Too much practice

[pjwbrass]

one thing? what the heck is intercostal pressure, that just sounds bad to me. also unneeded expirement. LOL, jk. i am not much of a science guy. sorry. any kind of pressure to me that is not just allowing some pressure to create a buzz is unnecessary. i have been trying to correct that for years. it takes a long time. also, i thought arnold jacobs method's were not being followed anymore. my teacher has been preaching the Farkas methods. he is also from the chicago symphony, but a french horn player.

[John Schmitt]

Just something I noticed about building range. Scales or other exercises that force you to connect your high register with your middle register are very useful. The better you can connect those ranges, the less you have to change as you get higher. If you top out at E with a "normal" embocure consistant with how you usually play (not cheating yet), you might have an F or G on top of that if you're on a gig somewhere and need it. (cheating a little) If you've already got the mouthpiece down your throat, your left leg behind your head, a carrot hanging from your bell and a cup mute up your nose to get an E, you don't have that comfort zone.

[brassguymike]

one thing?  what the heck is intercostal pressure, that just sounds bad to me.  also unneeded expirement. LOL, jk.  i am not much of a science guy. sorry.  any kind of pressure to me that is not just allowing some pressure to create a buzz is unnecessary.  i have been trying to correct that for years.  it takes a long time.  also, i thought arnold jacobs method's were not being followed anymore.  my teacher has been preaching the Farkas methods.  he is also from the chicago symphony, but a french horn player.

Intercostal- located between the ribs. So, intercostal pressure simply refers to pressurizing the air in the lungs. Your air has to be under some pressure, so it is necessary. We're talking about air pressure here, not mouthpiece pressure.

Mr. Jacob's methods are used more and more daily throughout the entire world. He, more than anyone I can think of off the top of my head, has made the greatest impact on how we use our wind to create sound.

To quote Mr. Farkas from M. Dee Stewart's Arnold Jacobs: The Legacy of a Master...

To hear Jake breathe was a lesson in the physics and mechanics of breathing as well as a lesson in the art of phrasing. I can certainly claim, just by having been in such a wonderful position to observe his artistry, that I am truly a student of Arnold Jacobs.

I remember one occasion when I was in a prolonged playing slump. I asked for Jake's help and advice to get me out of this depression. He listened to me play for a moment and then advised me, "Phil, stop trying to be so analytical! Shut your eyes and shut off your thinking and just pick up the horn and play it in an instinctive, unthinking manner. Your reflexes will take care of your problem because only a short while ago you were playing well. That ability is still there. In your case analyzing will only make matters worse. You are trying to correct something by thinking about it. In this case it will only tie you up in knots. Play the d*mned thing like you always have and stop all this negative thinking." I tried this approach and in two days I was back to normal (for whatever that is worth!).

I stand by my assertion that Jake is "The World's Greatest Brass Teacher," and I am not in the least bit worried about every finding someone who will contradict me!

Almost everyone who is anyone teaches concepts that were originally taught by Mr. Jacobs. From Keith Johnson, professor of trumpet at North Texas to Dale Clevenger, CSO's current principal horn. Ray Still, CSO's former principal oboist just recently wrote an excellent article in the December 2002 issue of the Instrumentalist in which he credited Mr. Jacob's for most of everything he knows about breathing.

Mr. Jacob's had students that ranged from all brass instruments to woodwinds to even singers and string players. One student was not even a musician.

[kalijah]

The lower the note, the higher the flow rate of wind and the lower the intercostal pressure. The higher the note, the lower the flow rate and the higher the intercostal pressure.

I assume you are talking about high or low notes at a fixed volume, because air flow and pressure are also proportional to sound volume.

I would add to this and say that as the embouchure or point of vibration becomes more efficient the difference in air pressure required between low and high notes begins to be reduced.

Example: a young untrained player can hardly produce enough air pressure to play a high C and the air practically ceases to flow. On the other hand a player with a well trained and resonant vibration point will be able to play a middle C and a high C with only a slight increase in air pressure and practically no change in air flow.

