Mix 104.9

I suggest that Charles Wheatstone made a major contibution to the early development of this technology back in 1829. Check this link:

http://www.free-reed.co.uk/galpin/g2.htm

Link suggestions

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Accordion article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Accordion}} to this page. — LinkBot 01:01, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Free-reed duplication

Much of the beginning of this artcle duplicates the Free reed aerophone article. If there are no objections, I'll remove it. There's already a link.--Theodore Kloba 14:31, May 13, 2005 (UTC)

Button accordion

The article Button accordion is currently very brief, so should probably be expanded or merged into here. Note: I know nothing about the subject, I just came across this article while fixing redlinks, and moved it from Button Accordion. --Vclaw 19:13, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

It's also not really correct, since button accordion is a broader class of instruments than the one described in that article. --Theodore Kloba 19:41, July 18, 2005 (UTC)

Major rework

A major rework of this crappy article is long overdue. Unless I hear cries of protest, I will be bold in the next few days. --Theodore Kloba 15:52, July 20, 2005 (UTC)

I think it is pretty good as it is, but if you feel the need to be bold, by all means do so. Suppafly 14:55, 21 July 2005 (UTC)

As a multi-instrumentalist and Piano Accordion player who has also dabbled with other squeezeboxes, this article, while well intentioned seems frustrating and potentially confusing, because the different types of boxes are not distinctly separated, so many unrelated things are mixed together. Bigger is not always better - KISS!

I suggest that some separation of the different major types of boxes would be best. Also some separation to separate pages for things such as the Stradella, the piano or chromatic keyboard, the bellows, the Reed Banks, the Register Switches, etc. Such components that are part of each style of instrument can then be linked in only as necessary. This would mean that the diatonic boxes, which do not have Stradella would not confuse readers with unnecessary 'data overload', for instance. Still working on it... More Haste, Less Speed! Boldness is not always helpful... (smile)

FoolesTroupe (talk) 12:05, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Faas Keyboard?

If you added the following statement:

A special key layout was patented on January 14, 1854 by Anthony Fass. It is not in use today.

Please give me more information. If it's not in use, why should it be included here? --Theodore Kloba 17:46, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

I didn't, but how's this: completeness. We've got everybody else who contributed to its modern development (as far as I know...), why not Faas? (He is, BTW, the only 1 I'd ever heard of before...) Trekphiler 07:33, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Completeness? I have been through the US Patents (in Category 84/376K) and there are dozens of special key layouts that were important enough to somebody that they were patented, none of which are in use today. I'm sure the European patent office has many more. --Theodore Kloba 18:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I have no intentions of a rework, but I see squares or rectangles under Stradella bass system instead of # or b. This is not the only article that does not display # or b. I use the latest version of IE with Auto-Select checked under Encoding. I don't know what is being used but flats or sharps (b,#) are not showing on my screen. Perhaps someone here can correct this. Thanks, Davehorne 17:39, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

History

• • Was a piano with added aeoline register.
  • Aeoline Harmonika and Pysharmonika are very similar names at that time.
    • Aeoline and Aura ware first without bellows or keyboard.
• The Hand Physhamonika Anton Haeckel 1818 Hand type mentioned in music newspaper 1821.

If we reed the text of the patent careful and take into account that at that time in Vienna mouth harmonicas with "Kanzellen" (chambers) ware soled already for many years and also other bigger Hand bellows driven Instrument ware soled for some years. He could not get a patent for a aeoline, because it already ware there. He could not get a patent for the diatonic arranging of keys the system ware in use on moth blown instruments. So he thought it is a good idea to get a the Year of 1833 we find a great variety of instruments mentioned in the Writing of the musician Adolph Müller "Schule für Accordion". There is also evidence that Whetstone did know this types of instruments at that time.

So he could think to put his idea of arranging the keys into reality by having a verity of reed instruments to test. One should also not forget, that at that time Vienna an London had a very close relationship, especially if we think abut the musicians performing in Vienna and London very often in the same year.

--Jpascher 17:36, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Wheatstone:

link

"Later, in 1824, he published 'The Harmonic Diagram' [...] Charles and his brother William took over their uncle Charles's musical instrument business on his death in autumn 1823, when Charles was 21 and William about 18 years of age. Charles was clearly well versed in musical theory, having he published his 'Harmonic Diagram' in January 1824. [...] It is evident from the two extremely early concertinas in the C M Collection with serial numbers in Roman numerals that Wheatstone was producing a type of concertina closely related to both the symphonium and the Demian accordion by about 1830. One in particular, the 'open pearl pallet' model, numbered XXXII or '32' (Item C1517) exhibits the formative 24-key 'English' layout of the symphonium, together with the exposed pearl pallets and ebony levers in common with the earliest European accordions being produced in Vienna by Demian from about 1829. The Wheatstone factory began to produce conventionally, non-Roman numbered English concertinas only from about 1836, according to the earliest dates of sale in the Workshop Ledgers, and these differ considerably in many respects from the early 'Roman numeral' models. The evolution of the design of the Wheatstone concertina, 1830 to 1850 is considered more fully below."

--Jpascher 12:48, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Demian:

"The original patent shows the name "eoline" crossed out and replaced with "accordion" in different handwriting."

This is a mare, dont know who bought it in existance. I have had a look at the original hand writing and there is the name accordion without any editing on the page.

Is difficult to read becaus it is old German writing but still redable.

--Jpascher 15:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Johann, I added that note about "eoline" which occurs on the illustrations page of the patent. See here: [1], where it occurs between the drawing of the keyboard and the reeds. --Theodore Kloba 19:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Theodore, sorry there is some potential for misinterpreting the original writing.

On his first page (http://www.accordion-online.de/instrum/demian2.htm) on the 4th line you find no other word for the invention as accordion. German text the actual beginning until the naming of the instrument.

"Beschreibung und Zeichnung Demian Cyrill in Verbindung mit seinen beiden Söhnen Karl und Guido, Orgel und Claviermacher, wohnen auf der Mariahilferstrasse No. 43 in Wien, zeigen einer hohen Landesstelle geziemend an, ein neues Instrument Accordion genannt erfunden zu haben,...."

And the name Accordion occurs several times in the original on other pages as well.

The thing you think it means "aeoline" crossed out was original the heading for the following drawing of the reed banks.

And it reeds like this in old German:

• Notice that it read "NOT" Accordion as the name for the complet Insrument.

It reads "Accoriien" as for the reeds arranged in chords.

• And originally it had the article *der* what indicates multible chord reed sets.

Changed to *des* - singular, but Accoriien is still in plural, singular it would write Accoriion.

• The the crossed out attribute *Ceftec* is not identifiably for me as with some sense at all at the momet.

"Grundriß und innere Ansicht der Ceftec Accoriien."

• The word "Ceftec" or "Echtec" could spell a bit different but it cant find an similar word in the other text.

So it seems it is a new Construction only used by Demian. Sure it cant be spelled as "aeoline".

