english concertina ideas
fred veenschoten
remember right. this made me think "why have a 48 button instrument?" I have
never gone higher than that "c" above the staff (sorry I don't know the
proper designation of the octave). so the upper 7 or 8 keys are useless.
also many of the accidentals other than A#,C# and, F# and Bflat are useless.
this would eliminate many of the buttons and reeds needed to build the
instrument not to mention the reduced weight as far as playing goes.
any thoughts?
Fred
DoN. Nichols
If nothing else, having the full range (48, 56, or even 64
buttons) will allow you to explore the transpose-in-fifths to its
maximum. I think that once you have transposed to a key you like (in
some other octave, perhaps), it is easier to re-learn the fingering for
that key in the right octave.
Now, I'll agree that the extreme ones (such as the extended
treble) get very little use, but my 48-key contrabass allows me to
transpose up to overlap the bottom of the treble's range.
Squeeze On,
DoN.
--
Email: <dnic...@d-and-d.com> | Voice (all times): (703) 938-4564
My Concertina web page: | http://www.d-and-d.com/dnichols/DoN.html
--- Black Holes are where God is dividing by zero ---
![Monty [|||||||]'s profile photo](http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/a-/ALV-UjXPuPNZFT3mrmfVgFC1gX5Y-EpaEQN7K8XkzKDOx3zr-M-low=s40-c)
Monty [|||||||]
(......)
>"why have a 48 button instrument?" I have
One of the chief virtues of the English concertina is the capacity to play
virtually any piece of music in any key. This is probably more useful in
orchestral and chamber music than folk, but there are still plenty of folk
tunes with several sharps or flats. Also, with an extended range instrument
one can shift down or up an octave to stand out from an instrument playing
the same melody line. However, if one finds the extra buttons and reeds
superfluous, one can find or have instruments made without them and save a
bit of money and weight in the bargain. Or one can play Anglo.
Monty [|||||||]
Goran Rahm
fred veenschoten skrev i meddelandet
<937tsp$r8g$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
Concerning range I partly agree and I have also
put this question forward before.
1) IF you are playing folk music mainly,
probably 90% of the tunes have a range of less
than 2 octaves and a suitable treble English
could well have say 36-40 buttons instead of 48
or more.
2) IF you do concertina ensamble music each part
( except maybe the lead part) mostly has a range
of about 2 octaves too and you would do allright
with a 36-40 button instrument. Some basses do
have even less.
3) The traditional treble concertina according
to Wheatstones patent IS too compact for
a) best technical solutions (mechanism and
woodwork) b) best acoustical solutions c) best
ergonomical solutions. Reducing the number of
reeds/buttons would simplify making a more
ideal instrument for a)b)c)
objections could be
4) The English treble IF used for 'violin' type
music or other more advanced solo or lead part
melody music needs the range and the extended
treble models evidently were introduced to
correspond even more to these demands. In my
view however it was a mistake trying to squeeze
the extra reeds into the 'normal' size box
since this creates even greater problems related
to crowding.
5) One way to make the tone of the concertina
richer is playing in octaves and doing so you
consequently need another octave note range.
Otherwise playing single notes in the highest
octave as Fred said seldom is musically
interesting except when necessary if you insist
on doing violin concertos
One thing to consider is also that the 48 or
more button English concertinas do not work in
an optimal way both in the highest and lowest
octave. IF you want to play at the best in the
top octave of the treble range you would need a
miniature instead and to perform at the best in
the lowest octave a baritone might be
preferable
Concerning accidentals I hardly believe there is
anything to win by skipping a few although you
could consider some of the 'double' ones G#/Ab
D#/Eb which is done sometimes on compact models
and miniatures.
IF a minimized English concertina is considered
my basic ideas are
1) A 'folk' music treble 36-40 buttons (reduced
at the top) could be useful
2) Lower range instruments - tenors,
baritones,basses - ought to be made single
action which is the most effective way to reduce
weight and cost. It also makes the action more
reliable since the valves are eliminated, admits
better acoustical proportions and would make it
easier to modify the instrument according to
ergonomic demands.
Goran Rahm
>
>
>
DoN. Nichols
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff <mbot...@sprintmail.com> wrote:
>Monty [|||||||] <montysp...@hevanet.com> wrote:
>
>> >Fred wrote:
>> (......)
>> >"why have a 48 button instrument?" I have
>> > never gone higher than that "c" above the staff (......)
>>
>> However, if one finds the extra buttons and reeds
>> superfluous, one can find or have instruments made without them and save a
>> bit of money and weight in the bargain. Or one can play Anglo.
>
>now extra buttons on the bottom, which I could easly get more use out
>of. But since tenors seem to be a high demand item, I'll have to save
>up my pennies for a while longer.
Hmm ... perhaps a baritone? If you don't use the top of the
treble, you have more that you *will* use, and people don't seem to be
as eager to buy the few which show up, so you may get one for a better
price.
Another advantage of at least *some* baritones (like my
contrabass) is that it has exactly the same fingering as the treble,
just an octave (or, in my case, two octaves) down. Of course, there are
*some* which simply extend on down from the treble fingering, so
everything is on the wrong rows and hands. :-) The extension down from
the treble makes sense on the tenor -- somewhat less so on the baritone,
unless you are playing on a clef other than the treble. Usually, I play
things notated for the treble cleff, and just live with being two
octaves down.
bogus address
>One of the chief virtues of the English concertina is the capacity to play
>virtually any piece of music in any key. This is probably more useful in
>orchestral and chamber music than folk, but there are still plenty of folk
>tunes with several sharps or flats.
And if you play along with singers you're often going to run into
the type who can *only* do their favourite number in E flat minor
or C sharp. The flexibility of the English is a godsend here.
========> Email to "jc" at this site; email to "bogus" will bounce. <========
Jack Campin: 11 Third Street, Newtongrange, Midlothian EH22 4PU; 0131 6604760
http://www.purr.demon.co.uk/purrhome.html food intolerance data and recipes,
freeware logic fonts for the Macintosh, and Scots traditional music resources
fred veenschoten
Trinity College. for just folk tunes it was all I needed. I started on an
anglo but I liked the idea of bellows control that you have with the English
so I made the switch with no regrets.
Fred
bogus address wrote in message <70...@purr.demon.co.uk>...
Paul & Margaret Hardy
"fred veenschoten" <fred...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:93d0p4$nbt$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> my thinking goes back to my first English concertina, a 30 button made by
> Trinity College.
Trinity College Cambridge, Dublin, or where ?
As academic institutions, I don't associate any of them with making
concertinas !
--
Paul Hardy (at home) pa...@hardy.demon.co.uk
Don Tuite
Paul & Margaret Hardy wrote:
>
> "fred veenschoten" <fred...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
> news:93d0p4$nbt$1...@nntp9.atl.mindspring.net...
> > my thinking goes back to my first English concertina, a 30 button made by
> > Trinity College.
>
> Trinity College Cambridge, Dublin, or where ?
>
> As academic institutions, I don't associate any of them with making
> concertinas !
TC is a Korean brand. I haven't seen their concertinas, but their
stringed instruments are playable.
Don
Jim Lucas
>
> there was a Wheatstone on e-bay a while back that had 38
> buttons if I remember right. this made me think "why have a
> 48 button instrument?"
Because it's useful, among other things.
> I have never gone higher than that "c" above the staff...
I do so, often. I may not use those notes as often as the lower ones,
but I definitely use them, especially when sharing accompaniment with
a guitarist.
> ...so the upper 7 or 8 keys are useless.
You may not personally find them useful, but they are certainly not
*useless*. I use them. I have heard others use them. I've known
people with bicycles who never used them, but that didn't make the
bicycles *useless*, merely *unused*.
> ...also many of the accidentals other than A#,C# and, F#
> and Bflat are useless.
A#? Is that a typo? On English concertinas (perhaps with a few
custom exceptions), there is no A#, only Bb. More significantly, I
find myself using *all* the accidentals frequently. G# in the key of
A, Eb in the key of Gm, and even Ab and D# in various tunes. Then
there are the times when the singer-guitarist capos up to the key of
Eb, or even C# or F#. I don't complain that he sings in "useless"
keys; I have learned to improvise along with him. (And there's
actually more than one "him".)
And of course, the "duplicates" (Eb/D#, Ab/G#) make playing in various
keys easier, by retaining in more keys a uniform pattern.
> this would eliminate many of the buttons and reeds needed
> to build the instrument not to mention the reduced weight
> as far as playing goes.
In my early playing years I experienced some 30-button English
instruments. They were of an inferior construction, but as I recall
had better action than the later Bastari/Stagi family. (I have no
idea what brand they were. The ends were covered with MOTS, but the
button size and spacing were essentially the same as Wheatstones, but
they were *much* cheaper.) But what caused myself and others to
reject them was the limited range and the loss of the duplicate
accidentals.
> any thoughts?
Aside from what I said already, I think if your idea had mass appeal
or acceptance there would have been -- and still would be -- a steady
market for these instruments. It apparently didn't happen.
/Jim Lucas
Randy Hudson
"Magical Strings," took up playing one of those miniature Stagi things a
couple years ago. They are very limited. I'm guessing less than 30
buttons, but it is basically in the normal treble range. She performs with
it, and has usd it on a couple of their CDs. She manages to get some very
nice music out of it.
I loaned her a decent Lachenal treble, thinking I would turn her on to a
"real" instrument, but she returned it saying she is perfectly happy with
her little guy.
Randy Hudson
Pete Young
>In my early playing years I experienced some 30-button English
>instruments. They were of an inferior construction, but as I recall
>had better action than the later Bastari/Stagi family. (I have no
>idea what brand they were. The ends were covered with MOTS, but the
>button size and spacing were essentially the same as Wheatstones, but
>they were *much* cheaper.)
MOTS?
Could this have been a Wheatstone Mayfair?
Pete
--
____________________________________________________________________
Pete Young pe...@antipope.org
"Just another crouton, floating on the bouillabaisse of life"
Monty [|||||||]
> A#? Is that a typo? On English concertinas (perhaps with a few
> custom exceptions), there is no A#, only Bb.
Aren't you being a bit pedantic here Jim? A# and Bb are played with the
same key on a piano or piano accordion. Why would that not be good enough
for a concertina? I recognize there is a difference between these notes in a
pure musical sense, and apparently good violinists or others with variable
pitch instruments achieve this minor distinction. But I doubt the average
player or listener would notice the difference.
Monty [|||||||]
Jim Lucas
"Monty [|||||||]" <montysp...@hevanet.com> ...
> >Jim Lucas wrote:
>
> > A#? Is that a typo? On English concertinas (perhaps with a few
> > custom exceptions), there is no A#, only Bb.
>
> Aren't you being a bit pedantic here Jim? A# and Bb are
> played with the same key on a piano or piano accordion.
> Why would that not be good enough for a concertina?
Not pedantic, at all. Fred referred to "a 48 button instrument",
which indicates that he was referring to an English-system concertina.
The notes on a piano or PA are arranged in a linear sequence according
to pitch; on an English concertina they are not. On the English,
accidentals are located next to their corresponding natural notes, but
A and B are on opposite ends of the instrument, so one should expect
to find an A# on the opposite end of the instrument from the Bb. In
fact, there is no A#, though there *are* both D# and Eb, and both G#
and Ab.
On the English, the notes form a regular pattern for scales that
alternates between the two ends in most "reasonable" keys (i.e.,
anything from three flats to four sharps). The lack of an A# is why
playing in the key of B is trickier than playing in, e.g., Bb; one has
to learn a new pattern, employing the Bb instead of the "missing" A#.
The D#-Eb and G#-Ab duplications are what allow the pattern to remain
essentially the same in *all four* of the keys of Eb, Bb, A, and E
> I recognize there is a difference between these notes in a
> pure musical sense, and apparently good violinists or others
> with variable pitch instruments achieve this minor distinction.
> But I doubt the average player or listener would notice the
> difference.
My statements were based on the assumption of an even-tempered scale,
where these notes are *not* different. Whether that's good or bad is
a separate issue (and one that's been covered before, so it shouldn't
need rehashing here), but in the context of this thread it's beside
the point.
/Jim Lucas
Jim Lucas
There are exceptions. Sounds like she's an exception toward one end
of a scale where I may be an exception toward the other end. :-)
/Jim
Jim Lucas
> Jim Lucas <j...@danbbs.dk> :
>
> >In my early playing years I experienced some 30-button English
> >instruments. They were of an inferior construction, but as I
recall
> >had better action than the later Bastari/Stagi family. (I have no
> >idea what brand they were. The ends were covered with MOTS, but
the
> >button size and spacing were essentially the same as Wheatstones,
but
> >they were *much* cheaper.)
>
> MOTS?
>
> Could this have been a Wheatstone Mayfair?
I don't think so. The instruments I've seen identified as Mayfair's
had smaller ends than that 30-button, and the ends were metal (though
not as sturdy or fancy as the metal ends on a standard Lachenal,
etc.).
/Jim
fred veenschoten
and farmed out the construction. the concertina was made by Bastari, I was
told. my wife has an octave mando with the Trinity College label on it but I
think it was made in Japan.
Fred
Paul & Margaret Hardy wrote in message
<978989444.12034.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
fred veenschoten
referring to folk music mainly Irish dance tunes where the octave range is
limited and tunes are played in "the peoples" keys. and I did mean G# (for
the key of A).
Fred
Jim Lucas wrote in message ...
DoN. Nichols
Monty [|||||||] <montysp...@hevanet.com> wrote:
>>Jim Lucas wrote:
>
>> A#? Is that a typo? On English concertinas (perhaps with a few
>> custom exceptions), there is no A#, only Bb.
>
>Aren't you being a bit pedantic here Jim? A# and Bb are played with the
>same key on a piano or piano accordion. Why would that not be good enough
>for a concertina?
Because the notes on an *English system* concertina, which is
what we are discussing, are named for the "white" key to which they are
adjacent. (The inner two rows are the white keys (C-major), and the
outer two rows provide either a sharp or a flat on the adjacent button.
In the really old instruments, the inner rows are natural bone (white),
except for 'C', which is dyed red. The outer rows are dyed black. The
white ones typically have the note name engraved in the end, and filled
with a dark ink.
Note that these notes are *not* located between the two adjacent
notes as they are on a Piano keyboard.
