Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Sebastian]

I was not talking about the basses!

Sorry. To me the basses are an integral part of what makes a melodeon/accordion. Nevertheless, I wasn’t talking about the basses alone, but gave four examples of 'national' discant variations.

it seems to me that it is relative newcomers  that want to change  the … diatonic set up

Yes. After I’ve learned the given layout I have no motive to change it, so that I would have to relearn all the music. – – – Unless, maybe, that stupid D# in the wrong bellows direction … and a D on the pull would come in handy … and … 

[richard.fleming]

Helper buttons. What a crazy idea that is. Only melodeon players could come up with such a ridiculous idea.

[Steve_freereeder]

at the risk of getting shot in the bellows or should I say belows  it seems to me that it is relative newcomers  that want to change  the tried and tested since 1829 diatonic set up rather than simply learning to play it and perhaps most importantly  learning the noble art of faking that which isn't there ? smoke and mirrors!

Yes - what George said!

[Lester]

If you want the keyboard layout to be consistent over the available octaves and for the basses/chords to be available in both directions might I suggest a Piano Accordion   

[Julian S]

If you want the keyboard layout to be consistent over the available octaves and for the basses/chords to be available in both directions might I suggest a Piano Accordion   

Naaah. Never catch on. A pianner with bellows ? Whats wrong with a mouthie with bellows ?

J (still wondering about what to do with duplicate push low D ...C nat or F...or leave it alone as the fingers have used it for thirty years...)

[Lester]

or leave it alone as the fingers have used it for thirty years...)

THIS

[David Summers]

If you want the keyboard layout to be consistent over the available octaves and for the basses/chords to be available in both directions might I suggest a Piano Accordion   

Actually that wasn't the question I was asking, or not meaning to ask. It was asking the people experienced with the melodeon, as to why the layout is what it is. What positives does the layout, what negatives? So if one was designing an melodeon from scratch what would one try and achieve.

Others have posted here, saying they use different layouts - they have a right to do this, does it help to say they should be on a PA or CBA?

So that not what I meant to ask, its what does one try to achieve with a melodeon layout, with potential to change notes on push and pull. With buttons typically in rows.

Yes anyone that wants can buy a PA or a CBA, me I want a melodeon; but I'm interested in the layout. To give a simple example, my BC doesn't have a C or F# or G on both push and pull, so can't do tonic and fifth on push and pull, only a B on push and pull. But a DG melodeon can DG and A on both push and pull, so some tonic and fifths on both diatonic keys. Is this an advantage? [Note have removed D from DG push and pull, its available twice on Push, so similar question, is that a waste of a button?]

So that was the kind of question I was trying to answer, sorry I have to spell it out. It was a genuine question of an academic nature, just interested in peoples thoughts.

I beginning to get the feeling people just have a box, and play it with whatever note the buttons make. Maybe that just how most melodeon players are, me though I think about these things. It doesn't make me a sinner - just the person I am.

[Lester]

But a DG melodeon can DG and A on both push and pull, so both tonic and fifths on both diatonic keys.

There are no pull Ds on a standard D/G

[David Summers]

But a DG melodeon can DG and A on both push and pull, so both tonic and fifths on both diatonic keys.

There are no pull Ds on a standard D/G

I've modified the original post. Mea Culpa.

[george garside]

EvenSir Jimmy Shand could not play a G maj chord on the Shand MOrino BCC# box simply because you can't come and go at the same time. Despite this he  sold millions of records , drew capacity audiences in the albert hall, Carnegie hall an Sidney opera house etc etc etc.  Presumably most of  hid followers didn't notice or care less about the lack of the G maj chord


george

[playandteach]

 We only become more experienced by starting off less so. But I think it's important that we find out stuff through independent thought as well as standing on the shoulders of giants. In bike terms we still have people loving fixed gear bikes but others have opted for electronic 24 speed. Why would anyone get to electronic shifting if they just accepted the tradition? Sure, elliptical cranksets came and went and there were frankly Frankenstein frames, but is it not better for everyone if we seek improvements even where none is to be found. I'm happy to have stumbled across the system I play and grateful that Theo agreed to set it up that way.
If nothing else it helps us to understand the benefits of the existing system. Those hipster fixie riders are forging a path almost forgotten not because it is tradition but because it is pared back and exciting.

