Upstream playing

[Meldog]

What Paul is saying is basically what I've been saying, just be respectful. You can disagree with each other but don't be rude and snide. Actually if you re-read his post, Mr. Hickman states that there are some players who's airstream goes up, just he is saying not as many. Just be civil!! Show some respect to all sides in here. I hate getting into these things but I thought it was appropriate here!!
Adam Metzler

_________________
My Yahoo group dedicated to beginning trumpet players!!
http://launch.groups.yahoo.com/group/BeginnerTrumpeters/

[ This Message was edited by: Meldog on 2004-08-11 13:25 ]

[DaveH]

If you want respect, it would be wise to show respect...

What goes around, comes around...

And all the other wise old proverbs that should be observed in the normal course of human relations...

[Fleebat]

<Tell us about your decades of teaching and thousands of students, how 'bout it?>


Duh... Whoops! This was said to one of the most revered/respected trumpet teachers in the world, a man considered by many to be one of the great trumpet soloists ever. Wow. I don't know whether to laugh or cringe. News flash, Rich; there's this kid named Vizzutti... 'sposed to be pretty good. And a guy who hung around in Chicago for a while that you might want to check out... Hersup... Herfuth... something like that!

What Dave is likely too much of a gentleman to say in a reply is that he's also known as one of the most serious and respected researchers of trumpet issues in the modern era. I would bet that he could CHOKE you with data. As with so many who studied with one of the various, vaunted pedagogues, you are no doubt "100% right" about everything remotely related to trumpet playing (making everyone who's found success in another way "100% wrong"), but it seems you owe Dave an apology for that "your decades of students" line. You correspond with students of HIS students every day on this forum.

By the way, how much do we depend today on research done in ANY field in 1928? How much of what was "proved" in that era has been re-visited since then with different results? Doc was, by all accounts, a great guy and helped many players in significant ways. He saved many of them from real career-ending chops problems (including you, Rich, according to websites and other testimonials). But why do so many of his students have the impression that he decended from a mountain carrying tablets inscribed with the "only, true, super-double-secret" answers to all trumpet-related questions?

Fleebat



[ This Message was edited by: Fleebat on 2004-08-11 15:13 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Fleebat on 2004-08-11 15:23 ]

[O-Ring]

hmmmmm... rich wiley trumpet / bass trumpet in candler nc or david hickman...... hmmmm.

hickman ... wiley... hicman ,.... wiley..... hickamn or wiley..

maybe ill go with dave hickman's ideas on this one.

o-r

ps wiley nice job with the "moderating/

[trpt.hick]

I had a feeling that my first reply would be contraversial. I think that the problem is more a matter of terminology than anything else.

Yes, I am very familiar with all of Reinhardt's books. In fact, one of my former students, David Turnbull (Prof. of Trumpet at Washington State University) recently completed his DMA under me at Arizona State University. His dissertation was:

"An Analysis, Clarification, and Revaluation of Donald Reinhardt's
Pivot System For Brass Instruments," (May, 2001)

First off, I like the Reinhardt system of playing. It is a great teaching method! I think that what MOST people consider to be an "upstream" player is one that points the bell slightly upwards (usually due to an underbite). Of course, what Reinhardt terms an "upstream" player is one that places the mouthpiece more on the bottom lip.

I looked at the photos on the website that were suggested to me. True, it clearly shows that the aperature is much closer to the top of the cup in one of Reinhardt's Type IV embouchures. I also agree that some of the air is likely to hit the top of the cup before being reflected inside the mouthpiece, although these photos do not show the air movement.

My earlier point was that (IMO) most of the airstream actually aims downward when passing through the lips. Perhaps it IS possible for some players to angle the airstream upwards, but I think it would be extremely rare. Perhaps people reading this should try my little experiment (earlier post in this thread), buzzing the lips only, or buzzing on a detachable rim only, or visualizer. Feel around and see where THE MAJORITY of the air is angled. I have done this with hundreds of students over my 33 years of university teaching and have never found anyone whose air traveled upwards for the most part. We have even put a small feather taped to a toothpick just past the lips when buzzing on a visualizer. Same results even with Type IV embouchures.