I have experienced this in my own practice and I have been working toward a more even airflow (minimized) and pressure (also minimized) over a larger range.

I guess your assumptions are counter to the popular thinking that playing higher requires more air. I also believe that to be correct.

The volume of sound is primarily propotional to air flow (and pressure). And as you have shown air flow is slightly inversely propotional to range, and that pressure is directly proportional to range.

[Dave]

To quote Mr. Farkas from M. Dee Stewart's Arnold Jacobs: The Legacy of a Master...

To hear Jake breathe was a lesson in the physics and mechanics of breathing as well as a lesson in the art of phrasing. I can certainly claim, just by having been in such a wonderful position to observe his artistry, that I am truly a student of Arnold Jacobs.

I remember one occasion when I was in a prolonged playing slump. I asked for Jake's help and advice to get me out of this depression. He listened to me play for a moment and then advised me, "Phil, stop trying to be so analytical! Shut your eyes and shut off your thinking and just pick up the horn and play it in an instinctive, unthinking manner. Your reflexes will take care of your problem because only a short while ago you were playing well. That ability is still there. In your case analyzing will only make matters worse. You are trying to correct something by thinking about it. In this case it will only tie you up in knots. Play the d*mned thing like you always have and stop all this negative thinking." I tried this approach and in two days I was back to normal (for whatever that is worth!).

I stand by my assertion that Jake is "The World's Greatest Brass Teacher," and I am not in the least bit worried about every finding someone who will contradict me!

AMEN. There are a lot of famous "Jake" quotes around, but one of my favorite phrases of his is "Paralysis by Analysis," which is what he's talking about in that story. If you're putting so much thought into exactly how you should be playing something, you're just bogging yourself down. All you need to do is make music. You're singing it, except instead of vibrating your vocal chords, you're vibrating your lips. It's all about the "Wind and Song." No matter what fancy names and teachers you attach to different ways of approaching the horn, it still all boils down to putting air through it and making music come out.

[brassguymike]

I assume you are talking about high or low notes at a fixed volume, because air flow and pressure are also proportional to sound volume

Yes. The volume would definitely change the equation. An upper register note at a high volume would definitely have to use more wind flow than the same note at a lower volume. However what I was simply stating is that at a given dynamic, the flow decreases and the intercostal pressure increases as you go up in range.

I would add to this and say that as the embouchure or point of vibration becomes more efficient the difference in air pressure required between low and high notes begins to be reduced.

With an efficient embouchure the difference wouldn't be as great, however there is still going to be a very noticeable difference. The original experiment where these findings came from used brass players from the Chicago Symphony. Herseth, Farkas, Crissafuli (I believe) and Jacobs... you don't get much more efficient embouchures than this.

Example: a young untrained player can hardly produce enough air pressure to play a high C and the air practically ceases to flow. On the other hand a player with a well trained and resonant vibration point will be able to play a middle C and a high C with only a slight increase in air pressure and practically no change in air flow.

Mr. Jacob's experiments would disagree with what you said. Is this your speculation or have you actually done the research. Have you inserted a tube inside your mouth and measured your pressure while you play? If you have actually done the research, I'd love to read about your findings.

I have experienced this in my own practice and I have been working toward a more even airflow (minimized) and pressure (also minimized) over a larger range.

Why would you want to minimize your aiflow? I could see trying to maximize your wind efficiency, but not minimize your flow.

I guess your assumptions are counter to the popular thinking that playing higher requires more air[/b]. I also believe that to be correct.

These aren't my assumptions. They are Mr. Jacobs findings. Yes, higher notes do not require more air. They require more intense air. If I told one of my beginners to blow more air to play higher, 99% of the time they would just play louder.

And as you have shown air flow is slightly inversely propotional to range, and that pressure is directly proportional to range.

Intercostally, pressure is most definitely proportional to range. Wind flow is definitely inversely proportional to range.

[kalijah]

With an efficient embouchure the difference wouldn't be as great, however there is still going to be a very noticeable difference.

