Salvation Army use of Triump concertina
Frank Riswick
Salvation Army. In what ensemble setting is/was it played, at which
occasions, which kind of music was played?
Are there any of you who have played themselves, or know of people who
have done so? Do you have music used by the Army?
kind regards
Frank
J. L. Huffer
concertinas. I was under the impression that the Army used whatever
instruments were available to them and made up their ensembles based on what
instruments were available. Another concertina player that I met had a book
of tunes that was published by the Army, it looked old. Might still be
available if you contact them.
Lance
Dave Hunt
> Triump concertina
>From: "J. L. Huffer" lan...@kconline.com
>Date: 04/02/01 23:07 GMT Standard Time
>Message-id: <ghlf6.10$fg....@news.direcpc.com>
As far as I know 'Triumph' is not a make of concertina but a duet system, like
the McCann is
dave
Dave Hunt...Shropshire
----share what you know...learn what you don't----
Pete Young
>I thought that Triumph made melodions,
'Triumph' is often used to describe the Crane duet system concertinas
used by the Salvation Army. Whether this came about because Lachenal
or Wheatstone had a 'Triumph' range, I'm not sure.
Pete
--
____________________________________________________________________
Pete Young pe...@antipope.org
"Just another crouton, floating on the bouillabaisse of life"
Michael Berenstein
>
> As far as I know 'Triumph' is not a make of concertina but a duet system, like
> the McCann is
> dave
> Dave Hunt...Shropshire
> ----share what you know...learn what you don't----
Nope! It's any system. I have a tutor for Triumph concertina. Its 26 button Anglo.
( I 'thought' it's going to be Crane Duet).
Jim Lucas
> >
> > As far as I know 'Triumph' is not a make of concertina
> > but a duet system, like the McCann is
> > dave
> > Dave Hunt...Shropshire
>
Interesting. Where did you get it? Is it Salvation Army? It says
"Triumph" on the cover and/or inside? My Sally Army tutor for the
Triumph is definitely for the duet fingering system which is also
known as Crane. And my Sally Army tutor for the English says it's for
the "English concertina"; it says nothing about "Triumph" (except
maybe in
some song titles). I don't have one of their tutors for the anglo,
but I've always assumed they had one, since many of their "soldiers"
played anglos. I'd like to get one.
I have yet to see an instrument labelled "Triumph" which was other
than that fingering system. If there *is* a difference between the
Triumph and the Crane, it's only in the contour of the "rows" that run
more or less-perpendicular to the fingers. (On my Jeffries-made
Crane-system the rows consist of two straight segments joined at a
shallow angle, while on my Edeophone Triumph each row forms a
shallow curve.)
I.e., if you do have a tutor for the anglo that claims to be for the
Triumph, it goes against commonly accepted terminology.
/Jim Lucas
Michael Berenstein
> I.e., if you do have a tutor for the anglo that claims to be for the
> Triumph, it goes against commonly accepted terminology.
>
> /Jim Lucas
I must look it up.
I think I gave Sulvation Army museum's address and phone number to
somebody else from the NG, may be this person remembers what it says on
the cover. I recently moved so my papers are still in boxes.
I do vaguely remember though, that it does say "Triumph" on the cover,
and also states it's a tutor for chromatic concertina. So in a way it
goes against accepted terminology, if discard the fact that it was
published in 1890-ies and terminology was(?) different.
Pete Young
> If there *is* a difference between the
>Triumph and the Crane, it's only in the contour of the "rows" that run
>more or less-perpendicular to the fingers. (On my Jeffries-made
>Crane-system the rows consist of two straight segments joined at a
>shallow angle, while on my Edeophone Triumph each row forms a
>shallow curve.)
Very interesting. Which begs the question: is this a difference between
Crane and Triumph, or a difference between the design and construction
methods of two different manufacturers?
It further appears that the concertina has indeed died out in the
Sally Ann, at least in the UK. There was apparently a noted exponent
who lived in Felixstowe, 10 miles down the road from me, but he died
several years ago.
Jim Lucas
> Jim Lucas <j...@danbbs.dk> :
>
> > If there *is* a difference between the
> >Triumph and the Crane, it's only in the contour of the "rows" that
run
> >more or less-perpendicular to the fingers. (On my Jeffries-made
> >Crane-system the rows consist of two straight segments joined at a
> >shallow angle, while on my Edeophone Triumph each row forms a
> >shallow curve.)
>
> Very interesting. Which begs the question: is this a difference
between
> Crane and Triumph, or a difference between the design and
construction
> methods of two different manufacturers?
Question resolved, maybe: A page from my Wheatstone catalog is for
"The 'DUET' MODEL, Crane or Triumph system". So the first thing to
note is that at least Wheatstone considered the two names to be
equivalent. Furthermore, there's a picture, and the contour of the
rows is closer to that on my Lachenal Edeophone "Triumph" than to that
on my Jeffries "Crane". Yet it *is* even slightly different from the
Edeophone. So it appears that each manufacturer had their own minor
variation. I say "appears", because I don't have a large enough
sample of instruments to tell whether there was variation over time
either within or among manufacturers.
> It further appears that the concertina has indeed died out in the
> Sally Ann, at least in the UK. There was apparently a noted exponent
> who lived in Felixstowe, 10 miles down the road from me, but he died
> several years ago.