• Even the letters used in this word are unusual in the way the are used, looks like he pevered a more modern way of using the letter "e". In normal sentences the traditional Corinthian "e" that looks like narrower "n" is used.

I did read the complete original text and compared it with the German translation and it is absolutely correct repeated except, on the occasion that "Accorriien" is written as Accordion.

• German text of Demains patent:

http://www.accordion-online.de/instrum/demian.htm i did try to translate to english and have posted on the R.M.M.S groop but it would need some correction.

--Jpascher 12:11, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikibook

Folks, there is a fledgling wikibook for Accordion playing that needs some attention. I've imported parts of this article, and if I ever get around to taking some pictures and playing around in a notator, maybe I could put together a lesson or two. As far as I know, there are no free accordion courses online. This would be the first. If you're up for the challenge, it's over at http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Accordion -cprompt 17:05, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of this project, but am busy for now. I am going to contribute as soon as I can. Necz0r (talk) 01:05, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Stradella's chords

This article mentions an "A-flat diminished chord". Is this chord really possible?? The fifth of the chord would be an E double flat. Do double flats have any real advantages?? Georgia guy 14:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Since the Stradella bass mechanism uses only 12 equal-tempered tones, E double flat sounds as its enharmonic equivalent, D. It's just a matter of spelling. For a chord containing A flat, C flat (B) and E double flat (D), can you think of a better name than A flat diminished?--Theodore Kloba 14:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

G# diminished sounds obvious. How does this answer not make sense?? Georgia guy 21:14, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

G# diminished is what's shown on the right side of the chart (i.e. the top of the keyboard). Although the tones are identical, it's traditional to notate as sharp on that side and flat on the other.--Theodore Kloba 20:54, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Stradella bass system

Apart from the fact that I see  instead of b or #, who wrote the Abb for the 120 bass?

I no longer play accordion, but I can not imagine that it is referred to as Abb. Why would someone write Abb instead of G? Is it actually referred to as Abb on the accordion?

Also, I use UTF-8 (on Windows IE, ver 6) and I do not see # or b, just  or if I switch to Firefox, I'll see a question mark. Why can't you guys use # or b from a conventional character map. I looked at this page from a brand new computer in a public library (Windows XP) and I just saw  instead of # or b. Davehorne 12:44, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

There's a page on wikipedia for ♯ and ♭ which look better. In the long run it'll be far easier to sort out your browser than to edit the internet to remove UTF encodings. Not every site has an edit facility [there are pages on wikipedia discussing encodings too that you mind find useful]

What is the deal with the "mechanical difficulties" for 4-note chords? I own two accordions (incidentally, both from Weltmeister), and the 7th chords very definitely sound four notes including the fifth. The actually are a superset of the fake diminuished chords which are missing their fifth: pressing a 7th button will make a dmin button fall down (since all of the latter's three notes are sounded) but not the other way round.

So just what accordions actually have a missing fifth in their 7th chords?

84.61.8.152 (talk) 22:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

You don't give the age of your Weltmeisters - they may well have been constructed before the 'Great Reform' - which was somewhere in the 30s or 40s - it took some time for that 'standardisation' to filter thru - many older accordions also had the extra bars snipped off too - I don't have the relevant reference books easily accessible at moment. I have over half a dozen boxes myself. Many early accordions had 'upgrades' like register switches installed after original purchase too. FoolesTroupe (talk) 13:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reorganization of different keyboards needed

I suggest that the Button Accordion section be revised. Chromatic keyboards are more closely related to piano keyboards than to diatonic keyboard. Chromatic and piano have the same notes, the buttons just look different from piano keys. The same music can be played on either, though diatonic keyboards are limited to Button accordion/piano accordion isn't really a useful split. To make things more confusing, piano keyboards are chromatic, since they have all twelve pitches of the western scale.

I suggest:

• Diatonic
• non-diatonic (I need a name here)
  • chromatic keyboard
  • piano keyboard
  • uniform keyboard

To confuse things further, let's consider the bass side. You can mix and match various bass keyboards with the chromatic and piano keyboards. Stradella or free-bass or switchable can be combined with either piano or chromatic (or probably a uniform keyboard). I sort of think the bass side should be a sub-category of the non-diatonic keyboards.

Does anyone have suggestions? I am too new to be confident in all of this, and I'm still deciding whether to move to a chromatic keyboard from a piano keyboard, but I'm almost ready for a switch. Nereocystis 20:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

musical genres addition?

I think we should add the "Vallenato" musical genre prevalent in colombia 70.190.208.138 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

If you know something about it, then add it! I've never heard of it. --Theodore Kloba 12:48, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Klezmer should be added to the musical styles. http://www.klezmershack.com/archives/000007.html

I just wanted to add that it's become a pretty common ingredient in country music, particularly the less-commercial variety that is common in Texas, due largely to the influence of Tejano and Norteno music. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.162.52.130 (talk) 16:21, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Even Tempering

I remember watching a TV series about the history of music a few years ago (probably BBC) where the presenter suggested that the popularity of the Accordion in folk music was one of the key factors in reducing the diversity of tempering of folk instruments (because an accordion is pre-tuned, they were forced to match their instruments to the even-tempered instrument). I think it's an interesting theory worthy of mention here, but unfortunately I can't recall the programme - anyone know? FSharpMajor 09:23, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

The Series was by Howard Goodall : Big Bangs in Music (under Presenting). Your comment is indeed in that programme. FoolesTroupe (talk) 04:57, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

C b!

I noticed in the table for bass/chord buttons near the bottom of the page that it says the notes go from C b - G#. Unless theres something wildly special about accordions this must be wrong because there is not a C b note in music! I do not know what the actuall notes are but I am next to certain that this can not be correct, I also noticed in the history that it has been like this for years! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.69.114.178 (talk) 21:31, August 22, 2007 (UTC)

C flat is a legitimate note; it's just another way of saying B. --Fang Aili ^talk 20:07, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

In the context of the key of E♭ minor (6 flats), yes (the alternative being D# minor with 6 sharps, including E#). A♭ minor (7 flats) is marginal, as it is more efficiently rendered as G# minor (5 sharps), with an A# and a B natural. Otherwise, the note is C. Using C♭ in the context of the key range of an accordion seems perverse, but it is probably a simple error (eg for B♭?).

Something should be done about having a well-formed flat sign. The one I've copied and pasted here out of another Wikipedia page shows large spaces on each side, and a b is too obviously a b. Koro Neil (talk) 09:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Whoa, Nellie! A possibly legitimate solution has struck me. Bass buttons, you say? Perhaps there's some convention (which I haven't heard of, despite being an accordion player) of referring to the rows below F as flats, and those above B as sharps. If there are more than twelve rows of buttons, the top rows duplicate the bottom ones. Perhaps rather than talking about an upper and lower F# row, you talk about the F# row (above) and the G♭row (below). On an 80-bass accordion (16 rows), from top to bottom the rows would be G#, C#, F#, B, E, A, D, G, C, F, B♭, E♭, A♭, D♭, G♭, C♭. (NB, by rows, I mean the approximately horizontal rows. I would apply the word columns to the vertical rows. The article does the reverse. I may change it, unless someone raises a plausible objection.)

