Re: [Harp-L] The Future of Blues Harmonica?

[Sam Friedman <sammyasher@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ha point taken... on an un-fact-founded whim I think if anything it just
means customizers have a better/cheaper base product and still do the
reedwork. I think if you could just sell customized special
20/marineband/etc... because you wouldn't have to mess with the
construction (unless someone wanted color preference) then people would
hopefully still be too lazy to learn how to do real professional reedwork.
I understand there is a cautious balance involved.

That said I'm not currently trying to make a living at customizing, just do
it to make my own harps because I can't afford pre-customized ones, and so
I fully  acknowledge that  I am in a privileged position of detachment as
to the extent to which the living I make is tied to the quality of
construction of stock harmonicas... I don't wanna mess up your guys lives!
Just want better harps for the under-educated and/or under-financed masses.

-S

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 9:02 PM, Matthew Smart <matthewsmart@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

>  Amen brother! Of course that may put me out of business ha ha
>
> On 9/11/2012 8:56 PM, Sam Friedman wrote:
>
> I agree with your ideas Matt. To clarify, what I meant in terms of the $30
> was not more hand-tweaking, as I realize that would up production time
> (including requiring some real training), but as you say, better
> mass-production techniques that produce higher quality parts off the bat
> (the comb flatness being a main one to me). If a harmonica is perfectly
> airtight and no extra reedwork is done, it will play much better already
> for the unknowing beginner, and for the customizer or rest of people who
> tweak their reeds a little, for the most part only reed-work would be
> required to yield a perfectly beautifully playing harp. If any of these
> companies invested in such comb-flattening process, I think it would be
> immediately apparent that their harmonicas are superior consistently. Best
> case scenario, their sales improve because of that. Even better than best
> case scenario, the other companies catch on and we have some real
> instruments being produced across the board.
>
>  -Sam
>
> On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Matthew Smart <matthewsmart@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:
>
>> I agree with many of your points Sam. But keep in mind that 30 dollars is
>> not much when you have a huge production line and employees. The cost of
>> machining and assembling all those parts is just crazy. You just can't
>> afford to have guys hand tweaking. Now, on a harp like an MB
>> deluxe/crossover, I think at that price point there should be more tweaks
>> done.
>>
>> Here is my opinion on two somewhat inexpensive things that could be done
>> to improve harmonica performance significantly.
>>
>> 1) STOP using self tapping screws. The stainless screws when driven in
>> (instead of cutting a threat in the plate) create this volcano of metal
>> around the screw hole, cause separation of plates and combs and causing a
>> leak. Even though you can't always see it, it is there (even on recessed
>> combs like sp20). I am doing a new video on this soon. You have to remove
>> this from your reedplates or even a great perfectly flat custom comb, won't
>> make much difference. I have spoken to most major harmonica manufacturers,
>> they don't seem bent on changing their minds to this. Hohner used to use
>> brass screws and thread the holes. I imagine that the reason that companies
>> do this is that brass is getting really expensive and it is cheaper to use
>> stainless screws that are self tapping. Brass screws are really expensive.
>> Unless they have another major ore find in Zambia, you are going to see the
>> cost of brass skyrocket in years to come. Coincidentally, Suzuki threads
>> their reedplate holes. I believe they may be the only one. Correct me if I
>> am wrong.
>>
>> 2) Get a lapping machine (for wood/sandwich combs). Almost all factory
>> combs are NOT flat. I test them, examine them all day. Terrible. Get a good
>> lapping machine, put a bunch of combs on it, walk away for an hour or two.
>> Come back and they will be flat as hell.
>>
>> End result: harmonicas at 30ish dollars would be super airtight.
>>
>> IMHO, These two simple, relatively inexpensive improvements with all
>> manufacturers would make a smokin difference in performance and I think
>> would be the cheapest quality improvements made.
>>
>> p.s. As a customizer, I must say that Hohner has REALLY improved their
