Re: [Harp-L] Diatonic/chromatic

Bob McGraw <harpbob@xxxxxxxxxxx> · Wed, 27 Apr 2011 04:44:53 -0400

Examples please?
WVa Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Apr 26, 2011, at 8:47 PM, Sam Friedman <sammyasher@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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