LoM Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Learning Curve. I didn't learn about this term until I was almost an adult. Though, since I first heard it it's caused me to look at learning music, and learning everything else, quite differently. It's a pretty vague and ambiguous term as well, so i'll try my best to make clear what i'm asking. In a simple sense, on a scale from 1-10, 1 being as easy as the Ukulele/Recorder and 10 being as difficult as the Flute/Uilleann Pipes, what would you rate the Concertina's difficulty? In my opinion, people get piano confused. I'm often asked if it's the hardest instrument to "learn". I then go into my pre-meditated and rehearsed spill about how it's easy to learn because of it's logical and intuitive setup, but difficult to master because of it's extensive melodic, harmonic, and rhythmic capacity. Because of it's high learning curve, I would never consider it difficult to learn, especially compared to any string, woodwind, or brass instrument. Though, I would consider it one of the unmasterable instruments only because of it's range of capabilities. And it's low maintence, rarely having to get it tuned, never having to touch the strings, not having much at all to worry about really... On my scale, I would rate piano no higher than a 4. An instrument like fiddle, goodness... The learning curve is so far back, there's a 3-year period called "Beginner's Awfulness". They teach you to not expect to sound any good until around 3 years in. Talk about humbling! Getting a good tone out of the bow, syncronizing your bow strokes with your left hand, and playing in tune proves too difficult. Throw in all the wacky things you can do with the bow hand and the left hand, and you have an instrument difficult to learn and difficult to master. It's also high maintenance, always having to tune and change the strings, watching the bridge, the pegs, and fine tuners... On my scale, I would rate it no lower than a 7. The one thing slightly intimidating about the concertina is it's "blind-side". The fiddle has a lovely view of the fingerboard, and the piano has a swell view of the keyboard. The plectrum instruments don't have too bad a view either, though it can get uncomfortable. But the concertina is completely blind. Not sure how much that'll mean when I get one in my hands. The bisonoric bit doesn't bother me all too much. I've fumbled with a bisonoric button-accordian and it didn't seem too tough, though, it did have a familiar low/high scale pattern. I assume the hardest thing to pick up on concertina is self-accompaniment because of the bisonoric factor, but I could be wrong. I'm not afraid of a challenge, I just like to know what to expect. In the broader since, I'd like to know what kinds of things did you pick up on right away, and what things took a bit of time. If you're a teacher, do you notice a pattern in your students of concepts, techniques, and skills that prove to be more difficult to grasp than others?
Bill N Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 (edited) Just from my own experience, I would say there are a couple (at least) of learning curves. Initially (providing that the push-pull doesn't leave you flummoxed) it's pretty easy to pick out a tune, and maybe even throw in some left hand chords or om-pah. You push the button and you get a decent sound, and if you stay in the row with your chords it's pretty hard to make an ugly noise. The anglo is set up for success that way! The "blind" nature of the keyboard wasn't really an issue for me. 30 buttons isn't really very many, and your hands don't move around much. Before I even realized it, my fingers knew where to go. I'd put that learning curve at maybe a 2 or 3. Some people I've met are happy to leave it at that- especially if they are recreational multi-instrumentalists. I got to that point pretty quickly, (maybe 18 months?) then kind of plateaued for a couple of years. My playing got easier, but not a lot better. Learning curve #2, which I am just embarking on, is a different matter. I think the mechanical nature of the instrument that makes it so easy to produce reasonable sounding noises initially, also makes it more difficult to play with expression and dynamism than something like a violin, where there isn't a mechanical linkage between the player and the sound. You also discover that there are dozens of ways to play each piece, each with its pros and cons. And the diatonic arrangement of the "home" rows and arbitrary nature of the 3rd row make playing in outlying keys a challenge. It's pretty easy to play loud, bouncy folk music in the home keys, but there are lots of other sorts of tunes that I would like to play well, and I'm realizing that it will require another level of commitment and many years of playing to achieve that. Maybe a 7 or 8?- but definitely worth it. Edited October 28, 2014 by Bill N
