What Is This?

[toshea]

Can some one please tell me what type of concertina is being played on this site. It is english or anlgo? I think it is english but I can't quite see. And what key is the instrument. It sure has a pretty sound! Thanks, Tim

 

[Stephen Chambers]

Can some one please tell me what type of concertina is being played on this site. It is english or anlgo? I think it is english but I can't quite see. And what key is the instrument.

It appears to be an eight-sided ebony-ended English, probably a Wheatstone Aeola. English concertinas are not regarded as being "in a key" as they are fully chromatic - like, say, a piano.

[m3838]

Can some one please tell me what type of concertina is being played on this site. It is english or anlgo? I think it is english but I can't quite see. And what key is the instrument.

It appears to be an eight-sided ebony-ended English, probably a Wheatstone Aeola. English concertinas are not regarded as being "in a key" as they are fully chromatic - like, say, a piano.

A "standard" piano, just like a "standard" Enlish treble are in the key of Cmaj/Amin.

[Stephen Chambers]

A "standard" piano, just like a "standard" Enlish treble are in the key of Cmaj/Amin.

Only if you choose to play them in that key...

 

That seems a very limiting way of thinking of two fully-chromatic instruments. Yes, that is what the "core" of both of them (the "white notes" on a piano, or a "student" English concertina) is usually in, but the point is that, unlike Anglos, English concertinas are not restricted to playing in a limited range of keys and (with the exception of a handful of transposing instruments made for bands) don't need to come in different keys like Anglos. And that, surely, is the point of Tim's question?

 

I certainly don't think of my Aeola as being "in C" (in fact I don't think I play a single tune in C on it ), do you think of your piano that way?

 

Edited to add "need to"

Edited June 17, 2008 by Stephen Chambers

[m3838]

A "standard" piano, just like a "standard" Enlish treble are in the key of Cmaj/Amin.

Only if you choose to play them in that key...

 

That seems a very limiting way of thinking of two fully-chromatic instruments. Yes, that is what the "core" of both of them (the "white notes" on a piano, or a "student" English concertina) is usually in, but the point is that, unlike Anglos, English concertinas are not restricted to playing in a limited range of keys and (with the exception of a handful of transposing instruments made for bands) don't come in different keys like Anglos. And that, surely, is the point of Tim's question?

 

I certainly don't think of my Aeola as being "in C" (in fact I don't think I play a single tune in C on it ), do you think of your piano that way?

 

No matter what key you are playing in, or whether you never play in the key of C, a piano is two instruments lumped together, diatonic in C and pentatonic in C#.

An English Concertina has diatonic core in C, with half tones each adjascent to natural note.

Naturals are in C, they form two columns in the middle.

The question was whether the instrument is Anglo or English, and if Anglo, in what key.

But the answer mentioned that English, been fully chromatic, is not considered as "been in key".

Which is not exactly correct. There are those transposing instruments, mostly, I guess, in F.

And why is it limiting to think this way? I, for example, am thinking to hunt that 48 button Tenor in F, if my next project at work will happen.

In a similar manner, one with 60 button Anglo in C/G may claim he never played a single tune in C or G, therefore his fully chromatic in both directions instrument can't be thought of "been in Key". Partially true. Is it in any way liberating to think this way?

Only for those narrow minded, and who on this forum is narrow minded? Only me (OK, only partially).

Edited June 17, 2008 by m3838

[Stephen Chambers]

A "standard" piano, just like a "standard" Enlish treble are in the key of Cmaj/Amin.

... do you think of your piano that way?

No matter what key you are playing in, or whether you never play in the key of C, a piano is two instruments lumped together, diatonic in C and pentatonic in C#.

I know what you're getting at, and it may be relevant at an elementary stage of learning, but it's very limiting and, once they get beyond "Chopsticks", most pianists would think differently...

 

Indeed, I've heard it said that C is the hardest key to play in on the piano keyboard, because there aren't any black notes in it as "markers"!

