Language

[JimLucas]

There's been some serious nonsense in the discussion of classifying instruments as "concertinas" or "accordions". It mainly has to do with unstated and false or absurd assumptions, not about accordions or concertinas, but about language, communication, and even the nature of the world we live in. That's why I've started this new Topic.

 

Neither the world we live in nor the language we speak is uniquely divided into categories. Few classifications are complete. (Is a '57 Chevy a "concertina" or an "accordion"?) Few have unambiguous boundaries. (Where is the boundary between "blue" and "green"? Inserting a category of "blue-green" doesn't make the boundaries any less ambiguous.) Most are context-dependent. (The words "vest" and "suspenders" mean things quite different in England from what they mean in the US. And "short" for an ostrich is still far above "tall" for a chicken.) Many aren't even continuous. (The lowercase cursive letter "a" more closely resembles both cursive "o" and "u" than it does the uppercase printed "A". Yet for most purposes cursive "a" and printed "A" are considered identical, and distinct from any of the other letters of the alphabet.)

 

Does this mean that such classifications are useless, or that they necessarily generate only confusion or misunderstanding? Not at all. All classifications are in some sense "contrived", but that's what makes them useful. These distinctions -- all arbitrary in some way or other and inevitably both ambiguous and incomplete -- are what allow us to communicate... when we learn to share them. And they're neither unique nor uniquely imposed by nature. What makes them useful is that they're the things we care about. But... different people care about different things.

 

Successful communication is not a process of trying to impose and enforce arbitrary definitions and distinctions, but of learning to understand each others' use of language. Meanings often vary among different groups, but also frequently shift over time within a group. (A concertina example that Stephen Chambers mentioned is that 30 years ago the German-engineered bisonoric concertinas from continental Europe were not included in the term "anglo".) In the end, successful communication consists of individuals learning to understand each others' use of words, even if they use them differently. It may even be necessary to use the same terms differently when speaking with different people. This is not something to be dismissed or condemned; it's the essence of communication. It's merely at a more subtle level than speaking Finnish to a Finn and Turkish to a Turk.

 

Now how does all this relate to the discussion of "accordions" vs. "concertinas"?

 

First of all, it's clear that most instruments that can be classed as one or the other really do fit into only one category or the other. We here on Concertina.net won't all imagine precisely the same thing when the word "concertina" is used by itself, but there are very few individual instruments for which we would disagree on whether the word was appropriate. The fact that there are other people in the world -- most of them unfamiliar with concertinas -- who might disagree is irrelevant, unless and until we need to discuss concertinas with them. And the fact that there are instruments which seem to fit equally well -- or equally poorly -- into both categories is not only irrelevant unless we find ourselves discussing one, it's still not likely to cause problems, since few of us would insist on one name or the other; we would actually describe it as some sort cross between the two.

 

Is the concertina a "subtype" of the accordion? No. The two are definitely related, and both appear to have derived from a common ancestor, which its inventor called "accordion" (was that Demian's spelling? it doesn't really matter). But if ancestry alone makes the one a subtype of the other, then we should be calling them both "subtypes" of the reed organ, and all three "subtypes" of the sheng. By that same argument, the motorbus and railway coach should be considered "subtypes" of horse drawn coaches, and both lizards and humans "subtypes" of fish. And my brothers and I should be considered "subtypes" of our father.

 

Ah, but what about our mother? Like people, our musical instruments have more than one "ancestor". Though I couldn't identify the other predecessors to the concertina in Wheatstone's imagination, it's clear that they existed. Rich Morse had it right when he said, "CW became familiar with CD's work and designed and built a different instrument - the concertina." (My emphasis.) And we have clear evidence that Wheatstone's design evolved considerably from the instrument which is Stephen Chambers' avatar to the Æolas of the early 20th century, yet they all just as clearly share characteristics that make them "concertinas".

 

...a simple definition of an accordion is a musical instrument that uses metal reeds to produce notes and the reeds are fed air via bellows.  And a simple definition of a concertina is a musical instrument that uses metal reeds...

"Simple", as in "village idiot"? Those "definitions" are disastrously incomplete and practically useless. They are misleading premises specifically constructed to advance a spurious argument, not to promote communication and understanding. One might just as well say that concertinas and automobiles are indistinguishable, "because" both are human-engineered machines. Hey, they even both (well, some of each) have components made of metal, wood, leather, and plastic!

 

If we take a slightly narrower but still broad definition of what an accordion is, the only thing that distinguishes a concertina is the fact that it can play melody on both sides of the instrument and that the keys are pressed parallel to the bellows movement.

That "only" is false! Various other distinctions can be made.

.. Accordions generally have ends that are essentially elongated rectangles, while concertinas have generally symmetrical ends. (Even the "stretch" hexagon of my contrabass English is less elongated than most accordions, and the elongation is in the "opposite" direction, i.e., "horizontal" rather than "vertical".) There are other differences of geometrical proportionality which, while difficult to quantify, are just as difficult to mistake.

.. Concertinas are designed to be supported by the hands. The fact that many people do support the instruments on their legs or that support only by the hands has become impractical for the large Chemnitzers and bandoneons doesn't negate the fact that both the loop-and-plate of the English and the rail-and-strap of the anglo and duets were designed as means of support. And whether or not they're actually used for support, they are elements of design which are clearly visible and not shared by accordions. Even the left-hand strap of the accordion is quite different from that of the concertinas. Many (most?) accordions have no attachment for the right hand, and those I've seen which do, have only a small loop for the thumb, which is quite different from that on the English concertina.