Hey, I have nothing against placing the mouthpiece more on the lower lip if it works well. I just don't think that that qualifies them to be termed an "upstream" player, unless of course you are speaking only in Reinhardt's terms.

At any rate, I am not upset. I hope other readers will not be upset, either. Perhaps in the real world all of this terminology dosen't matter.......just play your best!

As for my own experience and list of students, I have an email attachment that I send to prospective students when they inquire about study at ASU. I'll be happy to send it to anyone that sends me a private email at: David.Hickman@ASU.edu I really did not mean for this to turn into a contest.

The scientific study I referred to was a doctoral music education dissertation project I participated in back in the late 1960s at the University of Colorado. My teacher, Prof. Frank Baird, agreed with a person (I wish I could remember the person's name) to use all of his students in the study. This person traveled to about a dozen universities and also included numerous professionals wherever he traveled.

Each player was to inhale purple colored air through a mask connected to a bottle of air. They were to then play C below the staff while the fellow filmed the air coming into the clear mouthpiece. After clearing the mouthpiece with normal air, the player repeated the exercise on third-space C. Then, repeated again on high C.

Months later, my teacher (he died last April) received a synopsis report. Even though players had all sorts of different embouchures........mouthpiece placements, horn angles, jaw positions, etc., the initial air impact (at least what could be called the majority of the airstream) hit the bottom of the mouthpiece. I have always believed this but, like most things in life, it is possible that there are exceptions.

Renold Schilke always stated in his clinics that the airstream needed to hit the side of the cup one or more times before entering the throat of the mouthpiece. This is what sets up some of the initial resistance with playing a trumpet and creates the amplification process. He then said that if the air were to go straight into the throat of the mouthpiece, nothing but a loud air noise (hissing) would be heard.

So, did Reinhardt know what he was talking about? YES!

Is a Type IV embouchure bad? NO!

Did this person's dissertation prove things that greatly effected the trumpet world? NO!

Are there possible exceptions to this person's findings? YES!

Am I WRONG? Well, perhaps if you go only by the Reinhardt terminology.

Am I eating crow (with salt and pepper)? NO!

Dave Hickman

[ This Message was edited by: trpt.hick on 2004-08-11 20:47 ]

[ This Message was edited by: trpt.hick on 2004-08-12 19:06 ]

[Vessehune]

I'm a student at Washington State, and a student of Dave Turnbull's. If anyone is interested in learning more about Reinhardt and the pivot system they should definaltly check out Turnbull's thesis. There is tons of information and pictures of the different embouchure types. To order the thesis go here : http://www.systems.wsu.edu/bin/libdocs/orientation/DissertationExpress.pdf
_________________
---Brian Vessey---
Calicchio 1s-7 Ultra; ML Bore
Mouthpiece = ?????

[Mr.Hollywood]

Just a little clarifiaction here.

A type IV in Reinhardt terminology places the mouthpiece more on the lower lip, not upper.

For the airstream to go up the lower lip must predominate in the cup. The horn angle does not control the airstream. The only thing that governs the airstream is the ratio of upper to lower lip.

More upper lip= downstream
More bottom lip= upsteam

Chris

[trpt.hick]

Mr.Hollywood:

You are absolute correct. Sorry! It was a simple error. OF COURSE, a Type IV embouchure (aperature above center) would have more lower lip under the mouthpiece. I have now edited the one word which was not correct.

Dave Hickman

[ This Message was edited by: trpt.hick on 2004-08-11 20:49 ]

[Mr.Hollywood]

As I've said here many times before, I'm strictly a commercial/jazz type of player. I have little or nothing to do with the "legit" world.

I have a pretty good idea of why Mr. Hickman has been exposed to so few type IV's (upstream). The reason is that they are very rare in the classical field. The sound, and playing qualities of that type lend themselves very strongly toward commercial playing. Not that an upstream type wouldn't make a good legit player, its just that in general they are rare, and even rarer in the classical field.

Most of the really great "triple high note" players where upstream types. Bud Brisbois, Cat Anderson, Andrea Toffinelli, Al Killian and Jon Faddis. The inherent sound of that type is very bright, the high register comes very easy for them. These are the positives. The negatives are that the sound can be thin and shrill at times, good clean tonguing often doesn't come easy to them, and they can also have pitch and control problems.

