[Harp-L] Re: TONE/tone

["John F. Potts" <hvyj@xxxxxxx>]

Jon.

I said (more than once) in my previous post that we may be talking  
about a semantic difference--and timbre more or less equates with  
what i referred to as presentation.  BUT, there is a significant  
difference between harmonica and most other wind instruments (flute,  
sax, trumpet,etc.).  Wind players maintain a single, firm, and, for  
the most part, unbroken, column of airflow and manipulate the keys of  
their instrument and adjust embouchure to get particular notes.   
Harmonica player alter the airflow itself while playing in order to  
do what it is necessary to do in order to play.   This is a HUGE  
difference and has a big impact on tone production.

But, i agree with you that good players usually have a distinctive,  
recognizable sound of their own no matter what they material they  
happen to be playing.

Best regards,

JP


On Sep 13, 2009, at 2:33 PM, Jonathan Ross wrote:

> You can adjust the timbre of what you play in many fairly  
> significant ways.  But, I find that despite this wind players are  
> almost always recognizable and distinct.  I would perhaps  
> differentiate (and didn't enough in my original post--indeed, mixed  
> the two improperly) between timbre and tone--the former can be  
> shaped in many ways and is a more fluid thing.  The later is  
> usually distinct and only alterable to a small degree.
>
> Stevie Wonder is a good example of someone who has a recognizable  
> and distinct tone on many different harmonica types (chromatic,  
> diatonic, XB-40) and yet can and does use many different timbres  
> when he plays.  It's why even when someone plays in a different  
> format or genre than I'm used to hearing them in (and their playing  
> is stylistically different from their norm) I usually find myself  
> recognizing who the player is.  This is not just true for  
> harmonica, but all wind players--sax, trumpet, etc...
>
> I would say that all the examples of how to shape and change the  
> sound given were examples of changing the timbre but not the tone.   
> Perhaps it's a somewhat meaningless difference, but then perhaps not.
>
> Another example is the late great Douglas Tate.  Douglas was a  
> master at shaping the timbre of what he played, using many  
> techniques including a more detailed study of hand cup resonance  
> than anyone else I've ever seen.  But no matter what, he had a  
> distinct tone that came through it all.  I'd consider Adler in the  
> same vein--massive changes in timbre, but distinctive and  
> recognizable.
>
>
>
> JR Ross