[Reforming Concertina(s)]

Joe,

 

If you're having trouble reaching the lowest buttons, maybe you're putting your thumbs too far into the thumbstraps; if your thumbnail is sticking way out of the other end, that's probably too far for best results. How far in are you?

 

Jonathan

[Size Isn't All That Matters...]

Goran:Arguing instead of presenting arguments Jonathan. Of course "smaller buttons can be arranged closer together"...and of course that means trouble for players with wide fingers (which you dont want to accept..)

 

"Arguing instead of presenting arguments"? Yes, I know that's what you are doing, Goran; you do it quite often. Either you are misquoting me deliberately, or you haven't bothered to read my statement properly, which was:

 

Smaller buttons can be arranged closer together, allowing a smaller keyboard for a given range (good for players with shorter fingers), while at the same time the interspaces can remain large enough to prevent adjacent buttons being snagged inadvertently (good for not so slender fingers).

 

Is there something in this statement that you do not understand? If so, say what it is. If you understand it, then either disprove it, or accept that it is true and shut up.

 

Goran:Well...good to know that JT knows better than the constructor what he intended...:-)

 

Are you being deliberately stupid or are you just pretending? In how many different ways do I have to say it? IT IS IRRELEVANT WHAT WHEATSTONE INTENDED. Now for the second time: DISPROVE MY STATEMENT OR ACCEPT IT.

 

Goran: For everyone who can not use it efficiently it certainly is "defective" whatever JT says.....

 

We already know that you start to argue semantics when you find yourself in a corner, so what precisely do you mean by "defective" this week?

 

Goran:Gosh....YOU present "evidence" and *I* "subjective impressions"...

*I* know ýou are not joking but nevertheless it is a joke....

 

No, I am not joking, Goran. You present your own subjective experiences as "facts" to try to bolster your own theories, and dismiss the experiences of better players than yourself.

 

Goran: A thrilling thought :-) Imagine the frightening possibility that I know better than you JT.....:-)

 

If you wish to enter the realms of fantasy, Goran, go ahead. Just remember that when Henk van Aalten asked for an explanation why concertina buttons are so small, YOU couldn't provide one. I did.

 

Goran now:Complete nonsense. Innovations are met with scepticism entirely due to conservatism, ignorance, indolence or lacking imagination.

Goran now:Temporarily back to senses for sure but your own scepticism often is based on imagination and that is different...

 

So is imagination good or bad? Make your mind up.

 

Jonathan:That is precisely my opinion of your ideas -- until I get hard evidence that they work.

Goran:*precisely*...:-)....so just go ahead and find out for yourself or stop arguing without *evidence* . Do you use an electric shaver because there was a scientific report that it works or because you found out 'subjectively'...?

 

Neither. I use one (a beard trimmer, actually) because I was provided with evidence (visible in the form of other men's well-trimmed beards) that it works. Now, when will I be provided with evidence that your ideas work? (not ever, it now appears, judging by your inability to provide scale drawings).

Also, since you do not appear to be aware of scientific methods, let me inform you of the "Burden of Proof" principle: YOU are making the claim, so YOU provide the evidence. It is NOT up to me to "find out for myself".

 

Goran:No...but the establishment is *always* wrong in the beginning and the rebel is *sometimes* right.....:-) (speaking about 'true' novelties of course...like the planet movements....:-)

 

If we haven't got any evidence, how do we know that we are speaking about a "true novelty"?

 

Jonathan Taylor

[Size Isn't All That Matters...]

From the viewpoint of the unfit person the instrument certainly IS defective as it can not be used.

In that case, I can readily agree that from Goran's viewpoint, the concertina in its current standard forms certainly IS defective.

 

Jonathan

[Size Isn't All That Matters...]

Jonathan:"No musical instrument can be useful for all purposes, and none optimal for a majority of "users" (contemporary or not), and no-one has claimed otherwise."

 

Goran now:Hmm..why do you so often object against suggested alternatives?:-)

You are trying to change the subject, to divert attention away from the fact that you have not disproved my original statement ("Smaller buttons can be arranged closer together...")

Goran now:Very relevant indeed because you claim you know *why* the buttons are as they are but you don't know *why* the contructor made them that way.

Wrong. It is irrelevant what Charles Wheatstone wrote or didn't write about comfort. In musical instruments, if increased comfort can be achieved without compromising the musical capabilities of both player and instrument, fine. If not, then so much the worse for comfort. Instruments need to be as comfortable as necessary, not as comfortable as possible. That is a fact. Now either disprove it, or accept it.

I see some possible 'historic causes' but no reasons to assume that the 'tradition' offers either the best compromise for the majority of players or to regard it as definite.

Perhaps it isn't the best compromise. Then again, perhaps it is. Neither possibility is affected by your inability to see any reasons for or against.

Goran now: Yes of course..I said that this does not necessarily hinder concertina butttons to be larger as well! It is basically a matter of tradition, the construction is not an absolute obstacle in either case.