.. History and derivation also count, though -- as noted above -- they're not the only relevant characteristics. Colin Dipper's "Franglo" is considered to be a concertina, even though its note layout -- including chord buttons in the left hand -- deliberately copies that of the French diatonic accordion, not just because its construction and appearance match those of a concertina, but also because it was built by one of history's premier concertina makers.

 

And yet, all of that is just detail. A concertina is not a concertina because it meets a single simple criterion or even a limited list of criteria, but because as a whole it is a concertina, because it is perceived by our brains as a "concertina". A 1000-page treatise on how to differentiate between concertinas and accordions couldn't even begin to cover the discriminatory power of the billions of neurons and trillions of synapses employed by the human brain in making such discriminations. We didn't learn the difference from a short entry in a dictionary, but from numerous examples and discussions. It would be unfair -- to both others and ourselves -- to expect the opposite from anyone else.

 

...different types of concertinas often have more in common with certain types of accordions than they do with other concertinas in regards to how they are played. An anglo has an awful lot in common with a diatonic button accordion and duets seem to have a lot in common with chromatic button accordions.

"More"? Again, I say false!. As I noted above, the distinctions -- and the similarities -- we note are simply those that we care about. What you do and don't care about, Bill, is not necessarily shared by myself or others.

 

But with this particular example you're really misrepresenting the discussion. The unisonoric/bisonoric characteristic doesn't determine whether and instrument is a concertina or an accordion any more than the colors red and green distinguish whether an object is a Corvette or a tomato. If you think it's important to distinguish between unisonoric and bisonoric free-reed instruments, fine, but don't try to hijack the words "concertina" and "accordion" to do it. They're already well established as a means of distinguishing other differences among free-reed instruments.

 

...perhaps we need to establish some terminologies and clearly recognise these instruments' qualities in order to differentiate them into classes (or types/branches/whatever) decending from their parent class (of "squeezeboxes"?)

To what purpose? This has all been discussed here before. Having one small group agree on terminology (a difficulty in itself), doesn't guarantee that the world will use it, or even know about it.

 

I believe we already have those terminologies. Many of us use them. Some people don't know about them. Some don't want to take the trouble to learn, or perhaps haven't thought to ask. Some prefer inventing their own terminologies and then trying to make the rest of us use theirs. Some -- particularly on eBay -- (mis)use the terminology for their own purposes... e.g., not to maximize accurate information, but to maximize price, regardless of value.

 

The real problem is not one of terminology, but -- I reiterate -- communication. We can even have several different terminologies, as long as we learn to each understand the others' usage. But any terminology is worthless if we don't understand its purpose. E.g., the term "vintage" may indicate to some the age or an instrument or even that it came from one of a certain group of manufacturers, but it is not a useful indication of current playability... or even of original quality, given the broad range of models produced by both Wheatstone and Lachenal.

 

Besides, most problems of communication -- in distinguishing different types of concertina -- aren't problems of terminology, but problems of detail. Rich highlighted this issue with his question:

Take a curvy, hollow wooden "box" with a neck and some strings and what have you? A guitar, mandolin, bauzouki, ukulele...?

A "25 words or less" definition may be enough to distinguish an anglo from an English, but not to distinguish a Lachenal "Excelsior" from all other models, nor to distinguish an Edgely from a Tedrow. And yet, to those who are familiar with the differences, those single words "Excelsior", "Edgely", and "Tedrow" convey masses of information, as do "Edeophone", "Æola", "rivetted action", etc.

[JimLucas]

(I've diverted this from another Topic, where it had wandered away from the listed subject. It's not as general as my first post in this Topic, but it is abou language, so here is where I'm continuing it.)

 

Badge-engineering and OEM? Concertina vs. accordion? The reality is that many words have different meanings depending on context, and that context can be a historical period, a geographical location, a cultural group (like us), subgroups (like us), or even a particular individual at a particular moment (possibly for humorous effect, but also possible in all seriousness). The same term can even have more than one history.

 

Badge engineering is something of a duragatory term. I am not sure exactly when the term was coined but it was applied extensively to the auto industry in the 1980s and early 90s when the Big three would take essentially identical cars, stick a new grill, perhaps a new interior in them and a new badge and sell them as higher level models.

Hmm. Back when I was at university, there was a fellow who had a Mercedes emblem on his VW bug.

 

My usage of badge engineering, which is common in the computing world, excludes OEM because it refers to one company making complete kit for another, who then sell it under their own name.

As I've heard it, OEM stands for "Original equipment manufacturer."

"Original equipment manufacturer" is also my understanding of the meaning in the computer realm, where it is in one sense the opposite of badge engineering. An OEM, in this sense, is a manufacturer granted a special license to incorporate another's product into their own product. The prototypical example is Microsoft licensing its software to manufacturers of hardware, such as Dell and Gateway. In such a case, Dell and Gateway are the OEM's, who can brag that they incorporate Microsoft products into their own. They are usually given a license to make their own copies of the software CD's and possibly even to publish their own documentation, rather than having Microsoft produce and ship each individual copy. What they don't do is use their name in place of Microsoft's. That would be badge engineering, in the sense that it's applied to Stagi and Lachenal.