The layout is designed to avoid duplicating white notes, so
since of the two half-tone shifts possible from 'B', the one going up is
a 'C', so the only on available is the 'Bb'. Similarly, from the 'C',
the half-tone down is 'B', so that is out, and the available note is
'C#'. This (and the other half-tone interval in the key of C major) set
the start of the direction of the offsets, which eventually ends with
two collisions resulting in duplications (D#/Eb and G#/Ab).
The selection of the half-tones represented and where they are
results in the notes being where you expect them up through keys of five
sharps, or down through three flats, so the naming is one which matches
their use in that physical location.
This layout allows you to transpose in fifths by simply moving up
or down one set of buttons, and noting the one note (possibly in two
different octaves) which is wrong, and to switch from inner row to outer
or vice versa to make it right.
> I recognize there is a difference between these notes in a
>pure musical sense, and apparently good violinists or others with variable
>pitch instruments achieve this minor distinction. But I doubt the average
>player or listener would notice the difference.
Well ... on the *really* old English systems -- typically those
with brass reeds, not only are they tuned to an older pitch (about
A-436), but they are tuned "well tempered", not chromatic, so there *is*
a difference. And if you want one which the average ear *could* hear,
try the D#/Eb pair, which are about 7-1/2 cents off from the chromatic
note -- in *opposite* directions. Sound the two together for a painful
experience. :-)
So -- on an English system, there is adequate reason for being
pedantic about which name of the two possible is applied to a given note.
Goran Rahm
of those miniature Stagi
She manages to get
>some very
>> nice music out of it.
>>
>with
>> her little guy.
>
>There are exceptions. Sounds like she's an
exception toward one end
>of a scale where I may be an exception toward
the other end. :-)
>
> /Jim
Could be so but it could be of some interest
also finding out the reasons for that - if it is
just because of habits respectively or some
other things, like the individual repertoire and
the way of playing.
In principle you could expect better tonal
control the smaller the instrument is - at least
if you just regard making one single reed
sounding. As I mentioned in the previous
message - IF you just play the top octave(s) you
would expect to do this with greater precision
with a miniature than with an ordinary
reble.( To some extent depending on the strength
of the player :-) )
Consequently playing single note melody music
may be more effectively done in the highest
range when doing it on a small instrument like I
assume that Stagi might be and when switching to
a 'normal' model that one may feel heavy.
I am a bit confused though since the only
miniature English Stagi I have seen is a 18 key
model but the 30 key one has got 'normal' size
but reduced number of buttons.
Goran Rahm
>
Monty [|||||||]
say for most musical situations if you are playing English Concertina and
come upon the need for an A#, you will find the button commonly identified
as Bb close enough. If you are playing with Don or Jim, however, I would
encourage inserting a rest there.
Monty
rlpc
find it ideal for playing outdoors at Festivals. It is light, easily
played for long periods standing up, and very loud for its size.
Over time I have had some reeds substituted (Low A and B
for high A/B) and the action upgraded by Bob Tedrow, and
it remains my favorite instrument. I have used both a 30
button Stagi and a 48 button Lachenal, and the baby Stagi is
lighter, louder, and just plain more fun than either!
I am primarily a singer, and it is hard to beat the baby Stagi
for simple sing-a-longs, Celtic and contemporary Christian
music. It could use a few more notes - perhaps 6 - but all in
all the small concertina has a lot to recommend it.
Bob Peterson
(Aulde Robb Eliot)
"Goran Rahm" <goran...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:TSJ66.4633$AH6.7...@newsc.telia.net...
DoN. Nichols
Monty [|||||||] <montysp...@hevanet.com> wrote:
>Despite the very erudite explanations of our friends Don and Jim, I still
>say for most musical situations if you are playing English Concertina and
>come upon the need for an A#, you will find the button commonly identified
>as Bb close enough.
You will find it -- but not where you would like to have it to
fit into the pattern of the English buttons. It is a bit of a mental
wrench to have to go to the other end under the other name the first few
times. (Of course, once you learn it in that key, that is a different
matter.)
> If you are playing with Don or Jim, however, I would
>encourage inserting a rest there.
That might give me time to find it. :-)
DoN. Nichols
fred veenschoten <fred...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>sure, there are those of you who would use all the keys on one. I was
>referring to folk music mainly Irish dance tunes where the octave range is
>limited and tunes are played in "the peoples" keys. and I did mean G# (for
>the key of A).
For that purpose, the more limited instrument might suffice.
But if you want to accompany a singer, you will normally want to play in
the best key for that singer's voice. Sometimes this forces you into
some very strange keys. (Including into those where you *must* look for
the alternate name for a note which is not present on the keyboard.)
For that -- or even for someone who is exploring the instrument
to determine whether it is suitable for their needs and mindset -- it is
better to start with the full instrument, and consider later, after
learning the instrument, whether they can do without certain features.
I do own a Rock Chidley (relative of Wheatstone) concertina
which has a sub-standard number of buttons -- 24 if I remember
correctly. It has all the standard accidentals, it just truncates the
keyboard an octave and three quarters early. Note that while these were
made, very few survived to this day, and thus it would seem reasonable
to presume that few found them satisfactory.
Goran Rahm
rlpc skrev i meddelandet ...
>I have been playing an 18 button Stagi for a
few years, and
>find it ideal for playing outdoors at
Festivals. It is light, easily
>played for long periods standing up, and very
loud for its size.
>Over time I have had some reeds substituted
(Low A and B
>for high A/B) and the action upgraded by Bob
Tedrow, and
>it remains my favorite instrument. I have used
both a 30
>button Stagi and a 48 button Lachenal, and the
baby Stagi is
>lighter, louder, and just plain more fun than
either!
>
>(Aulde Robb Eliot)
Most interesting to hear this support of my
oponion that small instruments are not just toys
but may be quite useful and even more efficient
than 'normal' ones for the right purpose.
I use a 12 key miniature myself sometimes and it
is amazing how many tunes that need just the
range of one and a half octave....The greatest
problem with these really small concertinas is
holding them, but after providing them with a
thumbstrap, little finger rest and a wriststrap
( or 'handstrap' rather) they become a lot more
manageable.
I am quite curious about the note layout on the
Stagi 18 key model. I see on the catalogue
picture it has 2 accidentals on the right hand
side, I guess it is the same on the left side,
and this means it probably is not fully
chromatic withín its range - or is it?
What is the exact note range ( lowest and
highest note) ?
Which is the lowest note left side?
Which are the accidentals each side?
If possible please make chart to show.
Goran Rahm
>
Jim Lucas
was
> referring to folk music mainly Irish dance tunes where the octave
range is
> limited and tunes are played in "the peoples" keys. and I did mean
G# (for
> the key of A).
Sorry if I misinterpreted you, Fred. I didn't realize you were really
trying to say that other kinds of *music* were "useless". :-o
But to be more serious, there's really a lot more to most folk
musics -- including the Irish -- than masses of people trying to play
in unison on a melody line. And while I hear that there *are*
sessions where playing in keys other than G and D (or even playing
harmonies) will earn one dirty looks, there are a *lot* of excellent
traditional tunes which were recorded/notated (by Capt. Francis
O'Neill, among others) in other keys (A, of course, but also C, F, Bb,
and their relative minors) and others which have temporary chromatic
shifts (e.g., a D# in a G or Em tune).
But the English concertina was not designed -- much less used -- only
for the purpose of playing folk tunes. And though there may be a few
people who would be interested in a more restricted instrument, the
demand has clearly not been enough to support an industry. John Wild
has mentioned being in the possessionof a 26-button English, but as
far as I know, it's the only one of its kind.
Meanwhile, it's only recently that the Irish have begun to show an
interest in the *English* concertina, as opposed to the anglo. A
38-button anglo is considered by some to be a monster, 30 buttons
being the norm.
I think some folks in this NG have indicated they took up the DBB
after the PA, so maybe a solution for English concertina players would
be to take up the anglo? But in your original message you mentioned
"reduced weight", and so did some of them. Well, my main squeeze, a
48-button, ebony-ended, steel-reed, deluxe Wheatstone Æola English,
weighs 1160 grams. But I also have a 26-button (*less* than
standard), mahogany-ended, brass-reed, low end Lachenal anglo, and
*it* weighs 900 grams. Personally, I don't think the weight reduction
even begins to compensate for the lack of versatility.
By the way, do you play the English and find the extra buttons an
annoyance, or are you simply imagining that you would prefer the more
limited instrument *if* you played English. (An honest question.
Though the answer could probably be answered by browsing your various
previous posts, I guess I wasn't paying attention, and I'm too lazy to
fire up DejaNews to do a search.)
I suppose a further possibility is that you imagine the more limited
instrument would be less expensive. To see how true that actually
would be, I just checked the Wheatstone web site. TIME TO EAT (some
of) MY WORDS. Steve lists a 37-button English! (That would be
exactly the more limited range you suggested, but still with the
duplication of accidentals that I prefer.) It's listed at a current
price of £3060. An instrument of the same description, except for
having 48-buttons, is priced at £3560. (So for 23% fewer buttons you
get 14% lower price.) Too bad his waiting list is so long. :-(
/Jim Lucas
Jim Lucas
> I do own a Rock Chidley (relative of Wheatstone) concertina
> which has a sub-standard number of buttons -- 24 if I remember
> correctly. It has all the standard accidentals, it just truncates
the
> keyboard an octave and three quarters early. Note that while these
were
> made, very few survived to this day, and thus it would seem
reasonable
> to presume that few found them satisfactory.
Hmm. I have a Rock Chidley (in need of major repair work), but it's a
standard 48.
/Jim
fred veenschoten
Wheatstone is doing just what I suggest. it seems that since so many people
play melodeons and 20 key anglos with limited range that an English would
fit into that category also and be able to compete, price wise. I don't mean
to start a new thread on the differences of playing one as opposed to the
other; we covered that topic awhile back. my thinking is cost related and as
you point out Wheatstone offers a limited instrument at a reduced price. too
bad the price is still too high for me. maybe one day.
Fred
Jim Lucas wrote in message ...
>
Jim Lucas
"Goran Rahm" <goran...@telia.com> wrote ...
>
> fred veenschoten skrev i meddelandet
> <937tsp$r8g$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net>...
> >there was a Wheatstone on e-bay a while back
> that had 38 buttons if I
> >remember right. this made me think "why have a
> 48 button instrument?" I have
> >never gone higher than that "c" above the staff
> (sorry I don't know the
> >proper designation of the octave). so the upper
> 7 or 8 keys are useless.
> >also many of the accidentals other than A#,C#
> and, F# and Bflat are useless.
> >this would eliminate many of the buttons and
> reeds needed to build the
> >instrument not to mention the reduced weight as
> far as playing goes.
> >any thoughts?
> >Fred
>
> Concerning range I partly agree and I have also
> put this question forward before.
>
> 1) IF you are playing folk music mainly,
> probably 90% of the tunes have a range of less
> than 2 octaves...
So we're supposed to eliminate the other 10% from the repertoire?
> ...and a suitable treble English could well have
> say 36-40 buttons instead of 48 or more.
Given your assumptions (including some implied), this is true. The
Wheatstone 37-button English would appear to confirm this. Although I
don't know how many Steve sells, I doubt that he would have gone to
the trouble of adding a new model to his line without some certainty
of sales.
> 2) IF you do concertina ensamble music each part
> ( except maybe the lead part) mostly has a range
> of about 2 octaves too and you would do allright
> with a 36-40 button instrument. Some basses do
> have even less.
Maybe I do ensemble music that was arranged for something other than
concertinas. Maybe I want to play different parts at different times,
but not carry several different instruments. For me, at least,
there's no maybe about it.
> 3) The traditional treble concertina according
> to Wheatstones patent IS too compact...
Does the patent *really* claim that the design is too compact, or is
that merely your opinion of design as presented in the patent?
> ...for a) best technical solutions (mechanism
> and woodwork) b) best acoustical solutions
> c) best ergonomical solutions.
I won't bother arguing a) or b) right now. Most everyone in the NG
knows we have an ongoing disagreement regarding c).
> objections could be
> 4) The English treble IF used for 'violin' type
> music or other more advanced solo or lead part
> melody music needs the range and the extended
> treble models evidently were introduced to
> correspond even more to these demands. In my
> view however it was a mistake trying to squeeze
> the extra reeds into the 'normal' size box
> since this creates even greater problems related
> to crowding.
I don't see that that is what happened. I have, however, seen
instruments with the same range and number of buttons (and therefor
the same reeds) which have been both slightly larger and marginally
smaller than what appears to be the most common size.
> 5) One way to make the tone of the concertina
> richer is playing in octaves and doing so you
> consequently need another octave note range.
> Otherwise playing single notes in the highest
> octave as Fred said seldom is musically
> interesting except when necessary if you insist
> on doing violin concertos
Is that why the tin whistle and the soprano recorder are so unpopular?
(Note the sarcasm.) They both sound an octave higher than the
concertina, violin, flute, etc., yet I don't *really* hear that the
majority of listeners find them boring.
> One thing to consider is also that the 48 or
> more button English concertinas do not work in
> an optimal way both in the highest and lowest
> octave. IF you want to play at the best in the
> top octave of the treble range you would need a
> miniature instead and to perform at the best in
> the lowest octave a baritone might be
> preferable
I hope for the upper octave you mean the piccolo, *not* the miniature.
The piccolo is a respectable instrument, the miniature is a novelty.
Not musically useless (neither is the tabor pipe), but *very* limited.
As for "optimal": I would guess that to be truly optimal you would
need a separate instrument for each reed. The trouble is that it
would be impossible to switch among them fast enough. But I certainly
find the standard English adequate in both the upper and lower ranges,
so I might characterize it as an "optimal" compromise.
> Concerning accidentals I hardly believe there is
> anything to win by skipping a few although you
> could consider some of the 'double' ones G#/Ab
> D#/Eb which is done sometimes on compact models
> and miniatures.
My arguments for wishing to keep the duplication were made elsewhere.
The models you mention are less versatile. That's OK, if you don't
mind it.
> IF a minimized English concertina is considered
> my basic ideas are
>
> 1) A 'folk' music treble 36-40 buttons (reduced
> at the top) could be useful
See the Wheatstone web site.
