Which Came First?

[JimLucas]

This is my response to what I consider to be various misinformed comments and claims made in the "Castiglione Concertina" Topic in the General Concetina Discussion subForum regarding the histories of the different concertinas. This is a brief summary, not an exhaustive dissertation with footnotes, but I do refer to one earlier Topic here, which is very relevant.

 

Historically, the Germans produced the first 20 button diatonic concertinas and exported them to England in large numbers.

So Wheatstone patented "concertina", but Germans were first to make it?

That's not what Chris said, which is good, because it's not true. "The first 20 button diatonic concertinas" is not the same as "the first concertina", and certainly not the same as "the first English system concertina", which was in fact earlier.

 

So Wheatstone patented "concertina", but Germans were first to make it?

...

There are others on c.net who know far more about this than I and may disagree...

Not just others on C.net, but information to be found by using the C.net Search facility. Much information. Maybe too much to be reasonably searched, but this Topic in particular contains some very important information.

 

The evidence is that Wheatstone sold his first English system concertina in 1833 (couldn't have been 1838 -- a confusion possibly introduced by misreading of a handwritten date -- if Regondi was playing one in Ireland in 1834), but that he called it a "Symphonium with bellows". Further, it seems that the term "concertina" was first used for the instrument later in that same year (again, use of the term in Regondi's Irish publicity precludes 1838 being the year in question).

 

Carl Friederich Uhlig is generally credited as being the inventor of the "German concertina" (which only in recent decades has been included under the name "anglo"). Uhlig didn't name his square, 10-button instrument "concertina" or "konzertina", but he first advertised it, in July 1834, as an "Accordeon nach neur Art" (new kind of Accordion).

 

But the naming is a side issue. The important thing is that there seems to be no evidence that either Wheatstone or Uhlig copied anything in their designs from each other, but that they independently developed extensions to Cyrill Demian's "accordion" concept, which were similar in some respects (rough symmetry, held by and between the two hands) and quite different in other respects (keyboard layout, unisonoric vs. bisonoric, means of holding, shape of ends). It seems that only later -- perhaps after the English started making "concertinas" with the German keyboard and the Germans started imitating the appearance of English instruments? -- did the two instruments come to share a common name.

 

Wheatstone patented the symphonium in 1829, and the English system concertina in 1844.

Not so. The 1829 patent didn't use the word "concertina", but patents establish designs, not names. The essential features of Wheatstone's concertina -- not just the keyboard layout, but also placing the two sides of the keyboard at opposite ends of a bellows -- are not only described in the 1829 patent, but illustrated therein (Fig. 45). The only significant features apparently missing from the 1829 patent are the radial arrangement of the reeds and the thumb-strap-and-finger-plate "handle", and those aren't crucial to an instrument being a "concertina".

 

The 1844 patent doesn't cover the concertina itself, but only "Improvements on the Concertina and other Musical Instruments, in which the Sounds are Produced by the Action of Wind on Vibrating Springs". In fact, the 1844 patent makes the specific claim that the 1829 patent covered the invention of

...a musical instrument in which the wind was caused to act on the springs or tongues by means of a bellows moved by the two hands.... This instrument has since been named the concertina, and is generally known by that designation; but as it has undergone many important improvements since the date at which the Specification was enrolled, in order clearly to indicate the new improvements, which form the subject of the present Letters Patent, and to distinguish those improvements from the subject of the present Letters Patent, and to distinguish those improvements from those which are already before the public, I shall commence with describing the concertina in its present complete form.

Uhllig does not seem to have attempted to patent his design.

 

There are, it is true, various bits of conflicting information floating around the internet. Some of them have been corrected by subsequent research, but will still be quoted and requoted ad infinitum. Others, given without sources, are simply difficult or impossible to verify, e.g., a claim that "Carl Zimmerman of Carlsfeld, Saxony" introduced a 20-button concertina-like instrument in 1832... two years before Uhlig, though still a couple of years after Wheatstone's first demonstrations of his instrument in a lecture (May 1830, according to Neil Wayne).

