| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
 Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 2:31 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Steve A wrote: |
Hmm, I can't help but find it a bit suspect that Gordon dismisses the opinions of non brass players since they aren't expert brass players, then goes on to comment on what's required to put someone on the moon, or to keep a plane in the air. I'll be honest - I've never read up much on his life outside of trumpet playing, but was he a trained and qualified expert in fluid dynamics and astrophysics? Otherwise, that kind of sounds like the pot calling the kettle black. It's a bit funny to dismiss science expertise in one breath, then frame your argument in terms of absolute scientific principles in the next. |
He didn't write a single word regarding what's required to put someone on the moon. He cited the fact that experts in that field were able to do as an example of how the laws of nature do not change.
As for what he wrote about airplanes, he was an accomplished aviator, owned his own airplane and accumulated thousands of hours of flight time, operating out of a mountain airport for years without a single incident in his record. Being myself a (less accomplished) pilot, but knowing enough about aviation to comment, I find his analogies in another part of the book comparing tongue level to the airplane's elevator and air power to the engine power to be absolutely valid.
Lastly, he wrote what he wrote about doctors and dentists that don't know much if anything about brass playing because during his years teaching he encountered several students, including Tony Horowitz, who were told by their doctors they would never play again. From Tony's website:
| Quote: | June 1974 Surgery in lower lip to remove tumor. I was told I’d never play again.
August 1974 Took 2 lessons with Claude Gordon, with whom I had studied as a child.
Sept 1974 Joined Louis Prima, Sam Butera & The Witnesses, performed, toured and recorded Louis’ last album, “THE WILDEST ’75,” on which I was featured, as well as did some of the arranging. Tony also played French Horn and Bass Trumpet on some tracks.
Nov 1975 Joined the Raquel Welch Show & toured world through August 1976.
October 1976 Studio work in LA as composer, conductor and musician on disco recordings such as “Fly,” “Get Up & Dance” & “Disco Down” produced by Frank Cook (drummer with Canned Heat).
May 1977 Toured with Lou Rawls.
February 1978 Recording work for Don Peake & Gene Paige for artists including Jermaine Jackson, Lionel Ritchie, Johnny Mathis, Kenny Rogers and many others.
1979 LA studio work: “Happy Days,” “Laverne & Shirley,” “Knight Rider,” “Falcon’s Crest,” etc.
Recording with Barry White’s Love Unlimited Orchestra. During evenings played with Willie Bobo’s band.
Movies: Presidio; Beaches; solos in several Robby Benson movies; Quicksilver.
Live performance with Los Lobos in La Bamba.
Sentimental trumpet solos featured on the TV show “Cheers” |
I cannot find it right now, but Tony wrote an article detailing his surgery, being told how he wouldn't be able to play again and how Claude reacted when Tony called him up and told him. ("Is that doctor a trumpet player?! Then what does he know?!?! Come to my Studio right now!!!") In the article Tony wrote that by the end of the two hour lesson Claude had him playing Double High A's.
Claude also had to help other students who came to him after trusting dentists who had adjusted and changed people's teeth to help their playing only to ruin it. The doctors and dentists were (obviously) wrong and not "scientific experts" when it came to brass playing.
Claude never meant to infer that no doctor or dentist could be an expert at trumpet and he didn't. I think he was correct in pointing out that most have no real knowledge of brass playing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Steve A
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 1808
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Wed Dec 07, 2016 8:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| John Mohan wrote: | | He didn't write a single word regarding what's required to put someone on the moon. He cited the fact that experts in that field were able to do as an example of how the laws of nature do not change. |
"... in putting a man on the moon; this was done by studying natural forces and learning use them them correctly." - from your quote.
