Re: [Harp-L] Re: (Harp-L) Hello and introduction

["Vern Smith" <jevern@xxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "tom ball" <havaball@xxxxxxx>
To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Tuesday, April 12, 2005 8:57 PM
Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Re: (Harp-L) Hello and introduction


> To correlate it to harp, I reckon most beginners get positive feedback by 
> being able to pick out simple melodies like "Oh Susanna" etc, right out of 
> the shoot.  And this is simply easier on a diatonic -- no question, due to 
> the layout.

I didn't think that I'd ever have reason to disagree with a musician of 
your
caliber...but here goes!

If you play "Oh Susanna" in the middle octave of a diatonic starting with
the hole-4 Do, then the layout is exactly the same as the chromatic...not
easier and not more difficult.   However, you must bend to play "Oh 
Susanna"
(and most other tunes) in the low octave and the layout is different in the
high octave.   Because you can play "Oh Susanna" in any octave the same way
on a chromatic, I would argue that it is much easier.

Later, when the beginner encounters his first accidental, (as in the Star
Spangled Banner...dawn's ear-LY light) I cannot even imagine that
bending/overblowing would be easier than pushing the button!

Even later when the beginner finds a song on sheet music that he wants to
learn to play,  I would argue that it is easier to teach him to read on a C
Chromatic than on a C diatonic.

It seems to me that at every step, the Chromatic is simpler and more
straightforward and doesn't require any of the difficult oral acrobatics
required to bend or overblow.

If you argue that the blues sound better on a diatonic, or that the 
diatonic
has the low-octave dominant draw chord, or that you can buy 3 or 4 
diatonics
for the price of one chromatic, or that the diatonic fits more neatly in
your pocket, or the diatonic requires less maintenance, I'll concede.  But
simpler to learn????

Vern
Visit my harmonica website: http://www.Hands-Free-Chromatic.7p.com