Introduction
This article compares two concertinas: a Stagi Hayden Duet concertina (c. 2003),
and a Lachenal Maccann Duet concertina (c. 1900). Each instrument has 46 keys, and
each cost £500 ($800) ready to play, so they are true alternatives.
On almost every measure, the antique Lachenal Maccann Duet turned out to
be preferable to the modern Stagi Hayden Duet—by a considerable margin. To my surprise,
the advantages frequently mentioned as belonging to the Hayden system (uniformity of
fingering in all key signatures, automatic transposition) turned out to be significantly
compromised by the restricted size of the Stagi, even though the Stagi was unpleasantly big and heavy.
This leads to a common-sense conclusion: If you want to
play a duet concertina, at present you will probably do best to buy a
Maccann Duet.
Some three years ago, I decided to buy a concertina. I
studied everything on the internet, and decided that—for my
goal of playing a melody along with accompanying chords—a Duet
concertina was clearly superior to either an English or an
Anglo, and would also be much easier to play. I contacted
Chris Algar at Barleycorn Concertinas
and bought a 67-button Maccann Duet, received some notes and
arrangements from David Cornell by fax, and began my
studies. Much of what I've discovered since is available on
the web at this website
(http://www.concertina.com/maccann-duet),
including those same helpful notes from David Cornell.
Then about three weeks ago [this was written in late September 2003],
I began to wonder about the
Hayden Duet system. I was adding a copy of Brian Hayden's
patent
to the website, to join other historical material
about Hayden Duets, and as I studied the buttons in the
patent illustrations they intrigued me. After all, the
advantages of a Duet concertina are generic—all Duets share
advantages over Englishes or Anglos. But was a Hayden
Duet better or worse than a Maccann Duet? So I contacted
Richard Morse's
Button Box
and ordered the only Hayden-system Duet available off-the-shelf.
It arrived two days later, and I began my studies again.
Not very many people play any kind of Duet concertina, and fewer still
have ever tried playing two different systems. So I decided to write down a
comparison, for the benefit of prospective concertinists who have already decided that
a Duet system is the right choice, and who are trying to decide which flavour
of Duet system to learn. I thought that it was important to compare two
actual, physical, Duet concertinas—not just two Duet concertina
“systems”. The abstract systems are certainly of interest,
but it is also important how they can be instantiated in
actual physical concertinas. So I focused my comparison on
two specific instruments that I have:
Stagi Hayden Duet 46-buttons, serial #CDN0054 (c.2003)
Lachenal Maccann Duet 46-buttons, serial #1746 (c.1900)
The Stagi 46-button size is the only Hayden Duet readily
available, but I play a 46-button Maccann Duet by choice, so
the comparison could be between instruments of comparable
range.
Obviously three years spent studying the Maccann Duet and
three weeks spent studying the Hayden Duet leaves me very
ignorant about the Hayden! But I'll never be a Hayden
novice again, so there's some value in recording how a
Hayden appears to a Maccann player on a first look.
My conclusion so far is: the shortcomings of the
46-button Stagi Hayden Duet versus the 46-button Lachenal
Maccann Duet are many. Anyone's comparison would be
generally unfavorable to the 46-button Stagi Hayden.
The old Lachenal—any restored old concertina—is vastly
superior, and someone who knew only the modern Stagi could
hardly believe how much better the old Lachenal is.
Beyond the specific shortcomings of the Stagi product,
the features of the Hayden system, as a design, are pretty
much as claimed, and are attractive. But I was surprised to
discover that the compromises and limitations required to
make any actual concertina-sized instrument (to fit the size
of a human hand) can impose a significant dilution of those
advantages, more than I had imagined.
I had absorbed the general impression that a Hayden Duet is
"perfectly regular", with all chords formed in standard
finger patterns, all progressions formed by standard
movements, and the same patterns and movements for all keys.
By contrast, the impression you get from looking at a
Maccann Duet diagram is that each chord and each progression
is different, and different again in each key. So (I had
thought) there must be a lot more you have to learn in order
to play a Maccann Duet.
These received opinions may be mostly impressions formed
by a very short acquaintance with each instrument, and then
given more weight when repeated by other people who lack
experience of their own. When you pick up a Hayden
Duet for the first time, you can "reason out" how to make a
few chords in the center of the button field, and as you
reach the edges and are required to introduce variations you
can "reason out" what the alterations should be by thinking
about the principle of its arrangement. By contrast, when
you pick up a Maccann Duet for the first time, you need to
consult a chord chart to see where the notes are for each
chord. You can easily predict some alterations, but some
are surprising.
But when you go on to actually learn to play, on either
concertina system, you don't have time to "reason out" the
notes for each chord—you need to have learned the muscle
movements to move among a handful of chords readily. This
isn't much, since fifteen chords or so will see you easily
through thousands of songs in several keys. On both
systems, the chords can be standard and invariant if you
choose (or not), so fifteen chords is not very difficult.
One set of fifteen may be slightly easier to memorize than
another, but also may be slightly less easy to finger, or
less harmonious.
Detailed examination (below) suggests that there just
isn't much difference between a Hayden Duet and a Maccann Duet
with respect to how much there is to learn in order to play
chords and to pick out melodies.
This does not mean that a Hayden Duet is not good; after
all, it is a Duet concertina and shares all the advantages
of a Duet with the Maccann Duet. In fact, many of the
things that people have liked about Hayden Duets they might
actually like even more about Maccann Duets.
But as I looked closely, a Hayden Duet does not seem to
me to gain significant further advantages from the Hayden
"system", because of the compromises mentioned to make a
practical concertina. Of course, there may be advantages to
the Hayden Duet which I have overlooked or underestimated,
because of my relative inexperience with it. But the
Maccann Duet seems to offer a different set of compromises,
also intended to fit music onto a small set of buttons,
which has competing advantages.
Certainly, it does not appear that either the Hayden
system or the Maccann system of button arrangement is the only important feature
in choosing a Duet concertina—either can be learned fairly
easily. As
Jack Woehr recently
posted
in a public newsgroup, speaking about Haydens,
“the hard part about squeezebox of any kind is the bellows, not the buttons.
Like the bow with the violin.”
Many other features of the physical instruments
(weight, size, workmanship, reed quality, bellows quality,
action speed, price, availability, ...) are also important.
And, if my experience is typical, learning a second Duet
system after learning a first one is very possible; much of
the learned skill of playing a Duet concertina has nothing
to do with the arrangement of notes on the buttons. Better
to start on one Duet system as preparation for another, than
to try the completely-different English or Anglo systems.
In what follows, I'll assume that the reader has never
tried to play either a Hayden Duet or a Maccann Duet (thus
assuring some degree of tedium for almost anyone likely to
read this comparison). I'll try to illustrate the
comparison points with diagrams to make clear what is being
discussed.
1. The Instruments to be Compared
Here are the full specifications of the two instruments I
used for the comparison.
Stagi Hayden Duet
Stagi Hayden Duet, 46 buttons, bought 02 Sept 2003
from The Button Box. Button Box says that it does extensive
incoming inspection and improvement on its Stagis,
correcting manufacturing imperfections, doing touch-up
tuning, etc. The instrument was shipped promptly and
received in good order.
Serial #CDN0054 (c. 2003)
Wooden ends, plastic buttons
Cost: USD 795 new
Includes new cubical hard case
Accordion steel reeds, waxed into place on reed blocks
10-fold bellows (one-note middle-C drop time 20 seconds)
Volume of middle C measured in a standard way (avg): 89 dBA
Weight: 1830g (4 lbs 2 oz)
Size (flat to flat across face:) 7.5 inches, hexagonal
Length (compressed, including palm rests): 10.50 inches
Thickness of each end-box (excl. palm rests): 3.5 inches
Buttons on left: 21
Buttons on right: 25 (plus air)
Button spacing (ctrs): 17mm horizontal, 12mm vertical
Button diameter: 8mm
Distance palm-rail to nearest button: 36mm
Distance palm-rail to farthest button: 99mm
Width between outlying buttons: 99mm
Range on left: C3 to B4 (middle C is "C4")
Range on right: C4 to D6
Overlap: about an octave
The 46-button is the smallest Hayden Duet in regular
production, and all larger versions are supersets of this
size.
Stagi Hayden Duet Button Arrangement:
Bb C D
F G A B C#
Hayden Bb C D E F# G#
Right End F G A B C# D#
(25 buttons) [C] D E F# G#
(AIR)
F G A B
Hayden Bb [C] D E F# G#
Left End F G A B C# D#
(21 buttons) C D E F# G#
Full text of Hayden Patent GB2131592,
"Arrangements of Notes on Musical Instruments" (1986).
Lachenal Maccann Duet
Lachenal Maccann Duet, 46 buttons, bought 22 June 2000 from
Barleycorn Concertinas. Restoration was performed by
Barleycorn prior to delivery. The instrument was shipped
promptly and received in good order, and has required no
adjustment in 3 years.
Lachenal 46-button Maccann Duet #1746 (c. 1900)
Nickel-plated metal ends, bone buttons
Cost: GBP 475 (= USD 750) including full restoration
Includes vintage wooden hexagonal case
Concertina steel reeds in reed-shoes, with
routed dovetailed slots in radial chambered reed-pans
6-fold bellows (one-note middle-C drop time 12 seconds)
Volume of middle C measured in a standard way (avg): 98 dBA
Weight: 1190g (2 lbs 10 oz) (measured on #2488, wooden ends)
Size (flat to flat across face:) 6.25 inch, hexagonal
Length (compressed, including palm rests): 6.25 inches
Thickness of each end-box (excl. palm rests): 1.75 inches
Buttons on left: 21
Buttons on right: 25
Button spacing (ctrs): 14mm horizontal, 11mm vertical
Button diameter: 6mm
Distance palm-rail to nearest button: 30mm
Distance palm-rail to farthest button: 75mm
Width between outlying buttons: 75mm
Range on left: C3 to C5 (middle C is "C4")
Range on right: G4 to G6
Overlap: about half an octave
The 46-button Maccann was the smallest Maccann in volume
production 1884 to 1939 (some student models in 39-key), and
all larger versions are supersets of this size.
