Re: electric vs acoustic

astratyner@xxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

<<  I can appreciate what everyone has expressed on this topic, but I
 would still emphasize acoustic practice over amplified practice for several
 reasons. First off in terms of relative importance the amp isn't the source
 of "the sound" I.E., Little Walter" wasn't "Little Walter" primarily because
 he had mastered amplifier technique. I know, Walter was one of the pioneers
 of amplified playing. Yes, he certainly knew how to augment HIS tone with
 whatever amplifier he was playing through.  However when I listen to him
 solo on a cut I am not moved as I am primarily because of his execution of
 amplifier skills, I am moved by Walter shaping his tone with his mouth, his
 tongue, his resonant chambers, his mind, and all those other things that
 money and current technology (Thank God) just can't buy.  >>

i don't think most folks would argue this.  but it's unlikely that he viewed 
amplified playing merely as a louder version of his acoustic playing.  his 
playing was certainly effected by that amplified sound.  
for modern times, if you are doing something similar to richard hunter's 
electronic harp pieces, you ~must~ practice amplified or with the effects on.  and 
richard has a great acoustic sound.
i would bet that most folks here do more acoustic practice, just based on the 
impracticality of carrying around an amp all the time.

steven j gatorman

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