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

[Richard Hunter <turtlehill@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Jonathan Ross seemed to misunderstand my comments in this thread, so 
I'll try to clarify.

I wrote:
> > All true, but my main point is that the harp players who break
> > through, for the most part, are the guys who aren't doing the same
> > old s--- in bands that are putting out the same old s---.  If you
> > want to break through, you do something different.

To which Jonathan replied:
<I haven't noticed anyone really breaking through as of late.
<Moreover, I find the entire idea of "same old s--" offensive and
<indicative of a really sad way of viewing music.  I appreciate those
<who try new things as much as anyone else, but I also appreciate and
<respect those who want to work and play within a tradition.

First, the title of this thread is "future harmonicas and all that."  My 
comments in the thread titled "Creativity" -- a different subject, don't 
you think? -- should make it clear that I enjoy and respect traditional 
music as much as any other kind, and find it to be just as creative as 
any other.  But this thread is about FUTURE harmonicas, and the thread 
started out being about how harmonica players are going to break through 
with a mass audience.  Or did I misunderstand that?  It certainly seemed 
to be implied in various comments that discussed how little need there 
apparently is for harmonica players in most bands.

So this is about mainstream acceptance and the importance of harmonica 
in mainstream styles.  I say that the more future bands diverge from 
past bands, the less need there will be for players of any sort who play 
in traditional styles, unless those styles can be modified to work in a 
modern context (as, for example, Wade Schuman is doing now with Hazmat 
Modine)--which by definition means there's something new there.  (Wade 
plays traditional styles through an Electro-Harmonix Polyphonic Octave 
Generator, which makes the harp sound roughly three times as big.  Let's 
just say it's different.  And that's even before we start to talk the 
various musical influences, or the fact that there are two harps in the 
band, or...) Further, given that harmonicas, according to a number of 
comments on this thread, including Jonathan's, weren't exactly mandatory 
in a lot of traditional styles, even if the future has a lot of strictly 
traditional music in it, that's no guarantee of employment for harmonica 
players.  Either way, if harmonica players want to be central to what's 
going on, they've got to invent something new.

There are obviously exceptions, and there are mainstream genres, like 
country music, that make a point of staying close to tradition.  But in 
general, mainstream tastes and styles change, just as automobile styles 
and clothing styles do, and for similar reasons.  I'm not going to argue 
about whether that's good or bad.  Obviously it has nothing to with the 
intrinsic value of a style, and everything to do with the need to sell 
more product, so it's not tops. But it's life in a modern industrial 
society, and so musicians--like anyone else selling anything else--have 
to pay attention, or end up in the museum along with the old cars and 
clothes and the dinosaur bones.

The phrase "same old s---" may be offensive to some people, but that's 
what music in a 50-year-old style is to the great mass of listeners out 
there AND to the industry, no matter how well it's played.  You can make 
a great swing record in 2007, or a great bebop record, or a great 
country blues record, but it's not easy to sell it.  Mass market radio 
and MTV won't play it (unless you're Tony Bennett). You can run it on 
Youtube, but good luck with that.  The same applies to most blues.  In 
the absence of a noticeable difference--a new sound, or a new style, or 
a new fashion--what makes the artist interesting enough to get the media 
attention that gets the message to the audience?

Granted that traditional music has a place in the future.  In the 
Internet age, nothing ever disappears, or so it appears for now.  But it 
seems pointless to focus on traditional music as the future of the 
instrument, because over time the audience for traditional music dies 
out.  Look at the sad fate of classical music in the 20th century. 
Composers keep writing great stuff, and musicians keep playing it 
brilliantly, but it's a rare audience that cares now to sit silently and 
attentively for 2 hours while a bunch of men and women in tuxedos play 
music without guitars and drums. Never mind whether it sounds 
good--that's just not the way people live anymore.

All that said, the idea of a mass audience may also be a relic of the 
past.  There are those who argue that starting now, instead of selling a 
thousand copies of one book or record, stores will thrive by selling one 
copy each of 1000 books or records.  That may be true.

But every other week or so, I pick up a copy of the local alternative 
newsweekly, wherever I am, and I look in the Musicians Wanted section. 
I've been doing that now for roughly 35 years or so.  In all that time, 
I've seen exactly one classified ad for a harmonica player.  I've 
gathered that bands aren't actively seeking harmonica players.

How will that change?  When harmonica players make themselves 
indispensable.   What will make that happen?  Harmonica players doing 
something new.

Or maybe nothing will change it, but I'd prefer to think that doing 
something new will change it.  I'm pretty sure that doing the same old 
thing won't change it.

I repeat that--as per the subject of this thread--this is about mass 
acceptance of the harmonica, not creativity.  I make a lot of music in a 
lot of styles, and I don't expect much of it to be a mass market 
success.  But if I did, first, I'd get 30 years younger, and second, I'd 
focus on music that was new and and different enough to be noticeable in 
the crowd.  Not just good--different.

All clear?

Regards, Richard Hunter
hunterharp.com
latest mp3s always at http://broadjam.com/rhunter