[Harp-L] scales, etc...

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Picking up some older posts mostly because I've been away, sorry if  
it seems like I'm covering old ground by now, but it was all new to me.


Jason Ricci wrote:

"Harmonica Positions are like picking up differently tuned guitars to  
play
in whatever key...as Michael Rubin pointed out very eloquently any  
scale or
riff can be played on any harmonica in any position the only  
variables lie
in what octave, how does the scale sound: where are the sweet spots,  
nice
bends, challenges etc..) "

To me the above basically says "scales can be played in any key, the  
difference being they can't be played in any key".  The problem is, a  
scale isn't something where tonal and articulation differences are  
just a minor issue: they are the central issue.  The point of playing  
a scale is that all the notes are (as close to) the same as possible:  
timing, phrasing, timbre, etc...  That'sa big part of why you  
practice them.  On the diatonic harmonica you really do have a very  
limited set of scales that fits that role (rooted around the tonic).   
Now, that's no reason not to practice and indeed play other keys and  
scales, but I find this whole "no position" thing rather like saying  
to sax players that they should just learn to read music as written  
and give up that whole transposing thing.  Or, to continue the guitar  
analogy, that guitarists (and violinists) should give up on their  
"positions".  The thing is, positions are a tool, no more no less.   
They allow ease of transposition from one key harmonica to the next  
and also help to indicate what will be easy and what near-impossible.


Jason Ricci again:

"I think of picking up a different harp to play the
same scale in 3rd/2nd/4th/whatever position when the band starts a new
song/changes key is the same as placing a capo on a guitars fret  
board. By
capoing you don't have to change your finger patterns to reproduce  
the same
licks/scales/chords only the pitch and the action changes...I do it  
all the
time cause I like the way certain positions are laid out and how they  
sound
etc..."

The last sentence seems to me to be arguing against the previous idea  
that positions don't matter.  Indeed, it just says to me what a  
useful tool for thinking about the instrument they are.  The same for  
instruments such as the guitar, where positions really come into play  
when using a capo (as you can play in the same position as before,  
but now in a different key--and higher up the neck, of course).   
Indeed, I use positional playing for chromatic as well.  As was  
pointed out by others, some things lay well in a certain position,  
but not necessarily in the right key on a C chromatic.  So if I know  
the position it lays in well, I can either transpose the song or  
switch to the proper key to exploit that position.  That's part of  
why I find thinking of positions can be quite useful.

Sam Blancato writes:

"I agree with all of this but chromaticism on a short harp is just a  
huge
thing to learn technique-wise"

So huge it's never been done.  IMO, of course, but for my defense see  
the archives.

Iceman writes:

"Major diatonic scale - do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti, do. - 7 notes  
with a repeating octave = 8 notes. I simply add the 9th scale degree  
-  do, re, mi, fa, sol, la, ti, do, re. This choice of notes, when  
played up and down morphs into a melodic line. "Do, re, mi, fa, sol,  
la, ti, do, re, do, ti, la, sol, fa, mi, re, do." This SOUNDS like a  
melodic idea."

I think this is great advice--less the specifics of the scale  
playing, more the general idea that practicing, even scales, should  
be something you enjoy.  I prefer to go up to the 13th degree of a  
major scale myself (as Robert Bonfiglio suggested here long, long  
ago), but the key point is to focus on things that will make you  
enjoy the process.  True, you want to be as smooth and even as you  
can in terms of timing, phrasing, etc...  But if I focus on that  
aspect I soon get bored, make mistakes and get frustrated.  If  
instead I focus on the musical feel of the notes, how the half steps  
and whole steps relate, predicting what the next note is and so  
forth, it becomes enjoyable.  Other things which are great for that  
are to do splits of the scale up and down--in thirds, fourths,  
fifths, sixths, etc.. (ie, C, E, D, F, E, G, F, A, etc...and back  
down).  This all helps break up the monotony of playing scales, while  
still allowing you to get both the musical patterns internalized and  
still focus on the physical aspects (even and smooth playing) which  
scales are often used to teach.


Rick Dempster writes:

"I would like to see the whole 'position' thing dropped. In fact,
from here on, I will add the disclaimer to all my emails "C harp spoken
only" so that it is understood that 1st is C, 2nd G, 3rd D, 4th A, 5th
E. 6th B, etc. etc.
    If it's good enough for the whole wind instrument family, it's good
enough for a harmonica player!"

Except the harmonica isn't like any of the other instruments.   
Besides which, I'd argue that positional usage makes more sense in  
many ways.  Sax players and other woodwind players are constantly  
taught to internalize an abstraction of reality: that "C" is not  
actually C.  With positions you avoid this fantasy and yet get the  
same result.  Let's take your usage of keys above: it's a lie for any  
other key than C.  With the above system you propose we get the  
absurd phrase "I'm playing in C on an A harp" when the actual key is  
A, not C.  That seems like a much more confusing system to me--I'd  
have to realize that you mean you're playing in A, and not actually  
in C (10th position).

