Re: [Harp-L] SEYDEL Blues Session Standard Harmonica
- To: "Hellerman, Steven L." <shellerman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Harp-L] SEYDEL Blues Session Standard Harmonica
- From: Gary Lehmann <gnarlyheman@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 2 Sep 2014 06:42:28 -0700
- Cc: "<harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>" <harp-l@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=references:mime-version:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding:message-id:cc:from:subject:date:to; bh=w8/QTWcbIGbz1PEXcES3rOHMsUAc0c7QddN/NUX23Lo=; b=GMwCKcwzlMP6JILgC6P5QPLZ40cMjMI/MQbs1wYdblvqH9GXpk9N0gTGJHqI3IDCX5 0Io3MXMduQ9KT0jimxUIKGJgXLEm+EjjvJ6F8UC25y1qWWvYMsmVCDYB+Q/qwPW+YZpM aPK1ycoGOk5fMI+a25ZWVuwbCFjsDC6ze2MYP4xa1yGJFpFwgqwIveSiM8xCSwzKbnc4 IPtFsczh28TSIto5DzY+Ws+tSZsOnVrO4u8qdtdHhwAsiC6fFSj9kC35OROE19ERYLLL LG5Pa21drynIK2wIKCywuKzvtIbAVnJhRGiKcl7KDxakLA7wzu8+eLcXPXt7rNVGd2nI s+NA==
- In-reply-to: <E9A027BEC0A6694D91A7D44D1086C53C0467B57C@chc-exch-01.sbccd.int>
- References: <201409012010.s81KAAWe029048@harp-l.com> <E9A027BEC0A6694D91A7D44D1086C53C0467B57C@chc-exch-01.sbccd.int>
Paddy Richter--it's great, except that you lose the big draw bend.
But for some things, it just makes sense--you are changing a note which has been duplicated (blow 3 is normally the same as draw 2) for an important missing note.
Sent from my iPhone
> On Sep 1, 2014, at 3:22 PM, "Hellerman, Steven L." <shellerman@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> I was looking online for a low f# harp and found this for the SEYDEL Blues Session Standard Harmonica:
> "This harp is altered by the hole 3 blow note being raised by a whole tone, an attribute that is very useful for Irish and Celtic Music. Bending of this note in the normal tuning would be very laborious for fast jigs, but the rest of the harmonica follows standard Richter tuning."
> Does this apply to all keys for the Seydel Blues Session harp?
> What does this mean?
> Specifically, is playing this harp different than playing other harps because "the hole 3 blow note [is] raised by a whole tone"?
> Finally: Anyone have experience w/ this model, and would anyone recomend it?
This archive was generated by a fusion of
Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and