Jeez, in the next para the guy's dim perception that it's really C9 and that's why it resolves into F blows his own ship out of the water!
I'm going to assume your smiley emoticon is one of irony. ---------- Andrew. ----------------------------------------- https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000874537399
Last Edited by on Feb 19, 2012 5:22 AM
@andrew - Not really no. My whole post is more about philosophy than music theory to start with. The quote is just to show that modes can be of use when reflecting upon music. The locrian stuff may be totally wrong, as I said a lot of this stuff goes over my head, but if it makes you reflect, try it out and find new ways of express music it has at least one really important point. Personally I have tried to play a F major ascending run but lean a bit on the E. I really need to resolve it to the F though.
That's not the point either. At least 95% of what I play sound bad but playing AND thinking about it improve it more than just playing, in my own opinion. Someone with talent can probably do a lot more.
Don't worry, I was only semi-serious. I suspect that far fewer jazz theorists know what they are talking about than classical theorists, but I certainly don't know what I'm talking about.
I found the allaboutjazz paragraph interesting because Em7b5 is clearly a passing chord which resolves into F, and to assert that a passing chord is modally based is a direct contradiction of the idea that modes are the root scales of a piece of music. I assume what he's talking about is a run - music is riddled with runs without the need to assert that each and every run begins on the first note of its own personal mode.
Or to put it another way, he's saying at that point the piece is diatonic in F, and if you want to run accompanied by Em7b5 (or C9), you can do it on the notes of the F scale. So I think he's blinded and blinding with science.
I'm ready to be corrected, but I'm ready to be corrected by a book such as Jazzology (Rawlins and Bahha), which I'm reading at the moment. No offence to anyone, but I'm not going to let any website correct me! ---------- Andrew. ----------------------------------------- https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000874537399
Last Edited by on Feb 19, 2012 7:18 AM
@ hvyj I repeat myself but I really do appreciate the knowledge you so generously share on this forum. It has seriously accelerated my comprehension of the harmonica as a versatile instrument.
When I was beginning to learn the saxophone, the instruction books made a point of explaining how certain classical musicians have a disdain for the instrument because it is often played "dirty". It's a rare symphony orchestra that includes a sax section. Same goes for the harmonica.
But that doesn't mean classical theory has nothing to offer those who play these "inferior" instruments.
I also recognize that a profound understanding of classical theory was necessary to design the Richter tuned diatonic harmonica, making it so very versatile!
Thanks again, hvyj, for your comments here.
Last Edited by on Feb 19, 2012 7:30 AM
"It's a rare symphony orchestra that includes a sax section. Same goes for the harmonica."
Indeed it is, but when it happens it's something special! Siegel-Schwall Blues Band Meets the SF Symphony Orchestra. The whole recording was re-released on CD a few years ago and is well worth a listen.
"It's a rare symphony orchestra that includes a sax section."
But that's mainly because very few composers ever wrote for the sax. An exception is Prokofiev. Or is it your way of saying it's a rare composer who writes for the sax?
"I also recognize that a profound understanding of classical theory was necessary to design the Richter tuned diatonic harmonica."
No! ---------- Andrew. ----------------------------------------- https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000874537399
Last Edited by on Feb 19, 2012 9:46 AM
The more you play in multiple positions the more you start to appreciate the variety and coherence of the musical relationships inherent in Richter tuning. Whether or not an understanding of classical theory was necessary to come up with the design, it is a very intelligent and well thought out arrangement of notes.
My understanding is that Richter tuning was originally intended for playing German "om-pah" music. Maybe everything else is just an unintended byproduct. I dunno....although it has obvious limitations I think it is a clever design.
"I also recognize that a profound understanding of classical theory was necessary to design the Richter tuned diatonic harmonica, making it so very versatile!"
LOL, you know that I can't help butting in here, don't you?
I bet that if you had to bend each overbend up to get a full chromatic scale, you would still say that it's versatile...
Richter was designed for primitive folk playing. Call it oompah, call it trains. Musically it is the first thing that comes into your mind to try to play on Richter.
@hvyj: I think "fortuitous" is the word you are looking for. ---------- Andrew. ----------------------------------------- https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000874537399
@Andrew: Yes, well put. I would certainly never characterize it as being versatile.
Richter tuning does have a coherent relationship to the diatonic modes, though. Even Lochrian mode, which is the corresponding mode for Sixth Position.
Jim's True Chromatic tuning is a very well thought out system that appears to be more versatile. Spiral tuning is also pretty interesting.
