Csfri's Public-domain Library: Free Download?

[James Plamondon]

Gentlepersons,

 

The Center for the Study of Free-Reed Instruments (CSFRI at CUNY) has an extensive collection of sheet music for the English concertina, the Regondi tutor, and other interesting public-domain material that various donors have provided.

http://web.gc.cuny.edu/freereed/library/mu...concertina.html

 

CSFRI's website laudably states that it "is devoted to fostering and serving as a resource for scholarly research on all aspects of all free-reed instruments" and has "the aim of making its collection accessible to those interested in the subject."

 

To achieve this aim, the obvious next step is for CSFRI to scan its collection of public-domain sheet music and make it available for free download, allowing people to print out the results themselves or at their local copy shops (on larger paper, if desired).

 

For thicker works, such as tutorials, the new print-on-demand technologies can produce bound books one at a time for a very reasonable price. CSFRI could send in a copy of the tutor, and have it available on Amazon a week later, dirt cheap.

http://www.lightningsource.com

 

CSFRI's website says that it intends to make "the collection available to those who would visit us, or—when copyright does not stand in the way—through xerox duplication."

 

But this statement makes no sense. Xerox machines are a SECURITY system, in which a piece of paper is a token indicating that the bearer has the right to access the information copied onto it. No paper, no access. It's a way of HIDING information, not of sharing it. If you want to SHARE information, you put it on the Internet, so everyone in the world can download it. That makes the Internet the perfect vehicle for the accomplshment of CSFRI's stated aim.

 

Given that most of CSFRI's library of English concertina material has been in the public domain for over a century, copyright doesn't even come close to standing in the way.

 

Can it be that CSFRI actually intends to hide its collection behind a wall of paper copies? I prefer to believe that I misunderstand the intent of CSFRI's "availability" statement -- surely, I'm missing something.

 

Can any of the readers of this forum clear up this misunderstanding?

 

Thanks! :-)

 

--- James

[AlexCJones]

Maybe no one has gotten around to the task of scanning them. Being a university though, they should be able to get some computer-literate students to do the task -- maybe even for free if a part of an internship or something.

 

I'll have to visit the place next time I am in NYC

 

- Alex C. Jones

[James Plamondon]

Gentlepersons,

 

Note that although I advocate the free downloading of CSFRI's public domain archive "as is," note that CSFRI still has the opportunity to profit by adding value. Bear with me for a minute, and I’ll explain how.

 

It is my understanding (and please jump in here if I'm wrong on this) that Wheatstone's English concertina was originally designed to conform to the old mean-tone tuning system. In that system, to make it possible to play in the full range of keys, the G-sharp and A-flat had to sound different from each other, as did D-sharp and E-flat, as explained here:

http://www.ubmail.ubalt.edu/~pfitz/play/re...ef/tmprment.htm

 

In the currently-standard equal-temperament tuning system, the notes in these pairs are “considered to be the same,” so the reeds sounded by pressing the G-sharp and A-flat buttons are tuned to sound the same. This is also true of the D-sharp and E-flat.

 

(The old concertinas were also originally tuned to 'old pitch,' not to modern 'concert pitch,' but that is a different issue, which is not relevant to this discussion.)

 

Consider, then, any song written or arranged for the English concertina in the mid-1800’s. It would be arranged for mean-tone tuning, because that’s how they were all tuned then.

 

QUESTION: would such a song sound somehow “wrong” if played on a concertina that had been tuned to the equal-temperament system (as essentially all concertinas are, now)? If so, would rearranging it slightly make it sound closer to the composer’s original intent?

 

Presuming that the answer to both questions is “yes”…

 

Here’s the point: CSFRI has the opportunity to *create* intellectual property from its collection of public-domain material by rearranging the songs as described above and copyrighting the results. CSFRI could then quite reasonably charge for access to these new, copyrighted versions of the previously public-domain works. Presuming that CSFRI renewed its copyrights periodically, and that the world’s jurisdictions continue endlessly extending their copyright expiration deadlines as they have for the past 75 years or so, CSFRI can own these copyrights *forever.*

 

Also notice that collections (anthologies) of public-domain works are also copyrightable. By collecting its archive into a single anthology, or set of anthologies, CSFRI can create copyrightable intellectual property, even if it does nothing else to the original works.

