Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Collectauke

The meaning of the term concertina “size”

Recommended Posts

49 minutes ago, maccannic said:

Exactly.  So 7 ridges would mean that someone has had to construct 8 folds to make 8 valleys, leaving 7 ridges between them.  That's why I always thought that meant 8 folds, not 7.  But I bow to the general usage, however misconceived.

Take a piece of paper and fold it once in the middle — one ridge and two “half valleys”.  Now take two such folded pieces and tape them together.  Two ridges, one full valley and two “half valleys”.  Continue as far as you like, the number of folds is the same as the number of ridges.  Or you can turn the pieces over and talk about N (full) valleys, N-1 full ridges, and two “half ridges”.

 

 In either case the number of folds is the same as the sum of the number of ridges or the sum of the number of valleys.

 

Of course, Alex is right that it would be better to think in terms of hinges.

Edited by rlgph
Clarification

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Concertina Net's silly season?

 

However, let me join in as well...  😎

 

IMO rlghp's take is missing the other half of each "outer valley" - so we might just think of ridges turned to the inside of the bellows (resulting in a count +1). Anyway, entirely pointless as the custom of counting the "outer ridges" will not be questioned by this little discussion 😁

 

Best wishes - 🐺

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anyway gentlemen...still want to know about my Jeffries 8 inch instrument.....still cannot find any reference to read about them anywhere....lots of info on other j instruments but not the duets.....Robert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Little John said:

 

Wow! That second one is huge. Only two extra buttons and yet a massive increase in size. Any idea why? Does the big one go much lower, or what?

 

My experience of Crane duets is that they seem to go: 35 and 42 button - 6 1/4"; 48 button - 6 5/8", 55 button 7 1/4". These are what might be called the "standard" instruments. Once you go into a greater number of buttons there doesn't seem to be much of a standard layout with extra buttons above or belopreferancew, or outside the normal five columns and even under the LH thumb.

 

It's an interesting instrument.  I bought it at Crabb's in London in the late 60's early 70's.  I Knew nothing about concertinas except that I wanted to play one.  After experiencing Sticker Shock I was directed to this one with Geffory (I Think) explaining that if I had no preference or prior knowledge, It would do nicely as it was not a sought after system and therefore much cheaper ( I have the receipts along with a note chart somewhere).  The metal ends are flat with only an inch or so of fretwork and a large button field that has some space on the bass side for more buttons.  Inside it also has some extra space for about 3 sets of bass notes.  I haven't worked out the exact noting but the 2 extra notes seem to be added to the overlap.  The F#  thumb key (standard on the Jeffries, I think) is an outlier top left.  The bass row on the bottom left doesn't match the Jeff, which gives me a nice low G, but instead goes to a low F.  The instrument is centered on C but seems to be set up to play in horn keys (?) with the bass accidentals including F and B flat.  it shows up in Wheatstone's ledger without much comment around 1930 (thanx).  My speculation is a custom job for a marching band, orchestral use or jazz.  I'm thinking of filling up the bass side but I hesitate to physically alter it if it is historically significant.  Maybe just replace the low F with G for now. 

Edited by wunks
spacing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nice thing about counting the ridges is that you can see them all even with the bellows closed. So they're a particularly natural thing to count.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Regarding ridges vs. valleys for fold count: What nobody has mentioned yet is that both ends of the bellows are at ridge height. Think of it as a cosine curve (without the curve), where the ridges are at y = 1 and the valleys are at y = -1. One complete (360°) cycle takes you from the end through the first valley to the first ridge. Repeat as many times as necessary (an integral number of cycles) to reach the other end. You wind up with the number of cycles equaling the number of valleys, and one more than the number of ridges. The panels that connect the ends with the adjacent valleys don’t seem to count towards “folds.” This is the basis of maccannic’s conundrum. Evidently, the number of “folds” is not the same as the number of complete cycles. We just have to live with it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is crazy when you think about it, because everywhere else in the English language, the meaning of each word is clear, logical and consistent.

 

This is why we use telescopic motorcycle forks to look at things that are a long way away, and only ever play the black notes on a piano by accident. Bombay ducks go quack, and a watershed is a very moist garden building.  I could go on, and frequently do.

 

But, defiantly, concertinists insist on counting the obvious ridges and not counting the valleys (which are invisible when the bellows are closed) and, seeing that those valleys are created by folding (a method of putting sheep into small walled or fenced enclosures) we call them "folds".  Zany, that's what we are.  :)

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Mikefule said:

 

This is why we use telescopic motorcycle forks to look at things that are a long way away, and only ever play the black notes on a piano by accident. Bombay ducks go quack, and a watershed is a very moist garden building.  I could go on, and frequently do.

 

 

Haha! I'm with you on this. The one that really gets me is the "shock absorber" on cars etc. In fact it's a shock transmitter - it only "absorbs" low frequency motion; not high frequency shocks.

 

"Watershed" is OK, though - it's the high point of a saddle (topologically) that sheds the water into the valleys either side.

 

Sorry - this is getting off topic; which I initially thought was going to be about what people mean when they talk about "miniature" or "semi-miniature" concertinas. To me, "very small" or "small" would be more accurate. I think of miniature as meaning scaled down (like a toy steam engine, for example), whereas "miniature" concertinas preserve (more-or-less) the button spacing. They just have fewer buttons in a smaller box.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Little John said:

"Watershed" is OK, though - it's the high point of a saddle (topologically) that sheds the water into the valleys either side.

 

Indeed, but not as hilarious as the moist garden building definition. ;)

 

Similarly, "Shed load" as in, "The A46 is closed due to a shed load of bricks."  I know it means "a load of bricks that has been shed by a lorry" but the expression "shed load" (and, by extension, "sh*t load") has been taken by many ignorami to mean "a huge amount" – presumably thinking in terms of, "enough to fill a large shed".

 

PS, I agree with you about miniature.  A miniature has the same proportions as a normal item, but is smaller.  In effect, a scale model.

Edited by Mikefule

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...