B/C Concertina?

[Ubizmo]

I don't know much about button boxes, but I do know they're disonoric and often have two rows of buttons, a semitone apart. B/C and C#/D are common, I think. And the reason for this is that it makes it possible to play nimbly in a number of different keys. And I've watched many button box players play very nimbly indeed. So that leads me to wonder why we don't see the same approach on the concertina: Maybe two row of five buttons on each hand, separated by a semitone; maybe with some redundancy/overlap around the center. If this system works so well for button boxes, wouldn't it be worth doing on a concertina, or am I missing something important?

Or maybe such concertinas do exist, and I just don't know about them?

[davidevr]

Never heard of them, but maybe someone made something like it, maybe some vintage specimen exists...

However...
IMO, that'd be just a concertina-shaped accordion, right? I think the beauty/challenge/identity of the concertina is in its fingering.
Also, if you listen to (say) Cormac Begley or Noel Hill, they're as nimble as they come, I think, with our loved/hated crazy fingering system.
 

[Richard Mellish]

There is of course the Franglo design, commissioned from the Dippers by Emmanuel Pariselle.

[hjcjones]

I think the layout of the anglo is simply a historic accident. There are lots of possible layouts and I suspect many of them could be made to work. For example, there was also the Jedcertina which mimicked the piano keyboard.

 

The other type of button accordion has a similar relationship between the rows to anglo, but they are the other way round - the row closest to the player is the lower-pitched one, whereas on anglo it is higher-pitched. The equivalent to C/G anglo is G/C.  I play both, and I don't find one system is any better than the other, they are just different (although there are some similarities too).

 

I'm sure a semitone arrangement would be playable. Whether it would offer any significant advanatages is another matter. The 30 button anglo is fully chromatic, although not very intuitive away from the home keys, and I suspect semitone accordions are less than straIghtforward once you stray into the more exotic keys. I wonder how suited it would be for playing chords.

 

Rather like the franglo, it might suit someone who already plays a semitone accordion.

[Ken_Coles]

Back in the 1990s I recall seeing a description of an early Suttner anglo with rows in (I assume ascending pitch order, but I don't recall the physical layout) B/C/G. I'm sure it had advantages for some kinds of playing - every layout choice has strengths and weaknesses. 

 

Ken

[Ty Bowen]

I think the important thing here is that semitone big boxes have a left hand for their basses, and the treble side is all on one hand. For my money, playing across the rows is the only way to play Anglo. I know almost no tunes that I find more comfortable on one row, in what I think of as a melodeon style.

[Steve Schulteis]

3 hours ago, hjcjones said:

I wonder how suited it would be for playing chords.

 

Test it out here: https://anglopiano.com/?_20_cGGIijkLMN_70_oOqpSRuTwU.CffhIJKklm_110_OnQPrqUsWt&title=BC

 

Comparing a 20-button BC layout to a 30-button CG layout, it gains some thing and loses some things. Even compared to a 20-button CG, I think it loses overall, because the left-hand IV and vi chords in the home keys aren't supported as well. With a third row to fill in the gaps somehow, I think it has potential. But CG makes more sense when I consider the history of the instrument starting with just the 20-button core.

[Mark Bickford]

I played B/C accordion for 20 years and then switched to C#/D accordion for the last 20 years.

I also play 30-button C/G Anglo concertina. On the semitone-spaced two row accordion,

you are playing the tune with your right hand (which is free to move up and down the rows) and

adding some accompanying bass and chords with your left hand (which also works the bellows

and is constrained by the strap). When playing across the rows, there is a fair amount of sliding

of a finger from a button on the inner row to an adjacent button on the outer row.

 

In contrast, on the concertina both hands are constrained by the hand straps and we rarely slide

the same finger from one row of buttons to another  (occasionally, I slide from Bb to G with my index finger

when playing in G minor, but that is an exception to the usual practice).

 

On a B/C or C#/D accordion, there are, of course, only two rows. There are only two notes that are

on both rows (E and B  on a B/C  and  F# and C# on a C#/D)  so we only have two notes that can be

either press or draw, all the other notes are in only one place and so must be a press or must be a draw.

 

On the C/G Anglo,  the (middle) notes  G,A,B,c,d,and e are on both rows. The two G's and two A's go in the same

direction but are played with different fingers (index or ring) while the note B,c,d,and e are on both press and draw.

So, we can easily choose the best phrasing and fingering so we rarely get stuck needing to play two adjacent

melody notes with the same finger.

 

This makes it seem that the concertina system is superior to the two row semitone boxes, but that's

not the case. When your right hand is free to move around easily, it's no problem to slide your fingers

to the needed note, and, indeed, box players can play exceedingly fast if they want to. So, all I'm pointing out

is that the semitone spaced rows work well for the layout of the box, but I don't think it would work well

for the geometry of the concertina.

