Header Graphic
Dirty-South Blues Harp forum: wail on! > The Best Tuning for Harmonica
The Best Tuning for Harmonica
Login  |  Register
Page: 1 2

Gnarly
2382 posts
Dec 19, 2017
10:48 AM
I had a nice long conversation with Kit Gamble one time, and I asked him, "What's the best tuning for harmonica?"
And he answered me . . .
Richter.
The standard tuning, the one you all know, is the best compromise for making music on the harmonica.
That's what he said, and he know harmonica.
So you can feel better about sticking with the "Old Standby".
That is all.
SuperBee
5129 posts
Dec 19, 2017
11:45 AM
I know what you mean, and so does everyone else, because we all call it that, but it’s a misnomer I think. Doesn’t ‘richter’ refer to the arrangement of reeds in the chamber, 1 up, 1 down, inside outside, rather than the tuning?
I’m certain I read someone with credibility post about this, but can’t remember what they said is the correct name for the tuning scheme commonly known as richter. Maybe ‘standard’. Dunno.

Anyway, I spent some time with ‘country tuning’ and found it was very useful, and especially in the way it helped me learn about music, by which I mean chords and structures, and particularly learning the layout of a harp in that regard. I didn’t take it up as my regular thing but it did teach me a lot.
Gnarly
2383 posts
Dec 19, 2017
11:49 AM
Right, Richter is a misnomer, so is "begging the question", it actually means something most people don't mean when they use the term.
From Lewis Carroll--
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less.” “The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.” “The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master—that's all.”

Last Edited by Gnarly on Dec 19, 2017 11:54 AM
Flbl
61 posts
Dec 19, 2017
12:01 PM
Perhaps this post should be changed to,

A Richter by any other name is not as sweet.
florida-trader
1243 posts
Dec 19, 2017
12:29 PM
I'm confused.
----------
Tom Halchak
www.BlueMoonHarmonicas.com
Blue Moon Harmonicas
WinslowYerxa
1492 posts
Dec 19, 2017
3:18 PM
German standard tuning has some inherent intonation problems, which are solved by Country tuning.

Acoustically, Draw 4 should be cents sharp of equal temperament (ET), to form a perfect acoustic 5th with Draw 2. And Draw 6 should be 2 cents sharper (4 cents sharp of ET) to form a perfect acoustic 5th with Draw 4.

Fine so far, but where does that leave Draw 5 in relation to Draw 6?

Draw 5 and 6 form a Major third, which acoustically should be 14 cents smaller than an ET major third. But if Draw 5 is in tune in ET, that third is already 4 cents bigger due to Draw 6 being raised 4 cents. So now we have a third that is 18 cents - more than a sixth of a semitone - bigger than an acoustic third. And if Draw 5 has been lowered 29 cents for acoustic 7th tuning, so much the worse - that third is now 47 cents, nearly half a semitone - bigger than an acoustic third. What to do? (Pat Missin has some suggestions; he's also the one who figured out that Richter is not a tuning but a construction type, along with Knittlinger and Wiener).

If you tune Draw 3 down 14 cents to make a beautiful Major chord in Draw 1 thru 4, and you tune Draw 5 UP so that it forms an acoustic major third with Draw 4, you'll also get a perfect Major chord in Draw 4-5-6, and Draw 3 and 5 will be an acoustic perfect 5th.

Not great for blues, but it solves a tuning quandary.

===========
Winslow

Harmonica lessons with one of the world's foremost experts
Check out my blog and other goodies at winslowyerxa.com
Harmonica For Dummies, Second Edition with tons of new stuff

Last Edited by WinslowYerxa on Dec 25, 2017 1:08 PM
MP
3524 posts
Dec 19, 2017
3:41 PM
When it comes to down misusing words my personal favorite is to use 'embossing' to mean burnishing or sizing reed slots. Embossing is what you find on Sees Candy boxes or wedding invitations. Even so, I've used it often to be understood.

My favorite embossing is found on very early Old Standby harps where the lettering and visage of M. Hohner is raised along w/ the crecent moon, 6 pointed star in the moon and the same star on the back in a medallion held by a pair of suit-coated hands. You can even see the shirt sleeves. Oh, and the back cover plates are molded or cut to have a wonderful arty design. All in all, a beautiful harmonica.

Oh, my favorite tunings are the standard Hohner tuning they call Compromise. Also, I really like Crossover tuning.
----------
Reasonably priced Reed Replacement and tech support on Hand Made Series Hohner Diatonic Harmonicas.

'Making the world a better place, one harmonica at a time.
Click MP for more info. Aloha Mark
.

Last Edited by MP on Dec 19, 2017 3:51 PM
Gnarly
2385 posts
Dec 19, 2017
4:26 PM
I like to have the 5 draw raised too, but have gotten carried away with the idea and so have a variety of arrangements of tones available on various harmonicas.
"Fine tuning" would be the thing MP is talking about, compromise and the like. That was not my original intention for this discussion, but I don't mind it coming up.
Gnarly
2386 posts
Dec 19, 2017
4:27 PM
Knittlinger and Wiener, aren't those the guys in the balcony on the Muppet Show?
florida-trader
1245 posts
Dec 20, 2017
7:45 AM
I’m surprised that nobody has spoken up to clarify the difference(s) between TUNING an TEMPERAMENT. Some of the comments have already crossed the line to a certain degree.

TUNING refers to the layout of notes on the harmonica, with the most common tuning being Richter Tuning. There are lots of other popular tunings, including, as Winslow mentioned, COUNTRY TUNING in which the 5 draw is tuned up a semi-tone (as compared to a Richter Tuned harp). Paddy Richter Tuning has the 3 blow tuned up one full tone (compared to Richter). Then there are Natural Minor, Harmonic Minor, Power Bender, Power Draw, Solo, Melody Maker, Circular and many other Tunings.