>> slot tolerances in the last year or two requiring less embossing on my part.
>>
>> No offense to anyone intended!
>>
>> Matthew
>>
>> www.hetrickharmonica.com
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> On 9/11/2012 2:02 AM, Sam Friedman wrote:
>>
>>>  I think one thing that is reasonable to push the companies on is
>>> innovation
>>> in manufacturing so that we can expect better OOTB harmonicas without a
>>> large increase in price. The fact is, Matt, I think that the guitar
>>> analogy
>>> is a little faulty, just because changing a string and tuning the guitar
>>> don't really compare with the amount of skill (and time) required to
>>> actually do a relatively-basic customization/improvement to
>>> the play-ability of a harmonica. In any other instrument in the world, if
>>> it was just "assumed" that after buying it half the notes didn't work,
>>> that
>>> company would be out of business in a week. I realize that this
>>> comparison
>>> is a little faulty because many of the instruments that could fill that
>>> hypothetical I posed would be much more expensive than a harmonica.....
>>> however; I think it is for the good of the entire community to have
>>> higher
>>> expectations.
>>>
>>> Personally, I am appalled at the state of many OOTB harmonica quality
>>> consistency. I've bought golden melodies that played (without
>>> exaggerating)
>>> worse than any harmonica I've ever tried, and turned into some of my best
>>> harmonicas upon customizing. I realize not everyone overblows or any of
>>> that, but regardless, a well-playing harmonica does something very
>>> important that I think has a longer-term effect on the community as a
>>> whole. It is easier to learn. When new people pick up the harmonica, and
>>> don't get the feeling that it's a "real" instrument, and can't learn the
>>> basics (bending, etc...) simply largely because the instrument plays
>>> incredibly poorly, then that person shrugs it off and moves on.
>>>
>>> If harmonicas uniformly had a certain assumed quality, then beginners
>>> could
>>> actually learn to bend  (among any other techniques, as well as the
>>> general
>>> strong connection of self to instrument through breath) quite easily and
>>> instantly feel connected with the soul of the instrument, and in turn,
>>> continue playing it. This, in my opinion, is the key to opening the
>>> instrument up to a larger fan base (aside from getting away from the pure
>>> fetishization of very specific genres for the instrument to play,
>>> however infinitely beautiful they all are).
>>>
>>> While it may seem unreasonable at first for a company to sink money into
>>> R
>>> & D in this capacity, I firmly believe that if the $30-tiered harmonicas
>>> had an actual consistent quality and airtightness to their build, in the
>>> long run people would see many more humans sticking with the instrument
>>> in
>>> a real way. The fact is, I wouldn't have learned 90% of what I did
>>> unless I
>>> started working on my harps and making them play better. No one can learn
>>> technique easily on any broken instrument, and that's what I consider
>>> most
>>> out of the box harmonicas; a broken instrument that needs to be fixed to
>>> be
>>> useful.
>>>
>>> People may say that customized harmonicas really only matter for better
>>> players, and that beginners shouldn't need them, but the reality is quite
>>> the opposite. Advanced players can make music on worse harmonicas because
>>> they already know the technique and are in this instance adapting an
>>> understanding to a poorly-constructed tool/harmonica. It is crucial for
>>> beginners to have a good instrument, because it is the fastest way to
>>> actually understand what effect the motions you are doing have on the
>>> instrument and the sound produced. If you are exploring the instrument or
>>> trying to achieve a technique, and you make the motion that should in a
>>> well working harmonica change the sound, but nothing happens because of a
>>> poorly performing instrument, then two things happen; 1) You miss
>>> the opportunity to learn about a certain embouchure/motion and how it
>>> relates to the sounds you make, and 2) conversely, you learn that the
>>> given
>>>  motion does specifically *not* produce the desired sound, even if it
>>> really
>>> *should* in a working instrument. This works to consistently actively
>>> fight
>>>
>>> against anyone's attempt to learn or gain joy from this instrument. With
>>> a
>>> working tool, however, you get feedback on the (no matter how slight)
>>> effect of every motion you make and every exploration you embark on. In
>>> this way you learn much faster and more efficiently, and have real
