Re: [Harp-L] Paddy Richter

[Bobbie Giordano <bogio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

It's been largely addressed now, but I figured I would still send this 
which I forgot to post the other day, since I'm still curious about what 
answers there might be to my questions.

Larry Pratt queried:
> I use to know this, but didn't write it down, and now its evaporated 
> from my brain.  The Paddy Richter tuning has the 3 hole blow raised. I 
> don't know if its a half-step or a whole step.

A whole step.  Thus, on a 'C' harp, you're raising the 3rd hole blow G to 
an A.

> You can make one of these easily with a pair of Lee Oskar harps.  I 
> think the bottom (draw) plate is a standard Richter diatonic plate.  I 
> think you replace the top (blow) plate with a top plate from a Melody 
> Maker.  Is this right?  Is it a MM?

I think so.  At first, I thought you were confusing it with that 
discussion a few years back about building a Dorian Minor harp by 
combining the blow reedplate from a major tuned harp and the draw 
reedplate from the corresponding natural minor harp [labeled in 2nd, or 
crossharp, position.]  But, after checking, yes, to produce a Paddy 
Richter harp, the MM has the 3rd hole note already raised to whole step 
on the blow reedplate, and you simply install that on a comb with a 
regular major draw reedplate attached.

> What are the two Lee Oskar reed plates used?  I also remember
> that for a given key you have to get the right LO plates.  LO
> names their "other than standard richter tuned" harps in second
> position, a fifh from the natural note.  Thus,to make a Paddy
> Richter in A, you would use a standard diatonic A for the draw
> plate.  The other plate would be marked as an E.

That's the way I understand it.  That would give you F# for the 3rd hole 
blow note.  And, as you imply, you need to consider the 'cross-harp' 
labeling of the Melody Maker, made with the intention of using it to play 
melodies in second position.  [An understandable approach for naming harp 
keys, but not one I ever considered reasonable, due to the unnecessary 
confusion it tends to cause.]

Then, Steve Shaw added this interesting comment:
>Paddy is the only tuning I use for 10-hole harps, but I achieve
>it by tuning up the 2-draw rather than the 3-blow. I really have
>no other good reason for doing it other than the fact that I've
>always done it and I'm used to it. I don't need the lost draw
>chord as I play single notes nearly all the time.

Naturally makes one start to wonder which method might work best.  [Did 
for me, anyway!]  Both remove at least one useful chord... which loss is 
greater?  Changing the 3rd hole blow adds a new blow note, removes the 
lowest of 3 same pitch notes, and maintains an ascending scale and 
familiar note/breath pattern.  Is having that new blow note as beneficial 
as having a third same pitch draw note in the lower octave, despite 
losing the sole fifth note [2 draw] among draw notes, plus disrupting the 
note/breath pattern?  [2 draw becomes higher than 3 blow.]

The raised 3 blow seems the most logical solution to me, but some of the 
benefits in Steve's method have me wondering if his might work better in 
many ways.

>You don't have to take the plates off to do it my way!

Also favorable!  :)

Has anyone compared these options for ease of play and useful note 
access?  I hope so... please don't make me have make time to investigate 
this or we'll NEVER know!!  ;)

Time's a-wastin'...
Cheers!
Bobbie