March Hare

Thank you Little John, that's brilliant. It sent me back to my keyboard chart of (rough) measurements of the early Wheatstone. I went through all 12 major keys note by note and recorded the spread of differences (0, -1, +1 etc) for each one. C, Eb, E, G. look like the 'best' keys (range of 1). D, F, A, Bb may be 'OK' keys (range of 2). C#, F#, Ab, B look worst (range of 3). Now, picking up the concertina, playing in the best keys sounds nice, for tunes and chords. The OK keys also sound fine, tunes and chords. Song accompaniments work very well in all these keys for me. For the worst keys, C#, F#, Ab, B, at least one of the three major chords in that key is unusable - so these keys are ruled out. (I can't play fluently in these keys anyway and I don't use them for songs.) So my empirical data (rough as it is) fits your 'eight good keys' exactly, and my (amateur) ear confirms this. Nothing earth-shattering here, but it does seem to work. Thanks again - it pleases me. And I have learned a lot from this. PS. And I take your point that I may be in danger of being drawn into meantone tuning.......

LHS RHS D D# C C# 0 -2 0 -2 Bb B Ab A +1 -1 +1 -1 G G# F F# 0 -2 0 -1 Eb E D# D +1 -1 -2 0 C C# 0 -2 I hope that this is the same, but the display (desktop, iPad etc) can alter the spacing.

I hope this is clearer.

The layout diagram is attached below:

I just bought a Wheatstone EC treble which is in its original tuning from 1849 (see my earlier post and image). After all these years of not understanding the purpose of the extra accidentals, temperament etc, just playing it gave me an inkling of how brilliant yet simple the design is. I will try to share what I think I have grasped so far. Please forgive mistakes, approximations etc - it’s a tricky and controversial topic - but I’ll have a go. It seems to be all about the thirds...... 1. My starting ideas: Pure (just) tuning is based on whole-number ratios of frequencies eg. if A4 is 440Hz then A5 is 880Hz and is an octave higher. E5 is a pure fifth above A4, ratio 3:2 so E5 is 660Hz. C# is a pure third above A4, ratio 5:4 so C# is 550Hz. If you play these three notes together you hear an A major chord with pure intervals. so the chord sounds sweet. I have lived with equal temperament all my life - but now that I have a concertina playing pure thirds I can hear the difference. 2. With my treble EC in my hands, I will focus on the range from C4 to B4 (12 notes, each a semitone from the next, ie C, C#, D, D# etc): Middle C (C4, lowest C on the LH by the thumbstrap) is 261.63Hz. Then C5 is 523.26Hz (doubled). G4 should be 3/2 x 261.63 = 392.45Hz and E4 should be 327.04Hz for pure intervals. My early Wheatstone is tuned like this, as far as I can tell. On my ET treble, G4 is 392.00Hz (so that’s near enough) BUT: in ET E4 is 329.63Hz - quite a bit sharper. Rounding off the numbers, it is the third that is sharp/out of tune in ET: ET PURE C4 262 262 E4 330 327 G4 392 392 (You can buy a 10-hole harmonica or blues harp in ET or pure tuning, so there is lots of discussion online about how they might sound different.) 3. So why not tune E4 to give a pure major third? Yes, you can do that. But you get into trouble if you continue the pattern. From C to E is four semitone steps. So a major third (four semitones) above E4 is G#. This should be 5/4 x 327.04 = 408.8Hz. Then another 4 semitones completes the octave to C5: 5/4 x 408.8 = 511Hz. For an octave this should be 523Hz (see above). So three pure major thirds do not equal an octave. The octave has to be pure, so you have to do something about the thirds. 4. Charles Wheatstone’s wonderful design solves this problem so neatly. From C4 to B4 you need 12 buttons (C, C#, D, D# and so on to B). The EC keyboard has 14, so only two spares. Start on C4, then major third to E4, then major third to G# - all pure. Now, swap sides and play Ab4 to C5 - this can also be pure because Ab is sharper than G#. If you start at C5, 523.26 x 4/5 makes Ab5 418.26Hz. So these major thirds and the octave are pure. Another good outcome is that if you play any note, then the major third above it is always on the same side of the instrument, so you can always use two fingers of one hand. Now start on B3: B to D#, swap sides for Eb to G, then G to B. All pure. Every note has a pure major third above it except for : C# (there is no E#) and F# (there is no A#). So with this beautifully simple keyboard and only two spare buttons per octave, the great man gives us ten pure major thirds out of twelve, which means ten out of twelve pure major chords: C, D, Eb, E, F, G, Ab, A, Bb, B. Compare this with a concertina in equal temperament, where every major third and every major chord is slightly out of tune. Personally I have always been happy with ET, as I grew up with it, I’m old, my ear isn’t that good, and would never change my Edeophone. But that isn’t the point. I am just trying to understand the layout. 5. I have made some very simple measurements to put on a diagram (attached). My phone has a tuning app which names the note it hears and has a scale in semitones. I believe that a major third in ET is 1/7 of a semitone wider than a pure third. So I can estimate from my app how many 1/7ths sharp or flat a note is compared with ET. If the note is 1/7 sharp I have marked it +1, or -1 for 1/7 flat etc. These are my rough measurements (in 1/7 semitones). Bear in mind that the instrument has probably not been tuned for a century or so and I am correcting for it all being in high pitch. (See layout diagram) All the major thirds are reduced by 1/7 of a semitone (except for the F# and C# as explained above) to make them pure. All of the octaves are pure and most of the fifths are pure. And all this on a superbly logical keyboard with only two spare buttons per octave. 6. Thank you for your patience (if anyone has read this) and please forgive my errors. I hope that it is of interest to someone - I get a lot of pleasure and insight from reading the posts on this excellent forum. PS. If anyone would like me to post a recording of the thirds and chords I am happy to do that.

