Talk:Accordion/Archive 1

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 Special:Contributions/ (talk)


 * 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)

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)

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)

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.

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)

Use in Classical Music
---

Just a few observations regarding the proposal to split this Use in Classical Music into a separate article. 1) The establishment of a second article would detract from the historical overview which this section provides into the evolution of the instrument into a fully accepted concert grade musical instrument from its humble beginnings as a folk instrument. This section clearly traces that evolution in the development of the instrument over time and should not be excised into a separate article.

2) In addition, it would be inappropriate to excise the reference link to John Serry, Sr. in so far as his accepted biography clearly indicates and documents that he played a significant role within the United States in the advancement and development of the Free Bass Accordion as a serious concert instrument. While various artists may have assumed a dominant role in Europe (as Henry Doktorski correctly indicates) one should not minimize the contributions which artists such as Mr. Serry made independently within the context of an entirely different cultural framework in the United States.

In addition, the "flowery praise" which Mr. Doktorski makes reference to should not be excised in so far as it serves to illustrate that Mr. Serry assumed a leading role as one of several American Accordionists who attempted to transcend the use of the Stradella system within the United States in order to elevate the performance standards for the instrument within the nation's major concert venues. It is crucial to recall that these efforts took place at a time when the acceptance of the Free Bass Accordion within such venues was strictly limited due to the various presuppositions which surrounded the use of the instrument by various composers, conductors, and classical musicians in the United States but not necessarily in Europe at this time (i.e. it is suitable for ethnic music only--classical composers do not write much for the instrument so why bother to incorporate it into the orchestral ensemble, the instrument does not resonate with or blend into an orchestral ensemble and the instrument is not really performed by "trained professional musicians" but only by performers within the realm of popular music--many of whom are not trained to read orchestral musical scores.) Such apriori assumptions were common in the United States during the early part of the 20th century in America and often led to the exclusion of professional accordionists from classical orchestral ensembles. It is largely as a result of the performance initiatives of artists such as Mr. Serry (and others) that a foundation for excellence in the performance of classical music on the accordion was established in the United States in the early 20th century. There can be no doubt that the free bass accordion received a level of acceptance as a serious concert instrument which artists of a later generation could enjoy due in part to the pioneering efforts of artists such as Mr. Serry. Any serious scholarly review of the evolution of the instrument should take the contribution of such artists into account.

3)Mr. Doktorski also raises such doubts as to the influence which Mr. Serry had on the development of the instrument. As Mr. Serry's biography indicates he composed several advanced compositions for the instrument as early as the 1960's including a solo "Concerto For Free Bass Accordion" in addition to educating such leading accordion artists as Robert Davine( http://www.ksanti.net/free-reed/essays/davinetribute.html for biography). In addition, he performed the free bass accordion extensively for decades within various concert venues which were not normally accessible to performers of his era--thereby reflecting the recognition which he attained among leading conductors and classical musicians (including Julius Baker: first flautist for the New York Philharmonic, Bernard Greenhouse: the noted cellist and Alexander Smallens (Conductor)for the Free Bass instrument. He also consulted closely with one of the leading developers of the Free Bass instrument in the United States Julio Giulietti - who custom designed a Basetti instrument accordiong to Mr. Serry's specifications. In addition he designed his own Free Bass accordion system as early as 1940. Such contributions as both a composer and instrumentalist to the advancement of the instrument within the United States in the middle of the 20th century should not be casually dismissed by any objective analysis of the evolution of the instrument in North America.

4) In addition, some mention should be made of the contributions of the noted free bass accordionist Joseph Macerollo (see http://janpress.freeservers.com/LCjoem.htm http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=U1ARTU0002141 for a biography) who was also active during the mid 20th century in Canada.

Thanks for your consideration. User:pjs012915 October, 2008

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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)

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 External_links - 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. 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.

