Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I see this thread up here again- so I’ll add what has happened since my last post of May 2016.
My Mikel Saffron 34 is doing quite well. I finally set up the whole lower bass octave with the same gauge wound metal strings of a Dusty Ravenna, and the other wound strings have eventually been replaced with, or mirror closely the Ravenna as well. It’s a pretty good low cost harp at that point.
I haven’t played it as much lately after getting another fully levered Saffron 27 harp for the incredibly low price of $300 delivered just after last Christmas and before less expensive harps in general took another spike higher in price. As I’m getting on the smaller harp just feels easier for me to play, but improving technique and some rallying of my health have me not feeling the 34 is quite the wrestling match it seemed to me for awhile.
The Roosebeck 29 I managed to sell locally on craigslist for a very small loss, as the price of those went up more than $100 shortly after I bought it.
The 27 Saffron was set up exactly as the Saffron 34 in terms of string gauge and length too (I believe). The initial string breakage was horrible though- worse than the 34 was- and I’m not sure what the problem is, but the original Mikel wound nylon strings have not been a good experience. And so after seeing the Roosebeck 29 was set up with all monofilament- and for sheer playability- as opposed to “replace strings-ability” I decided to set up the smaller 27 with all monofilament I got at Dusty Strings and you can get them in any color up to 60 gauge. I think they sound and play just fine- there maybe just a little low tension on the very lowest C and the original wound D is still on- of course you cut them to the length you need. I may eventually beef up the lower two or three with wound strings again., but not yet in the works.
My only small problem with my incredible 27 buy is that the harp is very heavy for it’s size. I/m not sure what the original weight was but a pound or two over 20 pounds. The legs that come with it don’t hold it up all that well in my crowded house with a cat in for the winter, so I abandoned those early on. The base of the harp is what weighs most I think- although the frame is large and strong- not likely to break like the 34 posted by Gordon- Johnston earlier. But the base has a heavy fiber wood 3/4 inch section under a full 1 1/2″ thick base inside the soundbox that the pillar is attached to in the front- so there were 2 1/4 of solid wood at the bottom until I simply removed the whole bottom 3/4 heavy base.
The other models I see on the net of the same harp usually seem to have about a 3 inch diameter hole in the bottom of the harp- like my 34- yet my new 27 didn’t. When I took the base off- there was that similar whole in the 1 1/2 base inside the sandbox.- so I didn’t have to drill another one- The harp seemed a bit muted compared to the other one until that hole was exposed. Anyway- I drilled more holes, just to lower the weight of the harp and let the sound out, and I cut the lower 3/4″ base into basically just an outer frame- the leg fixtures are still around the outside, yet I’ve never yet reattached the base- I don’t personally feel the need unless I sell it.
Anyway the weight is down now to just under 18 pounds- including some sanding inside and out of the round back- I wanted to totally refinish and haven’t been able to get through the paint down to bare wood after an annoyingly amount of sanding and used sandpaper! Wish this paint job was on the old 91 Festiva jalopy I have outside!The harp is sounding much more resonant and louder, especially if I raise -tilt- the drilled thick base up off the carpet. I’m wondering now- with such a long an expensive shipping endeavor with most of the harps, why they are making the bases quite that thick and weighty- I’d try to come up with something lighter,, but it is undoubtedly strong. A lesser base inside the sound box would allow for more volume- cubic inch -wise and probably more sound and resonance. The round backs seem probably weighty too and must be a production extravagance of sorts compared to a simple box or even fluted. The bracing at the soundboard and round back is really thick one inch wood.
The wood necessary to achieve a sufficient weight when rounded is probably thicker than it otherwise needs to be for sonic considerations. (God, sometimes it’s hell to be a perfectionist!)Anyway- getting a lot of good play out of the Mikels- less than 2 for 1 cost really, when not filing anything down or replacing strings.
Still hoping to get a Camac though- advertised at about 13 poundsLet the playing guide the singing- vocalists often use an instrument to establish the root tone at the start of each measure- pluck the root note and sing the vocal part Then add more harp from that.
