JW Insider

I appear to be behind the times here. Mike & Kim I know of from a video I watched of them on YouTube, where they seemed a bit too silly and flippant (perhaps even tipsy?). But their information was lousy, and they were promoting this idea that elders were destroying necessary CSA evidence, when they were really misinterpreting "good practice" counsel from the WTS about record-keeping. Maybe they have done their homework on other videos, but I won't waste my time because I don't trust them based on the random one I watched. P. Asare I have never heard of. John Redwood is related to John Cedars, who is somehow related to Lloyd Evans, as I saw these names on JW Survey. I downloaded that site to read later, but I did read all the headlines from the site, just never got back to it. Average Joe I have never heard of. Bill Bowen is the former elder who put his face behind "Silent Lambs" which intended to expose CSA crimes among JWs. I understand that Barbara Anderson worked with him to get it started and get it named but that Barbara Anderson didn't trust his motives or his personality and backed away from it. (I have read much of Anderson's site, and the name comes up often when I search Google on several different historical and CSA topics.) WiFiBandit sounds very familiar but I do not know from where. (I suspect this is a Jehovahs-Witness forum participant. I don't care much about the work of most ex-JWs for purposes of testing their claims, or defense against their claims, unless I'm convinced that they have done their homework, and are not prone to taking things out of context. For this reason, I have purchased 2 books from M.J.Penton, 1 from C.O.Jonnson, and 2 from E.C.Gruss. (I also have two books from R.Franz that I picked up online as free pdfs. I also picked up a book called Apostles of Denial from archive.org, which is also from E.C.Gruss.) Otherwise, I pretty much ignore current online sources because I think they tend to get their info from other sources anyway, and misinterpret or misrepresent what they said. For this reason I won't bother with those who don't do their own work, when it comes to claims we should test for ourselves. Compared to people who appear to have gone to original sources and documented their work, I'd guess that most of these online personalities are probably just repeating things. Any of them, including the authors I mentioned, might also have had bad motives. We should expect that this taints their own conclusions. But it's worth looking at their work, especially if a lot of it is true, regardless of their own motives or conclusions. Perhaps we'll look at the same evidence and come to a different conclusion.

At first I thought it was N.B., but I agree that this seems to be part of a much larger collection of anti-JW material. But you are right, it appears to be all JW material that is used in the 01.Read First; 02.Generation; and 03.LightBrighter files. I haven't seen the other files yet. The arguments may take things to an excessive conclusion, based on added marginal notes, but all this is still a REAL part of the history of the organization that should be understood correctly. We do take pride in the history of our organization, and an honest person would never leave out this information, even if our explanation for it is more generous than we might expect from ex-JWs. For some, ignorance is bliss, or at least preferable to knowing these things. But a fully honest Witness will want to know what really happened and what others might think of these issues, and prepare for any possible question that might come up based on these issues. (1 Pet 3:15) Some of these references are fairly recent, so it must be someone who was an active ex-JW recently. Perhaps N.B. knows, or it could be discovered through a search of the large JW discussion group. I make it a point not to visit there because there is too much real hatred of JWs, elders, GB. There is some of that here, but manageable in the sense that you can keep track of the few names who offer very little more than just repetitious hatred of everything related to the organization. It's easier to pick and choose over here, and know what to expect from each participant. I'm interested in who this was, however, if anyone else already knows or wishes to search it out. Otherwise, I'll try to figure it out. (As of tomorrow, I'm out for over a week, again.)

In many halls the very library itself can no longer be found. So there are no older books, just a shelf for current (but used) Bibles and Songbooks that folks left accidentally. But it's true that the out of print books are not banned. Just harder to find, such as Aid to Bible Understanding and Commentary on the Letter of James. But if it were not well known which writer wrote a specific book, and it usually isn't, then there was no need to remove those books. The need to replace the Aid book with Insight began in a hurry after R.Franz became known as the head writer, through his own admission in Crisis of Conscience, but most the entries are still exactly verbatim what was in the Aid book. But they still haven't replaced "Choosing the Best Way of Life" and it's still available on the Watchtower Library CD, and wol.jw.org. There are books that make us cringe, and those who ask specific questions about anything prior to 1970 will probably be looked at as if they are losing faith in the organization. Don't try to ask if anyone knows of anything still good in the Finished Mystery book, for example. There is still a lot of good information in some of the books and magazines prior to 1970, but most anything useful has been repeated, or updated/corrected in more recent books and magazines. Also, I have some memos I was going to share here once that showed that in assigning topics, the head of Writing had a kind of rule that every topic would be revisited before 20 years were up. So if a topic hadn't been touched in a while, you might at least see it updated, for example, in 1939, 1958, 1977 (and 1996, 2015 if they still kept the "policy" going). A couple of big changes that make a lot of books up to even 2000 obsolete is the fact that we no longer make a prophecy out of parables and narrative portions of the Bible. This doesn't make the good counsel obsolete, but usually it means that this counsel now applies to everybody, not just a specific class. (i.e., Shulammite class, Haman class, Esther class, Elijah class, Elisha class, Ruth class, Naomi class, Jehu class, Jezebel class, Jeremiah class, Jonadab class, Samaritan class, Prodigal Son's Brother's class, etc.)

