hangforum.com - The Archive

Why would you want to see this video? You have no interest in anything but negative criticism of the Halo. Even if it sounded like God you would still not want to have anything to do with it. Now that you have made it easy to see a split in the community, perhaps you can stay on your side of the fence, and I shall do the same. 90% of my writing has been in response to your aggressiveness towards anything non PanArt. I hear your side of the story, and I see the analytical approach that is taken on that side. You fail to acknowledge even one single thing in opposition to what you believe as being valid, and act as if no one else's perspective is worth a dime because PanArt has the ultimate say in everything involving Hang. And at this point, the conversation is useless except to draw more lines of separation between PanArt and everything else. It seems that this is what Felix wants, and he got his wish.

Best wishes,
OM

Hi,

@om

i thought to hear the backside from the Halo could help to have a more complete impression from the sound. Not only for me, but also for people who are interested to buy one.

At the moment I see, that other people want to seperate Halo, Bell from the same group as the Hang. Not I.
I start a discussion to think about a better "generic therm" as Handpan, where we find a conset.
So, a few people in the community feel at the moment offended and act like children be in a huff.
If this handfull people (yes, the internet community is not so big as some thought) want to call Halo, Bell a Handpan THEY! seperate the Hang from this group of instruments, because Hang is not Pan.

Yes, this forum is not only to post "coming soons".

And you´re way off , with your feeling that I only want to fight against everything what is not from PANArt.

For example. A few month ago a lot of Tongue Drum makers told the people that a Hank is similar to the Hang. We all know, that this instruments has nothing similar.
So, I brought arguments against this. A few Tonguemakers see, that they do his instrument not a favour if they search all the time a comparison to the Hang. The people behind the Hapi leave this way and "let speak" the Hapi as an own instrument. You could read here, that I am defenitely fair to say something positive if there is something positive to say:

viewtopic.php?f=18&t=356

I wrote this a longer time ago.

So it is not real that I only want to make negative comments. You pick all the time only the negative comments from me out of my postings. I also explained the "good sites" of the Halo for percussion players.
Where is the problem?

@Om. I read on nearly every post in the last days from you "Felix this, Felix that..."
I dont see Felix on any forum. Only that I was two times in the Hanghouse and speak with Felix from time to time, means not that he has anything to do with my postings
I think you are confused, because I have in some points similar opinions as Panart and because I stand behind the philosophy of Panart mostly.

Again. Stop your revenge against Felix on the forum. I am not sure, if Felix read what you write here. You had problems with him and now you are pissed off.
If you have any need for clarification go to the Hanghouse and speak with Felix. Stop to talk about Felix feelings. You dont know what another person feel. It is disrespectful to speak about people who are not in the room.
You are blind because of your animosity, I think.
This has nothing to do with OM...

Frank

Funky, I would agree that your voice has an important place, particularly regarding Hang-inspired, but very different instruments (like Hanks, HAPIs, and other tank drums, among others) in alerting people that these instruments have very different construction methods, and sound qualities, from a Hang. There are many people who want a Hang, and they could have problems if they see these other instruments as truly similar.

The Caisa was a bit closer, but I think in the end the Hang community saw enough differences that it is regarded that way.

I find it curious that you highlight OTHER people making a distinction between the Hang from the Halo, when that seems to have been your message for many months (similar to how you seem to view other instruments as well). As with the Caisa and HAPI, you have consistently maintained (your) almost impossible standard of being equal to the Hang. And now that there is something that an admittedly small (but reasonably well-informed) number of people deem close in certain ways, you shift to the attack that something has been stolen. And while not all of the techniques are the same in making the Hang and Halo, there are many similarities, and the final products of both share many common characteristics.

A Hang is not Pan (or a steeldrum). While that is true, to me, and numerous others, the steeldrum is clearly where many of its roots lie. We may disagree on how close it is, or how far it has come from steelpan, but it seems that you are denying ANY influence from it whatsoever, which does not make sense to me.

The jury is still out as to whether the Halo is in the same class as the Hang. After having played both, I would say, "Yes." That does not mean they are equal; there are certainly differences. However, I think many people will find the Halo a worthy addition to the group of Hang-inspired instruments (and certainly the best so far, and I am not counting Bellart because Luis has yet to produce for customers, but I hope he will soon be successful), with much of the magic and mystery of the Hang. I’m sure some people will not be moved by it, but I would say the same even for the Hang.

