There's some discussion about this on the "Has Jason left the blues behind" thread. Adam and some others suggested that Jason should bo put in TOP 20 list so that new players could hear him and try to achieve that level of mastery and beyond.
However, recently I have been thinking that how beneficial it actually is to listen to the old greats if you want to develop yourself as a player AND a musician? Actually this is something that Chris said via Skype in our harp workshop in Finland. To develop as a player it is more important to listen to the great musicians than advanced harmonica players.
I have been thinking about that for the past few weeks and I must say that I agree. I really don't like to listen all of the harmonica stuff found from different albums and videos on Youtube. There are many cases where I don't actually like the sound of a harmonica - although it might be very entertaining to play that same stuff myself with the harp.
So is it important to listen to the advanced players? I'd say that in the beginning it is, so that you understand the basic capabilities of the instrument. Here listening, Howard Levy and Jason Ricci is also important - it can expand you perceptions of the instrument. You'll understand that it is not just folk and blues that you can play. But then after that is understood, you should stop listening harp players and start to listen musicians instead, no matter what the instrument is (it might be harp too).
I feel that I have now took another step as a musician and harp player. I have step into a world of "new groove". I don't exactly know what it is, but one part of it is that I have started to listen and play music that I didn't before. It has made a big difference in my playing skills. Also with the blues. I'm now capable of playing also the blues with different positions (especially 1st & 3rd) and maintain that groove in those positions too. And also with the higher octaves that used to be a foreign land for me. This is, I believe, because lately I have played lots of e.g. gypsy ballads in 4th&5th position of the Aeolian mode. Even though those don't have many OB's to be used those have also been developing. I don't know why - perhaps the ear has developed and that makes a difference there too.
So as a summary I'd say that it is important to listen to those great harp players at first. But after a while you should move on. It might even be so that listening to those same great will actually blind your vision of the other - even more expanded - ways to use the instrument. You should not stop there either!
The wider the variety of music you listen to the more neat things you will learn. I can't play more than just one part of the harmony yet but I desperately want to be able to play Bach on the harp.
there is Bach's Fuge in ?? i forgot the key but it's common. you may recall there was an awful pop version of Bach's Fuge called 'Lovers Concerto' from the 60s.
it's a very straight ahead 1st pos. friendly piece.
The concept of listening as widely as possible outside your own instrument and genre is not new, except perhaps for nerd harp players for whom it is handled and passed around with awe like some freshly coined nugget of amazing wisdom.
When something moves you, go to it, when it doesn't leave it. There is no more to it than that. 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. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
@EV630: Not just listening the non-harp players, but also playing genre's that aren't typically played with harp. Well, that's not new thing either - but then again, what is?
@Ryan - Actually, it's pretty easy. There is a lot of opportunities. It can be difficult to capitalize on all of them. There are only so many hours in the day.
In this case I kinda haveta agree with EV. Would anyone accept the answer "No, of course not. Why listen to other musicians. All you have to do is listen to mediocre music played by mediocre musicians in your own subsegment of your genre. That way its easier for you to play like them and think you're doing really well."
I mean, duh!!!??? Less knowledge is never as good as more knowledge.
With all that's said it IS an interesting discussion to hear peoples' takes on WHY this is important and WHAT they get out of it personally. ---------- /Greg
I don't think this is really rocket science. You listen to the music that moves you and you play what you want to play. It's really pretty simple.
I really like Blues, so I listen to a lot of it. Not all of the Blues that I listen to has a harp player. I love players like Albert King and Otis Rush. I really like Southern Soul singers, too. When the music is done well, it's emotionally moving. It tells a story. I like that.
When I'm not listening to Blues, I listen to stuff like Gregorian chanting. It's calming.
Do I try to force elements from Gregorian chanting into my harmonica playing? No. There is really no point in trying to force the situation.
I want my music and playing to sound like it flows naturally, not like I am attempting to incorporate and fit in eclectic ideas. Just because something can be done doesn't mean it has to be done.
Last Edited by on Jun 06, 2010 9:21 AM
Greg, I think you're mischaraterizing what was being discussed. Of course we should be listening to other instruments and genres, but I don't really think that was the main point of what was being discussed. I think it has more to do with whether(or how much) we should be listening to harmonica players.
