[Harp-L] re: shortly chromatic 3

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Dave Murray wrote:

"This whole discussion is certainly valid, but I do think that we  
should celebrate these people, and not just criticize. I'm not  
attacking you or your point of view, but I would disagree that our  
world is binary with a requirement to trip some flag to trigger a  
Boolean change of state from isn't to is. You are singing, it's just  
that your singing doesn't reach a level that you think is  
appropriate. That doesn't make you "not singing", just "not singing  
at that level.""


No, it means that I am not singing as defined by that context.   
That's the key word: context.  I can obviously sing, but not in the  
context of a choir or the like.  It's not "at that level", it's  
rather that I am not doing it within the given context.

I would suggest looking at the post I wrote to Michael Rubin about  
context in this discussion again:  http://harp-l.org/pipermail/harp-l/ 
2006-December/msg00302.html


Dave Murray again:

"Debating the failings is valid. To claim that someone isn't playing  
chromatically, or isn't singing (at all) because they don't achieve  
some level that you expect seems a bit much to me. I couldn't win the  
Daytona 500, but I drive every day. Am I not driving because I can't  
win at Daytona?"

Of course you're driving, but are you racing?  Note the difference.   
You are driving, but in the context of Nascar, you aren't driving.   
Part of the problem is that we use the same word for all of this.   
"Play" is a great verb, but the fact that both Allen Iverson and I  
"play" basketball seems to be more than a bit over-arching.


George Brooks wrote:

"It's not often I agree with Buldogge (I almost wrote "JR", which is  
what I used to call him, but most people would take that to mean  
Jason now) when the subject is playing chromatically on the short  
harp, but his observation that intonation is crucial is right on."

I actually think we would agree more often than not, but in any  
event, I want to make it clear that I am not intending to dictate to  
anyone on anything.  If it gives George pleasure and satisfies him  
musically to be playing in a way I might feel doesn't work, so be it-- 
and more power to him.  If I don't feel that it succeeds, I'll say  
so.  Doesn't mean he should stop or anything else--hell, I rarely  
listen to myself, so why should anyone else.  To me that's what real  
encouragement and validation is: encourage people to try new things  
and take chances, but tell them when you think they don't work.  I  
sometimes might sound strident, but I want to be clear that I offer  
any criticism solely in the desire to be honest and to encourage  
discussion, debate and critical listening.

Finally, and for the fiftieth time it seems, I never said anything  
negative about overblows.  Everything I say about the difference  
between natural notes and accidentals applies to bends and overblows  
equally.  Moreover, as I've said before, both are extremely valid,  
versatile and useful techniques.  My issue is with how they are used  
and when they are used, not them.  No technique (not even the nasal  
embouchure) is inherently good or bad, once again it's all about  
context.




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