 

But I'd think in terms of "naturals" and "accidentals", rather than the keys of C and pentatonic C#.

 

Do you regard the MacCann duet system as being in any particular key?

Edited June 17, 2008 by Stephen Chambers

[m3838]

I know what you're getting at, and it may be relevant at an elementary stage of learning, but it's very limiting and, once they get beyond "Chopsticks", most pianists would think differently.

 

I have little interest about what pianists think, unless they also are piano builders. And I don't understand hwo realizing that your car has only 50 hps is limiting you to drive where ever you need.

 

Indeed, I've heard it said that C is the hardest key to play in on the piano keyboard, because there aren't any black notes in it as "markers"!

 

But black keys are still there, aren't they? Lamp posts are there not to run into them.

 

Do you regard the MacCann duet system as being in any particular key?

 

I have not idea. We were talking about English. But tell me, why do you think (if you do) that 50 button Anglo in C/g is in C/g?

And why large diatonic 5 row accordions are called "diatonic", when they have all the accidentals? Even small 2 row Melodeon has all the accidentals, only spread between two octaves. Does it make them chromatic? Or would you consider British Chromatic been in any key?

This offset of discussion makes little sence actually, and I'm to blame.

I'm sorry for been so anal, I usually am not.

[Stephen Chambers]

Indeed, I've heard it said that C is the hardest key to play in on the piano keyboard, because there aren't any black notes in it as "markers"!

But black keys are still there, aren't they? Lamp posts are there not to run into them.

Yes, but you (hopefully) see lamp posts before you run into them, don't you? Only beginners look at the keyboard, proficient musicians (like the top piano accordion player who made that comment) don't.

 

But tell me, why do you think (if you do) that 50 button Anglo in C/g is in C/g?

I certainly don't think it can only play in those keys, if that's what you mean, but having all the notes doesn't necessarily make an instrument "fully chromatic", which is in practice limited by fingering. Anglos are transposing instruments, made in a range of keys to facilitate fingering in those and related keys, so need to be described in terms of their "home" rows.

 

And why large diatonic 5 row accordions are called "diatonic", when they have all the accidentals?

The only large 5-rows that I'm familiar with are Continental Chromatics, which are "just what it says on the tin", but I suppose what you mean are 5-row versions of the "Steirische Harmonika" (which you would never encounter here in Ireland)? In which case "diatonic" is the traditional way in English of saying "bi-sonoric", though I understand these instruments are usually played diatonically along the straight row (?), at least that's what I've seen.

 

Even small 2 row Melodeon has all the accidentals, only spread between two octaves. Does it make them chromatic?

No, they're usually in two keys a fourth apart, often with no accidentals outside those keys, though sometimes with limited accidentals replacing the lowest notes of each row - making them hard to use.

 

Or would you consider British Chromatic been in any key?

They have a semitone difference between the rows, but again they are also transposing instruments and only "chromatic" in name and possessing all the notes. For example the B/C accordion, that is so popular in Irish music, is not good for playing in the popular fiddle key of A, whilst the C#/D, that is also used here, is similarly not good in G. Indeed, Jimmy Shand sometimes used a C#/D as a transposing instrument, to play in the "Scottish" keys of A and E, whilst using the B/C fingerings for G and D. Also, it is common to use C/C# or D/D# instruments to play in Eb.

 

Anyway, didn't you say "We were talking about English"?

 

This offset of discussion makes little sence actually, and I'm to blame.

I'm sorry for been so anal, I usually am not.

Dawn has broken here, and I'm going to bed!

 

Edited for German spelling - not my strong point at 6 AM

Edited June 17, 2008 by Stephen Chambers

[Anglo-Irishman]

Can some one please tell me what type of concertina is being played on this site. It is english or anlgo? I think it is english but I can't quite see. And what key is the instrument. It sure has a pretty sound! Thanks, Tim

 

 

They were playing the tune in E major.