Remember, these are just very broad generalizations.

Chris

[Fleebat]

The attitude evident in Mr. Hickman's second post may offer a clue about how he's built such an enviable career as a player and teacher. During my first two years in college, he was the grad assistant. Even then, he was an amazing player. One of THOSE guys. Even more lasting for me are my other impressions of him: nice to everyone, and a great sense of humor (red dye in an unused slide, to be ejected after a difficult passage... dry ice in the bell during a tough cadenza. Sorry to "out" you, Dave! And do I remember right... were you actually playing a Conn 22B? Talk about learning over time!)

Another thought--sorry, I still find this really funny and at the same time I'm embarrassed for the site.

What we've seen is a prime example of everyone (nearly) missing a considered opinion or a really valuable piece of advice from a great source, all because someone rushed in to defend some dogmatic set of beliefs that supports their own safe little world. And flamed about it. And we all watched the wreck. Too bad. I suggest that all of us who actually care about furthering our knowledge and playing (rather than furthering an exclusionary cause/legacy) go back and reread the last paragraph of Mr. Hickman's post. To wit:

"So, to answer your basic question about is the "upstream" embourchure wrong, the answer is NO. It is just another way of playing. The only thing to watch out for is excessive upward angle of the horn. This can sometimes cause too much mouthpiece pressure on the top lip, thus hampering vibration in the upper register. "

This addresses the original question from a perspective born of long and broad experience. Matter of fact, I'd be really surprised if that experience didn't include a comprehensive study of Reinhardt's teachings. I've paid really good money in the past for answers like this. Is it LAW? Well, no, but given the source it certainly carries some serious weight. I think this is also a good example of how much we've learned ABOUT learning. Building on what several generations have struggled to learn before us, we have learned even more. Like the fact that there is no ONE perfect embouchure for every player.

I have two copies of the Arban book. The first, purchased in 1972 (cover price, 8 bucks!), is the Arban-CLARKE Method. That's what we all used to call it; not "Arban's," but "Arban/Clark." Arban moved trumpet playing ahead a good ways in his day. Then his Method was "revised and corrected" by Clarke. The second (bought because the first is mostly shreds of paper-like substance by now), says on its cover:
"Arban's" The Authentic Edition. Edited by Edwin Franko Goldman and Walter M. Smith. Annotated by Claude Gordon. (Clarke isn't mentioned; not on the cover, not anywhere in the book!) Both are published by Fischer.

Arban produced some fine students, and I'm sure many of them were fiercely dedicated to him and his teachings. But he was not a God, nor a prophet. He was a guy who worked hard at something and built up a sizable store of knowledge about it. Clarke was not a usurper or detractor. He gathered, in a fraction of the time it took to collect it in the first place, the bulk of Arban's knowledge, then added his own thoughts and experience. Each of these pioneers had followers who resented any and all tweaking with the methods. So along come the next two guys who, with the benefit of having grown up on the original version, have something to add. (Ever read the text of the 1890s version of Arban's? Ever tried to PLAY per that advice? Arban was THE trumpet authority in his day. But a number of his principles are exact opposites of things players and teachers believe today; enough different that they could be called "wrong.")

Reinhardt, Gordon, Stamp, Jacobs, Caruso, Vachianno... Each gave many years in return for what they eventually knew and believed about playing the trumpet. There are some jagged differences between their methods, yet each produced students who are/were among the best. In effect, these men are giving us a COLLECTIVE lesson: that there are indeed several (at least) ways to play the trumpet well. So, as Mr. Hickman puts it, it's just another way of playing. Had to get that off my chest. Rusty Russell

[trpt.hick]

Chris:

Hey, I don't mind that I was not known to you. It is impossible to know everyone, especially outside one's own area. Hopefully, TH will help with this.

You know, I do see a fair amount of Type IV embouchures. They can work for any type of playing. The type of mouthpiece and trumpet (plus tonal concepts and styles of articulation) make the most difference.

I am a firm believer in helping each student find their OWN best way of playing, regardless of what it looks like. This is why the Reinhardt system is a great source of information for teachers to help students develop each individual student's embouchure based on the physical set-up they have to work with (teeth, jaws alaignment, lip size and shape, length of upper lip compared to length of upper front teeth, etc.). I'm sure you are, too.