 

But according to what Jeff H. said about the auto industry, the term apparently means something different there. I think it's quite possible that the computer industry didn't borrow the term from the auto manufacturers, but simply invented it independently, unaware that it already had a different meaning in a different context.

 

Something 101: Another example of context dependence. It's a term well known to most Americans as meaning an introductory course of instruction, but apparently not used on the other side of The Big Pond. (Ah, there's another.) And meaning other things in other contexts, as the motorcycle example shows. "Plain vanilla" is another term like that. It means the most common variant, which for ice cream is... plain vanilla.

[JimLucas]

And now an attempt to divert the debate about terminology -- it's gone way beyond "'accordion' Reeds Vs. 'concertina' Reeds" -- into this "Language" Topic.

 

I honestly think it is no longer completely accurate to consider some of them to be merely mid-range instruments.

Depends on what you mean by "mid-range". I never understood it to mean anything other than "mid-range" in price, and I believe it was originally coined specifically in response to individuals looking for decent instruments priced between the "Stagi" and the quality Wheatstones, Lachenals, Dippers, etc. I do realize that some people now also think (assume?) that they are of intermediate quality, and I think this has served to confuse the issue.

 

But some of the other suggestions lead me to conclude that people have become so concerned with establishing a repertoire of classifications that they've lost sight of what these classifications might represent. The term "Stagi" is now generally used here to mean instruments of a particular Bastari/Stagi engineering design, but not the cheaper models which are, in fact, also Stagis. "Hybrid", on the other hand? Hybrid between what and what? They seem to be generally close to, though not identical with, the "traditional" Wheatstone/Lachenal design, their main distinguishing feature being that they use "accordion"-style reeds. So are some people thinking of them as a hybrid between concertinas and accordions? I hope not, since they're really more of a hybrid between the "English"-engineered concertinas and the "German"-engineered one -- with a few original ideas thrown in, -- but with both parents definitely "concertinas". After all, the German-engineered concertinas also use "accordion"-style reeds, which means that it's misleading -- though admittedly convenient -- to label them with the word "accordion". And they don't seem to have borrowed anything from accordion design that isn't also found in many "German-engineered" concertinas.

 

Meanwhile, lumping all the "hybrids" together ignores all the design differences among them, of which modification to and mounting of the reeds are only two. Right now somebody is asking about an appropriate price for a used Norman, and someone else has responded with an example of a price on a used Morse. Now maybe they would be close, but it's not obvious to me that they should be. Are they really any more similar to each other than either is to a basic Lachenal? Meanwhile, in spite of Colin Dipper's own innovations, I believe the differences between a Dipper and a custom Wheatstone are less than those between a Morse and a Norman or a Tedrow, so is there really any point in trying to establish a terminology -- aside from the names themselves -- to separate Dippers and Wheatstones?

 

And I must question the motives of anyone who demands a terminology that lumps together instruments that they haven't personally experienced to be comparable. Price is indeed something that can be judged from afar, and "mid-range" as a price indicator is useful. "Accordion-reeded", while perhaps accurate, is IMO less informative than I think most people assume. And I'm quite dubious about most of the other proposals, which I see as attempts to use words that are simple and vague to (mis)represent significant diversity as uniformity. Maybe simplicity is comforting? But is it really comforting if it's false simplicity?

[Richard Morse]

First of all, it's clear that most instruments that can be classed as one or the other really do fit into only one category or the other. We here on Concertina.net won't all imagine precisely the same thing when the word "concertina" is used by itself, but there are very few individual instruments for which we would disagree on whether the word was appropriate. The fact that there are other people in the world -- most of them unfamiliar with concertinas -- who might disagree is irrelevant, unless and until we need to discuss concertinas with them. And the fact that there are instruments which seem to fit equally well -- or equally poorly -- into both categories is not only irrelevant unless we find ourselves discussing one, it's still not likely to cause problems....

My observation is that many problems have arisen, and will continue to do so, due to people not knowing the difference between concertinas and accordions.

 

For instance, the import duty is different if for Stagis we bring in from Italy if they are considered to be accordions or concertinas (usually at the uninformed whim of the import agent). Antique dealers will unreasonably mark up any squeezebox they think to be a concertina (which usually turns out to be a 1-row button accordion). eBay sellers generally attach more value to anything considered to be a "concertina"....

 

Sometimes when dealing with an ill-informed person we can enlighten them, but often we are dealing with a person that has "been around enough" that they are adamant that a dead Scholer is worth $1500, or that the word "concertina" applies to any small accordion - and which regardless of quality - is a toy and not a real instrument at all. Two very opposing viewpoints to be sure, but ones which have come up numerous times.

 

Just my view of how likely the classifications of our boxes can cause problems.

 

...perhaps we need to establish some terminologies and clearly recognize these instruments' qualities in order to differentiate them into classes (or types/branches/whatever) descending from their parent class (of "squeezeboxes"?)

To what purpose? This has all been discussed here before. Having one small group agree on terminology (a difficulty in itself), doesn't guarantee that the world will use it, or even know about it.

That's true, but I think it would a good thing for a group of knowledgeable people to make the distinction, not only for our members and viewers (especially the newcomers), but also that there may be the chance that we can influence the outer world.

