| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
crzytptman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Posts: 8169
Location: Escondido CA (just north of 'Dego)
|
 Posted: Sat Apr 28, 2012 6:32 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
Hey John, I wasn't calling you out. I was only responding to Darryl. I would like to hear you play sometime, but not a high note show off thing.
_________________
Crazy Nate aka Jive-a-licious
www.themodernancients.com
www.flipoakes.com
Strive to have a great day, full of learning and enlightenment, using the mind that God gave you.
"Am I really crazy, or just so sane I blow your mind?" - Cosmo Kramer |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
trumpetteacher1
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 2486
Location: Garland, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 7:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You have given your opinion about this (an opinion that is contrary not only to my opinion, but to the opinions of the vast majority of top-level teachers and professional players) |
John, this is a half-truth at best. In your never-ending quest to legitimize your extreme views about tongue arch, you keep making more and more grandiose statements.
You infer that "most" top level players and teachers agree with your opinion. But what is the premise of that opinion? I'm not talking about all the fluff you add in an attempt make the premise sound almost mainstream. I'm talking about the premise itself.
I will make it very easy for you. I will state your premise from my perspective, and then you can correct me if necessary. OK?
The John Mohan premise: A forward tongue arch increases the speed of the air to the lips, which causes the lips to vibrate faster and raise the pitch.
If this is indeed your basic premise - and you have stated it in almost those exact words many times - I can easily make a long list of professional players and teachers who don't agree (and I will do so if necessary). Included in that list will be several former students of Claude Gordon who post right here on the TH, and who have publically stated that the "air speed" argument is not part of their pedagogy.
Things that have been inferred from the John Mohan premise:
1. The tongue is primary in changing pitch (not the lips).
2. Every player always uses the tongue to change pitch, whether they know it or not.
3. A player without a tongue could not change pitch on the trumpet.
I know from my own experience in playing and teaching that all the above are false. I can go into great detail why they are false, if necessary.
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 5649
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:24 am Post subject: |
|
|
| trumpetteacher1 wrote: | | Quote: | | You have given your opinion about this (an opinion that is contrary not only to my opinion, but to the opinions of the vast majority of top-level teachers and professional players) |
John, this is a half-truth at best. In your never-ending quest to legitimize your extreme views about tongue arch, you keep making more and more grandiose statements.
You infer that "most" top level players and teachers agree with your opinion. But what is the premise of that opinion? I'm not talking about all the fluff you add in an attempt make the premise sound almost mainstream. I'm talking about the premise itself.
I will make it very easy for you. I will state your premise from my perspective, and then you can correct me if necessary. OK?
The John Mohan premise: A forward tongue arch increases the speed of the air to the lips, which causes the lips to vibrate faster and raise the pitch.
If this is indeed your basic premise - and you have stated it in almost those exact words many times - I can easily make a long list of professional players and teachers who don't agree (and I will do so if necessary). Included in that list will be several former students of Claude Gordon who post right here on the TH, and who have publically stated that the "air speed" argument is not part of their pedagogy.
Things that have been inferred from the John Mohan premise:
1. The tongue is primary in changing pitch (not the lips).
2. Every player always uses the tongue to change pitch, whether they know it or not.
3. A player without a tongue could not change pitch on the trumpet.
I know from my own experience in playing and teaching that all the above are false. I can go into great detail why they are false, if necessary.
Jeff |
Hi Jeff,
The vast majority of professional players and teachers I've met and learned about believe that when we play higher notes we arch our tongues. If you disagree, take the time to compile a list of major players and teachers who do not believe that tongue arch is helpful in playing into the upper register, and I'll then do the same for major teachers and players who do believe that tongue arch is a necessary component for easily and correctly playing higher notes (especially the notes above High C).
My basic "premise" is that to play higher notes we blow harder, arch our tongues up and forward, tighten our facial muscles a bit, and use a bit more mouthpiece pressure. And to develop as trumpet players it helps to know this information, but it is crucial that we practice correctly pretty much every day in order to develop the feel or "knack" of how to play and the required strength to back up that "feel" or "knack". In other words, we must practice correctly in order to develop the needed coordination and strength. What exactly, is "extreme" about that "view"?