We're told by many sources that we should be listenng to the great harmonica players if we want to become better players. But is listening to harp players really a good way to become a good musician?(Buddha says no because most harp players are terrible musicians) The original poster was essentially asking how long a player should allow other harmonica players to be their main source of inspiration. Obviously in the beginning it's important to understand the way the instrument works and what the great players have done with it. But, at a certain point, listening to other harp players for inspiration may become more of a hindrance to your development as a musician. So if you agree, at what point in ones playing should they stop concentrating on other harp players? Or do you think it's always okay to get the majority of your inspiration from harp players, as long as you mix in some other inspirations as well?
Last Edited by on Jun 06, 2010 12:15 PM
It does seem pretty obvious, and yet when you listen to the majority of harp players their playing is filled with stereotypical harp licks that they've obviously gotten from spending the majority of their time listening to and immitating other harmonica players. This obviously isn't true of many of the great harp players, and this is because, at some point, they stopped listening to other harp players for inspiration. So why do so many harp players, who admire those great players and wish to aspire to that level, spend so much time listening to other harp players?
Thank's Ryan, my point really was that would it actually be better to STOP listening the great harp players alltogether and only listen MUSIC that is inspirational. (Of course it might include some harp playing too occasionally).
aspkarp: Yes! Obviously if one gravitates to the harp, the music made on it must be of interest? But at some point if your interest in musical sounds takes you elswhere, go for it. I love the sounds I make on the harp, but as the years go on, I listen to very little of it by others. I have gone back more to my roots - sinatra era stuff, with mostly slim harpo for the blues groove. I listen to Harpo for his entire sound. I have been teaching myself to record and Harpo and Sinatra era stuff (fitzgerald, bassie, ellington, etc) are great recordings sound wise and musically to my ears. There are no rules except the ones we aknowledge. View your journey as yours and you will come out with your own sound. 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. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
I listened to tons of great players, tried to learn note for note, dynamic for dynamic, etc.,with the sole purpose of understanding how they THINK musically, and then mess with it until I could do something that gives the taste and feel but without cloning note for note, which bores me. I also drifted away from listening to harp players only and listened to horns, keyboards, guitars, you name it, and it was following the path of many harp greats regardless of the genre being played and what you do listen, learn, sit down with it, then adapt things to fit the instrument as well as the groove. I find too many times the average player listens to nothing else but harp players and they're often gonna clone (or attempt to with varying degrees of success) and often times are afraid to experiment and sit down with different things, largely out of fear of looking awful and falling flat on their faces, and the only way you learn and progress is not to be afraid of trying things out and risk screwing up and those that don't just don't learn anything except they just basically stand still and don't progress at all because of those fears.
I firmly believe that one SHOULD have other instruments and players as part of their inspiration. I know the jump blues horn players, guitar players, and B3 players like Jimmy Smith definitely are for me. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
If you want to play like Robert Johnson, you don't listen to Robert Johnson. You need to listen to Charlie Patton, Lonnie Johnson, Blind Blake Petey Wheatstraw, Son House and Skip James.
Leaning to play like Robert Johnson by copying his licks will only make you a watered down version of Robert Johnson.
It's great to study the greats but if you want to become one of the greats then stay away the greats in your field AFTER the beginning stages of playing.
I'm not saying you can't learn from the greats but treat them as a peer rather than something you are chasing. For example, I learned a lot just hanging out with one of the greats of our instrument in Brendan Power. Am I going to study his music? No. But I know more today then I did a week ago. We shared knowledge and that's what being a great is all about.
how you listen might be as important as what you listen to. kind of like practice. 10 lazy hours are not worth one good hours. just having music on in the background may seep in and do some good, but really listening can bring new ideas into your head.
one way to really listen seems to be to listen, pause, and try to play the lick or phrase, then move on.
only partially related, Carlos Santana on some liner notes said wrote that he listens to Miles every day... it does not seem to have hurt him :-)
Before I go to bed I want to share some interesting thing that happened today. I have been playing harp throughout the day whenever I have had some time to do it. I've played mostly blues grooves in 1st, 2nd & 3rd positions and then some gypsy songs in 4th, 5th and little bit in 2nd position too. Blues licks I have improvised and then copied in the higher octaves to get OB's in use too. I also improvised little something from the scale that is used in those gypsy songs.
