Boney

What notes are on the six extra keys, and what's their layout? Is there a standard for those six extra? (I've been searching the FAQ and other sites, but no luck so far).

"Skill" is a funny word. It takes a lot of skill to have enough technical facility to play a complicated arrangement of complex ("art") music with fluidity and control. It also takes a lot of skill to listen to what is being played while playing it, spontaneously adjusting by somtimes tiny amounts the speed, volume, "swing," type and frequency of variations, phrasing, articulation, etc. A good traditional musician will do all that and more, and much of it will be things that even a trained musicologist (or even the musician himself) can't put a finger on. But it'll put a smile on your face and set your toes tapping, whereas a "more skillful" musician who plays with more speed, more harmonic variations, a purer tone, more accurate intonation, and a more complex arrangement may be missing that living, breathing "something," and will leave people unmoved. "Art" music and "Folk" music have very different aims. You can enjoy either one without necessarily understanding it in any deep way. But you can't "judge" one by the aims of the other. Peter calls himself a "half-decent" musician because he's aware of his limitations, not because he's mediocre. I will buy a copy of his and Kitty's CD, I'm sure it will be the real thing. M3838, I agree with you in a way that "traditional" music exists best when it is experienced, instead of just "listened to" as a modern concert audience would. To me, that's mixing up the aim of the music with that of "art" music. "Folk" music is made to be moved to, to be a part of life, not separated from life and appreciated like an oil painting in a frame in a museum. Although I can still appreciate CDs of traditional music -- I think many aren't made for the purpose of making money, they're made for the love of the music.

Small children will react this way sometimes. If they hear a song in a different key from what they're used to, some will complain that it's "wrong." These kids don't necessarily have perfect pitch, just ears that aren't used to hearing songs "changed."

I've come to think that, for the most part, people who play in an "academic" style will play that way whether they learned through formal training and reading, or by ear. And those who play in a "fluid/organic" style will play that way even if they have formal training. If it seems that almost all people who play in an "academic" style come from a classical background, I think that's because they're the type of person that is attracted to that tradition. In other words, it's more the type of person choosing their path, instead of the path molding the person. A few can do both convincingly. There's always a danger that an "untrained" player will miss out on the rich ideas in theory and musical history, and will only be able to play in a style which is fairly constrained, or limited, to a certain feel. And there's always a danger that a "formal" player will use theory and ideas instead of their ears and body, or will not have developed their ears and technique to recognize and play in styles with subtle, unwritten feels. In a related observation, those who are most critical of themselves tend to be the best players. They will understand those "dangers" I stated above. Those who think they have it all figured out usually have serious blind spots.

I really like "Double Lead Through" by Roger Edwards. Nice and bouncy, with an interesting rhythm.

"Lucky" has finally been sold.

Your profile lists your email address as "private," so I can't email you. Yes, the concertina is available. Paypal would be best (as I don't get mail very often). Just send the money and tell me where to send it, and it's yours.

A quick note: I've been mostly away from the internet for a while, and contact will still be sporadic. I'm going to leave in a week to help out with relief efforts for the New Orleans refugees in Texas or Mississippi for a few weeks. Then I'll take a month or so traveling the country. At that time, I may post some friendly requests for suggestions of people or things to visit. Email is the best way to contact me, messages posted from the forums will most likely be much slower. Have fun, all.

Sorry, the Jackie's been sold!

This is from the "Looking For Beginner Anglo" thread, the guy who posted the request said he was going to do some research before buying, so he declined to buy at this time. So, first come, first serve! Buy this with the Jackie and try both systems for $300! WoW! I'm selling the first concertina I ever got, a cheap Chinese 30-button Anglo jobbie. I'm asking $120 including shipping to the USA. It has the Wheatstone/Lachenal layout for the accidental (top) row. Send me an email if you're interested, first come first served. Some negatives: It is a bit of a pain to play compared to my Geuns-Wakker (or any other mid-level or better concertina). It moves a bit stiffly, and requires more pressure to play. The reeds speak a bit slower. The tone is a bit cheezy. It looks kinda cheap and plasticy. The bellows hold a fair amount less air than my 7-fold Geuns-Wakker bellows. The strap isn't that comfortable. The air button is a bit slow. The buttons are a bit close to the handstrap, so it's not for someone with large hands. The A reed on the far right of the middle row on the left hand is sometimes slow to speak (I haven't done anything to try to fix it). The "CScale.mp3" file below shows the A reed speaking OK but a bit slow. Playing "Constant Billy" in C seems to somehow bring out the problem (it may have to do with changing bellows direction?), so check out "Billy.mp3" below which I recorded to show it acting up. (I could of course have used the A reed on the G row instead, which works fine). On the positives: it's cheap! The air button actually falls under my thumb well. It's fairly airtight. I can get tunes out of it OK, I wouldn't say it discouraged me from playing as a beginner (although it would now). I have played some concertinas that were much more difficult to play (including some Stagis), and had worse button placements. It sounds better than those plastic Hohners (I think). It includes a soft case. Pictures: http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcLft.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcRgt.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcOpen.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcClosed.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcInBag.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcBagZipped.jpg Audio recordings: http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Keelman.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Ashokan.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Amsterdam.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Laurel.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/CScale.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Billy.mp3