I think the arching tongue probably speeds up the air as this makes sense (when arching the tongue up and forward, the smallest part of the air channel is at the very end of the air stream just before the airstream acts on the lips, and as is commonly known, any time you are dealing with a fluid flow, the velocity of the fluid increases when the diameter of the tube decreases).
I also take issue with your claiming that I believe that someone without a tongue cannot change pitches at all on a trumpet. Given the fact that I have stated several times in this topic thread that tongue arch is not totally necessary until we get into the register above High C (though it is helpful in the middle register), I obviously DO believe one can change pitch on a trumpet even if one has no tongue. But I don't think such a person would be able to play the full range of the instrument.
As a final thought, here's something else I believe: The player who has no idea what he's doing, and in fact, is wrong about all his theoretical beliefs regarding the mechanics of brass playing but spends hours a day practicing and gaining the knack or feel of playing, will be a better player in the long run than the player who "knows it all" but spends all his time in endless theoretical debates on the trumpet herald instead of practicing. Anyone care to disagree with that "premise"?
Best wishes,
John
Last edited by John Mohan on Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:06 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 5649
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
| crzytptman wrote: | | Hey John, I wasn't calling you out. I was only responding to Darryl. I would like to hear you play sometime, but not a high note show off thing. |
Hi Nate,
Yes, I figured it out after a few mystified sentences...  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JobyMF
Veteran Member
Joined: 26 May 2008
Posts: 228
Location: Tri-CitiesWA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 8:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
I wouldnt argue with John
Sounds like he knows his stuff.
Dots connect from Pops to Maurice Andre and Herseth to Boss himself(Maynard). Even Brownie and Marsalis... Its a long list. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
zackh411
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 17 May 2011
Posts: 1019
Location: Saint Louis MO
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
If you want something to dispute, then ask the question "does higher airspeed translate to a higher note?" The vast majority of pro players I have taken lessons with would say "yes," and I am inclined to believe them. I plan on doing some research on this point with a high precision anemometer at some point, but until then, it's my working hypothesis.
My view on tongue arch is as follows:
When we play the trumpet and ascend in pitch, our tongue naturally arches higher. This is most likely due to the fact that raising our voices in pitch requires raising our tongue. I think it is an action that we do subconsciously, not purposely, because our brains have been programmed to do so when pitch goes up. This is a natural movement that happens to aid our playing in the upper register. Problems arise when people do not do this naturally (for whatever reason). These people, when they discover that controlling tongue arch aids their playing, will naturally feel like the tongue control has a bigger role in playing than it perhaps actually does, because it doesn't feel as natural to them.
This same effect can be used to explain why attacks on high notes can be difficult. If we play up to, for instance, G above high C, then play a bunch of those notes repeatedly, it is not too difficult. As we ascend, the tongue naturally finds the correct position. However, if we just cold-attack the note, it is more difficult: this is, I think, because the tongue has not had the chance to naturally ascend to the correct position. If we hit this point, we must train the tongue to find the right position straight away, without ascending.
In summation, I think tongue arch probably does play an integral role in trumpet playing, and there is evidence to support that it does.
_________________
Stomvi VRII Lightweight in Silver
1946 Martin Committee #2 Bore
Bach Strad 183 Flugel
Stomvi Elite Piccolo
Bobby Shew Jazz Mouthpiece w/ 18 Drill (Legit)
Yamaha Miyashiro 1 w/ 18 Drill (Jazz)
Stomvi JMZVR w/ M4 Backbore Jim Manley Mouthpiece (Lead) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
2-5-1
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 21 Nov 2006
Posts: 1382
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 10:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
I know Nathan....I'd be mad too.
| Quote: | | Last edited by crzytptman on Sat Apr 28, 2012 8:53 pm; edited 1 time in total |
I couldn't have planned that better!
I know it makes you feel better to come on here and call me a boy. I'm comfortable with myself, so I'll allow it. But to say I'm hiding? Naaaa. My stuffs out there.
I'll give you a free piece of advice though; a boy comes on to TH and brags about buying a "toy" with his "gig money". Think about it.....
Enjoy your Sunday off Nathan!