What you are saying in this portion is mostly true.

I think the flattened note is easier to pick out in a song like the following, which is not a kingdom song. It's called "Sailor's Hornpipe" I think, and it was made famous in the Popeye cartoons in the 1960's. Here it comes up once in the intro, and once in the Popeye part. I slow it down just before the flattened note to make it easier to pick out. New Recording 252.m4a

Just because a simple "C" harmonica doesn't have sharps and flats doesn't mean you can't play songs outside the key of C. For one thing you can get harmonicas pre-tuned to every key. But even if you just use a "C" harmonica, you can also play any song in the songbook by just playing it in "C." For example, song number 6 (The Heavens Declare God's Glory) is in E-flat. But you don't even have to think about transposing in any technical sense. You just play C for every place that the song plays an E-flat, and the rest of the notes fall into place because ALL scales sound similar no matter what note they start on. That's because every scale has a first note, then skips a whole step for the second note, another whole step for the third note, a half step more for the fourth note, and whole steps again for the fifth, sixth and seventh. And that seventh note ends up a half step behind the starting note again. That's always going to be true whether you are playing in G, F, A-flat, G-sharp, B-flat, etc. The only thing that changes is what note you started on. But even when playing in another scale, there are often notes in a song that are not a part of that scale. These are sometimes called "accidentals." If you look at song #6 again, you'll see the "accidental" in the last row, just above the "pro-" of "pro-claims." Only the top note in that line is the melody (B-flat) and it has a little symbol next to it that means "natural." Normally every note on the B line in this key is going to be played as a B-flat, because that's just a standard part of playing in the key of E-flat, and you can look way over to the left of this line and see 3 flat symbols. But on this particular note the "natural" means NOT to play it as a flat but play it as a "natural" B. It turns out there is a way to do this on a simple harmonica. If you purse your lips and draw air in at a steady rate, but fairly strong, it will draw down the note a half step or so. If you do this a lot on the same harmonica, it gets easier. You can even draw down a note while blowing out, but that's a little harder to get it a full half-step down. I'll play a quick (sloppy) version of the song on a simple harmonica, and if you listen, you can hear where I paused just a bit to pulled the air a little bit stronger to draw down the note a bit and then let it slip back up to get the next note. New Recording 249.m4a

You make it appear that you have rather disgusting set of worldly values. I don't know if that was intentional though. This also gives the appearance that you filter your thoughts through set of disgusting worldly values. Although the scribd link is down, you can find this article here: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15261004 Here is the quoted abstract: The review examines whether unsolicited or non-consensual sexual stimulation of either females or males can lead to unwanted sexual arousal or even to orgasm. The conclusion is that such scenarios can occur and that the induction of arousal and orgasm does not indicate that the subjects consented to the stimulation. A perpetrator's defence simply built upon the fact that evidence of genital arousal or orgasm proves consent has no intrinsic validity and should be disregarded. I guess I shouldn't be surprised based on your past "longing" to live in places like Sodom and Gomorrah.

Wow. As a kid we used to make spinning tops at my father's electronics lab, because he had lots of scrap equipment and tools to play with. We never knew why a perfectly good spinning top would completely flip over and keep spinning on the other side after a small wobble that didn't appear to change the center of gravity. Kinetic forces tied to angular momentum were a bit beyond me. I do remember our best model was a very large solid metal plate about three feet across, with a small 'bb' or ball bearing that we soldered to its exact center. We would then spin the plate with only the ball bearing touching the polished marble floor, and it could spin for nearly an hour. (And no chance of it flipping over.)

