"all American Concertina Album"

[Dan Worrall]

Maybe I'm just coming at it from too many years of piano lessons. I don't care so much which clef it's in. The whole octave off thing, though, is a major head-trip. I always dreaded the 8va sign, because it meant I had to think. Thinking = hard.

The thing with the piano lessons, and then 5 years in school bands is with the single line stuff like what you get from most of the tutors and such on the net (and I've D/L'ed and printed all of the ones on the concertina.com site) is that they don't give you the accompianment. Sure, there's the fake-book stuff, but again there's that whole 'thinking' business again. Also, from all of the structured instruction there is this whole idea that the music is all there on the page, it just flows from paper through your eyes to your fingers. If it isn't on the paper, you don't play it -- beyond the odd grace note or twiddle here and there (and the band beats it out of you right quick if the piano teacher didn't). Only the lead trumpet players get to improvise at all in the band, fat show-offs that they are.

So any way I can get the harmony bits written out, I'm pretty happy.

Each tutor seems to have their quirks; but, oh yeah, the 8va thing is giving me second thoughts.

Couldn't agree with you more. That is why this book is so interesting and important....it is like pulling teeth to get any anglo player to write down a full arrangement. Ask an English-style player to write down those accompaniment notes, and you get a blank stare, or worse, an are-you-stupid? stare. I've often felt that arrangements for anglo (and presumably other systems) are very interesting simply because everyone has a brain that is wired slightly differently, and that means your arrangement will be quite different (and likely better!) than mine. It is well worth studying the arrangements of gifted players...there is always something to be learned; Paul Groff and you and I certainly agree on that.

Let's not give up on it though; maybe m3838 will come through for us, Sousa's raspberry and all. Or better yet, maybe Alan will now read this discussion, thanks to Daniel's note, and find a way to send a reformatted set to anyone who buys his book. I can dream.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Dan Worrall

[m3838]

"All pitches sound one octave higher than written notation".

 

I see. I guess it's done for the ease of reading in G cleff

 

Try the Liberty Bell first!

 

OK, OK, give me the music. Or at least a link, or the name of the book where it is.

 

There are several samples, here:

http://www.melbay.com/samples.asp?ProductI...mp;s=&next=

 

If you page through the samples, you'll see several, but first pages only. No Liberty Bell, but either the Maple Leaf Rag or Lassus Trombone would do nicely indeed.

 

I placed an order at Amazon.com.

It's out of stock, unfortunately.

[m3838]

Also, to m3838: the issue is that this collection writes all of the notes an octave lower than the notes that you are playing, all the time

.

Well, tell you what: Rarely (if ever) I had the luxury of having a score that falls directly to my instrument Looks like I will have to spend a week to learn the shortcuts of Finale, so it becomes more like typing.

In any case, octave up/down is of no importance to me, I'll have to dive in and spend an evening hand typing the music into Finale, moving it up or down as needed. I go piece by piece, as I learn them and I'm a slow learner. And some pieces I drop after I learned them, like those pieces published by Pauline de Snoo. It was very challenging to learn them, I learned alot, real schooling. But when I learned them to good speed I found them not been to my taste. So every new transcribed piece is a long story.

[Dirge]

I'm not impressed with 'This is how Anglo music is written', Dan; if you gain ledgers below the line with your new 'treble' bass line in return for losing some above the line, where's the profit? If there is no gain in clarity it is just more difficult for most musicians to sight read it. Reading bass is not a mighty step, and it is surely part of developing musicianship, which is why I am so unsympathetic.

 

I am starting to learn a piece in Db at the moment (Humoresque, Dvorak); I'm not screaming because I can't get it transposed to D natural or whatever, it's just another challenge that will do my playing no end of good. Where's the difference? On the other hand if you insisted that a piece in D be transposed to Db because some people found that easier to read...

 

Anyone looking at this book will hopefully come to want further interesting material which will probably lead them to piano music anyway, and then they'll be forced to get used to it, so what does it achieve?

 

The octave transcription thing is another matter altogether. That does seem odd, although not as odd as my first understanding, which was that ONLY the bass goes up an octave; not a problem on a duet as the appropriate notes are duplicated, but that also does your head in.

 

I think the scope of the book is excellent though; getting players thinking in terms of tackling a wider range of musical styles has got to be good for the cause, so well done to him for getting it together.