Does Prokofiev write for Alto Sax or a complete sax section? Just curious.
Last Edited by on Feb 19, 2012 10:56 AM
Andrew, I just Googled and there is a PDF article that indicates Prokiev used tenor sax initially in a film score and then in symphonic compositions. Interesting. Thanks.
"But that's mainly because very few composers ever wrote for the sax. An exception is Prokofiev. Or is it your way of saying it's a rare composer who writes for the sax?" Coltrane did--
Maybe nobody's writing for the symphony anymore. "Duck, incoming!"
Re harp, it's quite versatile for what it is.
@jim : my first instrument was the violin (hated it, parents forced me) but as for bending etc. on the violin a person has to bend or unbend every damn note, so the few bends on a harmonica are not really a problem, just the exigencies of the machine.
@hwj "Well, I wonder if Galileo understood how provocative and offensive it was when he suggested that the sun didn't revolve around the earth."
For what it is worth, he did not suggest, he wrote a full book on it and was fully aware that his interpretation of scripture was not literalist. He did not suggest, he simply provided much more evidence to an idea that had already been suggested. The first "suggestion" was Copernicus. Galileo spent a good bit of political capital and put his life at risk for his "suggestion". I know that you said it was a bad comparison, but getting it right is important.
Minor point with regard to this discussion, but facts versus point of view do matter.. and we still have the cultural argument over evolution and global warming in spite of the facts.
the science of how a harmonica works is just that. We cannot argue over the fact that overblows are possible, and always were since the harmonica was discovered, they simply were not discovered till later. we can argue over whether we like the way they sound. just like we cannot argue over the sun rising as a consequence of the Earth's rotation, but can argue over the aesthetic beauty of particular sunrise.
hvyj I think your mistake is messing your taste and feels with other's tastes and feels. E.g. you don't like choo-choo rhythms, this means only that you don't need Filisco lessons (mee too). Everyone looks for what he actually want. First of all when everyone choose a teacher he must choose do he like his music or not. ---------- Excuse my bad English. Click on my photo or my username for my music.
Boris: Yes and no. For example, do you agree with this?:"When playing basic beginning blues, Rule #1 is: Restrict yourself to only playing the lower half of the harmonica, holes 1-5."
You teach, and I assume that, among other things, you teach your beginning students to play blues. Objectively speaking, does this "Rule#1" make sense to you? Why would you teach a beginner to avoid the the tonic note of the scale at it's upper octave (blow 6)?
To me it seems counter productive and objectively stupid (not just a value judgment of style based on my taste and feeling).
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2012 12:58 AM
I think the onus is now on you to explain why the tonic on blow 6 is so important in the context of a beginner playing blues. Simply repeatedly saying it doesn't make sense is insufficient - explain to me why. I can think of reasons to leave it a while that make sense to me, but I shall await your response first.
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2012 1:43 AM
Back to the saxophone, someone suggests "dirty sax" put classical composers off, but I wonder how recent a phenomenon dirty sax is, 1940s? I've been downloading a lot of 1920s and 1930s popular music and don't recall hearing the sax much.
Prokofiev began writing classical music in about 1914. Eric Taylor doesn't say much, just that Adolphe Sax invented the saxophone in about 1840 and it's not commonly used.(I mentioned Eric Taylor before, or was that on a different forum?). So the obvious thing to examine is what was thought about the sax in the 19th century.
I recently read Vincent Cortese's biography of Roy Smeck. That was interesting because Walter had mentioned how theoretical Roy's approach to music was, and that had put Walter off. But Roy didn't learn to read music until he was at least 50 years old. He had been the most prolific endorser ever of instruments and books ("methods"), but one day in about 1950 someone brought him a copy of his guitar manual and asked for clarification of a problem and Roy didn't have a clue what the manual was saying and was so embarrassed that he started learning how to read music. I suspect this started an obsession with him (to be perfect) and this was what Walter picked up on. ---------- Andrew. ----------------------------------------- https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100000874537399
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2012 1:29 AM
@MrVlun: The concept of a scale, octaves, and melody are fundamental to learning any kind of music, including blues, and are therefore of primary importance, IMHO, as such things (along with chords) define the context within which blues music is made.
Holes 1 through 5 are where most of the "sound effects" are made, but, IMHO, you need to have the top note of the scale for a proper basic beginner's understanding of what is going on MUSICALLY. You also need it for many simple melodies such as beginner might learn to play in order to learn how to get around on the instrument and develop a very basic understanding of how the blues scale relates to melody, and to start to learn directional breath control.
