Re: [Harp-L] Diatonic/chromatic

[Sam Friedman <sammyasher@xxxxxxxxx>]

For the sake of completion, we should note the technical limits of the
chromatic as well beyond the tone/bends. The movement required to jump
between holes on the chromatic is much greater than that of the diatonic, so
in terms of technical fluency with certain phrases/passages, playing
chromatically on a diatonic actually is much easier and makes more sense
than doing it on a chromatic.



On Tue, Apr 26, 2011 at 8:01 PM, jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> >
> > Well, let's say it is not possible to estimate the limits of the
> mechanics
> > before trying to go over them.
>
> Of course not.  But those limits have been tested ad nauseam for twenty odd
> years.  Hell, in terms of bends for more than a hundred years.  You may not
> have reached your personal limit of ability, but the mechanics are known and
> the limits therein quite well by this point.
>
> > I've been quite far I think compared to many, and still haven't found the
> > limits. For the moment, I am the limitative factor, not the instrument.
> > Ok, maybe my ears aren't that good.
>
> I am certainly the limiting factor for my own playing.  But, that doesn't
> mean there aren't certain things which my instrument simply can and can't
> do.  You can't bend notes on a piano (ok, you can if you either modify the
> thing or have someone holding a tuning wrench and turning the tuners while
> you play, but the point is solid) and you can't play a chord on a trumpet
> (iirc you can kind of play two notes at once, but two notes does not a chord
> make).  And nothing wrong with either.  Both are known limitations of the
> instruments in question.  One of the known limitations, IMO, of the diatonic
> is that it has three different ways of creating notes, and those three don't
> sound the same, don't behave the same and are not simply interchangeable.
>
> These limitations raise some interesting questions.  How does one go about
> playing highly chromatic music on the diatonic?  How can the instrument be
> rearranged to make things easier?  How can you use the differences inherent
> in the modes of sound production to your advantage?
>
> The problem I see is all too often the answer seems to be to ignore these
> questions and claim wholeheartedly that the problems don't even exist and
> are only in the minds of finicky listeners or the limits of the particular
> player.  And yes that's a bit of a straw man, but it seems to hang there in
> the air.
>
> As for the long list of notables who seem to have no problems with the
> various issues above, well, I really think a lot of it is indeed the
> "isnt-that-cool" effect.  I doubt any of them would accept the levels of
> timbral differences note to note (not to mention the all too often sloppy
> intonation or variance in articulation) on their own instruments.  As for
> wanting a diatonic and not a chromatic, if you write for it well and take
> advantage of the strengths rather than highlight the weaknesses then it
> makes perfect sense.  Or, if you really want the odd factor musically, that
> makes sense as well. But, if your trying to play a slow standard, well,
> that's what this thread is really about, IMO.
>
> Also, I want to mention Rosco's post just to say that I basically agree
> with most of what he writes.  These techniques are just techniques, and the
> question is not can they be used or should they be used, but how can they be
> used to best serve the music.  Bends, overblows and more are wonderful tools
> for expressing music on the diatonic.  But, like all tools they have their
> proper usage. I'm stealing this analogy from a few people, most recently
> Smo-Joe, but I've always felt it's a damn good one.  The right tool for the
> right job, both in terms of instrument choice and in terms of instrument
> usage.
>
>
>
>
> JR Ross
>