Represents an awful lot of work. Thanks.

A lot of material in there. This came up as "03. Light Brighter Part A.PDF." Are we to assume there is also a Part B? or even Part C? I notice that there is also mention of a "1925 folder" and that "03." implies more parts, too. Are these also shareable? Privately if not publicly?

Very portable instruments: I brought up the harmonica because it is a very low-cost instrument that can present quite a bit of versatility. The human voice is another instrument like that, and it can be modulated so that "humming" for example, will bother very few people around you if quiet enough. For many of us, myself included, the voice is not as accurate at hitting the right note. The human whistle is another low-cost instrument that one can bring almost anywhere, although it's often more annoying to bystanders. The flute-style "recorder" is another very low-cost instrument, and I keep one in the car, for use while I'm waiting for parking in NYC. I find that most of these tend to flatten the higher notes just a bit, and unexpectedly provide very harsh "harmonic" tones even when you are sure the right holes are pressed. A guitar is not so portable, but obviously much more versatile for all types of music. A good keyboard is the least portable, although I find a smartphone can suffice as an alternative. iPhones can include a free version of GarageBand that is an amazingly versatile piece of software that includes many simulated musical instruments. My daughter and one son played viola and violin in school. Small violins are portable, but expensive and delicate. I can't get a good sound out of one. I can't think of any more truly portable instruments that one could carry with them anywhere. In Missouri a few people had some odd instruments that you don't see very often. I have a simulated Ocarina on my iPhone that I play by blowing air (not whistling) into the microphone while pressing combinations of only 4 buttons pictured on the phone. Of course, there are pencils and spoons and "saws" and tin whistles, but I can't think of any other really good ones to accompany Kingdom Songs. But I mention these ideas so that anyone who hasn't joined in this kind of fun might realize just how easy it is to make some music. I also find that if you take more interest in the music, you will pay more attention to both the lyrics and the music when it's played at the hall or conventions.

That's amazing. As soon as you said you were already thinking of "Bless Our Meeting Together" I also wanted to mention "We Thank You Jehovah" because it has exactly the same features. It has no accidentals in the melody, and almost none in the bass or tenor either, but the alto is where a lot of the best harmonic action is found, although the bass bounces nicely through a greater range than usual (full octave intervals). Of course, they put it in a slightly harder key to play in. That's part of it, but doesn't explain why 140 of them don't sound alike at all. Nor why "Beethoven's 5th" sounds nothing like "Twinkle, Twinkle, Little Star."

A quick review of the songs in the 2017 songbook reminded me of a few things. First of all, it was discovered in the Dead Sea Scrolls that the book of Psalms they used had 151 Psalms, not 150. Our new songbook has 151 now too. Although we will still have some extras from the monthly broadcasts. I was also reminded that in the same way that two Psalms in the Bible are essentially identical (Psalm 14 and Psalm 53), we have also ended up with several songs that are nearly identical. I think this could have happened with the update assignments given to brothers (and probably sisters, too) to recommend and present new and better versions of some of the older songs. In some cases the new one was used, but the old one is still there, too. This would explain why there are some cases of current songs that are only variations of each other with similar lyrics in a similar order. Or why some musical refrains echo in more than one song. In fact, there are also several points of musical similarity between three consecutive songs, 68, 69 and 70, in addition to topical similarity. The explanation of Psalm 14 and 53 could have been that these were two different musical versions of the same lyrics, just like the updates to some older songs with new music that kept the lyrics almost identical. (There are about 20 examples of this.)

That must have sounded nice, with the parts in a real choir. True that the old harmony doesn't work so well with the new melody on parts of the first portion. The easiest song to learn harmony on (for me) was the old song 5 (pink) now 93 "Bless Our Meeting Together." Most of words have remained intact, too. The tenor and the alto could easily be memorized by others in our service car group. And now the new version is even easier because it's in C with no "accidentals" in the melody.

