Your opinion, please on Hayden layout

[Bob Tedrow]

I have a Hayden under construction right now. I will be posting daily updates at http://twitter.com/HomewoodMusic (well, not so much this coming week)

This concertina will have a button layout parallel to the handrest. mahogany, ebony and amboyna casework.

[Frankevich]

I have a Hayden under construction right now. I will be posting daily updates at http://twitter.com/HomewoodMusic (well, not so much this coming week)

This concertina will have a button layout parallel to the handrest. mahogany, ebony and amboyna casework.

 

That's really interesting news, Bob! Will it also be having the palm bar "off the vertex"? (i.e. bar parallel to the flat side directly below it, and perpendicular to the flat side which sits on one's lap.) Have been following the progress on Twitter, along with your other beautiful creations, and will continue to do so. Keep up the good work.

 

Frank E.

[ragtimer]

I have a Hayden under construction right now. I will be posting daily updates at http://twitter.com/HomewoodMusic (well, not so much this coming week)

This concertina will have a button layout parallel to the handrest. mahogany, ebony and amboyna casework.

Yes it's good to hear about the parallel handrest bar.

But I hope that you are making the handrest parallel to one flat side, so that another flat side rests on the player's thigh, and not a vertex (corner).

 

I've been watching your photos and will eagerly await a shot of the ends with all the holes drilled.

--Mike K.

[Boney]

In regards to Frank's last few posts:

 

Personally, I'm not interested in "chromaticity," or "symmetry," or "equity" between the sides. I'd rather have the notes I want, what it looks like doesn't concern me at all. Playing with the ends inverted doesn't really interest me, and I'd hate to sacrifice range to facilitate that. And I don't feel the "tonal balance" is improved by leaving out high or low notes. I'd rather have more range, especially on the low end. Deep chords are very satisfying, and I like they way low bass notes fill out an arrangement. It seems we have very different ways of using the instrument. Which is fine, I just wouldn't want people to think your criteria are universal.

[ragtimer]

In regards to Frank's last few posts:

 

Personally, I'm not interested in "chromaticity," or "symmetry," or "equity" between the sides. I'd rather have the notes I want, what it looks like doesn't concern me at all. Playing with the ends inverted doesn't really interest me, and I'd hate to sacrifice range to facilitate that. And I don't feel the "tonal balance" is improved by leaving out high or low notes. I'd rather have more range, especially on the low end. Deep chords are very satisfying, and I like they way low bass notes fill out an arrangement. It seems we have very different ways of using the instrument. Which is fine, I just wouldn't want people to think your criteria are universal.

Well, notwithstanding other things I may have said, I pretty much agree with Boney -- range is important, low bass roots of chords are very satisfying (I do lvoe those on my Bandoneon, which goes down to F), and abstract ideals liek chromaticity and so on are good guides at first, but what matters is having hte notes you want and need per side.

 

I just happen to *need* the low C# and D# in the "Ted row" below the 1st row on each side -- and yes, it looks funny, but that's where those notes belong on a Hayden/Wicki.

 

I have a pretty good idea what notes I need, and wouldn't sacrifice any of them for an ideal. Tho I am having trouble making up my mind what notes to add, if possible, to Bob Tedrow's 52 keys.

 

I'm fairly sure I want the parallel (non-Hayden-slant) handrest bar (that's a major container of live bait).

--Mike K.

[Boney]

I'm fairly sure I want the parallel (non-Hayden-slant) handrest bar

I've been paying attention to my own playing, and I think I agree. I often find myself unconsciously "twisting" the concertina to a more button-parallel angle, especially when playing more on the right side (in A, for example).

