Question About Hybrid Vs Traditional

[wntrmute]

While messing up the wikipedia entry on concertinas more than I have already, I saw that someone had added a bit about how the hybrid concertinas have a different sound or tonal quality from traditionally reeded instruments. It was awkwardly placed, though, and I removed it, but I wonder if it would be appropriate to say that the tone tends to be different, and to what degree it may be different. To a certain point -- we can't get into a brand by brand comparison after all.

 

My understanding so far is this: that the hybrids sound more like concertinas than the el-cheapo, Stagi, and Rochelle models, but still can be told from the traditionally reeded instruments.

Is that generally correct?

 

To what degree is this a problem? Is it a huge distracting problem or fairly minor in the grand scheme of things? Is it like the difference between a flute and a recorder or is it the difference between an oboe and a trumpet?

Also, with regards to the traditional instruments, do all Wheatstones sound like all Lachenals, which sound like all Jones's, which sound like all Crabbs or are there tonal differences between brands or within one manufacturer over time?

What other factors can affect the tonal qualities (I would guess materials, whether the ends are metal or wood, how much of the ends are cut out in the fretwork, etc)?

 

Or is this a potential flame war?

[m3838]

I guess all concertinas sound differently from accordions because they lack high overtones (right?), so the sound is muffled, and not as bright. Perhabs it also has to do with the smaller body size. Accordions tend to sound more bright, have more "cutting" edge to them, unless they have reed chamber, where sound mellows, but still doesn't have muffled concertina quality. Basically as far as I see, concertinas differ from each other by the amount of "nasalness", but they all sound differently.

Listening to recorded sound of my Morse Albion reveals the striking difference between how I hear it while playing, and what a listener may hear. Listener may hear it as mellower, with upper notes stronger.

I think the main difference may be between English vs. German made instruments. Both are concertinas, but sound remarkably different. German made are true folk instruments, with bright, gritty sound. English made are probably decendands of English system parlor concertinas, and sound more refined, but less rowbust, so to speak.

But isn't it better to simply supply a few sound samples to the description, instead of trying to verbalize it?

It reminds me a joke:

Katzman meets Goozman and says: "Can't say I like Mozart too much"

"Oh, - says Goozman, - you're listening to Mozart?"

"No, Rabinovitch sung it to me".

[Jody Kruskal]

My feeling is that the difference between the sound of hybrids and traditional reeded concertinas is noticeable but very slight. I think, even less than the difference between flutes and recorders. I can identify those timbres straight off but I bet I would be hard pressed to tell a hybrid from a trad reeded instrument in a blind listening. Could you?

[ceemonster]

i would say, that they, er, have a different tone quality than traditionally reeded instruments. "how" is 100% subjective and fun to discuss on a site, but not terribly informative in a wiki article. perhaps the writer who you are re-writing will exercise their wiki option to re-write your re-write.

[mike averill]

I think the tone difference between a good accordian reeded concertina and a traditional reeded concertina is no more than the difference in tone between difference makes and styles of the traditional. The cheaper trad reeds (e.g. the basic 20 key lachnels) sound tonally equally bad to the cheap machine made accordian reeded concertinas.

[dwinterfield]

Wim Wakker has a good technical discussion of the differences in reeds. One of the challenges is that there is no exact standard, in part because the number of instruments and the numbers of makers is relatively small now and in the past. Contemporary makers of traditonal and hybrid instruments seem to be constrantly refining and adjusting there instruments to get what they consider the best sound (this is all good). Thus the instrument made three years ago by a maker will probably sound a bit different from the one made next year.

[Takayuki YAGI]

My feeling is that the sound difference between traditional reed and hybrid instrument is tonal character rather than tonal quality. They are different and I do like both.

 

There is an article written by Wim Wakker about traditional reed. According to this article, traditional reed and accordion reed have different harmonic (overtone) distribution as m3838 said above.

[Chris Timson]

It does depend on the instrument, some hybrids are much better than others. To my ears, though, hybrids have a buzzy quality to the sound that I also hear in accordions but never in concertina-reeded instruments. I speak as someone who owns both hybrids (two) and concertina reeded boxes. (I can also say that the buzzyness I hear in accordions is not due to multiple reeds on one note, since we also own one of the few instruments in the world that has multiple concertina reeds on one note).

