39 Key Lachenal!

[Paul Read]

I predict he won't get any bidders at £475.

I was wrong. Which is surprising because even quite nice 46-keys often fail to fetch as much as £475 on ebay.

I was surprised too.

That's the beauty of ebay - you just need one person who doesn't know the market (or better still 2 )

[Marien]

The stupid thing is that this type of new model lachenal may score bids between 1600 and 2000 when it would have been a 38 button anglo. The 39 button duet went for "only" 475, with more levers and reeds inside... Well maybe it is just that for an anglo 38 buttons is "the max number of buttons you'll ever need" to most anglo players and for the MacCann, 39 is "not enough" to most duet players.

[Ivan Viehoff]

Unlike Jeffries Duets, you can't convert a Maccann to an Anglo, though you might piratise the reeds. So we have a high quality concertina, but a pretty useless one.

 

A 39-key Maccann is considered a pretty useless instrument by practically every Maccann player. Most of us are frustrated with the deficiencies of the 46-key, let alone 39 keys. The problem with the 39-key and 46-key Maccanns is not so much the number of keys, as what they are. As a recent discussion over a potential Rochelle/Jack style 34-key Hayden indicated, it is in principle possible to make a duet of some value with small numbers of keys. But sadly the standard layout Maccanns with small numbers of keys are not those instruments.

 

I have a suspicion they chose those particular key selections for the small Maccanns because the manufacture of modest anglos and englishes meant they had those reeds easily to hand. If they had chosen a more useful selection, they would have either had to use more costly reed-sets intended for better quality instruments, or manufacture them specifically.

[Dirge]

Unlike Jeffries Duets, you can't convert a Maccann to an Anglo, though you might piratise the reeds. So we have a high quality concertina, but a pretty useless one.

 

A 39-key Maccann is considered a pretty useless instrument by practically every Maccann player. Most of us are frustrated with the deficiencies of the 46-key, let alone 39 keys. The problem with the 39-key and 46-key Maccanns is not so much the number of keys, as what they are. As a recent discussion over a potential Rochelle/Jack style 34-key Hayden indicated, it is in principle possible to make a duet of some value with small numbers of keys. But sadly the standard layout Maccanns with small numbers of keys are not those instruments.

 

I have a suspicion they chose those particular key selections for the small Maccanns because the manufacture of modest anglos and englishes meant they had those reeds easily to hand. If they had chosen a more useful selection, they would have either had to use more costly reed-sets intended for better quality instruments, or manufacture them specifically.

 

I've found myself wondering increasingly whether they were originally intended to be used mostly for unaccompanied melody playing, and that the modern attitude simply expects more than was ever intended.

[JimLucas]

I've found myself wondering increasingly whether they were originally intended to be used mostly for unaccompanied melody playing, and that the modern attitude simply expects more than was ever intended.

Or simply for much simpler arrangements than trying to copy arrangements originally crafted for the 88-key piano keyboard?

 

Whatever the original intent, I have suggested more than once that such an instrument could be played to good advantage in a style similar to the contemporary Irish (or even "English"?) anglo style. I have experimented a bit with that on my duets, but they all have far more buttons, and I find it difficult to avoid using buttons that wouldn't exist on a smaller instrument.

[Marien]

On the duet I play chords on the right hand and melody on the left hand. On the Crane I am happy to have enough (25) buttons on the left hand to play high notes in the chords. Sometimes I use the left hand for a low melody note, but it requires another way of thinking in your head (where else). While the chords come out in machine language so to speak, for melody for the left hand I have to keep thinking about sharps and flats. I would be more happy with additional lower notes on the right hand side (so I could play them there) than extra rows for chord play on the left hand. But it differs for the Crane and the MacCann. On the Crane, the 25 buttons are enough to get all the chords, but on the MacCann it is more complicated to play al the chords,for example it misses the low D.

 

Apart from chord play, I sometimes play melody only, like others do on an english concertina, maybe with a guitar or piano chords in the backgground. If you play duet it should not be forbidden to play melody. Some wrote in this forum that it is just something for english concertina´s, and that you should play chords on a duet. I hope that it is not forbidden to play melody only on a duet, as I just sold my english concertina...

[Hooves]

I've found myself wondering increasingly whether they were originally intended to be used mostly for unaccompanied melody playing, and that the modern attitude simply expects more than was ever intended.

 

 

Perhaps a small box like this would be best for giving a "flavor" of concertina to a piece? I had read on these boards in the past that small duets like this were intended as starter instruments, so you could learn the core notes and then advance on to bigger and better boxes.

 

I have a 46 key MaCaan, it lacks low D yes, but you can still have a lot of fun with it. But after I switched to my Crane 48, I have not lamented a single notes absense (well, nots not entirely true, I think they should have included a couple more accidentals on the upper right side)

 

I admit I can see the want/need for more range in a single box, yet who on these boards contently owns a single box?

Edited December 19, 2008 by Hooves