concertina or button accordion?

[Don Taylor]

Rent one. Try it. Rent the other one. Try it. Decide after sufficient experience. You might discover that one really speaks to you, or that one is much easier to learn. If both do, congratulations. It's a nice problem to have. Experience, rather than more advice, is probably what you need at this point.

Sadly, it is not possible to do this in Canada. Button Box will only rent in the USA.

[Mike Franch]

Rent one. Try it. Rent the other one. Try it. Decide after sufficient experience. You might discover that one really speaks to you, or that one is much easier to learn. If both do, congratulations. It's a nice problem to have. Experience, rather than more advice, is probably what you need at this point.

Sadly, it is not possible to do this in Canada. Button Box will only rent in the USA.

 

Well, as H. L. Menken reportedly said, "For every complex problem there is one simple and wrong solution." I guess my "solution" falls into this category.

 

Mike

[harpomatic]

If you don't like your concertina, you can sell it back on ebay, loosing less money than you would by renting one. Again, bufflehead - if you already have a concertina I doubt there is a point in doing it, but if your budget is holding you back from trying one - you won't regret finding out if it is for you or not by going this rout.

[Dirge]

I take a different view on all this; after years of buying interesting instruments when I tripped over them, being keen for a fortnight then leaving them in the corner for a few months and eventually selling them on I have decided that these sort of distractions are just negative and I'd say: stick with your fiddle and get really good at it first. Much more satisfying, and once you get there you may not want a concertina at all anymore. OR decide the fiddle has not nearly as much to offer as the concertina (which of course is true) sell it now and buy a decent concertina. Get one instrument really under your belt before you shoot off at a tangent.

 

Mind you, that all said, I was most taken with the idea of a ukelele banjo recently and if I come across one in a junk shop (I seem to see more of them than any other instrument I think)in the near future that may get carried home to gather dust for a while. And I always wanted another go at the Eb tenor horn because you can play them comfortably in the bath, an aspect which for some reason I find alluring...

[harpomatic]

Dirge, fundamentally your take on it is inarguable! I, personally wish I was not only in agreement with you, but would be able to really "walk" that talk... But I can't... next time i see that concertomandoleaccordioviolinogittario, i know i will go for it! Hence is the dilemma... I guess I'll know how the dispute between a narrow specializer vs. the reneissance man will play out once i'm on my deathbed, or so i hope...

 

 

 

I take a different view on all this; after years of buying interesting instruments when I tripped over them, being keen for a fortnight then leaving them in the corner for a few months and eventually selling them on I have decided that these sort of distractions are just negative and I'd say: stick with your fiddle and get really good at it first. Much more satisfying, and once you get there you may not want a concertina at all anymore. OR decide the fiddle has not nearly as much to offer as the concertina (which of course is true) sell it now and buy a decent concertina. Get one instrument really under your belt before you shoot off at a tangent.

 

Mind you, that all said, I was most taken with the idea of a ukelele banjo recently and if I come across one in a junk shop (I seem to see more of them than any other instrument I think)in the near future that may get carried home to gather dust for a while. And I always wanted another go at the Eb tenor horn because you can play them comfortably in the bath, an aspect which for some reason I find alluring...

[Dirge]

Dirge, fundamentally your take on it is inarguable! I, personally wish I was not only in agreement with you, but would be able to really "walk" that talk... But I can't... next time i see that concertomandoleaccordioviolinogittario, i know i will go for it!

 

I do understand. As I say, been there many times. I'm just better at walking past these days.

 

 

Hence is the dilemma... I guess I'll know how the dispute between a narrow specializer vs. the reneissance man will play out once i'm on my deathbed, or so i hope...

 

 

No, I don't think you can claim renaissance man on these terms, sorry!

[Anglo-Irishman]

I'd say: stick with your fiddle and get really good at it first. Much more satisfying, and once you get there you may not want a concertina at all anymore. OR decide the fiddle has not nearly as much to offer as the concertina (which of course is true) sell it now and buy a decent concertina. Get one instrument really under your belt before you shoot off at a tangent.

 

Rick,

I'm very much inclined to agree with this - which may surprise those who know me as one of the most inveterate multi-instrumentalists and one of the most hopeless cases of MIAS (Musical Instrument Acquisition Syndrome) on this list!