LoM Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 I like that reply. So in a sense you're saying that learning the melodies, ornaments, and self-accompaniment is pretty simple to pick up because the instrument is designed for folk music? That's interesting. I'll need to look into that. I think it's pretty neat that it's such a young instrument with a definite designer and inventor. Many of our modern instruments don't have that but are the product of many previous designers. It'll be fun reading about Jeffries and his intentions.(Any resources about the maker is welcomed to this thread). As for "dynamism". It's understandable. But does the bellows create a dynamic range at all? Like, pushing it harder makes it louder and pushing it softer makes it quiter? Being able bend notes is cool, but it's definitely not a deal breaker. As for the low-attack... hmm... I guess i'll figure out what that's like when I try it for myself. As for playing in outlying keys, I think I can deal. As of right now i'm still only interested in Irish music and whatever tunes I like, i'm sure all the keys will be there. I've gotten use to transposing tunes and songs to different keys because I can't always sing in the range of the singer. Mairéad Ní Mhaonaigh is a pure soprano, I can't sing that high. Not well anyway lol.
maki Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 One of the easier instruments to get started on. Unlike a tin whistle it's possible to sound decent quickly. I expect that mastery, like most instruments, will take decades or lifetimes.
Łukasz Martynowicz Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Just to be precise here: you should rephrase your question to: "...what would you rate the ANGLO Concertina's difficulty?". It is obvious from your entire post, but this makes huge difference on the possible answers. I don't mean to highjack this thread to general "concertina types" discussion, but to express my experience with the anglo, it is easier for me to just make a simple comparison: It took me a year to be able to play some relatively simple melodies on the anglo to speed and with proper phrasing and expression. I have never managed to play anything with harmonies or countermelody on it. Year after switching to Hayden, I could play my first fully accompanied arrangement with decent left/right-hand independence, make up my own chordal arrangements and generaly understand how music works a lot better. So, on my scale I would place the Anglo (profficient level) around 6 - tougher than piano, because of quite arbitrary 3rd row (and outer buttons in home rows), diatonic core and bisonority. But it is obviously easier than fiddle, so on your scale it cannot go over 7 [but on my scale fiddle gets more like 9 - I can realy think of no other istrument than fiddle/violin, that must be learnt from early childhood to be able to go on proffessional level; only a trumpet gets near, with 8 maybe]. And of course because of diatonic nature of it, on the very basic level anglo gets around 2 for melody only folk playing in home keys. Just as a sidenote, other concertina types IMHO get as fallows: Hayden 2 (except for maybe the most odd scales, like Klezmer scale), English 3-4 (not more than a piano), Crane 4 (most piano-like layout), Maccan probably same as anglo, around 6, due to highly irregular layout.
JimLucas Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 I'm not afraid of a challenge, I just like to know what to expect. I haven't time for a detailed response to your post (do I hear a collective sigh of relief? ), but here are a few quick observations: You know the expression, "Your mileage may vary"? I'd say that goes for everything you've asked about. The experience of others may give you things to watch for, but they can't tell you what to "expect". I.e., they can't predict what your own experience will be, except by chance. E.g., The learning "curve" can actually have many different shapes. One common one is a series of plateaus, separated by steep inclines. Relative difficulty of various instruments can vary extremely from person to person. E.g., your examples of 1's and 10's aren't even close to how easy or difficult I myself have found those instruments.
Bill N Posted October 28, 2014 Posted October 28, 2014 Yes, in theory you can control volume with bellows pressure, although the quality of the instrument and its reeds has a lot to do with how well this can be accomplished. I have a cheap accordion reeded instrument that is either "off" or "loud" volume-wise. However, my lovely concertina-reeded Kensington begins to speak with the slightest pressure, and can be played from soft to loud. I took a workshop with Jody Kruskal and he advocated practicing by playing familiar tunes as quietly as possible. It is a very good way to learn bellows control, and playing with a light touch. I would agree that the Anglo is a young instrument, but not that it has a single inventor or designer. Like most things, there was a continuum of developments, and in this case, concurrent developments in England and Germany.