> 2) Lower range instruments - tenors,
> baritones,basses - ought to be made single
> action which is the most effective way to reduce
> weight and cost. It also makes the action more
> reliable since the valves are eliminated, admits
> better acoustical proportions and would make it
> easier to modify the instrument according to
> ergonomic demands.
And it makes it necessary to "gasp" for air at regular intervals.
This is not always convenient. I think every design must be a
compromise in some way or other.
But for a parting shot, I wonder if on rec.music.makers.guitar there
are folks advocating building guitars with fewer strings, since most
folk tunes don't cover anywhere near the full range of a guitar, and
this could make guitars smaller, lighter, and cheaper. Actually, that
sounds like a description of the "tenor guitars" (four strings)I've
occasionally seen. Like 30-button English concertinas, they are also
much less common than their bigger brothers. "Accompaniment", you
say? Well, guess what *I* use *my* concertina for.
Cheers, /Jim
Michael Berenstein
>
> Is that why the tin whistle and the soprano recorder are so unpopular?
> (Note the sarcasm.) They both sound an octave higher than the
> concertina, violin, flute, etc., yet I don't *really* hear that the
> majority of listeners find them boring.
Interesting to follow this discussion. Not disagreeing, must add though,
that whistles and recorders produce sound differently and have less of
mechanic feel. Even double or triple reed accordion sounds tinny in high
range, more so single reeded concertina unless it's of exceptional
quality ($K's). Objectively there is more life to recorder's or violin's
sound than to concertina/accordion's, there are fewer means to shape it.
Goran Rahm
Jim Lucas skrev i meddelandet
<_Q376.302$tP.2...@news.get2net.dk>...
>> 1) IF you are playing folk music mainly,
>> probably 90% of the tunes have a range of
less
>> than 2 octaves...
>
>So we're supposed to eliminate the other 10%
from the repertoire?
Not necessarily, but just using as much
instrument as needed for the occasion...
Personally I willingly reduce my repertoire by
10% - there IS so tremendously much music to
enjoy anyway :-)
>
>> 2) IF you do concertina ensamble music each
part
>> ( except maybe the lead part) mostly has a
range
>> of about 2 octaves too and you would do
allright
>> with a 36-40 button instrument. Some basses
do
>> have even less.
>
>Maybe I do ensemble music that was arranged for
something other than
>concertinas. Maybe I want to play different
parts at different times,
>but not carry several different instruments.
For me, at least,
>there's no maybe about it.
Well - some players may be fortunate to have a
free choice but otherwise there is always some
decision based on the actual need/use and the
budget. One target could be making instruments
suitable for children. I do mean some type of
concertina could be absolutely ideal for basic
instrumental music tuition in schools. Better
than recorders, not to speak of string
instruments. The most suitable cheap instrument
could be some kind of xylophone or marimba but a
simple set of bass,baritone,(tenor) and treble
concertinas would make a very attractive start
of ensamble practise, just like singing in a
choir.
The market is the limiting factor I believe so
some further progress in production of cheaper,
simplified concertinas could make a break
through possible in education. This I think was
the basis also of the proposal Alistair Anderson
put forward a year or so back.
>
>> objections could be
>> 4) . In my
>> view however it was a mistake trying to
squeeze
>> the extra reeds into the 'normal' size box
>> since this creates even greater problems
related
>> to crowding.
>
>I don't see that that is what happened. I
have, however, seen
>instruments with the same range and number of
buttons (and therefor
>the same reeds) which have been both slightly
larger and marginally
>smaller than what appears to be the most common
size.
There are lots of variants, some good ones also,
but the extended trebles are those suffering
most from internal crowding - wood cutting
defects, malfunctioning pads and valves, jamming
mechanism..It is somewhat frustrating to find
that these 'extended trebles' meant to be 'top
of the line' or 'professional' models suffer
more than the ordinary models from construction
disadvantages. The worst I've seen is a 72 key
baritonetreble Edeophone
about 18 cm across.
>
>> 5) One way to make the tone of the concertina
>> richer is playing in octaves and doing so you
>> consequently need another octave note range.
>> Otherwise playing single notes in the highest
>> octave as Fred said seldom is musically
>> interesting except when necessary if you
insist
>> on doing violin concertos
>
>Is that why the tin whistle and the soprano
recorder are so unpopular?
>(Note the sarcasm.) They both sound an octave
higher than the
>concertina, violin, flute, etc., yet I don't
*really* hear that the
>majority of listeners find them boring.
Different thing. In these cases the tone is a
great part of the instrument character (but the
concertina tone by most people is regarded as
particularly squeeky/reedy in the top range) and
you have the rest of the flute and recorder
family
instruments as complements if you like. You
don't have 'extended' 4 octave tin whistles or
soprano recorders with added facilities to play
in the baritone range....The same with
concertinas - they work optimally within a
restricted note range - but it all depends on
WHICH qualities are demanded by a) which player
and b) what music
Goran Rahm
>
>
>
DoN. Nichols
O.K. I've gone to look and refresh my memory, and it is 32
keys. I've just taken some photos of it, and thrown it together into a
tiny (and primitive) web page using some shell scripts to do the work.
The URL is: http://www.d-and-d.com/tinas/Rock-Chidley/
Yes -- mine too needs a lot of work, and so far hasn't seemed
worth putting in the needed work. (New endbox screws, anchor plates,
and bellows frame linings are first, then I find out what else it needs.
Or -- I keep it as it is for historical (or perhaps "hysterical")
purposes.
rlpc
>
......> >it remains my favorite instrument. I have used
A B
# F G
D E
b B C #
G A
E F #
C D
The diagram above shows the left and
right hands for the Stagi 18. The inside
rows have the basic C scale from middle
C up almost 2 octaves to B. The accidentals
are F#, C# and B flat. A great deal of old and
folk music fits in this range; its a fun instrument
to play and light enough not to hurt!
Bob Peterson
fred veenschoten
(Coleraine) that uses a B flat. so I guess that will up the # of buttons.
Fred
Jim Lucas
> (Coleraine) that uses a B flat. so I guess that will up the # of
buttons.
Pedantically speaking, I think that should be an A#, to fit with an F#
major chord.
More interesting (to me) is that the tune goes back at least a hundred
years as a New England dance tune in Am, and I've played it for nearly
30 years in that key. Until very recently (and despite the name) I
had never heard an Irish musician play it, except a couple that
admitted learning it in America. Suddenly, during the last year, I
found some Irish friends in Copenhagen playing it, but in Bm, not Am.
And with the A#, this must be the key you learned it in.
It makes me wonder if somebody changed the key to make it easier on
flute and whistle players. In Bm, the only half-hole notes are the
occasional A# and one G#, while in Am are those A#'s become G#'s
(still needing a half hole), but there are also an F-natural and many
C-naturals (which require either a half hole or a cross fingering).
/Jim
Monty [|||||||]
Jim Lucas <j...@danbbs.dk> wrote in message
news:VUr76.602$Ed2....@news.get2net.dk...
> "fred veenschoten" <fred...@mindspring.com> wrote ...
> > I already have to back off some. I just learned a new tune yesterday
> > (Coleraine) that uses a B flat. so I guess that will up the # of
> buttons.
>
> Pedantically speaking, I think that should be an A#, to fit with an F#
> major chord.
>
> More interesting (to me) is that the tune goes back at least a hundred
> years as a New England dance tune in Am, and I've played it for nearly
> 30 years in that key. Until very recently (and despite the name) I
> had never heard an Irish musician play it, except a couple that
> admitted learning it in America. Suddenly, during the last year, I
> found some Irish friends in Copenhagen playing it, but in Bm, not Am.
> And with the A#, this must be the key you learned it in.
>
> /Jim
The Coleraine Jig was recorded in 1981 by Jackie Daly along with the Irish
Group DeDanann --- "Star Spangled Molly album on Shanachie Records". This
recording sounds to be in the key of Cm, (melodic minor) with a brief shift
back to the relative Major Eb in the second section. Because Cm (melodic)
and Eb major contain the note Bb (as well as Eb and Ab) it is quite possible
Fred was playing this rather than A#. Of course my ear can't distinguish
between Bb and A#, but my reasoning might.
On this recording the melody line begins on G and follows the same intervals
as the Am version which begins on E. The minor key a third above Am is Cm.
The chords for the Am version go back and forth between Am and Em with a
brief shift to C and G in the second section. Following this logic the
chords for the DeDanann version should be Cm and Gm with a shift to Eb and
Bb in the second part. When I play the tune these Cm, Gm, Eb and Bb chords
fit nicely. So I have little doubt about the key I hear when playing the
recording.
However, the recording may not actually be in the key the performers used,
because recording engineers sometimes shift keys by altering the speed of
the play back. I've heard DeDanann has done this for effect, so who knows,
maybe they performed it in Bm and the engineer cranked it up to Cm?! So,
"pedantically speaking", there may be more than one correct answer here, no?
Monty [|||||||]
Pete Young
>However, the recording may not actually be in the key the performers used,
>because recording engineers sometimes shift keys by altering the speed of
>the play back. I've heard DeDanann has done this for effect, so who knows,
>maybe they performed it in Bm and the engineer cranked it up to Cm?! So,
>"pedantically speaking", there may be more than one correct answer here, no?
While this is technically possible, I think a more likely explanation is
that Frankie Gavin likes to tune his fiddle a semi-tone above concert
pitch in order to make it sound brighter. This is of course no problem
for Jackie Daly since he can use a D/Eb box instead of the C#/D he
normally plays.
I am led to believe that this tuning-up of fiddles is by no means
uncommon in Galway and other parts of the west coast of Ireland.
Regards
Monty [|||||||]
Pete Young <pe...@antipope.org> wrote >
> While this is technically possible, I think a more likely explanation is
> that Frankie Gavin likes to tune his fiddle a semi-tone above concert
> pitch in order to make it sound brighter. This is of course no problem
> for Jackie Daly since he can use a D/Eb box instead of the C#/D he
> normally plays.
Thanks Pete. This better explains why so much of De Danann's stuff seems to
be played in Eb (or other keys a semi-tone above the more conventional one
for any particular Irish tune) It does give a brite sound to their work but
frustrates the hell out of people in sessions when I play one of their tunes
as I've learned it off a recording. So I've taken to slowing down my
turntable and learning the tunes in D etc. Tell me though, how do I slow
down a compact disk player?
Monty [|||||||]
fred veenschoten
concertina. and yes I learned it in Bm. I found it in an Irish sessions tune
book!!
Fred
Jim Lucas wrote in message ...
fred veenschoten
really HOT. Bluegrass recordings are sometimes done the same way.
to slow down a CD try: http://ronimusic.com/ he has a program that can
record a tune then play it back slow. free download trial. I tried it and it
is sort of OK. it works best where there is a distinct solo lead instrument.
Fred
Monty [|||||||] wrote in message <93ndat$i20$1...@glisan.hevanet.com>...
Goran Rahm
rlpc skrev i meddelandet
<2Li76.25026$ZO4.2...@typhoon.southeast.rr.co
m>...
the
>> Stagi 18 key model
>> >
>
>
> A B
> # F G
> D E
> b B C
#
> G A
> E
F #
> C D
>
>The diagram above shows the left and
>right hands for the Stagi 18. The inside
>rows have the basic C scale from middle
>C up almost 2 octaves to B. The accidentals
>are F#, C# and B flat. A great deal of old and
>folk music fits in this range; its a fun
instrument
>to play and light enough not to hurt!
>
>Bob Peterson
Thank you Bob,
Splendid ! It means that this little instrument
is a "treble" mostly, reduced in range both ends
and stripped from some accidentals but it can be
played just as you are used to play an
ordinary treble and it ought to work quite well
in D G C and F.
I think it is a very attractive idea, different
from other 'compact' or 'miniature' models I
have
seen. Most of these have a more 'soprano' like
range and one expected disadvantage with such a
small instrument as this one playing in the
octave C4-C5 (from "middle C" and up) would be
that it might consume more air than the small
bellows admit. Is this a trouble you think when
playing in its lower range? The thumbstrap looks
a bit floppy on the picture in the catalogue -
is that a problem? You haven' t tried adding a
wrist(hand)-strap?
Goran Rahm
>
>
>
rlpc
The 10 fold bellows is quite adequate - air use is
not at all excessive. I have added two notes to
the bottom range and have had no problems.
The instrument is so light that a wrist or handstrap
would be pointless; it can hang painlessly from
thumb and pinky for a full half hour set or even a
45 minute parade. I use a neck strap in the open
mostly so I can drop the 'tina to grab a whistle or
prop.
The factory action is fairly poor, but a quick trip
to Bob Tedrow (http://hmi.homewood.net/) for
an upgraded action left me with a very fine
playing tool. With five more buttons (low A,
low B, G#, middle C#, air button) it would be
pretty close to perfect as a singers instrument.
I mostly do Celtic and Christian songs, so my
need for 48 buttons, and the associated weight,
is pretty low.
I would love to see the factory come out with a
very slightly expanded box, say 24 buttons.
I am considering rebuilding a 30 button Stagi
into a smaller package, but my ambition exceeds
my wood-working skills!
Enjoy the weekend!
Bob Peterson
Jim Lucas
> Jim Lucas <j...@danbbs.dk> wrote in message
> news:VUr76.602$Ed2....@news.get2net.dk...
> > "fred veenschoten" <fred...@mindspring.com> wrote ...
> > > I already have to back off some. I just learned a new tune
yesterday
> > > (Coleraine) that uses a B flat. so I guess that will up the # of
> > buttons.
> >
> > Pedantically speaking, I think that should be an A#, to fit with
an F#
> > major chord.
> >
> > More interesting (to me) is that the tune goes back at least a
hundred
> > years as a New England dance tune in Am, and I've played it for
nearly
> > 30 years in that key. Until very recently (and despite the name)
I
> > had never heard an Irish musician play it, except a couple that
> > admitted learning it in America. Suddenly, during the last year,
I
> > found some Irish friends in Copenhagen playing it, but in Bm, not
Am.
> > And with the A#, this must be the key you learned it in.
> >
> (snip.....)
>
Irish
> Group DeDanann --- "Star Spangled Molly album on Shanachie Records".
This
> recording sounds to be in the key of Cm, (melodic minor) with a
brief shift
> back to the relative Major Eb in the second section.
Pedantically speaking, that's not "back to", but maybe "into", since
it's only for one measure, and Eb is never the central tonality of the
tune. :-) (In truth, I don't care much how you describe it, as
long as it sounds good when you play it.)
