-A Portland Play Along Selection- is a newly released, 2 CD set of contra dance tunes, recorded with minimal instrumentation and mostly at moderate tempos. It is intended as a learning tool and then a way to pass on the tradition.
The tunes are usually played in two or three tune medleys to create dances of roughly 4 minutes. There are 97 tunes contained in the 37 medleys. I gather that exactly how tunes are grouped in medleys is not part of the tradition. The tunes apparently are freely regrouped in dance play lists, although they might be commonly known and played in familiar clusters.
All of the tunes are drawn from the Portland Collection books, so the notation is available. The CDs are a companion to the books or simply a way to learn the tunes by ear. But one introduced (to the Portland Collection) by way of the recordings may find the books a companion to the CDs. That is exactly what I did. I liked the CDs so then ordered the books. There are additional recordings of more of the tunes, few if any tunes featured twice.
I am getting intimately acquainted with the new 2 CD set. In making up a play list and worksheet (to manage 97 tunes), I find that the key range is BbFCGDAE, which is exactly what the common custom chromatic autoharp would include, leaving no space for dim7 chords, and some keys definitely sounding better than others, if all 7 done on a single instrument.
I am doing the basic chord learning part with two chromatics, one CGDAEB and the other BbFCGDA. The former is pretty much a "Bluegrass" key setup, essentially a "sharps harp", and the latter is almost standard but trimmed to only 6 keys. The first has a custom bass tuning and the second is standard tuning. In this way, all the keys are good keys, well positioned over the strings and making nice sounding chords.
Eventually, I will probably refine that further down to diatonics of one sort or another. However, a few of the tunes are chromatic, especially the Quèbècois and some "Northern" or "New England". As always, if one has G, D, and A covered, following the fiddler's preference, they will catch a high percentage of any repertoire, probably a lot less in Quèbècois. I need the BbFC harp for only five (5) of the thirty seven (37) medleys on the 2 CDs.
Needing mostly a custom autoharp is a good illustration of how the factory standard autoharp does not represent how so many typically use the instrument, or would like to. In addition to a model with 3 flats, C, and 3 sharps (EbBbFCGDA), a custom shop ought to offer at least chromatics with [4 flats +CG] (AbEbBbFCG) and [CG+ w/5 sharps] (CGDAEB). The standard one in the middle would remain BbFCGDA. I am showing only 6 keys because of the assumption that they would be compatible with the 6 key limit of meantone tuning and that the 21 bar chord set would fill the extra space with 3 dim7 chords.
The bass tunings are as follows, noting that all use the standard note array in the plain strings, fully chromatic, with melody range notes remaining in familiar positions:
12C-36C all standard
The above table shows various ways to tune the chromatic autoharp in order to serve different sets of keys. The context was for meantone tuning and for the presence of three dim7 chords on a 21 chord. Therefore, only 6 keys are shown for each tuning.
The table applies only to bass strings 1-11. All the other strings (from #12 upward) are tuned standard, two complete octaves from C to C to C plus any 37th string, typically a D.
Four keys on each would be quite satisfying. The two keys in brackets would be the sweet spot keys, the instrument's strengths and the ones a player is likely to favor.
The above table may be bookmarked for future reference using the following address or using the link to actually go to the page and make bookmarking simpler:
http://www.autoharpworks.com/pages/Post/doc/cfg/ChromaticSetupsTable.htm
Chromatic Setups Table
I should note that the hybrid BbFCGDAE, common on an Orthey for example, usually gets the job done with one instrument, although pretty lame in flat keys. That bass tuning is standard except it drops 10A# and inserts 3A. An important part of the context is an instrument stout enough to withstand moving the whole string set up one position, including a 37D, and inserting a larger, nonstandard 1F string. More context is that it involves ONLY an Orthey brand string set (or equivalent specs).
I used F#7 once for B harmonic minor. I used EbMaj once in a Bb tune. I had no call for any dim7 chords, at least not for any chord-along lack of detail. One might well find some use in a melody picking arrangement. I don't hear at as being in sync with other instruments though.
Saratoga Hornpipe, key of F, Disc 1, Medley 8, Track 22 is one of the better chromatic exercises. It is part of a Bb, C, F medley. It is a tasty tune and fun to play. It uses a II7 in the A part. The B part is harmonic minor, using F, C, Dm, A7. All of these tunes move along at a pretty good clip, so it is only when one knows the melody and "gets" the chord progression that it all comes together. I am declaring the obvious, but I am just saying, the tune becomes special at some speed. It is a shape to a tune that one could certainly not experience with a diatonic instrument. I will ignore the possibility of configuring an instrument for only one tune. I know of at least three people who have done exactly that.
If anyone else is working these tunes or even has the "Collection" books, I have some lists put together in Excel. I did the Play Along CD indexes from scratch, but Susan (Songer) also shared a text file of all 639 tunes in the two book volumes, sorted by key and indexing title. I managed to convert that to a clean Excel file, one for each book volume. I plan to enter the page number for each tune once my copies of the books arrive. It would be handy to use for a play list creator, because Excel will allow sorting, column hiding, many print options, etc.
In another life, I was a database analyst, so I couldn't resist trying to hyper-organize 600 some tunes spread among a number of recording projects and two books. If you invest the work once, you then have a powerful tool for things that would not ordinarily be practical. For example you would have data to load a database that included a document object of the the PDF notation file and also a Midi file or an mp3 sample, reminding you how the tune goes. You could also link a discography to tune titles.
When you get these CDs, the booklet included shows a medley and track list and then a separate key list. I had to write in the keys so I could easily play along and especially so I could know which harp to pick up. That got messy, so I set out to create a prettier listing. If anyone would like a copy, I will eventually post it and announce a link. Let me know in the meantime, if it would be of immediate benefit to you. Either run out and buy some legal size paper or hide some of the columns. It prints in landscape spreadsheet orientation. If I am asked to send a special copy, I expect that one already owns the CDs or has a set coming. This is not idle "recipe collecting". There is a certain amount of effort involved in sending a special copy, so I would appreciate having it actually used short term. It will eventually be posted for all to access in any case.
I understand the Portland Collection website has been updated since Meryl initially alerted us to the new release. The track list is at -
A Portland Playalong Selection track list
The list of keys is not shown, but my spreadsheet includes that detail and more.
The full promo is at -
All about -A Portland Playalong Selection-
The complete investment in learning Portland Collection tunes is about $150, including two book volumes; four prior, fully arranged and up tempo recordings of some of the tunes; and the new learning CD set. The basics of the new CD set and the two book volumes would be half that. Then again, those who want or need to go it just by ear, a pencil, and a note pad will be in for about 30 bucks.
There are many references to minor keys, but only two are harmonic minor, the i-iv-V7. Most are actually Dorian, only a few Aeolian. There are many tunes with mixed mode, often a major A part and a minor B part or vice versa. A few Mixolydians are the same, few a pure modal tune all the way through. Some are just Major with a flatted 7 here and there, the signature I-bVII chord progression of Mixolydian mode. For example, D to C chords out of a key signature of D. That alone does not make it Mixolydian per se.
I expect one would find this exercise useful if wanting to learn to jam, wanting to play for dances, or just wanting a good way to learn some nice tunes that others would probably know or enjoy learning from you. It is strictly instrumental. These are not songs. It is dance music, the contra dance tradition specifically. Many of the tunes should be familiar to those who have done some jamming out and about, but there are none that I would consider trite. It's good stuff.
Monday, April 28, 2008
Monday, April 21, 2008
Autoharp revival
Having read a recent reference to some supposed "autoharp revival", I made a note and set it aside. I catch up on it now and offer it forthwith:
This is not a revival of "a popular parlor instrument". It is a rebirth in a new design, held and played in a different way. If it were based upon the old instruments and how they were played, many of us would not have been attracted to and taken up the autoharp. The old way, lap style, is still quite legitimate but is just a legacy, not the source of any new found popularity that I can tell.
Furthermore, based on the instruments the more prominent performers play, the sound attraction is coming mostly from the diatonic. Sorry, but I think that is a fact.
Noteworthy in that is the fact that no commercial vendor sells a "diatonic". They are all customized instruments or built by luthiers.
It could be said then that the autoharp does not owe its popularity to the chromatic configuration, yet we continue to propose that one drawn to the autoharp because of a diatonic should begin with a chromatic. That leaves the question "but why can't I sound like so-and-so? I'm disappointed". It is not an easy question to answer.
The instruments that most autoharp players are using are significantly more advanced in construction and seriousness of purpose than the old black boxes that many associate with the word "autoharp".
Effectively the autoharp was reinvented, and the old blackies, as they are called, have been out of production for 40 years. They keep turning up in flea markets and auctions but they are not valuable enough or still sturdy enough to warrant refurbishing and any notion of being put back in service. Some exceptions don't belie the point that more modern autoharps are much better instruments.
Some may say that they prefer the sound of the old 'harps. Personally, I suspect that has more to do with wanting to sound like the recordings of old dead people rather than any real judgment about what sounds the best. One must be authentic (rolls eyes). Old time music is better than it sounds. :>)
This is not a revival of "a popular parlor instrument". It is a rebirth in a new design, held and played in a different way. If it were based upon the old instruments and how they were played, many of us would not have been attracted to and taken up the autoharp. The old way, lap style, is still quite legitimate but is just a legacy, not the source of any new found popularity that I can tell.
Furthermore, based on the instruments the more prominent performers play, the sound attraction is coming mostly from the diatonic. Sorry, but I think that is a fact.
Noteworthy in that is the fact that no commercial vendor sells a "diatonic". They are all customized instruments or built by luthiers.
It could be said then that the autoharp does not owe its popularity to the chromatic configuration, yet we continue to propose that one drawn to the autoharp because of a diatonic should begin with a chromatic. That leaves the question "but why can't I sound like so-and-so? I'm disappointed". It is not an easy question to answer.
The instruments that most autoharp players are using are significantly more advanced in construction and seriousness of purpose than the old black boxes that many associate with the word "autoharp".