_________________
www.mikesailorsmusic.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trumpetteacher1
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 2486
Location: Garland, Texas
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 12:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | The vast majority of professional players and teachers I've met and learned about believe that when we play higher notes we arch our tongues. |
And, for the most part, I believe that as well. So does Darryl. You are ducking here, John, and failing to address why you created this little drama in the first place, which was:
The John Mohan premise: A forward tongue arch increases the speed of the air to the lips, which causes the lips to vibrate faster and raise the pitch.
John, even many of your fellow Claude Gordon students do not accept this argument. It simply presumes too much. That is why it is extreme.
| Quote: | | My basic "premise" is that to play higher notes we blow harder, arch our tongues up and forward, tighten our facial muscles a bit, and use a bit more mouthpiece pressure. And to develop as trumpet players it helps to know this information, but it is crucial that we practice correctly pretty much every day in order to develop the feel or "knack" of how to play and the required strength to back up that "feel" or "knack". In other words, we must practice correctly in order to develop the needed coordination and strength. |
Of course, that is a general view, not a basic premise. You've broadened it out so far that virtually no one would disagree. But again that is not your basic premise in this thread. If it was, you would never have never responded the Darryl in the negative fashion you did.
| Quote: | | What exactly, is "extreme" about that "view"? |
Now that you've calmed down, there is nothing extreme there at all. But the next time you get upset, the much narrower John Mohan premise will once again rear its ugly head, and arguments will follow. I have complete faith that this will happen, because you've been stirring the same pot here on TH for over 12 years. And I also know that you will once again back off your extreme view, and pretend that it never happened.
| Quote: | | I also take issue with your claiming that I believe that someone without a tongue cannot change pitches at all on a trumpet. |
You said it yourself in a previous thread. I would find it hard to make this up, as it shocked me so much when I read where you said it. I assume you finally realized your error, and modified your point of view.
| Quote: | | I obviously DO believe one can change pitch on a trumpet even if one has no tongue. But I don't think such a person would be able to play the full range of the instrument. |
Here we get a glimmer of your narrow belief system kicking in. You seem to be unable to grasp that players can make the pipe work in all different sorts of ways. That's what giving twenty thousand lessons to a wide variety of players taught me.
| Quote: | | As a final thought, here's something else I believe: The player who has no idea what he's doing, and in fact, is wrong about all his theoretical beliefs regarding the mechanics of brass playing but spends hours a day practicing and gaining the knack or feel of playing, will be a better player in the long run than the player who "knows it all" but spends all his time in endless theoretical debates on the trumpet herald instead of practicing. Anyone care to disagree with that "premise"? |
You are creating a scenario that doesn't exist in the real world to make a very strange point. It begs the question - why are you constantly in the center of such debates?
In fact, let's get even more specific. What EXACTLY did Darryl say that cause you to have such a negative reaction?
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crzytptman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Posts: 8169
Location: Escondido CA (just north of 'Dego)
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Mr. Sailors, thank you so much for the advice! I really am trying hard to be worthy of your praise. It's the only thing that will give meaning to my life. I must try harder. Please continue to let me know how far I have yet to go.
_________________
Crazy Nate aka Jive-a-licious
www.themodernancients.com
www.flipoakes.com
Strive to have a great day, full of learning and enlightenment, using the mind that God gave you.
"Am I really crazy, or just so sane I blow your mind?" - Cosmo Kramer |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 5649
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| percivalthehappyboy wrote: | | I don't accept Claude Gordon's theory that the lips have nothing to do with it, that the pitch is controlled solely by the tongue. |
That is not Claude's theory. The Lips and the Facial muscles are two of the seven "natural elements of brass playing" he wrote about in his books and talked about during lessons and clinics.
He wrote things like "forget about the lips" because he felt that most players were overly concerned about their lips and their embouchures and didn't spend enough time thinking about the things that make the lips vibrate (air power and the control of the air power via the tongue). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
John Mohan
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 5649
Location: Chicago, Illinois
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 29, 2012 3:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| trumpetteacher1 wrote: | | The John Mohan premise: A forward tongue arch increases the speed of the air to the lips, which causes the lips to vibrate faster and raise the pitch. |
Why do you do that? I very clearly told you what my “premise” was. You even quote it verbatim later in your post. But you still went and wrote the distortion quoted above. Here’s the rules: I get to say what my “Premise” is. Not you.
