'Patent'

Patent Patang-ug. Quill-shaped bamboo percussion tube of the Ralinga people of the northern Philippines. Among the Isneg people it is called patanggo. The patang-ug is held near its base by the right hand and struck against a hard object (e.g. another tube, a stone, or the handle of a large knife). A second tone is produced by stopping a hole at the tube’s base with the third inger. The patang-ug is played on the way to a peace pact or an important celebration; it is believed to prevent ill omens from befalling the celebration. An ensemble of six such tubes may also be played to imitate topayya (lat gong ensemble) music. JOSÉ MACEDA Patatag. Lap xylophone of the Kalinga people of the northern Philippines. It consists of six separate bamboo staves, each of which is laid across the lap of a player. The patatag ensemble uses the techniques of the topayya (lat gong ensemble) music: the left hand, which strikes the stave with a stick, corresponds to the left hand’s motions on the topayya, while strokes and slides by the right-hand stick correspond to the right hand’s motions in topayya playing. JOSÉ MACEDA Pātē. Wooden slit drum of Rarotonga, Rurutu, Tuvalu, Pukapuka, Tokelau, the Loyalty Islands, and Samoa. In Rarotonga it is made in various sizes, from 30 to 130 cm long, and was traditionally beaten with a single stick; a two-stick technique has been introduced from Tahiti. It is used singly for signalling, and in ensemble with other percussion instruments (pakau tarekareka) to accompany the well-known Cook Island drum dance (ura pa’и). In Samoa the pātē is the smallest (average length 75 cm) of several forms of slit drum. Smaller pātē are called fa’afelāvē and larger ones tu’i or tu’itu’i. Most instruments have carrying handles but some tu’i do not and are stood on end to play. The instrument is used with one stick for signalling and with two for accompanying dance. It was almost certainly introduced into Samoa by native Rarotongan Christian missionaries for announcing religious and educational meetings. From Samoa it spread to Tuvalu, Tokelau, and the Loyalties. In Pukapuka and Rurutu the term is probably a borrowing from Rarotonga. BIBLIOGRAPHy R. Moyle: ‘Samoan Musical Instruments’, EthM, vol.18/1 (1974), 57–74 W. Laird: Drums and Drumming in the Cook Islands (diss., U. of Auckland, 1982) MERVyN MCLEAN Patenge. Single-headed rectangular frame drum of the southwestern Democratic Republic of the Congo. It is a modern instrument used in popular music, particularly to accompany the maringa and the rumba. Patent (Fr. brevet; Ger. Patent; It. brevetto; Sp. patente). Oficial means of protecting an invention by conferring an exclusive privilege or licence for a limited period acref-9780199743391-Libin-P.indd 33 33 of time. The history and law of patents are territorial and differ from country to country. Medieval European royalty conferred various privileges in return for revenue. As early as 1443, the Venetian Republic granted patents giving exclusive rights and privileges to inventors of products or processes, as a means of economic development. In 1623 the English Parliament enacted the Statute of Monopolies, which restricted the Crown to patenting new inventions and manufactures, but not basic goods. The irst British patent for a musical instrument (for an automatic player device) was issued in 1694; the next (for a harpsichord coupler system) followed only in 1730. The Second Continental Congress of the USA, in order to promote technological and economic progress, granted certain exclusive rights to inventors in 1787. These rights collectively became the Patent Act, adopted into the Constitution in 1790. The US Patent Ofice survived the British attack on Washington, DC, in 1814 thanks to Dr William Thornton, the superintendent, who was building a musical instrument of his own invention in the same building and had removed the patent documents to safety. Unfortunately on 15 December 1836 a ire in the temporary US Patent Ofice depository destroyed the patent records kept up to that time, and only a fraction of these have been reconstructed. French post-Revolution patent law was largely shaped by the American model; before 1791, a French inventor was required to cede his rights to the Crown. Afterwards, inventors, in addition to being free from the Crown, were also freed from the restrictive rules of the guild system. A French law of 7 January 1791 allowed for ‘invention patents’ of limited duration (5, 10, and 15 years