Re: [Harp-L] The Future of Blues Harmonica?

[Sam Friedman <sammyasher@xxxxxxxxx>]

I agree with your ideas Matt. To clarify, what I meant in terms of the $30
was not more hand-tweaking, as I realize that would up production time
(including requiring some real training), but as you say, better
mass-production techniques that produce higher quality parts off the bat
(the comb flatness being a main one to me). If a harmonica is perfectly
airtight and no extra reedwork is done, it will play much better already
for the unknowing beginner, and for the customizer or rest of people who
tweak their reeds a little, for the most part only reed-work would be
required to yield a perfectly beautifully playing harp. If any of these
companies invested in such comb-flattening process, I think it would be
immediately apparent that their harmonicas are superior consistently. Best
case scenario, their sales improve because of that. Even better than best
case scenario, the other companies catch on and we have some real
instruments being produced across the board.

-Sam

On Tue, Sep 11, 2012 at 3:58 PM, Matthew Smart <matthewsmart@xxxxxxxxx>wrote:

> I agree with many of your points Sam. But keep in mind that 30 dollars is
> not much when you have a huge production line and employees. The cost of
> machining and assembling all those parts is just crazy. You just can't
> afford to have guys hand tweaking. Now, on a harp like an MB
> deluxe/crossover, I think at that price point there should be more tweaks
> done.
>
> Here is my opinion on two somewhat inexpensive things that could be done
> to improve harmonica performance significantly.
>
> 1) STOP using self tapping screws. The stainless screws when driven in
> (instead of cutting a threat in the plate) create this volcano of metal
> around the screw hole, cause separation of plates and combs and causing a
> leak. Even though you can't always see it, it is there (even on recessed
> combs like sp20). I am doing a new video on this soon. You have to remove
> this from your reedplates or even a great perfectly flat custom comb, won't
> make much difference. I have spoken to most major harmonica manufacturers,
> they don't seem bent on changing their minds to this. Hohner used to use
> brass screws and thread the holes. I imagine that the reason that companies
> do this is that brass is getting really expensive and it is cheaper to use
> stainless screws that are self tapping. Brass screws are really expensive.
> Unless they have another major ore find in Zambia, you are going to see the
> cost of brass skyrocket in years to come. Coincidentally, Suzuki threads
> their reedplate holes. I believe they may be the only one. Correct me if I
> am wrong.
>
> 2) Get a lapping machine (for wood/sandwich combs). Almost all factory
> combs are NOT flat. I test them, examine them all day. Terrible. Get a good
> lapping machine, put a bunch of combs on it, walk away for an hour or two.
> Come back and they will be flat as hell.
>
> End result: harmonicas at 30ish dollars would be super airtight.
>
> IMHO, These two simple, relatively inexpensive improvements with all
> manufacturers would make a smokin difference in performance and I think
> would be the cheapest quality improvements made.
>
> p.s. As a customizer, I must say that Hohner has REALLY improved their
> slot tolerances in the last year or two requiring less embossing on my part.
>
> No offense to anyone intended!
>
> Matthew
>
> www.hetrickharmonica.com
>
>
>
>
> On 9/11/2012 2:02 AM, Sam Friedman wrote:
>
>> I think one thing that is reasonable to push the companies on is
>> innovation
>> in manufacturing so that we can expect better OOTB harmonicas without a
>> large increase in price. The fact is, Matt, I think that the guitar
>> analogy
>> is a little faulty, just because changing a string and tuning the guitar
>> don't really compare with the amount of skill (and time) required to
>> actually do a relatively-basic customization/improvement to
>> the play-ability of a harmonica. In any other instrument in the world, if
>> it was just "assumed" that after buying it half the notes didn't work,
>> that
>> company would be out of business in a week. I realize that this comparison
>> is a little faulty because many of the instruments that could fill that
>> hypothetical I posed would be much more expensive than a harmonica.....
>> however; I think it is for the good of the entire community to have higher
>> expectations.
>>
>> Personally, I am appalled at the state of many OOTB harmonica quality
>> consistency. I've bought golden melodies that played (without
>> exaggerating)
>> worse than any harmonica I've ever tried, and turned into some of my best
>> harmonicas upon customizing. I realize not everyone overblows or any of
>> that, but regardless, a well-playing harmonica does something very
>> important that I think has a longer-term effect on the community as a
>> whole. It is easier to learn. When new people pick up the harmonica, and
>> don't get the feeling that it's a "real" instrument, and can't learn the
>> basics (bending, etc...) simply largely because the instrument plays
>> incredibly poorly, then that person shrugs it off and moves on.
>>
>> If harmonicas uniformly had a certain assumed quality, then beginners
>> could
>> actually learn to bend  (among any other techniques, as well as the
>> general
>> strong connection of self to instrument through breath) quite easily and
>> instantly feel connected with the soul of the instrument, and in turn,
>> continue playing it. This, in my opinion, is the key to opening the
>> instrument up to a larger fan base (aside from getting away from the pure
>> fetishization of very specific genres for the instrument to play,
>> however infinitely beautiful they all are).
>>
>> While it may seem unreasonable at first for a company to sink money into R
>> & D in this capacity, I firmly believe that if the $30-tiered harmonicas
>> had an actual consistent quality and airtightness to their build, in the
>> long run people would see many more humans sticking with the instrument in
