Jump to content

Performance


Recommended Posts

The English concertina was marketed as a substitute for the violin, flute, and clarinet, at least to a certain extent. Moreover, it was so marketed with a special eye to getting women to play the instrument, since the other three that I mentioned were more or less "off limits" to them until about the final quarter of the century. On the other hand, one need only look at the concertina method books that were aimed at the same audience; they are full of chordal and even real contrapuntal writing.

 

In the end, generalizations are usually simplifications, and they leave unanswered as much--sometimes more--than they answer.....Allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 180
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

The English concertina was marketed as a substitute for the violin, flute, and clarinet, at least to a certain extent. Moreover, it was so marketed with a special eye to getting women to play the instrument, since the other three that I mentioned were more or less "off limits" to them until about the final quarter of the century. On the other hand, one need only look at the concertina method books that were aimed at the same audience; they are full of chordal and even real contrapuntal writing.

 

In the end, generalizations are usually simplifications, and they leave unanswered as much--sometimes more--than they answer.....Allan

 

I guess you are correct Allan and I wonder if there is any actual written/printed evidence to show that the Concertina was originally promoted as a substitute for violin, flute or clarinet or that it was specifically aimed at women. It doesn't really matter but is still of interest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is worth mentioning that Concertina Bands formed a great part of the concertina scene from about 1900 - 1936 . The Concertina being a fairly cheap and portable instrument became common in the Salvation Army and Concertina Bands formed an alternative to Brass Bands. Much of the arrangements were to Brass Band music.

Al

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

maybe this will be of interest

From 'The Irish Industrial Exhibition of 1853' (a detailed Catalogue of its contents etc.) Edited by 'John Sproule, assisted by eminent Literary and Scientific Men'

The following - 'The concertina may be used as a substitute for the flute, oboe &c. From its being the only instrument having a sustained sound, which conventionalism allows to ladies its value is considerably increased'

chris

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks Chris. I guess we are talking of an era in which 'ladies' would have been quite capable of playing brass and woodwind instruments but it would have been considered most 'un-lady-like' of them to attempt to do so. The same ladies who presumably rode side-saddle !

Link to comment
Share on other sites

DEAR ROD: there is lots of "written" evidence. . . .all of which (at least all that i knew about) appear in my article "Ladies in the Wheatstone Ledgers: the Gendered Concertina in the Victorian England, 1835-1870," which appears in the Royal Musical Association Research Chronicle, 39 (2006) . . . . it's on the internet at www.concertina.com allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CHRIS: as i noted. . . .even the violin was off-limits because of its mythical association with the devil. . . . .in addition, there were those who did not appreciate the shape of the violin. . . . .obviously, the cello would have presented even greater problems...........allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi, Allan. I responded to what I think I remember was "Ratface's" comments comparing concertinas to other instruments, but it could apply as well to a few other posts criticising concertinas and the players of same. Any instrument, if played to a certain (undefinable) standard, is capable of a virtuoso performance. That would include bagpipes, which, if we include Highland pipes, is capable of only nine notes, and is incapable of dynamics. Personal tastes are another, and totally irrelevant matter. There are very serious players of piobraichd (the "classical" music of the pipes) who study it all their lives, and take it to virtuoso levels. Serious players have hundreds of 15 to 30 minute pieces committed to memory, even to the last gracenote. Virtuoso players tune their instruments for a perfect blend with each of their three drones, and not in equal temperment, which is itself, "out of tune!"(i.e. piano and guitar) Just because the pipes do not have some of the capabilities in terms of range, or dynamics, does not mean that it can not be a serious instrument, or their players are not serious and sometimes virtuoso players! I use pipes as an example to refute some of the contentions of Ratface, because it contains all the limitations outlined in Ratface's comparisons with other "more serious" instruments. Yes, I realise this is about concertinas. But if piob mhor (bagpipes), with its more limitations, is a serious instrument, then concertinas can be as well!

To call players like Noel Hill, or Michael O'Rahilly not virtuoso players because they play concertina is rubbish. Or maybe it is because they play Irish music? It appears that some who have posted in this vein are showing an arrogant elitism, or at least stating their opinions as though they were facts. All serious music is not in the classical area. All non-classical instruments are not in the same category as the comb & tissue paper (as much "fun" as that may be). Since this forum is for those who love the concertina and is for the advancement of this gem of an instrument, why bother to post here at all, in which ways denigrate concertinas and the ability of those who play them?

