Thanks for watching. I do NOT have this accordion anymore; I gave it back to the people who gave it to me. You might try using "dry graphite powder" to lube the keys, but use it at your own risk. When I DID have this accordion, I took it apart-very carefully-and I adjusted the keys, and I lubricated the keys, with "Teflon spray." DISCLAIMER: You should NEVER use any kind of "liquid" when lubricating parts of the accordion. However, since this little machine kept trying to fall apart on me, I figured that my repair/lubrication action was what you might refer to as a "last ditch effort" to keep it in playable condition. These little accordions were great when new, but they were not built for long-term, heavy-duty action.

Thanks for watching-and keeping an open mind. I'd like to respond, but PLEASE keep in mind that I am NOT an electrician, an engineer, or a professional of any sort. Regarding almost any field of study, I do not "see" what most people are seeing. My mind doesn't work that way. I have no education, so I simply try to use common sense when working through a concept. I'll try to address most of what you've mentioned, but some of what I'm trying to impart is extremely difficult to put into words. To me, the truth of the matter is hidden in plain sight; the challenge is to get others to see realize this. (1) You seem to understand that the basis of my perspective starts with the premise that the generator, with ONE rotation, yields ONE CYCLE, and each single cycle is comprised of TWO PHASES-A and B. Most contemporary professionals will disagree with this view because they are steeped in traditional/modern theory and its attendant terms. (2) In my latest video (#7 A Graphic View), I iterate that current flows in only ONE direction in any given moment-even if that moment is a mere billionth of a second. When you see “lines” and “legs” and “conductors” and what-not, you are tricked into believing that current is moving in many different directions simultaneously; but this is NOT true. Granted, if you had a massive highway/interchange system, you WOULD have cars moving in all different directions simultaneously. But “alternating current” (whether Single Cycle or Triple Cycle; my terms) does NOT work that way. The movement of “electrical charge” is NOT analogous to the movement of road vehicles. (3) The two distinct phases (of each cycle) are nothing more than indications of “direction.” Most modern professionals have this peculiar love affair with the term “phase.” They use it perpetually; they stubbornly hold to it; and they will not relinquish it. Simply put, a PHASE is "a distinguishable PART in a course of cycle." Moreover, it's an "action-part." Thus, the terms "in phase" and "out of phase" can respectively mean nothing more than "NOT in the phase" and "out OF the phase." If you think it through, the bandied-about term "out of phase" makes no sense. (4) I DON'T disagree with your thinking that the “directional arrows” might APPEAR to be wrong. The key thing to keep in mind is that each primitive graph that I drew represents ONLY a moment in time, like a photo snapshot. (5) I DON'T disagree with your thinking that the “return path for the imbalance” will CHANGE per the loads effected on the two Power Bus Bars. Again, any primitive graph that I use represents ONLY one incredibly brief MOMENT. (6) Regarding your suggestion that “Phase B” could be referred to as a “neutral” or “negative” phase, I would strongly disagree. As I mentioned-repeatedly-the term “neutral” should be trashed. All it does is confuse the thinker-obviously, because you’re still using that crappy term while trying to put the pieces/terms together to make a coherent whole! If I get time, in the future, I’ll speak more on this “neutral” thing. Once my message “clicks,” my audience will understand, and that will be the end of the confusion over not only the “term” neutral” but also the mystical “function” of the neutral.

@@scalephrase for comment #6, I was referring to a circuit that only has one “hot” and one “neutral”. Yes it is not a hot and a neutral but using those terms to describe the conductors. Example, a LIM (Line Isolation Monitoring) panel that is found in an OR room of a hospital.

Revised Comment: This "Line Isolation Monitoring" thing is most interesting. I'll study it for a while to see if I can interpret it "scalephrase style." I especially like the Two-60V-leg" configuration. Wish I had known about this before I finalized my ideas. Thanks for alerting me to this system.

There is no sheet music for this because I personally wrote it (many years ago). That is, I play it from memory. The chords for this song ARE shown in the video's description box.

Thanks for watching! If you want "low-tech" accordion videos, I'm the guy to watch!

Thanks for listening! I greatly appreciate any audience. I'd like to hear someone play my songs, someone who can play properly. I don't play well. I make boo-boos all of the time!

That's fine. In your sentence, the Noun Clause "that he cheats" would be the Subject; "a disturbing problem" would be the Subject Complement (or Predicate Noun).

@@scalephrase Thank you.

Thanks a lot.