with a scaled-fee system), as well as patents of ‘improvement and addition’ which the applicant could append to the original patent for a fee. The irst post-Revolution French patent relating to a musical instrument was granted in 1798, for the Erard pedal harp. 19th-century patent laws were often reformed and amended, especially concerning international protection and reciprocity. For example, from 1844, French patent law included international protection and reciprocity, allowing for patents of ‘importation’. French patent forms emphasized what had already been decreed on 27 September 1800: that the government, ‘in accordance with a patent of invention without prior examination, does not guarantee in any manner, the priority, the merit, or the success of an invention.’ Further, the 1844 patent law stated: ‘Whoever takes characteristics of a patented object, in brand names, advertisements, brochures, posters, trademarks or logos, without possessing a patent that was delivered according to the laws, or after the expiration of a previous patent or that is patented, mentioning its characteristic or its patent without adding the words “without guarantee of the Government”, will be punished … .’ Due to this proviso, musical instruments were stamped ‘SGDG’ (breveté ‘sans garantie du Gouvernement’). The 1791 French patent law was the most advanced in the world and was relected in laws instituted by 18/09/14 10:20 PM 34 Patent other countries in the 19th century. Belgian law differed notably in the maximum duration of a patent (20 years), and the granting of patents of addition without charge. In the German Confederation patent law was very strict. Although patents of importation were allowed in the various states of the Confederation, the long procedure and strict preliminary examination the patent application had to undergo possibly inhibited foreign instrument makers from patenting their inventions in the German states; interactions similar to those common between British and French instrument makers have not been noted between instrument makers of Germany and any other country. Moreover, patents granted in one German state were valid only in that state. Thus, a patentee desiring to patent an invention throughout the Confederation had to apply individually in each state and pay taxes in each. Unlike in France, British law leniently allowed for a patent or design registration for a product previously patented or known ‘outside the realm’; the claim of ‘invention’ was considered valid and the patentee was considered a ‘true inventor’ even though the product had been previously patented elsewhere. British law stated that ‘the person to whom letters patent are granted must be the irst person to make the invention known here’; the objective was not to support inventors, but to promote trade and manufactures. Rarely in patents regarding brass instruments did British patentees acknowledge an original foreign (commonly French) patentee or inventor, although in some cases the patent subject was slightly altered so it did not closely resemble the original French invention. Moreover, in Britain only patents of invention were issued, so the system did not distinguish between these and patents of importation. Prior to the establishment of a central ofice for the United Kingdom in 1852, inventors had to ile in seven ofices, each with its own fee. An alternative way of protecting inventions, which was very popular among British musical instrument makers, was registering designs. Originating from the Designing & Printing of Linen Act of 1787, the 1839 Copyright of Design Act extended protection to the shape, coniguration, and ornamentation of all manufactured articles; the protection period lasted from a few months to three years. Further reforms included the Design Act of 1842 and the Utility Design Act of 1843, the latter protecting the functional features of an object. The design registration system offered instrument makers a less expensive alternative to British patents. About the middle of the 19th century, the registration of a utility or non-ornamental design (the category embracing musical instrument designs) cost £10 for three years. The fundamental difference between patents and design registration was that the latter protected merely the form of a subject, whereas patents additionally protected the whole idea behind an invention. The 1842 Act was designed to reform the 1839 Copyright of Design Act, which had become confused in popular