 

I'll spare you my opinion on guitar tablature.

 

(Misha; try the ICA library for English music; there's lots, arranged specifically for the instrument. (all the ones labeled 'con' I think it is; this is apparently the work of a past librarian who must have felt that there were concertinas, then there were Anglos and duets...). You can see the index on-line whether member or not.)

[m3838]

(Misha; try the ICA library for English music; there's lots, arranged specifically for the instrument. (all the ones labeled 'con' I think it is; this is apparently the work of a past librarian who must have felt that there were concertinas, then there were Anglos and duets...). You can see the index on-line whether member or not.)

So I went to the ICA music library, but can't find the written music. Cataloques - yes, with names and tytles, but no clickable links.

[Dan Worrall]

I'm not impressed with 'This is how Anglo music is written', Dan; if you gain ledgers below the line with your new 'treble' bass line in return for losing some above the line, where's the profit? If there is no gain in clarity it is just more difficult for most musicians to sight read it. Reading bass is not a mighty step, and it is surely part of developing musicianship, which is why I am so unsympathetic.

 

I am starting to learn a piece in Db at the moment (Humoresque, Dvorak); I'm not screaming because I can't get it transposed to D natural or whatever, it's just another challenge that will do my playing no end of good. Where's the difference? On the other hand if you insisted that a piece in D be transposed to Db because some people found that easier to read...

 

Anyone looking at this book will hopefully come to want further interesting material which will probably lead them to piano music anyway, and then they'll be forced to get used to it, so what does it achieve?

 

The octave transcription thing is another matter altogether. That does seem odd, although not as odd as my first understanding, which was that ONLY the bass goes up an octave; not a problem on a duet as the appropriate notes are duplicated, but that also does your head in.

Dirge,

 

Are you an anglo player? 'Tisn't the same on a duet or EC.

 

I don't mind bass clef on a piano, as it makes good sense, and I played in bass clef in my high school trombone years, so I have nothing against that either. I can read music. And if we were talking about melodic (Irish) style on an anglo, again no problem. But when we make a duet out of an anglo, and separate the two hands into two scores, we are doing something different, and there is a reason that every anglo tutor or tune book (at least I'm pretty sure it is all of them) that treats a harmonic accompaniment-style on the anglo in the last 170 years has used either a simple, combined treble clef or a stacked double treble clef....that tradition is trying to tell you that the compass of the two hands overlaps, and moreover, sometimes you have to play parts of the melody on the left hand rather than the right, or vice versa....so if you are writing for folks to sight read, it is worth knowing that everyone heretofore has preferred to keep the two clefs the same. Why fix something that is not broken....and why make it harder? Certainly not to bow to the gods of classical piano-style notation. I am unsympathetic with your unsympathy. Easy is almost always better (and of course especially in regard to the octave issue). Because of the double keyboard, duplicated notes, and illogical upper row, anglos are hard enough to read music with without making it yet worse.

 

But can one cope with it as is? Certainly I agree that we shouldn't make too big a deal out of it....although fun to discuss, it is a side issue in regard to the pleasure of Alan's excellent arrangements. I did work my way, slowly, through one of them this evening....and can recommend the music now first hand.

 

This thread has been fun. Here is a parting gift....a nice arranged Quadrille from Roylance, 1888 I think. Note the clean notation....both hands on the one treble clef (in more modern times, some folks separate that into two clefs, as discussed above). An added frill is that fingerings are shown. Upper fingerings for right hand, lower fingerings for left. All frequencies/octaves are as written. Simple and light. I plan to put his entire tune collection on the web, with some other similar books, once I first finish another project.

 

Cheers,

Dan

 

[Dirge]

(Misha; try the ICA library for English music; there's lots, arranged specifically for the instrument. (all the ones labeled 'con' I think it is; this is apparently the work of a past librarian who must have felt that there were concertinas, then there were Anglos and duets...). You can see the index on-line whether member or not.)

So I went to the ICA music library, but can't find the written music. Cataloques - yes, with names and tytles, but no clickable links.

No you have to be a member to get the music; you join, it's not extortionate, and ask the librarian who will email you copies (if you ask nicely; it's beyond his official remit but he's really helpful). This is the main reason I'm a member; access to the Stanley duet arrangements, but as you saw, there's even more English stuff. Having said that Dave B the librarian is on extended 'holiday' at the moment, cycling to the North Pole or something, so no music until July...

