5-Row CBA technique

[Waldo]

Back in the saddle again,,,

One of my last posts included the question “ What is the best technique for learning the treble side of the 5-Row CBA?”
The several responses suggested learning to play competently on the outer 3 rows first, and then branching out to the two inner rows later. I followed this advice for the next 8-9 months, but, I now question this approach.
I learned 25-30 tunes, using only the 3 outer [away from the bellows] rows, awkward fingering and all. And then, while struggling with a particularly difficult fingering, I noticed the “sympathetic” button [the one that moves without being pressed], of the button I was leaving, was adjacent to the button I was going to. Problem solved!
I then discovered [I don’t have a teacher] that any 3 adjacent rows, were the same as any other 3 adjacent rows, pitch wise.
So, I reasoned, it would be better to use the center 3 rows [2,3&4] as my “home” rows, moving to the two remaining rows [1&5] to pick up the desired pitches when convenient to the fingering. I began to play in this fashion and discovered that most of the fingering difficulties disappeared [I did have to re-learn the fingering of my 25-30 songs]. I also discovered that the transferable nature of the fingering patterns [scales, etc.] remains unchanged.
I then went on U-tube and paid particular attention to the various player’s use [or lack of use] of all the available rows. What I discovered was that quite a few [30-40%] of the 5-row CBA players [mostly Germans & Russians] only used the 3 outer rows of the 5 available. About 10% played primarily on the outer 3 rows, with occasional use of the 4th row. The remainder used all 5 rows. Many of these people are excellent players and some were professional musicians.
This got me to thinking…….Do the former players stick to the 3 outer rows because they used the 3 row learning method vs. learning to use all 5 rows to begin with? Do they not realize the benefits that the extra rows were added for? Were they just lazy?
And now to my question: Just what is the justification for the 3-row only learning approach?
The only reason I could think of is for the student, in the future, to be able to play a 3-row CBA, a 4-row CBA and a 5-row CBA with equal competency.
It doesn’t make a lot of sense to me to play a 5-row anything and only use 3 of the 5 available rows. Why not play a lighter, less complicated 3 or 4-row? Also, if I only own a 5-row, and never intend nor expect to use a 3 or 4-row, why not learn from the center 3 rows instead of from the outer 3 rows?
Any input on this subject would be appreciated by me and doubtless useful for others new to this sport.
WaldoW

 

[Deleted member 48]

Your idea of using the center rows (2, 3 and 4) of the 5 rows CBA is something I also tried. It gives you 3 rows to play, the middle or center rows, plus 2 helper rows.

The French 4 row system was also 3 rows to play on, plus one helper repeat row.

CBA is a very flexible system.

 

[TomBR]

If you want to use the famous "same fingering transposition" benefit of the 5-row, you have to stick to three rows.

As to awkward fingering, in my six months of playing CBA and sticking to three rows I've found that in almost every case an awkward fingering meant I wasn't using the best options, so it was worth hunting.

Both for reading music and for playing by ear, and in both cases crucially playing without looking at the keyboard, I've found that sticking to three rows gives greater certainty, accuracy, and sense of "where I am."

Taking one specific example, I think it's important to learn to do some things that feel a bit awkward at first, like playing with fingers 2 and 4 on the third row in while finger 3 is on the outer row. (Thumb as no 1.) That soon improves.
Cheers
Tom

 

[Waldo]

I forgot to mention the additional benefit of forming the chords with the tonic on one of the middle 3 rows [always the same form]. Also, the patterns used for following a 12 bar blues construct is much easier and transfers all over the button board.

TomBR; First Ppg. Are you saying that tunes must be learned on the outer 3 rows in order to be transposable to other keys while maintaining the same fingering?
Second Ppg; It was this very situation that sent me hunting, and discovering the subject matter for my question.
Third Ppg; I too, felt "lost" at times at first, until I became more familar with the full 5-row layout. I am now much more confident and competent with the use of the whole board. I believe it was just a lack of initial familiarity.
Fourth; When faced with such finger gymnastics, have you looked to the other rows for an easier approach, or just endured the restrictions of the 3-row?

My question remains; What is the justification for the 3-row intro to the 5-row CBA?

