Your opinion, please on Hayden layout

[Bob Tedrow]

Would like to hear from the concertina cognoscenti, please.

[Stephen Mills]

There is a third possibility some might favor, that is, overlap on a single side. For example, if the Bb and F were also located on the right side of each face, then some of the standard Hayden chords would be extended into some new key signatures without altering their form. This could be done with efficiency of space with linking arms, so that no new reeds are needed. The Hayden figures you show allow you to use standard 3 note chords shapes for the keys of E, A, D, G, C and F. Some stretching is required for some chords in other keys, with Eb, possibly the most common key for pop and jazz, having the least standard chords shapes of all.

 

The overlap version is what I have on my Tedrow Hayden, as you know. It is true that I not infrequently have to adjust the melody because I lack the high E3 on the extended version. Still, I would not give up the RH C# and D# because I want to keep the melody on the RH side as much as possible, and I also use them for chromatic runs and bluesy effects. I use the LH C# and D# far less, although I do use them, mostly for jazz tunes with very active and chromatic bass lines, and for playing in Eb/Cm. The low A and B on the LH side extends the range, but for my purposes, I would rather have the A and B an octave up duplicated on the RH side, which you can’t do for space limitations. The reason is that if you are trying to keep up a moderately interesting LH rhythm and the melody descends to that A or B, you are faced with keeping the rhythm smooth while putting in a LH melody note, and make it distinct and not muddy up the harmony.

 

Obviously, the answer depends on what sort of music you play. For me, not having to reinvent the LH accompaniment when the melody goes below the RH range dominates, so I like the "overlap" version. Others will have different considerations. How difficult would it be to offer both options?

[Dirge]

I think I'd be inclined towards mixing the options; the extra low notes in the LH and the extra low accidentals in the right.

 

I've always run out of low notes first, whatever size duet I'm playing, but the high E and flat strike me as less useful than the extra overlap

[Boney]

I think I'd be inclined towards mixing the options; the extra low notes in the LH and the extra low accidentals in the right.

I think I'm with you. Although F-G-A-B on the bottom of the left instead of A-B-C#-D# would be even better for me.

[Stephen Mills]

I think the last 2 replies identify an important consideration. Does the player want maximum capability in a few standard keys or maximum flexibility in any possible key? Outside of jazz structures, probably most players would opt for the former.

[ragtimer]

I think I'd be inclined towards mixing the options; the extra low notes in the LH and the extra low accidentals in the right.

 

I've always run out of low notes first, whatever size duet I'm playing, but the high E and flat strike me as less useful than the extra overlap

I agree at least partly with Dirge. On the LH I'd rather have the added low notes (extension) than the extra high ones (overlap).

On the RH, it's a tougher call -- I recognize the 2nd diagram as the "standard" Tedrow made to date.

 

I really do want to keep the low C# and D# on the LH, and probably on the RH. On the RH I can get by with using D# for the extra high Eb. But do want the added low D#. It fits wiht the ragtime I play.

 

I also agree that some of these decisions are a tradeoff between exotic keys and chords (jazz, or playing along with wind instruments). and better range in limited traditional keys of C, G, and F.

 

But mostly I'm impressed that Bob Tedrow is posing these questions, apparently ready to consider a redesign of his Hayden.

 

I think Bob could keep patterns for both versions of RH and LH, and offer any combination of them in a single instrument.

--Mike K.

[Frankevich]

Would like to hear from the concertina cognoscenti, please.

 

I'd have to go with the current Tedrow overlap arrangement (right side diagram) although a Right Side high D# and E would be a nice extension but goes over the 52 limit. I take it that this overlap layout answers Mill's interesting question as to whether one wants primarily 'maximum capability in a few standard keys' --and that is probably my preference-- (as opposed to more flexibility for more keys.) But I would still like some extension on the top right as mentioned above. I also like the idea of the instrument being fully chromatic from the lowest to highest note, whatever they might be. The low C# and D# on the bass side takes care of that and could be considered sort of extensions since they didn't exist before. The standard layout is very rational if perhaps not as practical as some other layouts. Did you ever see a--for example--viola missing some accidentals? (Incidently, the viola range is almost identical to that of the standard Hayden--if you happen to like the viola, which I do.) I also agree with Dirge and Ragtimer that the high Eb on the right side (pictured in the left side diagram) may be not as useful. Ultimately, it's a mixed bag: some overlap, some extension is probably best but maybe not quite possible given the limited number of buttons available. Ergo, suggest sticking with the status quo.

