Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rog]

Just curious. Anyone out there play a three row with this tuning?

[george garside]

I have heard of people playing it but I can't see any advantage it may have  compared to a BCC#.  Using the C# and D rows  with BC fingering would  G =A, D=E,A=B etc.   . it could also of course be played as  a DG on the row or across with accidentals but can't see a lot of advantage over the more common DG + row of accidentals.I would therefore choose either a DG+acc or a BCC# rather than  a C#DG

perhaps somebody can enlighten us as to why to go up the C#DG road

george

[JohnS]

i guess if you play both English and Irish style and you want to play on layouts that are common and suitable for those styles and you want it all on one box.  Probably quite a rare set of requirements, but there again C#DG's are quite rare.

[Bob Ellis]

The late lamented Dave Hicks played a Salterelle Cheviot in this tuning, which he bequeathed to Crook Morris. I played it for a little, but, being a D/G/acc. player with no prior experience of playing a semitone box, the only way I could get on with it was by treating it as a D/G box with a row of accidentals on the outside row. Dave, however, liked the configuration and played it well.

[Rog]

I agree that the BCC# is a way to go. But...if you are already a reasonable DG/4th apart player the transition to BCC# is hard. It's like learning a completely new instrument in some respects and the time to market is...who knows how long. A C#DG on the other hand is a hybrid. The bellows reversals and fingering between the C# and D row are the same as on BC...so you are learning transferable skills (unlike a box with an arbitrary row of accidentals). There is no debate about what notes to have on the accidental row either. I was impressed the other day by watching someone play a C#D. It seems to me that adding a G row is just a natural extension of that. Not saying the it's better than BCC#... it just might be a way to transition and actually be able to play the box in a session.

[Rog]

The late lamented Dave Hicks played a Salterelle Cheviot in this tuning, which he bequeathed to Crook Morris. I played it for a little, but, being a D/G/acc. player with no prior experience of playing a semitone box, the only way I could get on with it was by treating it as a D/G box with a row of accidentals on the outside row. Dave, however, liked the configuration and played it well.

Interesting. Yes it depends on if you want to play on semitone boxes. If you want to use accidentals why not have them on the outside rather than the inside...and as I said, you get to learn how to play a semitone box into the bargain.   It bothers me that I have to spend time developing muscle memory to use accidentals .. when at the same time there is a perfectly good solution already there...in the form of a semitone box.
...not sure if this thread is in the right section...I thought it was about construction...but praps not...

[Chris Brimley]

There is no debate about what notes to have on the accidental row either.

True in the sense that it's a hybrid between a DG and a C#D, and therefore the notes are already pretty much defined, but the C# row is not necessarily going to be optimal in terms of its relationship with the LH chords, nor will the reversals you might like to have to promote nice fingering runs be all available, whereas they can be designed into a DGAcc layout. 

Figuring it out, I guess you'd have a push F only, and a pull Bb only, but no D, E or C reversals.

Actually, I haven't thought this through before, but if your intention is to have a large box that will fairly easily do pretty much what you want in the normal home keys for a DG box (as I did), these must count as severe limitations.  If on the other hand, you're looking for a hybrid box because you play a DG and a semitone box, but are not too bothered about smooth LH accompaniment, then fair enough.  However, even there I might raise a question - as I see it, a semitone-apart box is intended to be small and light, but chromatic on RHS for melody, provided you reverse bellows a lot.  The philosophy of a large DGAcc box however involves using the extra fingerings possible to compensate for the extra LHS weight, and in my view it more than compensates - you can actually play them faster and with better dynamics.  If you intend to use the C#D rows of a C#DG box to play fast, you're going to need a light LHS, possibly with few chords which you will use less frequently.

As we often say, it's horses for courses.  There's no one right answer in button accordion design - optimal layouts vary for different styles of playing.

