kalijah

Start with trumpet. Learn it first. Then move to mello later.

The reduction in size is a dominant factor in producing higher pitches. But this can be accomplished with the muscles of the embouchure. Not simply mp force. If you watch a clear-moutpiece video you will se the exact thing happening. You are a good observer. Now this guy said: Well, acceleration is irrelevant. I suppose you mean air pressure. Which will depend on the dynamic or volume of tone, not range alone. The tongue does not accelerate the air through the aperture.

MBI is about right. The spread should have been about 5 points.

Ah, so only .5 difference between Hurcs and MBI was an accurate representation too?

Chase, as in Bill www.amazon.com/Chase/dp/B000002R4Z

I guarantee that almost every player that shows up for Wayne's ensembles have already established their habits of tongue movement. Abdominal pressure. Habits of sound production etc. Yes, players DO engage in tongue arching to some degree, and abdominal pressure in the course of manipulating the embouchure and air pressure respectively. That is ALL that is required to understand. No air-speed explainaton is required. As I pointed out, if the concept of "air-speed" is introduced to encourage these actions then so be it. But air speed does NOT determine pitch and tongue "position" does NOT increase pressure. But to some unexperienced, ususpecting student the advice, which WAS give literally by Wayne, may go home and arch and arch and arch, seeking that elusive pressure increase, or that elusive air-speed increase. Only to be frustrated. (I can speak from experience here because i was duped by the Gordon-teacher "explainations", which did not work for me and made my playing worse.) Most players early on, and instictively, learn the actions that are required to play and refine all of the actions involved to make music. I just find it odd that instructors DO venture in to "explaining" (yes scientifically, not pedagogically) things that players are already doing. Even things that they do less of as they mature. And the concepts of air-speed, pressure etc. are venturing into the realm of science. Even in the case of Waynes explainations. While these explaination SOUND correct they can, and do, lead to forced and unmusical playing. Like I said , most players learn to play instictively by action and listening in spite of the "explainatons" asociated with instructive advice.

Not really. Most brass types avoid the term at all costs. And substitute other terms in its place: "air speed", "air support", "the blow" etc. Some even deny it's neccessity. (See the brass forum)

Tom wrote: No, I mean the physical quantity of wind, moving or not. (call it volume?) So I guess you mean the physical quantity of air, moving or not. That is "volume". Wind is a flow of air. Flow=Volume/time. You can have high air flow and very little air volume,. Example: a very loud but short note. You can also have low flow and high volume. Example: A very long soft note. So to be accurate. Flow and volume are not the same. You must consider the dimension of time.

Maybe someone who has auditioned recently can shed some light. i am pretty sure that spirit has an audition piece they post before the audition.

Spirit needs your quality of player. But you could march anywhere. Just play like you normally do.

Tuba joe wrote: The inherent pressure varies depending on how much air you hold. At a point of muscular equilibrium there is still air in the lungs. But no pressure above ambient (zero). Engage the respiration muscles at this point and you can continue the flow of air. This is a region of less than zero air pressure (relaxed) where there IS air in the body. So the "inherent" air pressure due to elasticity alone will vary with the amount you have in the lungs. From some positive pressure for full lungs to a negative pressure for empty lungs. Not necessarily. There is only inherent pressure if there is more air than the relaxed lungs hold. And even then this pressure varies with fullness. It is not constant. Just above "relaxed" is not enough for any but very soft / low playing. Only if you are playing a continually diminishing volume on a note. (And obviously you never played anything smaller than a tuba.) The inherent positive pressure IS due to the elasticity of the body (not "combined" with). Also, if you are playing a tone that is significantly long. You must engage the muscles of exhalation as you approach and cross the point of neutral pressure. And, if one plays a very soft, low note, even on trumpet, the "inherent" pressure of the "full" lungs is too much for the dynamic and the player must engage the muscles of inhalation to adjust the pressure. Now most players will deny that they engage in such action but they indeed do that. YES, A player SHOULD use the inherent pressure of full lungs to his advantage. And when I discuss air "pressure" provided by the player I am NOT disregarding that pressure contribution. However the player MUST adjust the TOTAL pressure, the pressure required for the musical dynamic they are playing at the time, by engaging (or sometimes reversing) the muscles of exhalation, and this is a constant process.

Air mass? Or do you mean air "flow"? And dont forget air "pressure"!

Do not attempt to tune players who are so unskilled that they play way off pitch-center. Tune their horn yourself. Or have several good players with similar mouthpieces play the horn and see where the tuned slide position generally is. Accomodating a poor player's pitch bending by extreme tuning slide positions will only reinforce their bad pitch habits. Also, any advice regarding "air" "air support" "fill-up the horn" etc. is not helpful. And most certainly not the problem. Yes, it does take increasing air pressure AND flow to play louder. But as a player becomes more efficient in creating tone he/she will also require relatively less air flow and pressure. Tuning is an embouchure and tone quality issue. Air pressure/flow/ support/ (whatever you wish to call it), is related to volume of sound, that diminishing with efficiency. Encouraging one to use "more air" when the embouchure is the problem will never accomplish good habits.