It doesn't look that way to me, but suit yourself.
| John Mohan wrote: |
As for what he wrote about airplanes, he was an accomplished aviator, owned his own airplane and accumulated thousands of hours of flight time, operating out of a mountain airport for years without a single incident in his record. Being myself a (less accomplished) pilot, but knowing enough about aviation to comment, I find his analogies in another part of the book comparing tongue level to the airplane's elevator and air power to the engine power to be absolutely valid. |
I didn't know that - thanks. Sounds like he was an interesting guy.
| John Mohan wrote: |
Lastly, he wrote what he wrote about doctors and dentists that don't know much if anything about brass playing because during his years teaching he encountered several students, including Tony Horowitz, who were told by their doctors they would never play again. |
I don't know if that's really fair grounds for dismissing the opinions of doctors. Off the top of my head, I know of two people who were seriously injured and told they would never walk again, and now walk just fine. A suggestion from a doctor that a patient will likely never recover enough to perform a given action is an educated guess, and it doesn't prove anything to say that a doctor was wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 9830
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve A wrote: | | John Mohan wrote: | | He didn't write a single word regarding what's required to put someone on the moon. He cited the fact that experts in that field were able to do as an example of how the laws of nature do not change. |
"... in putting a man on the moon; this was done by studying natural forces and learning use them them correctly." - from your quote.
It doesn't look that way to me, but suit yourself. |
Okay, he wrote a very generalized statement about that subject ("studying natural forces and learning to use them correctly"). I don't think one needs to be an astrophysicist to qualify to write such a thing. Do you?
| Steve A wrote: | | John Mohan wrote: |
As for what he wrote about airplanes, he was an accomplished aviator, owned his own airplane and accumulated thousands of hours of flight time, operating out of a mountain airport for years without a single incident in his record. Being myself a (less accomplished) pilot, but knowing enough about aviation to comment, I find his analogies in another part of the book comparing tongue level to the airplane's elevator and air power to the engine power to be absolutely valid. |
I didn't know that - thanks. Sounds like he was an interesting guy. |
He was!
https://s25.postimg.org/fn9iriwun/claude_gordon_airplane.jpg
Claude with his Cessna 172
| Steve A wrote: | | John Mohan wrote: |
Lastly, he wrote what he wrote about doctors and dentists that don't know much if anything about brass playing because during his years teaching he encountered several students, including Tony Horowitz, who were told by their doctors they would never play again. |
I don't know if that's really fair grounds for dismissing the opinions of doctors. Off the top of my head, I know of two people who were seriously injured and told they would never walk again, and now walk just fine. A suggestion from a doctor that a patient will likely never recover enough to perform a given action is an educated guess, and it doesn't prove anything to say that a doctor was wrong. |
I thought about writing this in my previous post and I guess I should have:
Claude was not dismissive of all doctors. In fact, he collaborated with his student Dr. Larry Miller on the Fluoroscopic Research that was done concerning the role of the tongue and diaphragm in brass playing. Dr. Miller participates here on the Trumpet Herald occasionally (User ID is trumpetdoc). Claude was only critical of doctors who were not knowledgeable about brass playing that acted as if they were.
Cheers,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mm55
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2013
Posts: 1412
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 6:27 am Post subject: |
|
|
It's also appropriate sometimes, to be critical of brass players who are not knowledgeable about fluid dynamics (or other fields of science and engineering), but who act as if they are.
_________________
'75 Bach Strad 180ML/37
'79 King Silver Flair
'07 Flip Oakes Wild Thing
'42 Selmer US
'90 Yamaha YTR6450S(C)
'12 Eastman ETR-540S (D/Eb)
'10 Carol CPT-300LR pkt
'89 Yamaha YCR2330S crnt
'13 CarolBrass CFL-6200-GSS-BG flg
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
wastoute
New Member
Joined: 02 Dec 2016
Posts: 8
Location: Yorktown, Virginia
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 8:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
The entire point of my original post was that frequently great players and teachers can't communicate just how it is they do it. "Make your horn sound like this" can be frustrating.