Temperament refers to adjustments of the intervals between the notes in order to accommodate a particular style of music. Here, we again find many options. It is the old Black, White and Various Shades of Gray. One end of the spectrum we have Equal Temperament (ET) in which the octave consists of twelve equal semitones. All the notes on the harp are tuned to Zero – neither flat nor sharp. Conventional wisdom says that this is good for playing melodies but the chords sound a little rough. On the opposite end of the spectrum we have 7-Limit Just Intonation which features a 5 and 9 draw tuned 29 cents flat. Again, conventional wisdom says that this produces rich chords but the individual notes can sound out of pitch when played with other instruments. This is the original tuning for the Marine Band and remained so until the 1980s. In between the two we have numerous “Compromise Temperaments” which is an attempt to accomplish the best of both worlds. Everyone has their own take on Compromise Temperament. Hohner offers several options. Marine Bands are tuned to “Modern Compromise Temperament”. The MS-Series has it’s on version of compromise as does the Crossover. Seydel has their own Compromise Temperament. Suzuki has a Compromise Temperament that is fairly simple and very close to ET. Which one is best? That is a debate that will never be solved. As they say, “Beauty is in the ear of the beholder.”

Richter Tuning is the dominant tuning and I predict it will remain so. First, blues harmonica fans tend to be traditional so in order to play the classic Chicago Blues, you might as well use the same Richter Tuning that was used in that era. Second, with the advent of overblows and overdraws you can now play the notes that were previously “missing” and gain full chromaticism on a 10-hole Richter Tuned diatonic harp.

My preferred set-up is Richter Tuning and I use Modern Compromise Temperament.

Shifting gears a little bit, and Gnarly, this question is mostly for you but if anyone else has noticed this, I would be interested in hearing your thoughts. I build a lot of Manjis, but I am not a fan of the Suzuki Compromise Temperament. So, I re-tune all the Manjis I build to Modern Compromise Temperament, which is the current Marine Band set-up. I have been writing about this for a couple of years and I have read posts from others who have made similar comments. (Gnarly – if I am not mistaken, you are one of the people who have mentioned this.) So here is my question. I have noticed in the past year or so, that stock Manji reed plates are tuned much closer to Modern Compromise than their own prescribed tuning chart. I wonder if we are having an influence on Suzuki? I have not seen any announcement from Suzuki, but I build a lot of Manjis and this is not an isolated case. I would say that it is a pretty consistent trend. Has anyone else noticed this?

----------
Tom Halchak
www.BlueMoonHarmonicas.com
Blue Moon Harmonicas
AppalachiaBlues
106 posts
Dec 20, 2017
12:48 PM
I am torn between standard Richter tuning and Country Tuning. I like them both, and use them both. I am not good at overblows, so for me, CT is easiest way to get the major 7th. You don't lose anything, since you can get still get the flatted 7th with an easy bend.

For temperament, I love the standard Seydel compromised set-up, but I believe it is pretty close to 19L JI, and I believe pretty close to the Marine Band Deluxe. But is seems slightly less flat.

Except when I play together with horns, then I use ET -- Suzuki Hammonds.

Last Edited by AppalachiaBlues on Dec 20, 2017 12:49 PM
AppalachiaBlues
107 posts
Dec 20, 2017
12:59 PM
Hey Gnarly, how about on Chromatic? Are you still a true believer in BeBop, or have you gone back to standard Solo tuning? I found your arguments about BeBop compelling. But I wonder why no one else is praising it (and why Seydel does not offer it in the standard menu, but only in the custom configurator). Is it just that people have "settled" for Solo and gotten use to the double Cs, or does BeBop have some disadvantage that I am not aware of?

I am getting close to taking the plunge on a new DeLuxe Steel. I'm on the fence about whether to go Solo or BeBop.

Last Edited by AppalachiaBlues on Dec 20, 2017 1:31 PM
MP
3525 posts
Dec 20, 2017
1:50 PM
Sorry Gnarly. Good point Tom. Indeed temperament and tuning are different things. Anyway, I like both the temperament and tuning of both certain Hohners that include the 1896, MBD, SP/20, Thunderbird, and the Crossover. I change the temperament and tuning on my GMs because I don't care for ET even though the Crossover is sooooo close to ET. O.T. Did Steve Baker have a hand the tuning/temperament? I once saw that saw Baker annotated BBbobs Crossover tuning scheme and keep in on my desk for reference.
O.T. again. As and experiment I checked the tuning/temperament of GMs once.
A443 was zero- -5 on 2, 5, and 8 blow. -5 on 3, 5, and 7, draw. All else zeroed out or was + a couple of cents depending here and there. I'm not saying this is how they are supposed to be out of the box. This is just what I found on a rainy day.
----------
Reasonably priced Reed Replacement and tech support on Hand Made Series Hohner Diatonic Harmonicas.

'Making the world a better place, one harmonica at a time.
Click MP for more info. Aloha Mark
.
WinslowYerxa
1493 posts
Dec 20, 2017
3:06 PM
@AppalachiaBlues - In addition to Bebop tuning, there is C6 tuning, where the leftmost of the double Cs is tuned down to A instead of Bb.

C6 gives you both A minor (and A minor7) in addition to C major and CMaj6 chords, and two new ways to play both A and Bb (with additional scale patterns and whole-tone trills), and for harmonic intervals splits adds more more perfect 4ths and 5ths (E/A, F/Bb) and minor 7ths A/G. Bb/Ab).