.

There is lots more discussion of this subject if you search under "Jax Hayden" on this C. Net site, or Google "Jax Hayden Duet Layout". The result is Jack Delaguerre's site which has much Hayden related info, including some of his own, and also the late lamented Rich Morse's, ideas for Hayden button layouts.

 

I also echo Ragtimer that Kudos to Bob Tedrow are in order for his interest in matters Hayden, such as this.

Edited September 12, 2009 by Frankevich

[Jim Albea]

I think the last 2 replies identify an important consideration. Does the player want maximum capability in a few standard keys or maximum flexibility in any possible key? Outside of jazz structures, probably most players would opt for the former.

 

As a person whose position in the Tedrow Hayden queue is rapidly approaching, this is a very interesting topic to me. It looks like there is a consensus to keep the RH just as it is. And there seems to be a consensus that it would be better to pick up two low notes rather than the overlapped Bb1 and C2.

 

So is it correct to say that the choice is between the F-G-A-B and the A-B-C#-D# options on the left hand? And the F-G-A-B option is more capability where the A-B-C#-D# option is more flexibility?

[ragtimer]

I think the last 2 replies identify an important consideration. Does the player want maximum capability in a few standard keys or maximum flexibility in any possible key? Outside of jazz structures, probably most players would opt for the former.

 

As a person whose position in the Tedrow Hayden queue is rapidly approaching, this is a very interesting topic to me. It looks like there is a consensus to keep the RH just as it is. And there seems to be a consensus that it would be better to pick up two low notes rather than the overlapped Bb1 and C2.

 

So is it correct to say that the choice is between the F-G-A-B and the A-B-C#-D# options on the left hand? And the F-G-A-B option is more capability where the A-B-C#-D# option is more flexibility?

Yes, this pretty well describes the two musical "camps" in which the two proposals would be appreciated.

 

As much as I'd like the low F and G, I vote for keeping the C# and D#, and adding the A and B.

 

Or a third (or zeroeth) option: keep the exisitng Tedrow layout -- low C# and D# and the other two extra notes.

(Edited to add that 3rd option) --Mike K.

Edited September 12, 2009 by ragtimer

[ragtimer]

As much as I'd like the low F and G, I vote for keeping the C# and D#, and adding the A and B.

 

Or a third (or zeroeth) option: keep the exisitng Tedrow layout -- low C# and D# and the other two extra notes.

Well, here's yet another option of mine, seen in the diagram drawn up by Jim Albea (thanks, Jim!).

The RH is just Bob Tedrow's stock design, with the desirable low C# and D#.

 

The LH is a compromise between extension and overlap. Well, actually mostly extension. It goes down to low Bb, fully chromatic all the way. Compared to an earlier proposal with four buttons in a row (A B C# D#), trades off the A for a Bb, plus the right to brag that your box is fully chromatic (add a $5 bill and that will buy you a latte at Starbuck's).

 

Anyone want to weigh in with opinions? David B., you been watching this? --Mike K.

Edited September 13, 2009 by ragtimer

[ragtimer]

Would like to hear from the concertina cognoscenti, please.

Well Bob, look what you opened up by "fishing" for ideas

Time to take off and go fishing the good old fashioned way?

 

Seriously, we are grateful for your openness to our ideas. Thanks, Mike K.

Edited September 13, 2009 by ragtimer

[David Barnert]

Anyone want to weigh in with opinions? David B., you been watching this? --Mike K.

Sorry to be so late to the table. I've been pretty busy lately and only come by here once every week or two. I was clued into this discussion a few days ago, but haven't had a chance to post until now.

 

I think I'd be inclined towards mixing the options; the extra low notes in the LH and the extra low accidentals in the right.

I think I'm with you. Although F-G-A-B on the bottom of the left instead of A-B-C#-D# would be even better for me.

