Well, if you noticed, I refuted at least six of your seven points, so I don't think that your argument stands, even by your own criteria.
Which ones did you refute?
Are you stating that:
1. Good observation of the keys is of no importance?
2. Access to the keys is of no importance? Your refutal dealt with difference between systems, but I only meant the "equal access to all the keys". Concertinas have inherent problem with access to some
keys. Often chording on English concertina require pushing two-three buttons with the same finger, and often some chords are unaccessable. Anglo has problems with inner row, very high and very low tones. Duets may have buttons too far or too close to the palm rest.Some
notes are easier
to reach than others. On Piano all keys are equally
Either you prove that equal access to all keys is of no importance, or my argument stands.
3.Sounding the note on a piano is difficult?
Piano (and guitar) has naturally decaying tone, that doesn't need any effort to sustain or decay. It's pretty by itself, and blends well with harmony. Are you arguing that? Concertina tone needs to be sustained at all times
, which occupies the fingers and bellows - any argument here? So on a piano one can use pedal to sustain some notes, while using hands to throw in additional harmony - no argument? Therefore playing music at the (teoretically) same
level of difficulty is more difficult on Concertina as it takes more action, more finger twisting and often simply impossible. If you prove that on concertina you can play more complex harmonies, while still playing melody or counter-harmony - you refuted my argument, if not, my argument stands.
4.Are you arguing that missing notes in the scale is of no importance?
Or that irregular, often simply arbitrary placement of the tones, that are missing from their regular position in the row is of no importance? That wrapping the low and high ends of small Duets is of no importance? We are not considering any particular system, but rather Concertina
in general. They all share many common qualities, and have similar benefits and shortcomings of the keyboards, stemming from their small size and fixed wrist.
Your "refutal" that knowing the keyboard makes regularity irrelevant is light-weight, because you enter into true mayhem, when you try to play chord inversions on an Anglo. Even English requires some specific skills to play some inversions, like this position:
Many chords are simply impossible on Concertina of any system. Any arguments here?
5.Easiness of controlling pitch and dynamics.
Nowhere I said it is easy to control pitch and dynamics on the piano or concertinal I state it is easier
on the piano. You didn't address important point of having to control pitch and dynamics on Concertina by two
very different, often interrupting each other actions: depressing the buttons and pulling/pushing the bellows. Are you arguing that doing two
things at once is easier than one
6.The weight of the instrument.
Are you arguing that posture and balance while playing concertina is of lesser importance than with the piano?
7. Clear indication of the keys.
Very characteristic type of concertina with poor indication of the keys is the Bandoneon. Next comes the Anglo, esp. 30+ buttons. Whether you are familiar or not with the keyboard, clear indication of the keys, regardless of keyboard regularity, is a plus
. Any keyboard where you don't see the keys, esp. where the keys have no tangible indication (like black keys of the piano) posesses a problem of navigating. The more rows you have, the more chance
you have to get lost, regardless of your profficiency. Are you arguing that clear indication of the keys is of no importance?
My argument is not that it is easy-peasy to learn to play piano, but rather that a myth that concertina is easy to pick up is a myth. And for that reason, realized or not, most children learn music
on the piano, not hurdy-gurdy. Is there one conservatory, where various instrumentalists are not required
to take piano as a second instrument?