Effectively the autoharp was reinvented, and the old blackies, as they are called, have been out of production for 40 years. They keep turning up in flea markets and auctions but they are not valuable enough or still sturdy enough to warrant refurbishing and any notion of being put back in service. Some exceptions don't belie the point that more modern autoharps are much better instruments.
Some may say that they prefer the sound of the old 'harps. Personally, I suspect that has more to do with wanting to sound like the recordings of old dead people rather than any real judgment about what sounds the best. One must be authentic (rolls eyes). Old time music is better than it sounds. :>)
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Case study - best chords to install?
Quoting:
[story stream quoted below]
<>
[Bob]
You won't be making any truly meaningful change with it until ready to spend real money on it. You need a new chord set.
The autoharp needs to be front and center, not another musical toy vying for your respect, attention and investment priority. It matters, because most suggestions are wasted until there is money available to allow implementing them. Any suggestion to stick with the stock 15 bar is misguidance in my opinion.
A "real autoharp", as reinvented and introduced in 1975 in the form of the Appalachian 21 chord OS45C, more what people typically play today, has three rows of chord buttons. It is configured with a complete commitment to being played while held upright. The others should be burned, upgraded if structurally worthy, or put in a glass case. The exceptions could be for those who still want to play lap style, but the train has moved way down the tracks from the autoharp that many think they know.
The 12 bar chord sets that work best for lap style have in fact been long since discontinued. The 15 bar was always too crowded to allow enough room to pick on either side of the bar set. The 12 bar never used the D# strings, however. The current 21 bar Attache left hander works quite well for lap style but is a very different design compared to the old lap style instruments.
Note that the chord selection (customized) you now have doesn't use the G# or D# strings. You could tune those strings down to double G and D and open up the felt on the bars that use G or D (Gm, Dm, Em, Bm, Bb, C, G, D, C7, G7, D7, A7) .
That would provide some of the tonal benefits of the "diatonic autoharp". I use quotes, because few autoharps are truly diatonic, and the motive for having one is often to make a chromatic sound better or favor a different key, not to play diatonic music necessarily.
I deduce that your current chord set is BbFCGD Majors, CGDA 7ths, gdaebf# minors. That is two sharps and two flats plus C. The EbBb as D# and A# strings are employed. The F# and C# strings are likewise employed. The G# and D# strings are not employed. By virtue of the key of C being central, we already know that all the naturals are in use in some chord.
The other reaction could be that you would want to appreciate that this is a chromatic instrument. There are tunes that do indeed require all those chords and all those notes. We each know our repertoire interests, but I am just challenging being so sure that one doesn't need either chords or chromatic notes. Before retuning the strings to have some doubled notes, consider that changing to a 21 bar set will provide plenty of chord possibilities while allowing a fully chromatic instrument. You may not think you need certain chords or progressions, but you don't yet have an autoharp repertoire. There will be new tunes that come with the instrument. It is not just something on which to play tunes you already know or have already found to fit one of your other instruments.
I am just saying that, despite your experience, it is early to be so sure what chords you "don't need". There will be priorities for what to include in limited space. Right now you have made minors so important at the expense of the instrument being fully chromatic. All that would be fixed by just dropping a 21 chord bar set on the instrument. Actually you would have to refelt a few bars to get all those minors.
--------
Bob Lewis
***********
most recent order
Quoting:
Hello, and thanks to all for their ideas about how to rejig my autoharp. Having taken all in (there were some divergent opinions!), I decided not to take the extreme plunge to pure diatonic at this point, and simply changed some of the bars. The (to me) useless E7 E flat and F7 were changed to E minor, F sharp minor and B minor, allowing fuller playing in the stated keys (at least in the upper end of the FCGD range). I am now trying to learn to play without making it sound like I'm grating metal across strings and learning how to pick out single notes without whacking away at strings that don't sound (or worse, that ring out harmonics). Today I think I'll buy some plastic finger picks and see if they sound better. If not, maybe I'll buy new strings.
With all four keys I can play along with many songs at my Celtic group and learn more from the autoharpist there. I'm looking forward to the first session this Thursday.
I'm thinking I may wait until the second autoharp turns up to turn it into a diatonic. I like the idea of having major seventh chords, suspended fourths and other nice colour chords to draw on, but the 15 bars in FCGD sure doesn't allow that!
Quoting:
I play violin (35 years), fiddle (2 years), diatonic button accordion (club system and two-row Vienna; 6 years), piano (30 years), appalachian dulcimer (four months) and autoharp (two weeks and counting). I like music, and prefer traditional folk music played by myself or live.
If you want to age me I started on the violin when I was three and a half.
Quoting:
I am new to the autoharp. My mother bought me an Oscar Schmidt 15-bar chromatic autoharp at a garage sale that was missing most of the springs, the top piece that holds in all the bars, and most of the felts. Luckily the body was sound and a small investment turned it into a playable, if un-inspiring, autoharp. There it has sat for the last ten years, hauled out once in a while to accompany some folk songs around the campfire with the standard three-chord harmonies.
I also play fiddle, and have recently joined a "celtic" fiddle group, where I met a real autoharp player. Her's is a diatonic, playable in D and G, and has extra bars to aid single-note playing. It was a revelation to me. I also play appalachian (plucked) dulcimer, a modal / diatonic instrument, along with diatonic accordions so I knew that sometimes a diatonic instrument is preferable to a chromatic one, especially if you knew you'd be playing in one or only a few keys.
Anyways, she loaned me the Mel Bay Autoharp Owner's Manual, and I have decided I'd like to change my autoharp to a diatonic one, playable at the celtic group so that once in a while I can change over instruments and have some extra fun.
So my question: what do you recommend? Most pieces are in D, G and A -- if it's in another key I can always switch to violin. Any recommendations on the best chords to install? How often do you really need those diminished sevenths in celtic music?
Cheers, and thanks! My mother would be glad I'm finally playing the thing for real.
*****************
[story stream quoted below]
<>
[Bob]
You won't be making any truly meaningful change with it until ready to spend real money on it. You need a new chord set.
The autoharp needs to be front and center, not another musical toy vying for your respect, attention and investment priority. It matters, because most suggestions are wasted until there is money available to allow implementing them. Any suggestion to stick with the stock 15 bar is misguidance in my opinion.
A "real autoharp", as reinvented and introduced in 1975 in the form of the Appalachian 21 chord OS45C, more what people typically play today, has three rows of chord buttons. It is configured with a complete commitment to being played while held upright. The others should be burned, upgraded if structurally worthy, or put in a glass case. The exceptions could be for those who still want to play lap style, but the train has moved way down the tracks from the autoharp that many think they know.
The 12 bar chord sets that work best for lap style have in fact been long since discontinued. The 15 bar was always too crowded to allow enough room to pick on either side of the bar set. The 12 bar never used the D# strings, however. The current 21 bar Attache left hander works quite well for lap style but is a very different design compared to the old lap style instruments.
Note that the chord selection (customized) you now have doesn't use the G# or D# strings. You could tune those strings down to double G and D and open up the felt on the bars that use G or D (Gm, Dm, Em, Bm, Bb, C, G, D, C7, G7, D7, A7) .
That would provide some of the tonal benefits of the "diatonic autoharp". I use quotes, because few autoharps are truly diatonic, and the motive for having one is often to make a chromatic sound better or favor a different key, not to play diatonic music necessarily.
I deduce that your current chord set is BbFCGD Majors, CGDA 7ths, gdaebf# minors. That is two sharps and two flats plus C. The EbBb as D# and A# strings are employed. The F# and C# strings are likewise employed. The G# and D# strings are not employed. By virtue of the key of C being central, we already know that all the naturals are in use in some chord.
The other reaction could be that you would want to appreciate that this is a chromatic instrument. There are tunes that do indeed require all those chords and all those notes. We each know our repertoire interests, but I am just challenging being so sure that one doesn't need either chords or chromatic notes. Before retuning the strings to have some doubled notes, consider that changing to a 21 bar set will provide plenty of chord possibilities while allowing a fully chromatic instrument. You may not think you need certain chords or progressions, but you don't yet have an autoharp repertoire. There will be new tunes that come with the instrument. It is not just something on which to play tunes you already know or have already found to fit one of your other instruments.
I am just saying that, despite your experience, it is early to be so sure what chords you "don't need". There will be priorities for what to include in limited space. Right now you have made minors so important at the expense of the instrument being fully chromatic. All that would be fixed by just dropping a 21 chord bar set on the instrument. Actually you would have to refelt a few bars to get all those minors.
--------
Bob Lewis
***********
most recent order
Quoting:
Hello, and thanks to all for their ideas about how to rejig my autoharp. Having taken all in (there were some divergent opinions!), I decided not to take the extreme plunge to pure diatonic at this point, and simply changed some of the bars. The (to me) useless E7 E flat and F7 were changed to E minor, F sharp minor and B minor, allowing fuller playing in the stated keys (at least in the upper end of the FCGD range). I am now trying to learn to play without making it sound like I'm grating metal across strings and learning how to pick out single notes without whacking away at strings that don't sound (or worse, that ring out harmonics). Today I think I'll buy some plastic finger picks and see if they sound better. If not, maybe I'll buy new strings.
With all four keys I can play along with many songs at my Celtic group and learn more from the autoharpist there. I'm looking forward to the first session this Thursday.
I'm thinking I may wait until the second autoharp turns up to turn it into a diatonic. I like the idea of having major seventh chords, suspended fourths and other nice colour chords to draw on, but the 15 bars in FCGD sure doesn't allow that!
Quoting:
I play violin (35 years), fiddle (2 years), diatonic button accordion (club system and two-row Vienna; 6 years), piano (30 years), appalachian dulcimer (four months) and autoharp (two weeks and counting). I like music, and prefer traditional folk music played by myself or live.
If you want to age me I started on the violin when I was three and a half.