LoM Posted October 28, 2014 Author Posted October 28, 2014 "So, on my scale I would place the Anglo (profficient level) around 6 - tougher than piano, because of quite arbitrary 3rd row (and outer buttons in home rows), diatonic core and bisonority. But it is obviously easier than fiddle, so on your scale it cannot go over 7 [but on my scale fiddle gets more like 9 - I can realy think of no other istrument than fiddle/violin, that must be learnt from early childhood to be able to go on proffessional level; only a trumpet gets near, with 8 maybe]." "Relative difficulty of various instruments can vary extremely from person to person. E.g., your examples of 1's and 10's aren't even close to how easy or difficult I myself have found those instruments." To be more clear, the make-shift scale I made is open to interpretation. With the understanding that we all have different experiences, "No lower than 7" means at the least we understand it to be a relatively difficult instrument meaning anyone else could rate it a 7 or more. Whereas "No higher than 4" means at the most we understand it to be a relatively easy instrument meaning anyone else could rate it a 4 or less. But that's only with my scale. You can make your own scale if you like. I'm open minded and would like to read your own interpretations for sure. Not to mention I'm still a young multi-instrumentalist, so my scale may be skewed and inaccurate anyway
hjcjones Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 What makes an instrument 'easy' or 'difficult'? I think it is a combination of several factors: Firstly, how easy is it to produce an acceptably musical sound? Some (eg violin, bagpipes, brass, some woodwinds) are notoriously difficult and a great deal of early learning is spent simply trying to get it to sound OK before you can even think of making music. On this basis concertina, like piano, is at the easy end of the scale. Then there is the question of how easy it is to handle. This is less a question of physical size, more the physical technique of producing the music and mastering the fingering. Again, violin scores highly, and posture and hand/arm positions are very important. The concertina is less demanding, but co-ordinating the physical movements of the bellows with the fingering may take time to master. In the case of the anglo, whilst the core fingerboard layout is logical (once you understand the underlying basis) other notes seem to be in more or less random places and have to be learned. Away from the home keys the logic largely falls away and scales just have to be learned. I don't think the visibility of the keyboard is all that important - you shouldn't be looking at it anyway. The final consideration is how difficult it is, having achieved the basics, to attain real mastery of the instrument. Here I think there is less of gap between any instrument - they all demand nuances of technique as well as an understanding of the music and styles you wish to play, and none of these are easy to attain. Even apparently simple instruments like the tin whistle have hidden subtleties. The concertina is no different. Control of volume, tone and fluent fingering take time to develop. My own experience is that I found harmonic anglo reasonably easy to get to grips with (although it took a while), whereas I've never been comfortable with the alternate-side fingering of EC. It's taken a lot longer to become reasonably proficient, but the same can be said of the other instruments I play. I do play to the instrument's strengths and don't often wander into overly-chromatic music or remote keys, so such proficiency as I claim is limited to a particular style and type of music, which some might say is copping-out - a truly proficient player should perhaps be more versatile.
maki Posted October 29, 2014 Posted October 29, 2014 I took a workshop with Jody Kruskal and he advocated practicing by playing familiar tunes as quietly as possible. It is a very good way to learn bellows control, and playing with a light touch. That is GOLD. Thank you for sharing that very useful bit of technique.
