Gosh, talk about "thread creep"!
This one seems to have spiralled completely off topic and become so fragmented at this stage that I don't really know what it's about anymore...
So I've opened a new thread dealing with m3838's English concertina "improvements"
, to open up that discussion in a more appropriate place.
I'll just tidy up a few loose ends here, and then (hopefully in the next few days) bring this thread back on topic - I already see a connection I can use to do that!
Anyway, here goes:
We generally (with odd exceptions!
) accept the validity of what the same leading music critics of the day wrote about Regondi's contemporaries Mendelssohn, Schumann or Paganini, though we haven't heard any of them play either, so why not Regondi himself?
Let me quote from a review by the renowned London critic Henry Chorley (who was not easily pleased, and not a fan of either the guitar or the concertina for that matter), writing in the Athenaeum
for 30th June 1855:
Yesterday week Signor Regondi gave his concert, himself playing the guitar and concertina (on the latter leading one of Beethoven's Quartets, and appropriating Spohr's Scena Drammatica for the violin) with that verve, vigour and delicacy which make up the highest musical style, and, whatever be thought of the instruments elected, entitle its possessor to rank among the highest artists of his time. ..., the concertina may never find an expositor of higher class than Regondi.
Yet, (seemingly) without grounds, you dismiss the man as "an entertainer"!
I guess I'd have rather more CDs of his music myself (half a dozen maybe), since his guitar works seem to be attracting quite a bit of attention in the classical guitar world these days (and his concertina music likewise in the classical accordion world - seeing that they've nothing from the Romantic era to come near it); in fact I've even seen him described as "the Chopin of the guitar".
Hmm. You provided novelties as "technological improvements", hoping to laugh me down.
There may have been attempted "technological improvements" in violin construction in the past 200 years, such as these:
To suggest otherwise would be to suggest that 300 years of constant research and technological improvements went backwards.
But they've never caught on and the violin hasn't changed since the first half of the 19th century - whilst most of the research by violin makers and scientists, over the last couple of centuries, has been about trying to discover "the secrets of Stradivarius" (his instruments were already regarded as exceptional that long ago).
I'm intrigued by your indignant response to what are probably (i) the most rational and (ii) the most technologically-advanced violin designs to be created in the 19th century - though you dismiss them both as derisible "novelties" and accuse me of attempting to laugh you down with them. But aren't you seeking to alter the English concertina in ways that are just as identity-changing and drastic?
(i) The instrument in my first two pictures was made in 1819 and designed by François Chanot, a French former naval engineer who came from a family of Mirecourt violin makers, and I'd consider it to be very elegant and supremely logical - there is nothing about it that wasn't done for very good reasons, in a genuine and serious attempt to improve the design of the instrument he loved.
(ii) My third picture shows the very important, and successful design of the engineer, and pioneer of sound recording, Augustus Stroh, who (coincidentally) worked closely with Wheatstone for many years and patented the "gliding reed" principle with him in 1872. The Stroh violin was first patented in 1899, with improvements in 1901, and it employed the latest gramophone technology of the day to make a louder, more directional violin, for both recording and performance purposes. They were used by many classical players in the early days of recording and by leading artists in various other forms of music, including the Scottish "Strathspey King" James Scott Skinner and the Irish fiddler Michael Coleman. They are also believed to have inspired the Dopyera brothers in the United States to design their "Dobro" and "National" resophonic guitars, that have become mainstays of country music and blues music respectively.
So what "technological improvements" in violin construction were
you referring to then?
Have you played brand new Stradivarius and compared it to brand new best modern brand? Your opinion is based on hearsay, I base mine on common sense. You may be right and I'm wrong, but don't attempt to laugh me down, please.
Oh, just a minute, I'll jump into my time machine and set the dial for Cremona in 1709...
No, of course
I haven't played a new Stradivarius (though I did once have a real one in my hands for a few minutes - thanks Andy!
), and neither has anybody else in something like 270 years - your whole proposition is (of course) preposterous, and an attempt to laugh me down - is it not?
But his violins have been the most preferred by virtuosi over the past 200 years, so I'll happily form an opinion based upon theirs - after all, don't they know better than you or I? Anyway, his violins already had a good reputation when they were new, that has only increased with time, and doubtless they have improved with playing - as all good instruments do.
Stupendous rebuttal! Congratulations.
I know Harry Geuns ... but seeing that he's Dutch, I fear he might not be altogether happy that you've described him as a German maker!
Not a rebuttal at all, just pointing out an error that could offend some people. However trivial it may seem to you, you might feel very differently about it if you were Dutch...
... Argentinian players ... expressed such an opinion on Bandoneon forum. It's only an opinion, and I am only the messenger.
That's very interesting and I'd love to read their opinions for, and against, the new Bandoneons versus the old - could you provide me with a link to that discussion?
A school of playing guitar with 3 fingers is fundamentally different from school of playing with 4 or 5.
I know the thumb is counted as a finger in some languages, is that perhaps the case in Russian? It isn't in English - so when we speak of 3-or 4-finger picking on the guitar, we aren't counting the thumb - though its use is nevertheless implied.
Mind you, a small proportion of people do have 5 fingers.
No. Extra 2 rows are not mere duplicates for easy transposing. It's never been the goal.
... the two outside rows of the 3-row are duplicated as the inner ones on the 5-row, but plenty of players prefer a smaller instrument with only 3 or 4 rows.
been the goal? Well that may be true for how you learned to play the modern 5-row Bayan, but originally, when the chromatic system started off in 1850s Vienna, it was as a 3-row instrument with a diatonic bass end - though it has undergone considerable development, in various directions/countries, since. In Vienna they still play the original style, for their Schrammel
music, whilst in France, where the chromatic system is very popular, they'd still use 3- and (especially) 4-row instruments, including the classical "Harmonéon" or "Accordéon de concert" that Pierre Monichon
invented in 1948.
Edited by Stephen Chambers, 08 June 2009 - 10:58 AM.