Nifty Simulation Results

[caj]

Speaking of which, here is an update on the new concertina system:

 

First, I swapped two of the columns, a change that does not affect any finger conflicts at all---but makes the arrangement a bit more "patterny." Plus, I included 2 extra pinky buttons to get a 20-button concertina layout:

 

 

(Orange is the range from the F below middle C, to the E above middle C.

Yellow is the next octave up, and green is high.)

 

I also fixed a simulation bug. The result so far: only 37 out of 1425 tunes have finger conflicts, for a total of 99 "awkward moments." This is due to those pinky buttons: it'd be about 90-100 tunes otherwise.

 

But here's the funny part: 4 of those awkward tunes are versions of The Mason's Apron, and those four versions account for THIRTY SIX of the button conflicts! This is, apparently, a very unpleasant tune to play.

 

The remaining 37 tunes gave me some insight into assigning the extra columns of helper buttons---which are still primarily for chords and ornaments, not for getting out of a jam. Nevertheless, the extra buttons save you in nearly all of the remaining 37 cases. The whole 30-button shebang is attached.

 

Caj

[JimLucas]

The [Hayden] scale is a pattern of alternating 3 and 4 buttons rows played sequentially with the fingers.

I forgot to mention that sometimes when there's a note included in a tune which is NOT in that mode it is usually the 4# (four sharp) note. IOW, if you're playing in G major, that note would be a C#.

All of this is very dependent on the repertoire being considered, isn't it? Much klezmer, East European, and even Swedish music doesn't confine itself to a single Greek mode. Then, of course, there's jazz.

 

But how about the melody to "White Christmas", a relatively simple tune? (It has both normal and sharp fourths and both major and minor thirds. Then there are the chords....) How would you finger that -- e.g., in the key of D or C -- on a Hayden?

[JimLucas]

This is all a very interesting exercise, but quite detached from the reality of playing... at least the way I play. For me it is normal to play two successive (or simultaneous) notes in the same "column" with different fingers, and I don't consider this a "conflict" or a problem, but a technique. It is useful, and not difficult to learn. It is even comfortable, and it doesn't reduce my playing speed.

 

I use this technique on the English, anglo, and Crane duet (even sometimes on the Maccann duet, which I play very little). E.g., playing the tune "Harvest Home" in either hand on the Crane, I find that I use all three of my index, middle, and ring fingers on buttons in the center "column".

 

Also, when playing more than one note at a time (e.g., chords), I sometimes use the same finger to play two buttons simultaneously.

 

Yes, the analysis is interesting, and I look forward to more results and graphs, but I don't think its statistics measure or predict actual playing difficulty.

[caj]

This is all a very interesting exercise, but quite detached from the reality of playing... at least the way I play.  For me it is normal to play two successive (or simultaneous) notes in the same "column" with different fingers, and I don't consider this a "conflict" or a problem, but a technique.

I certainly don't mean to declare my way of doing things right; indeed, if I set out to design a new concertina layout a year ago, it would be completely different, designed to solve utterly different design goals. Solving for given goals is pretty easy; the hard problem is figuring out what the goals are.

 

This 20-button monstrosity is ideal for the way I play, for I belong to the school of thought what says I should pick one simple fingering system and stick to it, simple meaning an A is played the same way every time, same button and same finger. It's fine to diverge from the system, but if I have to I consider that a bad thing. Naturally I began to wonder if there was a note layout that minimized the had-tos.

 

This is why each button has two notes a fifth apart: I reasoned that if two buttons in the same column should be unlikely to be hit in sequence, they should be far apart in pitch and/or unlikely to occur in the same key. To accomplish the latter, I assign two buttons to be antipodes on the circle of fifths---for example, A/E versus Ab/Eb on the button below.

 

I think I will call this a "solo" layout, as opposed to a "duet." This is because the layout is intended for melody playing and even chords are impossible without pinky buttons; and because the design parameters are opposite that of a duet. Namely, the chromatic scale ping-pongs between left and right sides, and the layout is bisonoric, both of which were "fixed" by the duet layout.

 

Caj

[JimLucas]

Caj,

 

Your design simply wouldn't do for me. I love harmonies, and an open fifth is one of my favorites. For pure melody work I think the existing concertinas are just fine, as are the whistle, trumpet, oboe, etc.

 

But if it works for you, go for it! I hope that we'll get to hear the results if you actually construct one (or have someone else do it for you).

[caj]

Your design simply wouldn't do for me.  I love harmonies, and an open fifth is one of my favorites. 

 

You can play some open fifths on this layout, mostly the low ones I like to play; a low G, low A, and a D and E are available in both directions. Keep in mind that this is just the twenty-button bisonoric concertina layout. The extra 10 buttons can be arranged for harmony: I just tentatively set them for ornaments instead.

 

This layout would actually be good for someone who likes playing fifths etc, because the "main" buttons are in 3 columns rather than 2 rows. This means that the spaces for extra buttons are off to the side, and the pinkies are completely unused, letting you place buttons under the pinkies for harmony that won't interfere with your melody playing.

 

Caj