> Because Cm (melodic) and Eb major contain the
> note Bb (as well as Eb and Ab) it is quite possible
> Fred was playing this rather than A#.
Well, he's now said that it was Bm, not Cm, but that doesn't diminsh
the cogency of your argument. I don't know the Jackie Daly recording,
but I might want to look for it. Trouble is there are too many "must
have" recordings about.
[...]
> So, "pedantically speaking", there may be
> more than one correct answer here, no?
Well, yes.
/Jim
Monty [|||||||]
> Pedantically speaking, that's not "back to", but maybe "into", since
> it's only for one measure, and Eb is never the central tonality of the
> tune. :-)
Perhaps, unless one thinks of the relative minor as being derived from the
major and therefore going from the relative minor to it's relative major is
in a sense a return rather than going into something new and unrelated.
However, to argue this one far exceeds my theoretical understanding. So if
you need it, the last word is yours. :)
Monty
Jim Lucas
>
> A B
> # F G
> D E
> b B C #
> G A
> E F #
> C D
>
> The diagram above shows the left and
> right hands for the Stagi 18. The inside
> rows have the basic C scale from middle
> C up almost 2 octaves to B. The accidentals
> are F#, C# and B flat. A great deal of old and
> folk music fits in this range; its a fun instrument
> to play and light enough not to hurt!
Interesting. I was at first surprised that the C# and Bb were each
found in only one octave, while their respective natural notes exist
in two octaves. But then I realized that each side of the instrument
has three "rows", rather than the four of a full English, and
including the "missing" C# and Bb would require either adding (part
of) the fourth row, or breaking the standard pattern by putting each
accidental in a "natural" row. So it does make sense to do it that
way, if one isn't seriously hindered by the limitations.
/Jim Lucas
Robert Gaskins
> if I remember right. this made me think
> this would eliminate many of the buttons and reeds needed to build
> the instrument not to mention the reduced weight
>
The only claimed "38-button" concertina on eBay that I recall was a
MacCann duet, a Lachenal; its photographs revealed that it had 19
buttons on one side and 20 on the other (and no air valve)--so it was
actually a *39*-button MacCann. Such 39-button MacCann duets are not
uncommon.
But the important point is that at least some instruments like this
one seem to have been created precisely for the purpose suggested by
fred at the top of this thread: to be a "cost-reduced" (and
"weight-reduced") version of the standard 46-button small MacCann
duet.
My 39-button Lachenal uses the same components as a 46-button, but
with less machinery and fewer reeds inside. It has the same action
boards, simply depopulated for the missing buttons and with the holes
to be stopped by the missing pads left uncut. It has the same reed
pans, with the chambers for the missing reeds completed but left
unslotted and blank. It has essentially the same fretwork on the
ends, slightly adapted by changing or adding void areas to neatly
occupy the area of the missing buttons, all of which are at the edges
of the button-field. All remaining parts of the ends and bellows are
identical to those of a 46-button instrument. The instrument is of
course the same size as a 46-button (approximately six inches across),
and so fits into standard 46-button cases. Hence, depopulating yields
a cheaper (and lighter) model, with no new investment in design,
tooling or components.
The remaining notes on a 39-key MacCann are arranged like those on
a 46-key, so it's the same to play as far as it goes.
Robert Gaskins
robert...@gaskins.org.uk
P.S. For the detail-oriented, a 39-key MacCann is related to a
standard 46-key MacCann duet as follows:
On the left: remove G# above middle C (top key col 1)
remove E below middle C (bottom key col 3)
On the right: remove Eb 2 octaves above middle C (top key col 1)
remove D 2 octaves above middle C (top key col 2)
remove E 2 octaves above middle C (top key col 3)
remove G 2 octaves above middle C (top key col 4)
retune F to D 2 octaves above middle C (top key col 5)
remove F# 2 octaves above middle C (top key col 6)
Summary: remove seven buttons, retune one.
Goran Rahm
>> a bit floppy on the picture in the
catalogue -
>> is that a problem? You haven' t tried adding
a
>> wrist(hand)-strap?
>>
>> Goran Rahm
>> >
>The instrument is so light that a wrist or
handstrap
>thumb and pinky for a full half hour set or
even a
>45 minute parade
Different view on this...I would not say
'pointless' since
I use a 12 key minature myself, much smaller
than this
Stagi, and I regard it as almost unplayable
without the
wrist(hand)strap :-) Not because of the weight
but due
to the demands from intensive work (pushing and)
pulling
made necessary by the small bellows.
>
>I would love to see the factory come out with a
>very slightly expanded box, say 24 buttons.
>I am considering rebuilding a 30 button Stagi
>into a smaller package, but my ambition exceeds
>my wood-working skills!
I have designed a 24 key, 10 cm across, intended
to
be going two octaves either from Bb3-Bb5 or
Bb4-Bb6,
three rows ( 4x3 buttons each side),but due to
my preference
for flat keys the accidentals are Bb,Eb,Ab (and
one F#)
making it playable in C F Bb and Eb. Colin
Dipper
has got an order for it since long but is yet
not realized.
Goran Rahm
>
fred veenschoten
out of a sows purse".
Fred
Jim Lucas wrote in message ...
>"Monty [|||||||]" <montysp...@hevanet.com> wrote ...
>> Despite the very erudite explanations of our friends Don and Jim, I
>still
>> say for most musical situations if you are playing English
>Concertina and
>> come upon the need for an A#, you will find the button commonly
>identified
>> as Bb close enough. If you are playing with Don or Jim, however, I
>would
>> encourage inserting a rest there.
>
>Close enough acoustically. *Not* at all close physically.
>
>Since there is no A#, we make do with the Bb, but it's a bit like
>driving through a city and suddenly finding one block on one street
>where you're required to drive on the opposite side of the road.
>
>Nothing erudite about it. One can eventually get used to it if it's a
>route travelled, but it's still jarring the first few times, and maybe
>every time, if it's an infrequent route.
>
> /Jim
>
Mike Cahill
So I've taken to slowing down my
> turntable and learning the tunes in D etc. Tell me though, how do I slow
> down a compact disk player?
>
> Monty [|||||||]
Try slow speed CD transcriber from http://ronimusic.com/ you can slow a CD
down 500% without altering the pitch or alter the pitch without altering the
speed, or alter both! It's well worth the 30UKP or whatever it works out at.
I use it a lot, you can even alter the pitch of singers voices
rlpc
> >very slightly expanded box, say 24 buttons.
> >I am considering rebuilding a 30 button Stagi
> >into a smaller package, but my ambition exceeds
> >my wood-working skills!
>
> I have designed a 24 key, 10 cm across, intended
> to
> be going two octaves either from Bb3-Bb5 or
> Bb4-Bb6,
> three rows ( 4x3 buttons each side),but due to
> my preference
> for flat keys the accidentals are Bb,Eb,Ab (and
> one F#)
> making it playable in C F Bb and Eb. Colin
> Dipper
> has got an order for it since long but is yet
> not realized.
>
> Goran Rahm
> >
quoted cost and delivery? Also, could you send
me the design details? My e-mail is
It could catch on!
Bob
>
Goran Rahm
>> >
>Sounds like a wonderful machine? What is the
>quoted cost and delivery? Also, could you send
>me the design details? My e-mail is
>
>rl...@mindspring.com
>
>It could catch on!
>
>Bob
I have tried a couple of times to send to the
above address but with fault messages so you get
it here again. Do send a reply yourself to my
address.
Goran
>
Hello Bob
Glad to hear my idea interested you.Here is the
note layout for a start hope it comes out right
Left side
Bb B
G
Eb E
C
Ab A
F
Bb D
B
Right side
C Ab
A
F F#
D
B Bb
G
E Eb
C
Motivations for the layout:
I use tenortreble and baritonetreble mainly and
the pattern in the low region is partly like
these.
I wanted the general layout to be regular 4 x 3
symmetrically on both sides and no keys to be
located by their own in some odd place
I wanted the natural, (ordinary 2nd and 3rd row)
notes to be in place for 1st and 2nd fingers
both sides and the accidentals in place for 3rd
fingers
I wanted the 10 cm size to allow the usual
locations of thumbstrap and little finger rest
I wanted the general design to be fairly alike
the traditional 48 key english looks.
Goran Rahm
>>
>
>
Mike Coleman
> On the English, accidentals are located next to their corresponding natural
> notes, [...]
If I read the chart correctly, it looks like most of the accidentals are
doubled (present on two buttons, one on each side). This seems a bit puzzling
given that none of the natural notes are doubled. If one were going to choose
notes to double, it seems like the naturals would make more (ahem) natural
candidates.
I'm not (yet) a player, so no doubt I'm missing something here.
--Mike
--
[O]ne of the features of the Internet [...] is that small groups of people can
greatly disturb large organizations. --Charles C. Mann
DoN. Nichols
Mike Coleman <m...@mathdogs.com> wrote:
>"Jim Lucas" <j...@danbbs.dk> writes:
>> On the English, accidentals are located next to their corresponding natural
>> notes, [...]
>
>If I read the chart correctly, it looks like most of the accidentals are
>doubled (present on two buttons, one on each side). This seems a bit puzzling
>given that none of the natural notes are doubled. If one were going to choose
>notes to double, it seems like the naturals would make more (ahem) natural
>candidates.
>
>I'm not (yet) a player, so no doubt I'm missing something here.
Only two pairs are doubled -- the D#/Eb pair, and the G#/Ab
pair. However, both the "white notes" (key of C major) and the various
sharps and flats (which may or may not count as accidentals, depending
on which key you happen to be considering).
Of course, you will find each note duplicated in other octaves,
both the "white notes" and the "black notes". After all, the 48-key
treble covers 3-1/2 octaves.
All in all -- the layout of the keyboard makes a *lot* of sense.
Adjacent to each white note is either a sharp or a flat on that note.
To decide which is likely to be present, look closely at the note.
Look at 'C' for example. What is 'Cb'? It is a 'B', so there
is no need to put it on the keyboard under that name. Thus what you
have beside 'C' is 'C#'. This means that 'D' doesn't need to provide
'Db', since that is already present as 'C#', so instead, it provides
'D#'.
Now -- Remember that 'B'? No need for a 'B#' because that is
already present as a 'C', so we put 'Bb' beside 'B'. That means that
'A#' is not needed, so beside 'A' is 'Ab'. Now, 'E' and 'F' are
likewise providing the respective flats and sharps for each other, so 'E'
gets an 'Eb', and 'F' gets an 'F#'. Eventually, you run into collisions
from these starting points, resulting in the duplication of D#/Eb and
G#/Ab. However, the names used for the keys present are really
convenient, because this allows you to play in any key in the Circle of
Fifths up to five sharps, or down to three flats. All in all, it works
out to be a very convenient layout. To transpose in fifths, you shift
up or down one button from your original starting point, and *one* note
(perhaps in two octaves) will sound wrong. If you are on an inner row,
move to the outer row. If you are on the outer row, move to the inner
row. That's all there is to it -- until you finally run past the five
sharps to three flats limits.
Squeeze on,
John Wild
>"Jim Lucas" <j...@danbbs.dk> writes:
>> On the English, accidentals are located next to their corresponding natural
>> notes, [...]
>
>If I read the chart correctly, it looks like most of the accidentals are
>doubled (present on two buttons, one on each side). This seems a bit puzzling
>given that none of the natural notes are doubled. If one were going to choose
>notes to double, it seems like the naturals would make more (ahem) natural
>candidates.
>
>I'm not (yet) a player, so no doubt I'm missing something here.
>
>--Mike
For the English concertina, there are several notes which are the same.
G sharp is the same note as A flat, and these are on opposite sides.
Similarly, D sharp = E flat.
The other accidentals are not duplicated. Going up a chromatic scale,
you have the following semitones:
G sharp / A flat
B flat
C sharp
D sharp / E flat
F sharp
Then the pattern repeats in the next octave.
I hope this helps.
- John Wild
--
John Wild
International Concertina Association
Treasurer/Membership Secretary
Website: http://www.concertina.org.uk
Jim Lucas
> "Jim Lucas" <j...@danbbs.dk> writes:
> > On the English, accidentals are located next to their corresponding natural
> > notes, [...]
>
> If I read the chart correctly, it looks like most of the accidentals are
> doubled (present on two buttons, one on each side). This seems a bit
puzzling
> given that none of the natural notes are doubled. If one were going to
choose
> notes to double, it seems like the naturals would make more (ahem) natural
> candidates.
>
> I'm not (yet) a player, so no doubt I'm missing something here.
You are definitely missing something.
The duplications are not for the purpose of having optional fingerings.
Instead, scales in most common keys (3 flats through 4 sharps) on the English
concertina follow a common pattern, and the duplication allows the range of
keys to which that pattern applies to be broader. Eliminating the "extra"
buttons, so that each note would appear only once, would reduce the number of
(major) keys following the pattern from 8 to 6 (out of a possible 12).
There are even some English concertinas with "true" tuning, where (among other
things) the G# and D# differ from the Ab and Eb. However, these are rare, and
I believe they are taking advantage of the fact that the notes are
"duplicated", rather than being the original reason for the design.
/JIm Lucas
Chris Timson
>There are even some English concertinas with "true" tuning, where (among other
>things) the G# and D# differ from the Ab and Eb. However, these are rare, and
>I believe they are taking advantage of the fact that the notes are
>"duplicated", rather than being the original reason for the design.
As invented by Charles Wheatstone in 1829 or thereabouts the English was
almost always tuned in this way, which was the source of a lot of the
flack it collected from people like Hector Berlioz (see Allan Atlas, The
Wheatstone English Concertina in Victorian England). Apparently the
change to equal temperament wasn't fully made until the 1860's.
Chris
--
Chris Timson Have concertinas, will travel
and For our home pages and for the Concertina FAQ:
Anne Gregson http://www.harbour.demon.co.uk/
"Sir, more than kisses, letters mingle souls" - John Donne
Samuel Winters
music (that is, keys with more accidentals like A or E, or flat keys) on the
english concertina. The "standard" scale pattern is to alternate between
left hand and right hand for every consecutive note in the scale. So in A
it is nice to have, say, a high G# on the opposite side from the high A. Or
playing something in C minor requires the E flat to be on the opposite side
from the F, but playing in B you'd want the same note (now a D sharp) on the
other side.
