Frank Edgley Posted December 22, 2003 Share Posted December 22, 2003 Thank you, Goran. I am familiar with these articles. I still maintain that I see nothing that changes my lack of agreement with some of your contentions, however. I do hope that instead of a restatement of these articles, you would illustrate your proposals in a concrete manner by showing your design suggestions using scale drawings. Otherwise I can't see how these suggestions for improvement could be implemented. I think everyone would agree with you that buttons should be more comfortable; the instrument should be easy to hold without any strain to arms, shoulders, and fingers; the fingers should be free to perform complex and rapid operations; the instrument should be easy to play standing or sitting; and it should be easily portable. But exactly how? Scale drawings are necessary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goran rahm Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Frank:" But exactly how? Scale drawings are necessary. " Goran:All-right...I withdraw my late proposal which would have initiated more 'discussion'...maybe fruitless, I realise that...despite I always hope I could find an angle making it possible to re-start more unprejudiced (not directed towards You Frank ! ) The problem however with "scale drawings" in a 'preliminary' phase is that they easily lock up - instead of open up - creativity. You have constructed things yourself Frank...is that all by yourself? or have you worked in any construction/design teams in practise...in that case you know what I mean. Well....I will make a couple of drawings anyhow. Hopefully it might make some issues more virtual. A couple of things could be worthwhile to comment first. There are so many individual and circumstantial factors involved in instrumental music making that IF we search 'optimal/ideal' conditions this can be done with completely different aims and the results are expected to be entirely different too: 1) ideal conditions for a specific individual/occasional situation 2) optimal conditions for some kind of general purposefulness and this in turn may be split up in numerous subgroups....majority of users...various musical idioms...grown ups vs children....beginners vs experienced players....monophonic vs polyphonic music.... This is a reason why 'we' so easily get into more or less destructive or fruitless debates...people do not well enough neither define their own position nor look upon the vast field of alternatives. Music instrument 'inventing/design/construction' happens to be practised by 'technicians' and/or 'musicians' or in some conjunction. Naturally this may have influence on the result. For example as far as I know there are no biographic notes that the inventor of the "English" concertina C Wheatstone was a 'musician' at all but well documented that he was successful 'technician' . The inventor of the "German" concertina Carl Uhlig is said having been known in Chemnitz as a prominent clarinet performer. It is meaningless to look away from what sort of music the particular instrument is being used for and we are all at risk being biased by our own (limited) experiences in this aspect of the matter(s). I'll be back with some drawings.... Goran Rahm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Ghent Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 The title of this thread was "size isn't all that matters" and all the consequent manouevring apart, I think this is true. I would like to float the idea that the height the button stops moving in towards the end of the concertina is a significantly more important dimension than the size. You need to be able to feel the end of the concertina when the keys are fully depressed. This momentary touch lets your fingers know when to stop pushing, and gives information to allow you to keep the concertina steady. Much the same function your toes have in helping you keep balance. Large buttons could reduce the chance of receiving this little piece of control feedback. Certainly some of the larger suggestions made here would remove it. Note that on the button boxes that have buttons of that size, the end of the box that might need complex fingering is not moving..! Not such a control problem. Consequently I relegate the importance of large buttons. As evidence as to the efficacy of small buttons, how many times have you heard an experienced Jeffries player say; its a great concertina, but if only it had bigger buttons..? Small buttons do need to be coupled with the right spring pressure, but hey, on the concertina of our dreams, the return pressure is always perfect anyway. I wonder if I should have suggested this, consensus on these subjective issues is like taking a firm grip on the soap in the bath... regs Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
