Re: Valves/Windsaversand serious music

[Mike Curtis <wd6ehr@xxxxxxxxxx>]

> Seconded to the n'th degree.  Valves on diatonics are, to my mind, a way
> of working around a lack of technique.  We all talk about overblowing as
> something Godlike and hard to achieve, but it's just a matter of practise.

I agree - anyone putting the time in can master overblows and overdraws. 
But even the discoverer of overblows and perhaps their most fervent
proponent Howard Levy, in his video, states that some are usable only as
passing tones.  I'm not interested in something that can be perfected into
a minimal squeak with a lot of practice when I can have quality sound
instead.  I want quality.  And that's what I get with valved bends.  Every
one of them is sustainable for as long as you have the breath. 

> Hell, it took me 6 years to get to orchestral performance standard on
> the flute, and that was practicing 4 hours a day.  I'm now a year in to
> being a keyboard player, and I know it's going to take me another five
> years to learn that.  It's taken me about two years to get conversant
> with overblows and overdraws, and I'm still missing a couple of notes. 
> Give me another two years and I'll have the full 3 octaves, with all notes
> in "polished and pleasant sounding form".

I well know of what you speak.  It has taken me a couple of years to get
valved technique up to a professional level.  It's not something one does
overnight.  Many have complained (and rightly so) about valved harp
problems.  It takes a lot of work to perfect.  In exchange, it gives you
nice, warm, sustainable notes for three plus octaves.  And these offer
true portamento between notes, and beyond - IMHO one of the big
attractions of harmonica for expressive types of music like blues.  What
I've heard and experienced with overblows is that they seem to be lacking
in portamento. 

Of course, I've put about as much time into overblowing as many
overblowers have put into experimenting with valved diatonics (minimal;  I
can do them, but am not really comfortable with them), so I don't intend 
this to be a treatise on overblowing.

> Mike might say "well if you used valves you could do it without all that
> time and effort", but to be honest I just plain don't like the tone of
> valved diatonics, and I don't like the whole mess of restrictions it
> places on the rest of my technique. 

Actually, Mike does _not_ say that.  Sorry if I wasn't clear.  In fact, I
have often posted (no wisecracks :-) that valved technique is not for the
faint of heart.  It took me, a fast learner, several months to get to the
point where I'd use them in public.  (I believe the specific number was
three months of intensive practice.) This is not "perfect" - it's just to
get it where I felt reasonably comfortable on the instrument at open jam
sessions where it didn't matter what you did because no one of musical
importance ever attends these. 

To paraphrase you, it takes time to develop technique.  Anything can be
done on a valved harp that can be done on a non-valved, with the exception
of the (now useless) overblows and overdraws.  We gain a couple of low
notes on 1 blow (which can be bent a whole tone), and sacrifice the 10
overdraw in exchange.  I'm sure the dogs in the neighborhood won't miss 
it one bit, either :-)

Even if you do the same old things you used to do on non-valved harps, it 
is more diifficult, because your formerly controlled bends are now more 
like the "uncontrolled" bend on the three draw (where you have a three 
note range and if you hit it hard, you end up with an Ab instead of a Bb 
:-)  So my opinion is, it's easier to learn stuff on a straight diatonic.

I'm after quality in my playing.  That's the most important commodity I 
have to sell.  If my sound is better, I work more.  I get a great tone 
from valved harps - as good as from nonvalved.

And as you brought out, the tone one first gets from a valved harp when 
trying to play it like an unvalved harp is terrible.  It's only after 
extensive practice that you get quality.  You have to relearn bending;
you have to learn to use a lot less breath, a lot harder than it sounds; 
you have to learn a different "touch" between different valved harps, 
even in the same key, because it seems they each have their own unique 
action.  It's no wonder most people don't like them and prefer to either 
"do without", learn overblowing, or "use the right tool" and buy a 
chromatic :-)

> As a last point, it wasn't Susuki's inovation.  Many diatonic players
> have been adding valves to their instruments for years before Susuki
> "invented" the idea.

I'm sure many on the list already know this; nevertheless it is good that
you brought it out so that everyone knows - thanks.  Suzuki is the first
that I know of to market any of their diatonic harps in a valved model,
and thus far, the only one.  In this sense, Suzuki is an innovator, even
if only in the marketing sense. 



 -- mike