opinion with letters patent. A number of British instrument makers thus took advantage of the 1843 Design Act for non-ornamental designs and registered their acref-9780199743391-Libin-P.indd 34 inventions as designs, rather than obtaining more expensive patents. Design registration was begun in France in 1806, in the USA in 1842, in Austria in 1858, in Italy in 1868, and in the Deutsches Reich in 1876. From 1891 German registered-design products were stamped ‘DRGM’ (‘Deutsches Reichs Gebrauchs Muster’), while already from 1876 patented objects (having a separate and distinct protection) were marked ‘DRP’ (‘Deutsches Reichspatent’). Owing to the idiosyncrasies of European intellectual property law, particularly in France and Britain, many mid-19th-century British patents and British registered designs drew from French patents. For brasswinds, Adolphe Sax’s patents were possibly the most copied by British makers, although products of other French makers such as Gautrot and Besson also inspired subjects for British patentees. In some cases, under agreedupon terms, certain irms could manufacture and sell models patented by other irms (e.g. Rudall & Rose and Godfroy & Lot had a licence to produce certain Boehm lutes). Two main functions of the patent for the inventor were protection and publicity. The patent protected the inventor by providing an air of authority and some protection against counterfeiters. If an inventor believed his patent to have been violated, he could take legal action. Adolphe Sax is a prominent example; his brasswind patents were the cause of a long series of litigations, which involved most of the well-known brass instrument makers of the time. Sax’s opponents alleged that he had copied their instruments when he introduced his saxhorns and saxotrombas and that there was nothing new about them but their name. They managed to annul his 1845 patent for some time, although Sax denied their accusations and recovered his patent after a few years. Then in his turn he took some of his adversaries to court with the accusation of having copied his instruments during the period of his patent’s nulliication. Such occurrences were infrequent because long-lasting court cases were costly and could harm reputations. Sax went bankrupt three times despite the enormous sales his monopolies had warranted. In theory, patent law ensured prosecution of anyone who violated the rights of patentees (including employees of patentees who disclosed information regarding patented objects) or sold counterfeit goods. In addition to protecting the inventor, a patent could attract publicity to the invention, increasing its monetary value. Further, patent publicity was widely used in advertising. Trademarks were an additional safeguard against patent infringement and fraud. National trademark registers were introduced in France in 1856, Austria in 1858, the USA in 1870, the Deutsches Reich in 1874, and Great Britain in 1875. Rights to a trademark could be inherited (e.g. the trademark of luthier Didier Nicolas l’aîné, ‘A la ville de Cremone’, was subsequently acquired by J. Nicolas, Honoré and J. Derazey, and P. Mangenot). With the growth of the middle-class market, especially from about 1830, patents were granted in increasing 18/09/14 10:20 PM Patent numbers for new and improved construction and design of all types of instruments, including lasting improvements as well as leeting novelties. Fashion inspired patents for decorative elements and innovations in design (F. Chanot, guitar-violin, France, 1818; S.K. Kamaka, oval ‘pineapple’ ukulele, USA, 1927). Patents were also taken for tuning mechanisms, tools, and machinery (H. Pape, machine for piano production, France, 1826), construction-related processes including wood treatments and desiccation, and varnish production. In many cases patents relected innovations in scientiic understanding that enhanced an existing design or, particularly in the second half of the 19th century, expanded the size of instrument families (F.A. Sautermeister, ten-key bass clarinet, France, 1812), created a new family of instruments (A. Sax, saxophones, France, 1846), or took advantage of newly available technology (H.K. Sandell, electric self-playing violin, USA, 1905). In some cases new instruments were variations on existing, often unpatented instruments (F.H. Smith, ‘Grand Harmonicon’, USA, 1825). Hybrid and duplex instruments were also the subject of patents, conceived either for the player’s convenience (T.W. Moore’s combined lute-piccolo, Great Britain, 1950) or to combine two or more instruments into one ( J.C. Hancock, organized piano, Great Britain, 1790). Patents covered pedagogical devices (S. Phiquepal d’Arusmont, keyboard and monochord system, France, 1843), as well as performer aids and accessories (H. Herz, dactylion, France, 1836; Ballotteau, left-arm guide mechanism for violinists, France, 1845, J.N. Maelzel, metronome, France, 1815; J. Kun, violin shoulder-rest, USA, 1972). Instrument components and manufacturing processes were patented (I. Pleyel, process for making copper and iron piano strings, France, 1810). One of the most fertile ields for instrument patents in the 19th and 20th centuries was mechanization, especially of instruments with interfaces comprised of buttons, key systems, and keyboards. Patents of mechanical/automatic instruments peaked during the period of their greatest popularity, about 1880 to 1920. Electronic instrument patents proliferated after World War I (e.g. T. Cahill, Teleharmonium, USA, 1919; L.S. Theremin, ‘Method of and apparatus for the generation of sound’, Germany, 1924; M. Martenot, ondes martenot, France, 1928; L. Hammond, Hammond organ, USA, 1934). Typically, inventors who seek to preserve or assure their industrial intellectual property deposit a description of the principles, means, and procedures that constituted the discovery, such as the relevant plans, drawings, and models, often appended to a nationally standardized patent form. As a result, patent archives often include valuable information about the inventor and invention: the applicant’s name and address, the type of patent (whether it is a patent of invention, improvement, both invention and improvement, importation, importation and improvement, or improvement and addition), the duration of the patent, and what documents or other evidence (such as models, etc.) were deposited and when. The supporting documents acref-9780199743391-Libin-P.indd 35 35 typically include a descriptive memoir and drawing(s), and in some cases more extensive correspondence. Beyond the basic information, patent documents can vary in quantity and type of information. Patent laws entailed that the description of the discovery would be made public, and as a result patent descriptions often do not contain trade secrets. While many patents are entirely limited to technical and practical discussions, some offer insight into notions of progress, scientiic understanding (such as theories of acoustics), aesthetics, interdisciplinary activity (e.g. collaboration between physicists and musical instrument makers and performers), information relative to the state of the relevant discipline (such as market prices, export values, and views on the rivalry between French and Italian luthiers), and even frustrations regarding the patent process. Patent information should be considered critically, since patents were commercial documents as well as technical ones. Many patents claim broad adaptability of their innovations, but this is often overstated. Despite the requirement that a patent be for a single innovation, there are single patents for an improved instrument to fulil acoustic as well as practical ends, providing for an especially marketable product ( J.H. Pape, hexagonal piano, 1834). Also, registration of a patent was not an oficial endorsement of the quality of an invention, but only conirmed that the invention qualiied as a subject to be patented. Before the mid-19th century most patent ofices, particularly in France and Belgium, often conducted only minimal review when accepting a patent request. Some inventors claimed on their labels and in other forms of advertising to hold patents that were apparently never granted. It can be misleading to take patent statistics as representative of manufacturing activity. For instance, the relatively lower cost of patents and weakness of preliminary examination in France and Belgium led to more patents of musical instruments being granted in those countries before 1860 than in other European countries and the USA, even though Britain and the USA were arguably more productive of inventions. Inventors, especially in France, took advantage of low-cost certiicates of addition that often bear little or no relation to the subject of the original patents. Desirable conditions also resulted in more British inventors/makers, such as Henry Distin, applying for French patents than French makers applying for British