 

For example Helmi Harrington, an accordionist, WAS to be responsible for the definition of both accordions and concertinas in the new revised Groves Dictionary of Music (considered by many to be THE reference of all things musical). Her original definition of concertinas is that they are small accordions.

 

After much flak on the r.m.m.squeezebox NG and several pointed letters to the editors of the Groves, Allan Altas was selected to provide the definition instead. Helmi still provided the definition of accordions (which is more of a description), and in it refers to concertinas as being a type of accordion despite their distinquishment with the explanation that "no one knows any better" (my paraphrasing of her 4 excuse).

 

This is an example of one person's view influencing the world....

 

I believe we already have those terminologies. Many of us use them. Some people don't know about them.

It would be good to trot these terminologies out again for those not familiar with them.... For folks that find us here - good! Unfortunately many others (like the customs officials) go to the "official" diffinitor: Groves, which says that all concertinas are accordions - so Stagis are accordions for which the duty is 5% more!

[Nanette Hooker]

I think Chris Timson's Concertina FAQ is an excellent resource. In particular, section 2 "History" and section 2 "Types of concertinas" give good descriptions of concertinas, and new members requiring clarification on "what is" a concertina could be directed here.

 

The Oxford Companion to Music has an excellent article on concertinas.

 

From Grove Music Online

Concertina

(Fr. concertina; Ger. Konzertina; It. piccola fisarmonica) [squeezebox].

A bellows-blown, hexagonal- or octagonal-shaped, Free reed instrument, with buttons parallel to the bellows on both sides (thus different in appearance from the accordion, which is rectangular and has its buttons or keys perpendicular to the bellows. For an illustration of the free reed of a concertina see Reed, fig.3c). Three different types cut across two national traditions.

 

1. English concertina.

2. Anglo concertina.

3. Duet concertina.

 

ALLAN W. ATLAS

Edited January 1, 2005 by Poaceae

[Henk van Aalten]

There's been some serious nonsense

Talking about language Jim: "serious nonsense" sounds to me like a "bisonoric EC"

[JimLucas]

My observation is that many problems have arisen, and will continue to do so, due to people not knowing the difference between concertinas and accordions.

People here on Concertina.net? Problems here on Concertina.net? Problems that a discussion on Concertina.net of terminology is likely to solve?

 

Actually, Rich, I think your examples emphasize my own contention that formalizing terminology here is unlikely to have any effect on the classifications used by eBay sellers, customs officials, dictionary/encyclopedia compilers, or others not members of Concertina.net. Each of those groups uses the terminology for a different purpose, and none of those purposes are the same as ours. In fact, I 'm certain that we don't all agree as to what function the terminology should serve, and I suspect that at least some of those lobbying for explicit terminology would be hard put to describe the results they expect such definitions to produce.

 

Sometimes when dealing with an ill-informed person we can enlighten them, but often we are dealing with a person that has "been around enough" that they are adamant that a dead Scholer is worth $1500, or that the word "concertina" applies to any small accordion - and which regardless of quality -  is a toy and not a real instrument at all. Two very opposing viewpoints to be sure, but ones which have come up numerous times.

 

Just my view of how likely the classifications of our boxes can cause problems.

I agree completely, but I reiterate that neither the problem nor the solution is to be found here on Concertina.net.

 

Having one small group agree on terminology (a difficulty in itself), doesn't guarantee that the world will use it, or even know about it.

That's true, but I think it would a good thing for a group of knowledgeable people to make the distinction,...

You're suggesting that there's no such resource currently available on the internet? Interesting, but maybe true. At The Button Box you list what you sell, but I didn't find any description of the characteristics and differences of the different types. Chris Timson's Concertina FAQ distinguishes various concertinas from each other, but appears to ignore accordions as such (though the terms "accordion makers" and "accordion reeds" each appear more than once). The ICA web site apparently just copies Chris T.'s FAQ.

 

OK. Maybe there is a need. Maybe somebody here will do something about it. (Watch this space. )

 

...there may be the chance that we can influence the outer world.

If "we" can, I'm convinced it will be through the efforts of individuals, not Concertina.net as an entity. If you -- or we -- want to influence this "outer world", we need to do so by exerting influence outside Concertina.net. You already mentioned Allan Atlas' effort with Groves Dictionary... and what I will describe as the dominance games/power politics played by an accordion-promoting lobby.

 

I return to my own subjects of "language" and "communication". Even "language" can consist of more than just words. Actions are a form of "speech". Apparently some members of rec.music.makers.squeezebox managed to exert some influence on Groves, though clearly not enough... from our point view. More is needed.

 

Has The Button Box tried challenging the Customs-Service "accordion" classification of Stagis in court (or some other appeals process)? Can you cite examples where concertinas have not been classed as "accordions"? E.g., has Sotheby's ever imported a "vintage"-but-not-legally-"antique" concertina and succeeded in having it classified as not-an-"accordion"? At the very least, you might be able to get their expert (you know Fred, yes?) to testify as an expert witness on your behalf. Another possibility is lobbying Congress for an explicit differentiation between accordions and concertinas in the customs tariffs. You could get American concertina makers (yourself and Bob T., and I think a couple more very-small-output makers have been reported here on C.net) to write their Congressmen that they don't want the protectionism of the higher "accordion" tariff.

