Better model better performance?

[murathan]

Does owning a better brand / model will make you play better?
Yes and No

Yes
Some models have some advantages. On keys such as shallow key pushing distance. Better sound. Better response. A better instrument will motivate you to work on music more. You dont want to work on a rubbish condition instrument. So you must have a decent, working one at least.

No
Art is what YOU do, not the instrument does. Its your ability and your work, showing in the end. So having a better model will not change that. An instrument is a tool to express your ideas and feelings. No need to be obsessed about having a super famous model.

 

[Tor]

Well put.  An instrument has to be quite bad to put a serious ceiling on what a good player can accomplish.  I've heard a very good violinist play a very inexpensive student violin.  It still sounds very good.  Not quite the standard of her own instrument, to be fair.  You are, by a huge margin, the most important factor in the quality of your output.

 

[xocd]

In my experience, a good instrument seems to read your mind; it does what you want without you having to think too hard about how to do it.

I played recently a high end concert piano and was amazed at how well I was playing. I am talking about timing and volume nuances, which is where the music lives.

 

[debra]

Does owning a better brand / model will make you play better?
Yes and No

Yes
Some models have some advantages. On keys such as shallow key pushing distance. Better sound. Better response. A better instrument will motivate you to work on music more. You dont want to work on a rubbish condition instrument. So you must have a decent, working one at least.

No
Art is what YOU do, not the instrument does. Its your ability and your work, showing in the end. So having a better model will not change that. An instrument is a tool to express your ideas and feelings. No need to be obsessed about having a super famous model.

The most important part of your message is "A better instrument will motivate you to work on music more."
I'd say that the motivation is what makes you play better on a better accordion.
To play better you need to practice more, and the better accordion motivates you to do so.

What also helps is to hear a better player demonstrate what the accordion you already have can really do. That motivates you to achieve the same on your own accordion. There was a post here, long ago, by someone looking for a better accordion. He took his accordion for trade-in to a very reputable place. There an employee who was a very skilled player himself played the old accordion in order to determine a trade-in value. After hearing the skilled player the "buyer" decided to keep his old accordion and to try to get better on his old accordion because in the hands of a good player it sounded wonderful.
That said, owning a better accordion may make your playing sound better, without your playing itself being better. There are a few things that can really make a huge difference: better reeds, tuning and voicing, better construction perhaps also with cassotto if you like that and, a more silent keyboard, especially with less noise when you release keys... At a large accordion event a friend of mine and I got to experience a Pigini Sirius bayan as well as a Pigini Nova, side by side. While there was a small difference in sound (nothing that you would really notice if you heard just one of the two accordions) there was a noticeable difference in the tactile feel of the keyboard. So I'd say: a better keyboard (lighter and more silent) will improve how your playing goes, even though you may be playing the same. It's a bit like with playing grand pianos. I was fortunate to take piano lessons in a music school with quite a large number of pianos. I could practice on a (baby) grand piano which was quite heavy to the touch, and then perform in the concert hall on a grand piano with a lighter touch. It was surprising how much better I could play on the piano with the lighter touch than on the one with the heavier touch.

 

[JerryPH]

The answer is... it depends. If you are a begginer playing a Gola or Bravo will be the same. Once you mature as a musician and can feel the tiny differences even between different high end accordions you will gravitate towards one that makes you smile. That is where you will make your best music.

 

[OuijaBoard]

There is a hard dividing-line. And that is that the instrument must be playable, by that I mean, easily playable. It needn't have the responsiveness of the finest hand reeds or most rarefied premium build, but yes, it must be responsive in a basic bright-line sense. If you are struggling to move the chassis back and forth due to resistance caused by defective build or dilapidation, or struggling to get the reeds to sound due to cheap, trashy bad reeds, or struggling with the action because it is badly engineered . . . . not only does this make it likely the learner will abandon ship, it increases the likelihood of discomfort and tendon injury.

