Re: Bending hole 5.??????
> I'm getting a little tired of hearing about ruining harps by bending the
> 5th hole. We heard from Winslow that the greats have done it in the past.
> Also on a physical level, there is no reason why the 5 blow reed is any
> different than the other blow reeds. (Remember, bending a draw note means you
> are actually vibrating the blow reed.)
> I will admit that bending #5 will not give you an actual note (just an
> incomplete flattening of the 5 draw note), but you should still be able to
> do it without invoking "death from above".
Am I the only one totally confused by this thread?
A) You can not bend *draw* hole 5 on a harp.
B) Yes you can, but it's only the same as blow hole 5.
D) No it isn't, it's a flattend version blow 5.
C) Yes you can, but it damages the read.
E) Yes you can, lots of great bluesmen did it once (but we don't
do it now adays, see A to C above.
Does anyone else have another pearl of wisdom to offer about it?
My little book has a diagram in it which I'm sure you all know.
It shows (on a C harp) which notes are on what holes, and what happens
if you bend those notes.
Thus:- Holes 1 thru 6 are draw bends, Holes 7 thru 10 are blow bends.
We knew this eh? hole 5 draw gives a *F* note, and bending gives an *E*.
Blow hole 5 also gives an *E* note.
But it shows an *E*, not a flat *F* i.e. some microtone below F.
And why should it break thr reed?
I have most likely missed some basic bit of information in the
thread, or misunderstood what's been said.
Please, can we have a consensus on this one, I'm really confused!
Or maybe it's going to turn out to be one of those things that
nobody can prove one way or another, because what is going on is
not fully understood, so nobody agrees with anyone else.
I would accept that at least, as a scientist.
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and