Lachenal Maccann Duet Button Arrangement:
G
Eb D E Bb F F#
Maccann G# G B A C C#
Right End C# C E D F F#
(25 buttons) G# G A Eb B Bb
G# G B A C
Maccann C# [C] E D F F#
Left End G# G A Eb B Bb
(21 buttons) C E F F#
Full text of Maccann Patent No. 4752 of 1884,
"Improvements in Concertinas" (1884).
These two instruments are comparable in several ways.
The Lachenal was made about 1900, certainly within the first
20 years after its patent, as was the Stagi—long enough
after the patent for both systems to shake down. This
Lachenal was a popular-priced instrument when it was made,
much like the Stagi today. (For instance, neither
instrument has bushed buttons!) The Lachenal was suitable
for learners,
but could also be used by performers, and the Stagi occupies
much the same ambiguous position today.
2. Background
The Maccann system is a largely
empirical set of developments. Historically we see first
(in the mid-1850s) a small 24-button diatonic (C and G)
"Duett" concertina being sold by Wheatstone, modelled on
German imports and sold at the lowest possible prices; its keyboard
was in turn based on the earlier Wheatstone English concertina going
back to 1829. A large chromatic generalization of this had been documented
in the C. Wheatstone patent of 1844 and the Wm. Wheatstone patent of
1861, but not built in practical form. The first practical
chromatic extension of the "Duett" system was patented by
John Hill Maccann in 1884, covering 39-, 46-, and 55-button
instruments. In the following fifty years the system was
extended to 57-, 62-, 67-, 72-, and 81-button versions,
always retaining the 46-button instrument at the core. The
46-button instrument was the smallest one made in volume,
but the most common size we find now is probably the
67-button followed by the 55- or 57-button size.
The Hayden system, re-discovered within the last 40 years by
Brian Hayden, was from its re-discovery a more theoretical
construction. Hayden's patent (granted 1986, 102
years after Maccann's patent) envisions making both
small concertina-like intruments and very large
two-dimensional arrays of buttons, with exactly the same
perfectly-uniform principle of arrangement. To make the
small sizes feasible for concertinas, however, a reduced
subset of the pattern must be selected, and the patent
recognizes that irregular exceptions may even need to be
inserted at the edges of the subset. The 46-button size has
dominated production so far, although a few instruments in
larger sizes have been made (67-button), and intermediate
sizes (around 55 or 56 buttons) are proposed by several
makers for future production—with some differences in the
subset of buttons selected. (For a survey of the different
proposed layouts for new Hayden-system concertinas, see Jack
Woehr's Hayden Duet
Concertina Page, which includes design ideas from several current
and possible future makers as well as Jack's own design
aimed at pop and jazz players.)
Although often thought of as a “modern” duet concertina
system, unknown to Brian Hayden (and to anyone else at the time)
the Hayden system is actually a re-discovery of a much older system. The earliest known
example of the Hayden system is the "Wicki system", a design
for the keyboard of a bandoneon (unisonoric, which is much like
a large duet concertina) patented in 1896 by the Swiss
Kaspar Wicki—identical to the Hayden system.
So the
original “Wicki-Hayden” system actually dates from 1896, only
twelve years after the Maccann patent. For whatever
reason, the Wicki system and its patent were lost from
living memory until Brian Hayden independently re-discovered the same system
in the late 1960s. (For more details, see
The Wicki System on this site.)
3. Production Quality
The first thing to get out of the way is the incredible
difference in production quality between the two
instruments. The restored Lachenal is, by comparison to the
Stagi, a triumph of mechanical design and workmanship
(though it is by no means an exceptionally-good example, and
was made to sell at a modest price). Its buttons work
smoothly and quietly, its bellows is capable of great subtlety and
nuance, its reeds sound sweet, start at a whisper, and have
a great dynamic range. The reeds are individually mounted
in reed shoes, inserted into dovetailed slots in radial
chambers of removeable reed-pans, so that every reed can be
easily reached for maintenance (for example, if a bit of
fluff is sucked into the interior and lodges in a reed).
The Lachenal uses the conventional "English" manufacturing
design, by which the instrument is easily disassembled with
a screwdriver, and all the critical alignments are isolated
into stable sub-assemblies, so that a non-expert player
may easily make minor adjustments.
The Stagi, by contrast, is disappointing in all these
respects. Its buttons work poorly, and clatter noisily.
Its bellows is extremely unresponsive (continuous folded
cardboard!), requiring hold-down straps to keep it closed.
Its reeds sound OK, but require some power to start, and
have a very limited dynamic range. The reeds are accordion
reeds, waxed into reed blocks, so that reaching some reeds
is more work than an owner is likely to be able to do.
While the outer finish is acceptable, the finish of the
inside is very rough and sloppy, made of thin plywood—not
that it does any harm to the music.
This difference in quality is simply a fact, which can be
understood and put aside. The vintage Lachenal is a very
satisfying product of Victorian manufacturing, an aesthetic
pleasure to look at and to work with. The Stagi is typical
of modern short-run production, lacking any aesthetic
pleasures. The Stagi does not take advantage of any
twentieth-century advances in technology, such as
electronics—it could have been made the same way a hundred
years ago—so cost must be reduced by compromises in
quality.
In terms of mechanical design and production quality, the
Lachenal is first choice by a long way.
4. Size and Weight
There is a huge difference between the two instruments in
size and in weight, and this does make a large practical
difference. The Stagi weighs 1.83 kg (4 lbs 2 oz). The
equivalent Lachenal weighs 1.19 kg (2 lbs 10 oz). This
number is measured from 46-key Lachenal #2488 which is
wooden ended like the Stagi, but otherwise almost identical
to the metal-ended Lachenal #1746. With metal ends, #1746
weighs 1.39 kg (3 lbs 1 oz). Slightly-better Maccann Duets are
lighter still; a rosewood-ended Wheatstone (#26116) 46-button
Maccann Duet weighs 1.12 kg (2lbs 8 oz).
The Stagi weighs half again as much as the comparable
Lachenal (a full pound and a half more!), and a third again
as much as a metal-ended Lachenal, for the same range. This
makes quite a difference in playing, where you want the
least mass attached to your hands, so that fine movements
can be executed, and so that the least effort is required to
hold the instrument stably against gravity.
The Stagi is also much larger in size in all dimensions,
nearly 25% larger across and nearly twice as long, and each
end-box is fully twice as thick as on the Lachenal. The
larger size makes the instrument much more clumsy to hold
and control.
The distance required to reach all the Stagi's buttons is
considerably larger than on the Lachenal (for the same
number of buttons on each side, exactly). The button
furthest from the hand-rest is about 4 inches on the Stagi,
vs. 3 inches on the Lachenal. Similarly, the width of the
wider button field is about 4 inches on the Stagi, 3 inches
on the Lachenal.
The Stagi's synthetic hard case is just about two times
the volume of the hexagonal mahogany case for the Lachenal.
So, the size and weight of the Lachenal Maccann are
superior by a very long way. Beginning concertinists often
underestimate the importance of weight and size, but—by a
large majority—more Duet players trade down to an
instrument smaller and lighter than their first purchase,
than ever trade up to a larger instrument. Weight and size
seriously interfere with good playing. (I myself first
bought a 67-button Maccann, but then traded down to a
57-button model, and then traded down further to my
current 46-button Maccann Duet.)
Jack Woehr (a very knowledgeable Hayden Duet
player) says "... increase in the size and weight of the
instrument must be weighed and balanced against the value of
the added buttons", adding "as I [Jack] progress as a player
I am less impressed with wraparound keys [duplicates added
at the left and right edges to increase standard patterns]
and more concerned with completeness and avoidance of
duplication to keep the instrument light!"
5. Sound
The difference in the sound of a reed, just sounding, is
not decisive. As Bob Tedrow has demonstrated, there isn't a
huge difference between samples of concertina reeds and
samples of accordion reeds.
I would say that the Stagi accordion reeds sound somewhat
different from both the sound of an unbaffled Lachenal and
the sound of the same Lachenal with leather baffles
fitted—not as raucous as an unbaffled concertina reed, but
not as smooth as a baffled one. The measured difference in
volume between these two instruments is substantial—the
Lachenal is 9 dBA louder, about twice as loud (but it is
somewhat louder than the typical Lachenal Maccann). With
recommended baffles added, the Lachenal is just about the
same loudness as the Stagi unaltered from the factory.
Where the difference in sound comes is in the dynamics of
the notes while the instruments are being played, not in
what you hear in a three-second bellows-drop sample. The
combination of bellows and reeds on the Lachenal is vastly
better for shaping and accentuating notes and chords, with
a vastly greater dynamic range and response. The
combination of bellows and reeds on the Hayden is very much
worse, with little dynamic range and response—it's more like
playing bagpipes, in comparison.
So the sound of the Stagi reeds is not bad, but in the
Stagi instrument they are much harder to use to get good
music.
6. Availability
Availability of these two instruments is roughly the
same—you can get
a Stagi Hayden from The Button Box or a Lachenal Maccann
from Barleycorn Concertinas, in both cases typically within
a few weeks, often within a few days, though occasionally it takes a
few months.
(The Stagi Haydens are made in small batches to order, so
there may be unpredictable lapses in supply from Button Box.