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)

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)

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)


 * Alright, I'll see if I can find some information and figure out some improvements for it when I have time. If you find anything, do post on my user talk. Let's keep it in the article for now, though, even if it could be clearer. Necz0r (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok - I'm happy for the moment, but anyone who has had their nose inside a box will realise that it is misleading. FoolesTroupe (talk) 10:04, 16 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 Citing sources and 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 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)

If you insist on undoing my changes ok - it's not worth an edit war - but I was going to slog thru all the references to sort them out and/or improve/clarify them. FoolesTroupe (talk)


 * AH! - Now I understand - I have always used 'ref' not 'cite' (which I was going to go thru all the relevant pages and sort out) as 'ref' is more flexible (it appears that cite makes it more difficult if not impossible to use differing page numbers for different individual references in the same publication/link), but then I always use the 'Harvard' method... FoolesTroupe (talk) 16:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course we don't want an edit war =) we should get to consent about what we do relating to this. I have three questions:


 * Do we allow both notes and references to individual pages in inline footnotes (by use of the ref tag)?
 * Maybe we should consider using the shortened footnotes way? Look at the sample page there. They use only author last names, though, so in cases where the same author might have several sources (such as the case of Henry Doktorski), we could perhaps write ''Doktorski, Henry. "The title of the publication", The Classical Free-Reed, Inc. (2003)" - that is, include the article title after the last name and then also add it in the references list.
 * As we see on that sample, a reflist is used for the inline notes and then a separate section maintained manually is for listing the sources. For this list, we could make use of the citation templates listed here.


 * This is actually my proposal, but placed as questions to hear you out. I would like to use both (brief) commentary and shortened footnotes for the inline ref tag. Long comments may be elaborate enough to include not as notes, but in the article. There is probably some redundancy that can be removed or needs to be taken notice of as needing a source for proper inclusion in the article. I think shortened footnotes is a good idea, though, and a manually maintained references list is certainly the ideal section to be using the cite tag. This is the most easily overview-able system I can perceive, one dynamic list for the content with inline footnote links, and one more solid list of works to refer to. It coves both needs well. What do you think? Necz0r (talk) 20:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok - to show just what was the sort of thing driving me nuts and I have now fixed was the old 'No 5' link - the sound in the bellows section that had a 'foot note' that was just an explanatory comment, no references. I moved it inline, then shifted it in to the text box as the font in the side box made it unreadable. Life has now reared its head again, and my time is limited, so will not be editing this article as much for the time being. We should fix these 'non foot notes' first - moving them inline, if the content is salvageable. Then we can worry about real links.
 * As for what style of footnoting, if you prowl though my other articles you can see what I have done - the reason I did that was because IMO it is the clearest way of representing useful info - I have journalistic, research and artistic writing experience, and that style is my preference - but if others are doing most of the work, they can make the decisions, I'm happy with that. (It's only Wiki!!!!)

FoolesTroupe (talk) 10:18, 16 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ok, when I was talking about 'Notes' as distinct from other things that are references to external things and not just 'Notes' should have been "Ref_label|A|a|none" style entries, not how they were done.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 13:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm not exactly sure what this last post means. Could you clarify it for me? Actually, I still don't think I have a real clear vision of what it is you want to have done, or the way you would. Please explain this in detail. I'm sorry if I'm slow at picking this up. 85.81.23.225 (talk) 22:20, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

OK - I've done one for you - look at 'Charles Ives' - just after that in 'Use in classical music' - is what I was trying to say. This clearly separates 'explanatory notes' from 'references'  FoolesTroupe (talk) 05:09, 19 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah yes, we can do something like that. Necz0r (talk) 15:25, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

History section splits
I disagree that the sections "use in classical music", "the free-bass accordion in classical music" and "popular music" be split into new articles. The fact that "traditional music" wasn't even considered for this shows a lack of thought behind the move as it's exactly the same category as the others. There is no underlying problem in having them on this main article, where they would indeed be more fitting than in separate articles. 85.81.23.225 (talk) 05:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Basically, there's no good argument to put them into separate articles. The author behind that move hasn't even put on the talk page why they should be merged. It is very much a case of "why should we do it" and not "why shouldn't we do it". 85.81.23.225 (talk) 05:37, 21 October 2008 (UTC)


 * An acceptable motive for moving part of a page to a separate page is size: The accordion base page is now exceeding 40Kb. Too large a page can swamp the reader. In that case (noting the "traditional music" wasn't even considered for this shows a lack of thought behind the move as it's exactly the same category as the others" comment) - I did consider it and decided against it purely on the basis of size at the time; I modify the concept to the WHOLE "History" section, as some of the various subsections are large (and all are growing), and even the intro section is growing. I don't mind the 'trad' section being moved up, except that at the time the accordion was invented, it was used more for what we would now call "popular" music, which at the time also included 'classical' music (smile) FoolesTroupe (talk) 07:13, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Accordion use in various music genres
Tried not to be too controversial in doing these changes - which so far are minor. Also linked the accordion into the 'music genres' category, which will be useful when developing that concept in future. The 'Jokes' really were better placed out of the 'history' area. FoolesTroupe (talk) 05:14, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * "The accordion has wide use in many music genres. Prior to the 21st century, it was mainly used in Classical, Traditional and many popular Music genres. It is also now used (or simulated sounds that emulate it) in modern styles, such as rock, pop-rock, etc."


