• FAQ • Search • Memberlist • Usergroups • Register • Profile • Log in to check your private messages • Log in

I have no range. :(

Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next

trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> High Range Development

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author

Message

connicalman
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 17 Dec 2007
Posts: 1668
Location: West Medford, MA

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:39 am Post subject:

cheiden wrote:

kalijah wrote:

You have attempted to argue that since the water from a smaller garden hose nozzle has more velocity and "hits" objects harder that the air after a tongue arch will likewise "hit" the playing embouchure with more intensity as well.

I think the most salient point here is that there indeed can be a very real effect by channeling the stream and that effect can translate into very real reactions to targets down stream. It's certainly unfortunate that the the statements frequently used to describe this phenomenon by non-scientits are often sprinkled with terms that are inaccurate. But that failure of language doesn't invalidate the relationship of the actions and effects being described.

+1

Ditto.

What he said.

p.s. if the energy input (breath support) is the same, the pressure and velocity will each vary but will complement one another to achieve a particular amount of 'oomph', thus the total energy placed into the metal tube will be the same. Unless of course you hold the horn HIGHER. Then all bets are off.

_________________
kochaavim, csillaagkep, Î±ÏƒÏ„ÎµÏÏÎ¹ÏƒÎ¼ÏŒÏ‚, konnstelacji, connstellation... ...a.k.a. the 28A!
Other Conns: Victor 5A & 38A, New Wonder & 80A; 'stella 38A; 36A; 'quest 76A...

Brian Moon
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 05 Sep 2004
Posts: 2785
Location: Detroit

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:04 am Post subject:

Inquiring minds would like to know. Where are the lists? I would really like to see Jeff's. _________________ Either is fine. My chops always feel great ObamaCare, a massive government takeover, a measure destroying jobs and the economy, a law designed to enslave the American people, an instrument of tyranny in the hands of criminal elitists.

percivalthehappyboy
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 05 Mar 2010
Posts: 731

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:20 am Post subject:

JRoyal wrote:

Pops wrote:

Thanks for the links.
Got any about tongue arch? LOL

[/quote][/quote]

You could post your favorites. Some of us would visit the local university. Or log in with student privileges to download the articles for free. And many public libraries subscribe to academic databases, so that you can log in with your library card number and get the articles. If your local library doesn't subscribe to those databases, request the article through inter-library loan; it will take longer, but you'll still get it.

And I'll tell you a little secret. If you search for an article with Google Scholar (scholar.google.com), and the article is only available for pay, try clicking on the "All X versions" link. Sometimes the article is posted on a personal or student web page, or in China, and can be downloaded for free.

So don't let pay-per-download discourage you. There's options.

Pops
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2039
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:34 am Post subject:

JRoyal wrote:

Pops wrote:

Thanks for the links.
Got any about tongue arch? LOL

Yes, and there are many more, though many of them would require payment to read and/or seeing the hard copy. Just because they aren't free( and you are not aware of them) does not mean that there are not out there. I suggest visiting your local university library if you are curious about the studies in question.

Yes, Tongue arch is not mentioned, which is the point. John Mohan's assertions have been that they tongue changes the pitch, the article listed shows evidence against that since they change pitch without the tongue.

1. I read new dissertations every year. I look for them at the end of each semester and many are sent to me because I am used as a source.
I look up dissertations online also.

2. Several times in this thread; people including me; have mentioned that players can and do change notes without tongue arch. I mentioned the Stevens embouchure at least 2 times in this thread. (I know this is a LONG thread and many posts are old and long forgotten, which of course adds to misunderstandings).

3. There are some differences between didgeridoo and trumpet and a great many things that are possible on didgeridoo are not possible on trumpet. Also a great many control features like lip curl, don't work on didgeridoo. I just pointed out that one of your trumpet studies was mainly about didgeridoo and the results just might not be useful when applied to trumpet.

