[Harp-L] a review, and a few more thoughts

["Jonathan R. Ross" <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Chris posted a song by Howard Levy to illustrate a point:

>http://www.michalekstrone.com/music/masquerade.mp3
>
>Howard Levy playing a fairly complicated jazz tune one three
>different harps.
 
I agree that it's a complicated piece, but rather than a rebuttal of my
points, I think it illustrates them rather clearly.

I've listened to it a few times now, and while I think overall it's a
nice piece, I can't get around the intonation and timbre issues.  They
are there right at the beginning--struggles to hit notes in the basic
theme when he first states it.  There are brilliant passages, but then
they are interrupted by out-of-tune and off-timbre pitches, especially
annoying in some of the attempts at cascades and runs.  Legato is a well
know and accepted problem on the harmonica, and to me it seems that
these issues of intonation and timbre accentuate the instrument's
limitations in that regard, in a very unpleasant manner.  That's the
first solo.  The piano solo is good, if bland, but I've been listening
to a lot of Ellington solos lately, so my standards for piano is pretty
high at this moment.  Howard's second solo starts off in a way that
reminds me of a solo I heard recently on the radio.  It was by one of
the icons and idols of jazz saxophone.  I thought of it at the time as
self-indulgent, in that the instrument was being made to create sounds
it didn't want to purely for the sake of those sounds.  I feel that
Howard's solo isn't in that realm--it's much, much more musical.  But,
there is a difference, and it's that the sax player can hit the notes he
was trying for when he wants to (I've heard it), where I don't think
Howard can hit these notes cleanly that he's trying here.  Fortunately,
the solo has some wonderful parts in the middle where he avoids the low
end queasiness and shows excellent phrasing and taste.  The Hammond solo
is very nice, actually, a relaxed vibe, with no attempt at showing off.
My favorite part of the piece, actually.  The third solo by Howard
starts off wonderfully, with a well timed and phrased introduction,
easing the transition from the Hammond to Howard.  Overall I'd say this
is his best solo by far, but many of the cascades he plays still lake
clarity and definition because of the intonation and timbre issues.  Not
all, but many.  I feel that when he settles down and doesn't try to
force things with speed or what the harp can do he really sounds
wonderful.  To me the third solo does that (for the most part) and the
ending is excellent--the low bends here don't jar the way they do in the
second solo where they are forced to carry a load they cannot bear.

That's my review.  I like the piece, but to be honest I think it shows
many of the problems I wanted to point out.  Live, I might have neither
cared nor noticed these issues, but this is a recording and I do.
Howard shows that he has excellent phrasing and can really play
wonderfully, but he also shows that he can sound quite bad at times when
forcing the instrument into areas it simply doesn't want to go.  As he
is the acknowledged best and this was posted as an example of what can
be done, I have to say that it bears out everything I said.  There is
much good music here, but in two out of three solos the attempt to
hammer the square peg of the technique into the round hole of the
instrument hurts the music significantly.  And, as Chris pointed out
Howard was even changing harps to help alleviate these problems.  Again,
I think that points out the issues I've been having with hearing these
attempts at playing in this style.

Perhaps others don't care as much or hear these issues.  That's fine.
While I love the harmonica, I mostly love it because I play it, not
because I think it trumps the other things I listen for in music.  Thus,
if I were to hear any other instrument have these issues, I'd feel the
same way.  Also, while I appreciate strange sounds as much (more
probably, based on my instrument and record collection) as the next guy,
I don't when they detract rather than add to the music.  To me the
intonation and timbre issues, particularly in fast runs and low notes,
detract from the music (it's less of an issue here on held notes,
perhaps because he was more specific about what the held notes in
question were).  I'm sure others disagree, but to me this clip and
review pretty much make my point as clearly as I can.

