[Harp-L] Names

["Jonathan R. Ross" <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Names are both mutable and immutable.  By this I mean that they can
change over time as usage changes and that if there is no reason for
change they probably won't.  It is very hard to actively change the name
of something without a conscious, well-publicized and publicly sponsored
program (ask the French about eliminating English words from everyday
usage).

Thus, no matter what anyone on this list wants to call them, "chromatic
harmonicas" will remain "chromatic harmonicas" until those who use the
term change it--and this list has shown time and again that the inertia
inherent in an existing name, no matter how ill-conceived (see overblow
vs. overbend) will win out.

Besides which, there are many good reasons to keep the name.  First,
harmonica is an excellent generic.  It incorporates essentially all
mouth-blown free-reed instruments of like design (blow-accordions and
melodeons are different enough to not be included--and if you know what
to classify the Harmonetta as let me know) and yet doesn't specify or
denote any singular type over another (as in accordions and
concertinae).  Thus you have tremolo harmonicas, octave harmonicas, bass
harmonicas, chord harmonicas and the rather poorly named diatonic and
chromatic harmonicas.  The problem with the names of these two is that
other types of harmonica could also be described as diatonic (tremolos*)
or chromatic (bass, the Suzuki Singles).  However the name has been
associated for so long with the specific type that everyone knows
automatically what it is and that when you say "chromatic harmonica" you
do not mean a bass instrument but the thingie with the button.

And, if you don't want the word harmonica in the name, then call it a
"chro", "chrom", "chromo" or whatever the hell you like.  But if anyone
thinks for a moment that the name has any effect on the popularity of or
respect given the instrument, then I have a bridge to sell.  The
harmonica is quite popular in all forms, and the chromatic no less so
(just listen to soundtracks or commercials).  Perhaps not as often seen
in jazz or pop, but then those are formats which have a fairly
standardized set of instruments and anything outside of the standards is
a novelty (that having been said, how many times has Toots won the
Downbeat "other instrument" poll?).  As for respect, that is internal.
If you respect yourself then so will others, and those who don't aren't
worth your time to even acknowledge.

Finally, as far as names go "chromatic harmonica" is not as bad as many
more popular instruments.  Take the piano--an odd choice of names
considering that the range is more mezzo-forte to fortissimo on most and
only the best can even manage something approaching mezzo-piano.  Or the
even more idiotically named "forte-piano", a name used to indicate an
instrument designed and constructed after older versions of the beast
and which again is essentially incapable of the main part of the name
(these can do piano, it's the forte that they usually have trouble
with).

The chromatic harmonica may be in decline, but the number of young
players (especially in jazz lately) would seem to me to defy that.
Indeed, it is the previous generation now in their 40's and 50's which
all-but abandoned the chrom (with notable exceptions) for the diatonic,
whereas many younger players seem to be taking it up with gusto.  And
ask yourself this: how many people come to the chromatic through the
diatonic.  If they weren't linked by name, how many of those might never
think to do so?  Despite their total lack of similarities in nearly
every regard, many organists got their start on Hammonds and then moved
on to the organ proper--if the name organ had not been (erroneously)
attached to the former how many might never have made the connection?
(few if based purely on sound)



 oo    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()()   & Snuffy, too:)
`--'

* For the purposes of this example ignore both the Suzuki
tremolo-chromatic and John Infande's design for such.