Jump to content

Concertina Design Brief


Recommended Posts

From a different thread a comment by Goran inspired me to wonder. What was the original design brief for the concertina? Who told Wheatstone what he wanted and why?

 

My favourite thought would be that someone like my grandad wanted to take a portable organ down to the pub and be able to put it on the table without it rolling across and knocking his beer over. Or perhaps it was a mouthorgan player who had to retire because of asthma?

 

Anyone got other thoughts?

 

Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

More likely one of his customers said something along the lines of "Goodness Mr. Wheatstone, these new-fangled Symphonium thingies of yours are a jolly wheeze, but they quite take my breath away ! Couldn't you put a bellows on it ?"

 

If you have ever tried to play a Symphonium you will know just what I mean ! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All the concepts necessary to producing a bellows-operated Symphonium are present in CW's 1829 patent, about 4 years before Capt. Gardnor received "the first concertina". So whether someone else's (Capt. G's?) suggestion is what prompted him to actually build one, or whether he built it to try out the concept, with Capt. G then seeing it and buying it, it was a natural expression of ideas already conceived.

 

I doubt whether we'll ever be able to know for sure what was the immediate trigger. Do we know any more about Cap. G? Did he play other instruments? (It would make sense that he did, at least before he bought that first concertina.) Had he bought other instruments from CW? If so, was he an occasional customer, a regular customer, or even a friend, with whom CW might have discussed ideas on more than one occasion?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen:"More likely one of his customers said something along the lines of "Goodness Mr. Wheatstone, these new-fangled Symphonium thingies of yours are a jolly wheeze, but they quite take my breath away ! Couldn't you put a bellows on it ?"

If you have ever tried to play a Symphonium you will know just what I mean ! "

 

Goran:Oh Dear! Certainly!....No surprise the Symphonium was a flaw/flop....still an absolutely impressing piece of ingenuity and craftmanship....

 

Concerning Pete's questions I have pondered quite a bit on this on and off too.

The best source we have I fear is the patent papers (unless there are any related notes or correspondance...you know Stephen?...)

 

What you find is the outspoken attempt to make the known "mundharmonika"..."Aeolina" manipulated by the fingers in a new way (different from the linear arrangement of known keyed ones) and the result was the split of the diatonic scale on to both sides/hands in each two rows and adding the other notes beside...as we know the 'English keyboard system'.

 

Naturally this 'mouth-organ' had to be rather small (not necessarily as small as the Symphonium was however!...) and the keyboard quite small too. My speculative guess is that the measures of the later "Symphonium with bellows" (= concertina)

was just the simplest application of the concept that came in mind.

The Symphonium AND the Concertina are in fact just about as small as they could possibly *be*. Not as small as they could be *made*...it might be possible to minimize measures even more but to obvious un-playability....

My conclusion therefore is that CW had an ambition to really minimize the measures of the instruments. As a technical/practical challenge?? Believing in the attraction of 'portability'??

 

In my view there is a slight touch of obsession in the idea...since both the Symphonium and the original Concertina suffer from being a bit too small for

safe and sound production as well as practical management. The attraction of lightness,compactness,portability has gained at the cost of practical musicality.

 

Well..this can be discussed of course...it definitely depends on what the instrument is used for...

I would not be surprised if the physician/technician in the inventor took overdue control....not surprising since as far as I know CW was not a musician....

Did he ever use the concertina himself??

One detail - which I have mentioned many times before - CW intended the concertina to be played with 1st and 2nd fingers, having both 3rd and 4th at the finger plate. This is compatible only with fairly elementary playing in the 'basic' keys with only occasional use of outer rows and very little polyphonic capacity...definitely not the modes of an ambitious or advanced performer.....

 

We may speculate over the sixsided design too...I guess it emanates from the idea having the reeds and mechanism arranged in a circular/radial manner and the hexagon being the simplest way to simulate and produce a 'pseudo-circle' for this intention. The idea could be practised rationally in the processing because of the use of a rotating mounting board with the cutter used for cutting the dovetailed inserts of reeds. Certainly a very elegant solution making it possible to standarize reed shapes for varying lengths and using the same processing pattern for different size instruments as well. Do you know when and how this technique was introduced Stephen? Was it one of the contributions by L.Lachenal at Wheatstones?

 

Goran Rahm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

For those of us who don't know (including me) what is/was a symphonium?

 

Hi Clive,

 

The Symphonium was the direct ancestor of Wheatstone's concertina, patented by him in 1829. It consists of a small, rectangular metal box, with a hole in the front plate into which you blow, and it has buttons on the two ends which are arranged in the same layout as an English concertina.

