[Harp-L] re: shortly chromatic

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Michael Rubin wrote:

"Sorry for misspelling Bulldogge."


Not a problem--just trying to avoid confusion is all.


MR again:

"  Okay, by your definition, no one plays fully chromatic."


Not on the diatonic, no.


MR:

"  Still, I disagree with your definition in terms of what "playing"  
is.  I think it has more to do with making sounds that you like, not  
creating a sound that would get one into the symphony. "


It depends on context, as always.  If the context is playing music  
you write in a style of your own, or a fairly fluid style like rock  
or pop, then whatever sounds you like is a fine criteria.  If the  
context is playing a pre-existing song or within a defined genre,   
then the definition of "play" I gave tends to be pretty accurate  
(whether simply "playing" the song, in the genre or "chromatically")-- 
IMO. of course.


MR:

" I didn't pick up harp because it sounds perfect.  IMO, part of the  
problem with overblowers is their incessant need to be on pitch.  "


I would disagree entirely: intonation is massively important.  It's  
not the same for all genres, of course, and there can be differences  
in tolerances for intonation problems, but in most highly chromatic  
Western musics, intonation is vitally important.


MR:

"But if I want to create new melodic lines informed by the  
restrictions of the positions and rock out with some raw diatonic  
sounds, I'll play diatonic fully chromatically!"


Then I would say you aren't really playing chromatically--you're  
doing something else.  And more power to you for that.  It all  
depends on the context of what you play.  If you're doing the above  
in a jazz standards setting, I can't imagine it working.  Perhaps in  
an avant-garde noise-oriented group or such it might be perfect.   
But, if the context is playing music usually considered highly  
chromatic, then I'd say that the approach fails.



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