kalijah

Uh, Dave, no one has made the suggestion that this stuff should be thought about while playing.

Matt I can answer a few of your concerns: No there isn't! It's simple. The air can be considered incrompressible as it relates to flow in this case with negligible mass. So flow = cubic meters per second. Pressure = Newtons per square meter. So Pressure x Flow = Newton x m / s = Force x dist per sec .... Power! Vibrate "faster"? Vibration has frequency, not speed. Speed and frequency are NOT the same thing. Speed of displacement of the vibrating lips will increase with more amplitude of displacement on a constant pitch. Also one can play a very soft note (low air speed) or a very loud version of the same note. But the speed of the air is not what is "getting" the lips to vibrate more frequently. If that were true it would be impossible to hold a steady tone and change dynamics. Speed thru a small aperture is dependent on the pressure difference across an aperture. Regardless of variations in the size of that aperture. Air pressure is all you have at your disposal. You are missing my point. Everyone has a mental picture of how they produce tone and range. Brass players are enamored with the "air-speed" term because it is what many visualize as they do the things required to ascend. Namely a smaller embouchure for pitch increase, and more air pressure if they wish to play high loudly. But the "visualization" has evolved into the so called "well know fact" that air speed determines pitch when the "fact" is actually not so well known and easily dismissed. If you are in engineering you should know better. As the pintle reduces the area it also reduces the flow. Reducing the losses thru the flow tube. Thereby maximizing the pressure at the restriction. ANd the speed will then depend on the pressure difference. Not simply the size of the opening. It is the same as a water hose with a nozzle. The nozzle limits the flow, thereby restoring the available pressure AT the nozzle by limiting the losses IN the hose due to friction. The embouchure of a brass player is very small compared to the flow path so the pressure is essentially always the same as what the lungs provide (banning any restrictions between the lungs and the aperture). In other words there is ALWAYS a nozzle when playing brass and it is the embouchure.

I hear you Bill! I had instructors who not only forbid me to move the tongue, but also demanded that I hold it as low as possible in the mouth. Even as I played above high C. Their encouragement (enforcement) was based on some completely bogus "science" about oral resonance. . yada-yada. Well I found myself, as I tried to be a good student, caught in a muscular game of "twister". You can imagine what that did to my range. And made playing very uncomfortable. However, I don't see a problem with some investigation into the science of playing if one is so inclined. Especially if the player is freed from the idea of doing (or not doing) certain actions based on bad information. If one is not so inclined that is okay too. There is no requirement of scientific thinking, correct OR bogus, to play well. I would say good and musical habits of practice are more important to success.

When i blow air into the horn I get a sound, is a swishing "airy" sound. Oh , you meant a tone. If i blow into the horn with my lips in playing position there is a tone every time. If i remove the horn the pulsations stop and there is only air. However, my buzzing approach is air-only at first then with soft attacks of air. With sufficient embouchure function these "impulses" wil induce a tone using the tiny bit of resonance in the mouth piece. If I can exlpoit the tiny bit of resonance in the mp, then playing tones on the horn is easy as falling off a log. But, forcing raucous "burps" and "raspberries" into the mp will surely give an awful sound if you attempt to play the horn with the same technique. IMO the way most people buzz is only hurtful to their playing. ANd the action is really abused by beginning band teachers on poor students. Chech this out: http://www.trumpetguild.org/pdf/2001journal/0106Science.pdf

