Dude, if you're gonna attack my whole comment, at least respond to me directly so I can defend myself. This guy's question was, "Why choose diatonic when chromatic exists?" So I put up a case for diatonic. I wasn't saying that chromatic sucks.

"Chromatic isn't just for classical or just "recital" music - it's used plenty for improvisation and used in a broad array of styles." I said, "Chromatic is (generally) an instrument for classical, recited pieces" You must have missed the word generally, huh? And that statement is correct. GENERALLY it IS for recited pieces. That's what it's most popular for and that's the biggest reason why people pick it over diatonic.

"Diatonic allows you to learn one key position, then just change the key of the harmonica to change the key you're playing in. Chromatic requires you to actually learn different keys. That added difficulty is probably just as big a reason as any that fewer players take up the chromatic." Spoken like a person who is truly terrible at playing diatonic harmonica. I can play in virtually any key on my C harmonica. I spent forever getting precise bends and getting my overblows and overdraws. Bending overdraws and overblows is hard enough when it comes to the technique, but they also add a whole new difficult challenge within the instrument: Modding. Saying that I pick diatonic because chromatic is "Harder" shows how little you actually know about the diatonic harmonica. Maybe learn the instrument before teaching someone about it.

"As to the diatonic getting more crowd excitement, that's a two-minute novelty." Sure. That explains why blues harmonica took the world by storm and for decades has remained very popular. There's a reason why diatonic always has been and always will be far more popular than chromatic. (Hint: It's not because it's easier)