eBay watch

eBay item 300236539866 OSCAR SCHMIDT CENTURION OS100 21 E AUTOHARP 21 CHORD

This a US vintage Centurion Electric circa 1979-1983. The Centurion has a solid spruce top and usually light ash for back, sides, and frame. I have owned one in mahogany, so there is some variation. The rig would have sold new for about $350 in 1979. That was a lot for an autoharp. It was certainly the one to own at that time. Many of the solid tops didn't fare well, so that would put a red flag on any of these, definitely an important inquiry before any thought of bidding.

With only three bidders in a few days, the price is already $810. This will be interesting to watch.

This instrument is identical to what Karen Mueller plays. Hers has a built in electric pickup, and I know those as relatively rare. I have one and wouldn't take $810 for it, but mine has custom fine tuners, new strings, etc.

I don't favor it when there are other instruments wailing away around me. It is too civilized and gets drowned out. However, it is THE number one choice when playing alone. Without fine tuners, forget it. I can't deal with it. Close isn't good enough. That is more critical when in "diatonic" tuning and doubled strings need to be synchronized (with very little tolerance).

Although my OS10021E is not one of them, some of my US vintage 'harps with solid tops have splits of one degree or another at the 3 o'clock position of the soundhole. Some have warped (not flat) tops. All sound fine and can be ruined in tone if gluing in braces. I suggest just playing them and not worrying about cracks, until something comes apart, the frame bows too much, or the thing won't hold tuning.

The price is already well above what I have ever seen or heard of anyone paying for one of these. Since it still needs hundreds of dollars worth of refurbishing and enhancement, primarily fine tuners, possibly diatonic conversion, I don't see anyone ever recovering their investment. It has to be something someone wants to play rather than trade. In real value, I personally wouldn't balk if I needed another instrument. It is more valuable to me than most luthier offerings, so it can be a relatively good deal. The problem is that most people cannot imagine any Oscar Schmidt being worth this much, especially when notorious for top problems. Thus the luthier instrument can be the much better investment, the one having some resale value anywhere near your investment, the one with some demand when you put it up for sale.

Now, if someone were visiting from the UK or elsewhere, acquiring this instrument at this price might make a lot of sense.

Karen's (Mueller) is GD, but I don't recommend that tuning. These things typically provide the fattest tone on a Bb note and are going to favor F. To be grabbed and converted into just another GD to be played with dulcimers would be a shame. This thing is a professional grade instrument like the "vintage Martin guitar".

As always the question is, in how nice a condition is it? One can take some chances at a fortuitous price, but $810 is another matter completely. I have never paid anything like that much without first seeing the thing in person. I drove a whole day to examine a $700 OS200 Festival model that turned out to be mint and fairly priced. What I bought, in effect, was just a harp body, because it has since been restrung, has new chord bars, custom fine tuners, and a different case...easily worth over $1000. I don't have much hope of recovering half of that in resale, should I ever choose to sell it...not that I would.

Again, depending on the application, certainly as a chromatic configuration, I would rather play the one I have like this one than any luthier chromatic out there. The context though would be that I would still need a rowdier luthier instrument to play away from home. What should a preference over a luthier alternative be worth?

If I was going to buy one of this breed, I would rather have the original built in pickup than the add-on one with a different control and connector arrangement, although either one works fine. This connector is in the more favorable position.

What is so troubling is how high a percentage of these have problems with the spruce top, especially with age and with new homes that have significantly different climatic environments. They can come to you perfect and pristine, and if you make the slightest tweak, the top goes south on you...not necessarily ruined, but let's say they don't travel well.

They are more than 25 years old. It is not easy to be sure of what one is getting into with eBay purchases.

The real question at this point is whether one should even consider paying more than $810, if not planning to be content with it as is, no expensive enhancements. I can usually buy one with no competition at $500. I don't think I would add $310 to add a pickup, but it is very important.

