Friday 4 November 2016

Hystoric background of 144 Einheits Bandonion


A large family with several internal divisions

Bandoneons are basically divided in 2 categories: the unisonoric models (inappropriately called chromatic) and the bisonoric (inappropriately called diatonic), with several different versions within each category also. For example, in unisonoric versions you find at least 3 different layouts: Peguri (originally spread in France and Belgium and now in all Europe), Kusserow (very rare, with small diffusion in Europe) and Standardbandonion (invented by bandonion virtuoso Heinz Schlegel, and largely unknown), but the list goes on.

Instead, in the bisonoric category mainly only 2 systems survived: the Rheinische tonlage (the bandoneon "par excellence" with 142 tones) and the Einheits tonlage with 144 tones. So, when we talk about 144 bandoneon, we refer to this one.

A little about 144 bandonion origins

The birth of Einheits 144 bandonion dates back to 1924, as an attempt to fix a standard for a numberless keyboard layout versions. In the early 20s unisonoric systems weren't so popular yet (probably didn't exist at all) and bisonoric was the standard, but every manufacturer, even every musician could have had his own version of the bisonoric keyboard. So, was decided to create a unified version, the Einheits model (Einheits means "unified") starting from the pre-existing models (quite similar to the already existing argentinian bandoneons). The new instrument was unsuccesful in Argentina, because tango players were accustomed for decades in playing the 142 models, but became the standard in Germany. It even seems that it was mandatory to play this 144 version in the german bandonion orchestras, and was forbidden to play other systems, like the pre-existing rheinische models.


Different layout, different music, different sound

Because of the rejection of argentinian players and the spread among german players, 144 Einheits consolidated its role as a popular music instrument and was used for german folk music together with a vibrato sound, given by a third reeds row (absent in argentinian models) to "emulate" the sound of a very popular folk instrument, the accordion. So the 144 and 142 bandonions became different not only in the keyboard, but in the sound also, and in some construction features. For example. the zinc plates in argentinian models were replaced with aluminium in Einheits, because aluminium was lighter and more durable in time, but had a lower sound output and a "too smart" tone, not suitable for  Argentina melancholic music, tango. However, you can find some 144 bandonion with zinc plates: they are the older models or the custom instruments for german players who wanted the same sound as Rheinische models in order to play tango.

The "post war" decline

144 bandonions were quite popular and spread in Germany till 2nd World War, and this is demonstrated by the large amount of instruments you can easily find nowadays on websites like Ebay or similar. But after the war, because of the upcoming rise of electrified music, started the decline for most of  the "melodic" instruments without an academic background, including the bandonion. In Argentina the decline was strong, but there you always had bandoneon players during the years, because tango here is artistic heritage and bandonion is the national instrument. Otherwise, in Europe bandonions were totally forgotten in every version (chromatic or diatonic). We must wait 80-90 decades, with spread of tango nuevo and popularity of Astor Piazzolla, to find an increasing interest for this instrument.

Nowadays situation

A strong tango revival gave new popularity to the bandoneon in Europe, wich is still a quite rare instrument, but becomes increasingly widespread. The most spread bandoneon version is probably the Rheinische, the argentinian one, because most people are interested into tango or Piazzolla music AND THEN become interested into bandonion. A quite large popularity is dealing with "chromatic" bandonion (Peguri system), very popular in France and Belgium and quite common internationally  among accordion players who feel more confortable with this instrument, because don't require you to learn the "chaotic" keyboard layout of bisonoric models.

And what about 144 Einheits bandonions? Except for some folk orchestras in Germany, this instrument is not widespread and is little-known, and that's a shame because the 144 bandonion has some interesting features:

  • it has actually the same expressive potential as rheinische 142;
  • it has the same, or at least, a similar sound as tango 142 bandonion: you can silence the third reeds row or search for a zinc plates model;
  • it has a more coherent keyboard, without repeating notes like the rheinische 142;
  • it is cheaper than any 142 model;
  • unlike the 142 coming from Argentina or Uruguay which are consumed because were played from their manufacture to date, 144 models were played for some years and then "forgotten on a shelf" somewhere. So you have a "almost like new"old handcrafted instrument;
  • the right side note range is more versatile, thanks to "extra G and G# notes" (not present in 142 models) wich permits you to work on a classical and folk repertoire more easily.
My hope is that this instrument can earn one day the consideration it deserves.

6 comments:

  1. This comment has been removed by the author.

    ReplyDelete
  2. No, sometimes you have with 2 sets (very rare), sometimes with 4 (very heavy). Generally the thumb lever is not present.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ok. Is it possible to determine if the reeds (not the reed plates, but the reeds themselves) are made of zinc or aluminium?

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi J. , bandoneon's reed are steel made only.

    ReplyDelete
  5. "We must wait **80-90 decades**, with spread of tango nuevo and popularity of Astor Piazzolla, to find an increasing interest for this instrument."

    Really? Someone waited 800 to 900 years (decades are 10 years)?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I forgot to put "'" in front of the numbers. But I think the concept was clear, anyway.

      Delete