I pointed that out because I think that those studies expand on the basic premise of the thread and may just add to confusion. That was why I asked if you had any arch studies. I meant ones that already fit the topic. I included the LOL because I wasn't trying to be snippy. (I must have failed there.)

4. A tongue arch study that doesn't mention tongue arch doesn't prove or disprove that arch CAN do something. It only shows that arch isn't the only way. Based on your answer I understand why you included that one now. You are trying to get a bigger concession from John about players who don't use arch. Good luck with that but don't hold your breath. LOL
_________________
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
50 years Teaching. Teaching and writing trumpet books is ALL I do.
7,000 pages of free music. Trumpet Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com

jimh46
Veteran Member

Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 244
Location: Ottawa

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:14 pm Post subject: I have no range. :(

Pops wrote:

There are some differences between didgeridoo and trumpet and a great many things that are possible on didgeridoo are not possible on trumpet. Also a great many control features like lip curl, don't work on didgeridoo. I just pointed out that one of your trumpet studies was mainly about didgeridoo and the results just might not be useful when applied to trumpet.

The main difference betwen Trumpet and Didgeridoo is that a Didgeridoo does not have the same decoupling effect of a mouthpiece cup/bore combination. The oral cavity is directly coupled to the Didgeridoo and is therefore more influenced by tongue postion. The tongue acting as an acoustic modulator with, so called, Tongue Arch enabling the player to change the shape of the oral cavity - akin to vocalising.

In the case of the Trumpet this effect does exist but to a much weaker extent, due to the decoupling effect of the mouthpiece.
This is probably the basis for debate as to its usefulness - some people can live without it.

I really don't know why 'lip curl' doesn't work for a Didgeridoo.
Surely it is just another way for some people to positioning their lips (albeit normally for higher register playing) for optimum vibration.

Regards

Jim

JRoyal
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 770

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:14 pm Post subject:

percivalthehappyboy wrote:

JRoyal wrote:

Pops wrote:

Thanks for the links.
Got any about tongue arch? LOL

[/quote]

You could post your favorites. Some of us would visit the local university. Or log in with student privileges to download the articles for free. And many public libraries subscribe to academic databases, so that you can log in with your library card number and get the articles. If your local library doesn't subscribe to those databases, request the article through inter-library loan; it will take longer, but you'll still get it.

And I'll tell you a little secret. If you search for an article with Google Scholar (scholar.google.com), and the article is only available for pay, try clicking on the "All X versions" link. Sometimes the article is posted on a personal or student web page, or in China, and can be downloaded for free.

So don't let pay-per-download discourage you. There's options.[/quote]

I don't keep favorites, as this is an old, tired, discussion. I have some here at the house I did buy, and they are always fairly cheap, when I researched this years ago, if I come across them I will post titles etc...but I do not keep list for the purpose of educating others about this topic. Again, there are others out there, and all the ones I came across ( with exception of the unpublished Haynie study)conclude that there is no correlation and/or causation between tongue arch and playing high on the trumpet. Feel free to do your own research for the purpose of discussion.

JRoyal
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 770

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:21 pm Post subject: Re: I have no range. :(

jimh46 wrote:

The oral cavity is directly coupled to the Didgeridoo and is therefore more influenced by tongue postion. The tongue acting as an acoustic modulator with, so called, Tongue Arch enabling the player to change the shape of the oral cavity - akin to vocalising.

In the case of the Trumpet this effect does exist but to a much weaker extent, due to the decoupling effect of the mouthpiece.
This is probably the basis for debate as to its usefulness - some people can live without it.

Thanks for the info Jim, I agree completely.

Pops wrote:

Based on your answer I understand why you included that one now. You are trying to get a bigger concession from John about players who don't use arch. Good luck with that but don't hold your breath. LOL

I have no desire to discuss anything with John Mohan at this point, or to gain a larger concession. Basically, I see this as a chance to get everything 'on record' for when he brings all this up again in a weeks time. John represents tongue arch as a scientifically proven and valid concept. Regardless of if that is true, or not, the literature available ( as well as youtube x-ray videos) simply do not support that assertion.

