From: "Michael Will" Date: 28 Oct 1995 08:53:50 -0700 Subject: Harp in Orchestra (was- Com
Reply to: Harp in Orchestra (was: Composers information)
Winslow wrote: >> harmonica is capable of, they like the wide-ranging variety of output >> and the combination of thrilling single note and unique chordal sounds.
B'e G'o wrote: >If the instrument's level of volume is problematic . . .
It seems to me that a large part of the character of the harmonica changes with mic'ing and amplification. Let me propose (duck and run) that the mic'd/amplified harp is a different instrument than the accoustic harp.
An electric guitar is not the same instrument as an accoustic guitar; nor is it the same as an accoustic-electric (an accoustic with a pickup). The analogy is mic'ing a harp played accoustically vs cupping a mic' and harp at the same time. The tone, tembre, and character of the sound is quite different and distinct.
And, you don't manipulate the harmonica the same way. The hands are doing different things. The breath control and resonance-with-reed seems different as well.
So, can we consider the "system" of harp/mic'/amp as an instrument unto itself (where brand, mic'-type, amp type etc, go to different varieties of mic'd harp, like a Strativarious (sp?) vs garden variety violin) that is distinct from the accoustic harmonica?
If I can put words in Winslow's mouth, I'd guess that's why he suggested a megaphone. If there's objection to electronics in an orchestral setting, why not a megaphone?
Has anyone tried harp thru megaphone? Is it more like "cupped mic", or more like "mic'd accoustic" harp?