Re: [Harp-L] Define terms fluid = legato

[Mojo Red <harplicks@xxxxxxxxx>]

Phil made some very interesting points in this discussion. 
I'd like to respond and add to them if I may... one at a time, and in 
excruciating detail... 

Phil wrote:
> All this discussion about whether the diatonic is more "fluid" than 
>the chromatic? 
>True, the diatonic offers the chance to hit more pitchy notes (or 
> non-notes) just like the slide trombone than the chromatic. 


Yup. Another way to look at it is that those "pitchy" notes add up to more notes 
than are available on chromatic, especially if you include those 
troublesome overbends. Indeed, a much more troublesome instrument to learn to 
play well.

> Both harps are equally fluid -- it all depends on the player. 

Absolutely agree with this. I've heard terrifically fluid players on both 
instruments.... as well as terrifically clumsy ones. 

> The unspoken issue here is "bendability." The diatonic has more bends, 
>therefore it 
> musts be more "fluid." (Playing the diatonic without bends is not fluid?) 

Yes, let's discuss the dependability of these instruments, by all means.

> The extreme example of this bendability are the large number of diatonic 
>players who 
> play notes flat or sharp or even between notes. Talk about fluid playing. And 
>just to 
> prove they are skilled, they mix them up. Half flat, half flat, half between 
>notes, fast, 
> slow and half fast.))  

You seem to be mixing up the "bendability" of the instrument with the relative 
levels of skill of the players using them. Quite separate issues, i'm afraid. I 
truly don't believe that a seasoned player plays those in-between notes "just to 
prove they are skilled." Not sure how you drew that conclusion. Beginners who 
have not learned to control those bends miss them, but I seriously doubt it's to 
prove how skilled they are. Most know they are not skilled when they miss pitch. 
And most are too lazy to put the work into controlling bends that is required.

As an aside, my father used to accuse me of being a "half-fast" player... but 
that was mainly because I never bothered to learn to read music... er, maybe he 
meant "half-assed"... I have since gained some grounding in music theory. Dad 
was right. 

> There is a term for these "between notes" it's called noise.

Okay... now you've crossed the line. There are many cultures where those between 
notes are perfectly legitimate, and are duly noted in musical notation. Hindu 
music and Ravi Shankar leap to mind. Asian music. African music. In blues those 
in-between notes are critical to evoking the nuance required of the genre. 
Listen to what the the great blues and Gospel vocalists (ie Bessie Smith or 
Odeta) are doing and you'd be very hard pressed to call those notes "noise". 
Listen to a white bread totally "on-key" guy like Jim Nabors or Pat Boone trying 
to sing blues you'll hear why those in-between notes are so essential to the 
genre, and why songs played without them come off as painful empty noise when 
they are not used properly. 

> The unspoken issue here is that the diatonic is "more fluid" because
> it has more than a half-step bend on a few holes.

Perhaps it's unspoken because it's not really an issue in this case. I play 
diatonic and I play chromatic harps, and personally I never felt that my choice 
of instrument at any particular time was based on fluidity. More based on tonal 
qualities, the amount of articulation I needed and the number of clean octaves I 
wanted to play in a particular song. 

> Just because you can get three bends on hole 3 draw and two bends
> on draw two does not make the playing any more "fluid."

No argument there.

> To further complicate matters, Moses diatonic players don't even know
> how a chromatic works -- but they are damn sure they hate it and that it 
> is impossible to play.

Now wait a darned minute there! Balderdash, I say! Horsefeathers! That's 
mere piffle, poppycock, tommyrot and twaddle!
First, you say "Moses diatonic players don't even know how a chromatic works"... 
Well, I'm not sure where poor Moses got into the conversation, but even if you 
meant to say "most" diatonic players... It's at best a gross exaggeration and 
more than likely completely untrue. 
In my experience there are many diatonic players are ~intimidated~ by chromatic 
than who hate it or who don't know how it works (that last bit is just silly). 

I believe that some diatonic players are intimidated by the chromatic because 
it's a more complex bit of contraption and requires more study to get good on 
it. You really can't fake up sounding good on a chromatic. Those who say they 
don't like the chromatic (I believe) don't dislike it because it's "impossible 
to play", but rather because they may not have heard music played on it that 
they like. Being a blues guy, I didn't much care for chromatic until I heard 
George Harmonica Smith play on one. Still, I never actually hated it... I was 
simply uninterested until I heard music played on it that spoke to me.

> Back in the day, most chromatic players graduated from diatonic to
>  chromatic "so they didn't have to worry about all those missing notes."
> They can't bend notes on a diatonic and are damn sure they don't want
> to waste their time figuring it out -- it would only be a waste of time.

This may be true. It is much more difficult to learn throat and tongue 
techniques that allow one to truly control bends than it is to simply "push the 
button" at the appropriate time. For players primarily concerned with playing 
only the melody, this may be exactly true. However, for players interested in 
improvising over the melody, there is a whole other level involved... where the 
diatonic players have an easier path and the chromatic players have a more 
difficult path. In my opinion it's far easier to "fake" improvisation on a blues 
number with a diatonic harp (because of all those in-between notes, slides and 
bends) than it is to fake improvising on a chromatic where close study of every 
scale for every chord change in a tune is required. 

> Then there is a third group that plays both chromatic and diatonic and
>  can't understand why these two groups can't understand how the other harp 
>works.

Not sure I agree here. I play both instruments and I can easily understand why 
these two groups don't "get" each other. I believe it has more to do 
with preferences of musical styles, personal musical goals and a big dose of 
laziness (on both sides). See above.

> The term wanted here is legato: (smooth, flowing manner, without breaks between 
>the notes).
> It is possible to play legato on any instrument. Piano legato anyone?

Totally agree here. 

> Didn't Tommy Reilly perfect legato while playing blow-draw patterns?

Yes he did!! And I think many others play beautiful legato on chromatic as well. 
Toots, Adler... Bonfiglio, Randy Singer, Rob Paparazzi and Chris Bauer all have 
legato to die for on chromatic. 

> Also, there are no absolutes. There will always be someone who is
> the exception to the rule (conventional wisdom) and pretty soon a whole bunch 
>of 
> people are following in his footsteps.

Amen. The problem with rules, however, is that they are meant to be broken.
:-) 

Be well. 
Harpin' in Colorado,
--Ken M.