I live and work in a huge megalopolis with a huge population demographic, a small but significant subgroup of which, favors accordions. Bisonoric and PA. My work is near a long urban shopping street packed with shops selling cheap electronics, clothing, and other crap including ghastly, el-cheapo PAs and button accordions to naive low-income shoppers who want to play the accordion. I have tried some of these accordions and it is shocking how unplayable they are. Half the reeds won't sound, the chassis will not move back and for easily, the keyboard is painful to try to move along, etcetera. And even the small 26-keys cost like $700 or $800 bucks. Maybe more now post-COVID, not sure.

This is the hard dividing-line. People on this site turn up their noses at the Hohner Bravos and Weltmeisters but they are easily playable. That's not to say they won't need a tweak of some kind straight out of the box--but the fact is that this is also the case of new Italian accordions. A folk player who takes up accordion and is a diligent "improver" can reach virtuoso level on a Hohner Bravo or Weltmeister in good repair. There are professional folk players who use them to gig. You might dream of a higher-end Italian accordion and get yourself a side hustle or two to save up for one, and that is a very good thing. But you can play a quinceanera gig or a St. Patrick's day festival or a zydeco dance on a Weltmeister or Bravo and sound just great.

The sad and tragic thing is that they are so very expensive for what they are. It is tragic that a learner can purchase a very easily playable guitar for under $500, but the "entry-level" price for an easily playable PA is $1500 to $1700 for even a 26/48 Bravo or Weltmeister. People don't understand how very out of reach those prices are for so many who would love to play accordion. To many people a Weltmeister Perle or a Bravo II 48 is a luxury purchase.

 

[dak]

Does owning a better brand / model will make you play better?
Yes and No

Yes
Some models have some advantages. On keys such as shallow key pushing distance. Better sound. Better response. A better instrument will motivate you to work on music more. You dont want to work on a rubbish condition instrument. So you must have a decent, working one at least.

No
Art is what YOU do, not the instrument does. Its your ability and your work, showing in the end. So having a better model will not change that. An instrument is a tool to express your ideas and feelings. No need to be obsessed about having a super famous model.

Both your "Yes" and "No" arguments are in my book missing the point completely because they consider the player's skills as a static entity.

Have you heard deaf persons talk? They tend not to have the most pleasant of voices and the best pronunciation and that is because they are severely lacking direct feedback of their utterances. The real point of a really good instrument for practising is not that it sounds good, but that everything you do makes an audible difference. It can sound good, and comparatively minor improvements in your play will result in significant improvements of what you are hearing.

That gives an audible path forward in your work. If you give one learner an excellent instrument, and another one a mediocre instrument and let them work for a year, and then let them give concerts with the instruments swapped, chances are that the one playing concert on the mediocre instrument will make a more compelling rendition than the one playing concert on the excellent instrument. Because they know what they want to be hearing, they know how to get there, and they will fight the instrument that does not accommodate their desire all too well.

 

[murathan]

Both your "Yes" and "No" arguments are in my book missing the point completely because they consider the player's skills as a static entity.

Have you heard deaf persons talk? They tend not to have the most pleasant of voices and the best pronunciation and that is because they are severely lacking direct feedback of their utterances. The real point of a really good instrument for practising is not that it sounds good, but that everything you do makes an audible difference. It can sound good, and comparatively minor improvements in your play will result in significant improvements of what you are hearing.

That gives an audible path forward in your work. If you give one learner an excellent instrument, and another one a mediocre instrument and let them work for a year, and then let them give concerts with the instruments swapped, chances are that the one playing concert on the mediocre instrument will make a more compelling rendition than the one playing concert on the excellent instrument. Because they know what they want to be hearing, they know how to get there, and they will fight the instrument that does not accommodate their desire all too well.

Maybe not in accordion but it is argued by our professors otherwise in conservatory. You always start with mediocre instruments because you may harm an expensive instrument and most importantly you will not appreciate the quality of a high quality instrument and sound as a beginner. Now, if you fight for good sound in a bad instrument, you will be better on a good instrument. Because it is the player that creates music. It can be argued on accordion specially but general idea was that there.

 

[murathan]

The most important part of your message is "A better instrument will motivate you to work on music more."
I'd say that the motivation is what makes you play better on a better accordion.
To play better you need to practice more, and the better accordion motivates you to do so.