You, Funky, have been repeatedly negative about Pantheon Steel and Kyle, throughout its development. Sometimes I think you have had real concerns (such as whether people should have needed to make deposits), while at other times you have come to very fast, negative judgments before having sufficient information (such as your criticism of Kyle for seemingly going back on his word and not sending the first Halo to Felix and Sabina, when the reality was that they had rejected his (kind and respectful) offer; or your contention that Kyle was somehow dishonestly selling experimental prototypes without the buyer’s knowledge or agreement when he first began selling the Halo).

At this point, I pretty much expect that your conclusions about the Halo will continue to be negative, whether they are justified or not.

On the other hand, I hope and believe that most people will take all the information available and make their own decisions based on the merits of what they see in the instrument.

Frank, I appreciate your opinion. I actually am not pissed off about anything, just trying to make clear some of the actions that come from the hanghaus from a perspective that stands in opposition to their philosophy (which has yet to be clarified to the public, btw), and that many people see as a very valid perspective. Yes, I speculate about where those actions originate from in Felix based on a gut feeling. For that I appologize and am willing and ready to move on. I too believe that you are "blind" by your inability to see things from any angle other than your perspective. I quote Mr Fox from a post on hang-music:

"It may sound dry and academic to make the observation when real humans emotions are involved in this but there seems to be a split becoming concrete between reactionary and progressive elements, and I am interested to see what new styles of thought and play may come from the more progressive movement. On the other hand there is so very much value, knowledge and insight into what a Hang is and is capable of held by the more reactionary thinkers, value to both sides of the coin and a shame that ideologically there is a split that causes personal upset!" ......

And I agree with his comments. I think there are fundamental disagreements about many subjects that creates an ideological split. Part of the passion that I have expressed (which was taken as anger) comes from the fact that your side refuses to see ANYthing that the other perspective has to offer, while many of us on the other side see your perspective, agree with some points, and disagree with others. This is almost like a political debate. If we refuse to place ourselves in the shoes of the other party, even if for a moment, then we cannot even begin to understand why the other side sees things different in the first place. This should be a democratic process, and so far, I feel like the rigidity of your side is completely fixed and unchanging. And that is not democratic, IMO.

So, enough of that....back to the point that started this whole mess, which is to define the Hang first so that we can discovered what family or category it resides in in comparison to all other instruments on the table.
-------------


What I want to know is: What makes the Hang a Sound Sculpture? If it is not a HandPan, but IS a Sound Sculpture, then lets define sound sculpture. Up until this point, what I have gathered from some opinions, the Hang being "integrated", meaning that the notes all seem to sing and work together, rather than isolated, is one, if not THE main point that makes the Hang a Sound Sculpture. Am I correct? If you or Ix or anyone would be so kind as to help us further our understanding of what a sound sculpture is, perhaps we can continue the discussion about WHAT IS A HANG and why it is different from a Halo, etc. There are obvious differences to my ear, but from a categorizing standpoint, you guys who analyze these instruments logically and critically (and quite well I might add) have yet to give us concrete differences between the Hang and the Halo other than the fact that it is spun and not deep drawn. Perhaps that is enough to put it in its own category??

I remember a post made earlier about a comment made about the Halo having isolated tones, and not being integrated. After playing the Halo I can safely say that the tones are NOT isolated. I found minor energy transference between a few different tone fields on Todd's Halo, and the Ding most certainly activates several of the harmonics of tones in the tone field as well. So in that sense, the Halo is indeed "integrated", and I think that was Kyle's intention when making it. He may not have the expertise of F&S, but he is no dummy when it comes to tuning steel and seeing and understanding the reasoning behind F&S's actions when chosing the methods that they tune.

So, what else sets the Halo in a different category or family? "It sounds different" is not a suitable answer, obviously, and I am not sure if the size, weight and shape of the cavity sets it in a completely different family either, although it could...I don't know.

Also, what is Pang? And how does it differ from simply Nitrided steel sheets? I know this has been discussed before, but clarification here may move this discussion forward.