[Dirge]

Are you an anglo player? 'Tisn't the same on a duet or EC.

 

I don't mind bass clef on a piano, as it makes good sense, and I played in bass clef in my high school trombone years, so I have nothing against that either. I can read music. And if we were talking about melodic (Irish) style on an anglo, again no problem. But when we make a duet out of an anglo, and separate the two hands into two scores, we are doing something different, and there is a reason that every anglo tutor or tune book (at least I'm pretty sure it is all of them) that treats a harmonic accompaniment-style on the anglo in the last 170 years has used either a simple, combined treble clef or a stacked double treble clef....that tradition is trying to tell you that the compass of the two hands overlaps, and moreover, sometimes you have to play parts of the melody on the left hand rather than the right, or vice versa....so if you are writing for folks to sight read, it is worth knowing that everyone heretofore has preferred to keep the two clefs the same. Why fix something that is not broken....and why make it harder? Certainly not to bow to the gods of classical piano-style notation. I am unsympathetic with your unsympathy. Easy is almost always better (and of course especially in regard to the octave issue). Because of the double keyboard, duplicated notes, and illogical upper row, anglos are hard enough to read music with without making it yet worse.

 

But it is routine to pick up notes from the upper stave with your left and vice versa on a duet too. Music is very rarely written obligingly to fit the sides of the 'box. And I have 71 different keys to find, which must roughly equate to a 35 key Anglo? Of course the Maccan system is famous for it's logical layout so you have my sincere sympathies having an Anglo on your hands; I couldn't make head or tail of it when I tried.

 

My argument is with the idea that Anglo music gets written in treble, full stop. If you are saying that it only happens when it makes the music clearer then we have no argument. If you are making it 'default setting' I still think it is a negative step, precedent or not. This is not a nod to piano players, it's a belief that it is important for the written language of music to be as consistent and accessible as possible across the board, to assist the 'busy bee gathering nectar from flower to flower' aspect of hunting for new tunes. This is both for Anglo players to be able to play this delightful game and for non Anglo players like me to be able to have a good go at Anglo pieces. The common good, even?

 

I read standard notation so I can look for new music and know I will be able to understand it; the day I finally get off my backside and try arranging some music I will do so confident that others can play it; except, apparently, the odd recidivist Anglo player...

[Dan Worrall]

Are you an anglo player? 'Tisn't the same on a duet or EC.

 

I don't mind bass clef on a piano, as it makes good sense, and I played in bass clef in my high school trombone years, so I have nothing against that either. I can read music. And if we were talking about melodic (Irish) style on an anglo, again no problem. But when we make a duet out of an anglo, and separate the two hands into two scores, we are doing something different, and there is a reason that every anglo tutor or tune book (at least I'm pretty sure it is all of them) that treats a harmonic accompaniment-style on the anglo in the last 170 years has used either a simple, combined treble clef or a stacked double treble clef....that tradition is trying to tell you that the compass of the two hands overlaps, and moreover, sometimes you have to play parts of the melody on the left hand rather than the right, or vice versa....so if you are writing for folks to sight read, it is worth knowing that everyone heretofore has preferred to keep the two clefs the same. Why fix something that is not broken....and why make it harder? Certainly not to bow to the gods of classical piano-style notation. I am unsympathetic with your unsympathy. Easy is almost always better (and of course especially in regard to the octave issue). Because of the double keyboard, duplicated notes, and illogical upper row, anglos are hard enough to read music with without making it yet worse.

 

But it is routine to pick up notes from the upper stave with your left and vice versa on a duet too. Music is very rarely written obligingly to fit the sides of the 'box. And I have 71 different keys to find, which must roughly equate to a 35 key Anglo? Of course the Maccan system is famous for it's logical layout so you have my sincere sympathies having an Anglo on your hands; I couldn't make head or tail of it when I tried.

 

My argument is with the idea that Anglo music gets written in treble, full stop. If you are saying that it only happens when it makes the music clearer then we have no argument. If you are making it 'default setting' I still think it is a negative step, precedent or not. This is not a nod to piano players, it's a belief that it is important for the written language of music to be as consistent and accessible as possible across the board, to assist the 'busy bee gathering nectar from flower to flower' aspect of hunting for new tunes. This is both for Anglo players to be able to play this delightful game and for non Anglo players like me to be able to have a good go at Anglo pieces. The common good, even?

