| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
trickg
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 02 Jan 2002
Posts: 4117
Location: Glen Burnie, Maryland
|
 Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2002 9:29 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Wow! What a debate a question about tongue position and it's importance has caused!
I am by no means an expert on any of this I but I would like to toss out some observations and beliefs that I have developed over the 21 years I've been wrangling with this awsome instrument in regards to the music vs. technique/mechanics issue that has arisen.
I used to very much be a "just put it to your face and blow" kind of player and that methodology has served me pretty well over the years. But, I always have had some limitations when it came to range, endurance and flexibility. I started playing around with tongue position, (anchoring behind the two bottom front teeth and rolling it forward and up to ascend) which I had never really thought a lot about before and have had some success with that although I've never had any luck with extreme upper register and double G is pretty much my limit. (I nailed a double F# last night in a rehearsal as a last note.)
I also used to think that Dave Monette's articles on body position in relation to sound, ease of playing and intonation were a whole lot of bunk too, until I decided rather than to scoff without trying, to actually put it to the test and see for myself. Well, I've come to believe that there really is something to that and when I take a moment to position my body as I put the horn up to play, it has had what I feel, to make a fairly substantial difference to the effort it takes me to play and the end result of what comes out of the bell.
Where am I going with all of this? I think that in practice, you should take into account a lot of things and systematically approach the horn. In practice. A friend of mine was pretty seriously into karate at one point and he approached things very systematically. His theory was that if you thought about it and did it mechanically correct every single time in practice, then soon it would become second nature and you would do those things naturally and by built in reflex. I believe that this also applies to playing the trumpet.
For what it's worth, I think that both sides of the issue are correct. In order to play musically and effortlessly, you need to make sure that you are working toward that efficiency in practice. I may not be able to blow tripple Gs, but I can certainly hold my own musically and the range and endurance are getting better every day, even if it is in tiny increments.
_________________
Patrick Gleason
[ This Message was edited by: trickg on 2002-03-14 12:32 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
dbacon
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 8122
Location: North Scottsdale, AZ.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2002 9:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2002-03-14 06:11, PH wrote:
I know that I went through years of studying other methods (Maggio/MacBeth, Sam Krause, Jimmy Maxwell, etc.) analyzing and trying to understand how the body works when good players play. The result was that I was very smart, knowledgable, self-conscious, and a bad player.
When I finally handed myself over to the process and stopped thinking about my body-first with Carmine and then with Adam-I finally learned to play. However, it still took a good bit of time to unlearn the bad physical and mental habits I had acquired in my quest for analytical understanding of how we should play.
This has all made me a better teacher...largely because I now know that it is almost never good to clutter a student's mind with any information about muscles or what the body does.
p.s. Karl S. started studying with Adam at age 19. Even then he had a considerable bit of unlearning to do from 6 or 7 years of inappropriate teaching.
Great post!
Keith Johnson at Northern Iowa would be very patient with me in lessons as I would go off on long explanations of physical function. He would then simply play something great for me and show how his thinking was musically directed. He could tell me all the muscle twitching going on as an instructor, but as a player he put that away. I spent one summer with Mr. Jacobs and learned the lesson again. And a lesson with Mr. Herseth. And learned it again. "Play it this way" was as technical as Mr. Herseth got. He played the Charlier 2 for me and changed my playing forever. As a teacher you need to know physical funtion to analyze a students playing. As a player you can't fuction thinking of which muscle to twitch. Try walking upstairs by controling each action conciously as you would in playing your trumpet! OK, tongue forward, roll lips, teeth separate but not too much, inflate belly but only 5% then chest swell but shoulders back then jet the air from the belly button but chest up and watch out for that tree........doing any physical funtion that is best controled by the subconsious with the consious mind is impossible. Simple correct comands to the nervous system (listen to the sound the air makes as you inhale. Tight sound means tight breath. Friction. Listen for "OH" on the inhale and notice that you take a breath expansivly!) allows the proper controls to do the job. Read Jacobs, Keith's book, Mr. Adam's work. It's just finding out how the body works naturally and learning to find a musical answer to physical funtion.