[Frankevich]

In regards to Frank's last few posts:

 

Personally, I'm not interested in "chromaticity," or "symmetry," or "equity" between the sides. I'd rather have the notes I want, what it looks like doesn't concern me at all. Playing with the ends inverted doesn't really interest me, and I'd hate to sacrifice range to facilitate that. And I don't feel the "tonal balance" is improved by leaving out high or low notes. I'd rather have more range, especially on the low end. Deep chords are very satisfying, and I like they way low bass notes fill out an arrangement. It seems we have very different ways of using the instrument. Which is fine, I just wouldn't want people to think your criteria are universal.

 

Thanks for writing, Boney. A few replies if I may.

 

Re. "chromaticity", the idea kind of appeals to me I suppose because every other instrument I can think of has it, except perhaps a kazoo. But I am not married to it as evidenced by my latest thinking which is to take the lower left side C# and D# on the standard Tedrow layout, and replace them as D and C# high up on the left. Hence "chromaticity" is no longer on the lower left--I'm no longer hung up on it. As for "symmetry" and "equity" between the sides, this is the most key concept to my idea of improved "tonal balance" and "reversed end capability" (see below). "Looks" has nothing to do with it; it's how the instrument sounds, if you catch my drift.

 

Ah, playing with "reversed ends". Have you ever tried it? Actually you wouldn't, for all practical purposes, be able to manage it if your 'tina has the Hayden 10.5 degree "slant"--just do-able but totally awkward (however, worth a try). You really need a "Wicki" palm bar PARALLEL to the button rows, and preferably a moveable--especially lateraly--palm bar as well, both features of which will be on my new Tedrow Duet. You should consider getting one, he also makes beautiful looking and sounding instruments. Playing "reversed ends" can therefore be alot of fun and gets some interesting sounds; it adds a WHOLE NEW DIMENSION to an already versatile instrument.

 

Lets talk a minute about "range" and "tonal balance". It may just be a matter of personal preference, but every Duet player I ever knew pretty much agreed that the instrument is imbalanced in favor of the left side, in that the lower notes tend to--dramatically in some instruments--overpower the treble, melody side. Hayden himself and others I know of, have recognized this by cautioning to go lightly with the left hand chording, favoring single note (especially) and double note harmonies-- except perhaps in places of emphasis as in end of passages, sections, or end of tune. So for me, the question is: why go for lower ("heavier", stronger) notes which will only overpower the melody even more? Baffling techniques--especially peraps of Duets--have been around for a long time--with good reason. (Gaskin, I think it was, did a nice article on baffles and their history on his Concertina.com site.) Finally, "tonal balance" means to me what sounds best for duet playing or singing. For example, I think it is--arguably--a generally recognized principle that duets of "close harmony" such as a soprano and an alto, or a tenor and a baritone, sound better than a soprano and tenor, or tenor and bass, respectively. If you will forgive a bit of a stretch, wouldn't you say that a violin and a viola, sound better in duet than a flute and a trombone? (I was tempted to say, better than a piccolo and a tuba--but that's just taking liberties!) Well, if you don't agree, we'll just have to agree to disagree, and put it down again to personal preference.

 

Your last remark about 'not wanting people to think my criteria were universal' is not likely to happen! Reason being that--at least judging from the Forum discussion contributors--it's just the opposite: the prevailing views as far as I can make them out, want more top to bottom range--especially lower notes like yourself--not more "overlap", balance, or higher left side notes like myself. Which is the real reason, I guess, for writing all this, namely, I'm just trying to improve the instrument--by having some innovations done on my forthcoming Tedrow Duet order--and thereby suggesting to Hayden players that YOUR CRITERIA--not mine--shouldn't become universal!

 

High or low, keep on squeezin'.

 

Frank E.

[Boney]

You are right, the point I posted does seem more popular. I am glad to hear a different point of view. Everyone should choose what suits them best, of course. If you want more overlap, or more enharmonics, or like arrangements that go higher on the left side, that's personal preference. If you prefer to spend your buttons there, more power to you, I couldn't argue with that. But I posted because my practical experience doesn't agree much with the theoretical points you're using as justification.

