What Kind Of Duet?

[Daniel Hersh]

It's here. Any idea what system this might be? Could it be a Lachenal-built Jeffries duet?

[Dirge]

Just the smallest Maccan, surely. Better spec than the tiddlers usually get; nicely fretted mahogany, metal keys...still wouldn't want it!

[Daniel Hersh]

Thanks--I'm sure that you're right. I hadn't known until now that any Maccanns were made with so few buttons.

 

Just the smallest Maccan, surely. Better spec than the tiddlers usually get; nicely fretted mahogany, metal keys...still wouldn't want it!

[Dirge]

Pleasure. You get the odd 39 in among the 46's. They don't seem to fetch much.

[JimLucas]

It's here. Any idea what system this might be? Could it be a Lachenal-built Jeffries duet?

Just the smallest Maccan, surely. Better spec than the tiddlers usually get; nicely fretted mahogany, metal keys...still wouldn't want it!

As Dirge says, a (minimal) Maccann. Definitely not Jeffries system, since the "vertical" rows are straight "up and down" (i.e., perpendicular to the hand bar). On a Jeffries duet they'd be slanted just like on an anglo.

 

I hadn't known until now that any Maccanns were made with so few buttons.

You get the odd 39 in among the 46's. They don't seem to fetch much.

For the purposes most folks have in mind for duets, even a 46-button Maccann is severely restricted. It's hard to get a real sense of the independence of the hands in producing rich arrangements. But I'll (once again) suggest a radically different use, which could -- for the right person -- make such an instrument quite valuable, in part because it's relatively inexpensive.

 

My "radical" suggestion is to use such a small Maccann in a manner similar to the "Irish" style on the anglo, i.e., using both hands to play mostly melody, with chords and harmonies sparse, if at all. As I envision it, the similarities and differences vs. a standard C/G anglo are:

• On either instrument, most (traditional Irish) melodies will require the use of buttons in both hands.
  
• The range of overlap between the hands is slightly lower on the Maccann than on the anglo. So on the Maccann you can do slightly more of most melodies in the right hand, and slightly less in the left.
  
• The fingering for bits of tunes going below middle C should be easier on the Maccann than on the anglo (where I think most players use the little finger a lot).
  
• If you want the "punch" that anglo players get from bellows reversals, on the Maccann you'll have to deliberately develop your own bellows-control technique. The instrument won't force such a pattern on you... but it won't prevent it, either.
  
• On both Maccann and anglo, various short phrases and ornaments in the range of overlap can be made easier/quicker by using notes in both hands.
  
• The top of the right-hand range won't be quite as high on the 39-button Maccann as on the C/G anglo. But how often do Irish anglo players use the last 2 buttons in the right-hand G row, anyway?
  
• If you do want to throw in occasional harmonies and chords, on the Maccann there are no note combinations that are "forbidden" by virtue of requiring both push and pull notes together. (On the Maccann, all notes are there in both directions.)
  
• With the Maccann, you may find yourself subject to derision from the "more-Jeffries-than-thou" folks. Don't go this route if you can't deal with such behavior.
  
• The 39-button Maccann (maybe even a 46-button) will likely cost about 1/10 as much as a comparable anglo.
  

[Stephen Chambers]

My "radical" suggestion is to use such a small Maccann in a manner similar to the "Irish" style on the anglo, i.e., using both hands to play mostly melody, with chords and harmonies sparse, if at all.

Indeed, when I was going to the Irish sessions in Manchester, back in the early '70s, there was a girl there who used to do just that. She was known as "Mrs. Grotty" - I kid you not!

[Theo]

My "radical" suggestion is to use such a small Maccann in a manner similar to the "Irish" style on the anglo, i.e., using both hands to play mostly melody, with chords and harmonies sparse, if at all. As I envision it, the similarities and differences vs. a standard C/G anglo are:

 

And it has the generic advantage of small over large squeezeboxes in that the light weight and small bellows makes it easier to play with a lot of dynamics.

[tony]

For the purposes most folks have in mind for duets, even a 46-button Maccann is severely restricted. It's hard to get a real sense of the independence of the hands in producing rich arrangements. But I'll (once again) suggest a radically different use, which could -- for the right person -- make such an instrument quite valuable, in part because it's relatively inexpensive.

