BW77
-
Posts
163 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by BW77
-
-
Ergonomics is the field of optimising how humans interact with machinery.
I don't oppose to that at all but I think it may be more. I believe ergonomics today includes all aspects of *work* , also the mental sides even though brain activity is no *work* from a physical viewpoint, and thus not necessarily interaction with machinery, but for our part we certainly got a *machine* to deal with and I fully agree that the mechanical side of all squeezeboxes is of crucial importance when searching for an instrument to play. The conversations in these forums reveal that. Are there any other musical instruments seemingly calling for so much interest among the users how to *fix* things??? Or do concertinas particularly attract "fixers" ? There are some 1500-2000 parts in them and lots of screws....so that may be tempting...:-)
-
This is supposed to be an ergonomics section...is there something in particular you think of ..."different" ? Or are you just searching for a beginner's strategy for the first instrument? "Cheap" may be many things.... Buying a brand new, expensive, object mostly means that the second hand value is less...while If you buy a second hand object and may get your money back everything is "cheap" if you can afford the investment. The important factor ought to be that the instrument works allright and even seemingly "cheap" ones may do so. About your initial question......who is "serious"? and about what? What may C Wheatstone and others almost 200 years ago have done "different" if living today? Not much has changed with their concertinas....
-
Haydens are key-centric free. It is one of the delights of them.
If you mean that you can play equally in any key that is a relative statement. It is correct if you have an infinite keyboard ( or maybe something like a Janko piano - almost "infinite"...) as I said in #19. But with the limited number of buttons - like the David's 46 - you do have 3 chromatic octaves allright but you can neither use the same fingering when playing single note melodies nor isomorphic chord patterns but occasionally, and not in more than a couple of keys...C or D firstly...possibly G and A, much depending on the tune, and if you use left hand for melody or not. As a matter of fact the Wicki-Hayden system would have its greatest potential for a "piano" or an accordion or "organ" - something Brian Hayden also has suggested in the patent paper. This because the foremost advantages with it can be practised only with much larger keyboards than "our" concertinas may provide.
Arthur Rubinstein for instance has said that he much regretted that he did not come across the Janko piano early in life and most pianists likely would say the same if not being unfortunate having spent years learning the common instrument. The Wicky-Hayden system might work just the same. But for concertinas as we all know there are numerous variants of keyboard layouts, all with their individual usefulness. Due to the restrictions from instrument size it is meaningless saying that one system is generally better than another.
-
Better to take my advice and abandon the notion of a "central key" on a Hayden.
You misunderstood what I meant by "central key" ,,,maybe I expressed it unclearly - it was not what you refer to here a central "button" but the *key* = C major and the same as Brian Hayden meant by "natural key" = C major. Let's not argue about this, the point remains that Brian Hayden's initial intent evidently was presenting the natural keys =white notes in the centre and the flats to the left and the sharps to the right thereof. Maybe "Inventor" himself, if reading this, might bother to sort things out for us....
-
Add: Sorry, I may be mistaken about the Patent application number which actually seems to have been 8234412 20 June 1984
-
Hmm...this is the normal/ordinary note layout : http://www.concertina.com/hayden-duet/index.htm - is it not?
In a word, no. You are wrong. The diagram shows a concertina with 67 buttons. 34 on the right and 33 on the left. Most existing Haydens do not have 67 buttons. My two Haydens (a Wheatstone and a Bastari) each have 46, Stagis have 46, Elises and Peacocks have fewer.
If you look at the photograph right below the diagram you link to, you will see a Hayden concertina with 25 buttons on the exposed side. Here it is again:David, you say: "In a word no.You are wrong"...Why this strong opposition?? Ok that your own instruments have 46 keys and this particular application of the system actually does have D instead of C as the most "central" key. Nevertheless the *system* IS usually presented just like the diagram I referred to shows with the block in C in the middle and Brian Hayden himself has described the system that way for instance in "The New Hayden Concertina Keyboard system"- one of his earliest manuscripts:
"The rows of buttons are placed...in such a way that flat notes appear on the left of each keyboard, natural notes in the middle, and sharp notes on the right"..."First look at the keyboard Diagams to see how the naturals are laid out (The key of C ) ..."
You may also read another of his manuscripts here:
http://www.concertina.com/hayden-duet/Hayden-The-Hayden-Concertina-Keyboard-System.pdf
And why not the UK Patent application GB 2131592 which describes several layouts : 46 keys ( fig 1 and 2), 78 keys (fig 3 and 4) 28 keys ( fig 6 and 7) 54 keys ( fig 8 and 9 ), 108 keys ( fig 10 and 11 ), a 60 key variant for accordion ( fig 12), and a 113 key organ keyboard (fig 13). All these with the "central" key, or as BH describes it, the "natural" key in C.