My 1944 is red. My 1950 is green. 1966 is pink/magenta. (Not shown with correct proportional sizes)

Here is a list of the "simple" TOP 40 (45) songs from the current 2017 songbook. There are a few that might not seem so simple, but they are here because they have a long history in Witness memories, especially for the slightly older ones among us. But even the most complex from pre-2009, are still much simpler than the more complex ones since then. (Although the more complex ones are generally much prettier.) I have tried to include EVERY current song that goes back at least to the 1966 songbook, and a few of these also go back to the green 1950 and some to the grey 1928 songbook. These are the "TOP FORTY-FIVE" 2017 songs that go back almost unchanged musically to at least 1966: Note that some have the same title, and almost the same words, but the music is completely changed, and they won't be included. Some have completely different words, even a completely different topic, but the music is almost identical to a prior song, and they will be included. Some have nearly the same melody but with only a very few adjustments, and they will be included. Some have similar music, and the melody is different, but it's close enough so that the previous version could still harmonize with it, or even match it in several places, and if enough similarities are there, they will be included. Some of the new songs were known only through songs repeated since the 1970's in convention "dramas" (72, 110, 149, etc.) and will not be included. 4. “Jehovah Is My Shepherd” 6. The Heavens Declare God’s Glory 7. Jehovah, Our Strength 8. Jehovah Is Our Refuge 9. Jehovah Is Our King! 13. Christ, Our Model 14. Praising Earth’s New King 23. Jehovah Begins His Rule 29. Living Up to Our Name 31. Oh, Walk With God! 32. Take Sides With Jehovah! 33. Throw Your Burden on Jehovah 34. Walking in Integrity 36. We Guard Our Hearts 42. The Prayer of God’s Servant 46. We Thank You, Jehovah 48. Daily Walking With Jehovah 55. Fear Them Not! 59. Praise Jah With Me 61. Forward, You Witnesses! 63. We’re Jehovah’s Witnesses! 66. Declare the Good News 71. We Are Jehovah’s Army! 78. “Teaching the Word of God” 82. “Let Your Light Shine” 85. Welcome One Another 90. Encourage One Another 93. Bless Our Meeting Together 94. Grateful for God’s Word 98. The Scriptures—Inspired of God 99. Myriads of Brothers 105. “God Is Love” 106. Cultivating the Quality of Love 107. The Divine Pattern of Love 108. God’s Loyal Love 113. Our Possession of Peace 114. “Exercise Patience” 115. Gratitude for Divine Patience 117. The Quality of Goodness 120. Imitate Christ’s Mildness 125. “Happy Are the Merciful!” 128. Enduring to the End 133. Worship Jehovah During Youth 144. Keep Your Eyes on the Prize! 146. “Making All Things New" Others that at least partially match 1966 or 1950 songs are here: 21. Keep On Seeking First the Kingdom (First part harmonizes, second part matches.) 37. Serving Jehovah Whole-Souled (music matches an older 1950 song) 40. To Whom Do We Belong? (First half harmonizes, second part matches.) 50. My Prayer of Dedication (Music harmonizes with 1950 song "Dedication," with many of the same words.) 62. The New Song (An old 1950 song.) 75. “Here I Am! Send Me!” (Only harmonizes, although words nearly the same.) 83. “From House to House” (Only harmonizes, although words nearly the same.) 86. We Must Be Taught (Only harmonizes with a previously known song, words completely different.) 116. The Power of Kindness (Second part was removed - tho removed part partially included in different new song.) I think of the above as "easy" because they are so well known for so long, but some of the newer ones are very easy, too. These following two, are just a couple examples, and both are in the Key of C, with no additional sharps or flats in the melody: 3. Our Strength, Our Hope, Our Confidence 28. Gaining Jehovah’s Friendship

I'm happy for the discussions about appreciating music. My father moved us from California to Missouri in 1964 to 'serve where the need was greater' and he was often looked at very suspiciously for all his classical records, and a few other styles, too. Mozart, Bach, Beethoven etc., were generally considered to represent false religious church music by other Witnesses. He had to keep most of these records under wraps, and kept about half of them at his lab where he worked.

Except for a couple of statements I could not fully agree with, I really appreciated your line of reasoning/questioning.

