Jump to content

Redesigning The Concertina


Recommended Posts

A post on rec.musicmakers.squeezebox has just reminded me of a post I was gong to make here.

There are quite a few posts on c.net along the lines of "my ideal concertina is an anglo, but with

  1. major[/u] customisations here]..." etc, suggesting all sorts of modifications to the instrument.

I don't frequent other instrument-specific bulletin boards, but are they also sprinkled with posts like this? Do budding violinists, or bassoonists, or harpsichord players suggest that the instrument be redesigned to fit their style of playing and likes/dislikes? Do concertina players do this because, to a certain extent, you can "customise" the layout of the accidental row on an anglo? Or do concertina players do this because there are range of similar-seeming instruments lurking under the umbrella of the word "concertina"? But they are only similar in that they are a similar shape and generate sound by a similar method. I would contend that English, Anglo and each type of Duet concertina are as much different instruments as guitar, mandolin, ukelele, banjo and so on.

I confess I have had a custom built instrument made for me - a Tedrow concertiny. But this question still intrigues me ...

Samantha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't frequent other instrument-specific bulletin boards, but are they also sprinkled with posts like this?
I don't know as I don't frequent many either, but I do note that we get a LOT of requests for customizations of accordions and concertinas at the Button Box. The vast majority of them are from beginners to the instrument. We talk through their reasoning for the customization and usually recommend they try the closest standard for a bit before spending serious dough on the box of their dreams. A goodly percentage of those folk insist - and order a customized box (or we adjust theirs or one of ours we have in stock). A huge percentage of them (about 95%?) end up having us readjust them back toward a "normal" instrument, and back to a completely standard instrument. Often the boxes were so customized that this wasn't possible so they wind up buying a standard box and taking a huge loss when selling the custom one as so few people want it.

 

-- Rich --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...I do note that we get a LOT of requests for customizations of accordions and concertinas at the Button Box.

First I speculate -- and ask Rich Morse to confirm or contradict -- that:

  1. Requests for customization of PA's and CBA's are much rarer than for "diatonic" accordions.
  2. Requests for keyboard customizations on PA's and CBA's are almost exclusively either for the left hand (bass/chord) layout or for the range of notes in the right hand, but not the placement of notes within that range.
  3. Requests for keyboard customizations on "diatonics" are almost exclusively either for the left hand layout, an "additional" row or partial row for the right hand, or the extreme ends (usually just the lower end) of the "standard" right-hand rows.
  4. Requests for keyboard customizations on anglo concertinas are almost exclusively for buttons outside the two main octaves of each of the two primary rows (i.e., C to c' and G to g' on a C/G).

Note that I'm considering only keyboard customizations, because they're quite distinct from such characters as number of reeds per note, selection of stops, degrees of wetness, types of temperament, tone quality, or physical appearance.

 

I have further speculations, but I'll hold off on presenting them, because if I'm wrong about the above, I might need to reconsider them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  1. Yes.
  2. Yes and overwhelmingly for the left hand arrangement. I'd like to add that not only for left hand key arrangement (positions of notes) but also voicing (range of a chord, octave coupling, temper) as well. The less frequent right hand customizations are usually for tonal reasons (such quarter-toning, archaic temper, tremolo, reed-coupling...) rather than note placement or key range.
  3. Yes.
  4. Yes.

Only "keyboard" customizations"? Seems like that is the gist of Samantha's post though she does say "assorted major customizations". I guess I went on about other customizations as so many of them ARE major. A quarter-toned box my be identical looking but plays so radically different that it's unusable to most players. The choice of - and number of reeds could be such that the box has to be greatly physically altered such that putting it back to a commonly accepted version would be overly onerous. Tone and physical appearance can also greatly affect a box's use and resale value.

 

Still, I look forward to a discussion limited to keyboard customization.

 

-- Rich --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

i think concertina customization is often discussed because there is historical precedent (2 basic anglo layouts, several duet, then take all types of concertinas and start adding or taking away keys). old concertinas pop up with strange layouts all the time, because some inventive soul tinkered or convinced a maker to change things up.

 

historically, flutes were sometimes customized heavily, this flute has 13 keys instead of 8:

 

RR13key.JPG

 

(a more standard flute can be seen here)

not many people nowadays do much customizing as far as the keys go that i know of, because there are few workshops that are set up for that sort of flexibility.

 

irish flutes, though, are highly customized as it is--everybody has different embouchure preferences, hole layouts, bore dimensions, undercuttings, etc. most makers dont have too much flexibility (though some will make whatever you want), and concentrate on a small cross section of the possible flute designs. people get their flutes "customized" by shopping around for a maker that makes a flute like they want.

Edited by david_boveri
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...The less frequent right hand customizations are usually for tonal reasons (such quarter-toning, archaic temper,...