A premise is "a statement that an argument claims will induce or justify a conclusion." I’m not arguing about whether or not the air speeds up the tongue. I merely think it might. I used to be sure it did, but after the discussions here and further thought, I'm not sure anymore. The argument at hand (and therefore any related premises) concerns whether or not the arching of the tongue is a casual effect in the production of higher notes. The argument (and therefore the “Premise”) has nothing to do with air speed. You’re looking for an argument that does not exist. Kindly stop doing that. It’s a waste of our time.
My Premise (again):
| John Mohan wrote: | | My basic "premise" is that to play higher notes we blow harder, arch our tongues up and forward, tighten our facial muscles a bit, and use a bit more mouthpiece pressure. And to develop as trumpet players it helps to know this information, but it is crucial that we practice correctly pretty much every day in order to develop the feel or "knack" of how to play and the required strength to back up that "feel" or "knack". In other words, we must practice correctly in order to develop the needed coordination and strength. |
| trumpetteacher1 wrote: | | Of course, that is a general view, not a basic premise. You've broadened it out so far that virtually no one would disagree. |
I see. So from now on, before I arrive at a personal premise, I’ll be sure to check with you if it’s okay.
| John Mohan wrote: | | What exactly, is "extreme" about that "view"? |
| trumpetteacher1 wrote: | | Now that you've calmed down, there is nothing extreme there at all. But the next time you get upset, the much narrower John Mohan premise will once again rear its ugly head, and arguments will follow. I have complete faith that this will happen, because you've been stirring the same pot here on TH for over 12 years. And I also know that you will once again back off your extreme view, and pretend that it never happened. |
Been calm Jeff. The only thing that gets me a little riled up around here is when players state their opinions as if they are indisputable facts. I myself might have been guilty of that years ago. But for the past several years I've tried to choose my words more carefully to differentiate between my opinions and what is known to be fact. Oh, there is one other thing that gets me going - when people misquote and obfuscate what I've written in the past to further their agenda. I see a lot of that, and some of it comes from you (though maybe it's just caused by innocent misunderstandings).
All I’ve done for the past 12 years is share what I’ve learned as a result of 14 years studying with Claude, several years studying with some other great teachers, and 40 years on the horn – nearly 30 of those years as a professional. If pointing out that playing trumpet requires a lot of practice to gain the feel or knack or it (coordination) and the strength to back up that feel or knack, and that in general, for higher notes we need to blow harder, arch our tongues up and forward, tighten our embouchures a bit and use a bit more mouthpiece pressure, then, guilty as charged.
And I think I make it pretty clear that I am writing my opinion about things. Look at my posts. You’ll find words like “I think” and “in my opinion”, and even “probably”. Try to find those words in any of Darryl’s posts on the subject at hand.
| John Mohan wrote: | | I also take issue with your claiming that I believe that someone without a tongue cannot change pitches at all on a trumpet. |
| trumpetteacher1 wrote: | | You said it yourself in a previous thread. I would find it hard to make this up, as it shocked me so much when I read where you said it. I assume you finally realized your error, and modified your point of view. |
If I wrote those exact words, I didn’t mean they couldn’t change pitches at all. What I meant was they wouldn’t be able to change very far in pitch and what change they could make would probably not sound very smooth. Those words regarding not being able to change pitch at all without a tongue are in accordance with some of Claude's writings and what he said in clinics. I think he was exaggerating the point in an effort to try to break players’ obsessions with their lips. In the same context I might have said the same thing sometime years in the past. Shocking, yes, but you’re a trumpet player- you can handle it. 
| John Mohan wrote: | | I obviously DO believe one can change pitch on a trumpet even if one has no tongue. But I don't think such a person would be able to play the full range of the instrument. |
| trumpetteacher1 wrote: | | Here we get a glimmer of your narrow belief system kicking in. You seem to be unable to grasp that players can make the pipe work in all different sorts of ways. That's what giving twenty thousand lessons to a wide variety of players taught me. |
Amongst these 20,000 lessons, how many were given to players who did not have tongues? What is your experience in that area to be so presumptive? Do you actually believe someone could play through the entire register of the trumpet (Double Pedal C to Double High C) without a tongue?!?!