 * I disagree.


 * 1. The accordion has NEVER been "mainly used in Classical music genres." It has "rarely been used in Classical music genres." How many 19th-century classical pieces used accordion? Hardly a half-dozen. Even in the 20th century, it has mostly been on the fringe of classical music mainstream circles: a rarety. Henry Doktorski (talk) 13:08, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

You have misunderstood what I said - NOT QUOTE -The accordion has NEVER been "mainly used in Classical music genres" but QUOTE - Prior to the 21st century, it was mainly used in Classical, Traditional and many popular Music genres. It is also now used - UNQUOTE (which is a VERY different statement!!!) - UNQUOTE - I said that it had been used in those 3 genres as a SET, I did NOT say that it had been mainly used in just the first only ...


 * That's fine by me if you wish to edit that - I merely pulled stuff out of the air to start the Intro with a suggestion - please modify it if you wish - I note that nobody has voiced a problem with the article rearrangment, though.

FoolesTroupe (talk) 13:22, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I must take you to task over your use of the term Classical music - when you really mean "a broad term that usually refers to mainstream music produced in, or rooted in the traditions of Western liturgical and secular music, encompassing a broad period from roughly the 9th century to present times. The central norms of this tradition became codified between 1550 and 1900, which is known as the common practice period, or European Classical Music" I suggest you refer to List of classical music styles if one wishes to be pedantic (smile)... perhaps then we really need to amend that heading to 'European Classical Music' to be consistent with Wiki overall. FoolesTroupe (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Many thanks for your thoughts, FoolesTroupe. Perhaps I have misunderstood. But I still think the accordion has only been rarely used in European classical music. Yes, it has a history in this type of classical music, but it appears hardly as a footnote in histories of music. The accordion was and still is only rarely used in classical music. Even today there are hardly a dozen accordionists world-wide who make a living playing classical accordion, yet there are thousands of pianists & violinists. It simply is rarely used in classical music. Henry Doktorski (talk) 17:38, 28 October 2008 (UTC)

In my collection of P/A music (which is currently in storage), including many originals from 'the period' by Deiro, and others, there are many TRANSCRIPTIONS of "ECM" music - 'classical' I called it until it was 'renamed', which were also widely played by 'Amateurs'. Indeed in all the 'accordion festivals' I have been to feature such music - at least those who are supposed to 'the best' play it! Such pieces were VERY popular with both players and audiences. I'll agree with you that "Even today there are hardly a dozen accordionists world-wide who make a living playing classical accordion, yet there are thousands of pianists & violinists" - BUT there always were far more 'amateur' P/A players than 'professional' in the 'golden age' of the P/A (and other accordions!) who played 'music accredited as classical' - I have seen many original 1920/30/40s movies (our Aussie National ABC TV bought up the perpetual rights to thousands of such popular movies cheap in the 1960s - before videos became popular!) and I know the types of music that accordions played therein. FoolesTroupe (talk) 08:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Thank you, Foolestroupe, for this explanation, which reveals all to me. I was making a distinction between what I might call "serious classical music" and "light-classical music," which might include transcriptions of light classical pieces. Yes, you are correct, the early vaudeville performers such as the Deiro brothers and Frosini played this type of classical music, although in most cases it cannot be called "serious" or "legitimate" classical music. It could be considered something like today's "symphony POPS concerts," which are meant mostly for light entertainment, not necessarily for conveying profound mysteries of the meaning of life, such as the late Beethoven string quartets.