"Quarter-toning"? I'm, not sure what that is, but it does make me realize that one customization I hadn't thought of when I wrote my post was tunings for different scales, e.g., Eastern scales with more intervals than the standard Western "chromatic" scale, or perhaps a "diatonic" instrument tuned to a minor scale or one of the klezmer scales. Still, I suspect that at least in the US such requests are quite rare.

 

Only "keyboard" customizations"? Seems like that is the gist of Samantha's post though she does say "assorted major customizations". I guess I went on about other customizations as so many of them ARE major. ... The choice of - and number of reeds could be such that the box has to be greatly physically altered such that putting it back to a commonly accepted version would be overly onerous. Tone and physical appearance can also greatly affect a box's use and resale value.

Those things are major, and worthy of their own discussion(s), but they're qualitatively so different that I think that including them in the same discussion would be confusing, rather than clarifying. I'll be happy to participate in such other discussions, as well.

 

Well, I've lots to say about keyboard -- or "fingering system" -- layouts, but I have other things I need to do first. Maybe later today....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Quarter-toning"? I'm, not sure what that is
Very unusual here in the US. I think we've only done two customizations of this type so far. Starts with a PA and then we tune every pull reed on the treble side to be 1/4 tone sharp and add an air dump lever on the left side. I can't remember if we quarter-toned the bass side as well. I think on one of the boxes we removed the entire bass section (the performer didn't use it) to get a big air dump in.

 

So playing on the push sounds like a typical PA and on the pull is 1/4 tone higher. To get the specific passages it would work like diatonic box playing.

 

-- Rich --

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am not surprised at the number of changes being requested for anglo concertinas -- although I was surprised to hear Rich say it is mostly beginners. The anglo is a diatonic instrument and as such does not have the full range of notes as a chromatic instrument. I also play the hammer dulcimer -- another diatonic instrument -- and have seen over the years a wide range of changes in layouts to achieve more comfortable access to those accidental notes.

 

If you think that there is no justification to switch notes on an anglo, just try ripping off a quick A scale. With the G# on the outside row and then the ending A on the inside row -- in relatively awkward relation to each other -- it is a bitch. No wonder there is an assortment of tunings for the anglo! (Of course, I must admit that I don't know what changes to a 30 button anglo would solve the key of A problem without creating more in the process.) I have nothing but the highest regard for those among us who can fly thru tunes in the key of A (on a C/G of course) -- and other keys I can't even think of.

 

And what about the layout differences between Jeffries and Wheatstone? And even many Jeffries are not consistent with regard to the low A or D on the G row. So switching notes was an issue back in the early days of the instrument -- and it wasn't just limited to the outside row.

 

If you think the problem is just limited to the odd switch of an accidental or two, think again. I play both a 30 button Dipper and a 28 button Jeffries. On the Jeffries, all the notes on the left outside row are shifted down one button since there is no top button - and the bottom two notes are lost. So the low A is on the press on the lowest outside button -- and no low draw A on the G row!

 

So we have an instrument whose note placement is like nitroglycerine -- highly unstable!

 

Ross Schlabach

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As someone who designed and owns a custom layout Anglo, I have to plead guilty but quite happy.

 

I originally purchased a 20 button Lachenal in G/D (retuned from Ab/Eb) from Chris Algar, because I wanted to spend less than $1000, and I wanted an instrument that would not lose value. After all, it was supposed to be a "sideline" instrument for playing in all-acoustic environments.

 

I have woefully neglected my synthesizers since then.

 

A year later, I had the money to purchase a 30 button instrument (it had been a good year for the company), and I needed to decide between switching to a C/G instrument or staying with a G/D. I spoke with a number of people, and decided to stay with a G/D. And I decided that what I really wanted was a G/D Bass.

 

Bob Tedrow and I discussed a 24 button G/D bass, but at the time he couldn't get the response time where he wanted it. I remembered that Bob played an unusual D/A (where the A is a 4th down, rather than a 5th up), and we started talking about a "Drop D" G/D.

 

After a lot of thought (I'd never had an accidental row, and didn't feel obligated to existing designs), I settled on a design. I've made a few minor changes (one note has been changed, and two buttons swapped) since then, but nothing significant. The core of the design is that roughly 80% of G and D are available in both directions on the instrument; the tradeoff is that anything not in G or D is on the instrument once and only once.

 

I've been delighted with the results. Not having played a standard C/G, I can't compare, although I can say that my play style has no notion of playing along the rows. I tend in fact, to play in triangles, since that pattern fits most of the music I play and the layout of the instrument. It also means that the pitch I want is largely played with the clever fingers, rather than being in the outer buttons of the instrument.

 

The only drawbacks I can think of are: Limited (at best) usefullness of existing training workshops or materials, and the number of different ways to play a tune can make learning it take a bit longer as I figure out the fingering patterns I want to use.

 

Oh, and it also protects me from Gear Acquisition Syndrome, since all new instruments have to be full custom.

