Melodeon.net Forums

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

Welcome to the new melodeon.net forum

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Down

Author Topic: The relative merits of 3-row systems  (Read 15028 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

waltzman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 943
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #40 on: December 23, 2015, 06:48:28 PM »

I think the rhythmic and sonic effect of a bellows reversal on a bisonoric reed is something that really cannot be strictly reproduced on a unisonoric instrument...no matter what the skilll of the player and no matter what you do with the bellows.  It is analogous to trying to make an english concertina sound like an anglo... and weight is clearly not an issue here.  I seen many anglo players speculating that english players simply don't know how to use the bellows properly.  It just isn't so.
Logged

george garside

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 5401
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #41 on: December 23, 2015, 07:28:55 PM »

Agreed and this applies to every diatonic box from a 19 key one row to the 46 button shand morino.  I think  the unique 'diatonic sound'  also has something to do with the ''rondomness'' of the  bellows reversals  on 2 and 3 row boxes where they are decided not only by the tune but , particularly with 3 rows, by the choices made by the player.  It is that randomness that is virtualy impossible to  replicate on a same both ways box.

I have from over the years heard rumours ( but never had them  positively confirmed) that Sir Jimmy Shand said something on the lines of that if starting again he would go for a continental  .  If there was anything in the rumours I presume he never changed from diatonic because the magic random reversals and their unique effect would have been lost????


george
Logged
author of DG tutor book "DG Melodeon a Crash Course for Beginners".

baz parkes

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1875
    • All Blacked Up
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #42 on: December 23, 2015, 11:39:08 PM »

Agreed and this applies to every diatonic box from a 19 key one row
george

Have I lost some George?... >:E
Logged
On the edge of Cheshire's Golden Triangle, apparently...

Chris Brimley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2019
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #43 on: December 24, 2015, 09:25:33 AM »

'It is that randomness that is virtualy impossible to  replicate on a same both ways box.'

George, this is what I still can't quite understand - if unisonoric players have total control over when they reverse bellows direction, why can't they make a sound that is virtually identical to a bisonoric layout, if they want?   As I say, my hunch is that most unisonoric accordions are designed to be good at one-way playing, and having to switch directions is an inconvenience rather than a musically usable feature of the instrument.  So if the design problem isn't weight, it seems it must be something else, unless the problem is simply that hardly any players recognise the benefits of reversing bellows, so never bother to learn the technique.  But, notwithstanding Chris R's comment earlier, I'm still reluctant to believe that all PA players are complete dunderheads!


Logged

Matt (Kings Norton)

  • Respected Sage
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
  • West Midlands, UK
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #44 on: December 24, 2015, 10:15:15 AM »

You've given me some great ideas on how other instruments could be improved: imagine if saxophone players had to blow and suck, or violinists could only get certain pitches on an up now, how much better jazz and classical music would sound.

I love the sound of push and pull boxes - in particular I love the sound of a one row in full effect.  It's fabulous and I'm delighted that more and more people are doing it.

But, I am not convinced that changing bellows direction is the only way to get effective dynamics on a bellows instrument.  That's the only reason I am posting about this on a bisonoric forum, because the same applies to all bellows instruments.  My favourite organetto players don't change bellows direction all that much but they certainly use the bellows to affect dynamics.  Same goes, I would hope, on piano accordion.  I'm going to be reckless and post a link to a recording of me playing.  It's a poor recording, the tempo is tagged, I had barely played, the Roland bellows setting was too light, I get nervous, blah blah excuses excuses.  http://youtu.be/-Zcdj4zcFBo

My point is ( if anyone puts themself to the annoyance of watching it) that I am constantly changing bellows pressure and force, and changing bellows direction more often than I have to, to go with the music.  There are a few bars of steady pressure, because that's what I thought sounded right.  It definitely affects the sound that comes out even on a Roland with a light bellows setting.  That's the sort of thing I was taught to do; others do it far better and I'm only using myself as an example because I thought personal experience was relevant here.

