Re: [Harp-L] Harp L: Chromatic versus Diatonic

[Bob McGraw <harpbob@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

What he said.
WVa Bob

Sent from my iPhone

On Jul 3, 2010, at 9:42 PM, joe leone <3n037@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Something to consider in the debate of diatonic vs chromatic  
> (diatonic is the senior instrument. so I place it first.)
>
> The term is 'difficulty factor'. You may try a tune and for the sake  
> of argument, let's say it has 3 major parts. A head and 2 bridges.  
> So, the head is a difficulty factor of 3, the first bridge a 5, and  
> the second bridge a 7. The total factor is 15 BUT the tune IS do- 
> able. Unfortunately due to the section that's a 7, it requires weeks  
> (and sometimes more weeks) to get that one section.
>
> Now lets say you found another key where the factors are 4,6,5. Here  
> you are biting off a 6 factor in order to LOOSE that nasty 7 factor.  
> The total is still 15, but the tune takes less time to get. Another  
> key gives you a 5,5,5 factor. Still a 15 BUT it seems that ALL the  
> notes are fighting you and you can't get a legato or smooth delivery  
> out of the notes. The set-up is unfriendly
>
> Eventually you find a key where the factors are 4,5,5. A-Haaaa it's  
> a 14 which is alMOST a 15, but it lays on the harmonica quite well.  
> Ok, so maybe that was while using a chromatic. If you are attempting  
> the same tune on a diatonic, you can almost guarantee that ANYTHING  
> you do is going to INCREASE the difficulty factor by a few points.  
> Why? BeCAUSE you are inventing notes on the fly.
>
> On top of that, while you are inventing notes you are also  
> concentrating too hard on tone. And instead of having a slide to  
> help you reach out and touch those elusive notes, your mouth becomes  
> the slide. Yes, it would be quite nice to be able to do a tune and  
> hit all the notes correctly, but sometimes this is impractical.  
> UnFORtunately there are those who, if they pick up the 'fudging'  
> factor that you are trying to sneak by with, may just call you on it.
>
> There are some tunes that just shouldn't be done on chromo. I could  
> list them but it may cause another stir and I would be taken the  
> wrong way again. Suffices to say that there are also tunes that  
> shouldn't be attempted on diatonic. Ok, there's no law that says you  
> can't play anything ON anything. I (myself) have an entire book of  
> tunes that I play on diatonic...for practice. But I would never do  
> them on stage as they aren't complete. Or a better term would be: "I  
> can't trust the timbres".
>
> Every tune has a few CRITICAL notes that set the mood of the tune.  
> If you can't get these notes, you shouldn't do the tune. At least  
> not in performance. Now if a person was in the business and it was  
> their living, I can see where spending 5 months on a tune is  
> justifiable. I mean they could learn 2.4 tunes per year, and in 10  
> years they would have 24 tunes for a repetoire that they could play  
> over and over and over as a result of traveling all over the place,  
> with the resultant factor that they were NOT getting stale nor  
> overexposed.
>
> But I think anyone below that narrow range of masters is wasting  
> their time on God awful tough-a55 stuff when the time could be  
> better spent on something else. In other words, use the right tool  
> for the job. Don't cut down a tree with a chisel, don't try and  
> plane a piece of wood with a brick.
>
> just an opinion folks.   smo-joe