BUT what happened was that about hour ago I spontaneously created a new song where the melody was actually on the blues scale, but the groove and feeling was very "Karelian"! The song sounds very much like what the finnish natives in the lapland sing, but it has certainly elements of the blues in it. I really didn't anticipate this to happen as it doesn't seem logical. But the thing is that the source of intuitive music isn't logical, it's something totally different.
Actually I think this is related to the way waltertore described his approach to the music. Thank's for your comments Walter! Good night.
Thanks Diggs! I really want to play 'Little Fuge'. I can play the main theme, but when I get to the counterpoint I'm lost. I know I really need to sit down with sheet music and figure out the blocks I need.
I know this is a little off topic, but I've been interested in seeing if I can transfer some of my harmonica knowledge to another instrument. I've thought about making some pan pipes laid out in Richter tuning. I know there are some electronic harps that essentially are controllers for synths. I'd be happy though if some company could make an ocarina or whistle based instrument shaped so you play it with a harp mouthpiece. I'll probably have better luck with effect pedals, but I like the idea of taking the harp into new areas of sound.
As much as I love the blues, it is not a very melodic form of music and I'm a sucker for a nice melody. That's why I can enjoy a song like "My Heart Will Go On" simply because it has (to me) a beautiful melody. If I turn around and try to learn it on the harp, it can only improve my chops because I'm getting about as far as possible out that blues box. I guess my point is that I'm looking for melodies rather than other instruments. ---------- http://www.myspace.com/jeffscranton
Cool. There doesn't seem to be a clear lead on the harmonica one though. It gets a little muddled. Maybe if they'd separated the instrument channels...
you are welcome apskarp! 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. " life is a daring adventure or nothing at all" - helen keller
"If you want to play like Robert Johnson, you don't listen to Robert Johnson. You need to listen to Charlie Patton, Lonnie Johnson, Blind Blake Petey Wheatstraw, Son House and Skip James.
Leaning to play like Robert Johnson by copying his licks will only make you a watered down version of Robert Johnson."
Ergo, if you listen to any player you become a watered down version of that player/ players.
So, basically you can't listen to anyone !!
This is bad advise. Listen to whoever and whatever you like. Take your influences from one or many, any instrument.
But as you are a harp player it would be in your interest to hear how the harp can sound and be played. So,listen to the greats.
This snobbery about being a harp player and not listening to the harp is B.S.
EV360: There was nothing banal in my post. It is well known fact that players will spend lots of time studying the people who are considered great in their area. They spend time learning the techniques, licks, musical style and whatever. What I was saying is that I suddenly realized in my own career as a harp player that it might not be a very good approach - although it is the approach that is promoted the most amongst the players and the teachers. In fact a better approach could be to STOP studying the great harp players and just develop musicality.
Now, if you failed to see that point in the post it is your own shortcoming and you should go in front of the mirror and give yourself a slap on the cheeks and say "You are very naughty boy, and you should read and _understand_ the posts before you let your ego loose."
Btw, your statement about "there's nothing new" is completely wrong. There are always lots of new stuff in the world. And when you talk about human beings they will always have new viewpoints to the world - it doesn't matter if somebody else thinks he has already had kind of similar viewpoint earlier, it is still new viewpoint to the world. May you have educational conversations with your mirror.
apskarp wrote: "In fact a better approach could be to STOP studying the great harp players and just develop musicality."
No, it wouldn't. The great players were great, not just because everyone said so, but because they played great, executed it great. There are great players that I particularly might not choose to listen to, but when I do, there is always something to hear in the way they execute what they are doing that transcends opinion, it might not be what I would do, but I still have the greatest respect for what they do.
Being a great player isn't just about copying & developing licks, phrases, patterns, nor about specifically pushing the envelope...it's about "being great". It's easy to be fooled into thinking that because someone can rip off a lick from a record/CD that they can do what the greats can do...it's usually not the case. The greats won accolades from their peers & the public in their on lifetimes, sold records, made seminal recordings & filled theatres...the guy copying a lick from a record is just copying a lick off the record...but he may possibly be a great one day...
I've listened to guys on CD, seen them live & thought I had the measure of them...then there they are under my roof playing and I'm tripping over my jaw, because in the cold light of day, with no excuses or anywhere to hide, there is a quality to their playing that is simply not commonplace!
I don't see how "developing musicality" and studying the greats are different things, or mutually exclusive...if they were great then surely they had "musicality"?