| John Mohan wrote: | | As a final thought, here's something else I believe: The player who has no idea what he's doing, and in fact, is wrong about all his theoretical beliefs regarding the mechanics of brass playing but spends hours a day practicing and gaining the knack or feel of playing, will be a better player in the long run than the player who "knows it all" but spends all his time in endless theoretical debates on the trumpet herald instead of practicing. Anyone care to disagree with that "premise"? |
| trumpetteacher1 wrote: | | You are creating a scenario that doesn't exist in the real world to make a very strange point. It begs the question - why are you constantly in the center of such debates? |
With that scenario I am trying to make the point that actually practicing is more important than having theoretical debates if the end goal is to be a better trumpet player. How is that a strange point?
| trumpetteacher1 wrote: | In fact, let's get even more specific. What EXACTLY did Darryl say that cause you to have such a negative reaction?
Jeff |
I don’t think my reaction was “negative” (unless simply disagreeing with someone’s opinion makes it so). I do find it a bit annoying that Darryl and others often write things which really amount to what is their opinions(s) as if they are proven fact. Nothing is proven by arguing on the Internet (or anywhere else). Darryl has his opinions and I have mine. I might be wrong. I’d love to see Darryl write the same thing – that he might be wrong - but I don’t think we'll see this.
Last thing I’d like to respond to. Concerning the whole “air speed” thing, you wrote:
| trumpetteacher1 wrote: | | John, even many of your fellow Claude Gordon students do not accept this argument. It simply presumes too much. That is why it is extreme. |
Unless you’ve read something I haven’t, “many” means two or three. And, you can almost count me as one of them. Maybe I’m not being clear. I am not arguing that the tongue definitely makes the air stream faster. I think it does, but I’m not sure of this. I think it quite likely that the main contribution of the arching tongue is the narrowing of the air stream, making the air stream act on a smaller area of the lip surface. I put that in bold print because I think that might be a key factor.
Though I wrote questions throughout this thing, please don’t feel I expect answers. It’s taken me a long time to get this all typed up, and frankly, I think we’ve both got better things to do.
Best wishes,
John |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 1783
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
John wrote: | Quote: | | I do find it a bit annoying that Darryl and others often write things which really amount to what is their opinions(s) as if they are proven fact. |
My main objection to your line of thinking regarding the effect of the arched tongue is your logic, which is a gross misinterpretation of Bernoulli's law and your erroneous enlistment of a "layman’s" understanding of such.
Bernoulli's law is not my "opinion". It is scientific fact. And it is a proven fact.
Attempting to use a "garden hose" as a literal equivalent to the action of the tongue arch ignores several factors that ARE proven facts.
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.
The "garden hose" analogy is fine as a metaphorical visualization of making the aperture smaller or making a tongue-channel. But unlike the garden hose these actions do not raise the pressure or force of the air that bears on the aperture. I would be happy to explain further, again.
You also attempted to twist a well known relation of air pressure, force and area to attempt to show that a smaller area would have greater pressure or force acting on it. That is, your "concentration of pressure" argument.
The correct relation is actually: Force = Pressure x Area
(This IS a PROVEN FACT. It is not my “opinion”.)
But when called on it you say I am merely picking on “semantics”.
The fact IS that you make grandiose claims to attempt to prove that the arch is responsible for pitch or even has ANY influence on it. But you have attempted to do so with the worst of bad science. I have indeed backed-up my objection with "facts".
When shown, factually, your error, you retreat back to metaphors, misunderstood “semantics”, or other factors like "blowing harder" or "muscles of the face" etc.