This is one reason not to buy anything with less than 48 buttons. The 30
button instruments are fully chromatic but the accidentals are often on the
"wrong" (less convenient) side.
The English concertina is a wonderful instrument but does have its
limitations. It's very difficult to play a true chordal accompaniment to
your own melody because the melody will bounce back and forth from the left
side to the right side. You inevitably run out of fingers to keep the chord
notes sounding. This is not a terrible drawback because you can develop a
stylistic approach to accompanying your melody that fits well on the
instrument.
The English concertina is much more versatile than the Anglo except for
playing Irish music. If you are going to play mostly Irish music then you
must go with an Anglo. Otherwise stick with the English system.
Jim Lucas
> The English concertina is a wonderful instrument but does have its
> limitations. It's very difficult to play a true chordal accompaniment to
> your own melody because the melody will bounce back and forth from the left
> side to the right side. You inevitably run out of fingers to keep the chord
> notes sounding. This is not a terrible drawback because you can develop a
> stylistic approach to accompanying your melody that fits well on the
> instrument.
Depending on how "rich" you want the chords to be, you could run out of notes
on the piano, too. I don't find running out of fingers to be a common
constraint on the English.
> The English concertina is much more versatile than the Anglo except for
> playing Irish music. If you are going to play mostly Irish music then you
> must go with an Anglo.
That is crap! The English is just as versatile as the anglo for Irish music.
It's just that historically the anglo has been more widely used in Irish
tradition. And the fact is that until recently even the anglo concertina
tradition was pretty limited in Irish music.
It may be easier on the English to play in a slightly different style than on
the anglo, though there was at least one woman (in New York City; I'm sorry
I've forgotten her name) who learned to make her English sound exactly like an
Irish anglo. But even that isn't necessary, since "Irish style" on flutes and
fiddles is quite different from that on an anglo, yet it's definitely Irish.
At Bielefeld, Jonathan Taylor was more than welcome with his English in the
Irish anglo concertina class.
> Otherwise stick with the English system.
Also crap. The anglo can be played with a variety of styles and techniques,
and is not nearly as limited as some people seem to think. John Kirkpatrick
and Betram Levy come immediately to mind, but I also remember trying to play
along with Harry Scurfield as he played "Frankie and Johnnie" on his C/G anglo
in what turned out to be the key of C#. When I (and a MacCann duet player who
was with us) glared at him, he proceed to switch into D on the next verse. No,
the anglo (at least the 30-or-more-buttons versions) aren't any more limited
than the English; it's just that each has its own peculiar limitations.
And then there are the duets.
/Jim Lucas
Chris Timson
>The English concertina is much more versatile than the Anglo except for
>playing Irish music. If you are going to play mostly Irish music then you
>must go with an Anglo. Otherwise stick with the English system.
>
I think you may need to retract that statement. Otherwise you may find
numerous anglo players who don't use it for Irish music (and perhaps
some who do) setting the guidance systems and launching the ICBMs even
as we speak! It is, to be kind, a statement made by someone with no real
knowledge of the instrument and its potentials. I have only some
awareness of the potentials of the English (as I live with a player) and
very little of the duets, so I would not dream of criticising them
myself (for instance, if a person wants to play Irish on the English
concertina, why not?). A little thought and you might have applied the
same criteria to the anglo.
Have a nice day!
Monty [|||||||]
Samuel Winters <sewi...@earthlink.net> wrote (snip)
> If you are going to play mostly Irish music then you
This is a common prejudice but not supported by any objective criteria as
far as I can tell. Anglos may have a slightly different timbre than the
English boxes, but in the hands of someone sensitive to the Irish tradition,
the English concertina does as well as the anglo or other traditional Irish
instruments.
I've often wondered about the source of this myth about Anglos vs. English
in Irish music. Perhaps it is that years ago many of the English concertina
players emulated the style of players like Alistair Anderson who favored a
more even, liquid style rather than the bouncy sound associated with an
anglo with its different notes on the push and pull. But one can work the
bellows on the English concertina to emulate the Anglo or button
accordion -- or simply play in the style of flute or fiddle as Jim Lucas
says elsewhere.
Of course the Irish antipathy for other things British may carry over to the
English concertina and its supposed inferiority for Irish music. Or the
anglo may simply have become the instrument of choice because they were once
less expensive and more readily available in a country which struggled much
more with poverty until recent years.
If anyone has the definitive sociology or history on this, I would be
interested in hearing it.
Monty [|||||||]
Joe Kesselman
> I've often wondered about the source of this myth about Anglos vs. English
> in Irish music.
> anglo may simply have become the instrument of choice because they were once
> less expensive and more readily available in a country which struggled much
> more with poverty until recent years.
Or outside the cities in general. That's certainly my own uninformed
guess. Same reason as tin whistle -- there's no particular reason any
other kind of fipple flute, or flute of any sort, couldn't be
substituted, but this is the instrument which happened to be in wide
circulation at one particular time and it became traditional.
Unfortunately Tradition tends to become unquestionable. "We've always
used the Anglo, so there must be a good reason we've always used the
Anglo, and while we aren't sure what that reason is we're going to
grumble if you dare to question it." Harrumph.
Personally, I don't see any reason one couldn't play an Irish tune
credibly on anything from pipe organ to electric guitar. Some
instruments may make getting the right feel easier or harder, and may or
may not have exactly the textures that folks expect to hear, and may or
may not be suitable for specific roles within the ensemble... but with
very few exceptions I have to question any assertion that any specific
instrument is _required_.
(As I understand it, classical Indian melodies when played properly
absolutely require the ability to bend notes... which would make playing
them on most flavors of free reeds rather difficult, though harmonica
might be an interesting experiment. Some of the oriental styles have the
same requirement. On the other hand, free reeds as an _accompanying_
instrument works just fine; think sheng or sruti box.)
> If anyone has the definitive sociology or history on this, I would
> be interested in hearing it.
Seconded.
--
------------------------------------------------------
Joe Kesselman, http://www.lovesong.com/people/keshlam/
Appearing March 10 at Walkabout, a double bill:
Vance Gilbert shares our stage with Stone Soup
http://www.WalkaboutClearwater.org/coffeehouse.html
Chris Timson
>This is a common prejudice but not supported by any objective criteria as
>far as I can tell. Anglos may have a slightly different timbre than the
>English boxes, but in the hands of someone sensitive to the Irish tradition,
>the English concertina does as well as the anglo or other traditional Irish
>instruments.
I would disagree on the timbre bit, you can have soft or hard sounding
anglos or Englishes, but you're right in that the overall characteristic
of the instruments are different mainly due to the different actions. I
also completely agree with you about the suitability of both for Irish.
It also cuts the other way, Dave Townsend does some lovely mock-anglo
versions of English trad tunes on the English concertina, with all the
"characteristic" punchy "left hand" chords.
>Perhaps it is that years ago many of the English concertina
>players emulated the style of players like Alistair Anderson who favored a
>more even, liquid style rather than the bouncy sound associated with an
>anglo with its different notes on the push and pull.
You've lost me a bit there, too. If you go to an Ali Anderson workshop
(and I've sat in and listened, though of course I don't play the
English) you will hear him teaching English players a very staccato
style of playing. Listen to his recordings. He uses staccato probably
more than any other English player I can think of. It really suits the
Northumbrian music he plays so well. All this hand-swinging and the rest
he does I gather is all about getting the attack he wants.
>Of course the Irish antipathy for other things British may carry over to the
>English concertina and its supposed inferiority for Irish music. Or the
>anglo may simply have become the instrument of choice because they were once
>less expensive and more readily available in a country which struggled much
>more with poverty until recent years.
You are right on the second point. The English was and is an expensive
instrument. We're talking a month's average wages, maybe much more. Back
last century it was possible to buy German made concertinas very *very*
much more cheaply. So the Irish picked it up, as did the English folk
musicians, and the anglo became the concertina of choice among the rural
and working classes in both countries. Same thing with the melodeon.
Monty [|||||||]
Chris Timson <ch...@harbour.demon.co.uk> wrote
> I would disagree on the timbre bit, you can have soft or hard sounding
> anglos or Englishes
You're right, perhaps I'm generalizing my experience with some old
recordings of anglo players from Claire whose concertinas are so bright and
strident they make me wince. However, I recall John Williams plays Irish on
an anglo that is much more mellow.
>
> >(Monty wrote) Perhaps it is that years ago many of the English concertina
> >players emulated the style of players like Alistair Anderson who favored
a
> >more even, liquid style rather than the bouncy sound associated with an
> >anglo with its different notes on the push and pull.
>
> (Chris wrote)You've lost me a bit there, too. If you go to an Ali Anderson
workshop
> (and I've sat in and listened, though of course I don't play the
> English) you will hear him teaching English players a very staccato
> style of playing. Listen to his recordings. He uses staccato probably
> more than any other English player I can think of. It really suits the
> Northumbrian music he plays so well. All this hand-swinging and the rest
> he does I gather is all about getting the attack he wants.
When I said "liquid style" I wasn't thinking of legatto vs stacatto. I
can't find the quote now, but I thought I heard Alistair Anderson say that
notes should flow out of the instrument like peas from a pod or a jar or
some such thing. Anyhow, the image conveyed a very regular and even flow.
I also thought it was he who discouraged "punching" the bellows. But these
recollections are at least twenty years old, so I may have it all wrong --
the pints that have also had a regular and even flow. My apologies to Mr.
Anderson if I have credited him inaccurately.
The ultimate point is Alistair Anderson has a style noticeably different
from that of Noel Hill, but some of us seem to agree it is not so much a
function of their different instruments as their different musical
traditions. Nevertheless, this myth about anglo vs. English capacities
persists. For example I was playing my English Concertina at an Irish
session in Wales a while back and a fellow remarked "I never heard an
English Concertina play Irish music that way" which I hope was a reference
to my emulation of certain Irish button box players rather than commentary
on my general ineptitude. :)
John Wild
<ch...@harbour.demon.co.uk> writes
at last year's ICA AGM, Roger Digby played a tape and invited us to
judge which of English, Anglo or duet concertina was being played on
each track. I think I got about half right.
Chris Timson
>at last year's ICA AGM, Roger Digby played a tape and invited us to
>judge which of English, Anglo or duet concertina was being played on
>each track. I think I got about half right.
I was there for that, too. It was a great cure for instrumental
chauvinism!
Martin Doering
<ch...@harbour.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>You are right on the second point. The English was and is an expensive
>instrument. We're talking a month's average wages, maybe much more. Back
>last century it was possible to buy German made concertinas very *very*
>much more cheaply.
Unfortunately this changed. Think of, what you would have to pay for a
suttner. Me myself bought a Herrington, which is not made in such a
"traditional" style. But even this is expensive enough.
There are many calls I get through the year from people, which bough
the cheap italian 20 button ones. I then have to tell them, what this
is - argghh. I don't want to de-motivate them. Don't know, what to
do... Sometime I wish, I never would have written this website.
On the other side, if you buy a handmade accordion, it not cheap too.
I was told, that "good" beginner instruments (accordions) start at
1500 euro. But as a newbie you can start with a used one for 400 euro.
That's the difference.
Martin
Martin Doering
>At Bielefeld, Jonathan Taylor was more than welcome with his English in the
>Irish anglo concertina class.
... and you, Jim. ;-)
So bad, that I cannot come this year - we change our residence... I
would like to show my new Herrington to Jürgen Suttner and the others
- hear, what they say.
>Also crap. The anglo can be played with a variety of styles and techniques,
>and is not nearly as limited as some people seem to think. John Kirkpatrick
>and Betram Levy come immediately to mind, but I also remember trying to play
>along with Harry Scurfield as he played "Frankie and Johnnie" on his C/G anglo
>in what turned out to be the key of C#. When I (and a MacCann duet player who
>was with us) glared at him, he proceed to switch into D on the next verse. No,
>the anglo (at least the 30-or-more-buttons versions) aren't any more limited
>than the English; it's just that each has its own peculiar limitations.
Yes - I was very impressed, how John Kirkpatrick plays the anglo. It
was the first time I heard this more accompaniment oriented style. I
find, it's much more familar to our "continentals", as the irish
melodie oriented style - even I like both.
Today is a terrible day! My Herrington is lying at the postoffice, and
my wife didn't manage to get it in time. I waited two years for it...
:-(
Martin
da...@rowlhouse.freeserve.co.uk
<sewi...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>The English concertina is much more versatile than the Anglo except for
>playing Irish music. If you are going to play mostly Irish music then you
>must go with an Anglo. Otherwise stick with the English system.
I see that Mr Winters got a bit of a roasting for this paragraph. I
reckon that the first a last sentences possibly justify this... but
to be honest, my advice is "If you are going to play mostly Irish
music then [if you must play the concertina] go with an Anglo".
Anyway, that's what I would do, if I was "starting again" and knew
that the only music I would ever love would be Irish traditional
music.
PS If you can afford it, that is.
Chris Timson
> but
>to be honest, my advice is "If you are going to play mostly Irish
>music then [if you must play the concertina] go with an Anglo".
As an anglo player, I would say, this is the instrument that is
traditionally used, take a look at it. Subsequently, if you feel happier
playing an English, then play that for Irish music. Don't Worry, Be
Happy. Whatever Turns You On.
>PS If you can afford it, that is.
Only too right, old son.
Chris Timson
>Today is a terrible day! My Herrington is lying at the postoffice, and
>my wife didn't manage to get it in time. I waited two years for it...
Believe me, you have my sympathy. When Anne bought mine for me (in those
days there was only an 8 month lead time...), she managed to arrange
with Harold for it to be brought over by an American friend, who arrived
in the UK on my birthday! What timimg, eh? I hope you have it now, you
will very soon be saying "Yippeee!"
Martin Doering
<ch...@harbour.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>Martin Doering <mdoe...@mucl.de> writes
>>Today is a terrible day! My Herrington is lying at the postoffice, and
>>my wife didn't manage to get it in time. I waited two years for it...
>
>Believe me, you have my sympathy. When Anne bought mine for me (in those
>days there was only an 8 month lead time...), she managed to arrange
>with Harold for it to be brought over by an American friend, who arrived
>in the UK on my birthday! What timimg, eh? I hope you have it now, you
>will very soon be saying "Yippeee!"