[Sebastian]

why the layout is what it is.

It’s a bit burried in history. It goes back to the harmonica. Rough summary: First harmonicas were mere toys (they were without the silver cups, thus exposing the reeds) with wildly diverse layouts, usually only on the blow. Some had only prearranged chords, some had a kind of scale. At some point someone hat the idea to reverse some reeds so you can use both blowing and sucking, a really ingenious idea! Easiest way would be to arrange them alternatively as blow reed and as suck reed. But as the scale has an impair number of notes (they were still cheap toys, so no need for chromaticity) this would invert blow and draw notes every second octave in addition to the button shift we have now:

1 3 5 7 2 4 6 (blow)
2 4 6 1 3 5 7 (draw)

You can remedy this blow-draw inversion by not making 7 a blow note:

1 3 5 1 3 5 1 (blow)
2 4 6 7 2 4 6 (draw)

Now 1, 3, 5 are always blow notes and 2, 4, 6, 7 are always draw notes. Additional advantage: On blowing multiple holes you have the tonic chord, on draw you have a good approximation of the dominant seven chord: 7-2-4, and you can also fake a subdominant chord: 4-6(-2). Chording is done by tongue blocking. (Sidenote: There are some additional reeds below the 1. Their task is to provide the fundamental chord notes. Therefore you have draw 5 there.) *)

This layout caught on (it was well suited to the music that people played those days) and people were accustomed to it. The early success of the melodeon builds on using this already known layout, because people could easily switch. To accomodate for modulating melodies (usually into the fifth and back) instruments with a second row a fifth appart were introduced (a copy of the turnable harmonicas which offer two [and up to six] rows of holes).

Inertia is always strong in the building of musical instruments, therefore after the basic layout of the diatonic row was established, only minor modifications were made, usually only additions (more buttons).

I beginning to get the feeling people just have a box, and play it with whatever note the buttons make. Maybe that just how most melodeon players are

Well, yes, maybe.

----

*) Earlier on I mentioned the 'solo tuning'. It is a modification which preserves the usual blow-draw pattern but every octave is played the same way:

1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 (blow)
2 4 6 7 2 4 6 7 (draw)

[rees]

What George said.
All of the traditions that I mentioned had their own music before the melodeon came along.
They fitted their songs to it which meant that on a D/G melodeon some would play in the key of D and G, some in C, some in F# minor, etc. whatever suited their tradition best. None of which would sound the same if the layout was different.

[Tone Dumb Greg]

 Earlier on I mentioned the 'solo tuning'. It is a modification which preserves the usual blow-draw pattern but every octave is played the same way:

1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 (blow)
2 4 6 7 2 4 6 7 (draw)

Sorry Sebastian, I missed your mention of the Solo. Looking at it, it is identical to my original suggestion. I modified it, after a bit of thought, by making it fourth button start and using the duplicated tonics to accommodate reversals. Which, for me, illuminated the idea. It is truly difficult to make something new. Nice to know I'm not the only one who has ever thought about this.

It tends to take me aback when people react to the idea of speculating on alternative ways of doing things by waving their hands in horror saying you shouldn't do that. It's already the best it can be,  it's been like this around these parts since my great grandad were a nipper. Generally dismissing constructive thinking as inexpert contemplation of what they don't understand. As George said, it is commonly beginners posting here who are interested in possible ways of improving the instrument. I wonder if this is because they are frightened off by the negative reactions they get.

