[Harp-L] re: intonation and such



Winslow wites:

"Jonathan appears to be arguing with what he imagines (incorrectly)
that I mean."

Probably. Frankly I wasn't really sure what you meant, so I expected I might have been misinterpreting things.

"I do not argue that overblows or bends can or should be made to sound
the same as what Jonathan calls "natural" notes (all notes are natural
notes if you can produce them by applying your body to a physical
instrument)."

I used the term to distinguish between the notes available through standard breathing and playing (or placing the instrument before a fan) and those which are available only by manipulation of the oral cavity, ie bends and overblows. I make the distinction between the "natural" notes and the "created" notes as a practical matter without any intent of prejudice in the wording. String players talk about fretted and unfretted notes, and that is the model I was attempting to somewhat import, though obviously we need different terms.

" If you have followed my recent posts, I have pointed out
the opposite and cited the Ode to Joy Challenge I staged a few years
back as showing how difficult it is to disguise even the simplest bends."


A wonderful thing you did, and part of why I was confused as to what you were trying to say, as you seemed to be contradicting that.

"However, "different" does not mean "bad or "poor" or "weak". It just
means different, and different does not need to be concealed or
protected. It needs to be brought to its full potential, and then used
in an appropriate way."

Which is exactly what I have been trying to say and stress. If you notice, I never used the term "weak" or "bad" or "poor"--indeed, I pointed out that I wouldn't use that term when someone else did.

"My point was that these notes can be made to sound much stronger and
fuller than many players either care to try or are willing to believe
is possible. They seem to assume that the notes will sound weak and
therefore try to hide them."

I'd agree, that hiding them because one can't play them in a way that sounds musically interesting isn't a good thing. It has been shown quite well that overblows and bends can sound quite full, strong and with a pleasant timbre (they can also sound the opposite, which can be equally useful in the right context). But, they will never sound the same, and so that means you have to know when that different timbre will work and when it won't. I've never made it a question of weak or the like, but of difference, as the Ode challenge did show. I can play a very nice, strong sounding 3-draw wholestep bend. I can't play one that sounds at all decent in that song. As far as I can tell no-one else can either.

"Instead, I argue that any player who uses these notes should get as
strong as they can in playing them. Anything worth doing is worth
doing as well as possible. Half-assed technique leads to half-assed
artistic decisions."

Agreed. But ignoring difference as a thing in and of itself can lead to bad decisions as well. It doesn't matter how nice your created notes sound, if you don't recognize that they sound different and know how and when to use that and them, then you won't be making good artistic decisions either. And I'm not even saying that you should be parsing them out as if they are the last bits of chocolate on earth, just thinking about when and where and what's right for the given context. What's right for a Chicago-style blues song might not be right for 70's style blues-funk song, and certainly might not be right for modal jazz or a serialist piece. Context as always.

"Only then
should a player decide the degree to which he or she wishes to expose
or conceal the notes. Decisions at that point will be based not on a
position of weakness but on a position of artistic qualities."

I would say that you don't need to master a technique before you start to learn when to use it. One doesn't need to become Paganini to begin to play music on the violin.

However, I have always advocated the position of strength you are talking about. But that doesn't make the question of when and when not to use bends and overblows go away by any means. It just gives you more tools with which to make those decisions. Are you saying those issues go away with this mastery, or do you say that they still exist? My feeling is that they don't go away at all--they are no less relevant because one has mastered all the techniques you said than if one hasn't. A bend or overblow still won't sound like a non- bent or non-overblown note (nor like one another, at that). That issue will remain regardless of how nice you can make the bend and overblow sound, how in tune you can play it, how well you can phrase it.

"Most players have not developed their overbend technique to the point
where they should be making hard-and-fast decisions about where these
note "should" be placed. It's a moving target that will get closer,
wider, and easier to hit as the player's technique improves."

Maybe, maybe not. Actually, again I'm not sure what you mean. What is a "moving target"? What's the target? Is the target the decisions of when and when not to use them?

If so, then I'd say part of the problem is that there are a large group of people who seem to want the target to not exist: who seem to think that if the technical issues are mastered then there will be no need for such decisions because every note will just sound the same, be played with the same phrasing and so forth. That's the part I don't see happening. I also don't see it really getting diminished very much with increased facility of the technique--I certainly don't hear it getting any less important when people with great technique play as if the target I mentioned above does not even exist.



 ()()    JR "Bulldogge" Ross
()  ()   & Snuffy, too:)
`----'







This archive was generated by a fusion of Pipermail 0.09 (Mailman edition) and MHonArc 2.6.8.