As Stepehn said, The CBA is a very flexible system

 

[TomBR]

TomBR; First Ppg. Are you saying that tunes must be learned on the outer 3 rows in order to be transposable to other keys while maintaining the same fingering?

Certainly not saying the first three rows, any three will do. If you centre on the middle three I can see the benefit of just going one in or one out.

Second Ppg; It was this very situation that sent me hunting, and discovering the subject matter for my question.
Third Ppg; I too, felt lost at times at first, until I became more familar with the full 5-row layout. I am now much more confident and competent with the use of the whole board. I believe it was just a lack of initial familiarity.
Fourth; When faced with such finger gymnastics, have you looked to the other rows for an easier approach, or just endured the restrictions of the 3-row?

I dont see the fork I mentioned, fingers 2 and 4 out, 3 back in as finger gymnastics more as a skill thats going to be needed sometimes and is worth practicing.

To my mind its a matter of the shape of the learning curve. The system is 100% functional with just three rows. I want to learn the technique needed to play on three rows, including the things that feel a bit awkward at first, rather than starting with the short cuts.

I guess one factor in my approach is that I like restoring and refurbishing older instruments, I want to be able to play three and four row boxes. I very much fancy the idea of a modern diatonic-sized three row such as those made by Bernard Loffet.

Obviously different people have different approaches to this very flexible system. I think some of the converters from PA on this forum have gone straight for a five row approach, and Ive heard suggestions that that tends to be the way for Scottish CBA players.
Cheers
Tom

 

[debra]

Alexander Skliarov won the "Coupe Mondiale" many years ago, playing on a 3 row bayan.
I started out on 3 rows, learning to play at least scales and basic chords first on 3 rows.
I now regularly use the 4th row and occasionally the 5th row. For some things it is a lot easier using at least the 4th row.
I also play the accordina which has only 3 rows and I do experience how awkward the fingering can be when you only have 3 rows. I still believe that first getting a basis with scales and chords on 3 rows is a good approach. I do use all rows now, but when I am playing a "run" that is like a scale I tend to do it at least mostly on just the first 3 rows.

 

[dunlustin]

Ferrero’s ‘Méthode’ insists a serious student should use just three rows until technique is impeccable. You must avoid the easy way out!
This could be explained as follows:
‘I only had three rows and it did me no harm.’

On CBA it seems pretty standard for the 4th row to be brought in early on these days - choice is a good thing. Those alternatives are very much part of the CBA.
I use all 5 rows but recognise that 4 rows pretty much covers it. A big plus for me is that chord shapes are constant. This means that given the root I know where to find the minor 3rd/major 3rd/5th/flat 7th.
So to explain the 3 row doctrine, I offer two French proverbs:
‘Qui peut le plus peut le moins’ or ‘If you can do hard you can do easy.’
And
‘Il faut souffrir pour être belle’ or ‘One must suffer to be beautiful.’
I don’t hold with either of them.

 

[Deleted member 48]

The center rows as the home rows or basic position is a theory and practice worthy of trying.
I did this for fun, because I like to experiment.
The 2-3-4 middle rows as a comfort zone. And one escape row above, plus one escape row under.

I do think it is very useful to learn the 3 scales fingerings on just 3 rows.
As said here, you learn to overcome difficult passages.

But DIY learners are free to experiment.
Eg you could also take the 3-4-5 rows as home rows, plus two helper or escape rows under.

"great Scotch, no rules "

It is not impossible other accordionists tried this technique, maybe even teachers. But I don't know of a tutor.

 

[losthobos]

I tried teaching myself and it was a mess....later I followed Medard Ferreros method and improved on the three rows mostly because he rammed home the importance of working off of chord shapes....once you have an understanding of these shapes within a tune then you will find your fingerings will move in accordance with the chordal direction the melody takes...i had a five row originally but now play 4 rows...thats plenty enough to do what you want allowing you to get out of tight spots and also not get to lost in a myriad of options...

