RatFace Posted July 10, 2008 Share Posted July 10, 2008 It's worth bearing in mind that the OP made two points that are quite independent: 1. Lack of virtuosity in concertina playing at the level found on other instruments. 2. It's not generally taken seriously by non-concertina players (and even by the occasional concertina player!). The first half of my earlier post tried to explain why it might not be taken "seriously" by non-concertina players, especially those who play instruments they would (likely) claim are capable of a greater range of expression. I think that's a much more significant point than the virtuosity one, which is more to do with statistics and the (almost) absence of structured training. The "serious" aspect really depends on what one wants to get out of music, and that varies so much between people. For some people music is spiritual, for others emotional, for others academic, for others social, for others functional (e.g. framework for dancing) and so on. Consequently it's pointless to say one instrument is better than another in general. However, if one asks why the "classical world" (whatever that is... but I think that's what the OP meant) thinks the concertina is inferior then the answer has to be reached using the framework that the classical world uses - and I think I gave some reasonable answers to that. 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.