 

I read standard notation so I can look for new music and know I will be able to understand it; the day I finally get off my backside and try arranging some music I will do so confident that others can play it; except, apparently, the odd recidivist Anglo player...

 

I'll make it as easy as I can, Dirge.

 

It's the big night for our local amateur symphony orchestra, who are playing a string of popular broadway melodies and light classics. Five minutes before showtime, the conductor comes rushing in and says that their rich patron has given them some last minute sheet music of a favorite song from The Pirates of Penzance. Not a problem...these are very skilled players, and everyone should be able to sightread a little piece for the patron. The trombone section, in the back of the orchestra (whose scores are always in bass clef) get their sheets, only the music is shifted to treble clef and, additionally, all the notes are an octave higher than they are supposed to be played....a sweet little note on the sheet says to transpose that as they go. The conductor picks up his baton...you're on. I don't know about YOUR local amateur symphony, but a microphone in the trombone section of any Texas one would record a string of muttered barnyardisms that would make a deepwater sailor blush.

 

Alan's book is written FOR ANGLO PLAYERS. If you are just grazing through some piano music that you found, sure no problem....try to read whatever it is, and accept some difficulty in transcribing. But if the book is for anglo players, why put it in a weird format with jumped octaves and unusual clef positions? THere is no reason for this that I can see, and it hurts this book. The average sight-reading anglo player will have little patience for that. 'Nuff said. Your lack of sympathy is respectfully noted, but I intend to continue whining!!

Edited May 24, 2008 by Dan Worrall

[PeterT]

And I like Andrew Blakeny Edwards's playing very much too, but isn't he playing a 50-button Anglo?

According to the Anglo International CD notes, Andrew had both 51 and 38 key Anglos. Sadly, I did not hear him play before his untimely death, but did hear his brother, Simon, play the instruments at a subsequent Sidmouth.

 

Regards,

Peter.

[Paul Groff]

Hello again to everyone.

 

Forgive me for repeating, this book is not a tutor and is not addressed to beginners. It will pose *many* challenges for anyone who wants to work with it.

 

There are many, many variants of (what we call) traditional staff notation. In all of these, not every parameter of music making is exactly specified. That's why you really CANNOT just plug staff notation into a computer program and get anything like an authentic musical performance. Traditional staff notation always has to be interpreted by the performer, informed by the performer's training in particular musical idioms. Anyone who is not very skilled at such performance from written music will need to work with a good teacher to learn how to translate the written notation into a living, breathing musical voice from their instrument.

 

Almost all serious musicians who use written music (and no, I don't believe all "serious concertina players" must be able to do so!) become conversant with MANY ALTERNATIVE VERSIONS of notation including various clefs and other conventions. Some musicians also learn various early-music tablatures and other forms of notation, not to mention the 19th century "shape note" etc. This is just a matter that the musician "goes to the mountain, since he cannot always expect it to come to him." It is not that big a deal to develop the mental flexibility needed. Maybe harder for those of us over 50 ... but if every book were geared to my diminished abilities at my advanced age, the whole world would have to be dumbed down.

 

Many musically literate concertinists may already play piano and be very familiar with two-handed parts written on conjoined staffs with bass and treble clefs. Others in this thread have reminded us that octave transposition (for a whole piece, or even for only part of it) is a very common convention. Congratulations to Alan for choosing, and carefully, clearly specifying, a convention of notation that expresses his ideas in a very clear and readable format. If it is not the format to which you are accustomed, of course you will have to learn it to work with his book .... but the job of learning his notation conventons will be nothing compared to the challenges ahead in working out good interpretations of the arrangements. As I said in an earlier post, most good players could expect to spend months working with this book, should they choose to take on the challenge.