Quoting:
I am new to the autoharp. My mother bought me an Oscar Schmidt 15-bar chromatic autoharp at a garage sale that was missing most of the springs, the top piece that holds in all the bars, and most of the felts. Luckily the body was sound and a small investment turned it into a playable, if un-inspiring, autoharp. There it has sat for the last ten years, hauled out once in a while to accompany some folk songs around the campfire with the standard three-chord harmonies.
I also play fiddle, and have recently joined a "celtic" fiddle group, where I met a real autoharp player. Her's is a diatonic, playable in D and G, and has extra bars to aid single-note playing. It was a revelation to me. I also play appalachian (plucked) dulcimer, a modal / diatonic instrument, along with diatonic accordions so I knew that sometimes a diatonic instrument is preferable to a chromatic one, especially if you knew you'd be playing in one or only a few keys.
Anyways, she loaned me the Mel Bay Autoharp Owner's Manual, and I have decided I'd like to change my autoharp to a diatonic one, playable at the celtic group so that once in a while I can change over instruments and have some extra fun.
So my question: what do you recommend? Most pieces are in D, G and A -- if it's in another key I can always switch to violin. Any recommendations on the best chords to install? How often do you really need those diminished sevenths in celtic music?
Cheers, and thanks! My mother would be glad I'm finally playing the thing for real.
*****************
Are we autoharpers or autoharpists?
We can be referred to as "autoharpers", as you wish. Meantime, the term "autoharpist" continues to apply quite logically.
I believe I am an autoharpist but I also like the term "autoharper", because it can be thought of as encompassing all the tuning and tinkering that go with actually playing the autoharp.
But then there may be autoharp-ists who are not autoharp-ers, because hubby does all the support work and hands wifey a prepared instrument, conceivably vice versa. That goes back to the autoharp being "easy to play" only if it is "ready to play", someone else doing the "hard" part. It is not unlike a winning race car driver needing to thank his crew when making some victory comments.
- Bob Lewis
I believe I am an autoharpist but I also like the term "autoharper", because it can be thought of as encompassing all the tuning and tinkering that go with actually playing the autoharp.
But then there may be autoharp-ists who are not autoharp-ers, because hubby does all the support work and hands wifey a prepared instrument, conceivably vice versa. That goes back to the autoharp being "easy to play" only if it is "ready to play", someone else doing the "hard" part. It is not unlike a winning race car driver needing to thank his crew when making some victory comments.
- Bob Lewis
Why no FAQ on Cyberpluckers?
Basically, there no longer is a FAQ on Cyberpluckers, because no one stepped up to host it or manage it, let alone contribute material to it on any ongoing basis. I believe that is partly because of a primitive interface and because there was so little encouragement taken from mentions of having appreciated the FAQ as it was. There weren't (m)any mentions of it being used.
Aside from Frequently [Asked] Questions (FAQ), we don't have Frequently [Answered] Questions either. Nowadays, responses to questions posted on Cyberpluckers are mostly private. That has been confirmed a number of times by public gratitude, without a word of an answer being posted on the list. A person might have received good information, maybe not.
Who knows whether the group serves well without awareness of what people are getting in response to questions? How is any conflict in information resolved? How does persuasion occur, proponents of one view debating another? It is the debate that is being avoided, a false sense of the information being more valuable than it really may be, sort of like writing a paper and grading it yourself...pride of authorship, etc. Apparently, the only welcome response is that it is wonderful. Apparently, being technically correct or the product of the power of more than one mind is less important.
The archives aren't worth much except for a few posts. For most, in between the throw away chitchat, Cyberpluckers has become a bulletin board for posting questions, not a place to look for answers. If this was a true, web based "forum", subscribers wouldn't have a choice for how they responded. All replies would appear on a web page in threaded context, public to at least those who subscribe. They could abuse "private messaging" but would probably hear about it. Not every forum has PM enabled. It's typically optional. Moreover, email addresses can be hidden and probably would be. We might know the person's email address or we might not, no option to have a private exchange, a stealth response.
I have a definite interest in maintaining copies of answers to questions, both those I have addressed before or material written by someone else that well addressed an issue or supplemented my effort. I find that I have to be independently protective of that product. A web host can unplug you or flat out lose all your work. You need backup. Observe that whatever was included in the old FAQ is gone...poof! So is any work in setting it up. I had adequate notice of the shutdown, no problem there. I just mean that any FAQ established is just how it looks today. Save your work.
With that in mind, I simply chose to establish my own resources. It was an easy call, because I maintain a website with adequate space and can find justification if I have to upgrade to get more space.
In the past few years, Cyberpluckers, mostly new people, have become rather abusive of the knowledge resources here, perjoratives and sniping mostly, apparently trying to purify the group or the vocal to "dummies like me". "It's okay to be better, smarter, or wiser than me but not by too much." I would counter with "don't let the small people tear you down." We have had our share of internet rudeness and people posting as if anonymous and not accountable for poor behavior or even reflecting behavior approaching sociopathic.
There are occasional gratuitous comments on the list about Cyberpluckers being friendly, but meanwhile more and more people become quiet or leave, we don't know which. I have checked a few times, and there are usually a little over 100 people posting each month. That is actually a relatively lively mail list as they go, but it is not this 700 number I have seen used.
There is also some sparring for alpha dog position at times, to include strong individuals being the subject of frequent sniping from various directions. Everyone's a wannabe sheepdog. We all "preach to the choir" as if there is this grand audience of new players not yet fallen in line, grist for our mill. Mixed metaphor maybe, but there just seems this fine line between a need to be helpful and a need to feel dominion over a following. When more than one ambitious person is vying for dominion over the same group, look out...maybe worse if the group of prospects is actually imaginary...but enough of the armchair psychology.
The people who would best be able to write a FAQ are wandering off or falling silent. "No good deed goes unpunished". It's not a friendly place, and it definitely is not a family. It is at best a community. You pick your friends and lock your doors at night. There are many strangers. We can only be assured of sharing some degree of interest in the word "autoharp", perhaps nothing else in common at all...a world, a culture, a generation, a religion, a philosophy apart.
There may be amenities and feel good rhetoric on Cyberpluckers, but there are problems that do not appear to get addressed in the absence of active moderation, and I suspect many feel a sense of malaise, which includes not caring enough anymore to bother with a FAQ. Most of the content would be from Bob Lewis (me) anyway, so one can just use his website and other resources or write to him directly, part of his business to address autoharp questions, hopefully with someone choosing to spend money with him but not necessarily. It requires time and patience, done as much as a service as a promotion. If someone asks a question and I believe I know a good answer, I don't refuse to answer. I am out there, and people find me. Others with web sites or other contact promotions experience the same thing.
--
Bob Lewis
Aside from Frequently [Asked] Questions (FAQ), we don't have Frequently [Answered] Questions either. Nowadays, responses to questions posted on Cyberpluckers are mostly private. That has been confirmed a number of times by public gratitude, without a word of an answer being posted on the list. A person might have received good information, maybe not.
Who knows whether the group serves well without awareness of what people are getting in response to questions? How is any conflict in information resolved? How does persuasion occur, proponents of one view debating another? It is the debate that is being avoided, a false sense of the information being more valuable than it really may be, sort of like writing a paper and grading it yourself...pride of authorship, etc. Apparently, the only welcome response is that it is wonderful. Apparently, being technically correct or the product of the power of more than one mind is less important.
The archives aren't worth much except for a few posts. For most, in between the throw away chitchat, Cyberpluckers has become a bulletin board for posting questions, not a place to look for answers. If this was a true, web based "forum", subscribers wouldn't have a choice for how they responded. All replies would appear on a web page in threaded context, public to at least those who subscribe. They could abuse "private messaging" but would probably hear about it. Not every forum has PM enabled. It's typically optional. Moreover, email addresses can be hidden and probably would be. We might know the person's email address or we might not, no option to have a private exchange, a stealth response.
I have a definite interest in maintaining copies of answers to questions, both those I have addressed before or material written by someone else that well addressed an issue or supplemented my effort. I find that I have to be independently protective of that product. A web host can unplug you or flat out lose all your work. You need backup. Observe that whatever was included in the old FAQ is gone...poof! So is any work in setting it up. I had adequate notice of the shutdown, no problem there. I just mean that any FAQ established is just how it looks today. Save your work.
With that in mind, I simply chose to establish my own resources. It was an easy call, because I maintain a website with adequate space and can find justification if I have to upgrade to get more space.
In the past few years, Cyberpluckers, mostly new people, have become rather abusive of the knowledge resources here, perjoratives and sniping mostly, apparently trying to purify the group or the vocal to "dummies like me". "It's okay to be better, smarter, or wiser than me but not by too much." I would counter with "don't let the small people tear you down." We have had our share of internet rudeness and people posting as if anonymous and not accountable for poor behavior or even reflecting behavior approaching sociopathic.
There are occasional gratuitous comments on the list about Cyberpluckers being friendly, but meanwhile more and more people become quiet or leave, we don't know which. I have checked a few times, and there are usually a little over 100 people posting each month. That is actually a relatively lively mail list as they go, but it is not this 700 number I have seen used.
There is also some sparring for alpha dog position at times, to include strong individuals being the subject of frequent sniping from various directions. Everyone's a wannabe sheepdog. We all "preach to the choir" as if there is this grand audience of new players not yet fallen in line, grist for our mill. Mixed metaphor maybe, but there just seems this fine line between a need to be helpful and a need to feel dominion over a following. When more than one ambitious person is vying for dominion over the same group, look out...maybe worse if the group of prospects is actually imaginary...but enough of the armchair psychology.
The people who would best be able to write a FAQ are wandering off or falling silent. "No good deed goes unpunished". It's not a friendly place, and it definitely is not a family. It is at best a community. You pick your friends and lock your doors at night. There are many strangers. We can only be assured of sharing some degree of interest in the word "autoharp", perhaps nothing else in common at all...a world, a culture, a generation, a religion, a philosophy apart.
