Jump to content

English System


Recommended Posts

I've sort of hit a limit in how many tunes I can commit to memory.

When to switch hands going up in tone, or going to the occidental rows, playing the same tune an octave up gives

me problems. Your fingers are all over the place and hard to keep track of them.

 

The english system is confusing (not there's anything wrong with that).

 

Reading the thread on shapes of concertinas and also having bought

two violins on the internet got me thinking .

 

As I understand it Wheatstone designed his system to the range of the violin.

But his fingering is octave based with the added confusion of switching hands

between octaves.

 

I'm not familiar with duet arrangements and do know there is a concertina

that mimics the piano. Few were on Ebay, they were discussed here.

The name escapes me.

 

******

 

If I had been genius Wheatstone I would have stayed the course copying the

violin. Here's a few rough, very rough ideas.

*

Base the fingering on 4ths as is the violin

*

Left hand, bottom rows, would be the G string, 4 notes with occidentals between

and below them.

Right hand, bottom rows, A string

Left hand, upper rows, D string with occidentals between and above.

Right hand, upper rows, E string

 

Option, add a G before the A of the string A, for a total of 5 notes in that row to

simplify jumping up an octave. Other add ons TBD.

 

Handle improvements TBD

 

******

Benefits? Many

 

1st , I think the violin is more intuitive to play than the EC and so would

an 'english' arranged in 4ths.

 

2nd, easier to play in different keys as is IMO a violin. Except for switching

over one note , octaves would be played with the same hands.

 

3nd, There are thousands of aspiring violin players that could take to the

concertina as a second or first instrument if it weren't so completly different.

 

Just asking the question

Patent Pending

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joe,

I don't completely folllow all of your post, but here goes anyway. If you're in the USA you should call a Button Box & get a Hayden Duet. It will put the melody all in one hand (no alternating hands to play a scale) and leave the other for chords or whatever. The octaves will be identical. The relationships between the notes is uniform. If you move away from the core keys of the Hayden lots of this begins to break down, but that doesn't seem to be a real problem to the people who play it. The other "problem" with the Hayden system is getting a quality instrument, but with the Tedrow Hayden and soon the Morse Hayden, this is becoming less of a problem.

 

You really sound like a duet person to me, so you should check out the Maccann & Crane too.

 

I don't agree with a lot of what you've written about the English system. Yes, a scale moves from hand to hand, but it's a totally logical and easy to follow system. I'd list as strengths some of the stuff you feel are weaknesses. In addition to being logical I think it's also very intuitive. I find it very easy to play in any key, this is a major strength, IMO. The layout (in thirds & fifths) makes playing block chords or simple harmony pretty much effortless. Having a scale shared by both hands is the system's greatest strength and it's primary weakness. It makes it easy to play very fast melodic runs, but makes it really difficult to separate melody & harmony. If you're going to be playing melodies and vamping chords AT THE SAME TIME, the english is the worst system to get. The english is great for playing just chords or just melodies, or for playing chord melodies like in "Dancing With Ma Baby."

 

I don't quite understand the "violin concertina" you're describing. If you're serious about this why don't you map out the notes for us; perhaps then it would be clearer. It would have nothing in common with an english so it wouldn't be an improvement on the english but a totally different instrument. (What you seem to be describing is a duet concertina) By all means if you think you have a good idea here you should develop it further. Maybe you're the next Brian Hayden!

 

My last comment is on handle improvements. I've thought about this a lot and even tried out some ideas presented on Concertina.net about "improvements" to the english system "handle." This is just my opinion, but for me there is no need to improve it. The standard attachment gives lots of control & stability, plus it gives a good amount of freedom. I now find it very comfortable and can play for hours without getting sore. Everything I've seen to "improve" the english style of attachment results in less freedom of movement. For me, that tradeoff isn't worth it. I even like the pinky rests. I keep my pinkies in them most of the time, but do take them out to sometimes press buttons and sometimes to give my hand more freedom of movement. I'm past the point where I'd change it as I'm very happy with it as is.

