Ok guys, opinions on Camac?

[unknown-user]

The two aspects of moving a CG that are difficult to impossible for me are: pulling the harp up over steps, and tipping it into the vehicle while maintaining control. By the time the moving is done it’s difficult to recover for a performance. Mine is 81 pounds. A 56 pound harp is appealing for those reasons to use for gigs and certain rehearsals.

[Tacye]

Steven- it isn’t just time, like playing the instrument moving it easily requires doing it right, which can be learnt.

[unknown-user]

First, Steven, I wouldn’t sell your troubadour if I were me, I mean you. I kept mine and I’m glad. Every once in a while I need it for warming up, or trying nonpedal repertoire, and I have sometimes rented it out to students. As far as moving harps goes, I advocate using professional harp movers. The more of them we have, the better. I advocate Lyon & Healy harps because of the sound. They don’t pay me. I pay them every time I need repairs. Through the nose. It’s still worth it. It used to be that they were the lightest harps. If I thought Camac harps were as good, or as good to look at, or worth advocating for, I would. Some people feel the need to maintain standards of quality. And I’m not knocking Carl’s harps, which are very attractive, and he has an interesting point of view on construction. It is interesting, that so few other companies have been able to reach the level of quality Lyon & Healy mostly has. There are more and more companies now, more and more music, but the quality is dropping. For you young people, it is very important to have standards. We are like curators in a museum, and what we choose is what is exhibited and in the collection. When I was young there was only Lyon & Healy, and Venus was pretty new, and Salvi barely heard of. Lyon & Healy has only gotten better since the 1970s, which were not a high point in their history. I have to wonder why people are so very open to everything that is out there, if my impression of them is correct. Is the internet to blame? There certainly has been a tendency from the early 1990s at least, to think of everything as equal, just because it exists.
But seriously, while the Camacs I heard at the AHS conference were better than I expected, they were seriously lacking in qualities needed for serious classical music. If you planning to be in popular music only, it’s a completely different matter. But for a serious harp student studying serious repertoire, I firmly believe, again, that you need to play on a Lyon & Healy. It’s also about training your ear, and learning to develop your tone quality, and the harp that you play on. I wish they could be available to everyone, and that they would stop raising their prices. They only hold down the prices when everyone complains enough.

[unknown-user]

I know what you mean, Saul. My teacher has a 23 and I love it, it’s so easy to get gorgeous sound from it. It’s downright harp-gasmic. But Lyon and Healy’s are sooooo expensive. I’ll keep them in mind.

THanks

[unknown-user]

If you have a harp already, then you only need one great one. I hope you’ll be able to get it. I believe you mentioned arthritis earlier. Don’t exacerbate it by moving harps if you can avoid it. Have other people do it for you, one way or another. I’m also reminded of a mistake many of us make: do not dolly a harp down steps, letting it slip down from one step to the next, even though it is just two inches each time, it can lead to a lot of damage, according to Karen Rokos.

[S M]

Is the same true for going UP steps?

[unknown-user]

I have an AWESOME harp. AND it’s Salvi.

[Ann Marie Liss]

Dear Saul,

The idea that it is the specific instrument that a musician plays either makes or breaks them or defines the quality or ‘seriousness’ of their music is quite rediculous.

[S M]

A quick little note of my opinion: Musicians do not always need to use music to “express part of their being”; there are a lot of people who are into “self-expression” (like artists, etc.), when they could be using their talents instead to edify others instead of simply “expressing themselves.”

[unknown-user]

*COMPLETELY my opinion, not here to cause waves*

Any one can play notes and rhythms and have it sound good. You really don’t need to be special to sit down at a harp, pluck notes and make a pretty sound- my ten year old students who have been playing for two years can do that.

Some people, when it comes to harp, feel like they enjoy it, and do it as a hobby or second job. They work full or part time in a liberal arts feild and just keep bread on the table. As for the harp, they may play advanced repertoire- but that’s all it will ever be in their hands… advanced repertoire.

Heck, you can even be a full-time harpist, playing the SAME MUSIC weekend after weekend, gig after gig- never progressing, never putting forth the extra effort to improve. Thus you’re stuck with another “job”.

Then there is the “breed of harpist” that were truly put on the earth to play the harp. There are people who couldn’t be happier but to sit in a practice room for 8 hours a day and practice- those who’s PASSION is music. It is INVALUABLE to them to make their music their own, and, while maintaining the diginity of the composer and era, being able to through in a little peice of their own tastes, style, and dare I get cheesy? soul. To them, playing the harp is a “mission”.

