Aaaaaarrrrggggghhhhhhh!

[njurkowski]

If you're planning on playing Prokofiev piano concertos or Chopin's ballades, the piano can be a much more difficult instrument than most anything written for the concertina at present.

Have you tried any of Regondi's works for the concertina?

 

Oh, there's no question that Regondi's works demand a very high level of technical prowess - I'm working through some of the Leisure Moments right now, which are fairly modest compared to the really terrifying stuff he wrote, and they're at the edge of my ability. Even so, I stick by the original statement. There haven't been the number of virtuosos or composers for the concertina that there have been for the piano - and each composer and virtuoso pushes the boundaries for what is possible on the instrument. Really, the only composer-virtuoso has been Regondi, whereas the piano had a whole host, continuing today. As someone who plays both instruments more or less casually (I've been playing the piano off and on for 8 yeas and the concertina for about 1.5, averaging probably about a half-hour a day of practice for each), looking at Regondi's pieces doesn't fill me with the same helpless wonder that looking at Ives's Concord Sonata does. There is no way I'll EVER be able to play that, but someday (with practice, of course) I might be able to play the Regondi.

 

And to be fair, part of this is me. As Jim said, a lot of it depends on the person learning the instrument, and I like playing the concertina more than I like playing the piano.

[peelypost]

I remember leading some workshops with singers where I asked people to try to list the most famous and those who influenced them the most. You usually find that the majority of those listed have something disctinctive about what they do, rather than being technically 'perfect'.

 

Likewise, Jobim wrote his "Samba de uma nota so" (Samba on one note), made famous by Stan Getz, to show that it is all about timing rather than technical prowess.

 

If you have a player able to work within their limits to add to the music, they can be most rewarding to work with. Also, how else can they learn the musicianship required to play in a group? It is far worse to have the virtuoso instrumentalist constantly wanting to be the centre of attention.

Maybe that is why I heard on the news today that the rest of the band walked off the stage last night when Jimmy Page did his guitar solo at the much hyped Led Zeppelin concert!

 

Of course the ultimate is that very rare combination of wonderful musicianship, with something distinctive yet able to blend in with the music as a whole.

[njurkowski]

I remember leading some workshops with singers where I asked people to try to list the most famous and those who influenced them the most. You usually find that the majority of those listed have something disctinctive about what they do, rather than being technically 'perfect'.

 

Likewise, Jobim wrote his "Samba de uma nota so" (Samba on one note), made famous by Stan Getz, to show that it is all about timing rather than technical prowess.

 

If you have a player able to work within their limits to add to the music, they can be most rewarding to work with. Also, how else can they learn the musicianship required to play in a group? It is far worse to have the virtuoso instrumentalist constantly wanting to be the centre of attention.

Maybe that is why I heard on the news today that the rest of the band walked off the stage last night when Jimmy Page did his guitar solo at the much hyped Led Zeppelin concert!

 

Of course the ultimate is that very rare combination of wonderful musicianship, with something distinctive yet able to blend in with the music as a whole.

 

Naturally, there is far more to being a great musician than just technical prowess (though I must say I've never heard a great musician who wasn't technically sound), and many of the more "virtuoso" players I've met have been egomaniacs. However, virtuosos have a tendency to push the barriers of what is possible, which is constructive for all players of the instrument. I don't like the majority of the concerto literature out there (for any instrument!), and I don't think there is a lot of musical value in the empty show-pieces that abound for instruments like the violin and flute, but the fact that they exist means that more challenging literature can be written for the same instruments in an ensemble setting, and musical possibilities are expanded. By the virtue of the virtuoso's existence, more is expected from all the players in the section.

 

Your point is precisely why the music of Regondi is very mediocre as far as the quality of composition - it is technically incredible, but really only adequate as far as interesting melodies and harmonies, and occasionally quite trite. However, that's beside the point, as Regondi's real contribution was expanding the technical possibilities of the instrument. What's really needed is a composer who can use those possibilities in creating a great piece of music. In short, the virtuoso is a means to an end.

 

I'm mainly speaking from a classical perspective, because that is my background, but I think the point carries for other genres as well.

[m3838]

Is Concertina easier than the Piano?

OK, here are my arguable positive evaluation points, specifically for learning to play:

Good observation of the keys

Access to the notes

Easyness of sounding the note

Non-interrupting scale (of all things)

easiness of controlling the pitch and dynamics

the weight of the instrument, as far as player is concerned.

