Why I Think Unaccompanied Solo Violin Music Is Unsuitable For The Conc

[Kautilya]

I wouldn't call it inferior either.

 

But nobody so far called it "inferior". Saying that two door car has two doors doesn't make it "inferior". But it is valuable observation as there are people who need four doors.

MELLIFLUON-MELLIFLUODEON BUILD ME ONE PLEASE?

 

A challenge for Geoff / Theo/ Dave/ Chris/ Mike & all the machine masters to move positively beyond the Violin/Tina/'odeon/Organ debate?

(as a free project of course - don't want to know the price!)

PS you heard that new word MELLIFLUODEON here first!

 

go see:

Composer reinvents the piano‎ - 13 hours ago

The fluid piano has generated much interest since it was first mentioned in the Guardian six years ago – when it was Smith with little more than a one-key ...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/2009/nov/23/composer-fluid-piano-geoff-smith

Edited November 23, 2009 by Kautilya

[Dirge]

I wouldn't call it inferior either.

 

But nobody so far called it "inferior". Saying that two door car has two doors doesn't make it "inferior". But it is valuable observation as there are people who need four doors.

Everything but though. A bit like 'That rotten car only has 2 doors'...

 

editted to add: But they neglect to mention the turbocharged motor.

Edited November 23, 2009 by Dirge

[david fabre]

About the baroque repertoire : I have records from Jordi Savall playing

the "viole de gambe" (don't know the right trantslation) and each time

I hear him I have the reflection that this repertoire would be worth trying on concertina.

I see several similarities :

* Contrary to violin and cello, the viole has frets, so notes have a fixed tuning.

* When playing chords, viole and 'tina have similar restrictions : you usually do not

play more than two or three notes at the same time, and do not control separately

the volume of the notes you play together.

* Fifth and fourths sound better than thirds.

* Finally the movement of the bow has similarities with that of the bellows.

 

Hear a few examples here :

 

 

(nb these videos are from a movie ; the actors do not really play the instrument,

so don't look too carefully at what he does with his fingers...)

Edited November 24, 2009 by david fabre

[Dirge]

I wouldn't call it inferior either.

 

But nobody so far called it "inferior". Saying that two door car has two doors doesn't make it "inferior". But it is valuable observation as there are people who need four doors.

Everything but though. A bit like 'That rotten car only has 2 doors'...

 

editted to add: But they neglect to mention the turbocharged motor.

I can take the analogy further too; what I'm suggesting is that people should consider using their 2 door turbocharged car for time trials rather than taking the whole family on holiday because that is what they have been told a car is 'supposed' to be for.

 

It's a bit like that old Cod's about 'duets having overpowering basses'. Some silly idiot starts it and it gets repeated, unquestioned, for ever.

[RatFace]

About the baroque repertoire : I have records from Jordi Savall playing

the "viole de gambe" (don't know the right trantslation) and each time

I hear him I have the reflection that this repertoire would be worth trying on concertina.

 

I play in an early music group/quartet - we play harp, lute/recorder, viola da gamba/recorder and cello/concertina. We play the Ortiz recercadas (which you will have heard Savall playing) in various combinations, and we tried one or two with me playing the solo part on concertina. Yes it's fun... but it was nowhere near as "good" (we all agreed!) as using any of the other instruments for the solo line.

[RatFace]

I can take the analogy further too; what I'm suggesting is that people should consider using their 2 door turbocharged car for time trials rather than taking the whole family on holiday because that is what they have been told a car is 'supposed' to be for.

 

Yes, but what _is_ this turbocharged engine that apparently lives inside my concertina?

 

These are the great things about a good quality concertina:

 

1. It's portable

2. One doesn't have to worry about the (micro-)tuning when one plays

3. The sound it makes is always "quite nice"

4. Notes never "split/crack"

5. It's reasonably easy to play with a moderate degree of harmonisation if desired, on all three systems.

6. Consequently it's easy to at least play simple tunes on it with very little learning time.

 

All these things make it absolutely great as a "fun" instrument for amateur music making, where people have only a limited amount of time to practise. In this context I would see it as superior over many other instruments. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any other instruments that can excel/beat it in _all_ the areas above.