He does point out that the notes may be arranged in any other way but with the same whole note interval structure which I suggested too before, BUT the patent paper is what it is and THERE you find the arrangement with the "naturals" (= white piano keys) in the middle and the "accidentals" (= black piano keys) with flats to the left and sharps to the right of these "naturals" based on key of C. Am I wrong?
-
And as I said in #9 what to do with a similar system based on another central key than C ?
Hayden/Wicki systems don’t really have a central key. My 46-key Haydens have C as the lowest (bottom left) note, but I find the easiest key to play them in is G, followed by D. Someone else might find another key easiest.
Hmm...this is the normal/ordinary note layout : http://www.concertina.com/hayden-duet/index.htm - is it not?
That is no doubt arranged with a central octave block in two (four) rows presenting the diatonic scale in C and thus they have an orientation making C the central/basic key
f g a b
c d e
f g a b
c d e
You can do this is 11 other ways according to *some* other "central/basic" key, right? Same with the English system, the Crane or Maccann, they also obviously have C as the central/basic key in the standard note layout. IF you make an *infinite* layout of the Wicki/Hayden ( or Janko, or button accordion, or Wheatstone "double" or some other isomorphic system) they may become key indifferent but not when limited to the real/produced common instrument number of buttons.
-
If you want to see the rest, insert any number from 47 through 69 in place of the xx in the following url:
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54389070/Wicki/P10304xx.JPG
Thanks, but the search engine doesn't find the page. Explanation?
Sorry for the delay. I’ve been off c.net for a few weeks. I have removed the url tags in my quote above (I never put them in in the first place—the interface did, and it tried to again just now, until I added the “code” tags) to make it clear that the url as posted needs to be modified by inserting any number from 47 through 69 in place of the xx.
Perfect! Many thanks David ! Now....what to do about the main issue...revision? of the Wicki-Wicky-Hayden nomenclature?
The *systems* from a structural view are the same. From a *patent* novelty view that would make them identical would it not? The instrument layout is not the same however as the left/right representation differs. And as I said in #9 what to do with a similar system based on another central key than C ?
-
If I were going to sing and accompany myself, I would prefer the 30 button.
A common example: for tunes in G major, it is common for the melody to harmonise with either the chord G major or E minor. On a GD 30 button, that rich E minor is readily available and adds flavour to what might otherwise be a "3 chord trick".
I own a 20 as well as two other boxes with more buttons, I enjoy playing bouncy brisk dance music on the 20, but I miss that rich chord (the equivalent is Am on a CG box).
Another big advantage is that the 30 button gives you the 5th note of the primary key in both directions and this opens up some different harmonic opportunities. The same chord played push or pull has a different feel to it.
What I opposed against partly was that you don't have to choose between 20 or 30 , you also got 26 (and 28) models, which as Stephen Chambers pointed out in another thread (concerning playing Irish with less than 30 keys) often may offer what you "need" to a considerably less cost. As far a I can see the chords you mention here can be done with a 26 and the 5th in the primary key is available also in both directions isn't it?
-
The 'strong strident bright tone' often associated with the Anglo is perhaps all too often the result of attempts to create uncomfortably excessive volume outside the comfort zone of the instrument ?
The best answers maybe can be given by makers who have been around for a while or got a family history to back it up like Geoff Crabb who also takes part in these discussions on and off. They know what tonal qualities customers ask for. There is a definite difference if you want to use the instrument indoors or out, something which may covariate with doing trad Irish or Morris style anglo playing. "Classcial" on anglo is not all that publicly common at all, is it? But if you take a glance in really old anglo tutors you may find quite varied musical stuff.
The "comfort zone" with concertinas is an interesting matter. The "worst" sound hits the listener beside the player or the player him/her self...
-
@BW77: I don't know what the tremolo/vibrato distinction has to do with it - these are not really part of early music. BTW, for me as a string player, tremolo is what you do on a mandolin; vibrato is what you do on a violin.