He can keep believing whatever he choose, but when he starts saying university sponsored research supports tongue arch I draw the line. Only one person has ever maintained that, and that study was unpublished, and has been picked to pieces here many times.

Pops
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2039
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 12:54 pm Post subject: Re: I have no range. :(

jimh46 wrote:

Didgeridoo needs the entire surface area of the lips to vibrate. Therefore there is ZERO air stream focusing and no real mouthpiece to help hold an embouchure.

Trumpet lip length
--------------------------------(------------------)--------------------------------
Roughly 1/4 of the lip is inside the mouthpiece.

But that would be low notes.
A high note vibrates a smaller amount of lip.
There is some potential benefit from focusing the air stream.

See you just keyed in on something that has not been mentioned in this thread. Nobody has suggested that coupling the oral cavity to the instrument affects the usefulness of arch (in this thread). They are 2 different questions. That was my point about him using a didgerido example.

Lip curl works for 2 main reasons; it makes a stiffer tissue vibrate and lip to lip compression adds to the curl setting and moves the vibrations on even stiffer tissue. Didgeridoo uses ZERO lip to lip compression and ALL of the lip tissue vibrates not just stiff tissue.
Jaw motion helps to create lip curl. The mouthpiece HOLDS the lips in place (not possible with didgeridoo). The jaw motion causes the lower lip to increase in amount of curl (again can't be done on didgeridoo because the lips are NOT held in place by the mouthpiece).

Not to mention that didgeridoo is side blown unlike the trumpet. It has a very unique embouchure and is asymmetrical.
_________________
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
50 years Teaching. Teaching and writing trumpet books is ALL I do.
7,000 pages of free music. Trumpet Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com

Last edited by Pops on Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:46 pm; edited 2 times in total

JRoyal
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 770

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 1:33 pm Post subject: Re: I have no range. :(

Pops wrote:

Didgeridoo needs the entire surface area of the lips to vibrate. Therefore there is ZERO air stream focusing. Trumpet uses less than 1/4 of the lip to vibrate in the pedals and as we play higher we need less and less like 1/8 to 1/64 to vibrate. There is some potential benefit from focusing the air stream.

Actually, plenty of trumpet players vibrate the entire lip surface ( in the mouthpiece), many players strive to have as much lip vibrate as possible to increase the richness of their sound. Can you provide some evidence to support of your claim of 1/4 and of 1/8 to 1/64?

Pops wrote:

Not to mention that didgeridoo is side blown unlike the trumpet. It has a very unique embouchure and is asymmetrical.

Have you ever seen a picture of Arnold Jacobs lips buzzing in a rim? His lips were S shaped, also plenty of people play off center some what (Herseth used to do this when he was tired, just move the mouthpiece over some). The tissue will function the same even without things being symmetric.

Pops
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2039
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:16 pm Post subject: Re: I have no range. :(

JRoyal wrote:

OK
My bad I'll explain a little more.
This topic came up because you posted an example comparing trumpet to didgeridoo. I should have walked away then because the comparison is really too messy to get into.

I was talking about focusing the air stream which you left out of the quote.
The whole idea of how much lip is vibrating doesn't make any real sense if you leave out the air stream part. That is the reason why it might be important.

With didgeridoo we talk about total lip length.
We blow air to vibrate ALL of the lip.

Normally with trumpet we talk about what is inside the mouthpiece. I made a poor attempt to compare them using the same wording and it was just confusing. I wanted to show that with trumpet we vibrate less lip than a didgeridoo and air focus could have a place.

lip length
--------------------------------(------------------)--------------------------------
Roughly 1/4 of the lip is inside the trumpet mouthpiece.

We aim the air at that 1/4 of the lip (the part that we want to vibrate). That is where the 1/4 number came from.
In trumpet we want to vibrate less than ALL of the lip. We want to vibrate what is inside the mouthpiece.
But that would be low notes.
A high note vibrates a smaller amount of lip.

