Re: [Harp-L] Re: future harmonicas and all that

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> No offense, but I do think the stove analogy is not particularly  
> useful.

It was just an analogy, and it gets to the original point of the  
thread, which was a desire to make the harmonica a popular instrument  
in a musical genre--essentially, a signature element of a genre, pop  
in this instance.

> First of all, I'd say that the argument of what is more "essential"  
> for the blues is a red herring.  I think you can play it on the  
> autoharp, the pan-pipes or the glockenspiel.  What is more used in  
> the process of making it may well be for pragmatic reasons than  
> being illustrative of some elemental truth regarding its position  
> in the orbit of essentiality.

You can play it on anything, yes, but it is usually and most often  
played on certain instruments.  The red herring is turning this into  
a discussion of "what is the blues" rather than "what place does the  
harmonica play in the blues", IMO.

> There may be more sax and trumpet bands than there are piano  
> trios.  I'm not sure if there are, actually, but lets say so for  
> the sake of argument.

I'd bet there are more jazz recordings sold each year with sax than  
without.  I could very well be wrong, but I doubt it.  In any event,  
the point was about how represented the instruments are, if we assume  
that the sax is more common than not in jazz, that's the significant  
issue in comparison with the harmonica in blues, where the harp is  
more often missing than present.

> Are there more blues bands without harp players than with?  Well,  
> maybe.  Could it be because there are many many more guitar, bass  
> players and drummers than harp players?  That would be my guess.

And why might that be?  That gets back to the original thread which  
dealt with the popularity of the harmonica overall and why certain  
instruments are more common than others in certain genres.

> Does it mean that they're more important that harmonica in a blues  
> band?  Not to the person who wants to hear harmonica in a blues band.

Of course, not, but that was never the question.  Here's what I  
actually wrote:

"Indeed, it's easy from talking to harp players to get the impression  
that the harmonica is bigger than reality even in genres like the  
blues.  There, the harmonica is an occasional instrument, and not as  
central to the musical form as guitars, drums or bass over the last  
fifty or more years."

It says nothing of importance or worth, rather it is a quantitative  
issue of usage and by that measure overall import to the genre as a  
musical form and format.

> Is the harmonica more essential than the others?  Gee, I wouldn't  
> say that.  I don't think it's a valid question, anyway.  Was it  
> part of the early development and therefore is inextricably woven  
> into it?  Yes indeed.  More essential?  Essential?  Less  
> essential?  Don't think it's a valid question.

Obviously you do think it's a valid question or you wouldn't be  
trying so hard to make the case for the harmonica as "inextricably  
woven into" the genre.  I am merely saying that the importance of the  
harmonica in the blues is easily overstated compared to the actual  
usage and appearance of the instrument in the genre.

Try this analogy: the piano is the instrument of ragtime.  No piano,  
no ragtime.  No one instrument plays that role in the more band- 
oriented blues of the last fifty years, but if one did it would be  
the guitar.  After that you would usually have bass and drums, and  
then maybe piano or harmonica or another guitar (this argument was  
made by someone else in this thread, but it bears repeating and is  
the essence of my point, so I'll steal it:).  That is basically all I  
was trying to point out.

Would you say that the Hammond was as central an instrument to the  
Blues as the guitar?  Because Hammond would be on that list next  
(heck, maybe before harmonic over the last twenty or thirty years) in  
terms of common usage.  That's the only point--it's easy from talking  
on harmonica lists to see the harmonica as being more represented in  
some genres than it may really be.

Actually, I was more interested in responding to the part about the  
harmonica in Jazz, because people on harp-l often seem to act as if  
it is a common jazz instrument, when nothing could be further from  
the truth.  It's about as common as the harp, really.  Or the banjo.   
All of which says nothing about worth or worthiness of the instrument  
or the like, but is just a reflection of the reality of how common  
the instrument is or is not in certain genres.


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