 

So... Wheatstone was first with his invention, but Uhlig's invention was apparently independent and only a few years later. Wheatstone was apparently also first to use the name "concertina", and it appears that it wasn't until years -- possibly decades -- later that the name was first applied to the German invention. Thus at least for a while the general public knew these as the very different instruments which they are, and only later did people (incorrectly, IMO) begin to think of them as variants of a single instrument.

 

[Edited to add the link back to the previous Topic.]

[Further edited for added clarity.]

Edited March 8, 2006 by JimLucas

[wes williams]

This is my response to what I consider to be various misinformed comments and claims made in the "Castiglione Concertina" Topic in the General Concetina Discussion subForum regarding the histories of the different concertinas. This is a brief summary, not an exhaustive dissertation with footnotes, but I do refer to one earlier Topic here, which is very relevant.

Typical eh, Jim? You try your best to provide info, but there's always someone who twists the words into something else

There is one more fairly important link in the chain not mentioned -

Demian's 1829 Accordion Patent. It would have been impossible to "saw an accordion in half to make a (german) concertina" until the accordion in question had been invented.

[Dan Worrall]

This is my response to what I consider to be various misinformed comments and claims made in the "Castiglione Concertina" Topic in the General Concetina Discussion subForum regarding the histories of the different concertinas. This is a brief summary, not an exhaustive dissertation with footnotes, but I do refer to one earlier Topic here, which is very relevant.

Typical eh, Jim? You try your best to provide info, but there's always someone who twists the words into something else

There is one more fairly important link in the chain not mentioned -

Demian's 1829 Accordion Patent. It would have been impossible to "saw an accordion in half to make a (german) concertina" until the accordion in question had been invented.

Not exactly correct, Wes; I think you have the Demian a bit twisted! . The Demian patent described an instrument of five buttons, each of which played a full chord, not a particular note (see both the patent, at http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/main.html , and Stephen Chambers’ description on c.com). It bore little or no resemblance to a diatonic keyboard. The keyboard that was ‘sawed in half’ would have been the diatonic keyboard that seems to have been developed some time earlier in harmonicas, or by the many variations on Demian’s instrument (some by him) that soon followed (like Pichenot Jeune’s 1831 flutina).

 

And with regard to Jim's comment on the 1829 patent, I take my lead from Neil Wayne:

"The 1829 symphonium patent does not mention the word 'concertina' and only hints at the instrument with a drawing of a simple key, pallet and lever arrangement mounted on a simple bellows. However, Wheatstone obviously had developed a concertina by late 1829 or early 1830, and a single sheet of figures surviving from the Wheatstone production records....suggests the year 1830 as the start of commercial production of the instrument."

I also seem to be on wavelength with Stephen CHambers (see c.com): "Charles Wheatstone's Patent of 1829 shows a version of his symphonion with a bellows, but it is still far removed from an English concertina. He would seem to have combined elements of Demian's accordion with elements of his own symphonion (including the fingering) to produce his prototype concertina."

The full description of the modern EC instrument is in the 1844 patent.

Wheatstone was careful in the 1829 patent as to what he claimed with regard to the suggested and unnamed bellows driven instrument, because he was well aware that the Germans/Austrians were first Europeans to build a free reed instrument (the aeoline), and in originating the bellows approach to providing wind for free reeds (patented earlier that same year by Demian):"I do not mean or hereby intend to claim as my Invention any of the various parts of these said Instruments may be composed which are already known or in use. I do however claim the employment of two parallel rows of finger studs on each side of the instrument (near enough to be sounded individually or together)....I likewise claim the introduction of two additional rows of finger studs ...for the purpose of introducing semitones...." He also claims and documents innovations in free reeds, rods and levers.

So…Wheatstone’s comments are directed at establishing ownership for his (later termed) ‘English’ fingering system, used in the symphonium. I would not strongly debate the idea that including this sketch later gave him precedence in the attachment of a symphonium fingering system to a bellows, but it was not the main thrust of this patent. The symphonium was.

