Re: [Harp-L] acoustic harp.

[Harp Explorer <harpexplorer1@xxxxxxxxx>]

Wsmo-joe -

The most common definition and perception is that an acoustic instrument
doesn't rely on electronics for its character. That character might be
amplified or recorded, but its character remains the same.

An electric guitar, recorded with only a microphone, doesn't sound like
much because it relies on its pickups for its sound and character.

Although the Chicago harmonica sound starts with an acoustic harmonica, it
relies on overdriving the electronics, that microphone and/or amp, for its
character.

The best rule of thumb for distinguishing between electric and acoustic is
that if you remove the electricity, the sound characteristics of acoustic
remain the same, whereas the electric instruments will lose much of their
volume and characteristics. In the case of harmonica, you will then hear
the acoustic instrument which is then modified by the electric signal
chain. Before the chain, it's an acoustic harmonica. After the chain, it's
electric.

It's interesting that some might not be aware of these distinctions.

On Fri, Sep 19, 2014 at 3:53 PM, Mike Wilbur <mike@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> I thought Webster played a Banjo....just kidding Tom
> We should take a vote and tally it up, most acoustic players are going to
> use amplification
> When necessary......everyone that agrees with that analogy raise your hand.
>
> Mike Wilbur
>
>
> > On Sep 19, 2014, at 3:24 PM, Tom Ball <havaball@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> >
> > FWIW I always figured when one thinks of "acoustic" harp, one envisions
> players like Sonny Terry or Hammie Nixon, DeFord Bailey or Phil Wiggins --
> players who do not cup a microphone in their hands and play through an
> amplifier; in Willie Dixon's words, players who "play dry." And when one
> thinks of "amplified" harp, one envisions a player cupping a bullet mic and
> playing through an amp (sometimes with resultant distortion and/or added
> effects,) a la Chicago-style stalwarts Little Walter, Walter Horton, etc.
> >
> > But "amplified" and "acoustic" are terms that can be both misleading and
> self-contradictory.
> >
> > Most folks would define "acoustic" as "unamplified." Webster defines
> "amplify" as: "4. Elect.  to increase the amplitude of; to produce
> amplification."
> >
> > But the fact is that almost no "acoustic" players ever really play
> acoustically, and certainly no one (after the mid 1920s) ever recorded that
> way. When Sonny Terry played in concert with Brownie McGhee he sat in a
> chair and played about eight inches away from a vocal microphone; ditto for
> other "acoustic" players, myself included. Yes, we're "acoustic" players,
> but technically we're all playing amplified, otherwise we wouldn't be using
> any microphone at all.
> > And when it comes to the process of recording, the only musicians who
> ever truly recorded "acoustically" were those who were in the studio before
> the 'electrical era,' which came about in the mid 1920's. Prior to that,
> recording musicians used crude megaphones rather than microphones.
> >
> > Having said that however, I'm sure that most harp players have settled
> on the definitions of "acoustic" and "amplified" as they pertain to a
> player's approach rather than as a literal definition involving the use (or
> lack) of any microphone. Just MHO.
> >
> > cheerio,
> > Tom Ball
> > Purveyor of the physically activated, wind-powered pitch approximater
> > http://www.tomball.us
>
>