Cylindrical Or Hexagonal?

[m3838]

Hi. This has been discussed in some distant past elsewhere, but I would like to bring this question here, who knows, may be some ideas will be generated.

So we all know and learn to cherish strange shape of a concertina.

Harold Herrington even tried to be true to Wheatstone's approach and made a few "square" instruments. However, the demand at the time didn't match expectations.

So now we have strange 6 - 8- 10 -12 sided instruments.

While some of them fully employ cylindrical shape (radial spead of reeds, for which even the shoes were made tapered), others, and most notably Anglos are not. The reeds are laid out orthogonally, and clearly the shape is not optimal.

So again, why is it, that early concertinas were not purely round, what prevented it, where there any tries?

Thanks.

[JimLucas]

So again, why is it, that early concertinas were not purely round, what prevented it, where there any tries?

Actually, the round concertina was invented before Wheatstone's birth, but there aren't any left, because they all smashed when they rolled off of tables, shelves, and the like.

 

Just joking, of course. Well, only half joking, because the danger of rolling is certainly there, and much more so with an Edeophone (12 sides) than with even an Æola (8 sides). It seems that Lachenal did make a few (one source said 10) with circular ends, and one of them was sold on eBay last year... and discussed here on Concertina.net. But apparently they didn't catch on.

[Greg Jowaisas]

This link should take you to the cnet discussion and a picture of the cylindrical Lachenal.

 

http://www.concertina.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2279

 

Greg

 

The first link gets you to a picture of the instrument. This second link will take you to the discussion.

 

http://www.concertina.net/forums/index.php?showtopic=2365

 

And here is more discussion:

http://www.concertina.net/forums/index.php...wtopic=2272&hl=

Edited February 4, 2006 by Greg Jowaisas

[Frank Edgley]

I think the answer to the questions, "Why isn't anyone making round concertinas?" is that there is really no good reason to. Constructing a round concertina is unneccessarily complicated. Making concertinas is VERY labour-intensive as it is without making it more so. I suspect that a round shape is not ideal for the bellows as well. Regular bellow have flexible gussets, which allow the sides of the flats to flex outwards. A round bellows does not appear to, which means that there is more stressing of the cardboard skeleton as it tries to form a more conical shape. This, after time, would tend to break down the material. The wood working would also be much more involved. These problems, along with the obvious ones, like rolling off tables, etc. make round concertinas not really practical. It may have been an acoustic experiment, or just another sales gimmick, but is now just a curiosity. (Now watch, someone may do it, just to prove me wrong, or as another sales gimmick. Am I thowing down a challenge? In any case, I'm not likely to waste time doing it, much to the the relief of waiting customers.

[JimLucas]

I think the answer to the questions, "Why isn't anyone making round concertinas?" is that there is really no good reason to. Constructing a round concertina is unneccessarily complicated. Making concertinas is VERY labour-intensive as it is without making it more so. I suspect that a round shape is not ideal for the bellows as well.

Actually, the bellows on that Lachenal "round Edeo" is 12-sided, just like on the "real" Edeophones. Only the ends are circular.

 

So with proper tools, it's probably no more difficult than a standard Edeophone. But "proper tools" may require some that aren't already used in constructing the 6-sided design, and an Edeophone is still more complex (e.g., twice as many pieces in the bellows) than the standard 6-sided concertina. This may explain why no current builders are making a big push to get folks to buy 12-sided concertinas, either.

[m3838]

Was flexible playwood available at the times?

Perhabs today, making round cabinet, using not assembled carefully carved and glued segments, but bent playwood "ring" would have eased part of labor intencity.

As for bellows, I experimented some and sure, purely circular segments don't offer any flexibility, but with two slits at opposite sides, covered with leather gussetts, they are just as flexible as the usual.

I was just thinking, that sticking to the original shape may be one of the contributing factors of concertina's expence.

Which leads to interesting question: If concertinas' price is perceived to be such a hindrance, why square Herrington didn't pick up? Or why other manufacturers, after such extended R&D haven't tried their luck with seemingly simpler, cheaper, better suited for accordion reeds square concertinas? Having more space would have allowed adding another set of reeds (at least at the high reange). LM may even have a switch, going from trebble to baritone.

Cabinet may be covered with black celluloid and have silver metal ends. Come to think of it, why not make larger buttons. I think it has a potential of making better concertinas at lower price and moving them from antiquity to today. Not that I don't appreciate crafsmanship, but it comes with a price, and the picky-tweaky gorgeocities are marginally needed.

Rolling off the table is, indeed, a dreadful problem, but perhabs just a little overexagerated.