What also helps is to hear a better player demonstrate what the accordion you already have can really do. That motivates you to achieve the same on your own accordion. There was a post here, long ago, by someone looking for a better accordion. He took his accordion for trade-in to a very reputable place. There an employee who was a very skilled player himself played the old accordion in order to determine a trade-in value. After hearing the skilled player the "buyer" decided to keep his old accordion and to try to get better on his old accordion because in the hands of a good player it sounded wonderful.
That said, owning a better accordion may make your playing sound better, without your playing itself being better. There are a few things that can really make a huge difference: better reeds, tuning and voicing, better construction perhaps also with cassotto if you like that and, a more silent keyboard, especially with less noise when you release keys... At a large accordion event a friend of mine and I got to experience a Pigini Sirius bayan as well as a Pigini Nova, side by side. While there was a small difference in sound (nothing that you would really notice if you heard just one of the two accordions) there was a noticeable difference in the tactile feel of the keyboard. So I'd say: a better keyboard (lighter and more silent) will improve how your playing goes, even though you may be playing the same. It's a bit like with playing grand pianos. I was fortunate to take piano lessons in a music school with quite a large number of pianos. I could practice on a (baby) grand piano which was quite heavy to the touch, and then perform in the concert hall on a grand piano with a lighter touch. It was surprising how much better I could play on the piano with the lighter touch than on the one with the heavier touch.

I can add the working place acoustics to this argument. If you practice in a good acoustics place, almost every accordion will sound good at least. I can even make my Hohner bravo sing with adding software reverb to my video sounds. Just makes a concert hall effect. So the end result is not always the instrument only.

 

[dak]

Now, if you fight for good sound in a bad instrument, you will be better on a good instrument. Because it is the player that creates music. It can be argued on accordion specially but general idea was that there.

If it is the player that creates music, you don't need an instrument to practice. Just imagine how great you will play if you fought for good sound on a toothbrush.

I've played good and mediocre instruments. I don't buy the idea that the mediocre instruments are the better material for self-improvement.

If you apply your theory to bicycle racing, you should see the professionals train on heavy bicycles without gear shift. Because just imagine how that will prepare their legs to power through on a good bicycle.

Again: let one train for a year on a racing bike, and the other on a lame duck. And then take stock who is in better shape at the end, particularly when you let both of them race on identical bikes at the end, whether lame duck or racing bike or in-between.

 

[Dingo40]

And then take stock who is in better shape at the end, particularly when you let both of them race on identical bikes at the end, whether lame duck or racing bike or in-between.

Is this verified fact or simply speculation!
It reminds me a bit of the anecdote:
An NCO was before an officer cadet selection panel where a crusty old colonel put him the question, "what would you do if your unit was suddenly surrounded by a group of wild red Indians?"
The NCO replied, " Well sir, I'd call up a squadron of jet fighters and straffe the stuffing out of them!"
"Where would you find these jet fighters?" asked the colonel.
"The same place you got the Indians, sir!" replied the NCO.

 

[Tor]

The playable/non-playable divide is important, and I don't think there's any reasonable dispute over that.  Past that, it becomes much murkier.  IMHO, "playable" on an accordion means one register on each treble and bass working well enough to not grate one one's ear and all common keys and buttons working properly.

I have had three accordions.  First, a new Chinese Cotati 3/4 72 bass.  It was, IMHO, a perfectly satisfactory starter instrument that served me well.  All the notes played and the keyboard and buttons worked.  Sometimes I wished I had more range, but it was still more instrument than I had skill for a long time.

Second, a (I'm quite sure) older Italian 2/4 120 bass.  Played nicely when I got it, was in better tune, and I liked having a bass register.  I missed having the third reed bank on the treble, though, but I was well served by it and it got me to the point where, when I was gifted some money, I chose to buy a very good accordion.  This one I still have, and want to restore, mostly because I want to gain the experience on an instrument I can afford to make mistakes on, and it has enough sentimental value and, I believe, intrinsic quality to be more or less worth the materials cost.

Third, is the Siwa and Figli 4/5 120 bass I play.  Again more instrument than my skill, but I enjoy playing it.  Would I play if all i had were my original Cotati?  Yes, I'm sure I would, though, being mechanically apt and now knowing a good instrument I'm sure I would improve it.