Lachenal (or Wheatstone) Maccanns are all antiques, but one
or more are frequently in stock at Barleycorn—about as
often as Stagis at Button Box. There is no need to be picky
about exactly what size or end-material one gets in one's
first Lachenal—after all, there is no choice at all with a
Stagi.)
Around a hundred Hayden instruments have been made, so
essentially all availability is for new instruments, with
Stagi the only current manufacturer. Stagis show their age
fast, so the occasional recycled one on eBay is cheap
(see below for a recent price quotation).
Several thousand Maccann instruments were made mostly
between 1884 and 1939, and essentially all availability is
for second-hand instruments, with Lachenal and Wheatstone
the two major manufacturers available—very occasionally a Crabb
or a Jeffries Maccann Duet turns up. Any old Maccann will
need to be restored and refurbished if that hasn't been done
recently, and it will be done before an instrument is
delivered by a reputable dealer. Old Maccanns improve with
age; instruments from before World War II are preferred, and
some of the best examples are over a hundred years old.
(There is no use in buying an unrestored Maccann on eBay
or otherwise—you will just need to have it restored, and
there are only a limited number of competent restorers. The
largest and most widely recommended restorers are The Button
Box in the US, Barleycorn in the UK, and Concertina
Connection in the Netherlands.)
So the availability of these two instruments is about
comparable—but, importantly, still-better Maccann Duets are readily
available, whereas even merely-good Hayden Duets are so far
hardly available at all.
7. Cost
The biggest surprise in my researches was to discover
that a vintage Lachenal, including full restoration, with
superior quality in every respect, was actually no more
expensive than the heavier, larger, clumsier Stagi.
My new 46-button Stagi Hayden from The Button Box in
September 2003 cost me USD 795 (plus shipping).
My refurbished 46-button Lachenal Maccann from Barleycorn
Concertinas in June 2000 cost me GBP 475; and at the usual
1.60/1.00 exchange rate over the last few years, that is USD 760 (plus shipping).
With extra shipping from the UK to the US, the prices are
just about identical.
(Prices seem not to have risen since then. In July 2003, I bought
Lachenal Maccann Duet #2488, which is a wooden-ended
instrument also with bone buttons and otherwise very similar
to the metal-ended #1746. This concertina had been bought
fully-restored from Barleycorn about a year before, but its
US-based buyer was reselling it on eBay (auction No.
2547827761), so this gives us a documented open-market
price: the selling price on eBay was exactly USD 800 plus
shipping. But prices on Maccann Duets will probably rise in
the future, with increasing demand.)
It's important to note, though, that the cost for a
Lachenal Maccann is for a very good instrument—the sort of
instrument that one could buy and be happy with for a
lifetime. If you decide later you don't want to keep the
Maccann Duet, you can re-sell it for at least the price you
paid. The same cost, for a Stagi Hayden, gets you a
"temporary" instrument to use for learning until something
better comes along, and resellable only at a substantial
loss. (In late September 2003, a Stagi Hayden Duet was sold
on eBay (auction No. 2559969705); it was claimed to be about
six months old, looked essentially unused, and was sold by a
known seller who notified prospective purchasers through the
discussion forums at Concertina.net; further, it was sold at a time when
The Button Box was unable to supply new Stagi Haydens, but it realized
only USD 610. So this instrument lost 25% of its value in a few
months.)
There are better Hayden Duet instruments promised, but at
much higher prices. Richard Morse estimates that he can
deliver a 55-button Hayden Duet in two years or so, for
about USD 2,500-3,000. Marcus Music has estimated delivery
about the same time for a 65-button Hayden Duet, also
predicted to be about USD 3,000. (Both of these estimates
are for instruments not yet in production—it's not often
that a new product comes in at a lower cost than estimated,
or sooner!) New Hayden Duets from Wheatstone or Dipper are
in the USD 8,000 range and up, but with a waiting list of at
least ten years and perhaps much longer they are not a
realistic possibility.
Larger top-quality professional Wheatstone or Lachenal
Maccann instruments (usually an eight-sided Æola or
twelve-sided Edeophone, ebony, silver buttons), in 57- or
67-button sizes to match the Morse and Marcus sizes, are
available for about GBP 1100 to GBP 1500, or USD 1,750 to
USD 2,400, fully restored. So one can buy a truly
professional Maccann Duet, now, for about two-thirds of the
price of a possible future Hayden Duet. Even as Maccann
prices rise, they are unlikely to exceed future Hayden
prices; and even as Hayden quality rises, it is unlikely to
surpass the quality of professional-model Wheatstone or
Lachenal Maccanns from before World War II.
For cost, a Lachenal Maccann Duet is decisively superior
to a Stagi Hayden Duet, and the advantage seems likely to be
even greater for better-quality instruments.
8. Rants and Complaints
As David Barnert has
mentioned,
the fact that the Stagi
cannot be put down on a table without scratching the surface
badly (because of protruding pins on all sides of both ends)
is an unbelievable practical stupidity which soon becomes a
large continuing irritation. How could anyone design such a
system of construction? Do they think their customers will
be putting the Stagi down only on the zinc bars of the sleazy dives
where we perform before passing our hats?
Or possibly on the stones under the bridges where we sleep?
Also, the brown leather (-ish?) bellows of the Stagi will
deposit smears of brown stain on your clothing, unless you
protect yourself with some sort of shield or always wear a
United Parcel Service uniform while playing your Stagi.
The Lachenal Maccann has no such repulsive features.
9. Playing
So now we come to the the heart of the matter, how the
two instruments compare in playing them, focusing on the
differences in how the notes and buttons are arranged.
In order to discuss both melodies and chords concretely,
we'll imagine playing in one of the simpler ways to play any
Duet concertina, in which the right hand plays a one-part
melody line on the right side, while the left hand plays an
accompaniment of chords on the left side. (Brian Hayden
discusses this as a simple way to play the Hayden system in
his interview with Wes Williams, so it's clearly an intended
functionality.) Not only is this a simple approach, but it
is a very good way to play all kinds of songs and tunes, and
is probably the way many or most people will play any Duet
concertina.
And, this style of playing will give us an opportunity to
look at scales and melody playing on the right hand, and
chords on the left hand. The same general points apply to
playing the opposite way around, or playing chords on both
sides, or playing melodic lines on both sides, but because
of "finger reversal" (the two human hands are
mirror-reflections of each other, but the two sides of a
concertina are not—they are the same—on both Hayden Duets
and Maccann Duets) there are different particulars for the
two hands. It will simplify (but not falsify) our
discussion to confine the chords discussion to the left hand
and the melody discussion to the right hand for purposes of
exposition.
10. Intended Key Signatures
The "home key" of a 46-button Stagi Hayden Duet is G, in
the sense that the right side goes down to C and up to the D
two octaves above, so in the key of G you can play a tune
with an "authentic" range (in the octave consistently
above the final), "plagal" range (roughly an octave, both
below and above the final), or "mixed" range (wider range,
both below and above the final).
A Hayden Duet can be played just about as well in the
key of C or D, but with the need to decide on the range of
the tune. An authentic tune (consistently above the final)
can be played from the lowest C or D, but a plagal or mixed
tune (ranging below and above) must be played on the upper
notes of the right side.
The "home key" of a 46-button Lachenal Maccann Duet is C
or D, in the sense that the right side goes down to G and up
to the G two octaves above, so in the key of C or D you can
play a tune with an "authentic" range (in the octave
consistently above the final), "plagal" range (roughly an
octave, both below and above the final), or "mixed" range
(wider range, both below and above the final).
A Maccann Duet can be played just about as well in G, but
with the need to decide on the range of the tune. An
authentic tune (consistently above the final) can be played
from the lowest G, but a plagal or mixed tune (ranging below
and above) must be played on the upper notes of the right
side.
In both cases, the "home key" is decided by the maker's
decision about exactly what range to put on the right hand
side. A Stagi 46-button Hayden Duet has C-to-C-to-C (D); a
Lachenal 46-button Maccann Duet has G-to-G-to-G instead.
See the right-hand button layouts above to verify this.
11. Scales
Let us compare the scale layouts for playing melodies on
the right side. In both cases, some minor features of the
angles of the button rows have been omitted to focus on the
essentials "as felt by the fingertips".
The "paradigmatic" button arrangement (to adopt Jack
Woehr's accurate term) for the Hayden Duet is:
G
HAYDEN Bb C D E F# G#
F G A B C# Eb
This shows just a portion of three rows, which can be
extended systematically in all directions to make larger
arrays. The rows have buttons offset by half in alternating
rows.
The notes of a scale (in any key, but here focusing on G)
are arranged in adjacent rows of 3 and 4 notes. The
fingering pattern for a scale is:
HAYDEN 2; (fingering,
1-2-3-4; right hand,
2-3-4; read up)
The "paradigmatic" button arrangement for a Maccann Duet
is:
Bb
G# G B A C C#
MACCANN C# C E D F F#
Eb
(This shows the full width of six columns, but only two
full rows plus two buttons from adjacent rows.) The
fingering pattern for this C scale is:
MACCANN 1-3-2-4; (right hand
1-3-2-4; read up)
The Maccann pattern makes more sense than might appear at
first glance. Its pattern drives directly from
Wheatstone's original English concertina layout of 1829. On
an English concertina, the scale alternates from side to
side, with about six rows per side, each of four buttons:
G# G B Bb
WHEATSTONE C# C E Eb
ENGLISH Ab A C C#
(1829) D# D F F#
LEFT HAND RIGHT HAND
—so on an English concertina you play C on the left, D on
the right, E on the left, F on the right, and so on.
The Maccann Duet arrangement simply puts BOTH sides of an
English concertina on EACH side of a Maccann, collapsing
enharmonic equivalents (G#/Ab and D#/Eb) and tucking one
accidental per octave into the natural notes (Eb and Bb in
the chart above).