 

bruce boysen

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are basically three options when you start thinking about concertina redesigns. First of course, you have to come up with what you want. Then, the options are:

 

1) Attempt to convince someone else that it is what they want, and get them to build or commission a prototype. Least cost, and lowest likeliehood.

 

2) Build the instrument yourself. Next lowest in cost, but requires that you either are or are willing to take the time to learn to by, a craftsman capable of building a concertina.

 

3) Commission an existing builder to make an instrument for you. Highest price, but most likely to succeed.

 

--Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then what defines a concertina?

 

The fingering system(s)?

the sound the reeds make?

the form the reeds are made in?

the 'shape' -two ends and bellows in the middle?

the meaning of the world, universe and all that?

 

There have been various attempts to make more user friendly fingering and holding systems, some are just subsets of others. I tend to feel that those systems that have survived have done so because they suit a large number of people, and they are a fundimental part of what the concertina is.

 

This will sound reactionary, but there seems to be a drive to re-invent the instrument, part driven by ever dwindeling supply classic instruments with their corresponding hike in prices, part to provide a need for basic instruments to feed the current up-swing in popularity. With this is the inevitable risk of 'design drift'

 

I have no problem with the reproducton of classic instruments, I have understanding and respect for the substitution of modern materials, I have sympathy for the need to make hybrid instruments with accordion reeds. but I feel that too many fundimental design changes and the outcome just is not a 'concertina'.

 

D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing about the layout of the EC which is useful is the way fifths are stacked vertically. It struck me the other day that this layout is useful for music theory in remembering how many flats or sharps are in a key (circle of fifths).

 

Going upwards we have C G D A E B etc = increasing number of sharps

 

Going downwards we have F B(B) E(B) A(B) etc. = increasing number of flats

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And then what defines a concertina?

Please, not that "question", again! :o

The answer, of course, depends on who does the answering. B)

 

...there seems to be a drive to re-invent the instrument,...

There have been people with that drive since the beginning. Charles Wheatstone himself was one of them. Two relatively recent ones that have gained some acceptance -- though each redesigning only the keyboard -- are Brian Hayden and Frank Edgley. If there's anything different these days, it's just that it's easier for otherwise-obscure designers to communicate their ideas to the world at large --e.g., through Concertina.net -- without ever producing an instrument.

 

There have been various attempts to make more user friendly fingering and holding systems,...

The trouble with the "user friendly" tag is that it ignores the issue of which users it might be "friendly" to, and what uses it favors. E.g., being able to change octaves by just shifting your hand doesn't necessarily make it easier in general to play melodies, chords, or other sorts of harmony.

 

I tend to feel that those systems that have survived have done so because they suit a large number of people,...

I think you're right, Dave, but there's also a strong social and public-relations element. Only four systems were produced in quantity by more than one English maker: Regondi seems to have given Wheatstone's "English" concertina the publicity needed to create demand. The Maccann keyboard received heavy promotion first from Professor Maccann and then from a few celebrity performers, but it never came close to the English in production quantity. The same is true of the Crane/Triumph duet, which received its biggest boost from the Salvation Army. The anglo is the only one that achieved widespread popularity without any real celebrity help. In fact, it was the popularity of the German concertina that prompted English concertina makers to create the "anglo"-German. The Hayden may be poised to join these four... or maybe not. So far, demand seems to be outstripping supply mainly because the supply is so small. Only time will tell.

 

But what about the Wheatstone "double", the Linton, the various Pitt-Taylor designs, the Jones 1884 "improved" anglo, or even the Jeffries duet? Are these really inferior, or is it more due to poor market timing, the lack of a ready supply of instruments, lack of adequate teaching materials and teachers, and -- quite important, I think -- lack of celebrity performers? I think the Wheatstone "double" is an interesting case, since I've experimented with it (by printing full-size replicas of the keyboard and fingering various tunes and arrangements against the "buttons"), and I think it's quite "playable". I think Wheatstone even did some decent publicity for it, but with no impressive performers to promote it, it simply couldn't take even a sliver out of the contemporary Regondi-English market share.

