Why Bb2 to modify duplicated D#3 on EC

[kevin toner]

If I was able to purchase this, I'd check to see if the Dsharp3 reed tongue has been soldered-up down to a Bflat2; and if not, I'd have it done. I think that this might have been a common thing in the past, but that's for the concertina history forum I suppose...!

Common?

I may have encountered the idea once before, but not more than that. It would be similar, though, to replacing the low G# on a treble with F, the only alteration to the standard layout that I've seen in more than one example (not counting different ranges or transposing instruments).

 

But I wonder why Bb, yet not B, A, or G? Well, I agree that extending this particular discussion should probably be done elsewhere and in its own thread, so I'll try starting a new topic after I get back from feeding the sheep (for my friend, who is away)... if you or someone else doesn't beat me to it.

 

Jim,

 

I believe my granddad got this done by Wheatstone when "changing to New Philharmonic pitch". He didn't explain why. It may have been a manufacturer's recommendation. I also think Simon Thoumire has inherited the same as per an article on Concertina.NetCom ps: at here cited on his 2nd last paragraph.

 

My current thoughts as to why this might have occurred, given the questions 'why skip a B, or why not opt for an A or lower?' are:

 

1) Bagpipe drone;

2) An outer row would be best not to have a naturalised key in line with the EC layout in particular, n/a on other layouts, to reduce the level of being out of kilter;

3) A Bb facilitates several popular key signatures (Eb,Bb,F,Ab) that also happen to be popular EC keys too given reduced middle row work, which in my opinion is a bigger advantage than having a duplicate Eb[D#];

4) limitations on the level of solder?

 

Any more thoughts or any knowledge on the history of this modification in respect of the EC layout in particular?

Edited May 15, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

D# = Eb!

 

Also interesting that Wheatstone advised/decided to replace the D#[Eb] with the [advantageous] Bb by going adjacent to the D on the LHS rather than to the E on the RHS where its twin lies.

 

I believe this was in respect of the players' mental picture of duplicates as previously/recently discussed by me on the teaching and learning discussion forum here at Point No.7 in post #6.

 

This also accords with the former advantage at point 3 above since This D# merely facilitates the key signatures of E (4 sharps) & B (5 sharps) at best in terms of a conventional mapping of D# i.e. not as an Eb duplicate where it does offer flexibility in commoner keys.

 

Ergo a D#[Eb] next to D is commonly preferred to be understood as a D# rather than as another Eb, i.e. the mapping of flats/sharps determined by: 1) firstly and primarily adjacency; and then 2) lastly or secondarily by their duplicate location on the reciprocal face.

 

Again though, as per the other discussion, this is a dogma that must be dropped when playing complex piano scores, where duplicates are a blessing.

 

However, overall, I would contend that having the Bb2 instead of a duplicate Eb3[D#3] is a bigger advantage in spite of my advocacy for utilising duplicates.

 

I've therefore included an addendum (edit) above at 3.

 

ps: NEW THREAD HEADING!

 

This should've therefore been titled:

 

1) Why Bb2 to modify duplicated Eb3 on EC ; OR

2) Why Bb2 to modify D#3 on EC

 

pps: basically 1) & 2) are the same heading, but are more semantically correct!

Edited May 17, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

"Why Bb2 to modify duplicated Eb3 on EC?"

 

Another thing in the heading that'll be discouraging discussion is perhaps the use (shorthand) of numbers to explain the key position relative to middle C (C4).

 

ps: for the avoidance of doubt on this kind of numbering: immediately below C4 is B3 and immediately above C4 is D4. This numbering is based on the piano layout counting from C0 (4 octaves down). I believe this is how vocalist's/pianists number notes and it's therefore possibly the international language (Esperanto) to be using for such discussions.

 

This makes the title/discussion less wordy, but your call folks!

 

ps Jim, regarding this occurring on a plain treble is a different debate. I don't think it's an issue a 5th up or down the octave as all lower buttons have great adjacencies to have: i.e. A with Ab; G with a duplicate Ab; B with a Bb; and finally C with a C# ergo absolutely no problem!

