Consistency Of Nomenclature For Hayden Duets

[rlgph]

I've been interested in the Hayden duet system for about two years, and have become mildly annoyed at the inconsistency of terminology applied to such concertinas -- e.g., using "Hayden" and "Wicki" to distinguish concertinas with keyboard "slants" or not, surely among the least important characteristics of the system. I suggest that now (with the number of players and models still small) is a good time to agree upon a common nomenclature going forward. So, at the risk of taking a batch of criticism, i suggest the following first draft of a common terminology for Hayden system concertinas:

 

1. The isomorphic arrangement of buttons originally discovered by Caspar Wicki and rediscovered by Brian Hayden should be called the "Wicki-Hayden layout" to honor both men. This should apply to both ascending and descending arrangements, to keyboards with or without the slant, and keyboards with the usual strict hexagonal arrangement or not, so long as the Wicki isomorphic character is maintained.

 

2. A concertina that uses a Wicki-Hayden layout on both sides should be termed a "Hayden duet" or "Hayden concertina", in recognition of the fact that such concertinas exist due to Brian Hayden's efforts.

 

3. The terminology for a slanted keyboard should not be entangled with the generic name for a Hayden concertina; rather it should have its own term -- e.g., a "Hayden slant".

 

 

Okay, my shields are up. Have a go.

Edited November 27, 2016 by rlgph

[Don Taylor]

Should we call a unique, AKAIK, concertina like yours a Wicki?

 

(rlgph's concertina is, I think, a CC Peacock with the LHS buttons mirrored from the usual pattern of a Hayden Peacock).

[rlgph]

Should we call a unique, AKAIK, concertina like yours a Wicki?

(rlgph's concertina is, I think, a CC Peacock with the LHS buttons mirrored from the usual pattern of a Hayden Peacock).

No, i argue that it should be referred to as a Hayden duet. If more description is called for, it has 42 buttons, a descending left side, an ascending right side, and no Hayden slant. Since Peacocks can be ordered with the sides ascending or descending in any combination, i don't know whether it is unique in that respect or not. It certainly is rare, though, and i like it a lot.

 

By the way, what does AKAIK stand for?

[BW77]

1. The isomorphic arrangement of buttons originally discovered by Caspar Wicki and rediscovered by Brian Hayden should be called the "Wicki-Hayden layout" to honor both men. This should apply to both ascending and descending arrangements, to keyboards with or without the slant, and keyboards with the usual strict hexagonal arrangement or not, so long as the Wicki isomorphic character is maintained.

 

2. A concertina that uses a Wicki-Hayden layout on both sides should be termed a "Hayden duet" or "Hayden concertina", in recognition of the fact that such concertinas exist due to Brian Hayden's efforts.

 

3. The terminology for a slanted keyboard should not be entangled with the generic name for a Hayden concertina; rather it should have its own term -- e.g., a "Hayden slant".

 

 

Okay, my shields are up. Have a go.

1 "This isomorphic arrangement..." representing the octave in two rows was basically presented by Paul von Janko 1882 i e earlier than Wicki, but Janko made a piano with it instead of a squeezebox. I actually don't know if you "discover" or "invent" something like that at all... The 12 note = octave idea existed before and setting up a keyboard using different patterns of the 12 notes can be done systematically in numerous ways more or less practical ones. You just try them out one by one to "discover" the whole lot but Janko-Wicki-Hayden in that order are relatives...

 

A very good survey of these systems and their history can be found here:http://www.concertina.com/gaskins/wicki/index.htm

 

2." In recognition of the fact...exist due to Brian Hayden's efforts"

What do you mean by that? As far as I remember Kaspar Wcki himself ( and some relative(s) I think ) made his instruments with the common bandonion set-up using the keyboards on both sides ... i e such instruments *existed* allready in the 1890s...