 

Some other keyboard designs, on the other hand, deserved to be consigned to the scrap heap, and I think the Jedcertina was one of them. The piano keyboard is a fine one if it can be extended on both ends and the hands are free to move along its entire length, but once the hands are strapped into a fixed position, it becomes fatally limited. If you tape some straps to the front of a piano keyboard and slip your hands into them, I think you'll quickly see what I mean.

 

...the inevitable risk of 'design drift'...

The risk may be inevitable, but drift is not. The 48-button treble English is a prime example of the stability of a good design. And though the anglo layout has always been more variable, I can't see that it's "drifted". The duet keyboards? They're not "drift"; they're complete redesign. But the rest of the instrument remained unchanged. It's still a "concertina".

 

...I feel that too many fundamental design changes and the outcome just is not a 'concertina'.

History tells us that just changing the locations of the notes -- no matter how radical the new layout -- doesn't make it something other than a concertina. All those I've mentioned above and many more (e.g., Stuart Estell's apparently unique instrument) were considered "concertinas". The word "Special" in the Wheatstone ledgers hides a multitude of mutant "sins".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The english system is confusing...

While you, Joe, may find it confusing, it is not inherently so. I've always found it both intuitive and rational, quite the opposite of "confusing". And I know there are many others to whom it is not confusing.

 

Your fingers are all over the place and hard to keep track of them.

I find my fingers -- even when they're "all over the place" -- very easy to keep track of , though most of the time I don't need to do so consciously.

 

I ... do know there is a concertina that mimics the piano. The name escapes me.

That would be the Jedcertina. Please see my comment on it in my reply to Dave Elliott in this thread.

 

[Wheatstone's] fingering is octave based with the added confusion of switching hands between octaves.

"Octave based"? Could you explain further? I don't find anything about the design of Wheatstone's keyboard that is specific to octave intervals. Yes, they're there, but only by virtue of their being integral to music itself. The easily discernible interval relationships in the English layout are diatonic fifths (along the rows) and thirds (on diagonals), and half steps (between inner and outer rows). But the apparent bases of the original Wheatstone keyboard -- in the symphonion -- were the diatonic scale and side-to-side alternation of the notes within the scale. The fact that the eighth note of the scale (the octave) is on the opposite side from the first was not a design goal, but simple consequence of the alternation, just as 8 is an even number, while 1 is an odd number.

 

As for "switching hands between octaves", I don't see why that should be any more confusing than switching fingers between notes. In fact, octave jumps are much less frequent than other intervals in most music. If, on the other hand, you're referring to transposing by an octave, I can see that having all notes in "the same" geometrical relationship would make such transposition easier, but it seems unlikely to help other transpositions. (The Hayden duet system helps them all... in theory.) But I find that there's a way of thinking of the English keyboard that makes it fairly easy to transpose among all the most common keys, as easy to transpose by a fourth or third as by an octave, and even easier to transpose by a fifth.

 

Here's a few rough, very rough ideas.

* Base the fingering on 4ths as is the violin

Huh? The strings of a violin are normally tuned in a series of 5ths, not 4ths.

 

In addition, several of your other proposals are further from the violin than you imply. E.g.:

.. 1) Placing accidentals in separate rows - on the violin they're not on separate strings.

.. 2) On the different violin strings, identical finger configurations produce identical intervals. To get the same relationships in your design, if the buttons of your G-row were G-A-B-C, then those of your D row should be D-E-F#-G, not D-E-F-G, and the F-natural should go into the "accidental" row. I don't see anything wrong that, but it makes me wonder if you had thought that through.

.. 3) With only 4 notes per row, you're ignoring the common violin technique of playing in other than first position. And it's not just that if one can't do it on your concertina, then it's that much less like a violin. On a violin, positions above first are necessary on the E string, to play some of the notes in many common tunes.

.. x) I could go on, but I don't see a point in it. I agree with Bruce B. that we all might better understand your idea if you could provide us with a "map" (drawing) of your proposed keyboard.

