[Harp-L] re: bendability

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

Zombor (cool name:) wrote:

>I have been experimenting with a few harp
>constructions, last time with a responder reed type
>one.

You're in very good company--many of the best players and technicians
have experimented with this before the XB-40 came out, and I bet many
will continue to experiment with it now that they can learn from the XB.

>question to myself: what is the reason building such
>complicated things like the XB40 or anything similar?

I think the reason is mostly to do with tone and feel.  While valved
bends do give you "bendability", they cannot have the same tone as a
double-reed bend, due to the physics involved.  This can be seen by
doing an experiment.  Valve the blow reed in holes two and four of a
standard diatonic (thus eliminating the dual-reed bend), but leave holes
one and three unvalved.  Now, try playing bends on each, especially
focusing on switching from unvaled to valved holes and vice-versa.  You
will notice that both the tone of the bend and the physical sensation of
bending are very different between the valved and unvalved notes.  

Thus, the XB-40 (and any other responder reed design) gives you the
different sound and feel of dual-reed bends throughout the range of the
instrument, which is not possible without responder reeds (though not
necessarily the XB-40 design--there are other designs which would work).
For many this is a benefit and sounds better than having some bends be
dual-reed and others single-reed.  Also, it has the benefit of
maintaining an even feel for all the bends, rather than the different
sensations and techniques which you need when using both dual-reed and
single-reed bends in a single instrument.  

>The question might sound stupid.

Not at all.  It is a very good question, and one I'm sure many people
have asked themselves.  For many, the XB-40 is the answer to the
question of total bendability, while for many others it won't be and
they (as you have) will prefer other solutions, including the
half-valved set-up.

>Also
>now, when the XB40 exists offering a total bending
>freedom, why is it not becoming very popular (apart
>from price)?

Because, with the advantages it offers there are some significant
problems for most players.  While it gives you a much greater bending
range, for many that is not a good thing, as most people don't
necessarily want that, rather they want simpler, easier to control
bends.  The XB can be too easy to bend, and for many players that is a
struggle even on standard harps.

It's easy to forget that the overwhelming majority of the harmonica
buying and playing public don't want more bends, but rather just want
something easy to stick in their mouth and play with as little skill as
possible.

Now, why isn't it more popular with those trying to play "chromatically"
or using other advanced techniques?  I'd guess one reason is that it
doesn't sound and feel exactly like a standard diatonic.  It is bigger,
it is semi-valved, and it requires new techniques.  Like most musicians
harmonica players don't want to change what they do technically, so they
don't want to have to relearn and adapt.  The fact that it isn't
inherently any easier to control than a standard diatonic using bends
and overbends or a valved diatonic is another factor.  The issues of
timbre and intonation don't go away with increased bendability, for
instance.  The sound issue is more subjective, but there again people
don't want to change.  I think the XB-40 sounds quite good, not exactly
like a standard diatonic, but not like a chromatic either--it's a new
sound.  But, most people don't want a new sound--chromatic players tend
to want to sound like they're playing chromatic and diatonic players
like they're playing the diatonic, and the XB-40 sounds like neither of
these.

The XB-40 is an answer to a question, but whether it is the answer to
your question is another matter entirely.  It sounds to me like you have
experimented and decided that the answer to your questions might be
better found in valved diatonics than in responder reeds.  Which is
great--as I've been trying to advocate as of late, there are many paths
through the woods, and it is a boring world when we all take the same
road (especially when that road doesn't lead to the other side of the
forest, but that's another thread).




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