d.elliott Posted December 23, 2003 Share Posted December 23, 2003 Chris, I think that your observation about the need to have a 'reference' with the keys proud of the keyboard at all times is bang on target. Some of the modern concertina look-a-likes tend to have disappearing keys, and I have seen so called vintage instruments spoiled by having their dampers removed/ reduced giving a similar effect. I always ensure an even key depresion height with a notional 3.2 mm target key lift. As long as the key peg is still captured in the action board hole then I am happy, if not its a case of reducing the damper discs, and re setting key height Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goran rahm Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 Chris:"I would like to float the idea that the height the button stops moving in towards the end of the concertina is a significantly more important dimension than the size. You need to be able to feel the end of the concertina when the keys are fully depressed. This momentary touch lets your fingers know when to stop pushing, and gives information to allow you to keep the concertina steady. Much the same function your toes have in helping you keep balance." Goran:Chris, your idea/observation splits up on two: 1) The 'need' of confidence in what your finger is doing with the button 2) The matter of "keeping the concertina steady Add 1): The 'travel' of the button hardly is a musical need nor even a certain advantage...I rather guess not. You could of course play with static 'touch controls' instead of dynamic 'press down buttons'...that is basically a matter of learning and habituation. Add 2) :In principle you *should not* "keep the concertina steady" with your fingers at all!! This is merely a desparate result of a weakness in the 'concept' and could be improved if the 'handle' is more efficient! Yes.. accordions are 'better' in this respect! Chris:"Large buttons could reduce the chance of receiving this little piece of control feedback. Certainly some of the larger suggestions made here would remove it." Goran:No way...an imaginary objection. Your fingers normally are far too sensitive to make that a drawback at all. Chris:"Note that on the button boxes that have buttons of that size, the end of the box that might need complex fingering is not moving..! Not such a control problem. Consequently I relegate the importance of large buttons." Goran:Have you tried it in practise? If not, I suggest you do... Chris:As evidence as to the efficacy of small buttons, how many times have you heard an experienced Jeffries player say; its a great concertina, but if only it had bigger buttons..? Goran:Oh dear...ever heard of habituation, tradition or nostalgia? You don't complain over something you love and got accustomed to and you don't want to hear anyone criticize your loved belongings either...that is absolutely 'normal'... Chris:"Small buttons do need to be coupled with the right spring pressure, but hey, on the concertina of our dreams, the return pressure is always perfect anyway." Goran: I don't quite understand what you mean but sure.. said that earlier: the "spring pressure",( rather the "button resistance" like we said before), is intimately linked with the touch comfort of the button. BUT: for technical and musical reasons it is better with as high a resistance as you could tolerate and the tolerance is greater with larger buttons. Going from 5 to 7mm diam reduces the *pressure* at the fingertip to half. You can't expect to increase the spring force to the double maybe since the *strength* of the finger is also involved...but you *can* increase it. Dave:"I think that your observation about the need to have a 'reference' with the keys proud of the keyboard at all times is bang on target. Some of the modern concertina look-a-likes tend to have disappearing keys, and I have seen so called vintage instruments spoiled by having their dampers removed/ reduced giving a similar effect." Goran:I actually believe that you Dave -like Chris in this case- are naturally biased by your experience from your own playing....Basically from the phenomenon that due to the defect balance and stability of the traditional 'system' you simply have to use your fingers to create an acceptably stable playing situation. I don't remember for the moment...do you have experience from playing other squeezeboxes Dave? Habit influences ones thinking so much... Goran Rahm "I always ensure an even key depresion height with a notional 3.2 mm target key lift. As long as the key peg is still captured in the action board hole then I am happy, if not its a case of reducing the damper discs, and re setting key height Dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Ghent Posted December 24, 2003 Share Posted December 24, 2003 OK, so I won't give up my day job... Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLucas Posted December 27, 2003 Author Share Posted December 27, 2003 (edited) Please explain me (both of you) in less than 100 words why concertina buttons are so thin compared with bandoneon buttons. The designs of the two instruments were engineered by different individuals. (11 words) The makers of neither instrument perceived demand to adopt the other instrument's button design sufficient to cause them to do so. (21 words) ......