 

More pertinent to the reply to m3838's comment (the context for which was unfortunately separated by moving the thread): Of all of Wheatstone's original work in this 1829 patent, none of it found application in the earliest Uhlig German accordion/'concertina’, nor is it in evidence in a modern Castiglione (unless the fact that the buttons are spread out on two hands is deemed the most critical part…this could perhaps be argued). This seems to me to be the most pertinent part of the response to m3838; the Germans didn't rip off concertinas from the English, and I sense no disagreement on that point amongst us. Indeed, the Germans and Austrians are responsible for most of the critical technologies employed in anglo and german concertinas (first to adapt Asian free reeds, first bellows use, first development of diatonic keyboards). Later improvements are another matter!

 

Cheers...

[JimLucas]

There is one more fairly important link in the chain not mentioned -

Demian's 1829 Accordion Patent. It would have been impossible to "saw an accordion in half to make a (german) concertina" until the accordion in question had been invented.

Not exactly correct, Wes; I think you have the Demian a bit twisted! . The Demian patent described an instrument of five buttons, each of which played a full chord, not a particular note (see both the patent, at http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/main.html , and Stephen Chambers’ description on c.com).

I wish Wes hadn't inserted that "quote". Is it a quote from Uhlig? In any case, I had already mentioned that both Wheatstone and Uhlig had evolved their concepts from Demian's, and the details of their alleged thought processes are side issues to the points I was trying to make. But now it's provided something to argue about, without having provided a source.

 

It bore little or no resemblance to a diatonic keyboard. The keyboard that was ‘sawed in half’ would have been the diatonic keyboard that seems to have been developed some time earlier in harmonicas, or by the many variations on Demian’s instrument (some by him) that soon followed (like Pichenot Jeune’s 1831 flutina).

But Wes' quote doesn't say that the design Uhlig modified was precisely the one in Demian's patent. "Accordion" seems to have become a generic name during the five years of evolution between Demian's patent and when Uhlig first advertised his own "accordeon". And all Wes really said was the Demian's instrument had to come first, which it did.

[JimLucas]

And with regard to Jim's comment on the 1829 patent, I take my lead from Neil Wayne:

"The 1829 symphonium patent does not mention the word 'concertina' and only hints at the instrument with a drawing of a simple key, pallet and lever arrangement mounted on a simple bellows. However, Wheatstone obviously had developed a concertina by late 1829 or early 1830, and a single sheet of figures surviving from the Wheatstone production records....suggests the year 1830 as the start of commercial production of the instrument."

That 1830 date is from Neil's 15-year-old Galpin Society paper. It has since been shown -- in fact, here on Concertina.net, where we have a number of today's leading concertina researchers as members -- that 1833 is the probable date of the first sale of a concertina, and so the first commercial production. I mention that primarily to illustrate that Neil Wayne -- fine man and fine scholar that he is -- is not the only authority on concertina history, nor was all relevant research completed by 1991. The date of first commercial production has no bearing on the patent.

 

I also seem to be on wavelength with Stephen CHambers (see c.com): "Charles Wheatstone's Patent of 1829 shows a version of his symphonion with a bellows, but it is still far removed from an English concertina. He would seem to have combined elements of Demian's accordion with elements of his own symphonion (including the fingering) to produce his prototype concertina."

Dan, I can't find that quote. Can you give me a URL? I do find something similar in this post:

Study of Charles Wheatstone's Patent of 1829 will reveal that it covers mainly a fingering system (which we now refer to as "English concertina" fingering), shown applied to various free reed instruments, one of which is a form of Symphonium with a bellows. ... There was no need for him to take out another patent when, soon afterwards, he combined features of his Symphonium (especially the fingering), with features of Demian's Accordion....

But note that last sentence which I've included, but which is missing from your own quote.

