I originally put this post in the thread 'Brandon (aka. Superchucker's) New Video', but the tread seemed to go off in different directions, as they naturally do from time to time.
So, I've pasted the post below under the title of this thread. This aspect of harp playing - the one in the title - is what I find the most difficult thing about the instrument, even more than technique. The original post read:
I can see that a lot of folks liked that clip so I'll try to open up the conversation a bit more by going into more detail about why it didn't do that mmuch for me.
First of all, I realise it was just an experiement that was put up for a bit of fun. So, I don't want to try to judge it out of that context. My feelings are more about blues harp in general.
When you first become familiar with the sound of blues harp, it can be a very alluring thing. But, as you become more aquainted with the sounds, the cadences, the common riffs that are part and parcel of the instrument and the genre we are using it in, the more it is that you, well me at least, try to veer away from some of those commonalities.
You want to make that sound, but shudder every time you play a cliche. However, it's very hard to avoid those cliches on such an intrinsically limited instrument.
I suppose that what I disliked the most about the clip was the melodic predictability of the phrasing; it never varied that descending phrase that starts on the tonic, or 6 blow. That note, being the tonic and the highest pitch used in the piece really does stand out and, to my mind, needs more attention paid to it.
If I were to offer an antethesis to this sort of playing that most of us would be familiar with, I'd cite Doc Gussow's 'Not A Shuffle Blues'; it does the same thing over and over, but never twice in quite the same way.
Does that make my point more clearly and more constructively?
---------- 'If it sounds GOOD to you, it's bitchen; if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty' - Frank Zappa
I disagree with one thing. The instrument is not limited if you can overblow and overdraw. This allows for chromatic playing, which gives complete musical freedom.
I suppose what I mean ZP is that it's limited when compared to many other instruments, the most ovious ones being guitar and piano. With the latter, you're not limited harmonically right from day one: one chord is pretty much as easy to play as the next. ---------- 'If it sounds GOOD to you, it's bitchen; if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty' - Frank Zappa
I see what you are saying Mick. It's easy to get stuck on certain riffs or techniques, especially when we're learning. We figure out something that sounds good and we get hooked on it. I battle that by constantly adding some new thing to the mix, e.g. a new position is a great way to change things up, while continuing to work with a (growing) body of riffs, techniques and repertoire. I'm finding there is so much to work with even within a non-overbending, blues framework that it will be years before I run out of ideas for changing things up. I can't even foresee the end at this point in my playing.
I also try to improvise on songs that I've learned to keep them interesting. I expect that also makes it more interesting for a listener -- beyond tension and release -- a mix of the expected and the unexpected.
And of course Zack is right about the unlimited possibilities when playing chromatically.
mickil:I agree with some of the things you say here.
I have said before I think all instruments have advantages and disadvantages over others. Each one is it's all animal.
The greatest innovative improvisations I believe currently come from Saxophone. Yea, it's my main tool but I don't say it for that reason.I play full range of saxes flue, clarinet if I have to, piano, guitar harmonica and vocals when required.
It is the way the saxophone is designed that facilitates the Improvisation at the highest level.
The diatonic harp has a lot going for it and I dig it in blues and some other stuff now and again.
Until the diatonic harp is being played at the intensity and HARMONICAL levels of the sax player in particular Jerry Begonzi, and then Lee Konitz,Eric Dolphy, and Trane, then to me me it won't be hitting the mark.
I really like it played as a Blues harp best.
Last Edited by on Jun 23, 2009 11:07 AM
just stop listening to other harp players. everybody plays the same shit and everybody copies the same shit and then you have what you hear in most harp players, shitty copies of shit.
Do you know why I don't play cliche harp stuff? because most harp players suck as musicians and why would I or any aspiring musician want to learn from that? That's like the definition of insane....
"Until the diatonic harp is being played at the intensity and HARMONICAL levels of the sax player in particular Jerry Begonzi, and then Lee Konitz,Eric Dolphy, and Trane, then to me me it won't be hitting the mark."
Already been done by a few players on chromatic and diatonic.
Last Edited by on Jun 23, 2009 11:28 AM
Mickil:sorry for highjacking post Everyone; put a post on (Advice playing) couldn't get embed and can't delete,sorry everyone.
Buddha:I really enjoy levys playing and some of thielmans,but man I don't hear anything from those guys that comes remotely close to the playing of Bergonzi,Konitz,or even sub harmony cycle Coltrane movement which is standard development in a modern jazz player on sax, and chord extention development.
I just don't hear it.I don't know this Turk so I will do some research. Am I missing something here?