Dave Bacon
|
[ This Message was edited by: dbacon on 2002-03-14 12:34 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
PH
Bill Adam/Carmine Caruso Forum Moderator
Joined: 26 Nov 2001
Posts: 4861
Location: Bloomington Indiana
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2002 1:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Amen, Brother Bacon!
I like to use the analogy of learning to throw darts. You wouldn't learn to throw a dart by thinking about what your fingers do, what your wrist does, what your elbow does, how your feet are positioned, shifting your weight, following through on the throwing motion, etc. If you do learn that way I don't want to be in the same room without ample quantities of kevlar. If by some odd chance you ever hit the bull's eye following this methodology there is absolutely zero increase in the likelihood that you can reproduce your success on subsequent throws.
You look at the bull's eye, pick up the dart, and throw the mother. Then you do it again...and again...
Remember what the baseball player says when he is in a batting streak. "I'm really seeing the ball well right now".
The excellent baseball coach tells the young player to keep his eye on the ball. He doesn't cause the youngster to become engrossed in the mechanics of his swing. Only the mediocre and poor coaches do that.
You should know that this doesn't mean that you might not eventually do things in a way that is physically similar to some of the methods the analytical teachers prescribe. It is more a question of how you arrive at that strategy and where it puts your mind, ears, and heart during the act of music making.
A good teacher prescribes exercises, literature, and a sound model to emulate that will cause the student to evolve toward good mechanics.
[ This Message was edited by: PH on 2002-03-14 16:53 ]
[ This Message was edited by: PH on 2002-03-15 11:44 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dbacon
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 8122
Location: North Scottsdale, AZ.
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 14, 2002 9:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The dart thing is great! I'm going to use that. Great concept!! Love to steal good ideas.
Thanks,
Dave Bacon |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sean007r
Veteran Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 223
Location: Dearborn MI
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:15 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2002-03-13 21:46, Quadruple C wrote:
Here is a comparison for those who do not understand my approach to learning something. In the old days players would play by ear and could play very well without knowing the theory behind the results. Certain individuals as example, Duke Ellington, Miles Davis, John Coltrane, Charlie Parker and countless others would not only learn things naturally, but would study in great detail how things in music work, then they would put it all together to make great music...
|
You could also add Maynard Ferguson and HL Clarke and many others to the list.
What I've read about Maynard and Clarke is they spent hours a day practicing! 6+
While I'd love to practice that much everyday, at 35 with two kids and no wife plus a full time "job", an hour is typical at best.
Therefore if I just continued to FLOUNDER around I'll NEVER improve to the level I want.
Sooooooo....
I have to continue to seek "ideas" that may enhance my practice time.
Let's put things back into perspective...
There are so many aspects to trumpet playing and I think we all could agree... that while most money is made in the staff, there is nothing "cooler" than ripping off a double G at the end of a song! (Maybe a sax player would disagree?)
While I DO NOT want to be a one trick pony, I just need something to hold on to while I sit and spend countless hours studying Clarke, Arians, Eubanks etc...
Let me end here by saying I understand how important hard work is and I am not afraid!
BUT
to use the dart thing…
if you keep throwing “Bulls eyes” all day you’ll still never win a game because you have to hit other stuff on the board!!!
That is what I’m trying to do with improving my range!
I’m just throwing at one target
Assuming I get good enough to hit the 'spot" often, then I should have some skills that will assist when I try to hit other stuff on the board.
I know I won’t be good enough to compete, but at least I’ll fell GREAT knowing I can do SOMETHING well!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just my two cents!
_________________
TTFN
Sean
___TTT_c___/|
(_uIII_o__) | |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evolution
Veteran Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2001
Posts: 139
Location: Munich / Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2002 3:54 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Remember what the baseball player says when he is in a batting streak. "I'm really seeing the ball well right now".
The excellent baseball coach tells the young player to keep his eye on the ball. He doesn't cause the youngster to become engrossed in the mechanics of his swing.
|
For me it worked to first analyze a technique for a constant, improved embouchure and then just keep the eyes on the ball. With the great help of all the nice guys on this board I converted to SC. That doesn't say that every second I blow air in my Eterna I think about the physics and the muscle motions. Converting to SC I analyzed the way SC functions in an efficient way. I analyzed how the compression is created.... When SC started to work and I got used to the embouchure, developing a good sound again I was able to keep the eyes on the ball again.