NO teacher or player has ever disputed that the higher we play; the shorter the vibrating surface is.

We have never made any attempt to study and see how much or little lip vibrates on really high notes. All we can do is think that they may follow a similar rule that low notes follow.

WE have seen video of players playing low C and middle C and the vibration looks to be much smaller for the middle C.

Farkas in the book "The Art of Brass Playing" talked about buzzing and looking in a mirror. He said that he saw the vibrating area as being about half the size when he went up an octave.

Anyway without a video and several charts I shouldn't have played the didgerido is sort of like trumpet game. There are some really messy other differences. I play both and I don't think it is a valid comparison in most areas.
_________________
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
50 years Teaching. Teaching and writing trumpet books is ALL I do.
7,000 pages of free music. Trumpet Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com

Last edited by Pops on Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:18 pm; edited 1 time in total

JRoyal
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 770

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 3:22 pm Post subject: Re: I have no range. :(

Pop, Did you even read the study? The didgeridoo study an used artificial lip, so your point doesn't apply anyway..... Let me see if I have this right: 1) Pops is arguing against a study he did not read ( as he seems to missed key points more than once) 2) Pops is making a false counter argument based items not in the study 3) Pops is then making up numbers to justify his points that are not pulled from any clear source of data. I am done with this. Fine // Last edited by JRoyal on Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:21 pm; edited 1 time in total

John Mohan
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 4:11 pm Post subject:

kalijah wrote:

Bernoulli's law is not my "opinion". It is scientific fact. And it is a proven fact.

Of course it is a proven fact. And we have both employed it to support our opinions. But you go on to say things in response to my opinions such as "that has been debunked". Nothing has been "debunked". You simply have formed an opinion that differs from mine. I think you're wrong. You think I'm wrong. Life will go on. And I’ll add, I certainly have not “debunked” anything you’ve written or concluded. I have simply presented a different conclusion drawn from my interpretation of my observations.

kalijah wrote:

Attempting to use a "garden hose" as a literal equivalent to the action of the tongue arch ignores several factors that ARE proven facts.

What “proven facts” are being ignored here?

And not just a garden hose – a garden hose with a reducing nozzle on the end of it. The nozzle is the part that compares to the up and forward arching tongue - not the garden hose itself.

• Both involve a fluid flow (quick note to those less versed in physics - air is considered a fluid in these circumstances).

• After initial compression, both involved passage of fluid through a “pipe” of sorts where the end of the pipe just before the fluid is to act on an object is at its smallest diameter (the nozzle on the end of the hose reducing the fluid flow to a tiny jet just before it hits the water in comparison with the forward arched tongue reducing the airstream to a tiny little jet before it hits the lips).

I think it is clear to anyone that the nozzle on the end of the hose acts to change the water stream from a slow moving wide stream to a fast moving thin stream. Why is it not possible in your opinion, for the same to be happening with the up and forward arching tongue acting on the airstream?

I see three possibilities:

1) The airstream is reduced by the up and forward arched tongue so it becomes a thinner, airstream and the thinner airstream going through the lips helps to cause the lips to vibrate faster by interacting with a reduced area of the lip aperture (because it is a thinner air stream). It’s clear from seeing studies involving slow motion videos of brass players playing clear Lexan mouthpieces, that on higher notes, less lip tissue is being vibrated. A thinner airstream acting on less lip tissue could certainly be at least part of the cause of this phenomenon.

2) The airstream is reduced by the up and forward arched tongue so it becomes a thinner, faster airstream and the faster airstream going through the lips helps to cause the lips to vibrate faster.

3) A combination of the first two above.

Note that the word “helps” is italicized because there are certainly other factors involved (air power, lip compression, mouthpiece pressure, etc.).