Dave Hickman

[Fleebat]

Hey, Dave

Could I pick your brain on one of those last points? I think it might benefit a lot of people in similar boats.

Near as I can tell from Reinhardt's own writings and from what his students say, you don't choose your embouchure; it chooses you. In other words, this theory is that a person will gravitate toward the "type" that suits/fits his or her physical traits. A type X player, therefore, MUST play with that embouchure as that is what's dictated by the lips, teeth, jaw, etc. (Reinhardt experts; please excuse the oversimplification. Thanks!)

Advice in this camp is typically against any kind of fundamental embouchure change.

I can certainly see the logic of that with a player who has several years of development on an embouchure. But I wonder...
There are a lot of guys like me out there who played pretty well years ago, then laid it down for years in favor of another (in my case, musical) pursuit. Do you think that, starting from scratch in terms of muscle memory, a person can form whatever embouchure they want and make it work? What do you think might be the limits of this?

A couple of Reinhardt students have casually assessed my embouchure as a type IV in years past. You have personal knowledge of the general embouchure that was "forced" on me in college (not naming names here... won't go there... aaarrrgggh...) It's definitely what Reinhardt people would call upstream, with the jaw extended forward, but the aperature is darn near centered. Caused a lot of smile problems and other troubles. Huge sound in the low and mid ranges, thin/weak up top and articulation was a constant struggle.

A couple years ago when I started playing seriously again, I focused on a very different "set," basically the "say m" thing with a tiny, tiny bit of lower-lip "roll" over the bottom teeth. I was after a fatter sound and evenness through the ranges. It has varied since then; not much roll now, more "meat in the bucket," little things like that. I'm sure you've seen people go through similar transitions, and I'd love to hear your thoughts on any of this. I think many of us are locked in to a mental picture after the very first time we're told how to put the horn to our lips. What you would say to a beginner who'd never formed an embouchure before?

Thanks. Wish I could send some of this nice, coool weather your way!

Rusty Russell

[dbacon]

[LeeC]

As a practicioner of both up AND downstream types my first reaction was to concur with Rich. The airstream must hit the lower side of the mouthpiece if your upper lip dominates (downstream) and vice versa with the lower lip dominant) upstream.

Then after thinking about the matter it occured to me that both camps, Hickman and Reinhardt could be correct. Reinhardt seemed to describe the upstream player as one whose airstream hits the part of the mouthpiece above the throat. This would naturally occur just by using more lower lip. HOWEVER, that doesn't necessarily mean that the airstream is actually going upwards. Just means it's hitting above some portion of the upper part of the mouthpiece. So the true answer may be ambiguous.

Or to put it another way: If I'm throwing a dart at a target and aiming for the upper part of the dartboard i don't necessarily have to be throwing the dart at an upward angle.

[Fleebat]

Okay, now there's a tiny place right behind my left eye that REALLY hurts.

[trpt.hick]

Rusty (Fleebat):

I think LeeC makes good sense here.

In terms of answering some of your questions concerning the Reinhardt system, you should probably ask the guys on the Reinhardt Forum. I'm sure they know his ideas better than I do. I am very familiar with all of Doc's writings, plus many other writings about his ideas, but I am no expert on him.

I think there has already been too much confusion in this thread. My original response was with the assumption that the person sending the topic question was calling an "upstream" player one that tilts the horn at an upward angle, and wanted to know if this was OK or not. (I assumed this because he did not mention Reinhardt or any particular embouchure Type.) I think that many people confuse these two ways of thinking. Since there are still (unfortunately) MANY players that are totally unfamiliar with the Reinhardt books, the only "upstream" term they may have heard deals with the angle of the horn.

All I could really say is that the physical attributes a player possesses will very much direct how the player sets up an efficient embouchure. I, too, remember the good old days when our mutual teacher "gently" forced his own type of embouchure on everyone he taught. I did learn a few things from it and memorized his ideas as a future reference, but I did not (could not!) actually play the way he professed. It seemed to work well for him, and I do know of several of his students who benefitted greatly from his help. But, in general, Reinhardt was perhaps the first to classify different "types" of embouchure based on physical characteristics. He likely WAS the first, and is even today surely the best known pedagogue for this.