Cheers,
John
Not much at all *here* ( Adrian's playing) it was just a remark concerning *tone* in general. My comment on his "studio" and the possble effect by its absorbing wall construction definitely is relevant however. Playing technique of course IS important. Instruments too - so to find out you have to compare players and instruments ( doing the the same piece of music) in a specific situation....not often practicable....Anyway, playing in octaves ( partly very suitable with an anglo but generally better with duets) may do a lot to tone. This is the principle with Bandonions too. I don't quite follow your comment regarding old and modern ones since "old" Bandonions to my knowledge generally have double reed sets in octave and that is the basis of common "bandonion sound" also simulated with a similar reed combination in accordions and with dry tuning. Maybe sometimes adding the "wet" mid
reed set as well.
Concerning vibrato/tremolo I agree and i tried in #9 to correct my misprint in #8 but I failed doing the right quoting
Concerning instruments a tremendous lot can be done to modify *tone* even with single reeded concertnas. I think "modern" idioms and fashion to a great part has driven the interest for more delicate and sensitive instrument qualities away from the scene. Just compare how different many "victorian" englishes sound compared to 20th century models. Colin Dipper obviously has been interested in making instruments with varying sound character. Anglo players today I believe mostly are more interested in having a "strong" strident "bright" tone than a less powerful mellow tone in a sensitive instrument. That likely is one reason that "this" sounds so special...
-
The reference from BW77 in relation to Vibrato 'as a variation of pitch' and Tremolo 'as a variation of amplitude' makes me wonder, in relation to my own experience with my Anglo, if there is not sometimes, in certain circumstances, a tiny element of vibrato detectable to my ears in my application of tremolo.
Would be interesting trying to analyse it in lab circumstances. By forcible attack on initiating a note you can change its pitch with a concertina( one who does it very efficiently is Bertram Levy ) but if you can do it more continuously to form a "vibrato" note I don't know. The Raphael kind of tremolo IS very delicate, I can hardly hear the swaying of the note, it just sounds sweet/warm. There are several different ways to produce the effect and the physical/acousticl result likely differs. What method do you use to achieve your vibrato/tremolo ?
-
Sorry about that...this is in real a tremolo too but in a very delicate way and intended to simulate string instrument vibrato. Raphael is one who obviously succeeds very well. (as long as we define "vibrato" as a variation of pitch and "tremolo" as a variation of amplitude)
-
Over the years I've listened to most available recordings of classical music on concertinas, both anglo & english, and although admiring of the technical and musical mastery shown, have never found them satisfying.
I may agree..I believe *tone* as you indicate yourself is the clue. In this case the baritone anglo was "right" and the player obviously as well...BUT also as you notice it is performed in a kind of studio with echo reducing wall which also reduces high overtones. The sound becomes "dry" and much of the disharmonic tone spectrum from all free reed instruments is gone.
You may influence the "uglyness" of free reeds which mostly is not what we expect in a classical music concept by other means too.
Some "classical" concertina recordings have been done in stone halls. That is a completely different way getting around it. You get *more* echo instead but that may "sweeten" the sound by the reverb and particularly when playing original organ music this may be just perfect.
You can also use vibrato. Listen to recordings by for instance Raphael playing typical violin pieces. He was originally a cello player.
A maybe more vulgar way doing something about the free reed tone is tremolo but it certainly can be effective, for Torna a Sorriento or similar things. Swinging the instrument around is another method. For "classical" pieces I don't know...I have heard some fairly impressing exampes though..."tasteful" or not....
-
For most single note folk music a 32 key english ( or even a 24...) would do pretty well and for anglos ( or other systems) you certainly might get along likewise with much less than tradition or fashion seems to demand.
Single note folk music? I assume you mean simple music plpayed as a non-harmonised melody line. If that was what I wanted to play, I wouldn't need a concertina. I could just have stayed with the fiddle, which has a similar range and timbre but is fully chromatic, i.e. flexible in the matter of keys, and can be retuned on the fly to adapt to variatoins in concert pitch, e.g. old pianos, baroque instruments ...
The Richter note arrangement of the Anglo is intended expressly for harmonisation, after all!
Cheers,
John
I actually agree completely that the Anglo is more useful for "expressive harmonisation" than single note music but the strange fact is that by so called "tradition" it is now used particularly with irish music in a "single note" way while it seems more "intended" for british Morris style music ( truly "expressly for harmonisation").
When saying "single note folk music" I clearly referred to "english" . "Anglos ( or other systems)" were mentioned in general terms :
"get along likewise with much less than tradition or fashion seems to demand". Talking fiddle, the english no doubt is the concertina most suitable as a fiddle substitute and it is not surprising it was marketed ( and used) as such in the beginning.
-
Later, I bought a 30-button C/G Anglo, and continued playing my accompaniments in C or G. When I branched out into instrumentals, I stayed in C and G, but found that I could work out much more sophisticated arrangements than I could with 20 buttons. This realisation also improved my accompaniments.