patents. Adolphe Sax, for example, was granted only one British patent (in 1860), and this was substantially his 1859 French patent. Furthermore, many British inventors who applied for a patent failed to proceed to the next stages. Henry Distin, for example, applied for many patents that never reached the inal stage of approval, perhaps because of the fees involved. Events such as industrial fairs and expositions tended in the 19th century to cause a temporary increase in patent applications (up to 25% more in exposition years), as inventors sought to protect and publicize their work prior to public exhibition. Some 4200 French music-related patents were granted in the 19th century. The pace quickened during the 18/09/14 10:20 PM 36 Patent 1850s and 60s, relecting the activity of large irms and the doubling of the total number of makers due to many newly established small- and medium-sized artisan workshops. Despite a decline in the number of makers and average workshop size after 1860 (mainly due to workshops settling into optimal sizes following a period of intense growth), patent numbers doubled from 1885 to 1900 as the market for new instruments expanded and provincial makers increasingly participated. In France, lutherie was the largest sector of instrument making at the beginning of the 19th century, yet, along with woodwinds, was the least affected by industrialization. French lutherie patents, which were numerous at the beginning of the century, declined in proportion by 1830 compared with patents in other sectors. The situation was reversed for wind instrument patents, which began slowly but predominated from 1830 on due largely to advances in metalworking. Piano makers held by far the greatest number of patents as a result of their use of technology for mass production. French wind-instrument patents were second to piano patents from about 1830 to the 1860s, even though wind makers were much fewer in number and used less machinery. During the 1850s and 60s, wind-instrument patents tripled in number compared with the previous two decades. Three-quarters of these patents were for brasswinds, primarily for new piston systems. Despite innovations in organ and accordion building, these makers tended not to take patents. Following trends in musical fashion, there were no harp patents during the Second Empire, and plucked-stringed instrument patents greatly increased during the 1890s. Just as not all patented inventions were successful, not all successful innovations were patented. From 1858, numerous patent reforms in France exempted small workshops from patent laws, so makers with only one employee or apprentice, or who worked from home, were less inclined to apply for a patent or perhaps could not afford one. Accessibility of patent documents varies from country to country. The patent documents themselves are typically located in a country’s national ofice (a centralized legal authority), for example in France the Institut national de la propriété industrielle (INPI), and in Britain the Intellectual Property Ofice. However, in Italy and Germany a central authority for patents came into being only after national uniication: 1861 in Italy, and 1870 in Germany. Currently, the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) maintains an online directory of contact information for the intellectual property ofices of its 186 current member states. These ofices hold records of their respective patent laws and guidelines, the original patent documents, and the publications that list them. Patents are most often cited by application date; however, some systems catalogue them by date of approval, an assigned serial patent number, name of applicant, title, or a combination of these. For example, the patent for which Henri Pape applied on 27 December 1844 for improvements to stringed instruments (applicable to pianos) is numbered ‘647. 