- Subject: Re: Tone
- From: Ron/datadigr <rdg@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 19 Jan 2003 09:04:13 -0500
Sunday, January 19, 2003, 10:26:19 AM, you wrote:
RB>Tone is something that should be worked on early- as it is
RB> damn near impossible once you have all the other bells
RB> and whistles.
I think tone should be worked on early, too. I think it's
important to work on tone--and to strive for "better"
tone all the time but I also think it is very important to set one's
own targets for what tone to strive for, and not to take someone
else's opinion on what is good and bad "tone" as some sort of
Play often and aim for what you "like". Do your best to play what you
want to hear.
The reason I play is _so_ that I can hear harp played the way I'd like
to hear it--right on the spot. Right then. Sometimes I think I nail
it, sometimes I don't quite reach my own goal, but I try--and that's
why I try, just to hear the sound I want.
Is it good? Bad? Shrill? Awesome? Well, I'm sure there's debate--but
as to whether _I_ like the phrasing, or as to whether _I_ like the
tone. Nope--no debate. I almost always like it. Lots.
I don't want tone like Little Walter or Sonny Boy. I don't want tone like
Paul Delay or Mark Ford--and I love all those players.
I _do_ want tone like Carlos del Junco, or Lee Oskar or Sugar Blue.
Why? Because I like it. Pure and simple.
Are the three whose tone I want to capture in my own playing "better"
than Sonny Boy or LW? I don't think so, but _I_ like 'em better.
Is that a problem? Can't see why. I think tone is really important and
do my best to get the tone I strive for. Ain't that enough?
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and