Finally, this one sounds to be in mint condition, virtually never used. That would be cosmetic, because it could have been a better instrument, if someone had played it. The strings are surely shot because no one kept it in tune, if not playing it.

Bidding ends in 3 days.

Footnote:

When I get an OS harp with this type of built in pickup (US vintage), I always add a hole and screw in the cover plate corner near the jack. Then the jack is more solidly mounted, and pulling on the connector will not pull the trim plate away from the top. The jack is sandwiched onto the trim plate. Looking at the picture, that extra hole and screw would be right below the strap button and to the left of the jack. It takes a high grade drill bit to create the hole. It is not something to be done poorly, since similar parts to replace a mess could be hard to locate or you might have to buy a whole instrument just to cannibalize one part. Placement of the hole is critical, because there is only one spot where there is actually any wood underneath. The rest of the area is a cavity for the jack and wiring. The hole has to be right at the very edge of the trim plate. Take it all apart to be sure what you are doing.

autoharp community in transition

I won't offer too many thoughts on the matter but did want to acknowledge that the autoharp landscape is changing. No one seems to want to discuss it, including me actually, but the pressure of losing patience in serving few but raw beginners is driving more advanced players to other forms of community, other places to find a peer group. Of course, there are those who simply wander off because they know all they think they need to know and do not feel the need to maintain such constant contact with other players.

I think we do need to acknowledge that there is always a tension between those with serious talent and accomplishment on the autoharp and those who use the autoharp as music for dummies. The former group will tend to have expensive instruments and perhaps more than one, while the latter will be here today and gone tomorrow, having found an autoharp at a flea market or bought the cheapest new one around, making it the constant job of others to support getting the instruments in reasonably playable condition. One can and some do burn out on that relentless demand.

The "one room schoolhouse", the "only party in town" sort of scene with Cyberpluckers just isn't working anymore, certainly not for this subscriber. Lots of others are conspicuous by their absence or reduced frequency of posting. My list of "odd characters" to filter out of my CP mail grows daily.

CP no longer does any significant discussion. It is just a bulletin board to request information, and reportedly the responses are mostly private, what I consider sneaking around and avoiding peer review of who knows what sort of ideas. Meanwhile, no one learns anything because the information is private. Someone else will have to ask the same question. Nothing is captured as a community consensus on any issue.

Maybe I'm slow, but I have realized that Cyberpluckers is not about learning anything, despite any lip service. It is really about feeling connected with someone "like you". The catch is that if someone is materially different, say more advanced or more serious in general, people are not friendly. They will only appear friendly if talking down to someone, mothering, herding, mentoring.

I really think that more established players with more on their minds than herding a flock of newcomers (okay, we'll call it feeling useful), a group that wants to interact at their own level, should break off or at least spend time making more use of other venues which cater to more knowledgeable players.

The critical piece of the puzzle is that smart, assertive people need a moderator. They need support and enforced rules of engagement, or getting into some pithy discussion will be seen as just not worth the hassle or the abuse.

Why Are Luthier Harps in the A model Style and not the better B Model?

written in 2002 and not previously published:

I am not one to be easily dismissed. The following is quite long but that's because it touches upon very central issues relating to my interest in building autoharps. Actually I would rather just play them, but no one builds what I really want personally, primarily for the very reasons Pete cites here.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Subject: Why Are Luthier Harps in the A model Style and not the better B Model?
From: ADFRNTDRMR@aol.com
To: Cyberpluckers
Date: Tue, 12 Nov 2002 00:29:04 -0500


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bob Lewis wrote:

Most want to be louder and more clear and do not generally have a focus on a vocalist's requirements.

Pete Daigle replied:

Just want to note that we are talking opinions here and not absolutes. Quite a number of vocalists, professional and otherwise abandoned the B model in a hurry when given the opportunity to own custom A model 'harps. Bryan Bowers is probably the best known.

He does very few instrumentals and owns luthier 'harps for pay or pleasure. The A model bridge transmits sound more completely throughout the instrument. This is a measurable certainty. Why do you suppose they are louder? This can and has been tested (though I can't personally validate more than my own testing and experience)with 'harps of similar size, mass and air cavity, but not identical 'harps as far as I know.

