Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Ollie]

Mountain. Mole hills.


I suggest we all go and play some tunes... that's what it's all about.

[Howard Jones]

5. The terns unisonoric and bisonoric, although possibly unattractive as words to some people, are nevertheless much more intuitive and clear in their meaning, and are widely used among the melodeon/DBA/concertina playing communities. 

In the light of the above and for those reasons I therefore PROPOSE that:

All references to SA/DA should be removed and the terms unisonoric and bisonoric be retained.

All those in favour say 'aye'.

I say "No".

Whilst I agree that the terms SA/DA may be counter-intuitive, and moreover their precise meaning has become confused and perhaps corrupted over time, these terms are also widely used among the melodeon/DBA/concertina playing communities.  I'm not trying to argue that they should be preferred over Bisonoric/unisonoric.  However the terms SA/DA are by no means redundant, and in my opinion a comprehensive article should not ignore them.

[oggiesnr]

5. The terns unisonoric and bisonoric, although possibly unattractive as words to some people, are nevertheless much more intuitive and clear in their meaning, and are widely used among the melodeon/DBA/concertina playing communities. 

In the light of the above and for those reasons I therefore PROPOSE that:

All references to SA/DA should be removed and the terms unisonoric and bisonoric be retained.

All those in favour say 'aye'.

I say "No".

Whilst I agree that the terms SA/DA may be counter-intuitive, and moreover their precise meaning has become confused and perhaps corrupted over time, these terms are also widely used among the melodeon/DBA/concertina playing communities.  I'm not trying to argue that they should be preferred over Bisonoric/unisonoric.  However the terms SA/DA are by no means redundant, and in my opinion a comprehensive article should not ignore them.

The problem is that there appears to be an error in one of the sources which makes the relationship between a nonsense.

As I understand it (without use of sources) the term SA/DA refers to the bellows movement whereas the the Uni/Bisonoric refers to the sound that the key makes.

So - Single action - one movement of the bellows (usually push) creates the pressure to sound a reed (harmonium, shruti box, bass concertina, sheng  (OK it's blown)) and by definition one note is produced by the key so unisonoric ie one sound/note.

Double action- pressure is  produced by the bellows being either pushed or pulled.  The key however may produce one note when depressed (PA, English/Duet concertina) and is unisonoric or may produce a different note (Anglo, diatonic accordion, mouth organ (yes I know it's blown)) and as such is bisonoric.

Now I know that there are sources that say different, a wrong source does not become right just because it is old!

Now I also know that Wikipedia in it's efforts to clean up it's act is demanding on-line sources,  I'm sorry but that is a nonsense.  Not all knowledge resides on-line and to demand that is to devalue Wikipedia (and sow the seeds of it's own destruction).

Steve

[Howard Jones]

The problem is that there appears to be an error in one of the sources which makes the relationship between a nonsense.... a wrong source does not become right just because it is old!

I think you are correct.  The terms do not describe the same thing, and used in their original sense the distinction is clear.  However somewhere along the way it seems to have been misinterpreted to mean SA=bisonoric and DA=unisonoric.  However I don't think it's a case of one source being wrong - this alternative meaning seems to have become widespread (and was how I'd understood them, until I started digging into it to respond to this thread).

Like it or not, there are two well-established but contradictory meanings to SA/DA.  I don't believe that means we should ignore them both, rather we should be aware of them both, and if we use them we should be aware of the alternative meanings.

[Andrew Wigglesworth]

Now I also know that Wikipedia in it's efforts to clean up it's act is demanding on-line sources.

Sorry, that's not true. I wish that people would read the Wikipedia help pages rather than rely on hearsay and guesswork. It's all there.

[oggiesnr]

Now I also know that Wikipedia in it's efforts to clean up it's act is demanding on-line sources.

Sorry, that's not true. I wish that people would read the Wikipedia help pages rather than rely on hearsay and guesswork. It's all there.

Sorry but that semed to be the import of your earlier post.

Steve

[Graham Spencer]

The problem is that there appears to be an error in one of the sources which makes the relationship between a nonsense.

As I understand it (without use of sources) the term SA/DA refers to the bellows movement whereas the the Uni/Bisonoric refers to the sound that the key makes.

So - Single action - one movement of the bellows (usually push) creates the pressure to sound a reed (harmonium, shruti box, bass concertina, sheng  (OK it's blown)) and by definition one note is produced by the key so unisonoric ie one sound/note.

Double action- pressure is  produced by the bellows being either pushed or pulled.  The key however may produce one note when depressed (PA, English/Duet concertina) and is unisonoric or may produce a different note (Anglo, diatonic accordion, mouth organ (yes I know it's blown)) and as such is bisonoric.

Now I know that there are sources that say different, a wrong source does not become right just because it is old!

Steve

Now that is as clear and sensible an explanation of the whole mess as I have ever seen - thank you.

Graham

[Chris Brimley]

a wrong source does not become right just because it is old!

