[Harp-L] New Tool and Method for Improving Harmonica Reed Response

[Vern]

I would like to believe that disagreements about matters of fact... not opinion... and free from ad hominem arguments add value to Harp-l.  You can’t say that I didn’t give you some clear targets to shoot at.

I applaud your relentless innovation to improve the functions of the harmonica.  I would not have predicted that you could put nail polish into the side-clearance of a reed and have it ever function again!  Who else could make a CX-16?

In addition, I am in awe of your virtuoso performances.  

Keep doing your thing.  I may occasionally look down from my ivory tower and question a conclusion.  As I used to do with sorely-missed Doug Tate, we can go another friendly round.

All the best,

Vern

> On Jan 15, 2019, at 1:28 PM, bren at xxxxx wrote:
> 
> Thanks for your measured reply Vern. Whatever disagreements we might have, I hold you in the highest esteem for your sincerity and gentlemany demeanour. I also respect your genuine desire to get to the truth of any question through rigorous application of the scientific method.
> 
> You're right, I haven't addressed the logical points you've made in a scientific fashion. All I've essentially said is "playing is believing", which is indeed (as you say) a subjective response open to criticism. But actually feeling the big gains from doing work on reed/slot tolerances is enough for me. Plus I don't think it will serve any purpose to bat this back and forth with point by point rebuttals - life is too short, and readers will soon become bored with the minutiae.
> 
> I'll just make one observation. You said at the end, in relation to assessing a well-customised diatonic:
> 
> "My lack of skill at bending and overblowing would disqualify my conclusions regardless of what they were."
> 
> Honestly, those skills are not needed to hear and feel the significant improvement in reed response obtained from the customisation techniques we've been discussing. I hope you do get a chance to play a familiar melody on such a high-end custom harp sometime.
> 
> In the meantime thanks for all you bring to the harmonica community, and I look forward to more robust discussions in the future.
> 
> Your friend and admirer,
> 
> Brendan Power
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Quoting Vern <jevern at xxxxx>:
> 
>> More pontification from the ivory tower:
>> 
>>> On Jan 15, 2019, at 5:59 AM, <bren at xxxxx> <bren at xxxxx> wrote:
>>> 
>>> ……….As a general point, having known you for a long while and worked together with you on a project, my assessment of your ability to cast credible judgement in harmonica matters varies. On the one hand you are extremely knowledgeable about the theory side, specifically scientific and engineering aspects of the instrument. When it comes to knowledge of materials and their properties etc I’d generally defer to you at all times.
>>> 
>>> However, when you try to pontificate from your ivory tower to tell us all how a harmonica will actually PLAY, purely based on your theoretical analysis, then my respect evaporates and I’m afraid turns to scorn. As a chromatic player, when it comes to knowledge of what makes a diatonic harmonica work well, the truth is that you are woefully ignorant.
>> 
>> I claim no knowledge derived from expert playing, bending, or overblowing of diatonic harmonicas.  My concentration has been on understanding the physics of the instrument separated as much as possible from subjective human factors.
>>> 
>>> That was brought home to me when we cooperated together in our ill-fated Comb Test at SPAH 2010. After months of email discussion about procedures and how best to make the test Marine Band harp so it disguised the various materials’ varying weights, you took it upon yourself to make the thing. In theory your design seemed good, since it combined quick-change abilities with material-masking weights.
>>> 
>>> But in practice a fatal flaw was discovered: you could see daylight between the reedplates and comb! Any good diatonic player knows that a perfect comb-to-reedplate seal is a basic requirement of good harmonica performance. Especially for a test that was supposed to measure the effect (or otherwise) of different materials on the tone, the fact the comb was not in good contact with the reedplates (so the harp sounded very airy) completely invalidated any results.
>> 
>> I don’t recall seeing any daylight under the plates.  There were seven combs of different materials so it is unlikely that all were equally leaky. I assure you that I tightened the plate and cover screws snugly to minimize leakage.  Although you did, none of the participants complained to me about leakiness.
>> 
>> The result of that comparison of comb materials was consistent with the result of two previous tests.  These three experiments followed a common pattern:
>> - Beforehand, the participants were confident they could discern among comb materials,
>> - Under controlled conditions, they were unable to do so.
>> - After the test they raised objections ("fatal flaws") to the conditions of the test to explain their failure.
>>      Because perfect conditions are unattainable, that defense will always be available.
>> 
>>> As it was, Chris Michalek and the other test players, rightly disgusted with the test harp, proceeded to put down nonsense scores. The whole exercise turned out to be a complete waste of time, and I felt very embarrassed.
>> 
>> Michalek indicated that they all played the same.  Although he may have been frustrated enough to try to sabotage the experiment, he could have been giving honest answers that he could discern no differences.  He did make plain his disdain for the proceedings.
>> 
>> My point here is that it was your ignorance of what makes a diatonic harmonica play well that let to this fiasco. So now, when you make the various ‘logical’ points in your reply below, I’m afraid they just make me smile. In answer, I have a simple question for you:
>>> 
>>> “Have you every tried playing a well-customised diatonic harp and compared it with a stock model of the same type?”
>> No.  I have a question for you:  Have you conducted a comparison under controlled conditions before you claim improvement resulting from a modification?  (By controlled conditions I mean a large number of random plays; you don’t know whether a modified or unmodified harp is used; and you write down your determinations as they are made.)
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I’m talking about harps customised by the likes of Rick Epping (the pioneer of reed-slot embossing and many of the customisation techniques used today), and well-known professionals who learned directly or indirectly from Rick (like Joe Filisko, Richard Sleigh, Joe Spiers, Joel Andersson).
>> I never condemned expert reed-voicing.  I commented on the contradictions between anecdotal evidence and my understanding of the theory.
>>> 
>>> Judging by your remarks below, I’m sure the answer has to be a resounding “No”. If you actually put one of these guys’ harps in your mouth directly after playing a stock one, you would feel in the first microsecond that the difference is like between night and day. There is simply no comparison! That’s where direct experience trumps any amount of ivory tower theorising, of which you are rather prone.
>> 
>> I plead guilty as charged.  However, reliable “direct experience” isn’t all that easy to acquire. It requires more than a few anecdotes.  It requires a careful effort to avoid subjective bias.
>>> 
>>> You can call it a ‘subjective impression’ – but I think if you actually tried this before talking about it your words would quickly dry up. You would feel what all the happy customers who pay big bucks for these custom harps feel: they play amazingly well. And much of that vastly improved performance happens at the source of the sound: the reeds/slot interaction.
>> When my understanding of the theory failed to explain the results that you reported, I raised the question.  I agree that my statements could have been softened by more humility and qualifications.  Although I don’t think that the contradiction that troubled me has been answered, I’ll certainly be more cautious about ivory tower pontification in the future.
>> 
>>> ……...Respectfully Vern, I suggest that before exposing your ignorance of diatonic harmonica performance further, you actually do the side-by-side playing test of a stock Marine Band compared to one customised by the likes of Epping/Filisko/Sleight/Spiers/Andersson yourself. Then come back and tell us what you think...
>>> 
>>> After having this ‘subjective experience’ I believe you will be rather less quick to preach to us all on these matters.
>>> In short, ‘play before you say’.
>> 
>> I doubt that one more anecdote from me would shed much light on the matter.  Not expecting a positive result would bias myy perceptions in the negative direction.  My lack of skill at bending and overblowing would disqualify my conclusions regardless of what they were.
>> 
>> All the best,
>> 
>> Vern
> 
> 
> 
>