Same Layout For Both Sides Of Anglo?

[harpomatic]

Friends,

Somewhat related to my air-button post, my question is why not exactly same layouts for both sides of anglo? The answer has probably to do with theory/chords/scales, available for the player, but what precisely is the logic behind current layout?

[Samantha]

LOGIC???????????????????

Samantha

[JimLucas]

Somewhat related to my air-button post, my question is why not exactly same layouts for both sides of anglo? ... what precisely is the logic behind current layout?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

For a speculative account of the development of the current anglo layout(s), see this earlier Topic.

[Richard Morse]

I think that the anglo key pattern is mired in its origins: the harmonica which was a single bisonoric "keyboard" (for want of a better word). The idea behind it was that you could play a series of diatonic scales.

 

In concept it was easy: you just blow/suck your way up the scale. The problem is that there are only 7 notes in a major scale (the 8th is the octave and the beginning of the next set of notes). That makes the 7th note come out on the blow (assuming you started that way). If you continue like that, it also makes the 2nd, 4th, etc. notes of the next octave ALSO on the blow - a completely different pattern and quite un-harmonious with the first octave.

 

Those first harmonicas (and all modern ones too as well as button accordions!) had (have) their "main" octave starting with the "do/re" being the "first" position. If you break the pattern to have the 7th tone be a suck/pull, then the pattern can continue, though it's bisonoric nature is off by one note. Small inconvenience to have the instrument play the tonic chord in one direction and the II minor and V7 (sort of?) in the other.

 

Of course this makes sense when you have a single "keyboard" like a harmonica - or the treble side of a button accordion. The anglo concertina is - in reality - a single keyboard that's split up between two sides. Its 5 left and 5 right notes (in the "main" row) are identical to that of the 10-button melodeon or 10-hole harmonica.

 

BUT! That need NOT BE as having "split" the single keyboard, one could easily add adjacent buttons "along the line" so that each side COULD HAVE IDENTICAL FINGERING.

 

So back to your question: "What precisely is the logic behind current [anglo] layout?" My answer is: There seems to be NO "LOGIC" behind NOT having the sides of anglos be similar in push/pull pattern. The current pattern is an anachronism, a miscreant, a vestigeon and product of lazy thinking. All IMHO, of course

 

So why hasn't anyone come up with a better solution? People have, but inertia, lack of backers, whatever, has kept other systems from being developed. Hugh Blake did just that when he developed his Diatonian system which I thought was great as it played in many keys bisonorically and sonorically with the same fingering on both sides, AND had overlapping notes like a duet. So far he's had only two of them made.

 

The only shortcoming I see with his system is that it is based on the *treble* side of an anglo - which I think is a real drag as one is always having to shift your right hand to get an entire octave of notes there. I quickly remapped his idea to base it upon the anglo's left side (or what is typically the "main" octave of harmonicas and button accordions). The result was all the benefits of his system but without the constant awkward shifting of hand position. And no - I haven't done anything with my variation of his system either!

[JimLucas]

So back to your question: "What precisely is the logic behind current [anglo] layout?" My answer is: There seems to be NO "LOGIC" behind NOT having the sides of anglos be similar in  push/pull pattern.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Glad you put "LOGIC" in quotes. Logic is a process, not a product. Logic -- or its sometimes-synonym "reason" -- is a means of reaching conclusions, starting from assumptions. Identifying the assumptions and their source is crucial.

 

You, Rich, and I (in the other Topic I mentioned above) have both identified a clear "logic" which led from the design of earlier instruments (a fact, used as an assumption) to the current anglo layout. Another assumption in that analysis is that an evolutionary process derived the current anglo keyboard layout(s) from those earlier ones.

 

But in implying that a layout in which the two sides are "similar in push/pull pattern" is somehow more "logical", you don't identify your underlying assumption(s). I present some possibilities, mainly to show that there are multiple possibilities:

... Assumption 1: Greater similarity is superior, per se, or "by definition".

That seems arbitrary, and I suspect you don't consider yourself quite that dogmatic.

... Assumption 2: Greater similarity makes an instrument easier to learn.

I think that's probably so in beginning stages, but is it really true at advanced or even intermediate levels?

... Assumption 3: Greater similarity makes an instrument easier to play.