Clear indication of the keys

 

Piano:

You see the keys-------1

All the keys have their specific places, easy to identify---1

All the keys accend linearly.------1

you have equal access to all notes--------1

It has all the notes--------1

The pitch and dynamics are controlled by the same finger action.-----1

You don't need to control the weight of the instrument, nor steady it.-------- 1

Concertina:

You don't see the keys------------- -1

Some keys are either duplicates, or arbitrarily placed.----------- -1

The range doesn't accend logically and often has gaps.----------- -1

Not equal access to all buttons ------------ -1

The pitch and dynamics are controlled by completely different actions, each has to be learned independenly, and instrument doesn't have individual dynamics, making low tones overwhelm high. ------ -1

You have to learn to control and steady the ends, because it's the key to bellows dynamics. -------- -1

----------------------------------------------------------

Note, that piano is ahead on every point. I deliberately didn't include portability, character of sound, sustainability, been traditional (certainly a big factor if Irish music is what you are after), cuteness, exclusivity. -- all have nothing to do with how easy it is to learn, but have everything to do with why people choose Concertina over a keyboard.

Aside from composers, culture, written music - just the ergonomics.

 

But chromatic accordion is even worse, so don't despare.

[njurkowski]

Good observation of the keys

 

While this seems true, when reading music it isn't true in practice. Just like on the concertina, a pianist must develop a feel for the instrument and know intuitively where notes are.

 

Access to the notes

As long as notes are systematically arranged, the system doesn't make a difference. I don't think that the keyboard layout of the English concertina is any more difficult than the linearly arranged piano keyboard. Both are sensical and regular.

 

Easyness of sounding the note

This is a common misconception about the piano - there is far more to getting a good sound than just hitting the note, just as there is with concertina.

 

 

Non-interrupting scale (of all things)

When learning different scales on the piano, you have to learn different fingerings, so the "regularity" argument breaks down. You will play a C major scale with entirely different fingerings than a Gb scale.

 

easiness of controlling the pitch and dynamics

There is nothing easy about controlling pitch and dynamics on the piano. Since each note has an instant decay, the entire phrase must be subtly crafted in order to not emphasize individual notes.

 

the weight of the instrument, as far as player is concerned.

While it's true that one doesn't have to grapple with this on a piano, there are different considerations regarging posture and balance, as well as the physical gestures one makes when playing the instrument.

 

Clear indication of the keys

This is a very superficial concern, because in order to play even basic music on any instrument, one must be familiar with the layout. The layout is one of the first things learned on any instrument, and as I said above, as long as the layout is systematic (as is the case with the English concertina), the specifics don't matter.

 

Further to the point, none of these mechanical issues address the point that what is expected of a pianist technically is more than what is expected of a concertinist, which is one of the key determining factors for the difficulty of an instrument. "To be a good X player, what do I have to be able to do?"

[JimLucas]

Further to the point, none of these mechanical issues address the point that what is expected of a pianist technically is more than what is expected of a concertinist, which is one of the key determining factors for the difficulty of an instrument. "To be a good X player, what do I have to be able to do?"

As in so many things, basing the analysis on different assumptions can lead to quite different conclusions. So here's a different interpretation of this one issue:

Greater expectations do not make the

piano

itself more

difficult

, but they do make it more difficult to be accepted

by other people

as having attained a particular level (e.g., "acceptable", "good", "excellent", or "virtuoso") of competence.

[JimLucas]

However, virtuosos have a tendency to push the barriers of what is possible, which is constructive for all players of the instrument.

I know it's not really the same thing, but that comment reminds me of a friend's opposite conclusion regarding ballet. He says he can't enjoy an "art" where to be deemed excellent, a person is expected to push themself to the point where they cause themselves permanent injury and are forced into crippled early retirement. Many sports seem to be like that, too. I don't think playing musical instruments has gone that far, yet. Ah, but what about RSI (repetitive stress injury, e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome)?

 

Edited to correct some punctuation.

Edited December 11, 2007 by JimLucas

[JimLucas]

However, that's beside the point, as Regondi's real contribution was expanding the technical possibilities of the instrument.

AND

its

popularity!

[Dirge]

Getting back to your original point, RiverHamble; (if you're still watching) I finished my practice this morning thinking 'Ye Gods I'm playing worse than I was a couple of weeks ago. Why do I bother?'

 

I think everyone gets doses of it. The next gratifying lurch forward is on it's way for both of us; nil desperandum, keep plugging away.