Brian Hayden described this perfectly: "The Maccann
system is like the English system folded so the upper notes
of the two sides are on one side, and the lower notes of the
two sides are on the other. To play a scale on the English,
you go from side to side, but with the Maccann system this
becomes alternate fingers on the hand. The Maccann system
puts the two central rows of both sides of the English into
the centre of the keyboard, and the sharps and flats into
outer columns, so it requires six columns of buttons." (Wes
Williams interview.)
The motivation for alternating sides on an English
concertina (so the early tutors tell us) was to spread the
work between the hands. This same principle applies to the
Maccann fingering, where the scale alternates between the
first two fingers and the last two fingers. On a Hayden,
the scale goes across the fingers in order, as on a piano.
On a Hayden instrument, the pattern is the same for any
scale, and the notes of the scale are always contiguous and
compact. The sequence of alternating 3 and 4 notes per row
is the same for all scales—just start on the tonic, on a G,
on a C, or on a D, to play that scale.
On a Maccann instrument, the notes of the scale (apart
from the central part of C) are not always contiguous, and
not always compact.
Focusing on a few scales, excluding other buttons, we
have:
Fingering
(read up):
. . . . . .
Maccann . G B A C . 1-3-2-4
C scale . C E D F . 1-3-2-4
. . . . . .
. . . . . .
Maccann . G . . . . 1
G scale . C E D . F# 1-3-2-4
. G A . B . 1-2-4
. D . . . . 1
Maccann . G B A . C# 1-3-2-4
D scale . . E D . F# 3-2-4
. . . . . .
The G scale skips over the F, and adds the adjacent F# in
the sixth column of buttons. The D scale skips over the F
and C, adding the adjacent F# and C#. All the notes, of
course, stay in the same places. The basic pattern of
alternating fingers is much the same, and the minor
variations are easily learned.
Compare the regularity of the Hayden:
Fingering
(read up):
. . . .
Hayden . C . . . . 2
C scale F G A B . . 1-2-3-4
C D E . . 2-3-4
. G . .
Hayden . C D E F# . 2
G scale . G A B . . 1-2-3-4
. . . . . 2-3-4
. . . .
Hayden . . D . . . 2
D scale . G A B C# . 1-2-3-4
. D E F# . 2-3-4
When you see a large Hayden array illustrated on paper,
and you pick out starting points for the various scales, you
then "re-center" your attention on that starting point and
visualize the the standard pattern around it. On a
physical concertina, with your hand through a hand-strap,
it's not exactly like that. The scales start at different
distances from the palm-rail involving more or less
reaching, and they start at different positions left to
right, so the angles for the fingers are different. This is
no problem, but it's not all that different from the
Maccann. The D scale pattern starts farther to the right on
a Hayden, much as on a Maccann, and continues from there.
The hand-strap does not magically move so that every scale
feels exactly the same.
But there IS a difference in how the two systems are
played. On a Maccann, it's conventional to assign "home"
columns of buttons to each finger, with the four fingers
hovering over the middle four columns, and the two outer
fingers also handling accidentals in the outermost columns.
(Of course this can always be adapted for particular
passages
or sequences, and it is NOT the way fingers are assigned for
chords.) So—see the Maccann scales above—the first D in
the D scale is played with the third finger, and also the D
in the C scale is played with the third finger, and also the
D in the G scale is played with the third finger. The same
finger plays the same note: to get a D, always use your
third
finger, curved by the same amount.
On a Hayden, by contrast, the idea is to "move the
reference point". So in playing the D scale, the D is played
with the second finger. In the C scale, the D is played
with the third finger. In the G scale, the D is played with
the second finger again. Here, the same finger doesn't
always get you the same absolute pitch, rather the same
finger gets you the same relative position in the scale.
Either approach could be useful (both approaches are
useful!), but the mental specifics required are different
between them, and it's not clear that either is generally
better than the other.
An interesting point of resemblance between the two is
that the jump of a fifth (e.g., C to G on Maccann, G to D on
a Hayden) would normally be done with the same finger (or
sometimes require alternate fingering).
To sum up, when playing melodies it seems that both the
Maccann and the Hayden are convenient. One can assign a
finger to every "column" of notes (re-based for different
keys and offset on alternate rows for the Hayden), and very
seldom will a tune require successive notes to be played
with the same finger (or alternate fingering adopted)—at
least this is certainly true for the Maccann system, and my
limited trials with the Hayden system seem much the same.
The two systems seem very comparable in this respect, both
good.
The Hayden sequence for playing melodies looks more
immediately obvious—at least to anyone not familiar with an
English concertina layout (which is almost everyone). But
the Maccann sequence is just about as easy to learn. The
precise order of the buttons for a scale is not really
what's difficult to learn; what is important is how fluid
ordinary passages are, how easy it is to play legato
(lifting the finger from one button as a different finger
depresses the following note, releasing the first button
just as the next begins to sound), how easily and rapidly
common sequences can be played, how rapidly grace notes can
be flicked, and so forth.
A basic pattern of alternating fingers (Maccann: 1-3-2-4)
is not intrinsically more complicated than sequential
fingers (Hayden: 1-2-3-4).
12. Playing Chords
On the Maccann Duet, each chord has a particular
individual finger-pattern (like on a guitar or a piano).
Nothing unexpected there. But on the Hayden Duet, in
principle, all major chords can have the same
finger-pattern, all minor chords the same finger-pattern,
etc.
This Hayden regularity of all chords has two different
consequences. First, it means that within a single key all
the chords can be made with the same finger pattern, just
moved to a different starting point. (For instance, playing
in the key of G, the G-chord, the C-chord, and the D-chord
can all be made with the same finger pattern in different
locations.) This is like playing a guitar using only barre
chords, moving the identical finger-pattern up and down the
neck: G at the fifth fret, C at the tenth fret, D at the
nut. That's simple, but it may not even be the best way to
play chords in a single key, and I judge it is the
less-attractive consequence.
More attractive, I think, is the other consequence of the
same fact, that of auto-transposing from key to key.
Players know they can easily master a few chords in each
common key, but when suddenly asked to play in an unfamiliar
key they are lost. The Hayden system seems to promise to
solve this by making all the keys identical. Suddenly, you
can instantly shift to playing in Eb or G# (so you imagine),
just like playing in G or C. It's probably this promise
that has generated so much interest in the Hayden system:
transpose automagically from key to key, just by moving your
hands slightly—a "concertina with a capo!"
But on the 46-button Stagi Hayden Duet, that promise
isn't really true. In every key signature (including the
"home" G!), you find missing notes, forcing you to adopt
alternate inversions, or to "reach across" to get the note
on the far side, or to adjust the fingering in some other
non-standard way, and these adjustments are different in
each key. This rather dilutes the promise of offering a
uniform finger pattern.
There are two kinds of limitations on a Hayden. First,
there are a limited number of rows of keys, just about
enough for two octaves. But when you try to use the same
inversions (same fingering pattern) for every chord, you
quickly run out of buttons vertically, both up and down.
This is exactly the same problem as with barre chords on a
guitar, you run out of neck.
For transposing from key to key, the important limitation
is that the tonic of the key you want to play in must be
near the center of the buttons, left to right. The "easy"
keys are in the center of the button array, but the keys at
both the left and right ends are quite a lot harder—you
really can't play in Eb or G# any more readily on a Hayden
than on a
Maccann. Of course, you still also have the problem of
running off the top and bottom once you figure out the key.
Could this problem be solved by adding more buttons? The
short answer is that there are limits to the height and
width of buttons that a hand can reach when it is strapped
to pretty much of a fixed position over a button array. (We
discuss these limits below at great length,
in "Note 2:
How Large a Hayden Duet is Practical?") The limits seem to
be about a 55/57-button size for the general population, a
46-button size for students and small hands, a 65/67-button
size for people with large hands.
The irregularities and edge-effects are reduced in
slightly-larger concertinas, but are still present—and even
in the most-common key signatures. It seems unlikely that a
Hayden Duet larger than 67 buttons could ever be practical,
so there is no hope of actually making a concertina which
fully satisfies the regularity possible in the Hayden
System.
(In his patent application, Brian Hayden illustrates the
application of his idea not only to concertinas, but also to
large stable two-dimensional "button fields" such as a
two-dimensional electronic "organ keyboard" or even a
hammered dulcimer. It is possible that the strengths of the
Hayden pattern are most evident on instruments of this type,
much larger and heavier than a concertina, and where there
is no such limit to how the untethered hands can move freely
above a stationary button-field, as over an electronic organ
or hammered dulcimer.)
It's certainly not obvious, either, that adding
additional buttons has more advantages than disadvantages.
Jack Woehr was quoted above, describing Hayden Duets, saying
that he was "more concerned with completeness and avoidance of
duplication to keep the instrument light!"
I have noticed the same thing with Maccann Duets: as
I progress, I find myself playing the lighter 46-button
Maccann Duets, rather than the heavier and larger 57- and
67-button Maccann Duets.
So it does make sense to consider carefully how chords
work on a 46-button Hayden Duet. A 46-button Hayden is not
uniquely limited; with any practical-sized button field, the
fingering for playing chords in different key signatures
will be, in reality, somewhat different for each one.
13. Considerations for Standard Chords
When I got my first Maccann Duet, I spent a lot of time
figuring out the best pattern for every chord on a 46-button
instrument, considering all the common progressions, adding
sevenths, going from major to relative minor, and so forth,
and eventually published a document with recommended
standard chord pattern and fingering for every chord—major,
minor, and seventh. My chords are identical for both the
left and right hands—although you can, if you wish, choose
alternate inversions for one hand or the other. (A chart showing
all the chords is on
the web at
How
to Play Chords on Any Maccann Duet Concertina, and it uses an ingenious
notation
for chords which was introduced by Brian Hayden!) When I refer to
"standard chords" for the Maccann Duet in what follows, I mean only these patterns that
I have standardized on for my own use—there certainly is no "standard"
promulgated by or for anyone else.