 

I also agree with just about everything else Bruce said. But I'll add one thing: I don't agree with any of your three statements of alleged "benefits", and in particular I don't see why makers or promoters of concertinas should direct their product more toward "aspiring violin players" than to aspirants or players of pianos, saxophones, guitars, or any -- or no -- other particular instrument.

 

And it's my own personal prejudice, I'm sure, but I have no inclination to see the concertina reduced to a "second fiddle".

 

(Of course, the pun was deliberate. :))

Link to comment
Share on other sites

BruceB

 

Thanks for your interest

 

>Yes, a scale moves from hand to hand, but it's a totally logical and easy to follow system.

 

Its easy enough when warming up and it becomes automatic and quick with practice, as in most other things.

The occidental used can be a choice and is sometimes a preference rather than logical, many times it

depends on the tune you are playing.

Not to broaded this discussion, but I wonder why the lowest note is on the right hand and highest is on the left.

That's opposite the piano, left to right. Must be a good reason for that, but when you start the scale you start with the

right hand and that doesn't seem natural.

 

>If you're serious about this why don't you map out the notes for us; perhaps then it would be clearer.

 

I'm serious, but don't have enough expertise in all the desiplines envolved. I did rough 'map it out' .

Right now I'd call it a work in process, and just laying out the concepts.

Much needs to be determined but the basic concepts needs a little embracing

as one proceeds.

 

> I'm very happy with it as is.

 

So am I. But sometimes one likes to revisit history, and just ponder, what if, and that's what I'm doing.

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The occidental used...

Sorry, Joe. I know it's impolite of me, but I have to correct your spelling:

A note that's not in the key signature is an "accidental", with a "A". "Occidental", with an "O", means "Western"... as opposed to "oriental", which means "eastern".

 

...I wonder why the lowest note is on the right hand and highest is on the left.

Various symphonium keyboards illustrated in Wheatstone's 1829 patent do have their lowest note -- the tonic of the scale -- in the left hand. But if the earliest concertina keyboards had a lowest note of middle C and that in the left hand (Stephen C., is that the case?), then later extending the range downward to the low G of a violin would result in that G being in the right hand, exactly what we have. The remaining question is whether Wheatstone had any particular reason to put any particular note into any particular hand, and I don't see any. If he flipped a coin to decide which hand to start in, he had a 50/50 chance of getting it the way he did, and an equal chance of getting it the other way around.

 

That's opposite the piano, left to right.

Not really. After all, what about the other notes? The 2nd-lowest "white" note is in the left hand, same as the 2nd-lowest of the piano. The fact is that in terms of left-vs-right, the piano and concertina are neither "opposite" nor "same", but just so radically different that such words of comparison are meaningless. After all, most of the piano's keys are somewhere in the middle, but the concertina has no buttons there, only a bellows.

 

Must be a good reason for that,...

Why "must"? It could have been decided by a coin flip. The concertina was designed independently, not as some variant of the piano. I think you're trying to create connections where none exist.

 

...but when you start the scale you start with the right hand and that doesn't seem natural.

I think you're confusing "familiar" with "natural". Someone who has never played a piano-type keyboard would probably find nothing "unnatural" in one that was a mirror image of the standard one. Woodwind instruments generally use the right hand to press the keys which produce the lower notes, and the left hand for the higher notes, but that seems "natural" to folks who play them, because it's what they're familiar with. And then there's the fact that although the English drive on the opposite side of the road from most other Europeans, they consider it perfectly "natural".

 

I did rough 'map it out'.

I suggest you try the method I mentioned in my response to Dave E.: Create a full-size mockup of each of the two ends on paper (you could trace the outline of a real instrument, then use little adhesive circles to represent the buttons), then practice "playing" on them. It takes a little imagination -- e.g., to "hear" the tune, -- but since you're not proposing a bisonoric design, you can completely ignore "the bellows". Try some tunes, or more complex arrangements -- whatever it is you would like to be able to play, -- and see how they "feel". A major advantage is that you can make changes and experiment with variations at almost no cost. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim

 

 

 

 

 

< The fact that the eighth note of the scale (the octave) is on the opposite side from the first was not a design goal, but simple consequence of the alternation, just as 8 is an even number, while 1 is an odd number.

