the D# and G# and do so often as it's much easier than spreading my hand (as you'd mentioned) though my box is a Wheatstone which may have those notes closer to the handrest than your Stagi's positioning.

[squeezegirl]

Thanks to everybody who's been offerring sugestions. I'll try to answer two Q's here...

 

Yes it was a typo... I cant reach the Eb with my thumb and the 'spawn' from the G to the Eb is too troublesome (for me) to consider it practical.

 

To Richard: when playing the low C D and E it requires really hard pressure to get sound of any decent volume, I actually have to "fight' the box! But on the next row, the F G A B free up and all the other notes play OK.

 

I'm experimenting with different strap positions... tightening, slackening, to see what works best.

 

No problem at all with the right hand.

 

MC

[David Barnert]

As I understand it, there's only the Stagi and the Tedrow, up to now...

"Up to now" is not quite accurate. Perhaps better would be "at the moment." In the past (included in "up to now"), Colin Dipper and Steve Dickinson (Wheatstone & Co) have made excellent Haydens, but not recently.

[ragtimer]

Yes it was a typo... I can't reach the Eb with my thumb and the 'spawn' from the G to the Eb is too troublesome (for me) to consider it practical.

 

To Richard: when playing the low C D and E it requires really hard pressure to get sound of any decent volume, I actually have to "fight' the box! But on the next row, the F G A B free up and all the other notes play OK.

 

I'm experimenting with different strap positions... tightening, slackening, to see what works best.

 

No problem at all with the right hand.

 

Yes, the Cm and Fm chords are quite a stretch, as is the F7 (using that same D# as Eb).

A couple suggestions:

Try using your Pinky finger on the root C or F isntead of Ring -- that will give you some more slack.

 

Also, if you play your middle finger over one button -- A instead of G on a Cm chord, or D for C on the Fm, you will get a "Minor plus 6" chord, which is very useful and in *some* contexts sounds just as good as the straight minor chord. This use of the M finger makes less of a reach for you Index at the D#/Eb.

 

A third idea: Stretch your LH and keep trying. I find these chords a lot easier and quicker to hit now than when I started. My hands are pretty small for a man, BTW.

 

I found that tightening the straps all the way was best for me.

 

Actually, using a RH note to fill in a chord is a good advanced Duet technique, but you don't want to be totally dependent on it for those important minor chords. I see you've chosen a jazz tune (All Of Me) to practice -- jazz tunes will really work you over for accidental melody notes (sharps/flats) and advanced chords. So you'll learn fast! I've been working on "Lullaby of Birdland".

 

Your bottom row of reeds must be set wrong. My Stagi is naturally a little slow down there, but I don't have any trouble getting those reeds to speak with a gentle bellows push. I hope that as you play, your instrument will "break in" and "loosen up" some.

 

Keep talking with us -- and squeezing -- Mike K.

Edited April 16, 2006 by ragtimer

[ragtimer]

"Up to now" is not quite accurate. Perhaps better would be "at the moment." In the past (included in "up to now"), Colin Dipper and Steve Dickinson (Wheatstone & Co) have made excellent Haydens, but not recently.

 

David is right (naturally, since he owns one of those Dickinson Haydens, as does Rich, and yes they are excellent). And they sound like concertinas. i.e., like vintage Anglos or Englishes. And yes, the Cm and Fm and F7 chords are just a little easier to hit on these -- I got to try them last weekend (thanks again, guys!).

 

But another issue, besides quality and sound, is the number of buttons. Unless (until?) my Stagi 46-key wears out, I don't know that I would spend the big bux for a gently used Dickinson Wheatstone with the same 46 keys. OK, if I got a really GOOD deal ... !

 

Tedrow adds the low C# and D# on each side, which is an improvement, and he might be willing to put the LH D# in the Eb position where it will do more good. Wonder if his waiting period is less than a year?

 

But I'm holding out for a Hayden with at least 6 or 8 more keys. As you learn and attempt more tunes and chords on yours, you'll find out what notes you wish you had. But see Rich's key layout diagram (don't know the link offhand, but it's here somewhere) -- his "minimal" layout is well beyond the 46-keys and pretty powerful. Just that minimal layout would get my checkbook out.

 

Oh yes, Bastari (predecessor of Stagi) did make a few Haydens way back when with something like 60 buttons, but "few" here means 2 or half a dozen. Not likely to pop up on eBay.