As far as the posture, some Yoga would probably help in the long term, but it’s mostly something you have to work at. There’s a big difference between projection for a stage or live audience and a recording with a microphone. The most common mistake in vocal is over reaching- trying to get too much volume or too high on the scale. Stay within your breath, no matter what the volume- there are some great vocal/harp performances on youtube, but you have to search for them and put them in a favorites list folder.I’m no great harpist, but logic would seem to suggest you keep an arrangement very simple- playing the chord or part of a chord only – concentrating on the longer notes and chords and perhaps forsaking more intricate passages while you get accustomed to dividing your attention and singing. Perhaps even just humming in tune would help you combine both singing and harping. Sometimes minimal is more effective in performance than stumbling through an elaborate piece you just don’t have down.
I just had a small revelation I’ gong to build some improvement upon I hope. When I was young I broke the two outer fingers on my left hand As a consequence I cant bend the ring finger fully beyond the very bottom of my palm and the left pinky is permanently crooked. The left hand bass lines have been a problem both physically and mentally then. The hand feels almost paralyzed on harp, although many more years of guitar have somehow been compensated- the fingers are otherwise a permanent liability (Rode my last race!)
anyway- a couple of nights ago for some reason I simply started playing stuff with my left hand- mostly just two note chord runs into little melodies. I then realized I was actually just playing what could also be the bass lines and open chords if I also played the right hand. I started adding some three note plucks and open chords and then just improvising very very simple right hand arpeggios and melody notes. It’s almost NOTHING and I’m not sure my description does it justice, but what I in fact felt like I was doing was working BACKWARSD! – without sheet music, just improvisation, and somehow a lot of left hand cobwebs I’ve had for a couple of years now of more harp playing were just blown out the door. A lot of my own mental block is only awaiting more practice now.
So perhaps you could think of it that way- take your weakest component- whether it be the vocal, left or right hand- and reduce it to the most bare forms of simplicity. That approach actually works on almost any endeavor.A little creativity never really hurt anyone that much. The best way to learn sometimes actually.
I’m sure someone will try to rewire harps anyway, whether we discuss it here or not. My painting of soundboard supports, both front and back, actually works quite well to reduce bowing, with little to no loss of sound quality- The bracing is much involved only in the transfer of sound to the board and box. Urethane on the board will definitely reduce the volume but give strength for louder wire strings.
sorry, physics aren’t owned.
If I ever decided to try and wire a nylon harp, I’d probably at least give the back of the soundboard a good coat of polyurethane clear coat- and whatever wood support there too- that I usually paint anyway as best as I can around the strings- and it resists bowing a little better. Probably a harp with a raised front soundboard support would be stronger too. Just saying.
Dreamsinger uses a 1/4 soundboard instead of 1/8″
Info on Queen Mary Harp:
http://www.wirestrungharp.com/harps/historic/qm_table.htmlQueen Mary string chart link on this page where wires are sold:
http://www.earlygaelicharp.info/emporium/wire/I have been looking at wire harps at this site- this page may help you-
http://dreamsingerharps.com/stringingunfinishedharp.html
I was wondering if his harps had sound holes in the back- because they are never pictured- but here they apparently do- and at least two judging from where his hand appears through one.
I just saw a video on youtube I think it was, that described the original Irish wire harps sound boxes as having been carved out of a single hollow tree trunk and that struck me s kinda wild!
Siobahn Armstrong I think- sorry if I mispelled that first name.
The idea of the magnetic parts retriever is inspired.
You mean there are no openings the back of the sound box? I’d cut some. cutting is usually good for better sound and even lowering the weight for football Waifs who find their harps too heavy.
Nothing beats a classic steel Manhasset. I’ve had mine for about 20 years now, and somehow managed to hang on to it. Its survived a major flood and I’ve painted it- (needs it again in fact- a little Folk Art shimmer this time? They’re very heavy compared to folding stands but stuff doesn’t fall off it easily either. Like a ROCK.
And then there’s Rodney Dangerfield’s classic SNL spoof of the film “Manhattan”- “Manhasset!”….
I’ve perused this a bit for several years- Yes I would say that most of these are Pakistan harps- My own view is that perhaps the longer reputation may lag behind the later reality- They are inexpensive- and not as nice as say a Dusty or Camac might be- but they are not that bad in my own opinion-
they made a major step forward a few years back, generally going to a birch soundboard and a more responsive sound- Know it by it’s lighter color- used and older stock is out there withholder sound board- still the decorative sides of the sound box are usually relatively heavy and so that deadens the sound a bit. The designs vary and there seems to be a more diverse manufacturing and/or exporting than just a few years back.