I am sure that 1) above applies and is correct. It is obvious to me when I arch my tongue in the same manner as when I play high notes, and simply blow air out of my mouth, my arching tongue creates a very thin, very fast stream of air coming out of my mouth. There is NO doubt in my mind that when I actually play high notes, the same thing has to happen in terms of the thinness of the air stream – if I blow the same and arch the same, the same result must occur just before the air stream interacts with the lips (passing between them).

As I have written before, I am not convinced that when actually playing, the air stream, though thinner, is really speeded up. Maybe the lips keep it from being able to be speeded up. When the thinner airstream is passing through the lips, there is resistance caused by the lips’ vibrating and that resistance could be causing the lips not to be able to speed up as they do when I am just blowing the airstream out of my open mouth. So I’m not convinced that 1) and therefore 3) above are applicable, but I’m not convinced they’re not, either.

Someone needs to find a way to actually measure airspeed through the vibrating lips! I don’t think that would be very easy to do.

Best wishes,

John

John Mohan
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 5:01 pm Post subject:

First off, I want to make it clear to everybody, and especially to JRoyal, that I do NOT think tongue arch is solely responsible for pitch change on a brass instrument. But I do think it is important for both smoothness in all ranges and to reach the upper register (especially about High C).

And I want to commend Pops on his excellent material in this thread. Kudos to you Pops!

Now, on to my (unsolicited) reply to JRoyal:

JRoyal wrote:

Jeff,
Thank you for your participate in this thread which has served to provide some much needed moderation of this topic. People interject themselves without reading previous post, inserting assumptions, faulty logic, and slyly crafty deflections that make a serious discussion nearly impossible.

My premise is simply this; a review of published studies regarding tongue arch, that examine both causation and/or correlation, find that tongue arch plays no role in determining pitch on a brass instrument, beyond adjustments for intonation. Some people use it, and some do not. There is no data to support John Mohan’s assertion that Tongue Arch is a scientifically verified approach to trumpet performance and the tongue arch is the critical element to performing the normal trumpet ranges.

Here are a few published studies that support this assertion:

http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED020193.pdf
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/music/people/publications/Fletcheretal1999.pdf
http://www.phys.unsw.edu.au/~jw/reprints/tongueSMAC.pdf

There are several others out there as well( some are in ITG and published after the Haynie study), but not all are available for free for dissemination on the internet.

There are also numerous videos fluoroscope videos on youtube showing people playing the normal trumpet range without using tongue arch.

The first study you cite supports tongue arch.

Some quotes from the first study:

Quote:

“Notes within slurred intervalic [sic] sequences are usually begun with a slight upward and forward jerk of the tongue.”

“Six performers moved the tongue up and forward for higher pitched notes and downward and backward for lower notes, as in singing the vowel sounds “ah,” “oo,” and “ee” in that order. Four performers showed relatively little supralaryngeal variation during the playing of the ascending and descending passages.”

Note that all participants arched their tongues for the higher notes; six (the majority) did it a lot and four did it to a relatively lessor degree. Though not noted in this study, while similar results were noted in the John Haynie Fluoroscopy study (where everybody arched their tongues for high notes as well), it was noted in the Haynie study that those how used less tongue arch were not as readily able to slur smoothly through the range, and after observing how the tongue actions of the more accomplished players worked, these mediocre players were actually able to improve their playing. From page 83 of "Trumpet Technique" by Frank Gabriel Campos:

Quote:

French trumpet virtuoso Maurice André was astounded: he was completely unaware that the tongue arched to produce changes in register. Like many of the world's finest players, he just did it without thinking. According to Haynie, few of the study participants had an opinion about the actions of their tongue and no one could describe exactly what happened inside the oral cavity. It is interesting to not that many of the poorer players improved by observing and imitating the action of the tongues of the finest players as demonstrated in the videotape. [emphasis added]

The 2nd Paper you cite is entitled "Blowing pressure, power, and spectrum in trumpet playing." No measurements or data regarding tongue arch are in this study. It was not even a study concerning tongue arch!!!! The study was about how blowing pressure effects volume of sound and timbre of tone.

