[Harp-L] re: Overbends

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

Paul Messinger wrote:

>Actually JR, I never realized you were such a good dancer, because
that's
>not what you said at all.

No, that's what apparently you and many others have read into what I
wrote.  Here is my actual statement from my original post:

"That is no dismissal of the techniques involved (particularly bending
and overbending)"

I then clarified that statement with the following:

", but rather that with these techniques there are
limitations--limitations inherent in the instrument."

If anyone wants to re-read what I wrote, I suggest going to the harp-l
archives at http://harp-l.org/pipermail/harp-l/ and reading the original
for themselves.

Sometimes people prefer to read their own thoughts into what others
write.  Trust me when I say that I remember every sentence I have
written, and if I am being misconstrued I will point it out.

Paul further asked:

>Meanwhile, who is in charge of stating this
>PROGRESS (or lack thereof) of which you speak . . . ??? Bottom line . .
.
>it's a 'big tent,' and there's room enough for everyone . .

No-one is in charge, of course, I'm just asking a question, as I
originally stated.  Here was the genesis of my original post, and the
genesis of my questions.  I have further expounded on them, but I would
not assume to say that the answers I am trying to figure out are the
only ones.  They are, however, the ones my ears (fairly discerning ears
if I do so say) are leading me towards.  

Again, here is my original question:

"Perhaps the very goal being striven towards (playing in every key on a
single harp) is inherently wrong.  Perhaps the myopic drive towards this
goal has taken the focus off other, perhaps more feasible means of
achieving the end result of playing jazz (and other highly chromatic
musics) on the diatonic.  Perhaps it is why so few people play multiple
harps stacked in the West.  Perhaps it is why alternate tunings are
often looked down upon.  And perhaps the desired result can only be
achieved through a mixture of these things: advanced bending/overbending
technique; multiple harp technique; and alternate tunings."

Notice the overabundance of the word perhaps.  I was being diplomatic.
Charitable, actually, in order to try and stir true debate rather than
the fairly angry responses which tend to arise whenever someone brings
this subject up.  I think some debate has been achieved, but I also
think that within that there are fictions being made out of words I did
not write.

>I've  always figured that Harp-L exists because so many of us are
actually
>'interested' in what each other is working on . . .

I agree, but shouldn't honest and open criticism be a part of that
interest.  If no-one is willing to say (to use Cletus' analogy) that
"the emperor is naked", then what use is interest?

George wrote:

>If JR is talking about the former, I think he is venturing into the
realm >of origami.

A wonderful description.  And perhaps apt in that I might not have made
myself clear enough.  I meant what George describes here:

>Turning to the question whether it is a dead end to try to play
>sophisticated music on the diatonic at all,

Except that what I specifically meant was the attempt to do so using a
singular technical approach, one which focuses on bends and overbends
without using other new techniques--or doesn't look to see what other
techniques might be out there.  If I was not clear, I apologize for that
confusion.

Hope this helps to clear up what I actually said and what I meant.



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