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

["John Kerkhoven" <solo_danswer@xxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Quantification is not everything -- but it certainly has its place. And Vern
is correct that, after all, we are dealing with a manufactured object with
physical and accoustical properties. Why shouldn't we want to understand
these properties as well as possible?

That said, not everyone has to be on the cutting edge of scientific
investigation into the workings of the harmonica. Those who are should (I
believe) share their results and knowledge. If they have something
worthwhile to share, those who are interested in harp maintenance and
customization and development WILL pay attention. I guarantee it. But not
everyone has to sign on to a research agenda -- assuming that there would
or could even be concensus on what that agenda should be.

I also don't think it is useful to argue about whether harp-work is an art
or a science or should be one or the other. My own view, for what it's
worth, is that for the harmonica player who is interested in maintenance and
customizations, it really is at a certain point an art and probably always
will remain so no matter how much we understand about the workings of the
instrument. But the doors remain wide open to informed input at all levels.
I think I'm pretty much in agreement here with Tim's concluding remarks
(quoted below).

John



>From Tim Moyer's post:
>
> I'm not trying to discount the value of understanding in scientific
> terms how something works or techniques that can be used to improve
> its performance.  I'm simply saying that if I want to improve the
> performance of my harmonicas I'd rather invest the time learning
> from someone who is highly skilled in the artisanship, and in
> developing an infrastructure that facilitates the distribution of
> this knowledge.
>