Of the choices I've seen discussed here, I agree with Jeff (Boney). I don't have much use for a low C# D# on the left, but they'd be very useful on the right (as would a B in that octave). Total chromaticity from bottom to top of the range is of little importance to me.

 

But the first note I would add to the standard 46 is an Eb (on both sides), even though the note already exists as a D#. As Rich Morse pointed out (and even demonstrated in a prototype I saw a few years ago), it wouldn't involve any additional reeds, just an action mechanism that attaches two buttons to one pad. I don't know why Bob has been so hesitant to do this. Years ago when Dierdre Cochrane (or was this before she changed her name from Stefani?) was ordering one from Bob, I urged her to request this, but it never happened.

 

Given all this, however, I must say that after my experience with the 82 key Hayden described here, I have come to appreciate the 46 buttons I have on my Wheatstone and am in no hurry to acquire anything bigger.

 

As to the question of whether one wants greater diversity of keys or greater range, I wonder whether it makes sense to take "what kind of music you play" into account, when it is likely that "what kind of music you play" has already been influenced by the limitations of the instrument you have at hand. Having an instrument with more (or less) options will further influence "what kind of music you play" rather than the other way around. When I'm playing my Hayden 46 I know what kind of music to stay away from, and I could say the same about the banjo and the hammered dulcimer, but that doesn't mean I need a bigger banjo.

[ragtimer]

Of the choices I've seen discussed here, I agree with Jeff (Boney). I don't have much use for a low C# D# on the left, but they'd be very useful on the right (as would a B in that octave). Total chromaticity from bottom to top of the range is of little importance to me.

In tunes that I compose and/or arrange, I often make the bass line (LH) transiotn C-C#-D and alo often E-Eb-D. I do this up on the 3rd row, but would gladly do it down an octave if the 1st row had the C# and D#/Eb. (Oops, I mean the 0th row, Bob T's little addition to both sides. So unlike David, I would really like to see the low C# and D#, at least on the LH.

 

On the RH at least the low C# is useful for melodies in D and A. I don't worship full chromaticity either, but sometimes is really helps to have those odd notes.

But the first note I would add to the standard 46 is an Eb (on both sides), even though the note already exists as a D#. As Rich Morse pointed out (and even demonstrated in a prototype I saw a few years ago), it wouldn't involve any additional reeds, just an action mechanism that attaches two buttons to one pad. I don't know why Bob has been so hesitant to do this. Years ago when Dierdre Cochrane (or was this before she changed her name from Stefani?) was ordering one from Bob, I urged her to request this, but it never happened.

Rich's now-famous "Link" mechnism. I didn't realize RIch had actually built a prototype of it. I'd say Bob has not built one because it requires new parts and jigs to build, and is hard to get the leverage "just right". And some of us are already asking Bob to build adjustable hand rests or zero-slant "Wicki" layouts.

Given all this, however, I must say that after my experience with the 82 key Hayden described here, I have come to appreciate the 46 buttons I have on my Wheatstone and am in no hurry to acquire anything bigger.

Now here's something I at least partly agree with. Too many buttons (rows OR columsn) gets you lost in the "sea".

I feel that Bob's usual extra 6 buttons is a nice compromise, extending the 46 without burying the player.

As to the question of whether one wants greater diversity of keys or greater range, I wonder whether it makes sense to take "what kind of music you play" into account, when it is likely that "what kind of music you play" has already been influenced by the limitations of the instrument you have at hand. Having an instrument with more (or less) options will further influence "what kind of music you play" rather than the other way around. When I'm playing my Hayden 46 I know what kind of music to stay away from, and I could say the same about the banjo and the hammered dulcimer, but that doesn't mean I need a bigger banjo.

 

Well, some folks n this FOrum have indicated that they knew what kind of music they wanted to play, before they shopped for a squeezebox -- makes sense. But I will admit that I wasn't that sure, jsut that I knew melody and chords (or countermelody) was a Good Thing and useful for many kinds of music.