 

And 5 is an odd number, 1 is odd, and you have a different consequence if you switch on the 5ths.

 

< In fact, octave jumps are much less frequent than other intervals in most music.

 

When playing with others, rather than all playing the melody note its nice to jump up or down an octave.

 

< Huh? The strings of a violin are normally tuned in a series of 5ths, not 4ths.

Right.

 

< 1) Placing accidentals in separate rows - on the violin they're not on separate strings.

They could be in the same row. If they were in different rows the spacing could be like thirds are now on the EC

or even less.

 

< if the buttons of your G-row were G-A-B-C, then those of your D row should be D-E-F#-G, not D-E-F-G, and the F-natural should go into the "accidental" row. I don't see anything wrong that, but it makes me wonder if you had thought that through.

 

I was thinking of going up in the key of C , not in equal tones, and the D row would be D-E-F-G. But also going

up in tones, i.e. G row having G-A-B-C, D row having D-E-F#-G, and A row having A--B-C#-D#, and E row having E-F#-G#-A#. Might be better for playing in different keys,

in sessions as you go up in key, G, D,A and to E. the higher you go , more sharps appear

in the same row.

Whew!

Still mulling it over, give me a minute'

 

< With only 4 notes per row, you're ignoring the common violin technique of playing in other than first position. And it's not just that if one can't do it on your concertina, then it's that much less like a violin. On a violin, positions above first are necessary on the E string, to play some of the notes in many common tunes.

 

Right again, can't have it all. Not only that, I have to add a few buttons to get up to high C.

I don't think above that is necessary.

The violin goes higher just because of the consequence of its design. A contortionist with long fingers ( Pagini?)

can play close to the end of the finger board. Other than being hard to do, like playing extremely fast, is

irritating to me.

 

< I don't see why makers or promoters of concertinas should direct their product more toward "aspiring violin players"

 

Because there are a lot around. Most session players IMO play more than 1 instrument like fiddle and whistle,

or fiddle and Mandolin, bohran and flute, and like music so much they tend to be 'instrumentalists' and are in

outreach mode. A violin friendly concertina may fit that bill.

Further, what the sessions lack is a bass anchor like the cello. I understand that early sessions was usually

with a single violin and cello. But a cello is hard to lug around so maybe a 'simplified' concertina could

play a bass part.

Incidentally, I did buy a cello, and have it farmed out. Hopefully this Thanksgiving , we'll play

LaPaloma, and more. I'll play my EC or fiddle along with the my new cello player who also plays

fiddle, piano, guitar and at one time clarinet .

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

< The fact that the eighth note of the scale (the octave) is on the opposite side from the first was not a design goal, but simple consequence of the alternation, just as 8 is an even number, while 1 is an odd number.
And 5 is an odd number, 1 is odd, and you have a different consequence if you switch on the 5ths.

Yep. 5 is an odd number, and it's on the same end of the instrument as 1, the opposite end from 2, 4, 6, 8, etc. In fact, on the English concertina the 5th of the scale is right next to the first (tonic) of the same scale. I find that very useful. Should I also say that it's "like a violin", where the same fingering on two adjacent strings produces notes a fifth apart? ;)

 

I don't see why makers or promoters of concertinas should direct their product more toward "aspiring violin players"
Because there are a lot around.

In my experience there are a lot more whistle players than fiddle players. Maybe we should design a concertina to be more "like" a whistle? (How about a concertina designed like a bodhran? :o)

 

Most session players IMO play more than 1 instrument like fiddle and whistle, or fiddle and Mandolin,  bohran and flute, and like music so much they tend to be 'instrumentalists' and are in outreach mode.  A violin friendly concertina may fit that bill.