Dan wrote: How dare you! :) Flute playing/ bottle blowing are VERY MUCH unrelated to brass playing in mechanics. WHen flute or bottle playing, increased force of air WILL sometimes cause a different vibrational mode at a certain point. Generally an octave. However, before this force of air is acheived the sound simply gets louder on the resonant pitch showing that there is no "linear" relationship to air speed and pitch. In brass playing the pulsation of the lips need only match the resonant frequency. This can be easily done for a WIDE range of sound volumes air presures, flows, and speeds, all on one single pitch. Try to blow your "bottle octave" softly. What??? Blow your bottle tone and ONLY arch your tongue up. Now blow the bottle and increase the lung presure only. What happened? Changing the aperture causes reactions by the mouth-floor, teeth (jaw), corners. There is a muscular connection and interaction that causes the tongue to rise a bit. Some people prefer to concentrate on the tongue movement to "coax" their embouchure changes without directly thinking about the embouchure and to limit those changes. The smaller oral space causes a narrowing of the air path it is true. But this does not cause an increase in air pressure at, or air speed thru, the aperture. At least not due to the "narrower" path. To use the "garden hose" as an example: (sorry) Putting a "kink" in the hose might (or might not) cause the water through that kink to be faster than thru the un-kinked hose. However the water coming out of the nozzle will be less because 1. you decreased the flow with your "kink" and 2. you caused an extreme pressure loss through your "kink", all at the expense of "speed" at the kink. And pushing the "kink" righ up to the nozzle (aperture) will give the same result. Now the arched-up tongue is hardly a kink and since the embouchure is still multiples smaller, the narrower oral space will not cause much loss of flow or pressure unless you really over-do it. But neither will it increase the flow or pressure at the embouchure. The lung pressure can easily make up for reasonable losses to air pressure due to reasonable tongue arches. The lung pressure is THE source of air pressure and speed while playing. Everything else "spends" the air. Hopefully you will "spend" the air energy on tone. Not a closed throat, a extreme arch, or an overly long or clamped embouchure. Each of which may have more "air speed" there, at those restrictions, but ONLY there! Understand? In other words you think you are getting somethig for nothing. You ARE working harder if you are over-resricting before the mp cup. Oops, too late. Why don't you take a stab at trying to understand what I wrote. I guarantee it will not cost you a note of range. Actually there ARE also some "advantages" to a smaller oral space via tongue arc, mouth-floor etc. but they are small.

No but I could direct you to some things. Matt, I believe your perspectives are generally accurate. However the discussion really is on air in the body not the physics of the horn so much. Air flow thru the body and approaching the embouchure is a bit simpler but still a bit difficult for some to relate to since they have an even simpler but faulty "laymans" understanding of how air flows. However I had a couple of thoughts on your post. If by "buzz" you mean the pulses of air into the moutpiece facilitated by the opening/closing aperture, then yes. If by "buzz" you simply mean the flapping of the lips and any sound power that may contain, then I dissagree. Air pulses into the mouthpiece are necessary for sound in the horn. But, To be accurate, the power applied is due to the pressure AND the flow of the pulses of air into the mouthpiece. To be more accurate it is the mathematical product of the two. Flow x Pressure. (Notice "speed" is not part of the picture) The only thing the player really can control, once he has formed his or her embouchure habit is the pressure applied at the aperture. FLow will result due to efficiency and horn acoustics once that player reaches the dynamic they wish to play. However, the air power into the mp/horn is NOT the same as the Power "Applied" by the player since the embouchure will cause a loss of pressure. And a loss of power. In other words efficiency is important to maximize the power expended to actually become sound. Since the embouchure is very "lossy" only a fraction of the power expended by the player actually becomes sound power. But even that varies for the player's level of skill in creating tone efficiently an effectively. and you wrote: Well I believe that stiffness is part of it. But it is not so much how much lip is in the mouthpiece as it is how much of that is allowed to displace on vibration of pulses. In a analogous way that a shorter string will vibrate at an higher pitch by an octave or two where as adding tension to a string will increase pitch but with in a more limited way. In brass playing, the vibrating apperture becomes smaller as one ascends: O 0 o % The embouchure aperture setting does , in a the most dominant dominant way, determine pitch. Air flow, speed and pressure are related to the volume of sound. I am afraid he has. If it had not been things that players and teachers have said and written over and over for years I would not be so critical of the ideas. The only real support that the tongue arch / air speed crowd has is hearsay, and opinion based on only the most poorly understood science. I don't doubt his belief in what he has written. And as I wrote before, shifting the tongue is sometimes necessary to embouchure manipulations. As is blowing stronger to play a louder note or to achieve the desired loudness of a higher note. And making the aperture a bit smaller is required for increasing the pitch. These actions should not be discouraged OR over done. But the attached science presents some REAL falshoods and opportunities to create problems with players who mis-undertand them. I called out his attempt to "explain" the method by enlisting science that is completely wrong. And I will stand by that. His explainatins, in that ONE article are incomplete and inacurate. If Wayne hade used the term's "visualize" faster air or blow "as-if" faster air to encourage certain actions such as embouchure changes or air pressure I would not have much problem with it. But to say things such as "arching the tongue creates more air pressure" just MIGHT be taken literally by someone who may leave out two essential elements, one for changing pitch ( embouchure change) and one for increasing or sustaining volume (increasing the air pressure of the lungs) Besides, as one gains skill and efficiency, less of these actions are required, not more. Not the science involved here. Wayne shows faulty knowlege on the subject of air flow and dynamics. I dont believe he has the credentials in that area. Dont get me wrong , I have tremendous respect for the fellow. And his hard work and accomplishments. He has had a influential effect on my arranging style. As have alot of others. But everyone can learn something sometime, even Wayne. I would imigine he learned a bit from Jim Ott and who knows who else.