 

I'll agree with David that I'm in no hurry to play Bach or Chopin on my Hayden, tho it's always interesting to see just what it and I can do. I will say that a bigger banjo wouldn't be helpful, but a hammered dulcimer with more notes (range or chromatics) would be more versatile. But of course the player might just want to relaxl and cozy up with a small instrument, get to know it really well, and learn to work within its limitations. I do squeeze a lot of good music out of a "mere" 46 Hayden, including a lot of stuff I don't attempt on my 65-key Hayden bandoneon.

--Mike K.

Edited September 19, 2009 by ragtimer

[David Barnert]

As Rich Morse pointed out (and even demonstrated in a prototype I saw a few years ago), it wouldn't involve any additional reeds, just an action mechanism that attaches two buttons to one pad. I don't know why Bob has been so hesitant to do this. Years ago when Dierdre Cochrane (or was this before she changed her name from Stefani?) was ordering one from Bob, I urged her to request this, but it never happened.

Rich's now-famous "Link" mechnism. I didn't realize RIch had actually built a prototype of it.

It wasn't a whole concertina, just the action box. No reeds, no bellows. He showed it to me at the Squeeze-In a few years ago.

 

Which reminds me... I'd better get packing.

[Jim Albea]

Putting aside the debate between the high Bb-C versus the low Bb-B on the left hand side, ... if you could have one more small reed on each side (making a total of 54) which one would it be? Would it be the high Eb even though that one is already present as the D# ?

Edited November 19, 2009 by Jim Albea

[Frankevich]

Putting aside the debate between the high Bb-C versus the low Bb-B on the left hand side, ... if you could have one more small reed on each side (making a total of 54) which one would it be? Would it be the high Eb even though that one is already present as the D# ?

 

This is sort of a tough question because what buttons are decided on in the one area affects what buttons would be best for the other area. For example, if one took out the high Bb and C on left side (third line and space treble clef) then one wouldn't find much use for inserting the high Eb (first line) on that side because using the key of Bb (esp. the IIm, IV, VIm and VIIdim chords in that key) would be significantly reduced! Put another way, to have the high Eb that side really makes very workable and useful the key of Bb, a big plus, as long as the high Bb and C are present! So, if one chose instead to use the lower Bb and B left side (second line in both cases, bass clef) one might consider the lower Eb (third space, bass clef) instead of the presumed included D# on the third line, bass clef. Either using the Eb or the D# of course retains the "chromaticity" of the instrument from low Bb on up. However, since you mentioned "one more SMALL reed on each side" and presuming the lower Eb to require a larger reed than the higher Eb, I would choose the latter.

As for the right side, in order to maintain some semblance of "equity" or "symmetry" between the two sides (to assist those interested in "reversed end" playing--who also have the requisite parallel or so called "Wicky" palm bar, which is also adjustable i.e. moveable--I would just place the Eb in the higher, rather than lower, right side position (forth space up, treble clef).

This suggested format, to sum up, would add the high Eb both sides, to go along with the standard Tedrow layout (52 buttons) depicted at the start of this Forum discussion, giving the allowed 54. But I can think of a few other scenarios--couldn't we all!--wherein the 54 would be "scrambled around a bit". But this one looks pretty good to me, and very close to my first choice (which is another story!)

Hopefully, Bob Tedrow, in the interest of preserving our sanity, among other considerations, will offer several button layouts. Should be a piece of cake, right Bob? Bob?

 

Frank E.

[Frankevich]

Putting aside the debate between the high Bb-C versus the low Bb-B on the left hand side, ... if you could have one more small reed on each side (making a total of 54) which one would it be? Would it be the high Eb even though that one is already present as the D# ?

 

This is sort of a tough question because what buttons are decided on in the one area affects what buttons would be best for the other area. For example, if one took out the high Bb and C on left side (third line and space treble clef) then one wouldn't find much use for inserting the high Eb (first line) on that side because using the key of Bb (esp. the IIm, IV, VIm and VIIdim chords in that key) would be significantly reduced! Put another way, to have the high Eb that side really makes very workable and useful the key of Bb, a big plus, as long as the high Bb and C are present! So, if one chose instead to use the lower Bb and B left side (second line in both cases, bass clef) one might consider the lower Eb (third space, bass clef) instead of the presumed included D# on the third line, bass clef. Either using the Eb or the D# of course retains the "chromaticity" of the instrument from low Bb on up. However, since you mentioned "one more SMALL reed on each side" and presuming the lower Eb to require a larger reed than the higher Eb, I would choose the latter.