 

However, this might beg the fairly valid question on the Tenor Treble 'lower keys' question, i'e "Why [not a useful C#3 duplicate too, or a] Bb2 to modify duplicated Eb3 on EC?"

 

My answer to that would be "C# fine if you're a player who requires to do a lot of work in the key of D as in common traditional/folk playing, but Bb better". Not my cup of tea yet I'm afraid, but very valid question Jim!

 

C#3 would offer similar advantages to Bb2 as follows:

 

1a) wouldn't offer a bagpipe drone;

2a) also less out of kilter than having a natural (non flat/sharp) key; but arguably even more in kilter than would be the preferred Bb as a C# naturally falls below a duplicate Ab a 5th (half octave) up or down;

3a) also facilitates a popular key signature (D) and sharpening of the C note (popular in G to D bridges...etc?? ); and likewise constituting less middle row effort;

4a) also works within the limitations on the level of solder, if the are any, but means even less solder than used for a Bb modification.

 

Thanks Jim for prompting this discussion and extra question.

 

Does anyone have experience of a duplicate C# (or for that matter any more with a Bb2 as I [and Simon Thoumire] have) on their Tenor-Trebles or equivalents?

 

Any more knowledge out there on this, please refer back here to help keep the discussion in the one place!

Edited May 16, 2012 by kevin toner

[spindizzy]

If I was able to purchase this, I'd check to see if the Dsharp3 reed tongue has been soldered-up down to a Bflat2; and if not, I'd have it done. I think that this might have been a common thing in the past, but that's for the concertina history forum I suppose...!

Common?

I may have encountered the idea once before, but not more than that. It would be similar, though, to replacing the low G# on a treble with F, the only alteration to the standard layout that I've seen in more than one example (not counting different ranges or transposing instruments).

 

But I wonder why Bb, yet not B, A, or G? Well, I agree that extending this particular discussion should probably be done elsewhere and in its own thread, so I'll try starting a new topic after I get back from feeding the sheep (for my friend, who is away)... if you or someone else doesn't beat me to it.

 

Jim,

 

I believe my granddad got this done by Wheatstone when "changing to New Philharmonic pitch". He didn't explain why. It may have been a manufacturer's recommendation. I also think Simon Thoumire has inherited the same as per an article on Concertina.NetCom ps: at here cited on his 2nd last paragraph.

 

My current thoughts as to why this might have occurred, given the questions 'why skip a B, or why not opt for an A or lower?' are:

 

1) Bagpipe drone;

2) An outer row would be best not to have a naturalised key in line with the EC layout in particular, n/a on other layouts, to reduce the level of being out of kilter;

3) A Bb facilitates several popular key signatures (Eb,Bb,F,Ab) that also happen to be popular EC keys too given reduced middle row work, which in my opinion is a bigger advantage than having a duplicate Eb[D#];

4) limitations on the level of solder?

 

Any more thoughts or any knowledge on the history of this modification in respect of the EC layout in particular?

 

Brass mostly are based in flat keys eg F Bflat or Eflat (and on the odd day that I play EC in my partners (very) amateur orchestra, these keys seem much commoner than G,D or A - maybe to help out the clarinets and brass Flugel, horn, euphonium and trumpet!

So perhaps EC's that come from a Salvation Army background would have any mods made to ease these keys.

 

Chris

[kevin toner]

If I was able to purchase this, I'd check to see if the Dsharp3 reed tongue has been soldered-up down to a Bflat2; and if not, I'd have it done. I think that this might have been a common thing in the past, but that's for the concertina history forum I suppose...!

Common?

I may have encountered the idea once before, but not more than that. It would be similar, though, to replacing the low G# on a treble with F, the only alteration to the standard layout that I've seen in more than one example (not counting different ranges or transposing instruments).

 

But I wonder why Bb, yet not B, A, or G? Well, I agree that extending this particular discussion should probably be done elsewhere and in its own thread, so I'll try starting a new topic after I get back from feeding the sheep (for my friend, who is away)... if you or someone else doesn't beat me to it.

