I was away from my computer for a while, so I thought I'd segregate my responses to the following posts in a separate thread.
"I wonder how many of the original blues harp players ever cared about theory and western harmony.it seems to me they were learning a language and singing it."
Who cares, except perhaps an ethnomusicolgist? This sort of analysis sort of seems to be in the same category as observing that if the good Lord wanted us to fly, he would have given us wings.
"John, can you honestly not see how offensive and provocative it is to characterize the playing of so many harmonicists as "choo-choo" noises?"
Well, I wonder if Galileo understood how provocative and offensive it was when he suggested that the sun didn't revolve around the earth. Truly independent critical thinking and analytic dialogue challenges fundamental assumptions instead of blindly accepting them. If something is thought PROVOKING it provokes thought and what can be more thought provoking than challenging people to reassess/rethink/reexamine their assumptions? After all, MBH is supposed to be a FORUM, not a circle jerk mutual admiration society.
Personally, I am constantly annoyed by harmonica players (not to mention instructors) who confuse sound effects with music since it causes so many real musicians to view harmonica players in general as, well, harmonica players instead of as musicians. So if my comments are provocative, well, they are intended to be--which I don't consider a bad thing.
I think it was grossly inappropriate to have locked Frank's NETWORKing thread,. 12gagedan, a serious harmonica player and student of the instrument (whose orientation, btw, appears to be radically different from my own) had just posted a perceptive comment that was, frankly, one of the few posts disagreeing with me that had actual substantive content. But instead of allowing a substantive debate to continue with someone on board who appeared capable of rational analysis the thread was locked.
We can all be thankful that censorship is alive and well on MBH. Personally, I'm just thankful that heretics are no longer burned at the stake.
Last Edited by on Feb 17, 2012 11:28 AM
What i had in mind as "music" is sounds created by the volition of the player instead of sounds made based on patterns that are most easily implemented on the instrument. In other words playing that is not necessarily defined by what the player can most easily make the instrument do.
but, of course the distinctions I have articulated are not necessarily mutually exclusive and obviously include a subjective value judgement on my part.
Last Edited by on Feb 17, 2012 12:09 PM
You're doing exactly the same thing as the "theory is a waste of time" guys do.
It's one thing to say, "this particular area isn't something I wish to pursue". We all have limited time and energy and can't learn everything. But to say "I'm not interested in this, therefore, it is useless" is arrogant in the extreme.
All instruments have extra-musical sounds available and achieving those sounds has always been part of blues, jazz and rock and roll, whether it was Bubber Miley's wah-wah trumpet or Jimi Hendrix's whammy bar dive bombs. Coltrane was incredibly studious about modes, scales and altered harmonies, but he could also make his tenor cry and scream.
Certainly it is ALL part of playing. I absolutely agree with that. My disagreement is with those who advocate that it is THE foundation of fundamentally effective harmonica technique.
To my thinking, that sort of nonsense proselytizes limitations as a goal to aspire to. That's what i find ineffective and personally annoying. There was actually a time when being ignorant and inexperienced enough to actually believe that substantially impaired my progress on the instrument.
So yeah, to each his own. But it certainly ain't the one true path to competence on the instrument as has been touted.
hvyj - here is a little story that is relevant to this thread.. I once knew a young snot nosed, little brained brat - who constantly would interrupt others with poorly caffeine induced rhetoric and simply make a jackass outta him self every chance he got, habitually committing the sin of heresy...I always wonder what became of that BOY - he's probably dead - oh well...Anyway great thread brother
OK, I know this thread isn't strictly about the "Choo, Choo" thing, but...
I don't think anyone has said trains and fox-chases are THE foundation. I do think it's beyond doubt though that it is A foundation though. It does depend somewhat on what you want to build on top of it.
Whether you end up playing pre-war blues or post-modern jazz, breath control is A core skill. How you choose to develop it is up to you.
IMHO blues harmonica has been historically more akin to oral folk tradition, than it has with music in the way that the skills are passed down from master to student.
