Replicated Left & Right Keyboards?

[Geoffrey Crabb]

I have an archive of basic plans for concertinas that were made in the Crabb workshop.

Most are recognisable as models of the various systems but there are some that relate to commissioned instruments made to meet a specific customer requirement or concept. The reasoning for most of the latter seem, initially, to be an enigma and due to their 'disappearance', probably unsuccessful.

 

However, through these forums, an occasional comment or idea, although often not novel, may provide a reasonable suggestion for these 'odd' instruments.

 

In another topic, 'McCann to Hayden Conversions', some interest was expressed in the possibility of replicated keyboards and to avoid further drift in that topic, I thought that I would post the attached, based on a plan from the archive, that may be of interest.

 

 

 

Please note, The plans that I hold do not include build or making instructions so would only be of use to an established traditional maker, therefore, I am unable to supply copies ad hoc.

 

Regards

 

Geoffrey

 

 

[ceemonster]

i don't have that skill, but it's very kind of you to take note of the discussion and post this material.

 

i have been mulling it over, but haven't tried layout diagrams yet....c-system would be wonderful since i play c-system accordion. but i don't see how to get adequate octave ranges in there horizontally....i believe whatever system is used, the pitches have to go up and down vertically. perhaps it would be too cumbersome and reduce response speed to have 28-30 buttons on each side....perhaps there would have to be some splitting of sides....i'll have to start messing around with scratch paper. i am clumsy with spatial reasoning, and will have to use up many sheets....

[JimLucas]

In another topic, 'McCann to Hayden Conversions', some interest was expressed in the possibility of replicated keyboards and to avoid further drift in that topic, I thought that I would post the attached, based on a plan from the archive, that may be of interest.

 

Crabb special.doc

Thanks so much for that, Geoff. That's exactly the concept I've been contemplating for about a decade now, even to it being the Crane system. Of course, the same concept should be applicable to the Hayden, Maccann, or any other duet system.

 

And since the Crane was the basis of my personal contemplation of the duplicated sides, I'm very curious as to what may have happened to that instrument, e.g., whether it still exists and even more, whether it's still being played. From what you say, I don't expect you to have any such information, but I shall hope that someone with knowledge of it may some day connect with concertina.net and this thread.

 

Thanks, again.

[JimLucas]

When I originally posted the following, this thread didn't exist, but this is where it really belongs, so I've now moved it here.

ok, here's another frolic----I've been wondering about a hayden for fiddle-like melody playing, in which the right-hand side ranged from, say, "f" below middle C, to "High C" on the high end. and in which the left hand had the exact same notes as the right hand. and in which one played a la EC, switching sides at will. but you would have "all" the notes on each side, so the bilateralism would be totally elective. and you could hold/strap it like an anglo. this might be the ultimate unisonoric concertina for melody playing. not sure whether parallel would be better, or mirror...

This has also been a dream of mine for many years, though with the Crane layout rather than the Hayden. In fact, it's one of two possible choices I'm currently considering if my name ever comes to the front of Colin Dipper's list. (The other option I'm considering is the Linton system, though I would really like to try one in my hands before I decide.)

I have experimented with playing tunes on the Crane using those notes that are found on both sides of the instrument -- the simplest pattern conceptually being alternating notes between the two hands, -- and I like it. But the amount of overlap on existing instruments isn't enough and in particular lacks a great deal of the standard melody range, so it became an exercise in frustration. I think a Crane starting down at the fiddle's low G in both hands (which can be done without breaking the Crane's pattern) would be a great instrument, and I think the same should be true of the Hayden... or the Maccann or other duets. (Here's a wild -- insane? -- idea that just occurred to me: How about an anglo that has exactly the same note layout on both sides, but with the push-pull directions opposite in the two hands? )

[ceemonster]

yes, I have some familiarity with crane and thought about that as well. only thing is, and this might be an issue for doing this with hayden, too, that from low "g" (or fiddle "f" as I insist should be there while you're at it), up to high "C" is what, about 30-ish notes?

 

----would there be a reach problem at the high end, as some folks find in the big cranes?

 

---would a 60-button melody instrument respond less quickly, thus vitiating some of the motivation for this melody-instrument-centered design idea?

 

on the nimbleness/response-speed question, I think it is possible to have a very fast bilateral 60-button....but I don't know that. i'm just postulating....aren't some of the big duets quite nimble even not being bilateral??

Edited September 12, 2014 by ceemonster

[JimLucas]

There's a separate thread about a particular attempt to implement this concept with a Hayden layout.

 

It can be found here.