Since then, I've used this idea of my standard chord
patterns regularly to play the Maccann Duet, and 99% of the
chords I play are just the standard patterns, right off my
chart. So I really believe in standard chords which can be
practised for fast and smooth transitions (much like
changing standard chords on a guitar neck) as the backbone
of left-hand style to which variations can be added.
For this reason, the Hayden idea of using a single finger-pattern for
all major chords, a single finger pattern for all minor
chords, and a single finger pattern for all seventh chords,
is undeniably attractive—that would reduce 36 standard patterns and
fingerings to 3 standard patterns and fingerings. Again, when I refer to
"standard chords" for the Hayden Duet in what follows, all I mean is
the basic patterns that I would standardize on using myself; other players
might want to adopt different chords, or a more-complicated "standard".
And even the news that the Hayden idea may be restricted
to only a few practical keys diminishes its attractiveness
only somewhat. For instance, on the Hayden, the chords for
G and C and D would be like this:
Left-hand
Fingering:
. . . .
G MAJOR . . D . . . 2
HAYDEN . G . B . . 3 1
. . . . .
. G . . 2
C MAJOR . C . E . . 3 1
HAYDEN . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
D MAJOR . . . . . .
HAYDEN . . A . . . 2
. D . F# . 3 1
Here the relative positions of the fingers within each
major chord are exactly the same, and the relative positions
of the chords on the button-array are in standard places.
On the Maccann, by contrast, I use a different fingering
pattern for each of the C and F and G chords:
Fingering:
. . . . .
C MAJOR . C E . . . 3 2
MACCANN . G . . . . 4
. . . .
. . . . .
F MAJOR . C . . F . 3 1
MACCANN . . A . . . 2
. . . .
. . . . .
G MAJOR . . . D . . 2
MACCANN . G . . B . 4 1
. . . .
What may not be obvious with the Hayden patterns, but
becomes apparent as soon as one starts to play, is that to
move from any major chord to another, the same three fingers
will be reused, and every finger must (if using the uniform
principle, MUST) move to a different button. The same thing
is true to move from any minor chord to another. This means
that all three fingers must be picked up and put down again
in new spots on the Hayden arrangement. If you are playing
"block chords"—all notes sounding simultaneously—there must
always be a total cessation of sound, and when all the
fingers leave all the buttons the pressure holding the
concertina strap against the back of the hand is removed,
which may allow the concertina to slip or wobble slightly,
reducing control because there are no fingers left lightly
touching a button-top to "keep position." This wouldn't be
so much of a problem if you were playing chords in an “oom-pah”
pattern or in arpeggios (one note of the chord after another).
By contrast, on the Maccann successive chords usually
involve different fingers, and some fingers stay on or over
the same button for successive chords. This means that the
finger on the note C can remain in contact (not necessarily
with the button depressed) while moving to an F chord,
maintaining better control and allowing sound to continue
(if desired) across the transition. Similarly, the finger
on the note G can be retained going from C chord to G chord,
and can be used to establish the transition from F chord to
G chord even though not sounded in an F chord. Such
"retained fingers" in common progressions are typical on the
Maccann, but more often missing on the Hayden, in order to
make the finger patterns "the same". The Maccann chords that I use
were selected to take advantage of this possibility.
Using the "uniform fingerings" for Hayden illustrated
above, with every chord having its root as the lowest note,
you do end up with the C chord sounding rather a lot
higher than the G, and the D chord sounding rather a lot
lower. You can, of course, abandon the "uniform"
fingerings, and play exactly the same notes as on the
Maccann; here's what "Maccann chords on a Hayden" looks
like:
Fingering:
MACCANN . . . .
C MAJOR . C . E . . 2 1
ON HAYDEN . G . . . . 3
. . . . .
MACCANN F . . . 2
F MAJOR . C . . . . 3
ON HAYDEN . . A . . . 1
. . . . .
MACCANN . . . .
G MAJOR . . D . . . 2
ON HAYDEN . G . B . . 3 1
. . . . .
This may sound better, but has no more regularity than
the fingering on a Maccann system, and is actually somewhat
harder, because of the problem of playing 7ths on a Hayden
Duet restricts use of the fourth finger, to which we now
turn.
There is a problem with sevenths on a Hayden Duet. On
the Maccann Duet (see my chord diagrams with fingerings),
it is often (but not quite always) possible to have a standard
chord fingering (for each major or minor chord) which also
leaves free precisely the finger needed to add a 7th,
usually as the highest note.
On the Hayden, this is much more difficult. The note
needed for a 7th is, in standard position, always to the
left of the other notes of the chord in the button array.
Because the 7th should usually be higher than the other
notes in a 7th chord, one should leave a "long" finger free
on the left part of the hand—say, by fingering a major
chord using 4-2-1, leaving finger 3 available to reach up and
add the 7th above the 5th. But this has severe problems.
For my hand, the reach to the 7th is a VERY awkward reach,
even with the third finger. Using 4-2-1 for the standard
major chord is none too easy anyway, and adding that long
reach for the 7th on the third finger is quite difficult.
One would prefer to use the three strongest
fingers—index, middle, and ring—for the three notes in
standard major chords (as illustrated above) and in standard
minor chords. That leaves the little finger unoccupied,
which is on the correct side of the hand (left of the left
hand). But the little finger cannot possibly reach the
proper 7th. That means that every 7th chord would require
substituting the little finger on the root of the chord to
free up the ring finger for the 7th. And since one often
wants to add the 7th to a sounding chord, this involves
interrupting the root note to add the 7th, which is highly
undesirable. And the result is still difficult, since it is
precisely the same as before.
Hence I would be pretty much forced to just always use a
"low" 7th, lower than all the other notes, because the little finger
can reach that, leaving the stronger fingers 3-2-1 for the
basic chords. This usually doesn't sound as good as you
would like. but it's not always terrible to my ear.
I asked a very experienced Hayden Duet player and a much better musician about how
to play seventh chords, thinking that perhaps I had missed something,
and he rejected my idea of playing a "low" 7th note as very often
inappropriate. Instead, he had three alternate ways to play a
seventh chord: (1) play the 7th note on the right-hand side; or (2) move
a finger back and forth between the root note and the 7th note; or
(3) leave out either the 3rd or 5th, playing just two notes plus
the 7th note. None of these would suit the way that I play chords
on a Maccann Duet, so I conclude that seventh chords are really a problem
for the Hayden Duet player.
(We won't discuss it here, but the same problem is even
worse on the right hand. If one uses the strong fingers for
the three basic notes, one has no finger free at all on the
left side of the hand, where all the notes needed for 7ths
are located—and the thumb can't possibly reach. Would one
be forced to use fingers 2-3-4—middle, ring, and
little—for all standard chords on the right side, all the
time? Presumably so. It seems a real drawback to try to
play all the time with middle, ring, and little fingers on
the right hand, so as to save the strong and quick index
finger in case a seventh is needed.)
14. Hayden: the Standard Left-Hand Chords
We'll focus on left hand chords, only (and now only the
"regular" fingerings). The basic pattern for a major chord
is
Fingering:
5th . 2
MAJOR . R . 3rd 3 1
. .
I'll choose to use my three strong fingers for these
notes, using the ring finger for Root, middle finger for
5th, and index finger for 3rd. This leaves the little
finger free to supply a 7th when needed, which means that
the 7th must be below the root (whereas it would be
preferable—some say often essential—to have it an octave higher).
So my standard pattern for a 7th chord will be
Fingering:
5th . 2
SEVENTH 7th R . 3rd 4 3 1
. .
using little finger for the 7th, ring finger for the root R,
middle finger for the 5th, and index finger for the 3rd.
A good standard pattern for the minor chords is, again,
to put the root lowest, and again to use the three strong
fingers—ring finger for minor third, middle finger for the
root, and index finger for the fifth.
Fingering:
. .
MINOR . m3 . 5th 3 1
. mR 2
Using the three strong fingers, as for the major chord,
also provides a very nice movement for the common transition
from any major chord to its relative minor. Leave the ring
finger on the leftmost note, leave the index finger on the
rightmost note, and just pick up the middle finger and move
it down two rows and right—so, in the diagrams above, the
middle finger moves from major "5" to minor "mR". Because
of the way the buttons are angled on the left side of a
Hayden, this motion of the middle finger is very easy and
obvious, even more than appears on this page. (One often
can do a similar movement on a Maccann Duet, moving one
finger to go from major to relative minor—this is more a
fact about music, than a fact about button layouts; if a C
chord has the notes C E G, its relative minor Am chord must
have the notes A C E, with two notes unchanged.)
Notice that adding a 7th, and moving to a relative minor,
are two changes that DO preserve "retained fingers"—unlike
moving from any major chord to another, or from any minor
chord to another. Both the 7th and the relative-minor moves
are very easy.
(Notation: in what follows, we will use roman numerals
for relative chords. Thus, in the key of G we will call a
G-chord the "I-chord", a C-chord the "IV-chord"
(sub-dominant), and a D-chord the "V-chord" (dominant).
The numbers reflect the fact that in the G scale the fourth
is C and the fifth is D.)
Now, how should the related chords in a key be postioned
for our standard fingering? One good way is to start with
the I-chord, and position the IV-chord "up one row and left
one-half button", so that it sounds "higher" than the
I-chord. Position the V-chord in the other direction, "down
one row and right one-half button", so as to make it sound
"lower" than its I-chord, and to keep the whole set of tones
used for related chords in a compact bunch. This particular
choice is reinforced by the particular button arrangement on
the Stagi Hayden Duet; the IV-chord "up and left", the
I-chord, and the V-chord "down and right", use successive
and corresponding buttons along the diagonals in what looks
like the intended way. Depending on the music, of course,
one might use either a higher or lower root note for any
of the chords; this is just our standard default pattern.
