Which Duet?

[Anglo-Irishman]

I'm thinking seriously about going duet!

 

 

My present concertina is an anglo, so I'm not looking for enhanced capability. I can play single-line melody, accompanying chords or fully harmonised solos, so I can express myself pretty well.

 

It's just that I'd like to be able to do that in more than three-and a-half keys. So has anyone any experience in this line?

 

I've just read the article on concertina.com by Robert Gaskins, comparing the Maccann and Hayden systems, and I was wondering whether there's a similar comparative analysis of the capabilities of Maccann and Crane duets. Gaskins' article sort of put me off the Hayden.

 

I've compared the button layouts and, probably because I'm not an English player, the Crane/Triumph seems to me to be more regular, with regard to chording, and more "obvious", with regard to scales. But the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and I can't afford two vintage concertinas just to "taste" them.

 

So: any comparative studies?

 

Cheers,

John

[David Barnert]

I've just read the article on concertina.com by Robert Gaskins, comparing the Maccann and Hayden systems, and I was wondering whether there's a similar comparative analysis of the capabilities of Maccann and Crane duets. Gaskins' article sort of put me off the Hayden.

The article may have appropriately put you off Bastari Haydens, which were all that were available when Gaskins wrote the article. Not so any longer. Have a look at what Wim Wakker has to offer before writing off the Hayden. There are others as well.

[mike averill]

I'm thinking seriously about going duet!

 

 

My present concertina is an anglo, so I'm not looking for enhanced capability. I can play single-line melody, accompanying chords or fully harmonised solos, so I can express myself pretty well.

 

It's just that I'd like to be able to do that in more than three-and a-half keys. So has anyone any experience in this line?

 

Better to work on improving you anglo playing capability to a few more keys, rather than split your self between two instruments. On a duet you still have to learn a different scale pattern for each key.

[Richard Morse]

Better to work on improving you anglo playing capability to a few more keys, rather than split your self between two instruments. On a duet you still have to learn a different scale pattern for each key.

Not with a Hayden duet!

 

-- Rich --

[Dirge]

I'd agree with Mike to a large degree; I think an awful lot of duets sit unused because people bought them as a second instrument expecting instant results, found it wasn't that easy and neglected them forthwith (sometimes then blaming the instrument for their lack of application) so be warned. Moving on the Anglo might be simplest. I always wonder whether Anglo players using big instruments played across the rows wouldn't have had more fulfilling lives if they had bought a duet though.

 

If you do go duet you can't win really. Haydens are apparently the best thing since sliced bread (I'm told that; I don't know enough to have an opinion; they simply weren't a practical option when I was starting, and we duet players are almost as divided by our systems as from English) but there are no antique instruments and most are small, so anything decent is pricey on the rare occasion that it comes on the market. WW is due to change that, we're assured, as mentioned above. It's certainly worth a look to see what his production plans are. I have an idea he was largely going to supply tiddlers without offering Hayden graduates much hope though.

 

Cranes are also very easy to get started on, but the lady who's been champing at the bit to buy a small one elsewhere on the forum gives you the clue to the problem. They too are rare. Nothing like Hayden-rare, but I've perhaps seen one Crane to every ten Maccans for sale, at a guess and because they were largely made for the Sally Army they usually seem to be to lower spec. than equivalent Maccans, although I'm sure the SA would have bought good useable instruments, mind you. But there are decent vintage instruments out there at sensible prices and they do come up steadily, but little choice at any time. I tried one recently and it was SO simple to understand the layout. Lots of the chord shapes seemed to repeat.

 

Then there's the common one, Maccan, (this is me) with a layout which needs serious application. It took me lots of hard practice to get to the stage where I was hitting almost all the right buttons without consciously thinking about it. (Oh that wretched E flat!) I doubt playing English helps; I doubt anything helps apart from grafting. Maccans have a compact keyboard that wins out with larger range instruments and there is a healthy pool of good quality instruments, (especially the largest ones, which are only really in decent availability with this system). With your passing interest in written music, documented elsewhere, big range won't worry you, so I'd steer you away. The other systems will get you going much faster.

 

Regardless of system I would advise you not to buy a 46/48 size instrument though. Some love them but I find the tiny range crippling. (remember there is an overlap between the hands so you don't even get 4 octaves). Down to middle C on the right hand seems a good yardstick. This too immediately lifts you into another price and rareness bracket.