This is what I referred to as rubbish, Allan. Different is different, not necessarily inferior!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if you don't think that framework applies to your perception of music then it probably means you don't have much in common with the "serious classical" world of music, so you shouldn't care too much that the concertina isn't considered a serious instrument!

 

Yes, yes, you are right, the concertina is definitely an inferior instrument, especially the C/G anglo.

 

Please spread the word, it might bring down their prices a bit and shorten waiting lists :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if you don't think that framework applies to your perception of music then it probably means you don't have much in common with the "serious classical" world of music, so you shouldn't care too much that the concertina isn't considered a serious instrument!

 

Yes, yes, you are right, the concertina is definitely an inferior instrument, especially the C/G anglo.

 

Please spread the word, it might bring down their prices a bit and shorten waiting lists :D

 

I sympathise with the idea, but don't hold your breath. People mostly don't give a damn about establishment.

I'd like to reply to Frank Edgley here.

Frank, you probably misunderstood the general tone of the discussion. It's far from rubbish, doesn't have even a hint of elitism, or disdain for Irish music. Contrary, it was stated that the most impressive results of concertina playing is in Irish Music scene, regardless of personal preferences.

Now some can like mopeds, consider them superb and be deeply hurt, when somebody, while comparing them to Volvos, notices that Volvo motor is more powerful and economical, has better stability and comfort. Too bad.

I like bagpipes alot, I even like Irish music on bagpipes and can listen to them for hours, but I'd be silly to compare this kind of music to the emotional complexity, acheavable on instruments, that able to bend pitch, apply individual volume to notes and play harmony.

It's not even "to each it's own", as I really dig pipes. But a one layer is less than two, and calling it "elitism" doesn't add volume control to the pipes, or bending capabilities to concertina. As been stated on this very forum in other discussion, Folk music is so attractive because it is "simple" and within the reach of many. It seems that a modern day concertina virtuoso is on the level of 12 year old piano student with some 3-4 years of study.

For "me" Noel Hill is not fully a virtuoso not because he is playing concertina, but because he uses redundant pipe drone emulation, that are not helping the rhythm in any way, and he allows his chords not to be shaped. All well within the mainstream, and virtuoso can't stay in the mainstream. But that's only to "me". On the other hand, Edel Fox, while not a virtuoso, certainly getting there, as even now, her harmonies are better refined, that of Noel Hill, and overall I see young players in ITM forming a wave, that will beat the old masters. Of true virtuosos I can name only Niall Vallely. His style is dazzling , very modern, doesn't fit into any description or follows any school.

But even he, when played duet with piano, sounds more humble, as piano player, not the greatest in the world, is able to play at very high level compared to Niall. Those lighning fast passages on AC, that dazzled a listener just a second ago, easily surpassed by passages on piano, but we, as listeners, are not as dazzled. We are used to such piano technique. It alone justifies calling concertina "not a serious" instrument. Just like we wouldn't sigh in awe listening to violin rendition of Mary Had a Little Lamb, but would gather around to see it done on Jew's harp.

The main thing is not to pretend, but to accept what's what and proceed happily.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I honnestly don't mind if the concertina is being called a lesser instrument. Now I wouldnt want to know how the whistle is being called! At the end of the day, I don't like classical music, I just find it boring to hell. You could argue it's because I'm not really refined and can't grasp the internal beauty of the music, but at the end of the day, it just doesnt get to me. But irish music always got to me, it's a language I can try to understand and get a lot from it. When I listen to a good concertina player, for example, I'm totally mesmerized, it's like sweet poetry to my ears :-)

 

If playing irish concertina is so much easier than any classical music, I'm glad it is, because it's amazingly hard for me and will probably spend a lifetime learning and trying to improve. I don't think I'd have the potential to play classical music and actually enjoy myself, especially not as a hobby.

 

But I agree with the above. Noel Hill might be a virtuoso of irish playing concertina, but I'm convinced it's nothing compared to a virtuso in classical music. It's all relative.