 

Anyway, I tell people to get a Stagi 46, practice, get good, save up money, and hope there's something really good when you're ready. --Mike K.

Edited April 16, 2006 by ragtimer

[JimLucas]

Anyway, I tell people to get a Stagi 46, practice, get good, save up money, and hope there's something really good when you're ready.

Or get a nice vintage Crane duet.

55 is an excellent number of buttons.

[ragtimer]

Anyway, I tell people to get a Stagi 46, practice, get good, save up money, and hope there's something really good when you're ready.

Or get a nice vintage Crane duet.

55 is an excellent number of buttons.

 

At least you didn't say "Maccann" like everyone else :-)

I have in fact been intrigued by the Crane/Triumph duet system, and watched one go by on eBay recently (I think it went for only $1200 or so), but having actually gotten to see and touch one at the NE Workshop, I notice that the LH has far fewer notes than the RH. That would be fine for playing chord accompaniment, but might be limiting for "true duet" playing. I think the overlap is only about a fifth, and the LH goes only up to G above Middle C.

 

But then, I forget how many total buttons his had -- maybe 48, and with 55 it may be better. Anyway, I like the overall design of the Crane key layout.

 

I do feel the need to defend the Hayden aginst some who say that there are no decent Haydens to be had, therefore you should learn some other Duet system. I'm not accusing you of that, and yes there are some nice vintage Cranes and Maccanns out there.

 

I;d like to hear what kinds of music you play on your Crane, and your style of playing. And can you form such non-Hayden chords as Eb and Ab in root position?

--Mike K.

[JimLucas]

Or get a nice vintage Crane duet.

55 is an excellent number of buttons.

...having actually gotten to see and touch [a Crane] at the NE Workshop, I notice that the LH has far fewer notes than the RH. That would be fine for playing chord accompaniment, but might be limiting for "true duet" playing. I think the overlap is only about a fifth, and the LH goes only up to G above Middle C.

 

But then, I forget how many total buttons his had -- maybe 48, and with 55 it may be better. Anyway, I like the overall design of the Crane key layout.

Yes, you describe a 48-button Crane. There are "limitations" and "limitations". The left hand of a 48-button Crane has only one less button than the left hand of a 46-button Hayden (so the Crane's right hand has 3 buttons more than the Hayden's), which doesn't seem like a big difference. The difference is in the notes. The Hayden's left goes two diatonic steps higher (B above the Crane's G), but the Crane is fully chromatic, while the Hayden is not.

 

"What?!!" did I hear someone say? Well, the Hayden concept is fully chromatic, but its 46-button incarnation adheres to geometrical continuity, rather than musical continuity. As a result, it's missing the C# and D# from the bottom octave and the Bb from the top octave (left hand). The 48-button Crane's LH doesn't go quite as high, but it has no gaps.

 

Comparing overlap, the Crane 48 has 8 notes of overlap, the Hayden 46 has 9. Again, not much difference in the count, but a difference in the notes. The Hayden's overlap extends slightly higher, but the overlap is missing the lower C# and D# from the right hand and the upper Bb from the left. The Crane's overlap (yes, it's a fifth) is fully chromatic.

 

The Crane's right hand goes slightly higher than the Hayden's -- F as opposed to D, though on the 48 it's missing the C# and D# at the top. A 55-button Crane adds the 48's missing high C# and D# in the right hand and then extends the left up to C, for a full -- and fully chromatic -- octave of overlap (middle C up to "high" C).

 

I;d like to hear what kinds of music you play on your Crane, and your style of playing.

Well, I still play mainly on the English, and I consider my Crane playing pretty basic, but:

... Morris tunes and a few Irish tunes -- parallel octaves.

... Morris tunes and a couple of songs -- melody in right with boom-chuck chords in the left.

... The song "John Henry" -- melody in the right against persistent rocking bass in the left.

... A few tunes -- melody in the right against generally parallel harmony in the left.

... A couple of tunes -- melody in the right against drones in the left.

... A couple of tune arrangements less simple to describe, including one air I composed on the Crane.

... I've been working on some Medieval and Renaissance pieces arranged as duets for alto and soprano recorders. They're polyphonic, with melody and countermelody; a few are fugues. The octave separation of the left and right hands is the same as for the recorders, which is ideal.

... And I'm constantly experimenting.

 

I suppose I really should record some bits for the Tune Links page.

 

And can you form such non-Hayden chords as Eb and Ab in root position?