But aside from fiddle and mandolin, none of the combinations you mention are even remotely alike. In fact, IME (for the acronym novices among you, that's "In My Experience" :)) there are far more fiddlers who also play whistle than who also play mandolin, so it seems that "similarity" isn't a particularly strong factor when people choose a second instrument. (In case there's anyone who doesn't already know, the strings of the violin and mandolin are tuned identically and the fingering on the two is also identical, except that the mandolin has frets to make it easier.)

 

Joe, I think you have an interesting idea, and I look forward to hearing about its progress, but I think that by trying to claim that it's similar to the violin (or as you say, "violin friendly") you're fooling yourself and misleading others. No matter how hard you try, the differences will always be far more significant than any similarities.

 

Further, what the sessions lack is a bass anchor like the cello.

Well, that's a completely different topic, but I think you're once again confuting what you personally desire with "what the world needs". I really think that if the majority of Irish musicians -- or of Irish session players -- felt that they needed a deeper bass than the guitar or bouzouki, they would have it. (Some Irish performing groups do.)

 

I understand that early sessions was usually with a single violin and cello.

The cello was often used with violin in 18th- and 19th-century formal performances of Scottish music, but I haven't heard of it being common in Irish music or in bothy bands, "sessions", or the like. Not that a cello would have been turned away. I've seen a photo of a bothy band which included -- among fiddle and other instruments -- both a set of highland pipes and a tuba! And I've played in English sessions with cellos.

 

But a cello is hard to lug around  so maybe a 'simplified' concertina could play a bass part.

It already can.

I personally think the English system is "simple", and my bass and contrabass Englishes are admirably suited to playing bass parts. Both are double action and fully chromatic. The "bass" has the same low note as a cello, and a 4-octave range. The somewhat larger "contrabass" has a 2½-octave range, from G an octave below the bass clef (3 half-steps above the lowest note on a string bass) up to middle C. It weighs slightly over 3 kg, and its solid mahogany case measures slightly less than 25x27x32 cm, so I think it's failry portable. Old Wheatstone advertisements even include a "contrabass" model that descends to the C below that -- i.e., lower than a string bass, -- though I haven't yet personally seen one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim, re your post of Oct 3

 

< Sorry, Joe. I know it's impolite of me, but I have to correct your spelling

 

Yes it is, no you don't.

 

< The remaining question is whether Wheatstone had any particular reason to put any particular note into any particular hand, and I don't see any. If he flipped a coin to decide which hand to start in, he had a 50/50 chance of getting it the way he did, and an equal chance of getting it the other way around.

 

Well good. I'm glad that the guy that made the 1st piano didn't flip a coin.

 

< Not really. After all, what about the other notes?

 

I just mentioned the lowest note.

 

< Why "must"? It could have been decided by a coin flip.

 

I said must be a good reason, and your symphonium explanation, by adding a G seems the fit the bill.

Thanks now I know.

 

< The concertina was designed independently, not as some variant of the piano. I think you're trying to create connections where none exist.

 

Wheatstone, from what I understand, designed the EC as a 'reed' variant of the violin. That's why it has the

same range as a violin.

 

But after that, if you had to chose, it's more like a piano than a violin. It has black and white key, as does a piano!!!!!

It's tuned to the piano, with all sorts of shenanigans going on, with equal, mean, etc on top of etc tunings.

If it were tuned to perfect 5ths, then it would be more of a variant of the violin,

but its not.

 

Then there's the question of accidental duplicates, i.e. D# and Eb I think are two. The piano has one or

the other. The violinist can just roll his finger, an EXPERT concertina player (with D# and Eb tuned)

can play one or the other, depending on the music. But IMO, except for purists, they should be

tuned the same. If they are not, then it really gets confusing with the fingering.

 

< I think you're confusing "familiar" with "natural". Someone who has never played a piano-type keyboard would probably find nothing "unnatural" in one that was a mirror image of the standard one.

 

People are not ambidextrous ( few are ) , they are right/left orientated. You will have noticed that are no reversed keyboards.