No?

[m3838]

I made a little sketch.

If somebody want it, I can email it.

But I can't figure out how you put pictures here.

Any help?

I'm on freaking linux. Here's another example how cheap and unreliable system beats the others, if it works in the ball park.

[JimLucas]

Was flexible playwood available at the times?

Of the mass-produced sort common today, I don't know. But I believe that shaping wood by steaming was used in building both ships and smaller items (drums?) for centuries before the concertina was invented.

 

I was just thinking, that sticking to the original shape may be one of the contributing factors of concertina's expence. ... Which leads to interesting question: If concertinas' price is perceived to be such a hindrance, why square Herrington didn't pick up?

Maybe because it was not significantly cheaper or otherwise superior? (Wasn't there a thread about just this question a while ago?) The one who should be able to answer such a question definitively would be Harold Herrington, no?

 

Or why other manufacturers, after such extended R&D haven't tried their luck with seemingly simpler, cheaper, better suited for accordion reeds square concertinas?

Do you know that they haven't? Maybe they tried it and didn't experience massive benefits. Come to think of it, this is all sounding familiar, but at the moment I'm not motivated to go hunting for the earlier discussions.

 

Having more space....

Square design gives extra unused space if one uses radial reed orientation. (There's that word "if", again. Many things are interdependent in most designs.)

 

Come to think of it, why not make larger buttons.

Another subject that's been discussed to death in the past. I even started a poll. The results are suggestive, but given the small number of responders, I couldn't consider them definitive.

 

Rolling off the table is, indeed, a dreadful problem, but perhabs just a little overexagerated.

I don't know how often it happens, but I have seen the results of an instrument falling from table height to the floor: split pad board, split reed pan, and "exploded" (several burst seams) bellows. That is why I rarely put my concertina down on a table or the like, not even with me sitting right by it, and even then only if the table is completely stable and the instrument can be placed far from the edge. Instead, I put the concertina in its case, with the case resting on the floor, even between tunes if I'm not actually holding it.

[Daniel Hersh]

Which leads to interesting question: If concertinas' price is perceived to be such a hindrance, why square Herrington didn't pick up? Or why other manufacturers, after such extended R&D haven't tried their luck with seemingly simpler, cheaper, better suited for accordion reeds square concertinas? Having more space would have allowed adding another set of reeds (at least at the high reange). LM may even have a switch, going from trebble to baritone.

 

Cabinet may be covered with black celluloid and have silver metal ends. Come to think of it, why not make larger buttons.

 

You're getting close to re-inventing the Chemnitzer!

 

Daniel

[m3838]

I think there is a gap between a Chemnitzer and small concertina.

Chemnitzer is large and less convinient, small concertina is single voiced and expencive.

There are small Chemnitzers, but they are snatched in instant, you wouldn't believe.

If you drop a small 2 voice MM Chemnitzer with 6 buttons per row, it may not have a chance to reach the floor. And the price reflects it.

So definitely there is a gap to be filled. Only traditional hexagonal concertina design is better, more tidy, as I see it. Chemnitzers are less concerned with saving space, being light and portable and all that. I almost placed an order for square Herrington some years ago, but didn't. I wasn't sure about the sound, as somebody told me they are not mellow and have a harshenss to them. "Good for Irish session", in other words.

Who knows, may be it was a mistake.

Yes, it has been discussed before, with use of plastic and plastic disposable bellows and all that. I guess the real answer is: concertina players are a small, but well to do bunch of people, who are in favour of spending much money on instruments, made to uppermost standards of crafsmanship.

 

Yes, square AC was $1200 and 6 sided $1400 a few years ago. Not much of a difference.

Unfortunately. (stepping out to cry a little)

[Daniel Hersh]

So are you looking for something like this? http://www.pamelasmusic.co.uk/images/Forsa...ereed/Ca017.htm

 

 

I think there is a gap between a Chemnitzer and small concertina.

Chemnitzer is large and less convinient, small concertina is single voiced and expencive.

There are small Chemnitzers, but they are snatched in instant, you wouldn't believe.

If you drop a small 2 voice MM Chemnitzer with 6 buttons per row, it may not have a chance to reach the floor. And the price reflects it.

So definitely there is a gap to be filled. Only traditional hexagonal concertina design is better, more tidy, as I see it. Chemnitzers are less concerned with saving space, being light and portable and all that. I almost placed an order for square Herrington some years ago, but didn't. I wasn't sure about the sound, as somebody told me they are not mellow and have a harshenss to them. "Good for Irish session", in other words.

Who knows, may be it was a mistake.

