Poll: Specialty Concertina Purchasing

[Dirge]

I've tried David Cornell's arrangements on the Hayden, and it isn't easy! They are written with the Maccann layout in mind, I suspect, and his big Maccann has more rangge on both sides than most Haydens.

Jim L talked about 'trying DC's Maccan arrangements on the Crane', as though it was going to be difficult for the same reason.

 

I think you are both wrong; he may play a Maccan but his music is not particularly written to make life easy for a Maccan player; he's more interested in producing a classy piece of music. That's one reason they're tricky to play, because they aim to sound a cut above the average once mastered. If you don't believe me just look at the fingerings he annotates to see how often he has his student Maccan player changing fingers on a held note to free up his hand for the next manoeuvre and how regularly he uses the crossover between hands. A lot of them can be played on a 56 key instrument, which is, I'm afraid, still a small duet. He uses a 61 key; that's not big either.

 

If you wanted to see music set to be 'nice to play' on a Maccan, some of the Stanley arranged pieces I've tried are much more in this category.

 

There can be very few people that have the right to pass comment on the relative effectiveness of one or other system, because to do that you need to actually be in the position of playing two systems to high standard. Someone who didn't instantly get a tune out of a Maccan but can bodge a reel out of his Crane saying that Cranes are better for this or that is completely valueless if what you are interested in is what they are like to play very well.

 

There's a lot of this idiot punditry going on at the moment and it's annoying. My colours are firmly nailed to the Maccan mast, but do you hear me saying that Cranes are rubbish? Do you hear me suggesting that they can do this or that better? How could I know? I do know that the past duet greats largely played Maccans. That was a slight hint that they were probably useable...

 

OK I'm going to sit in the darkened room for a bit.

 

Incidentally, Ragtimer, Cornell's tunes do vary a lot in difficulty, so look at a few before giving up.

[JimLucas]

I am currently learing and enjoying the MacCaan system, and I am hoping to give the Crane system a go in the near future. The Crane system looks to me to be a lot more logical and it has 5 rows as oppsoed to the six on a MacCaan, I belive that would be easier to finger, but I need to check it out before making any real solid statements.

My personal experience is that "easier to finger" depends very much on the types of music and arrangements I'm trying to "finger". Which reminds me once again that I should find time to try some of David Cornell's arrangements (for the Maccann) on the Crane.

I too consider Crane to be more logical than the Maccann,...

Whoa there!

Ragtimer, by placing your comment immediately after a quote from me, you make it look like you think I said that the Crane is more logical than the Maccann. In fact, it was Hooves (whose identity was missing from the quote's header) who said that. I didn't, and I wouldn't.

 

Furthermore, in Dirge's reply to you, he seems to think that I did say such a thing. And he seems to have taken offense.

Please be more careful in the future.

[JimLucas]

I've tried David Cornell's arrangements on the Hayden, and it isn't easy! They are written with the Maccann layout in mind, I suspect, and his big Maccann has more rangge on both sides than most Haydens.

Jim L talked about 'trying DC's Maccan arrangements on the Crane', as though it was going to be difficult for the same reason.

I didn't say it... and I didn't mean it. Quite the contrary.

 

My intention was/is to see whether some of David's arrangements might be comfortable for me on the Crane. If they are, then I get a bonus, benefitting from his very different musical background, without having to first become proficient on "his" instrument.

 

I think you are both wrong;...

How can I be "wrong" about that, when it's something I neither said nor believe?

 

Is it that the "quotes" in ragtimer's post -- though not the part that you've quoted -- suggest that I said something which in fact was said by Hooves? Check back through this thread, and you'll see. Even so, Hooves' comment had nothing to do with David's arrangements, nor did mine have anything to do with comparing the relative merits of Cranes, Maccanns, or anything else.

 

...he may play a Maccan but his music is not particularly written to make life easy for a Maccan player;...

That's not a judgement I'd be able to make. (So I haven't tried.) It's interesting to hear it from a Maccann enthusiast.

 

...he's more interested in producing a classy piece of music. That's one reason they're tricky to play, because they aim to sound a cut above the average once mastered.

From what I personally know of David, I don't think he cares about "a cut above", but only about creating something that he finds personally satisfying. That he's a person with musical expertise that's both broad and deep is naturally reflected in his arrangements. On the Maccann he's mainly a player, who began making his arrangements available and giving workshops at the insistence of others who had heard him play.

 

A lot of them can be played on a 56 key instrument, which is, I'm afraid, still a small duet. He uses a 61 key; that's not big either.

A matter of personal perspective. To you 56 buttons may seem small, but 46 buttons currently seems to be the standard for the Hayden and the most common size among Maccanns auctioned on eBay. And to a person with a 46-button Maccann, 56 or 61 buttons (? Wheatstone's tutor by Rutterford doesn't show those, but depicts 57+air and 66+air models) is a big difference. Further, even the Lachenal standard 55-button Maccann has a lowest right-hand note of G above middle C, not the middle C of the standard Wheatstone instruments or Cranes. So the amount of crossing-over between hands (among other things) can be as much a factor of the particular instrument as the particular duet system.

 

If you wanted to see music set to be 'nice to play' on a Maccan, some of the Stanley arranged pieces I've tried are much more in this category.

I'd forgotten about those; I'll have to try them, too. But do you have more Stanley arrangements than what's currently available on Concertina.com? All of those (including the manuscript tutor) seem to assume a low note in the left hand of F just below the bass clef. In my experience, that requires a duet of at least 70 buttons.