What both Bebop and C6 force you to give up is easy, next-hole access between C and G. May seem like a small thing, but for everything you gain with an alternate note layout, you give up something else.
===========
Winslow

Harmonica lessons with one of the world's foremost experts
Check out my blog and other goodies at winslowyerxa.com
Harmonica For Dummies, Second Edition with tons of new stuff
Gnarly
2388 posts
Dec 20, 2017
3:54 PM
@Winslow You are right, and I notice it most in the key of A, where the A and C# are not on adjacent holes. The G and C being separated doesn't bother me, for some reason. I haven't really given C6 tuning much of a chance--I did like the slide version of Major Cross, but same deal, not practicing.

@Appalachia Yes, I am still sold on bebop, and tune all my personal chromatics to that. However, I am exposed to standard tuning a lot, as I work as a harp tech, and can't just change other people's tuning because I prefer bebop. Bill Barrett is the only pro I know of that uses it, and that is enough proof for me--he total rocks.

@MP No apology necessary.

@BlueMoon I don't know if Japan has changed their tuning--I do know that I just bought a new Manji in G and after trying it, didn't do anything to it because it satisfied me. Of course, my standard line is, "You can always improve a harmonica", but it seemed fine--I didn't check it on a tuner tho. I bet it would sound even better if I tuned it to just.
I also noticed that although 4 and 6 overblew fairly easily, 5 did not. Just the luck of the draw--or, in this case, blow . . . didn't flat sand it either, I didn't even take it apart, as Winslow would have--maybe I will do all that stuff now.

Edit--just checked the tuning, it can stand a little improvement. Although it sounded fine, it will be better with a little massage--we could all stand one, methinks.

Further edit--it turned out really well, it's now just!
Boy I like just.

Last Edited by Gnarly on Dec 20, 2017 8:23 PM
groyster1
3050 posts
Dec 24, 2017
6:26 PM
my star of david marine bands and vintage old standbys are tuned just intonation.....also my custom marine bands are tuned 19ji....thats the sound I prefer
BeePee
43 posts
Dec 25, 2017
8:49 AM
A provocative post, Gnarley. I'll bite :-).

As some have noted, "Richter Tuning" and "Embossing" are misnomers that have become so strongly associated with things they were originally not that, for the sake of convenience and easy communication, we should accept their common usage and not be pedantic about their 'true meanings'. Language is full of such examples.

In that spirit, Gnarley's post was about tuning in the sense of a scale, not temperament. Richter Tuning is the commonly used one for 10-hole diatonics, and Solo Tuning for chromatics. They have become entrenched in the same way as the QWERTY keyboard: not because they are the 'best' tunings, but because they are the ones that the most successful early harmonica manufacturer, Hohner, decided upon as their standard scales.

They are purely arbitrary choices rooted in a certain historical and cultural milieu from over 100 years ago. Yet some seem to think these conventional tunings are almost sacrosanct, in some sense the 'natural' tunings for harmonicas - virtually God-given.

Nonsense! Like every harmonica tuning, they have their strong and weak points. I don't think anyone can claim there is one tuning that is absolutely 'the best'. Even working out the criteria to decide 'the best all-round' would be contentious.

I strongly disagree with Kit Gamble on that. Just writing a book doesn't make him any more of an arbiter than the rest of us so I was surprised at your deference, Gnarley. Or perhaps you were being ironic, for the sake of argument ;-)

To me it's a relative thing: which tuning is 'the best' for you all depends on what kind of music you want to play, and how you want to play it. Musical styles have characteristics that are shared by the singers and lead instruments used in them. They are often in the form of common licks or phrases, which are an important defining part of a style. To sound authentic in a genre, I believe the harmonica should be able to execute phrases in a similar way to how they are done on other instruments in it. Retuning the harmonica to make that possible is one of the great advantages of the instrument we play.

Of course Richter and Solo have history on their side (such as the history of the harmonica is) which, in practical terms, amounts to a large body of recordings made with them by the harmonica greats of the past. When added to the wide availability of Richter/Solo instruction material, that's a very significant advantage - but it doesn't amount to some value judgement about them being 'better' than any other tuning - not at all. If some other tunings had been adopted by Hohner, THEY would be the ones with that weight of history and recordings behind them, and the majority of players would accept them unquestionably instead, like sheep.

Same with the piano keyboard. A simple alternation of white and black keys would be far better for ease of learning and key modulation: just two patterns to learn for all 12 keys. Instead piano/keyboard players are lumbered with having to learn 12 different fingering patterns - how inefficient! But that's how it developed out of the pre-baroque keyboard, and how everyone has played since, so it has come to the point than no one even questions the logic of the piano keyboard anymore. Sad really...

I hope it doesn't get to that stage in the harmonica scene. I don't think it will; there is a small but rising momentum for players to choose to play in alternate tunings. This is helped by the internet, which allows these fringe tunings to be heard more widely.

One great advantage of alternate tunings is that they are incompatible with the cliched phrases that litter the recordings and live work of players who use Solo and Richter. To me it's always refreshing to hear how the harmonica can sound when liberated from those conventional restrictions.

Of course alternate tunings have their own limits, strong and weak points, leading in the long run to their own cliches! But at least they are not as 'mined-out' as Richter/Solo. Every alt tuning is like a fresh mine, pregnant with ideas and possibilities that enrich the overall harmonica soundscape. Vive la Difference!

Last Edited by BeePee on Dec 26, 2017 4:06 AM
Gnarly
2393 posts
Dec 25, 2017
10:06 AM
Well, as you know I am fond of alternate tunings, as is Kit.
So I think what he meant and what I meant to pass along is that the old standard German tuning is the one Many find most useful.
I know I still use that tuning, but not exclusively, of course. Horses for courses!
Thanks for weighing in, and Seasons Greetings!
BeePee
44 posts
Dec 25, 2017
12:20 PM
Well it sounded like "Kit said Richter is the best, 'he know harmonica', so it must be". But thanks for explaining what you meant, Happy Christmas!
Gnarly
2394 posts
Dec 25, 2017
12:51 PM
Pretty sure Kit was talking about the "cliched, mined-out" aspect, sometimes those things are virtues.