Yes, it has been discussed before, with use of plastic and plastic disposable bellows and all that. I guess the real answer is: concertina players are a small, but well to do bunch of people, who are in favour of spending much money on instruments, made to uppermost standards of crafsmanship.

 

Yes, square AC was $1200 and 6 sided $1400 a few years ago. Not much of a difference.

Unfortunately. (stepping out to cry a little)

[Frank Edgley]

Square concertinas may be easier, but hexagonal concertinas aren't all that much more time consuming once you have the right jigs. It's all the other things that have to be done "just right", that make the concertina so labour intensive, and thus expensive. Making a round concertina would probably take a lot more time than a hex. But, as I haven't done one (and have no plans to do so) I don't know how much. But the question remains --- Why bother? It's still a gimmick. I'd rather spend my time getting it right than making it cute.

[Chris Timson]

Which leads to interesting question: If concertinas' price is perceived to be such a hindrance, why square Herrington didn't pick up?

As the owner of a square Herrington who has discussed this with Harold, I believe I can answer this. For Harold the square concertina was, I believe, a rather charming developmental step on the way to the six-sided instruments he makes now. I don't think he ever intended not to make six-sided boxen, and there was a small but significant market for the square tinas at first, but once the six-sided instruments were available I think he found it tricky supporting both types.

 

Chris

[m3838]

>So are you looking for something like this? >http://www.pamelasmusic.co.uk/images/Forsa...ereed/Ca017.htm

 

Something, only with less buttons on the right.

Besides, the price of 225 pounds with just a "couple of whesey notes" usually turns up being in unplayable condition. Been there.

Edited February 6, 2006 by m3838

[red]

Square concertinas may be easier, but hexagonal concertinas aren't all that much more time consuming once you have the right jigs. It's all the other things that have to be done "just right", that make the concertina so labour intensive, and thus expensive. Making a round concertina would probably take a lot more time than a hex. But, as I haven't done one (and have no plans to do so) I don't know how much. But the question remains --- Why bother? It's still a gimmick. I'd rather spend my time getting it right than making it cute.

 

Frank, are you stating that anything other than a hexagonal concertina is essentially a gimmick? Are there no advantages to any other format?

[JimLucas]

...a round concertina... It's still a gimmick.

Frank, are you stating that anything other than a hexagonal concertina is essentially a gimmick? Are there no advantages to any other format?

Frank can answer for himself, of course, but whatever he may believe, he didn't say that, or anything even suggesting it. His comment mentioned only the circular design as a "gimmick".

[red]

...a round concertina... It's still a gimmick.

Frank, are you stating that anything other than a hexagonal concertina is essentially a gimmick? Are there no advantages to any other format?

Frank can answer for himself, of course, but whatever he may believe, he didn't say that, or anything even suggesting it. His comment mentioned only the circular design as a "gimmick".

 

Well yes, I thought I asked Frank a question, I am interested to receive his reply.

Edited February 6, 2006 by red

[Frank Edgley]

I think Jim got it right. I was talking about round concertinas, and if you will look back at my comment I think you can see what I was talking about. Round concertinas were obviously a gimmick to get sales. I have heard that Wheatstone came up with the 8-sided aeola for that reason, and Lachenal, not to be outdone, came up with a 12-sided one, the Edeophone. These were remarkable instruments, but whether or not the number of sides had anything to do with it I don't know. Do Edeophones sound better than Aeolas because they have more sides? If round concertinas had had ANY advantages, either marketable ones or musical ones, many more would have been made. The history seems to indicate that any advantages (and I doubt there were any) were far outweighed by the added work making them. It seems that from time to time up to and including the present, there have been those ready to redesign and radically change the concertina, from typewriter-sized & shaped buttons, to neckstraps, to bendable-pitch concertinas to midi concertinas. It goes on and on. I realise that the concertina catches all our imaginations, or we wouldn't be on this site. But we aren't at the stage that many of us have even a good "regular" instrument, and even now, most people give you a blank stare when you say the word "concertina". The concertina revival is only in its early stages. There will be more & more players as decent instruments become more common. Rich, Harold, Bob and I, and the other makers in Europe are doing our best to achieve that end. But let's not "take our eyes off the ball". Let's get a good instrument and learn to play it. Others will see & hear us and our numbers will grow. Personally, I like the instrument just as it is. It is small, portable, versatile ( just listen to "The Anglo International"), not that difficult to play (notice I didn't say "master"), and has a very pleasant sound. It is a link to our past, and that has its own attraction. Change it? Only to make it better, not different.

Edited February 8, 2006 by Frank Edgley