Back to the Baseball game: the good trainer helps you to hold the bat in the right way. he teaches you to have the right footposition. That's what I described with gettin' used to the SC-embouchure. After you have a clean and constant technique the trainer wants you to hit the ball. And then he will give you the advice to keep the eyes on the ball. IMO - he won't say "try to really see the ball" when his "student" holds the bat completely wrong and inefficient. Converting to SC I had to learn the new footposition,.... analyzing which muscle has to be moved. Having internalized this technique I can keep the eyes on the ball, thinking music.
Every time I wanna produce a note I concentrate on forming a clean and efficient SC embouchure. After that I can think music and everything is fine.
Just my experience and opinion.
_________________
Enjoy music! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
histrumpet
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 771
Location: Mobile, Al
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2002 4:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Johannes,
I agree, after the mechanics have been established it is possible to play the music. I consider the focus on embouchure mechanics to be a very important first part of the learning process. Not to say that the player should be concentrating on what the muscles are doing while playing music just that the mechanics should be learned before playing music. I am not a CC expert but I think I read where Charly Raymond states playing the calestinics is not playing music, they are what prepares you to play music. The example of hitting a baseball makes sense to me. Could this be summed up by saying build an embouchure to play music? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evolution
Veteran Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2001
Posts: 139
Location: Munich / Germany
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 15, 2002 4:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
I would say "yes". IMO - for the most people the mix is needed to be succesful. First learning the basics (embouchure, breathing, ...) and then playing, feeling and enjoying music.
A runner is quick when he concentrates on the run. But he will be quicker when he develops a good technique and - after that - concentrates on the run.
Just my two cents / my experience.
_________________
Enjoy music! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quadruple C
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2001
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2002 12:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2003-12-18 14:12 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quadruple C
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2001
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Sun Mar 17, 2002 1:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2003-12-18 14:12 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
comebackkid
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 233
Location: Placentia, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2002 12:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
  
Have some more Quad!
[ This Message was edited by: comebackkid on 2002-03-18 17:58 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quadruple C
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2001
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Mon Mar 18, 2002 5:41 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2003-12-18 14:13 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
evolution
Veteran Member
Joined: 14 Nov 2001
Posts: 139
Location: Munich / Germany
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2002 1:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
What about these smilies....
hihihihi
_________________
Keep on groovin'
johannes
___________
Getzen 900H
Monette MF2
[ This Message was edited by: evolution on 2002-03-19 04:25 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jeff Lambardino
Regular Member
Joined: 05 Dec 2001
Posts: 81
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2002 6:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
On 2002-03-14 03:19, bugleboy wrote:
Quadruple C,
Your original statement that I took issue with was,
"There are many schools of thought on this topic as we have seen in all the forum topics. One commonality is forward movement of the front of the tongue in either a rolling motion or lifting motion."
In this statement you assert the existence of many schools that offer different views on and the importance of the tongue. You then go on to assert that forward movement of the tongue is a "commonality" to ALL of these methods. I read this to mean that you are asserting that all methods teach and endorse this type of tongue activity. This just isn't the case with Caruso. You then go on and accuse me of denying the importance of the roll (should it be role) of the tongue,
"Well to deny the importance and roll of the tongue no matter what a player uses for results is denying the laws of physics,"
but this is not the case either. No where in my post did I deny the roll (or the role) of the tongue. Please show me where I did this. If I didn't, then please RETRACT that accusation since it is false and only confuses the real issue of how the Caruso approach might view the function of the tongue.
You go on to say,
"but that's O.K. You guys are certainly free to believe what you like and express it any way you choose, just as I and everyone else is allowed to do the same. Caruso may not have taught this Charly, but the tongue's role is the same no matter what a player practices or teaches. Take away semantics ............ and you have laws of physics, not a religion. Set laws of physics are there and do not change."
(I repeat)
"laws of physics, not a religion. Set laws of physics are there and do not change."
I think it may be time for you to share your laws of physics with us, and how they apply to the tongue. I'm not saying you are wrong here, Quadruple C, just that it is time to substantiate what you are professing. Post the relevant laws of physics as you see them and interpret them.
"Even if we had a fluoroscope study it would not matter because people like yourself will choose to believe what you wish anyway, and that is fine."