Read my last post on the other thread. If contextually, you want to deal in absolutes, you really ought to have some idea what you are talking about. I don't get worked up about dissagreements. If someone says "I like to focus on the air speed over the tongue" or "air speed or air flow is the way I visualize it" I have NO problem with that, so be it. But don't even try to pass of your "vizualizations" or "beliefs" as real science in the context of absolute. And dont attempt to bring some real poorly understood science into an "absolute" discussion. If the subject reverts to the pure science involved (remember, context). And someone attempts to discredit my point with a woeful understanding of a subject that I actually do know something about, then, I will defend my points. But that does NOT mean I introduce this stuff in teaching or even think about it while playing. Would you guys PLEASE, PLEASE get over that accusation?

The science seems easy to me. But I can speak that language. I've played around some greats myself. Hunter Moss, Chip Crotts, Lou Marini (sax player) My avatar picture is from a gig I played with the Temptations Review featuring Dennis Edwards this past July 3rd at the Dick Clark American Bandstand Theatre in Pigeon Forge.. Do you think they hired me for my understanding of the science of brass or because I could play funky and with a good sound? :)

Please, all who read, this thread is NOT a commentary on what anyone MUST think about while they are playing. Some of my explainations are actually intended to respond to other miscommunicated or just plain ignorant ideas regarding the pure science involved. Please read these in context. If you think that I am espousing to think of these things while playing or claiming that not knowing these things makes you a poor player, then you have missed the point. The act of making music on a horn not only transcends the science involved, it transcends consious thought. In the excersice of my personal practice there are two things that I obsess over. 1. Comfort (not to be confused with low-effort) and 2. Quality of sound There are some mental exercises that I engage in that work for me that are NOT contrary to the actual mechanics of playing but work in tandem with them. Some players may believe one thing but actually do another because one plays by habit thru practice. Perhaps with more time someday I can share some ideas for anyone who may want to read. One of the best teachers I ever had used the simplest "action" terms like "blow". Stressed comfort (low tension) first then quality of sound second. (Idea being that you won't sound good long or enjoy playing if you are uncomfortable) And his model of sound was tremendous. SO PLEASE STOP SUGGESTING (in so many words): "Stop thinking about all that stuff and just play" because I will gladly deflect that same criticism toward anyone that engages in junk science as part of their method.

I have no idea how you could even begin to glean from that thread that it was turning into a "comentary on Wayne's sham-based career". What are you reading? Show me where this "comentary" was written, or implied in the thread.

sorry extra post

And you will be happy to know Tom, that I never used the word "pedogogical" in front of CV either. Now, "Pornographical" .. maybe that was used a few times.

Gimme a giant freakin break, Tom! How much time has Wayne. (And others) Spent flappin their gums in front of hornlines about the so-called "science" of air-speed, tongue arch, oral resonance YADA -Yada! The collective time wasted preaching this bull is off the charts! In the course of teaching CV in the past these things were most definitely NOT part of the process. We breathed, we buzzed, we sang, we stretched, we played music. How dare you suggest that I did such! Now aside from the rehearsals, if someone cares to listen, I will certainly offer my opinion. Wayne has served up some real disinformation in his article. I did not intend to be disrespectful. I am SURE he meant well. And I think if you actually read the thread you will not glean any personal disrespect. The thread title change is fine. I was attempting to generate some interest. Who ever goes to the brass forum, really?

tubajoe, If you are discussing your "psychological" approach or YOUR "visualization" of how you approach it thats your issue. But in an accuracy sense of the mechanics involved you couldn't be more in error. You wrote: By "quantity" I assume you mean flow. Hold your lips closed enough to prevent flow. Now engage the muscles as if blowing. There is pressure, but no flow. Not really, depends on the resistance (and impedance) encountered. Sorry, but no, pressure begins the whole process. The air will NEVER flow unless pressure is applied. A resistance will be encoutered (from both the horn and the embouchure) and a flow will result. Air pressure into the mp cup is a PRIMARY to produce a "pressure" wave (sound wave) in the instrument. Sound is a "pressure" wave, not a flow wave. Yes flow IS required to play, and to say that flow is not required is just as incorrect as saying pressure is not required or is secondary. The opening/ closing of the aperture is primarily due to the fluctuating pressure on each side of it. Flow will result during the "open" cycle, how much flow depends on the acoustics of the instrument. Namely the acoustic impedance. That is responsible for the "resistance" we experience on a particular horn.

