Re: [Harp-L] re: bendability

[Zombor Kovacs <zrkovacs@xxxxxxxxx>]

Hi Johnathan, thanks for the detailed answer!

> Zombor (cool name:)

Don't bully me, this is the most stupid name one can
have. Nobody understands it abroad which is all right,
but nobody understands it in my own country either.
People usually say politely - oh, what a nice name.
Can it be a nice name when I always have to explain
it? Sometime I really think it is a shite name. My
nickname is Zombi if you ask me. Okay, interestingly
this does not disturb me at all.
 
> You're in very good company--many of the best
> players and technicians
> have experimented with this before the XB-40 came
> out

I would be VERY much interested in the results. I have
not seen any other responder reed harp than the XB40
(only mine). If there are others, I would really like
to see them, I mean if they are public yet. 

, and I bet many
> will continue to experiment with it now that they
> can learn from the XB.

I have started it before I had the XB40. Probably if I
had the XB40 before, I would not have made my own
version. But now its too late :-)
 
> reeds (though not
> necessarily the XB-40 design--there are other
> designs which would work).

If you or anyone gave me any links on this I would be
grateful.

> 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

You are surely right at this point. I have been
studying the instructions for the XB40 and it is
really "redundant" regarding notes. It is also too
much for me probably.

> 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. 

At this point you must be right again. My goal was to
make something which has basically the same abilities,
sounds like a standard diatonic and is about the same
size. Nice challenge.

> and overbends or a valved diatonic is another
> factor.  

However, overblowing which is not an easy technique
either seems to be very popular. Everybody is
regapping, embossing, nail polishing, microporing etc.

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.  

Maybe new music is "needed" :-) I must also say
despite my total dissatisfaction regarding the
out-of-the-box usability of the XB (key C) that it is
a fine harp, and has really good response. But I have
some very bad valve rattle recently . . . 

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. 

I have no idea yet, what is the answer. I am still
looking for the answer. I am looking for the answer
whether it is possible to create a harp which has the
same or nearly the same abilities as the XB40, sounds
like a standard diatonic and is about the same size. 
Today I was messing around with one of my valved
harps. It is still not the real answer . . . Certainly
the ultimate answer for everything is music, not
technique.
I am very far from being a good player, and will
perhaps never be, so there is plenty to learn on the
standard diatonic. If someone wants to play music, the
harmonica is there. I am just a technical mind, and
wanted to get rid of all my ideas. When they are all
out and proved to be either useless or useful I will
finish the quest. Also it is not necessary to have all
bends and notes to play blues. I cannot explain why I
am trying new things. It is just a hobby, nothing
else.

Zombor

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com