 

(I personnaly don't care much about Noel Hill or Vallely's playing, I would rather listen to Claire Keville, Tim Collins and Edel Fox, to name the 'most known', but there's also much 'less known' concertina players especially from the west of Ireland I'd rather listen to also)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As been stated on this very forum in other discussion, Folk music is so attractive because it is "simple" and within the reach of many. It seems that a modern day concertina virtuoso is on the level of 12 year old piano student with some 3-4 years of study.

I guess that you and I have a different perception of the criteria used to describe a concertina “virtuoso”, but I have to ask the question “What more do the world’s leading concertina players have to do before you describe any of them as a virtuoso?”.

 

Whilst I am not a particular fan of Irish music, my uneducated ear tells me when I am listening to someone who I consider to be a virtuoso. Ditto, with regards to Classical music. I happen to believe that the current standard of Irish traditional music, played on the concertina, is higher than it has ever been, and that several exponents are worthy of the title “virtuoso”.

 

I don’t know how many live performances, by concertina players, you have attended. In the years when I was active on the music scene, and had the budget for travel in the UK, I made a point of seeking out the best concertina players. I listened to them, studied their play at very close quarters, recorded them, talked to them, and even, on some rare occasions, played in the same concerts as them.

 

I’ve never been the world’s greatest traveller, but I’ve even left England to see and hear the playing of one player who I consider a virtuoso, and would do so again.

 

I guess that we will agree that music is subjective, and means different things to different people, and our perceptions of it will be different.

 

Regards,

Peter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course, if you don't think that framework applies to your perception of music then it probably means you don't have much in common with the "serious classical" world of music, so you shouldn't care too much that the concertina isn't considered a serious instrument!

 

Yes, yes, you are right, the concertina is definitely an inferior instrument, especially the C/G anglo.

 

Please spread the word, it might bring down their prices a bit and shorten waiting lists :D

 

I sympathise with the idea, but don't hold your breath. People mostly don't give a damn about establishment.

I'd like to reply to Frank Edgley here.

Frank, you probably misunderstood the general tone of the discussion. It's far from rubbish, doesn't have even a hint of elitism, or disdain for Irish music. Contrary, it was stated that the most impressive results of concertina playing is in Irish Music scene, regardless of personal preferences.

Now some can like mopeds, consider them superb and be deeply hurt, when somebody, while comparing them to Volvos, notices that Volvo motor is more powerful and economical, has better stability and comfort. Too bad.

I like bagpipes alot, I even like Irish music on bagpipes and can listen to them for hours, but I'd be silly to compare this kind of music to the emotional complexity, acheavable on instruments, that able to bend pitch, apply individual volume to notes and play harmony.

It's not even "to each it's own", as I really dig pipes. But a one layer is less than two, and calling it "elitism" doesn't add volume control to the pipes, or bending capabilities to concertina. As been stated on this very forum in other discussion, Folk music is so attractive because it is "simple" and within the reach of many. It seems that a modern day concertina virtuoso is on the level of 12 year old piano student with some 3-4 years of study.

For "me" Noel Hill is not fully a virtuoso not because he is playing concertina, but because he uses redundant pipe drone emulation, that are not helping the rhythm in any way, and he allows his chords not to be shaped. All well within the mainstream, and virtuoso can't stay in the mainstream. But that's only to "me". On the other hand, Edel Fox, while not a virtuoso, certainly getting there, as even now, her harmonies are better refined, that of Noel Hill, and overall I see young players in ITM forming a wave, that will beat the old masters. Of true virtuosos I can name only Niall Vallely. His style is dazzling , very modern, doesn't fit into any description or follows any school.

But even he, when played duet with piano, sounds more humble, as piano player, not the greatest in the world, is able to play at very high level compared to Niall. Those lighning fast passages on AC, that dazzled a listener just a second ago, easily surpassed by passages on piano, but we, as listeners, are not as dazzled. We are used to such piano technique. It alone justifies calling concertina "not a serious" instrument. Just like we wouldn't sigh in awe listening to violin rendition of Mary Had a Little Lamb, but would gather around to see it done on Jew's harp.

The main thing is not to pretend, but to accept what's what and proceed happily.

 

I find this a load of arrogant codswallop.

 

Many people seem to equate virtuosity with playing very fast. It's not. Playing very fast is simply flashiness.

 

I suspect that there the limitation on how fast you can play the Anglo Concertina is not in the players' fingers, but in the instrument itself. So the comparison Mischa just made between the anglo and the piano is like comparing apples with cabbages.