 * I have revised the section as I now understand it, and I hope you will be pleased. Henry Doktorski (talk) 18:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Well apart from comments about 'snobbishness' about 'classical music' (smile) - (if we take the Wiki entries on that as a easily common available discussion) - I find your update very well phrased (and referenced!). It's a reasonable (compromise!) overall view IMO. Well done - thanks! Glad I was able to give you a starting point. FoolesTroupe (talk) 05:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)

Goodbye and thanks for all the fish!
Thanks for all your help and cooperation, guys. My wankometer has overloaded and I'm off. I may play on 'Simple Wikipedia', so if you want to contact me to proof read or other suggestions, please reach me there. I will probably not bother reading here much, other than to scavenge GFDL material for use on other GFDL sites, and look over certain articles I created that may need a little tender care. You're on your own, sorry. Bye!

FoolesTroupe (talk) 08:26, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

Genres of music missing polka and tejano
I'm surprised to see an article on the accoridan that makes no mention of polka and tejano music. Tejano is very current in south texas, although polka may not be considered current or popular. Links to the respective pages may be helpful, I know that they refer to the accordian extensively on their individual pages. I'm not familiar with how to make links properly, or I would do it myself. 69.153.78.40 (talk) 06:08, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Accordion music genres
I have created a new page - currently just the entire content of the relevant sections has been copied over - so that nothing will be lost. Obviously some major pruning on the main page now needs to be done - but some basic info should really be left there. As this will take some time - I don't expect to do it all at once - any help is appreciated. When completed, this will shorten and tidy up the main page. FoolesTroupe (talk) 08:17, 30 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah, I think I like the changes to that section. Necz0r (talk) 23:39, 1 November 2008 (UTC)


 * Me too. Willi Gers07 (talk) 20:19, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Mexico
I'm really surprised not to see any mention of Mexico in here. And I'm especially surprised not to see any mention Mariachi(and other genres of mexican(or more/other latin) music that include/involve an accordion) music, etc.Schweinsteiger54321 (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2009 (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)


 * cool or uncool are matters of fashion, they come and go with time. I don't think they are relevant to an encyclopedia, unless in an historic context. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:26, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Tables wanted
For as little as I know, there are various grades of quality for the reeds, as in use by the main producers. If my memory serves, some degrees are "A mano", "Tipo a mano", and "Export", but I think there must be more. Who can compile this little table? Equally, I understood there are named gradations of tremolo. One builder/tuner let me listen to various instruments, and upon hearing my comments he decided I wanted a "tremolo Americano". Again, I think a table would be a welcome addition to the article. TIA, Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:45, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

built in 1816
"been recently discovered that appears to have been built in 1816 or earlier. Engraved Name F. Löhner"

Please take in account that there is no prove that this Akkordin in great condition was built by this time. The Writings inside only speak of "the end of the 1820s" and end would mean it must be near 1830 my be it was between 1826 - 1829. Sure it must have been built before it could be given as present to Mr. Johannes Dillner. Because it is nearly a absolute copy of a Demian instrument as we know, one or the other could have made a copy from the other. Similar accordions my have been built in Nürnberg by F. LOHNER or F. Löhner or my be LECHNER as this Famely known as flutes makers in Nürnberg. But there is no other evidence that someone did make Accordions in Nürnberg at this time. But there is no prove. This Akkordeons may have been brought to Nürnberg and soled by F. LOHNER II. It may be the other way round as well. F. LOHNER II ware away from Nürnberg for a few Years do You know were he has been? Could it be that he was in Vienna, as Bernhard Eschenbach (relative of Johann Caspar Schlimbach) was?

The Swedish Museum also did not come to the conclusion that the Accordion was built much earlier.--Jpascher (talk) 19:36, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Categories
I am finding a good deal of ridicule in categories as listed below.

[ [ Category: German invention ] ] [ [ Category:German musical instrument ] ] [ [ Category:Musical instrument invented in Berlin ] ]

Actually I was tempted to add a few, such as

[ [ Category: Instruments invented by fat Germans with a black moustache ] ] [ [ Category: Musical instruments preferred by homosexuals ] ] [ [ Category: Inventions invented after eating potato mash ] ]

but I've learned to be polite and serious on WP. Still, I should like to see these categories either justified or removed. To me, they are absolutely totally irrelevant. Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:59, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

Dr. William Schimmel Obsession
Being a classical accordionist myself, travelling the world as a part of the international accordion scene, I don't think it is justified to have two/three paragraphs about a minor, internationally unknown accordionist Dr. Schimmel.

