Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
I personally find the piano more difficult. My hands are well set for the harp, and the spacing of piano keys is much wider. I was never physically comfortable with some aspects of playing, and never learned that much in the way of using real technique on the piano. I do find, however, the harpsichord to be much easier, as the keys are spaced like harp strings, and the responsiveness is similar. But, boy, do they need tuning. We have it easy by comparison.
You make excellent points, Carl. One never knows where the conductor will be in the score. It is important that our rests and tacets not only match the score, but have cues of what is happening
Why do you think that only thickness would affect the sound? The difference between silver and an alloy with nickel would be elemental, so to speak.
The union has an audition representative you can contact if you think you are being treated unfairly. I think his name is Nathan Kahn.
It would not be that hard to test. I would think if you built two identical harps, but gave them two vastly different columns, whether or not there is a clearly measurable difference would prove or disprove the point.
It seems to me as a matter of pure acoustics, that soundwaves coming from the sounding board are going to be more dispersed by a carved column than by a smooth one. It may be less than 10% of the total sound, but it seems to me that there would be some difference. Whether the dispersal is in the direction you want is another question.
I am certain I can tell the difference between silver and tarnish-resistant strings. I can certainly tell the difference between gut and nylon on recordings. It all depends on who is listening.
There is a difference with the more-expensive harps: their wood has been aged longer. The quality is better. The veneers are more carefully chosen.
An ebony finish, to my view, is adding a thicker layer that will inhibit the sound. As little finish as possible is the ideal. The problem with darker instruments is also that they don’t show up on stage, they are harder to see, but a natural or gold harp will always stand out in the light, and so will the finer carving. That’s why my teacher insisted on natural 23s.
I disagree with your reasoning, YJ. My parents did not have much money either, but made a better investment by buying the one instrument I would always use and need. I never
You also want to perform your repertoire many times for an audience. Do you have the repertoire list, then?
I recently moved my harp, wedged into what I think was an Explorer. I would not want to do it again. And I was constantly having to tune. I remain convinced the neck must lay flat and be continuously supported evenly throughout its length to be protected.
Sorry, I have only one snappy line to remember from Miss Chalifoux: “Well, that’s not the only thing I’d like to get straight
I have been to the showroom twice in the last two years or less. On each visit, I found all the harps to sound good, and most of them to sound pretty much the same. If you can afford a 23, I think that is still the best standard instrument to go buy/by, for sound and appearance and value. A 100 is a good choice too. I think the harps with carved columns have a bit more rounded tone. I think you should get the very best harp that you possibly can unless you are sure you will be able to buy another down the road. I am grateful every day to Frances Miller for insisting that we buy a 23. (She was not even pleased I wanted a Walnut model.) I should have listened to her and gotten the natural. But she didn’t say why, perhaps. Her reasoning was that it had the best resale value if needed, it was the most presentable and useful, and the best quality. I think that is mostly still true. A Salzedo model is marvelous if you want a big, projecting sound, particularly for orchestral playing. Its distinctive look may be less usable in some situations. It is handsome, but the 23 is universally loved. There is something magical in its mish-mosh of different carvings.