I'm slightly hesitant to add anything more (so as not to be told off again for talking too much), but for me perhaps one of the most interesting aspects of this debate has been how on earth so many people have apparently come to believe something that was plainly incorrect, without it having been questioned many times before (I exclude concertina history experts from this, because it looks as if many did indeed understand the terms.)  Such misapprehensions and wrong beliefs have led to wars in the past, so I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that people sometimes become heated now!

In the absence of some intervening sources (and I believe it is relevant that no-one has so far put forward any), my hypothesis has been that the Encyclopedia Britannica (or derivative documents) was relied upon as a source by many, in particular those looking at the history of boxes during the 1960's revival of interest.  I also suspect that because of the lack of modern internet search facilities, few people before the 1980's would have been able to track down such things as the Wheatstone patents to check sources for themselves.  But there is a big time gap here in our knowledge for the first half of the twentieth century, and it would still be of great interest to know of important relevant opinion-forming documents during this time, which might help us to understand how an incorrect interpretation came not to be effectively challenged.

[Stiamh]

Well I don't think any of this is a big deal. Terms and words that have come to mean something different over years or centuries of use? Our language is chock-full of them.

Look, the fact is that both terms are widely used and understood. Let the article reflect this fact and just relax everybody. Wikipedia's function is not to be prescriptive or rewrite history.

If the matter exercises you so much, why not write an article for inclusion on melodeon.net? I find it a little amusing that everyone here has been quite content to let the previous totally crappy Wikipedia article sit there for years and do nothing about it, nor provide any comprehensive information about what a melodeon is on this site, and then some of us to get our knickers in a Gordian knot about this small point, completely ignoring all my other pleas for assistance, and all other aspects of the article.

If any of you really want to help, provide citable references for the use of both single/double action (yes, references that you consider to be wrong), and for unisonoric/bisonoric.  

Cheers
Steve

[Stiamh]

Well, having burst out with the above outburst - apologies for dumping on you all - back to the search for references:

Ongoing terminology citation research department:

Paul Groff has suggested that old issues of Concertina & Squeezebox magazine might yield some references.  I haven’t found the article by Hugh Blake that he mentioned, but a few pages into the first issue I dipped into I found the extract quoted below.  It is a translator’s note prefacing an article entitled “The Free Reed: a History, Part One” published in C& S issue no. 12 from 1986. The article in question is a translation of an extract from a book entitled Das Akkordeon from East Germany (the former GDR).  The translator, Stuart Frankel, is defining some of the terms he used:

There is a great deal of confusion in English, but not German, about the following terms which I have used as indicated: single-action (the German is wechseltönig or literally, “changing-toned”) – different note on the push and draw, such as most Anglos nowadays.  I have not used this term to mean the very early instruments that sounded in only one direction. Double-action (German gleichtönig literally, same-toned) – sounding the same note on the push and the draw, such as most English concertinas nowadays.

This would indicate that the term “single-action” to mean “changing-toned” was common currency among concertina players (despite the way the term is used in the current WP article on tinas) in the days before the emergence of “bisonoric”.
To be continued….

[pgroff]

Well, having burst out with the above outburst - apologies for dumping on you all - back to the search for references:

Ongoing terminology citation research department:

Paul Groff has suggested that old issues of Concertina & Squeezebox magazine might yield some references.  I haven’t found the article by Hugh Blake that he mentioned . . .

Hi Steve,

My apologies if I sent you and others on a wild goose chase.  I have a memory of seeing the bisonoric / unisonoric terms somewhere for the first time in the late 1980s or early 1990s, and thought it might be in Blake's "Diatonian" article.  Well, onward!

Thanks for the great idea to improve this part of wikipedia, and thanks to all who have made constructive suggestions!

PG

[Stiamh]

Well, having burst out with the above outburst - apologies for dumping on you all - back to the search for references:

Ongoing terminology citation research department:

Paul Groff has suggested that old issues of Concertina & Squeezebox magazine might yield some references.  I haven’t found the article by Hugh Blake that he mentioned . . .

Hi Steve,

My apologies if I sent you and others on a wild goose chase.  I have a memory of seeing the bisonoric / unisonoric terms somewhere for the first time in the late 1980s or early 1990s, and thought it might be in Blake's "Diatonian" article. 

What you don't mention is that (after you pointed me to the correct issue of C&S) I discovered that Hugh Blake uses "change-tone" and "same-tone" on the German model - which is very similar to something Chris B suggested in an earlier reply!

Anyway, we are still on the hunt for the first use of "bisonoric".

And thanks Paul for the suggestion to look in C&S. Some of the articles are great reading even after nearly 30 years. Internet forums are great, no doubt about it, but the disappearance of the small print enthusiasts' publications like C&S is a great loss.

[oggiesnr]

Can't pin down the first use of the word but throughout Wikipedia on accordions, gamoshka, chemitzer, bandoneon, uni and bisonoric are used as I exampled above.  Likewise the US chemnitzer site has the same usage.

I'll hit a (physical) music library next week to see if I can find early exemplers.

Steve

[Steve_freereeder]

Sorry everyone. I am unwell at the moment and not really up to taking part in the discussions and research. I'm glad to see that decorum has been restored. Good luck to all with the article.