 

[Waldo]

As expected, a bunch of excellent responses. There are several thoughts I’d like to address.
1) I agree with the supposition that there is benefit to starting out on only the outside 3 rows. I did so and have carried those skills [scales] over to the 2-3-4-Home. The 3 scale patterns required for all the scales on a 3-row, are also useful on the 2-3-4-Home approach. I have found my competence on the 3-rows remains.
2) My experience [limited] with the move to 2-3-4 is that I tend to revert to [or at least trend towards] rows 1-2-3 for tunes I learned there. This suggests that, and supports the assumption that, 1-2-3 learners [read; Me] will remain 1-2-3 players, unless a concerted effort is made to incorporate the additional rows once said competence is achieved.
3) TomBR’s post lends credence to the idea that “learning the outer 3 rows first” approach supports future use of different [3 & 4 row] instruments.
4) With respect to Ferrero’s ‘Méthode’, what can I add, he’s French.
5) Losthobos; I started out self-learning [that is, “by ear”], as well. While I don’t view the results as a mess [more on this later], I have added Anzaghi to my “classroom”. A major goal in my learning curve is to be able to improvise. By “improvise” I mean being able to pick up an accordion, join a Jam session that is playing almost any genre, and be able to contribute, musically, to the experience. I felt that learning to play from “the dots” would be restrictive in as much as the student becomes reliant on “the dots” to know where to go next [This is confirmed by posts by experienced musicians who learned “by the dots”, and now lament their lack of creativity without printed music]. I find that, having begun without that sort of structure, I have a certain lack of structure in my playing that gives me “permission” to go elsewhere on the button board. This is what I mean by “improvisation”. I am still a LONG way from my goal, but I believe it was my having to hunt amongst the buttons to find the pitch I wanted that gave me this freedom. I’m not knocking the dots, far from it, as they are my next hurdle. What I DO believe, is that there is a benefit to starting out cold, at least on the right side. Said another way: There is GOOD found in that mess! There may, however, be some bad habits to overcome in the future, we will see. So far, so good.
6) Lastly, a comment on Anzaghi. I bought this tome [215 pages] mostly because it’s the only CBA-C tutor available in English. I use the term English loosely, because he seems to have been educated in Shakespeare’s time. Many passages require several re-reads in order to understand what he means. The book is mostly “sheet music” of exercises [thus my next hurdle], accompanied by verbal and pictorial explanations. There are also some tunes included that incorporate the lessons learned to help reduce the boredom of scales.
So far I have been happy with it, mostly because it provides a compilation of fingering exercises that are common to the actual playing of music. I am also picking up on the dots because I follow/play along the staff, even though the exercises are repetitive (duh!). All in all, I recommend Anzaghi for beginner/intermediate players [CBA and PA], perhaps even advanced.
BOTTOM LINE: I'm sticking with the 2-3-4-Home approach. I'll report on back on its efficacy.
Thanks for everyone's input,
WaldoW

 

[Anyanka]

I taught myself, and have played across all 5 rows from the beginning. In my opinion, not using the two 'extra' rows negates the biggest benefit of the CBA, i.e. the fact that it allows the most comfortable hand position. I'll play the G, for example, on the 2nd row if it occurs at the beginning of a phrase, but on the 5th row if it occurs in the middle of a run of notes. I probably use the top rows more than the bottom rows, because that's where my three long fingers go comfortably.

I find that I can transpose tunes without problem anyway, because I seem to play in intervals rather than patterns or note shapes... I also have a 3-row accordion for Morris purposes, and find that when I transfer tunes from one box to another, I immediately change the fingering, even when going from 3 to 5 row where I could just stick with it...

In my opinion, the approach you use has to depend on your personal learning style: mine is intuitive, rather than methodical/analytical.

 

[maugein96]

If you wrote a book about how to play the penny whistle, sooner or later somebody would disagree with you, and it would only be a matter of time before somebody else wrote an "improved" version.

Most of us on here learn to play CBA in countries where the instrument isn't very popular, and as such we seem to be obsessed with arguing the toss about which finger should go where. It's a bit like people on flight simulators who would really love to be shown the correct way to do everything, but would never live long enough to learn it all.

All I can say is try to watch players at all levels playing whatever button system you choose, and watch what they are doing. Some of the really big name French recording players developed their own styles, some after many years of formal tuition. Guys like Aimable Plouchard rarely used any but their three middle fingers on C system, but I would never have approached him and said "I don't agree with the fingering you are using". OK not many people these days will have heard of him, but he literally sold millions of records in the days when the accordion was still very popular in France. He was literally "one in a million", yet his fingering technique would be condemned these days, by the purists who think there is only one way to do things.