_________________
wastoute
Olds Ambassador Trumpet and Cornet
Olds Super 1940s
Olds Mendez 1960s
Olds Clark Terry Trumpet
Bach Strad 180 ML
Courtois Paris flugel
Bach 5C mpc for everything |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mm55
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 01 Jul 2013
Posts: 1412
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Mohan wrote: |
Being myself a (less accomplished) pilot, but knowing enough about aviation to comment, I find his analogies in another part of the book comparing tongue level to the airplane's elevator and air power to the engine power to be absolutely valid. |
A couple of years ago, you wrote:
"If one wants to climb in an airplane, one pulls back on the stick or yoke, raising the elevator on the tail's horizontal stabilizer. But if that's all one does, the plane will assume a climb attitude, but it won't climb - it will just slow down from the increased drag until it stalls and falls out of the sky. To make the airplane climb one pulls back on the stick or yoke and pushes the throttle in, applying more power. Then the plane will climb."
If that's the analogy you're referring to, it is blatantly wrong. Pulling back the yoke, and thus using the elevators to put the plane in a nose-up attitude does not typically cause the aircraft to slow down until it stalls and falls out of the sky. That's nonsense. The "crash and burn" that you added on a different occasion takes the ill-informed hyperbole to another level.
You typically lose some airspeed, and climb at that reduced airspeed. You may stall if you were close to stalling before you pulled the stick back, or if you continue to pitch the nose up more and more and more, but that's now how it's usually done.
It is perfectly possible, normal, and even commonplace, to pull the stick back and climb without adding any power; and anyone who says it can't be done does not quite understand what's going on. Cruising level at 120 knots, pull the stick to raise the nose, and climb at 100 knots, without touching any power setting. Beginning flight students are taught that stuff during the first few flight lessons.
The analogy does not conform to aviation reality.
_________________
'75 Bach Strad 180ML/37
'79 King Silver Flair
'07 Flip Oakes Wild Thing
'42 Selmer US
'90 Yamaha YTR6450S(C)
'12 Eastman ETR-540S (D/Eb)
'10 Carol CPT-300LR pkt
'89 Yamaha YCR2330S crnt
'13 CarolBrass CFL-6200-GSS-BG flg
Last edited by mm55 on Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:23 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve A
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 1808
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 9:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
| John Mohan wrote: | | Steve A wrote: | | John Mohan wrote: | | He didn't write a single word regarding what's required to put someone on the moon. He cited the fact that experts in that field were able to do as an example of how the laws of nature do not change. |
"... in putting a man on the moon; this was done by studying natural forces and learning use them them correctly." - from your quote.
It doesn't look that way to me, but suit yourself. |
Okay, he wrote a very generalized statement about that subject ("studying natural forces and learning to use them correctly"). I don't think one needs to be an astrophysicist to qualify to write such a thing. Do you?
|
No, simply put, I don't. However, I don't think it helps the credibility of his argument, and generally wish that people who aren't experts would stop dragging physics into their arguments to try to lend an air of absolute merit, and would stick to what they actually know.
In this case, I especially object to trying to frame Mr. Gordon's opinion that all great players play the exact same as absolute scientific fact when this is based on assumptions about an area where he wasn't an expert (science), and that personally I think is wrong even in an area where he was an expert. (The trumpet.)
I'm not disputing the fact that his methods produced excellent results for many of his students and himself, but I don't think that "what happens on the inside is exactly the same on all good players". Even in the relatively narrow field of classical trumpet playing, I think that, if you compare George Vosburgh and Alison Balsom, or Charlie Schlueter and Allen Vizzutti (or any of them to any other), you'll find a lot of differences in how they make their sounds. Yes, they all start with basically the same tool kit, but I think that they fairly obviously use different combinations of these components (embouchure tension, and position, tongue arch, air volume, air pressure, etc.). If we widen the field to compare jazz and classical approaches to playing, this difference grows wider, and this is all without even considering different approaches like TCE. If you'd like to establish for me how Bahb Civiletti doesn't meet a definition of "good" here, when he is explicitly doing something quite different than the Gordon approach, then be my guest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNi6enyOKBo
Yes, Claude Gordon was an excellent teacher and player, and helped many people. That's great! Sincerely! But this dogmatic insistence that his approach is the only always absolutely correct approach is A: wrong (which, tellingly, requires ridiculously tortured arguments to try to defend), and B: is harmful for many people. Cichowicz said that he thought that there were a few different correct ways to produce healthy sounds, and I'm not disputing that Claude Gordon's can be one of those, but we don't all do this the same way, and we do both ourselves and our students disservices by trying to fit everyone into the same box. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheiden
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 8914
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 10:12 am Post subject: |
|
|
This invites the old joke, "You can always tell a Gordon student,...but you can't tell him much". This told all with great affection for Gordon and his students who I admire greatly.