I'm sure it could be (and probably should be) done with the same 'harp set up both ways, but the effect is obvious enough to most by what they hear. But others just prefer the sound of the B model. Karen Mueller does, and she plays mostly instrumental, not vocal! She does, however, perform strictly with her pickups plugged in.

Bottom line is, there probably will be more of each model to choose from in the future, but it certainly is not a with a lack of consideration for vocal accompaniment that most luthiers build A models. Luthiers focus on the wants and needs of those who will buy the instruments.

From a manufacturing point of view the B model is easier and quicker, even without a drill that punches all holes at once. I'd be happy to explain why if anyone is interested.

Pete also wrote:

"Quite a number of vocalists, professional and otherwise, abandoned the B model in a hurry, when given the opportunity to own custom A model 'harps. Bryan Bowers is probably the best known."

[Bob]

Factual maybe, but you're forcing assumptions about why that might have happened. If I'm reading you correctly, first you dismiss my statement as merely an opinion and then immediately follow that with dogma of your own. Let me just say that my perception seems just as real to me as yours does to you. Your ideas, at least on this topic, are no less opinions than mine.

I don't think too many would say that a common model B is their preference over other alternatives, when cost is not an issue. I can think of a number though who definitely prefer one of the higher end versions of the model B, built in the US, yet outfitted with chord bars to their liking. Unfortunately those harps don't serve all keys particularly well. They are generally outstanding in F but tend to be less responsive otherwise, especially in popular key choices. Using the same string set, it's hard to move far from that favored key without making the body deeper...a luthier instrument.

With all due respect, you have taken to making sweeping pronouncements, and your comments seem self-justifying, displaying the same preoccupation with volume as most of the rest of the luthiers. You seem to have the usual lack of objective appreciation for a good specimen of the model B or its justification. Most luthiers are of the same opinion as you (we've talked), and that is the credibility we are fighting here.

A harp trying to be as loud as possible is just not what a singer needs. I am not talking about belting out audience rousing favorites here. I mean pretty singing with a good voice that has something of its own to offer beyond just the lyrics. It does not need competition from the instrument but rather should be complemented by it. Aside from the composite sound, the singer does not need the distraction of the instrument's own sound while trying to focus on singing well. The autoharp is particularly problematic because it is held close to the singer's ears. The proximity of both the voice and the instrument to any microphone is actually an advantage, unless there is a need to balance the two, one significantly more powerful than the other.

I think we know that loud luthier instruments have to be played with a light touch, if trying to sing at the same time. Professional performers with a focus on microphone response could have a different view of all this. But I don't think they typically play for pleasure in any case. I once had an interesting conversation with Laurie Sky about that very issue.

We don't really know what Bryan prefers to play, especially privately. Bryan is known as playing Orthey harps perhaps because he may be under a long standing contract to play them exclusively in public. That is to say that he may not be allowed to play anything else. Perhaps we are supposed to believe that he wouldn't play anything else. We'll never know for sure what he'd really like to play, if he is still content, or if he even thinks about it. He is too discreet to comment. I can only speculate.

He has long since settled into what he does. Using his Ortheys, he enjoys the advantages of good chord bars and the stability in tuning and structure that is so critical to his long term use of them, some of which have been rebuilt or refurbished at least once. We don't know what he thinks about the actual sound differences. He is probably so glad to be rid of the road warrior issues and gerryrigging with his old harps that it would be difficult for him to focus on the real acoustic sound quality issue. If you know anything about Bryan, you know that he wants a harp to be in precise tuning and to stay there. I assume that he would like the felts to do a good job, running close to the strings, and for the chord bars to be quiet. Anything else is gravy. He doesn't need an extraordinary instrument to sound good tuned to a single key. In fact, something too powerful could be overwhelming in that tuning. He has some very old Orthey models that still meet those needs, yet there are newer ones that might actually sound better in multiple key tunings. It so happens that some of the old ones do rather well in a single key like Bryan typically uses. I have heard George describe them exactly that way.

