Talk:Diatonic button accordion

	Music portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Musical Instruments, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of musical instruments on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Musical InstrumentsWikipedia:WikiProject Musical InstrumentsTemplate:WikiProject Musical Instrumentsmusical instruments articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Instrument names

There really need to be some proper references for the terminology. At present it reads as follows.

- In Britain and Australia, the term melodeon is commonly used, regardless of whether the instrument has one, two, or three rows of melody buttons.
- In Ireland, melodeon is generally reserved for instruments with a single row of melody buttons (a “one-row” instrument), while instruments with two or three rows are called button accordions.
- In North America, both one-row and multi-row instruments are usually simply called accordions.

I think that there are a lot of us who think we know that this is correct, but we need some citations. I'm not sure where from though? Ecadre (talk) 18:43, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This section was preserved during the recent major rewrite of the article. Very possibly the reference to Dave Mallinson's book was intended to substantiate the use of these terms. I don't have it though. The terms certainly reflect my experience - in England, Australia, Ireland and North America. Spinaci (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Companion to Irish Traditional Music makes Irish usage clear. Added citation. Spinaci (talk) 03:05, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent. I went through a few books that I have but didn't really find anything suitable. Ecadre (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Do you think that Rod Stradling's page about Melodeons on the Musical Tradtions Magazine website would be suitable for the English definitions? Rod can be seen to be not only (!) a musician but an established author, journalist and magazine editor. It might be argued that this is a "self-published" source, but with his background I think it's much more than this. This is the page http://www.mustrad.org.uk/basic.htm Ecadre (talk) 16:57, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I had looked at that page the other day but when I got to the part about semitone-apart boxes being "chromatic melodeons" gave up on the idea that it could be used to confirm terminology we are proposing here... :-) Spinaci (talk) 22:49, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For an American usage reference I'm going to have a dig through the Smithsonian Institute website. There's a lot of it, but it should be a very reliable source for a citation. Ecadre (talk) 17:16, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is a section named "International terms". I'm proposing removing this section since this is an English language Encyclopedia, not a dictionary, or a translating dictionary at that. Ecadre (talk) 19:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How about moving that section to the end, close to the references, with links to the relevant articles in other-language versions of Wikipedia? Interesting further reading for those able to decipher the language in question. Spinaci (talk) 20:42, 8 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Action/sonoric terms

There seem to be two sets of terms in usage for describing whether there are one or two notes on each button/key of an accordion. They are mentioned in the article but without any citation. Maybe someone who has access to a copy of something like Groves or the Oxford Companion to Music might like to look them up? Ecadre (talk) 18:55, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another proposal. I think that it would be quite possible (in fact, relatively easy) to rewrite this article without the use of the terms single/double action and bisonoric/unisonoric. Both of these terms are confusing jargon that is not used in everyday language (discussions on places like the melodeon.net forum indicate that people find the terms confusing) and the article would be just as useful without them. If there are no reliable references made for these terms in the near future then I'll edit the article to remove them. Ecadre (talk) 19:37, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I thought of doing exactly that. But I think you would end up repeating a phrase such as "producing different notes on pushing and pulling the bellows" to the point where it would become tiresome. Both "single-/double-action" and increasingly "bi-/unisonoric" are widely understood. They may not be part of everyday language but I don't see introducing technical terms, particularly when they are clearly explained, as problematic. I should be able to come up with some references soon. Spinaci (talk) 23:00, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it may best to hold off on this for a little while whilst we see whether the discussions in "A.N. Other Place" throw up anything usable Ecadre (talk) 17:04, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. In the meantime I have provided a (possibly provisional) citation for the use of single-/double-action. Spinaci (talk) 22:53, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence that was removed (regarding a common misconception that "diatonic" describing an accordion means different notes on push and pull) is the kind of thing you can never substantiate with a citation, since people who hold this kind of misconception are not likely to publish articles displaying their ignorance. And yet I have met several such people. Why not educate any of them that happen to read this article by gently pointing out their error? Spinaci (talk) 23:06, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The article should not be trying to persuade people into or out of some presumed point of view. A simple presentation of the facts will correctly inform those who hold this fallacy to be true. An opinion such as "Many people think" shouldn't be presented as simple truth, it is contentious. Maybe the section could be edited a little to give a bit more weight to the Garmon type instruments? Ecadre (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