My own experience with numerous keyboards and instruments suggests that this is not true in and of itself, and at the very least depends on various other factors.

 

My own suspicion is that many people who argue in favor of "similarity" or repetitive patterns really start from Assumption 1, then commandeer Assumptions 2 and 3 post hoc in order to defend their belief, yet never get around to testing either of the latter two to find out if they are indeed true. (Rich, I'm not accusing you of doing that, but I am asking you -- and everyone -- to examine for yourself what deeper beliefs you base your opinions on, and whether at some level they become assumptions, with no actual experience to support them.)

 

But there's another kind of assumption involved, and that's the assumption -- rarely if ever acknowledged -- of a particular kind of similarity. There are different kinds of similarity, and not only may some be more significant than others, but which are more important may depend on the kind of music being played and even on the presence or absence of other kinds of similarity.

 

Take, for example, the Frequently Asked Question of why duet keyboards aren't mirror-imaged in the two hands, so that equivalent notes in each hand would be under the same fingers. Among the various arguments for why they are the way they are is that the keyboards on the two ends have the same pattern if each is viewed face-on. But there's that lingering suspicion that the mirror-pattern would be inherently "simpler", or "more natural", or just easier to work with.

 

As it happens, I can report from personal experience that that suspicion/assumption simply isn't true. I've been experimenting with a Pitt-Taylor 1924 duet where the two ends are mirrored, and I find the mirroring is neither more nor less "natural" than the non-mirrored Crane or Maccann. Furthermore, there seems to be no interference between the mirrored and non-mirrored systems when it comes to switching back and forth between the two.

 

To many of you the above may seem an irrelevant digression, but can you tell me why no one seems to ask about mirroring the two ends of an anglo?

 

As for the sort of similarity that Rich (and others) seems to be advocating, as far as I can tell, it would only be truly advantageous for playing in parallel octaves or transposing by an octave. Most musical arrangements -- and most players -- don't make significant use of those techniques, even on instruments (most duet concertinas... and the piano) where the keyboard pattern is identical in different octaves/hands.

 

[Edited to correct a formatting glitch.]

Edited May 3, 2005 by JimLucas

[JimLucas]

...having "split" the single keyboard, one could easily add adjacent buttons "along the line" so that each side COULD HAVE IDENTICAL FINGERING.

True, but there are various ways to achieve "IDENTICAL FINGERING". More on that after another quote or two.

 

Hugh Blake ... developed his Diatonian system which I thought was great as it played in many keys bisonorically and sonorically with the same fingering on both sides,  AND had overlapping notes like a duet.

 

The only shortcoming I see with his system is that it is based on the *treble* side of an anglo - which I think is a real drag as one is always having to shift your right hand to get an entire octave of notes there.

It's also the size of a bandonion. I think some anglo players might also consider that to be a "shortcoming". So much for "only".

 

Then there's the apparent assumption that a single octave do-to-do, somehow has a special sort of relevance. Very few of the tunes I know are confined to a single octave, or even have the tonic (do) as their lowest note.

 

I quickly remapped his idea to base it upon the anglo's left side (or what is typically the "main" octave of harmonicas and button accordions). The result was all the benefits of his system but without the constant awkward shifting of hand position.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Rich, that sounds as if you've built and played such an instrument. Have you?

 

You've just mentioned two patterns one could use for "identical" fingering in both hands. Assuming key of C, I think you're saying that Hugh's scale looks like (push/pull)

... C/B E/D G/F ?/A,

while your variation would be

... C/D E/F G/A ?/B.

But what notes should be where I've put question marks? Bb might be interesting, but what did Hugh and you use?

Oops! [The remainder of this paragraph has been altered (with the new text in blue), because I've now located Hugh's article.] My above examples are incorrect. The rightmost button in each pattern isn't there. The patterns are only 3 buttons wide, but repeating, so:

... C/B E/D G/F c/b e/d g/f,

and

... C/D E/F G/A c/d e/f g/a,

with the missing note in each pattern being supplied by other rows in other keys. It seems to me that an important principle in these two layouts is that there are other rows in other keys, and that no single diatonic scale is complete in a single row. Whereas my following suggestions (suggested before this edit), with 4-wide patterns, do have a complete diatonic scale in each row. Is that important? I suspect that different people may have different opinions, but that it also depends on how many rows/keys are included.