You can't see what the player is doing Harmonica styles do not translate themselves well to classical notation Most harp tab systems - as Adam and Filisko point out - are limited by having no rhythmic component.
On the other hand "Make like a train" is quite a simple way of a master communicating to a learner what is required of them to develop their playing skill.
Can you suggest a better way to develop the skill of rapid breath control at a level appropriate for a beginner (i.e. pre-scales)?
I don't for one minute agree with what HvyJ is saying, but I would like to able to continue this discussion without the thread getting locked because of some stupid vendetta.
"IMHO blues harmonica has been historically more akin to oral folk tradition, than it has with music in the way that the skills are passed down from master to student. "
Historically true. But things have evolved and it no longer has to be that way. Diatonic harp CAN withstand conventional musical analysis. It's not ordinarily taught that way because, in my experience, so many harp players and aspiring harp players are so aggressively resistant to learning any conventional music.
"Can you suggest a better way to develop the skill of rapid breath control at a level appropriate for a beginner (i.e. pre-scales)?" Maybe. I'd have to give it some thought. Choo choo train rhythms ARE a valid EXERCISE. I just don't think they are a very sophisticated playing technique. Playing that way other than for exercise drastically limits what the other instruments in the band can be playing.
Keep in mind I'm strictly an ensemble player. Solo players and OMB players don't have to worry about whether what they play restricts the other instrumentalists.
Critical thinking also involves avoiding fallacies such as weak analogy (equating the impact of Galileo's observations with the impact of your persistant use of 'choo-choo'), circular argument ('if something is thought-provoking it provokes thought and what could be more thought-provoking than challenging people to reassess etc' - so because 'choo-choo' annoys people it must be challenging, and because it's challenging it must be thought-provoking, and we can tell it's thought-provoking because it annoyed people, and so on. Seems a cheap way of pretending mud-slinging is some sort of rational analysis), and then there's the repetition of 'substantive' - clearly a pet word - and who gets to decide what's substantive and what isn't? You do! Well I don't consider your characterisation of pre-war harp as 'choo-choo' any kind of substantive challenge to whatever grubby, dim-witted assumptions I'm supposed to have about the harp (seriously, how am I supposed to react? Am I supposed to emerge into the daylight, rubbing the crust from my eyes as if I've just had it revealed to me in a dream that the harp is a musical instrument and not a fart-machine as I'd previously supposed?) I think you have it in your head that someone somewhere is suggesting that train imitations alone - alone - will lead to competence. I think even a cursory search for harp instruction will make it obvious that there are multiple styles and possibilities. I generally gain from your posts, but you seem wide of the mark on this one, seeing some sort of rift where there isn't one. As for the bickering, please ignore it - it'll just end in another locked thread and the topic raises questions worth discussing: does playing within the blues idiom and focussing on the traditional blues language inevitably limit a player? What counts as sophisticated in the blues? Should the blues aspire to be sophisticated?
jodanchudan: "Am I supposed to emerge into the daylight, rubbing the crust from my eyes as if I've just had it revealed to me in a dream that the harp is a musical instrument and not a fart-machine as I'd previously supposed?"
Dude, LOL is a far overused acronym in the blogosphere but that did have me laughing...out...loud.
add stand-up to your repertoire, now allow me to clean the beer from my keyboard
Last Edited by on Feb 17, 2012 1:33 PM
Well said, jodan. I haven't locked the threads where this battle of...well, nothing, really-has spilled from thread to thread. Why? Because a.it's somewhat funny and b.I am amazed that two grown men can't resist a silly fight, instead of ignoring the antagonizing posts of each other. Geez. My 7 and 8 year olds aren't this ridiculous. ---------- Todd L. Greene
"the topic raises questions worth discussing: does playing within the blues idiom and focussing on the traditional blues language inevitably limit a player?" NO, if that's not the only thing they do. "What counts as sophisticated in the blues?" GOOD QUESTION. "Should the blues aspire to be sophisticated?" IT DEPENDS ON WHAT STYLE YOU WANT TO PLAY. Robben Ford and Mark Ford are sophisticated blues players, IMHO. I think blues should aspire to be sophisticated. Why not? Times change. The blues ain't dead, so why should they be embalmed?