 

I agree, It would sometimes be nice if the left side's volume was de-emphasized. Accordions are generally quieter on the left. But I don't think sacrificing low notes goes any real way towards accomplishing that. Actually, counter-intuitively, it may hurt. For example, if I'm playing a simple oom-pah behind a melody, C...C-chord...G...C-chord, on a 46-key instrument, I have to play the G a fifth above the C. But that G may end up relatively close to the melody, and moving it an octave lower makes the melody stand out from it more, not less.

 

Also, I often see dissonant intervals in jazz or ragtime piano music, but they're separated by one or more octaves, which smooths out the dissonance -- it still exists, but it's not so jarring or ugly, it comes across more as "spicy" or "edgy." With the limited range of my concertina, I often have to move a note or two in the accompaniment an octave up, which increases the dissonance and ruins the effect somewhat. I'll usually play these dissonances shorter, so once again, having a lower note could actually improve the balance, allowing me to play a note more for its full value.

 

I'm working on an arrangement of "At A Georgia Camp Meeting" which plays a little vamp up high, then plays a variation an octave lower, then again at the lowest range of the instrument. It's quite effective, and often makes people smile. This is another example of the low range of the instrument being a strength, and having nothing to do with making it more unbalanced.

 

Actually, in some ways, I see the "unbalance" you speak of as a strength. I think playing chords and bass notes shorter is not merely a way of keeping the melody from being drowned out, it's useful in adding rhythmic interest. I agree it doesn't suit every arrangement, and having the option of a lever I could switch to quiet the left hand side would be valuable to me. But given a choice of one or the other, I'd choose the way it is now, not an instrument with a permanently quieter left side.

 

I don't see the option as between a violin and a viola, or a flute and a trombone. I see it more as choosing between a violin and a viola, or a cello, violin, and viola. You are, after all, adding range, not substituting, right? As a practical example, in my arrangement of the "Fawlty Towers" theme (you can hear it on YouTube), I adapted a simple string quartet piece to the duet, and I had to make some compromises with the double bass part. It would have only been improved if I had had some extended bass range.

 

I guess I could summarize by saying that making the whole left side of the concertina an octave lower would probably affect the instrument as you describe, making it more unbalanced, and creating wide harmonies that might not be ideal. But adding notes at the bottom doesn't do that at all, because you use them only how and when you want to.

 

Oh, and I have tried playing with the ends reversed. It's not difficult at all if I loosen the straps a bit and twist the instrument. It's amusing, but rarely gives a sound I'm really looking for. Maybe if I was better at rearranging on the fly, adjusting to the different sound, then I'd use the technique a bit more, but probably not. I'd rather learn to just play the melody on the left. In any case, the reeds are smaller on the right, you'll always have room for more of them, so the instrument isn't symmetrical by nature. You could leave notes out on the right to make it seem more symmetrical, but where's the gain in that? Besides being a bit less expensive and lighter, maybe?

[JimLucas]

I guess I could summarize by saying that making the whole left side of the concertina an octave lower would probably affect the instrument as you describe, making it more unbalanced, and creating wide harmonies that might not be ideal. But adding notes at the bottom doesn't do that at all, because you use them only how and when you want to.

I'm pretty sure that making "the whole" left side an octave lower wouldn't be possible without increasing the size of the instrument. Lower notes certainly means larger reeds, so if you don't increase the size of the ends, then you'll have to reduce the number of notes/buttons and thus reduce the range of that side. Take them from the upper end and you've reduced the overlap with the right hand, which will already have lost an octave due to the shift. Take from the lower end, and you haven't really dropped a whole octave.

[Boney]

I'm pretty sure that making "the whole" left side an octave lower wouldn't be possible without increasing the size of the instrument.

Yes, that was more of a "thought experiment" than an actual suggestion.

[ragtimer]

I'm pretty sure that making "the whole" left side an octave lower wouldn't be possible without increasing the size of the instrument.

Yes, that was more of a "thought experiment" than an actual suggestion.