Last Edited by Gnarly on Dec 25, 2017 2:15 PM
WinslowYerxa
1498 posts
Dec 25, 2017
1:14 PM
No argument from me on the value of alternate tunings. After all, the harmonica is just a box of metal leaf springs that vibrate in a stream of air. Arrange them in any way you find useful or inspiring. Brendan's point about need to phrase convincingly for the style of music is spot-on.

However, I wonder about Brendan's statement that Hohner standardized diatonic tuning. The middle octave diatonic note layout (also the basis for solo tuning) can bee seen on concertinas from as early as 1830. And I have an American instruction book from 1870 that shows non-Hohner harmonicas (Hohner was just beginning to make inroads in he US market at the time). Some of them are, in fact, Richter brand harmonicas. The note layouts, however, are not identical to what is now referred to as Richter tuning. But they are very close. Draw 2 on a C harp is an F instead of a G, and some of the upper octave notes are arranged differently instead of rigidly following the pattern of C-E-G for blow notes and B-D-F-A for draw notes.

Perhaps Hohner did finalize the form of diatonic note layout now nearly universally used. But I'm wondering what evidence exists for this contention.
===========
Winslow

Harmonica lessons with one of the world's foremost experts
Check out my blog and other goodies at winslowyerxa.com
Harmonica For Dummies, Second Edition with tons of new stuff

Last Edited by WinslowYerxa on Dec 25, 2017 1:16 PM
BeePee
45 posts
Dec 25, 2017
5:51 PM
It's an interesting thread, getting more so... :-)

@Winslow: I said Hohner 'adopted' and 'chose' what we call Richter and Solo tunings as their standard ones, certainly not that they originated or 'finalised' them, in the sense of completing their scales from other slightly different ones that had been around for a while. I honestly don't know how they settled on these precise layouts as their chosen ones for mass production, only that they did.

But I think it's undeniable that their massive commercial success as the dominant harmonica seller around the world did serve to entrench or standardise Richter and Solo. If Hohner, with their unmatched sales expertise, had adopted different layouts, then things could have worked out very differently.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against Solo or Richter tunings in any way! Both layouts are good logical ones, finding different ways to adjust to the fact there are 7 notes in a diatonic scale - which doesn't compute neatly with the divider of 2 reeds in each chamber, blow and draw. 2 into 7 doesn't go.

Solo doubles the tonic every octave to get a regular pattern throughout the instrument, Richter divides the harp into three different scales and reverses the breathing pattern in the upper octave.

Two approaches to the problem, but what they have in common is that they build their home major scale around the BLOW notes. Using the key of C as an example: blow C is the tonic, and the third and fifth of the C scale, E and G, are also blow notes. They make the harmonica into a blow-centric instrument, reflecting the way it was played in the 19th century.

But this is an arbitrary choice, and it could have been different. This blow-centric layout pre-dated the emergence of blues music and blues harmonica, where Richter harps were played in the 'wrong' key so the bendable draw notes became the dominant ones: G/B/D on a C harp.

Think what would have happened if Hohner, realising that their 10-hole harps were increasingly being played in a way they were not intended or designed for, had then optimised the harp for draw-centric playing? Interestingly this could work for replacing Solo on chromatics also, to make them draw-bendable as well.

Here is a tuning I came up with earlier this year, that does just that. It is derived from the middle octave of the diatonic, the building block of Solo tuning, but stands it on its head: the draw notes become blows, and vice versa. Here's the scale, blow note to the left, in 12 holes:

INVERTED SOLO TUNING (Brendan Power)

BC DE FG AC BC DE FG AC BC DE FG AC

In the common diatonic layout (blow reeds on top reedplate) this would be:

B D F A B D F A B D F A
C E G C C E G C C E G C

The concept is simple: just reverse the breath directions of the reeds in Solo tuning - so you would have thought it had been used ages ago. But I only thought of this 'obvious' idea after many decades concocting alternate tunings. I showed it to harmonica tunings collector/guru Pat Missin. He had also not seen this layout before, and added it to his comprehensive collection of published harmonica tunings.

Like any harmonica tuning, elements of it are the same as others (in this case Melody Maker, PowerChromatic etc), but it's not been around in this full-octave form before as far as Pat can tell.

Inverted Solo has the same characteristics as Solo in that all notes of the scale are available in each octave, thete is a foubled tonic note, and the pattern repeats - but the home scale is based on draw notes instead of blow. It even has the adjacent fifth and tonic G/C, which is handy in Solo.

But it has the advantage for contemporary playing that all the main notes of the scale (CEG) are bendable via interactive reed bending a semitone or more. This gives it the practical efficiency of Solo whilst adding a lot of expression. Since this thread started out about the 'best all-round tuning', for those reasons I think Inverted Solo could offer a strong case.

It could be given a Paddy-Richter style bottom octave for low-end chording on the 10-hole harp, thus:

FG AC DE FG AC BC DE FG AC BC

To digress slightly, another good tuning I use sometimes is Paddy Richter Repeated:

FG AC DE FG AC DE FG AC DE FG

I can understand that Hohner chose to stick with the conventional blow-centric layout for both their chromatics and diatonics for historical and commercial reasons - but imagine if they had taken a different path? It's interesting to speculate.