And, btw, Icomparing my ruminations to those of Galileo was, admittedly, a less than perfect analogy.
Okay then, HvyJ, for the record, the thread wasn't locked for your comments. I was the one who did it. I was on the way out the door and going to be away from the computer and it seemed to be headed off the cliff.
Frank, for the record, it was locked for your comments. I should have taken a moment longer to explain that. Since you don't seem to be interested in this topic except to violate the forum creed I am going to ask nicely that you go play in another thread. As for your comments, well, you have now officially been warned.
It's clear you don't have a clue as to WTF I've been trying to say. You might as well lock the thread and post vids of some famous blues player everyone can heap praise upon. It will save you the effort of trying to think.
nac, I've been subtly warning him all day, even if in generalizations. I feel like Kindergarten Cop. My shift is over, enjoy the night. Oh, by the way, Krispy Kreme is right down the road... ---------- Todd L. Greene
Whoa, harmonica train rhythms mixed with “gasp” beat –boxing/hip hop and scratching all in one clip. This should be like a hand grenade around some of you guys.
You know, I don't know why I bother posting here. This has ceased to be fun any more. I may be a pompous ass. But I'm not ignorant and I'm tired of wasting my time putting up with crap from certain people who are.
Don't engage in any critical thinking--you may actually come up with a new idea. And that might be an uncomfortable experience.
Todd, one of our four moderators, made a small mistake. He apologizes. Even moderators occasionally break the creed--and we thump them soundly when they do.
Name-calling is always a bad idea. Now go and have that Friday afternoon/evening drink, everybody. Sometimes you hold 'em, sometimes you fold 'em. The forum is tired. The majordomo is tired.
hvyj, you contribute quite a lot to the forum with your knowledge, but then you show the colors of an elitist and stoop to condescension. Let folks disagree with you. It's also perfectly fine for you to disagree with them, but the name-calling and nana-nana-boo boos between you and Frank are totally unnecessary.
EDIT: And yes, I do apologize, hvyj, and other forumites-I'm not above the law. I've just done what I accused you and Frank of.
I never have a problem with anyone disagreeing with me. SUBSTANTIVE disagreements are how we learn.
I don't even have a problem being compared to a kindergarten child. My secretary tells me that occasionally anyway, so I'm used to it. But joking back proclaiming an affinity for Krispy Kremes and complaining that I haven't had my nap today makes me a pompous ass? I may well be a pompous ass but for other no doubt more valid reasons. I still don't think you understand what I've been trying to say in this thread. But i am pleased to humbly accept your apology.
I think I'm somewhere between Joe's view and Adam's. I like Joe's relentless focus on paying homage to the past and learning the blues vocabulary - assuming that that you want to play that stuff, of course. I haven't found for a moment that that's easy, by the way. It's extremely difficult to match the greats but it seems to me worthwhile in that it forces me to concentrate on what they're actually playing instead of substituting their licks with my own unintentionally simplified version of what I thought they were playing. So I don't think it's at all limiting. I also like Adam's approach: respect the blues language (he's obviously put in the hours), but be open-minded enough to disrespect it when it feels right (apologies if that's a misrepresentation, Adam!) And I think he's right about Little Walter: he clearly tried to innovate. Then there's a comment I heard from David Barrett, who said that individual style is something that will happen inevitably, and I agree with that too. I've never thought of it as any kind if game plan but my intention at the moment is to copy the stuff I like in order to improve my technique and to stop me playing the stuff I come up with on my own (you know how it is - you end up driving yourself mad playing the same damn autopilot ideas). At the same time, I won't feel duty-bound only to play blues, though that's what I enjoy most. Again, going back to Adam, he clearly learnt the blues language but had it shaped by Satan and Adam and has ended up with his own distinctive sound - there's a degree to which this sound was a deliberate move and a degree to which it's a sum of experiences (possible misrepresentation alert again). That's why I'm wary of dismissing any particular learning methods, especially when, like Filisko's, they're tried and tested. Question them, yes, but don't dismiss them because you don't know where they'll take you. Adam (gotta stop this) probably did the train imitation stuff early on. Dennis Gruenling probably did. Jason has a video on it, so I guess he's been there too. So the sophistication question - I think it's an unforced end result rather than an aspiration, though I'm not saying a player shouldn't have goals.