 

Note, however, that this copyrighting would put CSFRI in a conflict-of-interest position. On the one hand, CSFRI is requesting donations of copies of public-domain works, explicitly in order to share them with the world. Imagine that CSFRI produces new, copyrighted versions of these public-domain works, as described above. Imagine further that it places both versions on its website for downloading: the original, public-domain versions for downloading at zero cost, and the copyrighted versions at some non-zero cost. People would tend to choose the free versions, all else being equal, even if they didn't sound quite right, because people are cheap.

 

One way around this would be for CSFRI to add significant value to its copyrighted versions. One obvious way to do this would be for CSFRI to include (along with its sheet music) a sound file of the song being played properly. If it did this for its copyrighted versions, but not for its public-domain originals, then it would be fulfilling its stated mission to share the contents of its public-domain library, while still having a way to generate at least a modest revenue stream.

 

What CSFRI should *not* do, is try to “add value” by printing its copyrighted sheet music and shipping it to purchasers. As mentioned above, shipping paper detracts value, unless the sheet music would be too thick for end user to print out themselves (and even then, one should have the soft-copy option).

 

Why am I going into all of this detail? Because profit is *good.* I want CSFRI to understand how it can make a good, honest profit from its activities, while still meeting its stated public-service aims.

 

…unless I am myself missing something critical, which is entirely likely, given my state of perpetual and ever-increasing ignorance – in which case I beg your forgiveness and look forward to your assistance in correcting my mistakes. :-)

 

Sincerely,

 

James Plamondon

[JimLucas]

It is my understanding (and please jump in here if I'm wrong on this) that Wheatstone's English concertina was originally designed to conform to the old mean-tone tuning system.

 

James, where do you get this "understanding"? I'm not aware of any documentation of such a *purpose* in the design. It makes more sense to me (though I also have no documentation) that the duplicated accidentals were duplicated because 1) there were places for them in the array of buttons and 2) they made possible the alternating-sides pattern of the scale in more keys.

 

Note that while there are a D# and an Eb, there is no Db alternative to the C#. Why some and not others (except that there's no room for more in the grid), if it was a design *principle*?

 

Consider, then, any song written or arranged for the English concertina in the mid-1800’s. It would be arranged for mean-tone tuning, because that’s how they were all tuned then.

 

*My* "understanding" is that the above statement is entirely false, but I hope that those with more experience than I will tell us definitely.

 

How many concertinas have you encountered where the "duplicates" were actually different? I've only met a couple, and they weren't among the earliest ones, which leads me to suspect they were special requests, not a "standard" that was later abandoned.

 

"Tempered" tuning goes back a long way, much farther than our "modern" equal-tempered version and much farther than the concertina. After all, pianos, organs, etc. did not have different keys for D# and Eb, etc. Of course you've heard of Bach's "Well Tempered Klavier". Concertina and piano -- and for that matter, violin and piano -- duets were common in Victorian times and before. It is more likely that violinists learned to play "tempered" scales -- to blend with pianos -- than that concertinas were designed to play un-tempered.

 

Getting back to actual instruments, I've encountered several instruments in tunings and temperaments different from equal temperament, but most of them were simply "tempered" to a different standard, with the Ab and Eb still equal to the G# and D#. And those that seemed to be tuned to sound more "pure" in particular keys have been mainly anglos, not English system.

 

As for "old pitch" vs. "new pitch", and in fact many "standard" pitches that differed from each other as well as from A440, that is indeed a completely independent issue.

 

…unless I am myself missing something critical, which is entirely likely, given my state of perpetual and ever-increasing ignorance – in which case I beg your forgiveness and look forward to your assistance in correcting my mistakes.