Hope this helps,
Cheers,
John
Ok...but do you ever use the 4 buttons making the difference from a 26 ?
Definitely! One absolutely indispensable one is the leftmost buton, outer row, left hand (1a), and the button next to it (2a) is pretty useful, too. I seldom go up into the upper reaches of the right hand rows, so I suppose I wouldn't miss the last two accidental buttons there.
But I do like a good solid F-major chord with its root in the bass when I'm playing in C major, and some scale passages in the bass are easier with the 2a button - e.g. in "Sailor's Hornpipe" in C.
Cheers,
John
I see your point with the left hand notes you mention but as I suspected the right hand top ones may be dispensable. Anyway it is a matter in this case of how much you need them for song accompaniment vs the cost. A bit aside...but I once fancied 64 key englishes a lot but honestly I didn't see the need or the fun compensated the luxury but of course it IS a matter of what you want to play most of all. For most single note folk music a 32 key english ( or even a 24...) would do pretty well and for anglos ( or other systems) you certainly might get along likewise with much less than tradition or fashion seems to demand.
-
Thanks, but the search engine doesn't find the page. Explanation?
Anyway we seemingly may find a difference between "Wicki" and "Hayden" then in the mirrored layout. I guess they both make about the same sense, maybe an individual matter..related to left/righthandedness as well? From intuition the mirrored way seems quite "natural" to me...my hands are that way at least ( and the feet also..) so in theory the Wicki model may look attractive...the possible problem being that we are so used to see the tonal system in a linear way as with the piano or xylophone. If you make a structural map making harmonies the basis rather than single notes you soon may change your view...I think Brian Hayden has done so quite a bit when advocating for the system and frankly speaking I don't think it is very efficient for single note playing, particularly not with chromatic runs and so on
-
Later, I bought a 30-button C/G Anglo, and continued playing my accompaniments in C or G. When I branched out into instrumentals, I stayed in C and G, but found that I could work out much more sophisticated arrangements than I could with 20 buttons. This realisation also improved my accompaniments.
Hope this helps,
Cheers,
John
Ok...but do you ever use the 4 buttons making the difference from a 26 ?
-
Thanks David! ...most intriguing....The patent says: "Kaspar Wicki in Neumatt"...seems like I guessed that he used both Caspar and Kaspar - Wicki and Wicky ...seemingly C.Wicky and K. Wicki ...anything to do with swiss dialects...?? or just tradiing the names for different purposes? Not uncommon I believe. Many grammophone artists for various reasons appear under several aliases. Wicki obviously was a patentee, an instrument maker, and a musical artist. Where did you find the instrument and manual photos b t w ?
An interesting detail in the patent paper is that it is announced 30 oktober1896 12 Uhr = 12 o'clock (sharp...!)
One more detail..as far as I believed, concertina has been the spelling in english, and konzertina the common analogy in german, but here we also have got Schweizer Conzertina , Schweizer-Concertina ( german) and Swiss-Concertina (english)
...rlgph , you got a lot to do....!
-
Add....So....to be strict it seems as if we ought to start using the termninology *Wicky" - system instead of "Wicki" from now on....or ask Anton Wicky about where the *i* came from....
THAT remark maybe was not so well considered. I checked the patent paper and this obviously says Kaspar Wicki so whatever routine he had for spelling his name otherwise, the *patented* system should be named according to the patent paper of course.
-
Add....So....to be strict it seems as if we ought to start using the termninology *Wicky" - system instead of "Wicki" from now on....or ask Anton Wicky about where the *i* came from....
-
1 "This isomorphic arrangement..." representing the octave in two rows was basically presented by Paul von Janko 1882 i e earlier than Wicki, but Janko made a piano with it instead of a squeezebox. I actually don't know if you "discover" or "invent" something like that at all... The 12 note = octave idea existed before and setting up a keyboard using different patterns of the 12 notes can be done systematically in numerous ways more or less practical ones. You just try them out one by one to "discover" the whole lot but Janko-Wicki-Hayden in that order are relatives...
A very good survey of these systems and their history can be found here:http://www.concertina.com/gaskins/wicki/index.htm
2." In recognition of the fact...exist due to Brian Hayden's efforts"
What do you mean by that? As far as I remember Kaspar Wcki himself ( and some relative(s) I think ) made his instruments with the common bandonion set-up using the keyboards on both sides ... i e such instruments *existed* allready in the 1890s...