 

The system you choose makes a big difference and needs you to work out your long term aims. A good duet could be half the price of a big anglo, as an incentive.

 

Finally, just to muddy any waters that may be clearing, what about a Jeffries? I'd normally say don't bother except I'm told the layout was designed to be 'Anglo-player friendly'. I don't know if it's true (how would I?). The limited pool comment applies.

 

(and if you do buy a Maccan after all that, the trick with the E flat is to think of it as a D sharp, then it doesn't seem to be placed so oddly)

[ragtimer]

I've just read the article on concertina.com by Robert Gaskins, comparing the Maccann and Hayden systems, and I was wondering whether there's a similar comparative analysis of the capabilities of Maccann and Crane duets. Gaskins' article sort of put me off the Hayden.

The article may have appropriately put you off Bastari Haydens, which were all that were available when Gaskins wrote the article. Not so any longer. Have a look at what Wim Wakker has to offer before writing off the Hayden. There are others as well.

Right now anyone wanting to test out the Hayden system would have to buy a Stagi 46-key, for about $900 new or a lot less used. There's nothign really wrong with the Stagi, except that its buttons are comfortably large and wider spaced, making them easier to play but giving you some re-learning to do when graduating to a better instrument.

 

Wim Wakker's two Hayden models are aimed at the professional market, using traditional reeds and prices to match. Bob Tedrow had the midrange market covered with his 52-key, but he's taking a year off to redesign the reed pan. Rich Morse is still working on his design, making good progress. Stagi is the only game in town if you want one "right now."

 

If I've missed something, let me know!

 

Oh yes, a Hayden 46 goes down to Middle C on the RH and can play comfortably (same fingering patterns on both sides) in keys of C, D, E, F, G, and A. Playing tunes in other keys gets tricky, and chordal accompniments in remote keys are pretty bare.

 

But all in all, I'm glad I picked up the Hayden. --Mike K.

[Dirge]

Buy a cheap s/h Stagi and put in an order for a better one at the same time?

[SteveP]

I've just read the article on concertina.com by Robert Gaskins, comparing the Maccann and Hayden systems, and I was wondering whether there's a similar comparative analysis of the capabilities of Maccann and Crane duets.

There is a good comparison of Maccann & Crane here, which I am sure you will find useful. Happy hunting.

[Crane Driver]

No prizes for guessing my preference, but I have owned a (big) MacCann as well - I sold it on after a couple of years, as anything I could play on it was easier on the Crane. I recently picked up a 55 key Crane, having played a 48 for more years than I care to (or possibly can) remember - so far I haven't used the extra buttons much, but it's got a nice tone. Depends what sort of music you want to play - I mostly use mine to accompany folk songs, and I like to keep the accompanyment simple, so I don't need several octaves of melody-side.

 

And, unlike the 46 key MacCann, the 48 key Crane does go down to middle C in the right hand - in fact, even the 35 key Crane goes down to middle C. Come to think of it, most of my accompanyments would fit onto the 35 key - I told you I like to keep things simple. I do also play some dance tunes, and that's when I need the extra range. Of course if you want to play complex classical pieces, the larger instruments are better, giving you more overlap between the two ends and a bigger overall range. Size, however, seems to be more of an issue with MacCanns than with Cranes - it's that middle C business, I guess.

 

My vote is for the Crane!

 

Andrew

[Dirge]

I must have read that when I was deciding how to get started, but now I can appreciate what a good piece it is. I reckon it's an excellent and even handed view of the situation, John.

 

(and next time we get this Q I shall just point the inquirer straight to the article)

Edited March 6, 2008 by Dirge

[Ivan Viehoff]

Regardless of system I would advise you not to buy a 46/48 size instrument though. Some love them but I find the tiny range crippling. (remember there is an overlap between the hands so you don't even get 4 octaves). Down to middle C on the right hand seems a good yardstick. This too immediately lifts you into another price and rareness bracket.

I think you are a little unfair on 48-key Cranes, Dirge. I now have a 57-key Maccann, which is the smallest Maccann that has middle C on the right hand (but be careful, not all 57-key Maccanns do this). I find I very rarely press a key that would not be found on a 48-key Crane. On the other hand, playing the 57-key Maccann is so different from playing the 46-key.