I do believe that Dr. Schimmel's achievements definitely deserve to be mentioned in an article about him, but not as a part of an article about the Accordion. His "contributions to the accordion tango revival in America" are at best questionable, but by no stretch of imagination is he the reason for its revival.

It just seemed like someone used this Accordion article to plug in Dr. Schimmel.

Let's keep it professional, serious, and less American-centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.229.220.154 (talk) 04:42, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

=
== I was surprised to see "Akkordeon Italian" in the Other Names section of the entry, because the Italian alphabet does not contain the letter "k". Is it a loanword in Italian, which might explain the usage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.197.178.2 (talk) 21:32, 23 March 2011 (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)

It's 2011 as I write this and the article could still use some real editing! 75.48.7.243 (talk) 02:49, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Score Example
We need an example of an accordion score. Just a few bars to show what the sheet music notation looks like. This is really needed! 75.48.7.243 (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2011 (UTC)

Electric accordion?
Having just noticed the jacks labeled "accordion" on my friend's Ampeg guitar amp, I suddenly got curious about what this might mean. Apparently there exists such a thing as an electric accordion! Some info in the article sure would be nice. Myself248 (talk) 02:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen Ampegs like the one you describe. Based on the era when they were produced, my suspicion is that the channel was intended for accordions that had an internal microphone inside the bellows.  I've seen accordions (and own Chemnitzer concertinas) with these mics, and they're typically a (cheap) crystal mic.  Likely, the gain on the accordion channel on these amps was set to match the output signal of this type of mic.  There may also have been some equalization to compensate for the response pattern of the mic, which had an extreme presence peak (similar to "green bullet" harmonica mics), and also picked up some odd resonances from being placed on the inside of the bellows.--Theodore Kloba (talk) 20:42, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
 * There's a chap in Castelfidardo producing neat sets for building into any "acoustic" accordeon; they require a 9V block battery tucked away in a dark lost corner and a cable running through the bellows from bass to melody; mine has Sennheiser electrets and the colour of sound is quite nice, with a thrilling bass but poor treble performance. See if I can find the documentation somewhere and add a reference. Then again, don't confuse with electronic accordeon - anything from Hammonds to Moogs have been disguised in accordion-lookalikes.Jan olieslagers (talk) 17:21, 21 September 2010 (UTC)

Not only electric accordions exist, but even MIDI accordions. I think that these can drive both internal and external synthesizers. I remember seeing (and hearing...) someone play a great jazzy bass part using an Acoustic Bass sound. Chris Laarman — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLaarman (talk • contribs) 15:22, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

Choosing representative photos of accordionists
What was the point of adding a photo of a blind accordion player? While I'm sure he is a fine person and perhaps even a fine player, I believe that this photo supports the current incorrect assumption that accordionists are for the most part illiterate musicians that must busk for donations for a living. I think this photo should be removed and replaced with a photo of a professional accordionist, perhaps wearing a tuxedo or suit or at least dressed in black. There are plenty of us around yet!

I don't see the point in having a photo of a "profesionally dressed" accordionist and not having a photo of a blind one.

You might be interested in the photo of the statue of an accordionist. Although in Dutch, I refer to its context:. The wider context, also in Dutch, is at. Chris Laarman — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisLaarman (talk • contribs) 15:44, 30 December 2012 (UTC)

"Buttonboard" not a word?
The term "buttonboard" is used many times in the article but I can't find any dictionary sources which list it as a word, including Wiktionary, thus the use of the term must be somebody's "original work". 68.92.73.93 (talk) 12:37, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
 * It's probably jargon specific to accordions, both Google web search and Google Books find many uses of "button board" and "buttonboard". -84user (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Weird Al Yankovic
Hi guys.

This might not warrant a comment on the talk page, but I like to comment when I make any significant changes, so that they can be dealt with/negotiated here instead of in a revert war. Looking under "Accordion in popular music," I saw a statement to the effect that "A notable exception [to the rarity of accordion use in popular music] is singing comedian 'Weird Al' Yankovic, who uses the accordion for comedic effect." I saw two major problems with that statement and changed both of them: 1)He's not a singing comedian, he's a Grammy-Award-winning parodist. 2)He's trained in accordion, and does not use it as a gag or to make a mockery of the instrument. He plays it because he's a trained accordionist! I hope there are no problems with me having adjusted that language, but, as a fan of his, I found the comments to be borderline insulting. I think this is more adequate - and truthful.