At a recent festival I bought a Wheatstone 40 key treble number 1332. Not a great rarity I know, but I was very pleased to get it. Sold in 1847 to Cramer and Co (a music shop in Regent Street opposite Conduit Street, so very close to Wheatstones) according to the Wayne ledger. The thumbstraps were broken and there was a big split in the bellows so I expected it to be in a bad state. There was evidence of previous patching with leather and gummed tape. However, when I opened it up it was quite clean inside and the bellows could be fixed with glue and fine-weave linen cloth over the broken kid-leather hinges. The thumbstraps were strengthened with linen to make it playable. It appears to be totally original - pads, valves etc and the reeds untouched since it was made. Tuning is as expected - what I take to be high-pitch and meantone (?). Just two reeds in total needed to be sharpened a touch to bring them into tune with their reversals and octaves. Not a flashy concertina, but the features are in line with similar ones in the Concertina Museum (green leather bellows with silk on base, nickel reeds in square-ended brass shoes etc). Even after nearly 200 years it plays very well and sounds lovely - any faults in my recording (below) are mine, not the instrument. The pine baffles are very close to the fretwork but the sound is loud, resonant and full (no edginess or brashness) and quite uniform across the instrument. I don’t mean to overrate it - I’m not selling my Edeophone just yet. But I have not heard an instrument of this age and set-up before, so it is a pleasure for me to experience. Bold Grenadier.m4a PS. All my ECs have always been in equal temperament - that’s fine for me. Now I have an EC in my hands in meantone, I understand how the genius Charles Wheatstone could make the major thirds pure (all except two) without the player having to think about it - a beautiful and elegant layout. What a man. Thanks for reading, March

...or very early Italian concertina....? https://www.the-saleroom.com/en-gb/auction-catalogues/the-swan-at-tetsworth/catalogue-id-srsw10193/lot-9df0f737-7bb8-408d-bf00-b18f016577b5?utm_source=sr-trigger&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=browsedlots-testd&utm_term=20240617&utm_content=clerk-recommendations-lot9&clerk_product=9df0f737-7bb8-408d-bf00-b18f016577b5&clerk_labels=tsr+browse+keywords+10+lots+new+design&clerk_api=recommendations*keywords&clerk_n=9&clerk_external=1&clerk_email=gaaaaabmccn5ogcxyrrf-p9qdryvtvxhpjrh3hwmas26rdyzoanvtrap1hby3zwevoce8-bhppfcly0pfvsjich7bnwvu5tujwczkqhdj7tbncle_l8gt_0%3d

Thank you Ken - I have been using your brilliant idea since I read your article in 2000 - so that is a quarter of a century. I had some more lessons recently and changed my LH chord playing, so the shape of the foam was altered to suit and the straps adjusted. It's a gift that keeps on giving. For a touch of luxury I sometimes cover the foam with thin, soft black leather. What a great forum for sharing ideas.

Hi Latzenpratz, Here's a tip I got from con.net years ago that works for me. As an anglo player with long fingers I use foam pipe insulation (cheap, comfortable, easy to cut etc). Just cut one piece the length of your handset. Then split it lengthways (like a bun for a hot dog). Put one on each handset. Then adjust your straps as you need. (You may need to lengthen yours with cord, leather strip, string or whatever.) If they feel good then put a bit of double sided tape between foam and handrest. (Personally, my middle fingers are long but my fifth fingers are not, so I slope my foam pieces to give the full thickness at the thumb end, and very little thickness at the little finger end. This foam is very easy to work with, and so cheap that you can try different styles. Surprisingly long-lasting, though.) Hope this is helpful.

Thank you for your message Karen. Sorry but the Dickinson is sold - I should have amended the title. I hope you find a nice instrument. Best wishes, March

Thank you - that's brilliant. And very sweet playing too.

May I say 4to5to6 that you have made a great job of fitting your felt - tidier that I can manage - but a pity that it didn't solve your problem. And it looks like a wonderful instrument. I enjoyed your other suggestions for absorbing the sound, particularly the rugged industrial ones. Some of my songs work best with a Bb treble EC - and I have a nice metal-ended 1960s Crabb rebuild using a great set of 1920s Wheatstone reeds. However the sound is a bit too robust for my voice. I tried playing it inside a pair of thick corduroy trousers and it worked very well. Ideal, except that I wasn't brave enough to go the club to sing like that. It really does look a bit bizarre, as you will know if you have tried it. And when you stand up the slightly worn and shiny seat of the pants catches the light, which is unbecoming and a bit distracting for listeners. So I made a pair of external baffles from two layers of felt and thin leather edging. When I sang out recently I was very pleased with the effect on the sound, and no-one made any remarks about the concertina in its garb. I am getting quite used to the look. The baffles just slide off so very quick to remove - but I keep them on anyway as I like the mellower sound. Whether or not this would placate family and neighbours when practising late at night I couldn't say. But I can revert to the trousers in the privacy of my own home.

Ah yes - sorry - Planxty Irwin (as you all know). Lapsed viola player - same tuning as cello. Thank you Wolf - working at the Bach was a lockdown project. Bach solo cello on EC deserves a new thread - (perhaps there already is one). And thanks for all the positive comments - it is a lovely concertina.

Plenty Irwin, Bach Sarabande, Bach Gigue.

A couple of rough and ready recordings. Planxty Irwin.m4a Bach Sarabande.m4a Bach Gigue.m4a