 

Unfortunately, none of the above points really matter at all in the context of "more serious" music making, whether or not that is professional or (serious) amateur. In this context people are prepared to put in years of effort in order to overcome the squeaking, out of tune gurgles that come out of violins, flutes, trumpets etc, or to put up with not being able to transport their favourite piano etc, in order to gain access to the depth and range of sounds that is needed to fulfil their desired for almost unbounded musical expression. Within that context, the lists of desirable properties tend to be totally different to the list above, and the concertina cannot "compete" (as in - compete for a musician's time and dedication) on really _any_ of the points. In this context I see the concertina as being vastly inferior to most other "established" musical instruments.

[njurkowski]

I would completely agree with you Danny, if all that "serious" music was was imitating a flute or violin or trumpet. A concertina certainly cannot compete in these roles with these established instruments.

 

But there are many other roles in serious music, particularly in modern classical music. A marimba doesn't have the same advantages as the piano or a violin in terms of expressivity or sustain, but there are plenty of serious compositions for it. Harry Partch created a huge number of microtonally tuned instruments which I doubt had even the expressive capacity of a concertina, but the music he created still has an assured place in the "serious" pantheon.

 

I think it's true, if you want to play romantic violin sonatas on your concertina and have them be as moving as on the original instrument, you'll probably be disappointed. But there is plenty of other music. Stravinsky's neoclassical period might be especially appropriate, since he was trying to write music that was intentionally not traditionally expressive.

 

By the way, I'm curious - did you ever try playing a continuo role using the concertina (maybe a baritone...) in you early music ensemble? I think that'd be more interesting than using it as a melody instrument.

[m3838]

It's a bit like that old Cod's about 'duets having overpowering basses'. Some silly idiot starts it and it gets repeated, unquestioned, for ever.

 

It's not the idiots, it's majority of Duet players' performance. Enough to check youtube videos to hear those bellowing left hand notes.

I think Danny put it down very well. Marimba analogy doesn't work. One can have all kinds of instruments in "serious" music settings, but without those "established" instruments it will be just a lame novelty show. The question is not whether concertina can't be used at will, but whether violin music is suited for it. I guess it is not, but if one can't play violin and simply wants to experience "conversation" with a genius behind the musical piece, it is very convenient device.

[njurkowski]

It's a bit like that old Cod's about 'duets having overpowering basses'. Some silly idiot starts it and it gets repeated, unquestioned, for ever.

 

It's not the idiots, it's majority of Duet players' performance. Enough to check youtube videos to hear those bellowing left hand notes.

I think Danny put it down very well. Marimba analogy doesn't work. One can have all kinds of instruments in "serious" music settings, but without those "established" instruments it will be just a lame novelty show. The question is not whether concertina can't be used at will, but whether violin music is suited for it. I guess it is not, but if one can't play violin and simply wants to experience "conversation" with a genius behind the musical piece, it is very convenient device.

 

 

I'm not sure why the marimba example doesn't work? Are you saying that without violins, marimba is also just a lame novelty? Our discussion has transcended the simple question of whether Bach violin music works on the concertina, I think. Just as a marimba won't pull off violin music, neither will a concertina. That doesn't intrinsically make either one a less serious instrument.

[Dirge]

 

These are the great things about a good quality concertina:

 

1. It's portable

2. One doesn't have to worry about the (micro-)tuning when one plays

3. The sound it makes is always "quite nice"

4. Notes never "split/crack"

5. It's reasonably easy to play with a moderate degree of harmonisation if desired, on all three systems.

6. Consequently it's easy to at least play simple tunes on it with very little learning time.

 

All these things make it absolutely great as a "fun" instrument for amateur music making, where people have only a limited amount of time to practise. In this context I would see it as superior over many other instruments. In fact, I'm not sure I can think of any other instruments that can excel/beat it in _all_ the areas above.

 

Unfortunately, none of the above points really matter at all in the context of "more serious" music making, whether or not that is professional or (serious) amateur. In this context people are prepared to put in years of effort in order to overcome the squeaking, out of tune gurgles that come out of violins, flutes, trumpets etc, or to put up with not being able to transport their favourite piano etc, in order to gain access to the depth and range of sounds that is needed to fulfil their desired for almost unbounded musical expression. Within that context, the lists of desirable properties tend to be totally different to the list above, and the concertina cannot "compete" (as in - compete for a musician's time and dedication) on really _any_ of the points. In this context I see the concertina as being vastly inferior to most other "established" musical instruments.

 

Yes but you can play with an unusually large degree of harmony if you try properly, and this was part of my original thinking, that this is a major asset of the instrument which is often wasted, it's a lot more than 'a moderate degree of harmonisation'.