Just my 2 cents worth, as usual.

 

[Waldo]

Always in need of more money.

 

[stickista]

Forgive me for kickstarting this thread, but it’s an interesting topic, and I notice one thing left unsaid...

In composing and improvisation, becoming a slave to motor patterns that your hands are comfortable with are a death knell. The last thing you want is to be writing/improvising lines that are the same in every key center. On isomorphic instruments such as 5 row CBA, that is really easy to do. It’s the dark flip side of the ease of transposition.
Stephen Sondheim and others make a point of deliberately composing in unfamiliar keys on piano so that they are forced to break away from the patterns their hands are comfortable with.
On CBA we don’t have 12 different topologies, but at least have 3. 
It’s important to take advantage of them in service of musicality. 
It’s a feature, not a bug.

 

[maugein96]

Forgive me for kickstarting this thread, but it’s an interesting topic, and I notice one thing left unsaid...

In composing and improvisation, becoming a slave to motor patterns that your hands are comfortable with are a death knell. The last thing you want is to be writing/improvising lines that are the same in every key center. On isomorphic instruments such as 5 row CBA, that is really easy to do. It’s the dark flip side of the ease of transposition.
Stephen Sondheim and others make a point of deliberately composing in unfamiliar keys on piano so that they are forced to break away from the patterns their hands are comfortable with.
On CBA we don’t have 12 different topologies, but at least have 3. 
It’s important to take advantage of them in service of musicality. 
It’s a feature, not a bug.

Don't know where you are based, but the issue is that there is no country in the English speaking world where CBA in any form is the most popular type of instrument. 

In those same English speaking countries when you do come across a CBA, chances are it will be a 5 row. The selling point of such accordions is that they are easy to play by virtue of the fact that the same fingering is valid for all scales. 

In Scotland, where I'm originally from, CBA was relatively popular for a while, and such tutor books that were available advocated use of all 5 rows from the outset. The theory was that you have 5 rows of buttons so why not use them all? 

Many Scottish players became professionals on CBA using all 5 rows, and would never have considered playing any other way.


At the opposite end of the spectrum almost all CBA accordions in Russian popular music only have three rows. A fair number of such instruments have bass converters fitted as standard, and all sorts of music is played on them. The technically minded will tell us that with B system there is less requirement for repeat rows, so what is the issue? Should we all just play B system, as it makes more economical use of the number of buttons required?

France is unusual in that the most common type of accordion is 4 row CBA. The early musette repertoire was played on diatonic 3 row instruments, and when the conversion began to CBA, 4 and 5 row instruments started to appear. 


For many years most French accordion teachers persisted in teaching pupils to stay on the outer 3 rows of 4 and 5 row instruments, with the theory being that pupils would achieve greater strength and flexibility in the fingers. Only when the pupil was deemed to have built up a solid right hand technique on three rows, was the 4th row introduced. Players who were taught by that method simply did not require a 5th row at all, as they had learned the entire technique on 4 rows. 

The choice of learning method is almost always dictated by where the student is based, and the only correct method is the one that is available to them. I wanted to play French musette accordion the "proper" French way, so I turned my back on 5 row accordions and their fingering options. There was no teacher for that system, and it was nigh on impossible to make decent progress at times. 

Had I just accepted the fact that a 5 row would have given me scope to use a teacher then I reckon I would have had a lot more success in developing into a decent player. 


We've all heard great players on every kind of accordion imaginable. If you watch a wizard Bulgarian PA player hammering out fast kolos, the last thing that's going to be on his mind is "Should I really be playing a CBA?" or "I don't think I'm putting my fingers down correctly on the keys".


Just my 2 groats (old Scottish coin) worth.

 

[Jim2010]

I think it is worth repeating what has already been said: You can only use the same fingering for a given piece of music in all 12 keys on the 5-row CBA if you "limit" the fingering to 3 rows.

For example, if you can play a piece of music that starts on the first row and uses only the first three rows, you can use the same fingering starting on the second row or third row. That means you can play in all 12 keys with the same fingering.