 

As far as I can tell from your postings so far, you are missing many critical somethings and making many seriously mistaken assumptions. I may try to correct a mistake or two, as above, but you've made so many already that I just don't have time to try more than a small part.

[Paul Groff]

On the point of the Wheatstone english concertina fingering system being designed around the mean-tone temperament system that was standard for English organs in the mid-1800s, I have to agree with Mr. Plamondon, Jim. I will have more to say about this when I publish my research on nineteenth century concertina pitches, tunings, and temperaments. In the meantime, I think you will find discussion of this in Neil Wayne's great GSJ article and in Montagu, J. 1981 The World of Romantic & Modern Musical Instruments (Overelook, Woodstock NY). To what extent the old music needs to be re-arranged is another point. I suspect that Mr. Plamondon's modesty reflects the natural humility of a scholarly mind, and he should not be faulted for his speculations and original (wild?) ideas, which he clearly identifies as such.

[James Plamondon]

Jim, et al., --

 

I appreciate your taking the time to point out the errors in my admittedly limited understanding. Plese allow me to show you the same courtesy, and do not hesitate to correct any errors you find herein. When it comes to getting the facts right, I am a glutton for punishment. :-)

 

You ask how many concertinas I've encountered in which the "duplicate" buttons were actually tuned to different notes. This is a very reasonable question! :-)

 

Sadly, I must confess that I have encountered precisely one concertina in my entire life -- my mom's broken Bastari Anlgo -- so I have no data to offer on this point. However, I would argue that such anecdotal evidence is not compelling in any event, as the vast majority of surviving mean-tone concertinas would have been re-tuned to equal-temperament, concert-pitch tuning in the intervening years. (Perhaps a professional concertina restorer could chime in here.)

 

You ask where I get my understanding that the English concertina was designed to be tuned to the mean-tone system. Good question! :-)

 

Here's a link to a discussion of the evolution of Western tuning systems that specificially discusses both the English concertina and Bach's "Well-Tempered Clavier," placing both in context:

http://www.ubmail.ubalt.edu/~pfitz/play/re...ef/tmprment.htm

 

The relevant passage is as follows:

An instrument that retained mean-tone tuning until the 1860’S was the English concertina: it had the same two extra notes as the old Temple organ, so that it had exactly the same range of practicable tonalities as that organ. There is a very interesting long passage on the English concertina in Berlioz’s Orchestration, in which he ‘lets himself go’ as to its ‘barbarous scale’. The scale was, however, not ‘barbarous’; it was very satisfactory – so long as the player avoided extreme keys.

 

The ‘barbarous scale’ effect of which Berlioz complained was due to players wrongly using the two extra studs that were provided: e.g. they might play A flat in a key where G sharp was required. (These extra keys are still retained in the instrument, but are tuned as mere duplicates of two ordinary keys, serving merely to facilitate the fingering in certain types of passage.)

 

Now, I have no idea whether any of this is true or not. The author is from the University of Baltimore (I gather, from the URL), but I can't trace the author back any farther than that.

 

I admit to being embarassed by my ignorance, but I've tried to find answers to these questions on the Web with no success. I appreciate your generosity in taking the time and effort to offer your suggestions.

 

Looking forward to hearing more from you all, I remain

 

Yours Respectfully,

 

James Plamondon

[d.elliott]

Chaps,

 

to add more fuel to the fire, I have only come accross two concertinas in mean tone tuning, both were very early Wheatstones. It could well be that others I have handled (of similar vintage) may have been re-tuned later to equal temper, even though their pitch remained as original.

 

I suspect that as we re-tune instruments to get to concert pitch, to blend in with other instruments today, our Victorian squeezers (not tax collectors) will quite probably have had the temper changed on their instruments to suit their own changing times.