It would be hard work to learn to imitate a melodeon because you'd have to do all the bellows changes consciously instead of because you had to.  So for those who want to have the sound of bellows changes, then I would definitely recommend a bisonoric instrument and I think they sound magic.
Logged

playandteach

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3521
  • Currently a music teacher in a high school.
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #45 on: December 24, 2015, 12:22:09 PM »

You've given me some great ideas on how other instruments could be improved: imagine if saxophone players had to blow and suck, or violinists could only get certain pitches on an up bow, how much better jazz and classical music would sound.
I had a colleague violinist who was called lightening, which he thought was recognitions for the speed of his fingers, but was actually referring to his fingers in a different way - lightening never strikes twice in the same place.
Logged
Serafini R2D2 GC, Serafini GC accs 18 bass

Chris Ryall

  • "doc 3-row"
  • French Interpreter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
  • Wirral UK
    • Chris Ryall
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #46 on: December 24, 2015, 01:32:42 PM »

.
      ::)  ha ha

There s actually a message for the 3 row discussion in this slightly whimsical anecdote. On a standard 2 row melodeon is (in contrast) very forgiving of errant fingers, generally just getting a different harmony. Hitting C# instead of C on a DG can be an exception, but you have to try hard to do that one.

Playing in off piste scales and modes, across rows on a 3-row is quite the opposite, very easy to hit a thoroughly unpleasant interval - you actually have to practice those scales! And they can be in quite odd and non intuitive places. So that can be a big difference. And "systems" are optimimised for different things. eg François Heim's system likes harmonic minor, my kit likes blues. In other things they can be quite awkward. But all continue to play nicely on the main rows.
« Last Edit: December 24, 2015, 01:43:23 PM by Chris Ryall »
Logged
  _       _    _      _ 

waltzman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 943
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #47 on: December 24, 2015, 01:58:04 PM »

'It is that randomness that is virtualy impossible to  replicate on a same both ways box.'

George, this is what I still can't quite understand - if unisonoric players have total control over when they reverse bellows direction, why can't they make a sound that is virtually identical to a bisonoric layout, if they want?   As I say, my hunch is that most unisonoric accordions are designed to be good at one-way playing, and having to switch directions is an inconvenience rather than a musically usable feature of the instrument.  So if the design problem isn't weight, it seems it must be something else, unless the problem is simply that hardly any players recognise the benefits of reversing bellows, so never bother to learn the technique.  But, notwithstanding Chris R's comment earlier, I'm still reluctant to believe that all PA players are complete dunderheads!

That was part of my point.  PA players are not dunderheads and neither are English concertina players.  The rest of the point I was trying to make but apparently didn't is that the unique sound of a bellows reversal on a bisonoric reed is under appreciated and really cannot be fully duplicated by any sort of technique on a unisonoric reed.
Logged

Chris Ryall

  • "doc 3-row"
  • French Interpreter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
  • Wirral UK
    • Chris Ryall
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #48 on: December 24, 2015, 02:23:05 PM »

do you mean this?
Quote
Dislocating stuff on a PA? It is IMHO a daft arrangment, suitable for those with piano skills, but too lazy to learn the far more efficient (and actually equivalent) CBA layout

By the way, Chris. No need ever to apologise to PA players ::) you are on Melnet and amongst friends

Dunderhead isn't  a word I ever use (there are more subtle insults ;)) but nor do I see PA players as such. One such plays the melodeon size, cut down PA type I referred to on previous page with quite beautiful subtlety, and is very much someone I seek out as a session partner in Whitby.

Full size? Well, my view that PA system is a silly and cumbersome homologue of the far more sensible and compact CBA layout stands. If I ever (and it's too late now) went totally chomatic that is what I'd pick. Every time.

second paragraph was 100% in jest - "read my emoticons" "Happy humbugs" to all squeezers, and that includes PA players. ;)
Logged
  _       _    _      _ 

Roger Howard

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 600
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #49 on: December 24, 2015, 05:33:25 PM »

I had a colleague violinist who was called lightening, which he thought was recognitions for the speed of his fingers, but was actually referring to his fingers in a different way - lightening never strikes twice in the same place.

 (:) (:) (:)
Logged
G/C Gaillard 2 row, 3 voice, D/G Lilly, D/G Pariselle 2.6 row, Preciosa Bb/Eb.