(32 words, total) As far as I know, anything more specific -- e.g., any "principles" underlying the originators' designs -- is pure speculation. I.e., we have no direct evidence of what principles the inventors used, if any, nor specifically why players and potential players have not demanded change. And button diameter is only one of many notable differences in the engineering design of the two instruments, which have not changed significantly since the instruments were invented. [Edited: My original response only contained the 11-word explanation of the origin of the difference, plus some editorial comment. I then realized that it was necessary to explain the survival of the difference, so I added the 21-word explanation of that and amended the editorial comments.] Edited December 27, 2003 by JimLucas Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLucas Posted December 28, 2003 Author Share Posted December 28, 2003 The 'scissors' were 'sheap-shears' for a couple of thousand years before someone put a rivet in them. It's a funny coincidence that as a Christmas gift I received a small (5.5" = 14cm) pair of old-fashioned, rivetless shears, and I find them an absolute delight! So far I've used them for cutting various kinds and thicknesses of paper, plastic, and food, and I find that they are more comfortable, more efficient, and even more controllable than a same-size pair of modern, rivetted scissors I have. Now I'm wondering if I can get some in larger sizes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Ghent Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 (edited) Edited out a post I thought better of... Regards Chris Edited December 28, 2003 by Chris Ghent Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goran rahm Posted December 28, 2003 Share Posted December 28, 2003 Jim:(Sheep-shears..) "So far I've used them for cutting various kinds and thicknesses of paper, plastic, and food, and I find that they are more comfortable, more efficient, and even more controllable than a same-size pair of modern, rivetted scissors I have. Now I'm wondering if I can get some in larger sizes." Goran:Not very surprising at all...of course you can (and expect to ) find *use* for each tool and ideal purposes for their use too. I mentioned to Frank that the even late use of them precisely for sheep is no accident....The main reason likely being their 'spring action' and full hand 'grip' making the long term strenous cutting easier than with the 'modern' riveted models. Now.... there are full grip springed riveted ones too and lots of variants..you surely may find something considerably more efficient than the 'sheep-shears' if you search for a while... The point however was not the specific use but the perspective on long time tradition.... Goran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Taylor Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Jonathan:"No musical instrument can be useful for all purposes, and none optimal for a majority of "users" (contemporary or not), and no-one has claimed otherwise." Goran now:Hmm..why do you so often object against suggested alternatives?:-) You are trying to change the subject, to divert attention away from the fact that you have not disproved my original statement ("Smaller buttons can be arranged closer together...") Goran now:Very relevant indeed because you claim you know *why* the buttons are as they are but you don't know *why* the contructor made them that way. Wrong. It is irrelevant what Charles Wheatstone wrote or didn't write about comfort. In musical instruments, if increased comfort can be achieved without compromising the musical capabilities of both player and instrument, fine. If not, then so much the worse for comfort. Instruments need to be as comfortable as necessary, not as comfortable as possible. That is a fact. Now either disprove it, or accept it. I see some possible 'historic causes' but no reasons to assume that the 'tradition' offers either the best compromise for the majority of players or to regard it as definite. Perhaps it isn't the best compromise. Then again, perhaps it is. Neither possibility is affected by your inability to see any reasons for or against. Goran now: Yes of course..I said that this does not necessarily hinder concertina butttons to be larger as well! It is basically a matter of tradition, the construction is not an absolute obstacle in either case. In that case your original reply makes even less sense. Bandoneon button spacing is restricted by the action, not the reedwork, and definitely not by the number of buttons. Since you don't appear to have fully grasped the conclusions of my original (99 word) reply, I will rephrase it for you: If buttons are made too large, players with thick fingers will not be able to press them without touching adjacent buttons (Perry Werner's problem). If the buttons are spaced wider to compensate for this, the keyboard will become too wide and long for players with short fingers to reach all the buttons easily. The existing design is a compromise offering as great a musical capability (range) as possible to as many different people as possible. The only alternative to this compromise is to offer concertinas with different sized keyboards for different sized hands. This would, however, increase costs to the manufacturer, who is not obliged to bear these costs if he thinks that the market for over- and undersized instruments is not big enough. Playing the concertina is not compulsory, and neither therefore is supplying concertinas to fit anybody. Making an instrument in "one size fits all" makes sound economic sense and does not mean that it is "defective". Goran now: Definitely not correct but YOU may not have read or noticed. I have repeatedly mentioned the lacking balance, lacking space for stability by the palm (with