I personally feel that forcing an embouchure which does not work easily with one's own physical characteristics is a recipe for disaster. Sometimes short term gains can be made this way, but eventually the player will end up as bad or worse off as where they started.

I am sorry that I cannot offer more specifics without working with you in person.

Nice to hear from you again!

Dave Hickman

[Fleebat]

Dave,

I think you're right about this thread doing plent of "sightseeing" by this point. Still, you cut right to the meat of my question with this:

<All I could really say is that the physical attributes a player possesses will very much direct how the player sets up an efficient embouchure. I, too, remember the good old days when our mutual teacher "gently" forced his own type of embouchure on everyone he taught.>

Don't want you to think I was angling for a freebie lesson; I think LOTS of people could benefit from this advice. I think it's (unfortunately) pretty common for people to develop and play for years on a setup that's really unnatural for them (in my case, it came from a teacher, but there could be a host of origins). Really can squash a person's potential and enthusiasm--heck, I bailed on a free ride in college because of the trouble I had with it. Having a setup that's drastically more natural, less contrived, has made all the difference in the world for me, both in terms of capability and enjoyment. I think this is why Reinhardt had so much success: he analyzed before prescribing a course of action. Thanks again for getting back to us on all this! Best, Rusty Russell

[Mr.Hollywood]

Now that we are all friends again you might be interested in this little Reinhardt story........

Back in 1980 when I was 16 I discoverd that I could play up to triple C's on that upstream Stevens/Costello type setting. I went to my lesson with Doc and showed him this, then proceeded to beg him to change me to that type so I could play those triple C's. The first thing Doc said to me was "Let me hear you single tongue in the middle register", well it sounded really bad. He came to the conclusion that it wouldn't work for me. I persisted, and nagged him and his exact words to me where; "I will not destroy a good trumpet player so he can have a triple C, if you really want to do this go to Roy Stevens because I will have no part of it."

Even though he had a reputation for being an "embrouchure changer" he was absolutlely not. When asked he used to say;"I don't want to give you a new dyke, I just want to plug the holes in the old one."

BTW- just so everybody knows, I'm a type IIIB downstream, which is probably the most common trumpet type.


Chris

[Wilktone]

I have done quite a bit of formal research on brass embouchures. Maybe I can clear up some of the confusion and misunderstandings.

[trpt.hick]

David:

Your photos and explanations are clear and professionally presented. I appreciate that. However, you must also read some of my later posts in this thread where I explain that there seem to be two definitions of "upstream" players. One is based on Reinhardt's terminology, and the other based on a broader term used by many players not referring to the Reinhardt term....that is, players that tilt the trumpet upwards.

I shall hereby RETRACT the statement I made in my first post that said that "there really is no such thing as an "upstream" player." because, obviously, in Reinhardt's terms there is. I based my OPINION about airstream angle on the study I participated in and through my own teaching experience over the past 35 years.

The man that did the dissertation project back in the late 1960s must have never completed his doctorate. Otherwise, I'm sure that you, Turnbull, me, and others would have come across it in researching Reinhardt-related materials. The photos you gave certainly make it APPEAR that the airstream would shoot out straight, thus hitting the top of the cup ("upstream"), or bottom of the cup ("downstream"). HOWEVER, they do not show actual air flow.

My only contention (let's just say, opinion) is that the airstream does not actually shoot out straight (in most cases, let's say). The only evidence I have dealing with the angle of the airstream is that it goes down, but this evidence could certainly be considered "soft," so I may be wrong (at least some of the time) in my conclusion.

Do you know of any other study on airstream angle (and I do not mean this in an antaganistic way)? I don't. I do know that many people ASSUME that the airstream goes into the mouthpiece straight on, but there seems to be no actual proof.

Don't get me wrong. I have a huge respect for Reinhardt's teachings and books. But, just because he said things about airstream angles doesn't mean it is 100% true and to be blindly accepted by all.

I guess in the long run it just doesn't really matter what the air does, or where the mouthpiece sits, or what angle the horn tilts. It's what the player can make happen.

Dave Hickman