As Joe L said, listen to the music that moves you & inspires you, that may be harp players, or other instrumentalists for ideas/concepts, but the great harp players will demonstrate & provide a grounding in how to physically put those ideas & concepts to best effect with the instrument.
Last Edited by on Jun 07, 2010 7:21 AM
Well, now there seems to be real discussion going on - which is the whole point about writing a post with a question mark at the end. It's not about telling how things are, but about asking what do YOU think about this.
Studying the great harp players and developing musicality aren't mutually exclusive. But those aren't the same thing either. If one wants to be a great harp player, in my opinion, one must be a great musician first. Harp is only an instrument to unleash that musicality. Now, this is certainly something that most of you older players have understood and even lived true decades ago, but for me this has becoming reality only now.
There is value in trying to play like Ricci or Big Walter, but mostly in the mechanical sense. It can became a great hindrance too. I know because I used to play guitar and I was obsessed about the skills of Yngwie Malmsteen, Steve Vai, Joe Satriani and other guitar gods. It was all about the speed and technique - musicality was really a secondary quality. Nowadays there are tons of very skillful heavy rock guitarists in Finland. They could easily outperform Jimi Hendrix with speed and technique. I'm seeing same kind of phenomenon happening now in the harp community too. This is the reason I wanted to start this discussion.
Which one is more important - harp playing skills or the ability to make and express musicality? As said, these aren't mutually exclusive things, but it seems that we usually lean towards one or the other.
EDIT: 5F: I agree with what you say
Last Edited by on Jun 07, 2010 10:37 AM
Speed tends to be something, regardless of the instrument being played, more heavily regardered when younger, but as one gets older, many of those players will gravitate away from it in varying degress and try to do things that "shape" the note to make itmore expressive and sort of like an athlete "saving their bullets" for just the right moment.
Louis Armstrong hit tons of high end fireworks when he was younger but as he got older, he evolved into shaping the notes he was playing more with, as Wynton Marsalis put it, shaping it with a tonality that often would be much more difficult to duplicate compared to the fireworks he played earlier.
Technical skill is only one part of the equation and I've seen people who are technically quite skilled but don't come across very well as what they're doing is playing AT the audience rather than TO and FOR the audience, and the latter will connect and the overabundance of hitting with every technique you know how to play, leaving little to the imagination can get old. Remember, audiences of all genres are going to be quite fickle.
Listening and learning to what moves you is important but on the other hand, listening and learning from stuff you may not like may often teach you a helluva lot more, if you keep eyes, ears, and mind open. ---------- Sincerely, Barbeque Bob Maglinte Boston, MA http://www.barbequebob.com CD available at http://www.cdbaby.com/cd/bbmaglinte
What I *think* apskarp's main point was -- if I may oversimplify -- was this: It's good to listen to the great players to get a sense of what the instrument can do. But MANY harmonica players get into the box of obsessing over the way harmonica players played what they played, instead of developing their overall musicality. This seems to be more common with harmonica than with a lot of other instruments.
To get out of this box, it can be constructive to STOP listening to harmonica so much and start listening to other instruments... and, more importantly, to listen to MUSIC and take one's inspiration wherever one can find it.
In other words, as MP said... listen, listen, listen to everything.
You are right scojo, that is exactly the point. E.g. OB's or TB or whatever seems to be the main point for many. Instead of just music people admire somebody because he posseses great skills and uses lots of OB's for example. The speed is of course another topic, but that's not the whole story. (Although Barbequebob had some sharp observations about this which I agree from my own experience.)
I have an impression that many harp players wouldn't even consider just tuning the reeds so that OB's aren't necessary in the higher octave. If one uses just 2nd position and plays only blues the most obvious thing would be to tune the reeds optimally for that. Still that's not a topic that is often discussed. Why? Because the doctrine of skills and technique is more important than the ability to produce music. (Again, these aren't mutually exclusive things.)
Perhaps it is because the harp is an instrument that has many of these mystical techniques like bending and overbending, tongue blocking etc. And on the other hand it is an instrument that isn't widely recognized as a "real" instrument but rather just a helpful little device to use in campfire singing when you don't have "real instruments" with you. Perhaps this is one of the reasons why the usage of technique is overemphasized? The fact that diatonic harp doesn't have readily available all the notes from the chromatic scale is of course another thing. On the other hand it requires people to learn these difficult techniques to be able to produce all the notes - and on the other hand it's another feature which makes people to consider harp as a lesser value instrument. That might be one reason why harp players are obsessed about the technique - we want to show the people that harp is not just a full instrument but also an instrument that requires lots of skills and practice from the player.