However, I understand the frustration--it would be nice in some ways  
if composers wrote for the diatonic as a transposing instrument (in  
C, G or whatever).  However, this poses many problems to begin with:  
first, composers don't usually know the instrument, so they can't be  
expected to know that playing in G on a C harp sounds different than  
the same key on a G harp and how to take advantage of that.

As Winslow writes:

"Publishers insist on writing everything out at actual pitch, or perhaps
octave displaced, regardless of the key of harmonica used. This is also
true of harmonica parts in BRoadway musicals, regardless of the key and
type of harmonica indicated on the score."

And for good reason.  I know people on this list who do a lot of  
recording work, and at least one of them has told me that they've  
given up trying to figure out an ideal way to write for the  
diatonic.  And this is someone who's published learning material.  In  
the end, actual pitch is easiest for all involved, just because the  
diatonic combines two hard to reconcile realities: first, it's  
available in many keys.  True, so are saxophones and other winds, but  
they don't have the second issue: you can't play in every key (see my  
previous definitions of "play") on any given diatonic.  The  
combination of the two--limited key sets per instrument, all keys of  
instrument available--pose some really nasty problems for writing out  
music for the instrument, IMO (and we aren't even considering  
alternate tunings and so forth).  Add to this the lack of knowledge  
on most composer's part (really, not a criticism) of the instrument  
and real pitch seems the least problematic to me.


Winslow further writes:

"Players like the position idea. Nobody imposed it on them."

It evolved as a concept because it was a useful one.  I sincerely  
doubt anyone thought of positions when the instrument was invented,  
they came later as a tool for understanding how to play and as a tool  
for discussing how you played.  As time has gone on, they've even  
become fairly standardly codified by attaching the idea of positions  
to the circle of fifths (I think this makes things easier--frankly  
"first flat" is just one of those things which adds confusion--at  
what point should the numbers meet up--should you go to "sixth flat"?).

More Winslow:

"Now this particular solo was in the key of Ab. But on a G harmonica,
that plays as the key of Db. So I wrote it out in Db. This confused the
hell out of everyone, even though it was clearly labeled. "

Well, since there is no standardized rule, it would be confusing.   
That's not a criticism of you, just that the whole subject is  
confusing.  For chromatics, I do think (if labeled properly) using a  
transposing rule makes some sense.  At the same time, I can also see  
why you might want to just have the notes as they actually are.  If  
it were _me_, I'd probably go for transposing--both for diatonics and  
chromatics.  I know that sounds like I'm contradicting myself, but  
the difference here is that if I'm writing something out, I know what  
key and position I want used, and like Winslow would label it as  
such.  It would be nice if such a rule was in place broadly, but it  
won't happen, because most people who write music aren't going to  
bother to learn how the harmonica (any) works.  They don't have to  
really--that's not their job, it's ours.  Thus Tommy Morgan carries  
everything he could possibly need (every key chromatic, in different  
pitch sets, same for diatonics, etc...) because that's his job: to  
translate the composer's intention into reality.


Smokey-Joe writes:

"Theilmans uses a LOT of Db position. (So does Wonder)(So does  
Hayman) (So did Diamond). I used to choke on my false teeth any time  
someone said 'so & so ONLY plays a C chrom and never plays anything  
else."

While it's true that most people have used other keys of chromatic,  
the overwhelming majority of the recorded output of all those  
mentioned was done on C instruments.  That's significant to point out  
for anyone wanting to learn off records: try a C first, and if it  
doesn't fit, then go elsewhere (often G, from my experience).  But, I  
agree completely that it's nice to have other key chromatics as well:  
some songs simply use the layout of the instrument better in keys  
other than C.  That's true for most any instrument--I don't remember  
which composer it was, perhaps Irving Berlin, who had a transposing  
piano because he preferred to play in the flat keys.  By transposing  
the keyboard he could retain the feeling of the layout he liked and  
yet write in the proper key.  That's essentially what happens when  
you change the key of the harp: you take advantage of what feels  
better.   And that doesn't even begin to mention the chordal  
possibilities with key changing.

"Other instruments have 'set' scales. ( I would go so far as to say  
that sop-sax, ten-sax, clar ALL have the same pattern). The notes are  
always in the same place. Chromo changes every time you change key. "

The piano, organ, harpsichord, piano accordion and all keyboard  
instruments have the same limitations.  Actually, so do wind  
instruments--you don't use the same fingering for a playing in one  
key as any other on a recorder, for instance.  The sax, recorder and  
other families may use the same patterns across the various types of  
instrument, but within each one each scale is unique.  That's no  
different than on most production harmonicas, chromatic or diatonic  
or other.  A way around this is Modes Of Limited Transposition (MOLT)  
layouts, such as the wholetone augmented and diminished layouts,  
where you only have two or three patterns which are repeated  
throughout the range (similar to universal and "chromatic" layouts in  
keyboards).







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