A cooperative arrangement allows Bryan to have George as a resource to maintain his instruments for him.

Aside from how the harps sound to him, Bryan would be very concerned about how they came across to an acoustic audience, a sound system, or a recording. As a professional performer who would rarely play for personal pleasure, he could have different priorities than the average player. Bryan performs and practices frequently enough that playing strictly for pleasure might actually be pretty rare. I don't really know, but I'll bet playing autoharp is not his idea of taking a break. He wouldn't just pick up a harp because he would want to tune it first. He'd probably go fishing instead.

My favorite recordings for the sound of his instruments were his earliest using the old beat up model B harps he used to play. In no small way, that is partly due to the influence these recordings had upon my own playing and inspiration. Later recordings are markedly different, perhaps less captivating a sound.

I don't observe him playing instrumentals too seriously so much anymore, probably because he is older, has suffered hand or finger injuries, and is supportive but reserved on the subject of flashy and fast playing from others. We see him focus more and more on singing and story telling, his real strengths at this stage. He is visibly more comfortable with that part of his program. While he certainly needn't be, I wonder if he is self conscious about the number of good players now, many of whom were actually inspired by him. He is very generous in offering opportunities for many other players to perform with him . He often leaves the main instrumental part of the program to those collaborations...anything that would include him and be complementary to or based upon his existing material.

Bryan's best model Bs did not survive his relentless tuning efforts and bashing about in a trunk going from place to place. He was long ago separated from Oscar Schmidt's ability to provide him with instruments worthy of his work. So, without direct testimony, he just is not a good case in point for undermining the credibility of a vintage model B, especially a good one, most notably a US vintage Centurion or Festival model. The term OS model B means nothing, except that it is not a model A. We have to be very specific about which ones we are talking about. Otherwise generalizations are just not useful and exceptions will abound.

In the context of what's available today from Oscar Schmidt, and speaking only of the model B in general, I don't think I would resist the idea at all that a pro is going to select an A model style, luthier instrument instead, for want of other alternatives. But we have to separate the issue of chord bars, since for many, diatonic configurations cannot be done admirably with Oscar Schmidt parts. Most have hand made chord bars. Buying a luthier harp is one way to get them, but you have to then accept that the instrument sounds and feels different as well.

Karen's harp, a US Centurion, is a great one with or without pickup, used because she too is a professional performer with an overriding concern about what the audience can hear and the ease with which she can provide a good, full sound, yet still enjoyable to her.

I am speaking for these people and perhaps shouldn't try, but I know more than a bit about what they do and why, drawing what I believe are more valid conclusions in the proper context.

As far as the rest of the general group of vocalists and performers to which you refer, I am of the opinion that they were most attracted by good chord bars, stable tuning, and the belief that they owned the best available. There was the lack of availability of truly valued US vintage instruments as well. Some keys are better served by specific luthier instruments, so something better in GDA and louder to boot was bound to be popular, especially if it included nice chord bars.

Those that sing with a band have more concern about how the instrument blends with their group. If the autoharp is a band instrument at all, it is probably best in that context without the ringing quality of the model B. I believe Cathy Britell voiced that opinion some time ago. I don't disagree, but it would depend on the instrumentation of the group. I can't say "don't use a model B in a group". Karen Mueller might have something to say about that. There is room for preference and different contexts here.

Vocalists, especially soloists, like the sound of model Bs under their voice for very valid reasons and a shared opinion about it. There are only a few autoharp performers that actually sing very well in any case. The more casual players, less focused on the instrument itself, I observe as the ones that tend to have "the better" voices and more of a love for singing. While the instrument may be secondary to them, it is an important element of what they do. Thus you could be right that in sheer numbers, the professionals will and do prefer luthier instruments. The story could be different if they favored the key of F, had better voices, typically opted for prettier material, and considered singing a priority.