These harpists, who end up going to college for it, take “music” to a completely different extreme- they become virtuosos of technique, strong musicians and miraculous harpists. They devote their ENTIRE lives to the instrument, becuase thath’s solely what they want to do… play the harp. To THEM making music a “self expression” is important.

I strongly believe that I am one of those people. Ever since I was nine I have spent hours in the practice room a day, loving every minute of it. When I had a lap harp, I longed for a big lever harp. When I had a big lever harp, I longed for a pedal harp. Now that I have a pedal harp, I long to be one of the best harpists the world has ever seen. Only time will tell.

Perhaps you cannot yet understand becuase you haven’t been playing enough, but in MY opinion, there are harpists, and then there are HARPISTS.

[unknown-user]

If music is not played with a deep and personal expression there are limits to how much help it can offer others. If I was in the hospital and someone came in and played music for me in a “matter-of-fact” manner with no expression or meaning, it would make me feel rather ill. The only thing a person can express is what is inside them and in doing so can form a connection with another person. The true experience of the arts is empathy. The times that I have heard music expressed with great depth and meaning are some of the most cherished moments in my life. This expression can be achieved at all levels of ability and is not reserved for virtuosos, but is remarkable when combined with great technical skill. When music is used only to gain prestige and pride then the expression suffers in that context as well. I strongly suggest that every artist find environments, like hospitals and nursing homes, in which to perform music for people who are clearly uplifted by it. It’s well worth practicing with great effort even if only for them.

[S M]

I’m not saying you shouldn’t express music “with great depth and meaning”; actually, I think being able to put a lot of…feeling into a song is fine, and in a lot of cases, almost VITAL to playing a piece well.

[Tacye]

I am not sure I would divide harpists and harpists.

[S M]

I didn’t exactly mean to divide harpists and harpists; I meant it more like you said.

“There is a reason different harpists sound different playing the same piece.” True, but not because you’re putting yourself into it; it’s because different harpists ARE different, and may interpret a piece differently.

“So I will defend others’ rights to enjoy those…other fields I lack the training/knowledge/experience to appreciate.”

[unknown-user]

No prob! I love hearing personal opinions from other harpists, fellow musicians. As for the Picasso analogy, I think his work is very much like, say, very modern-type peices. Last summer I played chamber music with a group, and we really made beautiful music. It was me on harp, and my friends- one on violin, one on flute/piccolo, one on oboe/english horn.

We love discovering lesser-known repertoire! Yes- Mozart, Haydan and Handel were all unbelievably ingenius… but they’re all classical musicians ever play! So we went to the music library at the conservatory in Boston and we found some lesser-know material.

Among these works was a Nocturne by Kardos, a Brazilian composer. He wrote the peice in the 1950’s, so it was extremely modern. It started in 13/8 time signature in E major, and then shifted time signatures (at one point we ended up in 35/16) and key signatures (I believe it changed about 5 times) and while it looked very inconsistent on the paper, I could see that Kardos’ work was ingenius.

The first time we listened to a recording of it, I genuinely think it was one of the stupidest (is that even a word?) peices of music that I had ever heard. There were ugly harmonies, (lots of tritones and major 7ths) and it just didn’t seem to make sense. Then I listened to it again. Still couldn’t make sense of it. The next day, I listened to it again. And again. And again. Each time I heard it, it was making more and more sense to me. I could “connect the dots” between sections, and after hearing it about 20 times, I though it was so cool! I found that the english horn part “called and responded” with the flute part, just in different keys and times. Everything worked consistenly and coherently, to make an absolutely miraculous peice of music.

What’s my point? Whether you can understand it or not, to Picasso, ( and many others like him) his work was ingenius and had great meaning. While other’s may have thought it was “the stupidest (there I go again…) thing that they had ever seen”, to some to was consistent, coherent and meaningful.

After listening to the Kardos time after time, it made more sense. Maybe you should find a work of Picasso’s that doesn’t make any sense to you, and then look at it the next day. And the next day. And the next day. The meaning behind it will slowly come to you, just like Kardos’ genius came to me.

I love staying on topic. But no, forget Camacs, I got al the info I needed. Let us discuss!

[Author]

Posts