Best wishes....

What is a sound sculpture?

A sound sculpture is a sculpture that sounds.
A sound sculpture is a sculpture of sound.
A sound sculpture is sound that is shaped to a sculpture.
A sound sculpture is a sound form moving along the time.

Talking about the Hang as a sound sculpture is not categorising.
It means to talk and think in metaphors to understand some important aspects of the Hang. When I see the Hang as a sound sculpture I play it in another way as when I think of it as a usual musical instrument in the western context. In this context the musical instrument is a tool to produce the music that the composer has defined. When I look at the Hang as a sound sculpture, I use my hands to touch it in order to find out how it is shaped. And with the Hang I do this in the dimension of space and sound. I touch the sound of the Hang to find out how it is shaped. I follow its shape and find out how I can move it. And so a sculptur of sound moves along the time when I play the Hang.

This is in my point of view the meaning of sound sculpture regarding the Hang.

"So, what else sets the Halo in a different category or family?"
Hm. I don't know. As far as I know we discussed in the other topic the question how a category have to be defined and named that includes Hang and Halo.

I suggested for this category the working title "Hang shaped instruments":
viewtopic.php?p=2307#p2307

We have to consider that a category is a working tool used to analyse the similiarities and differences of a number of items. A good category is one who is useful for an adequate analysis.

In this moment of the history of "Hang shaped instruments" it is useful to put Hang, Halo and Bellart Bell in a category that defines their similiarities. And the similarity is the shape. Therefor I proposed the working title "Hang shaped instruments". If we define a category in this way, it helps us to analyse the differences between the three items of the category.

There are some interesting questions to answer regarding this analysis:

- Can I use the item as a sound sculpture (in the way I described above?)

- Has the Item a GuDing (this means that the central dome works together with the cavaty and resonance opening to create a central sound)?

- Does the items have the same or different geometries of the tone fields, how do they function, and what is the sound result?

- How are the items mainly used by their players?

etc.

Ix

So we should forget about physics and science and focus on metaphors?

Who said this?

When you read my post again, you will see that it includes the focus on physics and the focus of the metaphor of the sound sculpture.

Both are useful.

btw. we shouldn't waste our time by constructing a controversy where no controversy is.

Ix

I wonder if the above is more an approach to playing, rather than the characteristics of the instrument itself. And wouldn't this approach apply to other instruments played in a less-structured, somewhat improvisational manner?

It seems the above could be a way to play the piano, although the arrangement of notes is linear. I do agree that the Hang asks to be played in this non-traditional, meditative, exploratory, improvisational way, but can other instruments be played in a similar way?

You are right when you say that my description focus the approach to playing. This is an important thought because I asume much of the controverses around the Hang are more controverses about the approach to playing than controverses about instrument designs or physics.

What I want to express is that the Hang is made for this approach to playing. It is less able to be played in the other way I mentioned. And when someone talks about downsides of the Hang or expresses whishes what the Hang should be able to, it is very often the view on the Hang as a music tool that is behind these.

Therefor I think, it is very important in the discussions on Hang and Halo and Bell etc. to ask, what the player want to do with the instrument. How he or she looks on it, as a music tool or as a sound sculpture.

The main difference between these two views is that in the first case (music tool) I want to tell the Hang what it shall do for me, and in the second case (sound sculpture) the Hang tells me how it wants to be touched.

Ix

I received my 8 note tone field XXD from Pantheon yesterday, and all I can say is "Wow!"

I love the scale. The notes are not quite as harmonic in pairs of notes, but after a year of playing a hang in D harmonic minor, a very interesting and melodic scale is quite a breathtaking change. I've listened to the scale of the DXD halo in recent videos, and it sounds much less oriental, which makes sense as basically it is the pygmy scale with an additional note.

A couple of minor differences I note in the XXD Halo over the Ake Bono Halo is that Kyle's concerns about the 7 note tone-field being better may be a perfectionist issue -- I find both instruments equally resonant and all the notes strong and clear.