Anyway, where my hypothesis of key names possibly falls down is that on a 120-bass, you have to add two lines above and two below: A#, D#, ... F♭, B♭♭ (called Low A in the chart). Otherwise it makes a kind of sense. Koro Neil (talk) 10:09, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Sources Anyone?

I noticed one unsourced line of note that looked kind of iffy to me

"Approximately 2.5 million Americans play the accordion."

To previous complaints, I agree that this article may need a rewrite, though many of the images are good and safe to use which is always a plus in an article, it is not sourced very well at all. Schnauzerhead 08:28, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I have noticed that the image associated with this article is of an accordion photographed upside down, which is to say, the bottom of the instrument (the surface farthest from the player's chin) is oriented to the top of the photo. One can determine the orientation easily by looking at the slant of the bass key rows. They normally slant up from the bellows toward the bass strap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Renglish (talk • contribs) 16:40, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Christy Moorte's pen-knife

I can find only 3 websites that attribute the "pen-knife" quotation to Christy Moore. Over 100 websites attribute "the best way to play a bodhran is with a pen-knife" to Seamus Ennis. I think the joke has been changed in the telling. The joke should be removed, since a pen-knife cannot do a huge amount of damage to an accordion, and there is no solid source of the joke. Ogg (talk) 19:13, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Pauline Oliveros

Can someone add this american composer/accordionist to the list of notable accordionists? I'm not comfortable editing wiki, not really familiar with the editing syntax and would probably get it wrong. Agincourtdb (talk) 20:11, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

• I've added him to the list for you =) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Unnecessary ad

I removed an annoying ad in the definition. It was an accordion fan website. I hope it's fine. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.64.1.242 (talk) 20:25, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Further improvement on the accordion article

Hi everyone, I wanted to jot down some thoughts on how to improve this article. I propose moving bits around to streamline the article into a more accessible overview on the whole. I also propose adding more obvious information so it will be more useful for people unfamiliar to accordions - for example adding a 'Construction' section in the top of the table of contents, describing in detail each part of how these instruments work, like so:

Construction: Body, Melody-side keyboard (Button layout, Piano key layout), Registers, Bass-side keyboard (Stradella bass layout, Free-bass layouts), Shoulder straps, Other extrernal features, Reed Chambers, Reeds and what have you on the inside also.

Having a description of how it works would be a good introduction to the history section, too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 18:33, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Wanted to also add, it would be really cool having this "Construction" section lush with illustrations - I'd be willing to make some in Illustrator from reference photos. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Since the article seems to be edited not very often, I've taken myself the liberty to rearrange content so that it fits within this manner (except the Shoulder Straps section is now simply called Straps because there are three other straps on the accordion). The next step will be to siphon out all the "culture/reaction/popularity" related stuff from that particular part of the article so that the Construction part will be strictly technical (without deleting any of the existing information of course)

Manufacturing process

The section about how accordions are made is quite small and doesn't prove much more of an insight than to say that they are hand made. It should be expanded. 85.81.23.225 (talk) 21:02, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Merge proposal

Hi, I recommend merging "famous accordionists" into the article "list of accordionists". There are many names - it would make it a vast list without having to further take up space on the article about the instrument. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 11:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

One great sample of why it's a big problem is the huge paragraph with "rock musicians", listing tons of names in a paragraph. With a separate article for the list there would be plenty of space to not need such a huge paragraph. 85.81.23.225 (talk) 11:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Alright, since not much activity seems to be happening and I really think the list does not belong on the article about the instrument, I've merged them. The names in the section "famous accordionists" can now be found on List of accordionists, alphabetized and structured under each name, along with all the names that were already there. Phew.

External Links

Greetings respected editors. I think Murray Grainger is a terrific musician, but I don't think this article (Accordion)is the place to put up links to various accordionist's personal sites. I could put a link to my own personal website, as well as links to many dozens of others. I think this link should be deleted and placed at Category:Accordionists. Henrydoktorski (talk) 01:59, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't believe I've ever seen links to external websites under a Category: gathering, which I believe is a roundup of articles on Wikipedia relating to that category? It seems more proper then to start an article on him, but I don't know anything about that person or his notability. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 18:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

Accordion: uncool.

>often seen as the epitome of an "uncool" instrument parents force their children to learn in lieu of a different, "cooler" instrument such as the guitar;

This was certainly true when I was a teenager in the 1970s, but today I believe it is somewhat less maligned. This could be mentioned during a section titled: "History." Henrydoktorski (talk) 11:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I think sources on those things are definitely needed, but it would be good to include. Would (also) be good to have something about new perceptions on the instrument since the dawn of the free bass accordion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 16:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Bill Palmer, writing in the 1940s had much to say on this (and other subjects), and was in advance of his time. FoolesTroupe (talk) 13:33, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Use in Classical Music

Skillful use of the free bass system enabled the performance of classical piano music, rather than music arranged specifically for the accordion's standard Stradella bass system. Beginning in the 1960s, competitive performance on the accordion of classical piano compositions, by the great masters of music, occurred. Although never mainstreamed in the larger musical scene, this convergence with traditional classical music propelled young accordionists to an ultimate involvement with classical music heretofore not experienced.[citation needed]

Within the United States, a number of instrumentalists have demonstrated the unique orchestral capabilities of the free bass accordion while performing at the nation's premier concert venues and encouraging contemporary composers to write for the instrument. Included among the leading orchestral artists was John Serry, Sr. A concert accordionist, soloist, composer, and arranger, Serry performed extensively in both symphonic orchestras and jazz ensembles as well as on live radio and television broadcasts. His refined poetic artistry gained respect for the free bass accordion as a serious concert instrument among prominent classical musicians and conductors of the early twentieth century.

Recently Guy Klucevsek has built a reputation on combining folk styles with classical forms and makes extensive use of the free bass. New York's William Schimmel, who composes and performs in many genres, is a leading exponent of the "quint" style free bass system and uses it extensively in tandem with the standard stradella system.

I do not like the above.

(1) The first paragraph is not important. Perhaps a handful of young American accordionists took up the free-bass instrument in the 1960s, and one actually performed with the NY Philharmonic under Leonard Bernstein, but nothing came of it. This paragraph deserves to be nothing more than a footnote.

(2) Yes, the free-bass system has earned some respect for the instrument among avant-garde composers, but many 20th & 21st composers also write for the stradella accordion: (David Del Tredici, Paul Creston, come to mind).

(3) With all due respect, I don't think so much space should be given to John Serry, Sr. Perhaps his name should be mentioned in a list of American classical accordionists, but all the flowery praise? That should stay in his own Wikipedia page. What influence has he had? In my opinion the European performers have done much more for the instrument.