There may be amenities and feel good rhetoric on Cyberpluckers, but there are problems that do not appear to get addressed in the absence of active moderation, and I suspect many feel a sense of malaise, which includes not caring enough anymore to bother with a FAQ. Most of the content would be from Bob Lewis (me) anyway, so one can just use his website and other resources or write to him directly, part of his business to address autoharp questions, hopefully with someone choosing to spend money with him but not necessarily. It requires time and patience, done as much as a service as a promotion. If someone asks a question and I believe I know a good answer, I don't refuse to answer. I am out there, and people find me. Others with web sites or other contact promotions experience the same thing.
--
Bob Lewis
Tuesday, April 8, 2008
"whimsical faking" and 9th chords
On Mon, Mar 17, 2008 at 12:47 PM, Todd Crowley wrote on Cyberpluckers:
Quoting Bob Lewis: "We haven't yet seen a better idea. Two button chording systems that substitute ugly 9th chords for 7th chords are not it."
Since the Gentleman from South Carolina is a self-admitted diatonic purist, I would submit he is not in the best position to pronounce the 9th chords as "ugly substitutes" for 7th chords.
[Bob]
At the risk of dignifying a cheap shot, I have a couple comments about that.
That implies that you are somehow a better judge, neither of us spending a lot of time playing chromatics. Faulty logic. It would be very much like me dismissing the credibility of your opinion on lockbars, just because you don't play open notes and then don't value having lockbars.
How were you suddenly qualified to design the latest in chromatic autoharps, when strictly a diatonic player, single key at that. Granted you sought qualified advice, but all of us can depart from our specialty without deserving to be discredited. If one rarely plays a chromatic, how does that mean he doesn't know anything about chromatics?
Shall we tell Hal Weeks that he is no longer allowed an opinion about diatonics, because he gave up playing them? Shall we tell Bryan Bowers he cannot prescribe chord layouts for chromatics because he doesn't play one?
Should a luthier be entirely discredited because he isn't a player of any particular skill? Do you want to tell George Orthey that he isn't allowed to express an opinion about something in the autoharp realm either because he isn't actually a player or because he is deaf and couldn't possibly have anything useful to offer?
I have judged four times and turned down another offer. Two of my winners played chromatic. I would claim some credibility. I also do this stuff on a daily basis and am one asked to implement some of these fits of genius. I tend to find the errors and not get paid for the extra time in finding and fixing them.
You wrote to me once that you regarded my knowledge of theory relevant to the autoharp as second only to Mark Fackeldey's, effectively anointing me as numero uno after his passing. You will need to allow me to maintain my status even when it's inconvenient for you.
You thought enough of my ability to recruit me as one of your initial consultants along with Will Smith, Hal Weeks, and Pete Daigle. I declined to get very involved because I thought the idea was dead on arrival, noting that it provided no 7th chords and then not very interested in studying it further. It provided chords one doesn't need and lacks chords one would definitely miss. I did not want to be party to promotion of the use of these "9th" chords, poor musicianship or musically cynical in my opinion.
It's all just stupid, petty stuff. A point should be debated on facts and ideas, not discrediting of one who has an opposing view. I suggest you not use that argument again. We are either right or we are wrong, never mind what credentials we have hanging on the wall or whether you have deemed someone worthy of your blessing or a peer of your demigods.
More recently, I own chromatics and play them on occasion. I also work on/customize chromatics in one form or another almost daily. Today I am working on my own "Sharps chromatic", GDAE in the bass and standard chromatic from there up. It is 18 chord, meantone chromatic with three dim7 chords filling the three remaining slots otherwise unused in the 21 chord bar set. That is a tuning limited to 6 majors like all meantone temperaments. The V7 of the right most key is enharmonic to the major of any 7th major key to the left (beyond the limit of 6). For example, I cannot have both a B7 and an Eb chord, since the tunings of D# (B7) and Eb (EbMajor) would need to be quite different in a meantone temperament. A standard 21 bar has 7 keys while I only have 6, careful to avoid any notes that serve as both a sharp and a flat.
I have recently acquired custom fine tuners especially for the model B and which are light weight, so I am going through my instruments to upgrade them. Those instruments that didn't have fine tuners before will now get played more often, be easier and faster to tune and, most importantly, to more precisely tune. Weight in holding the instrument hasn't been a problem for me personally, but avoiding or removing weight should produce the better sound, the strings driving less mass. That has proved itself out in my impressions of instruments already upgraded.
The flats chromatic is next. The sharps harp is figured on the lower D# to D octave being 10 notes for GDAE instead of the standard FCGD within the D to C# octave. The flats harp uses the notes for AbEbBbF within an Eb to D octave. All of them are standard chromatic in the plain string melody range. Hoping to make that more clear for those not following me, the standard tuning in the first bass octave is 10 notes covering the key scales of FCGD. The D# and G# are omitted. Since that works so well for FCGD, any change in key emphasis simply affects that same range plus the very bottom bass The upper part of the instrument is left alone for practical reasons. It is designed for FCGD, and a veteran player's fingers know here to find notes...best not to move them. One might like to have a differing top end, but the instrument is not designed for that, and again, I already know where notes are located and would rather not move them. That is precisely the same concern as expressed by Harvey Reid, although I don't intend to imply that I play just like he does. I simply have noted that my playing deteriorates when I move things from familiar locations.
Three harps (chromatic) will cover the key range of 1) four flats, 2) one flat, C, and two sharps, and 3) four sharps. The prime keys are AbEbBbF, FCGD, and GDAE , the juiciest keys being Eb, C, and D respectively. I expect then that I will have 10 keys, four flats through four sharps, that I can play without having to put up with significant harmonics. 'Not a lot different in concept from Alan Mager's four key chromatics, wherein he chose to carry two instruments with different key emphases.
If I like these, I will upgrade the chord bars to 18 bar hand made sets. I now have end holders for 15, 18, or 21. I don't expect I would use the diminished 7th chords, partly due to tuning issues.
[Todd]
When I first experimented with opening the 9th on the 7th chords on my diatonic 'harps, I thought it was a failed experiment because there were too many competing open strings. But when I tried it on a straight chromatic having those two extra strings open felt like the whole chord opened up, and it sounded every bit as bluesy and jazzy as the dominant 7th it came to replace, if not more so.
[Bob]
Sorry, but it sounds out of place to my ear, not necessarily "ugly" per se, and existing harmony convention documents why. The 7-8-9-10 cluster is discordant. Some will not like it. Keyboard and vocal harmony practice leaves out either the 8 (normally referred to as a 9th 1-3-5-7-9) or the 7 (=add9). Even then it never repeats for another octave and then another. It cannot be well implemented on an autoharp, because the octaves overlay each other, when extending chords beyond a single octave (9th, 13th et al.). You can't adequately control the voicing and will get the 4 note clusters.
When Charles Deering, autoharp player as well as music professor, first suggested fingering two 9th chords at a time in a post here in 1997, using combinations of 9th chords to yield various conventional chords, he said nothing about playing a single 9th chord by itself. When you attempt to make a 9th bar a sub for a 7th, the whole concept loses credibility.
It's not so much that I couldn't play such an instrument as much as it seems a scam to suppose that people will spend money, time, and energy on this thing not realizing they will have no 7th chords or underestimating how much they will miss them. There is too much faith and hyperbole involved here, bordering on a cult like following.
People needed to read the fine print, because you do mention the absence of 7th chords in the write up. If you say that the 9th chords sound okay instead, that doesn't mean it's true. You (Todd) have on more than one occasion stated that you rely on others in the family for a better ear than yours. Offering up Hal Weeks' name as a defense or for credibility doesn't change anything. Hal has no problem sounding funky, while I and many others certainly do, playing a different kind of music than hard core blues. Younger musicians also have an ear for programmed chaos and energy, whereas an older generation might require more consonance and sense of order.
The diapentic is just an academic exercise in my view. The additional chords are stuff that no one needs or which they could already have in a 15 bar set. It fixes something that wasn't broken, using two fingers instead of one just for the sake of doing it. My single key harps have 15 bars and more chords than I really need. I wouldn't dedicate a good autoharp to a configuration with very limited application. Also, substituting chords would need to be my exception, not the rule.
[Todd]
Don't pay any attention to my pronouncements or any other self-proclaimed experts.
[Bob]
You have acknowledged my expertise in other contexts. Why so fickle? I only seem to have importance and gain endorsement when we agree.
[Todd]
You can also hear a sample of Diachromic playing, which is not as the Gentleman from South Carolina wrongly states "two button chording". In most cases the "two bar chords" are played just as easily with one finger as with two, making them little different than "one button" chords.
[Bob]
That also makes the bars harder to play and master, the fingers' position on the button tops now critical. What about the instrument for mere mortals to play?
[Todd]
Quoting Bob Lewis: "I would say Marty and Mark are not emulated much because they never had the right chords. It was all whimsical faking"
Well, then Marty Schuman whimsically faked his way right into winning the first Winfield contest, the 2nd MLAG contest (in which the Gentleman from SC took part),and the Autoharp Hall of Fame, almost immediately upon his passing. And if Mark Fackeldey doesn't whimsically fake his way into the Autoharp Hall of Fame, in this his first year of eligibility, it will be a great travesty.
[Bob]
I won first place in "the 2nd MLAG contest". Marty either wasn't there or didn't make the finals. I have records for all the top five for nearly all Winfield and MLAG contests. I placed third to Marty's second place in the first year's contest. Marty won in the third year.
Marty's induction into the Hall of Fame that quickly after his passing was sufficiently questionable that the rules were changed. In order that inductions would not be based so much upon emotional reaction to a death, inductions now have a waiting period, as you noted for Mark. That is better so that the basis of an induction is less open to question or cynical comment.
I am not sure what to say about Mark. Make up your own reasons for nominating him or anyone else. I am not sure what to list as extraordinary accomplishments for Mark, but he did write my all time favorite article in AQ (In the Mode).