 

Also, I don't think that the layout of the C/G Anglo is an historical accident. I think that there was some

experimentation in the early days of the Anglo, but by 1850 or 1860 the current layout was established

because it was the best one and has never changed in over 150 years since then. I myself had a brainstorm

to change the notes on my concertina  (swapping the notes of the Ab/Bb with those of the A/G on the top row

left side -- I had what I thought was a good reason) so Paul Groff did that for me (after giving me a warning).

Less than ten years later, Paul, or maybe Greg Jowaisis, switched them back again because I had learned

that by choosing between the index finger A on the middle row or the ring finger A on the bottom row I could

solve all the fingering problems that I thought my change would help with, while the change caused other

problems.  I have a felling that such experimentation was done in the early days and the consensus settled on what we know today.

 

[pgroff]

Mark has it IMO. 

 

If I remember correctly, back in the 1980s or early 1990s, the late Jim Coogan, who played DC# accordion, commissioned a Suttner concertina in those keys but  the DC# layout didn't finger well on a concertina. The problem was the constraint of the handstraps, just as Mark wrote.

 

Not only for fingering melodies, but for harmonic accompaniment it's amazing to me how well the earliest (Jones ?) early anglo-chromatic layouts function, and I'd say the later elaborations of those as seen on 30 key, 31 key, 38 key, 40 key etc Crabbs, Jeffries, and Lachenals are even a bit better. 

 

I had ideas myself for slight changes to those layouts that went into some instruments commissioned by Groff's Music  in the 1990s . . .

 

But the skeleton Mark mentions was there by the 1880s in the anglo chromatic concertina layouts of the above makers. (Wheatstone seems to have come along a bit later to anglos)

 

It's also worth mentioning that the non-equal-tempered tuning systems often used by many of those makers  in the 19th century (leaving aside Wheatstone) were very thoughtfully designed to work with the layout of notes and also with a certain playing style. I.e. on a Jones CG concertina in original tuning to play the interval DA you want to play it on the draw because the DA notes on the press are tuned to different pitches that create a "wolf" fifth. Those nuances aren't experienced by most players today who are using anglos tuned to equal temperament or at least that use a tuning system (such as 1/5 comma meantone over the whole instrument) where all the "D" notes (press and draw) are tuned to the same pitch.

 

Of course, it's also amazing how well the Chemnitzer and Bandoneon layouts work so there is certainly more than one way to make a very versatile bisonoric "concertina family" layout that can play in many keys. 

 

PG

 

 

 

 

Edited March 26 by pgroff
typo

[SIMON GABRIELOW]

I have 2row button accordion in C and C sharp.. and button numbering system can be similar ( under beginner system I used years ago )..3rd button up is C natural on accordion and concertina etc..

Apart from this accordion tone has two reeds mildly out of tune with each other( on each note).. to give the warble like tone ( which is deliberate in design)..that's a mild dissonance which a tuning expert told me once was preferred by European performers ( to have the reeds slightly pitched difference ) Each button note. And this gives the distinctive tremolo like tone when played.

 

Edited March 25 by SIMON GABRIELOW

[davidevr]

When people ask about the concertina layout I tell them:

1. first there was one row (let's say it's a C) , and it has a harmonica-like layout.
2. then they added a second row, and it's the same thing only in G, so you can play in 2 tonalities.
3. then they added the missing notes in a 3rd row, pretty much from the lowest pitch to the highest one, with some exception

The 3rd step is super funny and could be described as.. pragmatic? Accidental (pun!) ?
The 1st and 2nd steps though were not accidental, the harmonica-like structure was a design choice and was used because it is effective while playing on row. And builders choose the 2 most common tonalities (outside Ireland!) 
While I mostly play cross-row, I think there are plenty of tunes that are more than comfortable to be played on a single row: most C and G tunes. While some players favour cross-row (myself included!) a lot of contemporary players play a lot of tunes on a single row (Caitlín comes to mind). Historically speaking, before Paddy Murphy everyone played on a single row. 
So I would argue that the C/G layout has the advantage of allowing a lot of tunes to be played single row. With a B/C layout all this goes out of the window. And B is quite a weed tonality in the context of folk music.

(I ask the harmonic-style players reading this to pardon my oversimplifications, I have a bit of an Irish-centred perspective, sorry about this, is just what I am familiar with 🙂)

[Stephen Chambers]

13 hours ago, davidevr said:

Historically speaking, before Paddy Murphy everyone played on a single row. 
So I would argue that the C/G layout has the advantage of allowing a lot of tunes to be played single row.

 

Though D/A, which it now seems (ironically) from computer analysis by Jackie Small, is what William J. Mullaly's Wheatstone (that Paddy had heard on Hughdie Doohan's 78 rpm records, and inspired him to play "across the rows") was pitched in, might be even more advantageous.