 

These are the things that might have some chance of communicating to "the outer world" that it's important for them to adopt the distinctions that we consider important. And their effectiveness -- or lack thereof -- could be completely independent of any terminology developed in a C.net Forum. (After all, that's currently the case.)

 

I believe we already have those terminologies.

It would be good to trot these terminologies out again for those not familiar with them....

Fair enough.

... Coming, soon.

[Nanette Hooker]

There's been some serious nonsense in the discussion of classifying instruments as "concertinas" or "accordions".  It mainly has to do with unstated and false or absurd assumptions, not about accordions or concertinas, but about language, communication, and even the nature of the world we live in.  That's why I've started this new Topic.

My observation is that many problems have arisen, and will continue to do so, due to people not knowing the difference between concertinas and accordions.

People here on Concertina.net? Problems here on Concertina.net? Problems that a discussion on Concertina.net of terminology is likely to solve?

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with each other?

[Richard Morse]

My observation is that many problems have arisen, and will continue to do so, due to people not knowing the difference between concertinas and accordions.

People here on Concertina.net? Problems here on Concertina.net? Problems that a discussion on Concertina.net of terminology is likely to solve?

Are you agreeing or disagreeing with each other?

I'm pretty sure that Jim and I agree. His query was to get me to be more specific. The problems I was referring to occur outside of Concertina.net. Most folk here are pretty well informed.

 

As for "Problems that a discussion on Concertina.net of terminology is likely to solve", I think that our terminology clarity will (and has) affect(ed) people beyond our community which makes for good communication and less problems. Maybe only in smaller and more personal discussions and interactions, but the possibility of making a serious contribution in the larger world is quite real.

[Nanette Hooker]

By the way, the Klingon for concertina is apparently 'may'ron' (and they use the same word for accordion).

I always suspected that Klingons were barbaric. The fact that they don't distinguish between concertinas and accordions proves it beyond all reasonable doubt!

 

From another another topic

[JimLucas]

This is a blatant attempt to hijack a divergent subtopic into the Topic where it "belongs", i.e., Language.

One wonders what they call [a "Vienna accordion"] in Vienna (or what they call wieners).

The "Wiener" is called a "Frankfurter" there, and the Danish is sometimes called a "Schnecke (snail)," if it's the pastry that I think it is.

It is, and it's not. I think the one with the cheese or jelly would have a different name in Denmark (a name I forget, since it seems less common here than in New York), while the one we call "snail" ("snegl") sounds like what the Viennese also call "snail". And the Danish varieties of "wienerbrød" seem literally endless.

 

Meanwhile, the "wieners" and "frankfurters" of my youth were two slightly different sausages -- presumably recipes that originated respectively in Vienna and Frankfort, -- similar in appearance, and both commonly called "hot dogs". Now, though, I think all three names have become synonymous in America, and are applied to any similar sausage... which is usually placed in a "hot dog bun" for eating. Danes have a special version they call the "French hot dog", in which the bun isn't slit, but has a hollow center, into which the "dog" is inserted.

[Chris Timson]

Chris Timson's Concertina FAQ distinguishes various concertinas from each other, but appears to ignore accordions as such (though the terms "accordion makers" and "accordion reeds" each appear more than once).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A fair point, and one I shall have to consider. At the time I first prepared the FAQ for rec.music.makers.squeezebox (actually it was for its precursor, the accordion mailing list) there was also an Accordion FAQ with a Button Box FAQ in preparation. All of the authors were aware of each other and our respective magnum opuses, which obviously had an impact on how we approached the relationships between the categories. Now, of course the documents have gone their own way and assumptions cannot be made in this way. I need to put at least something in the Concertina FAQ to, for instance, give context to mention of different types of reeds.

 

Chris

[bill_mchale]

First of all let me apologize for responding to this post more than a week after it was made... I honestly missed the topic until now. I am way to contrarian to let a post like this go without comment.

 

There's been some serious nonsense in the discussion of classifying instruments as "concertinas" or "accordions". It mainly has to do with unstated and false or absurd assumptions, not about accordions or concertinas, but about language, communication, and even the nature of the world we live in. That's why I've started this new Topic.

 

Neither the world we live in nor the language we speak is uniquely divided into categories. Few classifications are complete. (Is a '57 Chevy a "concertina" or an "accordion"?) Few have unambiguous boundaries. (Where is the boundary between "blue" and "green"? Inserting a category of "blue-green" doesn't make the boundaries any less ambiguous.) Most are context-dependent. (The words "vest" and "suspenders" mean things quite different in England from what they mean in the US. And "short" for an ostrich is still far above "tall" for a chicken.) Many aren't even continuous. (The lowercase cursive letter "a" more closely resembles both cursive "o" and "u" than it does the uppercase printed "A". Yet for most purposes cursive "a" and printed "A" are considered identical, and distinct from any of the other letters of the alphabet.)

 

It is of course granted that there is fluidity in the meaning of terms based on context. That being said, under no reasonable definition could a '57 Chevy be considered either a concertina or accordion since it lacks the most essential characteristic of both. Obviously also the terms short and tall are terms of comparison so their validity will depend strictly on the comparison being made.