Henrydoktorski (talk) 15:43, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

---

Sorry fellas, I couldn't help myself. I just did considerable revision of the article, but I kept most everything I didn't think important as references, so it's all there still. Probably too much detail. I'll leave the editing for other Wikipedia editors. Henrydoktorski (talk) 21:22, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.10.46 (talk) 08:36, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Bellows

"Although the way the bellows produce sound basically depends on if there's pressure or not (implicating no resonance), it is possible to create very short resonance by stopping or reversing the bellows while still holding down a button as there are leftover air whirls still in motion [2]."

What is this all about? I find it hard to believe. Air swirls? Fellas, when the bellows stop moving, the air stops moving, and the reeds stop sounding. Reversing bellows is known as the bellows shake, and is a legitimate technique.

If after stopping the bellows one still hears a reed vibrating, and this happens with the lowest pitches, it is because the reed has inertia and the heavier reeds continue vibrating for a moment when the air is stopped. Swirling effect? I doubt it.

And if the statement is correct, I can't imagine why it would be important in this article. It is trivia. Henrydoktorski (talk) 09:28, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps it's badly translated from its original source —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.95.10.46 (talk) 08:55, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Illustrations incoming

Since I finally have some time off it was my intention to spend some of it making illustrations for the "Construction" section of this article, to show how buttons work, air flow, various things. If anyone has suggestions for anything vital, and if anyone has some reference material that might be really good (photos, illustrations) then I'll happily have a look at it on top of the reference images I already have :D Give your inputs here! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 17:53, 28 September 2008 (UTC)

Notes & References

Would anyone object to splitting up notes and sources? In particular, I am talking about this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citing_sources#shortened_footnotes. I feel there's a great argument for doing so in the case of this article because some of the notes are pretty long. By having a section of explanatory notes and then these shortened source notes, and then having a separate section listing the actual sources alphabetically, having the facts straight gets much easier than going through a long list of "references" (and long notes) mixed together. Anyone agree? I wouldn't go change it without consent, but I definitely see value in changing it. The article will grow bigger for sure, adding onto the current list. 85.81.23.225 (talk) 10:41, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Many of the 'notes' seem to be in danger of being tagged as 'unverified personal opinions' - if their content is not 'important' enough to be put 'in-line' in the body of the article SOMEWHERE - then there can be advanced arguments for simple deletion. If placed inline - such content can then be linked to references as necessary. When 'mungled' in indiscriminately with the reference, it makes the whole section complicated and confusing. Some 'notes' can be placed in a 'notes section' - where from any links to a 'reference' section can be made.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 13:32, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Giant traditional music section!

So it looks like after revising it a bit, the folk section is now huge in scrolling but not really full of extremely valuable information. It might be better to work out just general regions, giving each a general but thorough description and then referring to a list. For example, "list of South American traditional music styles that incorporate the accordion". Then separate lists would have to be made of that, but it also keeps editing down. I'll be bold and do this when possible, if anyone has objections put it here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 09:02, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've been bold and changed this section and added a new article for the list. Necz0r (talk) 17:34, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Need help linking to image

I'd like to add a link to the image Jupiter_bayan_accordion.JPG [see the page for Bayan (accordion)] and place it immediately below the image of the piano accordion, but I can't figure out how to do this. Both instruments should be there, because both are major types of accordions. Who knows how to do this? Henrydoktorski (talk) 14:44, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

I've looked and looked before, but never saw a solution. Changed it now by editing the two accordions into the same picture. Necz0r (talk) 15:47, 29 September 2008 (UTC)

Looks terrific! Many thanks, NexzOr! Henrydoktorski (talk) 12:18, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

120-bass accordion chart

My friend, 85.81.23.225, thank you for putting up this chart. It is much improved over the last. Did you create this chart yourself?

If yes, perhaps I can request a few minor changes. I hope you don't mind me nitpicking like this, but I suppose I have a gift for it. According to correct music terminology:

On the left side of the chart, the fundamental bass row, should read: Bbb, Fb, and Cb.

On the right side of the chart, counter-bass row, last four buttons should read: E#, B#, Fx, and Cx.

It always bothers me when I see music in the key of G#minor (5 sharps) and the Fx is notated incorrectly as G natural.

In addition, I wonder if the term "concave button" should be marked something like "button with concave depression." I just am not sure what people will think is a "concave button." The top of the button has a concave depression, granted, but the entire button is not concave.

Thank you for considering my humble request.

Sincerely,

Henrydoktorski (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

One more thought: Under "Single Note Button" at the bottom of the chart, I wonder what we could say that might be more accurate, as in the stradella accordion the bass notes do not play single notes, but they are practically always in octaves. At least two notes sound, and often three or four. What do you think? Henrydoktorski (talk) 01:25, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

On some, if not many Stradella systems (especially if less than the 20 columns of buttons exist) only the (center) C bass note button has a small depression, or a raised stub, or even an inset diamonte (small piece of costume jewellery) - this depends on the manufacturer and period when the box was made. I have had to drill the depressions myself on some instruments.

"should read: Bbb, Fb, and Cb" & "last four buttons should read: E#, B#, Fx, and Cx" - as per Henrydoktorski says - to explain this perhaps a little simpler - these note names fit the 'circle of fifths' style - rendering them as the 'pitch equivalent' notes obfuscates this.

"but they are practically always in octaves" - as a pipe organ player, it's simple to me - each Piano Keyboard keyboard note allows, thru the Register Switches, various combinations of the multiple Reed Banks to sound. The physically smaller P/As have no Stradella switches or often even no Treble switches, fewer reed banks and usually a smaller keyboard range too.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 11:34, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Greetings. I think when we describe the instrument, we should by convention describe the standard full-size accordion. Yes, smaller instruments exist, but we don't need to contantly point this out. When one describes a violin, he doesn't need to mention the 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 size instruments used by Suzuki students. I have no problem with the series of indented buttons in the diagram.

Henrydoktorski (talk) 12:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

"smaller instruments exist, but we don't need to contantly point this out. When one describes a violin, he doesn't need to mention the 1/8, 1/4, 1/2 and 3/4 size instruments used by Suzuki students."
Ah - but there is no real similarity between reduced size violins and (piano) accordions. Apart from the fact that many beginners and women play smaller boxes either to learn, for cost, or weight considerations, they can really be VERY different instruments to play. I have and play SERIOUSLY all sizes from a tiny 4 bass chinese "toy" single reeder up to a full 120 bass boxes with multiple reed banks on both sides. Many Folk Musos play smaller boxes by intent, eg a 4x12 bass is very useful for such styles, and much lighter. I have reduced 'child & lady size' full 120 bass boxes, and they are much lighter, and the narrower piano keys allow over a 2 octave span for adult fingers. Indeed I can get far more (volume and flexibility) from my 32 bass Italian box, than from some of the full size heavy boxes - weight being a large consideration. i play the smaller boxes more often than the big ones. Depends on what I am doing. BTW, I also play many other instruments as well. FoolesTroupe (talk) 16:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Reed Chart

I'm going to eventually work a bit on this page myself, just to use more precise and standard terminology-- for instance, the word "switch" should be changed to "stop" which I believe to be more precise. I think everyone knows what is an organ stop, it allows particular ranks of pipes to play.

