rlgph

Take a piece of paper and fold it once in the middle — one ridge and two “half valleys”. Now take two such folded pieces and tape them together. Two ridges, one full valley and two “half valleys”. Continue as far as you like, the number of folds is the same as the number of ridges. Or you can turn the pieces over and talk about N (full) valleys, N-1 full ridges, and two “half ridges”. In either case the number of folds is the same as the sum of the number of ridges or the sum of the number of valleys. Of course, Alex is right that it would be better to think in terms of hinges.

Surely that’s the waiting time for a Wakker Hayden, not a CC Peacock. The wait time for one of those is about 6 weeks, and used ones show up fairly frequently.

It is no more difficult, nor is the deposit any higher, to get a CC Peacock with mirrored left side than the more common configuration. I understand that the B.B. Beaumont can also be ordered with a mirrored left side, though I don’t know that for sure, nor what the deposit is. ron

Thanks for your comments. You, and many others on this forum, obviously have a more serious attitude toward music than i, perhaps because it's just a retirement activity for me. I dabble at guitar, singing/songwriting, concertina, bass guitar, (a hyrid stringed instrument that i call a) chimera, and was formerly in a bagpipe band for 15~20 years. I am mediocre at all, in part because i didn't start any of them except the pipes until i retired, and in part because i haven't the patience to spend enough time with any one instrument to become proficient. Nevertheless, i enjoy the time i spend playing, both alone and jamming with others. So, i'm not a real musician, which is why i'm satisfied playing melodies with or without octave-based accompaniment. Spending hours and hours learning a small handful of "complete" (and in my case still marginally proficient) pieces doesn't interest me at all. However, i think that there are lot of people like me who could enjoy many of the benefits of playing music. I am in favor of any ways of making it easier and more interesting for them to do so, whether or not they rise to the level of real musicians.

I'm not surprised, since you'e an experienced player who learned on a non-mirrored instrument -- not a beginner. From my perspective, speeding the learning process for beginners, IF IT DOESN'T NEGATIVELY EFFECT THE ABILITY TO ACHIEVE MORE ADVANCED SKILLS, would be a significant point. In my case, i know it sped up my learning to play melodies and octave-based accompaniment with my left hand. Whether it retards my ability to play more involved accompaniment is an open question.

Thanks for the suggestios. I'll see what i can do.

This is an interesting question -- one that i would like to explore further by trying to learn to play a simple melody on the right side with accompaniment (something beyond chord sequences) on the left side. As this is not something i've ever done, could someone who does this regularly summarize your approach to learning such a task? Do you have a suggestion for a simple melody and counter melody for me to try?

True for their intermediate and advanced Haydens, but not the beginner's Elise. I upgraded more quickly than i would have otherwise because of that.

Possibly, though i haven't had any particular difficuly playing simple one or two finger chordal accompaniment. I just find it rather boring. Perhaps i am being idealistic, but i think people who want to play complex music will have the self-discipline to learn it. We don't need to worry about them. On the other hand, people who are satisfied to entertain themselves with simple melodies and maybe simple acompaniment (like me) should be encouraged to whatever extent is possible. Having more people playing Haydens is probably an advantage even to more advanced players. Some of those who initially are satisfied with simple playing will decide to move up. Thanks for giving me some things to think further about. ron

I don't think there are any musical reasons to favor one layout over the other. However, i also don't think that ease of learning is a trivial matter in any endeavor. Too many people abandon something that could give them lifelong pleasure because of a steep learning curve. In my view the Hayden concertina itself is an example an instrument with a less steep learning curve than other duets. I suspect that it will eventually become the dominant duet system for that reason. And almost certainly the standard left side layout will not be mirrored in the future.

As i have read further in Incognito, i've been reminded of the process of learning a physical task such as playing an instrument or tennis or .... Initially one consciously thinks about "rules" as one learns to play (slowly), but later on the tasks become incorporated into the unconsciousness, and become much quicker and smoother and less error prone. (Sometimes referred to as "muscle memory".) Once in that "automatic" mode, if we allow conscious thought to interfere, we tend to make mistakes more readily. Apparently with the mirrored left side, learning to unconsciously play with my right hand transferred to similar playing with my left hand, without having to go through the rule application phase. I think that with the conventional left side arrangement i would have had to go through the conscious rule application stage for it as well, requiring a longer learning period. Isn't the brain an amazing thing?