 

Does this mean that such classifications are useless, or that they necessarily generate only confusion or misunderstanding? Not at all. All classifications are in some sense "contrived", but that's what makes them useful. These distinctions -- all arbitrary in some way or other and inevitably both ambiguous and incomplete -- are what allow us to communicate... when we learn to share them. And they're neither unique nor uniquely imposed by nature. What makes them useful is that they're the things we care about. But... different people care about different things.

 

Yes and no. While certainly most terms tend to be defined by the groups who have the greatest vested interest in the items being defined; that being said, usually a definition needs to be reasonably clear, both within the goup and without. Not everyone needs to understand what constitutes short for an ostrich but it should be something that can be explained to them when the situation arises.

 

 

Successful communication is not a process of trying to impose and enforce arbitrary definitions and distinctions, but of learning to understand each others' use of language. Meanings often vary among different groups, but also frequently shift over time within a group. (A concertina example that Stephen Chambers mentioned is that 30 years ago the German-engineered bisonoric concertinas from continental Europe were not included in the term "anglo".) In the end, successful communication consists of individuals learning to understand each others' use of words, even if they use them differently. It may even be necessary to use the same terms differently when speaking with different people. This is not something to be dismissed or condemned; it's the essence of communication. It's merely at a more subtle level than speaking Finnish to a Finn and Turkish to a Turk.

 

I have to disagree... While I would agree that there are no language police (well except in France where they do enforce certain usages), in general a consensus is reached by a majority and then that consensus is more or less enforced on the minority by exclusion. Now granted those majorities and minorities might be regional, or exist within a group, but inside that region or group they are all but iron-clad. If I was to move to the American Mid-west I would have to quickly start using the term pop if I wanted to order what every right thinking East Coaster knows is a soda (For those of you who use neither term and might be unfamiliar.. it refers to carbonated beverages like coca-cola)..

 

Now how does all this relate to the discussion of "accordions" vs. "concertinas"?

 

First of all, it's clear that most instruments that can be classed as one or the other really do fit into only one category or the other. We here on Concertina.net won't all imagine precisely the same thing when the word "concertina" is used by itself, but there are very few individual instruments for which we would disagree on whether the word was appropriate. The fact that there are other people in the world -- most of them unfamiliar with concertinas -- who might disagree is irrelevant, unless and until we need to discuss concertinas with them. And the fact that there are instruments which seem to fit equally well -- or equally poorly -- into both categories is not only irrelevant unless we find ourselves discussing one, it's still not likely to cause problems, since few of us would insist on one name or the other; we would actually describe it as some sort cross between the two.

 

Everything depends on how we define the categories. This whole argument got started because essentially Richard Morse (If I remember correctly) pointed out that the Grove Music Dictionary characterized concertinas as a subtype of accordion. If we apply some basic set theory: Let all concertinas belong to set C and all accordions to set A. The question here is whether concertinas properly speaking a subset of A a distinct set from A or if there is an overlap of the two sets. While theoretically it is possible that we could say A was a subset of C; I think we can disregard that option because few have ever described an accordion as a type of concertina. I think it is safe to say that you, Jim, would say that C and A are distinct categories. I am not sure I would be willing to go so far as to say that C is a subset of A but I certainly would say that there is an overlap of the two sets.

 

Is the concertina a "subtype" of the accordion? No. The two are definitely related, and both appear to have derived from a common ancestor, which its inventor called "accordion" (was that Demian's spelling? it doesn't really matter). But if ancestry alone makes the one a subtype of the other, then we should be calling them both "subtypes" of the reed organ, and all three "subtypes" of the sheng. By that same argument, the motorbus and railway coach should be considered "subtypes" of horse drawn coaches, and both lizards and humans "subtypes" of fish. And my brothers and I should be considered "subtypes" of our father.

 

And why is the concertina not a subtype of the accordion? I am sorry Jim, but we can't simply rely on the "I know a concertina when I see it" argument. Ancestory plays a definite role in the definition of an instrument but it is not the sole factor. The accordion and the concertina both are very different than the reed organ or the sheng. In contrast the distinct differences between concertinas and accordions are relatively small. Your analogies fail for a variety of reasons. You and your brothers are not subtypes of your father because your father is not a type; motorbus and railway coaches are not subtypes of horse drawn coaches because they lack a critical element of the horsedrawn coach (the horse) but they all are subtypes of coach. Finally of course humans and lizards are not subytpes of fish because they also lack several key characteristics of a fish (don't breath water, lack of fins and gills, etc).

 

Ah, but what about our mother? Like people, our musical instruments have more than one "ancestor". Though I couldn't identify the other predecessors to the concertina in Wheatstone's imagination, it's clear that they existed. Rich Morse had it right when he said, "CW became familiar with CD's work and designed and built a different instrument - the concertina." (My emphasis.) And we have clear evidence that Wheatstone's design evolved considerably from the instrument which is Stephen Chambers' avatar to the Æolas of the early 20th century, yet they all just as clearly share characteristics that make them "concertinas".

 

The other predecessors are unimportent; heck even the fact that there was an instrument called the accordion prior to the concertina is kind of unimportant. There is such a thing as convergent evolution in mechanical designs. Several different people or groups invented the airplane, the TV, the computer and other inventions more or less independently. We generally give credit to the first ones, but regardless we can recognize two mechanisms of a single type when we need to.