In that case your original reply makes even less sense. Bandoneon button spacing is restricted by the action, not the reedwork, and definitely not by the number of buttons.

Since you don't appear to have fully grasped the conclusions of my original (99 word) reply, I will rephrase it for you:

If buttons are made too large, players with thick fingers will not be able to press them without touching adjacent buttons (Perry Werner's problem). If the buttons are spaced wider to compensate for this, the keyboard will become too wide and long for players with short fingers to reach all the buttons easily. The existing design is a compromise offering as great a musical capability (range) as possible to as many different people as possible.

The only alternative to this compromise is to offer concertinas with different sized keyboards for different sized hands. This would, however, increase costs to the manufacturer, who is not obliged to bear these costs if he thinks that the market for over- and undersized instruments is not big enough. Playing the concertina is not compulsory, and neither therefore is supplying concertinas to fit anybody. Making an instrument in "one size fits all" makes sound economic sense and does not mean that it is "defective".

Goran now: Definitely not correct but YOU may not have read or noticed. I have repeatedly mentioned the lacking balance, lacking space for stability by the palm (with or without supports), the frequent wood cutting defects and generally too 'crowded' reed pan and mechanism, the acoustic advantages with larger measures, the possibilites to use wider spaced keyboard and larger buttons...

You do not mention wood cutting defects, crowded reed pans or acoustic advantages in any of your articles. I have described above why wider keyboards and larger buttons cannot be regarded as improvements. As for "lacking balance and space for stability", Jim Lucas, myself and others in this forum have disputed this. If you dismiss our evidence and refer only to your own experiences, you end up with merely subjective impressions.

Goran now:The 'English' concertina emanated directly from the Symphonium ...not much of tradition:-)...but obviously that locked the constructive thinking concerning the concertina.

So perhaps you will now stop claiming that people who disagree with your ideas only do so because of "tradition" and "love". "...obviously that locked the constructive thinking..."? You are making two typical errors here: 1. You continually dismiss evidence disproving your ideas as merely subjective, while presenting your own evidence as objective; 2. you are showing an attribution bias in that you attribute your own ideas and actions to rationality and logic, while attributing the behaviour of others to emotional, stupid or otherwise negative reasons. And thereby deluding yourself.

Jonathan:"With regard to change, innovators are indeed often met with scepticism, but the biggest obstacle to change is not conservatism but a total lack of evidence that the change actually constitutes an improvement."

Goran now:Complete nonsense. Innovations are met with scepticism entirely due to conservatism, ignorance, indolence or lacking imagination. This does not say that scepticism may not be sensible to a considerable part or conservatism not a fairly sound attitude....

So what? I didn't claim otherwise. You obviously didn't read my statement carefully. Regardless of what you may think, you are not actually contradicting me. You admit it yourself: scepticism is sensible and conservatism can be sound. Whether a proposed innovation is finally accepted or not depends on whether it is backed up by hard evidence. Which is precisely what I said.

....(not least since most 'innovations' are not of great importance.....)

That is precisely my opinion of your ideas -- until I get hard evidence that they work.

....and usually conservatism is less risky than opposing the 'establishment'....

Ah yes, the Galileo fallacy. Göran, opposing the "establishment" (whoever they are) does not automatically mean that you are right and they are wrong.

 

Jonathan Taylor

[Concertina Buttons]

The matter of button weight...I think this mostly is overstated. Despite you can 'feel' a weight difference between solid metal button instruments and others the significance ought to be negligable in practise!

Then why do so many people make a big deal of how much concertinas weigh and prefer lighter ones?

 

1) The *weight* of an instrument in principle should be of very little interest except for carrying it around between sessions. When playing the use of shoulder (or neck-) straps or playing seated is the rational way dealing with it.

Maybe in principal but not in reality. Rationality doesn't seem to enter into the equation much either. Note that very few concertina players use a neck strap, and the most common way of playing a BA in Ireland is to use only a single shoulder strap rather than a pair.

 

3) The button weight has very little (if any...) significance for playing speed

Several people have reported to us that solid buttons have appreciable mass which limits their ability to play crisply and quickly (especially triplets) due to their inertia. I've heard that that was the main reason why Hamish started drilling out his buttons (in order to make them lighter).

Richard,

As you are probably aware, Goran is trying to "improve" concertinas by adding wrist supports. These will increase weight. They also do not fit on standard treble-sized instruments, so larger instruments will be necessary, also increasing weight. Since these increases in weight and size constitute significant arguments against Goran's "improvements", he is desperately trying to downplay their significance.

 

Jonathan Taylor

[Size Isn't All That Matters...]