_________________
"I'm an engineer, which means I think I know a whole bunch of stuff I really don't."
Charles J Heiden/So Cal
Bach Strad 180ML43*/43 Bb/Yamaha 731 Flugel/Benge 1X C/Kanstul 920 Picc/Conn 80A Cornet
Bach 3C rim on 1.5C underpart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BPL
Veteran Member
Joined: 04 Mar 2008
Posts: 347
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 11:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
| wastoute wrote: | | The entire point of my original post was that frequently great players and teachers can't communicate just how it is they do it. "Make your horn sound like this" can be frustrating. |
Bingo!
Let's take that as an agreed fact (but delete the word "frequently"). If even only one great player was able to "communicate just how it is they do it" we wouldn't be having this conversation.. we'd all already know "just how it is they do it", and therefore how it is that we (anyone) could (might) do it.. it'd be a matter of public record.
So.. given this agreed fact, it would seem reasonable to also say; Physicists, doctors, dentists, pedagogy experts and aeroplane pilots would have a similar difficulty communicating just how they (or some one else) does it.
What if there was a virtuoso trumpet player who was also a physicist (specialising in flow mechanics), a doctor (specialising in the involved bodily functions), a dentist, an expert teacher and a pilot.. and a master communicator. Would such a mythical beast be able to help us?
No! Because even if we know "just how it is they do it", that in itself, doesn't impart to us the ability to do it. Obviously we would have to do some practice. But what should we practice, and how should we practice it? That's the question we should be asking. The (correct) answer to this question is a necessary and sufficient condition for success.
Not to say there aren't right and wrong answers about the physics, and it certainly is fascinating stuff.. but it doesn't help me. I wish it did. I think a lot of the rhetoric on this is retrospective in nature. We practice something over and over, for example, and then one day we figure it out and say "aha, now I see what's going on". Then we go and try to explain it to some one.. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Herman rev2
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 8951
Location: Monument, CO
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even if they could communicate how they do it, chances are it would be different for the student, and the student would be unlikely to understand exactly how to make the same physical manipulations as the teacher anyway. IME/IMO sound models work well, physical descriptions can provide invaluable if somewhat gross guidance, but in the end the student has to figure out the fine details through practice and trial and error.
_________________
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Steve A
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 May 2006
Posts: 1808
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Dec 08, 2016 5:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Don Herman rev2 wrote: | | IME/IMO sound models work well, physical descriptions can provide invaluable if somewhat gross guidance, but in the end the student has to figure out the fine details through practice and trial and error. |
Total agreement. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trumpetteacher1
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3404
Location: Garland, Texas
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 8:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
"And yet, exactly how the lips move is beyond analysis. So trumpet playing, like any high level physical skill, can only be taught up to a point. A teacher can reveal the basic mechanics and prescribe particular exercises to help the student become more familiar with the range of motion required by the skill. But the "aha!" experience, the moment when everything comes together and balance is achieved, is a final step that students must "fall into" on their own."
The Balanced Embouchure pg 29
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Don Herman rev2
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator
Joined: 03 May 2005
Posts: 8951
Location: Monument, CO
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
^^^ Where's the "like" button when you need it?
_________________
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music" - Aldous Huxley |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrpPro
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 1471
Location: Riverview, FL
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Even if the lips could be analyzed precisely, it is my opinion that, sadly, that wouldn't help to learn how to play the trumpet.
Let the air blow the lips into place from a feeling of openness. An easy way to get a feel for doing this is with the tuning slide removed (mouthpiece in) so only the lead pipe is being played. You can start below pitch and then gliss the vibration up to somewhere around an Eb/E and hold. Do this a few times. After putting the tuning slide back in... practice smart.