Last Edited by BeePee on Dec 26, 2017 4:21 AM
BeePee
47 posts
Dec 26, 2017
4:52 AM
A couple of other useful tunings were mentioned earlier: Bebop and C Sixth. Derived from Solo, they replace the initial doubled C note with either a Bb or A respectively:

BEBOP
CD. EF. GA. BbB. repeated

C SIXTH
CD. EF. GA. AB. repeated

Notable exponents of these tunings are Bill Barrett (Bebop) and Will Galison (C Sixth). Its no coincidence that they have quite distinctive styles, in no small part derived from their choice of an alternative to Solo tuning for their chromatics.

Will also half-valves his chroms for part of their range to utilise the extra interactive reed bending possibilities on the B draw note.

These scales could also be combined with the 10 hole Richter bottom octave for low end chording plus a consistent pattern for high end playing that avoids the breath-pattern reversal of standard Richter.

RICHTER-BEBOP
CD. EG. GB. CD. EF. GA. BbB. CD. EF. GA

RICHTER-C SIXTH
CD. EG. GB. CD. EF. GA. AB. CD. EF. GA

Most experienced harp players would find these tunings very easy to adapt to, and beginners would find them easier to learn than pure Richter since there is a consistent breath pattern. They could make good candidates for 'best all round' too. My own PowerDraw tuning is the same as Richter-C Sixth except in the top two holes, where it adds note range and more bendability:

POWERDRAW
CD. EG. GB. CD. EF. GA. AB. CD. EG. AC

Another option is to have more than one tuning in the same harmonica, to get the best from them both. That's possible to do by retuning slide harmonicas so that the slide-in scale is the same key but a different note layout. You can easily have your two favourite 'all-round best tunings' in the one harp. That would bend the rules but be hard to beat in terms of pure expression and efficiency :-)

Last Edited by BeePee on Dec 26, 2017 4:53 AM
IaNerd
8 posts
Dec 26, 2017
9:22 AM
As I see it, the history of the harmonica is showing a pattern of "punctuated equilibrium." In biology, this means "that evolutionary development is marked by isolated episodes of rapid speciation between long periods of little or no change."

Richter and solo tuning reigned for over a century. Right now a variety of forces--most notably global communication and trade via the internet--encourage innovation. I would guess that, in hindsight, our current days will be seen as approximately the middle of a thirty-year period of explosive experimentation.

A typical pattern would be that the number of tunings in general use will grow for, say, ten more years, and then decline somewhat as those new ideas AND THE OLDER ONES duke it out for popularity. The "new normal" number of tunings in general use will be larger than we saw in 2000, but smaller than what we will see five years from now.

Last Edited by IaNerd on Dec 26, 2017 11:35 AM
IaNerd
9 posts
Dec 26, 2017
11:32 AM
Here are my criteria (for playing most Western music):

1. In a 10-holer, AT LEAST two octaves of—and no notes other than—one major diatonic scale (all in the simple blows and draws).
2. The blow of a channel is always lower than its draw.
3. AT LEAST the I, IV, V and vi chords of the major diatonic scale.
4. All seven tones of the major diatonic scale playable as octave splits.
5. At least the b2 and b8 notes playable with simple (not partial) semitone draw-bends. (For example, in C major this would be C#/Db and F#/Gb.) This is because these two are the two most-used accidentals in Western music.
6. AT MOST two breath patterns for full major diatonic play across all channels.
7. ALL OF THE ABOVE playable without sliders, valves, overblows, underdogs, magnets, extra reeds and other forms of sorcery.
IaNerd
10 posts
Dec 26, 2017
12:24 PM
Richard B.Goldschmidt was a German-born American geneticist. He advanced a model whereby evolutionary change is occasionally supercharged by the the rare and random appearance of “macromutations”. In American football terms, this would be like nature “throwing a Hail Mary.”

According to the model, most of these "Hopeful Monsters” fail, but the few that DO survive and reproduce can cause large and lasting changes to their lineage.

I would encourage players to be kind to--or at least tolerant of--the harmonica's Hopeful Monsters. Give them a chance to grow. There will always be time to kill them off AFTER they have had a chance to prove themselves.
BeePee
48 posts
Dec 27, 2017
12:37 AM
Hmmm... Some suggested criteria for answering Gary's thought provoking question in the heading of this thread.

I've assumed some of them in my value judgements about tunings over the years, but never seen a list of criteria for what makes a good tuning written down like this before - well done Pat!

Your list moves the topic on in a positive way because it gives a new basis for discussion. If there can be wide agreement about the points, it will make it easy to rank harmonica tunings from bad to OK to excellent.

But there's that 'if', and a caveat. Even if a tuning seems logically poor under agreed criteria it will still be capable of producing good music if players devote themselves to it. It's not an absolute judgement, but still useful to think about the criteria. Here are my thoughts on your list:

HARMONICA TUNING CRITERIA for WESTERN MUSIC

1. In a 10-holer, AT LEAST two octaves of—and no notes other than—one major diatonic scale (all in the simple blows and draws).

A qualified yes. You might choose to make a harp that is optimised for a different scale, like Harmonic Minor, but for general play that's a pretty fair criterion.

2. The blow of a channel is always lower than its draw.

This is a principle I've always adhered to in my personal tunings. However there are excellent tunings like Solo which deviate from this rule in one hole, and Circular is another good one that breaks it entirely! I'd say call it an aspiration rather than a criterion.

3. AT LEAST the I, IV, V and vi chords of the major diatonic scale.

That would be nice, but tough to achieve in the sense of three-note chords for the I, IV & V chords. In terms of tunings that repeat in all octaves I can't think of one off-hand that does it. Country Tuning has them all, but at the expense of changing the scale in different octaves and missing notes out. I think this criterion is impossible to achieve in tunings with regular breath pattern that repeat themselves in every octave. I suggest lowering the bar from chords to double stops.