 

A further selection of quotes from Stephen includes this one:

...Joseph Scates was the very first of [Wheatstone's] employees to leave and start manufacturing concertinas himself, in 1844, when their 1829 Patent expired.

and this one:

...the brief answer is yes, the 1829 Patent effectively prevented anyone else from building English concertinas until it expired, in 1844....

We should really ask Stephen directly for his current understanding of the patent issue, but he hasn't posted here since last November, so for now I think we have to take his prior posts as evidence. And the evidence of the above quotes tells me not only that he believes that the 1829 patent covered and protected production of the instrument known as the "English concertina" -- or simply "the concertina", since it doesn't seem that the German counterpart was known by that name before that patent expired in 1844, -- but more importantly that Wheatstone's contemporaries -- including potential competitors -- believed the same.

 

But I think some clarification is in order: I believe, and Wheatstone claimed, and his contemporaries apparently also believed that the 1829 patent protected the design of what is now known as the "English concertina". It did not cover every detail thereof and specifically did not separately cover such details as the use of free reed or the incorporation of a bellows, which were already in use by others at the time of the patent application. In particular, English production of what is today called an "anglo concertina" (but which at the time was not known by the name "concertina") would not have been a violation of the patent, since the only details it held in common with Wheatstone's invention were those specifically excluded from the 1829 patent: bellows, button-lever-pad action, metallic free reeds, and a boxlike structure for mounting the latter.

 

Yes, the main thrust of the 1829 patent is the fingering system, but it consequently also covered any instrument which would use that system, including any bellows-driven instrument which used that system, i.e., the "concertina".

 

[Edited to remove the questioning quote marks from "quote" in two places now that Dan has provided the source reference in this subsequent post.]

Edited March 9, 2006 by JimLucas

[JimLucas]

This post was actually intended as a continuation of my previous post, but the Forum software seems unable to correctly format the quoting unless I split it into two parts. Just as well. The rest of what I have to say here is, I feel, factually redundant, but addresses details of the use and interpretation of the evidence.

 

The full description of the modern EC instrument is in the 1844 patent.

Which patent, as I have previously quoted, specifically claims that said description is not of something intended to be covered by the 1844 patent, but of an already existing instrument, covered by the 1829 patent, "improvements" to which the 1844 patent was making claim. This more complete quote from the 1844 patent should make the 1829 claim unequivocal:

A former Patent for improvements in musical instruments of this class was granted to me on the Nineteenth day of June, One thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, and in the Drawings attached to the Specification thereof, enrolled on the Nineteenth of December, One thousand eight hundred and twenty-nine, was represented a musical instrument in which the wind was caused to act on the springs or tongues by means of a bellows moved by the two hands, and in which the notes of the instrument were commanded at the pleasure of the performer by a peculiar disposition of the finger stsops, which regulated the openings of the various valves covering the apertures in which the springs or tongues vibrated. This musical instrument has since been named the concertina, and is generally known by that designation;....

Wheatstone was careful in the 1829 patent as to what he claimed with regard to the suggested and unnamed bellows driven instrument,

...

Wheatstone’s comments are directed at establishing ownership for his (later termed) ‘English’ fingering system, used in the symphonium.

Yes. The main thrust of the 1829 patent is the fingering system, but it consequently also covered any instrument which would use that system, including any bellows-driven instrument which used that system, i.e., the "concertina". As I have noted above.

 

I would not strongly debate the idea that including this sketch later gave him precedence in the attachment of a symphonium fingering system to a bellows,...

We seem to be in agreement, just differing over where to place the emphasis.

 

...but it was not the main thrust of this patent. The symphonium was.

If by "the symphonium" you mean the fingering system, then yes. If by ""the symphonium" you mean a particular instrument, then no. He describes a wide variety of different potential instruments and constructions to incorporate his fingering system, any one of which could have been called "symphonium". At least two eventually were, the small mouth-blown instrument with an oval aperture which we know today by that name but which never became widely popular, and the "Symphonium with bellows", which had its name changed to "concertina" shortly after its first commercial sale.