This is another point: instead of "reed block" I would like to use "reed rank," once again using organ terminology. The accordion actually is a reed organ, and I'd like to use the terms which are familiar to more musicians.

Another point: The names of the reed ranks and stops (bassoon, clarinet, master, etc.) are not standardized globally. Many countries use different names. I live in the U.S. and I NEVER heard that the second middle reed was called "oboe." No, it is called "violin." In the U.S. "oboe" means middle reed and high reed played together.

So I believe we should use terminology which is recognized everywhere, such as the standard symbols of a circle with two horizontal parallel lines in which reed ranks are indicated by dots. See my article at http://www.newmusicbox.org/news.nmbx?id=00463. Can someone upload these symbols and use them in the chart?

Henrydoktorski (talk) 12:20, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've made some changes. If this doesn't suffice, I hope an agreement on the details can be worked out with the original poster and henrydoktorski concerning the details, as I don't have much technical insight here. The new layout is simply more resourceful; I've also added icons for it all. Necz0r (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

As a long term pipe organ & accordion player, there are similarities (should be called a 'chest hammond', not a 'chest steinway', for that reason!(smile)). Switch/stop - also more commonly called 'register' - so that 'switches' becomes 'Register Switches' and each reed bank is called a 'register'.
Also I would like to see the common "8 foot stop" etc terms restored. The new layout basically looks good.
With regard to Register names, I prefer the standard circles (is the Master currently correct - and it can vary depending on how many reed banks exist anyway), but the names should be included - the differing countries of manufacture decided how the timbres were named.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:44, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

3 types of accordions & r.h. key- button-boards

As this article increases in size, we may want to delegate portions of it to other pages. Already one editor has done this with the Internation Accordion section.

I am thinking of the layout of buttons/keys. For instance, there are 3 major types of accordion: piano-accordion, bayan or chromatic button accordion, and diatonic bisonoric accordion. All have wildly different right hand layouts. I think it would do a lot for the article to move these to piano accordion, bayan, and diatonic button accordion. It is very confusing as it is, to me. Henrydoktorski (talk) 12:27, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Although this might be more impractical in terms of informational immediacy, I tend to agree. The main article can be for the common denominators of accordions and then other texts expanding on differences (or other secondary information) can be delegated into other articles, if needed (as you said). Then we have to stress proper referencing and keep in mind that this article still is to keep the "lifeline of accordion information on Wikipedia" intact. Necz0r (talk) 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I previously suggested above that some separation of the different major types of boxes would be best. Also some separation to separate pages for things such as the Stradella, the piano or chromatic keyboard, the bellows, the Reed Banks, the Register Switches, etc. Such components that are part of each style of instrument can then be linked in only as necessary - the info need not be repeated in several places (and maybe in different forms!). This would mean that the diatonic boxes, which do not have Stradella would not confuse readers with unnecessary 'data overload', for instance. As a multi-instrumentalist and Piano Accordion player who has also dabbled with other squeezeboxes, this article, while well intentioned seems frustrating and potentially confusing, because the different types of boxes are not distinctly separated, so many unrelated things are mixed together. Bigger is not always better - KISS! FoolesTroupe (talk) 16:07, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

A complex conversion lies ahead, but I'll try putting together an agreeable result for this line of thought. Necz0r (talk) 19:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Update: In order to pull this through, I've added these articles (so far). Accordion reed ranks & switches, Stradella bass system and Free-bass system. Fast forward to the last of these articles, and you'll see a potential problem for these articles. We have to expand and source appropriately for them to be able to stand as individual articles. Sure felt the source tagging on free-bass system right after creation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necz0r (talk • contribs) 20:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

So basically I need help from smart technical people to keep those articles from being nominated for speedy deletion so that we can use them with the main article. Sources, extra info, anything. Mostly sources. Necz0r (talk) 20:48, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I've added the "under construction" tag to those 3 pages - this will give a few days - up to a week to allow extra editing to be created, before anyone should try deletion. The free bass page has already been tagged for references, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Foolestroupe (talk • contribs) 13:23, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

More on "Reeds"

Terrific work, fellas. You've been working hard. Looks great. Of course, as some said, needs lots more, but it's good to see such improvements.

Now for suggestions:

(1) The section: Reeds. This detailed account with symbols & stuff only is appropriate for "piano-accordion" and "bayan" pages. It is not true for all accordions, like the bisonoric diatonic button boxes. So that entire section may have to be moved eventually out of the "Accordion" page.

Probably in future, for the "Accordion" page, we just want something basic.

(2) In the chart, I still object to use of "bassoon," "clarinet," etc. I think it should read either (A) "low" "middle" "high" or "sounds 8VB," "sounds as written" and "sounds 8VA."

The 16', 8', and 4' is okay also, but I think the "low" "middle" "high" is easier for non-musicians to understand.

(3) The first chart should have a 3rd category for "middle reed tuned slightly sharp." There are four sets of reeds on the standard piano-accordions & bayans. The chart only shows three. Even if the "middle reed tuned slightly sharp" is never used alone, but always in conjunction with the "middle reed."

(4) "It is usually in tune with the Bassoon reed block," What is this about? The low, middle, & high reeds are ALWAYS tuned exactly, not USUALLY. The ONLY rank of reeds which is tuned sharp is the "middle tuned slightly sharp" rank. Or on authentic musette accordions (which is a special case, and should be noted as such) there is an additional rank of "middle" reeds which is tuned slightly flat.

(5) Regarding "This is the highest reed rank, a 4-foot stop. Not all accordions may have this reed block." Why mention that not all accordions may have this? When a pipe organ is described, do they say "Not all organs may have this rank of pipes?" I don't think so. It is understood that some organs are bigger and grander than others. Same with accordions. I don't think we should draw attention to that fact.

(6) Under "Switches" the "Master" symbol is incorrect, it should also have a dot for the low reed rank.

(7) bass button chart. Thank you, Necz0r, for making the corrections suggested earlier, regarding double flats & double sharps. Perhaps you can make the corrections also for the chord buttons, so they match the bass & counterbass buttons.

It's really hard for me to read this chart. Is it possible to make it bigger? Looking closely I think that many of the chord buttons on the right side also need to be corrected. The A# Major Chord should read "A# Cx E#, and ditto for others. This is important to get the correct note names down.

(8) On second thought, I think the blue buttons should be removed. I don't think it is necessary. Maybe for someone learning to play an accordion, yes, to help them get around the button-board. On the guitar page, do they mention the dots on the side of the neck so that guitarists can easily see where they are high up on the fretboard?

(9) Do we need permission to link to sound files from other sites on the web? I don't know.