This statement is totally uncalled for. You are saying in no uncertain terms that I am closed minded and that I would ignore scientific evidence if it contradicted my philosophy. This is absurd! I have well founded opinions and would demand that any scientific inquiry to the contrary in fact be SCIENTIFIC.
You are correct when you say that things act according to the laws of physics. The big problem here is how these actions are evaluated by humans. If to err is human, history has shown us that scientists have surely been just as human as the rest of us. Coming up with the correct interpretation of the data is the trick. I don't really have anything to prove here. You're the one making all the assertions about the tongue, so maybe it is time to step up to the plate and offer the evidence that will support those assertions.
"You guys just prefer not to give the tongue as much importance, but to dismiss my way of thinking is unfair to myself and others."
Once again, I must ask where I have dismissed your position. In fact, in my post I say,
"The actual resting place of the tongue (in a developed embouchure) and its movement during sound production may have characteristics that are described by the above quote." ("The above quote" of course refers to the statement you made that I have also quoted at the beginning of this post.)
So, did you read this sentence? What other meaning did you derive from it other then the fact that I am agreeing that the tongue may be acting as you say it is? Once again you are flagrantly misrepresenting what I say.
"If someone is truly secure in their belief structure they do not have to make a point of finding fault with others beliefs."
I think it is also true that if someone is secure in their beliefs, they shouldn't be misrepresenting someone else's words and then using those misrepresentations to direct false accusations at that person.
CR
|
Very well said Charly. A commonality with Comebackkid and sometimes Quadruple C is after they do their bantam chicken struts sometimes with obviously misrepresenting things to fit their own agenda before truly reading what other posters have written. Most notably not even bothering to read what posters have written before launching what I call IMHO quantity before quality posts.Then when they are called to the mat to provide proof for their premises then they quickly disappear only to return with the common replies which are becoming ridiculously annoying such as " Why does it have to be who is wrong and who is right?" or " What works for one might not work for another" Well fortunately this forum has posters of the caliber of Charly Raymond and a very select few who are willing to find real answers and expect proof from those who claim that they do!
There are many players who want something better than the tired old advices which have run them into frustration and little improvement. Charly and many others know the importance of this pursuit. While others only spread more confusion to the weary.
The tired act of losely using physics without backing up the premises when questioned. Has been a signature tactic of Quadruple C and sometimes Comebackkid (ie Air Speed thread where Charly asked for premise qualification many times in making it applicable to trumpet playing) in a number of threads for a long time. I want to see Quad C answer Charly Raymond's questions in this very thread completely and for Quadruple C to prove his premises without diving out of the conversations in this or in any future threads including the ones still open. No need for the dozen or so flammin liberals to attack me because of my post. I simply want to see Charly answered as he deserves to be without anyone reworking the question or diving out. Of course unless they "must" dive out due to lack of ability to back their premises.
Im not going to debate in length with posters who won't use their real names or provide their real identity on the board.
Jeff Lambardino
[ This Message was edited by: Jeff Lambardino on 2002-03-19 10:20 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_bugleboy
Carmine Caruso Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 2865
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2002 9:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
So true Jeff. It's time for evidence to be presented that will support statements that are being made. Evidence makes a statement meaningful. Without evidence, statements become just so much wind blowing around, no innuendo on the Chicago School intended.
Regards,
Charly
_________________
Charles Raymond
[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2002-03-19 17:45 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quadruple C
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2001
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2002 4:44 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2003-12-18 14:14 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quadruple C
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2001
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2002 4:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2003-12-18 14:14 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
histrumpet
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 10 Nov 2001
Posts: 771
Location: Mobile, Al
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2002 5:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| That was very eloquently put but you still have not supported your statements. Can you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
_bugleboy
Carmine Caruso Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 2865
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2002 6:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The misrepresentations of my words and the accusations that you derived from those misrepresentations are anything but "warmth and peaceful energy" directed towards me. Forget the lack of proof for your "scientific" statements, the fact that you choose to ignore my post regarding your distortion of my words speaks volumes about your character. Both of our posts are there for all to judge.
_________________
Charles Raymond
[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2002-03-19 21:35 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Quadruple C
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 28 Nov 2001
Posts: 1448
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:10 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2002-03-21 14:55 ] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