3. I hardly see any terminology need for the "slant" since that can be varied in many ways and better not be mixed up with the systematic description of different keyboards. The best general investigation of concertina keyboards I believe still is the book by Maria Dunkel "Bandonion und Konzertina" 1987 ISBN 3 87397 070 8
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.
I mentioned Janko firstly to point out that there is/was nothing very revolutionary neither with Wicki´s nor Hayden's applications. That is NOT said to reduce the importance of Brian Hayden's efforts which I do mean arre very significant."We" have as you say got a splendid concertina keyboard system and that is worth a lot of praise.
If you look at the two basic rows of Janko and Wicki and a third variant "Smith" or whatever you call it
c# d# f g a b g a b c# d# f g a b c# d# f
c d e f# g# a# c d e f# g# a# c d e f# g# a#
you find that the third offers the same isomorphic advantages as the others with a slight difference. If someone starts making concertinas with that layout and calls it the "Smith system" that is all right of course but does it call for a terminology novelty?
Well - it is often easier to call some "discovery" by the name of someone to honour the individual but at the same time history often tells that the novelty was "in the air" some way or other and just as well could have been named after somebody else.
Talking about names...."Wicki"...as far as I have seen actually was "Kaspar Wicky-Müller" (1866-1917) according to his grandson Anton Wicky who has written a biography over him "Aus der Geschichte der Musikerfamilie Wicky"
-
1. The isomorphic arrangement of buttons originally discovered by Caspar Wicki and rediscovered by Brian Hayden should be called the "Wicki-Hayden layout" to honor both men. This should apply to both ascending and descending arrangements, to keyboards with or without the slant, and keyboards with the usual strict hexagonal arrangement or not, so long as the Wicki isomorphic character is maintained.
2. A concertina that uses a Wicki-Hayden layout on both sides should be termed a "Hayden duet" or "Hayden concertina", in recognition of the fact that such concertinas exist due to Brian Hayden's efforts.
3. The terminology for a slanted keyboard should not be entangled with the generic name for a Hayden concertina; rather it should have its own term -- e.g., a "Hayden slant".
Okay, my shields are up. Have a go.
1 "This isomorphic arrangement..." representing the octave in two rows was basically presented by Paul von Janko 1882 i e earlier than Wicki, but Janko made a piano with it instead of a squeezebox. I actually don't know if you "discover" or "invent" something like that at all... The 12 note = octave idea existed before and setting up a keyboard using different patterns of the 12 notes can be done systematically in numerous ways more or less practical ones. You just try them out one by one to "discover" the whole lot but Janko-Wicki-Hayden in that order are relatives...
A very good survey of these systems and their history can be found here:http://www.concertina.com/gaskins/wicki/index.htm
2." In recognition of the fact...exist due to Brian Hayden's efforts"
What do you mean by that? As far as I remember Kaspar Wcki himself ( and some relative(s) I think ) made his instruments with the common bandonion set-up using the keyboards on both sides ... i e such instruments *existed* allready in the 1890s...
3. I hardly see any terminology need for the "slant" since that can be varied in many ways and better not be mixed up with the systematic description of different keyboards. The best general investigation of concertina keyboards I believe still is the book by Maria Dunkel "Bandonion und Konzertina" 1987 ISBN 3 87397 070 8
-
You have got one answer here http://www.concertina.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=19203even though that topic dealt with the possible "need" for a 30 key Anglo playing trad Irish. For your declared intentions playing shanties and so on you seldom use/need but the simplest chords in home keys so you ought to get along pretty fine with 20 keys. You definitely don't need 30 but IF you absolutely want some additional half notes pick a 26 key instead and you do not need the"fast action" or loudness of a "top quality" model either. One alternative not mentioned if you want a cheap but good enough chromatic instrument is a simple/small type wooden ended Maccann or Crane duet. The "noisy action" Dana mentioned with cheaper line instruments often is just a matter of end plate button holes not being bushed and that can easily be fixed.
Consistency Of Nomenclature For Hayden Duets
in General Concertina Discussion
Posted
Getting back to the early postings I notice the above and get much confused. The "slant" seemingly means the angle between the transversal axis of the keyboard and the handbar, is that so? In that case the "slant" ( which is not present with the Wicki layout) means that the distant buttons on the little finger side get even *more* distant and more difficult to reach than if the keyboard was straight, or why not slanted the other way - so that the short little finger gets better options to reach its part of the keyboard. It is the same on both sides with common Hayden layouts.
So..what is the reason for this slant? The patent figures show the same alignment and "slant" but I don't find it described and simply don't see the point with it.
Someone who can tell?