Jump to content

Boney

Members
  • Posts

    687
  • Joined

Posts posted by Boney

  1. "Each color represents an octave"... According to that all my numbering is wrong (!), because then: if C dark blue is Key one C# should be Key 2 etc. Correct?

    Yes, the dark blue C# should be #2. You had it right except for the three C# / Eb pairs, add 12 (an octave) to each of those six numbers in your previous post.

  2. Close. Each color represents an octave, so all the yellow Cs, for example, are exactly the same note. So in your numbering, the rising column of Cs and Fs are numbered correctly. Just add 2 as you go each button to the right, and subtract 2 for every button to the left (just like the Janko keyboard). So the dark green C# and Eb you have listed as 14 and 16 should be 26 and 28.

     

    Rich adapted a graphic that I made. Here's a somewhat larger, clearer version I made from my original file. Note the spacing matches Brian Hayden's recommendation for a concertina keyboard:

     

    RichField.gif

     

    By the way, Rich, great post above, I liked the animations. Your real-world experience behind the theorizing shines through. I'm looking forward to meeting you in April.

  3. I see the necessity to preplan the fingering and bellows movements so that you don’t have to rely on the air button.

    There's no reason not to use the air button as much as you want. To play the anglo well, you need to learn to "ride" the air button often, holding it down while playing an "out" passage when the bellows are getting too empty, and holding it down while playing an "in" passage when the bellows are getting too full. Experts will take subtle gulps of air often, keeping the bellows from never getting too close to either extreme. It feels awkward at first, but it becomes second nature pretty quickly if you keep practicing it. It's a lot easier than changing your fingering to try to "balance out" the in and out notes.

  4. I'd be very interested to hear sound files of other baritone ECs than the Jack (which I have, and there are already sound clips of it on the web). Preferably not a piece of music, just all the notes of a scale from bottom to top, so I can compare the tone.

    Here's a 1924 Wheatstone 9A, a rosewood-ended 48-key baritone. It could use some work (tuning, a few bum reeds fixed, and probably new valves). I recorded a C scale and a few chords in a small, dead sounding room. I added no processing or reverb. I don't play English, so excuse the stilted playing.

     

    http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/CScaleUp.mp3

    http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/CScaleDown.mp3

    http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/CMajChord.mp3

    http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/DMajChord.mp3

    http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/GMajChord.mp3

  5. Bird whistle, baby cry, cock crow.... Those are just a few of the possible "novelty" buttons on some vintage concertinas. But as far as I know, they were all special-order items.

    I'd like to hear recordings of some of the "novelty" buttons, both in isolation or as part of a tune. Does anyone know of any recordings? Or could someone record a quick demonstration?

  6. I tried searching eBay for completed sales, but nothing came up. Here's what the concertina dealer Chris Algar says on his web page:

    http://www.concertina.co.uk/Duet-Concertinas.htm

    You would be looking at £800+ for a decent steel reeded 48k Crane or 55k Maccann - Wheatstones always dearer than Lachenals.

    At present larger Cranes and Maccann, 57 key+ will cost between £1000 and £2000+ with Aeolas being top of the tree.

    But that's "retail price" for a fully restored instrument from a dealer, so probably a bit less, especially if it needs any work.

     

    If you're able to verify if it's in tune and put up some sound samples, that would interest buyers much more I would think. As well as high-res pictures, and pointing out specifically any small imperfections. eBay's a bit of a gamble on items like this that appeal to a very small audience. If you don't happen upon someone looking for one that particular week, it could go for a very low amount, although at least Mr. Algar as noted above would put in a bid!

     

    I'm a lapsed anglo player who's moving on to Hayden duet, but I'd love to see your concertina, and I'm less than an hour's drive from you, it seems. Let me know if you have time before selling it for a showing, although I'm not really in the market for a Crane...but I have a nice digital camera if you want some pictures, or maybe I could help you out in some other way. Drop me a PM (private message) here on the board, or click my logo below to see my website and email me directly.

     

    --- Jeff

  7. Another cool idea would be to make a bass only emulator, in the shape of an electric bass stick

    I think you aren't quite getting the Hayden/Wicki system yet...your colors don't match the way the system is laid out. And a 2-row high, wide field of buttons is not very good for playing Hayden. Your point earlier that vertical expansion is more useful than horizontal is correct in many ways. A wider field would be good for playing with two hands, or when the vertical expansion gets larger, the horizontal jump in position might get more useful for certain large jumps. Anyway, there's no substitute for playing the thing to get a feel for what size layouts might work.

     

    This might be easier to read and understand than the large colored field I posted above. I made a graphic mapping the Hayden layout onto a chromatic button accordion 77-key 5-row keyboard. Six rows would be better (I'd extend the range downwards), but the width gives lots of transposing ability, or maybe could be used as a basis for a small single keyboard meant to be played with both hands. Personally, for a wider keyboard especially I think some sort of marking is useful, just to help orient yourself to the keyboard, even if it's not looked at when you're playing. Using a contrasting color for accidentals like the chromatic button accordion does (which is also isomorphic and not based on any key) gives a good way to see where you are at a glance.

     

    Wicki70.gif

  8. But then the player must stick to it, otherwise he will never get anywhere beyond playing toys.
    So by your argument, anyone who plays more than one type of instrument is only "playing toys".

