Re: [Harp-L] Building better harps - How?

["Vern Smith" <jevern@xxxxxxx>]

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tim Moyer" <wmharps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2005 6:20 AM
Subject: Re: [Harp-L] Building better harps - How?


> I think it would be nearly impossible to start with an agenda that
> requires us to quantify what each and every person prefers from their
> harmonica to the point that we can measure and reproduce it with a
> mechanical process.

Then you despair of success before undertaking the task.  You are punting on 
the first down.  If you cannot relate player preferences to mechanical 
processes, then how can you improve harp performance?

> > 5.  Our goal should be to make the optimizing of harmonica
> > performance a science instead of an art!

> I disagree with this goal.........

Because you do not think it desirable or because you do not think it 
attainable?

> ........ although I do not say that I "depend *solely*
> on [my] ears" [emphasis added].  However, since the ears are the final
> measure of the quality of the work, they need to be considered in the
> equation.  After all, the tuner, the caliper and the gauge don't hear
> the music.

I agree that the senses of the listener and player cannot be divorced from 
the process of creating "better" harmonicas.  I think that they should be 
used at the beginning of the process to identify the attributes that 
constitute "better" and at the end to verify that "better" has been 
achieved.  I also insist that they be used by "blind" listeners/players who 
do not know the pedigree of the harmonica.  By pedigree I mean the maker of 
the harp, how it has been modified, and by whom.

> Just because something is not solely a science doesn't mean it can't be
> taught.  There have been teachers of art for millennia, and it, too, is
> a well-developed process.

But "art" isn't a machine and a harmonica is. Playing the harmonica is art 
but optimizing it's mechanical details should not be.  Music is subjective 
by definition but a harmonica obeys the laws of physics and acoustics.

> In my opinion, when the number of variables and variations exceeds what
> can be measured and quantified the process transcends science and
> becomes art.  Certainly some parts of the process are capable of being
> engineered for best repeatability and quality assurance, but the best
> work is done by artists for artists.

All variables do not have equal effect.  If we quantify the effect on 
"better" of a few of the important ones such as: leakage (especially in 
chromatics), tuning, gapping, and reed curvature, I doubt that the effects 
of the others are perceptible. Ranking effects can be a part of our effort.

Finding out WHAT do to our harps to achieve "better" is the problem. Once we 
know, then HOW to do it is well understood and easily taught.

"When you can measure what you are speaking about, and express it in 
numbers, you know something about it. But when you cannot... your knowledge 
is of a meager and unsatisfactory kind..."  William Thomson, Lord Kelvin, 
circa 1893.

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