Before i answer your question, let me briefly give my concertina background. I started learning to play just over three years ago, in my late 60s. Thus, i'll never be an outstanding player. I consider myself an advanced beginner or an early intermediate. However, because my time on the instrument is relatively short, i can pretty well remember my early experience in learning how to play it. Initially, i basically ignored the left side, and concentrated on playing simple tunes on the right side by ear (mostly American folk songs). Within a few months i had internalized the fingering and relative tones on the right side so that with a little effort i could play new tunes by ear. I did a little with the left side, but not much. However, during this time i discovered the iPad app duettina which allowed a choice of a regular layout on the left side or a mirrored layout. In my experimentation with the mirrored layout, i discovered that once i had a tune pretty well down on the right side, i could simultaneously play an octave lower on the left side. I also found that once i had learned a tune with my right hand, i could then play it pretty well with my left hand by itself, never having made any effort learning to play it on the left side prior to that point. My response was to immediately order a CC Peacock with mirrored left side, and ignore the left side of my Elise since i was trading it in for the custom Peacock. So, my answer to your question is that no, i didn't have to learn two different layouts. Incorporating the left side layout came pretty much automatically after learning the right side layout. I still play mostly by ear, looking at scores only when i can't quite work out a tune on my own. For the past few months i've particularly enjoyed ad-libbing variations on basic tunes. I can do this with either hand; internalizing the right hand layout has automatically transferred to the left hand for me. When i do play both sides together, i usually will play the melody on the right side with an occasional phrase on the left side, either simultaneously with the right side or in lieu of it. Sometimes i experiment playing a parallel 4th or 5th on the left side. Occasionally i will play single or dual finger chordal accompaniment on the left side, but generally i don't like that as well as playing accompanying phrases or just melody on the right or left side. I have not played counterpoint accompaniment because i personally haven't had the patience to learn and practice playing two different melodies simultaneously. However, i see no reason why it can't be done if one is willing to put in the time. Certainly the left side layout is not the limiting factor there. Whether my experience with playing simple folk tunes would transfer to complex music, i have no idea. At my age i have no interest in playing such music. Finally, i want to emphasize that i am not advocating that people who already play a Hayden to their satisfaction change. I am merely suggesting that for beginners the mirrored left side may be a better solution -- one that can get them into something beyond simple melody more quickly.

My point is that chords and counter melodies are likely as easy to learn to play on a mirrored left side as non-mirrored, so there is no intrinsic reason to choose one over the other for that kind of accompaniment. However, the mirrored version has an additional advantage that can get beginners quickly into a non-trivial accompaniment. Besides, the ability to easily play a tune at a lower octave opens up more than just parrallel octave accompaniment. This is a totally irrelevant comment. Concertinas have a hard dividing point between the left side and right side. Pianos do not.

I just started reading the neuroscience book Incognito, by David Eagleman, and came across the passage below. It reminded me of the feeling that i experienced when i discovered how easy it was for me to play in octaves on a Hayden duet with a mirrored left side in comparison to one with the conventional arrangement: "To demonstrate the interference of consciousness as a party trick, hand a friend two dry erase markers -- one in each hand -- and ask her to sign her name with her right hand at the same time that she's signing it backward (mirror reversed) with her left hand. She will quickly discover that there is only one way she can do it: by not thinking about it. By excluding conscious interference, her hands can do the complex mirror movements with no problem -- but if she thinks about her actions, the job gets quickly tangled in a bramble of stuttering strokes." As i've described it before, although the conventional arrangement was easier to think about, the mirrored arrangement was easier for me to do. I ascribed it to some fundamental way my brain worked, but apparently it is a property of human brains in general. So far as i can see, there is no overall advantage of one left side arrangement over the other in general chord formation (although some specific chords may be easier in one arrangement or the other). As for counter melodies, it seems to me that the mirrored arrangement has an advantage that the dominant left hand fingers are available to play the more common notes. If these two expectations are true, perhaps we should seriously consider adopting the mirrored left side as a standard for future Hayden beginner concertinas, since it does have the inherent advantage for octave playing. (We can already get mirrored left sides as options on intermediate and advanced Haydens.)

