[Harp-L] re: intonation and such

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Winslow wites:

"Jonathan appears to be arguing with what he imagines (incorrectly)
that I mean."

Probably.  Frankly I wasn't really sure what you meant, so I expected  
I might have been misinterpreting things.

"I do not argue that overblows or bends can or should be made to sound
the same as what Jonathan calls "natural" notes (all notes are natural
notes if you can produce them by applying your body to a physical
instrument)."

I used the term to distinguish between the notes available through  
standard breathing and playing (or placing the instrument before a  
fan) and those which are available only by manipulation of the oral  
cavity, ie bends and overblows.  I make the distinction between the  
"natural" notes and the "created" notes as a practical matter without  
any intent of prejudice in the wording.  String players talk about  
fretted and unfretted notes, and that is the model I was attempting  
to somewhat import, though obviously we need different terms.

" If you have followed my recent posts, I have pointed out
the opposite and cited the Ode to Joy Challenge I staged a few years
back as showing how difficult it is to disguise even the simplest  
bends."

A wonderful thing you did, and part of why I was confused as to what  
you were trying to say, as you seemed to be contradicting that.

"However, "different" does not mean "bad or "poor" or "weak". It just
means different, and different does not need to be concealed or
protected. It needs to be brought to its full potential, and then used
in an appropriate way."

Which is exactly what I have been trying to say and stress.  If you  
notice, I never used the term "weak" or "bad" or "poor"--indeed, I  
pointed out that I wouldn't use that term when someone else did.

"My point was that these notes can be made to sound much stronger and
fuller than many players either care to try or are willing to believe
is possible. They seem to assume that the notes will sound weak and
therefore try to hide them."

I'd agree, that hiding them because one can't play them in a way that  
sounds musically interesting isn't a good thing.  It has been shown  
quite well that overblows and bends can sound quite full, strong and  
with a pleasant timbre (they can also sound the opposite, which can  
be equally useful in the right context).  But, they will never sound  
the same, and so that means you have to know when that different  
timbre will work and when it won't.  I've never made it a question of  
weak or the like, but of difference, as the Ode challenge did show.   
I can play a very nice, strong sounding 3-draw wholestep bend.  I  
can't play one that sounds at all decent in that song.  As far as I  
can tell no-one else can either.

"Instead, I argue that any player who uses these notes should get as
strong as they can in playing them. Anything worth doing is worth
doing as well as possible. Half-assed technique leads to half-assed
artistic decisions."

Agreed.  But ignoring difference as a thing in and of itself can lead  
to bad decisions as well.  It doesn't matter how nice your created  
notes sound, if you don't recognize that they sound different and  
know how and when to use that and them, then you won't be making good  
artistic decisions either.  And I'm not even saying that you should  
be parsing them out as if they are the last bits of chocolate on  
earth, just thinking about when and where and what's right for the  
given context.  What's right for a Chicago-style blues song might not  
be right for 70's style blues-funk song, and certainly might not be  
right for modal jazz or a serialist piece.  Context as always.

"Only then
should a player decide the degree to which he or she wishes to expose
or conceal the notes. Decisions at that point will be based not on a
position of weakness but on a position of artistic qualities."

I would say that you don't need to master a technique before you  
start to learn when to use it.  One doesn't need to become Paganini  
to begin to play music on the violin.

However, I have always advocated the position of strength you are  
talking about.  But that doesn't make the question of when and when  
not to use bends and overblows go away by any means.  It just gives  
you more tools with which to make those decisions.  Are you saying  
those issues go away with this mastery, or do you say that they still  
exist?  My feeling is that they don't go away at all--they are no  
less relevant because one has mastered all the techniques you said  
than if one hasn't.  A bend or overblow still won't sound like a non- 
bent or non-overblown note (nor like one another, at that).  That  
issue will remain regardless of how nice you can make the bend and  
overblow sound, how in tune you can play it, how well you can phrase it.

"Most players have not developed their overbend technique to the point
where they should be making hard-and-fast decisions about where these
note "should" be placed. It's a moving target that will get closer,
wider, and easier to hit as the player's technique improves."

Maybe, maybe not.  Actually, again I'm not sure what you mean.  What  
is a "moving target"?  What's the target?  Is the target the  
decisions of when and when not to use them?

If so, then I'd say part of the problem is that there are a large  
group of people who seem to want the target to not exist: who seem to  
think that if the technical issues are mastered then there will be no  
need for such decisions because every note will just sound the same,  
be played with the same phrasing and so forth.  That's the part I  
don't see happening.  I also don't see it really getting diminished  
very much with increased facility of the technique--I certainly don't  
hear it getting any less important when people with great technique  
play as if the target I mentioned above does not even exist.



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