14A. Hayden: Standard Chords in G
We can try out the standard chord patterns, and the
standard positioning of the patterns, in what we consider
the "home key" of G (based on the right-side range). It
seems to work just fine:
Fingering:
. . . .
G MAJOR . . D . . . 2
I-CHORD . G . B . . 3 1
. . . . .
. . . .
G SEVENTH . . D . . . 2
F G . B . . 4 3 1
. . . . .
. . . .
E MINOR . . . . . .
. G . B . . 3 1
. . E . . 2
To go from G to G7, one just puts the little finger down on
the F. From G to its relative minor Em, just pick up the
middle finger and move it from D to E below.
So now we need the sub-dominant (IV) and dominant (V)
chords for this key. Our decision, the usual one, was to
make the IV-chord sound higher than the root chord, and to
make the V-chord lower. So we have the IV-chord, C:
. G . .
C MAJOR . C . E . .
IV-CHORD . . . . . .
. . . . .
. G . .
C SEVENTH Bb C . E . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
A MINOR . C . E . .
. . A . . .
. . . . .
To go from G to C, just move the same three-finger pattern
up-and-left. Once there, the seventh is in the same place
(add the little finger), and the relative minor is in the
same place, just pick up the middle finger and move it from
G to A below. Very slick. This is clearly the way the
Hayden system is supposed to work!
Now the Dominant (V) chord for this key, which will
be D, and its relative minor Bm. Where the IV-chord is
up-and-left from the I position, the V-chord is
down-and-left from the I position, which properly puts it
lower than the I-chord.
. . . .
D MAJOR . . . . . .
V-CHORD . . A . . .
. D . F# .
. . . .
D SEVENTH . . . . . .
. . A . . .
C D . F# .
. . . .
B MINOR . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. D . F# .
?
But here, even in the central key of G, we run into the
first problem: there isn't a low B to form the root of the
relative minor of D major, which is Bm.
Not a major problem, of course, we can play a different
inversion of the chord, by using the B an octave higher, to
make the root note highest instead of lowest—
. . . .
B MINOR . . . . . .
. . . B . .
. D . F# .
[?]
—but this is no longer the absolutely regular pattern we
had been planning for. The finger movements to make the
relative minor of the V-chord are not the same as for the
relative minor of the I-or IV-chords. This is not
confusing, but it is also not the same.
14B. Hayden: Standard Chords in D
All right, now let's transpose whatever tune we are
playing into D, rather than G, and see how that goes. First
the I-chord and its relative minor:
. . . .
D MAJOR . . . . . .
I-CHORD . . A . . .
. D . F# .
. . . .
D SEVENTH . . . . . .
. . A . . .
C D . F# .
. . . .
B MINOR . . . . . .
. . . B . .
. D . F# .
[?]
We are again forced to use the irregular B an octave too
high for B minor, as before, so that's different, but
consistently different. We have a different chord-pattern
for Bm than for Em.
In D the IV-chord is G, and we already have that down
cold:
. . . .
G MAJOR . . D . . .
IV-CHORS . G . B . .
. . . . .
. . . .
G SEVENTH . . D . . .
F G . B . .
. . . . .
. . . .
E MINOR . . . . . .
. G . B . .
. . E . .
This works perfectly. The IV-chord is up-and-left, and its
seventh and relative minor fall into place according to
pattern (the minor is different, of course, from the
irregularity we had to adopt for the I-chord's minor, but
"standard").
For D, the V-chord is A, so now we need A, A7, and the
relative minor F#m. In the key of G, we took the V chord
"lower" than the I chord, as is usual. But here we fall off
the bottom of the buttons:
. . . .
A MAJOR . . . . . .
. . . . . .
. . E . .
? ?
—we are missing both the root A and the C#. So this means
that we will have to make a different alteration when
playing in the key of D. In D, we will have to move the
V-chord up an octave, so its root is higher than the root of
the I-chord. This is a pity, because the smooth pattern of
"up one along the diagonal for IV" and "down one along the
same diagonal for V" which was so slick in the key of G, has
already broken down in the key of D. We'll adjust:
. . . .
A MAJOR . . . E . .
V-CHORD . . A . C# .
. . . . .
. . . .
A SEVENTH . . . E . .
. G A . C# .
. . . . .
. . . .
F# MINOR . . . . . .
. . A . C# .
. . . F# .
So again, this works acceptably. The V-chord and its
relative minor are in a different direction in the key of D
from the key of G, but in that new position the related
chords fingerings are "standard". This is pretty good;
standard fingerings, but non-standard hand movement.
We might wonder whether we made a mistake in trying to
use the "lower" position for the key of D, which resulted in
running off the bottom of the buttons. Perhaps we should
have used the "upper" D, to get into a better part of the
button array?
This idea begins swimmingly, with all the notes we need
for the I-chord, and its relative minor, without the need
for the irregularity of the "lower" D position:
. . A .
D MAJOR . . D . F# .
I-CHORD . . . . . .
. . . . .
. . A .
D SEVENTH . C D . F# .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
B MINOR . . D . F# .
. . . B . .
. . . . .
In fact, this is actually better, because now we can put the
root of the relative minor down on the lower B which we were
missing before.
And now the IV-chord, G major, and its relative minor Em,
in the "upper" location. But here we run out of buttons in
the opposite direction, we run off the top of the array, so
here we have to substitute a different note D:
[?]
. G . B
G MAJOR . . D . . .
IV-CHORD . . . . . .
. . . . .
[?]
F G . B
G SEVENTH . . D . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. G . B
E MINOR . . . E . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
So in the "upper D" location, we have to reshuffle the
fingers to make the basic IV (G) chord. Again this is not a
major or crippling irregularity, but it is yet another
specific irregularity, different from the others we have
seen so far.
The V chord for "upper D" is again A, and now it works
correctly, where it didn't before:
. . . .
A MAJOR . . . E . .
V-CHORD . . A . C# .
. . . . .
. . . .
A SEVENTH . . . E . .
. G A . C# .
. . . . .
. . . .
F# MINOR . . . . . .
. . A . C# .
. . . F# .
Playing in "upper D", the IV-chord has to be fingered
differently, but the V-chord is in its usual position and
the I-chord is standard.
Playing in "lower D", the IV-chord is correct, but the
I-chord's relative minor is non-standard, and the V-chord is
in a different position and an octave higher.
This is interesting, because looking at a large array of
Hayden buttons, you imagine so clearly how you could just
move your fingers up and play exactly the same thing one
octave higher, almost without noticing. But within the
constraints of a 46-button instrument, we find that the two
octaves of D chords are in fact different in the I-chord's
relative minor Bm, different in the IV-chord G's fingering,
and different in the direction to get to the V-chord A.
That is, there is a fair amount of variation in each
chord-set from one octave to the next.
14C. Hayden: Standard Chords in C
We can next try transposing into the key of C, common and
often used.
As with D, this gives us a choice again: "lower C" or
"upper C"? We would ordinarily want to go lower for the
chords accompaniment, to provide better separation from the
melody on the opposite side, so let's try that first.
. . . .
C MAJOR . . . . . .
I-CHORD . G . . . .
C . E . .
. . . .
C SEVENTH Bb?! . . . . .
. G . . . .
[?] C . E . .
. . . .
A MINOR . . . . . .
. . A . . .
C . E . .
[?]
This immediately presents us with two problems. First,
the 7th is missing for C7. The one and only Bb on the left
side is way up high on the left of the buttons, too high for
the little finger to reach! So our decision to accept the
"too-low" 7th which is ordinarily reachable by the little
finger has broken down over a missing button. Here we will
have to adopt a much more difficult fingering for the
C7 chord, perhaps using the ring finger to reach up to the
Bb. But that isn't an easy variation, and will probably
make C7 always very weak and slow to reach.
The second problem is the relative minor, Am. Since we
see that we lack a lower A, we are forced to adopt a
non-standard fingering for the relative minor of C.
On to the IV-chord, which is F.
. . . .
F MAJOR . C . . . .
IV-CHORD F . A . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
F SEVENTH . C . . . .
[?] F . A . . Eb?!
. . . . .
. . . .
D MINOR . . . . . .
F . A . . .
. D . . .
Here the F major works fine, and the D minor works fine,
but the F7 is a disaster. The only Eb note on the whole
left side of the concertina is located way over as the
furthest button to the right of the whole array! So some
dramatically different fingering must be adopted for F7, in
order to get the index finger freed up so it can reach over
to that single Eb. This makes the transition from F to F7
anything but smooth.
(In the spirit of full disclosure, I can point out that
F7 also interrupts a smooth progression on the Maccann
system, and requires displacing another finger, not unlike
this case.)
For the V-chord in the key of C, which is G, we already
know the story. We would normally find the V chord down and
right, below the root, but since we started playing "lower
C" on the bottom row of buttons, there will not be any G
chord in the standard position. So, just as in the key of D
when we were looking for A, in the key of C we will find G
in the non-standard direction two rows higher. Apart from
that, the internal structure is standard, of course:
. . . .
G MAJOR . . D . . .
V-CHORD . G . B . .
. . . . .
. . . .
G SEVENTH . . D . . .
F G . B . .
. . . . .
. . . .
E MINOR . . . . . .
. G . B . .
. . E . .
So in "lower C", we have non-standard fingering for the
Am, and difficult non-standard fingering for the C7. We
have major problems reaching F7 in a non-standard way, and
we have to find the V-chord G in a non-standard position an
octave higher.