Part 1 of the 3rd Study you cited consisted of using an artificial lip mechanism to play very low notes on a bass trombone where no provision was made at all for any kind of arching tongue. Here's an illustration of the artificial lip machine from the experiment:

[b]The 2nd Part of that Study did not even concern brass instrument playing! It was conducted on a Didgeridoo (also played with artificial lips):

I completely agree with you about one thing though: You're right - there are lots of YouTube videos of folks playing using little or no tongue arch, and for that matter, I think the majority of players all over the world play in the "normal register" with little or no tongue arch. And they tend to sound like it.

Sorry about all the bold print, but I figured if you could be so bold as to attempt to cite the above studies in support of your view (clearly hoping no one would take the time to actually look at them), I can be so bold as to use bold print.

Best wishes,

John

kalijah
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3257
Location: Alabama

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:05 pm Post subject:

Mohan wrote:

Quote:

I think it is clear to anyone that the nozzle on the end of the hose acts to change the water stream from a slow moving wide stream to a fast moving thin stream. Why is it not possible in your opinion, for the same to be happening with the up and forward arching tongue acting on the airstream?

With a nozzle on the hose end, the slow-moving water before a nozzle has just as much energy. (Actually, a bit more) Than the energy of the water coming out of the hose.

In other words, the pressure acting on ANY boundary of the hose wall, or even the nozzle opening, is the same (or slightly more) than the pressure due to the force of the higher-velocity stream hitting objects in the ambient space downstream of the nozzle.

The reason that it is not an equivalent comparison to the velocity of the nozzle-less hose is that you are dealing with two far different pressures in each case.

If you remove the nozzle you are no longer limiting the flow with a small diameter "pinch" in the path, that is, the nozzle.

This allows much more fluid to flow due to the lesser resistance to flow of the hose without a nozzle.

The pressure drops along the length of the hose due to the viscosity of the fluid and the higher flow velocity in the hose. The fluid near the opening is now barely above atmospheric pressure and exits the opening, regardless of its size, at a much slower velocity than if the full pressure was supplied at the exit.

If you were to "tap-off" another short hose with a nozzle from this pressure you will still get the same slow velocity from that small nozzle.

The observed velocity difference between a nozzled vs an "open" hose has everything to do with the geometry of the long narrow supply hoses. The addition of the nozzle limits the flow such that the full pressure of the water supply can exist. (Just as ANY playing aperture does)

If you DID have a constant pressure for any size nozzle the velocity would be the same regardless of the size of the nozzle or opening.

The geometry of flow of the trumpet-playing system is far, FAR different.

The supply is the lungs. The pressure source. The supply path is the wind-pipe and oral space. (Very low resistance to flow)

The playing aperture, which is at largest, only a fraction of the area of the mouthpiece inside diameter, and is closed equivalently half the time due to the aperture opening/closing due to it's pulsation of the air flow. This is a significant and high resistance to flow.

This flow resistance is even greater for higher pitches due to the REQUIRED muscular action of making the aperture smaller. (Some call this action "aperture compression" for ascending pitches).

Also the resistance of the instrument due to its impedance can be considered as a significant resistance.

So with the pressure source, a low-resistance air path through the air way, and a relatively VERY resistive playing embouchure, the pressure of the air in the oral space IS the full lung pressure provided at that instant or just slightly less.

There is NOTHING you can do with the air path or air velocity through the oral space with a tongue arch that will increase this pressure.

The pressure at the embouchure IS THE PRESSURE. Adding additional "velocity" before the aperture via a narrowed path will be paid for with the cost of total pressure due to the resistance of this path.

The pressure is also solidly dominated by the static pressure provided by the lungs. Any additional flow velocity before the embouchure would add negligible "impact" pressure. Even if it could it would be at the expense of the static pressure (and viscous loss as described above), and the embouchure would not know the difference, it only knows the total pressure.