 

(I had the good fortune to meet Paddy Murphy in the '70s, and to look at the concertinas over his fireplace at home, as well as seeing him play for the set dancers at Garvey's in Inagh on numerous occasions.)

 

Quote

With a B/C layout all this goes out of the window. And B is quite a weed tonality in the context of folk music.

 

I've a vague recollection of a box player who got his concertina tuned B/C/G, or was it C#/C/G? 

 

Whilst Jackie Daly was asking me about the possibility of a C#/D concertina, which might work better than a B/C.

 

 

 

Edited March 26 by Stephen Chambers
Edited for clarification

[pgroff]

2 hours ago, Stephen Chambers said:

 

 

 

 

I've a vague recollection of a box player who got his concertina tuned B/C/G, or was it C#/C/G? 

 

Whilst Jackie Daly was asking me about the possibility of a C#/D concertina, which might work better than a B/C

 

Stephen,

 

There is a well-known concertina player who has been reported to have the accidental row of his CG concertina tuned basically to C#. Last I heard, he did not disclose his layout publicly but did sell the information of his layout to at least one person.   Really, the typical accidental-row layouts for CG 30-key anglos (especially Lachenal) already overlap a bit (maybe 2/5 or 40%) with a "C#" row on the left side. Then re-starting on the right side with C#D# and again overlapping around 40% - 50 % with the notes you'd expect for a strictly "C#" row that re-started on right-hand accidental row button #1.

 

I've encountered a 30 key Lachenal in A/E whose third row (starting on the left side and continuing to the right) was tuned fully to a standard Bb major scale. This would be equivalent to a transposition (down a minor third) of a CG concertina whose "accidental row" was in C#. 

 

Re: C#D concertina, see my comments above re: the DC# concertina that Jim Coogan ordered. This story goes back quite a few decades, but I think I'm remembering it as Jim told it to me. Jürgen might be able to confirm it if so.

 

PG

Edited March 26 by pgroff

[Stephen Chambers]

5 hours ago, pgroff said:

 

Re: C#D concertina, see my comments above re: the DC# concertina that Jim Coogan ordered. This story goes back quite a few decades, but I think I'm remembering it as Jim told it to me.

 

Funnily enough Paul, I started thinking about this again only a week ago (it's a while since Jackie mentioned it to me in Friel's) and I worked out a scheme for a 21-key C#/D Anglo that shouldn't be too hard to achieve when I've nothing better to do...

[Mark Bickford]

I'll bet that the "well known concertina player" Paul Groff is talking about is John Williams. Years ago, at some Irish music event I can't remember what, I came across John Williams playing in a hallway with Tim Britton. I got out my concertina to try to play along but quickly realized that it was an "Eb session". Tim must have had an Eb chanter, but John seemed to be happily playing on the top row of his concertina. Even back then I guessed that it was a C# row (I might have thought it was a D# row). Anyway, I was very impressed.

[Anglo-Irishman]

On 3/26/2026 at 10:23 AM, davidevr said:

The 1st and 2nd steps though were not accidental, the harmonica-like structure was a design choice and was used because it is effective while playing on row. And builders choose the 2 most common tonalities

Yes, of course there was always method in the madness of the concertina!😉

I like to describe the Anglo thus: Anglo is short for Anglo-German; the English bit was the hexagonal form and the individual reeds, and the German bit was the button arrangement.

We have a German gentleman by the name of Richter to thank for the ingenious button arrangement on practically all bisonoric instruments, from the simple mouth-organ to the Bandoneon or the Steyrische Handharmonika. Richter's scale arranges the notes of the diatonic scale such that when you go "blow-suck" on the first button (or hole of a mouth-organ) then "blow-suck" on the next two, and then "suck-blow" on the fourth, you get a clean diatonic scale. But that's only the start! If you press two or more buttons (or spread your lips over several holes) and then blow or suck, you get a chord or partial chord. This is the magic of the "easy-to-play" instruments such as harmonica and concertina. You don't need to study harmony and counterpoint to make an arrangement of a popular tune. Just pick out the tune, and Herr Richter's algorithm does the rest for you ... 

(And if you want to give a small child a musical instrument to play with, make it a harmonica. They just can't make unpleasant noises with it, no matter how hard they try!)

Any other bisonoric arrangement would be tantamount to a re-invention of the wheel, which is why Anglos are still built this way today.

Cheers,

John

[Ubizmo]

There's a lot to think about in these replies, but the limitations of hand mobility on concertina, as compared to button box, seems pretty decisive to me--now that it's been pointed out!

Having played the Anglo for a little while anyway (about 8 months), i began to acquire an appreciation for playing across the rows, not that I could do it very skillfully. The third row accidentals remained mysterious. I'd find one if I needed it, then try to remember it for the next time I needed it. No doubt if I'd stayed with it, I would have found them no more mysterious than the strange-looking palm keys on my saxophone.