Let's look at THREE examples of how the clause “that he was advancing” can be used in a sentence. Example #1: The proposition that he was advancing was preposterous. “that he was advancing”: the STRUCTURE is that of a Distinction/Relative Clause. However, people get confused when they see this structure because its physical structure is exactly the SAME as a Noun Clause. In this particular application of the clause, the word “that” is a Distinction Indicator (poorly referred to as a Relative Pronoun). The Distinction Indicator lets you know that you are dealing with a Distinction Phrase/Clause-that is, a phrase/clause that will make a DISTINCTION about the word “proposition.” As such, its FUNCTION could be said to be simply that of a Distinction Clause, or, when considered in an extended form, a Noun Complement. Intention: The speaker of the sentence is trying to get you to FOCUS on ONE particular thing-and one only: “the PROPOSITION that he was advancing”-the THING that he was advancing. Summary: “that he was advancing” is a Distinction/Relative Clause functioning as a Noun Complement. Example #2: The proposition that he was advancing was preposterous. “that he was advancing”: the STRUCTURE is that of a Noun Clause; its FUNCTION is that of a Noun Complement. Intention: the speaker is trying to impart the following: Even though there COULD very well be other propositions, he is specifically addressing ONE single proposition (the one that “he” was advancing). Unlike with the above Distinction Clause, which focused on the “thing” itself, this clause is used in this fashion to let you know that even if there are indeed OTHER propositions, the speaker is referring categorically to only ONE of those propositions-only ONE thing. Summary: “that he was advancing” is a Noun Clause functioning as a Noun Complement. Example #3: The proposition, that he was advancing, was preposterous. “that he was advancing”: the STRUCTURE is that of a Noun Clause; its FUNCTION is that of an Appositive. (The commas help identify it as such.) Intention: the speaker is trying to impart the following: Someone, say a supervisor or manager, was suggesting that an employee (the “he” in the Noun Clause) will be “advancing,” or “getting promoted.” The remaining employees think that the promotion is unwarranted and ridiculous-that is, preposterous. The FOCUS is on “renaming,” or “emphasizing,” the word “proposition.” In this application of the clause “that he was advancing,” we are being told that there is ONLY one proposition in question; there are NO other propositions. Summary: “that he was advancing” is a Noun Clause functioning as an Appositive. When you ponder the different examples, you will, at some point, see that the featured clause-“that he was advancing”-acting as a Distinction Clause is providing DIFFERENT information from that which it provides as a Noun Complement or Appostive. Employing a Distinction Clause, the sentence is trying to tell you “what's happening to the PROPOSITION.” A PROPOSITION is being advanced. Employing a Noun Complement or an Appositive, the sentence is trying to tell you “what's happening to the PERSON being addressed.” That is, the PERSON is being advanced. If you think the above through logically, you will understand what I've just presented. And you must remember that a single sentence is rarely “isolated”; that is, the sentence must be considered in the CONTEXT of the discourse. You must first determine whether the clause is a Distinction Clause or a Noun Clause. If it's a Noun Clause, you must next determine WHAT exactly that Noun Clause is doing in the given sentence. Consider “structure” and “function.” From there, you get “meaning.”

For the "Drunken Sailor" song, there are only TWO chords: D Minor and C Major. When I played that song on this little accordion, I was improvising. I can't remember which chords I used for the "improvised" part (in the middle); and I can't recreate the song now because I gave this accordion back to the people who gave it to me. The darn thing kept falling apart! If you have a 120-button (bass) accordion, another of my videos might be useful for you: 120 Bass Accordion: #14 "Drunken Sailor" Improvisation. Hope that helps.

Thanks! For the information I will can play it now 😁

The Italo-American Accordion Company (IA) and Iorio (pronounced YO-ree-oh) both sold this model of accordion. IA did NOT affix their name/emblem on the outer surface of the accordion. However, Iorio put their name (in white plastic letters) on the top of the front face of the treble machine. IA made this model in black, red, and blue. Iorio made it in even more colors. (I recently found one other company that sold this very model-and affixed their name to it-but I can't remember the name of the company.) I can NOT say with certainty where this model of accordion was made. There is the possibility that a factory in Italy made this particular model and sold quite a few to both IA and Iorio. There is also the possibility that these accordions were made at “The Carl Fischer Factory” (Manhattan, NY) OR at Candido Iorio’s home facility (Queens, NY). I suppose we will never know. The accordion that you see in this video is THE very same accordion that I had as a child--with ONE exception: Mine was a Iorio, so it did indeed have the Iorio name affixed in white plastic letters (as mentioned above).

You are 100% correct! Anyone who watches my videos knows that I often speak incorrectly. There is something wrong with my brain. It likely has to do with the many concussions that I received from rock climbing (falling) and boxing/fighting. It's a miracle that I've lived to be 70. Worse yet, my first wife died of a brain aneurysm, at the age of 27. The "medley" that I most likely was thinking about at the time of posting that suggestion was "How About You" combined with the "I Love Lucy" theme song. I was working on those two songs at the very same time that I was working out the "Michelle" chords. (All four songs studied were in the key of F.)