Thanks, cheers, etc. "Yes...  It's Raining " 17:36, 7 April 2013 (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:, 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: It reads "Accoriien" as for the reeds arranged in chords.
 * Notice that it read "NOT" Accordion as the name for the complet Insrument.

Changed to *des* - singular, but Accoriien is still in plural, singular it would write  Accoriion.
 * And originally it had the article *der*  what indicates  multible  chord reed sets.
 * 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."

So it seems it is a new Construction only used by Demian. Sure it cant be spelled as "aeoline". 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.
 * The word "Ceftec" or "Echtec" could spell a bit different but it cant find an similar word in the other text.
 * 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.

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.
 * German text of Demains patent:

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

That is a very helpful discussion of the patent text. Thank you.

Accordion Noir (talk) 19:52, 4 October 2013 (UTC)

Range in Staff Notation?
Would someone please add an illustration showing, in standard musical staff notation, the range of the piano accordion with Stradella left hand set up? A chart showing the actual voicings produced by the chord buttons would also be helpful.

In fact, I would like to see staff notation of instrument ranges become a standard feature of /every/ Wiki article on a musical instrument. I'm sure I'm not the only composer who comes to Wiki for some basic information on instruments that I am not personally intimately acquainted with, yet would like to write for. I'm having a devil of a time finding out what the actual left hand pitches on the accordion are, and in this case Wiki also was no help. TIA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.206.186.153 (talk) 04:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Good point. This would be massively helpful and it makes no sense that this is missing from the article. Also, it would be excellent to see a fragment of some accordion sheet music. Just how is this music notated? 75.48.7.243 (talk) 02:54, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The right hand (piano side) is notated with a treble staff, and the left hand with either a bass staff or simply with the chords. So if the chord given is Cm, for example, and the song's a waltz, the standard bass accompaniment would be to play the C bass note on 1, and then the Cm chord button on 2 and 3. If I find illustrations, I'll add them.  Sindinero (talk) 07:23, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, this section and chart from the German wikipedia might be useful - it could even be translated and used here, if it's helpful: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stradella-Bass#Mechanik Sindinero (talk) 07:38, 20 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I like that German image [] because it shows the ranges of some variant sizes of stradella keyboards. There are others, including at least one different 48 bass layout, the 24 bass and little 12 bass ones.  These are helpful because they show people (often beginners) where their smaller instruments fit within the larger stradella system.

Accordion Noir (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * On voicings and notation: this is a challenge for accordions. There is a shorthand notation system (mentioned above) developed by the American Accordion Association that uses the bass clef to notate bass notes and chords with chord types written above.  Other notation, especially for classical compositions and transcriptions uses standard notation with chords written out in full.  A difficulty arrises because stradella chord voicings are not standardized.  So if an instrument has multiple reed-banks, different reed-bank selections will change the ranges within chords; are they all notated?  My understanding is that this can make it difficult to notate with complete accuracy, especially for different instruments.  And similarly, most instruments made since 1940 or so (I'm unclear on when this change became standardized) omit the 5th note in the 7th and Dim 7th chord.  This was done to make "chord combining" (pressing more than one chord button at once) more flexible.  Different chord combinations can produce similar results, especially if treble keyboard notes are added.  How is this notated accurately?  One could simply notate with a decided modern standard in mind, but it would probably not be accurate for all instruments.


 * Free-bass (single note) left-hand systems seem much more straight-forward, with the proviso that register/range changes might need consideration for a composer because some accordions have more range than others.


 * Various discussions of this challenging issue are worthwhile, but I don't personally know of a single solution. The not-quite-standardized stradella system just seems difficult to notate with total accuracy.  See: Han's Palm's Accordion Page: Chord Combining


 * Making (accordion) chords out of nothing at all (24 bass accordion chord combining), question on Ask Metafilter


 * Working with Jazz Charts on Accordion by Alan Zisman of the Vancouver (Canada) Squeezebox Circle


 * For those who want to dig, this has been contentiously discussed on the AccordionFreedomForum Yahoo Group (sign up necessary), though I don't know how to link to individual posts there. In their documents folder they have a copy of the original 1938 American Accordion Association "Official Notation for the standard accordion" which set out the bass-clef chord symbol system.  If you search there for "AAA notation (history and reasons)" or "Stradella 7th button lacks 5th" or "left hand notation, no need to dumb it down" those are interesting threads for some perspective.  More information on European and Asian notation options would be welcome.