OK. But just today I was browsing the article on Alan Turing and there was a section refuting the commonly held misconception that he was one of those responsible for the Colossus project. :-) Spinaci (talk) 22:52, 7 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cajun accordion

Is the Cajun accordion a diatonic button accordion? Badagnani 05:21, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a one-row diatonic button accordion.--Theodore Kloba 15:46, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that should be added to the article. Badagnani 20:24, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Chords

What is the layout of buttons on the left-hand of a typical 2-row D/G melodeon? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.229.224.168 (talk) 12:08, 17 February 2007 (UTC). Found it here: http://www.melodeon.net/layouts/DG21low.gif[reply]

Range?

What is the typical written and actual range of a diatonic button accordion? Necz0r (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right-hand range of a one-row Italian-style button box in C is G below middle C to E, 2 3/4 octaves higher. Note some notes will be missing. Scale follows in ascending order from G below middle C: G, B, C, D, E, F, G, G#/Ab, A, A#/Bb, B, C, D, E, F, G, A, B, C, E.

Each instrument in different key of course sounds different, as the button accordion is a transposing instrument, like the clarinet or trumpet.

See: Henry Doktorski, How to Play Diatonic Button-Accordion (Santorella Publications: 2007). Henry Doktorski (talk) 15:18, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

List of accordionists

This link should be deleted and a new list created only for players of the diatonic button box. Most of the people on the "list of accordionists" would not be able to play "Mary Had A Little Lamb" on this instrument. Henry Doktorski (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to have been dealt with now. Ecadre (talk) 19:57, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but only partially. What is the best way to get the "Musicians" link to point to the "Notable players" section in this article? Spinaci (talk) 01:08, 9 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Category Accordions

This category was supposed to link to http://squeezebox.wikia.com/ cat:accordions... FoolesTroupe (talk) 06:20, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable players

There has been a spate of additions in the last few days, some from a named editor and some from IPs, all adding non-notable names to the list of English players. I have a nagging suspicion that it may be the same person behind all the edits and that a WP:COI issue might be at hand. I have semi-protected for 1 week to at least stop the IPs re-adding the material. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 22:31, 18 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Notability in the folk world is a tricky thing to pin down. Notability to non diatonic button accordion players is fairly straightforward. But there are many players who are very notable in the DBA world but not outside it. I'm not sure what Wikipedia's opinions would be on that. Few will have a Wikipedia page of their own, but some may have reviews extolling their virtues which could be cited as sources - 91.202.136.253 (talk) 07:52, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As long as there are reliable sources for their notability, not a problem. They don't need a Guardian feature article to be regarded as notable! Nor do they need to have a WP article - which is why redlinks are OK. But they do need to be sufficiently notable to warrant an artcle, should somebody be minded to create one. The criteria at WP:BIO may help in this regard. Limited, local notability as evidenced by (say) a personal website and a couple of blogged reviews would not be sufficient. Kim Dent-Brown ^(Talk) 09:18, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I recognised most of the names that had been added. They are all accomplished box players, some professional musicians, others amateurs who are well-known on the folk scene. I suspect over-enthusiasm and most likely lack of understanding of the notability requirements rather than any conflict of interest here. Phil the (talk) 10:19, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. As I said, there is a difference between notability to those within the circle of interest and notability from without. John Kirkpatrick is notable outside enthusiasts of the Diatonic Button Accordion. Ben Averis probably isn't, fantastic player though he is. It seems that Wikipedia's guidelines are fairly clear on notability. If the person could have their on WP page then that's fine. To do that there needs to be multiple high quality secondary sources. I would suggest that using back issues of something like eds or froots might be a good source to start with.91.202.136.253 (talk) 10:51, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oscar Woods:

http://www.eatmt.org.uk/oscar_woods.htm
http://www.mustrad.org.uk/ssp/singsay3.htm#oc — Preceding unsigned comment added by Phil the (talk • contribs) 11:23, 19 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Fingering

Can I just point out that on a diatonic accordion, the tonic is not on the first button but the third. It's a small point but it will confuse anyone trying to use this page to learn fingering.Gille liath (talk) 14:17, 21 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Third, or second, or fourth, or fifth... the article does in fact point this out just below the fingering table. Spinaci (talk) 21:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]