[Dirge]

Oh well I don't suppose anyone will be overly surprised to find me libelling Cranes, Ivan, even if I was trying to be fair. I'm also the man who thinks a 67 key is worryingly small, remember...

 

That really is an excellent article of yours; re-reading it I found all the opinions I've gradually come to for myself over the last few years were there reasonably laid out. I can't remember for sure now but it must have been a decisive part of my choosing to go the Maccan route, something I'm very grateful for. I clearly then completely forgot it and painfully reassembled it for myself, bit by bit. Brilliant, eh?

[Ivan Viehoff]

It's very kind of both you and SteveP to give such a positive recommendation to my article.

[Ken_Coles]

When Ivan patiently waited for me to edit and get his article up, I told him I thought it was a major contribution, so you have company in your opinion.

 

Ken

(who has not tried a duet yet. So many fingering systems, so little time)

[Hooves]

Its true that you need to learn each scale differently with both Crane/MacCaan systems: I own one of each - a 46 key MacCaan and a 48 key Crane.

 

For me as a solo performer, this isn't really an issue: I learn how to play a tune/song in a key and stick with it. But the box is only a tertiary instrument for me, when I feel like playign music I reach for my Guitar or Octave mandolin, the Concertina is my alternate instrument for when my callouses are wearing thin.

 

MacCaan - I like the left hand side, I feel like its easier to improvise for some reason, possibly due to my guitar/mandolin background and the fact I started with the MacCaan before switching to the Crane.

 

Crane - I think workign out chords is easier, and playing in certian keys is a snap - basically anything from 0 to 2 accidentals is pretty straight forward (C, G, F, D), thats because all the accidentals are outside the central "C" buttons. I haven't ventured far enough into chromatic playing although when I have asked Crane players, I have been told by those who play both systems that the Crane is better for chromatic runs, though I imagine a pro MacCaan player would argue the opposite.

 

I'm not 100% convinced that having accidentals on the outside is really a significant advantage once you get into keys which have 3 or more accidentals, but ultimately I am an enthusiastic amateur (for me the Duet is my final stand on concertina).

 

The true test would require time: it may be easier to start on a Crane, but after a few years which actaully yields the best performance options? - without that expierence, I'm still voting for the Crane (sorry Dr. MacCaan!). I will check out the article mentioned comparing the systems. After all Hayden came up with his system after studying the MacCaan and Crane systems.

 

I really like havign 2 systems to play with, although I now focus on the Crane - its better restored (a real nice box thanks to Mr. Barelycorn). I imagine I will eventually depart from the MacCaan system though I plan to keep mine just in case, it was the first system that spoke to me.

 

One of these days I would like to give the Hayden system a try, though the recent discussions on Janko have me batting an eye at other possible layouts for the box.

 

I also use mine for folk accompianment, I'm trying to sing to my Crane but havign some difficulty due to the volume (I'm likely to install baffles.

 

You should consider this: on both systems, one side tends to drown out the other, the bass side seems to suck up air making it harder to play your melody notes. if I make a full chord on the left side, I either drown out the melody due to volume, or deprive it of air. I find myself avoiding full chords unless I'm trying to sing, sometimes just droning or playing "Treble" chords on the right and a "bass" line on the left.

 

 

 

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

 

For those seeking the illusive Crane -

 

I spent about 2 years searchign ebay auctions, never wanting to spend the cash, finally I decided to fork it over to a reputable restorer, and I'm glad I did. 48 keys is fine for me, I can't forsee needing or wanting more, but thats me. I read once that most melodies fell within 2 octaves.

 

I no longer search ads, or ebay auctions - really all you need is one good box, unless you are a regular performer and need a backup, or another tone color. may as well get a nice restored box.

 

Or if you got the cash, I'm sure many of the new builders can and would build you a duet to your spec - if they can build an English, if they can make an Anglo, they most certianly can build you a Duet.

[Anglo-Irishman]

I must say, I’m impressed by the expertise and good ideas from the members of this forum!

 

One good if unexpected idea was to just improve my Anglo playing. Touché!

Ironically, that’s just what I’m doing at present, and it’s what prompted me to think seriously about a duet. The essence of the diatonic Anglo arrangement is that the “home” keys (typically C/G) are extremely easy and instinctive. If you’ve got a simple tune in your head, you can have it harmonised in two ticks, and with a 30-button you can work out pretty sophisticated arrangements using the alternate fingerings. But going farther from the home keys is not just more difficult – there’s a point where it becomes impossible. The available harmonies get more and more sparse. Even the melodic scales get more abstruse as the push-pull pattern disintegrates, so the instinctive scale is lost.