Matt (Kings Norton)

  • Respected Sage
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
  • West Midlands, UK
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #50 on: December 24, 2015, 06:35:11 PM »

Apologies for the thread drift.

On the original topic, from watching videos of norteno music and steirische harmonikas, it seems the use a lot of right hand chords across all 3 rows.  Is there some special feature of fourth apart boxes with three or more rows that lends itself to this, or would the same work just as well on other designs?
Logged

Andy in Vermont

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 948
  • Mélodie
    • Melodeon Minutes (blog)
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #51 on: December 24, 2015, 10:38:42 PM »

I think the rhythmic and sonic effect of a bellows reversal on a bisonoric reed is something that really cannot be strictly reproduced on a unisonoric instrument...no matter what the skilll of the player and no matter what you do with the bellows.  It is analogous to trying to make an english concertina sound like an anglo... and weight is clearly not an issue here.  I seen many anglo players speculating that english players simply don't know how to use the bellows properly.  It just isn't so.

I don't agree with this. First of all, it's not the individual reeds that are "bisonoric," it's the arrangement of reeds on reedplates, the airflow to which is activated by a single button. Each reed is activated by a single air direction only, whether on a unisonoric or bisonoric box! It is therefore perfectly possible for a unisonoric instrument, in skilled hands, to simulate the acoustic effects that occur easily (i.e. without "skill") on a bisonoric box. Whether the effects accurately mimic exactly which notes will be pushed or pulled on the "simulated" bisonoric box is perhaps not relevant but it is possible. The fact is, many skilled players of unisonoric instruments are not listening closely enough to what is happening acoustically with bisonoric instrument, and/or they just don't care and don't see it as a goal. But that is different than saying it is "impossible." We have a piano accordion player here who can play some tunes that mimic a one-row box. It's not impossible. BUT that isn't saying that it is easy or even desirable.

Chris Brimley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2019
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #52 on: December 26, 2015, 01:20:12 PM »

(Sorry not to have been reading everyone's posts here recently - been a bit busy with the pots and pans!)

'My point is ( if anyone puts themself to the annoyance of watching it) that I am constantly changing bellows pressure and force, and changing bellows direction more often than I have to, to go with the music.  There are a few bars of steady pressure, because that's what I thought sounded right.  It definitely affects the sound that comes out even on a Roland with a light bellows setting.  That's the sort of thing I was taught to do; others do it far better and I'm only using myself as an example because I thought personal experience was relevant here.'

Absolutely - that's a very expressive bit of playing, Matt, and I like it a lot, very danceable sound.  However I notice you're achieving it with great skill in varying bellows pressure, whereas I think the dynamic effect that diatonic players often highlight is more to do with the springy effect of the air in the bellows when changing direction.  And I entirely agree with Andy's post above, because I think it makes the point very well - playing a unisonoric instrument surely doesn't intrinsically prevent a player from using 'airspring' (indeed they can use it even more for repeated same pitch notes like violinists do with fast up and down bow movements).  So I go back to my question - is it because of the skills of unisonoric players, or is it more to do with their instrument designers not making it easy for them?

(PS, how do I get back the ability to use quotes, etc? - is it a browser issue with MS Edge, or something?)
« Last Edit: December 26, 2015, 01:21:50 PM by Chris Brimley »
Logged

Matt (Kings Norton)

  • Respected Sage
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 304
  • West Midlands, UK
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #53 on: December 26, 2015, 01:36:42 PM »

Chris, you are far (far) too kind about my playing, which is mediocre and amateurish, but at least I try hard. 

We were discussing this thread over a glass of mulled wine yesterday, because that's the kind of extended family we are, and the penny dropped that a certain class of accordion players set great store by their quick changes of bellows direction and traditionally spent some time on it.  Video to follow - maybe - if I can twist the mrs's arm - which is a dangerous thing to try cos she went to a tougher school than I did.  Meanwhile please keep playing your one, two, and three rows everybody because it is a fine sound.
Logged

Chris Ryall

  • "doc 3-row"
  • French Interpreter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
  • Wirral UK
    • Chris Ryall
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #54 on: December 26, 2015, 02:12:43 PM »

You need to get your copy of Aire et Geste (air (use) and gesture/dynamics) Chris. The title doesn't translate all that well. The DVD is all about dynamics, and use of the bellows in particular. They term them, the lungs of the diatonic accordeon, but they might equally have said coeur.