These inductions are supposed to be more than who died lately or a popularity contest. There need to be extraordinary accomplishments to be considered peers of previous inductees and to avoid offending them, cheapening the whole concept.
Personally, I think it was a shame that Mark couldn't get much attention while he was alive, a classic case of you-have-to-be-dead-to-be-famous. If a veritable Who's Who, the posthumous Autoharp Hall of Fame induction should still be more than who died lately- couldn't get a gig while he was alive - never knew he had so many friends. It becomes a sad, even pathetic exercise.
Inducting Mark has to be more than because Todd was indebted to him and feels the void left by his passing. I recall that Mark was pretty much a pedestrian while alive, with few people knowing quite how to talk to him or how to react to him. He was a character, but one to be taken seriously. If you guys had some bond, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to view him or anyone else as a demigod. We'll make up our own minds, but feel free to campaign, recognizing that it is not an election.
--
Bob Lewis
Quoting Bob Lewis: "We haven't yet seen a better idea. Two button chording systems that substitute ugly 9th chords for 7th chords are not it."
Since the Gentleman from South Carolina is a self-admitted diatonic purist, I would submit he is not in the best position to pronounce the 9th chords as "ugly substitutes" for 7th chords.
[Bob]
At the risk of dignifying a cheap shot, I have a couple comments about that.
That implies that you are somehow a better judge, neither of us spending a lot of time playing chromatics. Faulty logic. It would be very much like me dismissing the credibility of your opinion on lockbars, just because you don't play open notes and then don't value having lockbars.
How were you suddenly qualified to design the latest in chromatic autoharps, when strictly a diatonic player, single key at that. Granted you sought qualified advice, but all of us can depart from our specialty without deserving to be discredited. If one rarely plays a chromatic, how does that mean he doesn't know anything about chromatics?
Shall we tell Hal Weeks that he is no longer allowed an opinion about diatonics, because he gave up playing them? Shall we tell Bryan Bowers he cannot prescribe chord layouts for chromatics because he doesn't play one?
Should a luthier be entirely discredited because he isn't a player of any particular skill? Do you want to tell George Orthey that he isn't allowed to express an opinion about something in the autoharp realm either because he isn't actually a player or because he is deaf and couldn't possibly have anything useful to offer?
I have judged four times and turned down another offer. Two of my winners played chromatic. I would claim some credibility. I also do this stuff on a daily basis and am one asked to implement some of these fits of genius. I tend to find the errors and not get paid for the extra time in finding and fixing them.
You wrote to me once that you regarded my knowledge of theory relevant to the autoharp as second only to Mark Fackeldey's, effectively anointing me as numero uno after his passing. You will need to allow me to maintain my status even when it's inconvenient for you.
You thought enough of my ability to recruit me as one of your initial consultants along with Will Smith, Hal Weeks, and Pete Daigle. I declined to get very involved because I thought the idea was dead on arrival, noting that it provided no 7th chords and then not very interested in studying it further. It provided chords one doesn't need and lacks chords one would definitely miss. I did not want to be party to promotion of the use of these "9th" chords, poor musicianship or musically cynical in my opinion.
It's all just stupid, petty stuff. A point should be debated on facts and ideas, not discrediting of one who has an opposing view. I suggest you not use that argument again. We are either right or we are wrong, never mind what credentials we have hanging on the wall or whether you have deemed someone worthy of your blessing or a peer of your demigods.
More recently, I own chromatics and play them on occasion. I also work on/customize chromatics in one form or another almost daily. Today I am working on my own "Sharps chromatic", GDAE in the bass and standard chromatic from there up. It is 18 chord, meantone chromatic with three dim7 chords filling the three remaining slots otherwise unused in the 21 chord bar set. That is a tuning limited to 6 majors like all meantone temperaments. The V7 of the right most key is enharmonic to the major of any 7th major key to the left (beyond the limit of 6). For example, I cannot have both a B7 and an Eb chord, since the tunings of D# (B7) and Eb (EbMajor) would need to be quite different in a meantone temperament. A standard 21 bar has 7 keys while I only have 6, careful to avoid any notes that serve as both a sharp and a flat.
I have recently acquired custom fine tuners especially for the model B and which are light weight, so I am going through my instruments to upgrade them. Those instruments that didn't have fine tuners before will now get played more often, be easier and faster to tune and, most importantly, to more precisely tune. Weight in holding the instrument hasn't been a problem for me personally, but avoiding or removing weight should produce the better sound, the strings driving less mass. That has proved itself out in my impressions of instruments already upgraded.
The flats chromatic is next. The sharps harp is figured on the lower D# to D octave being 10 notes for GDAE instead of the standard FCGD within the D to C# octave. The flats harp uses the notes for AbEbBbF within an Eb to D octave. All of them are standard chromatic in the plain string melody range. Hoping to make that more clear for those not following me, the standard tuning in the first bass octave is 10 notes covering the key scales of FCGD. The D# and G# are omitted. Since that works so well for FCGD, any change in key emphasis simply affects that same range plus the very bottom bass The upper part of the instrument is left alone for practical reasons. It is designed for FCGD, and a veteran player's fingers know here to find notes...best not to move them. One might like to have a differing top end, but the instrument is not designed for that, and again, I already know where notes are located and would rather not move them. That is precisely the same concern as expressed by Harvey Reid, although I don't intend to imply that I play just like he does. I simply have noted that my playing deteriorates when I move things from familiar locations.
Three harps (chromatic) will cover the key range of 1) four flats, 2) one flat, C, and two sharps, and 3) four sharps. The prime keys are AbEbBbF, FCGD, and GDAE , the juiciest keys being Eb, C, and D respectively. I expect then that I will have 10 keys, four flats through four sharps, that I can play without having to put up with significant harmonics. 'Not a lot different in concept from Alan Mager's four key chromatics, wherein he chose to carry two instruments with different key emphases.
If I like these, I will upgrade the chord bars to 18 bar hand made sets. I now have end holders for 15, 18, or 21. I don't expect I would use the diminished 7th chords, partly due to tuning issues.
[Todd]
When I first experimented with opening the 9th on the 7th chords on my diatonic 'harps, I thought it was a failed experiment because there were too many competing open strings. But when I tried it on a straight chromatic having those two extra strings open felt like the whole chord opened up, and it sounded every bit as bluesy and jazzy as the dominant 7th it came to replace, if not more so.
[Bob]
Sorry, but it sounds out of place to my ear, not necessarily "ugly" per se, and existing harmony convention documents why. The 7-8-9-10 cluster is discordant. Some will not like it. Keyboard and vocal harmony practice leaves out either the 8 (normally referred to as a 9th 1-3-5-7-9) or the 7 (=add9). Even then it never repeats for another octave and then another. It cannot be well implemented on an autoharp, because the octaves overlay each other, when extending chords beyond a single octave (9th, 13th et al.). You can't adequately control the voicing and will get the 4 note clusters.
When Charles Deering, autoharp player as well as music professor, first suggested fingering two 9th chords at a time in a post here in 1997, using combinations of 9th chords to yield various conventional chords, he said nothing about playing a single 9th chord by itself. When you attempt to make a 9th bar a sub for a 7th, the whole concept loses credibility.
It's not so much that I couldn't play such an instrument as much as it seems a scam to suppose that people will spend money, time, and energy on this thing not realizing they will have no 7th chords or underestimating how much they will miss them. There is too much faith and hyperbole involved here, bordering on a cult like following.
People needed to read the fine print, because you do mention the absence of 7th chords in the write up. If you say that the 9th chords sound okay instead, that doesn't mean it's true. You (Todd) have on more than one occasion stated that you rely on others in the family for a better ear than yours. Offering up Hal Weeks' name as a defense or for credibility doesn't change anything. Hal has no problem sounding funky, while I and many others certainly do, playing a different kind of music than hard core blues. Younger musicians also have an ear for programmed chaos and energy, whereas an older generation might require more consonance and sense of order.
The diapentic is just an academic exercise in my view. The additional chords are stuff that no one needs or which they could already have in a 15 bar set. It fixes something that wasn't broken, using two fingers instead of one just for the sake of doing it. My single key harps have 15 bars and more chords than I really need. I wouldn't dedicate a good autoharp to a configuration with very limited application. Also, substituting chords would need to be my exception, not the rule.
[Todd]
Don't pay any attention to my pronouncements or any other self-proclaimed experts.
[Bob]
You have acknowledged my expertise in other contexts. Why so fickle? I only seem to have importance and gain endorsement when we agree.
[Todd]
You can also hear a sample of Diachromic playing, which is not as the Gentleman from South Carolina wrongly states "two button chording". In most cases the "two bar chords" are played just as easily with one finger as with two, making them little different than "one button" chords.
[Bob]
That also makes the bars harder to play and master, the fingers' position on the button tops now critical. What about the instrument for mere mortals to play?
[Todd]
Quoting Bob Lewis: "I would say Marty and Mark are not emulated much because they never had the right chords. It was all whimsical faking"
Well, then Marty Schuman whimsically faked his way right into winning the first Winfield contest, the 2nd MLAG contest (in which the Gentleman from SC took part),and the Autoharp Hall of Fame, almost immediately upon his passing. And if Mark Fackeldey doesn't whimsically fake his way into the Autoharp Hall of Fame, in this his first year of eligibility, it will be a great travesty.
[Bob]
I won first place in "the 2nd MLAG contest". Marty either wasn't there or didn't make the finals. I have records for all the top five for nearly all Winfield and MLAG contests. I placed third to Marty's second place in the first year's contest. Marty won in the third year.
Marty's induction into the Hall of Fame that quickly after his passing was sufficiently questionable that the rules were changed. In order that inductions would not be based so much upon emotional reaction to a death, inductions now have a waiting period, as you noted for Mark. That is better so that the basis of an induction is less open to question or cynical comment.
I am not sure what to say about Mark. Make up your own reasons for nominating him or anyone else. I am not sure what to list as extraordinary accomplishments for Mark, but he did write my all time favorite article in AQ (In the Mode).
