[Harp-L] re: These overblow guys?



All quotes JohnnieHarp:


"Bottom-line, why should a player care what their acoustic tone is, IF they play through electronics in any case, and end up with the desired result through their customary rig?"

Perhaps they shouldn't. But, if one wants to get the most it would probably be good to start from a more solid ground than not. Even with effects (though less with more radical things than most harmonica players use--including Ricci and even Madcat) the individual's acoustic tone comes through to an often startling degree. So any properties the acoustic tone has will be reflected when amplified (which is really what playing "electric" harmonica is).


" I doubt that tone is a contentious discussion amongst UN-PLUGGED electric guitarists. "


I wouldn't know. But they aren't amplifying the acoustic sound of the string, rather they are using the magnetic signal generated by pickups and amplifying that. A better example would be acoustic guitarists using pick-ups and microphone systems to amplify their sound (as most do nowadays), and I think you would find a very similar discussion about tone there.




"The “biggest/fattest” acoustic tones that I've “perceived” in any vids
belong to Christelle (any recent ones with usb condenser mic) and
Chris Michalek (Rock'in in the Rockies Mr. Magic vid from a few years
ago). Both are primarily “non-tongue blockers” I believe."


This shows what makes talking about tone and timbre so very difficult: it is entirely based on individual preferences and tastes and very subjective. I certainly wouldn't call either Christelle's or Chris's tone "big" or "fat" in the same way I would someone like SBW2 or Big Walter. In the same vein I would say that Adler had a very large, round tone whereas Toots had a much cleaner, tighter tone. And there are reasons why all of these people developed the tone they have for the music they play. Big Walter's large and round tone might not work in the more jazz-fusion music that Chris plays where his, complex, cutting tone fits, for instance. Similarly, Adler's huge sound might not have worked in the smaller post-bop combos where Toots made his living.


Consider Louis Armstrong and Miles Davis. Armstrong had a much wider sonic pallete to work with (all the various growls, for instance, and a higher high-range) as well as a much more dominant, thicker and commanding tone than Miles. But, I doubt Armstrong's tone would have worked in "Sketches of Spain" or "So What". The key to discussing all this for me is to try and be as neutral as possible in phrasing-- if you describe Armstrong's tone as "thick", don't then call Miles' tone "thin" in order to create a direct (and negative) comparison but rather see Miles tone for what it is on it's own right, and use a word like "clear" or "clean". Similarly, don't use "clear" for Miles and than "muddy" disparagingly for Louis. Same with Chris, Christelle, SBW2 and Big Walter above. (I'm not saying JohnnieHarp did this, he didn't, just a general observation)


"The bottom line is that not all techniques work equally well for everybody. We always tend to want what we don't have; grass always greener on the other side of the fence. Perhaps a quick harp switch, is more effective many times (Norton Buffalo, MadCat, etc), if less elegant? "

Why is it "less elegant"? Was Rahsaan Kirk's use of multiple saxes "less elegant" than Dexter Gordon's use of a single sax?





JR Ross





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