 

3. I hardly see any terminology need for the "slant" since that can be varied in many ways and better not be mixed up with the systematic description of different keyboards. The best general investigation of concertina keyboards I believe still is the book by Maria Dunkel "Bandonion und Konzertina" 1987 ISBN 3 87397 070 8

[rlgph]

1 "This isomorphic arrangement..." representing the octave in two rows was basically presented by Paul von Janko 1882 i e earlier than Wicki, but Janko made a piano with it instead of a squeezebox. I actually don't know if you "discover" or "invent" something like that at all... The 12 note = octave idea existed before and setting up a keyboard using different patterns of the 12 notes can be done systematically in numerous ways more or less practical ones. You just try them out one by one to "discover" the whole lot but Janko-Wicki-Hayden in that order are relatives...

 

 

A very good survey of these systems and their history can be found here:http://www.concertina.com/gaskins/wicki/index.htm

 

2." In recognition of the fact...exist due to Brian Hayden's efforts"

What do you mean by that? As far as I remember Kaspar Wcki himself ( and some relative(s) I think ) made his instruments with the common bandonion set-up using the keyboards on both sides ... i e such instruments *existed* allready in the 1890s...

 

3. I hardly see any terminology need for the "slant" since that can be varied in many ways and better not be mixed up with the systematic description of different keyboards. The best general investigation of concertina keyboards I believe still is the book by Maria Dunkel "Bandonion und Konzertina" 1987 ISBN 3 87397 070 8

 

After reading the reference you give in your first point, i think that the shift of the second row of notes in the Wicki and Hayden arrangements compared to the Janko arrangement is important enough for concertinas that Janko's name should not be added to my proposed name for the layout of Hayden duets. That is, i still believe the term should be "Wicki-Hayden layout".

 

On the second point, i believe that we have this system of duet concertina (allowing me to purchase one) primarily because of Hayden's efforts (i.e., his commissioning and promotion of duet concertinas using his layout). Thus this class of duet should be named after him. I wasn't aware that Wicki built or had built a concertina using his keyboard system, but my knowledge of concertina history is sketchy at best.

 

I definitely agree that the slant should not be "mixed up with the systematic description of keyboards". That is a primary reason for my desire to standardize the nomenclature. Currently the "slant" is commonly talked about and sometimes (inappropriately, in my view) conflated with the essential elements of the Wicki-Hayden layout.

Edited November 27, 2016 by rlgph

[David Barnert]

Some things to keep in mind.

• Nothing we decide here is likely to affect the way people refer to various kinds of concertinas. The population reading this thread is a small fraction of the members of concertina.net, which in turn is a small fraction of concertina players.
• A previous thread showed pretty conclusively that on Wicki's system the left hand mirrored the right, while on Hayden's they are parallel.
• Hayden's specifications call for more than just a slant. The Stagi "Hayden," for instance, has a slant, but one might argue that it is not a true Hayden because it doesn't conform to spec. The specs that "inventor" detailed ten years ago here were:

16mm between the centres of buttons along the rows 9mm between one row and the next above - to give an equal spacing of 12mm between the nearest buttons along the diagonal. The rows to slope down at an angle of 10.5 degrees towards the thumbs. Large flat top buttons are preferable.

I have nothing against attempts at standardizing terminology, but I'm afraid the closer you look at it, the more complicated it will become.

[rlgph]

It is partly because of the complexity that i am arguing for a more general terminology. For example, the fact there can be various slant angles is a very strong argument for not using the presence or absence of a slant to label a given concertina model as a "Hayden" or a "Wicki".

 

For example, to me the significant feature of the Wicki-Hayden layout is that it allows one to mentally "hear" a tune and play it in a wide variety of keys using the same fingering. This feature persists regardless of whether the arrangement is ascending or descending, so i propose to include both directions in the term "Wicki-Hayden layout".

 

Of course, others may differ as to what they feel is the most significant feature, and so you may well be correct that the proposal is doomed to fail. I don't think the fact (?) that only a minority of Hayden duet players read this list is a reason for not trying to adopt more consistency. If the makers/distributors (most of whom, i suspect, are on this list) agree on a consistent terminology, it will happen. If not, it won't.

