Re: [Harp-L] Re:Combs

[Mike Fugazzi <mikefugazzi@xxxxxxxxx>]

I may have posted this to the List already, but Sam Friedman and I talked 
about making custom harps that had intentionally included a very graphic 
and inappropriate piece of cover art so as to only attract customers that 
were worried about how the harp actually played, and not how it looked, 
lol.  It was a running gag most of SPAH.  

I don't like injected combs because I don't like recessed reed plates 
because I don't like how they feel in my mouth.  I loved GM's until I tried 
MB's and realized I liked the open covers and thinner comb because of how 
they felt and responded to my playing.  Ultimately, at the end of the day, 
what works for YOU is all that matters, regardless of what science says.

I know exactly what I want from a harmonica, which is even different than 
the customs I build for others.  

The basic harp for me is a Crossover that is gapped for my playing using a 
flat aftermarket comb.  I want the draw plate flat sanded and the reed 
profiles set up for an aggressive overblow player.  IMO, airtight with 
great profiles is generally good enough.  While a full-on custom is a *way 
better* deal, I know I can perform in front of others with said harp.  The 
most important factors in a great harp are the fact that is is airtight and 
well profiled.  The XO already has a compromise tuning close to ET, open 
covers, side vents, and a comb .24" or less.  I don't want something wide, 
sluggish, or airy.  I don't want it to be dark or muddy.  I don't want it 
to be quiet.  I don't want straight ET, and I don't want a Just intonation.

I know what I want from a custom too, but that's besides the point. 

That took a lot of time to nail down.  Now if I could only get that 
specific with what I want from my live rig....

On Monday, October 29, 2012 12:10:27 PM UTC-5, JON KIP wrote:
>
> seems to me, a chromatic player and a diatonic-owner, that what really 
> matters is response. Nothing else comes close in the chain of "what makes 
> playing easier". 
>
> Tone?... that's usually dial-able with whatever electronics you use. 
>
> But response is king. 
>
> So worrying about the instrument effecting the Tone is secondary. 
>
> Once the response is optimized for you  on your instrument, the rest is 
> You, your body, and, of course, your ears that your parents produced in 
> that (in my case), intimate overnight train ride in London during WW2. 
>
> At some point, expending effort on discussing materials is just Practice 
> Avoidance. 
>
> Or, just "interesting shop talk", which is not bad, certainly. no harm 
> there. 
>
> I spent a few days twice with Chris M. In Mesa, where my daughter was 
> doing a show, and more than once, he mentioned his amazement at the things 
> that players put importance on... the "look" of the instrument, the comb 
> material....and he laughed and showed me his instruments ("Here's the piece 
> of crap comb I use")...and he did get pretty good results. Made a pretty 
> fair living making combs that, to his way of thinking, "made little or no 
> difference" to the playing. 
> His thing was response. Made me a tool to emboss, showed me how to use it, 
> did a few of my Golden Melody Machines and we had a fine time. Two days and 
> it cost me a sushi dinner for four.. Good Price.... no worms, an unexpected 
> side benefit. 
>
> Response. Once there's optimum response, the rest is up to you. 
>
> the phrase "that's a really good sounding harmonica you're playing" is on 
> the Top of my List of kind, but silly statements from listeners. 
>
> GIve me a responsive three-octave chromatic and, within ten minutes, 
> fortunately or unfortunately, I'll be sounding like Me. 
> It might be the same in the Diatonic World. 
>
> There's probably a connection between comb material and response, 
> though.... but tone? 
>
> jk 
>
>
>
>
>
>