It is much more sensitive than most (all, I think) keyboard instruments. Again, that, I suppose is what I was originally groping towards, (it wasn't a very carefully constructed post). Really, having clarified my thoughts, I think of my concertina as a fully fledged keyboard instrument not an ersatz member of the string section, and a particularly expressive one at that. You will find most keyboard instruments have fixed tuning...apart from things like spinets that go out when they feel like it. Maybe to a 'cello player a piano, harpsichord or organ is also a second grade instrument; I think you should concede that you will have to lump them with the concertina if that is how you grade it and you are being fair. I have always been a keyboard player and have a different view

 

 

 

By the way, I'm curious - did you ever try playing a continuo role using the concertina (maybe a baritone...) in you early music ensemble? I think that'd be more interesting than using it as a melody instrument.

 

Interesting idea. Figured bass anyone? But again, this is, I suppose my view again. Play the continuo, not the violin part because it will be more suited to the concertinas abilities.

 

 

It's a bit like that old Cod's about 'duets having overpowering basses'. Some silly idiot starts it and it gets repeated, unquestioned, for ever.

 

It's not the idiots, it's majority of Duet players' performance. Enough to check youtube videos to hear those bellowing left hand notes.

 

It is the idiots and you're abetting them. It's not an overpowering bass it's a lack of ability to vary dynamics across a chord because they all drive off the same pressure vessel. That's a different matter all together; there are good reasons why it has to be like that and it's not a duet problem it's ALL concertinas, harpsichord, organ, dunno, bet there's few more. Youtube duffers you have found prove nothing, we are talking about playing WELL here.

 

Our discussion has transcended the simple question of whether Bach violin music works on the concertina, I think.

 

Just a touch... it's certainly rambled in all sorts of dirrections I hadn't expected.

[RatFace]

But there are many other roles in serious music, particularly in modern classical music.

 

Yes you're right here. I guess I was only considering the concertina in the role of a solo or principle instrument, and also perhaps concentrating mainly on music that I like! Of course in an orchestra almost anything can be considered "serious" - bells, cannons, marimbas, violins, concertinas - simply because it makes a sound that is a small component of the bigger (sound) picture.

 

And then... almost any instrument can be "serious" in a kind of "novelty" sense. A couple of tracks of solo (or mostly) marimba would probably feel like enough for most people, unless they're marimba players themselves. Maybe I would put it and the concertina into the same class - interesting sound at first... but rather limited.

 

By the way, I'm curious - did you ever try playing a continuo role using the concertina (maybe a baritone...) in you early music ensemble? I think that'd be more interesting than using it as a melody instrument.

 

Not really - I did try multi-tracking and recording a cello sonata (de Fesch) - so cello on the "top" line, cello on the bass, and concertina playing the "right" hand of the BC realisation. It didn't really work, to my ears, though I'm not sure why (I think the tuning thing gets to me... and in the realisation the chords were perhaps rather closely spaced). I have a recording of Anner Bylsma playing the Bach gamba sonatas (on cello) accompanied by organ, and it's absolutely amazing.

Edited November 24, 2009 by RatFace

[RatFace]

It is much more sensitive than most (all, I think) keyboard instruments. Again, that, I suppose is what I was originally groping towards, (it wasn't a very carefully constructed post). Really, having clarified my thoughts, I think of my concertina as a fully fledged keyboard instrument not an ersatz member of the string section, and a particularly expressive one at that. You will find most keyboard instruments have fixed tuning...apart from things like spinets that go out when they feel like it. Maybe to a 'cello player a piano, harpsichord or organ is also a second grade instrument; I think you should concede that you will have to lump them with the concertina if that is how you grade it and you are being fair. I have always been a keyboard player and have a different view

 

Here are some important properties of the concertina and other keyboard instruments when it comes to playing chordal/multi-part music:

 

1. Ability to control the overall volume (in the sense playing of a crescendo)

2. Ability to control the volume of individual notes in a chord

3. Ability to control the attack (shape) of individual notes whilst playing a chord

4. How much freedom there is to use "complexity".

 

So - if we consider piano, harpsichord, organ and (duet) concertina:

 

1. Piano can change the overall volume, and the volume of individual notes in a chord. It is quite percussive, so once a note is played it dies away, letting subsequent notes be audible even if they're much quieter. There's no way to shape each note, but each note does have a "natural" shape, and a very clear starting "shape".