Mirroring the left side (which is available on the Peacock and, i think, the Beaumont) solves some of the little finger reach problems, at least for octave and partial octave accompaniment as well as most simple chordal accompaniment. I'm sure it introduces its own problems, but i haven't the experience enough to have found them.

I agree. The main addition i would like is a mirrored left hand option, but that's proably not in the cards for keeping the price down. ron

As i understand it, the problem that you are describing is why "shape note" singing and song books were once popular in the rural southern US (and elsewhere, i presume). With standard musical notation, learning note positioning key-by-key, or physically transposing onto a new score if you choose to try to sight read are two ways to go. On the other hand, many people can learn to sight read their singing, where they are using relative pitches, from standard notation. The same on a Hayden must be doable in that way. (I do that slowly on musical pieces that i have trouble working out the tune by ear.)

I'm not an English player, but i would have thought that resting one of the bellows frames on a knee would lead to an asymmetry in playing that you wouldn't want for an Ec. I guess it's not significant?

I've never tried to play an anglo (or a harmonica for that matter). Just thinking about having to remember not only what button to go to, but also whether to push or pull the bellows gives me a headache. I've now played my Hayden enough that i almost always "know" without thinking where to find the note i have in my head, so for me improvisation is easier on it than most other instruments that i've played. Why do you say that it's easier on an anglo?

My reason for installing baffles was to damp out some of the higher harmonics to make the tone more mellow. I've been much more satisfied with the tone of my Peacock with the baffles in place.

I used the kind of cardboard that comes on the back of a writing tablet on the left side of my CC Peacock, and a piece of manila folder material on the right side. They both work great for mellowing the tone. I can't say that they made it a lot quieter, though.

Beautiful. Too bad it's not a Hayden ;-) BTW, although the address as written is correct, there seems to be something wrong with the link.

It is partly because of the complexity that i am arguing for a more general terminology. For example, the fact there can be various slant angles is a very strong argument for not using the presence or absence of a slant to label a given concertina model as a "Hayden" or a "Wicki". For example, to me the significant feature of the Wicki-Hayden layout is that it allows one to mentally "hear" a tune and play it in a wide variety of keys using the same fingering. This feature persists regardless of whether the arrangement is ascending or descending, so i propose to include both directions in the term "Wicki-Hayden layout". Of course, others may differ as to what they feel is the most significant feature, and so you may well be correct that the proposal is doomed to fail. I don't think the fact (?) that only a minority of Hayden duet players read this list is a reason for not trying to adopt more consistency. If the makers/distributors (most of whom, i suspect, are on this list) agree on a consistent terminology, it will happen. If not, it won't.

After reading the reference you give in your first point, i think that the shift of the second row of notes in the Wicki and Hayden arrangements compared to the Janko arrangement is important enough for concertinas that Janko's name should not be added to my proposed name for the layout of Hayden duets. That is, i still believe the term should be "Wicki-Hayden layout". On the second point, i believe that we have this system of duet concertina (allowing me to purchase one) primarily because of Hayden's efforts (i.e., his commissioning and promotion of duet concertinas using his layout). Thus this class of duet should be named after him. I wasn't aware that Wicki built or had built a concertina using his keyboard system, but my knowledge of concertina history is sketchy at best. I definitely agree that the slant should not be "mixed up with the systematic description of keyboards". That is a primary reason for my desire to standardize the nomenclature. Currently the "slant" is commonly talked about and sometimes (inappropriately, in my view) conflated with the essential elements of the Wicki-Hayden layout.

No, i argue that it should be referred to as a Hayden duet. If more description is called for, it has 42 buttons, a descending left side, an ascending right side, and no Hayden slant. Since Peacocks can be ordered with the sides ascending or descending in any combination, i don't know whether it is unique in that respect or not. It certainly is rare, though, and i like it a lot. By the way, what does AKAIK stand for?