 

--Dave

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The technology already exists to "bastardise" a concertina and change the layout without spoiling it when you want to reverse back to standard layout.

It is called a midi-concertina.

Yep. Works fine for reassigning the notes on a given button layout -- e.g., 30-button Wheatstone vs. 30-button Jeffries, standard Maccann vs. Chidley, or even anglo vs. Jeffries duet, -- but it won't convert a 20-button anglo into a 30-button or a Crane duet into either an English or a Hayden. :(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you think that there is no justification to switch notes on an anglo, just try ripping off a quick A scale. With the G# on the outside row and then the ending A on the inside row -- in relatively awkward relation to each other -- it is a bitch.

But why would you want to do that? Wouldn't it make more sense in most instances to use the A in the "accidental" row when playing in A? Aside from giving a less awkward fingering for the scale, it lets you use the lower E's (2 octaves), lowC#, and low A as supporting "bass" or harmony notes when you play the A. And it's far less costly than adding or moving an A or G# to another position, a move which might well make some other sequence more awkward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A post on rec.musicmakers.squeezebox has just reminded me of a post I was gong to make here.

There are quite a few posts on c.net along the lines of "my ideal concertina is an anglo, but with

  1. major[/u] customisations here]..." etc, suggesting all sorts of modifications to the instrument.

I don't frequent other instrument-specific bulletin boards, but are they also sprinkled with posts like this? Do budding violinists, or bassoonists, or harpsichord players suggest that the instrument be redesigned to fit their style of playing and likes/dislikes?

 

Zen and the Art of Concertina Construction :

 

I think its easier ask "why is it this way?" then to say "ahh, thats how you do it..." : I too as a beginner was asking that question, and over time, just a short time in fact, I have concluded that the systems work as is, you just need to learn how to make it do what you want.

 

We hear of customizations to play certain stsyles, like for example mods for "Irish" playing. (I also have a desire to take my low C or the infamous Eb, and make it a low D on my 46 button McCaan, an evil heretical prospect.)

 

I have heard it said "You need to know the rules before you can start breaking them".

 

I think concertina playing goes through phases, one of those phases is "Wouldn't it be better if...". I think this is a natural evolution in playing of any instrument, questioning how it works and is arranged.

 

After I started playing the McCaan duet, I have pretty much settled on that system, despite some shortcomings, though I also play a diatonic button accordion. I would like to try the Crane system duet one of these days.

 

I come from a fretted string background (mandoiln and guitar): we are fortunate that we can change strings gauge and type, and use alternate tunings, different types of pick and do finger tapping or even run our instruments through synthesizers and midi converters.

 

Does instrument evolution ever stop? Does an instrument ever solidify to a final form which cannot be improved upon? The charatcer of the concertina I think is what would be called "traditional", but the components its constructed of can and will warrant adaptation to availble materials and demands of performance.

 

Imagine metal alloys, carbon fiber, alternate woods, synthetic leather replacements, faster lighter action, the materials and construction of the concertina will probably change over time, yet the "traditional" aspect of the concertina, the overall character of the instrument will remain, or else it will cease to be a "concertina".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would contend that English, Anglo and each type of Duet concertina are as much different instruments as guitar, mandolin, ukelele, banjo and so on.
I usually save the "guitar, mandolin, ukulele, banjo and so on" analogy (and I have used it often) for folks who think it is OK to call my concertina an accordion. Most folks are so ignorant about concertinas that I consider differentiating between the different varieties "too much information."
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree that it makes a lot of sense to work with existing methods and layouts fully before experimenting with alternate notes and buttons. I tend to think the old makers had some idea of what they were doing, and would have conducted appropriate "market research" before settling on a standard layout.

 

Of course, Jeffries and Wheatstone/Lachenal didn't agree with each other then, so it's clear even from the beginning that there's no best way to lay out a 30 (or however-many-button) concertina. But I've found my Lachenal-layout third row to make much more sense than I originally anticipated.

 

That doesn't mean concertinas can't or shouldn't be customized for individual players or styles of music; I imagine Dana Johnson's modified Jeffries layout works quite well for Irish music, and I would love to have a low push F# on the C/G system. I just think you need to have some idea of what you're doing before changing what's worked well for over a century.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and I would love to have a low push F# on the C/G system.

I find it interesting that many folks say they want a push F#, yet I don't recall anyone yet saying they would like a pull E instead. Seems to me that would be just as effective for rapid D-E-F# runs (and the reverse), and it would otherwise provide as many benefits -- though not the identical ones -- as the push F#.

Comments, anyone?

But I would also say that the location of any "new" button is at least as important as its existence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The 38 key Jeffries layout is the answer to all these worries about fingering the 30 key system. The weight difference is not significant if you play sitting down,the versatility makes a huge difference. Also in a lot of cases the tone of the 38 instruments is far superior to that of the 30 key instruments

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...