Would I recommend getting a high end instrument to a newcomer?  No, with a caveat.  If you can afford to permanently part with a thousand dollars on an instrument for a trial, I'd consider getting a good older Italian instrument that has had all early depreciation long in the past, figuring the remainder of the cost should be recoverable selling it later.

 

[dak]

As a simple example regarding expressivity: how do you even practice coming from and fading into nothing if your accordion reeds don't consistently respond on a breath and your bellows isn't tight? How do you practice leaning into a note when the sound is not enjoyable?

 

[JeffJetton]

There's the famous case of pianist Keith Jarrett showing up for a concert where there was a mix-up over the piano. Instead of the particular concert grand he specifically requested, they wound up giving him a baby grand that was really just meant to be used for rehearsals. A technician worked on it for hours just to get it as playable as possible, but it was still in pretty bad shape and the pedals didn't even work correctly.

Jarrett at first refused to go on, but eventually gave in. It was a completely improvised concert, so he adjusted his playing to fit the shortcomings of the instrument, emphasizing the aspects of the piano that sounded good and avoiding the ones that didn't.

The evening was recorded, and the result--The Köln Concert--wound up becoming the best-selling piano album in history and among the best-selling jazz albums in general.

A great instrument won't make a poor musician sound good, but a great musician can sometimes make good music on a poor instrument.

 

[dak]

A great instrument won't make a poor musician sound good, but a great musician can sometimes make good music on a poor instrument.

Again this focus on an instrument as an exclusive performance tool, with the quality of a musician considered to be completely independent of the instrument they happen to be practising on.

Just imagine how great Keith Jarret may have played that concert had he never got to touch a good grand piano in his life!

 

[murathan]

dak says technology solves everything. I wasnt thought like that but probably true.

 

[dak]

dak says technology solves everything. I wasnt thought like that but probably true.

Well, I don't think that all your paraphrases need is a better typewriter. Try actually quoting me for a better chance at reflecting my meaning.

 

[Ignacchitti]

A lot of great ideas in the thread already, so instead of repeating any of it I will just add one simple notion: part of what we (players and audience) enjoy is the tonal qualities of what we hear, and some particular instruments/models are capable of producing very interesting and pleasant timbres, others not so much. Sometimes I hear a particular accordion music recording and what I enjoy the most is the timbre of that model, forgetting the music that is being played with it for a while. When we say "That person sings so well" we are not just talking about their technique and ability, but sometimes we are also simply referring to their particular voice. I may study and practice and take care of my voice but I will never sound like I have Frank Sinatra's vocal chords and all that's around them, or Art Garfunkel's angelic timbre. They can sing a crappy tune on a bad day and in a sense I would still enjoy it.

 

[murathan]

Art is also about suiting things. A bad voice can suit very well to a song. A bad actor can act perfectly in a comedy movie about acting bad for example. There are many examples of these. Sound also need rendering through some devices or software since maybe 1910's. So we dont actually hear the real thing. Its an illusion actually when we see the singer singing in a video. A street beggar could play a single song very successfully on a rubbish accordion at its own context and ambiance. So these all lead to technology (or technique) in a way. If there were no technology, we couldnt even drink water. There may have been ancient methods to purify water but that doesnt change it is a technique.

What I also want to add here is we are at the back of the instrument so we are not in the same position with a listener, especially for accordion.

 

[dak]

A bad actor can act perfectly in a comedy movie about acting bad for example.

At the risk of being contrarian: that's what bad actors want you to believe. In reality, movies have a plot, they have pacing, they have development including character development, and a comedy movie in particular has to take its audience along at a speed commensurate with their attention span. The "bad acting" cannot be all over the place but has to be focused.

As an example, the movie "Ed Wood" about a third-rate director including his relation to a morphine-addicted has-been horror star was not made by a third-rate director and a morphine-addicted has-been horror star (Martin Landau's performance as Bela Lugosi is heartbreaking and touching and deservedly got an Academy Award), and it was watchable while bringing across how unwatchable movies originated.

Entertainment isn't even easy when you are trying to entertain by channeling a bad entertainer.