If all the notes were readily available like on the chromatic, we'd lose lots of the expressive bends and slides,slurs which make the harp an ideal instrument for playing the blues with the many microtones in between notes.
There have been discussions on alternate tunings, but these require a complete re-learning of the instrument and many "classic" blues phrases would not work.
eg There are many standard endings and turnarounds that are used.
I like and play chromatic and it is great for playing swing, but is not as expressive as the diatonic.
Unless its in the hands of someone like Kim Wilson or Rod Piazza.
Yes, I'm with you 7Limit. Microtonalities are important and in fact the reason I started to play harp in the first place. But many blues players that wish not to master nothing but 2nd position playing could easily tune e.g the 7 draw half step down to the blue note. They wouldn't miss anything important but now they would have the upper blue note available without OB's. Still, for some reason this is not very common approach to have? Is it easier to learn the OB's than tune the reed? ;)
In fact, many harp players don't even use the upper octave in 2nd position - perhaps just because of the lack of some key notes there. I'm happy with the 6OB and nowadays can utilize that rather ok, but it is only now when I'm starting to really explore that upper octave within the blues. I'm sure that if people would have instructed and encouraged me to make that tuning I would have incorporated the upper octave in my playing much earlier.
I might be wrong, but I'm observing that in this harp scene we have little bit of obsessions towards the technique at the cost of musicality. And I think that part of that is because of those reasons I wrote in my previous post. If one switches the mind towards the music and what they want to produce (instead of old phrases & techniques) that might make a huge difference to the approach to the instrument.
In that sense you might be in better company if you play some genre that isn't usually played with the harp - because then you don't get confused about how some "greats" have been playing the harp. Instead you are forced to listen to the music and try to adapt your instrument to that (and not the other way around). This is actually what has helped Jantso from Ataturk Band to develop his playing. As he plays middle-eastern tunes he hasn't been distracted by others playing that music with the harp.
What's wrong with sticking out like the dog's balls? There's a good reason why they are sticking out, you know.. :)
Actually he studies the phrasings, sensibilities and conventions and how to make those work with the harp. And that's the whole point - he expands the conventional ways of using the harp by imitating other instruments/instrumentalists and the Music, NOT other harpists. Do you understand the difference?
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with e.g. playing just blues in 2nd position. It is actually often beautiful and attractive music for my ears. But for my own purposes I've come to see more benefits of listening the music and not the harp playing. In that approach it might be actually beneficial to stop listening for harp players (for a while at least).
I think a lot of what you listen to depends on which level your playing ability is at.
Initially I used to pick songs because they had good harp solo's in them. This has the benefit of teaching new licks and phrases.
Now I'll pick a song because its a great song, regardless of harp content.
There are still a lot of classics in my set though, as after all I love the sound of blues harp ;O)
Most music is written with a particular instrument in mind. So will play to that instruments strengths and hide the weaknesses.
Personally if you like the sound of a sax or synth or some other exotic middle eastern instrument, why not just play that instrument instead of "expanding the conventional ways of using the harp"
Which usually means just plugging it into a guitar effects pedal anyway. ----------
@Apskarp "Actually he studies the phrasings, sensibilities and conventions and how to make those work with the harp. And that's the whole point - he expands the conventional ways of using the harp by imitating other instruments/instrumentalists and the Music, NOT other harpists. Do you understand the difference?" Expands conventional ways of using the harp? How? Plays it with his fingers, fits some strings to it? Hits it with a stick?...or does he suck & blow like everyone else?
I understand the concept that a harp is an instrument like any other, and as such is a medium for playing music...any kind of music that you like...but playing a different genre of music is just playing a different genre of music. Playing middle eastern music is playing middle eastern music, it isn't playing western rock, or any other genre "better".
Your assertion that people "just play 2nd position blues" is just that, YOUR assertion, a limitation that you impose on your perception, NOT the reality. Yes most blues, rock etc is played in 2nd position, but every player worth hearing that I have heard plays in a variety of positions. A great player, playing blues in 2nd position, is still a great player.
