Little John

This is essentially what my other post (Reed physics - frequency) is about. There seems to be a fair consensus that it is the chopping of the airflow we hear*. However, the airflow is chopped twice for each cycle of the reed, and yet we perceive the frequency of the note to be that of the reed; not double it which is the rate of chopping. (I think I have an intuitive answer now.) *It's the same mechanism with beating reed instruments (e.g. saxophone) and brass instruments (e.g. trumpet). In the former the reed hits the mouthpiece and chokes the airflow for an instance; in the latter the lips close together to achieve the same effect. But I rather imagine in both cases the perceived frequency and the frequency of the reed/lips are the same.

It does indeed. I was thinking of a triangular wave. Actually I think the sawtooth bit is a red herring. Here's a waveform produced by a real reed (courtesy of @alex_holden ) Just over five cycles and nothing like a sawtooth! What is striking about it is the predominance of the fourth harmonic (also evident in the frequency plot). LJ

Thanks, RAc. This is what I was trying to say so it confirms my suggestion. I don't think this bit is right, though. A saw-toothed wave form is generated from even harmonics alone. (And a square wave by odd harmonics alone.) So because the spectrum contains both odd and even harmonics the waveform is not of the saw-tooth type. Likewise I understand it, but in a hazy intellectual way rather than a nice intuitive way! LJ

Thanks for that! It explains why I couldn't find it in any of my usual sources.

With, say, a guitar it's easy to understand where the harmonics come from. A sting vibrates at its full length (giving the fundamental) but also at 1/2 its length, 1/3 of its length etc. This can easily be demonstrated by plucking a string and then placing a finger lightly at the centre point. The fundamental is damped and the dominant tone is the first harmonic an octave above. Similarly damping at the seventh fret (1/3 of the length) leaves the second harmonic sounding. You can even see this on some videos because the slow sampling rate aliases all the vibrations down to low frequencies, some of which are easily visible. Halving the length of the string doubles the frequency, dividing the length in three triples the frequency etc. So if f is the fundamental frequency the harmonics have frequencies of 2f, 3f, 4f, etc. But what about a concertina? There is no equivalent mechanism. At a first approximation the reed is a cantilevered beam. As far as I can tell from internet searches the first vibration mode above the fundamental (f) is at 6.25f and the next at 17.5f - distinctly unharmonious frequencies and nothing like the harmonic series of a string or wind column. So it's not the natural vibration modes of the reed that generate the harmonics. We know that if you add sine waves at f, 2f, 3f, 4f etc in the right proportions you can generate any waveform (square wave or sawtoothed waves for example). So I could believe that (in reverse) creating a waveform by chopping the airflow (my earlier question) could generate the harmonics. If it's not that, then what is it? I acknowledge that I'm out of my depth with this. At the end of the day it doesn't really matter - I'm just happy to play the thing - but these questions have been niggling me for years and I'd love to know the answers.

But maybe, even then, you're hearing principally the effect of the air being "chopped".

To my layman's understanding, the sound of a reed is produced by the reed "chopping" the airflow as is passes through the reed frame (rather than being the oscillation of the reed itself). Since the reed passes through the frame twice (once in, once out) for each oscillation of the reed, does this mean that the generated frequency is twice that of the reed? For example, when we hear A4 at 440Hz is the reed actually oscillating at 220Hz? I ask this partly because occasionally, playing very quietly, I can hear a subharmonic an octave below the fundamental.

So was I! Me too.

Thanks. I'd forgotten that story. I have the reprinted version with "THE" on the cover and the original manuscript reproduced inside (from which one can easily see how the confusion would have arisen). This thread reminds me that my old piano teacher consistently wrote capital F in reverse. Not unlike how we were taught to write script Fs longhand except in a block capital style rather than the florid style of longhand. (Brush Script MT is the nearest type face I can find but I can't paste it here.)

I find Paul's explanation convincing. These things happen. Just like "Ye" as in "Ye Olde Sweete Shoppe" never existed. The word is "The" but the "th" sound was represented by the runic symbol for "thorn" which was a twig with a thorn sticking out of it. Unfortunately it looked rather like a manuscript "Y" and was therefore mistaken for it.

Gremlin was the name used by Hobgoblin Music in England. I had a Gremlin English for five weeks before I traded it in for a vintage Wheatstone. It was my first concertina.