Picasso said,"if there is something worth stealing, I'll steal it". He stole from every great artist who went before him and became great himself with his own unique view of the world around him.
No one is right and everyone is right....I respect others opinions....although I may not agree with them....that does not make my view right or wrong.....just different. Do we need to continue to pound our chests ?
@hvyj & the moderators: I questioned the basis of the thread when it started; I don't know all the guidelines, but it seemed "unfair" to just post a thread aimed at a series of threads instead of taking the time to respond individually. It's a form of hijacking imo. Not a big deal, but I'm not sure it's something that should be tolerated or encouraged.
I think of it this way... harmonica is just like any other skill. As long as you have more room in your brain for more information it won't hurt you to put it there. I had a friend who was in my first band. At some point early in his learning to play bass he noticed that there were two different types of players out there... the self-taught and the school taught. He also noticed the more 'educated' players seemed less likely to accidentally do something amazing and different. That's what he wanted! He wanted to be the guy who discovered you could make musical noises by accidentally holding the pickups too close to the speaker. He swore off anything that smacked of theory. 5 years later he still didn't know the names of the strings on his bass and our band had moved on without him. There are people who learn without knowing the formal theories behind what they are doing, and sometimes they get lucky and create something unexpected.
But you know what? They still spend hours and hours and hours learning. They are often held out as examples in 'anti-teaching' and hordes and hordes of people who didn't like school hold them up as examples of what they could be, without ever realizing that just because they made it without education didn't mean they didn't bust their butts working at it.
There is bias on both sides. Some people swear you won't get anywhere without theory. Other people swear you don't need a lick of theory. The fact is, different people learn differently. For instance, I've got dyslexia (well, actually, a related learning disability, but it's got a lot of overlap). I was really fortunate to have a mother who happened to be an English teacher who specialized reading disabilities. For a couple years my teachers talked about holding me back a grade, but with a lot of hard work I eventually found workarounds for most of my issues.
When I first took music theory I was terrible at it. The grand staff was a nightmare for me. I couldn't keep track of where what notes were. I basically gave up. Years later I got back into it and I discovered that when I wasn't dealing with the terrible grades for dyslexic mistakes I was actually fairly good at the conceptual part of music theory. Don't ask me to write out sheet music, but the concepts sank in. They are tough concepts. There is a lot more math than most people care for when you deal with the more complicated stuff.
The thing is, like I said, everyone learns differently. Some people have an amazing ear for things. Some people have amazing minds for patterns and see music visually. Some people are lousy at one part or another. The trick is to learn which ways work for you, but always challenge yourself to look at stuff you decided wasn't for you. It was years later, but I finally did get the hang of theory, or at least the less visual parts of it. Sometimes you are going to do things by ear, but sometimes you just run out of ideas and having another way to look at things helps unstick things.
You've got to put the information in your head somehow. Music theory will tell you what note will give you the sound you are looking for. Years of ear training will too. The problem occurs when you have a guitar player asking you what note you want and a keyboard player, and a harp player and a bass player, if you don't know the names for everything you have to sit down and figure out a common language. Every harp player can instinctively play chords because the harp is laid out to play chords. If you don't know that is a chord you can still play it, but you are going to have a hard time explaining what notes the guitar player needs to play.
There are probably exceptions, but I bet every famous harp player who lead a band had at least some working theory to communicate with. The harp is actually a terrible instrument for explaining theory on. It's really hard to look at it and play at the same time.
Oh well, I'm kind of rambling now. The more things you learn to do the more choices you have. I'd get bored if all I did was chugging parts, but I'd also get bored if I never got to play chords.
waaaaiiiiit a minute.... The harmonica is NOT a fart machine?!?!?! Wha????? Ahhh..... Man!