 

More pertinent to the reply to m3838's comment (the context for which was unfortunately separated by moving the thread):...

How so? Click the little button with the little arrow on it to the right of Michael's "m3838" C.net ID in the quote's header, and it will display the original post in full. I think that's more than adequate, as my purpose was to establish the facts, not to undertake a point-by-point rebuttal of his statements, which aside from misrepresenting Chris T.'s statement suggested a completely incorrect sequence of events.

 

Of all of Wheatstone's original work in this 1829 patent, none of it found application in the earliest Uhlig German accordion/'concertina’,...

We're in agreement. That's exactly what I said, and repeated in the final-and-summary paragraph of my post which began this Topic.

 

...the Germans and Austrians are responsible for most of the critical technologies employed in anglo and german concertinas (first to adapt Asian free reeds, first bellows use, first development of diatonic keyboards).

But not, as far as I can tell, for naming them "concertinas".

[Dan Worrall]

I also seem to be on wavelength with Stephen CHambers (see c.com): "Charles Wheatstone's Patent of 1829 shows a version of his symphonion with a bellows, but it is still far removed from an English concertina. He would seem to have combined elements of Demian's accordion with elements of his own symphonion (including the fingering) to produce his prototype concertina."

Dan, I can't find that "quote". Can you give me a URL?

 

Sure. It is at http://www.concertina.com/chambers/michaelstein/.

 

With regard to your three reply debate, I've said my say.

Edited March 9, 2006 by Dan Worrall

[wes williams]

There is one more fairly important link in the chain not mentioned -

Demian's 1829 Accordion Patent. It would have been impossible to "saw an accordion in half to make a (german) concertina" until the accordion in question had been invented.

Not exactly correct, Wes; I think you have the Demian a bit twisted! . The Demian patent described an instrument of five buttons, each of which played a full chord, not a particular note (see both the patent, at http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/main.html , and Stephen Chambers’ description on c.com). It bore little or no resemblance to a diatonic keyboard. The keyboard that was ‘sawed in half’ would have been the diatonic keyboard that seems to have been developed some time earlier in harmonicas, or by the many variations on Demian’s instrument (some by him) that soon followed (like Pichenot Jeune’s 1831 flutina).

Dan,

What do you think was so different about Demian's idea from previous free reed instruments (especially Buschmann's Handaeoline) that needed him to patent it? (I can't find a suitable 'thinks' smilie to fit here )

Dan:"The Demian patent described an instrument of five buttons, each of which played a full chord"

But a different chord on changing bellows direction... ?

not a particular note. It bore little or no resemblance to a diatonic keyboard""

Look at the keyboard diagram again .. does the arrangement of those single notes written on the 'claves' on the diagram have "little or no resemblance" to a diatonic scale keyboard? Stephen's description also say:

.. thus allowing the playing of tunes only with the respective chordal harmony for every melody note

 

And note the translation (my emphasis):

With the cover of the bellows, the entire instrument may be doubled, in order to play more chords or more single tones, in this case, keyboard, the bellows remain in the middle, while each hand controls in turn, either the claves or the bellows.

 

Like Wheatstone-1829, Demian-1829 isn't just a single idea for a single instrument, but a collection of possible variations. And while it doesn't describe precisely the 'sawn in half accordion' needed to make a German concertina, all the elements needed are clearly suggested within it as possibilities.

 

One of us has got the Demian a bit twisted - Me or thee?

(Doctor! Doctor! I've twisted my demian! - Just leave it alone, and on no account squeeze it!)

[JimLucas]

Doctor! Doctor! I've twisted my demian! - Just leave it alone, and on no account squeeze it!

Beware! Excessive squeezing can cause...

.................... ?

No, no! Can cause Demiantia!

[Dan Worrall]

There is one more fairly important link in the chain not mentioned -

Demian's 1829 Accordion Patent. It would have been impossible to "saw an accordion in half to make a (german) concertina" until the accordion in question had been invented.