 

2. Organ can change the overall volume (through stops and swell things etc), but you only get control over the individual notes by spreading them on different manuals (or the pedals). However, the instrument can be designed to stop the bass overpowering the treble too much. There's no way to shape each node... and the notes don't really have a "natural" shape (they just start and stop). However... these limitations are in some ways made up for by having a wider range of sounds, and letting the feet add to the complexity. (Though... my personal view is that I've never heard organ music that I liked!).

 

3. Harpsichord has no control over the volume/tone (discounting a lute stop etc) and the volume of individual notes... or the shape. However... each note does have a very definite start sound, and then the sound dies away rather quickly, which makes up for balance problems - it's possible to bring out lines in complex music by using timing etc.

 

4. Concertina has control over the overall volume, but not over individual notes. There's no natural decay of the notes, so a "melody" passage will tend to be drowned out by the bass notes (the treble/bass balance isn't naturally good in the concertina). The only way to counter this is to stop playing the bass notes (or play them short). On top of all this, the notes don't start very precisely (compared to the instruments above) especially in the lower range. Oh, and the tuning depends significantly on the pressure/volume. In addition, the restricted hand movement makes it harder to be completely free with the choice of actual notes played.

 

So... it seems to me that if you compare:

 

1. concertina to piano: concertina can shape notes, but the piano has much more choice about what notes to play, much better balance between individual notes, much better pitch precision

 

2. concertina to organ: concertina can shape notes, but the organ has much more choice about what notes to play, somewhat better balance between individual notes, much better pitch precision, far greater range of sounds.

 

3. concertina to harpsichord: concertina can shape notes. Neither has much control over the treble/bass balance... but on the harpsichord notes die away so the sound of each note can be sustained, and new additional notes can be clearly heard. Harpsichord has also got better pitch precision, I think, and the hands are free so you have much more choice about what notes to play.

 

Comparisons with guitar, theorbo, accordion, harp etc would follow the patterns above.

 

Why is this not a fair summary? Unfortunately (and I really do mean that, because obviously I have a fair amount of time "invested" in the concertina, which I don't begrudge, incidentally!) in each case, I think the concertina "wins" on a few points, but "loses" on more, and more importantly, loses on the more important ones.

 

I don't say this to bash the concertina, but because I think the points here (and the ones I've made previously) actually answer the questions that keep coming up about why the concertina didn't end up more mainstream, why there are no virtuosi (imo), and why it will probably maintain its devoted amateur following for a long time to come!

[Dirge]

 

it seems to me that if you compare:

 

1. concertina to piano: concertina can shape notes, but the piano has much more choice about what notes to play, much better balance between individual notes, much better pitch precision

 

2. concertina to organ: concertina can shape notes, but the organ has much more choice about what notes to play, somewhat better balance between individual notes, much better pitch precision, far greater range of sounds.

 

3. concertina to harpsichord: concertina can shape notes. Neither has much control over the treble/bass balance... but on the harpsichord notes die away so the sound of each note can be sustained, and new additional notes can be clearly heard. Harpsichord has also got better pitch precision, I think, and the hands are free so you have much more choice about what notes to play.

 

Comparisons with guitar, theorbo, accordion, harp etc would follow the patterns above.

 

Why is this not a fair summary? Unfortunately (and I really do mean that, because obviously I have a fair amount of time "invested" in the concertina, which I don't begrudge, incidentally!) in each case, I think the concertina "wins" on a few points, but "loses" on more, and more importantly, loses on the more important ones.

 

I don't say this to bash the concertina, but because I think the points here (and the ones I've made previously) actually answer the questions that keep coming up about why the concertina didn't end up more mainstream, why there are no virtuosi (imo), and why it will probably maintain its devoted amateur following for a long time to come!

 

It's fair except it's lopsided. None of them have 'much more choice of notes' than a big duet. (Not sure about English, but the serious instruments have a decent range, don't they?) They have extended range into areas that are used relatively little and tend not to be too critical if 'fudged'.

 

1) A piano can't crescendo a note or chord. This doesn't stop composers writing long held notes under melodies; you deal with it by striking the key again at a point where it won't be too obvious, (and that brings up another angle, it is usual to accomodate and forgive such deficiencies, not damn the instrument for them)

 

2) An organ is a clumsy remote thing with a mechanism that runs for miles and sounds it. It's wooden in a way that a concertina would never be (and I agree with you about organ music!)