Great work, Geoffrey! I'd seen the first two on IG and unfortunately the third won't play - it tells me I haven't been granted access. LJ

Same here, playing a Crane duet. I've generally found no need to go beyond two flats and three sharps for folk music and song. I've played a couple of jazz tunes in Eb, but that's about it. (And that was just for the challenge. My guitarist friend uses a capo anyway for these so he could have moved it down a fret to D.) LJ

If you're going for a duet then I'd say the Crane system is closest to a piano. It's derived from the English layout in that (on each hand) the three middle columns are the white notes and the two outer columns are the black notes. The right hand starts at middle C (C4) and the left hand at C3 (an octave below) - giving a range like a tenor-treble (except lacking the squeaky notes you don't need). LJ

The comparison recordings on this thread demonstrate the ("a"?) difference between traditional and hybrid reeds, and on the Wakker Concertinas thread four recordings (so far) demonstrate the differences between traditional reeds in different instruments. Concertinas have a wide variety of tonal quality, but this may not be the most important aspect. To pick up on Alex's point, if people give up after trying a cheap Chinese instrument I believe it's likely to be because of "playability" issues rather than the tone of the reeds. I've owned many concertinas, and the pleasure I've had in playing them has been more to do with playability than tone. My Holden Crane duet is a sheer delight to play not because of its tone (great though that is) but because of its responsiveness, short button travel, good bass/treble balance, light weight, easy bellows etc. The Crabb I had prior to that had a lovely tone but I played it very little until Alex sorted out the action and other issues to make it more playable. Then it became my favourite instrument. I have a Wheatstone bass (steel reeds) which to my ears sounds very bassoon-like. I wish we (as a community) understood better why concertinas produce the tones they do. I'm willing to bet that all the traditional-reeded concertinas on this and the Wakker thread are steel reeds in brass frames, so why the widely different tonal qualities? LJ

To me the Lachenal has a fuller, rounder sound. But I know how difficult it is to capture the true sound of a concertina. I should admit I am only listening on my laptop speakers.

I don't think I was "mixed up" - just using the term I'm familiar with. Another reason why Brits might use "continental" is to distinguish it from the system made popular (if not invented) by Scotsman Jimmy Shand. That also has three rows but they are diatonic in B/C/C# and hence also a "chromatic button accordion". Like the continental system it has a Stradella bass, so visually there's nothing to distinguish between them. Members of this forum might be familiar with John Kirkpatrick playing the Shand system, but I don't think it's used outside Britain.

I used "continental" without thinking about it in my earlier post. Maybe it's a British thing. "The Continent" probably has a more specific meaning here. Whatever you call it, Bernard Loffet makes an instrument very similar to that played in the video by Sean Folsom, called the "petit chroma" http://diato.org/chroma_e.htm LJ

Yes. The standard vintage baritone is 48 buttons. The range is really useful: from G2 (octave and a half below middle C) up to C6 (two octaves above middle C). And often the Ab2 is re-tuned to an F2 which is much more useful for most people and great again for song. LJ

If you're already doing right-hand-melody-left-hand-accompaniment on the anglo then a duet would be the natural choice. An alternative to the piano accordion is the continental button accordion (CBA). Just as versatile as a PA but somewhat more compact. Still nothing like as light and compact as a concertina though! LJ

Gregor's version is the waltz-like song version. The jig version Robin is interested in seems to be more commonly known as The Wyresdale Greensleeves. Putting that into Google will bring up several examples (including RVW's original manuscript). There are several variants of the melody. Most have the leading note natural rather than sharpened. The three-man dance is entertaining. As for the accompaniment, I'd say go for whatever you like the sound of. Following loosely from pikeyh's version on YouTube (it comes up in the Google search) I'm quite happy to use both Fmaj and Dmaj in the A music. This is how I played it the day I learnt it. I play both the melody and the harmony slightly differently now. LJ

I, likewise, have been doing this for years. In particular I avoid doubling the third - it just makes it sound too heavy. So if I'm harmonising the note C on the right hand with a C major chord I'd be happy to play the full CEG triad on the left, but if the right hand note was E then I'd play just CG on the left. However, that's not an "implied" chord since all the notes of the triad are there. I extend this concept to first inversions too so (sticking with C major) if the note on the right was G4 I might play E3C4 on the left. On occasion I will use a second inversion, so if the note on the right was C5 I might use G3E4 on the left. All are "complete" chords though, as all three notes of the triad are present. LJ

This used to happen to me. I didn't realise it except occasionally when the bellows were close to being completely closed as I tried to get to the end of a phrase. Then I would find my lungs had run out of air too. It doesn't happen any more. I don't know whether that's because I've developed better bellows control, got better quality instruments which have an ample air supply, or that I've just grown out of it. LJ

The link says "I think the concertina itself is about 5 inches across the flats." It could have been a bit bigger than 5" and still look small by comparison with a standard 6" or 6 1/4" box. John Dipper's website gives the Clare I as 5 1/4" and the Clare II as 5 5/8" and indicates the professional model as having 30 - 34 buttons. LJ

It could be for all I know; I'm not familiar with ABC either! Anyway, whatever notation it is and whether it's right or not I think it's firmly established now that this E4 starts at F4 - i.e. first F above middle C. It would be easier if there were an accepted standard for pitch notation. My preference would be for scientific notation where C4 is middle C. Apart from anything else it's easier to type and read than multiple upper or lower dashes, e.g. c''' or C,. LJ