 

...a simple definition of an accordion is a musical instrument that uses metal reeds to produce notes and the reeds are fed air via bellows.  And a simple definition of a concertina is a musical instrument that uses metal reeds...

"Simple", as in "village idiot"? Those "definitions" are disastrously incomplete and practically useless. They are misleading premises specifically constructed to advance a spurious argument, not to promote communication and understanding. One might just as well say that concertinas and automobiles are indistinguishable, "because" both are human-engineered machines. Hey, they even both (well, some of each) have components made of metal, wood, leather, and plastic!

 

With all respect Jim, this attack is not worthy of you. The discussion we were having in the Piano Accordion thread was spirited but cordial. There is room for plenty of disagreement here, but being an "Ineluctable Opinionmaker" does not give you the right to claim that someone is deliberately advancing surpirous arguments. Your analogy regarding concertinas and automobiles are indestinguishable is to be blunt silly. Other than perhaps the materials used in construction and being machines the two share little in common. Concertinas are, if not in the same type of instrument as accordions, an extremely closely related class of instruments.

 

If we take a slightly narrower but still broad definition of what an accordion is, the only thing that distinguishes a concertina is the fact that it can play melody on both sides of the instrument and that the keys are pressed parallel to the bellows movement.

That "only" is false! Various other distinctions can be made.

.. Accordions generally have ends that are essentially elongated rectangles, while concertinas have generally symmetrical ends. (Even the "stretch" hexagon of my contrabass English is less elongated than most accordions, and the elongation is in the "opposite" direction, i.e., "horizontal" rather than "vertical".) There are other differences of geometrical proportionality which, while difficult to quantify, are just as difficult to mistake.

 

Sorry Jim, I agree that there are certain things that are "generally" true of concertinas but that being said something being generally true of a type is not necessarily an essential characteristic (i.e. something that can be used to unambiguously include it in a class). One could make an accordion or a a concertina that was shaped like the other; there wouldn't be much point, but one could and the result would still be an accordion or a concertina. A concertina that is an elongated vertical rectangle is still a concertina; an accordion shaped into an equilateral polygon is still an accordion.

 

.. Concertinas are designed to be supported by the hands. The fact that many people do support the instruments on their legs or that support only by the hands has become impractical for the large Chemnitzers and bandoneons doesn't negate the fact that both the loop-and-plate of the English and the rail-and-strap of the anglo and duets were designed as means of support. And whether or not they're actually used for support, they are elements of design which are clearly visible and not shared by accordions. Even the left-hand strap of the accordion is quite different from that of the concertinas. Many (most?) accordions have no attachment for the right hand, and those I've seen which do, have only a small loop for the thumb, which is quite different from that on the English concertina.

 

If Cheminitzers and Bandoneons can't be supported by the hands then either they are not concertinas or again you can't claim that being supported by the hands is an essential characteristic of a concertina. Further since the way that concertinas are supported by the hand varies so widely between the English and the Anglo (and I believe mose duets are supported in a manner similar to Anglos), I don' t think we can exclude the Melodeon on the basis of its thumb strap. Sure most concertinas are designed to be supported by the hands and most accordions by a shoulder strap (or straps) but not all are.

 

.. History and derivation also count, though -- as noted above -- they're not the only relevant characteristics. Colin Dipper's "Franglo" is considered to be a concertina, even though its note layout -- including chord buttons in the left hand -- deliberately copies that of the French diatonic accordion, not just because its construction and appearance match those of a concertina, but also because it was built by one of history's premier concertina makers.

 

I am sorry I have to reject this last argument as completely irrelevant. That Colin Dipper made the instrument is completely irrelevant to whether the Franglo or any other instrument is a concertina. I am certain you would not be making the same argument if Colin instead had decided to experiment with a new type of whistle or a stringed instrument. The franglo must stand the test as a concertina independent of wether or not Colin Dipper made it.

 

And yet, all of that is just detail. A concertina is not a concertina because it meets a single simple criterion or even a limited list of criteria, but because as a whole it is a concertina, because it is perceived by our brains as a "concertina". A 1000-page treatise on how to differentiate between concertinas and accordions couldn't even begin to cover the discriminatory power of the billions of neurons and trillions of synapses employed by the human brain in making such discriminations. We didn't learn the difference from a short entry in a dictionary, but from numerous examples and discussions. It would be unfair -- to both others and ourselves -- to expect the opposite from anyone else.

 

Except Jim, this argumrnt fails the test in that there is a fundamental disagreement about wether or not concertinas are a subtype of accordion or not. You and many other here see the concertina as distinct, but many outside the limited world of concertina.net see concertinas as just a small type of accordion. Even people who are very familiar with both concertinas and accordions fail to see a large enough gulf between the two groups of instruments to really justify seperating them into two distinct classes.

 

...different types of concertinas often have more in common with certain types of accordions than they do with other concertinas in regards to how they are played. An anglo has an awful lot in common with a diatonic button accordion and duets seem to have a lot in common with chromatic button accordions.

"More"? Again, I say false!. As I noted above, the distinctions -- and the similarities -- we note are simply those that we care about. What you do and don't care about, Bill, is not necessarily shared by myself or others.