If that same piece of music were to require 4 rows to play, you could only use the same fingering starting on the second row, not the third (because there is no sixth row). If it were to require 5 rows to play, you could only play it starting on the first row.

One way of thinking about four or five row accordions vs "just" three row accordions is that the "extra" rows offer alternate fingering possibilities for individual pieces that allow for a better sounding performance. Many instruments offer alternate fingerings, so this in not unique to accordions.

Each of us has different aspirations when it comes to musical performance. To those who foresee the need or desire to play in all keys "on demand" (accompanying singers, playing with other musicians), the 3-row approach is an absolute necessity. A soloist can play any way they wish because they have the luxury of not having to transpose or improvise to meet the needs of others. Even if a person's aim is simply to accompany songs at the occasional party, being able to transpose a piece up or down to accommodate the higher or lower voices is a nice thing to be able to do. Ideally, that would necessitate a three row approach, but a four row approach would still make it possible to play in 8 of the 12 keys with the same fingering (but never D, F, Ab, or B).

 

[Dingo40]

This is, like the three-row thread, another fascinating discussion!

Although, it does leave me feeling a bit like the six-year old boy who, having just been subjected to his first parental lecture on the subject of "the birds and bees" simply sighed sadly and said, "It all sounds so complicated, I don't think I'll ever be able to do it!"

But, seriously, it confirms my impression that CBA is more akin to guitar in general playing structure, and PA to piano and keyboard ( of course )

The sheer availability  of choices of fingering ( and, hence, the constant need to make instant choices) would appear to me to make CBA that much harder to master :huh:

 

[Deleted member 48]

I play both systems, a 5 rows CBA and a 3 rows CBA. 

The 5 rows provides more fingering options and more ergonomic solutions for the hand and wrist. 

But if an accordionist feels the instant decision between multiple options is complex, there is also the option to play 2 rows wholetone accordion, like the 6+6 Beyreuther accordion or uniform wholetone layout. 
Or a 3 rows wholetone 6+6 plus one repeat row. The Juan Caramuel y Lobkowitz layout from circa 1654.

Or a 1 row CBA with a regular half tone interval between the buttons. But this would be an ergonomical nightmare I think. The fingerspread being immensely wide in large intervals. On paper a uniform layout, but impossible to finger. Automatic transposition with same fingering in every music key, but impossible to play the instrument. 

I prefer the 5 rows, for me this is the easiest to play.

 

[maugein96]

This is, like the three-row thread, another fascinating discussion!

Although, it does leave me feeling a bit like the six-year old boy who, having just been subjected to his first parental lecture on the subject of the birds and bees simply sighed sadly and said, It sounds too complicated, I dont think Ill ever be able to do it!

But, seriously, it confirms my impression that CBA is more akin to guitar in general playing structure, and PA to piano and keyboard ( of course )

The sheer availability  of choices of fingering would appear to me to make CBC that much harder to master :huh:

Dingo,

A C system 5 row CBA gives the player the option to play all notes of a scale except B,D,F and Ab, in two different positions. 

A 4 row C system CBA only gives the player the option to play C,Eb,F#, and A in two different positions. 

3 row offers no scope at all to play alternative buttons, and that is why it was used to teach beginners. The student must learn to play in the same manner as a PA pupil with no scope for alternative fingering.  

The only reason 4 row was popularised in France was to assist players to avoid what they call [font=Tahoma,Verdana,Arial,Sans-Serif]doigts fourchus or forked fingers, with players being encouraged to use the 4th row, usually to make chords easier to play. All of the simple major and minor chords can be comfortably played on 4 rows, without the awkward fingering required on a 3 row. [/font]

The French system is pretty unique in the accordion world, and I wish I had an Australian dollar for every time I have heard it described as inferior and old fashioned. 

All I can say is however awkward and limited it may appear, I still dont believe that any other country in the world will have had as many hit parade accordion tunes as they had when the accordion was in its heyday. 

These days my musical tastes are pretty eclectic, but French musette was the reason I became interested in playing, and the accordion of choice for that genre is the C system CBA. 4 rows is all Id ever need, as thats the way I learned it.

 

[Dingo40]

Thanks Stephen and John for elaborating further!
It must work as there are so many skilled exponents .
I guess, for anyone thinking of taking up the CBA, the four row C system is the way to go?