[squeezy]

I have heard of people playing it but I can't see any advantage it may have  compared to a BCC#.  Using the C# and D rows  with BC fingering would  G =A, D=E,A=B etc.   . it could also of course be played as  a DG on the row or across with accidentals but can't see a lot of advantage over the more common DG + row of accidentals.I would therefore choose either a DG+acc or a BCC# rather than  a C#DG

perhaps somebody can enlighten us as to why to go up the C#DG road

I see you're at it again George 

It's very hard to argue that any DG+accidental row box has any intrinsic advantage over the B/C/C# system with it's consistent fingering meaning that you only need to learn 4 fingering scales.  In much the same way it's hard to that any push-pull button accordion has any intrinsic advantage over a 5 row continental chromatic accordion with it's one fingering scale!

The only thing I can say is that playing the melodeon (or any instrument for that matter) is as much about where you're coming from as it is about where you're going to on the journey ... and many have arrived here from D/G land.

C#/D/G is an attempt to marry the semitone and fifth apart systems of push-pull boxes ... in many ways it should work but for whatever reasons it has never really caught on in a big way ... I think the main one is that if you fully embrace the C#/D semitone part of the instrument then the G row becomes somewhat redundant.

[george garside]

I have heard of people playing it but I can't see any advantage it may have  compared to a BCC#.  Using the C# and D rows  with BC fingering would  G =A, D=E,A=B etc.   . it could also of course be played as  a DG on the row or across with accidentals but can't see a lot of advantage over the more common DG + row of accidentals.I would therefore choose either a DG+acc or a BCC# rather than  a C#DG

perhaps somebody can enlighten us as to why to go up the C#DG road

I see you're at it again George 

 
  ... I think the main one is that if you fully embrace the C#/D semitone part of the instrument then the G row becomes somewhat redundant.

indeed!

george

[Rog]

The only thing I can say is that playing the melodeon (or any instrument for that matter) is as much about where you're coming from as it is about where you're going to on the journey ... and many have arrived here from D/G land...

 ... I think the main one is that if you fully embrace the C#/D semitone part of the instrument then the G row becomes somewhat redundant.

I like that...."it is as much about where you're coming from as it is about where you're going to on the journey"...thanks Squeezy, that covers the whole dilemma I think. if the G row becomes redundant then it's time to buy a BCC# perhaps.

[deltasalmon]

I won't argue that BCC# is a better layout than C#DG, the advantages are clear. However if I was to get a three row I would pick the C#DG over the BCC# because coming from a C#D, BCC# would require me to relearn the fingering on everything that I've learned. I've only been playing about 4-5 years but if someone had been playing for 15-20 years or more I could especially see them not wanting to switch over.

If I was to go that route I'd probably conside C#/D/D# (just one step up from the BCC#), C#/D/G and C#/D/C. With the C#/D I already have the notes so the third row would be about finding the right reversals to get the most out of it.

[Chris Brimley]

It would be outside the scope of this thread to discuss semitone layouts vs two-row quint plus acc row layouts, so maybe I'll start a new topic.

[Stiamh]

There have been many threads on this topic, RogerT, if you care to do a search. Chris Ryall plays one of these, although he had to be different and modified the C# row somewhat.

To summarize prior discussions, the problem I see with the C#DG layout is that your C# row is too long and the others are too short. Putting my George hat on, I don't really see the point.

Taking my George hat off again, you might as well just learn to play in G on the D row and get a C#D.

Edit: I see Squeezy has said more or less said this already. 

[Theo]

Stiamh, I agree with you, but only from a theoretical point of view because I've never tried to play C#D.  But from listening to a friend who is a very good C#D player I think the addition of a G row would add a lot of bulk and weight and make the C#D style of playing much more difficult. Of the very few C#DG players I've heard all use their box as an extended DG, in a broadly similar way to having a row of accidentals on the inside, though of course the fingering patterns are different.