 

Jim,

 

I believe my granddad got this done by Wheatstone when "changing to New Philharmonic pitch". He didn't explain why. It may have been a manufacturer's recommendation. I also think Simon Thoumire has inherited the same as per an article on Concertina.NetCom ps: at here cited on his 2nd last paragraph.

 

My current thoughts as to why this might have occurred, given the questions 'why skip a B, or why not opt for an A or lower?' are:

 

1) Bagpipe drone;

2) An outer row would be best not to have a naturalised key in line with the EC layout in particular, n/a on other layouts, to reduce the level of being out of kilter;

3) A Bb facilitates several popular key signatures (Eb,Bb,F,Ab) that also happen to be popular EC keys too given reduced middle row work, which in my opinion is a bigger advantage than having a duplicate Eb[D#];

4) limitations on the level of solder?

 

Any more thoughts or any knowledge on the history of this modification in respect of the EC layout in particular?

 

Brass mostly are based in flat keys eg F Bflat or Eflat (and on the odd day that I play EC in my partners (very) amateur orchestra, these keys seem much commoner than G,D or A - maybe to help out the clarinets and brass Flugel, horn, euphonium and trumpet!

So perhaps EC's that come from a Salvation Army background would have any mods made to ease these keys.

 

Chris

 

Thanks Chris, which is probably the crux of it. This accords with my granddad's statements on 1) the popularity of concertinas within the S.A. at the time of his modification before the war; & 2) possibly also as concertina bands' covered the exact same wideness of range as the brass bands, I'd say as a further possible influence upon Wheatstone (source: recorded interviews by S.Eydmann). Whether Danny was coaxed or tempted by Wheatstone I do not know. He could play instantaneously in any key, so he wouldn't have been fussed in either way! Danny was an excellent 'one-man-bagpipes'-band' imitator between inter-sessions - perhaps he warmed to a suggestion from Wheatstone to modify the duplicate.

 

[off the record: He was not a fan of typical S.A. bands, which he argued [in tandem with the introduction of accordions] had dampened the Concertina's wider appeal due to their lack of musicality, despite his appreciation of quality Concertina Bands, which he seen as a quite different animal, not merely because his uncle Dan Green arranged for one of the best.

 

I believe I also have sound material of an elderly Dan Green playing at an informal family get-together. My task will be to catalogue and digitise everything we have. Not even 1% there yet because of my other activities, but will get there!]

Edited May 16, 2012 by kevin toner

[kevin toner]

D# = Eb!

 

Also interesting that Wheatstone advised/decided to replace the D#[Eb] with the [advantageous] Bb by going adjacent to the D on the LHS rather than to the E on the RHS where its twin lies.

 

I believe this was in respect of the players' mental picture of duplicates as previously/recently discussed by me on the teaching and learning discussion forum here at Point No.7 in post #6.

 

This also accords with the former advantage at point 3 above since This D# merely facilitates the key signatures of E (4 sharps) & B (5 sharps) at best in terms of a conventional mapping of D# i.e. not as an Eb duplicate where it does offer flexibility in commoner keys.

 

Ergo a D#[Eb] next to D is commonly preferred to be understood as a D# rather than as another Eb, i.e. the mapping of flats/sharps determined by: 1) firstly and primarily adjacency; and then 2) lastly or secondarily by their duplicate location on the reciprocal face.

 

Again though, as per the other discussion, this is a dogma that must be dropped when playing complex piano scores, where duplicates are a blessing.

 

However, overall, I would contend that having the Bb2 instead of a duplicate Eb3[D#3] is a bigger advantage in spite of my advocacy for utilising duplicates.

 

I've therefore included an addendum (edit) above at 3.

 

ps: NEW THREAD HEADING!

 

This should've therefore been titled:

 

1) Why Bb2 to modify duplicated Eb3 on EC ; OR

2) Why Bb2 to modify D#3 on EC

 

pps: basically 1) & 2) are the same heading, but are more semantically correct!

 

Chris, I've edited this former post in respect of 'sharp Vs flat' matters, but I'm certain that these observations will be already written down in b&w in the annals of concertina manual literature. So it probably doesn't have to be repeated.

 

Can anyone point me to such literature then I'll know whether or not I'm writing in vain as I can be using sources instead?