Ooohhh... So is our postoffice: They sent me just a peace of paper,
that I have to come. And they wrote, that I have to pay duty. No
opening time, no telephone number. As my wife did arrive (after
waiting 20 minutes), they just told her, that she has to go to munich
city - there I would have to pay some additional tax, and that the
office is closed, when I'm ready with my work :-(
I hate postofficers!!!!!!!!!!!
göran
"Chris Timson" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:4GvxUBBX$Cw6...@harbour.demon.co.uk...
> da...@rowlhouse.freeserve.co.uk writes
> As an anglo player, I would say, this is the instrument that is
> traditionally used, take a look at it. Subsequently, if you feel happier
> playing an English, then play that for Irish music. Don't Worry, Be
> Happy. Whatever Turns You On.
>
Agree....I couldn´t control myself from a comment since I have always been
so surprised concerning the use of Anglo for "Irish music". As far as I see
it the only connection between the Anglo concertina and 'typical Irish
traditional music' (whatever that includes??) is the historic use,
originating seemingly in a larger number of (cheaper) Anglos (and German
concertinas) being used in Ireland.
My distant impression has always been that "typical Irish folk tunes/dance
tunes" often performed on violin, flute, pipes (and concertina) are played
single note, fast,with fluent melodic lines and with frequent decorations.
Technically more awkward to manage on the Anglo than the English!! So -
viewing the musical idiom the English ought to be the "right" instrument for
Irish music!
The Anglo is a lot more suitable for slower dance tunes with strong
rhythmical accent and accompaning harmonies.As far as I know being more
typical within the Morris tradition. And also for song accompaniment the
Anglo may be perfect.
Hoping to stir up things I would rather say that the Anglo is NOT suitable
for "Irish" music at all and there ought to be a reconsideration among the
Anglo players not only to look at the tradition but the musical relevance
when choosing the instrument.
The English system is more suitable for complicated melody playing than the
Anglo, it is just sad that the Irish didn't have it in the first place -
they would not have wasted so much energy in frantic struggling trying to
perform the tricky tunes on the Anglos....:-)
Goran Rahm
Bill Keaveney
better than Noel Hill (who plays an Anglo), or Gearoid Ohallmhurain (also an
Anglo), I'll agree with you. Just because it may be "easier" on an English
does NOT mean it would sound "more Irish".
Bill Keaveney
Ukiah CA
Concertina NUT
"göran" <goran...@telia.com> wrote in message
news:bUEy6.5311$4N4.1...@newsc.telia.net...
göran
"Bill Keaveney" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:bfHy6.17271$Gv.1...@news.inreach.com...
> Well, if you can name any English concertina player who plays Irish music
> better than Noel Hill (who plays an Anglo), or Gearoid Ohallmhurain (also
an
> Anglo), I'll agree with you.
Well, I regard them more as another two victims of the history. Are they
'better' performers of 'Irish music' than all the fiddlers, pipers, tin
whistle players and others?? But it is the instruments we talk about not the
players isn' t it?
>Just because it may be "easier" on an English
> does NOT mean it would sound "more Irish".
> Bill Keaveney
> Ukiah CA
> Concertina NUT
What IS the "Irish" concertina sound then? All concertinas basically 'sound'
the same no matter which system and disregarding model differences that may
occur within the systems respectively.
The "Irish" 'sound' then may be mainly related to the effects coming from
frequent push/pull activities but nothing (except the poor handle) stops you
from playing an English the same way - if THAT is essential. IS it really?
You do the same on a melodeon.... Are accordions as neglected for playing
'Irish' music as English concertinas? Maybe, but back to the Irish fiddlers,
pipers etcetera - are they doing something 'wrong' ? I hardly think so.
Goran Rahm
Michael Berenstein
>
> What IS the "Irish" concertina sound then? All concertinas basically 'sound'
> the same no matter which system and disregarding model differences that may
> occur within the systems respectively.
> The "Irish" 'sound' then may be mainly related to the effects coming from
> frequent push/pull activities but nothing (except the poor handle) stops you
> from playing an English the same way - if THAT is essential. IS it really?
> You do the same on a melodeon.... Are accordions as neglected for playing
> 'Irish' music as English concertinas? Maybe, but back to the Irish fiddlers,
> pipers etcetera - are they doing something 'wrong' ? I hardly think so.
>
> Goran Rahm
As somebody put it, the most common irish sounds today are coming from electric
guitar.
As music is conserned it is probably the piano.
As free reeds are concerned it is probably PA.
If concertinas are identified as "cute little accordions" or "pipes" - it tells
you alot about what irish think of irish instruments themselves.
I think anglo is more accociated with irish because it is considered a "folk"
instrument and English is regarded as designed for classical music. Now, back
in USSR they were forced to play Mozart on balalaikas (to "elevate" folk
instrument) and made a joke of themselves. May be the same joke will happen if
Anglo players will start playing Mozart too? May be we can think about it this
way, Anglo is playing music, made of "music kit" and English - made from
scratch. On a highest levels the two coinside, but on lowest levels - levels of
majority of musicians - kits allow for "richer" music sooner. Like accordion:
" Hey, play us a little Moozeek!", "OK, here it goes -- Oom-pah-pah, Oom-pah...
There whah-ah-ance was lee-ee-tle ma-a-rmaid...".
Chris Timson
>Well, I regard them more as another two victims of the history. Are they
>'better' performers of 'Irish music' than all the fiddlers, pipers, tin
>whistle players and others?? But it is the instruments we talk about not the
>players isn' t it?
>
Well of course it is! That is the charter of this newsgroup.
göran
"Michael Berenstein" <> skrev i meddelandet
news:3ACB7F1F...@pixar.com...
> "göran" wrote:
> > What IS the "Irish" concertina sound then?
>
> As somebody put it, the most common irish sounds today are coming from
electric
> guitar.
> As music is conserned it is probably the piano.
> As free reeds are concerned it is probably PA.
Yes - so, if PA is OK why not the English? There is some similarity in
status relations between (melodeon)diatonic BA/PA and Anglo/English.
> I think anglo is more accociated with irish because it is considered a
"folk"
> instrument and English is regarded as designed for classical music
So the choice may even touch a political, or at least social relation sphere
as much as a musical one.This may have been important long time ago but
today you hardly proove your workingclass belonging by using an Anglo
instead of an English :-)
A high standard Anglo of course has the same technical value as a same
standard English. The musical 'value' however ought to be graded in
relation to musical peformance capacity and my impression is that there are
several factors that many (even experienced ) players just forget, or are
unaware of, which could be highly noteworthy. From this viewpoint I see a
great deal of prejudice in the Anglo-Irish connection.
Goran Rahm
göran
"Chris Timson" <> skrev i meddelandet
> göran <goran...@telia.com> writes
>But it is the instruments we talk about not the
> >players isn' t it?
> >
>
> Well of course it is! That is the charter of this newsgroup.
>
> Chris
So
Chris! Being and 'Anglo man' what do you regard as the 'strong' side(s) of
your instrument in relation to different musical idioms and...
what could you possibly see as weakness(es) that maybe (?) the English (or
Duet) might work out more efficiently? Do you find any relevance in my
teasing thought that the English could be more suitable for some speedy,
armstraining and fingerbreaking 'Irish' tunes ?
I hope no fellow Anglo mates will threaten to kill you if you apostatize
though....:-) and I am not fighting about it myself - it ought to be known
by now that I criticize 'my own' English since long for its limitations.
Goran
Bruce Metras
This is a note about a pleasant experience (for a change), and dealing with
a member of our group....I am in the process of reconditioning a Titano
Cosmopoitan from the late 60's, one of Titanos top PA models...As cosmetics
are important to me, I wanted the bellows to look great as well as perform
properly.....a few corners had been replaced through the years, a few more
were worn. I decided to send the bellows to Titano (Faithe), to have the
work performed to original standards (if you have ever tried to perfectly
match replacement bellow corners with existing corners, you know the
difficulty)......I was advised that a brand new bellow should be fitted to
my Titano frames.....the cost was extremely reasonable and the turn around
time speedy.....I don't know if they fit new bellows to frames from brands
other than their own products, but this was a very cost effective and
efficient way to have a perfect replacement for my project.......plus
....they smell NEW..!!
Thanks Faithe!
Bruce (San Francisco)
Chris Timson
> Being and 'Anglo man' what do you regard as the 'strong' side(s) of
>your instrument in relation to different musical idioms and...
>what could you possibly see as weakness(es) that maybe (?) the English (or
>Duet) might work out more efficiently? Do you find any relevance in my
>teasing thought that the English could be more suitable for some speedy,
>armstraining and fingerbreaking 'Irish' tunes ?
Well, IMHO the most important factor in any person's selection of a
particular breed of concertina has always been (and I have stated this
*many* times) choose the one you feel happiest playing. The first time I
picked up an anglo I warmed to it in a way I never did with the English.
Anne, conversely, finds the anglo irrational and wants to get back to
her English as soon as possible.
Quite honestly, if you don't feel comfortable with the instrument you
won't play it, and this consideration to me outweighs pretty well
anything else. If you want to play a certain kind of music on your
chosen concertina (or PA or flute or piano or...) then you'll find a
way.
Monty [|||||||]
Michael Berenstein <mi...@pixar.com> wrote
>(snip)
> As somebody put it, the most common irish sounds today are coming from
electric
> guitar.
> As music is conserned it is probably the piano.
> As free reeds are concerned it is probably PA.
> If concertinas are identified as "cute little accordions" or "pipes" - it
tells
> you alot about what irish think of irish instruments themselves.
I think you need to elaborate a bit on what you mean by "the most common
Irish sounds today".
There is wide range of music coming out of Ireland -- U2, Van Morrison, Paul
Brady, Enya, Riverdance, Chieftains, Sharon Shannon Band, Patrick Street,
Beginnish,Charlie Piggott, Gearoid Ohallmhurain, and countless others.
Electric guitars and piano accordions are not very common amongst most of
these groups and individuals I've mentioned, though in sheer number of
recordings sold, U2 may have made the electric guitar Ireland's most common
instrument.
As to what "Irish think of Irish instruments themselves" you have to specify
*which* Irish. Some Irish know everything about U2 and nothing about
Gearoid Ohallmhurain. Even traditional music is divided between those
interested in ceili bands with piano accordions and drum kits and those
interested in "trad" bands with button accordions and bodhrans.
And what do you mean by "concertinas identified as 'pipes'?"
Monty McKinney
Goran Rahm
"Chris Timson" <> skrev i meddelandet
> göran <goran...@telia.com> writes
> > Being and 'Anglo man' what do you regard as the 'strong' side(s) of
>
> Well, IMHO the most important factor in any person's selection of a
> particular breed of concertina has always been (and I have stated this
> *many* times) choose the one you feel happiest playing
Sensible enough of course - problem being that most individuals can be
expected to reach this level of wisdom after 10 years of practise :-) We
don't know what happened on the way. I'm afraid we never meet those who gave
up concertinas for good after 1 year and there seems to be a considerable
number remaining confused after 5 years of practise ( judging from some
reports appearing also in the NG :-)
If a lot of beginners give up they probably never reached the level of
"happy playing" and only encouragement and hopefully 'good' advice might
keep them going.
So all the same I am a little bit sceptic about the "instant love" approach
to the choice.
Matter of personality to a part but what to do when, as it often happens in
the NG and else, beginners ask for advice?
It is not easy to change when you realize after 5 years that you wasted them
on learning the 'wrong' instrument - despite I fully agree with your view
that all the systems may be used for almost any kind of music using some
creativity:
>If you want to play a certain kind of music on your
> chosen concertina (or PA or flute or piano or...) then you'll find a
> way.
.... but IF I am asked to give advice I want it to be rational and based on
some kind of analysis. Frankly - do I say to the humble beginner : "Choose
an instrument you like to play" or "If you want to play the 1st violin
concerto by Henryk Wieniawski on your Anglo you will find a way" ? :-)
This is where my doubt about the usefulness of the Anglo for 'Irish music'
came in....
Goran
Michael Berenstein
>
> I think you need to elaborate a bit on what you mean by "the most common
> Irish sounds today".
I was paraphrasing somebody on this NG saying that most common instruments
played in Ireland today is Electric guitar and drum kit. Just like about
anywhere else.
And if irish themselves play rock-and-roll on electric guitars, who are we to
say, "no, irish is this and that"? So my point is - anything is irish if played
by irish, who live in Ireland , speak Irish and are brought within irish
surrounding.
>
> There is wide range of music coming out of Ireland -- U2, Van Morrison, Paul
> Brady, Enya, Riverdance, Chieftains, Sharon Shannon Band, though in sheer
> number of
> recordings sold, U2 may have made the electric guitar Ireland's most common
> instrument.
Well, that's the point. Besides the Riverdance you mentioned employs large
number of dancers from other countries, namely, Russia. Moyse'ev folk ansamble
has big part in Riverdance. I couln't see the difference. Probably because
Riverdance has as much resemblance to traditional Irish dancing as Moyse'ev to
russian.
>
>
>
>
> And what do you mean by "concertinas identified as 'pipes'?"
>
> Monty McKinney
Many times people are coming to me saying "oh, that's cute little ... pipe? you
are playing. After some conversation they proudly tell me (russian immigrant of
jewish descent, playing irish jigs in the park) that they are irish and they
just LOVE irish music.
Bill Keaveney
Music." Ireland, of course, puts out many, many different types of music, up
to and including "Rock." But Traditional Irish Music remains the same (with
only minor advancements), so when you speak of "Irish Music", you're
correct, Misha, but Traditional Irish Music is a thing totally apart!
Bill Keaveney
Ukiah CA
Concertina NUT
"Michael Berenstein" <mi...@pixar.com> wrote in message
news:3ACE03D6...@pixar.com...
Michael Berenstein
> There's a great difference between "Irish Misic" and "Traditional Irish
> Music." Ireland, of course, puts out many, many different types of music, up
> to and including "Rock." But Traditional Irish Music remains the same (with
> only minor advancements), so when you speak of "Irish Music", you're
> correct, Misha, but Traditional Irish Music is a thing totally apart!
>
As I remember, the question was whether Anglo is more irish for 'irish music'
then the English.
So I guess, neither is more, no traditional at all. Which is good.