Also, why wasn't there anything so cool on TV when I was a kid as that Choo Choo Soul show?!? Seriously! That show makes me want to go have some kids just so I can have them watch it... So awesome, I can't hardly stand it!
Happy friday everyone!!!!!!!! ---------- == I S A A C ==
hvyj, we crossposted-I didn't call you what I called because of Krispy Kremes...Krispy Kremes are no joking matter. They're serious donuts. ---------- Todd L. Greene
@Nacoran....yes, yes. I was classically trained on trombone (also played some baritone, tuba, trumpet and bugle), and I think in images and patterns, in large part. While I became a good "chart" player and good enough to be awarded a music scholarship, I think the mechanics of my mode of thinking hindered me when trying to improvise on bone. I'm convinced that it put a "hitch" in my execution. Meanwhile, I am now a better harp player than I had hoped to be (still not that good) and I have no problem improvising. I avoid tabs like the plague and have no idea what notes I'm playing "in the moment," although I can quickly figure them out. The patterns are easy for me to grasp and were the way I worked around my "disability".
I think that this what adam is going for... People that agrees to disagree about music. All though this is a BLUES forum every one are allowed to share there stuff wether it´s some irish tune or some euro disco. Don´t make that go away! How ever you like to put it music is in the eye(ear) of the beholder(the most worn out saying in the world) and i think that mr rubin said it well: "I define music as the making of sound and the choosing to not make a sound." Don´t destroy this forum with yet another pissing contest.
Somebody called me a serious player. It's funny, because I'm still really weak on theory, my intonation sucks (as pointed out last spring by a certain fellow whose name rhymes with Mason Viccy) and most, if not all of my playing is based on technique and pattern. It's also based on many hours listening and playing, coupled with a long-standing goal never to try to "be" anyone else. I don't shun theory, I love many so-called " modern players" and a few "clones" too. I find this thread entertaining and, while not enlightening, worthy of consideration. While the thread's primary contributor reads like an Ayn Rand monologue, it can't hurt to consider his challenges. I met Joe Fillisko a few months back, and I was blown away by his command of the instrument, the music he was playing and his command of the stage itself. When questioning hero-worship, it helps to consider that very few actually end up on the pedestal. There must be something to it. One might also consider how difficult the supposedly " easy" elements of music/blues/ performance/ etc. really are. It's funny that hjvy stands so firmly for taking the harmonica seriously, while brushing off really difficult musical stylings as simplistic. I used to think the same way. I thought the train stuff was sloppy and rudimentary. Then I really tried it. The longer you go, the more you see your strong opinions evolve, not because the world changes, but because your ability to understand the world evolves. Shit, I once got flamed on Harp-L for saying Little Walter had shitty tone. Talk about going against hero worship. I was 19, I didn't know what tone was yet. Not to offend the list, but message boards are full of as much hot air as they are useful info. It's up to the individual to weed through, carve his/her own path, and not take oneself so seriously. I'm going back to lurking until the next amplifier thread. . . ---------- 12gagedan's YouTube Channel
I don't know if hvyj was responding to this quote, but I once read that a prominent harp teacher said "Every blues harp player should be able to do a good train imitation", and I thought, "Why?". It reminded me of something that Frank Zappa once said; when asked if he thought every rock guitarist should have a solid foundation in the blues, he said "Not if the music they intend to play has nothing to do with the blues."
I suspect this isn't the first time I've agreed with MrVlong.
'"Personally, I am constantly annoyed by harmonica players (not to mention instructors) who confuse sound effects with music"
Surely that is somewhat dependent on your definition of music? '
Yes, hvyj's insistence on all the modes makes me wonder how much thought he gives to music. I've pooh-poohed modes in the past. Let me attempt to change my focus a little. Over Christmas I read Eric Taylor's AB Guide to Music Theory, where he has a chapter on the "Church modes" (to give them their full title): -
"For the sake of completeness, theorists were also tempted to invent a mode with the scale starting on B: the 'Locrian' mode. This was abandoned, however, since there was never any actual music in this mode!" (Taylor's exclamation mark)
So, in case I seem too aggressive towards hvyj, there are two types of theory: -
The first is that which SUPPORTS practice;
The second is that which doesn't correspond to any practice. (as in, my theory is that the moon is made of cheese. Or, in this case, in theory we could invent a Locrian mode)
Suppose you were a racing cyclist asking someone for a training regime. If they suggested that in theory you could ride backwards on a unicycle from new York to Los Angeles, therefore you should do it, you should sack them.