 

3) A harpsichord is a most uncooperative instrument, much, much worse than a concertina. It has it's own brilliant sound; but the fast decay of it is why baroque music is full of fudges and cheats to get over it. I'll tell you in a few years how important having your hands free is against having a decent overlap. I'm still working that out.

 

I know your heart's in the right place, Danny, don't doubt that, but I still maintain that you are underrating the instrument by trying to fit it in the string section!

[njurkowski]

 

 

And then... almost any instrument can be "serious" in a kind of "novelty" sense. A couple of tracks of solo (or mostly) marimba would probably feel like enough for most people, unless they're marimba players themselves. Maybe I would put it and the concertina into the same class - interesting sound at first... but rather limited.

 

 

Personally, I have never been that attracted to music with sweeping, conventionally beautiful gesture. That's certainly an individual taste, and I know a rather odd one. I'm sure it explains why I like 20th and 21st century music. But part of the spirit of new music (that I really respect and enjoy) is to find expressivity in sounds and music that is not conventionally thought of as expressive...in the mechanical, atonal, or monotonous, for example.

 

Anyway...a percussionist won the concerto contest at my undergrad institution with one of Zivkovic's marimba concertos (number 2, I believe). It speaks more to the quality of the wind/percussion program in relation to our string program there than anything else, but there was some pretty stiff competition. Novel it may have been, but novelty doesn't always correlate directly with a lack of depth. Obviously, it isn't doesn't have the same expressive character as a Tchaikovsky violin concerto, for example, but it is still expressive - just in a different way.

 

I certainly think you are on to something...one of the reasons the concertina wasn't established is because on some level, it was marketed as a violin substitute. Since it is completely different, this was bound for failure.

[Dirge]

 

I certainly think you are on to something...one of the reasons the concertina wasn't established is because on some level, it was marketed as a violin substitute. Since it is completely different, this was bound for failure.

 

 

That's another interesting one. I shall go away and digest it.

 

Having turned it over a bit I don't think the continuo idea is a particularly good one, incidentally. Nice idea but I think a major part of the harpsichord's role in the grand plan is percussion, and you'd lose that.

[RatFace]

Having turned it over a bit I don't think the continuo idea is a particularly good one, incidentally. Nice idea but I think a major part of the harpsichord's role in the grand plan is percussion, and you'd lose that.

 

Well I had half an hour "spare" this evening so tried recording the first movement from a Vivaldi cello sonata (in Am) with cello on the solo part and bass, and concertina playing the right hand of a continuo realisation - so you can decide for yourself if it works! My verdict would be: kind of It would be perhaps more interesting to try a faster movement, but then I'd have to be able to play it on the cello - my recollection is that almost all of these sonatas have got at least one tricky bit in every fast movement!

[Dirge]

Having turned it over a bit I don't think the continuo idea is a particularly good one, incidentally. Nice idea but I think a major part of the harpsichord's role in the grand plan is percussion, and you'd lose that.

 

Well I had half an hour "spare" this evening so tried recording the first movement from a Vivaldi cello sonata (in Am) with cello on the solo part and bass, and concertina playing the right hand of a continuo realisation - so you can decide for yourself if it works! My verdict would be: kind of It would be perhaps more interesting to try a faster movement, but then I'd have to be able to play it on the cello - my recollection is that almost all of these sonatas have got at least one tricky bit in every fast movement!

 

That's impressive for a knock about. I like it a lot; I think there's mileage in this one. Get a bit more lyrical where the continuo takes centre stage, I'd suggest.

 

Half an hour! You smart Alec! Very slick.

[Kautilya]

WOODEN ORGAN

this thread is heading for a record no. of posts so I cant remember accurately if somone mentioned about an organ sounding 'wooden'. wot abaht this old piece which for me is one of the best smooth swinger toons from deep bass right up. Has a great effect particularly when u have a long line of people processing in step... they start to sway with the waves from the organ.

 

I wonder whether a 48 or 56 button job could not also do the business with this = with some powerful elec amplification of course. Or adding person with a bass tina to do the organ pedals?

 

wotever, it's great to listen to

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zIhgutjHOmU

 

PS I desperately want to hear but cant get Njurkowski's Vivaldi to load -- http://www.rowlhouse.co.uk/cello/VivaldiAm.mp3

Edited November 28, 2009 by Kautilya