Easily. And those two have exactly the same configuration on the Crane; the Ab is just one row higher than the Eb. Those chords use buttons in both of the outer "columns" ("vertical rows"), but since the Crane keyboard is only 5 buttons wide, that's not a stretch. Most 3-note chords on the Crane span only four columns, and many (F, C, G, and their relative minors... and Bdim) only the central three.

 

On the 48-button Crane, every major (and minor, and diminished) chord is available in root position from C up to C an octave higher (middle C)... because the notes are all there. On the 55-button, this continues to the F chord above the highest (middle C) chord of the 48.

[ragtimer]

Yes, you describe a 48-button Crane. There are "limitations" and "limitations". The left hand of a 48-button Crane has only one less button than the left hand of a 46-button Hayden (so the Crane's right hand has 3 buttons more than the Hayden's), which doesn't seem like a big difference. The difference is in the notes. The Hayden's left goes two diatonic steps higher (B above the Crane's G), but the Crane is fully chromatic, while the Hayden is not.

 

"What?!!" did I hear someone say? Well, the Hayden concept is fully chromatic, but its 46-button incarnation adheres to geometrical continuity, rather than musical continuity. As a result, it's missing the C# and D# from the bottom octave and the Bb from the top octave (left hand). The 48-button Crane's LH doesn't go quite as high, but it has no gaps.

Yes -- this is something I realized long ago about the Hayden layout -- to fill in gaps in the bottom or top few notes, one has to add another row of a few buttons, which looks and feels awkward.

In Anglos, English, and other Duet schemes, any missing chromatic notes can be filled in wit extra buttons located near the "white" buttons, and assigned the accidentals that a musician would find most useful.

Whereas this approach would "break" the regularity of the Hayden scheme. It is a problem.

Comparing overlap, the Crane 48 has 8 notes of overlap, the Hayden 46 has 9. Again, not much difference in the count, but a difference in the notes. The Hayden's overlap extends slightly higher, but the overlap is missing the lower C# and D# from the right hand and the upper Bb from the left. The Crane's overlap (yes, it's a fifth) is fully chromatic.

Well taken. In effect, the Hayden has a wider overlap but only good for certain key signatures.

Well, I still play mainly on the English, and I consider my Crane playing pretty basic, but:

... Morris tunes and a few Irish tunes -- parallel octaves.

... Morris tunes and a couple of songs -- melody in right with boom-chuck chords in the left.

... The song "John Henry" -- melody in the right against persistent rocking bass in the left.

... A few tunes -- melody in the right against generally parallel harmony in the left.

... A couple of tunes -- melody in the right against drones in the left.

... A couple of tune arrangements less simple to describe, including one air I composed on the Crane.

... I've been working on some Medieval and Renaissance pieces arranged as duets for alto and soprano recorders. They're polyphonic, with melody and countermelody; a few are fugues. The octave separation of the left and right hands is the same as for the recorders, which is ideal.

... And I'm constantly experimenting.

I suppose I really should record some bits for the Tune Links page.

Fine -- this sounds like the range of variety I'm trying to achieve on my Hayden. One thing about Duets, there are fewer preconceived notions of what sort of music you "should" be playing.

And can you form such non-Hayden chords as Eb and Ab in root position?

Easily. And those two have exactly the same configuration on the Crane; the Ab is just one row higher than the Eb. Those chords use buttons in both of the outer "columns" ("vertical rows"), but since the Crane keyboard is only 5 buttons wide, that's not a stretch. Most 3-note chords on the Crane span only four columns, and many (F, C, G, and their relative minors... and Bdim) only the central three.

 

On the 48-button Crane, every major (and minor, and diminished) chord is available in root position from C up to C an octave higher (middle C)... because the notes are all there. On the 55-button, this continues to the F chord above the highest (middle C) chord of the 48.

Well, that is excellent! It agrees with what I surmised from someone's button chart, and maybe, just maybe, I should do more than watch the next time a Crane shows up on eBay ... Mike K.

[JimLucas]

...the Hayden concept is fully chromatic, but its 46-button incarnation adheres to geometrical continuity, rather than musical continuity. As a result, it's missing the C# and D# from the bottom octave and the Bb from the top octave (left hand). The 48-button Crane's LH doesn't go quite as high, but it has no gaps.

Yes -- this is something I realized long ago about the Hayden layout -- to fill in gaps in the bottom or top few notes, one has to add another row of a few buttons, which looks and feels awkward.

