Re: [Harp-L] (no subject)

David Payne <dave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> · Thu, 18 Sep 2008 19:47:59 -0700 (PDT)

Bulldogg,

If one were to make a comb from wet horse manure, would there be some change in tone? As long as that material were airtight with the reedplate, then there should be no difference as I understand the argument. Is there perhaps some extreme where it does..

Dave

----- Original Message ----
From: Joe and Cass Leone <leone@xxxxxxxx>
To: Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Cc: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
Sent: Thursday, September 18, 2008 10:25:55 PM
Subject: Re: [Harp-L] (no subject)

On Sep 18, 2008, at 6:39 PM, Jonathan Ross wrote:

> Quotes labeled ""a)"", etc... are by Tom Halchak,  all other quotes  
> are from Smokey Joe:
>
> ""b)      There is no conclusive proof that comb material makes much
> difference - however,""
>
> "Why does it have to be proven? Doesn't a person's personal  
> feelings play a part?"
>
> No.  Whether comb material effects the timbre, volume, etc... of a  
> harmonica is a question of mechanical and physical facts.  It's a  
> scientific question, much like whether a higher octane count in  
> gasoline improves the performance of a combustion engine (better  
> yet, a specific combustion engine).  It can be tested, measured and  
> known.
>
>
> " I mean, what is this, some kind of a contest? I mean, if it's  
> proven or dis-proven would that make the world spin slower/ faster?  
> Why can't a person feel that they can perceive a difference? "
>
>
> Please feel free to believe whatever you want.  But that is a  
> completely different issue to whether or not comb material has an  
> effect on the performance of the harmonica.  Talking about the  
> later and the attempt to discern for a fact what is actually going  
> on need not effect the former, ie individual's personal preferences  
> and even their beliefs.  Though, if both tests and theory indicate  
> that comb material makes no difference, then an individual who  
> chooses to believe that comb material does make a difference has no  
> logical ground to stand on.  But that doesn't mean that they aren't  
> free to believe whatever they want.  If they want to believe that a  
> harmonica made on the seventh day of the seventh month sounds  
> better than any other one, then so be it.  But it would be no more  
> or less ridiculous than believing in comb material as a difference  
> (given the current tests and theory).

    So, you're saying I'm ridiculous?

smo-joe
>
>
> "Isn't it possible that there are ringing overtones, microtones, or  
> vibrations that a player prefers from one material in preference to  
> another material. Why does everything center on whether the  
> listeners can hear a difference?"
>
>
> Because those are the tests that have so far been done.  Feel free  
> to create other controlled tests of the player and see what the  
> results are.  But, it is much harder to control for the player  
> being blind to the material than a listener, so creating the proper  
> conditions would be more difficult.  You would need a wide sample  
> of players, to begin with.  In any event, most of the theories for  
> why a player would hear a difference have been discussed, and  
> frankly dismissed pretty easily (this includes things such as bone  
> conduction).
>
>
> "It's like the silly tourage about tuning. There's just, equal, 12-  
> tet, and yada yada. There was an 11 man ensenble at spah and  
> deducting the Wizard Winslow's baritone harp, and Stan Bowe's bass  
> harp, the other 9 players were playing mostly 64 reed chromos (some  
> used 48s) , AND they were DIFFERENT makes & models.."
>
>
> All probably tuned to 12TET, as most chromatics and bass-harps  
> are.  Issues of intonation, tuning and temperament have been  
> crucial to every musical culture to have existed, so why not  
> harmonicas?
>
>
> "I mean golly gosh guys, I can pick up 3 IDENTICAL Hohners in the  
> same key and they will all have subtle differences. Are these  
> differences enough to nail down definitively? No, but they are  
> still there. I had a Toots hard bopper that used to sit on a  
> Circassian Walnut comb. When I mounted the plates on a bronze comb,  
> I could tell the difference. Now, it is true that maybe I changed  
> something ELSE in the overall dynamics without realizing it, and  
> maybe those change(s) HAD an effect. I don't know. "
>
>
> I would suggest that the only effect needed to explain what you  
> heard is psychological.  You knew there was a difference in the  
> comb, therefore you heard a difference in the sound.  The  
> psychological effect of expectation, or even simply knowledge is a  
> massive force.  It is why blind studies are needed, and why so much  
> effort in any testing must be focused on eliminating that  
> foreknowledge of the conditions.
>
>
> ""c) Those that do believe comb material produces a different sound  
> are
> prone to seek out and experiment with different materials - and  
> there are
> plenty available.""
>
> "So this shouldn't be a crime"
>
>
> It is not a crime.  But that doesn't mean that comb material makes  
> a difference to the sound of the harmonica.  The two don't follow.  
> Indeed, if comb material makes no difference, then trying out any  
> material one wants for whatever reason becomes even more  
> reasonable--try it, since it doesn't matter what the material is  
> anyway.
>
>
>
>
>  ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
> ()  ()
> `----'
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Harp-L is sponsored by SPAH, http://www.spah.org
> Harp-L@xxxxxxxxxx
> http://harp-l.org/mailman/listinfo/harp-l
>
> !DSPAM:5614,48d2d91930041665552597!
>
>

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