The patina on the XXD seems to be a bit different, and slightly prettier. The new finish is slightly smoother, making it a bit more difficult to make the Halo "sing" by rubbing my fingers on the ding. Kyle confirmed with me over the phone that it was a new finish and technique, and that if I wanted he might be able to change it back. I don't think it will be necessary, as I never found the "singing" technique for either the hang or the halo very reliable, but it was nice that he offered.

I'll try to post a couple of videos of both of my halos and my harmonic minor hang so that people can compare.

-- Christopher Allen

Hey all. I still check the forums regularly, but must say with all the bickering going on I rarely feel the urge to post..
As a fellow IH player (or sound sculpture enjoyer ) I felt the urge to respond here though..

Sound sculpture vs instrument; I usually approach my IH more as an instrument. Sometimes I play it loud (full volume but without it distorting), sometimes I play it very gently, barely making sound. Sometimes I really go for a meditative approach more like what I suppose is meant with 'sound sculpture'.



This statement was for Todd, but I was kind of annoyed by how it is presented as an absolute fact. I have experimented with opening and closing the gu and playing the hang. I have to agree with Todd in that on the IH (or at least mine aswell) the opening or closing the GU hardly makes a difference in sound. I found one bass tone that fit very well with the rest, by closing about 3/4th of the opening, but hardly experienced a change in the rest of my IH's sound, keeping the opening like this. What I do notice however is that when I put my IH flat on the (flat hard) carpet, it sounds lifeless..

Since I read the post from IX, I have experimented with various ways to partially cover the hole on the bottom. So far, I have experiences that are similar to Pulp's.

I have been most successful in doing so by using a doughnut-shaped cushion for a tabla underneath. By using the heel of my hand somewhere in between the tone fields, I CAN hear the progressive lowering of the Helmholtz as the hole is covered.

I also agree that this enhances the sound of the IH. However, I would call it a minor enhancement rather than a significant change in the sound. Perhaps I am not doing it totally correctly, but this is how it is for me right now.

FWIW, I get similar effects with the Halo. The Helmholtz is lowered, but I would only call this a slight improvement in the sound. With either instrument, I don't know if anyone would notice much of a difference on video. When I tested the effect with someone in person, she didn't notice an obvious difference, either.

At this point, for both instruments, I have an overall preference of playing it without adjusting the Helmholtz resonance, because it is easier, more comfortable, more stable, and I don't need any additional equipment. Perhaps if I refine my technique, I will find a stronger effect which could make it more appealing.

FWIW also, this technique of adjusting the Gu makes more of a difference when you are in the studio and there is the correct amplification and headphones. I was experimenting with this in the studio a few days ago, and I can say that the tone of the overall instrument (tone fields) is changed only subtly when the Gu is closed part way. However, if you are particularly interested in creating the deep bass sound out of the bottom of the Gu, then the precision of how much you close the hole makes a huge difference. The amount of adjustment necessary to go from F2 to D2 is not that much, and you can stop at the E2 as well with a difference in adjustment of about 1/2". I agree that to the "naked" ear it does not make much of a different sound. But when mic'd, the Hang and its subtleties are much more noticeable and useful.

My proposal is to wait for midnight. Then take your Hang go in your room and close all windows and doors. Now you have a very calm surrounding. Sit down on a chair and close the angle of your legs until you adjusted the Helmholtz resonance to D2. Then play your Hang gently.

I played several new IHs in a calm surrounding a week ago in the Hangbauhaus and could produce a very remarkable Bass sound with the Ding. On the IH the Ding is the main point to generate the Helmholtz resonance. It is very remarkable if the Basstone D2 is in the sound. Touching the areas between the tone fields and touching the tonefields it really makes a difference if the Helmholtz resonance is adjusted or not.

But you need a calm surrounding. An usual living room at 3:00pm in a flat in the city is to loud to experience the full Hang sound. Also a room with an air conditioner or a loud PC ventilator is to loud.

Perhaps here is one main reason for misunderstandings of what I wrote: If one is used to play the Hang in a surrounding that isn't calm enough, he will not notice the differences. Perhaps after one have practiced the playing of the Hang at midnight indoor several times he is able to hear the differences also in not such extrem calm surroundings.

If you play the hang in a band you can forget the Helmholtz resonance completely, you will not hear it. The Hang needs the silence to show all its sound capacities.

Ix