 

Dave

[Paul Groff]

I agree with Mr. Elliott about retunings during the playing life of Victorian english concertinas. Every "time capsule" early brass reeded english concertina I have seen (Wheatstone or Scates labels, dating from 1850's or earlier) --and by this I mean the ones that have seen little play and no repairs -- seems to have originally been in 1/4 comma meantone with Eb/D# and G#/Ab enharmonics that are appropriate to the 14-tone version of that temperament. Of course, this is always a sort of archaeological judgement as there are inevitably a few notes that have drifted due to corrosion or overuse, and the revalving will always affect the tuning. However, the duplicate press and draw notes and the multiple octaves of each note make such judgements possible, if not indisputable. However, I have also seen such early instruments that have been back to Wheatstones for steel reeds and that were retuned to equal temperament (either then or subsequently), at pitches from ca. A 440 to around A 446 (Society of Arts meantone?). I also have in my shop a medium quality Wheatstone 48, originally in brass reeds, with a few period steel replacement tongues; if memory serves it is in roughly A 446 or A447 meantone (including the steel tongues which were tuned to match the brass ones), possibly indicating that a well-played instrument could sometimes have been kept in meantone as it was repaired.

 

Actually I also agree almost entirely with Mr Atlas' posts on this subject (today, but elsewhere in the forum). However I think it very reasonable to infer that an instrument like the early Wheatstone 48, clearly designed with 14 "keys" (buttons or studs) to the octave, in an era when keyboard tuners were lamenting the absence of 14 keys to the octave on their instruments, and of which the cleanest early examples are tuned with 14 TONES to the octave, was designed around 14-tone 1/4 comma meantone. If I correctly understand the analogy, I accept Mr. Atlas' point that it is a "chicken and egg" question whether Wheatstone's use of the meantone tuning system or his fingering system came "first." I contend they came together, that is, his use of the 14 button/octave fingering coincided with his use of meantone. I don't think this contradicts the claim that meantone tuning was a design constraint of the button layout. To claim otherwise, in my opinion, would require some kind of proof that Wheatstone introduced two extra studs per octave but that they produced redundant pitches. I want to make clear that I am willing to be proved wrong if someone can provide this evidence. As in archaeology, we have to keep an open mind as new evidence and new interpretations come up. But others before me (including Montagu as I have mentioned) have made the inference and I think it is reasonable.

 

I have called Mr. Atlas by his last name out of respect to a colleague I have not met personally (unlike Jim Lucas, who I hope I can count as a friend even if we disagree here). However, if he has no objections I'd be happy to be on a first name basis from here on.

 

_Paul

[Paul Groff]

Sorry, in my previous post the word "meantone" should have been omitted after the words "Society of Arts." I'm afraid I still am not used to composing online.

[JimLucas]

Consider, then, any song written or arranged for the English concertina in the mid-1800’s. It would be arranged for mean-tone tuning, because that’s how they were all tuned then.

 

*My* "understanding" is that the above statement is entirely false, but I hope that those with more experience than I will tell us definitely.

 

And it seems I was wrong. Paul and Allan certainly know more about the subject than I do.

 

In fact, I read James' post too quickly and carelessly, and -- like "anglo" and "English" to a non-concertina person -- equated things that weren't the same.

 

I realize now that I didn't know what "mean tone tuning" was, nor that it was different from "mean temperament". So I thought that James was confusing "tempered" scales -- in which accidentals such as D# and Eb are identical -- with non-tempered scales -- in which they're different. I was the one who was confused, as well as being rather more ignorant of the history of the subject than I thought, particularly in relation to the concertina.

 

Having now studied the information at the link that was provided, I've learned a great deal, though I'm still somewhat confused on a few points. E.g., were pianos or organs ever given mean-tone tuning centered on a key other than C? And in at least one case Allan used the term "mean tone temperament". But by now I thought that "mean tone" was *not* "tempered". Am I still confused? (On this point, I mean. )

 

And I might wonder why Wheatstone chose to make the button next to D a D#, rather than a Db. Were sharp keys more commonly used than flat keys at the time? (I suspect Allan can answer that last one.)