Perhaps we should have chosen to play in "upper C", based
on the higher C on the left side? This is only somewhat
better.
. G . .
C MAJOR . C . E . .
I-CHORD . . . . . .
. . . . .
. G . .
C SEVENTH Bb C . E . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
. . . .
A MINOR . C . E . .
. . A . . .
. . . . .
As can be seen, moving to the "upper C" DOES fix the problem
with C7 which is now in the standard place, and it does
restore Am to its standard pattern and location. So far, so
good.
Again, the IV-chord, F:
[?]
F . A .
F MAJOR . C . . . .
IV-CHORD . . . . . .
. . . . .
[?]
F . A .
F SEVENTH . C . . . .
. . . . . Eb?!
. . . . .
F . A .
D MINOR . . D . . .
. . . . . .
. . . . .
Now the Dm still works in the standard way, but the F major
chord has run off the buttons, requiring a non-standard
fingering, and the F7 chord requires that same non-standard
adjustment PLUS the non-standard position of the 7th still
off to the extreme right—now perhaps even a longer stretch.
An alternative to these problems would be to move the IV-
chord to a non-standard direction below the I-chord.
Introducing that non-standard placement would repair the
non-standard fingering for the note C in F and F7, but of
course would not fix the aberrant 7th.
It's a matter of trading one sort of non-standard
fingering for another, basically a wash.
In "upper C", the V-chord G is perfect throughout:
. . . .
G MAJOR . . D . . .
V-CHORD . G . B . .
. . . . .
. . . .
G SEVENTH . . D . . .
F G . B . .
. . . . .
. . . .
E MINOR . . . . . .
. G . B . .
. . E . .
Again, though, this is interesting variation from octave
to octave. In "upper C" you can only find the V chord in
the standard position, below the root; whereas in "lower C"
you can only find the V chord in the non-standard position
above the root. There isn't a way to make the two octaves
conform in position, except by introducing alternate
non-standard fingerings.
So: is "lower C" or "upper C" the better choice?
Lower C: non-standard C7, non-standard Am, non-standard F7,
non-standard G/G7/Em (6 out of 9 non-standard)
Upper C: non-standard F, F7 (2 out of 9 non-standard)
It would appear on paper that "upper C" is the better
choice, more conformant to the standard of the other keys.
Much the same question could have been asked about "lower
D" versus "upper D":
Lower D: non-standard Bm, non-standard A/A7/Em
(4 out of 9 non-standard)
Upper D: non-standard G, G7 (2 out of 9 non-standard)
Again, we might well decide that "upper D" is the better
choice, with fewer departures from the standard sound (puts
the V-chord in the right place) and the standard fingering.
15. Overlap Between Left and Right Sides
However, there is another consideration which will most
likely reverse both of these decisions, and throw us back
upon the "lower C" and "lower D" with their greater amount
of non-standard fingering.
This consideration is the extensive overlap in range
between the upper octave on the left side and the lower
octave on the right side—virtually total. It really isn't
a good idea to play chords on the left side in the upper
octave, and then try to play a melody in the same octave on
the right side. There is no separation between melody
and chords, so that the melody gets lost in the
unison-sounds coming from the other side. And it isn't even
ideal to play in partly-overlapping octaves.
The best separation of chords from melody is to play the
chords as low as possible on the left, and the melody
somewhat higher on the right. (On a 46-button instrument,
of either system, the low notes are not too low and muddy.)
So normally, I believe, players will decide that the better
choice is to accept "lower C" and "lower D", despite the
much higher incidence of non-standard fingerings.
In this particular respect, things are somewhat better on
the 46-button Maccann, as can be seen by comparing the
ranges ("C4" is "middle-C" on a piano):
Stagi Hayden:
range on left: C3 to B4
range on right: C4 to D6
Lachenal Maccann:
range on left: C3 to C5
range on right: G4 to G6
The Stagi's philosophy is to put about two octaves on the
left side, and about two octaves on the right side, with the
upper half of the left identical to the lower half of the
right. Both sides are essentially "C to C to C". Middle-C
is in the center of the left side, and at the bottom of the
right side. That practically forces a player to use the
lower notes on the left side and to move toward the top on
the right to get some separation for the melody.
The Lachenal, in contrast, has about two octaves on the
left side, and two octaves on the right side, but with only
five notes duplicated: G, Ab, A, B, (no Bb on left), and C.
The left side is "C to C to C", but the right side is "G to
G to G". Middle-C is in the center of the left side, but
not on the right side at all. This makes it easier to get a
good separation between chords and melody. (And the upper
notes on the right side of a 46-button Maccann are
usable—on a large 81-button Maccann the upper notes can
only be heard by dogs, but all the notes in the range of a
46-button are very usable.)
Historically, the forerunner of the Maccann Duet,
Wheatstone's "Duett" system, had half an octave of overlap
between the two sides; it had a total of twenty-four
buttons, twelve on each side, running from "G to G to C".
The higher G, A, B, and C on the left side are duplicated as
the lower G, A, B, and C on the right side.
In the Wheatstone "Double" Duets sold even before the
Duett systems, the amount of overlap varied with the size of
the instrument. In a 45-button example (serial No. 23)
comparable to the instruments we're discussing here, there
is again only half an octave of overlap. The left side goes
from "C to C to G". The higher C is in unison with the
lowest C on the right side, which runs "C to C to C",
resulting in only half an octave of overlap. Larger
Doubles, however, had a greater overlap; Danny Chapman's
serial No. 14 is a total of 67 buttons, and has exactly one
octave overlap. (It is "G to C to C" on the left, and "C to
C to C to C" on the right.)
Larger Maccanns also have about one octave overlap. K. V.
Chidley's design for a 71-button Chidley-system instrument
had one and one half octaves. Some larger Haydens have
one-octave overlap like the 46-button, other Haydens
increase that to one and one half octaves—the proposed
Russian Hayden Duets designed by Brian Hayden have an octave
and a half overlap.
What different people think appropriate probably depends
on the kind of music to be played; piano-type transcriptions
that flow over the divide might be easier with a greater
overlap (I don't really know), and David Cornell's
arrangements make specific use of duplicated notes, echoing
them from side to side or achieving sequences which would be
impossible to finger on one side alone. But playing chords
on the left and melody on the right is probably facilitated
by less overlap—as in the 46-button Maccanns. It would
seem that a smaller overlap might be advantgeous for the
equally-small 46-button Haydens; possibly by copying the
Maccann layout, and having the right side run "G to G to G",
from G4 to G6.
16. Hayden Chords Summary
We will leave the topic of chord patterns and locations
on the Stagi Hayden with these three example keys, which are
actually very favorable examples since the instrument is
fairly-well optimized for these key signatures—they occur
near the center. (If we had looked at oddball keys, at the
edges of the button array, we would have found a greater
amount of non-standard patterns and locations, and an even
larger variation in the specific changes.)
As it is, for the basic I-, IV-, and V-chords, with their
sevenths and relative minors, for the common keys of G, D,
and C, there is a surprising amount of variation.
We looked at 9 chords in each of three keys, total 27
chords, but because they overlap we examined only 15
distinct chords—actually, I'd call it 18, since we ended up
choosing to use "upper C" in the key of G, and "lower C" in
the key of C (whether wisely or not).
Of those 18 chords, if I count back over the details
above, I count only 8 of them that are completely standard,
and 10 of them that involve some kind of departure from the
norm.
So about half of the chords we used in those most-common
keys are completely standard. Of the non-standard examples,
they vary in four different ways (inverting a minor for lack
of low button, refingering for a higher 7th, refingering for
a wrong-side 7th, and moving a chord intact into a wrong
octave, a different direction from its I-chord, to avoid
worse problems with missing buttons).
The designs posted for possible future larger Hayden
Duets do not entirely avoid the problems identified above.
Even the 65-button Marcus design, for instance, still fails
to cover a perfectly-regular G, D, and C keys—and the old
Bastari 67-button Hayden Duet failed as well.
The numeric tabulation of exceptions is of little
importance, and other people might well choose a different
"standard", and count the exceptions in different ways. The
important considerations in the long discussion above are
how rapidly a standard pattern runs up against the edges of
the button field, what kinds of adjustments are needed, and
how difficult they are to remember.
Certainly, the Hayden Duet is NOT difficult to play! It
has approximately the same notes on each side as a Lachenal
Maccann of the same size, so you can do approximately the
same things—by introducing even more variation, you can
play precisely the same notes as on a Maccann. But it is
certainly not obvious that Maccann-style fingering is as
easy on a Hayden as on a Maccann, let alone easier.
17. Maccann: the Standard Left-Hand Chords
There is less to say about the standard chords for a
Maccann Duet, since there is no aim that a single standard
pattern should be chosen for chords in all keys.
For a Maccann, though, the same problem of "edge-effects"
occurs on the small 46-button instrument; larger instruments
(such as the common 67-button size) offer many more choices
for chords. So the chords are chosen in various inversions
to fit onto the limited button array, with the difference
that we do not expect to be able to find a single standard
for everything, but expect to learn a unique chord pattern
for each chord.
As on the Hayden Duet, there is an "upper C" position
that is used for the IV-chord in G, and a "lower C" position
that is used for the I-chord in the key of C.
We should properly start in the key of C, since that is
the "home key" for the right side of the 46-button Maccann
Duet, but for comparison with the Hayden chords above we
will look at Maccann Duet chords in G, then D, and finally
C.
17A. Maccann: Standard Chords in G
Fingering:
. . . . .
G MAJOR . . . D . . 2
I-CHORD . G . . B . 4 1
. . . .
. . . . .
G SEVENTH . . . D F . 2 1
. G . . B . 4 1
. . . .
. . . . .
E MINOR . . E . . . 2
. G . . B . 4 1
. . . .