 

I'd never think of a piano or an EC as being "in a particular key" either. They have all the notes of the chromatic scale in ascending sequence. The placement of the accidentals in a separate row is just to visually and haptically mark them as the keys that are pressed when the related line or space in the stave has a flat or sharp. I believe Wheatstone designed the EC layout to closely follow staff notation: the notes on the lines are all on one side, the notes in the spaces all on the other side, and the sharped and flatted notes are all in the outer rows on the appropriate side.

 

In German accordion circles, they speak of "Diatoniker" to designate players of melodions, Steirische Handharmonikas and other push-pull, bisonoric accordions, as opposed to chromatic, uni-sonoric piano or button accordions. In the context of free reed instruments, "diatonic" and "bi-sonoric" are often synonyms.

Although the "anglo-chromatic concertina" has all 12 semitones of the chromatic scale, each row is diatonic, and this gives it its diatonic character. The simple 20k anglo is what autoharpers would call a "two-key diatonic".

 

Cheers,

John

[allan atlas]

TO ADD ONE MORE LITTLE TWIST: it is only relatively recently (i measure in centuries) that musicians have gotten bogged down in thinking in terms of the keyboard. . . . . . . .in fact, one of the hardest things to do in trying to understand some of the tricky points of medieval and/or renaissance music theory, for example, is to get that picture of the keyboard out of one's mind. . . . . . musicians simply did NOT think in those terms. . . . . .and to think, as m3838 does, that a piano is in this or that key or that it combines two keys (one in the white notes, another in the black ones)...........OY!...........allan

[Stephen Chambers]

I'd never think of a piano or an EC as being "in a particular key" either. They have all the notes of the chromatic scale in ascending sequence. The placement of the accidentals in a separate row is just to visually and haptically mark them as the keys that are pressed when the related line or space in the stave has a flat or sharp.

Indeed, some instruments (including some free reed ones) have been built with all the notes of the chromatic scale in a straight line, but they've been found to be unwieldy and have faded away. The "offset accidentals" layout is much more convenient and manageable, imagine trying to span an octave on a piano that had the five accidentals added into the "white notes"!

 

The simple 20k anglo is what autoharpers would call a "two-key diatonic".

I wonder if that similarity might have anything to do with the German concertina builder, and inventor of the autoharp, Carl Friederich Zimmermann?

[m3838]

It was really funny to read all the comments considering bi-sonoric vs. diatonic, Piano not been diatonic, but C/C# is, Steirische boxes are played in a row, Anglo is transposing, but English is not.

A can full of contradictions, yet all you guys have in common, is that you agree with each other(while stating opposite things, and often even your next sentence is contradicting the previous one, but you seem to feel you're very thourough and others agree with it).

I had very good time reading all that.

Thanks.

Well, first of all, Heligonkas (that's for "Steirische") are not played in the row, they are too heavy, like bandoneons, that often played on the pull. They sometimes played chromatically, as they posess all the accidentals, located where they supposed to be found.

Next, there are plenty of unisonoric accordions that are diatonic, and bi-sonoric, that are fully chromatic.

Next, there is no difference between the practice of using Anglo in C row to play in C, then transpose to G and play in G row, and English treble to play in C, and Tenor in F to play in F, while using the same fingering. It's often done on the Ango and rarely on EC because there aren't many EC in F available. But there are plenty of Baritones, and I personally used my Jack to play an octave lower, when I felt like written music is too shrill. Does it make Jack transposing instrument? Sure!

Then there I heard that pianos too, came in different tunings. Especially it is relevant to modern electronic keyoards, where the home key can be shifted. Next time ask a tuner to pitch your piano a semitone up - and you'll have piano in C#. Doable? Yes.

Now about using black keys on PAs. One uses black keys as guides. But one doesn't have to press on a black key to use it as a guide, does one? Why then playing in the key of C or so very popular key of Amin is so difficult? Only it's irrelevant, harmonicas in C are played in G, does it make C harmonica keyless?