These inductions are supposed to be more than who died lately or a popularity contest. There need to be extraordinary accomplishments to be considered peers of previous inductees and to avoid offending them, cheapening the whole concept.
Personally, I think it was a shame that Mark couldn't get much attention while he was alive, a classic case of you-have-to-be-dead-to-be-famous. If a veritable Who's Who, the posthumous Autoharp Hall of Fame induction should still be more than who died lately- couldn't get a gig while he was alive - never knew he had so many friends. It becomes a sad, even pathetic exercise.
Inducting Mark has to be more than because Todd was indebted to him and feels the void left by his passing. I recall that Mark was pretty much a pedestrian while alive, with few people knowing quite how to talk to him or how to react to him. He was a character, but one to be taken seriously. If you guys had some bond, that doesn't mean the rest of us have to view him or anyone else as a demigod. We'll make up our own minds, but feel free to campaign, recognizing that it is not an election.
--
Bob Lewis
Thursday, April 3, 2008
seeking damping materials better than felt
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 10:41 PM, Catherine Britell wrote on Cyberpluckers:
I may have missed it but I don't think anybody mentioned the effect of action on felt wear. I know that with my first autoharp, an OS Centurion, I was wearing out felts every 6 months or so, and then learned from George Orthey about bringing down the action and replacing the springs with lighter ones. That lengthened the life of the felts of that 'harp by 5-6 fold. And of course, the felts on the custom 'harps last even longer...I think because they're not having so much pressure put on them.
[Bob]
We can chase all sorts of factors, but the subject of new damping material for chord bars is suggesting that there is something awful about needing to replace a felt. Felt works very well, so it is a quest for greater durability, less maintenance. Changing felt is part of being a player on a "high maintenance" instrument. One may not need to do a full refurbishing, hiring someone to do that much, but does need to be able to keep playing when something goes wrong. Keep the supplies available and just do it...no silicone, no synthetic rubber, no extra hard felt...change your felts, possibly one at a time.
It would be rare, I think, for all the felts to need replacement at once, unless they were never right or good quality. Then other than upgrading quality of material, one shouldn't think of it as this big project to replace them all. It was mentioned already about paying attention to those most often used chord bars.
When a string sounds buzzy or dead, CHANGE IT. Again, part of that is already owning the strings so it can be done on impulse, one string, one felt at a time, no big project planning effort, or waiting for an order...10 minutes instead of 5 hours.
Other factors
I think it is a good idea to avoid changing the heavy plain wires as long as possible. They will sound good indefinitely. They arch over any bridge for quite a long time, eventually settling more flat. New, larger diameter strings, (say #15-20 or lower, .028-.024 dia.) strings sit higher and will quickly ruin a set of felts, especially when the strings eventually settle away from the felt grooves to a lower position, and damping deteriorates.
I know about the trick of bending the string to remove the arch, but that can result in the string sitting too low, again a felt damping problem as a result. I don't bend strings until they are done stretching and the ball knot is firmly drawn down, able to hold tuning. Then the bend isn't going to move and create a different effect later. I am very careful with it, because if bent too far, realistically the string must be replaced.
Part 2
I am not getting how a lower, softer action lengthens the life of felts. It seems like saying that if one maintained better tuning, their felts would last longer, logically somehow disjointed. I suppose it can teach one that there is no need to be as aggressive in pressing a chord bar button, mashing the felt in the process. That is psychological more than mechanical, I think, part of a grander dynamic including the player.
Longer action could mean that one builds a certain momentum before slamming into the strings, inertia becoming a factor. I just think that is all too much to attribute to 1/16" of action (bar travel) at best. It's enough to say that close action improves the timing between the left and right hand, and that light springs simply make a nicer player experience and cause less wear on counter padding affected by spring tension preload, springs taller and stiffer than they need to be. If stiffer is bad, then less stiff must be good, except past the point where friction in the bar system is no longer overcome and the bars don't work as intended. I have actually encountered a bar or two where things didn't work quite right until I inserted a stiffer or taller spring. There then is a point that is "too light", or alternate springs simply become another adjustment option. Bars that work perfectly due to precision would be more expensive or would provide enough tolerance in spacing to ensure running freely, possibly taking away significant picking area after multiplying allowances by the number of bars.
So you have mentioned felts, strings, and springs in a few statements, possibly prompting quite a lot of discussion to sort it out.
Finally, harking back to Todd's OP information about new damping material, I would be delighted to see a better item, but we have been through this years ago about Sorbathane in various forms, Mark's mouse pad for one, being inferior to dense felt in ability to damp vibrations. It is practical, maybe, but not better or as good...same story as using silicone...not a panacea.
It isn't felt in general. It is dense and then fairly hard felt. Too soft and the felt requires too much maintenance. Too hard and the felt becomes a sound conductor, counterproductive. That is aside from hard felt being unable to conform to an uneven string bed. We should also consider that very hard felt is used for piano and cimbalom hammers. One could actually sound both a chord and the strings to be damped by quickly pressing and releasing a chord bar. Any string unintentionally struck, par for playing the autoharp, could also produce noticable sound, spoiling the chord.
I believe effective density is part of the problem with synthetic padding. Once it compresses to a certain density, it becomes a conductor. Some parallels can be drawn with deeply grooved felt, the felt likely packed quite densely at the bottom of the groove. Pressing harder on a bar isn't necessarily helpful. There is a point of diminishing returns, all mitigated by regularly changing to new felt, that is well adjusted by shimming or plumping techniques. The string surface is simply not flat and becomes the source of a number of problems.
Some of these lessons were learned with lockbars, using various materials and having locking mechanisms that created various amounts of damping pressure. Felt is not favored because it compresses and conducts a thumping sound from a damped string. Sorbathane pads (mouse pad et al.), the more forgiving, are covered with a layer of sheet felt to improve damping. Adjustment is very critical so the sorbathane doesn't become too compressed (dense). I like to use felt on lockbars but only because I do it and can stand the pain of getting it adjusted. I wouldn't offer it to someone else without discussion of caveats and options. Actually, I have not found a better alternative to George Orthey's idea of using Dr. Scholl's Molefoam over spacer layers made of Scotch Mounting Tape. Truly, when it comes to lockbars, damping is really put to the test. That is where the science of damping mostly originates, where small differences are measurable and significant.
To me, the ideal damping material would about 3/32" of semi-hard felt firmly bonded to a layer of spongy material just soft enough to respond to typical chord bar pressure, thin enough to be laterally stable. The ultimate test, smallest application is a 1/4" square. So that would be a special size of familiar chord bar felt fused to something like common mousepad. I have used exactly that in a few cases but it was tedious to make and I haven't yet achieved a good bond between the layers. Glue soaking into felt can harden and ruin the desired result, so no solution will be easy to find, any old glue will do.
Boyd Jackson, as a chemist interested in the subject, could make a real contribution by giving his material an F1 felt face and mastering how to bond the two materials firmly together to the point where very small pieces don't come apart after some torture in use.
Lastly, there is always a problem getting nice cuts on spongy material. I would be happy to see someone provide such material already cut into strips of common sizes. I can get pretty good cuts but I have special tools and had to learn some technique. It shouldn't be that hard to do well.
----
Bob Lewis
I may have missed it but I don't think anybody mentioned the effect of action on felt wear. I know that with my first autoharp, an OS Centurion, I was wearing out felts every 6 months or so, and then learned from George Orthey about bringing down the action and replacing the springs with lighter ones. That lengthened the life of the felts of that 'harp by 5-6 fold. And of course, the felts on the custom 'harps last even longer...I think because they're not having so much pressure put on them.
[Bob]
We can chase all sorts of factors, but the subject of new damping material for chord bars is suggesting that there is something awful about needing to replace a felt. Felt works very well, so it is a quest for greater durability, less maintenance. Changing felt is part of being a player on a "high maintenance" instrument. One may not need to do a full refurbishing, hiring someone to do that much, but does need to be able to keep playing when something goes wrong. Keep the supplies available and just do it...no silicone, no synthetic rubber, no extra hard felt...change your felts, possibly one at a time.
It would be rare, I think, for all the felts to need replacement at once, unless they were never right or good quality. Then other than upgrading quality of material, one shouldn't think of it as this big project to replace them all. It was mentioned already about paying attention to those most often used chord bars.
When a string sounds buzzy or dead, CHANGE IT. Again, part of that is already owning the strings so it can be done on impulse, one string, one felt at a time, no big project planning effort, or waiting for an order...10 minutes instead of 5 hours.
Other factors
I think it is a good idea to avoid changing the heavy plain wires as long as possible. They will sound good indefinitely. They arch over any bridge for quite a long time, eventually settling more flat. New, larger diameter strings, (say #15-20 or lower, .028-.024 dia.) strings sit higher and will quickly ruin a set of felts, especially when the strings eventually settle away from the felt grooves to a lower position, and damping deteriorates.
I know about the trick of bending the string to remove the arch, but that can result in the string sitting too low, again a felt damping problem as a result. I don't bend strings until they are done stretching and the ball knot is firmly drawn down, able to hold tuning. Then the bend isn't going to move and create a different effect later. I am very careful with it, because if bent too far, realistically the string must be replaced.
Part 2
I am not getting how a lower, softer action lengthens the life of felts. It seems like saying that if one maintained better tuning, their felts would last longer, logically somehow disjointed. I suppose it can teach one that there is no need to be as aggressive in pressing a chord bar button, mashing the felt in the process. That is psychological more than mechanical, I think, part of a grander dynamic including the player.
Longer action could mean that one builds a certain momentum before slamming into the strings, inertia becoming a factor. I just think that is all too much to attribute to 1/16" of action (bar travel) at best. It's enough to say that close action improves the timing between the left and right hand, and that light springs simply make a nicer player experience and cause less wear on counter padding affected by spring tension preload, springs taller and stiffer than they need to be. If stiffer is bad, then less stiff must be good, except past the point where friction in the bar system is no longer overcome and the bars don't work as intended. I have actually encountered a bar or two where things didn't work quite right until I inserted a stiffer or taller spring. There then is a point that is "too light", or alternate springs simply become another adjustment option. Bars that work perfectly due to precision would be more expensive or would provide enough tolerance in spacing to ensure running freely, possibly taking away significant picking area after multiplying allowances by the number of bars.