 

To put this all in relation, however, I must point out that the Voice is my first and main instrument, and that I studied singing up to competition level (baritone solo - I even won a silver medal in the Oratorio class at a music festival with a Handel aria). I've sung in high-class, small choirs and big, competition-level choirs, and for 20 years I was the singer in an Irish folk group. So I have the instrument Voice "under my belt," as Dirge puts it.

 

My performance on the other instruments started out as pure accompaniment for solo singing. First the 5-string banjo, which I happened to have, then the Anglo concertina, which is easy to play in my preferred singing keys, then the guitar, which is musically somewhat more elaborate than the banjo, then the autoharp, which allows me to work up a decent accomapaniment pretty quickly. Accompaniment can be technically less demanding than solo performance - the main thing is the symbiosis with the voice, which in the case of self-accompaniment comes naturally. So as a self-accompanied singer, I can get away with distributing my practice time over several instruments.

 

This was the starting point for my venture into solo instrumentals. From years of accompanying, I was familiar with the instruments as such, and only had to learn some technically more demanding techniques. I did this with one instrument at a time, concentrating on it and mostly leaving the others in their cases for weeks or even months at a time.

I quickly decided that I would never be a guitar virtuoso, but I faced the challenge of playing the autoharp melodically, and won! At present, the classic 5-string banjo is probably my best solo instrument - I used the banjo concentration period to find the chords up the neck, and to develop my right-hand technique for fast runs. My Anglo concentration phase brought knowledge of alternate fingerings for sophisticated harmonies.

 

Of course I haven't got enough solo repertoire on any of the instruments to do a full evening's recital on it - but that's not my goal. What I can do is bring each of my accompaniment instruments into the limelight for one or two instrumental pieces in the course of a song recital.

 

I reckon, if I wanted to dazzle an audience with concertina or banjo solos for a whole evening, I'd have to practise it a lot more, and then I'd have to concentrate on it full-time.

 

In short, it's nice to be able to do lots of things, but it is satisfying to be able to do one thing really well!

 

Cheers,

John

[hjcjones]

I don't think it's necessarily damaging to playing your principal instrument to learn another. There are times when another instrument may be a useful distraction which allows you to take a break from the main instrument rather than becoming bored. I often find that a switch to another instrument brings me back to the first one refreshed, and sometimes with new ideas to try.

 

It also depends at what level you aim to play. If you aim to be a virtuoso then you probably have to focus hard on one thing, but it is possible to reach a "high enough" standard on several instruments and the greater possibilities this opens up may be just as satisfying as playing one really well.

 

So don't be discouraged from trying another instrument. However I think you have to decide what attracts you to either instrument - they are not interchangeable and apart from sounding different they require different techniques. So think about what first drew you to either concertina or button accordion.

[ceemonster]

look, bisonoric ("Anglo") concertina and bisonoric accordion have a healthy degree of overlap. they have a healthy degree of divergence, but there is a not-unsubstantial degree of commonality, particularly if you are talking b/c accordion and/or c/g concertina, since they share a "C" row.

 

you can try one and drop it for the other. or you can play both. though, like the previous poster, i advocate getting a very good handle on the one before adding the other, even with instruments sharing this degree of commonality.

 

there are numerous Irish musicians who are at master or virtuoso level on both of these instruments. there are also plenty who played the one first, then put it down and settled on the other.

 

on this board, you see plenty of posts by people who came to concertina after feeling they just could not "get" bisonoric accordion. and you also see for-sale posts by people who are selling their Anglo because they just could not "get" Anglo....and some of those folks are taking up, or play, bisonoric box. so pick one, give it a whirl, see where you end up....

Edited November 26, 2012 by ceemonster

[harpomatic]

Dirge, why not? (If by renaissance man we both mean one who's into more things than one - that's my "broad" definition of the term, may be you mean something different, but in any case - I find this discussion interesting...)

 

 

Hence is the dilemma... I guess I'll know how the dispute between a narrow specializer vs. the reneissance man will play out once i'm on my deathbed, or so i hope...

 

 

No, I don't think you can claim renaissance man on these terms, sorry!

[Dirge]

Dirge, why not? (If by renaissance man we both mean one who's into more things than one - that's my "broad" definition of the term, may be you mean something different, but in any case - I find this discussion interesting...)