That's all for now. I'm pretty busy with other stuff right now, but I've got some nice photos to upload maybe later this week or next week. Henrydoktorski (talk) 04:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

""It is usually in tune with the Bassoon reed block," What is this about?" - you are aware - as a local Aussie guy who worked for the manufacturers as part of his training in Italy and the USA told me, that piano accordions (see how bunging all the types in together here makes for confusion?) are often manufactured to have the tuning of the 'tops and bottoms' of some of the reed banks 'bent' to affect the timbre and intonation? The 'ignorant' or self taught can often attempt to 'correct' this, with bad effects on the instrument's sound. FoolesTroupe (talk) 14:10, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your input, Foolestroupe, and I'm sure this is true, but a piano tuner will also stretch the higher end of the piano and make it sharp to create a little brilliance. I think this is also done with pipe organs. However, this is a detail of the tuning art, and I think it should not be mentioned in a general article like this one, it will only confuse readers, in my opinion. Henrydoktorski (talk) 14:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The C button is a standard - it should be left.

"object to use of "bassoon," "clarinet,"" - many older boxes (I collect the older one in preference to the 'modern ones' as 'modern ones' all sound much the same with little or no difference in 'character' - were made before the 'circle standard' was introduced - and I have seen a few slightly different 'versions' of the circles too) - the names ARE important (historically too) as they do describe the sounds a bit, enough so that one can read orchestral or pipe organ score and select a register selection appropriately. Also the 'foot' notation allows one to read hammond organ drawbar notation and approximate the sound.

"Why mention that not all accordions may have this? When a pipe organ is described, do they say "Not all organs may have this rank of pipes?" - depends on what source you read... (pipe organist comment) They usually DO say that 'these ranks are considered essential for XXX style of music', eg a choir manual and choir pipe ranks are soft, and used for accompanying the choir - the Great is used for solo performances - of course with register couplers. you can also ADD other effects too - and not all pipe organs have all combinations of couples, super and sub octave couplers, etc.

"It is understood that some organs are bigger and grander than others." only by those already familiar with the subject.

"I don't think we should draw attention to that fact." I'd rather not ignore it entirely - as I have already said, there are a LOT of 'reduced range' boxes out there - and they are STILL being made/sold.

"The first chart should have a 3rd category for "middle reed tuned slightly sharp." There are four sets of reeds on the standard piano-accordions & bayans. The chart only shows three. Even if the "middle reed tuned slightly sharp" is never used alone, but always in conjunction with the "middle reed.""

here it gets complicated - I once trialled, but did not buy a 2nd hand 3 reeder that had NO Bassoon reed, but 2 middle reeds and a piccolo reed! - maybe a 'special'.

"Reeds. This detailed account with symbols & stuff only is appropriate for "piano-accordion" and "bayan" pages. It is not true for all accordions, like the bisonoric diatonic button boxes. So that entire section may have to be moved eventually out of the "Accordion" page." Mostly agree - but a slightly differing explanation on similar grounds will be necessary for "Windjammers" and some other (switchable) multi reed bank bisonorics - I have seen an old picture of a Queensland farmer playing a 7 stop one! A similar sort of chart of reed bank combinations is necessary for teh Stradella bass setion too - I have boxes which mark the 4 or 5 swiches with similar circle diagrams.

"On the guitar page, do they mention the dots on the side of the neck so that guitarists can easily see where they are high up on the fretboard?" - maybe not on Wiki, but...

Photos - you usually need the wiki licence filled out stating teh terms of us - a bot runns around deleting 'unapproved' images - probably similar for sounds too - but I am not an expert on this.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 14:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:External_links#Rich media - in cases where a plugin could potentially be needed for a browser to play the content, the link as we write it needs to clarify what the content is (such as mentioning that something is a PDF, an MP3 or what have you). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.81.23.225 (talk) 18:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC) Edit: Of course it's always better for Wikipedia to specifically host the content. This would be acceptable if the content is released with an agreeable license, like the Creative Commons ShareAlike 3.0 license or the GNU Documentation license, or both at the same time. They basically both say "sharing and editing is fine, just remember to credit the author", although the GNU license also demands that any edits be released under the same licenses. I gather henrydoktorski is the copyright holder, so it would be his decision. But in practice, the links as they are now are fine, just needs to add the file format in the link text (I'll go do that).

Free-bass system section and its new independent article

I've expanded a bit on the Free-bass system article, and in order to get sources have included some that are currently present both in this article and over there. As both sections are relevant, I feel this calls to draw up a clear distinct line of what goes into the "free-bass accordion in classical music" section here, and in the now-main free-bass system article. In my own opinion it would seem that we should include information on subjects that are particularly classical music related in here, such as when composers have remarked on it, composed for it, the role of accordionists in the concert hall, and similar things. Things like invention and widespread use goes into said main article in stead. Now, the trouble with Mogens Ellegaard is that this person helped popularize the system, and since they are invariably tied to classical music, some overlapping will probably definitely occur. As such, I feel the quotes surrounding that person are appropriate for reference in both cases, but I've only left it a short mention in the free-bass system article, considering that it refers to this article as ITS main article.

Comments, anyone? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necz0r (talk • contribs) 20:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

An appeal for accurate scientific representation of reed ranks & symbols

Hello again,

Although there have been incredible improvements in the article, I am still unhappy with the chart of reeds and description of same. The accordion does not have two ranks of "clarinet" reeds. This is misleading.

One rank, the middle rank (known as the "clarinet" in the U.S.), is tuned correctly to the lower reed rank (known as "bassoon" in U.S.) and the higher reed rank (known as "piccolo" in the U.S.). This reed rank is also located in a "chamber" or "cassotto" which acts as a mute and eliminates the higher harmonics, making the sound mellower and rounder.

The second middle rank cannot be called "clarinet." I have not seen it anywhere called "clarinet." It is different from the first middle rank because (1) it is tuned slightly sharp, like the celeste stop in an organ, and (2) it is located "out of the chamber," or "cassotto," and therefore has a much brighter and sharper sound.

The first middle rank, when played alone, is often notated in the U.S. on the symbol as a dot in the middle, centered. But it should technically be moved to the left, not centered, as it is in European publications.

When the second middle rank is used in conjunction with the first middle rank, the symbol is accurately depicted in the U.S. as two dots in the center of the symbol: the first rank to the left, and the second rank to the right.

I believe the European symbols are more accurate, and we should use them in this article.

For this purpose, I have uploaded 4 pages from the excellent book "Accordion For Composers" by the Spanish accordionist/authors Ricardo Llanos and Inaki Alberdi, copyright 2002. Please look at these pages at http://henrydoktorski.com/images/misc/Accordion_For_Composers_1.jpg and http://henrydoktorski.com/images/misc/Accordion_For_Composers_2.jpg.

You will see what I mean, how the dots in the symbols in their book (which is standard throughout Europe) accurately reflect the reeds which are sounded.

Notice also how the authors DO NOT use any "nicknames" for the reed ranks. They simply say "two central reeds," "low," and "high" reeds. They also use the organ terminology, 8' 4' and 16'. These are very clear and standard around the world. Although I used the "nicknames" in my article published by the New Music Box, I don't think these names should be used in a world-wide encyclopedia like Wikipedia. They are regional designations only, not used globally.