A "thought" that I had a couple years ago was:

On the LH side, make the bottom two rows (of a stock 46er) an octave lower, and keept the upper two rows the same. Put multiple, big accordion reds on those two bottom rows.

 

THis would be great for playing oom-pah accompaniments, once you relearn to finger chords with both the 3rd and 5th up on the top two rows while you finger the bass in the bottom two rows. It's not difficult to do.

 

It would make a great accordion competitor, but this setup would be lesss versatile for other styles of accompaniment and true duets.

 

Maybe one could have Bob T. make up a tina with two LH sides -- screw on the one that works best for tonite's gig, change them at intermission break, etc.

 

Not kidding, but I don't expect this to happen anytime soon ... Mike K.

Edited November 28, 2009 by ragtimer

[JimLucas]

A "thought" that I had a couple years ago was:

On the LH side, make the bottom two rows (of a stock 46er) an octave lower, and keept the upper two rows the same. Put multiple, big accordion reds on those two bottom rows.

Sounds like

at least

doubling the size of the instrument.

 

But then you'd have room to significantly increase the number of buttons (and so the range) on the RH side.

[SqueezeCat]

I'm fairly sure I want the parallel (non-Hayden-slant) handrest bar

I've been paying attention to my own playing, and I think I agree. I often find myself unconsciously "twisting" the concertina to a more button-parallel angle, especially when playing more on the right side (in A, for example).

 

Interested to hear you suggest you might prefer a straight Wicki layout over the 10deg slanted Hayden. From some of your previous discussion in other threads, I had the impression you felt the Hayden approach made chordal playing more ergonomic.

 

Care to discuss any latest thoughts?

[JimLucas]

I often find myself unconsciously "twisting" the concertina to a more button-parallel angle, especially when playing more on the right side (in A, for example).

Interested to hear you suggest you might prefer a straight Wicki layout over the 10deg slanted Hayden. From some of your previous discussion in other threads, I had the impression you felt the Hayden approach made chordal playing more ergonomic.

Boney's above comment is about "the right side". Chords would normally be played on the left side. Is there a difference between the two sides that would make both comments consistent?

[ragtimer]

I often find myself unconsciously "twisting" the concertina to a more button-parallel angle, especially when playing more on the right side (in A, for example).

Interested to hear you suggest you might prefer a straight Wicki layout over the 10deg slanted Hayden. From some of your previous discussion in other threads, I had the impression you felt the Hayden approach made chordal playing more ergonomic.

Boney's above comment is about "the right side". Chords would normally be played on the left side. Is there a difference between the two sides that would make both comments consistent?

That is a VERY good question! The same thought has occurred to me (but never when I was on logged into the Forum) -- that maybe the needs of the left and right hands are different, and the handrest placement and slant maybe should be different.

 

Even when I play melodies (or walking bass lines) on the LH, I ge the feeling that the slant there is more of a hindrance than it is on the right.

 

I'll admit that the slant on the LH side does make it easier to finger open-structure major chords, such as C-G-e. Other than that I don't see a lot of help from the slant. It really makes it hard ot use the pinky at all in the LH, tho I've been trying lately.

 

As for ergonomics -- I've looked (OK, not real thoroughly) for anyone's claiming on this Forum that the Hayden slant was ergonomically determined (Brian?). There has been talk of mathematical elegance, like the distance from a button to the handrest is proportional to its scale pitch, but nothing related to human hands.

 

People joke that the Stagi Hayden has differnt slope on each side, and ISTR that when I measured mine, it indeed does. Just maybe the Stagi people made a few prototypes, tested various handle positions, and chose the two that felt best. (Then again maybe they just slapped it together freehand; nobody knows). Of course you have to be able to play the Hayden to evaluate it, so I suspect no real testing was done.

 

But -- sloping the buttons away from the shortest finger? When Anglos do the opposite, and match the hand's shape? Someone's overlooking osmething -- is it us, or "tme"? --Mike K.