8 mars 1845’, where 647 acref-9780199743391-Libin-P.indd 36 is the serial number assigned by INPI, and 8 March 1845 is the award (i.e. approval) date of the patent. For French patents after 1844, both pieces of information are needed to locate the desired patent. Generally, patents are listed chronologically and in more detailed catalogues can be investigated alphabetically by name and subject. Once patents are located, some documents can be viewed only in black-and-white reproduction, on microilm or microcard for example, which can make deciphering more dificult. In some cases the original manuscripts, some having elaborate and colourfully illustrated technical drawings, need to be consulted for details. BIBLIOGRAPHy Ofice of the Commissioners of Patents for Inventions: Patents for inventions. Abridgements of Speciication relating to Music & Musical Instruments A.D. 1694–1866, 2nd ed. (London, 1871, facs. 1984) L’Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle: Brevets d’invention français, 1791–1902: Un siècle de progrès technique (Paris, 1958) [exhibition catalogue] W. McBride: ‘The Early Saxophone in Patents 1838–1850 Compared,’ GSJ, vol.35 (1982), 112–21 G. Dullat: Blasinstrumente und Deutsche Patenschriften, 1877–1970 (Siegburg, 1985) M. Haine: ‘Les facteurs d’instruments de musique en France vus au travers les brevets d’invention’, Les brevets. Leur utilisation en histoire des techniques et de l’économie. Table ronde du Centre National de la Recherche Scientiique, 6–7 Dec 1984, ed. F. Caron (Paris, 1985) M. Haine: Les facteurs d’instruments de musique à Paris au 19e siècle. Des artisans face à l’industrialisation (Brussels, 1985) J. Webb: ‘Designs for Brass in the Public Record Ofice,’ GSJ, vol.38 (1985), 48–54 S.-M. Vance: ‘Carte’s Flute Patents of the Mid-Nineteenth Century and Related Systems’, JAMIS, vol.13 (1987), 89–106 C. MacLeod: Inventing the Industrial Revolution: the English patent system, 1660–1800 (Cambridge, 1988) J.M. Bonin: Piano-beds & music by steam: an index with abstracts to music-related United States patent records, 1790–1874 (Berkeley, CA, 1993) G. Dullat: Saxophone, Internationale Patentschriften im Holz- und Metallblasinstrumentenbau, vol.1. 1846–1973: Belgien, Deutschland, Frankreich, Gross-Britannien, Tschechoslowakei. vol.2. 1916–73: Vereingte Staaten (USA). (Nauheim, 1995) M. Kotler and G. Hamilton: A Guide to Japan’s Patent System (Washington, DC, 1995) G. Dullat: Klarinetten: Grundzüge ihrer Entwicklung: SystemeModelle-Patente, verwandte Instrumente, biographische Skizzen ausgewählter Klarinettenbauer (Frankfurt am Main, 2001) I. De Keyser: ‘The Paradigm of Industrial Thinking in Brass Instrument Making during the Nineteenth Century’, HBSJ, vol.15 (2003), 233–58 L’Institut National de la Propriété Industrielle: Touches à touches: Pianos et brevets d’invention au XIXe siècle (Paris, 2005) [exhibition catalogue] G. Dumoulin: ‘The Cornet and Other Brass Instruments in French Patents of the First Half of the Nineteenth Century’, GSJ, vol.59 (2006), 77–100 T. Reiffenstein: ‘Codiication, Patents and the Geography of Knowledge Transfer in the Electronic Musical Instrument Industry’, Canadian Geographer, vol.50/3 (2006), 298–318 G. Dullat: 200 Jahre Patente, Privilegien und Gebrauchsmuster im internationalen Holz- und Metallblasinstrumentenbau (Wilhelmshaven, 2010) M. Holmes: Index to Patents and Patentees of Acoustic, Fretted, Stringed Musical Instruments, 1839 To 1949: From the Beginning of Available Patent Ofice Records, to the End of The 1940s (Orleans, MA, 2011) C. Linsenmeyer: Competing with Cremona: Violin making innovation and tradition in Paris (1802–1851) (diss., Washington U. in St. Louis, 2011) 18/09/14 10:20 PM Pat-waìng E. Mitroulia: Adolphe Sax’s Brasswind Production with a Focus on Saxhorns and Related Instruments (diss., U. of Edinburgh, 2011) CHRISTINA LINSENMEyER (WITH EUGENIA MITROULIA) Patent voice lute [lauto di voce]. Alto transverse lute in G, with an extra, large hole covered by a vibrating membrane (mirliton) nearly opposite the c♯″ key. The British patent (19 June 1810, no.3349), issued to Malcolm MacGregor, does not mention the mirliton but claims improved keys. The head section is turned back to bring the embouchure within reach; the connecting U-tube is bored in a single block of wood of oval section, the other three sections of the lute being of normal (box) wood construction, typically with ivory mounts and silver keys. The patent voice lute was made by the London lute makers Wigley & McGregor of 151 Strand; some music was written for it by James Hook. See J. Hedlund: ‘James Hook and the Patent Voice Flute’, Music, Libraries and Instruments (London, 1961), 239–43. Pat kôn choh [nong nôt]. Gong chime of the Mon people of Myanmar and Thailand. The ten bossed gongs are mounted vertically in a U-shaped frame and struck with two wooden beaters. The instrument is played in an ensemble for dance and theatre music. Patsching (Ger. patsch, ‘smack’). Technique of body percussion. The palm of the hand rhythmically strikes the thigh, normally close to the