[Harp-L] some thoughts on overblowing, technique

["Glenn Weiser" <celticguitar1@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

---------- Original Message ----------------------------------
From: "Bret Littlehales" <blittlehales@xxxxxxxxx>
Date:  Fri, 26 Nov 2004 17:09:01 -0000

>
>How did overblowing become so controversial? Either you do it or you
>don't. Either you hear the need for the notes, or you don't. Cool if
>you learn 'em, okay if you don't, even okay if you can't.

 **I'm in the Bahamas right now and don't have access to my files at HOME,
but after reading some of the posts, I have only ONE question. How did the
NON-overblower become the bad guy? I agree with Bret here. More on this when
I get home.
smo-joe

Overblowing got controversial way back when someone fatously insinuated that
you couldn't be a full-fledged diatonic player-a "virtuoso"- without knowing
this technique. In other words, "I can do it, you can't, so I'm better."
Not all advocates of the technique took this view, but with people being
people, and the Internet being a breeding ground for every sort of argument
imaginable, this wave washed around for a bit. I see it may have revived.
It's this simple, in my view-overblowing opens up ceratin melodic
possibilities unavailabe with standard technique, thus offering a certain
advantage. But its critics say the tone is not as good as normally produced
notes, and the gapping of the reed required for it is a pain in the butt to
do. Plus, they say, the new Hohner Omnibender has rendered the whole
technique obsolete. All this of couse was hotly contested.
I still prefer playing the thing the old-fashioned way, but see the merits
of the overblowing. Still, neither approach is inherently superior to the
other. It's apples and oranges, really-sort of like fingerpicking versus
flatpicking guitar.
Comments?

Glenn Weiser
http://www.celticguitarmusic.com/harppage.htm