Re: Re: Re: [Harp-L] The shapes of the covers



Somehow I have created the impression that I don't respect the magical interplay of the artist, his emotion, his music and his harmonica. That is not the case at all. I am thrilled by a good harmonica performance. I aspire to but do not expect to ever achieve your level of musicianship.

However, those are the very things that make it difficult to isolate what is physically important to harmonica design and what is not. If you hear "warm" how do you know if it is the embouchure, the hand-cup, the phrasing, the attack/decay, the vibrato, the mic, the amp,...or.......the cover design? I posit that an understanding of the cold, objective acoustics of the harp is a useful thing. Those who assert that details of cover design can produce "warmth" and "brightness" of tone have not proven their case well enough to state it without qualification. Maybe I should have said that instead of calling such claims myths.

Here's an analogy:

"Oh, I have slipped the surly bonds of earth, And danced the skies on laughter-silvered wings....." refers to flying.
So does the shape of a first stage compressor blade. You are talking about the poetic emotion of the music (which I feel too) but I am talking about the details of the machine that makes it possible.


My goal is the same as was Dr. Antaki's and Dr. Bahner's when they made ultrasound images of Levy's throat and stroboscopic micro-video of reed motions inside a harp. They didn't expect an audience or even many harp players to be interested in anything so technical. They were not trying to detract from Levy's artistry. They just wanted to know how things work. So do I.

Vern
Visit my harmonica website www.Hands-Free-Chromatic.7p.com

----- Original Message ----- From: "Tim Moyer" <wmharps@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Friday, July 11, 2008 12:41 PM
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [Harp-L] The shapes of the covers



Vern Smith wrote:
If differences of cover design are imperceptible to the audience,
why bother.

The idea of music is to provoke subjectivism in the audience. Why remove it from the performer?

The player is a listener too. If there is a way to deny the player
knowledge of what kind of covers he is playing, I predict that he
would not be able to to distinguish among covers of  different
designs.

Why would we want to do that? When I go to listen to someone like, say, Phil Wiggins play, I like the fact that Phil selects his harmonicas based on how he wants people to hear him. Whether that's attributable to the cover shapes or the comb material or the size of Phil's enormous hands is immaterial to me, the listener, but it might be material - whether perceived or real - to Phil as a performer.

Likewise, when I go hear Phil Gazelle, I like the fact that Phil
selects his harmonicas based on how he wants people to hear him.
Whether that's attributable to the cover shapes or the comb material
or the precision of Phil's intonation and placement of his microphone
is immaterial to me, the listener, but it might be material - whether
perceived or real - to Phil as a performer.

Rather than trying to prove that it's all an illusion, why not just
allow the illusions to guide performers to bring their audience to
subjectivity?

Wrapped in warm wood,

-tim




_______________________________________________
Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l





This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.