So you have mentioned felts, strings, and springs in a few statements, possibly prompting quite a lot of discussion to sort it out.
Finally, harking back to Todd's OP information about new damping material, I would be delighted to see a better item, but we have been through this years ago about Sorbathane in various forms, Mark's mouse pad for one, being inferior to dense felt in ability to damp vibrations. It is practical, maybe, but not better or as good...same story as using silicone...not a panacea.
It isn't felt in general. It is dense and then fairly hard felt. Too soft and the felt requires too much maintenance. Too hard and the felt becomes a sound conductor, counterproductive. That is aside from hard felt being unable to conform to an uneven string bed. We should also consider that very hard felt is used for piano and cimbalom hammers. One could actually sound both a chord and the strings to be damped by quickly pressing and releasing a chord bar. Any string unintentionally struck, par for playing the autoharp, could also produce noticable sound, spoiling the chord.
I believe effective density is part of the problem with synthetic padding. Once it compresses to a certain density, it becomes a conductor. Some parallels can be drawn with deeply grooved felt, the felt likely packed quite densely at the bottom of the groove. Pressing harder on a bar isn't necessarily helpful. There is a point of diminishing returns, all mitigated by regularly changing to new felt, that is well adjusted by shimming or plumping techniques. The string surface is simply not flat and becomes the source of a number of problems.
Some of these lessons were learned with lockbars, using various materials and having locking mechanisms that created various amounts of damping pressure. Felt is not favored because it compresses and conducts a thumping sound from a damped string. Sorbathane pads (mouse pad et al.), the more forgiving, are covered with a layer of sheet felt to improve damping. Adjustment is very critical so the sorbathane doesn't become too compressed (dense). I like to use felt on lockbars but only because I do it and can stand the pain of getting it adjusted. I wouldn't offer it to someone else without discussion of caveats and options. Actually, I have not found a better alternative to George Orthey's idea of using Dr. Scholl's Molefoam over spacer layers made of Scotch Mounting Tape. Truly, when it comes to lockbars, damping is really put to the test. That is where the science of damping mostly originates, where small differences are measurable and significant.
To me, the ideal damping material would about 3/32" of semi-hard felt firmly bonded to a layer of spongy material just soft enough to respond to typical chord bar pressure, thin enough to be laterally stable. The ultimate test, smallest application is a 1/4" square. So that would be a special size of familiar chord bar felt fused to something like common mousepad. I have used exactly that in a few cases but it was tedious to make and I haven't yet achieved a good bond between the layers. Glue soaking into felt can harden and ruin the desired result, so no solution will be easy to find, any old glue will do.
Boyd Jackson, as a chemist interested in the subject, could make a real contribution by giving his material an F1 felt face and mastering how to bond the two materials firmly together to the point where very small pieces don't come apart after some torture in use.
Lastly, there is always a problem getting nice cuts on spongy material. I would be happy to see someone provide such material already cut into strips of common sizes. I can get pretty good cuts but I have special tools and had to learn some technique. It shouldn't be that hard to do well.
----
Bob Lewis
Wednesday, April 2, 2008
Mountain View Autoharp Jamboree continues without Charles Whitmer and Ron Wall, just like that!
Seems to me the politics surrounding this event should be sorted out first. The Folk Center cannot just dismiss Ron Wall and Charles Whitmer and expect everything to keep rolling without some questions and loyalty issues. If I had been asked to be one of the new teachers, I would have said, no! But then, maybe they want it to fail, so there is a real case to discontinue it. Time to move on, I would say.
--
Bob Lewis
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 3:34 PM, DREW SMITH wrote:
CYBERPLUCKERS:
The 2008 four day AUTOHARP PROGRAM at the OZARK FOLK CENTERin Mountain View, AR will be Monday, June 9 through Thursday June 12, 2008!The Folk Center has lodging and a fine restaurant right on premises. Thereis alwayslots of jamming and singing in the Lodge, plus there will be musicperformanceson the main stage in the evening, as well as music-making in the town squareinthe evenings by the many local musicians. HERE'S A DIRECT LINK TO THE
PROGRAM:
http://www.ozarkfolkcenter.com/education-workshops/workshop-event.asp?id=432
DREW SMITH will be teaching the INTERMEDIATE CHROMATIC HARP class and my class will cover the use of Majors, Sevenths, Minors, playing in Modal keys and many FORMULAS that you can apply to your music. There will be plenty of workshop lesson handouts. It will also be helpful to bring a recording device.
ALEX USHER will be teaching classes for NEW PLAYERS.
VALTA SEXTON will teach classes for the BEGINNER.
--
Bob Lewis
On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 3:34 PM, DREW SMITH wrote:
CYBERPLUCKERS:
The 2008 four day AUTOHARP PROGRAM at the OZARK FOLK CENTERin Mountain View, AR will be Monday, June 9 through Thursday June 12, 2008!The Folk Center has lodging and a fine restaurant right on premises. Thereis alwayslots of jamming and singing in the Lodge, plus there will be musicperformanceson the main stage in the evening, as well as music-making in the town squareinthe evenings by the many local musicians. HERE'S A DIRECT LINK TO THE
PROGRAM:
http://www.ozarkfolkcenter.com/education-workshops/workshop-event.asp?id=432
DREW SMITH will be teaching the INTERMEDIATE CHROMATIC HARP class and my class will cover the use of Majors, Sevenths, Minors, playing in Modal keys and many FORMULAS that you can apply to your music. There will be plenty of workshop lesson handouts. It will also be helpful to bring a recording device.
ALEX USHER will be teaching classes for NEW PLAYERS.
VALTA SEXTON will teach classes for the BEGINNER.
Autoharp cruises
As I read inquiries about or promotion of the next cruise for a group of autoharp players and feel like I missed something, perhaps it's time for the autoharp cruise gang to share with us what one of these junkets actually costs on a per person basis. I believe the answer is that if cost matters, don't ask. A trip to a festival is bad enough these days...no ones fault though.
Obviously a variable is the trip to the port of departure, but a very significant part of the total trip cost nonetheless.
Just as some cannot picture themselves owning an autoharp that cost 10 times more than the one they have, they may not be able to picture themselves springing for a couple grand to go on a cruise, especially not on a regular basis. Multiply that by two for a couple. And that's after hassling with an airline about how to get one or more autoharps to your embarking point.
The autoharp cruises were a wonderful addition to the autoharp community, but no way should many be expected to participate. I would think it an exclusive subject that could have its own group on Yahoo!, just as MLAG does. I would add discussion though. I would have someone other than Cindy run it, because her capacity should not control the entire community or the possibility of having such a group. She says she is overbooked already.
Obviously a variable is the trip to the port of departure, but a very significant part of the total trip cost nonetheless.
Just as some cannot picture themselves owning an autoharp that cost 10 times more than the one they have, they may not be able to picture themselves springing for a couple grand to go on a cruise, especially not on a regular basis. Multiply that by two for a couple. And that's after hassling with an airline about how to get one or more autoharps to your embarking point.
The autoharp cruises were a wonderful addition to the autoharp community, but no way should many be expected to participate. I would think it an exclusive subject that could have its own group on Yahoo!, just as MLAG does. I would add discussion though. I would have someone other than Cindy run it, because her capacity should not control the entire community or the possibility of having such a group. She says she is overbooked already.
"The autoharp is a friendly, easy instrument" - NOT!
Then why are there so few truly accomplished players...really? Why am I not buying many autoharp recordings?
What other instrument requires that you attend to 36 strings, usually on your own? There are trade offs. We get to skip the part about how to form a chord but have all the rest to learn and master. It is more difficult than on most other instruments to pick accurate melodies. The autoharp allows it...it's just more difficult. One can only say the autoharp is "easy" if there are low expectations and we kid ourselves about certain aspects more challenging than on many other instruments.
Is an autoharp easy to tune? 'Not if it doesn't have fine tuners and we don't have an ear for doing stretch tuning by ear. We also need the equipment, including a pickup. What we do is settle for playing the thing in coarse tuning and claiming it is "easy to play".
The autoharp is "a friendly, easy instrument" if someone hands you an instrument in good tune and proper working order while not expecting you to do much with it.
If the autoharp is not easy, why do we keep saying it is? It is because we don't expect much. That doesn't make it right. Those who expect more play at a very different level, and it wasn't "easy " to get there. I would settle for it being said that, once in tune and working okay, an autoharp can provide some basic music pretty quickly. But how long does it take to play three chords on a guitar or whatever size neck and fretboard suits ones hands?
This "easy" thing is way over done, starting as hyperbole to sell autoharps. It was never actually true. If one can reach a point where they are feeling good without much skill, it would be wrong to refer to that as easy, because they haven't accomplished anything meaningful. It's not a toy...make some noise and then lay it down and move on. It is also wrong to judge oneself as having tamed the beast. "Easy" to do what? Easy to get compliments? It depends who you ask. Is the performance a 6 year old's piano recital, anything is wonderful, or is it about an adult who is or should be expected to be competent if choosing to perform, playing for more than personal enjoyment.
One thing that is deceptive, mistaken for "easy", is when one can find some satisfaction in the instrument rather quickly, able to produce a nice sound and basic music without much skill development. The hard part is trying to move beyond that point. Some never do, because it isn't "easy".
Now, with that out of the way....