[m3838]

Good observation of the keys

 

While this seems true, when reading music it isn't true in practice. Just like on the concertina, a pianist must develop a feel for the instrument and know intuitively where notes are.

 

Access to the notes

As long as notes are systematically arranged, the system doesn't make a difference. I don't think that the keyboard layout of the English concertina is any more difficult than the linearly arranged piano keyboard. Both are sensical and regular.

 

Easyness of sounding the note

This is a common misconception about the piano - there is far more to getting a good sound than just hitting the note, just as there is with concertina.

 

 

Non-interrupting scale (of all things)

When learning different scales on the piano, you have to learn different fingerings, so the "regularity" argument breaks down. You will play a C major scale with entirely different fingerings than a Gb scale.

 

easiness of controlling the pitch and dynamics

There is nothing easy about controlling pitch and dynamics on the piano. Since each note has an instant decay, the entire phrase must be subtly crafted in order to not emphasize individual notes.

 

the weight of the instrument, as far as player is concerned.

While it's true that one doesn't have to grapple with this on a piano, there are different considerations regarging posture and balance, as well as the physical gestures one makes when playing the instrument.

 

Clear indication of the keys

This is a very superficial concern, because in order to play even basic music on any instrument, one must be familiar with the layout. The layout is one of the first things learned on any instrument, and as I said above, as long as the layout is systematic (as is the case with the English concertina), the specifics don't matter.

 

Further to the point, none of these mechanical issues address the point that what is expected of a pianist technically is more than what is expected of a concertinist, which is one of the key determining factors for the difficulty of an instrument. "To be a good X player, what do I have to be able to do?"

 

I don't understand your points though.

All that you say about piano is applicable to the concertina and any other instrument. I gave you 7 points, and you argue that there are another 100. OK, So 107 - 100 = 7. We still have them, and those 7 indicate superiority of Piano vs. Concertina in terms of easiness to learn.

The fact of higher expectation from a piano player may well be (and I think it is) due to piano been easier to learn, so a learner can go further faster, and achieve more. My progress on Bayan was much slower than my possible progress on Piano. I had this conversation with both, piano and bayan teachers.

[m3838]

So here's a different interpretation of this one issue:

Greater expectations do not make the

piano

itself more

difficult

, but they do make it more difficult to be accepted

by other people

as having attained a particular level (e.g., "acceptable", "good", "excellent", or "virtuoso") of competence.

 

Let's not put things up-side down.

It's the universality and versatility and ease of learning, that put piano keyboard to a level, attractive to both, players and composers. A hurdy-gurdy may be much more ancient machine, but nobody expects virtuosity from players. Their niche is to provide the background fill or rhythm. Virtuosos are eagerly welcomed, but that's a bonus, not an expectation. Same with concertina. I think people are going to accept our virtuosity with open hearts, but they still have to wait. Claiming we are already there, just because in some distant past, some individual composed body of unplayed works is not the same as performing those works at level of composer's expectations.

[njurkowski]

However, virtuosos have a tendency to push the barriers of what is possible, which is constructive for all players of the instrument.

I know it's not really the same thing, but that comment reminds me of a friend's opposite conclusion regarding ballet. He says he can't enjoy an "art" where to be deemed excellent, a person is expected to push themself to the point where they cause themselves permanent injury and are forced into crippled early retirement. Many sports seem to be like that, too. I don't think playing musical instruments has gone that far, yet. Ah, but what about RSI (repetitive stress injury, e.g., carpal tunnel syndrome)?

 

Edited to correct some punctuation.

 

Ha - That's it's an interesting point. My girlfriend is a flute-performance grad-student and has had numerous problems with tendonitis and "golfer's elbow." Since she has started doing regular exercises the problems have gone, but it still leaves the question, "how much suffering for one's art does it take for the art to be worth less?" I've never really thought about it...

 

As in so many things, basing the analysis on different assumptions can lead to quite different conclusions. So here's a different interpretation of this one issue:

Greater expectations do not make the piano itself more difficult, but they do make it more difficult to be accepted by other people as having attained a particular level (e.g., "acceptable", "good", "excellent", or "virtuoso") of competence.

 

This seems to be at the heart of the dispute. I don't think it's fair to judge how easy it is to learn an instrument in a vaccuum, because that gives an impression with no context. But everyone is different.

 

I don't understand your points though.