Not exactly correct, Wes; I think you have the Demian a bit twisted! . The Demian patent described an instrument of five buttons, each of which played a full chord, not a particular note (see both the patent, at http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/main.html , and Stephen Chambers’ description on c.com). It bore little or no resemblance to a diatonic keyboard. The keyboard that was ‘sawed in half’ would have been the diatonic keyboard that seems to have been developed some time earlier in harmonicas, or by the many variations on Demian’s instrument (some by him) that soon followed (like Pichenot Jeune’s 1831 flutina).

Dan,

What do you think was so different about Demian's idea from previous free reed instruments (especially Buschmann's Handaeoline) that needed him to patent it? (I can't find a suitable 'thinks' smilie to fit here )

Dan:"The Demian patent described an instrument of five buttons, each of which played a full chord"

But a different chord on changing bellows direction... ?

not a particular note. It bore little or no resemblance to a diatonic keyboard""

Look at the keyboard diagram again .. does the arrangement of those single notes written on the 'claves' on the diagram have "little or no resemblance" to a diatonic scale keyboard? Stephen's description also say:

.. thus allowing the playing of tunes only with the respective chordal harmony for every melody note

 

And note the translation (my emphasis):

With the cover of the bellows, the entire instrument may be doubled, in order to play more chords or more single tones, in this case, keyboard, the bellows remain in the middle, while each hand controls in turn, either the claves or the bellows.

 

Like Wheatstone-1829, Demian-1829 isn't just a single idea for a single instrument, but a collection of possible variations. And while it doesn't describe precisely the 'sawn in half accordion' needed to make a German concertina, all the elements needed are clearly suggested within it as possibilities.

 

One of us has got the Demian a bit twisted - Me or thee?

(Doctor! Doctor! I've twisted my demian! - Just leave it alone, and on no account squeeze it!)

Wes,

Glad to help with a further explanation. The best explanation , I think, is by Stephen, who has handled one of these instruments (see entire article at:http://www.concertina.com/chambers/michaelstein/)

"3. Accordions

Invented by Cyrill Demian (1772-1847) of Vienna and patented by him on 6th May 1829, the accordion rapidly spread throughout Europe. lt had certainly reached London as early as 1830 because it is recorded that a 5-key example was seen at one of Wheatstone's lectures to the Royal Institution on 5th June that year,there was also a tutor published in London for it the same year.

 

These very first models of accordion were made to be played left-handed (to our way of thinking)16 and played only chords, as contemporary tutor books explain and surviving instruments demonstrate (hence the name, deriving from the German word for chord = "accord", plus the suffix "-ion"). This has been the cause of some considerable confusion and misinformation in books and articles on the subject by writers who have not taken the trouble to research the source material, or had their own agenda.

 

In essence the first model consisted of a series of æolinas arranged inside a wooden box provided with a bellows and keys. On pressing a key one chord would sound on compressing the bellows and another chord on expanding them, thus allowing the playing of tunes only with the respective chordal harmony for every melody note.

Over the next few years the accordion developed and became more melodic."

For any reader not familiar with the aeoline, I attach a photo of one below (from Stephen's article). If you compare that with the diagram Wes included, you can see Stephen's point...the buttons connect to aeolines rather than to single notes. I'm not sure of your translation Wes...I see what you are thinking...but as Stephen has played with one, and his explanation is that a melody could be heard only by playing successions of chords, then I prefer that explanation.

 

With regard to what Demian was after in his patenting, I would guess that two things were novel: 1) his grouping of aeolines to make successions of chords, and 2) more significantly for accordion and concertina development, the use of a bellows to sound the reeds.

 

So, to reiterate, I don't think this was the keyboard old Uhlig had in his hands when he was thinking about sawing something in half. He was looking at an accordion, or perhaps a harmonica, with a single-note-at-a-time diatonic action, probably with ten reed pairs (which Uhlig turned into 5 + 5 on his first accordion/Konzertina). If it was an accordion (a later but not much later model of course from Demian's patent), the part of your point that Uhlig's invention had to wait for the accordion is of course correct (and we all seem to agree anyway that Uhlig was advertising them by 1834-35 or so). However, there is a suggestion on Wikipedia, unfortunately not tied to source data, that harmonicas with modern diatonic keyboards were present "years before" the Demian patent...so who knows...