. . . . .
C MAJOR . C E . . . 3 2
IV-CHORD . G . . . . 4
. . . .
. . . . .
C SEVENTH . C E . . . 3 2
. G . . . Bb 4 1
. . . .
. . . . .
A MINOR . C E . . . 3 2
. . A . . . 2
. . . .
. . . . .
D MAJOR . . . D . . 2
V-CHORD . . A . . . 3
. . . F# 1
. . . . .
D SEVENTH . C . D . . 4 2
. . A . . . 3
. . . F# 1
. . . . .
B MINOR . . . D . . 3
. . . . B . 2
. . . F# 1
17B. Maccann Standard Chords in D
Fingering:
. . . . .
D MAJOR . . . D . . 2
I-CHORD . . A . . . 3
. . . F# 1
. . . . .
D SEVENTH . C . D . . 4 2
. . A . . . 3
. . . F# 1
. . . . .
B MINOR . . . D . . 3
. . . . B . 2
. . . F# 1
. . . . .
G MAJOR . . . D . . 2
IV-CHORD . G . . B . 4 1
. . . .
. . . . .
G SEVENTH . . . D F . 2 1
. G . . B . 4 1
. . . .
. . . . .
E MINOR . . E . . . 2
. G . . B . 4 1
. . . .
. . . . .
A MAJOR C# . . . . . 4
V-CHORD . . A . . . 2
. E . . 2
. G . . . 3
A SEVENTH C# . . . . . 4
. . A . . . 2
. E . . 2
. . . . .
F# MINOR C# . . . . 4
. . A . . . 2
. . . F# 1
17C. Maccann: Standard Chords in C
Fingering:
. . . . .
C MAJOR . C . . . . 3
I-CHORD . G . . . . 4
. E . . 2
. . . . .
C SEVENTH . C . . . . 3
. G . . . Bb 4 1
. E . . 2
. . . . .
A MINOR . C . . . . 3
. . A . . . 2
. E . . 2
. . . . .
F MAJOR . C . . . . 3
IV-CHORD . . A . . . 2
. . F . 1
. . . . .
F SEVENTH . C . . . . 4
. . A Eb . . 3 2
. . F . 1
. . . . .
D MINOR . . . D . . 2
. . A . . . 3
. . F . 1
. . . . .
G MAJOR . . . D . . 2
V-CHORD . G . . B . 4 1
. . . .
. . . . .
G SEVENTH . . . D F . 2 1
. G . . B . 4 1
. . . .
. . . . .
E MINOR . . . . .
. G . . B . 4 1
. E . . 2
An interesting experiment (which we tried for just three
chords above) is to pick up a Hayden Duet and try playing
the same notes as on the Maccann Duet (that is, rather than
trying to achieve uniformity, instead play the same
miscellaneous inversions of each chord as chosen for the
Maccann, precisely shown just above). My impression is
that the difficulty and "degree of consistency" is vaguely
about the same on both 46-button instruments. This suggests
that part of the consistency on the Hayden Duet comes from
choosing a single standard inversion and using it
consistently, except where that is impossible; without such
a principle on the Maccann Duet, the chord patterns are
chosen for sound, for fluency, for availability of higher
7ths, and so forth. This may result in a gain which offsets
any ease-of-learning on the Hayden Duet; or put the other
way, choosing Hayden Duet chords without rigid regard to
uniformity would result in just about as many patterns to
learn as on a Maccann Duet.
18. Maccann Chords Summary
By the same calculation made for the Hayden chords, we
have seen 18 different Maccann chords, each with an
individual pattern (some closely related). So there is, I'd
estimate roughly, about twice as much to learn for this set
of chord patterns.
Again, the calculation of "twice as much to learn" isn't
of primary importance. Neither for the Hayden Duet nor for
the Maccann Duet is the number of patterns to learn very
large, yet that amount is enough to play thousands of songs,
in three common keys. The way to judge is to try out the
chord patterns and see how natural they feel, how they flow
in common progressions, how good the inversions that fit
onto the buttons sound, how easy it is to remember what to
do.
There is one difference: when I first got a Maccann Duet,
with no hints about which chord patterns were convenient, it
took me quite a bit of effort to try out a lot of
possibilities and see what worked best. The Hayden Duet
system speeds up that process of discovery—making it easier
to see patterns that are likely to work, and quicker to test
out alternate patterns. But that initial spade work is
still considerable, and shouldn't be necessary for every
concertinist; we should have standard instructional books
with all the chords pictured, so that the patterns have
merely to be learned, not invented (this does exist for the
Maccann Duet, see next section).
19. Instructional Material
Oddly enough, there is almost no instructional material
available for Hayden Duet which would save every beginner
the need to work out the strategies. The only discussions
of how to play, very meagre, are in descriptions of the
invention prepared very early. Brian Hayden did prepare an
"All-Systems" tutor, but it contains diagrams for Maccann as
well as for Hayden systems. There is no discussion that I
have found of specific fingering, chords, etc.—even at the
extremely elementary level I've attempted here.
For a new system, where no one is really an old hand, I
would have expected that almost everyone who took up a
Hayden Duet over the last twenty years would have been eager
to write about his experiences. But for some reason this
hasn't happened.
(Rumor says that Brian Hayden has been preparing a tutor
of his own for some time, so it may be that the prospect of
getting the inventor's own tutor has scared off the
competition.)
On the Maccann Duet side, of course, there is a lot of
material to help a novice learn how to play. And everything
that I know about is available free on the internet:
This is surely enough to provide some orientation and to get
a new player started.
Historically the Maccann Duet was used by professional
performers, and perhaps for that reason all the Maccann
instructional material (except for the last item) use
standard musical notation. This may possibly have
contributed to the idea that the Maccann Duet was difficult,
since information such as the chord diagrams were given not
as buttons in a diagram, but as notes on a staff—one more
hindrance to a concertinist wanting to learn by ear.
This lack is repaired by the last item on the Maccann
list, which includes a single hexagonal diagram (6.25 inches
across, to fit inside the lid of a 46-button Maccann Duet
concertina case) showing 36 chord diagrams with
fingerings—the recommended major, minor, and seventh chords
in each of 12 keys—with all the alternate inversions.
Credit for its compactness is due to Brian Hayden, for his
notation
which is used in the diagram! It would be nice to
have a comparable diagram for the 46-button Hayden Duet.
20. Experience
Finally, there is one other consideration, and that is
the experience with the two systems. Over about sixty years
of active development, and another sixty years since then,
the Maccann Duet has demonstrated that it can be played at
very high levels of achievement. As we know from
contemporary reviews, the Maccann Duet was used by
professional performers immediately, within a year of its
being patented, and was hailed as a breakthrough. A
succession of performers were stars on the Maccann Duet
until World War II, with many additional professionals at
various levels of attainment, and many advanced amateurs. A
system that was "confusing", or "unplayable", or "illogical"
could hardly produce that result.
The Hayden Duet, by contrast, has still to demonstrate
that it offers the potential for high achievement. Twenty
years after its patenting, there are still only a handful of
quality instruments ever made, and only a few of those are in the
hands of serious players. This may be just bad luck
and circumstance, of course, but it leaves the Hayden as an
"unproven" system. It seems likely that better Hayden
instruments and better Hayden players may come along, but
they haven't yet.
So we know that many people can play the Maccann Duet
well, and some people can play the Maccann Duet
superlatively. We hope that both will be true for the
Hayden Duet, but neither has yet been demonstrated.
21. Summary
After all this discussion, we can draw up a score-card:
Quality of instruments: Maccann
Size and Weight of instruments: Maccann
Availability of good instruments: Maccann
Price of instruments: Maccann
Instructional Materials: Maccann
Ease of playing in several common keys: both
Ease of playing in many oddball keys: neither
Performing experience: Maccann
This leads to a common-sense conclusion: If you want to
play a duet concertina, you will probably do best to buy a
Maccann Duet. You can get a really nice one, you can get it
fairly quickly, it won't be too expensive, it will be
lighter and smaller, you'll have good materials to learn
from, it's about as easy as any other duet system to
play in several (say half a dozen) common key signatures,
and you'll have the assurance that many others have mastered
it.
If you are required to play in many different and unusual
key signatures, then you may think you should try learning the Hayden
system instead, looking to a future when better instruments
may be available. That's probably a false hope; the largest
practical concertinas will never deliver what you hope for.
To play in many different and unusual keys, you either need
an electronic "concertina with a capo" (which might better
be a Maccann-system,
see Note 1 below,
or else you should take up a different instrument.
The Hayden system, abstractly, is extremely interesting
and well worth study.
It will particularly interest some people
because of its structure, in much the way that some people
are particularly attracted to Dvorak keyboards for typing. (See
Note 3, below, "Do you Type on a Dvorak Keyboard?" for the
comparison.)
It would be desirable for
others to try it out and discover its merits. Is the system really
only of interest in bandoneon-sized instruments, with fifty percent
of the notes duplicated to gain uniformity and transposition,
perhaps with a different system for supporting the instruments and a
different form of hand-strap? Or using the same pattern but cutting
out the duplicated notes, does the keyboard arrangement
still have any advantage over the Maccann arrangement? We will
know more when even halfway-decent Hayden instruments become
available.
But when you turn from abstract systems to actual instruments,
if you want to try out a Hayden Duet now, you can only get a
poor-quality instrument, it will be heavy and clumsy,
when you can ever buy better instruments you will have to
pay much more, you will have limited material to learn from,
and you will have to buy a very-large concertina to get
even a fraction of the benefits promised by the uniformity
of the Hayden system. The 46-button Stagi Hayden involves
so many limitations that it is only useful as a learning aid
to gain intuition about the Hayden system, and it's barely
useful even for that.