_________________
Darryl Jones
Callicchio 1s2
Yamaha YHF631 Flugelhorn
MP: stock Marcinkiewicz 9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 1783
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 7:57 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
_________________
Darryl Jones
Callicchio 1s2
Yamaha YHF631 Flugelhorn
MP: stock Marcinkiewicz 9 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trumpetteacher1
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 2486
Location: Garland, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:35 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Here’s the rules: I get to say what my “Premise” is. Not you. |
You certainly have input, but it is not exclusive. Many people wear their basic premise on their sleeve, maybe invisible to themselves, but clearly visible to others. I asked you to to state your basic premise, and you fell back to a generic position. By basic premise, I'm talking about your core belief which drives your world view, which prompts you to take action on the TH to defend it. In other words, your premise is your "hot button."
| Quote: | | The argument at hand (and therefore any related premises) concerns whether or not the arching of the tongue is a casual effect in the production of higher notes. |
OK, since you seem to have backed off the air speed argument, based on what you said above, your premise - in the context of this thread - appears to be close to the following:
The arching of the tongue is the causal effect in the production of high notes.
If this is so, I can easily make a list of great players and teachers who will not accept that premise.
| Quote: | | The only thing that gets me a little riled up around here is when players state their opinions as if they are indisputable facts. |
This is only partially accurate. Lots of people around here state their opinions as facts, including yourself. You don't mind an opinion stated as fact, as long as it doesn't violate your basic premise.
My motivation in reducing these arguments down to a basic premise, is to make plain the differences, without all the innuendo and ad hominem stuff which is typically offered as "evidence."
The following exchange from page four of this thread illustrates what I mean:
John Mohan wrote: One can read the many fine publications written by the greatest players and teachers that ever lived that talk about this - books by Claude Gordon, Don Jacoby, Arturo Sandoval, Earl D. Irons, Walter M. Smith, Charles Colin, Ernest Williams, John Haynie, and Herbert L. Clarke - or one can choose to believe Darryl.
Darryl responded: As usual you resort to your obligatory name-dropping. None of who I made any mention of in my posts, much less that I disagreed with in said posts. (The usual attempt to discredit me rather than actually discuss the matter at hand.)
Darry added: I find it appalling that you assume that I categorically do not agree with HL Clarke when he has been of utmost importance in my practice and development.]
John, these kind of attacks don't clarify anything. To use your own term, they "obfuscate." You said, "Oh, there is one other thing that gets me going - when people misquote and obfuscate what I've written in the past to further their agenda." It appears to me that you are doing exactly that in your interactions with Darryl.
| Quote: | | Amongst these 20,000 lessons, how many were given to players who did not have tongues? What is your experience in that area to be so presumptive? Do you actually believe someone could play through the entire register of the trumpet (Double Pedal C to Double High C) without a tongue?!?! |
Yes, I do accept the possibility. I have obviously never taught a student without a tongue, but I have witnessed enough remarkable embouchure setups and skills to be open to many possibilities.
For example, one student in particular forced me to change my world view about the primacy of tongue arch. And this was after 15 years of playing Earl Irons, lessons with Haynie and Gordon students, and lessons with Claude Gordon himself.
| Quote: | | With that scenario I am trying to make the point that actually practicing is more important than having theoretical debates if the end goal is to be a better trumpet player. How is that a strange point? |
You apparently can't see this. It's a strange point, because you are more often in the center of these theoretical debates than anyone else on the TH. If these debates are not useful for reaching the "goal to be a better trumpet player," then why are you always in them?
| Quote: | | Though I wrote questions throughout this thing, please don’t feel I expect answers. It’s taken me a long time to get this all typed up, and frankly, I think we’ve both got better things to do.
|
If you check my posting history, you will see that I normally don't get heavily involved in TH threads. You are right, it takes a lot of time.
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
trumpetteacher1
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 2486
Location: Garland, Texas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
Darryl,
I see you are back. I have a request. In the context of this thread, would you state your basic premise, so we can stay focused on what is driving your difference with John?
Jeff |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JRoyal
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 748
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
Last edited by JRoyal on Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:23 am; edited 4 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pops
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 1485
Location: Dallas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:50 am Post subject: |
|
|
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.
The lips vibrate because air is passing between them.
If I blow a wide air stream and it hits ALL of the lip length; then all of the lip tries to vibrate. I have to use facial muscles to control how much of the lip vibrates.
If I channel the air stream and blow it against only 1/4 of the lip length; then only 1/4 of the lip tries to vibrate. It takes much less muscle usage and strength to control the amount that vibrates. This means a freer tone (less tension always means freer vibrations.) Freer vibrations are a benefit when playing higher because the higher vibrations are smaller. The small vibrations are easier to over dampen and inhibit their production. It also means more endurance because if I don't contract the muscle then it doesn't get tired.