 

But the ease with which different Maccann players can play arrangements composed by other Maccann players is neither here nor there in judging the relative merits of Cranes and Maccanns, which you (Dirge) seem to think some of us have done, and which I don't think we have at all. Certainly not in this thread. Both Hooves and ragtimer have said they think the Crane layout is more "logical" than the Maccann, but each was also careful to say that they didn't have the experience necessary to judge the relative playability of the different systems.

 

There can be very few people that have the right to pass comment on the relative effectiveness of one or other system,...

I do think that very few people have the experience necessary to intelligently judge the relative merits of the different systems. Though my own experience is quite limited, I think that I come closer than most, because it's an issue I've spent a great deal of time studying. But my own main conclusion -- which I've emphasized repeatedly in these Forums -- is that none of the systems is inherently better for "music" or "playability" than the rest.

 

...because to do that you need to actually be in the position of playing two systems to high standard. Someone who didn't instantly get a tune out of a Maccan but can bodge a reel out of his Crane saying that Cranes are better for this or that is completely valueless if what you are interested in is what they are like to play very well.

And if that's not what a person is interested in? What if they're only interested in bodging out a reel?

 

... My colours are firmly nailed to the Maccan mast, but do you hear me saying that Cranes are rubbish? Do you hear me suggesting that they can do this or that better?

No, but neither do I see anyone else saying that Maccanns "are rubbish", and the only comparison of Cranes and Maccanns for playability was hearsay passed on by Hooves -- "I got some feedback that the Crane system would work better for chromatic passages," -- of which he himself said, "but I need to furhther investage it."

 

Dirge, your defensiveness -- if that's what it is -- with regard to the Maccann seems misplaced. I haven't seen anyone attacking it.

 

Edited to correct a missing fragment of text.

Edited June 24, 2007 by JimLucas

[JimLucas]

[David Cornell] may play a Maccan but his music is not particularly written to make life easy for a Maccan player; he's more interested in producing a classy piece of music. That's one reason they're tricky to play, because they aim to sound a cut above the average once mastered. A lot of them can be played on a 56 key instrument, which is, I'm afraid, still a small duet. He uses a 61 key; that's not big either.

I just looked on Concertina.com for David's arrangements and discovered that there's far more -- and far more variety in level of difficulty -- than I had realized. I haven't time right now to look at them all individually, but there are specific groups of arrangements labelled "Beginner's" and "intermediate to advanced".

 

I would expect the latter to be more challenging, at least for Maccann players. And at least the "Beginner's" group looks quite playable on a small Crane. With some crossing between hands different from what David has written, I believe this entire group may be playable on even a 35-button Crane. I recommend them to Craniacs, as well as to Maccannics.

[David Barnert]

I recommend them to Craniacs, as well as to Maccannics.

What does that make me and Mike (ragtimer)? Haydenizens? Haydenistas?

[ragtimer]

Whoa there!

Ragtimer, by placing your comment immediately after a quote from me, you make it look like you think I said that the Crane is more logical than the Maccann. In fact, it was Hooves (whose identity was missing from the quote's header) who said that. I didn't, and I wouldn't.

 

Furthermore, in Dirge's reply to you, he seems to think that I did say such a thing. And he seems to have taken offense.

Please be more careful in the future.

Sorry for the confusion. Actually, I just left the quote-stack I inherited as-is -- didn't edit it or anything. So the appearance of misquoting was there before I replied.

 

FWIW, I would say that the Crane layout is "simpler" (as in easier to understand and memorize), maybe not more "logical" than the Maccann. The Crane is also more efficient with accidentals, since it allocates two "black" keys per row of three white keys.

 

That doesn't mean that in the long run it will be easier to finger or play. But if I were offered a chance to buy (cheap) a Maccann or a Crane/Triumph, I'd choose the Crane, in the hopes that I could learn it faster.

 

I can state for certain that for me, the Hayden was quick to learn and progress to in intermediate level. Going on to higher levels is another matter. More practice -- and yes, I have David Cornell's workshop book whose exercises are graded by difficulty. Easy is easy, harder is really harder on teh 46 Hayden.

 

edited to balance the quotes (naturally).

Edited June 24, 2007 by ragtimer

[ragtimer]

I recommend them to Craniacs, as well as to Maccannics.

What does that make me and Mike (ragtimer)? Haydenizens? Haydenistas?

And Rich Morse too ...

I like "Haydenizens", tho "Haydenistas" has a better swing to it. "-istas" does suggest we're a guerilla movement out to convert the world to Haydens. If someone's already playing another duet system, I have too much respect for their achievement to suggest they switch -- but for anyone looking to try their first Duet, I always recommend the Hayden.

 

(If I could type letters in the right sequence between hands, I might try the Englsih :-)

 

Given the first inventor of the Hayden system, we could also be "Wickans" -- but some ladies might put a hex on us

[JimLucas]

Ragtimer, by placing your comment immediately after a quote from me, you make it look like you think I said that the Crane is more logical than the Maccann. In fact, it was Hooves (whose identity was missing from the quote's header) who said that. I didn't, and I wouldn't.

Sorry for the confusion. Actually, I just left the quote-stack I inherited as-is -- didn't edit it or anything. So the appearance of misquoting was there before I replied.

Hmm, yes. Except that by not quoting the first part of my post, you missed out the first bit I quoted from Hooves, which did identify both him and his post.

 

That's a lesson to me, I suppose. I have made a point of restoring missing past identifications when I'm quoting someone else, but where I thought it was clear in my post, I haven't repeated the identification of the source in subsequent quoted sections. I hadn't thought of doing something to help insure proper future identifications. This tells me that I should copy down the identifying information for each segment (see below), to be sure that it's there if someone quotes only part of my own post.

 

Please be more careful in the future.

So I, too, need to be more careful.

(Now what's the "smiley" for a "sheepish" grin?)