Accordion Noir (talk) 06:04, 5 October 2013 (UTC)

File:Quito Accordion player.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Quito Accordion player.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on December 12, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-12-12. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 22:38, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Mexico-Texas
¿What about the accordeon in Mexico and Texas? the accordion is very importan instrument in the music of this region. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.144.5.38 (talk) 20:07, 8 July 2014 (UTC)

What does "dry tuning" mean?
I just read the accordion article and came across the term "dry tuning" for Brazilian music. I have no idea what dry and wet tuning means, and I suspect other readers might not as well. I assume those of you who are experts with accordions use this terminology without much thought, but I'm trying to learn about accordions and have no idea what it means. And I put "dry tuning" into the Wikipedia search and came up dry. OK, bad pun. But there's no information, at least that's easily found, on Wikipedia defining this. Would be helpful. Thanks! (And thanks to all of you who have developed this article so far. Much appreciated!) — Preceding unsigned comment added by KevinB2014 (talk • contribs) 06:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

There is indeed very little information on dry and wet tuning on the internet: The notion of wet and dry applies to accordions that have at least sets of middle octave (8') reeds. An keyboard 120 base accordion will usually either have a configuration of either 1. one set of lower octave reeds ("bassoon"), two sets of middle octave reeds and one set of higher octave reeds ("piccolo"); 2. one set of lower octave reeds ("bassoon"), three sets of middle octave reeds; 3. or just one set of lower octave reeds ("bassoon"), two sets of middle octave reeds.

Wet tuning:   You tune the two or three middle octave at slightly different frequencies (a few commas apart). This way you obtain a slightly soft, vibrating, tremulo sound. For example, to obtain the characteristic French musette sound, one of the three middle reeds is tuned flat and one sharp. Dry tuning:   In this case you tune the two or three middle octave reeds at exactly the same frequency e.g. 440Hz to obtain sharper, cleaner sound (that can almost sound like a church organ in some cases). This tuning is typically used in Brazilian music, in particular sertanejo and forró. Aszlisna (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Accordion definition
I have just deleted the "portable" from the definition of the accordion. The definition of the accordion as a "portable instrument" was initiated in the early 20th century by some english dictionaries and has been perpetuated for some reason to this day. It is a common misconception among the accordionists that the right hand keyboard was modified from button to piano to allow the late 19th century piano players some portability. This misconception is the only reason why the accordion keeps getting defined as a "portable" instrument. Accordion is as portable as any other smaller instrument. There is nothing about it that makes it more or less portable than say, trumpet, saxophone, violin or flute.

In addition, I have deleted the "hand held" from the definition for similar reasons. There is nothing "hand-held" about the accordion. If anything, it should be "shoulder held", but definitely not "hand held". If the violin was defined as a "hand held", the basoon as "neck held", etc..then there may be an argument to define the accordion by the way it`s held while played. So, I believe it`s better to leave that part out. 17:56, 15 February 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpopovicacc (talk • contribs) 17:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

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

Suggestion:  I suggest changing the following paragraph in the introduction of the article:

"Accordions (from 19th-century German Akkordion, from Akkord - "musical chord, concord of sounds"[2]) are a family of box-shaped musical instruments of the bellows-driven free-reed aerophone type, colloquially referred to as a squeezebox. A person who plays the accordion is called an accordionist. The concertina and bandoneón are related; the harmonium and American reed organ are in the same family."

Reason for the change:

1. that the accordion has the colloquial name "squeezebox" is not first thing that needs be mentioned after the definition. 2. also in the article about the guitar, it is not mentioned at the beginning that a guitar player is a guitarrist. it is not essential to say that an accordion player is an accordionist. 3. the concertina and bandoneón are related yes, but one should probably mentioned that they form a subgroup of the accordion family and also stress how varied the accordion family is. 4. the harmonium and american reed organ are reed organs and not really accordions. they should be mentioned clearly as related instruments.