[JimLucas]

In this post I've tried to gather together my thoughts on the general duplicate-keyboard concept. Thoughts on specific details, such as how actual playing might differ among various "duet" layouts, I'll leave for future posts.

First, about "overlap"

I don't believe that overlap per se is a design principle of duets. The usual view of duets is that they were designed so that one could play independent parts in the two hands. Therefore, what is important is the range available for each part -- the separate ranges of each hand, -- and the overlap is just a side effect. It can be used to provide alternate "fingerings", but only if the independence of the two "voices" is compromised.

My impression is that few duet players use it this way, though I'd be glad to hear of any that do. Instead, they/we mainly reach into the "opposite" hand only when forced to by the fact that that's the only place where a particular note can be found. So for the most part it makes sense to think of the duet as being composed of two instruments -- a right hand one and a left hand one, -- each with its own individual range. (There are even a few examples in the Wheatstone ledgers where one end is wood and the other metal, thus giving the two ends/"instruments" separate sounds.)

Melody-only playing

So far, the suggestions for "duets" with duplicate ranges on the two ends seem to be based on a desire to use the instrument for playing single-voice melody lines rather than two (or more) separate voices. Some have suggested that for this purpose an overlap of ranges is unnecessary. For simply having all the notes available, that's true, and a "duet" with no overlap but the same total range could be smaller and lighter.

But for melody-only playing, the region of overlap does become important, since it provides alternate "fingerings" for all the notes in the range of ovelap. Not only that, but it provides them in the "other" hand: i.e., if it's awkward to reach for a given note in a sequence while playing in one hand, the alternate "fingering" doesn't just give a different place to reach for, but lets the (presumably free) other hand do the reaching, leaving the "first" hand free to prepare for the next note(s).

Using the overlap

In fact, within the range of overlap one is quite free to choose on which end to play each and every individual note. One could play the entire melody in one hand. One could play as much as possible in the one hand, using the alternate hand only when staying in the one hand becomes "too awkward". One could also switch hands whenever there's a repeated note, to avoid using the same finger twice in a row. One could alternate hands for each note in a sequence, thus giving each hand a chance to reposition its fingers for its next note. Or to add rhythmic or dynamic emphasis, one could develop more complex and less rigid patterns of alternating the ends.

How much overlap?

I've tried using this both-ends technique for playing melodies on a standard duet -- a Crane system with 1 octave of overlap -- and I like it. I believe it has great potential. BUT it's also frustrating when a melody goes outside the region of overlap and I no longer have a choice of which button/end to use for a particular note. I've therefore concluded that for melody-only work, it should be all or nothing... nothing if one doesn't want the advantage of alternate fingerings, but otherwise it doesn't make sense to have alternate fingerings for only part of the range.

Above I suggested that in the way it's usually played the duet is essentially two "independent" instruments. In this melody-only paradigm, it becomes more like three separate instruments... a one-handed one with only a high range, a one-handed one with only a low range, and a two-handed one with alternate fingerings but only a middle range. I think it makes much more sense to eliminate the two one-handed sections and expand the two-handed section to cover the entire range anticipated for playing melodies. Therefore... duplicate ends.

What range?

So what is a "reasonable" melody range? I would say it should go down at least to the low G (G below middle C) of the violin in standard tuning and at least 2½ octaves upward from there.

The violin is a dominant instrument in classical music as well as in many folk traditions. While it's true that many melodies don't go below middle C or the D above it -- the lowest notes on various types of flute or whistle, -- many do, and I wouldn't want to exclude those from my potential repertoire... or be forced to alter them. (Matthew Vanitas has suggested going down even to the F below that G. Fair enough, if he wants it, though if I were going to do that I'd continue down one more half step to include the E, which would then allow me to read standard guitar music.)

As for the upper end of the range, the C or D two octaves above middle C seems to be adequate for the majority of flute and fiddle music. On my treble English I occasionally go higher, though mostly either when jumping an octave for variety or when copying bridge riffs from old piano scores. I personally would like a higher top to the range just to have it available, but I think most folks would be more than happy stopping at that high D.

A span from the low G to that high D, fully chromatic, would require 30 buttons, and doubling that for duplicate ends would be 60 buttons and 120 reeds. A question has been raised about the weight of such an instrument. My guess is that it should weigh about the same as a 56-button tenor-treble English, having more reeds in the mid-range than the TT (because of duplication), but completely lacking the largest, heaviest reeds of the TT notes below violin G.