I suspect that there are still a few SA concertina players in the UK,
as well as in the US, Sweden, and *maybe* even Denmark. But not many
young ones, and most old ones may no longer be active on the street
corners. The instrument of choice these days seems to be the cheap
electronic organ with the built-in accompaniment (one no longer needs
to learn to play anything but the melody), or even pre-recorded backup
for a singer or two. The old portable pump organs and even the brass
have pretty much given way to the electronic mind set of the modern
era.
/Jim Lucas
John Wild
<j...@danbbs.dk> writes
>> It further appears that the concertina has indeed died out in the
>> Sally Ann, at least in the UK. There was apparently a noted exponent
>> who lived in Felixstowe, 10 miles down the road from me, but he died
>> several years ago.
>
>I suspect that there are still a few SA concertina players in the UK,
>as well as in the US, Sweden, and *maybe* even Denmark. But not many
>young ones, and most old ones may no longer be active on the street
>corners. The instrument of choice these days seems to be the cheap
>electronic organ with the built-in accompaniment (one no longer needs
>to learn to play anything but the melody), or even pre-recorded backup
>for a singer or two. The old portable pump organs and even the brass
>have pretty much given way to the electronic mind set of the modern
>era.
>
> /Jim Lucas
>
The last position that I am aware of in the UK is:
There is still a SA concertina band based in the Plymouth (Devon) Ladies
Corps
There is a quartet based in Doncaster, Yorkshire, led by Mildred
Stringer.
There are some individual players still active in Bognor Regis is
Sussex, and other individuals scattered around the country.
--
John Wild
International Concertina Association
Treasurer/Membership Secretary
Website: http://www.concertina.org.uk
Leon Ashley Peek
>
> I have yet to see an instrument labelled "Triumph" which was other
> than that fingering system.
Ah, beware the unscrupulous modifiers. Some people
have taken small duet concertinas and moved the
reeds around and retuned to make them almost 26-key
Anglos. I have never seen one, but have read about
this somewhere.
Leon Peek
lp...@mail.smu.edu
Jim Lucas
Are you sure about the details? I *have* heard of people taking Jeffries duets
and turning them into "Jeffries anglos", because 1) Jeffries-reeded anglos are
in such great demand, and 2) "nobody" plays the Jeffries duet system these
days, but I haven't heard of anyone doing that sort of thing with other makes.
And to make a 26-key anglo? Aside from a couple of miniatures, I haven't seen
or heard of a duet with that few buttons. That's one button less than two
chromatic octaves, *if* there's no overlap between the hands. The fewest
mentioned in the SA tutor for the Triumph is 35 buttons, 1½ octaves in the
right hand and an octave plus a couple of notes in the left, with half an
octave of overlap. Turning a duet into a 45-key anglo would seem more likely,
as I believe there were lots of 45-key duets made.
/Jim Lucas
Pete Young
[Snip of listing of active Salvation Army concertina players]
I'm delighted to hear it, and I'm sure my friend in the Felixstowe
Corps band will be too.
To re-assure Jim, the Salvation Army brass bands are alive and
well in the UK.
Goran Rahm
Jim Lucas skrev i meddelandet ...
>"Pete Young" <pe...@antipope.org> wrote ...
>> Jim Lucas <j...@danbbs.dk> :
>>
>> > If there *is* a difference between the
>> >Triumph and the Crane, it's only in the
contour of the "rows" that
>run
>> >more or less-perpendicular to the fingers.
(On my Jeffries-made
>> >Crane-system the rows consist of two
straight segments joined at a
>> >shallow angle, while on my Edeophone Triumph
each row forms a
>> >shallow curve.)
>>
>> Very interesting. Which begs the question: is
this a difference
>between
>> Crane and Triumph, or a difference between
the design and
>construction
>> methods of two different manufacturers?>
> /Jim Lucas
According to Phil Inglis:
In 1896 J.Butterworth patented the system.
(According to Harry Crabb the system was
invented by the Crabbs in the 1880's but was not
patented and no instruments made at the
time).The system was adopted by Crane and
Co,music dealers in Liverpool.They marketed
instruments made by Lachenals under their own
name.
This means that the innovation of the system as
such had nothing with Crane to do. The procedure
by dealers to have their own brand was common.
The Salvation Army Anglos made by Lachenals for
example often have "SA" in the fretwork instead
of the Lachenal label.
The Butterworth patent diagrams show the diamond
shape keyboard like Jim described on his
Jeffries and I have seen on Crabb instruments.
The Salvation Army tutors, editions 1924 and
1935, both have the same angled diagrams
although the Edeophones on the covers both have
the curved layout. This is the case also with
the Wheatstone catalogue from 1950's.
The clue how the "Triumph" came in might be
which maker had the first orders by Salvation
Army for the"Crane system" instruments and IF
all instruments sold by S.A. did have this
curved keyboard shape which I actually believe
they have. It is funny to notice that the
Triumph S.A. tutors only list Lachenal
instruments while the English tutors list
Wheatstones.
Nevertheless Crabbs throughout long time did
have much business with S.A. as well.
It would be interesting to know the exact
history of more individual instruments and the
keyboard shape of them.
Goran Rahm
>