 

So -- don't buy this book expecting to be spoon-fed. Let me say more generally though, even being spoon-fed will not necessarily solve the real problem of learning music from a book. Other tutors or simpler tab-based notations that may seem more immediately approachable will still not guarantee that the music played from them is listenable. Even simple music is hard to make good, if we are really honest with ourselves. How often have we heard on this site about the spouses who don't enjoy the music played by a middle-aged hobbyist, no matter how many hours of practice....It is not always the non-concertinist spouse who is wrong about the quality: sometimes the concertina hobbyist, no matter the effort invested, is not learning to create the quality that makes music sound good. Bless all the spouses who actually *do* very kindly tolerate the nonmusical noisemaking by their partner..... and sometimes (especially if they find a teacher) the nonmusical players really do cross over and get some quality in their playing. Having been a music teacher, and a sort of midwife to some of these transitions from awful to listenable playing, I can tell you that the confidence generated by "spoon feeding" in tab-oriented tutors can be part of the *problem* when adult beginners play poorly.....if they think music making can be made easy, they may be off-track.

 

A related general issue also distresses me.... the cry for "standardization" in everything. Again, this can be defended in the early stage of musical education. Say up to a year or so, or for the kind of "club" music making that has sometimes been popular among amateur hobbyist musicians. But the work and art of mature, craftsmen musicians is almost always a personal journey away from the limitations of mass-market instruments, cliches of musical expression, and even entire defined musical "styles." I remember as a beginning student on the french horn, I had a double F/Bb like every other student I knew, but reading the liner notes of Dennis Brain's recordings took me into a strange universe of different horns in different keys, of fixing a weak note with a broken matchstick..... and whatever uniqueness, even idiosyncrasy, was expressed in the instruments was nothing compared to the personal exploration that shone through the performances. To cite only one concertina example, Alan Day of this website (like many advanced players) has his own preferred modification of an anglo layout.... Music is not a competitive sport where such personal choices are "breaking the rules." When we play (or write a score) we get to make the rules, we create a universe. There may be a community of listeners who enjoy it, or not. Sometimes the appreciation may be very long delayed but eventually arrive.

 

So -- if you want a different book, write a different book. If you are interested in spending a good deal of time and effort to share in the work and discoveries of a very unique and advanced anglo concertinist, Alan Lochhead has given you an opportunity to do so. It is a great advantage to me that he has notated his arrangements himself, in the way that most directly reflects how his mind works. It should be repeated that these arrangements are simplified versions of the ones he actually plays; these are revised for 30 key anglos. I think that was a very kind concession on Alan's part, but if you are given an inch there, don't try to take a mile in demanding that he customize his notation to YOUR exact preferences. Of course, you could hire a skilled transcriber to rewrite the arrangements if you want to invest in that. Which raises the point, you might easily spend 2 to 5 times the cost of this book taking a single lesson from a professional music teacher. I can't even begin to estimate the time and effort (and more important, the quality and judgment) that have gone into creating and notating the arrangements. In our world of xeroxes and downloaded free pdfs a lot of this kind of work has become devalued by the consumer....

 

Dan, with all respect, if you do not value this book please mail me your copy and I will buy it for your costs (price, postage cost to you, and postage cost to me). I know of a very talented concertina student here who will make very good use of it. Such students and players who *will* find a welcome challenge, rather than frustration, in this book are probably few. But that is not Alan's fault. He is who he is, he plays what he plays, it is amazing and beautiful to me (you don't have to like it, and if you don't I don't care), and I am very grateful he took the time to produce this document exactly in the form he wished.

 

PG

Edited May 25, 2008 by Paul Groff

[JimLucas]

A related general issue also distresses me.... the cry for "standardization" in everything.

The cry for "standardization" is most often really a demand that everyone be forced to do things "my way". It's a rare person indeed who will say -- or even accept, -- "I have a way of doing things that I'm really comfortable with, but I'll be happy to change to another way, as long as everybody else does, just so that it's standardized." (Or should that be "standardiSed"?)

[m3838]

The cry for "standardization" is most often really a demand that everyone be forced to do things "my way". It's a rare person indeed who will say

 

No, it is not true. A good example of standartization is the language.

If you want Babilonian Individualism - you'll be all alone, doing things your way to nobody's satisfaction.

The issue here was probably inability of said arranger to provide transcription in convinient way. He simply may not have been even thinking that Piano score may be difficult, and having been told, would have just shrugged.