 

There is a story, possibly apocryphal, about the Northumbrian Harmonica Player, Will Atkinson, when asked whether a young player who had just played a set of tunes at lightning speed was any good, retorted something along the lines of "Aye, very good lad, but it's not music". That to me sums up most very fast playing. Even the best musicians when they resort to playing very fast lose something of their musicality in the process. Playing very fast is simply an exercise in technique.

 

Another thing is the discussion that I object to is the underlying assumption that if an instrument is not used in the classical orchestra it can't be a serious instrument. I also find that codswallop. Just because the concertina has largely been used in various forms of popular music does not make it a less serious instrument. As long as it is taken seriously by those who play the instrument and it is fit for purpose and capable of extending the capabilities of its best practitioners, then it is a serious instrument. And I suggest that that is true of all variants of the concertina.

 

Incidentally I have heard Alistair Anderson play Telemann on the English Concertina and do so very effectively.

 

Geoff

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem here is that classical and traditional players use very different methods to add interest and complexity to the music. Classical music uses (among other things) advanced harmony, polyphony, multiple keys and time signatures, and longer and more complex musical themes. It uses instruments with as lush and full a tone as possible, and they record in lush, reverberant spaces. Traditional music goes about things an entirely different way -- subtle rhythmic variations and pulses, physical "tricks" such as taps and rolls and slides and barks and "twiddles" added at the player's discretion. They often use a very "physical" style of playing which pushes an instrument's tone into a rougher edge, and will play instruments with an idiosyncratic tone -- a nasal, thin African spike fiddle would not work at all for a violin etude, but is perfect and beautiful for the type of music it's made for.

 

I know this is a generality, and one with exceptions on either side, but the tendencies are quite dramatically different. You could even sum it up by saying classical music gets interest and complexity from the intellectual side, and traditional music from the physical side. This is also underscored by the fact that classical music is mainly made for listening, and traditional music for dancing. The best players from either camp will break into the other's domain in certain ways, but it's clear where their "roots" are.

 

People used to classical music often can't hear the subtleties of traditional music, and vice versa of course. The term "virtuoso" is from the classical world, and it doesn't make a lot of sense to apply the values of that world to another. I've seen humle old-time fiddle players that have drive and grit and groove and got people's butts moving better than Heifetz ever could. So, who wants a "virtuoso" in that context?

Edited by Boney
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FRANK: i agree with you eight hundred percent...................one of the absolutely most amazing musicians i've ever heard was a marimba player who played on the street down by the south street seaport in lower manhattan. . . . .the guy had incredible technique. . . .was spectacularly musical. . . . .and was able to entertain, move, and educate his audience. . . .what more could anyone ask for.................i had no idea to what the "rubbish" refered...........allan

Edited by allan atlas
Link to comment
Share on other sites

FOLKS: according to my Consolidated Webster, a "virtuoso" is one who has "artistic excellence". . . . .not only does the definition there not mention "classical" music (that is, a virtuoso of the Heifetz variety), it doesn't even mention music. . . . . . .it would be interesting to trace the use of the term in order to see how it's come to connote the idea of the virtuoso pianist or violinist or other concert-stage types. . . . . ..

 

ONE MORE THING: must say: there are an awful lot of NON-virtuoso spellers around ........................ allan

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Part of the problem here is that classical and traditional players use very different methods to add interest and complexity to the music. Classical music uses (among other things) advanced harmony, polyphony, multiple keys and time signatures, and longer and more complex musical themes.

 

Traditional music [uses] subtle rhythmic variations and pulses, physical "tricks" such as taps and rolls and slides and barks and "twiddles" added at the player's discretion.

I think that you are being inconsistent here. You compare/confuse the *type* of music with the *performance* of music. By your omission it seems that classical musicians don't play with any sort of expression and that traditional music has no advanced harmony, polyphony.... To the contrary, my observation is that the average classical player plays with more expression (note attack and ending, volume control, character (vibrato, harshness, sweetness...), phrasing, etc.) than a traditional musician does, and that the average trad musician plays more modal complexity and polyphonally than classical musicians. And sure the trad musican has a bagfull of tricks but so does the classical musician.

 

-- Rich --

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...