[Dazbo]

Anyway, shouldn't we stop using the misnomer BCC# and call it what it really is CbCC# ? One row of all the flat notes, one row of all the naturals and one row of all the sharps.  Makes more sense than having a B row

Personnally, I don't really see the point of 2 rows plus accidentals or what ever.  I love the two row precisely because it is limited and extra half row and 4 extra bases gives you extra options but takes you away from what the melodeon is all about.  If I wanted to play in more (or all keys) I certainly wouldn't go for a push/pull system it'd have to be a CBA

[Hasse]

[ ... I think the main one is that if you fully embrace the C#/D semitone part of the instrument then the G row becomes somewhat redundant.

I don't know if I'm misunderstanding something here? I play both D/G and C#/D  and in my opinion it’s possible to give the same tune, both D and G tunes, two very different expression on these two systems.

You could go all in cross row with a G tune on the D/G and not being able to do the same on the C#/D, and with the same tune you could put in different ornaments, chords, ..., play with a feeling on the C#/D that wouldn’t be same on a D/G. So to say the G row becomes redundant, that definitely depend on what you plan to do with box.

But with that said I think that it’s probably better to leave the C#/D and D/G systems separated, but still I like the idea of a modified C# row = acc/D/G or C#DC system, and then one can argue about the placing of the acc or C row - thats more a matter of personal preference and which systems you are used to play.

[george garside]

Im with Dazbo  in preferring a simple 2 row DG complete with limitations and the challenges of developing the noble art of faking!  Adding a third row of odds and sods to a DG is just too complicated and illogical for me to get the hang of.

george

[Brian]

Hi All

Just to throw my two pen'arth in the mix.

I have played the C#/D/G system for over 20 years now and wouldn't change to anything else. I started out with D/G then supplemented with a C#/D, both Saltarelle boxes. I then by chance found a Saltarelle Cheviot in C#/D/G. That was over 20 years ago.

I also Had a Saltarelle Aubrac tuned to C#/D/G, a great 4 voice box with an 80 bass. I like to play basses as accurately as possible so I can play tunes on this that I couldn't hope to play on a box with standard melodeon basses.

Two years ago I upgraded to a Saltarelle Solstice 12, again in C#/D/G. I had to have this custom made which was really easy with the help of Eagle Music from Huddersfield.

For ceilidh band work I find the D/G rows and basses the way to go. Also with the C# row you have every accidental you could wish for. It can be a reach from the G row but as I also play a 5 row CBA I find crossing and jumping rows easy. C#/D works well for More Irishy type stuff. But saying that I do play the box as one complete system and not two separate ones.

After so long with this system I couldn't go back to a two row box, I'd find it too limiting.

Brian Massen.

[Chris Ryall]

I have had one since 2004. Originally an Oakwood 12 base, replaced in 2012 by a van der Aa 18 bass.  I've also got the same in 'French' keys, an F#GC

It is an absolutely super system. Some combine C#D with DG technique, but I play mine either as a DG with accs row BIGGER than the main rows, or as a Db with 2 rows of accidentals.  Otherwise "off piste" keys become ... fluent - eg Bb, F, Cmin, Gmin, and most Blues scales as you can flatten notes "at will".  And it still works as a DG session box 

It doesn't like Ab at all   or its relative Fmin at all, but ... nothings perfect!  Note that C# and F# notes are dupllcated on pull - so I've filed mine to become D and F pull respectively - more chromatic.  That really opened up Bb for me, but I do get to play a lot with Sax's and trumpets. Also join in Bobs "flat" session at ECMW (mainly I'll "chord")

If you enjoy C#D play DON'T file the duplicated pull notes as "magic button-ness" depends on them  - yes - Stiamh did warn me not to do that 

My bass is 'Grenoble system' with D/G set extended "flatwards" with F/Bb and Gb/Eb pairs.  The inner row of 6 is simple basses in reverse direction to any on the chord rows, (Ab and C# as unisonorics).   This offers all 12 basses in both directions, with 10 of the 12 possible chords, C and D in both directions as on any DG.  If you practice chording on right end a 'bass' is often enough on left, and ALL bass runs work

In essence my approach offers a DG with a "rich" accidentals row … that you can also actually USE to make music in other keys