Well another day I'm out the studio now,bands gone and so have I.
Last Edited by on Jun 23, 2009 12:48 PM
then you need to listen more. Howard is a coltrane nut and plays all of his stuff but you have to know where to look. He plays all of the Bird stuff at full tempo too.
Listen to mid 50s-early 60s recording of Toots. Its all there.
Last Edited by on Jun 23, 2009 1:09 PM
I'm sure I'm going to regret asking this question, but here goes.... Is it now boring to copy jazz sax stuff on harmonica too, now that it has been done and all?
How about being innovative, playing blues, by making up a new blues tune or new arrangement (e.g. Adam's solo, Crossroads). I happen to like blues better than jazz at this moment. So I'm happy playing blues and even learning from the past and present masters.
Jazz has NOT been completely done on the harmonica. Name ten people doing it. Good luck. And, they can't be chromatic players, just diatonic. Now, REALLY good luck. Probably only ten percent of sax stuff has been done on the harmonica.
Zack, I guess that is kind of my point too. Sure blues has been played a lot on harmonica. You could probably say that blues MADE the harmonica as popular as it is (IF it is, but that was another topic). Just because a lot of blues has been played on the harp, that doesn't mean it's boring, not to me, not to a lot of people who like blues. As long as blues still lives as a music form, it has not "been done".
If you and Buddha prefer to play jazz, more power to you guys. And you're right, harp isn't a big jazz instrument, yet. I wish you every success with it.
Just got back from quite a good jam. Bit too tiddly to take in all the responses. Eyes are too old to focus on my tiny screen all that well. Must get glasses. Will try to resume inteligent discourse tomorrow. Sleep well all harp peeps. ---------- 'If it sounds GOOD to you, it's bitchen; if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty' - Frank Zappa
I think we need to be open and to not be limited in our choices. All music genres have their place regardless of whether you or I like or hate it.
Blues, Jazz, Folk, Classical, Country, Rock ,Pop or whatever IMHO most is crap, and only a very small percentage of each is listenable and an even smaller percentage is great. That percentage would vary for each and every one of us. Personally ie for me Country would be highest in likes percentage (but still small) then would follow Blues, Classics & Jazz & then Rock. Thats my bag probably not yours.
As individuals we should not be too swayed by others likes or dislikes. Sure, listen to them. Doing your own thing is all about being truly original. Life is too short to go blindly down one path ie there is lots out there to discover and even more to create.
Zack, people have been playing Jazz on diatonic for quite a while. Here's one from 1928, that I'd say fits the bill. http://www.redhotjazz.com/Songs/misc/aintlovegrand1.ram
Sandy Weltman, Alvin Gautreaux, Howard Levy, Alfred Hirsch, Rhythm Willie, Blues Birdhead, Rob Paparozzi.. that's 7. Maybe somebody can name three more.
Jason Ricci plays some jazz on his latest album ; also Thierry Crommen is a diatonic jazz harp player, and I guess you could add J.J.Milteau, he must have played some jazz too...
To try and get back to my thread, I suppose mr_so&so's first post above, and Kingley's chime the most with what I'm trying to say.
To me, it's about the constant challenge of trying to stay fresh within the almost rigid confines of the form; I say 'to me' but, in truth, it's alway been the biggest challenge to musicians, whatever their style or epoch.
Both Mozart and Beethoven were criticized in their time for some of the harmonies they used; the latter's Grosse Fugue was considered an insult to the ear by some of his contemporaries. Nevertheless, he opened up a can worms that would eventuay lead to Schoneberg and 12 tone composition, via Wagner - espeially Tristan - and Debusy - Prélude à l'après-midi d'un faune.
I suppose you could argue that with Philip Glass in the States and Michael Nyman in England, we have come full circle, at least harmonically speaking.
And that is what I find the most difficult aspect of music: all music. It is so hard to allude to a given harmony - especially one that is as familiar as the the I IV V of a blues - while offering an interesting resolution to what are, after all, mind-bogglingly predictable cadences. Kingley's remarks echo what I try to do anyway, but the talk is a lot easier than the walk.
As to what ZackP said about overblows, I don't agree entirely.
Yeah sure, you've got more options, but it's not as panoramic as he seems to think. When you play a note, it's either a conchord or a dischord. Those are the only two options.
When you first learn how to play a 4 draw bend, you've got a tritone in your amoury, or diabolus in musica, as it was once known. Even that can sound hackneyed if you're not careful.