Jackie 30 button English Concertina, 1st Edition $180 shipped to USA This is a practically new Jackie, played less than an hour. I play Anglo, and I've been intrigued by the English system, so finally caved one day and bought myself a Jackie. The problem is, I just haven't spent any time learning it, and I need to severely reduce the bulk of my "stuff." Maybe some other time I'll try English. It comes with the soft case, tutor, and concertina. This "First Edition" model has duplicated accidentals to make the sides symmetrical, which I hear can make certain melody runs and chords easier. The range is G below middle C to the second A above middle C, whereas the 2nd edition adds 3 notes to the top of the range (B, Bb, C). Check out the Concertina Connection website for more details: http://www.concertinaconnection.com/jackie...l%20english.htm Here are some pictures. The Jackie is pretty large (7 1/4" across the flats), and the bag is roomy, so you can add foam or music or a few snacks to it while carrying the concertina. (My bag has dark red lining, not the white lining seen on the website. No extra charge.) http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/sale/JackieLft.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/sale/JackieSize.jpg

Well, Mr. Trjones1 has declined the Chinese concertina pending a trip to the Button Box, so if anyone else is interested let me know. (I'll give this its own thread if there are no nibbles soon).

Under the category of "suffering for your art," I think a more effective solution would be to turn the air conditioning off?

I think I'll share a few things I've recorded lately, for fun and learning purposes. "Salmon Tails Over the Water" on a 2003? Geuns-Wakker, and a 1880s? Lachenal 20-button: 361K http://concertina.jeffleff.com/audio/SalmonGeuns.mp3 364K http://concertina.jeffleff.com/audio/SalmonLach.mp3 "Tantz, Tantz, Yidelekh" on the Geuns-Wakker: 634K http://concertina.jeffleff.com/audio/Tantz.mp3

Well, I'm selling the first concertina I ever got, a cheap Chinese 30-button Anglo jobbie. I'm asking $120 including shipping to the USA. Send me an email if you're interested, you can have first dibs. It has the Wheatstone/Lachenal layout for the accidental (top) row. Some negatives: It is a bit of a pain to play compared to my Geuns-Wakker (or any other mid-level or better concertina). It moves a bit stiffly, and requires more pressure to play. The reeds speak a bit slower. The tone is a bit cheezy. It looks kinda cheap and plasticy. The bellows hold a fair amount less air than my 7-fold Geuns-Wakker bellows. The strap isn't that comfortable. The air button is a bit slow. The buttons are a bit close to the handstrap, so it's not for someone with large hands. The A reed on the far right of the middle row on the left hand is sometimes slow to speak (I haven't done anything to try to fix it). The "CScale.mp3" file below shows the A reed speaking OK but a bit slow. Playing "Constant Billy" in C seems to somehow bring out the problem (it may have to do with changing bellows direction?), so check out "Billy.mp3" below which shows it acting up. (I could of course have used the A reed on the G row instead). On the positives: it's cheap! The air button actually falls under my thumb well. It's fairly airtight. I can get tunes out of it OK, I wouldn't say it discouraged me from playing as a beginner (although it would now). I have played some concertinas that were much more difficult to play (including some Stagis), and had worse button placements. It sounds better than those plastic Hohners (I think). It includes a soft case! Pictures: http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcLft.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcRgt.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcOpen.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcClosed.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcInBag.jpg http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/Chinese/ConcBagZipped.jpg Audio recordings: http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Keelman.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Ashokan.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Amsterdam.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Laurel.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/CScale.mp3 http://concertina.JeffLeff.com/audio/Chinese/Billy.mp3

Practice holding the air button open while playing the few draw notes you have, to fill up the bellows for all those push notes. Hope that's not too obvious...

I don't understand -- are you saying a concertina is not similar to an accordion? 'Twasn't 1825. Ah...so why was "similar to" emboldened?

I don't understand -- are you saying a concertina is not similar to an accordion?

This one? http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewI...item=7532814360

It think they probably are letters, intentionally put there. The "y" especially has a very different look from the rest of the fretwork. There's no other clean "U" shape like that anywhere else on that end.