 

 

Well under your "broad" definition of the term you are clearly a renaissance man so that's OK. Me, I think playing several instruments even if all were played very well indeed would still only count as one thing for these purposes; being a musician. You'd better take up painting or writing poetry or something and excell at them too; then you'd make it under my definition too.

[harpomatic]

I see, so it's just a matter of how broad or narrow our definition of the term is. Fundamentally, we're on the same page. So, since I wasn't really talking about myself in particular, I was interested to hear these equally valid points of view on "narrow specialization" vs. "diverging of focus/renaissance man" phenomena. I find both approaches equally compelling. Say, Hendrix on just guitar, vs. Mozart on violin, piano and organ, you know what I mean? Only because both "camps" voiced their opinions - to "diverge" or not to "diverge". I find it interesting to hear from both camps, without necessarily finding out who's right & wrong. I find both approaches to creativity equally valid, boiling down to some inborn "temperament" of the individual.

As to excelling in either one or more disciplines - that's a whole other, very subjective matter. You know how one can do everything "right" and still never quite get there... But that thought should not stop us from trying;)

 

 

 

Dirge, why not? (If by renaissance man we both mean one who's into more things than one - that's my "broad" definition of the term, may be you mean something different, but in any case - I find this discussion interesting...)

 

 

Well under your "broad" definition of the term you are clearly a renaissance man so that's OK. Me, I think playing several instruments even if all were played very well indeed would still only count as one thing for these purposes; being a musician. You'd better take up painting or writing poetry or something and excell at them too; then you'd make it under my definition too.

[Dirge]

I see, so it's just a matter of how broad or narrow our definition of the term is. Fundamentally, we're on the same page. So, since I wasn't really talking about myself in particular, I was interested to hear these equally valid points of view on "narrow specialization" vs. "diverging of focus/renaissance man" phenomena. I find both approaches equally compelling. Say, Hendrix on just guitar, vs. Mozart on violin, piano and organ, you know what I mean? Only because both "camps" voiced their opinions - to "diverge" or not to "diverge". I find it interesting to hear from both camps, without necessarily finding out who's right & wrong. I find both approaches to creativity equally valid, boiling down to some inborn "temperament" of the individual.

As to excelling in either one or more disciplines - that's a whole other, very subjective matter. You know how one can do everything "right" and still never quite get there... But that thought should not stop us from trying;)

 

 

 

 

 

This has little to do with concertinas or accordions now, it's just me being pedantic, but I would argue that Mozart was NOT a renaissance man; he was a brilliant musician. Brilliant, but narrow focus; music only. (Although I understand he had a gift for swearing. Not sure if that counts.)

 

I don't dispute that there are people who can be superb on more than one instrument. Apart from the fact that I wouldn't dare because I know from previous posts that there are other Cnetters who would take it personally, you probably know that if you study classical music you are expected to learn to play piano to above average standard as well as your chosen device. However I do feel strongly that it is worth doing one thing well before you move on. learn to walk before you try to run as it were.

 

Incidentally I can "still never quite get there" without even bothering to "do everything right". Is that good?

[harpomatic]

Dirge, I agree on all points (especially not being too pedantic myself), but my bottom-line assumption about RickPick is that he's already walking.. Of course only Rick knows... You also made me realize that perhaps my only complaint about Hendrix is that he did not play piano.

P.S. Rick, if indeed you are not even walking after 2 diligent years of practice, and an upgrade of your instrument - perhaps you really should take up the concertina, you'll be at least walking, 2 years into it, for sure.

P.P.S. I hope to not get anyone too upset if I state my own, extremely subjective opinion, that violin (for me) is just a harder instrument. Again, just my subjective opinion.

[harpomatic]

Fearing the argument "all instruments are equally hard", let me just say that if you know what "baroque cornetto" is, you know that statement would be false.

here is an example of this notoriously difficult instrument

 

 

[Sarah Swett]

A friend and I recently came up with the phrase 'hedonist generalist' which allows one to pursue and learn things, not because one 'needs' the information and skills, but because the pursuit and the learning feel soooo good.