That's a good idea. But I find that it's very easy to find a polar opposite to almost any position anyone has taken on anything. When the real answer is West or East, it's also too easy find that everyone is ignoring that and fighting over the difference between extreme North and extreme South. This is the key to news panels on CNN just before an election. This gives the impression of neutrality when the truth does not actually lie somewhere in the middle. It's merely an entertaining distraction. Of course, some ideological channels don't even bother with creating an illusion of a middle ground, merely spouting off in a "newsy-like" version of standup comedy. (Sean Hannity, Rachel Maddow, etc.) When looking for whether a position trends toward truth, sometimes one must look for the "admissions" "revelations" "slip-ups" and "apologies" from the persons who have claimed to hold one position, and have succeeded in getting others to agree to that one position, but then are forced to admit the opposite. (Or accidentally admit the opposite.) This type of "opposite" position is often available only during a short time window before the backtracking begins. Sometimes the "revelations" are documented history after everyone has forgotten to care, such as FOIA releases from past presidencies, or caches of embarrassing documents released on wiki leaks, etc. After a while, one can develop an entire framework of areas (and players) where such admissions happen more often than others. When the pattern of 1)position, 2)slip-up, and 3)method of backtracking to regain the original position becomes very predictable, then you are probably onto something trending toward truth.

I added point number 5, because yesterday on WNYC I heard a person call in to a well-respected NYC talk show, and as what happened to a lawsuit that was supposedly brought against Trump over an event that might have been 30 years ago, where a mother brought suit for her young daughter who was supposedly raped by Trump. I heard it and thought, oh boy, obviously something like this would have been brought up during the last presidential election if it were true, and someone is clearly grasping at straws to denigrate Trump. To my surprise, the host knew very little about it but the interviewee appeared to have a lot of details about it and said the mother dropped the case because they were getting too many death threats, and feared for her life. Then I see someone posting elsewhere, a realistic looking court document from 1989 that sues both Trump and Epstein together for a rape of a 13 year old girl. I'm assuming that this is the same case.

This is based on a mashup of ideas based on a quick reading of online and newspaper "revelations" that appear to quote from sometimes credible sources. I understand that a lot of online sources about Epstein, including Wikipedia, got a Clinton wipe-down up until just the day before Clinton's press release minimizing his contact with Epstein. But it wasn't just Bill Clinton. It seems that names of almost all Democrats were removed from some of these sources as far as possible. But Twitter is now seeing a re-freshening of some of these sources through those who have taken an interest in the Epstein case for years. In fact, NY's Southern District Court wants to take on this case, no doubt as a followup on the Mueller investigation into Trump that didn't take it as far as they hoped. That's a court with heavy behind-the-scenes Democrats who can't stand the fact that Trump has been an excellent president for those with Republican political values, and a lot of extra Democrats who overlap with Republican political values. This means that Trump is pretty sure to win again unless they can take him down by scandal. I think Pelosi's daughter just said that it will take down some Democrats, too. And even the man who wrote Trump Nation, being interviewed a lot lately for his anti-Trump stance, is admitting that many high-level Democrats are also shaking in their boots, in case Epstein has off-shore vaults full of "life insurance." (His own life insurance, in the sense that Alan Dershowitz and others are probably under obligation to send out a lot of "envelopes" if anything happens to Epstein.) As much as I hate "conspiracy" theories, this one really does appear to go right to the top of all political circles -- and that's by design. When Acosta got him such a lenient sentence and illegally determined to offer Epstein a plea deal without informing the victim plaintiffs, he often claimed that he was innocent because this case was being monitored at all levels of government, and all told him he was doing a good job. We have to wonder why it was being monitored at all levels of government. Also those who realize that Democrats have tried to misuse this against Trump, probably forget that Trump's time with Epstein included time when Trump was a Democrat and was hanging around with his great pal Democrats, the Clintons, and others. But in truth, you should also watch the people who are recusing themselves from the current upcoming case, and start listening again to things that Acosta said when being interviewed about whether he thought his history with Epstein would hurt him, when Trump wanted him to be the Labor Secretary. If this is true, [dailybeast source] it might be the whole key to whether Epstein is prosecuted as expected, or gets another deal. The current NY case no longer accepts the immunity of the men who kidnapped orphans and homeless girls for Epstein's underage prostitution rings. This provides for a set of "fall guys" to make it look like the court did its thing while appearing to give Epstein a harsh enough punishment while actually giving him a pass like Acosta did last time. (He was previously sentenced to jail, but was also told he only had to show up about one day a week to jail, and could spend the other six days running his business.) His actual business, as you've said or implied, was probably based on a single source bankrolling a scam hedge fund operation that really seems like its actual source of growth was funded through a blackmail operation. With only one known name in his business, and no records of any Wall Street trades or investments, it appears that his entire operation could have been funded in the following way: Invite interesting people, high level politicians, and a mix of billionaires to lavish parties. Make sure that the parties include a lot of free drinking and 16 year old girls (he has victimized into prostitution) who can pass for 18 or 19. Hope that at least one billionaire, or connected politician with a lot to lose will end up taking one of the "19" year olds to a conveniently wired bedroom. Let the victim know the next day that she was 16, and that the solution to Epstein's silence is a hefty investment in his fund, with 5 percent fee payments to keep the money "managed." Take advantage of the fact that some high level politicians and billionaires will learn of Epstein's ability to procure 16 year old girls and pay a lot of money for sex with them with or without blackmail involved. But what if Epstein has been protected all these years because the CIA uses sexual scandal leverage against people all the time, and this is who Epstein's secret bank-rollers really were all along? In that case, I expect very little real success in a case against him. What gets found in his blackmail vaults will likely be filtered by whomever has the authority to look at it first. (Remember the Mayflower Madam? or DC Madam)