There are isomorphic keyboards: Hayden, Continental Chromatic, Universal keyboard, Kravtsov keyboard. There is no difference between playing in various keys.

But Piano in Ab is tougher than in C, is it not? EC in Ab is tougher than in C too.

Two row melodeons have all accidentals one may need for folk music and they are not inconviniently located. Location convinience doesn't matter at all, because by this logic Bandoneon is not chromatic. It's not even a musical instrument!

In theory any Britich Chromatic can be played in any key. The reason it's not is because it's used mainly for folk music. Find a Mecenate to support concervatory course for B/C and in two years they'll be playing Classical repertore.

But for simlpe daily convinience it's easier to use differently pitched accordions.

And btw, why C/C# accordion is different from C/C# piano? Push/pulling? How about

Hohner Club in (?) C/F and full row of accidentals, with complete chromaticism on the draw? Is it in C? In F? No key?

Edited June 17, 2008 by m3838

[Anglo-Irishman]

The simple 20k anglo is what autoharpers would call a "two-key diatonic".

I wonder if that similarity might have anything to do with the German concertina builder, and inventor of the autoharp, Carl Friederich Zimmermann?

 

Stephen,

The autoharp community is now becoming aware of the fact that the autoharp as we know it was patented, not by Zimmermann, but by a Markneukirchen luthier by the name of Carl Gütter. (Well, at least it was a Carl!) Zimmermann patented something similar, but different, which never went into production. What Zimmermann did do was to coin the name Autoharp and spread the instrument widely in America, using Gütter's patent chord bars.

Zimmermann also saw the autoharp as an application for the number notatation that he had devised for the diatonic accordion. I have two early Zimmermann 'harps and a contemporary tutor that use this notation.

 

As one of probably very few angloists/autoharpers around, I see a certain kinship between the two instruments. Both are button-operated, of course! But the feeling for changes of bellows direction and changes of chord bar are also very similar. And they both have a few notes missing at the bass end.

 

And the original autoharp (as in Gütter's patent and Zimmermann's first production model) was purely diatonic, with the strings tuned to a 7-note scale and chord bars for the tonic, subdominant and dominant 7th chords. Like a very early 10-button German concertina.

My ca. 1930 German autoharp still has the 7-note diatonic scale (in G), but three more chord bars for the relative minors of the I, IV and V.

 

Zimmermann's American equivalent added one string to the scale (his 'harps were in C, and a Bb - in Zimmermann's notation an A# - was added), and the bars were felted for the chords of Bb, C7, F, G7 and C. We would call this a two-key diatonic today. The keys are a 5th apart, like the two rows of a 20k (Anglo-)German concertina. Later, the relative minor chords for C, F and G were added. This would have been the perfect accompaniment for an F/C Anglo!

 

On the 20k Anglo, you transpose between the two available keys by transferring the same fingering to the other row. On the 5-bar autoharp, you transfer the fingering two bars up or down. And on both instruments, you have to be aware of where the tune modulates to.

 

Maybe there were great minds thinking alike, but the autoharp is a lot younger than the concertina (Gütters patent was c. 1880), so the concertina would have been the trail-blazer, if at all.

However, I think that progressing along the circle of fifths is a pretty obvious thing to do, considering the way European music modulates. Both instruments solved the problem of playing harmonised music with nothing to go by but a good ear, and part of the concept was the diatonic architecture

 

Cheers,

John

[chiton1]

I used to play the wooden flute (and whistle) before I started on the concertina. So being used at a D flute with keys (talking of hardware here) I didn't use much, I started playing the concertina mainly in C with only sparse use of the half tones. And although I later got used to playing in many other keys, the key of C has remained for me the most logic and easy to play.

[Stephen Chambers]

It was really funny to read all the comments considering bi-sonoric vs. diatonic, Piano not been diatonic, but C/C# is, Steirische boxes are played in a row, Anglo is transposing, but English is not.