I never said that the difference would not be noticeable. But the better trained one is, it is also noticeably smaller.

Mr. Jacob's experiments would disagree with what you said. Is this your speculation or have you actually done the research. Have you inserted a tube inside your mouth and measured your pressure while you play? If you have actually done the research, I'd love to read about your findings.

Can you show me the Jacobs experiment? Were the pressures measured? Was there a real scientist or engineer present. Were the octave notes held to a constant "measured" SPL, Or was the ear used to monitor the loudness? Was there a control group of less experienced players or players of differnt levels for comparison. Was the efficiency of these players measured? A great trumpet player is not neccessarily an efficient one, but I am sure it is likely.

I have not read a detailed report of the Jacobs experiment so I can not review its validity. And I do not need a measuring device to know that my pressure difference is improving as my resonance does. Nor would you. Measuring it would be a benchmark for comparison, I will give it a try and let you know what the results are.

Why would you want to minimize your aiflow? I could see trying to maximize your wind efficiency, but not minimize your flow.

I am talking about minimizing air flow (and pressure) required for a GIVEN volume of sound. That is, using the smallest possible for a know volume. I am not talking about using less than is required, that would result in me playing softer.

Let me ask you this; If you were a car racer and I said that for a given amount of engine power and/or road speed I could reduce your fuel consumption. Would you say, "no thanks, I want to use more fuel than is required at all times" ?

or as another example; If You had a sound system and I said you could get just as loud a sound level but could get it by reducing the power consumed by the amplifiers, would you say, "No I want to use more power than is actually required" ?

Having worked as a sound engineer I know of none that would respond this way.

You agreed that we would want to maximize efficiency, well there are two ways to demonstrate improved efficiency with regard to brass playing:

1. Increased output (sound volume) for a fixed power input (air flow x pressure)

2. Decreased input (air flow x pressure) for a fixed Output (sound volume)

So if you are maximizing efficiency you WILL be minimizing air flow ( and required pressure), for a given volume.

Real world example again, If I was playing a high C and had acheived the exact tone and volume that I set out to have. Then if you told me I could play the exact same high C ( same volume, tone quality, everything) with, lets say, 20 percent greater efficiency, first of all I would jump for joy. But I would experience a similar DECREASE in air power required.

The benefits of improved efficiency (and minimimum air flow) are.

1. Less body energy required, resulting in better endurance.

2. Less mouthpiece pressure and embouchure effort to contain the pressure, also resulting in better endurance.

3. Ability to play longer passages with a breath.

4. Improved dynamic range. Maximum acheivable loudness can be increased. (Also known as "headroom" to borrow an audio term)

5.Improved Pitch range possible.

Yes, higher notes do not require more air. They require more intense air.

Now Mike you have reverted to brass-speak. Exactly what do you mean by "more intense air"? I will assume you mean air that is under more pressure. There are only two real characteristics to air as it applies to brass playing. Flow and Pressure.

If I told one of my beginners to blow more air to play higher, 99% of the time they would just play louder.

That is right because the primary result of air velocity change is to change the volume. There is quite a bit more to playing higher than just increasing air pressure.

[brassguymike]

Can you show me the Jacobs experiment? Were the pressures measured?  Was there a real scientist or engineer present. Were the octave notes held to a constant "measured" SPL, Or was the ear used to monitor the loudness? Was there a control group of less experienced players or players of differnt levels for comparison. Was the efficiency of these players measured?

You can read the results for yourself, buy the book at http://www.windsongpress.com/books/song_an...d/Song_Wind.htm. As I am currently on Spring Break visiting my fiancee, I do not have my Song and Wind book in front of me. However, yes the pressures were measured. And if I am remembering correctly, they did this research at a Chicago hospital.

I am talking about minimizing air flow (and pressure) required for a GIVEN volume of sound. That is, using the smallest possible for a know volume. I am not talking about using less than is required, that would result in me playing softer.

I understand you. After my previous post, I thought about this some more and I, too came up with the automobile fuel efficiency comparison. However my original reaction was because so few brass players really understand their use of wind that I feel too many would back off their wind to the point where they were not even producing a good sound. As you know you've got to be careful when telling students these kind of things.