    I suspect what he's saying is that it's fun to play with alternate layouts, but it's easy to get caught up in devising theoretically logical systems, and never do the work of learning to play anything. It actually fits with your example -- someone who plays more than one instrument must "stick to" each one long enough to get enough facility on it to get beyond the "playing with a toy" stage, just like with different keyboard layouts.

     

    Anyway, I was wondering what a good-sized Wicki field would actually look like, so I made a color-coded 4x4 octave graphic. It uses 192 buttons for a range of essentially 7 octaves (84 notes). I used the proportions of Brian Hayden's suggested spacing for a concertina, although I'd guess a free-standing keyboard would probably be scaled a bit larger than 16mm x 9mm between columns and rows.

     

    Wicki4x4.gif

     

    By the way, I've been playing the Hayden system concertina for a while now (you may have noticed my new avatar), and a review of my Wim Wakker Hayden is upcoming, maybe in a few more weeks. I'd love to play with a free-standing Wicki keyboard, synthesizer or not. But I admit I find acoustic instruments much more interesting, and the concertina is more charming than a free-standing keyboard to me, not to mention the play-anywhere portability.

     

    For perspective, here's my 46-key layout superimposed on the field (if the lime-green C is middle C):

     

    Wicki46Field.gif

  9. How is the playing different? And, when looking at instruments, what should I look for, beware of, and pay attention to?

    I have only tried a Stagi once, a 48 button, and it didn't seem to hard to figure out or hold. Then again, that was the first time I'd touched a concertina.

    All the Stagis I've played were a lot of work to get going, especially if you want to play anything at a relatively quick tempo. Your arms and fingers will hurt after 15 minutes of playing. If you're only doing slow, simple things (as a beginner would), it's not all that much of a disadvantage. But even after a few months of playing, the instrument will really be holding you back. Playing a good concertina compared to a Stagi is a world of difference. I've played a Jackie a little bit, but not enough to tell you if it was much better than a Stagi, but it wasn't worse. Some cheap Chinese instruments are actually easier to play than a Stagi, but they usually have other problems (funny button spacing, poor tone, flimsy construction). I've heard some Stagis are better than others, and they get slightly better if they're broken in properly.

     

    I think it's very difficult for a beginner to judge how bad a Stagi is, because you don't have anything to compare it to, and you don't have the facility yet to play smoothly and quickly, which is what makes the Stagi's limitations obvious. But even to a good player, a Stagi might seem tolerable if you only play it 5 or 10 minutes in a store, or don't try to play anything quick.

  10. I don't think their sound should be described as "accordion-like", because I don't think it sounds like an accordion. They don't all sound alike, but of those I've heard, to my ear they all sound more like "concertina" than like "accordion".

    I don't quite follow you -- wouldn't a concertina with a "clarinet-like tone" sound more like a concertina than a clarinet too? You wouldn't mistake it for a clarinet (which is what I meant by saying it doesn't "literally" sound like a clarinet). I think the comparison with an accordion is similar.

  11. The statement in question (in the modified Wiki text) was, " 'hybrid' instruments have a distinctive accordion-like tone." (My emphasis.) All by itself and without my adding any "interpretation", that seems pretty unambiguous -- or "literal" -- to me, and for me to not take it "literally" would mean that I shouldn't expect the author to mean what (s)he says... in which case, what's the use of the "information"? No, it's meant to be taken literally.

    So when someone says a certain concertina has a "distinctive clarinet-like tone" is that meant to be taken literally too? Surely you wouldn't really think it was a clarinet playing, the sound is just somewhat reminiscent of one.

     

    Of course accordion-reeded concertinas don't have multiple reeds per note, wet-tuned. We know that, it doesn't have to be repeated every time.
    Actually there are many concertinas with 2, 3 and 4 reeds per note, some quite wet-tuned.

    Yes, I guess that's worth a mention. But I meant that just by changing from concertina reeds to accordion reeds, we all understand you don't get that multiple-reed, musette sound.

  12. My opinion is the "concertina sounds like an accordion" sound because of the reeds is just a little bogus.

    I think some people may be taking this a bit too literally. I don't think it's meant to mean an accordion-reeded concertina is indistinguishable from an accordion. It's just a description, like saying a certain concertina sounds like a clarinet, or an oboe, or a bird -- an idea of the "flavor" of the tone. Of course accordion-reeded concertinas don't have multiple reeds per note, wet-tuned. We know that, it doesn't have to be repeated every time. It's just that the essence of what is different in the sound is quite accurately described as a sound that's closer to an accordion than a concertina-reeded instrument is. Of course there are other variables, but some of the objections seem strange to me, is there anything controversial about the fact that using accordion reeds gives a more accordion-like sound? Using harmonium reeds would give a more harmonium-like sound too.

     

    And personally, I never use the word "hybrid." If the type of reeds comes up, I'd just say whether it has accordion or concertina reeds.

  13. I use my pinkies pretty often, but not quite equally. Their main weakness seems to be their repetitive speed for me. That is, I can fit the pinky into a quick run quite well (although not quite as easily as the other three fingers), but it can't trill or play quick repeated notes nearly as fast as the others. With practice, it's been getting a bit better. Maybe my pinkies are relatively strong because I can type quickly, and used to have to type a lot for my job. My pinky is 83% the length of my ring finger, both hands are very close to the same.

×
×
  • Create New...