I usually don't let "the autoharp is easy" pass. If people think the autoharp is easy, and that isn't true, then autoharp people are their own worst enemy in repeating that mantra. A good instrument isn't cheap either. The whole thing is a sham. A good autoharp is expensive, and it takes a long time to become a truly accomplished player. Observe what admirable players play and how long they have been playing. One can be encouraged without effectively being lied to about what is involved. We should all stop doing that. It is dishonest. There are sincere, forthright ways to be encouraging. Of course, being deceptive does allow more autoharps to show up on eBay 20 years later after sitting under someones bed, having been found too difficult with which to deal, for one reason or another. It finds the next sucker.
We have said it so many times we actually believe it, repeating it like gospel, choosing to forget our own challenges in finding the right instrument and becoming accomplished at some level. Would we say it was easy for us? If it was, where are all the really good players? Of the few that are truly admirable, why is it not "easy' to duplicate what they are doing with the instrument?
Let's be encouraging and forthright at the same time. There has to be a useful as well as accurate way to characterize the autoharp. It is not for everyone, never was, never will be. It is okay for someone to walk away, aware of the facts.
-- Bob Lewis
What other instrument requires that you attend to 36 strings, usually on your own? There are trade offs. We get to skip the part about how to form a chord but have all the rest to learn and master. It is more difficult than on most other instruments to pick accurate melodies. The autoharp allows it...it's just more difficult. One can only say the autoharp is "easy" if there are low expectations and we kid ourselves about certain aspects more challenging than on many other instruments.
Is an autoharp easy to tune? 'Not if it doesn't have fine tuners and we don't have an ear for doing stretch tuning by ear. We also need the equipment, including a pickup. What we do is settle for playing the thing in coarse tuning and claiming it is "easy to play".
The autoharp is "a friendly, easy instrument" if someone hands you an instrument in good tune and proper working order while not expecting you to do much with it.
If the autoharp is not easy, why do we keep saying it is? It is because we don't expect much. That doesn't make it right. Those who expect more play at a very different level, and it wasn't "easy " to get there. I would settle for it being said that, once in tune and working okay, an autoharp can provide some basic music pretty quickly. But how long does it take to play three chords on a guitar or whatever size neck and fretboard suits ones hands?
This "easy" thing is way over done, starting as hyperbole to sell autoharps. It was never actually true. If one can reach a point where they are feeling good without much skill, it would be wrong to refer to that as easy, because they haven't accomplished anything meaningful. It's not a toy...make some noise and then lay it down and move on. It is also wrong to judge oneself as having tamed the beast. "Easy" to do what? Easy to get compliments? It depends who you ask. Is the performance a 6 year old's piano recital, anything is wonderful, or is it about an adult who is or should be expected to be competent if choosing to perform, playing for more than personal enjoyment.
One thing that is deceptive, mistaken for "easy", is when one can find some satisfaction in the instrument rather quickly, able to produce a nice sound and basic music without much skill development. The hard part is trying to move beyond that point. Some never do, because it isn't "easy".
Now, with that out of the way....
I usually don't let "the autoharp is easy" pass. If people think the autoharp is easy, and that isn't true, then autoharp people are their own worst enemy in repeating that mantra. A good instrument isn't cheap either. The whole thing is a sham. A good autoharp is expensive, and it takes a long time to become a truly accomplished player. Observe what admirable players play and how long they have been playing. One can be encouraged without effectively being lied to about what is involved. We should all stop doing that. It is dishonest. There are sincere, forthright ways to be encouraging. Of course, being deceptive does allow more autoharps to show up on eBay 20 years later after sitting under someones bed, having been found too difficult with which to deal, for one reason or another. It finds the next sucker.
We have said it so many times we actually believe it, repeating it like gospel, choosing to forget our own challenges in finding the right instrument and becoming accomplished at some level. Would we say it was easy for us? If it was, where are all the really good players? Of the few that are truly admirable, why is it not "easy' to duplicate what they are doing with the instrument?
Let's be encouraging and forthright at the same time. There has to be a useful as well as accurate way to characterize the autoharp. It is not for everyone, never was, never will be. It is okay for someone to walk away, aware of the facts.
-- Bob Lewis
little autoharp arrangements or TAB on the web
In my opinion, the reason why there isn't much "autoharp music" on the web is that there are only a few people with adequate software and the background to be able to use it, and because going so far as to actually "TAB" the arrangement is asking too much.
Given skills and software, there has to be motivation to do significant work in providing arrangements. More likely, it will be packaged as a book that might make a few bucks, make it worth doing. Some gratitude expressed by a few people nice enough to let you know is not enough to motivate owning $600 software and doing perhaps weeks of work in putting a basic collection of tunes together.
That software costs $600 a pop (Finale and Lucille Reilly's soon-to-be, Sibelius). Keep in mind that "adequate" software also answers the call to produce a MIDI version as well as a PDF document to post on the web, not just printed sheet music. A scanned version will not meet expectations.
I have found some less expensive software alternatives, but a fully polished project (one tune) is not a trivial undertaking. Web publishing is more demanding than just creating a nice printed songbook for ourselves or our club. Software intended to print music is not enough.
TAB is also a waste of time, easier to do manually, because no one will wind up playing it exactly that way, only one person's idea of technique for the tune. TAB is more useful for teaching a technique, a lick, not a tune. A tune might be a vehicle for learning a technique but we can't say that TABBING should be standard for every transcription.
What is TABBING? It is instruction for the picking hand. The rest is just "notation". Notes, chords, and lyrics is "notation" or "notation with lyrics". Another useful way of packaging terminology and what the page needs to provide is to specify "instrumental" or "vocal". Being either/or is a page busier than it needs to be.
Definitely focusing on the picking hand, tabbing is instruction for the left hand or chording hand (the other) only indirectly, nothing more specific than what chord goes where. I don't believe an arrangment should indicate open notes for a diatonic player. Those players can figure that out for themselves.
I also don't think a tune well suited to diatonic and poorly suited for chromatic should be arranged for either/or. The arranger should be expressing some judgment about the tune. We shouldn't murder a tune just so we can say no one was left out. It gets deep here quickly, but I can say that some tunes represented as jamming standards are dreadful on a chromatic because they only sound right with the flow provided by open noting or perhaps when played by one of our few flying-finger virtuosos who don't use open notes. I want to give credit but don't sincerely believe these tunes are going to sound right without open noting, no matter who one is by reputation or claim. What will happen is that the tune will be "adapted" or "arranged", not played note for note. The autoharp is not a mandolin.
All we really need is "how the tune goes", the chord framework, not necessarily every possibility, and any lyrics. On a song, chording for melody just gets in the way. Chord only for accompaniment. Playing melody in many cases doesn't come off well anyway, often quite awkward or stilted without some open notes.
Again, an instrumental version should be separate from vocal accompaniment chording and lyrics.I am saying the sheet should be designed for either singing or for playing, not both. A fully developed instrumental break might be a couple of extra staves just for that, all the chording included. The problem with the autoharp instrumental is that in notation every note becomes a chord, which is a pretty busy looking arrangement. There is an indication to stay on the same chord or to move to another.
Useful versions of MIDI arrangements or - better yet - MP3 recordings would be more essential, so we would have a reference to learn a tune by ear. The ability to read music is not a prerequisite to learning new tunes.
------
Bob Lewis
Given skills and software, there has to be motivation to do significant work in providing arrangements. More likely, it will be packaged as a book that might make a few bucks, make it worth doing. Some gratitude expressed by a few people nice enough to let you know is not enough to motivate owning $600 software and doing perhaps weeks of work in putting a basic collection of tunes together.
That software costs $600 a pop (Finale and Lucille Reilly's soon-to-be, Sibelius). Keep in mind that "adequate" software also answers the call to produce a MIDI version as well as a PDF document to post on the web, not just printed sheet music. A scanned version will not meet expectations.
I have found some less expensive software alternatives, but a fully polished project (one tune) is not a trivial undertaking. Web publishing is more demanding than just creating a nice printed songbook for ourselves or our club. Software intended to print music is not enough.
TAB is also a waste of time, easier to do manually, because no one will wind up playing it exactly that way, only one person's idea of technique for the tune. TAB is more useful for teaching a technique, a lick, not a tune. A tune might be a vehicle for learning a technique but we can't say that TABBING should be standard for every transcription.
What is TABBING? It is instruction for the picking hand. The rest is just "notation". Notes, chords, and lyrics is "notation" or "notation with lyrics". Another useful way of packaging terminology and what the page needs to provide is to specify "instrumental" or "vocal". Being either/or is a page busier than it needs to be.
Definitely focusing on the picking hand, tabbing is instruction for the left hand or chording hand (the other) only indirectly, nothing more specific than what chord goes where. I don't believe an arrangment should indicate open notes for a diatonic player. Those players can figure that out for themselves.
I also don't think a tune well suited to diatonic and poorly suited for chromatic should be arranged for either/or. The arranger should be expressing some judgment about the tune. We shouldn't murder a tune just so we can say no one was left out. It gets deep here quickly, but I can say that some tunes represented as jamming standards are dreadful on a chromatic because they only sound right with the flow provided by open noting or perhaps when played by one of our few flying-finger virtuosos who don't use open notes. I want to give credit but don't sincerely believe these tunes are going to sound right without open noting, no matter who one is by reputation or claim. What will happen is that the tune will be "adapted" or "arranged", not played note for note. The autoharp is not a mandolin.
All we really need is "how the tune goes", the chord framework, not necessarily every possibility, and any lyrics. On a song, chording for melody just gets in the way. Chord only for accompaniment. Playing melody in many cases doesn't come off well anyway, often quite awkward or stilted without some open notes.
Again, an instrumental version should be separate from vocal accompaniment chording and lyrics.I am saying the sheet should be designed for either singing or for playing, not both. A fully developed instrumental break might be a couple of extra staves just for that, all the chording included. The problem with the autoharp instrumental is that in notation every note becomes a chord, which is a pretty busy looking arrangement. There is an indication to stay on the same chord or to move to another.
Useful versions of MIDI arrangements or - better yet - MP3 recordings would be more essential, so we would have a reference to learn a tune by ear. The ability to read music is not a prerequisite to learning new tunes.
------
Bob Lewis
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