Now Mike you have reverted to brass-speak. Exactly what do you mean by "more intense air"? I will assume you mean air that is under more pressure.  There are only two real characteristics to air as it applies to brass playing. Flow and Pressure.

My use of "intercostal pressure" seemed to be baffling many, so I reverted back to terms that many could actually understand. Yes, by saying more intense air, I mean air that is under more pressure within your lungs.

[kalijah]

so few brass players really understand their use of wind that I feel too many would back off their wind to the point where they were not even producing a good sound. As you know you've got to be careful when telling students these kind of things.

Yes, I know. But there are teachers who say to students that their problem is a lack of air when many times it is not. Especially when the student embouchure is in the process of developing a good sound.

I have a perfect example: I dropped in on a band I had done some charts for a couple of years ago to see how the show was coming. The band director was in the process of warming up and tuning the brass.

One kid played who had the most awful sound ever. Could hardly produce a tone at all but was pumping air like crazy. The teacher said to this kid; "You are not using enough air, that is your problem, use more!"

Well, this was all the advice the teacher could give because that is ALL that most instructors, especially in corps, are all about. And it is causing huge problems for developing players because they learn constantly that forcing the air is the correct way.

But in this quote of yours it shows that you still believe that air flow and a "good" sound are related, they are not. Air flow and volume are related. The volume can be low or loud depending on air flow, this applies for those with a good sound or a bad sound.

But I know what you are saying; that if you tell a player to back off of the air you may have them not playing at the proper volume.

I know you think I am not into the popular thinking on this, but there is a real "dogma" among the brass community about air that is just plain wrong, and I believe that it causes harm to many players who develop bad habits.

I have a theory as to why this is the case, but I will have to present it later.

Enjoying the dicussion, :)

SFT,

DJ

[brassguymike]

One kid played who had the most awful sound ever. Could hardly produce a tone at all but was pumping air like crazy. The teacher said to this kid; "You are not using enough air, that is your problem, use more!"

I hear you. The common "double buzz" that a lot of young brass players get is what Mr. Jacobs called segmentation. It's caused by insufficient wind for a given embouchure. So if the embouchure is set where it needs to be, then yes the wind is most likely the problem. However, a lot of the times the embouchure is set way too tight/high for the needed note. Therefore if the wind is set where it needs to be for that note, but the emouchure isn't correct.

But in this quote of yours it shows that you still believe that air flow and a "good" sound are related, they are not. Air flow and volume are related. The volume can be low or loud depending on air flow, this applies for those with a good sound or a bad sound.

I do believe wind is related to sound. Maybe even more specifically, wind for a given embouchure. However I believe there is no such things as a correct emouchure. I believe there are certain embouchures that are least effective. If you took a line-up of 10 of the best brass players for any given instrument, I bet you would find 10 different embouchures.

So I do believe wind is related to sound. Not just the flow of it, everything that is involved with it. Be that the openess of the throat, tongue placement within the mouth. Air/Wind (which ever you choose, I'm trying to void myself from using air b/c air is stagnant whereas wind moves) isn't just about it's speed, the "thickness" and "temperature" really matters, too.

I know you think I am not into the popular thinking on this, but there is a real "dogma" among the brass community about air that is just plain wrong, and I believe that it causes harm to many players who develop bad habits.

I completely agree with you. I know I spent my entire first year of college unlearning many bad habits I picked up my first two years of marching. Far too many instructors are simply regurgitating what they learned when they were marching way back when. I often question my teachings and ask myself, why do we/did we do that? I believe another problem is our brass staff community is made of far too many trumpet players that understand their instrument far, far better than they do say a tuba. There are many similar approaches to the horns, but there are many differences that too many don't understand.

I have a theory as to why this is the case, but I will have to present it later.

Please do.

Enjoying the dicussion,  :)

Definitely. Maybe someone out there is reading this and learning a thing or two. Or at least is questioning why they do something.