Dirge Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 When I was starting out on duets someone told me that Wheatstone 'didn't like the term Maccan' It seemed needlessly complicated to get clever about this. These days I know what the story is and although I don't mind others using the term I myself play a Wheatstone duet. This is the story as I understand it; I thought it might be of interest. Back in the early days (1840s maybe?) Wheatstone made the first duets. They were funny little rectangular things with a very limited number of keys but a new idea. They didn't 'take' and got quietly forgotten. After a bit along comes one 'Professor' Maccan. He takes the Wheatstone idea and expands it a bit, then somehow gets a patent on it. He then takes this to Lachenal who start making duets, proudly sold under the Maccan patent. Wheatstone hope the things will go away for a while then finally start making them in competition when the patent runs out. Fast forward to the present day. If you look at an early Wheatstone duet you find Maccan took the whole keyboard layout intact and then extended it. When I saw one of these turn up on Ebay with the keyboard layout included I was shocked. How on earth did he get a patent on that? I can well imagine Wheatstone were livid at being excluded by patent from developing their own idea, although I grant you they seemed to have lost interest in it at that stage. So I don't play a Maccan, I play a 'Wheatstone duet'. Should anyone care about this? Probably not. Maccan was a self styled Prof', not unusual for music 'maestros' of the day. He ran competitions and handed out medals to hopefuls (including Percy Honri) I think he left a wife in his trail and a fair few empty bottles. Is 'mountebank' the word? But maybe I have him to thank for my concertinas? Without his dodgy patent maybe duets would have remained a dead end? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leah Velleman Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Is that what accounts for the little irregularities in the layout Maccan patented? Was it regular up to the edge of Wheatstone's version and irregular after that, or something like that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes williams Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 I hope Dirge won't mind a little thread creep. In all the leaflets the Prof. self published, and most other references pre-1900, he spells his name Maccann. We had a thread on c.net circa 2004 started by Bob Gaskins about how Maccann was spelt which was titled 'McCann, Macann, or Maccann?'. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find it on the Wayback Machine. But there are lots of the Prof.'s publications and other relevant things at http://www.concertina.com/maccann-duet/index.htm . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAc Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 (edited) 54 minutes ago, wes williams said: I hope Dirge won't mind a little thread creep. In all the leaflets the Prof. self published, and most other references pre-1900, he spells his name Maccann. We had a thread on c.net circa 2004 started by Bob Gaskins about how Maccann was spelt which was titled 'McCann, Macann, or Maccann?'. Unfortunately I haven't been able to find it on the Wayback Machine. But there are lots of the Prof.'s publications and other relevant things at http://www.concertina.com/maccann-duet/index.htm . Do you refer to this one? concertina.net/bg_maccann_spelling.html Also, some impeccable sleuth work in this here thread which I am sure is still vivid in everybody's memory: Edited April 28 by RAc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malcolm clapp Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 (edited) Makes you wonder how he himself (and his family) might have pronounced his surname. A short MAC and a long CANN, as we concertina-aware people generally refer to him, or two equal length syllables, almost rhyming with BRACKEN for want of a better example coming to mind. (Tempted to delete this post before the Lachenal pronunciation argument starts...) Edited April 28 by malcolm clapp Last line added....your call, Admin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes williams Posted April 28 Share Posted April 28 Thanks RAc, Bob must have posted on the ICA forum too! Most (if not all) the documents he mentions are available on the concertina.com site. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maccannic Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 Didn't Wheatstone also make Cranes? If so, then 'Wheatstone duet' doesn't tell you all you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dirge Posted April 29 Author Share Posted April 29 Tells you it isn't a Crane because then it would be a Wheatstone Crane duet... Simple! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wes williams Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 So what do you call a Wheatstone Chidley version versus a Wheatstone pre-Chidley version? Geoff Crabb and I have been using Butterworth instead of Crane in our discussions! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stephen Chambers Posted April 29 Share Posted April 29 7 hours ago, wes williams said: Geoff Crabb and I have been using Butterworth instead of Crane in our discussions! A .k.a. "Triumph" by the Salvation Army! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now