My background is in design education and manufacturing process engineering and my experience is that speculation is satisfying to the soul and brings benefits that don't occur to anyone until they open their minds. Remember when we had a motor cycle manufacturing industry that got totally overwhelmed by the Japanese deciding they could do it better? Come to that, hieroglyphics used to be all the rage. The biggest barrier to improvement is negative thinking.

 As a basic design principle,  there are always, and I mean always, different ways of doing things that bring benefits.

Someone pointed out that the principles underlying the melodeon involve compromise. All design involves compromise. You have to identify the benefits  and decide if they outweigh the costs, in the context of what you want to achieve. Don't reject suggestions out of hand because that's not the way things are done round 'ere. Reject them for their demonstrable disadvantages. Or consider accepting that, actually, there may be something in that idea.

[playandteach]

That's nicely explained.

[rees]

I did try all kinds of different layouts in the late seventies, mostly on paper but several jury-rigged mock ups.
Eventually I'd proved (to myself) the the standard layout works best for so many different styles.
So, not dismissing things out of hand or saying that one shouldn't try these mods just that I've been there, done it and was finally reborn into the glory of the one true row (but not after a lot of head scratching)!
Anyway, keep those new layouts coming, you may yet strike gold.

[Tone Dumb Greg]

 Earlier on I mentioned the 'solo tuning'. It is a modification which preserves the usual blow-draw pattern but every octave is played the same way:

1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 (blow)
2 4 6 7 2 4 6 7 (draw)

I can't find much out about this. Do you have any information on it, especially ways in which it has been tried and tested that might say if it's been found wanting and, if so, how and why?

[Tone Dumb Greg]

I did try all kinds of different layouts in the late seventies, mostly on paper but several jury-rigged mock ups.
Eventually I'd proved (to myself) the the standard layout works best for so many different styles.
So, not dismissing things out of hand or saying that one shouldn't try these mods just that I've been there, done it and was finally reborn into the glory of the one true row (but not after a lot of head scratching)!
Anyway, keep those new layouts coming, you may yet strike gold.

I bet you had fun trying, though.

[Tone Dumb Greg]

I hope I'm not hijacking your post Mr. Summers.

[Steve_freereeder]

 Earlier on I mentioned the 'solo tuning'. It is a modification which preserves the usual blow-draw pattern but every octave is played the same way:

1 3 5 1 1 3 5 1 (blow)
2 4 6 7 2 4 6 7 (draw)

I can't find much out about this. Do you have any information on it, especially ways in which it has been tried and tested that might say if it's been found wanting and, if so, how and why?

It works for harmonicas, but in terms of building and playing a melodeon with this system, for me there are two big disadvantages:

1. The duplicate 1/7 and 1/2 buttons in the middle of the keyboard would mean extra reeds, a longer reed block, an extra pair of buttons and lever mechanism and therefore extra weight. If those were overcome at the expense of losing the upper part of the range, that would be a loss in versatility at the upper end of the keyboard. (Yes I know that so many D/G players hardly ever venture into the dusty end of the keyboard, but there are a lot of players who do).

2. On the push (blow), the layout totally screws up the nice repeated 1 3 5 chord/fingering pattern which falls under the fingers so nicely, where octaves are always four buttons apart and which is actually so important in finding your way around the instrument.

In terms of this thread in general, I do take the point mentioned that there is nothing wrong with experimentation and revisiting existing layouts to see if they could be 'improved'. With electronic instruments which can have a customised keyboard programmed relatively easily and which is non-permanent, that's fair enough. But otherwise, trying out different layouts on a conventional acoustic box falls into the realm of an experienced maker and/or fettler, where tools, equipment, time and expense becomes a major factor. Building an instrument with a layout which ultimately turns out to be less than useful would be a frustrating and costly exercise.

The standard melodeon layout has endured for 150 years or more with very little change in that time - not because no-one has bothered trying to improve it, but mainly because it works so well and represents the best compromise for many genres of music. As in evolutionary palaeontology and biology, unsuccessful variants tend to die out and become extinct.