Why "awkward"? If one added another full row, that would just leave new gaps, but the use of the missing C# and D# (at the bottom), if they're added in their proper geometrical relationshipshould be anything but awkward. To be sure, you could reach for another lower note "in that row" -- e.g., a low A -- and it wouldn't be there, but aren't you already doing that with the C# and D#?

 

I don't see any good reason why one should have to construct the button layout only in geometrically "complete" rows, rather than musically complete sequences. It's not that you'll be looking at the ends while you play, much less admiring their geometry. In fact, the current layouts aren't entirely regular, with different rows having different numbers of buttons.

 

In Anglos, English, and other Duet schemes, any missing chromatic notes can be filled in wit extra buttons located near the "white" buttons, and assigned the accidentals that a musician would find most useful.

Neither entirely true nor -- as I suggest above -- particularly relevant. The Hayden design is such that musically adjacent half-steps are not physically adjacent anywhere in the layout.

 

Whereas this approach would "break" the regularity of the Hayden scheme. It is a problem.

So I ask, is it a "problem" that hinders playing, or simply an aesthetic clash with the way you're used to visualizing the pattern? I suspect the latter, while I think the current 46-button layout does create "problems" with playing, i.e., the missing notes. And even in terms of geometrical patterns, how is adding a 2-button row -- C# and D# -- under the lower F# and G# any more inconsistent than the 3-button short row of Bb, C, and D at the top of the right hand in the current 46-button layout?

 

One thing about Duets, there are fewer preconceived notions of what sort of music you "should" be playing.

Preconceptions come from the preconceiver. When I got my first Maccann, I didn't know any duet players from whom to inherit preconceptions. I tried reading 4-part choral arrangements, and quickly became disenchanted. Most piano arrangements seemed to include too broad and low a spread in the left hand to be viable. At that point I had no experience with improvising left hand chords against a melody (I had played French horn, not piano), and it didn't even occur to me to try. When I finally did meet some duet players (at Witney), they were playing very rich chordal arrangements on instruments with more buttons than my 55. A German fellow I met some years later at Bielefeld was the first I heard play dance tunes on duet... with wonderful chord work, by the way.

 

Since then I have managed to expand my horizons and shed some preconceptions. At some point I'll go back to the Maccann and probably also try the Hayden, but as additions to, not replacements for, the other instruments I play.

[ragtimer]

Yes -- this is something I realized long ago about the Hayden layout -- to fill in gaps in the bottom or top few notes, one has to add another row of a few buttons, which looks and feels awkward.

Why "awkward"? If one added another full row, that would just leave new gaps, but the use of the missing C# and D# (at the bottom), if they're added in their proper geometrical relationshipshould be anything but awkward. To be sure, you could reach for another lower note "in that row" -- e.g., a low A -- and it wouldn't be there, but aren't you already doing that with the C# and D#?

Well I agree, Jim, that to put those added accidentals anywhere but where they're supposed to be, would be far more awkward when playing. Though I can imagine some Hayden owner wanting to add a lower row of buttons with whatever notes he missed having the most, and placed in some arbitrary way. He'd then have an individual instrument that nobody else could play properly, diverging from the Hayden scheme, so I wouldn't support that idea.

I don't see any good reason why one should have to construct the button layout only in geometrically "complete" rows, rather than musically complete sequences. It's not that you'll be looking at the ends while you play, much less admiring their geometry. In fact, the current layouts aren't entirely regular, with different rows having different numbers of buttons.

Right, there's no compelling reason, just engineering esthetics. Compared to the Crane/Triumph layout, which is truly elegant, regular, and can add notes as needed, where they "should" be. But no, it doesn't matter how it looks from the ends; what counts is that the notes are where you expect them.

 

The Hayden design is such that musically adjacent half-steps are not physically adjacent anywhere in the layout.

Yes, as much as I love the Hayden scheme, this is my pet peeve -- that the shortest interval (that leads to related black and white notes) is the widest, and has the most effect on fingering patterns. What makes it worse is the fact that the half-step note may be left or right of the first note, unless you have duplciated accidentals at both ends of the rows.

 

And even in terms of geometrical patterns, how is adding a 2-button row -- C# and D# -- under the lower F# and G# any more inconsistent than the 3-button short row of Bb, C, and D at the top of the right hand in the current 46-button layout?