 

I could suggest another possibility:

... C/C E/D G/F B/A.

Here you get the tonic ( C ) in both directions, and a full F chord. You lose the clear G7 (B-D-F, even though the G is in the other direction), but you gain the Em and the clear though incomplete G (G-B, without the D) and Am (A-C) chords.

 

Or reverse the last button in the above to get:

... C/C E/D G/F A/B.

From the previous, that loses the G (G-B ) and the full Em, Dm and F, but still has incomplete versions of Em (E-G), Dm (D-F) and F (C-F), and regains the G7 (D-F-B ), while also gaining a full Am chord.

 

Of course, the possibilities with any of the above patterns multiply enormously when extended to multiple rows in different keys.

 

I suspect that one reason the historically standard anglo keyboard hasn't been replaced by a more "rational" system is that there are several candidates, but no one such sytem is inherently or clearly superior to the others. Meanwhile, the existing anglo layouts are not only familiar, but adequate.

Edited May 3, 2005 by JimLucas

[Stephen Chambers]

... what precisely is the logic behind current layout?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The answer lies in the way that, like Topsy, “it just growed”.

 

The London concertina maker George Jones was an important figure in the process, and described how: "The German Concertina came out [a square instrument (a musical toy), for it had but ten keys, ... quickly followed by one of twenty keys], and I purchased one and soon was able to master it and I claim to be the first to introduce it to the public. ... "

 

"Square" German 10-key, early 1850's.

 

"The German concertina having one semitone only [F# on the G row], I made one with 22 keys for my own use and later made one with 26 keys full chromatic scale which was after my greatest success...".

 

Early Jones 26-key, c.1858.

 

"Making the Anglo-German concertina his principal study, he extended the compass to thirty keys ... We may add [1885 interview] that the latest of his improvements is the newly-patented instrument with forty-two keys - without altering the position of the usual twenty keys - being the most perfect yet produced."

 

Jones' "Perfect Anglo-German concertina", c.1885.

 

But various others have also attempted to perfect the Anglo, both in its early years and more recently, hence the variety of fingerings encountered.

 

I'm afraid the only solution I can suggest, if you want a truly logical and consistent layout, is to get an English concertina, the product of one man's (Charles Wheatstone's) supremely logical mind !

 

(Ducks and runs for cover, to escape the combined wrath of all Anglo players )

[harpomatic]

Amigos,

great wealth of knowledge here, expert makers and players, as well as expert thinkers(some of us are beginners on concertina, but not beginners in a thinking process), just thinking how much it furthers our evolution. LOOOVE it!!!

 

Concertina content: I am more with Richard here, on the layout issue. Seems to be a correct observation about layout history, connected to harmonica layout/tuning. After all, harmonicas came first, and layed a foundation for diatonic accordion/concertina layouts (true, not on English, Stephen I agree that english is a logical system, But I'm not with it yet.)

It seems that anglo layout could be improved, as so much of modified layouts on used anglos attest to. Players are thinkers, and an instrument is reflection of that process. I think it is also cool how there is no particular "standard", we do not have to have it. (the idea of "tunable reeds" suddently popped up in my mind again), and we are free to create something new, even if not directly as some of the instrument makers do, but indirectly, by exchanging ideas here.

 

To me, the beauty of concertina is not in its particular sound(which I love, the reed sound is my "background", as harmonica player), but rather, in its "duet"-ability. Both hands perform equal functions, or can do so - there is no mechanical restriction on what is done in the low and high register. The closest equivalent of this is piano/organ/keybouard, and possibly more instruments, but you get my point.

As a harmonica player, I love to explore this duet quality, and that's why "english" is something else. It seems that same hand layout would be further suited for this kind of playing. It is true that we can adapt to anything, and anglo is great as it is,

but evolution is pushed forward by incimental modifications, so here is my desire to make things little better, if possible.

The layout of harmonica is super familiar and comfortable to me, after years of playing the thing, however, even that was modified in chromatic models, int o a uniform logical layout, and I easily play both - there are benefits to both designs.

 

Man, I can't believe I wrote that much, time to wind down,

Misha.

