Talk:Expression pedal
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
I have proposed that Swell box be merged into this article. This article is more complete and seems to contain (due to the nature of the material) most of the information from Swell box. Unless someone can provide detailed construction information on swell boxes and their varying mechanisms throughout history, I don't see much reason to keep this page separate from Expression pedal. —Cor anglais 16 (talk) 13:57, 1 March 2007 (UTC)
- Merger executed. —Cor anglais 16 (talk) 18:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
- I'd propose to change the lemma to Swell box then, since it is more comprehensive. -andy 78.51.106.27 (talk) 19:08, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Split back edit
The German Wikipedia article Schwellwerk contains detailed information about the swell box that if translated may very well go in its own article, essentially undoing the merge from eight years ago. <<< SOME GADGET GEEK >>> (talk) 19:35, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
pedal organ observations inaccurate edit
As someone who has played harmoniums professionally, I would like to say that the pedalling is not nearly as tiring as playing the keys and using the expression knee paddles. A well maintained pump organ requires little effort. Secondly, you can get a pretty respectable range of volume by changing the pumping rate (however the pitch does shift a little which can be undesirable in a ensemble environment). The instrument in my lounge can go from a p to an f on a single stop. --Jaded-view (talk) 04:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- Been there, done that. You have more stamina than I do. In any case, what bearing should all this have on the article? Rivertorch (talk) 06:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- I say that the line in question ("not to mention that the organist would eventually tire from pumping"), aside from its split infinitive, is subjective and unencyclopedic; hence, I think it's unnecessary. I vote that we remove the line. —Cor anglais 16 21:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
- How about changing would to might or often would? That way, we would acknowledge its being an issue without suggesting it's universal to all pump organists. (I'm neutral on this split infinitive. Moving the adverb back one word would work well—and might well work! ;-) ) Rivertorch (talk) 05:42, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
- I like that suggestion. —Cor anglais 16 22:33, 9 June 2009 (UTC)