Re: [Harp-L] Re: How We Can Save the Chromatic Harmonica from Extinction

[Cara Cooke <cyberharp@xxxxxxxxx>]

Bobbie is right. Strictly chromatic players are more than welcome to be
here, and should be involved with us, to present their side and bring up
their questions and issues. We cannot know what you think if you don't tell
us. In the meantime, if you don't understand the issues of the diatonic
players, then keep reading and ask us questions, even if they seem dumb. Who
knows -- something that we do or discuss may be something you may find worth
exploring -- on your chosen harmonica. A list like this is all about
communication.
 By the way, quite a few of us diatonic players play chromatic, as well. To
us, there really is no "gulf" between the diatonic and chromatic, just a
choice of what we want to do, what we want to use to acheive it, and how we
wish to make it work. Many chromatic players do not read music. Quite a few
diatonic players do. We are a nice mixture of musicians who play the
harmonica, all varieties, and you are welcome to join us.
 As for a new name for the chromatic harmonica to distinguish it
significantly from other harmonicas to rescue it from apparent obscurity?
How much more distinguished can it be from the others than to call it a
"chromatic" harmonica? It has been referred to by some as the "button"
harmonica, but that *is* an obscure reference, or the "slide" harmonica
(which always issues a picture of a harmonica/trombone combination in my
mind). Someone suggested "double" harmonica, which, technically, would be
accurate, since that is essentially what makes the thing work, but it would
tend to get confused by all of those folks who like the double-sided
harmonicas.
 Using the "double" reference, the single harmonica (diatonic) would be like
the single french horn, and the double harmonica (chromatic) would be like
the double french horn (which is literally a combination of two horns with
an extra "trigger" to switch between the two). Neither instrument is
absolutely superior to the other, but one definitely has more options and
takes a little more care to learn to play basically.
 However, it is the musician playing the instrument that makes the
difference. It is the musician that relegates the instrument to obscurity or
elevates it in the eyes of the listening public to an instrument of
importance. It is who we can enthrall and influence with our music and who
we can encourage to follow in our footsteps and try the instrument
themselves that assures a posterity.
 That the harmonica is easy to learn to play is a strength worth exploiting,
but it is hard to master (a challenge). So we encourage the world to try it,
and the ones who stick it out, get to learn the harder stuff. A Stradivarius
in the hands of the unskilled is as much a toy as the harmonica in similar
hands (chromatic or diatonic). However, it can be difficult to learn the
basics of the violin or fiddle. Fans of a harmonica player can learn to play
easily, and will be presented with many years of challenge while they try to
learn the tricks and control of their favorite performers. That is why,
through all adversity, the harmonica remains popular today. Anyone can try
it, and skill cannot be denied, regardless on what instrument it is
demonstrated.
 The only thing we really need to do for the harmonica, regardless of model,
is present it in the very best light we can and demonstrate to the world
what it can do when played by a talented, skilled musician.
 As far as toys are concerned, all musicians *play* their instruments for
their own pleasure (or fun). Instruments are our "toys". And if you want to
hear classical music played on "toys" (and sometimes household wares or
building materials), check out P. D. Q. Bach sometime. (Some classical music
fans and musicians have a sense of humor.)
 Speaking of instruments fading into obscurity, anyone know any hurdy-gurdy
or viol da gamba players? (Actually, I do, but they are few and far
in-between.) ;-)
 Cara