or without supports), the frequent wood cutting defects and generally too 'crowded' reed pan and mechanism, the acoustic advantages with larger measures, the possibilites to use wider spaced keyboard and larger buttons... You do not mention wood cutting defects, crowded reed pans or acoustic advantages in any of your articles. I have described above why wider keyboards and larger buttons cannot be regarded as improvements. As for "lacking balance and space for stability", Jim Lucas, myself and others in this forum have disputed this. If you dismiss our evidence and refer only to your own experiences, you end up with merely subjective impressions. Goran now:The 'English' concertina emanated directly from the Symphonium ...not much of tradition:-)...but obviously that locked the constructive thinking concerning the concertina. So perhaps you will now stop claiming that people who disagree with your ideas only do so because of "tradition" and "love". "...obviously that locked the constructive thinking..."? You are making two typical errors here: 1. You continually dismiss evidence disproving your ideas as merely subjective, while presenting your own evidence as objective; 2. you are showing an attribution bias in that you attribute your own ideas and actions to rationality and logic, while attributing the behaviour of others to emotional, stupid or otherwise negative reasons. And thereby deluding yourself. Jonathan:"With regard to change, innovators are indeed often met with scepticism, but the biggest obstacle to change is not conservatism but a total lack of evidence that the change actually constitutes an improvement."Goran now:Complete nonsense. Innovations are met with scepticism entirely due to conservatism, ignorance, indolence or lacking imagination. This does not say that scepticism may not be sensible to a considerable part or conservatism not a fairly sound attitude.... So what? I didn't claim otherwise. You obviously didn't read my statement carefully. Regardless of what you may think, you are not actually contradicting me. You admit it yourself: scepticism is sensible and conservatism can be sound. Whether a proposed innovation is finally accepted or not depends on whether it is backed up by hard evidence. Which is precisely what I said. ....(not least since most 'innovations' are not of great importance.....) That is precisely my opinion of your ideas -- until I get hard evidence that they work. ....and usually conservatism is less risky than opposing the 'establishment'.... Ah yes, the Galileo fallacy. Göran, opposing the "establishment" (whoever they are) does not automatically mean that you are right and they are wrong. Jonathan Taylor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Frank Edgley Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 How are the drawings coming, Goran? I'm anxiously awaiting some good ideas! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goran rahm Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Jonathan:You are trying to change the subject, to divert attention away from the fact that you have not disproved my original statement ("Smaller buttons can be arranged closer together...") Goran:Arguing instead of presenting arguments Jonathan. Of course "smaller buttons can be arranged closer together"...and of course that means trouble for players with wide fingers (which you dont want to accept..) QUOTE Goran now:Very relevant indeed because you claim you know *why* the buttons are as they are but you don't know *why* the contructor made them that way. Jonathan:Wrong. It is irrelevant what Charles Wheatstone wrote or didn't write about comfort. Goran:Well...good to know that JT knows better than the constructor what he intended...:-) QUOTE Goran now: Yes of course..I said that this does not necessarily hinder concertina butttons to be larger as well! It is basically a matter of tradition, the construction is not an absolute obstacle in either case. JOnathan:Making an instrument in "one size fits all" makes sound economic sense and does not mean that it is "defective". Goran: For everyone who can not use it efficiently it certainly is "defective" whatever JT says..... Jonathan:If you dismiss our evidence and refer only to your own experiences, you end up with merely subjective impressions. Goran:Gosh....YOU present "evidence" and *I* "subjective impressions"... *I* know ýou are not joking but nevertheless it is a joke.... Jonathan:So perhaps you will now stop claiming that people who disagree with your ideas only do so because of "tradition" and "love". "...obviously that locked the constructive thinking..."