I don't think those poor farmers who would choose german-made Anglos, were
thinking in terms of traditions. It was relatively easy to play, small and
cheap. and it was loud. Nor those farmers played fast irish reels at incredible
speeds.
Chris Timson
>This is where my doubt about the usefulness of the Anglo for 'Irish music'
>came in....
Yeah, well, tell that to the people who play Irish traditional music
very well on anglos. I'm sorry, old son, but I think you know less about
the many ways that the anglo is played than perhaps you think you do.
This is a pointless discussion, and I am going to leave it here.
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff
> Sensible enough of course - problem being that most individuals can be
> expected to reach this level of wisdom after 10 years of practise :-)
Really? That isn't how it's been for me.
When my brothers and sister were learning recorder in school, I picked
one up and liked it immediately. When my sister got a harmonica for her
birthday, I fiddled around with it, and decided similarly quickly that
it just didn't WORK for me. Pianos I've always been neutral about: I
like getting music out of them, but get little joy out of the actual
playing.
Similarly, I liked my English immediately. I even liked how it was
*described*, and in fact I had never touched, seen, or (as far as I
knew) heard an English before I bought mine. (I bought it from the
Button Box, because they had a sound reputation, and would have let me
send it back if I didnt like it.)
I didn't even want to try the Anglo, because it worked like a harmonica,
and I knew from experience that I detested those. (Actually I quite
like the *sound* it's just the business of getting recognizable tunes
out of it that defeats me.)
The fact that I would prossibly be playing accompanyments to my own
singing by now if I had chosen an Anglo doesn't really faze me. After
all, I could have chosen to take up guitar instead too. :)
As it is, after 5 years or so I AM gradually getting so that I can sing
one thing, and play another totally different thing, and am using both
"duet" accompanyments, (like the 'tina and I are singing a duet--this is
easiest for me -and what is the proper term to descriibe these, anyway,
counterpunctual?) and chord based patterns, (mostly "oompa, oompa" for
fast songs and arpeggios for slow songs), and I've enjoyed the
intervening five years to boot.
I'm not very good, but that has yet to stop me from having fun. I sit
out in the back yard when the weather is good, and annoy all the
neighbors doing yardwork. >:)
> If a lot of beginners give up they probably never reached the level of
> "happy playing" and only encouragement and hopefully 'good' advice might
> keep them going.
I was musically inclined before I ever touched a concertina, so maybe
I'm a horribly bad example, but I don't see why you have to wait five to
ten years to be "happy playing."
I would like my children to play instruments, but if it makes the
miserable ALL the time, I would think they would be better off NOT
playing. How could that be worth it? Practising regularly might always
be a pain, but if they never sit down and doodle just for the fun of it,
or eagerly pull visiters over to "hear my latest piece" then that's the
end of lessons.
(None of them has the hand stregnth to really control my 'tina, and the
older kids realize this and don't generally try play it, of our other
instruments Ben prefers the recorder to the keyboard or the xylophone,
Azure shows a distinct preference for the keyboard, and Jasmine like the
keyboard but seems to prefer the xylophone. No one has shown much
interest in the harmonica. I do need to aquire a stringed instrument or
two, our current selection is decidedly unbalanced.)
> .... but IF I am asked to give advice I want it to be rational and based on
> some kind of analysis. Frankly - do I say to the humble beginner : "Choose
> an instrument you like to play" or "If you want to play the 1st violin
> concerto by Henryk Wieniawski on your Anglo you will find a way" ? :-)
Well, I think you should say, "choose the instrument you like" and THEN
you should go on to discribe each instrument and it's relative stregnths
and weaknesses.
I wanted an instrument to accompany myself on, but I also already had a
fair idea of what I liked. An instrument that was primarily designed to
play melodies, and was very easy to sight read music with was most
ideally suited to my TASTES, if not to my primary purpose. It was also
ideally suited to my second and third priorities for a musical
instrument, learning to sing songs out of a songbook, and transcribing
my own songs.
> This is where my doubt about the usefulness of the Anglo for 'Irish music'
> came in....
So long as you include the analysis data along with your reccomendation.
:)
If I had been told, "for easy song accompanyment you should probably go
with the Anglo" and was given no other particulars (and I had been dumb
enough to actually BUY something based on so little information) then I
would probably have had to send my purchase back. I find the in/out
business so counter-intuitve that I cannot pick out tunes on a
harmonica, but the crazy English hand switching thingy bothers me not in
the least.
Different people's brains are put together differently, and the learning
curve on one instrument or another will be much steeper because of that.
If you think it takes five years to be happy playing, I fear you may
have been on the wrong instrument all this time. Maybe you should try
the Anglo, it might be easier to play the 1st Violin Concerto by Henryk
Wieniawski than you think. :)
Michelle Bottorff
--
Family webpage: http://home.sprintmail.com/~mbottorff/index.html
Lady Lavender's Filksongs: http://www.freemars.org/lavender/index.html
25r:2a:1p
Martin Doering
<mi...@pixar.com> wrote:
>I was paraphrasing somebody on this NG saying that most common instruments
>played in Ireland today is Electric guitar and drum kit. Just like about
>anywhere else.
Oh, the good old times. I would bet, that they use samplers, synthies
etc. these days. That's, why I play concertina.
As I was a young boy, I did like all this electronic stuff. I learned
to play home-organ and liked to hear "Kraftwerk" and "Depeche Mode".
Then I started playing boxes and everything changed...
Martin
Martin Doering
wrote:
>So
>Chris! Being and 'Anglo man...
Although beeing not as "polite" as Chris, I would say, that both
instrument types really have their advantages, or better say
specifics. So, for me as an anglo only player I just can speak of my
instrument.
There have been two concertina weekends in Bielefeld, where I have
been present and one in the southern part of germany. I don't like
these, just because of meeting nice people, but also because of seeing
all these fine instruments - different kinds (don't have to tell you
about Jim's "sharky"???) All these instruments are of different ages,
sometimes centuries, are made by different manufacturers and of
different materials. And sometimes they are constructed very
different. I was surprised hearing two newly made Suttners, which did
sound very different. The only real difference was the kind of wood he
did choose.
Last year it was the first time (for me), that two english players did
choose the irish folk part of the weekend. It was very interesting.
Tim Collins normally is teaching not only the tunes, but also very
anglo specific tricks and ornamentations. So, here is, why I tell all
these things: If it comes to ornamentation, both instruments did work
very different. For example, if you play rolls or such, often you do
it on the anglo in a way, that the buttons are in a special order. The
english concertina works different. Or simply the button-order is
different. Or think of the posting a few days ago about "hitting my
concertina". How could this be done on an english one?
On the other side it seems, that english players can play melody lines
very easily - more easy, as we anglo players did. Also chording seems
to be easier. Don't know what will happen, if they play two voices...
Maybe their brain does a special kind of connected thinking. And it
seems, that the english ones does have it easier with song
accompaniment. Maybe they don't have to think about direction so
often, as the anglo players do. All songs the anglo folks did sing
have been with very simple chording and/or harmonies, even they were
pretty funny sometimes.
Today I visited Christine Metz, a friend of mine. We did play some
tunes, and suddenly she said, that she does not like to change bellows
direction too often, even many irish folk teachers at the weekend said
so. Maybe here we have the first step of playing the "english style"
on the anglo. I just want to say - playing styles are quite different,
even on similar instruments.
Btw, why has this thread ever been called "english concertina
ideas"???
Martin
Goran Rahm
"Chris Timson" <> skrev i meddelandet
> Goran Rahm <goran...@telia.com> writes
> >This is where my doubt about the usefulness of the Anglo for 'Irish
music'
> >came in....
>
> Yeah, well, tell that to the people who play Irish traditional music
> very well on anglos. I'm sorry, old son, but I think you know less about
> the many ways that the anglo is played than perhaps you think you do.
> This is a pointless discussion, and I am going to leave it here.
>
> Chris
Well you are excused and we call it off - I had no expectations that we
could solve the question - although I'm a bit sorry if there are no trials
to sort things out a bit since with no doubt there will pretty soon be some
new optimist seeking advice in the NG who will get the (dubious)
recommendation "for Irish music you better choose the Anglo" or something
alike....
Goran
Goran Rahm
"Michelle & Boyd Bottorff" <mbot...@sprintmail.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:2001040709...@ip249.dayton11.oh.pub-ip.psi.net...
> Goran Rahm <goran...@telia.com> wrote:
>
>
> > Sensible enough of course - problem being that most individuals can be
> > expected to reach this level of wisdom after 10 years of practise :-)
>
> Really? That isn't how it's been for me.
>
> When my brothers and sister were learning recorder in school, I picked
> one up and liked it immediately. When my sister got a harmonica for her
> birthday, I fiddled around with it, and decided similarly quickly that
> it just didn't WORK for me. Pianos I've always been neutral about: I
> like getting music out of them, but get little joy out of the actual
> playing.
You are making the same mistake as many others when you refer to your own
experiences in these questions. You must try to see the matter in a more
neutral way if any kind of generalisation should be valid
>
> I was musically inclined before I ever touched a concertina, so maybe
> I'm a horribly bad example, but I don't see why you have to wait five to
> ten years to be "happy playing."
I said nothing of the kind - but - I have met/heard/read several players
who still after 5 years of practise are confused about "which system of
concertina would be best for this or that..."
> > This is where my doubt about the usefulness of the Anglo for 'Irish
music'
> > came in....
>
> So long as you include the analysis data along with your reccomendation.
> :)
Agree - so let me hear the analysis data motivating the mandatory advice
that for Irish music the Anglo system shoud be used.....
>
> If I had been told, "for easy song accompanyment you should probably go
> with the Anglo" and was given no other particulars (and I had been dumb
> enough to actually BUY something based on so little information) then I
> would probably have had to send my purchase back. I find the in/out
> business so counter-intuitve that I cannot pick out tunes on a
> harmonica, but the crazy English hand switching thingy bothers me not in
> the least.
You testify about your own individual experience which is relevant only for
yourself of course and it seems to be quite a bit emotionally based. If
serious 'advice' is given it is expected to be founded on other factors but
of course the emotional side could be included in the process.
The concertina keyboard systems are so different that you definitely may
make a simple grading of their purposefulness for *one* specific piece of
music, you could make (with reservations) a grading also for some differents
kinds or idioms of music, but I am VERY sceptic about for example the
sayings about Anglo being the *right* for 'Irish'. THAT is too general and
directly contradictory in many cases as I see it.
Relevant factors concerning the Anglo/English/Duet choice could be the
demands of
a) single note/harmony/polyphonic capacity
b) note range
c) key fexibility
d) chromatic and scale running, 'flow' of the keyboard
e) speed
f) legato
g) dynamics/energy/loudness
h) rhythmical expression
h) posture (sitting or standing)
i) relation to earlier musical/instrumental individual expericence
k) solo/group/band playing
l) musical idioms
m,n,.....
Goran Rahm
Monty [|||||||]
Goran Rahm <goran...@telia.com> wrote (snip a lot)>
> Agree - so let me hear the analysis data motivating the mandatory advice
> that for Irish music the Anglo system shoud be used.....
There may be no data supporting the "mandatory" choice of Anglo concertina
(vs English) for Irish music. However there are reasons for making that
choice. Here are two.
1. It is more "traditional" and you will suffer less "slagging"
harrassment -- usually good natured) at traditional sessions.
2. It may be easier to get instruction -- tutorials, workshops, lessons,
tips, etc.-- on Anglo technique in Irish music than for English concertina
technique.
So, if a prospective player has a strong desire to be conventional or to
"fit in" to the Irish scene and little need for adventure, controversy, or
individualism -- Anglo would seem to be the instrument to choose. Of course
this opinion is supported only by anecdotal data -- my own experience
playing (or trying to play) English concertina in Irish sessions over a
period of twenty years.
Monty
fred veenschoten
the Anglo players. i do agree that Anglo is a more traditional Irish
concertina without a doubt.
fred
"Monty [|||||||]" <montysp...@hevanet.com> wrote in message
news:td0utbt...@corp.supernews.com...
Goran Rahm
"Monty [|||||||]" <montysp...@hevanet.com> skrev i meddelandet
news:td0utbt...@corp.supernews.com...
>
>
> There may be no data supporting the "mandatory" choice of Anglo concertina
> (vs English) for Irish music. However there are reasons for making that
> choice. Here are two.
>
> 1. It is more "traditional" and you will suffer less "slagging"
> harrassment -- usually good natured) at traditional sessions.
>
> 2. It may be easier to get instruction -- tutorials, workshops, lessons,
> tips, etc.-- on Anglo technique in Irish music than for English concertina
> technique.
Well I do accept these as quite understandable individual reasons and well
worth considering for practical, mainly social, causes. At the same time I
see it as a bit sad that this also demonstrates some of the drawbacks of
'traditionalism' when it results in narrowness. Development and richness in
music mostly comes from meeting different views and methods.
For musical reasons - performance efficiency, instrumental technique etc it
might be different, it actually IS of course, and with greater openness I am
sure more stimulating progress can be expected. But some will of course fear
this as a menace to the 'tradition'
Goran Rahm
>
>
Martin Doering
wrote:
>..., but I am VERY sceptic about for example the
>sayings about Anglo being the *right* for 'Irish'. THAT is too general and
>directly contradictory in many cases as I see it.
Hmmm... I htink people can just tell their own experiences. To say
something in a more general way is - as I think - mostly useless,
because you will just get a general result. I think especially the
personal experience is the important thing, that can be discussed. A
person, who has to decide what to buy can then read all the postings
and make his own opinion from it. You will never be able to say the
things like:
>a) single note/harmony/polyphonic capacity
>b) note range
>c) key fexibility
>d) chromatic and scale running, 'flow' of the keyboard
>e) speed
>f) legato
>g) dynamics/energy/loudness
>h) rhythmical expression
>h) posture (sitting or standing)
>i) relation to earlier musical/instrumental individual expericence
>k) solo/group/band playing
>l) musical idioms
>m,n,.....
For shure, you can say things about this, but what should people do
with it in the end? Don't they buy instruments, because the friend has
one? Don't they buy it, because it looks sexy?
Also instruments from one category are very different. I now play a
Herrington anglo. And I never played such a responsive instrument
before. I played some other anglos - they had been quite different.
The same for the tone, ......... (....)