Usual story

[wntrmute]

On a Piano or a Hayden, moving up and down an octave isn't a huge deal -- the patterns your fingers use are still the same, you just have to remember to move your hands to the right place -- two changes and you're done. For an Anglo or a whistle or a clarinet (or a fiddle probably) the octave shift is a bigger deal, because you have to adjust the movements and positions of all of your fingers -- that's up to eight or nine changes, most of which aren't really consistent with each other. It's almost like having to re-learn how to finger the notes from scratch. So I can see that as a valid concern. I think I understand why it was done, and I can appreciate that, but Like Mr. Worrall I think there may have been a better way to accomodate that goal.

 

But again, the sheet music is just to learn the tune. Once you have it, it's just a guide to what's already been memorized at most. So I'll probably spring for the book for the tunes in it eventually, but I reserve the right to complain about it if I wanna. I got a God-given right to complain about all manner of things.

 

And now for something completely different....

I do so very much want to play the liberty bell march!.

Edited May 24, 2008 by wntrmute

[Paul Groff]

On a Piano or a Hayden, moving up and down an octave isn't a huge deal -- the patterns your fingers use are still the same, you just have to remember to move your hands to the right place -- two changes and you're done. For an Anglo or a whistle or a clarinet (or a fiddle probably) the octave shift is a bigger deal, because you have to adjust the movements and positions of all of your fingers -- that's up to eight or nine changes, most of which aren't really consistent with each other. It's almost like having to re-learn how to finger the notes from scratch. So I can see that as a valid concern. I think I understand why it was done, and I can appreciate that, but Like Mr. Worrall I think there may have been a better way to accomodate that goal.

 

 

Dear wntrmute,

 

If I understand you correctly, you are not going about tranposing up an octave the way I would. I read the music, and *in my mind* I make a calculation (which if practiced, becomes almost immediate) that I want to PLAY the note an octave above the one notated -- then I play that note. I do not find the note on the concertina that is in the octave notated, and then move up an octave.

 

I really believe it is harmful to your understanding of musical notation to immediately make a one-to-one correspondence between any written symbol and a particular button/direction of the concertina. Instead, understand that (for example), a middle C is notated. With advance notice of an octave transposition, you will read this as a C an octave higher.

 

Many players of wind instruments learn to transpose at will, not only very easy octaves, but seconds, fourths, fifths, etc. You have to learn some theory and then practice.

 

Think of composers (and conductors) reading scores!

 

PG

 

edited for clarity -- I originally wrote how I would transpose down an octave, but to use Alan's book you transpose up an octave.

 

and to add: Actually, if you know the notes of an anglo and how to play them, it is not too hard to play any passage in multiple octaves (the idea you proposed) even though the fingerings are different. Playing the same passage in two or more octaves simultaneously (requiring different fingerings in the two octaves) is a lovely effect on the anglo and widely used in traditional as well as notated music.

Edited May 24, 2008 by Paul Groff

[wntrmute]

I've been in piano and band competitions where there's a written theory part and a practical where you play a song or two. Placed in them, too. I'm not saying that this book is impossible, or even wrong. It's just that there's a 'knack' that this book seems to call on that I haven't got. There's the knack of being able to sight read at or near speed. I've never had this naturally, and it'll take a few more years of study before I can even stumble through something passably at first glance. But I've known people who within a year or two of touching an instrument who could run through something they'd never seen before at speed. It's a knack. I've known people who could transpose any tune into any key on the fly. I've never been one to be able to do that without working it out ahead of time, I'd have to play it out a couple of times to be able to do it at speed; but these people just play it like that's how they've always played it. It's a knack. There's the other knack of being able to hear something, and then reproduce it right off. I've never had this. I have to work at music, it isn't ever easy for me. I enjoy it, but I have never had many of the gifts that allow it to be easy. Not everyone does. There's few who have all of these knacks.

So, while I don't expect to sit down with this book and be able to rip out every tune in it at first glance, I really don't have that expectation of any sheet music. I just don't have that knack. Like I've said before, it will just be a bit harder than usual the first several times remembering to play an octave off.

The octave playing thing is recommended in several tutors, and you can hear it in the professionals' playing. I'm still working on that. The individual notes I've got, it's the moving from one note to the next that I'm fumbling still. I'll get that down, eventually -- that's less a knack and more of a familiarity with the instrument kind of thing. I've been at this for a pretty short time on this insturment, after all.

Not a lot of octave playing on a clarinet, y'know.

