Re: [Harp-L] Paddy Richter



It's been largely addressed now, but I figured I would still send this which I forgot to post the other day, since I'm still curious about what answers there might be to my questions.

Larry Pratt queried:
I use to know this, but didn't write it down, and now its evaporated from my brain. The Paddy Richter tuning has the 3 hole blow raised. I don't know if its a half-step or a whole step.

A whole step. Thus, on a 'C' harp, you're raising the 3rd hole blow G to an A.


You can make one of these easily with a pair of Lee Oskar harps. I think the bottom (draw) plate is a standard Richter diatonic plate. I think you replace the top (blow) plate with a top plate from a Melody Maker. Is this right? Is it a MM?

I think so. At first, I thought you were confusing it with that discussion a few years back about building a Dorian Minor harp by combining the blow reedplate from a major tuned harp and the draw reedplate from the corresponding natural minor harp [labeled in 2nd, or crossharp, position.] But, after checking, yes, to produce a Paddy Richter harp, the MM has the 3rd hole note already raised to whole step on the blow reedplate, and you simply install that on a comb with a regular major draw reedplate attached.


What are the two Lee Oskar reed plates used?  I also remember
that for a given key you have to get the right LO plates.  LO
names their "other than standard richter tuned" harps in second
position, a fifh from the natural note.  Thus,to make a Paddy
Richter in A, you would use a standard diatonic A for the draw
plate.  The other plate would be marked as an E.

That's the way I understand it. That would give you F# for the 3rd hole blow note. And, as you imply, you need to consider the 'cross-harp' labeling of the Melody Maker, made with the intention of using it to play melodies in second position. [An understandable approach for naming harp keys, but not one I ever considered reasonable, due to the unnecessary confusion it tends to cause.]


Then, Steve Shaw added this interesting comment:
>Paddy is the only tuning I use for 10-hole harps, but I achieve
>it by tuning up the 2-draw rather than the 3-blow. I really have
>no other good reason for doing it other than the fact that I've
>always done it and I'm used to it. I don't need the lost draw
>chord as I play single notes nearly all the time.

Naturally makes one start to wonder which method might work best. [Did for me, anyway!] Both remove at least one useful chord... which loss is greater? Changing the 3rd hole blow adds a new blow note, removes the lowest of 3 same pitch notes, and maintains an ascending scale and familiar note/breath pattern. Is having that new blow note as beneficial as having a third same pitch draw note in the lower octave, despite losing the sole fifth note [2 draw] among draw notes, plus disrupting the note/breath pattern? [2 draw becomes higher than 3 blow.]

The raised 3 blow seems the most logical solution to me, but some of the benefits in Steve's method have me wondering if his might work better in many ways.

>You don't have to take the plates off to do it my way!

Also favorable! :)

Has anyone compared these options for ease of play and useful note access? I hope so... please don't make me have make time to investigate this or we'll NEVER know!! ;)

Time's a-wastin'...
Cheers!
Bobbie







This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.