Henk's question:..."why concertina buttons are so thin compared with bandoneon buttons"......may be regarded from at least two aspects :

1) historic causes why they are 'as is'

2) rational reasons for measures in a wider sense

 

I tried in the previous reply to illustrate some of both. To elucidate the issue more it certainly takes some 1000 words....:-)

I think Jonathan's approach is fundamentally historic and static since it does not inlcude the dynamics of interaction between several important factors which all of them may be differently evaluated depending on technical, individual, musical och other circumstantial capacities and needs which also may change 'with time'.

Henk's question may also be regarded from another aspect -- namely as a question to be answered as concisely as possible, as he requested -- which I did.

However, the trouble with my answer is that it is valid now, not "historic and static", and that it explains why concertina buttons are not "absurd" and "instruments of torture", contrary to Goran's persistent claims.

Since he cannot dispute the factual truth of my answer, he attempts to brush it aside with irrelevant pseudoscientific verbiage.

Jonathan:"Smaller buttons can be arranged closer together, allowing a smaller keyboard for a given range (good for players with shorter fingers), while at the same time the interspaces can remain large enough to prevent adjacent buttons being snagged inadvertently (good for not so slender fingers)."

Goran:This is literally true but all measures may be varied within certain limits and the traditional concept can not be expected neither to be useful for all purposes...nor with certainty to be optimal for a majority of (contemporary) users

No musical instrument can be useful for all purposes, and none optimal for a majority of "users" (contemporary or not), and no-one has claimed otherwise.

Jonathan:" Comfort is of secondary importance, and the buttons are therefore as comfortable as necessary, not as comfortable as possible."

Goran:Strange statement firstly since the constructor ( C Wheatstone assumingly if speaking about the 'English' concertina) has not commented upon comfort at all.

Secondly since button dimensions and shape actually have varied a bit (but less than I have expected) and related comfort thus been varying too.

Also keep in mind that the biologic approach to 'machines' was not as apparent 150 years ago as it (often) is today....or it was more related to 'fear' rather than 'knowledge'.

Firstly: so what? Secondly: so what? And thirdly: so what? None of these points have any relevance to Henk's question regarding concertina buttons, and none of them disprove my statement regarding comfort.

Jonathan:"In bandoneons, the buttons are already as close together as possible, because of the method of wooden construction, but still so far apart that snagging is not a problem. They can therefore be much larger."

Goran:Historically only partly correct. For many bandonions the reedworks and fitting of them consume large dimensions rather than the mechanism but you have to consider as well both usually more buttons ( 64-72) and doubled reeds.

Wide range concertinas like 64-72 key Baritone-trebles or Duets often have almost the same 'box measures' as bandonions/konzertinas and the ends could with no great problems have room for larger buttons and wider keyboards.

"They can therefore be much larger" refers to the bandoneon buttons, not the bandoneons themselves.

There are quite a few factors saying that the 'traditional' treble English and same size Anglo or Duet are too small for optimal usefulness and that the original constructors were overambitious in their aspiration to minimize them.

As far as I am aware, the only person saying this is Goran Rahm, and the only "factor" he has ever mentioned to justify increasing the size of trebles is to allow his wrist supports to be fitted.

I think we have to accept that traditions within construction of the instruments have formed the main differences betwen them and settled the traditions among users as well ....and that we don't know the 'true' impulses that made the early inventors choose their respective concepts. Today however it is fairly easy to see that almost everything could be done differently and be more purposeful for *different* ways using the instruments and the obstacle against changes is conservatism .....along with cost of development of course....

Traditions of construction (organ building) most probably influenced the design and construction methods of bandoneons; I would be interested to hear from which "tradition" Wheatstone's ideas were developed.

In any activity, it is a not uncommon error of beginners to blame any difficulty they might experience on their equipment (especially if they have a high opinion of their own capabilities), and to try all kinds of short cuts to get quick successes. Some people have to finally accept that their failure to achieve the desired success in playing the concertina is due more to their own prejudices and perhaps lack of capability than to any (imagined) shortcoming of the instrument itself, especially when the successes of so many others are considered.

 

With regard to change, innovators are indeed often met with skepticism, but the biggest obstacle to change is not conservatism but a total lack of evidence that the change actually constitutes an improvement.

[Size Isn't All That Matters...]

To give new input:

Please explain me (both of you) in less than 100 words why concertina buttons are so thin compared with bandoneon buttons.

 

Henk

I believe Jim's out of town right now but I'll have a go:

 

Smaller buttons can be arranged closer together, allowing a smaller keyboard for a given range (good for players with shorter fingers), while at the same time the interspaces can remain large enough to prevent adjacent buttons being snagged inadvertently (good for not so slender fingers). Comfort is of secondary importance, and the buttons are therefore as comfortable as necessary, not as comfortable as possible.

In bandoneons, the buttons are already as close together as possible, because of the method of wooden construction, but still so far apart that snagging is not a problem. They can therefore be much larger.

 

99 I think that was.

 

Jonathan Taylor

[What Do We All Look Like?]

Me (the hairy one in the middle) at this year's Eigse Mrs Crotty getting tunes off Jacqueline McCarthy