From: Michael Will Date: Wed, 25 Sep 1996 13:46:30 -0700 Subject: Chromatic vs Diatonic (was re: Gary's Thumb)
> I like this man Michael Will, he does my advertising for me!!! > #################### > > And to Play the chromatic Harmonica Well you might need some icky music > theory. > > FeatherMan Mike > #################### > > BUT, what a load of old cobblers. (apart from the freudian and denigatory > slip of uncapitalising the word 'Chromatic)
Nah. The word chromatic isn't in the title is it?
> You don't need icky theory to play any instrument well, you need to be > musical, talented, hard working etc.
Are there ANY talented classical players on any instrument that don't read music? I know, I'm erroneously equating playing chromatic well with playing classical music. But, I think jazz is technical enough that it's dang hard to do well without a good theory background too.
I think that's part of the chromatic mistique that makes diatonic players a bit nervous--when you hear a good chromatic single-note melody-type player, there seems to be a lot of learning-by-reading-music that went into it. I think that many diatonic players just don't want to do that.
And it seems to me that playing 3rd position chordal on a chromatic is more like playing a diatonic with a different tuning than really playing the chromatic--because the play is really not chromatic! It's based on the key of the instrument.
> Nice music theory seems to frighten people. Shame really because you only > need a minute (My newt) minimum to open a whole world of music. Like five > minutes (Min Its) worth!!! > > Icky music theory I can do without.
PDM, I don't think music theory is icky. And now I need to inquire about the difference between "nice" music theory and "icky" music theory.