What I am referring to as directional breath control is, IMHO, extremely important to a beginner at the most basic, fundamental level in order to avoid falling into using in-out-in-out breath patterns which develops bad habits that can be very difficult to unlearn once the beginner falls into that trap--which many, if not most, beginners tend to do.
Of course one can make plenty of sound effects on the first 5 holes. But I am operating under the assumption that the goal is to teach the beginner how to play blues MUSIC, not simply sound effects.
OK, your turn: What are the good reasons for a beginner to avoid hole 6?
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2012 2:20 AM
hvyj I can't say I agreed or disagreed. Restriction is a very nice starting point. I usually start with pentatonic limited by one octave and after some success we start working on more octaves.
Actually most teachers can teach only things the can do. Perfect teacher can lead student to what student really wants. My own opinion that if student wants to have some skills that Filisco have (and he have some great skills) he have to take a lessons from him, nothing wrong about it. The other problem is that so often people don't listen to their own feels, do they really like it or not, or they just impressed by technical level or their own psychological setting. ---------- Excuse my bad English. Click on my photo or my username for my music.
It's not the top note of the scale - it's the first note of the next octave. The tonic is repeated so that scales have a nice reassuring sense of resolution.
In the context of blues and a beginner, I would be encouraging the player to learn to resolve phrases by returning to the tonic. Given Filisko's emphasis on chordal work and the lower register, it seems appropriate to resolve phrases in that same lower register.
Unless you are going to encourage people to venture into that middle register (which would be the next step, after building on foundation in the lower register) why would you need it?
As for breath patterns - you have the tonic as blow AND draw in the lower register don't you?
Seems to me that you've accepted the stylistic difference between what Joe does and teaches and your preferred approach, but you haven't extrapolated that difference to the actual teaching process.
Maybe because it sounds awful when a beginner plays the high end of the harp? I'd set that as homework for sure.
Facetious answers aside, I think that a train sound has it's place, even if it's something that a player decides not to develop further. Learning any instrument is difficult, especially in the early stages when it's easy to give up. I think that chordal playing not only is good for developing basic rhythms and phrasing, but also is an "early win" for most beginners.
@MrVlun: "As for breath patterns - you have the tonic as blow AND draw in the lower register don't you?
Seems to me that you've accepted the stylistic difference between what Joe does and teaches and your preferred approach, but you haven't extrapolated that difference to the actual teaching process."
Well, to my mind, to be optimally effective, actual TEACHING should not be defined by a particular style of music. I sort of view effective TEACHING as imparting a technical control over the instrument that will equip the student with a foundation to play whatever style. So, no, I don't extrapolate stylistic difference into teaching fundamentals.
"As for breath patterns - you have the tonic as blow AND draw in the lower register don't you?"
Yes, which allows you to play the SAME NOTE as a blow or draw. I think learning the B-D-D-B pattern for the playing 4B 4D 5D 6B is much more important and effective since it gets the rank beginner developing breath directional control skills that are essential for playing ANY style. This, IMHO, is a fundamental foundational skill that is never too early to learn.
Actually, it's probably more effectively taught by having the student learn the do-re-mi scale in first position and deal with the breath pattern shift between D6 and D7 but I'll concede that although that may be effective, you don't have to start there if you are teaching purely blues.
@Boris: "Actually most teachers can teach only things the can do." Probably so. But IMHO to be an effective teacher, certain skill sets must be imparted that are essential to develop competence at what the student is being taught. To my way of thinking, these are the building blocks for everything else, not something the beginner should wait to deal with down the line.
So, since "stupid" is such a pejorative term, I will conclude by saying that limiting the beginner's efforts to holes 1-5 is very far removed from what i consider optimally effective because it omits directional breath control development which I believe is a fundamental basic skill that should be addressed as soon as the player can isolate a single note. Then the player can go on from there having learned that skill and be better equipped to play melodies, blues, choo choo train imitations. or whatever.
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2012 6:09 AM
I'd like to know how much teaching - real, face to face teaching - you've done.
I've spent my career teaching - infants, children, adults, the profoundly disabled and hard to engage teens. I've taught subjects as diverse as beginner's reading to relational databases and yes, I've taught beginners' harmonica.
I've learned that nothing is more motivating for a student than being able to turn the knowledge they've just gained into something they can 'show off' - "Hey guys! look what I just learned..."