 

Chris

[Mikefule]

Clearly, there is a difference in tone depending on what the reeds are made of, how they are cut and shaped, and how they are mounted. However, if it looks like a concertina, and operates like a concertina, it is a concertina.

 

Violins used to have gut strings, but now have steel strings. Some guitars have steel strings, or nylon strings. Some "brass" instruments are silver, or even gold. There are cosmetic and tonal differences, and individual players have preferences and prejudices. Some are more or less suited for one style of music or another. But the differneces don't appear to attract the same level of debate about which is the "authentic sound".

 

Wikipedia is a general resource for people who want to find out about a new subject. It is not the ultimate reference book. It should give a reasonable overview, and put readers "on inquiry", rather than dragging the casual reader into minutiae and opinion. I think anything more than the following is too much:

 

"Many modern concertinas use reeds that are manufactured for other reed and bellows instruments such as accordeons and melodeons. Because of the different manufacturing processes, and the metals used, there are some differences in tone and response. Some players have a strong preference for 'traditional' concertina reeds. Others actually prefer the sound of accordeon reeds, while many players own several concertinas so that they can take advantage fo the range of tonal qualities available."

[m3838]

Wikipedia is a general resource for people who want to find out about a new subject.

Agree

"Many modern concertinas use reeds that are manufactured for other reed and bellows instruments such as accordeons and melodeons. Because of the different manufacturing processes, and the metals used, there are some differences in tone and response. Some players have a strong preference for 'traditional' concertina reeds. Others actually prefer the sound of accordeon reeds, while many players own several concertinas so that they can take advantage fo the range of tonal qualities available."

Even that is too much. Who cares whether some players have several, or where the reeds are manufactured. Even the word "melodeon" is misleading, as it is only in the UK that 'some' players use it, and not a general public, as I understand. And a "melodeon" as a depiction of one row accordion is outdated.

The phraze "free reed bellows driven" is gibberish to most. It's like legal lingo, nobody understands. What's the point of making descriptions that muddy the watters?

Simply because I can write, doesn't make me a writer, does it? Encyclopedia editors choose writers very carefully (so I hope), not every professor is up to it.

[Pete Dunk]

And a "melodeon" as a depiction of one row accordion is outdated.

 

A melodeon isn't a one row accordion in the English idiom. It's a diatonic button accordion, the number of rows isn't even considered. 'Most' people here would describe a 'melodeon' as a two or two and a half row button diatonic squeeze-box available in a variety of keys - oh, and there are also one row boxes but we don't talk about those ...

[m3838]

A melodeon isn't a one row accordion in the English idiom. It's a diatonic button accordion, the number of rows isn't even considered. 'Most' people here would describe a 'melodeon' as a two or two and a half row button diatonic squeeze-box available in a variety of keys - oh, and there are also one row boxes but we don't talk about those ...

 

Yes, I learned this, incidentally, on C.net.

But all my English pals ask me to repeat the word "melodeon" a few times, as though I speak Russian to them. They think it's very cool, but never heard the term before. So I guess since Wikipedia is not an Enlglish oriented thing, articles should be written in the common speach, or risk to be overritten or abandoned as a whole. Either we do a social service, or serve ourselves only. It shold be mentioned that in England 2 row diatonic accordions are called "melodeons" as a side note.

Because then you'll have to mention all the names of these instruments in all the languages, and their nick-names... There are some people who like to drown in details, probably because they are not creative enough and don't trust methaphores.

[Steve_freereeder]

Whoops! Replied in error. Sorry.

(Don't know how to delete a post entirely)

Edited October 27, 2007 by Steve_freereeder

[ragtimer]

Yes, I learned this, incidentally, on C.net.

But all my English pals ask me to repeat the word "melodeon" a few times, as though I speak Russian to them. They think it's very cool, but never heard the term before. So I guess since Wikipedia is not an Enlglish oriented thing, articles should be written in the common speach, or risk to be overritten or abandoned as a whole. Either we do a social service, or serve ourselves only. It shold be mentioned that in England 2 row diatonic accordions are called "melodeons" as a side note.

Because then you'll have to mention all the names of these instruments in all the languages, and their nick-names... There are some people who like to drown in details, probably because they are not creative enough and don't trust methaphores.

Does everyone know that in the US, "melodeon" means an early form of reed organ? A rectangular box on open legs, with a pump pedal on the floor that worked a simple linkage to the bellows up under the box. About five octaves of piano/organ keys. No stops, often only one set of reeds.