More buttons, say 38 or 40, would alleviate this a bit, but not solve it completely. Obviously, the duets and even the English have different fingering patterns for each key, but it seems that the difficulty increases linearly with the number of sharps or flats, whereas with the Anglo, the increase is exponential.

And, of course, someone mentioned the price factor: a decent “big” Anglo would cost twice as much as a decent duet.

There’s also the aspect that the Anglo is not really suited to sight reading. You don’t have one button for each dot on the paper, and vice versa. And the sharps and flats have little spatial relationship to their naturals. Everything has that diatonic stamp, which makes the Anglo THE ear-player’s instrument. And I want to break through my illiteracy!

 

Someone pointed out that the Hayden got bad press because the only actually available ones are Stagi. There’s also Wakker. But Wakker’s price is several times that of a used, traditional-system duet.

Also, the Hayden philosophy is, in principle, diatonic. For me, it has the look and feel of a “by-ear” instrument – like the Anglo, except that you don’t change rows to change key, but rather move along the row, and use the same fingering. A concertina with a capo. Knowing me, I’d play a Hayden by ear, although sight-reading would probably be easier than for an Anglo.

 

Then there are the two old-established duet systems, Maccan and Crane.

After reading Ivan’s comparison, it hardly surprised me that the preferences expressed were mostly for the system that people were familiar with. If a friend gave me an old duet that had belonged to his father, I’d probably just take it and learn it, and not worry whether it was a Maccan or a Crane. That (unfortunately) not being the case, I’m left with the impression that the Crane may be easier to start on – as I would have expected after studying the respective layouts – but that the Maccan may be more convenient in keys remote from C major. At any rate, it seems that there’s not much to choose between them.

 

So my tendency would be towards a Crane/Triumph – mainly for sentimental reasons. What gave me the concertina bug as a small child was, after all, hearing the Salvation Army Triumph. When, at the innocent age of 18, I asked for a concertina for my birthday, I was unaware that there were concertinas and concertinas. The only readily available one was a 20-button German Anglo, so I got that. The incredible ease of learning the first steps kept me going, and the exploration of new capabilities when I got my 30-button kept me interested.

I’ll just take one of the good pieces of advice, and observe the duet market for a while. I think that, with all your advice, I’ll recognise “my” duet when I see it.

Thanks all,

John

[ragtimer]

Someone pointed out that the Hayden got bad press because the only actually available ones are Stagi. There’s also Wakker. But Wakker’s price is several times that of a used, traditional-system duet.

True. The situation will improve when Rich Morse brings out his Hayden, but we still need a good entry-level instrument, the Jackie/Rochelle equivalent. But with 46 keys, it would still have to cost more than either of those.

Also, the Hayden philosophy is, in principle, diatonic. For me, it has the look and feel of a “by-ear” instrument – like the Anglo, except that you don’t change rows to change key, but rather move along the row, and use the same fingering. A concertina with a capo. Knowing me, I’d play a Hayden by ear, although sight-reading would probably be easier than for an Anglo.

You're partly right -- the Hayden is very easy to paly by ear, as the intervals are all consistent ( a minor 3rd has the same shape from button A to button B in any key, anywhere in the scale). I find myself palying tunes on my Hayden without actually knowing what notes I'm playing by name. I knwo I need a certain interval, and my pinky goes there. Cool!

 

OTOH, I find reading music very natural and easy on my Hayden. Disclaimer: I've read spots in both clefs since childhood (piano and trombone and voice). I guarantee that a Hayden would not hold you back in learning to read spots -- just because it's also easy to play by ear.

--Mike K.

[Rod Thompson]

- I mostly use mine to accompany folk songs, and I like to keep the accompanyment simple,

 

As a failed Crane driver, could I ask what kind of accompaniment you do? Oom-pa chords, harmony ...

 

I found it impossible to play chords on the left with melody on the right - the chords completely swamped the melody.

 

I also tried an arpegio base, with the left hand running up the notes of the chord, but it took a long time to work up a tune this way - and that was a very simple tune.

 

Would you, by any chance be willing to put an arangement on the site?

 

Thanks Rod