Face plate design

[Ardie]

If you scroll down to the larger picture you will see the pattern is oval rather than round and comes closer to the side at the top than the bottom.

 

This eccentricity ("closer to the side at the top than the bottom") is the same that you find in almost all large instruments and I think it is the most common layout on smaller (treble size)instruments as well and you even find it on those belonging to the "cheap line" having a rather crude and open SSS-fretwork where an eccentricity of the fretted area definitely would not affect the tone or volume.

It is the same with the "oval rather than round" pattern. There is no reason to believe that these characteristics have come from any

"attempt to control tone or volume" but just illustrate various decorative intentions. BUT on the other hand - as mentioned above -

IF you pick a Duet with *much* reduced opening area ( and shielding of the 'lower/bottom' part) at the left side it *may* be an attempt to limit the volume of the left side which often is reputed as "over-powered". Some mellowing effect on the tone is expected as well.A question to Duet-players regarding this: How many notice a tonal difference between the 'same' notes left vs right in the overlapping range?

 

There is a considerable risk that unjustified rumours come up regarding various sophisticated 'intentions' or 'attempts' among early makers while the true deciding factors may have been pure economic or processing considerations and sometimes merely eccentric taste among the customers...

[Geoff Wooff]

I agree that, aesthetically, it is better to have a variation in the thickness of 'tendrils' etc. This makes the ends look less 'mechanical' (although I acknowledge that a concertina is a mechanical device!!). Here's a pic of my two anglos: left - Wakker with metal inlay on amboyna ends and right - Dipper with one-off hand crafted ends by Rosalie... For me, the beauty of an instrument is a most important factor!

 

 

 

Very beautifull instruments indeed, however, may I put in a voice of support for the instrument makers ? These brave people work very long hours, sometimes for small enough reward, to produce good working instruments for all of us. To then turn them into pieces of visual art requires a whole lot more effort and talent.

 

I do hope these makers were well compensated for their superb efforts.

Edited February 19, 2011 by Geoff Wooff

[Chris Ghent]

.

[Ardie]

Chris, did you forget to say what you wished to illustrate with your photo post #21?

 

I notice one detail of particular interest anyway:There seems to be an air valve at the left side. Is there one at the right side as well meaning it is fitted with the Alsepti "Bowing valves"? Is it a Wheatstone? The location of the valve lever is the common one for just being a usual air valve. If being bowing valves the levers usually are activated by extension of the thumb and not by flexion as this one is.

[Anglo-Irishman]

Musical instruments have always had more or less visual attraction.A bit strange in a way I think since it ought to be only sound that matters for the listener and for the performer the function too - but the beauty?

 

Ardie,

 

This is not so strange, if you remember that there was a time when music was not a matter of a solitatry performer sitting in front of a microphone and solitary listeners sitting in front of loudspeakers!

 

In many genres of music, musicians consider it quite natural to dress appropriately for the music they are performing, and for their expected audience, when playing live on stage. Nothing strange about that! So why should their partners - the instruments - neglect their appearance?

 

When I'm in the audience at a live concert, I know that my eyes are as busy as my ears.

 

Cheers,

John

[Ardie]

Of course I do not entirely reject the aesthetic values with musical instruments:

 

- but the beauty? As a decorative object of course... a nice piece of furniture? I do understand the craftsman... who wants to produce one unique and beautiful object..

 

I also understand when you say:

 

In many genres of music, musicians consider it quite natural to dress appropriately for the music they are performing..

 

and I do appreciate that the symphony orchestra members are properly dressed ( and the audience too)- it can be looked upon as an act of mutual respect (if that partly is what you mean?) but typically both instrument decorations and the musicians clothing play a more decorative role for an audience when the kind of performance is a stage show rather than a musical experience. The complete impression may be magnificent but the music itself then is not the primary topic.

For the musical performer however( if not firstly a showman - take Liberace as a typical example) the sound and function of the instrument as I see it is expected to have the absolute priority - if not I mostly can't believe that the performer IS a serious musical artist.

Also typically we usually find the most exclusive and decorated musical instruments among amateur collectors.

[Anglo-Irishman]

I also understand when you say:

 

In many genres of music, musicians consider it quite natural to dress appropriately for the music they are performing..

 

and I do appreciate that the symphony orchestra members are properly dressed ( and the audience too)- it can be looked upon as an act of mutual respect (if that partly is what you mean?) but typically both instrument decorations and the musicians clothing play a more decorative role for an audience when the kind of performance is a stage show rather than a musical experience. The complete impression may be magnificent but the music itself then is not the primary topic.

Ardie,

Respect, yes, partly.

But mostly, the typical order of dress for musical ensembles is one that is not decorative - quite the contrary. The black suits and dresses of the symphony orchestra or choir are more boring than decorative. They all look the same, so there's no point in investigating them further, and you can concentrate on the music. Imagine there was no dress order: I'd be sitting there in the concert hall, thinking, "That red-headed violinist in the red dress - yecch, what a clash of colour! But the other redhead in the green gown - Mmmmh! And that Harris-tweed jacket that the trombonist is wearing would look better with a set of bagpipes ..." and so on. I'd miss most of the subtleties of the music.