[Paul Groff]

I've been in piano and band competitions where there's a written theory part and a practical where you play a song or two. Placed in them, too. I'm not saying that this book is impossible, or even wrong. It's just that there's a 'knack' that this book seems to call on that I haven't got. There's the knack of being able to sight read at or near speed. I've never had this naturally, and it'll take a few more years of study before I can even stumble through something passably at first glance. But I've known people who within a year or two of touching an instrument who could run through something they'd never seen before at speed. It's a knack. I've known people who could transpose any tune into any key on the fly. I've never been one to be able to do that without working it out ahead of time, I'd have to play it out a couple of times to be able to do it at speed; but these people just play it like that's how they've always played it. It's a knack. There's the other knack of being able to hear something, and then reproduce it right off. I've never had this. I have to work at music, it isn't ever easy for me. I enjoy it, but I have never had many of the gifts that allow it to be easy. Not everyone does. There's few who have all of these knacks.

So, while I don't expect to sit down with this book and be able to rip out every tune in it at first glance, I really don't have that expectation of any sheet music. I just don't have that knack. Like I've said before, it will just be a bit harder than usual the first several times remembering to play an octave off.

The octave playing thing is recommended in several tutors, and you can hear it in the professionals' playing. I'm still working on that. The individual notes I've got, it's the moving from one note to the next that I'm fumbling still. I'll get that down, eventually -- that's less a knack and more of a familiarity with the instrument kind of thing. I've been at this for a pretty short time on this insturment, after all.

Not a lot of octave playing on a clarinet, y'know.

 

Dear wntrmute,

 

Patience and faith! I don't know if you mean to equate "knack" or "gift" with an innate, unlearned ability, but in almost every musician I know these skills must be learned and developed by many hours of practice. Like learning a language, learning some of these musical skills does come very, very easily to a few rare individuals, especially if they start very young. Most of the rest of us can learn them, even if not so easily.... but again, the older we are, the slower and more frustrating it becomes to learn them. Still I have students who have made amazing progress through hard work and persistence, even if starting in their 60s or later, with the right guidance....and a few days beyond my 50th birthday I do hold out hope for myself learning a few more things in whatever time I have left. J. S. Bach is supposed to have said "Anyone could write music as fine as mine, if he would work as hard as I do." What may seem like a "talent" "gift" or "knack" in many cases --- the apparent ease with which another musician does something -- is often the "tip of the iceberg"......the bigger part of the thing, that is unseen, is the thousands of hours of patient, disciplined effort.....including millions of mistakes made, then corrected, then the correct thing reinforced.....

 

I am sure you will gain all the skill you have the patience to develop! And of course many skills, including reading music or playing arrangements like Alan's, are just not a priority for many players. There are other styles, other ways to make great music. You will work, work to master those also....and when you do, someone will say "I wish I had that knack." :-)

 

PG

[Dan Worrall]

Dan, with all respect, if you do not value this book please mail me your copy and I will buy it for your costs (price, postage cost to you, and postage cost to me). I know of a very talented concertina student here who will make very good use of it. Such students and players who *will* find a welcome challenge, rather than frustration, in this book are probably few. But that is not Alan's fault. He is who he is, he plays what he plays, it is amazing and beautiful to me (you don't have to like it, and if you don't I don't care), and I am very grateful he took the time to produce this document exactly in the form he wished.

 

Hi Paul,

I think I said several times in the above that it is an impressive work...that is why I initiated this thread, so that people would be aware of it. And I am certainly one of the persons on this Forum who appreciate how much work goes into producing a book like this for anglo players...untold hours with no expectation of monetary reward. Hats off to Andy.

 

Andy is a professional bass player, and this unusual format reflects that...it works for him. That particlar format, including the octave jumps, has never been attempted, to my knowledge, in the history of our instrument for a published work. It is a pity that it will cause more 'thinking' (as someone said above) and difficulty, and thus put off, many sight reading anglo players, when it seems to offer little advantage. It is a grand experiment. I could easily be wrong, but I don't think the format will catch on. I hope you are right, and that there are many folks who will work through it.

 

The world of modern published arrangements for anglo has just increased from a tiny handful to a tiny handful plus one. That in itself is worth celebrating.

 

Dan

Edited May 25, 2008 by Dan Worrall