RE: OVERBLOWING-"the 8-track of techniques"-NOT!!!!!!
- Subject: RE: OVERBLOWING-"the 8-track of techniques"-NOT!!!!!!
- From: Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 22 Jul 2003 09:06:09 -0400
Mike Curtis wrote:
"Full control" is a rather meaningless definition. We can strive to do
our very best, to do better, to play each note as well as another
player, etc. But who among us would claim to have "full control" over
even the "natural:" notes?
That would be those of us who 1) work at it and 2) don't make a point of
engaging in meaningless distinctions as per the nonsense above. Try
walking into a recording session and telling the producer that you don't
have control over your instrument, really. See how many callbacks you
get, esepcially if you can manage to prove it.
I could go on, but Mike has saved me the work of further argument by
contradicting himself a few sentences later:
Fortunately, we don't have to have absolute "full control". It needs to
be "good enough to get the job done". This differs between players.
For some, it's simply hitting the note (or something reasonably close).
For others, it's hitting it and making it sound reasonably good. And
for some others, it's being able to hit it exactly on pitch and make it
sound *exactly* like we want it to.
So we come full circle, hmm? "Make it sound *exactly* like we want it
to" sounds suspiciously like being in full control. How else does one
get the instrument to do *exactly* what one wants? By being sort of in
control, maybe, and hoping that the results are magically, exactly what
This brief dissection of self-contradictory gabble aside, George
Brooks's original point was that it's damn hard to get a lot of bends
exactly in tune, and this will affect the ability to use the new harp
well in certain musical contexts. I agree. I plan to buy one also.
Oh, and where the cosmos is concerned, yes, ultimately none of us is in
full control. That's God's job, and fortunately for the people on this
list, He doesn't compete with harp players for session work.
Thanks, Richard Hunter
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and