No that is NOT what I am essentialy saying. I am essentially saying that he DOES get it wrong almost completely in that article, because in that article he is offering incorrect information and that IS a fact. And that misinformation CAN cause bad habits and playing problems, which it did to me in a HUGE way. HE is essentailly saying that ALL one must to to reach higher pitches is blow harder, (more air pressure) and arch the tongue up. There is of course MUCH more to it that that, even while the associated "actions" are a PART of it. IMO it causes inefficient playing to attemt to follow that advice. I mainly feel this way because the ideas DID lead to inefficient playing for me , and I see it in others. If they did then Dizzy would never have been able to play any pitches above low C. What with that HUGE oral cavity of his. His air speed would have been extremely slow thru that space which it indeed was. And yet he played at times quite a bit above high C. Easily again showing that air speed thru the oral cavity is not a determination of pitch. I thing we all know that Wayne has some pretty good talent show up for the corps he works with. And unfortunately the people he has influenced are out there spouting bogus science as well. There is no need for that. Hey thanks, I am on a trip with CV right now in Salem, Ohio. We skipped practice today and worked out the equations for a superior brass sound. (not!)

You are quite wrong. When whistling the oral space is a crude Helmholz resonator. And the size of the cavity will determime the pitch. Very related to blowing across bottles of various sizes and getting higher pitches for smaller bottles. As for buzzing, buzzing is not required to play the horn and when you remove the horn from the mouthpiece the buzzing will tend to stop because you have removed the dominating resonance. There is a small amount of resonance in the mouthpiece alone that will facilitate some help to sustain a buzz. But in some way the mp buzz is also just a forced burp. And you are correct in saying that the mouth is not a resonant chamber when buzzzing. And neither is it while playing. (Yet another brass-myth)

The sarcasm is inappropriate. It is a fact that Wayne has made quite a career, and desrvedly so. Where did anyone claim or state otherwise? But success as an arranger does not make him any kind of expert on the underlying science. And to represent himself so is irresponsible. Especially since the "theories" stated by him are not original ideas. The air-speed via tonge arch nonsense has been floating around for years. He simply is repeating, verbatim, what has been stated over and over thru the years by those who actually did NO research or actaul study on the subject. Corect practicing will produce success, and descriptions of actions should suffice. And if the interjection of science is dared to be included it should at least be correct. If he knew what i knew about tongue arch and waveshap he may not present such confusing and misleading ideas. Which they are. Many players may get some benefit to the "actions" involved. But others who like myself attempt to literally follow the bogus science (which I finally dismissed with better results) will experience problems.

Yes but they are quite miss-applied to brass playing as described.

