[Harp-L] re: bendability

["Jonathan R. Ross" <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

>> Zombor (cool name:)
>
>Don't bully me, this is the most stupid name one can
>have.

Sorry if I offended you.  I really do think it's a cool name--I've
always liked names starting with the "z" sound, and have envied the
friends I've had with names that started that way (Ziyahd, Ziran,
Xavier).  

>> You're in very good company--many of the best
>> players and technicians
>> have experimented with this before the XB-40 came
>> out
>
>I would be VERY much interested in the results. I have
>not seen any other responder reed harp than the XB40
>(only mine). If there are others, I would really like
>to see them, I mean if they are public yet.

The only one produced has been the XB-40, but others have made their own
responder-reed harps just as you have.  I know that Will Scarlet,
Richard Sleigh and Brendan Power have all experimented in this area.
Richard and Brendan have websites and email, so you could talk to them.
I've never seen what they made, but I'm sure they'd be willing to
discuss things (especially since Rick Epping's patent basically
precludes anyone else from marketing a responder-reed instrument for a
while).

Richard can be contacted through here:  http://customharmonicas.com/

And this is Brendan's website:  http://www.brendan-power.com/

>I have started it before I had the XB40. Probably if I
>had the XB40 before, I would not have made my own
>version. But now its too late :-)

I fully understand.  The others also made theirs before the XB-40 as
well.

>You are surely right at this point. I have been
>studying the instructions for the XB40 and it is
>really "redundant" regarding notes. It is also too
>much for me probably.

It's not hard to retune it to a different degree of bending.  If you
tune the responder reeds to a whole-step (or a little less, actually)
above the natural note then you will only have 1/2 step bends rather
than whole-step bends.  However, many players really enjoy having the
whole step bend and in many ways having the same note available as
either a bend or a natural note can be a real advantage, depending on
what you want to do.

>At this point you must be right again. My goal was to
>make something which has basically the same abilities,
>sounds like a standard diatonic and is about the same
>size. Nice challenge.

Yup.  I think the XB-40 comes about as close as you can get.  However,
there are two other very interesting takes on expanding the bending (and
overblowing, in this case) range of the diatonic.  The first is the
Suzuki Overdrive.  While certainly not an easy beast to master, it
offers the possibility of not-only having dual-reed bends, but also
having single-reed bends and overbends on every note of the instrument.
The second is similar in terms of what it offers, but much different in
terms of how it achieves this: Winslow Yerxa's Discrete Comb.  If you
search the harp-l archives you can find a lot of information on this.
Winslow himself is on harp-l, and has posted quite recently.  These are
definitely two options you will want to check out to see what else is
out there.  

>> and overbends or a valved diatonic is another
>> factor.  
>
>However, overblowing which is not an easy technique
>either seems to be very popular. Everybody is
>regapping, embossing, nail polishing, microporing etc.

It's easy to get that sense from this and other harmonica lists online,
but really these represent a tiny fraction of the harmonica playing
public and even professional harmonica players.  Most professionals
still seem not to use overbends all that much compared to regular bends.
Some people prefer overbends and others don't care for them as much and
thus would gravitate to valved diatonics, the XB-40, Suzuki Overdrive or
Discrete Comb (although the later two actually make overblowing easier
in many ways).  Again, it's all a mater of how you want to get the
musical results you want.  

Also, the XB-40 is more expensive than most diatonics, and harmonica
players are cheap.  People who complain about paying $20 for a Lee Oskar
aren't going to be rushing out to pay four times that for an XB-40,
especially since most players neither need nor want the extra bends and
such the XB-40 gives you.

>> either--it's a new
>> sound.  
>
>Maybe new music is "needed" :-) I must also say
>despite my total dissatisfaction regarding the
>out-of-the-box usability of the XB (key C) that it is
>a fine harp, and has really good response. But I have
>some very bad valve rattle recently . .

I find the lower hole valves on the XB-40 to be a bit rattle-prone as
well.  I've replaced many with a man-made fiber similar to leather.  I
don't know what it's called, but I believe PT Gazell actually posted
about the material a while back.  That may help.  Also, the XB-40 really
does best in the lower ranges, from lowE through Bb or so rather than C
and higher.  I've been thinking lately about retuning some so that the
tonic is in the second hole rather than the first to get around this.
Thus, I'd have a C-harp with this layout:

Blow: G C E G C E G C E G
Hole: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Draw: B D G B D F A B D F

Actually, I'd probably tinker with this a bit anyway, just to fine-tune
it, but you get the basic idea--while the blow note in hole 1 would be
G, the key would still be C because the blow chord is still a C chord
(just it starts with the second inversion).

This is a way I've been thinking of lately to get around the known
problems of the higher-pitched XB-40 design with regards to chamber
resonance and such.  There is a lot of precedent for this sort of thing,
actually, for instance most diatonic accordions start on what would be
hole 2 of a harmonica and then go from there, thus they would have the
tuning as follows (note--I might have my push and pull mixed up--I can
never remember and it's too late to check):

Push: E G C E G C E G C E
Note: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Pull: G B D F A B D F A B

Again, the same basic tuning, but instead of having the tonic be the
lowest note, you have the third be the lowest note, thus the first push
chord is the first inversion of the C chord.  Some octave and tremolos
have been made in these ways over the years.

>> experimented and decided that the answer to your
>> questions might be
>> better found in valved diatonics than in responder
>> reeds. 
>
>I have no idea yet, what is the answer. I am still
>looking for the answer.

As am I.  One thing I've decided, is that rather than there being _one_
answer, there may be many answers, and the one I use depends on the
situation at hand.  It may make for a larger harmonica-case, but
compared to my glockenspiel or the organs I work on, even a gigantic
case full of harmonicas is light.

>I cannot explain why I
>am trying new things. It is just a hobby, nothing
>else.

Some of the greatest innovations and inventions have come from hobbies.
I find I enjoy how musical instruments work in and of itself,
irregardless of the music.  Some people like clocks, others miniature
trains.  For me, I like musical instruments.  Indeed, I like them so
much I made a career out of working on them.

>Certainly
>the ultimate answer for everything is music, not
>technique.

I wish I'd written that myself.




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