Re: Re: [Harp-L] Comb material
In reference to the current topic, I think what I find similar
here is a failure to grasp the technical difference between instruments
that transmit vibration to the air through resonating matter (like a
guitar or piano) and the harmonica, which is a 'siren' and produces it's
sound in the same way that an aeroplane propellor produces it's pitched
drone, which, like the harmonica's reed, vary's according to the speed
at which it moves.
Here in Australia, there is a native instrument used in sacred
ceremonies, commonly called a 'bull roarer'. It consists of a flat stick
with a hole in one end and a string tied, which is then used to swing
the thing in a circular motion. It produces a pulsing drone, which
varies in pitch according to the speed at which it is rotated.
This is a simple way of trying what I am talking about without
having to head for the local airport.
It may still not convince you that variations in comb material
do not effect pitch, but it might go some way in helping people to grasp
what a harmonica is, and how it differs from other instruments.
I am still unclear myself about the differences or
relationship between the harmonica and fixed reed instruments, such as
clarinet, sax etc., which must bear similarities to other non-reed
instruments such as trumpet, flute tenor horn, trombone etc. etc.
Any info on these subjects would be much appreciated by
>>> Jeff roulier <jroulier@xxxxxxxxxxxx> 23/04/2007 15:10 >>>
At 11:49 PM 4/22/2007, you wrote:
>Zombor Kovacs wrote:
> > It is not obvious that comb material doesn't matter.
>I think what's obvious, at least in terms of discussion on this list,
>is that there is a preponderance of empirical evidence that comb
>material does not matter, and with the burden of proof on those who
>say it does, little has moved this topic in several years.
You're making a common error in logic. Both sides bear the burden of
proof. While it's true one cannot prove a negative. When someone
says comb matter doesn't matter. He or she is making a positive
statement about reality albeit using negative grammatical syntax. If
one said, I don't think the evidence supports the fact that comb
material matters, then the burden stays with the person who comb
material does matter. The burden shifts, however to the person
saying the comb material in a harmonica does not effect the
tone. It's a subtle difference in grammar, but a large one in
meaning. Vern, for example, offered proof for his position that comb
material didn't matter.
That's why when debating theists I'm always careful in saying I don't
the there is enough proof, or the arguments for the proof are not
convincing. I never say there is no God because then I'd have prove
that. And unlike a harp I cannot put him in a lab or take him apart.
Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and