Remember, the typical U.S. accordion doesn't have all the stops which are standard on European instruments. See Accordion For Composers page 3. American models do not have a stop for playing the "out of cassotto middle reed" solo. But European instruments do. Therefore, we should indicate this on our chart of reed stops.

Just my opinion. Thank you for listening to my rantings. Henrydoktorski (talk) 17:04, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Definitely up for it. Posted on your talk page with a question or two.

This should probably have been posted in the Accordion reed ranks & switches article, as it's the main article for that stuff now. (Note that a revision of accordion content is coming, to link all these articles together. Tomorrow morning I'll do something, that is, in 9 hours.) Necz0r (talk) 23:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Good Work NeczOr - you just beat me to creating the new pages myself. The article is looking potentially much better organised and the potential for less confusion too now.

I put the notes in the current sections about edits being lost - I expect that you will confirm that none are lost when the deletions take place - I also expect that everybody should now be only putting new editing and new talk re those sections on the new pages for that content too. Perhaps we might cut and paste whatever (relevant) talk content on those sections to the new pages with a notation that these sections were originally on the main article - but only IF it can be separated out easily? No hurry!

When the cuts have been made from the main page and the links satisfactory, the "construction" tag should be removed therefrom - the tags on the new pages removed of course only when you feel the pages are sufficient to resist deletion suggestions.

When we have tightened and tidied the main article as per the current step, I suggest we might SLIGHTLY expand the "Piano" & "button" accordion pages to point where relevant to the new sections, and on the individual boxes pages we can also put the distinguishing content for each separate instrument, leaving the generalised common material on the main page - but let's take it slow to prevent confusion.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 01:27, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Oooops! should the content links in the "box" on the right, point (as currently) to the subsection on the Accordion main page, or now to the relevant "new" pages?

FoolesTroupe (talk) 01:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

That's a good question. There will be introductory/general paragraphs for each of these, so perhaps a chapter could be here concerning the ranges, at least. Seems like a bit much to have to go to an article for each type for that particular snippet of information although it'll be there too (of course!). Related instruments, etc, should however link to their respective articles. Necz0r (talk) 14:49, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Currently working on the article change

Just posting to keep currently online users informed that I'm changing the article into its new structure as discussed above! Necz0r (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 17:38, 4 October 2008 (UTC).

By the way, would people mind rearranging the order of content so that the section describing components and content would come before history? After all, as an encyclopedic entry I feel that it makes sense to first describe the items and the details of this before going into detail with the history and development of it. It makes sense: First, describe what a flower is. Then describe how it's come to be like this, what it's used for, and other history-related snippets of information. Anyone agree? Necz0r (talk) 17:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright, done. Necz0r (talk) 20:17, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Like the new layout generally for the moment - I was going to suggest that 'bellows' come higher up, as it is a major defining part of the instrument - it's fine where it is now. I'm thinking that MAYBE? the Construction should come before History.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 07:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Changed 'References' to "Notes and References" - whic his more appropriate until those notes I mentioned before are either added in line in te harticle or used as points to external references. FoolesTroupe (talk) 07:16, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Oops I meant that "Manufacturing" be between "Construction" & "History". FoolesTroupe (talk) 08:22, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Here I'm just thinking if only we had more sources and more information about this part. As it is now I wonder if it's even worth keeping. It has one line about the process and then the rest is more or less simply "good accordions are hand made because that's better". If it can be improved then it'd be nice having between "Construction" and "History", but as it is now I'd almost rather opt for removing it. Necz0r (talk) 10:58, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

OK, if nobody wants - I'll work on it - I found a lot of useful relevant Wikimedia already there - and was searching around - quite a bit out there - it IS a bit twee at the moment. Needs some real refs - but it will take a while before I get something useful up there - will be working slowly on it then. That content was just copied from one rather lousy site...

FoolesTroupe (talk) 14:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

I think its best if you take the first steps in this section, as I am very inexperienced =) I will go help stabilize the articles so they won't be considered for deletion, then help with the manufacturing section. I don't even know where to look currently, but I want to help. It would be informative to have in the article. Necz0r (talk) 17:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

On second thought, I think that their manufacturing process should come in third. By first having its construction, then the history which also describes the community around it should come in second. Manufacturing process should be a third major section and we shouldn't put any less weight on it for that reason. But I believe it to be an accurate assumption that those seeking information about the accordion would probably come to look for those two other things first. Any comments for or against? I'd like to be clear on this. Necz0r (talk) 18:26, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm working on more than one project here - I agree with the latest order suggested. Some of the "use in XXX music" sections are rather lengthy and seem to 'bog down' the flow of the whole article - possibly new pages for them - or put the whole "use in" section (all the current 2.x sections?) on one separate page for the moment at least? As far as manufacturing goes, I've got original (period) books in English by Deiro, etc, but they are well packed away for the moment.
I can't seem to find what happened to the link to "List of traditional music styles that incorporate the accordion" page - it does show up as being on the Accordion page in "what links here" but it seems to be buried - I THOUGHT it WAS in the 'top box' somewhere, but ... if someone deleted it, can it be put back somewhere relevant please (top box &/or between current 2.0 & 2.1?? - if all the current 2.x stuff is moved to a new page, then there would be nice) - that 'list' page also needs tidying (and a few relevant categories added), as it is rather vague, conflicting and confused too - have already done some work on it, but am not an expert on ALL the instruments or styles. FoolesTroupe (talk) 06:12, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The list is being used here: Accordion#Use_in_traditional_music. I've removed the expansion tag on that section, as it fills up quite a bit and we don't actually want much of an expansion as of now. I think we should do with the mainstream music section the same as what we did with the traditional music section and make a list of popular music acts that incorporate the accordion. Necz0r (talk) 09:40, 9 October 2008 (UTC) Edit: Those sections are not lengthy, though. They make sense as to give a general description and then lead on to the next article. However, the one with popular music is extremely messy and definitely breaks with the flow of the article.

Let's standardize image sizes

I hope nobody is opposed. I recommend standardizing thumbnail sizes into three basic sizes. In a good article, not only the content has to flow well, but also its visual representation (actually also even a timely execution of when what is linked, but that comes a bit later). So my idea:

• Make important thumbnails have a 330px width
• Make regular thumbnails 250px width
• Make thumbnails that are either unimportant or else would be disruptively huge 166px
• If none of these work, use an approximate multiple or division of 166.

We'd have exceptions of course, such as when a huge centered diagram or an inline illustration would be included in the article. We're just talking thumbnails here. Opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Necz0r (talk • contribs) 14:00, 10 October 2008 (UTC)

Overall, a good suggestion. Good Layout Design suggests that a maximum of 3 Font Styles should be used in a published article, so restricting the (thumbnail) images to a small number such as 3 would be in keeping with that concept. But why 166 in particular? FoolesTroupe (talk) 07:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Just a matter of experimentation and looking at the thumbnails, for example the garmon player definitely looks too small in my opinion with just 150px on my 1680x1050 resolution. Necz0r (talk) 09:32, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Image:Accordion button mechanism.svg

Whoa! Fancy!!!! Henry Doktorski (talk) 00:44, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Glad you like it :) Necz0r (talk) 10:00, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Achieving a higher rating on the quality scale

Recently, we've put a lot of work into the article and totally changed it from what it used to be when it achived its B-class rating. This is a list of what I believe we could do well in improving before looking to comply with the demands for being considered as an either GA- or A-class quality, that is, before looking specifically into their demands and improving the article as such.