Suggestion for new version:

"Accordions (from 19th-century German Akkordion, from Akkord - "musical chord, concord of sounds"[2]) are a family of box-shaped musical instruments of the bellows-driven free-reed aerophone type, related to reed organs and harmoniums.  Accordions vary greatly in size, number of bellows, number of keys (or buttons) and tunings.   An important sub-family of accordions are the concertinas (and the related bandeneóns and gaitas).  Accordions are sometimes colloquially referred to as squeezeboxes. Aszlisna (talk) 18:33, 1 August 2014 (UTC)"

No comments on my suggestion so far? If there is nobody that is against this change, I am planning to go ahead and edit this first paragraph. Aszlisna (talk) 21:21, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Add article to category Keyboard instruments
The article Accordion is the main article of the eponymous category Category:Accordion which is a direct sub-category of Category:Keyboard instruments. I would like to add the article to the parent category Category:Keyboard instruments so that it appears in the same list as other articles about keyboard instruments with eponymous categories, like Piano/Category:Piano, Harpsichord/Category:Harpsichord, Pipe organ/Category:Pipe organ. I think this makes navigating articles by category easier for the reader. Adding the main article of an eponymous category to the parent category is one of the options suggested by Categorization. Tea2min (talk) 09:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 01:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
 * Borguetinho Teatro Sao Pedro.jpg

Archiving of many of the topics on this talk page
This talk page, at the time of this topic being opened, has 63 topics, and far exceeds the 75kb limit recommended by [H:ARC]. The last edit made by a human was more than 2 years ago, and some of these discussions are almost 16 years old. I plan to archive most of the old topics on this page, while leaving the newer and unresolved ones. In case anyone has an objection, I will wait a week (until 2020-06-04) before doing so. Gravensilv (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I've just set up automatic archiving; we'll see how that goes. --jpgordon&#x1d122;&#x1d106; &#x1D110;&#x1d107; 15:10, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

Disproportionate national emphasis
The accordion is an instrument used all over the world in many countries and musical styles. However, throughout this page, a few specific styles are given undue prominance due to repeated and exclusive mentions.

Two specific examples are the claim that bellow shake is associated with Forró (it is a universal technique used to some extant in countless different styles, of which Forró is just one), and the Irish Music template at the bottom (while accordion may be central to Irish music, Irish music is not central to the accordion). The entirety of the "Use in various music genres" section also suffers from this. It gives descriptions of the use of accordion in a handful of countries, but leaves many more countries for which the accordion is or was equally important unmentioned.

I believe that to maintain WP:NPOV, this page must either systematically note every country and style with a significant accordion tradition, or mention none of them. Since the ubiquitousness of the instrument makes the former impractical and would result in an unreadable article, I believe that mentions of specific local traditions should be removed from this page and moved elsewhere.

I propose that the text from the subsections for various countries in "Use in various music genres" section should mostly be written into the "traditional music" section or added to the pages for the respective music style. The "Use in various music genres" section should only talk about general genre like "traditional", "classical", etc., (As is done in Accordion music genres). The more specific genres in which accordion is featured are covered by List of music styles that incorporate the accordion, which should be expanded and more prominently linked.

Before I enact these changes I would like to establish consensus, or at least a lack of opposition. Gravensilv (talk) 15:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Button Accordion Merge Proposal
This has already been covered in a previous discussion but never enacted. There is no such thing as a "Button accordion", all button accordions are either chromatic button accordions or diatonic button accordions. Additionally, the page is very short and mostly contains information covered by other pages. Gravensilv (talk) 15:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Accordion music genres Merge Proposal
This should be considered with respect to, but independently, of the "Disproportionate national emphasis" discussion.

The Accordion music genres page is generally well written and sourced (though it suffers from some POV issues). The "Use in various music genres" section links to it often, and is not significantly shorter. The difference in length between the Accordion music genres page and the equivalent "Use in various music genres" section is too small to warrant the existence of a separate Accordion music genres page. The information in it would serve better on the main accordion page.

If merged, the text from Accordion music genres should be combined into the equivalent subsection in Accordion Gravensilv (talk) 15:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

No Serbia mentioned, but Bosnia mentioned. Can't get more political guys. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.92.121.98 (talk) 13:18, 9 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Is there really any value to that? While accordions are often associated with particular music styles, they're capable of playing virtually any type of music. Isn't this like compiling a list of trombone music styles? – AndyFielding (talk) 08:42, 6 October 2022 (UTC)