The mouthpiece rim and the muscles around the aperture will determine its vibrational limits, that is, its size. And it's frequency of pulsation.

Tongue movement is a coordinated reaction to some of these muscular actions.

Due also to the separation of the aperture from the oral space by the teeth, it would be ridiculous to assume that the tongue "channel" would dictate the vibrational limits of the tiny playing aperture.

It is also a ridiculous assertion that the lips are passive and "react" to changes in air pressure or path width to produce changes in pitch.

This would preclude the ability to play dynamics by varying air pressure without a change in pitch.

kalijah
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3257
Location: Alabama

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:20 pm Post subject:

Clint wrote:

Quote:

Wrong.
The size of the air stream is of great importance and those that don't have the skill to adjust it are at a severe disadvantage.

Well you obviously completely misunderstood the context of my statement in response to zackh.

jimh46
Veteran Member

Joined: 24 Sep 2008
Posts: 244
Location: Ottawa

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 6:39 pm Post subject: I have no range. :(

John Mohan wrote:

Sorry about all the bold print, but I figured if you could be so bold as to attempt to cite the above studies in support of your view (clearly hoping no one would take the time to actually look at them), I can be so bold as to use bold print.

John, I think the (third) report clearly indicates that the tongue does influence the tone production of the trombone, which by extension would similarly influence the trumpet due to the similarity of their acoustic architectures.

The point made in the report is that the tongue has a weak acoustic influence on the tone production of the trombone - not an influence on the airflow.

So tongue arch is helpful but not vital.

The report is excellent but is unfortunately steeped in technical terminology, making extensive use of the term impedance. A concept well understood by the engineering community but not intuitively understandable by others ...sorry. So, one of the most important aspects of horn design and performance is based around a concept that is not intuitively understandable.

Being the resourceful creatures that we are, we diligently look for explanations to describe what happens in the whole chain of events from 'lungs to bell' and resort to explanations based on feel.
And, what we feel is air flowing from our lungs, into the horn and naturally conclude that if we understand everything that influences airflow then we will understand how to apply that to being better trumpet players.

This is simply not true - besides which the mechanical concept of the tongue channeling the air towards the lips, in order to produce high notes is also incorrect.

I am not going to add anything to the extensive arguments provided by Darryl in the numerous 'hosepipe' arguments except to say that he is absolutely right.

Tongue Arch does have a positive influence on playing and having been taught by a brilliant trumpet artist who was also a strong Tongue Arch advocate, I can well imagine how it would have become such significant feature in your partcular playing setup.

Regards
Jim

Pops
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2039
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:29 pm Post subject:

kalijah wrote:

Due also to the separation of the aperture from the oral space by the teeth, it would be ridiculous to assume that the tongue "channel" would dictate the vibrational limits of the tiny playing aperture.

It depends on how and where you tongue.
No I don't think that we channel so well that we create a pinpoint of air for double high R#.

I think that we have a range where we can change the spread from the entire mouth to something much smaller like maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the mouthpiece diameter. That would offer some benefit.

I don't ever feel any air stream focus when I tongue every note with the tip of the tongue. Using the tip up on or above the gum line gives way too much room for the air to spread out.

When I K-tongue I do feel a channel on high notes. I feel it anchor tonguing too of course.

It is channeled right to the tooth gap and the tongue is touching the teeth here. The lips are touching the tooth gap directly on the other side of the teeth.

I don't see how it is going to completely diffuse like you suggest.

Yes I completely agree that the air would certainly spread some going through the tooth gap but that is a really short distance. I just measured the thickness of my teeth and it was 2mm.

How much would a focused air stream spread in a space of 2 mm. Remember the lips are on the other side so 2mm is all the air has to spread out if they anchored or k tongued.

There is 1 more thing to take into account. The tongue is pressing against the tooth gap pretty hard. There is a great possibility that some actually pokes through and touches the lips. I know that for me; the tip doesn't go through but I don't know how much if any; the edges contact the lips. If this happens then the air has ZERO ability to spread out.