No difference, really, but those (valuable) C# and D# just look funny in the Tedrow photos.

BTW, for playing purposes I'd prefer the D# to be in the Eb position on the LH side. That would leave the C# all by itself off the corner -- which is better than not having it at all, for certain.

One thing about Duets, there are fewer preconceived notions of what sort of music you "should" be playing.

Preconceptions come from the preconceiver. When I got my first Maccann, I didn't know any duet players from whom to inherit preconceptions. I tried reading 4-part choral arrangements, and quickly became disenchanted. Most piano arrangements seemed to include too broad and low a spread in the left hand to be viable.

Right, that's my point -- you weren't "expected" to play Irish, or contredance, or whatever. It was a little humorous, but a good thing, that the New Engladn workshop a couple weeks ago had sessions on how to play Irish style on an English, and also English styles on an Anglo! Maybe (!) we duet players have less to unlearn to do that?

 

I quickly found that 4-part hymns are arranged for piano/organ keyboards and don't work on a Hayden.

Since then I have managed to expand my horizons and shed some preconceptions. At some point I'll go back to the Maccann and probably also try the Hayden, but as additions to, not replacements for, the other instruments I play.

I too am trying to expand the styles that I play. I've been happy with dance and Irish tunes, especially playing boom-chuck chords in the LH with bass runs.

How about the Crane duet? ISTR that's your main squeeze. It looks very clean and regular, though in a totally different way from the Hayden. It seems to have just the right number of accidentals in the right places, though with the English inconsistency re sharp or flat.

--Mike K.

[JimLucas]

]I don't see any good reason why one should have to construct the button layout only in geometrically "complete" rows, rather than musically complete sequences.

Right, there's no compelling reason, just engineering esthetics.

Your aesthetics apparently differ from mine. To me, having those notes right where they're needed, and yet without even more buttons, which would create other gaps, is a positive aesthetic.

 

Compared to the Crane/Triumph layout, which is truly elegant, regular, and can add notes as needed, where they "should" be.

??? But it doesn't "add notes as needed", because there's no need to add any unless you've arbitrarily deleted some from the standard pattern. (Unless you really extend the range with lots of buttons, but more on that below.)

 

...as much as I love the Hayden scheme, this is my pet peeve -- that the shortest interval (that leads to related black and white notes) is the widest, and has the most effect on fingering patterns. What makes it worse is the fact that the half-step note may be left or right of the first note, unless you have duplciated accidentals at both ends of the rows.

A 7-wide row strikes me as the maximum for comfortable playing, without having some way to shift the hand significantly from side to side. But it seems a problem to shift only when you want to, yet hold the hand in place the rest of the time.

 

...those (valuable) C# and D# just look funny in the Tedrow photos.

To you they look funny. To me they look just right.

 

How about the Crane duet? ISTR that's your main squeeze.

No. As I said, the English is my main squeeze. But of the duets, the Crane is my main.

 

It looks very clean and regular, though in a totally different way from the Hayden. It seems to have just the right number of accidentals in the right places, though with the English inconsistency re sharp or flat.

Actually, it doesn't have quite "the right number" of accidentals. The English has more "black" notes per octave than necessary to match the "white" notes, but the Crane doesn't have quite enough. That's why the Crane has D# and G# paired with D and in the lower octave, but in the second octave those notes are paired with E and A as Eb and Ab.

 

If you extend the range far enough you'll end up with notes in the outer row that are more than a half-step away from the note on the adjacent button. The array in a single hand can extend for 39 buttons -- just over 3 octaves -- before the pattern breaks down, but it does eventually break down.

 

Still, I find the Crane's consistency to be more than adequate.

[David Barnert]

Well, the Hayden concept is fully chromatic, but its 46-button incarnation adheres to geometrical continuity, rather than musical continuity. As a result, it's missing the C# and D# from the bottom octave and the Bb from the top octave (left hand).

I don't see any good reason why one should have to construct the button layout only in geometrically "complete" rows, rather than musically complete sequences.

Jim, why do you use the word "musical" to describe an arrangement of notes with no gaps? Is that more musical than the Hayden/Wicki arrangement of whole tones in a row and half tones in the next row? I think the Hayden layout is very musical. It just doesn't have half steps near each other. Having no gaps might appeal to a certain sensibility, but that has nothing to do with musicality, and is really no different that the appeal that the unbroken Hayden/Wicki array has to a different sensibility.