Oh, come on! Just because you don't "get it" (which you've already demonstrated with your title to this thread) doesn't mean it's flawed. If many people enjoy it and you think it's stilted, who's more likely correct? Er, I didn't title this thread, that was someone else. Even so, classical music isn't perfect, and doesn't have to be for people to enjoy it. I think it's important that people understand and think about the subtleties of music. The differences between "classical" and "traditional" is a bit of a hot button. But I think it's been useful for me to understand BOTH to really explore the differences between the two, and in that way to understand music (and myself) more fully in general. Now, I did NOT say classical music was stilted. What I meant was that is a common mistake that happens with players and performances in the classical world. The style itself is more rhymically rigid, and it's easy to fall into the trap of becoming stilted. I could spend hours talking about exceptions or the subtleties of rhythmic variations in classical music, but I'm trying to communicate a main point: the differences in learning, technique, presentation, and expectations is really huge. There are some things that are more highly developed in classical music, that's for sure! But there are also some things that traditional music does very well that classical music doesn't. Otherwise, they'd sound the same, right? Each has their strengths and weaknesses, is all I'm trying to say. They come from a different place, and have different kinds of qualities have gotten emphasized and developed over the centuries. I'm sure I don't "get" all kinds of music, but I really enjoy certain classical performances, and certain traditional performances, and don't like others. Yes, I do think the way classical music is often performed nowadays is flawed. I'm not saying classical music should be "jazzed up" or played in a more rough-and-tumble, traditional-type way. But having grown up being taught in a "classical" way, I know there are many things I wish I was told about MUCH earlier. It's easy to hear the influence of the academic approach to music instruction in formal musical groups. And I hear it all too often. That being said, I've had probably the most exhilirating musical experience of my life playing in just such a "formal," classically-trained group. Draw your own conclusions.

Maybe deeper than usual bellows folds?

One last note of clarification (I'm trying to say a lot of things here, I dunno why). Again, I think creating your own type of "classical session" would be fun. I just think the reason it doesn't happen more often is because of how far apart the forms of "classical" and "folk" music have drifted apart. They came from a different purpose, and attract people with a different mindset. And over the centuries they've only gotten further apart. Bach was a great improviser, and much baroque music didn't have exact instrumentation written down. And I think it probably wasn't played in such a precise (even stilted) style that has become almost inseperable from the form of classical music today. So I think that creating something that even approaches a "session" atmosphere is fighting centuries of deep-ingrained habits. Not that just reading through charts in a pretty much straight classical way wouldn't be fun or useful (add beer and laughs to taste), especially among amateur musicians. It'll probably fare much better than most attempts by classical groups to play "folk" or "pop" music (as has been noted by others in this thread...)

My point is that playing classical music in a traditional session situation IS like trying to do both at once. When you take the trappings of one (say a traditional "session") and mix it with another (reading classical charts), you get an uncomfortable mix. Classical music doesn't work with random conglomerations of instruments each adding personal variations and improvising occasional harmonies. That doesn't mean pals can't get together and read charts, just that it wouldn't be that similar to a session. And people can improvise off classical music, but then it's really not either genre. I still think it's VERY rare for someone to really fit in in both genres (which isn't a point the analogy was meant to cover). I've heard many very good classically trained violinists in sessions or jams, and all but a very few stick out like a sore thumb. There are many people who can competently play both forms, but extremely few who can really pull both off "like a native." I have seem some people learn one instrument classically, then switch to a very different instrument and learn it in a traditional folk setting. It's more common for them to be able to fit in both genres, at least with the instrument they learned in each genre. Even then, it takes a person with a very good ear and the ability to really work at the differences. There are also quite a few people that are equally mediocre at both...but, that's not exactly what I'm talking about. I do agree there's a "dialog" that goes on in playing classical music, but it's not what I'd call a "conversation" in the same sense improvising together is. It's more of an exchange of energies, or a communicated mutual understanding. Both are great, but they are different.

Yes, classical musicians can have fun, and there can be intellectual aspects to traditional music. But they ARE very different. It's like the difference between competitive ballroom dancing, and bumping and grinding at the local disco. They're both fun, but in different ways. And it's very rare someone can really do both well. If you can, you're using an entirely different set of skills for each one. One form of music comes from a purely social, entertainment point of view. The other comes from a structured, technical point of view. In the end, both want to serve the music and let the inner beauty of the music come out. But they come at it from opposite ends. I once heard a professional classical musician say something very like this: "Playing classical music is like acting Shakespeare on stage -- it's the greatest thing there is. But it's not a conversation. Improvising music with others is like having a conversation. When you work with structure a lot, sometimes you forget you can color outside the lines." I think this difference is crucial. It's why there aren't classical "sessions." It's why "folk groups" with precise arrangements and technically-minded players don't sound right. It's why people think classical music is stuffy and elitist (even when it isn't). It's why people think traditional music is simplistic and corny (even when it isn't). It's why traditional musicians frown on too much harmonization or modern instrumentation. It's why classical musicians don't use spontaneous variations. It's why traditional musicians play tunes that have organically evolved through "word of mouth" over hundreds of years. It's why classical musicians create entirely original compositions. It's why traditional musicians often frown on using sheet music -- the trappings of classical music often keep people unconsciously stuck in that point of view. There are exceptions to all of these, but even when the forms "cross over," the point of view the person started with is usually prominent. Most people naturally fall into one point of view or the other, and find it very difficult to understand where the other group is coming from, and almost impossible to truly "switch" to the opposite point of view. You can't really perform Shakespeare and have a conversation at the same time. It might be fun trying to mix them, but it'll probably end up seeming like a gimmick, or it'll really be one with trappings of the other grafted on. By no means does this mean that I think people shouldn't get informal groups together to play classical music -- that sounds like fun to me! But it wouldn't have the same feel as a "session." It can't and shouldn't. (By the way, I play both traditional and classical music, and like them both, but my heart is in the trad stuff.)