All that you say about piano is applicable to the concertina and any other instrument. I gave you 7 points, and you argue that there are another 100. OK, So 107 - 100 = 7. We still have them, and those 7 indicate superiority of Piano vs. Concertina in terms of easiness to learn.

The fact of higher expectation from a piano player may well be (and I think it is) due to piano been easier to learn, so a learner can go further faster, and achieve more. My progress on Bayan was much slower than my possible progress on Piano. I had this conversation with both, piano and bayan teachers.

 

Well, if you noticed, I refuted at least six of your seven points, so I don't think that your argument stands, even by your own criteria. And as I mentioned above, I think it is disingenuous to judge an instrument solely on the mechanism, since there is so much more wrapped up in learning an instrument than that. Expectations for performance level comes from the possibilities of an instrument, not from how easy it is to learn.

[pugwash]

This process is truly annoying bit I have just had a quick practice before going on shift and although I did the same as yesterday (albeit with more tunes) I think I am a little bit further down the road.

 

RiverHamble, you say "tunes" It is my guess, that maybe you are trying to go too fast. I have only been playing since May this year. I found the best way to progress, is to learn only one tune at a time and to chip your way through it, 2 or 4 bars at a time (as already stated) Do not move onto the next part until you can play the first parts by muscle memory, then move on and so forth. It may be tedious but it works, well it does for me and I am not a fast learner. Trying to learn too many things at the same time, leads to confusion, you need to be relaxed.

 

Richard.

[JimLucas]

A hurdy-gurdy may be much more ancient machine, but nobody expects virtuosity from players. Their niche is to provide the background fill or rhythm.

Not the ones I've heard. They have their drones and also a rhythm capability, but the ones I've heard always played melody and/or harmony, too. And after hearing a pair of young ladies in France playing for dancing in the wee hours of the morning, I would call them virtuosos. Maybe not technical virtuosos in the Prokofiev style, but certainly virtuosos of the soul. Their arrangements and their sound thrilled me!

 

But now I approach the issue of concertina virtuosos from a cold-hearted perspective... statistics!

If among players, virtuosos are one in a million. And if there are 500 thousand concertina players in the world. Then there's only half a chance that there will be even a single concertina virtuoso anywhere in the world.

Of course, if there are fewer than half a million concertina players all together, then the chances get proportionately worse.

 

But what are the odds, really? Well, how many piano (or violin) players are there in the world, and how many piano (or violin) virtuosos? Maybe one in a million is too high?

[JimLucas]

TI don't think it's fair to judge how easy it is to learn an instrument in a vaccuum,...

Didn't one of the astronauts take a harmonica up to the space station?

He wouldn't actually have been playing it in a vacuum, of course, but close.

Very close.

Maybe even less than a meter away.

[m3838]

A hurdy-gurdy may be much more ancient machine, but nobody expects virtuosity from players. Their niche is to provide the background fill or rhythm.

Not the ones I've heard.

You've heard what? That the virtuosity is expected from hurdy-gurdy players? Or you just heard very good playing?

I'm not arguing that good players exist, I'm arguing that Hurdy-Gurdy (or Concertina) virtuosity is a bonus, that everybody is glad to meet.

 

But now I approach the issue of concertina virtuosos from a cold-hearted perspective... statistics!

If among players, virtuosos are one in a million.

 

That's actually is exactly the subject of this sub-discussion: that (arguably)

Concertina virtuoso

is

not

in the same camp with piano virtuoso, but rather in a camp of

ordinary

conservatory graduate at best.

[njurkowski]

A hurdy-gurdy may be much more ancient machine, but nobody expects virtuosity from players. Their niche is to provide the background fill or rhythm.

Not the ones I've heard. They have their drones and also a rhythm capability, but the ones I've heard always played melody and/or harmony, too. And after hearing a pair of young ladies in France playing for dancing in the wee hours of the morning, I would call them virtuosos. Maybe not technical virtuosos in the Prokofiev style, but certainly virtuosos of the soul. Their arrangements and their sound thrilled me!

 

There are tons of very important kinds of musical skill - Berlioz hardly played any instruments at all (just the guitar, if I remember correctly, and he was hardly a virtuoso), but he's widely regarded as one of the finest orchestrators who ever lived - the treatise he wrote on it is still often quoted (and he even wrote about concertinas in it!) I don't want to be understood as saying that technical virtuosos are the personification of the highest form of music; I don't believe that at all, and think at times it can be rather the opposite. They just serve an important role in music's (and probably more particularly, an instrument's) development.