We gave a lot of 100 percent fruit juices to our kids, and now all of them have been telling us for several years that fruit juices, even fully natural juices, are not healthy. It's because sugar from fruit is just another kind of sugar. It is essentially no healthier than sugars that comes from cane, beets, or corn. Without reading the study yet I'm also guessing that people tend to limit their intake of sodas due to warnings, and even exaggeratedly false warnings, and also the fact that carbonation can help you feel more full. "Excessive" soda drinkers have limits set by peers, doctors, and "themselves." "Excessive" fruit juice drinkers have no such limits. It is common knowledge how much "empty" caloric content is in a can of soda. But most people don't see a calorie warning on the side of a glass of lemonade. Orange juice, apple juice, etc., are thought of as healthy by moms and other parents. And the second or third glass goes down smoothly. There is no self-limiting tang of carbonation. Of course, the study is still surprising, otherwise we wouldn't be reading about it. This could also mean that the actual content of the study is inconclusive or is being misinterpreted. Most studies are misinterpreted by the time someone finds a surprising title to put on it.

Just a quick aside. I noticed that this newspaper says that they only expect THOUSANDS living in this city to never die. But the same ad for the Pittsburgh Press says TENS OF THOUSANDS in this city. I wonder what the population cut-off was for moving the order of magnitude like this. If it was 20,000 that would make sense that the expectation was nearly the entire population. But if a city needed at least 100,000 before they would change it to TENS OF THOUSANDS, then they were likely expecting as little as 10 to 20 percent of the population of each city to survive. What city was this particular ad from? Do you know? If that's the Portland Express, then this would be a town of about 70.000 in 1920 and only rates THOUSANDS. Pittsburgh had nearly 590,000 in 1920 and it rates TENS OF THOUSANDS.

I didn't re-post the little Bach piece, but I did start a place for anyone to post some Kingdom Song performances. So far it includes two Kingdom Songs: 115 and 42. ("Gratitude for Divine Patience" and "The Prayer of God's Servant") Both in harmonica, though, not exactly an easy-listening instrument.)

The above song 115, was played on a 10-hole Hohner "Chromatic Harmonica" sometimes called a "Chromonica." I have one that I got for $20 on eBay several years ago, and a Chromonica 64 that I played literally 50 years ago. I also bought a used one in perfect condition for replacement parts, and it must have also been nearly 40 years old. A Chromonica is different from a simple harmonica. A few of the notes in the exact same position are designed to play different notes on one harmonica vs the other. For a simple harmonica, I have Hohner 10-hole Blues Band harmonica. You can get them used for about $5. Each type has advantages and disadvantages for certain types of playing. If you buy a used one, be sure to clean it and dry it very well, with rubbing alcohol, cotton swab, etc. If used, I actually take mine completely apart to clean all the wood and metal. Buy them new, so you don't have to worry about cleaning them, and the terrible taste of rubbing alcohol on your lips. I will play another song, 42, "The Prayer of God's Servant," which is a good song for this kind of harmonica. For this particular song, I make both types of harmonicas sound similar, but it is easier to add rhythmic sounds and even some harmonies on the simple harmonica. One disadvantage is that the simple one will usually not have all the notes that you need, because it's usually just over two octaves of the standard 8 notes in the octave -- no sharps or flats. The chromonica has about the same range of octaves but with ALL the sharps and flats that you might need, too. Song42-ThePrayerOfGodsServant.m4a