 

I caught on to your little error with Demian...that this patented instrument could not be the keyboard that Uhlig 'sawed in half'...only because I had some months ago realized that I had made precisely the same error, in a reference in my little Kimber book. Clearly Stephen has seen more than one of us make this error through the years, as we can see by his sentence to that effect above...and we both should consider ourselves rapped on the knuckles in absentia by the perfessor from West Clare!

 

I hope this clears that up.

Kind regards,

Dan

 

Later edited to add a not so little but pertinent footnote…I think we can close in now on what old Uhlig was sawing in half! On a fascinating accordion/free reed history site (http://www.anet4u.com/accordionhistory.html), I have taken the following entries amongst the many more there:

 

1810 - The real value of free reeds was not appreciated until Grenié, of Paris, in 1810, discarded the pipes of his organ and used the reeds alone, thus inventing the harmonium named Grenié's Orgue expressif and appears to be the first in which bellows were combined with the free reed to form a distinct musical instrument

1825 – The first 20 note / 10 hole, Blow-draw free-reed mouth organ configuration is developed by a Bohemian named Richter. This is the basic configuration still used in most harmonicas today he basic design used today. Mass production of the harmonica started four years later in Vienna, Austria.

1822 - A Berlin, Germany instrument maker named Christian Friedrich Ludwig Buschmann (1805 – 1864) invented a diatonic single action mouth organ with 15 metal reeds which he called Aura or Mundaeoline in 1821. One year later he added a bellow and constructed the first portable bellow free vibrating reeds (inside the instrument itself) which he called Handharmonika or Handaeoline. He helped spread its fame in 1828 by leaving Berlin and touring with it.

1829 - Cyrillus Damian, a Viennese instrument maker, patented an instrument he named accordion, having received royal patronage for his invention in 1829 in Vienna. Damian's design featured two to four bass keys that produced chords within a range of an octave. Although Demian's accordion permitted easy accompaniment of folk music and was highly requested, the fixed chords reduced its musical possibilities.

She has interesting material on Wheatstone and Uhlig too, but the pertinent parts for the present are above.

 

Now, switch to the KonzertinaNetz site for a German take on Uhlig (see

http://home.allgaeu.org/kwenger/konzertina/); my poor translation:

“Carl Friedrich Uhlig became acquainted with a "Handaeoline" in Vienna, which pleased him, but not completely. He built his first own "Conzertina" in 1834, a rectangular instrument with five buttons on each side.”

 

Ah, so; it seems old Uhlig saw the bellows and the fifteen-notes-in-a-long-row of the Handaeoline (which seems to have been single action in one direction), and was dissatisfied. As he had doubtlessly seen the diatonic arrangement of the 1825 harmonica, he might thus have adapted it to his instrument (this is my guess). So what he mentally “sawed in half” was clearly part handaeoline, and perhaps part harmonica. What fun!

 

Also, we can see that the bellows came along in 1810 (Orgue expressif) and 1822 (Handaeoline). So we can now restrict the ‘novel’ part of the Demian accordion to just the strange grouping of chording aeolines.

 

I think we can now let this one rest, unless better evidence comes to light.

 

 

Edited March 10, 2006 by Dan Worrall

[Theodore Kloba]

Two things:

1. For those of you who have historical sources they can cite and the time to invest, please help clean up these articles on the English-language Wikipedia: Concertina on Wikipedia, Accordion/History on Wikipedia. Both have a mixture of correct and incorrect information. You don't need to register to edit unless you want credit for your contributions.
   
2. This "which came first" debate has popped up here (also on rec.music.makers.squeezebox and elsewhere) in various forms before. It only seems to get heated when someone tries to use historical facts to claim that one type of instrument is "real" and by extension that others are "not real."