 

In essence it is a mouth-blown English concertina !

 

I have four of them, made between 1829 & 1832.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do we know any more about Cap. G?

 

Not at the moment. All that I can glean from the Army Lists is that Captain Gardnor was a young officer in an elite cavalry regiment. (The 1st Life Guards are the No. 1 Regiment on the Army List, the 2nd Life Guards are No. 2. They are the mounted Royal Guards, the ones who still wear the breastplates and helmets with horsehair plumes.) In order to have been an officer in such a Regiment, he must have come from a wealthy family.

 

Had he bought other instruments from CW?

 

Not that I have been able to ascertain, but the ledgers are not a complete record.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe the symphonium is the beginning of a good idea, which has been developed through the years, with the accordina one of the latest developments. Sound files made with this latter instrument can be found at:

http://www.boite-accordeon.com/index5.html

and a pictorial history of western mouth blown free reed instruments (including the symphonium) can be gotten from the following page:

http://www.boite-accordeon.com/index3.html

 

I suggest listening to all seven sound files, because of the variety of wonderful music displayed. The instrument allows some bending of notes and fluttering sounds. The musicianship in these files is superb.

 

There are, of course, other modern developments in western mouth blown keyed free reed instruments, but I believe this is the latest, with remarkable results. In fact, in at least one of these files (# 5) there's also a clavietta. Other pictures of various instruments such as these can be found at

http://www.akkordeonmaurer.de/documents/d/...ibrandoneon.htm

 

Best regards,

Tom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Had [Capt. Gardnor] bought other instruments from CW?

Not that I have been able to ascertain, but the ledgers are not a complete record.

Stephen, how did you date your own Symphoniums?

Do the Symphoniums have serial numbers?

Do the early ledgers include production of Symphoniums?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

JimLucas Posted on Jan 12 2004, 04:15 AM

Stephen, how did you date your own Symphoniums?

Do the Symphoniums have serial numbers?

Do the early ledgers include production of Symphoniums?

 

They only seem to have been made for a few years, before the ledgers started. Some of them do have numbers, either stamped or scratched into them, but not all. However, it is possible to see indications of earlier & later models in design/constructional details, obvious ones being that the early models tend to be smaller & engraved, with less buttons, silver reeds and square-profile levers cut out of sheet metal, later models tend to be plainer & larger, have four full rows of buttons, gold reeds and bent-wire levers.

 

One of mine, with 32 buttons & gold reeds, seems to be unique, in that it is made of hallmarked Sterling silver, so it can be dated accurately to 1831-32.

 

Chris Ghent Posted on Jan 12 2004, 10:52 AM

Any chance of a pic or two..?

 

Just as soon as my Michaelstein Paper goes online... In the meantime, here is a link to the website for the exhibition "Sehnsucht aus dem Blasebalg", at the Schlossbergmuseum Chemnitz in 2001, where my earliest Symphonium, numbered 18, is shown (click on the tab "Galerie", then "Zungeninstrumente" on the webpage). This instrument displays some very early features, it is small, engraved and has only two rows of 13 buttons, plus two saddle mounted semitone levers, the reeds are silver.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...it is possible to see indications of earlier & later models in design/constructional details, obvious ones being that the early models tend to be smaller & engraved, with less buttons, silver reeds and square-profile levers cut out of sheet metal, later models tend to be plainer & larger, have four full rows of buttons, gold reeds and bent-wire levers.

Here's the direct link to the example Tom Tonon directed us to:

http://www.boite-accordeon.com/accord.html

 

Stephen, from your description of features it would seem to be a later model. I wonder where they got the dates "1825" and "1827".

 

...the website for the exhibition "Sehnsucht aus dem Blasebalg", at the Schlossbergmuseum Chemnitz in 2001, where my earliest Symphonium, numbered 18, is shown (click on the tab "Galerie", then "Zungeninstrumente" on the webpage). This instrument displays some very early features, it is small, engraved and has only two rows of 13 buttons, plus two saddle mounted semitone levers,...

The description with that instrument says 15(+2) buttons, not 13+2. Which is right? No picture of the second side, so I can't tell if it has 8+1 buttons or 6+1.

 

What are the "semitone levers"? How do they work?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Stephen, from your description of features it would seem to be a later model.

 

Correct, in fact that seems to be the nearest they made to what might be described as a "standard model", there must be at least half a dozen like that one, but the rest of them seem to be more individual.

 

I wonder where they got the dates "1825" and "1827".