Edited November 27, 2016 by rlgph

[Don Taylor]

AFAIK: As far as I know

[BW77]

 

1 "This isomorphic arrangement..." representing the octave in two rows was basically presented by Paul von Janko 1882 i e earlier than Wicki, but Janko made a piano with it instead of a squeezebox. I actually don't know if you "discover" or "invent" something like that at all... The 12 note = octave idea existed before and setting up a keyboard using different patterns of the 12 notes can be done systematically in numerous ways more or less practical ones. You just try them out one by one to "discover" the whole lot but Janko-Wicki-Hayden in that order are relatives...

 

 

A very good survey of these systems and their history can be found here:http://www.concertina.com/gaskins/wicki/index.htm

 

2." In recognition of the fact...exist due to Brian Hayden's efforts"

What do you mean by that? As far as I remember Kaspar Wcki himself ( and some relative(s) I think ) made his instruments with the common bandonion set-up using the keyboards on both sides ... i e such instruments *existed* allready in the 1890s...

 

3. I hardly see any terminology need for the "slant" since that can be varied in many ways and better not be mixed up with the systematic description of different keyboards. The best general investigation of concertina keyboards I believe still is the book by Maria Dunkel "Bandonion und Konzertina" 1987 ISBN 3 87397 070 8

 

After reading the reference you give in your first point, i think that the shift of the second row of notes in the Wicki and Hayden arrangements compared to the Janko arrangement is important enough for concertinas that Janko's name should not be added to my proposed name for the layout of Hayden duets. That is, i still believe the term should be "Wicki-Hayden layout".

 

On the second point, i believe that we have this system of duet concertina (allowing me to purchase one) primarily because of Hayden's efforts (i.e., his commissioning and promotion of duet concertinas using his layout). Thus this class of duet should be named after him. I wasn't aware that Wicki built or had built a concertina using his keyboard system, but my knowledge of concertina history is sketchy at best.

 

I definitely agree that the slant should not be "mixed up with the systematic description of keyboards". That is a primary reason for my desire to standardize the nomenclature. Currently the "slant" is commonly talked about and sometimes (inappropriately, in my view) conflated with the essential elements of the Wicki-Hayden layout.

 

I mentioned Janko firstly to point out that there is/was nothing very revolutionary neither with Wicki´s nor Hayden's applications. That is NOT said to reduce the importance of Brian Hayden's efforts which I do mean arre very significant."We" have as you say got a splendid concertina keyboard system and that is worth a lot of praise.

If you look at the two basic rows of Janko and Wicki and a third variant "Smith" or whatever you call it

c# d# f g a b g a b c# d# f g a b c# d# f

c d e f# g# a# c d e f# g# a# c d e f# g# a#

 

you find that the third offers the same isomorphic advantages as the others with a slight difference. If someone starts making concertinas with that layout and calls it the "Smith system" that is all right of course but does it call for a terminology novelty?

Well - it is often easier to call some "discovery" by the name of someone to honour the individual but at the same time history often tells that the novelty was "in the air" some way or other and just as well could have been named after somebody else.

Talking about names...."Wicki"...as far as I have seen actually was "Kaspar Wicky-Müller" (1866-1917) according to his grandson Anton Wicky who has written a biography over him "Aus der Geschichte der Musikerfamilie Wicky"

[BW77]

Add....So....to be strict it seems as if we ought to start using the termninology *Wicky" - system instead of "Wicki" from now on....or ask Anton Wicky about where the *i* came from....

[BW77]

 

Add....So....to be strict it seems as if we ought to start using the termninology *Wicky" - system instead of "Wicki" from now on....or ask Anton Wicky about where the *i* came from....

 

THAT remark maybe was not so well considered. I checked the patent paper and this obviously says Kaspar Wicki so whatever routine he had for spelling his name otherwise, the *patented* system should be named according to the patent paper of course.

[David Barnert]

I checked the patent paper and this obviously says Kaspar Wicki so whatever routine he had for spelling his name otherwise, the *patented* system should be named according to the patent paper of course.

Does it say "Kaspar" or "Caspar"?