From what I have read vibrations and standing waves in the lead pipe are not well understood. Not sure what you mean by "forcing function" here. I do know that the mouthpiece has a resonance, but it is quite weak. There is evidence by "popping" the rim with your palm. (For you engineer types this is a basic impulse function) You do hear a very short duration but definite pitch (or pitches) with these "pops" (impulses). Try it with some different size pieces and you notice slight differences. Now if you do your "popping" with the palm on the horn you will hear a pitch of primarily C. (I would guess that if you put the sound of these "pops" on a spectrum anlyzer you would see all of the harmonics in decreasing ampltudes for each higher frequency resonance peak.) As far as the lip-mp connections. The trumpet behaves as a closed end pipe, BUT the closed end approximation is really in the mp throat. The place where the aperture sits is most definitely NOT a resonance node and the pressure fluctuates between around atmospheric and some peak pressure. If the lips are closed the pressure in the mouth will push them aside, (out and away) and the pressure will flow out of the mouth and into the cup. If you are playing a tone the pressure entering the cup does not encounter atmosheric pressure but yet a rising pressure due to the reflected wave in the horn. However the reflected wave is less than it was before (some sound energy propogated out of the bell) so the pressure from the mouth will "restore" the pressure wave in the mp to what is coming out of the aperture. Once this happens the pressure in the cup and in the mouth are equal. This allows the aperture, by its elasticity, to close. And the cycle repeats. But for the cycle to work the frequency of the fundamental of the reflected wave and the frequency of the aperture must "agree". The resonance of the horn must be exploited by the embouchure setting. IMO while the lips probably do displace a bit more for louder pitches, it is the pressure of the pulses that determine loudness. Alow me to direct your thinking a bit here. While the smaller aperture MAY require more pressure to "push aside" you are forgetting something. The smaller aperture will alow less flow for the same applied pressure. However, due to the acoustics of the horn a certain minmun flow IS required for the volume you wish to play. SInce the embouchure is set the only tool you have at your disposal is the air pressure to increase the flow. So you must increase the pressure enough to reach this flow and provide pressure to overcome the increased losses due to (dare I say it) the air speed thru the aperture. The knack for a player is to , thru practice, have an embouchure that has good "vibrancy" ( for lack of a better term), that is, an aperture than opens sufficiently in its cycle. Even for higher pitches. The trained, "vibrant", embouchure will displace better , will have lower air-speed thru it and will have lower losses requiring less air pressures to play. That is why I also hate the "encouragement" of air speed, anywhere. Because ALL unrecoverable losses in the air path from the lungs to the mp cup are due to velocity of the air flow. If we could play with zero air velocity we would experience tremendous efficiency. But air flow, and the resulting velocity is a necessary evil. The best we can do is minimize it. There is only one way to acheive this, and that is with careful practice. No science, right or wrong, required.

If it wears on them it is their own fault. They can choose not to read this thread.

Move the bell? What are you talking about? And your physics aint quite pure... You are excercising some really bad thinking here. Pressurized air is introduced to the mp cup via the aperture. The kinetic component of that air pressure is a negligible part of it. Also for any increase in velocity due to flow there is an equal reduction in the static pressure. And believe me, static pressure is the DOMINANT part. You are making the mistake of recognizing only the increase in the kinetic energy of the air in your analysis and not considering the total energy. Which is ALWAYS, what the lungs provide (or less). You are attempting to enlist "kinetic" energy as if you were discussing basic classical physics of a solid. The ideas and approach are different for air or fluid flow. The air will NEVER have more energy than what it has in the lungs, regardless of its "speed". You are also not considering the viscousity of air. Ther are LARGE losses of (total) energy through "high speed" resrictions. Any (imagined) energy increases due to increased speed through a restriction are more than offset by lossed due to friction. If you vary the pressure there certainly is sound. Sound IS a "pressure" wave. Hold on there. I never said arching is overated. Only Wayne's "explaination" But other than that I agree. Actually some of that energy WILL be tranfered to the horn. But it will simply make a hissing sound as it flows through. You want an embouchure that will apply the (surviving) energy to the tone and to sound energy. When brass playing the oral chamber is extremely non-resonant. "Oral resonance" is simpy another "visualization" tool to manipulate the embouchure, and it can cause tremendous harm to players who take it literally to the point of destroying their embouchure. Only in its effect on distorting the embouchure. This idea was debunked by brass researcher and physicist Thomas Moore. As it turns out, sufficiently open is just as good as "as open as possible". And many players introduce extra tension and bad habits by "forcing" things wide open of "yawning"a and such. But I agree that relaxation is good.

I am not surprised then. Gordon disciples are notorious for making-up science to back-up their method. But as usual they just repeat what they have heard. They have done no real study. I am glad you notice this Alan. And I, like you, agree that it is unhelpful. It is interesting that if someone like myself undertakes to debunk the junk-science the response always is "just play!". Interesting that the same response is not reserved for those who daily spout incorrect science that one must "think about" as part of their method.