Unless you want play music that makes no attempt to allude to a given tonic then those overblows do nothing more than offer you a few more notes to play with; those notes still have to be resolved to a boring old chord tone at some point. ---------- 'If it sounds GOOD to you, it's bitchen; if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty' - Frank Zappa
http://www.youtube.com/user/SlimHarpMick
Last Edited by on Jun 24, 2009 4:57 AM
"Kingley's remarks echo what I try to do anyway, but the talk is a lot easier than the walk."
I agree Mick. But surely that's part of the challenge?
Although personally I think there is more than enough in the blues genre to keep any player (regardless of who they are!) busy for a lifetime of learning.
For instance have you tried playing rhythmic harp patterns? You could spend years alone learning how to do just that. Listen to Madcat. Sonny Terry, Deford Bailey, etc.
Then there are the solo styles of all the great classic blues players old and new, and don't even get me started on Carlos Del Junco, Dennis Gruenling and Jason Ricci. The way I look at it is, that until you can do all that they can do and then add your own distinctive voice to it as well, you can't possibly believe that this music is restrictive.
MrV, what I'm trying to say is that it is Western tonality itself that can be hard to work in.
Its familiarity is what led to its contempt by some composers; Schonberg and the second Vienese school is the ultimate recection of the tonal system. And modern jazz is often at odds with it, e.g., lots of 'unresolved' parallel 7ths, 9ths, etc.
But, what that school failed to understand, at least in my view, is that if atonality works, it only does so because it's using tonality as a frame of reference: you can't have atonal music without tonal music.
So, to come back to my original point: it can be very hard to make original music with highly unoriginal melodic phrases and harmonies.
But, it can be done. Listen to the first minute or so of this; it's not blues, but it does demonstrate what I'm trying to say. It just starts with a very slow major triad. The melody that follows is almost childlike in it's simplicty. But the end result is utterly sublime.
I suppose that originality can be a very hard thing to define; it's infinately more difficult to achieve. ---------- 'If it sounds GOOD to you, it's bitchen; if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty' - Frank Zappa
http://www.youtube.com/user/SlimHarpMick
Last Edited by on Jun 24, 2009 7:34 AM
Kingley, I agree with everything you just said; indeed, it is a challenge.
The point of my post was merely to point out what I think can be unoriginal playing, and how easy it is to fall into doing it. ---------- 'If it sounds GOOD to you, it's bitchen; if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty' - Frank Zappa
The harmonica is not as limited as you think. There are twelve notes in our music system. We have three full octaves. Many instruments have a similar sized range. Soprano Saxophone is pretty limited then. Coltrane obviously could work with it. What is limited is how one person can put the notes down. Some people can just make amazing music.
You're right Zack, except for one thing you said: unless you're working with some system other than conventional western harmony, for example, Indian raga or Messian's modes of limited transposition, you only have 12 notes to work with. I know we've got three octaves, but that's besides the point I'm making. ---------- 'If it sounds GOOD to you, it's bitchen; if it sounds BAD to YOU, it's shitty' - Frank Zappa
It seems like a lot of people think that jazz is the future or blues harmonica and that to be a good player one needs to be able to play it. I don't see much logic in this, it seems to me that people are heading away from jazz.
While it is true that jazz requires the highest level of skill on most instruments, I really doubt that jazz is the future of music. Old fashioned jazz is even more outdated than blues, and modern jazz fails to hold the attention of most audiences. Yes, it's original, but it seems too original for most audiences.
Instead of trying to learn complex modes and scales it seems like we should be trying to branch out into rock or popular music, however shitty it may be these days. ---------- "Without music, life would be a mistake" -Nietzsche
Finally, so one comes in that's my age. People are going that way not because of the reasons of being famous but because they want to. Obviously you probably don't want to do that. Me personally? I want to go to school, study Jazz, do that fun stuff. But, doing popular music? If you got that skill, why not? NEVER say never.
Check out any of Dennis Gruenling's videos-or see him live. He's the only player I know that has really contributed a new sound and unique tone and phrasing to everything he plays-whether it's jazz,blues,rock or swing,Dennis nails them all. He's got the most original sound I know-no one sounds like Dennis.
Last Edited by on Apr 02, 2010 7:16 AM
Who is the authority on what is original?? Answer- you. If it hits you as original, and by original, I mean fresh sounding, then it is. People spend a lifetime analizing this whole thing when in reality, it is a subjective subject. I also beleive each of us can be original if we let go of worldly concerns. I have an autistic student, Gwen Davis, that writes poetry and comes into my studio to record them. I back her up with drums on my feet and guitar. Then I go back and overdub harp, keys, guitars. Her songs go about 40 seconds, are sang fast regardless of what beat I put down, and she never wants to hear them back again. Is this original? To my ears it is so original, it can be hard to listen to, but backing her up is a blast. That just shows me how conditioned I am to what is suppose to be what with music. Here is a link to Gwens stuff. Walter Gwen Davis songs
---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " No one can control anyone, but anyone can let someone control them"
I'm curious. Would you be so kind as to enlighten (ho ho) me:
1. What makes someone an acceptable musician?
2. Is there something unique about the way most harp players (since most people who play ANY instrument are neither virtuosic nor innovative breakers of genre) suck?