First step in learning to "blow" the horn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Arjuna
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Oct 2016
Posts: 240
Location: So Cal
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 12:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
+1
| TrpPro wrote: | Even if the lips could be analyzed precisely, it is my opinion that, sadly, that wouldn't help to learn how to play the trumpet.
Let the air blow the lips into place from a feeling of openness. An easy way to get a feel for doing this is with the tuning slide removed (mouthpiece in) so only the lead pipe is being played. You can start below pitch and then gliss the vibration up to somewhere around an Eb/E and hold. Do this a few times. After putting the tuning slide back in... practice smart.
First step in learning to "blow" the horn. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shaft
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 985
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 2:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I suppose it would be an interesting way to communicate with people by saying "use 1 oz of pressure, or use 1.5 oz. more or less here or there.
Would it make a difference though? Who knows
_________________
🎺 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Harry Hilgers
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 16 Jun 2015
Posts: 637
|
| Posted: Fri Dec 09, 2016 7:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Steve A wrote: | | John Mohan wrote: | | Steve A wrote: | | John Mohan wrote: | | He didn't write a single word regarding what's required to put someone on the moon. He cited the fact that experts in that field were able to do as an example of how the laws of nature do not change. |
"... in putting a man on the moon; this was done by studying natural forces and learning use them them correctly." - from your quote.
It doesn't look that way to me, but suit yourself. |
Okay, he wrote a very generalized statement about that subject ("studying natural forces and learning to use them correctly"). I don't think one needs to be an astrophysicist to qualify to write such a thing. Do you?
|
No, simply put, I don't. However, I don't think it helps the credibility of his argument, and generally wish that people who aren't experts would stop dragging physics into their arguments to try to lend an air of absolute merit, and would stick to what they actually know.
In this case, I especially object to trying to frame Mr. Gordon's opinion that all great players play the exact same as absolute scientific fact when this is based on assumptions about an area where he wasn't an expert (science), and that personally I think is wrong even in an area where he was an expert. (The trumpet.)
I'm not disputing the fact that his methods produced excellent results for many of his students and himself, but I don't think that "what happens on the inside is exactly the same on all good players". Even in the relatively narrow field of classical trumpet playing, I think that, if you compare George Vosburgh and Alison Balsom, or Charlie Schlueter and Allen Vizzutti (or any of them to any other), you'll find a lot of differences in how they make their sounds. Yes, they all start with basically the same tool kit, but I think that they fairly obviously use different combinations of these components (embouchure tension, and position, tongue arch, air volume, air pressure, etc.). If we widen the field to compare jazz and classical approaches to playing, this difference grows wider, and this is all without even considering different approaches like TCE. If you'd like to establish for me how Bahb Civiletti doesn't meet a definition of "good" here, when he is explicitly doing something quite different than the Gordon approach, then be my guest:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iNi6enyOKBo
Yes, Claude Gordon was an excellent teacher and player, and helped many people. That's great! Sincerely! But this dogmatic insistence that his approach is the only always absolutely correct approach is A: wrong (which, tellingly, requires ridiculously tortured arguments to try to defend), and B: is harmful for many people. Cichowicz said that he thought that there were a few different correct ways to produce healthy sounds, and I'm not disputing that Claude Gordon's can be one of those, but we don't all do this the same way, and we do both ourselves and our students disservices by trying to fit everyone into the same box. |
+10 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
stumac
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 19 Nov 2008
Posts: 697
Location: Flinders, Australia
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 12:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Shaft wrote: | I suppose it would be an interesting way to communicate with people by saying "use 1 oz of pressure, or use 1.5 oz. more or less here or there.
Would it make a difference though? Who knows |
I have a friend who plays with a lot of tension and little air support and as a result cannot play at the top of the stave.
To help him with this I have given him a pressure gauge that I have marked with the minimum pressure required to support low C, middle C and high C.
I will see him next week and find how he got on.
Regards, Stuart. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Shaft
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 985
|
| Posted: Sat Dec 10, 2016 10:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
That's cool - An Army vet named Grant once told me that
"Communication takes place when both parties understand what was said."
I would say use what works and if that works man - Let it happen 
All the best to your student and your teaching.
ECRIII
_________________
🎺 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
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
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