 

I have one made by Mason-Hamlin. The bigger, floor model foot-pumped reed organs didnt' come out till well after our Civil War.

 

It wasn't till C.Net that I heard "melodeon" used to refer to a Cajun accordion. Now I use context to figure which is meant.

[wntrmute]

Because then you'll have to mention all the names of these instruments in all the languages, and their nick-names... There are some people who like to drown in details, probably because they are not creative enough and don't trust methaphores.

I avoided this by not mentioning other instruments.

This is how I phrased it: Due to the use of non-traditional reeds, 'hybrid' instruments have some differences in tone and response. Some players have a strong preference for traditional reeds, while others actually prefer the sound of accordion reeds. Some players own several concertinas so that they can take advantage of the range of tonal qualities available between the different varieties.

 

Also, this is the Concertina page about all kinds of concertinas, which includes the various Teutonic variations. I've noticed a tendency for the page to get very Anglo/English centric -- at some point I'll make main articles for the Anglo/Duet/English like the Chemnitzer and Bandoneón already have and shovel some of the more detailed stuff in there. Assuming no-one does it earlier than me.

[Frank Edgley]

While some may choose to make generalisations about concertina "sound & response", I'm glad to see that not all contributors to this thread have taken this tack. There is as much variation in tone & response among "vintage" & "vintage-style" concertinas as there is between those instruments and the so-called "hybrids", and I would suggest that it may not be very "scientific" to make general statements based on one's experience with a few instruments. Jeffries do not sound like Wheatstones, or like Lachenals etc. In fact, depending on the model and vintage, Wheatstones do not sound like other Wheatstones. A Wheatstone Linota, for example, does not sound anything like a Wheatstone anglo of the early 1950's (still the original company.) "Hybrids" by one maker do not necessarily sound or respond like "hybrids" of other makers. As one contributor has inferred, there was, and is an evolution of sound not only by the old makers, and those who today make similar instruments, but by those of us who make the modern "hybrids". I know that the instruments I made seven years ago do not sound like the ones I make today, as I have been modifying the way I make instruments to produce the "best" sound I can. I know this is very subjective, and all I can do is to make them to please my own ear. As to the comment that there is a difference in response between vintage and hybrid, that again depends on the instrument. While I personally like the tone of most Lachenals, for example, I have yet to find one (and over a period of 25+ years I have played & repaired many) that could match the response of any good quality "hybrids." In fact, the very best "hybrids" will give some of the better "vintage" instruments a run in terms of response. While the top players in Ireland, who have the ways & means to do so, play Suttners, Dippers, Jeffries, and Wheatstones, as a rule, there is a growing number of younger accomplished players playing "hybrids." eg. Tom Lawrence, Asher Perkins, Brian Hart.

Edited October 27, 2007 by Frank Edgley

[m3838]

I guess the blame should go to someone who brought the term "hybrid" to the use. It evokes some impression of a cross between Piano accordion and Concertina, some sort of smallish accordion, or biggish concertina. Or concertina that doesn't sound right, so a player may use it untill locating the real instrument. Like before you get real harmonica, you play Kazoo.

I suggest the word "hybrid" to be removed from lexicone as misleading, and whoever brought it - to be punished.

Will two days fasting be enough?

That'll teach you a lesson...

[Frank Edgley]

I've always had mixed feelings about the term, "hybrid." That's why I put it in quotation marks. The implication is that it is somehow not quite what the next word calls it, --- a concertina. I understand that there should be some way of describing the types, but I don't feel the term "hybrid" does it justice. What makes it a hybrid? The fact that the reeds are two to a frame? Some of the 19th century English made instruments put more than one reed per frame. Colin Dipper showed me one. He called it a concertina. I believe that one North American maker is / was looking into that way of construction for his as-yet-be released duet. He calls it a concertina. Is it because the reed tongues are riveted instead of held down by small screwed-down bars? Some late 19th or early 20th century Wheatstones did that as well. -Still concertinas!

The differences between instruments? It's not necessarily tone, as tone varies widely from maker to maker, even among "vintage" intruments. It's not response, as I outlined in my previous post. It's not even quality of workmanship, as some so-called " hybrids" are made with just as much workmanship as some "vintage instruments. Don't jump all over this now. I'm not talking about Dippers, Jeffries etc. These instruments and others like them stand alone for a lot of reasons, but the present method of categorising is misleading and inadequate.