/actually playing music and not just regurgitating licks/
3. Where does music begin and vomiting end?
@mickil / others: sorry if this going off a bit topic...
1. knowledge of at least basic music theory. Can you communicate to other musicians? Can you play on a one chord jam and be interesting? Can you play over more than three chords? Can you play in different times signature. Tone. Dynamics. Phrasing. Rhythm. Cogent solos. etc...
2. Could most harp players sit in with a high School Band? Even an elementary school band and sound like it's appropriate? There are droves of 10yr olds that understand music than many harp players that have been playing for 40+ years.
3. Music comes when it's source is external and the musician is simply the conduit. Cerebral Vomiting is garbage that is lock up inside a person and being tossed out to the audience with the hopes that something will stick.
---------- "The privilege of a lifetime is being who you are." - Joseph Campbell
I love it when a spammer regurgitates an old post...because of this particular thread's posts, I get to learn new additions to my vocabulary, such as Cerebral Vomiting. Awesome! ---------- Todd L Greene. V.P.
Last Edited by on Apr 02, 2010 10:06 AM
1. What?!!! There are more than three chords? Er...
Yep, I agree.
What's interesting, though, is the weird absence of a forceful and ubiquitous "I have to KNOW this shit" in the minds of would-be harmonica players.
Really basic stuff like root notes, chord tones, simple rhythmic patterns, to be able to show something how "goes" to another musician...
Tone, dynamics, phrasing and cogent solos are, I think, much, much more subjective, but the idea of trying to play without the simple building blocks of being able so to do?
Yep, insane.
2. Interesting question.
Do you mean a School Band which is high, in which case the answer is probably "yeaaaaaahhh..."
Otherwise, "no."
Reminds me of a quitarist asking me recently "how come so many harmonica players can't play any songs?"
Same question, really.
3. I don't get metaphysics, but I do wonder why harmonica players seem fixated on "riffs," "licks" and "the blues scale..."
the possibilitys are endless. only 12 notes!!! far more than enough. you'll never need all of them anyway-unless you want to demonstrate the chromatic scale for some reason or other. OT. the best way to empty a room is to play atonal music. if you want to get rid of party guests who are staying too long, just put on ornette coleman or james blood ulmer. works every time
I for one never lose sight of the fact that I'm trying to sound like me, not like someone else. If I'm working up a song with a cool harp part for my covers band, what I do is this - listen to a good original recording for 2 days and copy, then take it away and practice every day for several weeks without listening to the original again. It sounds different then, more like me. Although the phrasing will be more built around my strengths as a player, it's obviously important not to rely on half a dozen riffs to get you through a gig. Also, I think that blues players can get too tied up worrying about the range of notes they can play on a harp. Think about the different SOUNDS you can make with one NOTE. A great blues artist will be able to make a cool harp break using only one note. ( I can only dream of this, but it's fun trying to get there)
I think any modern musician have to play more than one style. I also think that if musician can play both jazz and classical he can switch to almost any music, while rock or blues player no matter how good he is will hardly play anything except blues or rock, forget about jazz and classic.
I also think, if musician have no his own style and he only copies anyone he sucks.
I also think any modern musician have to know theory as goodas possible or have perfect ears. ---------- http://myspace.com/harmonicaboris
Last Edited by on Apr 06, 2010 2:32 AM
Interesting question: Does the average high school band musician know more about music than the average harmonica player. I can provide half the answer, since I am a school and director and have taught high school bands.
First, considerations:
1) High school band musicians have been playing an hour a day, five days a week, for 180 days, for usually at least 4 and up 7 years. Additionally, they practice at home (hopefully) 20 minutes most nights.
2) They have done so on instruments that are easy to play chromatically over (generally) a 2.5 octave range.
3) They are generally taught to play in Bb, Eb, F, Ab, well, and more remote keys on occasion.
4) They learn by playing what they are told to play, down to the minute detail. They also learn to read music rather well.
5) Generally, they understand being a good musician as being able to play your part without playing a wrong note or rhythm.