I take people who used tongue arch and teach them to tongue K-tongue and their range usually goes up some. Almost all of them see enough help that they go ahead and make the switch.
_________________
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
50 years Teaching. Teaching and writing trumpet books is ALL I do.
7,000 pages of free music. Trumpet Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com

Last edited by Pops on Tue May 01, 2012 8:40 am; edited 1 time in total

zackh411
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 17 May 2011
Posts: 1886
Location: Saint Louis MO

Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:42 pm Post subject:

kalijah wrote:

zackh wrote

Quote:

John is absolutely correct about the flow rate of fluid increasing as diameter decreases. This is basic physics. There are other factors that come into play, but this is absolutely true, whether applied to the end of a garden hose, or the air flowing through our lips when we play trumpet. This part should not be up for dispute.

The velocity through an aperture is dependent on the pressure difference. The size is of no consequence. This is (actual) basic physics.

Wrong. The pressure does factor in, but the aperture size most certainly matters.

MATH WARNING, SKIP AHEAD IF YOU WANT

Consider a pipe with cross sectional area A1. The pipe gets smaller a little further down the line, where we will call the cross sectional area A2.

The rate at which mass flows through the pipe is mass/time. The mass that will flow through is equal to the volume that flows through, multiplied by the density (d) of the fluid. Basically, rate of flow = mass/time = dV/time.

The volume flowing through at a particular time is actually going to be encompassed by a cylinder with base area = A and a length unit we will call L. So now we get: rate of flow = mass/time = dV/time=(dA x L)/time - dA x (L/t). The L/t unit is simply going to be the distance covered by the mass, or V.

So now we have: rate of flow = dA x Velocity

This dA x Velocity applies for both A1 and A2. Conservation of mass allows us to state that the rates of flow for A1 and A2 along a continuous pipe will be equal. In other words: d1A1 x V1 = d2A2 x V2

MATH WARNING ENDS (MOSTLY)

In short, the equation for any fluid passing through a tube of any kind which changes in diameter is:

d1A1 x V1 = d2A2 x V2

d = density of fluid
A = Cross sectional area of fluid
V = Velocity of fluid

in other words:

Bigger aperture size = slower air
Smaller aperture size = faster air
_________________
~Zack

Lead Piece: Custom PickettBrass
Jazz Piece: Custom Curry TC
Legit Piece: Yamaha Shew Jazz (18 Drill)

garrett901
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 07 Jan 2009
Posts: 1248
Location: Vacaville CA

Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:10 am Post subject:

Ok I got to insert here... When the fluid is flowing thru the restriction, the PRESSURE reduces. This is the only way for the fluid to speed up in order to pass thru the reduction in the cross section. Once thru the restriction it attempts to assume the same pressure as the other side of the restriction. However if there is an opening for the fluid to pass, only the speed remains. The fluid has MASS, therefor when it contacts a surface at the speed it is traveling, (like hosing off your driveway) the combined weight (velocity X mass) is what is influencing what it contacts. SO, if the water were to have less mass, but travel at the same velocity, what ever it contacts would also be influenced less. Pressure is then applied only to what the water hits, so it moves to the gutter. Assuming the contact pressure is greater than the objects resting mass. Good stuff Zack ! _________________ Jeff Garrett Playing "G" Soprano Bugle, Freelancers Alumni/Mini Corps NorCal Horn Line Instructor/Musical Arranger Kanstul G Soprano (Powerbore Bell) Yamaha YTR-739T Xtream XZ w/ XXX backbore GREAT MP!!! http://freelancers-alumni.org Last edited by garrett901 on Tue May 01, 2012 2:14 am; edited 1 time in total

StupidBrassObsession
Heavyweight Member

Joined: 25 Mar 2012
Posts: 1014

Posted: Tue May 01, 2012 2:13 am Post subject:

Facepalm

Display posts from previous:

	trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> High Range Development	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3 ... 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 Next
Page 9 of 13

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum