Ptarmigan Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Browsing through 'The Complete Encyclopedia of Musical Instruments' I naturally first turned to page 176 to see what they had to say about the Concertina, but was rather disappointed to see a photo of not one but TWO Anglo Concertinas .......... but no English Concertina. Then I read the text: In 1829-30, Charles Wheatstone (1802-1875), an English inventor, built a chromatic hand harmonica and called it a "Concertina". Many improvements followed. Many variations on his invention were built but the standard concertina has 128 notes, 36 buttons, and 28 bass buttons. Each button produces two notes. The box is sometimes hexagonal in section, sometimes square. Chords are produced by depressing more than one button at the same time, giving the instrument special harmonic capabilities. It can also be played in polyphony as a result of individual notes being played on the bass side. Nowadays the concertina, known as the "squeeze-box" in slang, is usually employed as an accompaniment to folk music. Thoughts? Edited May 30, 2009 by Ptarmigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Bradshaw Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Certainly the correct graphic for that one ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ptarmigan Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 Certainly the correct graphic for that one ! Aye Jack, Just makes me wonder how accurate the rest of this book really is! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ragtimer Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Browsing through 'The Complete Encyclopedia of Musical Instruments' I naturally first turned to page 176 to see what they had to say about the Concertina, but was rather disappointed to see a photo of not one but TWO Anglo Concertinas .......... but no English Concertina. Then I read the text: In 1829-30, Charles Wheatstone (1802-1875), an English inventor, built a chromatic hand harmonica and called it a "Concertina". Many improvements followed. Many variations on his invention were built but the standard concertina has 128 notes, 36 buttons, and 28 bass buttons. Each button produces two notes. The box is sometimes hexagonal in section, sometimes square. Chords are produced by depressing more than one button at the same time, giving the instrument special harmonic capabilities. It can also be played in polyphony as a result of individual notes being played on the bass side. Nowadays the concertina, known as the "squeeze-box" in slang, is usually employed as an accompaniment to folk music. Thoughts? Sounds like a box I'd like to have a go on! Actually sounds like some kind of Duet concertina, with 28 LH keys and 36 RH -- 64 buttons, not bad at all. Not sure why it has double the number of notes -- must be bisonoric, oh gawd! Now I get it -- he's describing a Bandoneon! Or did he mess up details of that too? At least Wikipedia can be fixed, in response to reader outcries. --Mike K. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 Browsing through 'The Complete Encyclopedia of Musical Instruments' I naturally first turned to page 176 to see what they had to say about the Concertina, but was rather disappointed to see a photo of not one but TWO Anglo Concertinas .......... but no English Concertina. Then I read the text: In 1829-30, Charles Wheatstone (1802-1875), an English inventor, built a chromatic hand harmonica and called it a "Concertina". Many improvements followed. Many variations on his invention were built but the standard concertina has 128 notes, 36 buttons, and 28 bass buttons. Each button produces two notes. The box is sometimes hexagonal in section, sometimes square. Chords are produced by depressing more than one button at the same time, giving the instrument special harmonic capabilities. It can also be played in polyphony as a result of individual notes being played on the bass side. Nowadays the concertina, known as the "squeeze-box" in slang, is usually employed as an accompaniment to folk music. Thoughts? You were lucky Ptarmigan. Browsing in libraries over the years I have found impressive looking books with not disimilar pretentious titles that do not even mention the word 'Concertina' in their index. Proof, if it were needed, that we are an exclusive bunch of oddballs who play a very exclusive little instrument ! Let's keep it that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daniel Hersh Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I wouldn't get too upset about it. I suspect that this was a quickly written book, produced inexpensively to sell on the discount shelves of bookstores. If one of the standard references on the subject (Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments, Oxford Companion to Musical Instruments, etc.) said something like this, that would be another matter. Browsing through 'The Complete Encyclopedia of Musical Instruments' I naturally first turned to page 176 to see what they had to say about the Concertina, but was rather disappointed to see a photo of not one but TWO Anglo Concertinas .......... but no English Concertina. Then I read the text: In 1829-30, Charles Wheatstone (1802-1875), an English inventor, built a chromatic hand harmonica and called it a "Concertina". Many improvements followed. Many variations on his invention were built but the standard concertina has 128 notes, 36 buttons, and 28 bass buttons. Each button produces two notes. The box is sometimes hexagonal in section, sometimes square. Chords are produced by depressing more than one button at the same time, giving the instrument special harmonic capabilities. It can also be played in polyphony as a result of individual notes being played on the bass side. Nowadays the concertina, known as the "squeeze-box" in slang, is usually employed as an accompaniment to folk music. Thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anglo-Irishman Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 I wouldn't get too upset about it. I suspect that this was a quickly written book, produced inexpensively to sell on the discount shelves of bookstores. If one of the standard references on the subject (Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments, Oxford Companion to Musical Instruments, etc.) said something like this, that would be another matter. I've found that "serious" academic books on musical instruments can be equally vague about the concertina. The one I have, "Musical Instruments Trough the Ages", describes only the English, and doesn't even mention that there are other forms. What do Groves and Oxford have to say on the subject? Cheers, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ptarmigan Posted May 30, 2009 Author Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) name='Daniel Hersh' post='95545' date='May 30 2009, 08:26 PM']I've found that "serious" academic books on musical instruments can be equally vague about the concertina. The one I have, "Musical Instruments Trough the Ages", describes only the English, and doesn't even mention that there are other forms. What do Groves and Oxford have to say on the subject? Cheers, John No problem with the Oxford Companion to Musical Instruments, John. There's about a page & a half on Concertinas, with good diagrams for both the English & the Anglo, plus details of all the notes too! There's also a section on the Duets, where MacCann, Triumph & Crane systems are discussed. There is also a section on the Bandoneon. All good stuff. The only thing I would say is, please check the quality before you buy. I first saw this book in our local library & the original, 1992 I think, quality is absolutely excellent, full of quality photographs. Sadly the one I ordered through eBay or Amazon has all the good info, but it is very cheap & cheerful in comparison, & the photos are actually no better than faded photocopy quality! The spine doesn't feel like it's going to stand much wear & tear either. Cheers Dick Edited May 31, 2009 by Ptarmigan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick King Posted May 30, 2009 Share Posted May 30, 2009 (edited) Browsing through 'The Complete Encyclopedia of Musical Instruments' I naturally first turned to page 176 to see what they had to say about the Concertina, but was rather disappointed to see a photo of not one but TWO Anglo Concertinas .......... but no English Concertina. Then I read the text: In 1829-30, Charles Wheatstone (1802-1875), an English inventor, built a chromatic hand harmonica and called it a "Concertina". Many improvements followed. Many variations on his invention were built but the standard concertina has 128 notes, 36 buttons, and 28 bass buttons. Each button produces two notes. The box is sometimes hexagonal in section, sometimes square. Chords are produced by depressing more than one button at the same time, giving the instrument special harmonic capabilities. It can also be played in polyphony as a result of individual notes being played on the bass side. Nowadays the concertina, known as the "squeeze-box" in slang, is usually employed as an accompaniment to folk music. Thoughts? BUT.... What do you expect? WIKIPEDIA, as far as I've heard, is set-up for registered members on that site to put in their own thoughts of what a specific word means; therefore, you're sure to come across words with wrong meanings. So, I wouldn't use it for help with school-work or something like that; it's either: Use a proper dictionary or take the risk of getting A-. Does anyone agree? Edited May 30, 2009 by Patrick King Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Ducky Raley Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 I've also noticed huge disparities across the web in describing what Diatonic means or single/double action in relation to the type of Concertina. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimLucas Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Browsing through 'The Complete Encyclopedia of Musical Instruments'.... BUT.... What do you expect? WIKIPEDIA, as far as I've heard, is set-up for registered members on that site to put in their own thoughts of what a specific word means; therefore, you're sure to come across words with wrong meanings. So, I wouldn't use it for help with school-work or something like that; it's either: Use a proper dictionary or take the risk of getting A-. Does anyone agree? Patrick, please read Ptarmigan's post more carefully, and follow his link. The quote is not from Wikipedia, but from what many would consider "a proper dictionary", and thus a potential source for information that some "helpful" individual might post on Wikipedia. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick King Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Browsing through 'The Complete Encyclopedia of Musical Instruments'.... BUT.... What do you expect? WIKIPEDIA, as far as I've heard, is set-up for registered members on that site to put in their own thoughts of what a specific word means; therefore, you're sure to come across words with wrong meanings. So, I wouldn't use it for help with school-work or something like that; it's either: Use a proper dictionary or take the risk of getting A-. Does anyone agree? Patrick, please read Ptarmigan's post more carefully, and follow his link. The quote is not from Wikipedia, but from what many would consider "a proper dictionary", and thus a potential source for information that some "helpful" individual might post on Wikipedia. Will do; sorry about that. I thought it would've been about Wikipedia, because of the topic title. I was trying to say that some of the information, so far as I've heard, that is posted in Wikipedia could be wrong. Cheers, Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anglo-Irishman Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Will do; sorry about that. I thought it would've been about Wikipedia, because of the topic title. I was trying to say that some of the information, so far as I've heard, that is posted in Wikipedia could be wrong. Cheers, Patrick Patrick, My son, who is doing a Bachelor's degree course, informs me that these days academic circles do not accept Wikipedia entries in the bibliographies of theses or essays. If you want to bolster your arguments, you have to cite "serious" publications. The point is that anyone can write anything about anythng in Wikipedia. It may be bona fide, empirical knowledge, but it may also be the result of sloppy research, or tendentious, or egocentric, or even deliberately misleading. It is, however, considerd a good way of "getting into" a topic, which you can then research in more reliable sources. Cheers, John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomB-R Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 Will do; sorry about that. I thought it would've been about Wikipedia, because of the topic title. I was trying to say that some of the information, so far as I've