Not applicable, the whistling pitch changes due to changes of the size of the resonant space. Which is, when whistling, the oral space. Changing the speed of the air thru the oral space when whixtling will change the volume of tone, not the pitch. In the same way, while playing brass, you change the pitch by changing the size of the resonant chamber, which is the length of the horn. And increasing the air speed and flow will in turn increse the volume, only.

sf2k wrote "Can I just say, not as a brass expert but as a physics major (well, engineering, but still), taking an exiting fluid in a space (say, a large tube) and then taking that same tube but narrowing one end, you do get a faster exiting of the fluid thru the hole. Think of taking your garden hose and then covering part of it with your thumb. Again, that's just for speed." Well this is why the concept is quite misleading becase the garden hose nozzle and the brass instrument are two slightly differet phenomenon. Namely because of the length of the hose. Acxtually the garden hose phenomenon proves that as you reduce the speed of the supply flow you get better preserved pressure at the final small reduction in the path, (sort of analogous to the small embouchure) Showing that the widest possible oral path will gives the highest pressure. By the way guy, I got an engineering degree from you school in 1991 and have been working in Engineering since. And playing brass since way before that.

Air flow is required into the mouthpiece on each air pulse. It is required to create sound energy. It is not the "vibrating lips" that are amplified by the horn. If you could get the lips to vibrate, in the same way, but without air pulses there would be very little sound. The acoustics of the horn require a significant flow on each pulse and there is a minimunm for each volume you wish to play. You can improve or reduce the air flow required through efficient embouchure function, bet even at perfect efficiency there is still a minmum and significant flow required.

Its dissapointing to see Wayne attempting to venture into the "air speed" myth. Widely repeated but completely erroneous concepts regarding air speed and oral size etc. He wrote: Actually, any narrowing of the path of the air will result in a loss of air pressure and a reduction in air flow. Regardless of the average air speed thru that narrowing. And an increase in speed thru a narrowing does not mean an increase in speed (or flow) everyhere else, namely, thru the embouchure. As a matter of fact, a reduction in air speed everywhere else is guaranteed. In fact, the larger the air supply path the more the energy and pressure of the air is preserved. Pressure of the air (and its energy) is in no way dependent on the speed alone. To believe so is an excercise in faulty understanding. What good players have developed is an embouchure that produces a pleasing tone and the ability to control it in a musical way. AIr pressure IS applied as appropriate to the volume you wish to play. But the source of air pressure is not only from abdominal muscles but ALL of the muscles involved in exhalation, not to mention the elasticty of the lungs that also contributes (or detracts) to air pressure. As for air speed, it varies widely thru the system and depends in turn on flow. And flow depends on total resistance including embouchure efficiency, acoustic properties of the instrument, etc. In fact, no relationship has been establishedand the concept is easily dismissed. It is possible to play a low C at a high volume with much "faster" air (thru the aperture)than a much softer high C. Now, higher pitches Do require, in general, more air pressure. Perhaps that is where the confusion lies among players and teachers. The terms "speed" and "pressure" have been confused. Vibration has "frequency" to determine pitch. The speed of the vibrating medium can actually vary on a constant pitch depending on amplitude. But, as was noted one can use a variety of air speeds on a constant pitch, depending on volume. Hold on there! Wayne said before that the "speed" of vibration determines pitch. Hown can the the "speed" also determine color. The fact is that the freqency does determine pitch. Not the speed, of the air, or of anything. As for tone "color" it is determined by the frequency content of the pulsations. Or to put it another way, the "waveshape" of the pulsations. Here is an interesting article from ITG that is informative: http://www.trumpetguild.org/pdf/2003journal/0306science.pdf While I have great respect for Wayne as an arranger, I am afraid he has fallen into the propogation of some widely believed but very much erroneous, inaccurate and unnecessary "analysis" in regard to the subject. The presentation of some of these ideas could be a real stubling block for some players. As they were for me. Tongue arch, abdominal pressure, and the visualization of the action of creating air speed do have a place in teaching methods. But for the cause of accuracy it would be nice to see players and teachers take an interest in the real science involved. It might be of some benefit.

Any reasonable trumpet can be used to scream. Its player's preference. Bill Chase used a medum bore Schilke B6. There is no horn that is specifically BETTER for screaming than another. I have found range easier on smaller bores, especially at loud levels.

Actually it was close in most captions in prelims with CV in 8th in percussion, effect and brass. In prelims, CV brass bested Cabs in ensemble brass and was only a tick away from 7th in total brass. Will be interesting to see the recaps for finals.