You still don't seem to get the idea that being a good musician & being a good harp player are the same thing if you are playing the harp...whether you do it by ear, by acedemic pursuit, or by copying the birds in the effing trees...if, when you play, it sounds great/ sells CDs/fills venues/has a distinct influence on those that follow & garners the acclaim of your peers, then you are a great musician. Great if you want to take inspiration from other instruments & genres, but if you don't master the A, B, C of playing the instrument, from listening to those that are acknowledged as having mastered it, you are more likely going to end up just playing a different genre badly.
There are a lot of very good harp players in the world, but there have only been, & will ever only be at any one time, reasonably few greats (it's phrase that is grossly over used in daily banter)...if you really listen to them, there is always something to learn, even if you don't play the same kind of music, or sound anything like them.
Let's not forget that 2nd position, by it's definition, was not the intended use for the diatonic, which was designed for playing major melodies, most music played on harmonica over the period of time that it has existed, has not been 2nd position blues.
Actually he studies the phrasings, sensibilities and conventions and how to make those work with the harp. And that's the whole point - he expands the conventional ways of using the harp by imitating other instruments/instrumentalists and the Music, NOT other harpists. Do you understand the difference?
The problem here is not that I can't see the difference but that you can't see there is no difference. Little Walter did the same thing years ago when he copped phrases from jazz, and many other great harmonica players within the blues have done likewise. There is a very good reason why Kim Wilson's 3rd position horn lines sound unique compared to, say, the similar work from Mark Hummel or RJ Mischo (and who knows, maybe even Adam Gussow). It's because he listens to a lot of obscure jazz and other music outside of the blues and brings in material that has that influence but will sit comfortably within his own genre. What you are describing is not unique and is not expanding the conventions any more than was done earlier by others.
Understand - I'm not knocking the idea. I applaud it. I just think you are wrong if you think a few guys copping oud lines on harp are pushing boundaries. It just shows you haven't properly analysed your predecessors within the more common harp genres - and that is an argument in support of the requirement for YOU to study precedent more closely.
I'm not saying there's anything wrong with e.g. playing just blues in 2nd position. It is actually often beautiful and attractive music for my ears. But for my own purposes I've come to see more benefits of listening the music and not the harp playing. In that approach it might be actually beneficial to stop listening for harp players (for a while at least).
And I'm saying I agree with you and a lot of us do this already. It wasn't a new idea when Jerry Portnoy mentioned it in his teaching series a decade ago. But at least he made the point that you should do both - listen widely AND understand the precedents within your own instrument.
By the way, I'm not advocating just playing the blues in 2nd position. If you think that, you aren't paying attention.
@7limit: "Personally if you like the sound of a sax or synth or some other exotic middle eastern instrument, why not just play that instrument instead of "expanding the conventional ways of using the harp""
That's a good question. For me the reason seems to be two-folded. 1) I already play the harp and thus it's interesting to experiment with it. I also play some trumpet, didgeridoo, pan pipes, guitar & corintas, but currently the harp seems to be the most expressive instrument for me. I started to practice slide guitar too as it has the same element of microtonals present. 2) I feel like I can bring some new elements to that music when I play harp, as the harp is such an intimate instrument. Almost like singing.
@5F: Being a good harp player & good musician aren't the same thing. They aren't mutually exclusive, but they aren't the same thing either. You could be a good musician and suck as a harp player just because you lack technique. And you could be technically brilliant harp player but lack musicality.
My argument is that in some point of time, when you have mastered enough technical skills, you would do yourself a favor to completely stop listening to harp players and just develop your musicality with the harp as your device of expressing it. In that way you would learn to play the music with the harp and not just harp with some musical elements. Again, these aren't mutually exclusive things. One could spend time listening music that has been played with the harp and develop musically. But for me, I have seen that there is a great risk that one ends up copying the harp playing and not playing the music.
But this all depends of course on the goals. If the uppermost goal is to develop as a musician, then my argument is valid (in my opinion!).
If all these "boundary pushers" were serious they'd join an orchestra and play an incongruent melody from a different song from another obscure genre backwards using OBs and bass harp, and a tube connected to their ass.
It wouldn't be musical and it would totally piss everyone off but it SURE would be innovative.
Then they might be described as not only the Danny Gatton of the harp, but also the John Cage and maybe even the Idi Amin of the harp.