Edited November 29, 2009 by ragtimer

[Boney]

I often find myself unconsciously "twisting" the concertina to a more button-parallel angle, especially when playing more on the right side (in A, for example).

Interested to hear you suggest you might prefer a straight Wicki layout over the 10deg slanted Hayden. From some of your previous discussion in other threads, I had the impression you felt the Hayden approach made chordal playing more ergonomic.

Boney's above comment is about "the right side". Chords would normally be played on the left side. Is there a difference between the two sides that would make both comments consistent?

Sorry, I meant the right side of the button field on both sides of the instrument, not the right side of the instrument. Which is why I mentioned playing in A, but I guess that wouldn't mean much to those who don't play the Hayden, oops!

 

I have been thinking about this question and experimenting a bit with it. Especially because Jim Bayliss wrote, "I've been unable to find any advantages to the slant" in a post last month.

 

In March I wrote, "My current thinking is that it is easier to play straight melodies with the buttons parallel. But the slant gives access to certain button combinations for chording that would be tricky otherwise. I think it may be the sort of thing that depends on your style, but I suspect the slant gives more chording options."

 

I still feel that the slant helps with certain chord combinations, and octaves are a bit easier to reach. But it also hinders other combinations. Part of my suspicion that it would help in general (instead of just being an even tradeoff, or maybe even worse) is because I figured the slant had to be there for a reason. Another part of it is that I'm used to the slant, and have undoubtedly made choices in arrangement because of it. But I've also only seen a geometrically-based reason for creating the slant, and never an ergonomic one. And as I've explored and watched my own playing, I've noticed more some of the hinderances of the slant. Adding Jim's comments to that makes me now suspect the straight layout is better. I'm still not sure! In any case, I am sure you can play well with the slant, and without it. If it's a big issue, it's probably only on larger instruments.

 

I'm also intrigued by Jim Lucas' idea in a previous thread of a slightly curved Wicki layout. With your hand strapped in, the position of your hand in relation to the buttons changes when you change keys. Wouldn't the layout be more regular for practical purposes if the rows curved the same way your hand does when you reposition it? It wouldn't look more regular, but it might feel more regular, which is what really matters. I'm not sure of that until I try it, of course. I've been thinking of creating a "dummy" button field that I could rearrange - maybe just dowels mounted on little discs and attached to a flat piece of wood with double-sided tape. Then I could at least experiment with different curves, spacings, and angles, to get an idea of what might work best (for me and the way I play, at least) in the real world.

[ragtimer]

I often find myself unconsciously "twisting" the concertina to a more button-parallel angle, especially when playing more on the right side (in A, for example).

Interested to hear you suggest you might prefer a straight Wicki layout over the 10deg slanted Hayden. From some of your previous discussion in other threads, I had the impression you felt the Hayden approach made chordal playing more ergonomic.

Boney's above comment is about "the right side". Chords would normally be played on the left side. Is there a difference between the two sides that would make both comments consistent?

I still feel that the slant helps with certain chord combinations, and octaves are a bit easier to reach. But it also hinders other combinations.

Something else I've found that affects playing octaves, and choices of fingerings in awkward intervals (4ths and 5ths) -- is SHEAR. This is the degree to which the rows "slip sideways" left or right as you go up on the buttonboard.

 

Look straight at the RH end of a Hayden, Ignoring the handrest bar, align the rows of buttons level with the horizon. Now let your eye follow the *columns* of buttons, drawing an imaginary line from a note in the first or second row to its mate an octave higher.

 

On the Stagi, the columns tilt significantly to the right. That's shear.

My Bastari bandoneon, built to Brian Hayden's design, shears very slightly to the left.

My Wakker Elise has no shear at all -- the columns are at right angles to the rows.

 

I finger octave leaps differently on the Bastari and Stagi due to the shear differences. That sucks for learning a tune and playing it on more than one box!

 

So anyone experimenting with button layout neeeds to consider shear.