[JimLucas]

The London concertina maker George Jones was an important figure in the process, [who] "... made one with 26 keys full chromatic scale..." and later "... [an] instrument with forty-two keys - without altering the position of the usual twenty keys...."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

My own conclusion is that the 26-button layout was a brilliant improvement over the 20-button, but the 42-key layout was less of an advance over the 30-button layouts. (This is because I find certain aspects of Jones' 42-button layout somewhat awkward for various reasons. Perhaps someone with differently shaped hands would come to a different conclusion.)

 

And I might still wonder why "without altering the position of the usual twenty keys" should be an overriding design constraint, when nearly everything else is considered mutable ("improveable"?).

 

[Edited to add the last bit, because I mistakenly hit the "Add Reply" button too soon.]

Edited May 3, 2005 by JimLucas

[Stephen Chambers]

... on the layout issue. Seems to be a correct observation about layout history, connected to harmonica layout/tuning. After all, harmonicas came first, and layed a foundation for diatonic accordion/concertina layouts

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Historically, that is a highly debatable question, with very little known about the early history/development of the harmonica and various dates being given for the invention of the Richter layout. It has even been suggested by at least one authority (Pat Missin) that it may have derived from the accordion :

 

Accordions had two sets of reeds - one responding to positive pressure, the other responding to negative pressure. A Bohemian called Richter (whose first name may have been Joseph, Anton, Jacob, or perhaps none of the above) seems to have borrowed this idea to make the modern diatonic harmonica with both blow and draw reeds, as well an accordion-inspired note layout - an arrangement which to this day is called the "Richter System". Various dates are given for Richter's innovation, ranging from 1826 to 1857.

 

It seems that anglo layout could be improved, as so much of modified layouts on used anglos attest to. Players are thinkers, and an instrument is reflection of that process. I think it is also cool how there is no particular "standard", we do not have to have it.

On the contrary, there are two layouts that may be regarded as "standard" for the last 130-odd years ("Jeffries" and "Lachenal/Wheatstone"). Players have made minor alterations to suit themselves, but it may become self-defeating to deviate far from them.

 

It may be worth noting that George Jones' "Perfect Anglo-German concertina", patented in 1884 (you can see the Patent/fingering online here), did just that and flopped. I doubt if there is anyone who plays it today ?

 

... the idea of "tunable reeds" suddently popped up in my mind again ...

I understand that one leading Irish player actually changes individual notes on his Anglo to suit certain (difficult) tunes, but he does it by putting in different reeds. Retuning a reed in a concertina is not that easy, and though various people experimented with "tunable reeds" 160-odd years ago, they found them expensive to make and unworkable. Of course, electronic concertinas could change all that ...

[Richard Morse]

The only shortcoming I see with his system is that it is based on the *treble* side of an anglo - which I think is a real drag as one is always having to shift your right hand to get an entire octave of notes there.

It's also the size of a bandonion.  I think some anglo players might also consider that to be a "shortcoming".  So much for "only".

I didn't say anything about the size of his concertina button layout - only the system which forces one move their hand position more than other layouts do.

 

He apparently used a button accordion to base his instrument on as his buttons are almost 1/2" in diameter and are spaced 3/4" on center! All vintage concertinas have considerably smaller buttons and spacing than that, and he could have made his instrument a LOT smaller.

Then there's the apparent assumption that a single octave do-to-do, somehow has a special sort of relevance.  Very few of the tunes I know are confined to a single octave, or even have the tonic (do) as their lowest note.

I didn't assume any special relevance to single octave tunes... my gripe is that the 1/7 3/2 5/4 1/6 3/7 system forces one to move one's hand position in playing more often than the 1/2 3/4 5/6 1/7 system does. And I find that there are many tunes that go up to just that high note, and not beyond (Speed the Plow, Mason's Apron, Peter Street, Lillibullero...). My peeve is on the upper end (having to move position for those notes), not the lower end (which spills over such that the left hand plays them - again without having to move the hand from position).

Rich, that sounds as if you've built and played such an instrument.  Have you?

No, just paper prototyping.

You've just mentioned two patterns one could use for "identical" fingering in both hands...with the missing note in each pattern being supplied by other rows in other keys.  It seems to me that an important principle in these two layouts is that there are other rows in other keys, and that no single diatonic scale is complete in a single row.