>> a real way. The fact is, I wouldn't have learned 90% of what I did unless
>> I
>> started working on my harps and making them play better. No one can learn
>> technique easily on any broken instrument, and that's what I consider most
>> out of the box harmonicas; a broken instrument that needs to be fixed to
>> be
>> useful.
>>
>> People may say that customized harmonicas really only matter for better
>> players, and that beginners shouldn't need them, but the reality is quite
>> the opposite. Advanced players can make music on worse harmonicas because
>> they already know the technique and are in this instance adapting an
>> understanding to a poorly-constructed tool/harmonica. It is crucial for
>> beginners to have a good instrument, because it is the fastest way to
>> actually understand what effect the motions you are doing have on the
>> instrument and the sound produced. If you are exploring the instrument or
>> trying to achieve a technique, and you make the motion that should in a
>> well working harmonica change the sound, but nothing happens because of a
>> poorly performing instrument, then two things happen; 1) You miss
>> the opportunity to learn about a certain embouchure/motion and how it
>> relates to the sounds you make, and 2) conversely, you learn that the
>> given
>> motion does specifically *not* produce the desired sound, even if it
>> really
>> *should* in a working instrument. This works to consistently actively
>> fight
>>
>> against anyone's attempt to learn or gain joy from this instrument. With a
>> working tool, however, you get feedback on the (no matter how slight)
>> effect of every motion you make and every exploration you embark on. In
>> this way you learn much faster and more efficiently, and have real
>> feedback
>> as to the purpose and creation of the movements and sounds you make.
>>
>> For these reasons, while I understand the argument to just be "fine" with
>> the progression of mass-produced harmonica quality, I don't believe enough
>> has been done yet as of this moment to warrant celebration. So many of the
>> new innovations (and I'm not including the sub-30 here, Brendan, because
>> I *
>> do* believe it is a cool and respectable active attempt by a company to
>>
>> advance the instrument) that we constantly see from companies have very
>> little to do with the actual play-ability of the instrument; color, comb
>> material, etc.... are things we see change every couple months with a new
>> name slapped on. What we rarely see is a new instrument whose selling
>> point
>> is actually guaranteed better playability and airtightness. This is what I
>> think we should be asking for, expecting, and celebrating when/if it
>> arrives.
>>
>>
>> Sam Friedman
>>
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 10, 2012 at 11:32 AM, mik jagger <harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx>
>> wrote:
>>
>>  Mike, thank you for your review - it confirms my "suspicion" that it is a
>>> version of the xb40 - better or worse is to be determined by playing it,
>>> of
>>> course. I'd probably like the smaller size, but as a player of xb40, I
>>> got
>>> to tell you that hohner really works great out of the box, I love my
>>> xb40.
>>> Good to know that if rumors of xb40's demise are true, we have at least a
>>> somewhat passable option, although the price really does not sit well
>>> with
>>> me. BTW, my xb40 in C has years of hard play on it by now - it became my
>>> main instrument of choice, and no performance issues whatsoever!
>>> Mike.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> ______________________________**__
>>>   From: Mike Fugazzi <mikefugazzi@xxxxxxxxx>
>>> To: harp-l@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Cc: "harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx" <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>; mik jagger <
>>> harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx>; harpomatic@xxxxxxxxx
>>> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2012 9:46 AM
>>> Subject: Re: [Harp-L] The Future of Blues Harmonica?
>>>
>>>
>>> The most noticeable difference is that the it is the size of a standard
>>> diatonic.  I have a SUB30 in A that I removed the valves on holes 1-4 on
>>> and taped of the extra reeds on 1-4 (draw reeds on the top plate).  It
>>> plays a lot better, but you lose notes on those holes, then.  I was ok
>>> with
>>> that as I was more concerned with the middle and top octaves.  The 1 and
>>> 4
>>> overblow play well, IMO.
>>>
>>> The more I think about it, it plays like a Special 20 from the
>>> 90's...like
>>> right before they switched to stainless steel cover plates.  It is a very
>>> mellow and warm tone (dark), even after heavy tweaking of the reeds and
>>> slots.  The top octave plays well save hole 10, which I need to tweak
>>> more
>>> for the blow bends.  I am pleased with how it plays holes 4-9.  I think 3
>>> responds well now, but is still a tad stiff.  1 and 2 play and bend fine,
>>> but feel a little soft for me.  I am not sure tweaking gaps would really
>>> solve that.   The new bends on 10 are a lot more like an overdraw than
>>> you'd think, but are easy than a regular valve bend, IMO.
>>>
>>> I like it a lot more than a week ago, lol.  The new bends seem to be void
>>> of any extra noise or issue.  I would like to try it with different valve
>>> material at some point, though.  I will totally play it and gig with it
>>> if
>>> given the chance.  I should make it clear that I did spend a good chunk
>>> of
>>> time 1-2 hours tweaking it using very advanced techniques (beyond just
>>> gapping and embossing).
>>>
>>> I have tried the XB40, but don't own one.  I remember that harp being
>>> louder and brighter than the SUB30.
>>>
>>> Mike
>>> On Sunday, September 9, 2012 7:56:07 AM UTC-5, mik jagger wrote:
>>> So how's the "sub 30" different (to the better) from the xb40? XB40 has
>>> all the reeds bending deeper than a halftone (more available notes), less
>>> expensive, and great out of the box, yet not popular enough to not be
>>> threatened by the rumors of its demise...
>>>
>>
>