 

As for ease -- I've played the fiddle about 8 times longer than the concertina so it feels easier, or at least more intuitive, but I've progressed much faster on the Concertina than I ever did with bow and strings. Whether this is due to the relative ease of the instruments or because I came to the concertina already reading music (after a fashion), and with tunes in my head, I couldn't say.

 

Certainly one of the joys of playing both (at least for me) is that some tunes (though it is probably my fingers) seem to prefer one instrument over the other. When some sequence of notes just baffles me on one, often as not it'll come dancing out on the other. Another of the joys that the concertina has helped to fine tune my intonation. I get sloppy when playing by myself, flats and sharps not quite what they should be, but when I get to know a tune thoroughly on the concertina, I am less likely to be satisfied with almost-but-not-quite-in-tune with the strings. And since one of my goals is to 'play well with others', decent intonation is a must.

 

And yes Rick, I, too adore my fiddle. Would that I will be a fair hand with both, some day.

 

Sarah

[Dirge]

... after 2 diligent years of practice..

 

Totally missed that; I thought he said he hadn't been playing long. Probably makes my comment rather irrelevant.

[harpomatic]

Well, you probably missed that because 2 years is not THAT long...

But time is so relative, as is the definition of what constitutes "walking" or "running". As Rick states, he wants to get to the level where he can amuse himself, not necessarily become a virtuoso(though I wouldn't recommend lowering one's standards or goals). Here is a bit of my story, just to illustrate the "relative" part of it. I wanted to be above average, good enough to perform with others on the humble harmonica - it took me about 15 years to get there. I was content with becoming average on guitar, just so I can use it for songwriting, chordal experience and analysis - took me about 5 years to get there. Mandolin - few years, as a lot of guitar skills translated well into the mandolin. Now my search for a perfect instrument to back up my harmonica (in a rack) brought me to concertinas... At that point, I felt like you - enough distractions, I just do not have years of time to dedicate to it, if it is going to be that tough to learn for my somewhat limited purposes. I already had an experience with a hammond organ, which was easy to start on, but not easy to take to a decent, proficient level (too many new skills to acquire and practice). So, not wanting to waste time, I thought that I will either see if this concertina thing works for me, or quit it. I wanted to "get it" fast - which was not something I really cared about before, with other instruments, but at that point of my life - it would be fast, or sell it on ebay... Again, since this was my distant "second" instrument, serving a somewhat limited purpose, my goal was not to outdo the numerous concertina virtuosos out there, but to learn to play simple accompaniment to myself, and generally enjoy the chordal(as well as melody) possibilities of this member of the "squeeze-box" family. In order to learn fast, I TOTALLY immersed myself into the concertina practice for 6 months. This was a period of my life where I temporarily lived in a different city, away from friends, familiar things, toys(all my instruments), no disposable income to entertain myself with, and a lot of free time. Perfect time for such an endeavor, plus concertina being so portable - I slept with it, walked everywhere with it, took it with me on any and all car rides(I was restricted to being a passenger), read any and all bits of info on concertinas online, exhausting ALL the available info on the internet - in short, i went totally "concertina-crazy"!!! But, in the end it worked - I got to my goal of being good enough to amuse myself and others in about 4 month time. Now, we all know that music, like any other art form is a life long process, we grow and learn continuously. But there is a point that one can reach that kind of makes you feel like you've attained some basic level of personall success, so that you can carry on in your learning without feeling hopelessly incapable, like when you say to yourself - "well. I can do it", or "I am finally doing it!" BTW, I never got there with organ, not quite there with a violin, and bunch of other instruments i tried, so there is some kind of self-critical gene in me;) Also, in my experience it really helps if you indeed, already play at least one instrument - the learning goes much faster, as it is only a matter of skills to learn, not the whole "mental/theoretical" thing to learn as well. I find that "mental" part to be the hardest, deepest and most challenging aspect of music-making, the rest is just finger practice...

PS. About diverging: a year that I spend on the hammond did not go to waste either. The theory on chords and harmony that i could explore with ease, given that "mother of layouts" of the piano keyboard, was so important, even if i did not accomplish the fluent playing skills. I kind of see it as a "theory course" that i took for free (hammond was a gift).

 

 

 

... after 2 diligent years of practice..

 

Totally missed that; I thought he said he hadn't been playing long. Probably makes my comment rather irrelevant.

Edited November 28, 2012 by harpomatic