Re: [Harp-L] Diatonic/chromatic

[Sam Friedman <sammyasher@xxxxxxxxx>]

Ok, here's the deal. You have a physical object, and you use it to make
sound. This is how music is made. Beautiful music is made regardless of how
many sounds that object can make. This means whether you can play 4 notes or
40. However, to say that it is a waste of time and detrimental to the music
to try to learn to play the diatonic chromatically is as silly as saying it
was a waste for charlie parker to try to get very technically proficient on
the sax.

It is of course important to be able to make music with less, but having
more simply means more things to make beautiful music with. The very act of
having more notes and technical facility to utilize doesn't make a person
all of the sudden lose musicality. That is a property of their musicianship,
and trying to master their given instrument is a way to widen their
sound palette to express more. The double bass was never meant to be played
on like a guitar.... are you going to say Scott La Faro or NHOP should have
never tried because it was fetishizing the instrument? How about any of the
great banjo players of today (bela fleck anyone?) ? Or dare I say.... THE
ORIGINAL BLUES MUSICIANS, on guitar and harmonica.... all of whom developed
a way of playing the instrument that was not how it was "meant" or
'designed' to be played at that time. We should be encouraging people's
search for expanded uses of their instruments, not telling them they are
inherently bad.  Certainly there are young guys mastering the technical side
of things and losing sight of the music, but technical facility does not
require the loss of the music.

Al*so, as for "Giant Steps", I think it is entirely possible to play
comfortably  on it with a C diatonic.* Here are two videos of me attempting
to do so. *Please *listen to them* *let me know what you think. One is a
faster version, just played by myself, the other is a little slower with a
backing track.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qWaepc8kfEk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lm5P5wX6l5E


 I *do* realize I have a LOT to learn in terms of further technical
comfortability and certainly TONE, however I just turned 21, have been
playing harmonica for just under 2 years, and will of course be working on
these aspects of my playing for decades to come, trying to learn from
everyone whether they play diatonically or chromatically, harmonica or tuba.
 And just because I play this stuff, doesn't mean I don't spend half my time
playing Chopin, beethoven, Sondheim, Sonny Boy, Deford Bailey, or any other
type of music, fast slow, heavy in notes, or otherwise. It's music, people!
Just be glad we have something to make it with, and encourage those who do,
no matter what they want to do it on!

Sam Friedman

sammyasher@xxxxxxxxx
youtube.com/sammyasher


On Mon, Apr 25, 2011 at 5:02 AM, JersiMuse <jersimuse@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> In fact I agree with most of your points. Even if I don't come to the same
> conclusion.
> Of course, I especially agree on the fact that musicality is the goal, not
> technicality.
> But I don't oppose both of them. There is a trend, especially in the
> harmonica community, to think that someone very technical loses musicality.
> I think technicality shouldn't be a goal, but I also think one should first
> work technicality to be able to leverage musicality.
>
> I believe that many things are possible on the diatonic. It is not because
> they have been more or less well or badly realized that they aren't
> possible.
> As you point out, the harmonica turned chromatic 20 years ago.
> 20 years is extremely short in an instrument life. Especially when it has
> previously existed with a whole different culture and way of playing during
> a century.
> Even today, very few players really work and play in all keys (which is not
> the same as being able to play chromatically on a single key).
> The percentage is infinitesimal compared to sax players for example.
> But as far as some continue to work in a real chromatic approach, I'm sure
> there will sooner or later be young people taking the lead, and one day a
> Charlie Parker may rise on the diatonic.
> Frankly, I don't really care, I'm just playing the music I love on the
> instrument I love, the rest is not important to me.
>  So I can assure you I'm not living in a dream. I know what is possible on
> that instrument, even if I can't achieve everything I know.
>
> By the way, Giant Steps is a very good example as it is one of the most
> difficult standards, and even very good musicians can't play it.
> Didier Lockwood has decided to produce Sebastien Charlier after listening
> to
> him playing and improvising on Giant Steps.
> I guess Didier Lockwood's ear is pretty good.
>
> The point I agree on mainly is : " the musical success or failure of that
> attempt will depend on a lot of factors, not the least of which is the song
> in question".
> Totally agree, and I would add : one of these factors is the musician, of
> course, and the number of hours he spent on working in all keys.
> It more depends on the song and the musician that any other thing. And yes,
> there are a lot of factors which can make it a failure or a success.
> Like any other instrument finally.
> Very few sax players can play John Coltrane's music correctly (BTW J.
> Coltrane worked his scales 6 hours a day. Another point : nobody has never
> told him he was too technical and would lose musicality).
> It doesn't mean this music is not adapted to saxophone.
>
> I also agree on this point : " it's a hell of a lot easier to play highly
> chromatic music successfully on an instrument designed to do so than on an
> instrument specifically _not_ designed to do so"
> In my case, even if I know this, it is still the music I love and want to
> play, on the instrument I love and want to play.
> There is nothing reasonable here. It is just my personal feeling.
> I prefer working to achieve part of it, than abandon because it would be
> easier on another instrument and this idea is frustrating.
> In fact, I'm not frustrated by the fact that it would be easier on another
> instrument. It just means more work. But the goal is the same and can be
> achieved.
>
> The guys who first played jazz on trombone must have had a very difficult
> time too, it is a very difficult instrument, but nobody cares.
> At the end, only music is important.
>
> Regards,
>
> Jerome
> www.youtube.com/JersiMuse
>
>
> -----Message d'origine-----
> De : harp-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:harp-l-bounces@xxxxxxxxxx] De la
> part
> de jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx
> Envoyé : dimanche 24 avril 2011 23:41
> À : harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx
> Objet : [Harp-L] Diatonic/chromatic
>
> Jerome writes:
>
> "I confirm that it is possible to play Charlie Parker smoothly on a
> diatonic
> harp, with no doubt."
>
> It is?  Well, I guess it depends on the song in question, but if we're
> talking "Giant Steps" I remain massively unconvinced.  And yes, I have
> heard
> all the examples everyone will mention.  Not that you can't play jazz on a
> diatonic, just that the musical success or failure of that attempt will
> depend on a lot of factors, not the least of which is the song in question.
> Simply put, it's a hell of a lot easier to play highly chromatic music
> successfully on an instrument designed to do so than on an instrument
> specifically _not_ designed to do so.  The later tends to be much more a
> hit
> or miss affair, the hits usually coming when the player is more sympathetic
> to and aware of their instruments strengths and limitations.
>
> Jerome again:
>
> "So I would conclude: let's give people the freedom to choose their
> instrument and let them work fairly, to give the best they can on their
> instrument."
>
> A wonderful argument against a straw man no one brought up.  Of course,
> everyone is free to do whatever they want.  But that goes both ways, in
> that
> if the results are less than stellar, well then that's worth noting.  We
> are
> some twenty odd years into the chromatic-diatonic experiment.  There have
> been stunning successes and spectacular failures, but what there hasn't
> been
> yet, to my ears, is anyone who could successfully pass the Ode Challenge.
> That isn't just some annoying bit of pedantry, I'd say it's a significant
> reason to be very aware of the limitations of the exercise.
>
> Perhaps it's just me, perhaps it's just that I've become jaded, but I find
> that with time the squeaks, squawks and just plain misses of many
> diatonic-chromatic attempts are even more noticeable.  I guess I find that
> the bloom and honeymoon of "wow, I didn't know you could do that" is gone
> and been replaced by a preference for musicality over technicality.
>
>
>
> JR Ross
>
>
>