There are different learning styles, yes, but from years of teaching experience, I can say that the majority of learners are going to be turned off rapidly unless you quickly show them some hint of achieving what they've set out to learn. (Which may be very different to what you've set out to teach). This is why, when teaching adults in particular, it is important to first establish learning goals and set out a few milestones.
The people I've taught to play wanted to learn to bend before they could isolate single notes. They didn't want to play Three Blind Mice to learn the harp's layout, they wanted to wail on the 4 draw. Sometimes managing the expectations of the student against the needs of the student is a thin and precarious line. Spend too long on stuff they don't immediately see as beneficial and they'll give up, complain or (if they have the choice) look for another teacher.
Remember your favourite line... "It's about the music"? - Exactly right; the music. Teach people to play the music they want to play, not dry scales and soul-less breath patterns. Those are the tools of playing and have their place, but IMHO you should manage their introduction carefully within a context of real and relevant tunes. The student must feel they are learning to perform music.
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2012 9:31 AM
"I've learned that nothing is more motivating for a student than being able to turn the knowledge you've just gained into something you can 'show off' - "Hey guys! look what I just learned..."
"The student must feel they are learning to perform music."
================
Man does that ever hit home!!! Pure gold.
My first choice of instrument was guitar. Horrible time trying to grab chords, getting fingers to go where I wanted, get the co-ordination down. Didn't "feel" like I was making music at any level, ....good, bad or otherwise. Picked up the harp thinking this HAS TO be easier (calm down harpnuts, I now know, the jokes on me), and to a certain extent it was. Simple songs within a few days. That's the only thing that kept me going in the early days.... the feeling that "hey it may be simple, but I'm actually playing a song, it may suck but I'm making music!!!"
--------------------
For me personally, one of the best posts I've read on here MrV, you sound like a superb teacher. And FWIW, the opposite approach has probably killed more enthusiam in young students than could ever be measured.
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2012 9:53 AM
@Mr.Vlun: "I've learned that nothing is more motivating for a student than being able to turn the knowledge they've just gained into something they can 'show off'"
Yeah, I agree completely. Having fun enhances the learning process, and small but quick achievements are highly motivational.
You've no doubt done a whole lot more hands on teaching than I have. But as effective as a "feel good about it" approach is from a motivational aspect, if you want a player to develop sound fundamental skills over a short term, a certain amount of perspiration is usually required.
In this regard, lack of very early directional breath control technique at the earliest stage of learning is, IMHO, a prescription for developing very bad habits that will take greater time and effort to unlearn. That was so for me personally, and i see manifestations of it regularly in novice (and not so novice) players at jams.
I do not disagree at all with what you saying. But I don't think learning directional breath control at the outset of the instructional process is necessarily inconsistent with the approach you are advocating.
That being said, I personally learn better and faster (more efficiently) when I am given an overarching conceptual framework to work with even when i am starting out in a completely unfamiliar endeavor. But I recognize that's probably an atypical perspective and not a pedagogical approach that would be typically effective in most circumstances.
Last Edited by on Feb 20, 2012 11:26 AM
1. Purpose 2. Teaching of Strategies 3. Student Support Stance 4. High Level Questioning 5. Active Responding 6. Pacing
Any school worth two cents is spending huge amounts of time and resources on differentiation...how to best meet the need of each student rather than teaching to the middle. Formative assessments are used to assess and adjust instruction to ensure success in summative assessments built around standards.
As it pertains to harmonica instruction, no matter how good they are, teachers aren't going to be able to be all things to all students. In education, that has spun the use of collaborative teams housed within Professional Learning Communities to maximize resources in support of students.
In the harmonica world it means finding a teacher who can help you reach your goals. What works for me, may not work for you. Hence, when others speak in absolutes about how things HAVE to be done, I cringe. That makes absolutely zero sense.
I could learn a lot from Joe, David Barrett, Howard Levy, etc, but not all of it would be worth learning to me, engage me, or help me reach my goals.
IMO, the quality of teachers as it pertains to STUDENT LEARNING, which should be the ultimate goal, generally rates highest with primary and pre-primary teachers (preschool to 2nd grade in the States). The ability and willingness of teachers to focus on student learning rather than teaching continually diminishes as the grade level increases and specifics of the content being addressed decreases.
Meaning a college biology professor may know more about biology than a kindergarten teacher, but the kindergarten teacher knows more about how to actually teach.