4. All seven tones of the major diatonic scale playable as octave splits.

This means that the scale needs to repeat in every octave. Is that now also a criterion? You don't mention it. Or you need more than two octave range, so it's partially possible but not all through the harp. A tricky one: needs caveats as above.

5. At least the b2 and b8 notes playable with simple (not partial) semitone draw-bends. (For example, in C major this would be C#/Db and F#/Gb.) This is because these two are the two most-used accidentals in Western music.

??? I disagree on this. Surely the b7 and b3 are far more often used, and important to have available as bends? And F# is the b5, not 'b8' (that's a 7, B). However I would argue that a good tuning should have as many accidentals as possible available through bends. Also you should drop the semitone criterion, too restrictive.

6. AT MOST two breath patterns for full major diatonic play across all channels.

Not sure what you mean, please clarify.

7. ALL OF THE ABOVE playable without sliders, valves, overblows, underdogs, magnets, extra reeds and other forms of sorcery.

Hmmm... In a diatonic harmonica tuned to a major scale, accidentals will always need some kind of embouchure-controlled alteration - whether bends, overbends or whatever. I think drop this criterion altogether.

Interested to hear others' thoughts on this concept of a bunch of criteria for what constitutes a good harmonica tuning - Winslow, Gary, anyone?

Last Edited by BeePee on Dec 27, 2017 12:57 AM
WinslowYerxa
1500 posts
Dec 27, 2017
8:51 AM
I think that criteria will vary with purpose. And, as Brendan points out, some of the criteria proposed by IaNerd conflict with one another.

For instance, with a spiral tuned harmonica you can get all seven triads of a diatonic scale, and a complete scale over its entire range, but to do so must sacrifice octave splits and accept that the breathing pattern inverts in each successive octave.

Cham-Ber Huang's Chordomonica II offered six different chords, octave splits, and consistent octave-to-octave note layout, but had *two* slides and, of course, valves to stem the leakiness that's a byproduct of slide harmonicas.

As I often say on this topic, you get something, you give up something else. Which is fine, if the resulting configuration has something desirable to offer.

Also, eschewing valves, sliders, auxiliary reeds, etc. is far too restrictive. and smacks of some sort of reductionistic purism. One of the glories of the harmonica is that the simple box-o'-reeds concept is so malleable and extensible, even by the amateur tinkerer.

===========
Winslow

Harmonica lessons with one of the world's foremost experts
Check out my blog and other goodies at winslowyerxa.com
Harmonica For Dummies, Second Edition with tons of new stuff

Last Edited by WinslowYerxa on Dec 27, 2017 8:52 AM
nowmon
153 posts
Dec 27, 2017
9:38 AM
After all the discussions over and under on this little 10 hole harp by mostly European music ideals.I still love the originators,who were singing the music,honking that harp and could care less about all the answers in the books.....Just grab a harp and blow `cause it`s your language.....The BLUES...

Last Edited by nowmon on Dec 27, 2017 9:41 AM
IaNerd
11 posts
Dec 27, 2017
10:27 AM
I apologize for not being terribly clear in my "criteria" post; my music theory is still a bit wobbly. To show you my (current!) pick for "best general-purpose" tuning, I refer you to this: http://brendan-power.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=9&t=88 I hope to read all of your other ideas on this topic.
BeePee
49 posts
Dec 27, 2017
8:26 PM
Just checked out your link, Pat. I think the reason you like the tuning is that it's already out there and proven to be good.

From hole 3 upwards, this tuning is pure PowerChromatic. That's a tuning I devised in 1980 and have used ever since, including many recorded examples. The only deviation is in holes 1/2. Calling it a whole new tuning on that basis is a bit misleading.

I'm sure you weren't aware. That's the thing with good stuff: it often gets unknowingly reinvented :-)

Winslow: thanks for the typically wise and knowledgeable comments. It's true when you say "...you get something, you give up something else". But I still think the concept of judging tunings according to some agreed criteria based on how useful they are "all-round" - for a wide range of styles, I think that means - is interesting and helpful.

Especially for beginners. If you could have a level playing field in terms of tuning availability and a dispassionate assessment of the merits of say 10 worthy tunings to choose from, I think it would give a beginner a far better basis on which to judge what tuning was right for them before they devote years and years of their life to mastering one.

Of course its not like that in the real world: the odds are hugely stacked in favour of Richter/Solo, by dint of wide availability of harps and historical momentum. That's not likely to change for a long time, if at all - we'll see. But Seydel's Configurator and the dissemination of knowledge of how to retune harps on YouTube are making it easier to opt for alternatives.

As for "reductionistic purism": you know me Winslow, I'm all for the bells and whistles! However they work to their best if they're added to a good substructure. I still think getting the basic diatonic tuning sorted according to some solid criteria is important before adding extras.

One criterion I've always valued is the ability to bend every draw note in a harmonica tuning (assuming the draw is always higher than the blow, as I prefer it to be and is the norm). As soon as I see a semitone interval in a tuning I think "There's a wasted opportunity for a bend".

Saying that, I use a version of Solo tuning (Paddy Solo) for trad Irish music (two semitone intervals in the scale), and my Inverted Solo tuning above has one semitone interval. But my preferred all-round tunings for improvisation, PowerChromatic & PowerBender, have universal draw-reed bending.

Which takes me back to the "bells and whistles" you alluded to, in the form of adding extra reeds: x-reeds. In x-reed harps, esp. the quad-reed type as in the XB-40, ALL notes can be bent as much as you want. That means semitone intervals in a harmonica tuning are no longer a barrier to bending. Thus my criterion of creating tunings where every draw reed bends as a result of the scale layout becomes redundant.