Three or four of the modes are used in music. If HVYJ insists all but the Locrian are, then he's being self-contradictory in light of his question "Who cares, except perhaps an ethnomusicolgist?"
Practise them if you want, as long as you are aware that in terms of notes and intervals, you are not practising anything that major scales won't exercise you in. For example, you can practise the Dorian on D as much as you like, but it won't do anything for you that practising C major won't do. In fact it's worse - on the piano, best technique would be to finger the modes according to the major scale they are based on. This wouldn't be so important for the white notes, but it would be pretty crucial for the black notes.
But don't practise all of them just because someone says they are there. (in the case of Locrian it isn't even there!) You're just wasting your time.
Now, if you could compose a piece of music in the Locrian mode, that might be constructive.
Shit, I probably chose the wrong thread for this. ---------- Andrew. ----------------------------------------- https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000874537399
Last Edited by on Feb 18, 2012 1:37 AM
@ Andrew: My fascination with modes as they relate to diatonic harmonica is NOT for playing in the respective modes. It's because the patterns of sharps and flats generated by the modes (or 6 of them anyway) are very useful for selecting what position to play in. The modes are diatonic scales. The Richter tuned harmonica is a diatonic instrument. So there are natural relationships present that can be exploited.
This assumes a player is interested in playing multiple positions. If not, then my approach will not be of utility to that player. I don't OB.
The relevance of the modes is NOT to play in them. The relevance is the available notes the interval patterns generate. A whole lot of popular music has melodic patterns that use notes available in a particular mode or another. Whether or not this is intentional is irrelevant. What is relevant and intensely practical is that using the pertinent mode as a reference point, you are able to more easily select a harmonica (position) that will give you more of the notes you need to play the particular tune. And in playing the tune, one does not necessarily just adhere to the mode--the mode just includes a lot of the notes you need among others you may choose to play.
So my interest in modes is NOT from a theory perspective. It's because they are so useful in an intensely practical way.
Lochrian generates some sort of diminished scale which is not all that useful for popular music. The other modes generate useful patterns of sharps and flats within a diatonic scale which i think are very handy and useful for playing a diatonic instrument--especially a Richter tuned diatonic harmonica which has a note layout that corresponds to modal interval patterns.
i don't practice playing modes. But i do know what sharps and flats are available in each mode and i use that information to help me select which harmonica (position) to use for playing different material depending on the sharps and flats needed to play that particular material. I'm not into modes as theory for theory's sake. My interest is purely practical.
on a piano, you have all the notes--a complete 12 tone chromatic scale in every octave. So, yeah, on a piano, modes are just parts of the major scale. On a Richter tuned diatonic harmonic you DON'T have a 12 tone chromatic scale. But depending on what position you are in you have a certain 8 note mode with certain sharps and flats built in. If you know which sharps and flats that mode gives you, it's easier to pick a position that provides the sharps and flats needed for playing a particular tune. For me, that's the practical purpose of understanding modes--not for theory. It makes me able to play all kinds of material on a diatonic harp w/o OBs that i could never play well before i understood this stuff.
So, yeah, theory is as theory does.
The names of the modes, to me, are just a useful shorthand for certain patterns of sharps and flats. if instead of using the term "modes" if i spoke in terms of interval patterns would you find what i was talking about more musically relevant and practical for actual music performance?