• I think the history section could be expanded in a few areas: the development of the internals (for example, when did bisonoric action come to be?), when the piano keyboard came, the development of literature for the accordion in the form of compositions, instruments that are considered forerunners such as the theory of the Sheng and mention of the Concertina, Bandoneon and Bandonika, that stuff with Wiener-accordions vs "club" models. All information that is hard to get, but I think it might be possible.

• The accordion manufacture process should also be expanded considerably.

• One of the articles for right-hand manual systems, chromatic button accordion, is looking terrible. I've put it up for having the bayan merged into that article and on the whole I think we'd do well in establishing it a bit more solidly and making it more appealing in the layout.

• I think that the popular music section could be expanded a bit, for example more mentions of when it has been used in soundtracks and similar things.

• This might be hard, but maybe it'll be possible to expand a bit on the traditional music section. With the South American styles of traditional music, they all share the fact that German and Czech immigrants came there with accordions and affected their traditional music. Switzerland is a country of origin for the accordion, there has to be some literature discussing the instrument's affect on the local traditional music. There's an article critiquing guitar players at union festivals and stating that "the accordion used to be the true worker's instrument", too, somewhere online.

Whew, turned out to be a list. But good thing having it written down, comments anyone? Necz0r (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

"With the South American styles of traditional music, they all share the fact that German and Czech immigrants came there with accordions and affected their traditional music." - which leads to the suggestion that such a section with such comments (I've seen Tv docos on this exact matter) should be written 'somewhere' - so where to place it? (smile)

"chromatic button accordion, is looking terrible. I've put it up for having the bayan merged into that article" Good idea - the main 'accordion' & some related sections and articles (P/A & various button boxes) are still a bit tangled - more clarity (eventually) needed to untangle things.

"history section could be expanded in a few areas: the development etc" - well bisonoric came early with the 'mouth organ' (smile)- piano keyboards were not the first layout as far as I know - most of this stuff will need to come from paper sources (100 years ago, you know!) - any 'online' sources can be at best 'secondary' or even 'tertiary' and they often stuff things up and misinterpret things, I have found!

I'm also working on a couple of other historic articles, and some of the requested hard copy material has just arrived in the post, including pictures that can be found or are currently being digitised for online, so if I'm not active here all the time, don't worry! Remember 'make haste slowly'!

FoolesTroupe (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Note & References - vs - Notes Vs References

Many of the current 'notes' that appear in the 'References Section' needs to be changed from a 'cite' (I'm not really sure what to at the moment!) - as they are not 'verifying links' to an external reference, but just an internal 'expansionary note' - this sort of confusion is common throughout the Accordion articles. If we wish to upgrade the rating, this is essential. I've split the Notes & References sections for this purpose. FoolesTroupe (talk) 14:25, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Basically, by looking at Wikipedia:Citing sources and Wikipedia:Footnotes, there's one automatic way of having your notes added, which is the inline ref tag as we use. That tag has advantages over parenthetical source citing in that notes are gathered in the end of the article and automatically numbered. It has an advantage over manually adding a source at the bottom by being inline, that is, very immediately acccessible to the editors, who in turn won't have to cross reference much.

So, the right way to go about it, as I propose, is to keep the current list of notes which is not a list of references to complete literature but rather individual pages. Smaller sources can be kept there. As stated in Wikipedia:Citing sources, books and works that support a significant bit of information in the article can be added to a separate list of literature beneath it (for a sample, look at the way they've done it in the bottom of that page). That would be quite optimal in my view.

So it's not "notes VS references", it's "notes" and then "references". Necz0r (talk) 15:19, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I undid your change - sorry if we crossed wires - but 'explanatory notes' and 'reference links' are very different - and the two will need to be separated by modifying the 'cite' word reference - as many of the 'notes' are merely personal comments by previous editors without any verifying external references - I've already modified all the other pages I could find. keeping tehtwo together will hamper improvements to the rating upgrade, I fear. FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:29, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I have made many reference links - both to web and paper sources - and the current way the pages are done is rather clumsy, as I said, mixing uncited claims in with links - these should be separated - if necessary, the 'explanatory notes' can themselves cite the necessary links. - It would be better to incorporate somehow these 'explanatory notes' INTO the text itself, if it can be done in a manner that will not inhibit clarity.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:37, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Pallet Mechanism

Worked on this - but the diagram is sorta wrong - sorry! Only ONE reed can be activated in either air flow direction - which is why the leather valves are there - to prevent any attempted backflow and nasty noises! The reeds are UNIDIRECTIONAL and can only produce sound in ONE direction, which is why the 2 reeds are there! - Can the diagram please be thus modified? Good work otherwise! Oops! also each reed vibrates in 'opposite' directions - one on the inward side, one on the outward side. OK - I KNOW that the pair for one pitch are usually placed side by side, not on opposite sides, but that would be far too confusing to try and represent, and the current diagram is very misleading as it seems to suggest that the ONE reed 'moves in BOTH directions'! UNLESS... somehow the diagram is modified so that this is somehow clarified ... FoolesTroupe (talk) 14:52, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

PS... the label 'reed block' may be placed appropriately too - this would also be useful. Also, I am sure that in SOME accordions (and in Stradella 'machines'), the pallets for 'buttons' work in the 'reverse' direction, i.e., the pallet being on the INSIDE of the tone chamber and thus lifted directly by the button - perhaps 2 separate diagrams may be necessary to stop confusion/misleading, after all? FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:15, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Alright. Well, it should be pointed out the current illustration does have even more than one source backing it up. That makes it placed firmly until countered by other sources. I know how to change things and can make more, but I need reference to make corrections (as I am inexperienced at the internals of an accordion). If you know where to get any, or are able to take photos yourself, I'd love to make corrections. Write me on my talk page to improve it/have more made. Thanks =) Necz0r (talk) 15:24, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The current illustrations IS sorta technically correct, IF you know how to read it - but is is very confusing to a beginner - as I know, until I looked inside! It is not clear that the valves/reeds as shown are from 2 separate reeds/valves, one behind each other, each working in opposite directions, as I said a reed can only work in one direction - which is why the valves are there. Sorry, have no way of taking photos easily at moment. I was taught how to read technical drawings, and this diagram is misleading and confusing, as one could not build the machine accurately from the diagram. Unless the 2 side by side reeds for each pitch on each side of the reed block are labeled as being 'in reed' & 'out reed' - which will make the drawing even more confusing probably, I can suggest nothing more creative at the moment. FoolesTroupe (talk) 15:46, 13 October 2008 (UTC)