On an x-reed harp, Solo, Richter and even David Fairweather's semitone-laden Four-Key tuning become universally bendable on blows and draws. That throws many of the criteria discussed above out the window!

But.. X-reed harps are a long way from mass acceptance. There is not even a commercially available quad-reed version around anymore. (I aim to change that soon in a modest way with my modular UniBender, in which different diatonic harp units can be swapped in and out to create different keys, but even so it will probably only appeal to a small number of players).

In the real world of the vast majority of harp players who use basic diatonics, rules about what notes can bend still apply. So therefore some criteria for what makes a good tuning are still useful to consider and discuss, I think.

Gary: I'm sorry if my criticism of you for accepting Kit Gamble's judgement that Richter is the best all-round tuning caused upset or annoyance. You started a great thread here, and I'd hate to think my comments shut you up - I didn't mean to do that, my friend.

I know that you have probably made and tried more alt-tuned harmonicas than just about anyone on the planet! It would be good to hear your thoughts on the merits or otherwise of some of them, if you feel so inclined :-)

But, as indicated earlier by a few contributors, I get the feeling that for the majority of MBH readers this discussion is just one big yawn. They have long ago made their choice (ill-informed or otherwise) for Richter, and contemplation of anything else is an irrelevant waste of time.

Last Edited by BeePee on Dec 27, 2017 8:57 PM
robbert
443 posts
Dec 27, 2017
9:52 PM
Well, I certainly find it all quite fascinating, but have yet to put effort into alt tunings, as I’m heavily invested ( time-wise & $ wise)in Richter/solo. But I’m thinking more about it all the time due to these great discussions!
Gnarly
2395 posts
Dec 28, 2017
1:29 AM
Mr. Power,
We're good.
Just got back from 5 days in subfreezing Pocatello Idaho, wish I had tomorrow off but it's back at Suzuki.
Glad I started a good thread!
Crawforde
155 posts
Dec 28, 2017
5:38 AM
It is a good thread, and thanks to the players/ techs that make the exploration of new tunings possible.
I’m not much of a player, but I like my Harmonicas and experimenting with different tunings.
For my day job I figure out new ways to do stuff.
What I do has never been done before so I can’t search the literature for answers.
I approached Harmonica the same way.
Wanted to learn a tune, but the notes weren’t there...
I’m still a beginner and still experimenting but right now I play a Fourkey, a C6, a Paddy Richter, and a Bebop.
Thanks to Gnarley and Brendan for my first Bebop and Paddy Richter harps!
Right now my Fourkey is favorite. But that often depends on the tune in my head or my mood. I probably should focus until I can play, but I’m having fun experimenting.
Experimenting with alternative tuning is also a good way to learn a little music theory.
Mostly I just enjoy it.
Gnarly
2396 posts
Dec 28, 2017
8:09 AM
Fourkey is great for melody, since it has 10 out of 12 chromatic notes, but only 3 of the 5 holes bend, and the chords (as such, they are pentatonic scales) aren't very useable, certainly not the I IV V Ianerd is pining for.
I have been using PentaBender a bit, same concept, but more key centric--instead of F/E, it's F/G, so you have lots of enharmonics, half step bends on every hole, and the chords are better (closer to the I IV V, blow is IV, draw is V--but no real I chord.
And it's worth pointing out (before Bren beats me to it) that PentaBender
F G A C D F G A C D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
G A B D E G A B D E

owes a bit to Power Chromatic (edited for accuracy):
F A C D F A C D F A
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
G B D E G B D E G B

These are just the same except that PentaBender adds a note (and allows the b6, for a completely chromatic layout).

Last Edited by Gnarly on Dec 28, 2017 2:18 PM
Gnarly
2397 posts
Dec 28, 2017
8:29 AM
F G A C D F G A C D
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
G A B D E G A B D E

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

Last Edited by Gnarly on Dec 28, 2017 8:31 AM
BeePee
50 posts
Dec 28, 2017
1:26 PM
Thanks for your thoughts Gary, but no need to acknowledge PowerChromatic as it's quite different to PentaBender. Your diagram should have been:

PowerChromatic
D F A C D F A C D F
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
E G B D E G B D E G

It repeats every 4 holes, not 5, for closer octaves and a greater range then PentaBender.

What's it like in practice playing with 5 holes per octave - I would have thought it a bit cumbersome, but maybe the benefits outweigh the greater stretch and reduced range?
IaNerd
12 posts
Dec 28, 2017
1:40 PM
I recommend reading Part 2 of this article: http://www.hooktheory.com/blog/i-analyzed-the-chords-of-1300-popular-songs-for-patterns-this-is-what-i-found/
IaNerd
13 posts
Dec 28, 2017
1:48 PM
That graph shows these chords, in descending order of use: V, IV, I, vi, ii and iii.
IaNerd
14 posts
Dec 28, 2017
2:11 PM
By using studies based on large data sets (like the one in the link above), I once deduced that F# is, relatively speaking, the most useful accidental note in Western music, followed by C#. G# is next, and in last place are D# and A#. I can't find my figures for that, so don't bet the farm on it. The more important point is that having ALL accidentals would be nice, but if not, some are probably more generally useful than others. This is an answerable question. If one wishes to create or select a great general-purpose harp, then the answer is worth pursuing.
Gnarly
2399 posts
Dec 28, 2017
2:19 PM
I edited my post for accuracy--although I dislike having a different opinion than BP, the chart now reflects the similarity between an inversion of PC and PB.

And here is a video where I talk about it.