I believe that the most coveted spot on any waiting list is for a Bob Taylor harp, model B all the way. You need to get a look at Charles Whitmer's Taylor harp some time. He let me play it once, and I now know what I want someday. Your harps may be nice and have a place but are not of the only valid, respectable design approach. However, they may be the more versatile. There are enough luthiers around now that we don't really need another everyman harp beyond simply providing the total capacity to keep everyone supplied with nice, basic instruments in timely fashion. There is IMO still room and demand for specialty instruments sufficient to keep any one luthier quite busy.

I never said that luthiers in general don't consider or care about vocalists. What I stated or implied was that they generally don't see or understand vocal accompaniment as a priority, dismissing any request to build something with the virtues of a good model B. It then becomes the singer's job to make a potentially overpowering instrument work for them just inches away from their voices and ears. My frustration with luthiers in general, i.e. what I would really prefer to own, is that they choose to provide only one model, most likely for practical reasons, being able to sell everything they want to build regardless. If we as players don't necessarily buy into what they offer, or have somewhere else to look, it would help.

I am grateful for and respectful of what is available, but someone shouldn't assume that just because I own it means I think it is the greatest thing ever offered, or that I have no visions of improving upon it, or that I don't miss what I used to have available to me, or that I don't really prefer old favorites that were actually relatively cheap. One should also not assume that, if I don't own or play something, I don't respect it or think it valid as someone else's choice.

You can't take a whole community of people that like to play the autoharp such as it is and suddenly decide they need something significantly different. Many will bite, but some will not. Some will buy it just because they can, perhaps realizing someday that they don't actually play it very much. When lucky enough to have a good one, playing an old OS harp or a new, premium version of it is a perfectly valid thing to prefer, along with any preference to the contrary. I do have the concern, none of my business actually, that some play an expensive investment because they think they are supposed to like it by definition or can't deal with admitting that it just doesn't please them. One does not need an exponentially more expensive instrument to be accepted, credible, or valid as a serious player. We have very strong examples that tend to put that argument to rest.

Current luthier offerings leave some people out, aside from cost, thereby leaving a spot for someone to fill. A good autoharp is more than something that serves well playing GDA all night in a jam. If one harp serves exceptionally well in a single role, it is likely to present a problem, a challenge, or a limitation in a different role.

Playing the autoharp or tuning and carrying one or more around is full of compromises. If one isn't careful, they wind up hauling a whole wagon load of instrument options around with them. Nothing fills the bill for everything and everyone. To say otherwise is merely representing the compromise that one has accepted. The love/hate relationship is either always there, or how we use the autoharp is so limited in scope that our view is myopic. Thus we have the defiant or dismissive saying "it works for me!" or something to that effect.

[Pete]

Luthiers focus on the wants and needs of those who will buy the instruments.

[Bob]

In the confined context of the harp body itself, I would say that actually luthiers generally want people to buy what the luthier wants to build. Until the demand dries up or fails to materialize, that won't change. Cynical maybe, but closer to the truth IMO. We usually see that a luthier offers what is in fact preferred for the luthier's personal playing or that of someone close by, an often unilateral judgment validated by sales or lack thereof. But one can only have enthusiasm for that in which the person believes or which proves successful regardless, providing financial reward and/or acclaim.

I believe that providing instruments just for personal satisfaction is a motive that quickly becomes compromised by practical necessity. At some point, building them is a job, although still how one might prefer to spend his time...doing what he does well and making people happy. To say that it is always a labor of love is overly romantic. The fellow does actually have 10s of thousands of dollars worth of shop and equipment that must be paid for with lunch money left over.

**********

Jean Hogan's autoharp cozies

Since I am working through some new tunes almost daily at present, I have been leaving instruments out on a stand. In order to do that I needed some dust covers. The following is the three piece set, completed today, with Rufus modeling in the foreground.

-A Portland Play Along Selection-

-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.

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. :>)

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.
*****************