 

Its not just an issue of what I do and don't care or about or that you do and don't care about. The point I was making here was that any any definition of concertina and any definition of accordion that is necessarily broad enough to include all the instruments that are recognized as being accordions or concertinas necessarily leaves the distinction between the two so narrow as to result in larger differences between instruments within the class than between the classes themselves.

 

But with this particular example you're really misrepresenting the discussion. The unisonoric/bisonoric characteristic doesn't determine whether and instrument is a concertina or an accordion any more than the colors red and green distinguish whether an object is a Corvette or a tomato. If you think it's important to distinguish between unisonoric and bisonoric free-reed instruments, fine, but don't try to hijack the words "concertina" and "accordion" to do it. They're already well established as a means of distinguishing other differences among free-reed instruments.

 

I don't think the unisonoric/bisonoric characteristic determines whether an instrument is a concertina or an accordion. My point was that in many practical ways individual instruments in one class share an awful lot in common with instruments in the other class; in many practical respects more than they might share with other instruments that are supposed to be in the same class. Irish Music is where most of my experience lies, and there it is far more common to see button accordion players who also play anglo concertinas than it is to see button accordion players who also play piano accordions or English Concertinas.

 

Besides, most problems of communication -- in distinguishing different types of concertina -- aren't problems of terminology, but problems of detail. Rich highlighted this issue with his question:

Take a curvy, hollow wooden "box" with a neck and some strings and what have you? A guitar, mandolin, bauzouki, ukulele...?

A "25 words or less" definition may be enough to distinguish an anglo from an English, but not to distinguish a Lachenal "Excelsior" from all other models, nor to distinguish an Edgely from a Tedrow. And yet, to those who are familiar with the differences, those single words "Excelsior", "Edgely", and "Tedrow" convey masses of information, as do "Edeophone", "Æola", "rivetted action", etc.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We can distinguish the Egley's, Tedrows and Lachenal very easily, they are the manufacturers of the instruments.

 

The argument about whether or not concertinas are a distinct class of instrument ultimately comes down to this; is there any definition of concertina that is reasonably specific while at the same time general enough to include all the instruments we recognize as concertinas that makes the difference between concertinas and accordions distinct enough to still claim honestly that a concertina is not simply a type of accordion?

 

Right now it comes to this, as far as I can see, there is only one characteristic that univerally seperates all concertinas from all accordions and that is the orientation of the buttons on the right hand side. I am happy to consider a concertina either in the accordion class of instruments or in a class all its own, but about as much seperates accordions from concertinas as geographically seperates the continents of Europe an Asia. While devotees might be able to tell you where one ends and the other begins, to most people there simply is not that much difference.

 

--

Bill

Edited January 10, 2005 by bill_mchale

[Stephen Chambers]

Edited to remove a draft of my post (below) which somehow "posted itself" !

Edited January 11, 2005 by Stephen Chambers

[Stephen Chambers]

...  a common ancestor, which its inventor called "accordion" (was that Demian's spelling?  it doesn't really matter).

Matter or not, yes that was Demian's spelling. As I have mentioned in another thread, "Germanic" spellings with k's and z's (like "akkordeon" and "konzertina") were only introduced later in the 19th century by the Nationalist movement, and even then the older spellings contiued in use.

 

Ah, but what about our mother?  Like people, our musical instruments have more than one "ancestor".  Though I couldn't identify the other predecessors to the concertina in Wheatstone's imagination, it's clear that they existed.

If you want to describe the accordion as the "father" of the concertina, then its "mother" was the symphnion (and the aeolina is a direct ancestor of both). Indeed, the documented first name of Wheatstone's concertina was the "symphonion with bellows", but that first instrument (my avatar) borrowed a lot of design features from Demian's accordions, the most lasting one being the concept of using a wooden reed pan with dovetailed, slotted-in reeds.

 

Early accordion reed pan

 

If we take a slightly narrower but still broad definition of what an accordion is, the only thing that distinguishes a concertina is the fact that it can play melody on both sides of the instrument and that the keys are pressed parallel to the bellows movement.

That "only" is false! Various other distinctions can be made.

Not if you are trying to find a definition that embraces all of the genus "concertina", indeed it is even too narrow a definition to include such variants as the Bandonika and the "Franglo",

 

Bandonika, treble end

 

Bandonika, bass end

 

never mind "hybrid" (that word again !) Bandonions which have their keyboards on the front instead of on the ends (designed by a Tango player, built by a Bandonion maker, to function as a Bandonion),

 

Hybrid Bandonion (from the website of Harry Geuns)

 

so are they not concertinas ?

 

.. Concertinas are designed to be supported by the hands.

As were 19th century accordions, there are still people who regard it as "cheating" to play a melodeon with a shoulder strap !

 

Accordionist c.1860

 

Edited to play with new picture software

Edited May 23, 2005 by Stephen Chambers

[stuart estell]

I realise this will sound like nonsense to non-IT people, but it strikes me that taking an object-oriented approach and producing a class diagram might aid the argument here. The concept of inherited and overridden properties would be particularly useful with the diversity of instruments we're trying to define.

 

I don't have time to do produce an example now, but will have a go when I'm at home if I get the chance, unless someone else fancies it?

[Robin Madge]

Oh no! A concertina that plays in C++!

 

Robin Madge

[Chris Timson]

Ah, but I'm a database man. Couldn't we have an entity-relationship diagram instead?

 

Chris