Note the "Caspar Wicky" spelling on both the instrument:

and the instruction manual (and on the same page, the caption under the photo of CW* playing one):

*And I don't mean Charles Wheatstone!

[Edited to add:] What does THAT do to the call for consistency?!

Edited November 28, 2016 by David Barnert

[BW77]

Thanks David! ...most intriguing....The patent says: "Kaspar Wicki in Neumatt"...seems like I guessed that he used both Caspar and Kaspar - Wicki and Wicky ...seemingly C.Wicky and K. Wicki ...anything to do with swiss dialects...?? or just tradiing the names for different purposes? Not uncommon I believe. Many grammophone artists for various reasons appear under several aliases. Wicki obviously was a patentee, an instrument maker, and a musical artist. Where did you find the instrument and manual photos b t w ?

An interesting detail in the patent paper is that it is announced 30 oktober1896 12 Uhr = 12 o'clock (sharp...!)

One more detail..as far as I believed, concertina has been the spelling in english, and konzertina the common analogy in german, but here we also have got Schweizer Conzertina , Schweizer-Concertina ( german) and Swiss-Concertina (english)

...rlgph , you got a lot to do....!

[David Barnert]

Where did you find the instrument and manual photos b t w ?

 

There was a thread in October of 2013 that I can’t find at the moment. Somebody said they had lots of pictures (most out of focus) but didn’t know how to post them. So I offered to and placed them in my dropbox. There are 23 of them. Here’s the one that establishes the mirrored left hand:

 

 

If you want to see the rest, insert any number from 47 through 69 in place of the xx in the following url:

 

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54389070/Wicki/P10304xx.JPG

 

(Or find the thread where they’re all posted)

[BW77]

Thanks, but the search engine doesn't find the page. Explanation?

 

Anyway we seemingly may find a difference between "Wicki" and "Hayden" then in the mirrored layout. I guess they both make about the same sense, maybe an individual matter..related to left/righthandedness as well? From intuition the mirrored way seems quite "natural" to me...my hands are that way at least ( and the feet also..) so in theory the Wicki model may look attractive...the possible problem being that we are so used to see the tonal system in a linear way as with the piano or xylophone. If you make a structural map making harmonies the basis rather than single notes you soon may change your view...I think Brian Hayden has done so quite a bit when advocating for the system and frankly speaking I don't think it is very efficient for single note playing, particularly not with chromatic runs and so on

[David Barnert]

If you want to see the rest, insert any number from 47 through 69 in place of the xx in the following url:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54389070/Wicki/P10304xx.JPG

Thanks, but the search engine doesn't find the page. Explanation?

 

Sorry for the delay. I’ve been off c.net for a few weeks. I have removed the url tags in my quote above (I never put them in in the first place—the interface did, and it tried to again just now, until I added the “code” tags) to make it clear that the url as posted needs to be modified by inserting any number from 47 through 69 in place of the xx.

[BW77]

 

If you want to see the rest, insert any number from 47 through 69 in place of the xx in the following url:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/54389070/Wicki/P10304xx.JPG

Thanks, but the search engine doesn't find the page. Explanation?

 

Sorry for the delay. I’ve been off c.net for a few weeks. I have removed the url tags in my quote above (I never put them in in the first place—the interface did, and it tried to again just now, until I added the “code” tags) to make it clear that the url as posted needs to be modified by inserting any number from 47 through 69 in place of the xx.

 

Perfect! Many thanks David ! Now....what to do about the main issue...revision? of the Wicki-Wicky-Hayden nomenclature?

The *systems* from a structural view are the same. From a *patent* novelty view that would make them identical would it not? The instrument layout is not the same however as the left/right representation differs. And as I said in #9 what to do with a similar system based on another central key than C ?

[David Barnert]

And as I said in #9 what to do with a similar system based on another central key than C ?

 

 

Hayden/Wicki systems don’t really have a central key. My 46-key Haydens have C as the lowest (bottom left) note, but I find the easiest key to play them in is G, followed by D. Someone else might find another key easiest.