Yes, just that, and that's what makes the system work so well. It's sort of like having a 2-row button accordion. You wind up playing "across the rows" frequently even though you could play totally along a single. Once you get a 3-row, even more possibilities open up and you can play almost any passage on all pull or all push. Not that you would always want to, but it does give you a lot more phrasing and character options than having to play on one row.

Whereas my following suggestions, with 4-wide patterns, do have a complete diatonic scale in each row.  Is that important?  I suspect that different people may have different opinions, but that it also depends on how many rows/keys are included.

Unfortunately the typical 4-wide pattern ISN'T complete as you have to keep pushing that extra note further and further away, not only making each scale a different fingering pattern, but also making the fingering of each scale increasingly difficult. The complete and repeating 3-wide pattern works but only if you get a note from somewhere else (ideally an adjacent row, comfortable to finger, and adjacent to where you are in the scale on the "home row").

 

Another nice thing about being able to play on multiple rows is that your fingering can then be more fluid, without (or very few) instances of the same finger having to take care of sequential notes.

I could suggest another possibility:

... C/C E/D G/F B/A.

Here you get the tonic ( C ) in both directions, and a full F chord.  You lose the clear G7 (B-D-F, even though the G is in the other direction), but you gain the Em and the clear though incomplete G (G-B, without the D) and Am (A-C) chords.

But then both the all-push and all-pull are not chords. You need to very selective about what you finger. With multiple rows you can have the duplicated notes in different directions.

 

HB's system is 1/7 3/2 5/4 which puts 135 on push and 247 on pull with the 6th being conveniently located on an adjacent row. My variant is 1/2 3/4 5/6 with has 135 on push and 246 on pull with the 7th conveniently located on an adjacent row. My preference for that is that there is less hand movement, that the 246 is more "useful" than 247, that it seems to make more "sense" to have the 7 outside the row as it is now "outside" the 135 of the treble side of an anglo anyway. It seems better to grab the 7 adjacent (and keeping your hand position) than grabbing it further along the line (forcing one to change the hand position).

 

Another interesting thing about these omnisonorous systems is that by using 3 rows you can get entire diatonic scales but ONLY PUSHING or ONLY PULLING. Well, that in itself is no wonder.... but the amazing thing about it is that there is a SINGLE FINGERING PATTERN which - depending on where you start it - allows all-pull AND all-push diatonic scales. Sort of like a chromatic accordion....

 

Another difference between my system and HB's is that due to our choice of "outside" note, our omnisonorous patterns are different (of course) with his all one direction patterns having a forward slanting and mine are backwards slanting. The nice thing about backwards slanting ones is that one's fingers don't cross each other when crabbing up the scales.

 

I've got drawings of both systems around here and can post them when I find them.... HB also sent me full-size working drawings of both instruments with wishes to "spread the word".

[JimLucas]

It may be worth noting that George Jones' "Perfect Anglo-German concertina", patented in 1884 (you can see the Patent/fingering online here), ... flopped. I doubt if there is anyone who plays it today ?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Workin' on it.

But so far I'm not finding it superior to the more common layouts.

[Clive Thorne]

The usefulness of any particular layout must surely depend on the individuals playing style.

 

I play in an chords on the left tune on the right style and suspect that having the left hand layout identical to the right would not be beneficial.

 

On the right hand, playing the tune, you really want to be able to get to the next note quickly, irrespect of where it is on the keyboard. On the left hand you want to be able to hit a combination of notes without your fingers getting tied round each other. For example there are some chords that lie quite comfortably on the left hand, being quite spaced out. but on the right hand become very cramped with lots of tucking fingers behind one another.

 

I guess that this point is irrelevant if you play irish style.

 

I'm not suggesting that this was the thought process behind anyones layout, but it seems to have worked out that way for me at least. Is it possible that, beyond the basic two rows, a lot of the layout development was along the lines of "I want this extra note .. now where shall I put it ?.... There's a space, I'll put it there" and so on. Just conjecture.

 

Anyway, one thing I can be sure about is that I'm not going to dismantle my concertina to try out identical layouts.

 

Clive

[geoffwright]

Some 30 years ago, I had an accordion reeded 20 key anglo of uncertain Geman manufacture which had stops (Now in the Horniman, I think). A thumb slider either side, could control two ranks of reeds.

Anyone else seen attempts at this?