Congrats to all class a finalists!

Thanks for the kind words about the book Bawker. And James, thanks for the compliments. I have written all of CVs brass arrangements since going competitive in 2000 in Class A. But before that there were some quality arrangements contributed by Tom Carr and others. So I am not the only one who wrote for CV. I really dug into the Don Ellis recordings, so do not forget to credit Don Ellis himself (rest his soul!) for the work. I think some of his harmony and intent has been lost from these tunes in previous attempts. Hopefully I was able to restore some of that. For the middle tune, Don was on my shoulder when I was writing, and Jason and, Tracy. (CVs know what I mean) So James you can have the job, If I am fired or if I die! I love writing for them. I am so glad for CV this year, the members and staff have done a great job, but IMO Hopkins and Marwede and the guard staff really helped saved this corps from decline.

Well, thanks Chip for the nice mention. And it was good seing you Kaye! Yes, I feel fotunate to write for Corpsvets horns (pinch me), and they give me pretty good leway in what I want to write. And yes, I was eager to write for this awesome mello line. But really the contras are doing lots of work that may not be evident, but listen to the contra book for its rhythmic content and some walking lines alternating with soft sustains behing the solos, and FEATURES, also while running all over the field at times, and CV contras, the GE Music Judge noticed your hard work and gave credit. I will say that Chip was with us on our first competitive outing on the field at DCA back in 2000. That group really put it out there and we were as green as grass. Chip lent some confidence to our efforts, as for me i was scared to death.( I also wrote a double D for Chip on "Hunter Green Blues", after what I heard last night I am sure he'd be even more solid on it now. Hey Chip I should send the Gs that chart to play around with, It was written for a smaller group, but hopefully yall wont stay small very long.) We have all learned alot since then and still continue to learn. As for the Generals, I heard them play in the lot. Great potential if you will grow your talent base even more. And those Uniforms - wow. Possibly the best looking of any corps last night. I like them. How many did you get? I heard them play "one more time Chuck" which really worked the percussionist overtime, horns - pretty good dynamics. Get in the habit now of using contrast. It will serve you well when you go competitive. You Generals that can should go to Scranton. it will fire you up! I can still remember being in the stands on finals night in 99 with Dave and Ken and some other CV members, thinking out loud; "think we will ever be good enough to appear in class A?" Keep the dream alive souther corps!

What a great Review, thanks for taking the time and for being so interested. I am not sure we can live up to your praise quite yet, especially my corps, but thanks for the encouragement. I will have to take exception to one line: I am from Alabama, I live, work and create there. And Dr Dave (and his double Cs) are from there as are a few other CV members. Just givin, you a little raggin about that line...! :P Thanks again , you rock dude!

The difference, oh about 4 decibels. I own both.

If you cant hear it in your head then you can't write it. Listen till you start hearing things then write them. You MUST train your ear first. Arranging is creating, mostly.

Not just a trick. I can do it. But I have actually used it on a big - band gig on a long sustain. Sometimes practical, but rarely. I have held a note in excess of 6 minutes using it.

Dave wrote: This is a harmful myth, air speed is DIRECTLY propotional to volume ONLY. Not range or tone quality. Telling players that more air is needed is almost always inviting them to learn how to be an inefficient player. As tone develops so does efficiency and LESS air will be required for a given volume. Read my other posts. Darryl Jones CV brass caption leader 01-03

You should consider this advice: You may need a smaller mouthpiece. It is the sound that should be your goal. You will not necessarily have the power you need with a large mouthpiece. You can develop a huge sound on a smaller mouthpiece with the right approach. It takes tremendous focus and patience. Only your loudness is related to how much air you are using, not range. As your efficiency develops, less air flow AND air pressure will be required. Those who proclaim that screaming requires "lots of air" do not understand efficiency. It is playing louder that requires lots of air, regardless of range. I reccomend a book by Walt Johnson called "Double High C in ten minutes" While the book does not do what its title claims it will introduce some concepts that will alow you to extend your range with minimal effort. I found that it not only helped my range increase but bosted the fullness of my sound over the whole range.