Re: [Harp-L] Re: Overblows in the blues - check this out

[Jonathan Ross <jross38@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> But I confirm that I play overblows and bent notes in exactly the same
> position of mouth, tongue, ... the only thing which differs is that  
> in a
> case I blow and in another case I draw.
> This has been confirmed to me by some other "overblowers".

I don't really overblow well enough to say for myself.  However, when  
I test a blow bend at the same pitch (and range on the harp) as an  
overblow I find that there are very subtle differences between how I  
am forming my oral cavity to get the two effects.  The changes in  
oral cavity are similar, but different (same for overdraw and high- 
end draw bends).  I would be surprised if they weren't subtly  
different, the same way a dual-reed bend is subtly different than a  
single-reed bend in terms of how you shape your oral cavity (again,  
tested at the same pitch and range on a diatonic harp, both blow and  
draw).


> I can assure you that when done correctly, you can't distinguish an  
> overblow
> from a bent note, apart if the player decides to play on particular  
> effects
> available on each type of note.

I can.  I can when Howard plays them, I can when Sebastien Charlier  
plays them, I can when others play them.  Doesn't mean they aren't  
usable, don't sound good or anything else, but just like bends I can  
tell when someone is using an overblow or not.  If the music is good,  
I usually don't care, which is a different issue.  Overbends have a  
different timbre than bends or given notes, but, all three are still  
free reeds and these differences can be both minimized and exploited  
depending on desired outcome.

And just to answer, yes, I did go to the website and listen to many  
of the recordings.  I can usually tell what techniques he is using to  
create the note played even with a fairly casual listening.  And  
that's not a slam on him, just the differences are noticeable.  Most  
people might not hear it and might not care, which is another issue  
entirely.  But, to get to the levels of his playing (or Howards,  
etc...) one had better be able to hear it oneself, IMO, because if  
the player isn't aware of these differences, they will stand out even  
more.


> It brings me to another consideration : even if you can play notes  
> the same
> way with the same tone, I agree with you : all this is a false  
> problem as
> you'll usually try to bring effects on each note, whether it is a  
> given
> note, a bent note or an overblow.

I would disagree in the following way: it is either a small or a huge  
problem depending on the music you are playing.  If it requires that  
each note have the same timbre and articulation (another issue-- 
articulation is different between these three ways of creating a note  
as well) than it will be a potentially disastrous problem (and will  
highlight any intonational problems to boot).



> The funny point is that in my case, the most difficult at the end  
> is not to
> make a bent note or an overblown or overdrawn note sound with a  
> profound
> tone, but a blow note, on which I can do less effects.

Blow and draw notes also have a slightly different timbre and  
articulation as well.  The harmonica is an incredibly tricky beast in  
many ways.

> I know all this is a bit of a sterile debate, but if I can at least  
> convince
> some of you that you can overblow the same way you bend, I'm pretty  
> sure it
> should be of good help for the ones interested in using the blues  
> harp as a
> chromatic instrument.

I can't really agree with that conclusion.  I'd say that these  
differences do exist and always will.  To me it's better to  
acknowledge the differences and how they can be dealt with than try  
and pretend they don't exist.  As Howard, Sebastien and others show  
you certainly can use the diatonic harmonica in some fairly chromatic  
music.  And, as they also show on occasion, you won't always succeed  
musically, IMO.  Knowing the why and how of both is what's important.



JR Ross