 

But now I approach the issue of concertina virtuosos from a cold-hearted perspective... statistics!

If among players, virtuosos are one in a million. And if there are 500 thousand concertina players in the world. Then there's only half a chance that there will be even a single concertina virtuoso anywhere in the world.

Of course, if there are fewer than half a million concertina players all together, then the chances get proportionately worse.

 

But what are the odds, really? Well, how many piano (or violin) players are there in the world, and how many piano (or violin) virtuosos? Maybe one in a million is too high?

 

Yeah, that's tough to say. I really have no data at all on the occurrence of "true" virtuosos (however we want to define that), but I would say the technical standards of a more common instrument are generally higher. Of course you get a lot on the other end of the spectrum as well (how many guitarists have you heard that can only play three chords?) Assuming that the capacity to be a child-prodigy-type virtuoso is inborn, there will be more of them on "popular" instruments, since that's what there is available and that's where they'll be steered - which is a shame in a way.

 

Didn't one of the astronauts take a harmonica up to the space station?

He wouldn't actually have been playing it in a vacuum, of course, but close.

Very close.

Maybe even less than a meter away.

 

What can I say, you've got me there

[m3838]

Well, if you noticed, I refuted at least six of your seven points, so I don't think that your argument stands, even by your own criteria.

 

Which ones did you refute?

Are you stating that:

1. Good observation of the keys is of no importance?

2. Access to the keys is of no importance? Your refutal dealt with difference between systems, but I only meant the "equal access to all the keys". Concertinas have inherent problem with access to some keys. Often chording on English concertina require pushing two-three buttons with the same finger, and often some chords are unaccessable. Anglo has problems with inner row, very high and very low tones. Duets may have buttons too far or too close to the palm rest.

Some notes are easier to reach than others. On Piano all keys are equally accessible.

Either you prove that equal access to all keys is of no importance, or my argument stands.

3.Sounding the note on a piano is difficult?

Piano (and guitar) has naturally decaying tone, that doesn't need any effort to sustain or decay. It's pretty by itself, and blends well with harmony. Are you arguing that? Concertina tone needs to be sustained at all times, which occupies the fingers and bellows - any argument here? So on a piano one can use pedal to sustain some notes, while using hands to throw in additional harmony - no argument? Therefore playing music at the (teoretically) same level of difficulty is more difficult on Concertina as it takes more action, more finger twisting and often simply impossible. If you prove that on concertina you can play more complex harmonies, while still playing melody or counter-harmony - you refuted my argument, if not, my argument stands.

4.Are you arguing that missing notes in the scale is of no importance?

Or that irregular, often simply arbitrary placement of the tones, that are missing from their regular position in the row is of no importance? That wrapping the low and high ends of small Duets is of no importance? We are not considering any particular system, but rather Concertina in general. They all share many common qualities, and have similar benefits and shortcomings of the keyboards, stemming from their small size and fixed wrist.

Your "refutal" that knowing the keyboard makes regularity irrelevant is light-weight, because you enter into true mayhem, when you try to play chord inversions on an Anglo. Even English requires some specific skills to play some inversions, like this position:

  O
	  O
  O
	  O

Many chords are simply impossible on Concertina of any system. Any arguments here?

5.Easiness of controlling pitch and dynamics.

Nowhere I said it is easy to control pitch and dynamics on the piano or concertinal I state it is easier on the piano. You didn't address important point of having to control pitch and dynamics on Concertina by two very different, often interrupting each other actions: depressing the buttons and pulling/pushing the bellows. Are you arguing that doing two things at once is easier than one?

6.The weight of the instrument.

Are you arguing that posture and balance while playing concertina is of lesser importance than with the piano?

7. Clear indication of the keys.

Very characteristic type of concertina with poor indication of the keys is the Bandoneon. Next comes the Anglo, esp. 30+ buttons. Whether you are familiar or not with the keyboard, clear indication of the keys, regardless of keyboard regularity, is a plus. Any keyboard where you don't see the keys, esp. where the keys have no tangible indication (like black keys of the piano) posesses a problem of navigating. The more rows you have, the more chance you have to get lost, regardless of your profficiency. Are you arguing that clear indication of the keys is of no importance?

 

 

My argument is not that it is easy-peasy to learn to play piano, but rather that a myth that concertina is easy to pick up is a myth. And for that reason, realized or not, most children learn music on the piano, not hurdy-gurdy. Is there one conservatory, where various instrumentalists are not required to take piano as a second instrument?