 

< And then there's the fact that although the English drive on the opposite side of the road from most other Europeans, they consider it perfectly "natural".

 

Well, just goes to show you, someone flipped a coin, instead of thinking. I never drove an English car, so I have to do

a little assuming. Your right arm is up against the door, virtually useless, while your left hand has to multitask

the dash. This can get frustrating for the right handed majority.

 

< Try some tunes, or more complex arrangements -- whatever it is you would like to be able to play

 

I'm working on it. My tune is Danny Boy, first in the key of C, then G, D, A, and E.

But it's not a priority, the whole idea is just something that popped into my head, and I thought I'd throw it out there.

 

 

Joe

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...what about the other notes?
I just mentioned the lowest note.

Precisely my point. The other notes are there, too. They also deserve mention.

 

...your symphonium explanation, by adding a G seems the fit the bill.

Thanks now I know.

Now you believe. We still don't know why CW first put the lowest note in the left hand on the symphonion. To the best of my knowledge, he didn't say.

 

Wheatstone, from what I understand, designed the EC as a 'reed' variant of the violin.  That's why it has thesame range as a violin.

Except that it's not true. The bellows driven instrument we now call "concertina" was a variant of the symphonium in Wheatstone's original (1829) patent. That patent mentions various wind instruments, but never the violin (nor the piano). It also mentions specific features or purposes of the keyboard design, none of which seem to derive from the violin. In fact, the central design of the keyboard is diatonic, and CW describes more than one way of adding "semitones" to the design. Neither did the orignal concertina (for a photo of the first concertina Wheatstone sold, see Stephen Chambers' avatar) have the range of a violin.

 

The extension of the keyboard to the now-standard 48-button treble range was a later (though only a few years later) extension of the original design. It was a brilliant marketing ploy, as it produced an instrument for which there was a ready-made repertoire of both classical and popular music already published, i.e., the repertoires of both violins and flutes. But it clearly did not motivate the fundamentals of original design.

 

But after that, if you had to chose, it's more like a piano than a violin.  It has black and white key, as does a piano!!!!!

Another marketing gimmick, nothing more, and one not shared by all English concertinas. Wheatstone's "first" didn't have the colors, nor did Æolas, Edeophones, or any of the higher-grade instruments of later years. And what about marking the C's of the scale with red buttons? That's not like a piano. But the colors are just decoration; more fundamentally, the EC design has one "black" key for each "white" key, while the piano does not.

 

It's tuned to the piano, ...

Well, of course! Any instrument that one expects to play with the piano needs to be tuned to match the piano, or the result will be cacophony, not music. Flutes were and are also tuned to the same scales as pianos. Does that mean that flutes are "like" pianos? I don't think so!

 

People are not ambidextrous ( few are ) , they are right/left orientated.  You will have noticed that are no reversed keyboards.

I have noticed. So have many left-handed people, who feel that it's unfair. :( (Actually, I've heard of a few custom-made "left-handed" piano accordions.) But that's a completely separate subject.

 

And then there's the fact that although the English drive on the opposite side of the road from most other Europeans, they consider it perfectly "natural".
Well, just goes to show you, someone flipped a coin, instead of thinking.

Actually, no. As in many other things (TV format, frequency and voltage of electrical power, computer operating system,...) different groups of people reached different decisions after considering the arguments and the merits.

 

I never drove an English car, so I have to do a little assuming.

Why do you "have to"? Or why not assume that you just don't know? In fact, you've assumed something that isn't true, i.e., that the right hand is "virtually useless". Is it better to assume something that's wrong than to not "assume" at all?

 

This can get frustrating for the right handed majority.

Another false assumption, or at least an unsupported one. I haven't heard of any great frustration among the right-handed majority of British drivers over that aspect of their automobiles.

 

But that is quite beside the point. You're designing a new concertina keyboard. The "why" doesn't concern me, since your reasons and reasoning are not ones I feel are relevant to me. But I'm quite interested in the "what", and I look forward to hearing more about its development.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...