 

 

I'm also intrigued by Jim Lucas' idea in a previous thread of a slightly curved Wicki layout. With your hand strapped in, the position of your hand in relation to the buttons changes when you change keys. Wouldn't the layout be more regular for practical purposes if the rows curved the same way your hand does when you reposition it? It wouldn't look more regular, but it might feel more regular, which is what really matters.

Hear, hear! Truer words were never spoken -- how it feels, not how it looks!

I think curved rows, at least near the extremes, would facilitate playing the RH in E and A, and help the LH play in Bb and Eb if those buttons exist. (I have them on my bandoneon, but my Left pinky is scared stiff of them. Curvature might help.)

 

I'm not sure of that until I try it, of course. I've been thinking of creating a "dummy" button field that I could rearrange - maybe just dowels mounted on little discs and attached to a flat piece of wood with double-sided tape. Then I could at least experiment with different curves, spacings, and angles, to get an idea of what might work best (for me and the way I play, at least) in the real world.

Great idea. If you get confident in a layout, someone might consider building a purely MIDI version, using pushbutton switches for a semi-throw-away design.

--Mike K.

Edited November 29, 2009 by ragtimer

[SqueezeCat]

 

I still feel that the slant helps with certain chord combinations, and octaves are a bit easier to reach. But it also hinders other combinations. Part of my suspicion that it would help in general (instead of just being an even tradeoff, or maybe even worse) is because I figured the slant had to be there for a reason. Another part of it is that I'm used to the slant, and have undoubtedly made choices in arrangement because of it. But I've also only seen a geometrically-based reason for creating the slant, and never an ergonomic one.

 

"Certain chord combinations", good. . .

 

 

And as I've explored and watched my own playing, I've noticed more some of the hinderances of the slant. Adding Jim's comments to that makes me now suspect the straight layout is better. I'm still not sure! In any case, I am sure you can play well with the slant, and without it. If it's a big issue, it's probably only on larger instruments.

 

But, "no slant" now suspected to be "better". . .

 

 

I'm also intrigued by Jim Lucas' idea in a previous thread of a slightly curved Wicki layout. With your hand strapped in, the position of your hand in relation to the buttons changes when you change keys. Wouldn't the layout be more regular for practical purposes if the rows curved the same way your hand does when you reposition it? It wouldn't look more regular, but it might feel more regular, which is what really matters. I'm not sure of that until I try it, of course. I've been thinking of creating a "dummy" button field that I could rearrange - maybe just dowels mounted on little discs and attached to a flat piece of wood with double-sided tape. Then I could at least experiment with different curves, spacings, and angles, to get an idea of what might work best (for me and the way I play, at least) in the real world.

 

"Slightly curved Wicki layout". . . likely the "best" option. . .

 

 

I'm interested in that I'm on Wim's waiting list for a new instrument. My recently acquired Elise has given me the chance to play with a 10deg slant instrument. I will say that with this instrument, the limitation of an entry-level instrument become apparent with regards to the 'pinky' problem. On my premium Anglos a stretched pinky just needs to lightly tap a far off button to sound a note. The Elise requires a bit more effort--that is, stretches I'm comfortable with on my Anglos become a bit of work on the Elise.

 

I would expect on a premium Hayden, a gentle tap as on my Anglos, is all that would be required. Maybe what I'm saying, is that all this conversation pro/con keyboard slant does make me wonder how difficult I'd find playing on a premium Hayden w/ slant. It would be nice to have access to premium instruments with and without the slant to make a judgement. But, that's not especially likely to happen before I need to make a decision on what I'd like Wim to put together.

 

I really like the Idea of an ergonomic curved Wicki layout that is carefully designed to fit the hand. The trouble is--I don't necessarily expect a convincing design to have been determined before I need to finalise my order with Wim.

 

So. . . at this point I'm taking that advice may be to go w/ a straight KB. (Would be nice to hear some comments from Brian Hayden on the matter. . .)