For natural minor material, I will most often use 5th position. Why? I mean natural minor is Aeolean mode and 5th position is not the position that corresponds to Aeolean mode. No, it's not, but the mode it does correspond to gives 3 of the important notes i need to play natural minor: 3b, 6b & 7b. The note it does not have (major 2) i can bend to get and the breath pattern in 5th position allows for better blues phrasing than the breath pattern in 4th position which is the position that DOES correspond to Aeoleam mode. So, that's an example of how i use modes as a practical guide to select what harmonica (position) play on a particular tune. I'm NOT into modes just for theory purposes. They help me select which harmonica to PLAY!
Last Edited by on Feb 18, 2012 10:20 AM
Stan, the purpose of discussions is to find out where your thoughts are not quite as clear as you imagined them to be. Then you can refine them where they need refining. During the last 12 months I have learnt more about myself and about why my aversion to modes is partly right and partly wrong, but also I have learnt about why hvyj uses modes so much in his approach to music, so I'm happy with the way these discussions have gone.
(3 attempts at captcha that time!) ---------- Andrew. ----------------------------------------- https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000874537399
Last Edited by on Feb 18, 2012 3:46 AM
'Really, did anyone actually read all these comments, i flicked through a couple."
I didn't read all of them. I read the funny ones, but the others seem to be so full of hot air that its surprising that the Earth isn't pulled out of orbit.
One of the tough things about learning theory is that not all of it is going to apply to what you are trying to accomplish. It can be frustrating to be trying to figure something out that you don't think relates to what you are doing. In music theory that can go on for several steps, and then, using that as a foundation, suddenly there is a eureka moment where that foundation wraps back to something useful that you wouldn't have been able to get to without the foundation. It can be frustrating, but it can also be rewarding.
Andrew, for instance, your comment about Locrian, you're right, it's not useful as a playing mode, but it's part of a system, and the pattern it comes from helps you understand how the keys work. If no one bothered to mention you could play that scale but it sounded terrible people would look at the pattern of flats and sharps and say, 'hey look, one is missing' and try it, and figure out it wasn't very useful. It's sort of like history- if we don't remember our mistakes we are destined to repeat them.
I don't have all my key signatures memorized, but because I know the pattern I can sit and figure them each out. The same goes for the positions, and even at a the most basic level, the order of notes, flats and sharps, that make up a chromatic scale. I hated learning to alphabetize things when I was a kid. We all probably remember those stupid lists you had to put in order. The thing is, we all have such a firm grip on the alphabet that we almost automatically arrange our harmonicas that way in the box (unless we do circle of fifths, which has some real advantages, but isn't as instinctual.) When I'm counting fifths in my head I picture a piano keyboard. I have no real need to no piano, but it helps me play harp. It's easier to remember the patterns than it is to memorize all the variations, at least for me. ---------- Nate Facebook Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
I don't know how fit I am to post about this but that's how it is with the net, isn't it? It seems that there's some kind of conflict with theory and the blues. To me it's a mystery why but it keep surfacing in a lot of threads. On an other hand it seems like this forums title I an oxymoron to some folks: 'modern blues harmonica'. 'blues harmonica' seem ok 'modern harmonica' too, maybe even 'modern blues' but all of that combined rubs quite a few the wrong way.
That said: I have tried some jazz standards and tried to develop my soloing and improvisation. It has me jumping into theory on the deep end. A lot of it goes right over my head I'm afraid. However, one thing that really helps me is my knowledge of modes.
From allaboutjazz.com 'Stella by starlight unlocked' "i.e. F major will provide a useful harmonic “wrap” for Em7b5 but in order to avoid sounding “plodding” perhaps we should build our scale from the stated chord’s root note. This gives us an F major scale played from E to E. If you prefer to think modally this can be thought of as an E Locrian scale. The Locrian scale runs: semitone, tone, tone, semitone, tone, tone, tone."
See locrian can be of use. :) Hvyj- please keep posting about theory and keeping the dialogue alive.
Frank - please keep postin superb playing and keeping the dialogue alive.
I'm a platonic guy myself and learn a lot better from a dialogue instead of a monologue that's why I post even if I don't really know what I'm talking about. 'nuff said ---------- Pistolkatt - Pistolkatts youtube