 ::) purchase URL is  here on Mustradem.com
« Last Edit: December 27, 2015, 11:42:39 AM by Chris Ryall »
Logged
  _       _    _      _ 

Chris Brimley

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2019
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #55 on: December 26, 2015, 04:31:30 PM »

D'accord. D'où?
Logged

waltzman

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 943
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #56 on: December 26, 2015, 09:14:28 PM »

I don't agree with this. First of all, it's not the individual reeds that are "bisonoric," it's the arrangement of reeds on reedplates, the airflow to which is activated by a single button. Each reed is activated by a single air direction only, whether on a unisonoric or bisonoric box! It is therefore perfectly possible for a unisonoric instrument, in skilled hands, to simulate the acoustic effects that occur easily (i.e. without "skill") on a bisonoric box. Whether the effects accurately mimic exactly which notes will be pushed or pulled on the "simulated" bisonoric box is perhaps not relevant but it is possible. The fact is, many skilled players of unisonoric instruments are not listening closely enough to what is happening acoustically with bisonoric instrument, and/or they just don't care and don't see it as a goal. But that is different than saying it is "impossible." We have a piano accordion player here who can play some tunes that mimic a one-row box. It's not impossible. BUT that isn't saying that it is easy or even desirable.

Well, yes, of course the individual reed tongues only produce one note.  But if you listen closely to the sound of one note changing to another by virtue of the air flow slowing and reversing on a bisonoric reed plate...it is quite unique.  I think this uniqueness is under appreciated in terms of how much character is gives to diatonic box playing.  How else to explain the ease of determining if a tune is being played by a diatonic instrument or a PA just by listening? 
Logged

Chris Ryall

  • "doc 3-row"
  • French Interpreter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
  • Wirral UK
    • Chris Ryall
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #57 on: December 27, 2015, 11:38:13 AM »

Now that's a really interesing thought! I think you ard right that it takes very few notes to tell that a PA or CBA is producing them, rather than a bisonoric. As luck has it I have a same both ways F on my outer row and will experiment. But this year's "sing with the box" project has taken a lot of my music into C rocking against the unisonoric bass, might be something there too?

Is anyone active on this thread a concertina.net member? I'd be interested in what they think over there wrt anglo v EC/duet layouts, and similar play dynamics?  :|glug
« Last Edit: December 27, 2015, 11:43:37 AM by Chris Ryall »
Logged
  _       _    _      _ 

Stiamh

  • Old grey C#/D pest
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 3538
    • Packie Manus Byrne
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #58 on: December 28, 2015, 03:48:21 PM »

On the point that matt was making above, this clip shows a PA player using tiny little bellows reversals to keep the sound from getting too mushy. He keeps the bellows on a tight rein, yes, but beyond that there are little changes for a note here and there. No it doesn't sound like a three-row diatonic, but very pretty nonetheless.

Chris Ryall

  • "doc 3-row"
  • French Interpreter
  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 10171
  • Wirral UK
    • Chris Ryall
Re: The relative merits of 3-row systems
« Reply #59 on: December 28, 2015, 05:29:02 PM »

Not sure he's using them "dynamically" there Stiamh, just conservative in his arm movements?

But there is absolutely nothing heavy about the resultant sound, exemplary and very pleasant, and allowing space for the quieter instruments. So many adherents seem to use its volume as a weapon of mass destruction? But also "Irish" in that he's not going for the English bounce dynamic discussed above. Which was sort of where we started? I have some CBA player friends with equal sensitivity

  Patrick Reboud improvising "Dame aux Clebs" http://youtu.be/qARyFyDiPtQ
 
Er, has your guy's  bottom F# fallen off?
Logged
  _       _    _      _ 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6   Go Up
 


Melodeon.net - (c) Theo Gibb; Clive Williams 2010. The access and use of this website and forum featuring these terms and conditions constitutes your acceptance of these terms and conditions.
SimplePortal 2.3.5 © 2008-2012, SimplePortal