Last Edited by Gnarly on Dec 28, 2017 2:22 PM
IaNerd
15 posts
Dec 28, 2017
2:30 PM
Adapted from "O Brother, Where Art Thou?": Dees [tunings] is miscegenated!
IaNerd
16 posts
Dec 28, 2017
2:41 PM
I get what Gary is saying, I think, about the similarity. Both tunings repeat the supertonic--the D. But PentaBender further repeats the G and the A. This is to force ONLY the DEGBA notes into the draw row, so that with semitone bends they comprise the "black keys" notes.
BeePee
51 posts
Dec 29, 2017
12:39 AM
Thanks for the video of PentaBender Gary. The full chromaticism with bends is a good quality. It might suit some, but for me the 5 hole per octave and reduced range are drawbacks. As Winslow says, you gain something, you lose something.

You can get full chromaticism with bends in just 3 holes per octave on the Augmented tuning, but you need to be a very accurate bender to select between 1 or 2 semitone bends. Eric Chafer managed it really well, but I never heard anyone else follow his lead.

Diminished gives full chromaticism with bends in 4 holes per octave, with just semitone bends. There are a few players using it but I haven't heard much from them that makes one go 'Wow!' as Eric did. Would love to hear something impressive in Dimi tuning if there is some. Theoretically it's a very good layout, but harder to play simple major and pentatonic scales than the more popular tunings, and no major chords.

That's where the bells and whistles, like x-reeds, slides etc come in. They allow you to use tunings that have more/all major scale notes built in but get the extra notes easily. Half-valved chrom in a fully bendable tuning like Diminished, Wholetone or PowerChromatic makes for a very expressive harmonica with full chromaticism. But the harps are not widely available and need to be really airtight to sound as good as diatonics - not an easy option for most. Same with x-reed harps.

Todd Parrot put out a request here on MBH a few months ago for a Richter harp that works like a standard one with overblows but gives you extra stuff, like valved bends, extra bends etc. For many that would be a harp they could relate to: works the same, sounds the same, no new tuning but extra goodies.

There have been a few harps in that category: Winslow's Discrete Comb, the Suzuki Overdrive, Jim Antaki's Turboslide - to name a few. They all have followers but none went mainstream, for various reasons.

I took it as an interesting challenge and have come up with three new types of un-valved Richter harp that do extra things. They draw on some of these earlier ideas but try to overcome the issues that stopped them becoming popular. They do involve extra bells and whistles, but aim to keep the harp sounding normal when played straight. Still testing; will pop the best of them out soon.

I think this approach can be more appealing for a majority of players who are wedded to Richter tuning in the small 10-hole format. Alt tunings might be superior in many ways, but they require plenty of practice and dedication to un-learn old habits and learn new ones. I've made the transition from one primary tuning to another several times in my career, but it's quite a mission and commitment - not least in retuning lots of harps!

Most people emphatically do NOT want to do that - they're happy with what they have and don't want to learn new tunings, no matter how attractive on a logical level. But if they could keep their beloved Richter harp with existing bends/overbends plus get some extra without too much hard work, I think they'd be open to it.

Last Edited by BeePee on Dec 29, 2017 12:40 AM
robbert
444 posts
Dec 29, 2017
6:33 AM
Yes, Brendan, that sounds about right. The harmonica, both diatonic and chromatic, should be advanced in what ever ways possible, but to be feasible for those who are habituated to the standard layouts and who have ongoing gigs, an advancement would be most attractive built on familiarity with that old layout. How to think out of the box without totally leaving the box! Other than that, harmonica innovators may have to start programs for kids to get them started on various alt designs from the beginning, so they are habituated to multiple approaches ..?Anyway, this is probably stretching the topic a little...
Andrew
1765 posts
Dec 29, 2017
6:47 AM
It's a tin sandwich. How can compromise not be the operative word? I agree with the OP.
A tin sandwich invented to play oompah music and you want to play "most Western music" on it? Learn the piano.
----------
Andrew.
-----------------------------------------

Last Edited by Andrew on Dec 29, 2017 6:49 AM
IaNerd
17 posts
Dec 29, 2017
7:39 AM
Robbert, I think your post did stretch the topic--in an important way. You suggest: "Other than that, harmonica innovators may have to start programs for kids to get them started on various alt designs from the beginning ...." I find that very exciting.

I know of one teacher in the USA who says up front to his prospective students: "There is Richter tuning but also a dozen worthy alternatives", which he describes. He then says, "I'll teach you what you want to learn".
IaNerd
18 posts
Dec 29, 2017
10:35 AM
About four posts up, robbert says that alt tunings "should be feasible for those who are habituated to the standard layouts.". While I respectfully do not agree with that, I salute Brendan's development of tunings which give traditionalists an easy avenue into new directions. I attempted to show those gentle, incremental changes here: http://brendan-power.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=7&t=169

Last Edited by IaNerd on Dec 29, 2017 10:39 AM
Flbl
65 posts
Dec 29, 2017
12:32 PM
IaNerd, something to remember for a lot of people who started young there are years of muscle memory to overcome as well, it's a big difference to pick up a harp and just start playing, and then go to one where you have to think, ok wheres the notes? Thats going to discurage a lot of people unless they have a real interest in alt tunings, for me it's fun to play around, but I also have limited time for it and truth be told is just easier to fall back on what you already know. By contrast if all this had been around when i first started theres no telling which tunings I might prefer, I must agree with you if someone young were introduced to tuning choices we have today, from the start, instead of just another key of C Richter, the possibles would be interesting.
It would also be interesting to see which tuning would be most used then.
IaNerd
19 posts
Dec 29, 2017
1:07 PM
To Flbl: Fair statements, stated fairly. Thank you.


Post a Message



(8192 Characters Left)


Modern Blues Harmonica supports

§The Jazz Foundation of America

and

§The Innocence Project

 

 

 

ADAM GUSSOW is an official endorser for HOHNER HARMONICAS