Yes, I did try to say a bit about, what I felt seeing both, the
english and the anglo players playing together at our weekend. But
taking such instrument in my hands and try it out will give me more
help, than such an explicite discussion, I think. But this is just my
opinion. Maybe, there are others (hope so... ;-)
Martin
Bill Keaveney
excels in ALL of Goran Rahm's listed specifications. Perhaps we should all
throw away our current instruments, and permit Goran to "select" that one
instrument to play. It seems that is the ONLY thing which will satisfy him?
Bill Keaveney
Ukiah CA
Concertina NUT
"Martin Doering" <mdoe...@mucl.de> wrote in message
news:3ad0d6c8...@news.cis.dfn.de...
Jim Lucas
>
> There may be no data supporting the "mandatory" choice of Anglo concertina
> (vs English) for Irish music. However there are reasons for making that
> choice. Here are two.
>
> 1. It is more "traditional" and you will suffer less "slagging"
> harrassment -- usually good natured) at traditional sessions.
I've never been slagged for playing the English, but if I *were* worried about
getting slagged, I'd be playing rock & roll guitar, not concertina or Irish
trad.
> 2. It may be easier to get instruction -- tutorials, workshops, lessons,
> tips, etc.-- on Anglo technique in Irish music than for English concertina
> technique.
Depends on where you are. There are actually lots of people playing Irish
traditional music on English concertina. It's just that most of them are not
in Ireland and most of them play other sorts of music, too. Irish players
occasionally do workshops in Germany, the UK, or the US, but at least in the
latter two countries most people will more easily find a teacher for the
English. They may not teach you how to sound like an anglo, but they'll damn
well teach you how to play *tunes*, and the Irish have always been accepting of
instruments and musicians that could do that. (Though I remember one uillean
piper who used to complain about the intrusion of "new-fangled" instruments
like the fiddle.) The banjo, mandolin, "bouzouki", and low-D whistle are
examples, but even backup guitar and bodhran were rare thirty years ago.
In fact, when I started playing concertina in New York, I knew of no Irish
musicians who played anglo, though a few who played English. Then Father
Charlie appeared on the scene and a few others started playing. A few of the
English players switched to the anglo. More than one of those now plays both.
But most of the Irish-American players started with the button box, and the
anglo is still a secondary instrument, which didn't really start getting
serious attention until Noel Hill started touring. Now some people are acting
like thousands of players from all over Ireland have a deep and unified anglo
concertina tradition that goes back to before the instrument was invented, when
in fact until recently it was just a small pocket in West Clare and a few
scattered individuals elsewhere. And today's better players are innovative
well beyond the tradition that was recorded up to 20 years ago.
> So, if a prospective player has a strong desire to be conventional or to
> "fit in" to the Irish scene and little need for adventure, controversy, or
> individualism -- Anglo would seem to be the instrument to choose. Of course
> this opinion is supported only by anecdotal data -- my own experience
> playing (or trying to play) English concertina in Irish sessions over a
> period of twenty years.
From what you say, my own experience has been quite different. I like the
anglo for Irish music, and I'm trying to learn it. It's already clear that
there's not just one style. But the English has been and will probably remain
my main instrument for all kinds of music, including Irish, and I expect no
grief over that. If Packy Russell, Father Charlie, John Whelan, Tim Collins
and others didn't object to my playing with them, I doubt that many others
will.
My advice to all is to play the *instrument* that suits *you*, and then learn
to play on it the *music* that suits you. Neither theories about what *should*
be *best* nor prejudices about what *should* be *traditional* can have half the
value of what *feels* right.
To Göran I'll say that anyone who "isn't sure" after 5 years, really should be
sure that it's *not* the right instrument for them. But that doesn't
necessarily mean that the other kind of concertina *would be* right. Maybe
they'll never be comfortable with *any* concertina, or even with any musical
instrument. Not everyone who wants to play music will necessarily learn to do
it well, any more than everyone who wants to play a sport will reach a
professional level of skill.
/Jim Lucas
Michelle & Boyd Bottorff
> > > Sensible enough of course - problem being that most individuals can be
> > > expected to reach this level of wisdom after 10 years of practise :-)
> >
> > Really? That isn't how it's been for me.
> >
> > When my brothers and sister were learning recorder in school, I picked
> > one up and liked it immediately. When my sister got a harmonica for her
> > birthday, I fiddled around with it, and decided similarly quickly that
> > it just didn't WORK for me. Pianos I've always been neutral about: I
> > like getting music out of them, but get little joy out of the actual
> > playing.
>
> You are making the same mistake as many others when you refer to your own
> experiences in these questions. You must try to see the matter in a more
> neutral way if any kind of generalisation should be valid
Nonesence.
My experience is as valid a datapoint in the general statistical aray as
is any other person's experience.
IMHO, what we are analyzing here IS personal experiences. There is no
point in leaving the musician's experience out of it, because
instruments don't play themselves. (Well, my keyboard actually does,
but non-computerized instruments don't.) What REALLY matters is how
well does a particular instrument work for a particular musician when
playing a particular kind of music.
My experience seems to match up with Chris and Anne's. That gives us
three datapoints that support a gut instinct as a good way to achieve
happiness with one's instrument. How many data points do you have that
show gut instinct leading to misery and frustration?
> > I was musically inclined before I ever touched a concertina, so maybe
> > I'm a horribly bad example, but I don't see why you have to wait five to
> > ten years to be "happy playing."
>
> I said nothing of the kind
Didn't you? Let's see...
Chris wrote:
>
> Well, IMHO the most important factor in any person's selection of a
> particular breed of concertina has always been (and I have stated this
> *many* times) choose the one you feel happiest playing
You wrote:
> Sensible enough of course - problem being that most individuals can be
> expected to reach this level of wisdom after 10 years of practise :-)
Hmm... Sounds to me like you said most people can't possibly know that
they are happiest playing instrument x or instrument y, until they have
played them both for 10 years.
Not *quite* what I said, but certainly "something of the kind."
If when you play the English you are happy, and when you play the Anglo
you are not, then you are happiest playing the English, (and vice
versa.) If you can be happy playing in less than five years, you will
have no difficulty in determining which makes you happiest in less than
five years, let alone ten.
I assume that you are indicating a belief that which one makes you
happiest might CHANGE sometime within those first ten years.
You may well be right, and I certainly couldn't provide and
contradictory evidence ...
BUT Chris and Anne can and HAVE provided contradictory evidence.
Can you provide supporting evidence?
> - but - I have met/heard/read several players
> who still after 5 years of practise are confused about "which system of
> concertina would be best for this or that..."
Let's see if I have got this straight.
They've practised playing a type of music, say Irish, for 5 years, on
both the English and the Anglo and they still don't know which one works
best for them? (The mind boggles.)
Or they have they practised Anglo and English for 5 years and they want
to know which works best for a kind of music they HAVEN'T played before?
(In which case I really don't see why they don't try playing that kind
of music on both instruments and see how it goes.)
Or they have practised playing [Irish] music on EITHER the Anglo OR the
English and they keep wondering if maybe they would be having an easier
time if they had picked up the other kind of instrument? (Now, THIS
seems a sensible sort of confusion, because if you only have the one
instrument, what have you got to compare with? But I still don't see
why "find out which one you are happiest playing" isn't still good
advice, it just maybe is advice you should have taken before you picked
up your first instrument.)
>
> > > This is where my doubt about the usefulness of the Anglo for 'Irish
> music'
> > > came in....
> >
> > So long as you include the analysis data along with your reccomendation.
> > :)
>
> Agree - so let me hear the analysis data motivating the mandatory advice
> that for Irish music the Anglo system shoud be used.....
Ah, well I never gave out the mandatory advice that for Irish music the
Anglo system should be used. Frankly I think your reccomendation, if
you give one, should be based on personal experience and observation,
(because if someone didn't want to know about your personal experience
and observation why in the world did they ask you?) and I haven't got
any. I don't play Irish music.
However other people who have had personal experience have sited
conformitity and ease of instruction as data points in favor, and that
seems logical to me.
> You testify about your own individual experience which is relevant only for
> yourself of course
Relevant to me and anyone else who shares my particular quirks.
> and it seems to be quite a bit emotionally based.
<Duh!>
> If
> serious 'advice' is given it is expected to be founded on other factors
Maybe you expect it.
I found Chris' advice, given to me howsoevermany years ago when I popped
up here wanting to learn about concertinas to be entirely satisfactory,
and he did exactly what he told you he does. He said "when choosing
which system to play, the most important thing to do is make sure you
choose the one YOU LIKE BEST", and he explained how although he and Anne
perform together, he can't stand the English system and she detests the
Anglo. He then went on to describe the Anglo and it's benifits and
drawbacks, and then he turned the message over to Anne, and she wrote
about the benifits and drawbacks of the English.
I think everyone who is interested in concertinas should have the
benifit of getting this advice. I plan to hand it out a lot myself a
lot.
> but
> of course the emotional side could be included in the process.
How kind of you to admit that one's emotions might be relevant.
Er, out of curiousity, what do you play music for? I thought emotions
(mine and my listeners) were the *whole point*.
> The concertina keyboard systems are so different that you definitely may
> make a simple grading of their purposefulness for *one* specific piece of
> music, you could make (with reservations) a grading also for some differents
> kinds or idioms of music, but I am VERY sceptic about for example the
> sayings about Anglo being the *right* for 'Irish'. THAT is too general and
> directly contradictory in many cases as I see it.
Well, I never said it was. I'm standing firmly on the ground that you
should pick the instrument you like, and play whatever you want with it.
Where did you get the idea I was supporting the position that Irish
players should play Anglos?
> Relevant factors concerning the Anglo/English/Duet choice could be the
> demands of
1) Which system do you enjoy playing more? When you pick up each one,
which feels more comfortable, more natural, and suits you better.
> a) single note/harmony/polyphonic capacity
All concertinas can play muliple notes, so I don't see how this is
relevant.
> b) note range
Each system has different models that offer differing note ranges, so I
don't see how this is relevant.
2)
> c) key fexibility
This one is relevant, but you can't consider it alone. If, like me, the
ability to play in 9 different keys is dependant on having sheet music
available in the relavant key, well, it isn't always going to do you
much good.
An anglo player who plays by ear may actually have a greater range of
keys available to him than a english player who can only play from sheet
music, and whose music is written in a low enough/high enough key that
he/she can only do the easy fifth transpositionin one direction.
3)
> d) chromatic and scale running, 'flow' of the keyboard
4)
> e) speed
Although my Bastari English probably isn't much faster than a better
quality Anglo.
5)
> f) legato
> g) dynamics/energy/loudness
My understanding is that all concertinas have basically the same
capabilities here. You pull harder, the sound gets louder.
6)
> h) rhythmical expression
?)
> h) posture (sitting or standing)
Does putting wrist straps on the English make them just as easy to play
standing up as Anglos?
> i) relation to earlier musical/instrumental individual expericence
I really don't see how you rate this one way down at i. (And make it a
combined factor too.) I really, really don't. Maybe I just don't have
the right mindset.
Maybe if I was so heavily into one type of music I would rate anything
even romotely to do with that kind of music above the actual playing
experience. But if I WAS that into the music type, what kind of music
has only one instrument that is "right" for it? So I would STILL have a
choice of instruments, and I would STILL think that the best way to
decide between them was to choose the one I enjoyed playing more.
> k) solo/group/band playing
So beyond the key range thingy, why does THIS make a difference? The
different systems sound pretty much the same.
7/8)
> l) musical idioms
9) availability of instruments/parts/repairs
10) availability of instructional materials
12) is everyone else doing it?
If we were expanding this beyond a choice between systems, I would add
p) Does it look right?
q) How easy is it to transport?
Michael Berenstein
> Goran Rahm <goran...@telia.com> wrote:
>
> > Sensible enough of course - problem being that most individuals can be
> > expected to reach this level of wisdom after 10 years of practise :-)
>
> Really? That isn't how it's been for me.
>
> When my brothers and sister were learning recorder in school, I picked
> one up and liked it immediately. When my sister got a harmonica for her
> birthday, I fiddled around with it, and decided similarly quickly that
> it just didn't WORK for me. Pianos I've always been neutral about: I
> like getting music out of them, but get little joy out of the actual
> playing.
There is this problem:
the instrument that is immideately liked by a beginner might be liked because of
"easiness" of getting out some tunes. It might be indication of instrument's
limitation and have no correlation to inherent predisposition. When I picked
Hohner Button Box I was joyous, I kept reciting: " I've found my instrumnt, I've
found my instrument".But later, when I struggled with it's key and note
limitations, I had my second thoughts and got myself a CBA, which at first I
despised. One reed concertina sound was no good for me, untill I got used to my
CBA's dry sound and got to try sweet sounding Lachenal. Small range of Anglo was
no good, but the easiness of automatic harmonies was (and is) very attractive.
Now that prices for good Anglos have set me back, I am thinking about English,
which I didn't like before because of it's melody only orientation. Now, that I
started learning about it, it looks like most professionals play complex
arrangements on it. Difficult to get to from the beginning, but the more
versatile it is later.
Even the Oompa Morric music is not so easy on the Anglo if the melody borrows
from the left side, or you want to do more complex and prettier chords, so you
have to plan your accompaniment in advance. But so you can do on the English I
learned.
Obviously it is incomprehencible for a beginner to forsee future potential of
the instrument and his/her own changes of musical tastes, which will undoubtedly
take place after starting lessons.
One case scenario where Goram is probably wrong is the most case scenario, when
people pick up the instrument with the intent of never getting good at it.
"playing for oneself" so it's called. Then to blend in you 'must' take up
instrument that's easiest to play your favourite music with some friends. Blue
Grass? - pick up banjo, Irish? - Anglo, Morris? - D/G button box, French
musette? - CBA C system and Rock-n-Roll - electric Bass guitar.
Michael Berenstein
> At the same time I
> see it as a bit sad that this also demonstrates some of the drawbacks of
> 'traditionalism' when it results in narrowness. But some will of course fear
> this as a menace to the 'tradition'
>
> Goran Rahm
> >
> >
Un/Fortunately we have to admit that tradition as we know it, doesn't make any
use of innovations.
It's not a drawback, it's a benefit. If innovation fails, you can always go
back to solid proven tradition, but it has to be preserved that way. Unchanged!
That's the word. Oh-oh-oh-mmm.