[d.elliott]

Mr. Groff,

 

please call me 'Dave', I like to think we can ne friends too, particulalry as we agreed.

 

regards

 

Mr. (Dave) Elliott

[Paul Groff]

Dear Jim,

 

I don't have the last word on this subject and am working to clear up my confusion also, but this may help.

 

One of many excellent references on tuning and temperament (but with an emphasis on keyboard instruments such as pianos, harpsichords, clavichords, and organs) is "Tuning," by O. Jorgensen (1991, MSU Press, E. Lansing, Mich.). I don't treat this reference as infallible but it is a major work. The history of tunings through the last few hundred years is a complex subject; very notable sources have published seemingly authoritative statements on the subject that turned out to be wrong (Wim Wakker lists one example elsewhere in this forum), and the final story has yet to be (will never be?) written. Most of us who received introductory music lessons of some kind in the 20th century have been taught a vocabulary/set of concepts that actually makes it harder to understand the music of the nineteenth century and before. One example is the entry under "enharmonic" in the New Harvard Dictionary of Music; the author's point of view is so centered in the "equal temperament" paradigm that you could easily come to the false conclusion that "enharmonics" are/were ALWAYS the same pitch. Enharmonics (such as the two notes of the pair D#/Eb) were assigned different pitches in meantone temperaments. In fact, Quantz introduced "enharmonic" keys for the transverse flute so that D# and Eb could more easily be given different pitches (each note having its own key), much as I believe Wheatstone did in his english concertina fingering system. In the paradigm of equal temperament, enharmonics are "different names for the same pitch," and in the "well temperaments" there is only one pitch for the two notes D# and Eb, but it might not be centered between D and E.

 

D# and G# in the sharp keys and Eb and Ab ih the flat keys are simply the first enharmonics you have to deal with when you center the circle of fiths in the natural notes ("white keys" of the piano - or early english):

 

D# - G# - C# - F# - B - E - A - D - G - C - F - Bb - Eb - Ab (the 14 tones of the english tina)

 

Meantone temperaments are so called because the fifth intervals are tempered, that is, they are not assigned the pitches that would make them acoustically pure or "just." These fifth intervals are slightly tempered in equal temperament ("narrow" by about 2 cents from just) but in equal temperament the fifths are pretty good. String players sometimes take care not to tune their open strings in pure fifths, but I suspect many traditional fiddlers use these slightly wider untempered fifths of just intonation, so that if their A was right on their E would be sharp relative to equal temperament, their D flat, and their G flatter. The discrepancy with equal temperament may not be noticeable to some. In the meantone temperament that is most commonly discussed, (1/4 comma meantone), the fifths are much narrower than in equal temperament (around 5.4 cents from just) and beat noticeably.

 

However, the major thirds are pure (just) in 1/4 comma meantone, and differ greatly from the harshly beating wide thirds of equal temperament (about 13.7 cents wide from just). These sweet untempered thirds of 1/4 comma meantone provide a very beautiful harmony unfamiliar to many modern ears. Especially since harmonies in thirds are so natural to the english concertina, and since free reeds have harmonics that make the wide major thirds of equal temperament particularly unmusical in the mid to upper register, I would like to see every english concertinist experiment with 1/4 comma meantone temperament at some stage in their education (see post by Allan Atlas who uses both). Many will find that on their equal tempered instruments they have developed a habit of playing fifth intervals, which do sound harsher in meantone. Mr. Wakker suggests one of many compromises available between these two alternatives. Wim, I know Young's tuning is well-deocumented for keyboards but have you actually recorded this from a period english concertina? Your statement that it was "used in the nineteenth century" is ambiguous on this point.

 

To close (for now), I and others who should know better often use the term "tuning" loosely for a system assigning pitches to named notes. But according to Mr. Jorgensen we should be careful to call every such system a "temperament" if one or more of its natural intervals has been altered from just or acoustically pure. So there is equal temperament (ours divides the octave into 12 equal parts, but one could also have a 10 tone equal temperament, etc.), 1/4 comma meantone temperament in which the fifths but not the major thirds are tempered, etc. Jorgensen only uses the noun "tuning" in this context to refer to just (untempered) scales, or to the results of a tuner's work. (See his glossary, and extended discussions under each of the scales).