? You are making two typical errors here: 1. You continually dismiss evidence disproving your ideas as merely subjective, while presenting your own evidence as objective; 2. you are showing an attribution bias in that you attribute your own ideas and actions to rationality and logic, while attributing the behaviour of others to emotional, stupid or otherwise negative reasons. And thereby deluding yourself. Goran: A thrilling thought :-) Imagine the frightening possibility that I know better than you JT.....:-) QUOTE Jonathan:"With regard to change, innovators are indeed often met with scepticism, but the biggest obstacle to change is not conservatism but a total lack of evidence that the change actually constitutes an improvement." Goran now:Complete nonsense. Innovations are met with scepticism entirely due to conservatism, ignorance, indolence or lacking imagination. This does not say that scepticism may not be sensible to a considerable part or conservatism not a fairly sound attitude.... So what? I didn't claim otherwise. You obviously didn't read my statement carefully. Regardless of what you may think, you are not actually contradicting me. You admit it yourself: scepticism is sensible and conservatism can be sound. Whether a proposed innovation is finally accepted or not depends on whether it is backed up by hard evidence. Which is precisely what I said. Goran now:Temporarily back to senses for sure but your own scepticism often is based on imagination and that is different... QUOTE ....(not least since most 'innovations' are not of great importance.....) Jonathan:That is precisely my opinion of your ideas -- until I get hard evidence that they work. Goran:*precisely*...:-)....so just go ahead and find out for yourself or stop arguing without *evidence* . Do you use an electric shaver because there was a scientific report that it works or because you found out 'subjectively'...? QUOTE ....and usually conservatism is less risky than opposing the 'establishment'.... Jonathan:Ah yes, the Galileo fallacy. Göran, opposing the "establishment" (whoever they are) does not automatically mean that you are right and they are wrong. Goran:No...but the establishment is *always* wrong in the beginning and the rebel is *sometimes* right.....:-) (speaking about 'true' novelties of course...like the planet movements....:-) Goran Rahm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goran rahm Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Frank:How are the drawings coming, Goran? I'm anxiously awaiting some good ideas! Goran: Presented a week ago but moved to "Ergonomics" Forum.... 1)" Reforming..." 2) "Modified handle'Anglo" Not construction drawings but simple natural scale projections hopefully giving a more virtual idea of effects of layout. Goran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Richard Morse Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Making an instrument in "one size fits all" makes sound economic sense and does not mean that it is "defective".For everyone who can not use it efficiently it certainly is "defective" whatever JT says..... For those who find a generic "one size" instrument uncomfortable to use doesn't mean that the instrument is defective. It just means that the person and that instrument are not a good "fit". There is nothing wrong with the instrument nor the person. Also - Goran, PLEASE use the "Quote" feature when responding to posts. Your interleaved responses are VERY hard to understand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
goran rahm Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 Rich:"For those who find a generic "one size" instrument uncomfortable to use doesn't mean that the instrument is defective. It just means that the person and that instrument are not a good "fit". There is nothing wrong with the instrument nor the person." Goran:From some point of view 'true'.....semantic or philosophic approach...?:-) From the viewpoint of the unfit person the instrument certainly IS defective as it can not be used. If not fit for the majority of potential users it is probably a failure. If not fit for 90% of the population it likely will be known as "useless" even if "perfect" for the remaining 10%.... Goran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jonathan Taylor Posted January 6, 2004 Share Posted January 6, 2004 From the viewpoint of the unfit person the instrument certainly IS defective as it can not be used. In that case, I can readily agree that from Goran's viewpoint, the concertina in its current standard forms certainly IS defective. Jonathan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLucas Posted January 7, 2004 Author Share Posted January 7, 2004 "For those who find a generic "one size" instrument uncomfortable to use doesn't mean that the instrument is defective. It just means that the person and that instrument are not a good "fit". There is nothing wrong with the instrument nor the person." From some point of view 'true'.....semantic or philosophic approach...?:-) Semantic approach: Based on the meaning of the word "defective", Rich's statement is true. Göran, if you're suggesting that the use of words should be based on something other than their meaning, please tell us what basis you propose. From the viewpoint of the unfit person the instrument certainly IS defective as it can not be used. That seems to me a mentally unfit viewpoint. "Defective" means that it cannot be used as intended (or according to its advertised intent). If one attempts to use an instrument inappropriately -- e.g., a blind man attempting to look through a telescope, -- it is the attempt which is defective, not the instrument. I am unable to play a high-G tin whistle, because the spacing of the holes is too small -- or my fingers too broad -- for me to cover each hole with a separate finger. The whistle may be "unsuitable" or "inappropriate" for me, but it is hardly "defective". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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