ceemonster Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 (edited) [[so in a sense you're saying that learning the melodies, ornaments, and self-accompaniment is pretty simple to pick up because the instrument is designed for folk music?]] Not sure about that poster, but I would not say that. Like someone else said earlier, it's easy right off the starting line to pick "out" simple melodies using the basic "on-the-row" approach. that can give one the idea that anglo concertina is "easy." but picking out a very simple melody, such as a polka, is very different from playing that polka to heels-clattering-on-the-floor speed, with authentic ornaments, lift, lilt, and some other touches in the bass such as double stops or chords (if you're the bass-chord type). and that is nothing compared to playing a "notey" composed finbarr dwyer or ed reavy, paddy fahy, etc. reel, fluidly and to speed. initially working out "where the notes are" on anglo is easy. but because a chunk of the notes are doubled or even tripled in different places on the concertina or even on different sides, there is a lot of choice. and to be fluent and fluid in those choices so as to be able to use and manipulate them at will.......there's your learning curve. and it is a steep one, not that i didn't enjoy almost every minute of it, which, weirdly, i did... ...what you term the "blind side" quality of the undertaking really figures there. anglo concertina is not called a "rubik's cube" for nothing (rubik's cube also has that "hidden" dimension.) this is why at least one well-known teacher uses a method dictating, "use THIS ONE, don't use THAT ONE" from among two or three doubles or triples of a given note. in this method, you might later start making exceptions, but at the outset the choice factor is removed. i did not learn this way and am glad i didn't, but it has its pros and its cons. also, if you attempt to play in "off" keys featuring several important notes that don't recur in both directions, so that many notes in that key are going "out" or many notes in that key are going "in," you have to learn to coordinate air-button use to avoid running out of air in one direction or the other. i think john williams said this, and he may have been quoting his father--that if your bellows on accordion or concertina are going way out there, you're not managing them optimally. i strive to use my alternate-note choices as air control as well as expressive choices, which means very little air button use. the point is to change directions often enough not to get too extended, but to learn by listening where in the tune it would also fit the irish-dance-music phrasing style to make that direction switch, that is, if you have the choice. [[on ec unlike anglo, the choice is wide open (though for some weird reason many folks you see trying to play irish on ec seem never to have been told that their concertina will switch directions any time they like, and in fact seem never to have heard of strategic, expressive direction-switching of the kind fiddlers routinely consider).]] you are making a semantic difference between "easy to learn" and "easy to master." in terms of "easy to master" or "easy to become highly proficient on," i would absolutely rank piano with violin and uillean pipes. the challenges of multiple-voice playing, counterpoint, and independent bilateral activity are considerable. once you get into the "difficult" piano repertoire, there are lots and lots of folks who can not manage it. Edited October 30, 2014 by ceemonster
Bill N Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 As "that poster"(sorry, can't figure out the cut-and-paste; that's a whole other learning curve ) I would agree with your interpretation, hence my learning curve 1 & 2. My point was that it's pretty easy initially to get to a point where you can make reasonable basic music- but also easy to plateau at that point. The hard work begins if you want to advance past that point. As you say, "easy to learn" vs. "easy to master".
JimLucas Posted October 30, 2014 Posted October 30, 2014 ...a semantic difference between "easy to learn" and "easy to master." I don't think any instrument is "easy to master". If it were, there would be an awful lot of "masters" of that instrument... something that I'm sure would be noticed. I have known individuals who somehow found one or another particular instrument easy to master, but it was an individual thing, i.e., different instruments for different individuals, but none for most. As for "easy to learn", I would rephrase that as "easy to get started on", since mastering an instrument is still "learning". As I've already said, getting started (and mastering, for that matter) can differ greatly from pair to pair of person and instrument. E.g., My own experience is that I found harmonic anglo reasonably easy to get to grips with (although it took a while), whereas I've never been comfortable with the alternate-side fingering of EC.I, on the other hand, minutes after getting an EC into my hands for the first time and without any foreknowledge of the keyboard layout, found myself playing a simple tune with harmony in thirds... in what I later realized was the key of Eb. Yet I've always had to work hard to deal with the enforced bellows reversals of the anglo... even though my brain understands them, my fingers-hands-arms resist.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now