Regarding the featured "F Harmonic Minor 2" scale, consider this: (1) You CAN play the individual (alternated) scale tones on a standard Stradella Bass-using the Bass and Counter-bass rows. (2) You CAN play that scale easily on a "C-System Converter Bass"-though few people have this type of accordion. (3) You can use a simple F Major chord to accompany the F Harmonic Minor 2 scale; and, you can use an F#M7 chord (Bbm/F#) with the F Minor 2 scale (see my video entitled "Stradella Bass Accordion: #6a Gm7 & F#M7").

Thanks for watching! Take your time in learning the 120-bass; there's no hurry. Remember: A job well begun is half done.

@@scalephrase thanks man I like that! It arrives tomorrow and im excited but gonna try to be patient and be happy with the little progressions i make

Excellent reply! Thanks for watching. Here in America, I can be a "steward" of the property on which I live (per my mortgage), but I can NOT ever be an "owner" of that property. Karl Marx probably knew that "true" or "pure" communism, as he espoused it, would likely never be realized. He likely knew that the people would never be able to logically move from "socialism" to "communism" given that some oligarchy would intercept the move--and do so by first controlling the army, for without the army, total control can not be gained. Despite what the masses of the world think, (1) socialism and capitalism can NOT work independently (that is, they are always somewhat intertwined); and (2) neither one functioning alone is sustainable.

@@scalephrase Google Translate: There are many misconceptions about communism. I have read many books by Lenin and Stalin. I read several books by Engels. And every time I caught myself thinking that something was missing in them. And when I argued with the communists in Russia, all the communists banned me in chat rooms. Recently I read Leo Tolstoy's book "My Faith" and his translation of the Gospels, and I understood what is missing in communist literature. It lacks Tolstoy. It lacks simple love, or the Sermon on the Mount of Christ, but in Tolstoy's translation. If you read Stalin or Lenin you will see that they were not radically opposed to capitalism. They even wrote that he gave technological progress. Moreover, they used it in Russia in various forms. The fact is that socialism is presented as the development of capitalism. And everything new does not negate the old, but only improves or clarifies. At the same time, socialism must take into account the level of intellectual development of society, the material base, the technological base. In Russia, this was all bad. And for this reason, strict measures had to be introduced in order to preserve the socialist state. This is a separate issue... Under communism, the state will not disappear. There will be police (militia) and the army. The fact is that people are not equal in their physiology and in their intellect. And therefore there will always be contradictions between people and groups of people. Communism simply aims to eliminate the capitalist class that exploits the people. And communism calls for providing all people with basic needs: free education, free medicine, free housing. Under communism, there can even be something like capitalism in special cases. But only in a form that is safe for society. For example: do you want to do business? Do it! But the level of your income will be limited not by taxes, but by law. You will be richer than the workers, but not by much. Or, if your business is very successful, the state can reward you with a big house, free vacations in foreign resorts... Almost everything is the same as under capitalism, but without the exploitation of people. In the USSR, this did not work out because of the agrarian heritage of tsarist Russia, which was impoverished after the war. And also civil war, intervention, crop failure, famine, internal resistance, sanctions, external resistance, a new war, Khrushchev's economic mistakes. All this created big problems. But the USSR had its own production. And now we are almost completely dependent on imports.

Original text. Russian Language. Есть много заблуждений насчёт коммунизма. Я прочитал много книг Ленина и Сталина. Прочитал Энгельса несколько книг. И каждый раз я ловил себя на мысли, что чего-то не хватает в них. И, когда я спорил с коммунистами в России, все коммунисты банили меня в чатах. Недавно прочитал книгу Льва Толстого "моя вера" и его перевод Евангелий, и понял чего не хватает в коммунистической литературе. В ней не хватает Толстого. В ней не хватает простой любви, или же - нагорной проповеди Христа, но в переводе Толстого. Если вы будете читать Сталина или Ленина, то увидите, что они не были радикально против капитализма. Они даже писали, что он дал технологический прогресс. Более того - они его использовали в России в разных видах. Дело в том, что социализм представляется как развитие капитализма. А все новое не отрицает старого, а лишь улучшает или уточняет. При этом социализм должен учитывать уровень интеллектуального развития общества, материальную базу, технологическую базу. В России с этим было всё плохо. И по этому приходилось вводить жёсткие меры, чтобы сохранить социалистическое государство. Это отдельная тема... При коммунизме государство не исчезнет. Будет и полиция (милиция) и армия. Дело в том, что люди не равны по своей физиологии и по своему интеллекту. И по этому всегда будут противоречия между людьми и группами людей. Коммунизм просто направлен на устранение класса капиталистов, которые эксплуатируют людей. И коммунизм призывает обеспечить всех людей базовыми потребностями: бесплатное образование, бесплатная медицина, бесплатное жилье. При коммунизме может быть даже что-то вроде капитализма в особенных случаях. Но только в безопасном для общества виде. Например: хотите делать бизнес? Делайте! Но уровень вашего дохода будет ограничен не налогами, а законом. Вы будете богаче рабочих, но не на много. Или же, если ваш бизнес очень успешен, государство может вас наградить большим домом, бесплатным отдыхом на заграничных курортах... Практически всё тоже самое, что и при капитализме, но только без эксплуатации людей. В СССР это не получилось из-за аграрного наследия царской России, которая была нищей после войны. А ещё и гражданская война, интервенция, неурожай, голод, внутренне сопротивление, санкции, внешнее сопротивление, новая война, экономические ошибки Хрущёва. Все это создавало большие проблемы. Но в СССР было свое производство. А теперь мы зависим от импорта почти полностью.