A can full of contradictions, yet all you guys have in common, is that you agree with each other(while stating opposite things, and often even your next sentence is contradicting the previous one, but you seem to feel you're very thourough and others agree with it).

I had very good time reading all that.

Thanks.

 

 

Misha,

 

I'm sorry to be so slow in replying, but my internet connection (well actually the whole town's ) went down on Tuesday evening, just as I was reading your and John's simultaneous postings. It's only come back online today.

 

The trouble is that the various families of free reed instruments are indeed "a can full of contradictions", sometimes bewildering ones at that, as are the ways they get played in different countries/cultures, not forgetting the terminology that has been used to describe/define them. But I'm not going to loose any more sleep over it.

 

Anyway, wasn't it you who said "We were talking about English [concertinas]"?

 

This offset of discussion makes little sence actually, and I'm to blame.

I'm sorry for been so anal, I usually am not.

 

 

Edited June 20, 2008 by Stephen Chambers

[Stephen Chambers]

Stephen,

The autoharp community is now becoming aware of the fact that the autoharp as we know it was patented, not by Zimmermann, but by a Markneukirchen luthier by the name of Carl Gütter. (Well, at least it was a Carl!) Zimmermann patented something similar, but different, which never went into production. What Zimmermann did do was to coin the name Autoharp and spread the instrument widely in America, using Gütter's patent chord bars.

John,

 

I'm well aware of the confusion about this in autoharp circles, since Ivan Stiles' article, but I'm hugely sceptical about it. It's not at all a scholarly piece of research/writing, and I'm sure there is a lot more to be learned - maybe I should delve into it myself?

 

But one thing is for sure, and that is that on 1st December 1881, Charles F. Zimmermann of Philadelphia made a patent application for a musical instrument called the Autoharp, which produced chords by moving felt dampers (attached to wooden bars) against the strings that were not desired. That patent was granted as US Letters Patent No. 257,808 on May 9, 1882, and though that instrument was rather different to production instruments (as was the Wheatstone patent that protected the principle of the English concertina!) it appears (as far as I can see at the moment) to have prevented anyone else from patenting an instrument of the autoharp kind, in the United States, until it expired.

 

(Gütters patent was c. 1880)

"Gütters patent" was actually applied for, by a patent agent in London, on behalf of J. M. Grob of Leipzig and K. A. Gütter of Markneukirchen, in 1883, and granted in 1884. But I don't see that it "proves" anything without additional information - for all we know (and I think it entirely possible) it may have been Zimmermann who, in the intervening two years, designed the simplified version of his autoharp that is shown in this patent...

 

 

Zimmermann also saw the autoharp as an application for the number notatation that he had devised for the diatonic accordion. I have two early Zimmermann 'harps and a contemporary tutor that use this notation.

 

As one of probably very few angloists/autoharpers around, I see a certain kinship between the two instruments. Both are button-operated, of course! But the feeling for changes of bellows direction and changes of chord bar are also very similar. And they both have a few notes missing at the bass end.

I used to play one myself, a long time ago, and that's what I was getting at.

[m3838]

I know only one thing, I'm looking for 48 buttons English in F, be it transposing or not, Tenor or Shmenor.

I need an instrument, that has two middle rows of naturals in F ( I guess it means one Bb instead of and playing 5 tones below C. If there are instruments in G, I'm looking for them too. Even in A. I guess E would be too low.

I'm intending to play such an instrument as though it's in C and read the score pretending it's Treble. I'm using lots of accordion music and they tend to write treble part very high, in the squeaky department, to contrast with low basses. It makes my whole instrument childishly high.

Edited June 20, 2008 by m3838

[Stephen Chambers]

Misha,

 

I wish you luck. I think you might have to get such an instrument/instruments made/converted specially for you (or play this high accordion music on a baritone?). It could prove easier/less costly to transpose the music instead?