As for the right side, in order to maintain some semblance of "equity" or "symmetry" between the two sides (to assist those interested in "reversed end" playing--who also have the requisite parallel or so called "Wicky" palm bar, which is also adjustable i.e. moveable--I would just place the Eb in the higher, rather than lower, right side position (forth space up, treble clef).

This suggested format, to sum up, would add the high Eb both sides, to go along with the standard Tedrow layout (52 buttons) depicted at the start of this Forum discussion, giving the allowed 54. But I can think of a few other scenarios--couldn't we all!--wherein the 54 would be "scrambled around a bit". But this one looks pretty good to me, and very close to my first choice (which is another story!)

Hopefully, Bob Tedrow, in the interest of preserving our sanity, among other considerations, will offer several button layouts. Should be a piece of cake, right Bob? Bob?

 

Frank E.

 

 

Further to last night's comments (slept on it!), let's take a closer look at the "other scenario", namely removing the high left side Bb and C (as per stock Tedrow) in favor of adding the Bb and B low down left side. If one did this, one would probably want to bring the (given) D# over to make the Eb there (wouldn't need the D# and the Eb both presumably--gotta save those buttons!) again allowing to play thoroughly in Bb, albeit lower down. (We might do the same on the right side with the low D#, i.e. move it to the left in the form of an Eb--although there may be some argument against doing this.) Back to the left side: we now have arranged the Eb, Bb and B on the lower left, allowing good Bb key capability. My problem with it is that it is too low. My ear says "comping" of any kind is usually better sounding closer in range to the melody, rather than further. For that reason, when playing in key of C or D, I often like to go higher on the left side for the harmony notes, bringing the harmony and the melody closer together. I'm told also that singers in duet, sound better if closer together, e.g. soprano with tenor rather than soprano with baritone, etc. This may be arguable. There is another downside in my opinion: eliminating the high Bb and C (and Eb, substituting in the low Bb, B and Eb) significantly weakens playing the middle range of keys Bb, C, and D (slightly for D).

 

So to sum, keeping the high left side Bb and C and adding the high Eb over there, gives better tonal balance to the instrument (don't forget that the left side often overpowers the right side anyway, in the Duet) so keeping the left notes higher trumps, I think, putting them lower for that reason, plus the higher reeds are smaller--not just the Eb's (slightly perhaps) but especially smaller than those very low Bb and B.

 

On the right side , one could convert the D# to low Eb as mentioned above thus saving a button (i.e. not having to put the high Eb up there,) and with that extra button, adding the high C# or D, over on the left side instead. Now we're cooking with gas!

 

Given the 54 button limitation, this might be the best solution of several possible. Hope it is helpful.

 

Frank E.

[Frankevich]

Putting aside the debate between the high Bb-C versus the low Bb-B on the left hand side, ... if you could have one more small reed on each side (making a total of 54) which one would it be? Would it be the high Eb even though that one is already present as the D# ?

 

This is sort of a tough question because what buttons are decided on in the one area affects what buttons would be best for the other area. For example, if one took out the high Bb and C on left side (third line and space treble clef) then one wouldn't find much use for inserting the high Eb (first line) on that side because using the key of Bb (esp. the IIm, IV, VIm and VIIdim chords in that key) would be significantly reduced! Put another way, to have the high Eb that side really makes very workable and useful the key of Bb, a big plus, as long as the high Bb and C are present! So, if one chose instead to use the lower Bb and B left side (second line in both cases, bass clef) one might consider the lower Eb (third space, bass clef) instead of the presumed included D# on the third line, bass clef. Either using the Eb or the D# of course retains the "chromaticity" of the instrument from low Bb on up. However, since you mentioned "one more SMALL reed on each side" and presuming the lower Eb to require a larger reed than the higher Eb, I would choose the latter.

As for the right side, in order to maintain some semblance of "equity" or "symmetry" between the two sides (to assist those interested in "reversed end" playing--who also have the requisite parallel or so called "Wicky" palm bar, which is also adjustable i.e. moveable--I would just place the Eb in the higher, rather than lower, right side position (forth space up, treble clef).