Most of these here appear to be “Roosebeck” or closely related- some were put out a few years back as “DMT” with a different lever- usually red white and blue– no experience there but I had a Roosebeck 29 for a short time and the levers didn’t seem that bad to me- maybe clunky and weighty-
The future is certainly alloy, fiberglass carbon fiber and aircraft aluminum Benjamin at least for hardware and pillar. A pound off the harp just on tuning pegs and pins alone!
An unfortunate development seems to be the omitting of levers at the upper end. My Minstrel 29 only had 25 levers or so- as if the larger levers won’t fit? Yet I think the 22’s are not that way- Oil monopoly corporate pecking?
Anyway the “Emblem” harps- pictured in “category” but not apparently in stock- appear to be Mikel Celtic in origin- yet I think there may be clones of that going around. The round backs are fair- heavy and of far resonance- the bases of the two round back Mikels I have are really really overdone- a good inch and a half of solid wood that extends up in the cavity and then further capped lower by anther weighty 3/4 inch of heavy wood- several pounds of heavy wood that weighs the harp a little heavier than necessary and diminishes the sound chamber. I think it’s there mostly to support the round back wood formation- which is also just a shade excessive, for a homeward bound harp especially. Other than that I’m fairly happy with the harps I have- the last one a Mikel 27 I got on e-bay Delivered for $300 with full levers- don’t go hunting – you WON’T find it now- but I got it just after last Christmas. I’ve been drilling the base/s- it didn’t even have the two inch round hole the others usually do- and it lightens the base quite a bit and lets more sound resonate out.
Anyway- my recommendations? The 26 or so category is a great size- I like 29 myself because it is an even number of octaves to resolve to high and low- but suspiciously almost- NOT that common
I also like all the levers upwards if they are included otherwise- 29 for 29 strings, 26 for 26 etc- so watch for that because they downplay this
I think a squared off back actually may be more cc’s of volume than a roundback when it’s all said and done and they can probably use thinner wood if the maker has a mind to. Newer Roosbecks also seem to have thinner lighter wood backs, and even a bulge for more volume and resonance but perhaps still focused on marketing appearance of the sites which ARE attractive.
And another nice thing about this size- you can configure it with all monofilament strings- available at Dusty- and it still sound decent- less expensive and less breakage than nylon wound- The Roosebeck 29 Minstrel was all monofilament- as is my Mikel 27 at the moment- though I may go back to at least three lower wound strings- only the lowest C feels slightly soft to me – I’m really wanting to focus on playing and not on changing strings frequently- and the original wound nylon base strings broke really quickly.
sorry for typos- the text box here still giving me fits- but not as bad as before
My Stoney End 22 in Cherry is very lightweight. I think Reese harps are as well, about 4 pounds but larger-26 strings. I find my Stoney End really does well for me n an easy chair. Fewer levers keep it lighter too- the Stoney End only has levers on C and F, and starts and ends on G. Good luck with whatever you find.
After 2 days on an otherwise dead thread and very slow board, why do you care, and then do the same thing ? If you wore headphones, would they be on the ground?
Ooops- somebody just erased my post ??? It appears on the log, but is no longer there. ?? shalom.
Anyway, At 63 I’ve found I’m preferring this 27 or so sized harp, although I think 29 would be the most logical size because then it has 3 even octaves and starts and ends on the same tone- to resolution on the first root. (I have to wonder if the corporate monopoly- somewhat hostile to our sedate instrument, and delivering us NOT this arrangement much, took exception to this comment? Or is just trans Woman bugaboos AGAIN)
Anyway, the Mickel Celtic 27 I got on the cheap a half year ago, isn’t quite the wrestling match my Mikel 34 is, at 63. Both are relatively heavy but sturdy full levered harps. My Lightweight Stony End 22 lap has been seeing more play as I try new ideas and relax in an easy chair.
I’ve set the 34 up to match the string gauges of the Dusty Ravenna, with steel strings on the lower octave, but the 27 I’ve gone to monofilament nylon as the nylon wound strings have broken- it might push the bottom red .60 gauge C string but the others have good sound and tension and it saves a lot of money not having to buy wound strings, and the monofilament seem to last longer , the peg wound part not pulling any more tension than it’s thickness, unlike nylon wound. I’m at an age and situation I want to play the harp and minimize its’ maintenance .
Also thinking that I could probably do with partial levered, I still prefer the full set. Reese Harsicles and Sharpsicles don’t see a bad buy and are fairly lightweight, but I don’t have one and am good here, and probably will be for life.
Happy Harping!