 

Jim, you are a pioneer in the concertina revival and we all owe you so much for scavenging and preserving the instruments and fostering new players. There are other great collectors out there as well who got a jump on the current market. All of you are in the best position to help us learn more about the original pitches and scales of the old machines, as most of today's players have only one and immediately retune it to modern standards.

 

I await more dialog (and corrections, I'm sure!) --Paul

[Paul Groff]

Once again I have to correct my own posting... not only did I mistype "fifths"above but did not make clear that there really is no "circle of fifths" in meantone. The narrow meantone fifths make not a circle but a spiral after twelve tones, which is why D# is not Eb, G# is not Ab, etc.

I should have referred to a series or chain of fifths. The "circle of fifths" is another one of those musical concepts many of us learned early but that are embedded within the concept of equal temperament (there is also a circle of fifths in well-temperament).

[David Barnert]

Once again I have to correct my own posting...

Paul, you can correct your posts without starting a new post. Just hit the "Edit Post" button (only available to you if you are reading your own post). In fact, I will likely have to edit this post after I send it because I am not certain if the button actually says "Edit Post" or some other similar expression. I can't see one in this window, but I will as soon as I've posted this and read it.

 

What did I tell ya? It just says "Edit" and it's one of the buttons in the top right corner.

Edited September 1, 2003 by David Barnert

[JimLucas]

you can correct your posts without starting a new post.

Hmm. That raises a question -- the answer to which I don't have time to research at the moment, as I'm about to leave for work -- but does an edited message get marked somehow (perhaps returned to the "unread" category) so that those of us who have already read the unedited version know we've still missed something?

 

I notice that your edited message, David, doesn't highlight the addition/change in any way to draw my attention to it.

[David Barnert]

you can correct your posts without starting a new post.

Hmm. That raises a question -- the answer to which I don't have time to research at the moment, as I'm about to leave for work -- but does an edited message get marked somehow (perhaps returned to the "unread" category) so that those of us who have already read the unedited version know we've still missed something?

 

I notice that your edited message, David, doesn't highlight the addition/change in any way to draw my attention to it.

"Unread" category? I have not yet seen evidence that this expression has any real meaning in this forum. Am I missing something?

 

As far as I can tell, despite the appearence of the word "unread" here and there in the links, there are only posts that have appeared since the last time I signed on and posts that predate my last sign on. The system doesn't seem to know what I've read and what I haven't. And as you pointed out elsewhere, Jim, one doesn't read posts here, one views pages of posts.

 

Would your question more correctly be worded "does an edited message get marked somehow (perhaps an updated posting time) so that those of us who have already read the unedited version know we've still missed something?" I don't have an answer, but it shouldn't be too hard to figure out.

 

Perhaps we should move this thread to the Forum Logistics column, but I'm not sure how to do that.

[JimLucas]

Perhaps we should move this thread to the Forum Logistics column, but I'm not sure how to do that.

 

Not sure, but I think we have to ask Paul to do it for us.

[allan atlas]

JIM AND EVERYONE: Paul has hit a number of nails on the head. . . . .one of which answers Jim's question about why Wheatstone made the note next to the D a D sharp instead of a D flat. . . . . . . .given Wheatstone's "starting" point, the need to differentiate between D flat and C sharp did not come into play. . . . . . .to understand Wheatstone's thinking, it's helpful to look at his so-called Harmonic Diagram, which I reproduce in my Wheatstone English Concertina. . . . the diagram shows how Wheatstone conceived of the octave as being divided in 14 parts, these not being equal to one another. . . . . .

 

as Paul pointed out, the whole question/history of temperaments is terribly complicated. . . . . . wish i could formulate a very simple explanation. . . . .but i can't. . . .allan