 

My "radical" suggestion is to use such a small Maccann in a manner similar to the "Irish" style on the anglo, i.e., using both hands to play mostly melody, with chords and harmonies sparse, if at all. As I envision it, the similarities and differences vs. a standard C/G anglo are:

• On either instrument, most (traditional Irish) melodies will require the use of buttons in both hands.
  
• The range of overlap between the hands is slightly lower on the Maccann than on the anglo. So on the Maccann you can do slightly more of most melodies in the right hand, and slightly less in the left.
  
• The fingering for bits of tunes going below middle C should be easier on the Maccann than on the anglo (where I think most players use the little finger a lot).
  
• If you want the "punch" that anglo players get from bellows reversals, on the Maccann you'll have to deliberately develop your own bellows-control technique. The instrument won't force such a pattern on you... but it won't prevent it, either.
  
• On both Maccann and anglo, various short phrases and ornaments in the range of overlap can be made easier/quicker by using notes in both hands.
  
• The top of the right-hand range won't be quite as high on the 39-button Maccann as on the C/G anglo. But how often do Irish anglo players use the last 2 buttons in the right-hand G row, anyway?
  
• If you do want to throw in occasional harmonies and chords, on the Maccann there are no note combinations that are "forbidden" by virtue of requiring both push and pull notes together. (On the Maccann, all notes are there in both directions.)
  
• With the Maccann, you may find yourself subject to derision from the "more-Jeffries-than-thou" folks. Don't go this route if you can't deal with such behavior.
  
• The 39-button Maccann (maybe even a 46-button) will likely cost about 1/10 as much as a comparable anglo.
  

 

Jim,

 

I think I agree with most of what you say here, however as I understand it the Maccann was an attempt to harness the advantages of both the anglo and EC, and in my humble opinion has gone a long way towards doing just that.

 

I play both an EC and a 46 key Maccann and I have to say I can do as much on the Maccann as I can on the EC, and more. I find adding accompaniment on the Maccann, albeit a 46 Key and holding the melody in both hands, is considerably simplified over the EC. I also find the overlap of notes (left and right hand) offer some very useful fingering alternatives, particularly when playing legato.

 

I still love my George Case EC though.

[JimLucas]

My "radical" suggestion is to use such a small Maccann in a manner similar to the "Irish" style on the anglo,....

I think I agree with most of what you say here, however as I understand it the Maccann was an attempt to harness the advantages of both the anglo and EC, and in my humble opinion has gone a long way towards doing just that.

"The" advantages implies all of them. Not possible. Some of the "advantages" (in quotes, because always a matter of opinion or taste) of each were also lost in the combination.

 

I play both an EC and a 46 key Maccann and I have to say I can do as much on the Maccann as I can on the EC, and more.

Not me, though there are some things I can do on the Maccann that I can't do on the English, the reverse is also true. And I can still do far more on the English. Of course, I suspect that we may not be trying to do exactly the same things.

 

I find adding accompaniment on the Maccann, albeit a 46 Key and holding the melody in both hands, is considerably simplified over the EC.

I don't. Again, maybe we're trying for different sorts of accompaniment?

 

I also find the overlap of notes (left and right hand) offer some very useful fingering alternatives, particularly when playing legato.

No doubt. So what? I occasionally find the duplicate accidentals on the English similarly useful. But in general, I don't find it an issue. I work with what's there... and so do you. (It seems clear that you're not greatly troubled by the absence of the low C#, D#, and especially D from the left hand of your 46-button Maccann.)

 

But I think your real point is that you take issue with my comment about the limitations of the 39- and 46-button Maccanns. Aside from the fact that I believe some veteran Maccann players have said similar things, my point was not to demean the small Maccanns, but to suggest that they can be used to great advantage in a style which is not usually considered for them.

[tony]

Jim,

 

I really must remember not to reply to your posts; even to agree with you is to invite an argument.

 

Find another sparring partner.

[JimLucas]

I really must remember not to reply to your posts; even to agree with you is to invite an argument.

 

Find another sparring partner.

Sorry, Tony. Misunderstandings sometimes happen.

 

Your response here suggests that I misunderstood you, and possibly you also misunderstood me. It wasn't my intent to "spar", just to address some issues I thought you raised.

 

Shall we shake hands and not come out fighting?

Cheers.

[tony]

Shall we shake hands and not come out fighting?

Cheers.

 

Yes, let's do that.