A few more responses to other things:
George wrights:
>If JR finds Howard's live version of "Masquerade" musically
unsatisfying >because of intonation or timbre issues, there will never
be a meeting of >the minds between us. I think it's great music, and
whatever technical >issues there are do not get in the way of the music
for me at all (Chris M. >has posted a link to this performance twice
now).

That's fine--there's plenty of music I don't care for or have issues
with that others love.  But, I think that these issues are not merely
side-issues, but rather serious ones.  To me they do detract from the
music, the same way as when I listen to a piece played on the organ
hearing slipped notes or out-of-tune notes detracts from the music.  I
don't have a different standard for the harmonica just because it's
harder to play those notes in tune, rather I've been listening and have
started to think that perhaps they _cannot_ be played in tune.  And
that's ignoring the timbre issues.

>They said, 'were not interested in the harmonica' it won't draw and
this is >a Jazz Club
>etc etc.....I went on my RANT and told them that about 65% of their
crowd
>when they book TOOTS are Harmonica Players or enthusiasts!......

Which makes my point again--the door isn't very open to harmonica in
general.  This is really another thread and another issue, but for the
most part people who listen to jazz want to hear "jazz instruments"
(sax, trumpet, piano, maybe vibes, etc...) the same as people who listen
to classical want to hear "classical instruments" (strings, flute, oboe,
etc...).  There is a small amount of the audience that is more
adventurous, but even to someone as great as Toots or Larry Adler the
door is still fairly shut.  But, I don't see how that has any relation
to this thread about the attempts to play the diatonic in complex
musics.

Also by Rob P:
>I say we 'explore' the so called impossible and make MUSIC, but mostly
LOVE >it and have FUN, but at the same time keep our standards high.
(hopefully >the $ will follow,-)

I say we explore, but that we keep our minds and more importantly our
ears open so that we can find out what is really possible and what is
not.  The harmonica is a mechanical device, a musical _instrument_.  It
has inherent limitations as such, and no amount of thinking or wishing
can simply overcome them.  The same is true of any musical instrument.
Most, though, are old enough that pedagogy has formed based on these
experiments in what it can and cannot do.  My suggestion is not to stop
experimenting, but that we step back and start to consider what the
experiments which have been done are actually showing us.  I feel that
one thing they are showing is that intonation and timbre issues of
playing the diatonic "chromatically" using bends and overbends are such
that it gets in the way of the music.  Perhaps then what is needed is
not the supposed radicalism of this "extended technique", but rather
true radicalism.  What that is I do now know, but I've mentioned a few
possibilities that may, in combination with the techniques espoused by
Levy and others, lead to true success in reaching this goal.

Tinus wrote:
>The weird thing for me is that some people seem to think that doing
what
>I do is some form of heresy and that I should change my ways or burn
for
>my sins against the instrument.
>I can't quite figure out what it is they are affraid of.

If this is in reference to me, I think you have misunderstood what I
wrote.  I do not view it as heresy, but rather as a musical failure.  I
hate to be so blunt, but my ears have told me that.  I wish you the best
of luck with what you are doing, but I don't expect to hear success
anytime soon, and while I have heard your personal progress over the
years, I am talking more of the general progress of the techniques in
question, and there I really haven't been hearing much.  I would love to
hear it differently, but alas I have not (despite wanting to for many
years now)--indeed, just the opposite: the more I've heard people using
these techniques towards playing highly chromatic music on the diatonic
the more I've become convinced that it cannot be done musically by the
path being chosen: overbends and bends alone.  I do wish that weren't
the case, but I must trust what my ears tell me.

Again, I think that what might be needed for true success (as I defined
it--your definitions will differ, but I feel mine are a reasonable set:
accurate intonation, even timbre) is a truly radical approach which in
general hasn't been advocated as much.  As I said in my opening post on
this thread, perhaps what is needed is not a single approach, but rather
a mixture of many.  I have never quite understood why there has been a
focus on this singular approach (what might be termed the "overblow
school") to the point of ignoring the other techniques which might make
the results achievable.



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