6) They generally do not understand music theory. most directors are so busy preparing performances that the only way to get more than rudimentary theory (reading music, note values, tempo markings, etc...) is to take a another class, which is often not available.
7) Most high school musicians do not improvise unless they are involved in the jazz band. Most high school students don't perform unless it is in a large group. Some do, many do well, but overall, most just play with the band.
8) Band instruments generally have a low nerd gate.
A true artist will do what inspires him. He does this because he is driven to do it. Commercial art has almost completely taken over all areas of art, music, writing, poetry. We have it hardwired into our heads that more is better. That is fine if that is what really is inspiring you, but if you are content to play the same simple thing over and over, who is to say that is wrong? We alone are the artist. No one else should influence our unique gift.
If one is thinking about being original, then they are not original at all. Originality comes from no mind. Pure flow. I would venture to say most are thinking and think they are not thinking. We are that deep into thinking with making music and life on this planet.
I know nothing of music theory, scales, chords, etc. I play what makes me feel good. I am still satified with my simple stuff so much that I have no inspiration to look further. I am not concerned with competing with the Jones. A real artist plays because they have to. Most posts I read on forums have a huge concern with what the world thinks of their sound. That is pretty much the definition of commerical art. Let it be the blues, free jazz, or whatever. Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " No one can control anyone, but anyone can let someone control them"
I forgot to note. If you play alone or if you are composer/songwriter and bandleader, have a bunch of money to pay accompanists you don't have to know anything. Jimi Hendrix is great example (however he has absolute musical hearing).
Exactly! Equating originality with knowing jazz & classical theory, or saying it's a prerequisite for it, is nonsense. Often the most original players are the ones with the LEAST exposure to (or respect for) established paths - whether it's classical/jazz theory or the hackneyed repertoire of blues harp cliches.
I think a lot of high school musicians are more or less human player pianos. They can play something if you put some sheet music in front of them. Ask them to jam over a basic song and they are lost.
Seems a lot of harp players play other instruments. I've played guitar for 36 years so you move a lot of that basic music knowledge over to your harp playing.
Our schools turn out cookie cutter products in academics, arts, and music. The factory approach serves our culture well. Think outside the box and you will be a failure. I know this. I am a high school special education teacher. My students all live outside the box of school. I am very thankful that when I tried art class, to join the school band and choir they told me to go away because I had no talent. It was the best thing that ever happened to me musically and as a painter. Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " No one can control anyone, but anyone can let someone control them"
/I know nothing of music theory, scales, chords, etc./
Are you saying that when you play chords on the guitar, you couldn't say what chord you're playing, what key you're in, or show another musician that a song has this chord, followed by this chord?
That, if someone said "let's play a 12 bar blues in E," you wouldn't have some idea of which harmonica you want to reach for and how you might go about playing it?
Having watched a couple of your videos (and enjoyed them - thank you), I'd be surprised you answer to the above is "no," but then again, the world's a stranger place than dreamt of in my philosophy...
As JJ says:
/Equating originality with knowing jazz & classical theory, or saying it's a prerequisite for it, is nonsense/
I couldn't agree more.
"Knowledge" - emphatically - does NOT equate with being able to articulate something in academic / theoretical terminology.
To agree with this, though, is - equally emphatically - NOT to argue against the necessity of "knowing" the music.
Call it what you will: "baggage," experience, paying your dues...
Moreover, waltertore is right, I think, to say that
/Our schools turn out cookie cutter products in academics, arts, and music/
To which I might add that I'm scared that the "101 great harmonica riffs and the blues scale" approach is in danger of producing identikit harmonica players out of people who start off playing because they want to say something a bit more personal...
captainbliss: I can figure out what key things are in with my ear. I have learned via discovery with my ears that when I play a certain chord on the guitar, that certain harps work with it. The same with piano and bass. For me, music comes from within and then I go and seek the things to let it out. To look at a book, put on my thinking cap, doesn't call me. that is outside in learning to me. I learned from playing with guys like louisana red, and lightning hopkins. They never called anything. You either got with them or you didn't.
I never have shown anyone how to play because I am not sure what I am going to play. When I do play with other musicians, they figure out what I am doing without me having to say anything. I have had some great musicians want to back me up because they say they love doing it on the fly. It was a break from what they did that made them famous.
Thanks for listening to my music and the compliment! I do what turns me on. I am in no hurry to learn the book of music. I have the rest of my life to discover things. That is what gives one their own style vs. being a conglomorate of others riffs.
Walter ---------- walter tore's spontobeat - a real one man band and over 1 million spontaneously created songs and growing. I record about 300 full length cds a year. " No one can control anyone, but anyone can let someone control them"
