Re: [Harp-L] Modes, was 3rd Position Tunes

[IronMan Mike Curtis <ironmanmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

On Mar 29, 2006, at 11:54 AM, Dave Murray wrote:

> From: "IronMan Mike Curtis" <ironmanmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > Technically, positions do not equal modes.  Fortunately, this  
> > won't matter until you need to know :-)
>
> I'm curious as to what you mean by that. If you exclude bent/ 
> altered notes and only consider the ones that are naturally on a  
> diatonic instrument, key changes walk hand in hand with mode  
> changes. Yes, people bend notes, and do over/underblows to get more  
> notes, but that is technique to escape the limitations of diatonic  
> instruments.

If people can do it, then it's not a limitation of the instrument,  
n'est-ce pas?  It's a limitation of the player.  We wouldn't say the  
diatonic harmonca is limited to playing chords by virtue of the facft  
that we need to learn skills to play single notes, or that some  
players can't do it.  The perceived difficulty of a technique is not  
in and of itself a reason to dismiss/minimize the technique out of  
hand.  A skilled craftsman has a full arsenal of tools.  A hobbyist  
may have jst a few tools.

> If I wanted to play a Mixolydian tune like "Old Joe Clark" in A,  
> I'd play it 2nd position on a D harp since I'm not an OB player. My  
> reason for playing that tune 2nd position would be based entirely  
> upon 2nd position giving me the Mixolydian interval. It can be  
> played in A 5th position on an F harp at the low end of the harp  
> with bends and no OBs, but I doubt that many people do it that way.  
> To play it 1st position on an A harp I'd need to be an OB player.  
> The line blurs because of technique, even in 2nd position you need  
> to bend a note to play the song at the low end of the harp.

Agreed (for the moment).

But let's look at it from the other side.

If I choose to play it in, let's say, 5th position, the mode will  
still be mixolydian, not phrygian as we might assume if we choose to  
view diatonic as "unbendable".

> There is harp life without OBs, but bending is essentially  
> essential :0).

Why is one valid and the other invalid?  Perceived difficulty?   
Bending has a level of dicfficulty, too, and not all diatonic players  
bend.  Should we dismiss it out of hand because some players don't/ 
can't bend?  And if we accept bending, why should we reject OBs out  
of hand because some don't/can't use them?  They're all valid tools.

> Positions do give you notes that are at modal intervals for the  
> associated key even though you may need to bend to get them all in  
> the octave that you are playing in. Not being argumentative, but  
> all those words bring me back to the first sentence that I wrote,   
> I'm curious as to what you mean by that.

Not taken as argumentative.  It's a good question.

The fact that it's *easier* doesn't make it "inherent".  The word  
"inherent" means "existing in something as a PERMANENT, ESSENTIAL, or  
CHARACTERISTIC attribute."  Of the three defining words, we might  
argue "characteristic", but that argument is <ahem> inherently weak.

Returning to "Agreed, for the moment", by using valves (windsavers)  
on bendable reeds (1-6 draw, 7-10 blow), it becomes possible to bend  
the normally unbendable notes of the diatonic as single reeds bends,  
using ones internal resonance to pull the pitch downward.  This is  
the method I've chosen to play chromatically on my valved Lee Oskar C  
diatonic.

Is it CONVENIENT to loosely view positions relative to modes?  Sure.   
I do.  You do.  And I'd truly be surprised to find anyone who doesn't  
to some degree.  But in the big picture, viewing positions ONLY in  
terms of modes and convenience is erroneous and misleading, and if  
we're not careful, could limit our harmonica playing.

I hope this clarifies my comment.


--IronMan Mike Curtis
ironmanmc@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Great songs! Amazing videos!   www.myspace.com/ironmancurtis