>>> feedback
>>> as to the purpose and creation of the movements and sounds you make.
>>>
>>> For these reasons, while I understand the argument to just be "fine" with
>>> the progression of mass-produced harmonica quality, I don't believe
>>> enough
>>> has been done yet as of this moment to warrant celebration. So many of
>>> the
>>>  new innovations (and I'm not including the sub-30 here, Brendan,
>>> because I *
>>> do* believe it is a cool and respectable active attempt by a company to
>>>
>>> advance the instrument) that we constantly see from companies have very
>>> little to do with the actual play-ability of the instrument; color, comb
>>> material, etc.... are things we see change every couple months with a new
>>> name slapped on. What we rarely see is a new instrument whose selling
>>> point
>>> is actually guaranteed better playability and airtightness. This is what
>>> I
>>> think we should be asking for, expecting, and celebrating when/if it
>>> arrives.
>>>
>>>
>>> Sam Friedman
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM, mik jagger <harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Mike, thank you for your review - it confirms my "suspicion" that it is
>>>> a
>>>> version of the xb40 - better or worse is to be determined by playing
>>>> it, of
>>>> course. I'd probably like the smaller size, but as a player of xb40, I
>>>> got
>>>> to tell you that hohner really works great out of the box, I love my
>>>> xb40.
>>>> Good to know that if rumors of xb40's demise are true, we have at least
>>>> a
>>>> somewhat passable option, although the price really does not sit well
>>>> with
>>>> me. BTW, my xb40 in C has years of hard play on it by now - it became my
>>>> main instrument of choice, and no performance issues whatsoever!
>>>> Mike.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ________________________________
>>>>   From: Mike Fugazzi <mikefugazzi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>>> To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>> Cc: "harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx" <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>; mik jagger <
>>>> harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx>; harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx
>>>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:46 AM
>>>> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] The Future of Blues Harmonica?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The most noticeable difference is that the it is the size of a standard
>>>> diatonic.  I have a SUB30 in A that I removed the valves on holes 1-4 on
>>>> and taped of the extra reeds on 1-4 (draw reeds on the top plate).  It
>>>> plays a lot better, but you lose notes on those holes, then.  I was ok
>>>> with
>>>> that as I was more concerned with the middle and top octaves.  The 1
>>>> and 4
>>>> overblow play well, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> The more I think about it, it plays like a Special 20 from the
>>>> 90's...like
>>>> right before they switched to stainless steel cover plates.  It is a
>>>> very
>>>> mellow and warm tone (dark), even after heavy tweaking of the reeds and
>>>> slots.  The top octave plays well save hole 10, which I need to tweak
>>>> more
>>>> for the blow bends.  I am pleased with how it plays holes 4-9.  I think
>>>> 3
>>>> responds well now, but is still a tad stiff.  1 and 2 play and bend
>>>> fine,
>>>> but feel a little soft for me.  I am not sure tweaking gaps would really
>>>> solve that.   The new bends on 10 are a lot more like an overdraw than
>>>> you'd think, but are easy than a regular valve bend, IMO.
>>>>
>>>> I like it a lot more than a week ago, lol.  The new bends seem to be
>>>> void
>>>> of any extra noise or issue.  I would like to try it with different
>>>> valve
>>>> material at some point, though.  I will totally play it and gig with it
>>>> if
>>>> given the chance.  I should make it clear that I did spend a good chunk
>>>> of
>>>> time 1-2 hours tweaking it using very advanced techniques (beyond just
>>>> gapping and embossing).
>>>>
>>>> I have tried the XB40, but don't own one.  I remember that harp being
>>>> louder and brighter than the SUB30.
>>>>
>>>> Mike
>>>> On Sunday, September 9, 2012 7:56:07 AM UTC-5, mik jagger wrote:
>>>> So how's the "sub 30" different (to the better) from the xb40? XB40 has
>>>> all the reeds bending deeper than a halftone (more available notes),
>>>> less
>>>> expensive, and great out of the box, yet not popular enough to not be
>>>> threatened by the rumors of its demise...
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
>