Re: [Harp-L] Multiple harmonicas

[william price <promultis33@xxxxxxxxx>]

Thanks Jross38,
I think your logic is sound and I agree with much of what you have stated, so let me pick up on a certain point you have placed emphasis. What Iâve done over the last three years was exclusively within this relatively unexplored concept of coupling full-tone Richter tunings together. I said relatively because although there are some examples one can point to, I think most will agree that I have taken it to another level. Iâm assuming you have viewed some of my videos: http://harmonicareinvented.com/videos/ Iâve mixed harmonic and natural minors, majors and minors. But, within all of this, I know Iâm standing on shoulders here, who isn't? For example, Iâd be nowhere without Richter and how could I mix these combos if someone hadn't gone before me and produced a natural minor Â(which I used for my rendition of âCalifornia Dreamingâ) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmTNbQ9AlEU&list=UU8f0zosDGs3AMEL3_nkDi1Q etc. etc.. 
This has recently created a buzz. But, If youâll notice, I give away everything I know and learn. I canât give away my CD, ÂâTaking the Leadâ, Âbecause I need to try and reimburse myself for some of the expense incurred in producing it, but almost everything else is free for the visitors to my web-site. I love the diatonic harmonica! I filed my patent because I knew once I went out on the web, this work could be pulled out from under me. No one can convince me that this rejuvenation of interest in the whole-tone concept was not dramatically affected by my six videos and several audio presentations Iâve made public over the last two and a half years. 
Iâm happy I had the presence of mind to file my work in the U.S Patent office. I donât care about other activity along this line unless it tries to completely bypass my sweat and work. 
Thanks for your very astute observations and civil tenor of your post. 
Bill Price 

     On Saturday, December 6, 2014 6:13 PM, "jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx" <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
   

 > Letâs strictly talk apples and apples. Iâm only referring to the Richter ten whole diatonic harmonica, nothing else. 


Which is fine, but I think a problem. There is very little difference between any of the various harmonica forms. Sure, some styles of different playing and different music, but there is more similarity between the various forms of harmonica than between many other musical families. Perhaps a sense of my viewpoint is that I don't particularly differentiate between the various forms of saxophone. So I lump all sax players together, alto, tenor, etc... The differences between these are minimal compared even to the difference between a sax and a clarinet (which aren't all that big either). Similarly, the difference between playing a diatonic, tremolo, octave or chromatic harp are very exaggerated, IMO. So I don't see a real difference between your playing style and say that of Asian tremolo players who use multiple harps regularly. The main difference is the use of specific keys and a device rather than holding method. While these are important to the desired outcome, they are not all that significant in terms of process.


> When employing this âstyleâ as you call it, they are no longer individual instruments. You play them as ONE because they become one. 


I suppose I should point out that I would make much the same case for the chromatic slide harmonica as being primarily a new style rather than a new instrument. It is, after all, merely two harps a semitone apart shoved together on a single comb. That said, the addition of a mechanical device creates a different level not present without such a device. Thus while a Tombo S-50 and a typical chromatic are both two harps on one comb, the device helps to influence the style of what is played. As I understand it, your system uses two existing diatonics which are then attached together. This is a neat idea, and new methods of doing it are very interesting. But it is also a very, very old idea.


> Was I the first to experiment with this? Donât know but, Iâm definitely the first to bring it to this level and until it was a more refined product it was unlikely to be widely utilized or even patented.


My views on patentability can be clearly seen by checking the archives. :)


>Â Most ideas in the beginning are sketchy and used in random ways. So, officially Iâm the inventor of this particular refined style of playing the Richter diatonic harmonica and I call it the Coupling method. 


Honestly, I think you are on a very shaky limb here. I mean no offense, but people have been combining harmonicas in these ways for a very long time. The chord harp is often claimed as arriving out of people using multiple harps to play chord backing, for one. Yes, you have dedicated yourself to a particular set-up and taken it to a high level, but there was nothing random about how people have been playing multiple harps over the years. I have been an advocate of playing multiple harps (and alternate tunings and more) for what it gives in terms of flexibility for years. And I think you have done a great service by showing a well co-ordinated method of how one might use a particular setup. The charts used in your patent are exactly the type of thing that can lead to a discussion of how to choose multiple harps for particular songs. But, people have been making these decisions for years in the exact same way. You have narrowed the subset of choices in order to develop familiarity. And that is also a good subject for discussion. But neither is a radically new concept, IMO--just most who use multiple harps haven't felt the desire to make charts or limit what keys they pair. 




JR Ross