knee. Usually both thighs are lightly struck simultaneously, but patsching can also alternate between the thighs. It can be done while seated or standing and on bare lesh or clothing. Patsching is used in many styles of body percussion, for example in Tyrolean folk dancing, where other parts of the body may also be struck, and is often used by music educators in teaching rhythm to children. SALLy SANFORD 37 still apparent, since the musicians are placed on stage amidst the performers. The ensemble is nowadays so large that the pat-talà player, who leads the ensemble, cannot be heard without the aid of ampliication. GAVIN DOUGLAS Paṭṭavādya. Friction idiophone, with jingles, described in Sanskrit works of medieval India. The name means literally ‘plank-instrument’, and the instrument was a rectangular wooden board about 60 cm long and 40 cm wide. It had rows of metal rings—threaded, perhaps, through plaited metal wires—at the top and bottom; the board was coated with resin and rubbed with the ingertips. It was held either against the chest or between the knees. See Śārṅgadeva: Saṅgītaratnākara (13th century), ed. S. Subrahmanya Sastri, vol.3 (Madras, 1951). ALASTAIR DICK Patterson, James (b Barstow, CA, 19 Feb 1956). American brass instrument maker and horn player. He studied horn at the University of Southern California (1974–80), played natural horn in the LA Baroque Orchestra, and remains active as a freelance performer. He began repairing brass instruments in the 1980s and founded Patterson Hornworks in Los Angeles in 1997; the workshop moved to Las Cruces, New Mexico, in 2005. After studying with the horn maker Lowell Greer, Paterson began producing natural horns. He makes a Baroque horn after Johann Christian Hoffmaster (1730) and a Classical horn after Nicodemus Pechert (1795). His principal work, however, is with modern instruments: he produces custom horns based on designs by Carl Geyer/H.F. Knopf, C.F. Schmidt, and Ed. Kruspe, and specializes in the customization of factory-made horns. Hornworks also produces custom mouthpieces and a mellophone leadpipe designed for horn players. JEFFREy NUSSBAUM/R Pat-talà. Xylophone of Myanmar. It has a soundbox assembled from seasoned teak, sometimes carved and painted, and normally 24 bamboo bars encompassing just over three octaves. The bars are suspended over the boat-shaped soundbox by two cords passing through holes drilled close to the ends of the bars; they are struck with two cloth-covered beaters. A version of the pat-talà with iron bars, called than-pattalà, is used principally for rehearsals when it replaces the kyì-waìng (gong chime). Pat-talà and pat waìng share a similar two-part polyphonic technique with the right hand playing the melodic line and the left playing a supporting harmonic role. The two-part pat-talà technique is the basis of Burmese piano playing. The pat-talà is used mainly to accompany singers or as part of a small indoor ensemble. However, it is also used in the outdoor ensemble, which accompanies anyeìn performances. The anyeìn theatre genre probably evolved from a small court ensemble consisting of a singer, pat-talà, and palwei (bamboo lute), which was gradually enlarged to include more singers, dancers, and instrumentalists. The court origins are acref-9780199743391-Libin-P.indd 37 Pat-waìng [hsaìng-waìng]. Drum chime of Myanmar. It consists of 21 tuned drums suspended from the inside of a circular wooden frame. The drums are made of wood with two laced heads and are 12 to 40 cm tall. They encompass more than three octaves. The wooden frame is approximately 1 metre tall and is often ornamented with inlaid glass and painted gold. The player sits on a stool in the centre and only his head and shoulders are visible from the outside. The drums hang vertically within the frame so that the musician plays on the upper heads only. Each drum is tuned with a paste (pat sa, literally ‘drum food’) made in the past from rice but nowadays largely synthetic; it focuses the pitch to a clean tone with few overtones. The paste is applied before each performance and removed after playing. During performance the player will retune several times (while the other instruments in the ensemble take the melody) through the application or removal of pat sa. Unlike other Burmese and Southeast Asian drummers who play rhythmic patterns on their drums, the pat-waìng musician also plays melodies. The pat-waìng is the lead instrument in the hsaìng-waìng ensemble, 18/09/14 10:20 PM