 

The black & white photograph of the Symphonium, from the "Musee Wheatstone, Londres", and the date 1825 (for its invention) are both taken from the blue Wheatstone catalogues from the 1950's. (They did exagerate sometimes !) I have seen the 1827 date (for the invention of the concertina) somewhere too. But these are very much secondary sources, which often don't make sense and have been confusing the issue for years, I take them with a pinch of salt and look for primary sources, and see if they correspond.

 

Take a look at my latest posting on Uhlig, in the "Oldest Wheatsone" thread, for factual information on a topic that has been a source of much confusion & debate for years. I will say it again, loud & clear, Uhlig did not name his new instrument "Konzertina" in 1834 !

 

The description with that instrument says 15(+2) buttons, not 13+2.  Which is right?  No picture of the second side, so I can't tell if it has 8+1 buttons or 6+1.

 

The correct number is 13 + 2, but this is not the only error on that page, I see that they have my Wheatstone single aeolina listed as an aeola, some difference !

 

What are the "semitone levers"?  How do they work?

 

I was hoping nobody would ask that, its all explained in the Michaelstein paper. (Am I starting to sound like a parrot ?) :

 

"When first made this instrument had only 13 diatonic buttons in two rows, producing the two F# semitones by means of levers shortening the F natural reeds, (...this principle is described on page 5 and illustrated in figures 20, 23 and 24 [in Wheatstone's 1829 Patent]), the two external saddle-mounted keys for F# and their respective reeds being a contemporary modification." The saddle-mounted keys are reminiscent of those used on wind instruments at the time, the reeds are mounted in the side wall, directly beneath them.

 

This started off as a very light-hearted topic, hasn't it got serious !

Edited by Stephen Chambers
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What are the "semitone levers"?  How do they work?

I was hoping nobody would ask that, its all explained in the Michaelstein paper. (Am I starting to sound like a parrot ?)

I should apologize for my laziness. I could and should have gone to the patent before asking you.

 

The "shortening" of the reeds was one method I thought of, the other being to just select other reeds.

 

This started off as a very light-hearted topic, hasn't it got serious.

Actually, I thought the original post was serious enough, though this thread has drifted well away from the Topic's title. It's quite interesting, and I must say that it's a pleasure to have you actively participating now, since you clearly have a great deal of knowledge -- with supporting evidence -- that it seems few others have been aware of.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Light-hearted or serious...very interesting anyhow...the Symphonium no doubt is essential for the understanding of the 'English' concertina. The gradual development of the (Symphonium) keyboard (from the primary two diatonic rows up to the complete four row system) - also exemplified in some of the early concertinas, not having the complete outer rows either - to me excludes the idea that the 'english' system (with the doubling of D#/Eb and G#/Ab) was designed for mean tone temperament tuning. It obviously facilitates mean tone temperament but this seemingly was an accidental occurrence taken advantage of. Mean tone temperament was 'obsolete' anyway at the time when concertina production grew (except maybe for British 'home pianos' I believe)

Stephen, have you been able to find out what fundamental keys the Symphoniums you have come across actually have? The patent gives some alternatives...

 

Goran Rahm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gradual development of the (Symphonium) keyboard (from the primary two diatonic rows up to the complete four row system) - also exemplified in some of the early concertinas, not having the complete outer rows either - to me excludes the idea that the 'english' system (with the doubling of D#/Eb and G#/Ab) was designed for mean tone temperament tuning. It obviously facilitates mean tone temperament but this seemingly was an accidental occurrence taken advantage of.

Without contemporary evidence, how can you be sure that the design with equal numbers of natural and accidental keys and tuned to mean tone temperament wasn't a deliberate development, albeit not part of the original patented design?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jim:"Without contemporary evidence, how can you be sure that the design with equal numbers of natural and accidental keys and tuned to mean tone temperament wasn't a deliberate development, albeit not part of the original patented design? "

 

Goran:The progress of adding "accidentals" to the basic diatonic two row layout was merely 'technically' (not to say aestetically/geometrically...) completed as I see it when made regular up to the 2x24=48 key arrangement.

IF the mean tone temperament had been a bearing idea the first accidentals added to the diatonic scale would have been precisely the doubling of 3rd and 5th notes but seemingly they were not. It would be interesting however to find out exactly in what order the accidentals were added....

Another indication that mean tone temperament was NOT guiding the keyboard design is that NOT A WORD is said about it in the patent(s) ! On the contrary it is said ( I don't check the exact formulation just now...) that any fundamental key could be used for the tuning or basic note layout. That would make it incompatible with contemporary mean tone pianos..(unless tuned in C).

 

Goran Rahm

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...