Let's say that I am so good at channeling air that I can focus the stream to 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16/, 1/32 or even 1/64 of my lip length. Without using facial muscles I have managed to change the amount of lip mass that I set into motion (vibrating).
I really don't understand why so few people talk about the idea of directing air to make a smaller portion of lip vibrate.
It is an OLD and valid technique which many good players use. If you didn't direct the air flow then you would need an extremely tight face to prevent the lips outside of the mouthpiece from buzzing also. (Not just leaking but full bodied buzzing.)
It was one of the reasons why anchor tongue players tended to have higher ranges (Clarke used it at the turn of the LAST century), and is a factor in Callet's TCE.
It has been talked about often but is said in many different ways, direct the air, channel the air, bottle the air, seal the sides of the mouth, excite a smaller lip mass with air... But they all mean the same thing.
Reinhardt wrote about it and called it breath focus.
"The term breath focus refers to the art of governing the size and direction of the air column as it passes over the tongue by altering the contour and level of the tongue arch."
(page 70 of Encyclopedia of the Pivot System)
He also talks about it with one of his tonguing types on page 87 and on page 82-83 he talks about tongue level being the main factor in focus of the air and directing it at the vibrating portion of the lips.
It is in David Hickman's book "Trumpet Pedagogy" on pages 100-101 and it mentions 4 college studies. He also writes that the tongue is used to broaden or narrow the air stream when changing notes.
Nick Drozdoff mentions using the tongue to channel the air in a book. He also mentions it is connected with TCE.
One of the best explanations is in "The Art of Producing High Notes on Brass Instruments. A New Theory and Method" by Brian Wadsworth. (It was a study done in conjunction with the physics department at the University of BC.)
He talks about some experiments they did with an air compressor and rubber lips. When they cut the width of the air stream in half the pitch went up an octave.
He also talks about making sure that the narrow part of the width of the tongue is close to the teeth so that the air column can't spread out and defeat the purpose. (That is why arching in the middle or back of the tongue doesn't work as well.) Plus we need the forward motion to make jaw movement to help create lip curl.
In his summary he said that Quote:
The amount of mass of the lips set vibrating can be determined by two methods:
A) By altering the critical width of the air stream
B) By adjustments of the lips
There is also a description of it in a couple of my books.
_________________
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
New Arban Book http://www.NewArban.com
Video Courses, Ebooks, Skype Lessons http://BbTrumpet.com
Trumpet Ezine http://www.BbTrumpetNews.com
Last edited by Pops on Mon Apr 30, 2012 8:43 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
cheiden
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 28 Sep 2004
Posts: 3572
Location: Orange County, CA
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 9:53 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
_________________
"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
Kanstul 920 Picc
Conn 80A Cornet
Bach 3C rim/Bach 1-1/2C underpart |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pops
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 1485
Location: Dallas
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
Thanks for the links.
Got any about tongue arch? LOL
Interesting didgeridoo study that actually stated tongue arch was a means to change and fine tune pitches. oops
Another study about internal pressure; that never mentions tongue arch in any connection with changing pitches or not changing pitches, but only in terms of pressure. But it did talk about the need to adjust the mass of the vibration tissue to change pitch (and that can be done by air focus.
Oh and one of those links never opened.
_________________
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
New Arban Book http://www.NewArban.com
Video Courses, Ebooks, Skype Lessons http://BbTrumpet.com
Trumpet Ezine http://www.BbTrumpetNews.com |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
JRoyal
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 25 Apr 2003
Posts: 748
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 30, 2012 10:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
| 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.
| Pops wrote: | | Interesting didgeridoo study that actually stated tongue arch was a means to change and fine tune pitches. oops |
Your summation is at odds with the stated conclusions/findings of that article.
| Pops wrote: | | Another study about internal pressure; that never mentions tongue arch in any connection with changing pitches or not changing pitches, but only in terms of pressure. But it did talk about the need to adjust the mass of the vibration tissue to change pitch (and that can be done by air focus. |
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.
| Pops wrote: | | Oh and one of those links never opened. |
Now corrected. |
|
| 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
|
