Darryl Jones' Brass Advantage

[kalijah]

Your problem was with the column, but the thread was turning into a commentary on Wayne's apparently sham-based career.

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.

[Tom D'Bomb]

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.

Fair enough, I added "sham-based" your words were "bogus science."

[kalijah]

I have never, and would never put that much thought into the science you're talking about, and I've been around and/or played next to some of the greats (Roland Garceau, Joey Pero, Melvin Johnson).

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? :)

Edited August 2, 2007 by kalijah

[Patrick_D]

I've been reading and have to put two cents in... well, maybe a dollar.

The entire arguement seems to me to be similar to that surrounding the theories of evolution vs. God. Who is to say either side is correct? Sure you can make the statesments you made Kalijah, but that doesn't make them proven facts. Is there science behind making music? YES. Is that all there is? NO.

Music is NOT an absolute science... it is an art.

What I've learned in my teaching career is that no single approach is the "end all be all" of teaching brass. What works for some doesn't work for others. As a teacher you keep everything in your arsonal... science and theory, and sometimes your own "stuff."

Being very honest now (from one professional to another), and this is not meant to offend you Kalijah...

Do you honestly think that your thread title was appropriate? Seems to be closer to slander to me. It seems to me that you are very worked up about people disagreeing with you. Do you teach in absolutes, or just speak in them on forums? I'll state again, music is NOT an absolute science... it is an art. Your statements are logical. Do I agree with them? I'm not sure yet. Do I think you went overboard in your topic title and in some of your arguements? Yes. Now to disagree with myself... who is to say I'M correct? Certainly not me.

With respect,

Patrick B)

[kalijah]

It seems to me that you are very worked up about people disagreeing with you. Do you teach in absolutes, or just speak in them on forums? I'll state again, music is NOT an absolute science... it is an art. Your statements are logical. Do I agree with them? I'm not sure yet. Do I think you went overboard in your topic title and in some of your arguements?

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?

[Tom D'Bomb]

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?

Man, now you have me worried. So I read Wayne's column for the Umpteenth time, and read all your posts.

First of all, I get what Wayne is saying and I can certainly understand a brass teacher (private lessons or 70 man horn line) using his exact words while giving instruction. It makes sense. Heck, my brothers and Jerry Kelsey have been telling me the same stuff since I was 10.

Second, I ctrl-G'd his column and the word "science" doesn't appear. Not once. Period.

Now to your credit, you may be right with what YOU are saying, but it doesn't really refute Wayne's comments.

Please be informed that I'm neither a hydraulics nor pneumatics expert. I don't even play an otolaryngologist on TV.

But you have not exposed Wayne for practicing "Bogus science."

Edited August 3, 2007 by Tom D'Bomb

[Martybucs]

I have to admit I didn't read Wayne's column until now. So reading it and going back to the "disadvantage" post, (yes, an unfortunate original title), and rereading the refuting of Wayne's column, I come away confused.

Now at home, we needed more water pressure. One plumber told us that there was a build up of minerals in our pipes that was restricting flow and thus pressure. Another plumber said that the smaller pipes would create more pressure because of the same source pressure being forced through a smaller opening would make the water flow faster. (really, he said that)

The first plumber, said that was nonsense and that the amount of build up wasn't enough to act as a flow restrictor. He was talking about friction in the pipe, due to the buildup, causing a loss of pressure due to the distance the water had to travel from the well to the eventual outlet. He suggested going to a larger pipe throughout the house to increase the pressure.

That made more sense to me and we went with 3/4" pipe and what a huge difference it has made in increasing the water pressure. And the buildup was more of a discoloration of the metal as it was etched by the acid and minerals in the well water, more so than any visible "build up" decreasing the pipe's diameter.

I could be wrong, but I kind of see Wayne's column as the second plumber's advice. And believe me, I have nothing against Wayne Downey - no ax to grind. I also don't know Kalijah's credentials and no reason to believe what he says about air speed and such other than it seems to make more sense to me, (even though I can't do the math).

It also reminds me of way back in the day when they used to tell you to breathe from the diaphragm. Ok, as if you could inhale any other way, but then some instructors would say to support the air with your diaphragm during exhalation. The diaphragm really doesn't do anything, as far as I know, during exhalation. And I believe there is more to exhalation than the abs. Don't the dorsal muscles contribute more here?

I'm not making any claims, but I would rather have more reliable science to explain how things happen, If, that is the route we're taking, than what I read in Wayne's column. If I hadn't read Kalijah's post first, I might have bought into Wayne's ideas enough to try them out. Actually, I have and still occasionally, experiment with tongue arch and placement, but I don't really notice any benefit from deliberately manipulating the tongue as I play. It's more like, after 43 years of playing, what needs to happen - happens. That just doesn't stop me from looking for an edge. :)

When I play, I definitely don't think about this sort of stuff, however, when I practice I do play around with different ideas and methods to see if something works for me.

Anybody want to buy some trumpet mouthpieces? :P

[Patrick_D]

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..

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.

I never said I wanted to deal in absolutes. Contrary, I said you you should not deal with them in music.

Have some idea of what I'm talking about? b**bs Now I'm confused, because last time I looked in my portfolio I hold a degree in Music Education, Educational Psychology, and Instructional Design/Technology. I wouldn't throw that out, except you accuse me of being ignorant in the subject of Music in what seems to me to be an arguement about teaching methods through science.

Have you used an osciliscope and a microphone to discover the science behind all of this? Tone, pitch and volume in the music world do not directly translate into the science world. Tone would be == to freqency of the sound wave. Pitch being the variation between the tones, being sharp or flat depending which way you 'bend' the tone. Volume == amplitude, the height of the sound wave.

As far as the speed of the air, that's going to change the rate of vibration of the lips, but any good musician can control the embouchure as to not vary the tone/pitch or the timbre as the air speed increases to increase volume.

Please refer to an email I just sent you. I'm finished arguing as I detest going in circles and playing the "one up" game.

Good luck with your research, i'm sure scientifically it is "sound" (pun intended). But, methodologically, (the argement of your original post that it should be how it is instructed, is not nessissarily correct. Isn't that what you wanted to get across when you said that another instructor has it all wrong, and your way of describing it is right?) it confuses me and obviously many others.

With respect of your side of the subject, but with my own expert opinion,

Patrick

Edited August 5, 2007 by Patrick_D

[jacquesb]

Ironically, the most effective thing I ever heard a brass instructor say to a horn line was, "Don't S**k!" Now THAT science is irrefutable.

Even more ironically, this technique is also used very effectively in instructing drum lines! Genius!

[lowend]

I've watched Kalijah argue this physics stuff on Trumpet Herald time after time and not once have I seen how it's directly applicable to trumpet pedagogy as far as being something that I, or any other non-physicist, could use. There's lots of math and principles being thrown about, but never anything on how to make it something that 99% of the brass world can understand. It's like talking circles about how to be a Christian but never getting down to the simplest but most important part, a relationship with Christ -- aka, the part that matters.

If what Downey is saying works for people, then there's nothing wrong with it. Even though the physics might be right, it's pointless because it means nothing to the majority of the people it concerns.

Edited August 4, 2007 by lowend