This, IMO, is the crux of why it takes so long or feels so hard to learn to play harmonica (as compared to something like guitar). The number of actual educators - people who know how to teacher - is extremely small. Very, very small. In fact, I can only think of one person who actually does most of it right. This ends up in very inefficient instruction.
The next issue to contend with is the reluctant learner who is more concerned with learning songs than learning the instrument.
The sorta saving grace for something like guitar is that it is SO popular that it can attract good teachers. And again, a good teacher isn't necessarily someone with the most ability or content knowledge.
There is that saying that those who can't do - teach...well that isn't always true, but it is totally reasonable that someone who can't actually do something can still be a great teacher.
A real common example is math. Often times, elementary teachers teach math at a level of frustration...they either struggle with what they are teaching or they don't have content knowledge beyond what they are teaching. This is often times a recipe for disaster, BUT if that teacher is teaching strategies and using a student support stance, they can empower students to learn beyond their own abilities.
I kind of used a different technique when I was first learning. I have a low threshold for frustration, so I set out incredibly easy goals. My goal, for the first month, was to make noise. I deliberately avoided melody and just jumped all over the harp. Eventually that taught me how to identify intervals. Once I had intervals down I started picking off melodies left and right. If I know a songs key and I can whistle or hum the melody I can play it on the harp within a couple of tries (at least well enough to have fun). My goal was to try to translate my ability to sing a song into being able to play it on harmonica, and it worked pretty well.
I should note that it didn't help teach me good work habits that might take my playing to the next level, but I always have fun. I usually pick up new theory in response to wondering why something works the way it does. I follow my curiosity. I can't even begin to describe how unproductive this technique was in a traditional academic setting, but I've learned all sorts of odds and ends over the years. ---------- Nate Facebook Thread Organizer (A list of all sorts of useful threads)
@nacoran: To identify intervals and then pick off melodies you need to be able to have good control over breath direction shifts--what I have been referring to as directional breath control.
MrVlun: I respectfully disagree. Whooping has absolutely nothing to do with it. The chordal rhythmic train thing is, so far as i can tell, much more pattern oriented then the sort of volitionaly controlled breath shifts i am referring to.
Now, certainly the rhythmic (train) oriented patterns may vary and can even get complicated but they are repetitive pattern oriented . The sort of volitional directional breath control i am referring to is not as pattern driven/pattern dependent.
"The fact is, different people learn differently. . . .The trick is to learn which ways work for you, but always challenge yourself to look at stuff you decided wasn't for you." - nacoran
Very nicely stated - Something to keep in mind when teaching, and learning yourself. ----------
Hvyj, yeah, I'd agree that the way I learned wasn't restricted to the bottom five holes. In fact, I played a lot of first position starting on the 4 hole and working up from there.
I've only ever tried to teach one person harmonica, and the switch over in blow/draw patterns on the upper end frustrated him to no end. Although I think learning to recognize intervals is ultimately a faster way to be able to play a lot of songs it didn't fit his learning style. He wanted someone to tell him what notes to play to play a song and he got frustrated and quit before he really learned anything. So, he didn't learn to play the harmonica. I could blame him for quitting, but I think a lot of the blame falls on me for not paying enough attention to how he wanted to learn. It was tough though. He didn't want to learn to sight read and he didn't want to learn to play by ear. He just wanted someone to sit and help him work through tab. I think the way I learned you have to be just crazy enough to be able to put up with non-musical noise long enough to get to the point where you can start doing it by ear. The final nail in the coffin was when I tried to make him at least learn what notes were in the I IV and V chords. That involved actually looking at a worksheet because he wasn't understanding what chords were. There are several paths to being able to play- I'd say you can learn to play by ear, or read music, or learn tabs, or just know chord structure. Tab was the one I was least prepared to teach and the only one he seemed really interested in. Oh well. Drummers. What can you do. I hope he had better luck learning bass.
@MrVlun: Well, I put up with all the yelping and whooping vocal sound effects to listen all the way through twice. Of course Sonny Terry is a masterful player and certainly a master of that style. A lot of the patterns he's playing sound repetitive to me but they are interspersed with complicated passages that clearly aren't and which unquestionably require masterful levels of breath control.
But, of course, I assume you are not suggesting we would start a beginner out on what ST is playing.
@nacoran:"He wanted someone to tell him what notes to play to play a song"
Identifying what notes to play in order to play a particular song won't help him if he hasn't developed the technical ability to hit those notes in the identified sequence. It requires directional breath control that's qualitatively different from what one uses for rhythmic chordal playing.
Last Edited by on Feb 21, 2012 8:55 AM