heard, that is posted in Wikipedia could be wrong. Cheers, Patrick Patrick, My son, who is doing a Bachelor's degree course, informs me that these days academic circles do not accept Wikipedia entries in the bibliographies of theses or essays. If you want to bolster your arguments, you have to cite "serious" publications. The point is that anyone can write anything about anythng in Wikipedia. It may be bona fide, empirical knowledge, but it may also be the result of sloppy research, or tendentious, or egocentric, or even deliberately misleading. It is, however, considerd a good way of "getting into" a topic, which you can then research in more reliable sources. Cheers, John And perhaps a good reminder of the need to approach a "serious" subject with proper rigour! I agree that Wikipedia often gives a nice concise intro to a subject. From personal experience (on subjects I know a bit about) I'd guess the percentage of sound content is in the high 90s. But this thread isn't about Wikipedia! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ken_Coles Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 BUT.... What do you expect? WIKIPEDIA, as far as I've heard, is set-up for registered members on that site to put in their own thoughts of what a specific word means; therefore, you're sure to come across words with wrong meanings. So, I wouldn't use it for help with school-work or something like that; it's either: Use a proper dictionary or take the risk of getting A-. Does anyone agree? Patrick, I can tell you don't live anywhere near an American university. My students, even the future science teachers, require extreme motivation or incentives (or penalties) to get them to look stuff up anywhere but on the internet. Few even have the experience (or concept) of looking something up in a hard copy source or going to a library. That said, I find that wikipedia entries in my own field of science are pretty darn good. They are subject to constant revision, however, so it is best to check a topic of great interest several different times. To get back on topic, there was an interesting thread some years ago about the wiki entries on our instruments, and IIRC some pledges from folks here to contribute better content to them. If anyone writes a new book on instruments, maybe the internet will lead them here for info on concertinas and they will recruit one of you to write the article! Ken Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Timson Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 My son, who is doing a Bachelor's degree course, informs me that these days academic circles do not accept Wikipedia entries in the bibliographies of theses or essays. If you want to bolster your arguments, you have to cite "serious" publications. I can vouch for that. My partner Anne is reading music at Bath Spa University and Wikipedia is totally verboten there! I wouldn't get too upset about it. I suspect that this was a quickly written book, produced inexpensively to sell on the discount shelves of bookstores. If one of the standard references on the subject (Grove Dictionary of Musical Instruments, Oxford Companion to Musical Instruments, etc.) said something like this, that would be another matter. I got Anne (who as a music student has a login) to look at Grove Online to see what they say. It has a long article which is very complete and factually accurate - unsurprising since it was written by our own Allan Atlas! Chris Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patrick King Posted May 31, 2009 Share Posted May 31, 2009 BUT.... What do you expect? WIKIPEDIA, as far as I've heard, is set-up for registered members on that site to put in their own thoughts of what a specific word means; therefore, you're sure to come across words with wrong meanings. So, I wouldn't use it for help with school-work or something like that; it's either: Use a proper dictionary or take the risk of getting A-. Does anyone agree? Patrick, I can tell you don't live anywhere near an American university. My students, even the future science teachers, require extreme motivation or incentives (or penalties) to get them to look stuff up anywhere but on the internet. Few even have the experience (or concept) of looking something up in a hard copy source or going to a library. That said, I find that wikipedia entries in my own field of science are pretty darn good. They are subject to constant revision, however, so it is best to check a topic of great interest several different times. To get back on topic, there was an interesting thread some years ago about the wiki entries on our instruments, and IIRC some pledges from folks here to contribute better content to them. If anyone writes a new book on instruments, maybe the internet will lead them here for info on concertinas and they will recruit one of you to write the article! Ken I get what you're telling me; I've swallowed it. Starting with Anglo-Irishman and all others in this subject, I'll go back on what I said earlier. And, no, Ken, I don't live anywhere near an American university. I don't want to sound cheeky; but you might want to have a look at where I live in my member profile. I live in Australia, and I'm about 1 1/2 hours from the Southern Cross University. Cheers, and Thanks! Patrick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Roberts Posted June 1, 2009 Share Posted June 1, 2009 Hi All, I recall that last summer at Noel Hill's Oregon workshop one of the students brought her laptop to an evening gathering and asked Noel if he'd like to hear the Wiki entry on himself. She'd only got about 2 sentences into it before he was hotly disagreeing. "It sounds as if I had been born in a mud hut! Where did they get that?" She explained that the article could be edited - and who better to do it - so a fair amount of time was spent modifying the entry to Noel's satisfaction. It was an interesting introduction to the Wikipedia process. Ideally, articles evolve over time as they are read and responded to. But that's the ideal; somebody's soapbox tirade on any given topic remains exactly as written until/unless someone else is motivated to challenge it - and to cite a convincing source. I wouldn't use Wikipedia as a reference for a scholarly article, but it does have its uses. From what I understand, some of the experts who write those references actually get their jollies arguing with each other on Wikipedia. Cheers, Molly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now