Other web Sites
Harmonica Blues  Harmonica Amps
Harmonica Links Harmonica Pages
• Archives Home
• Years
 · 1992
 · 1993
 · 1994
 · 1995
 · 1996
 · 1997 		 · 1998
 · 1999
 · 2000
 · 2001
 · 2002
 · 2003
 
Web HarpL
Ebay Searches:
Amps:
Microphones:
Effects:
Harmonicas and Gear:
Harmonica Music and Instruction:

 

 

Harp-L Archives

[Previous Message] [Next Message]
[Previous in Thread] [Next in Thread]
[Start of Thread] [End of Thread]

From: Mike Curtis
Date: Wed, 19 Feb 1997 22:21:23 -0800 (PST)
Subject: Re: harp style

On Wed, 18 Feb 1987, fjm wrote:

> There's a myriad difference between the two worlds of acoustic and
> amplified and between those two extremes there are manifold
> possibilities of expression. What I'm talking about is subtle. The
> last 10% of playing perhaps. It's all those subtle little things coming
> together that make a player an Annie Raines or a Rod Piazza.

Agreed. But the question probably didn't come from a Rod or Annie. I
would suspect it was from someone who has been playing a limited amount of
time, and probably has not tried playing amplified. I'd hazard the guess
he may not yet have played in public. If Sonny Terry asked me the same
question, after I found out just how he managed to come to life again, I'd
give a totally different answer. Sonny could SMOKE on acoustic harp. I'm
sure he wouldn't be at all satisfied with a very basic answer like "just
cup the mic, dude". But a newer harp player will probably find this to be
more than enough for the time being.

> No matter how good you get you should always fuss and want
> to improve. I've been playing 24 years now. Not as long as Mike but
> I'm younger and if I outlive him I'll catch up eventually.

Better take care of yourself - I plan on being the George Burns of
harmonica. I think I'd make a delightful old curmudgeon.

> To answer the original query. Finally! I'll say for me that I feel
> that acoustic is harder because amplified is like pounding 16 penny
> nails with a sledge hammer. It lacks a certain subtlety. If you can
> play well acoustically you'll have no trouble amplified but it is a
> whole other world.

Which was essentially my point, too. If you're a killer harp player,
you'll sound good either way, with minimal adaptation.

> Oops I forgot to mention dynamics. The dynamics of acoustic vs
> amplified are completely different. The difference between soft and
> loud is narrower playing amplified. Big difference and this is not to
> say that dynamic playing is not possible amplified only that the ranges
> differ and the the expression is changed because of this. Fletcher
> Munson (sp) right there you know there'll be a difference because of
> the increased volume and our altered perception. fjm

Good point. However, playing amplified _can_ be very dynamic if you do it
right. I do the following:

1. Set the amp gain so it starts distorting around 1/2 volume;
2. use the mic volume control extensively;
3. have an enormous acoustic volume range;
4. sometimes play "acoustically" a few feet back from the vocal mic; and
5. sometimes play acoustic harp in the audience.

I have enough dynamics using the first three to be quite hard to record.
Add in the last two and it's very difficult without tweaking gain during
recording. I have a Tascam 244, which has DBX and a rated 90 dB dynamic
range. Yet I still need a compressor going into it to prevent me from
going off scale, or down into the noise.

So while amplified playing oftentimes lacks dynamics, it doesn't have to.


-- IronMan Mike Curtis
Cassette available - email for details