@@scalephrase What you describe about property in America comes from Roman law. There are concepts: "ownership" and "property". But if you think about it, property is "possession" by contract. It's funny that the word "possession" in English has a double translation. Ownership. And possession. In Russian, this is one word with one meaning. One way or another, the state gives you the right to own something through an agreement with it. That is - the state gives you possession, or - allows you to use, even your name or your children. And then it can take both the children and your name. Such is the contract in the form of citizenship. Under capitalism, all this is hidden from the minds of people. Communists simply call a spade a spade: there can be no private property, but only personal property, which was in the USSR, is recognized. The difference is that you cannot speculate. Under socialism there can be no speculative prices. In this way, you will no longer be a squirrel in a wheel, which is forced to constantly accelerate in order to ensure its ability to live. So we had. Yes, there were economic problems. But socialism allowed people to live in peace and create miracles of technology in the face of serious economic problems. If socialists ruled in the USA, Elon Musk would have opened a second factory on Mars. And Putin ... And he would not exist. I advise you to read Leo Tolstoy. My Faith book. Hope it's in translation.

То, что вы описали насчёт собственности в Америке берет начало в римском праве. Там есть понятия: "владение" и "собственность". Но если подумать, то собственность - это "владение" посредством договора. Смешно, что слово "владение" на английском языке имеет двойной перевод. Владение. И - владение. На русском языке это одно слово с одним смыслом. Так или иначе, правом владеть чем-либо наделяет вас государство посредством договора с ним. То есть - государство передает вам во владение, или - разрешает вам пользоваться, даже вашем именем или вашими детьми. А потом оно может забрать и детей и ваше имя. Таков договор в виде гражданства. При капитализме это все скрыто от ума людей. Коммунисты же просто называют вещи своими именами: частной собственности не может быть, но признается лишь личная собственность, которая была в СССР. Разница в том, что вы не можете спекулировать. При социализме не может быть спекулятивных цен. Таким образом вы уже не будете белкой в колесе, которая вынуждена постоянно ускоряться, чтобы обеспечить себе возможность жить. Так у нас и было. Да - были экономические проблемы. Но социализм позволял людям жить спокойно и творить чудеса техники при серьёзных экономических проблемах. Если бы в США правили социалисты, то на Марсе Илон Маск открыл бы уже второй завод. А Путин... А его бы и не было. Советую прочесть Льва Толстого. Книга "Моя вера". Надеюсь, что она есть в переводе.

Thank you for watching! You can learn how to play chords "the regular way" by watching almost everyone else's videos. I'm reasonably sure that I'm one of the VERY few people who play with the "pinkie" and "thumb." Experiment: PLAY the regular way, then play MY way. Over time, you will determine which way best suits your hand. Only YOU can decide which is best for you. Again, thanks!

Thanks for watching, Barry. I ordinarily don't bother showing the right-hand part because you can usually find the music (the melody) on "Google Images."

Yes. My C5 clef is the new replacement for the traditional "treble" clef. Thanks for watching!

Thanks for watching. I further develop my perspective on this topic in #13b and #13c. In #13c, I get to crux of the matter. Check them out, if you have time. Again, thanks!

This is my only "La Vie" video. I am NOT a performer; I'm mostly concerned with "theory." Yes, some days I can play well; but most days, I can't play to save my life. If you practice this song--with the chords that I recommend--you will surely be able to play it better than I could. Also, I've waited YEARS to hear someone play one of my original songs, but that hasn't happened yet. I guess I'm just not a very good songwriter. Oh well.