This suggested format, to sum up, would add the high Eb both sides, to go along with the standard Tedrow layout (52 buttons) depicted at the start of this Forum discussion, giving the allowed 54. But I can think of a few other scenarios--couldn't we all!--wherein the 54 would be "scrambled around a bit". But this one looks pretty good to me, and very close to my first choice (which is another story!)

Hopefully, Bob Tedrow, in the interest of preserving our sanity, among other considerations, will offer several button layouts. Should be a piece of cake, right Bob? Bob?

 

Frank E.

 

 

Further to last night's comments (slept on it!), let's take a closer look at the "other scenario", namely removing the high left side Bb and C (as per stock Tedrow) in favor of adding the Bb and B low down left side. If one did this, one would probably want to bring the (given) D# over to make the Eb there (wouldn't need the D# and the Eb both presumably--gotta save those buttons!) again allowing to play thoroughly in Bb, albeit lower down. (We might do the same on the right side with the low D#, i.e. move it to the left in the form of an Eb--although there may be some argument against doing this.) Back to the left side: we now have arranged the Eb, Bb and B on the lower left, allowing good Bb key capability. My problem with it is that it is too low. My ear says "comping" of any kind is usually better sounding closer in range to the melody, rather than further. For that reason, when playing in key of C or D, I often like to go higher on the left side for the harmony notes, bringing the harmony and the melody closer together. I'm told also that singers in duet, sound better if closer together, e.g. soprano with tenor rather than soprano with baritone, etc. This may be arguable. There is another downside in my opinion: eliminating the high Bb and C (and Eb, substituting in the low Bb, B and Eb) significantly weakens playing the middle range of keys Bb, C, and D (slightly for D).

 

So to sum, keeping the high left side Bb and C and adding the high Eb over there, gives better tonal balance to the instrument (don't forget that the left side often overpowers the right side anyway, in the Duet) so keeping the left notes higher trumps, I think, putting them lower for that reason, plus the higher reeds are smaller--not just the Eb's (slightly perhaps) but especially smaller than those very low Bb and B.

 

On the right side , one could convert the D# to low Eb as mentioned above thus saving a button (i.e. not having to put the high Eb up there,) and with that extra button, adding the high C# or D, over on the left side instead. Now we're cooking with gas!

 

Given the 54 button limitation, this might be the best solution of several possible. Hope it is helpful.

 

Frank E.

 

A few more observations, please.

 

I don't think the real issue in this discussion is "extension" vs. "overlap". For my money, and with apologies to Dirge who, in an April '09 discussion enthused about bigger (more button) duets to encourage the elite players among us and the long awaited "messiah"-- I think the present low C to high D range (i.e. the so called "extension") is quite ample (like a viola mentioned above.) To my ear, the high D is getting quite thin enough even on my new 55 button custom Dipper, although I could probably go for a high right side D# and E if pushed. Ok, I was just joking, it's only a Stagi 46, not a Dipper, but to go further, the left low side for me at least is plenty low enough tonally speaking. Everyone knows that the low left side can overpower the higher right side, so why go even lower to Bb and B? It's already sounding pretty "muddy" and loud down there. (Maybe if I did have a Dipper!)

 

I could go for lower notes on the right side, as per Mills suggestion earlier, to keep those melody notes over on that side, but hey, we're limited in buttons in this discussion! Consequently, I really think you have to go higher on the left side, (like retaining the Tedrow standard high left Bb and C) not lower. This helps keep an already tonally unbalanced instrument from getting even worse. It also helps in several other ways as mentioned above (e.g. playing harmony/chords in middle range Bb, C, D, etc.) So I say keep the stock Tedrow buttons at 52 (maybe the low D#s both sides could be switched to Eb's but no additions there) and add the high Eb's both sides for 54 total. Reasons for that, as per above, but mostly to really get the Bb key, gives a pretty nice solution. If one didn't care about the Bb key, then the recommendation here would be to forget the Eb's and add the C# and D high left side.

 

Time for my valium. Frank E.