 

A a student, I sang in our church choir. We were quite good for a church choir, and performed anthems at Sunday morning services. Someone thought it would be a good idea to buy robes for the choir. This was debated - cost versus benefit - and one of the main arguments for this elaborate "dressing up" was to avoid having a fashion show every Sunday. (As Irish Presbyterians, we had the choir sitting up front between the pulpit and the congregation, i.e. in full view, whether singing or not.) We basses and tenos were OK in our Sunday suits, but the ladies were more flambouyant. Except for those who couldn't afford expensive hats and dresses. At any rate, their collective appearance gave food for thought - but we wanted people to think about what we were singing, not about how tasteful or wealthy we were. We got the robes! (The men, too, so nobody could tell whose suit was tailor-made and whose was off the peg!)

Nowadays, as a solo singer of folk and own songs, I go with Johnny Cash, and dress in black. (Depending on the occasion, it may be creased trousers and long-sleeved shirt, or jeans and T-shirt - but always black.) I don't want people thinking how tastefully or tastelessly I'm dressed - I want them to concentrate on my music.

 

For the musical performer however( if not firstly a showman - take Liberace as a typical example) the sound and function of the instrument as I see it is expected to have the absolute priority - if not I mostly can't believe that the performer IS a serious musical artist.

Also typically we usually find the most exclusive and decorated musical instruments among amateur collectors.

 

Obviously, the sound of the instrument is paramount. But so is the technique of the musician. There should be a sort of visual parity, too. I didn't mean to say that you should play a flashy instrument - again, quite the contrary - but it should be inconspicuous. Neither conspicuous by its decorativeness (e.g. Liberace's piano) nor by its ugliness, nor by its idiosyncrasy. Most quality instruments have a certain inconspicuous elegance about them, so they can blend visually with their surroundings, even when their sound is extraordinary.

 

Highly decorative instruments are, as you say, more a thing for collectors than performers.

 

On the other hand, the busker who wanders into the folk club in his worn-out jeans and greasy T-shirt with his battered old guitar, and then knocks your socks off when he gets behind the mic, is OK with me. He probably hasn't got other clothes or another instrument - so we don't try to figure out why he chose them.

 

Cheers,

John

[Ardie]

I'm afraid there has been some drift from the initial topic maybe - or maybe not...Summing up for a moment it started with views on choice of material, fretwork processing and surface treatment. Then visual impression from the fretwork came in and after that possible acoustic effects from the opening area and distribution of the fretwork.Lately pure decorative values have been discussed.

 

In "design" of course all these aspects may be included and some of them are fundamentally subjective and no "consensus" is possible to reach but a couple of issues may have a more objective significance.I firstly think of possible acoustical effects from 1) the opening area 2) the opening pattern 3) the opening distribution.

 

There are certainly opinions among players on these issues and sorting out the truly influencial parameters might be of common interest. Comments from makers would of course be very valuable, particularly if systematic tests have been carried out.

[Anglo-Irishman]

There are certainly opinions among players on these issues and sorting out the truly influencial parameters might be of common interest. Comments from makers would of course be very valuable, particularly if systematic tests have been carried out.

 

I admit the thread has drifted somewhat.

 

I'm a believer in the theory that if you have something designed by a good engineer and executed by a good craftsman, you'll have something that is both functional and visually appealing. Most "classic" musical instruments, including the concertina, demonstrate this.

 

To me, the fretwork-sound relationship is something for makers. For a player, the sound is the important thing, and you can hear which instrument pleases you best. What the maker did to get it that way would be nice to know/of academic interest.

 

What I want is an instrument that looks good and sounds good - and both of these are subjective criteria, as you say. Interestingly, of the instruments that I have more than one of, the ones that look best (to me) also sound best (to me and those who hear them). Is my visual perception of them perhaps coloured by my aural and haptic perception?

 

Cheers,

John

[Ardie]

I'm a believer in the theory that if you have something designed by a good engineer and executed by a good craftsman, you'll have something that is both functional and visually appealing. Most "classic" musical instruments, including the concertina, demonstrate this.

 

In a perfect World maybe, but since these things do change with time there is always reason to assume that improvements are possible and often this is a result from market demands not always inventiveness among the makers.

 

To me, the fretwork-sound relationship is something for makers. For a player, the sound is the important thing, and you can hear which instrument pleases you best. What the maker did to get it that way would be nice to know/of academic interest.

 

I wouldn't say so - take the 'Anglo sound' for instance. It is obvious that market preferrences with demands for loud instruments and tough outdoor playing conditions have resulted in open fretworks, metal ends and powerful reeds. Often this means a rougher and less delicate sound. Much the same seems to have happened to the 'English sound' when the use went from parlour playing to marching band performances.

 

Interestingly, of the instruments that I have more than one of, the ones that look best (to me) also sound best (to me and those who hear them). Is my visual perception of them perhaps coloured by my aural and haptic perception?

 

Sounds plausible - I have the opposite experience...which I regret to some part :-)

[Devon Hare]

'...Also typically we usually find the most exclusive and decorated musical instruments among amateur collectors...'

 

Excuse me... I consider myself a player - not an 'amateur collector'... but I think having an instrument which (in my opinion) is a visually beautiful piece of craftsmanship is an enhancement to the whole musical experience! I'm not talking about 'flashy' or 'showing off'... When I commissioned my two concertinas I said to the makers that they had a free hand with the designs, because I wanted them to produce something which they considered was an expression of their artistry. Both instruments are - equally - beautiful to play and to listen to... and - I would hope - very pleasing to the eye as well. It's probably because I'm an architect... I consider my best work has been done when a client has invited me to come up with a design of my own which satisfies the brief the client has given: there's more incentive for creativity when you are producing something which you want to do - and believe in - than when you are trying to fit something to someone else's design ideas.