Or maybe a better comparison would be with a 55-button duet -- e.g., a Crane -- that goes down to middle C in the right hand. That already has an octave of reed duplication in the mid range but like the TT English has its lowest note an octave below middle C. A caution on estimating size and weight, though: I've compared two 55-button Lachenal Crane/Triumph duets, one a New Model and the other an Edeophone, and though they had exactly the same range in each hand, the Edeophone was significantly larger and heavier than the New Model.

Beyond melody-only

Of course, just because such an instrument seems wonderfully adapted to playing single-line melodies doesn't mean that that's all it's good for. The English concertina has a similar reputation, and the reasons given are the same -- alternating hands in a run of notes and the (few) notes duplicated on both ends, -- but they're massively multiplied in this duplicate-keyboard concept. As demonstrated by the English International recordings and by various concertina.net members' recordings, the treble English is capable of far more than just melody playing. In fact, I suspect that any arrangement which can be played within the same range on a treble English could also be played with this system, and in many cases more easily, because there's an alternate end/button for each and every note. And that feature should open up even more harmonic possibilities, e.g., where a particular chord on the English would need more fingers on a single hand than are available.

A difficulty, for some folks, might be in deciding which notes to play in which hand, since the number of possible combinations rises exponentially with the number of notes (2 to the power of the number of notes). For someone who resists using both G/A buttons in the same tune on an anglo, that might be an uncomfortable paradigm, and fair enough for them, though I personally would welcome the challenge.

[Wolf Molkentin]

Great stuff Jim, esp. rebus full duplication and beyond single line melody. It might be added that another aspect might be "dry" duplication of any note in the same register...

[JimLucas]

It might be added that another aspect might be "dry" duplication of any note in the same register...

 

Good point. That same kind of duplication is sometimes written into fiddle music, with the same note being sounded on two strings at once to give a richer sound. In those cases one of the strings is usually "open" (no finger), and though that sort of distinction is meaningless on a concertina, the increased volume from two reeds instead of one should still be a noticeable effect.

[JimLucas]

It might be added that another aspect might be "dry" duplication of any note in the same register...

 

Beware! Wolf's noting that such duplication would be "dry" has led me to wonder about "wet" duplication. I'm presenting the following as a radical, wild idea, which I have not tried to think through. I'm not promoting it, but rather "throwing it to the wolves", however...

 

What if the two ends of a duplicate-keyboard concertina were tuned "wet" to each other?

• What's the maximum difference that could be used without it being noticeable in one-button-at-a-time playing that skipped back and forth between the two ends? (I'm pretty sure that limit would be different for different listeners.)
• Would that difference -- or something less -- still be enough to give a "wet" effect if the same note were played simultaneously on both ends?
• If both those conditions could be satisfied, one could mix individual "wet" and "dry" notes or note sequences within a melody. Could someone make use of such a capability in a way that people would want to listen to? (Is that a serious question? )
• And what about playing chords in which some notes were "wet" and others "dry"?

[Łukasz Martynowicz]

@ dry duplication: I do this quite often for accents, or to increase "density" of sound if I want more punch in a punk/rock tune.

 

@ wet duplication: this would heavily compromise the usefullness of such instrument, stripping it from "alternate fingering" option. After last summer, when I left my Elise in a tent on a hot day, two of the reeds have lost tuning and I found, that even few cents between in-out reed under a single button or between sides makes my Elise unpleasant to listen to… It was especially unpleasant when melody met the accompaniment, doubling one of the notes in a chord. IMHO different wet/dry registers on a CBA are usable only for entire parts of a tune, as it takes a couple of notes to get used to the change. A single note now and then sounds badly out of tune. This "feature" could be very attractive for someone wishing to play very modern jazz or conteporary classical music though.

 

@ range: Jim, you have proposed almost exactly the RH side range of a Wakker H-2 model (it goes up to E in its highest octave and misses the lowest G#) so you can safely assume, that this proposed instrument would be very similiar in weight and size to this concertina and cost accordingly. Probably Wim could even produce such instrument easily, as this is a simple matter of mirroring his cad/cam production files. But this is a Wicki/Hayden option only and you're interested in Crane(?).

 

Last note: it should be very easy to modify a stock Elise to make a cheap, limited "proof of concept" working model of such instrument, as it has the same layout and number of buttons on each side. If one had two Elises at hand it is a simple matter of attaching two LH sides to a single bellows and flipping one handrest (the only ergonomic difference would be a reversed slant on the LH side). With one it is a matter of rebuilding reed blocks on a LH side. Wim have recently annouced an upgrade reed kit for Elise, which could be used to do this.