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

Gold versus Silver Mouthpiece?



 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> The Balanced Embouchure
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
_Don Herman
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3344
Location: Monument, CO, USA

PostPosted: Sun Jan 11, 2004 7:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi,

Here's a dumb question for those "in the know" about BE: Does it work better with a gold or silver mpc? Or does it matter?

This is akin to the wet/dry thread... On one hand, the lower coefficient of friction with a gold mpc (i.e. it's slippier) would seem to enhance lip movement, making it easier to learn and/or adapt to BE. OTOH, the silver would lock down the outer "grip" better, confining the lip movements to inside the mpc, where they belong.

This is slightly more than idle curiousity (though that is one of my eternal failings). I really like the feel of gold mpcs, but silver works better for me. I've been working more BE and Caruso into my (sporadic) practice routine, and as I continue I'd like to know if BE might help me play better on gold. Please avoid the temptation to post that I should pick one and learn to play it -- that's what I've done so far, and silver works better but gold feels better. And, I have to make sure I can play to the best of my ability (not saying much, but...) at services and performances, so silver it's been most of the time. I'm tempted to switch to gold for practicing, but figured a few of y'all might (just might, mind you ) have an opinion on the matter.

Thanks! - Don (the ever curious)
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
oj
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 1699
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 2:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

It doesn't matter.... as I'm sure you know

I started a topic in this forum .. "that B.E. work on all brass". It does!

On tuba I have a Bruno Tilz 3 silver mpc, on french horn a Bach 3 (also silver). B.E. works. On tenor horn (alto horn) I have a screwrim JK with a silver and a plastic rim - it works on both.

On trumpet I have two different GR 66 mpc's in gold plating (one with a more shallow cup). It works great on both, but it is due to the great design by Gary Radtke, not the gold.

The good thing about playing different brass is that you really know that you are the player. The different horns (or tubing) only makes the sound project.

Ole
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
_Don Herman
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3344
Location: Monument, CO, USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 6:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey oj,

Good to "talk" with you again!

As for the mouthpiece finish, I'm sure in the long run it doesn't matter, and probably very little in the short run. I know some techniques are more mouthpiece sensitive for beginners, and some players seem more sensitive to mouthpieces than others. What I'm curious about is whether you (or somebody) has tried BE with both, and if one seemed to work "better" for some reason. Pure curiosity, no doubt that either will work fine, but if I was starting out, or advising somebody just starting out who was buying a new mouthpiece at the same time, and wanted to choose between two mouthpieces that were the same except for finish (gold or silver), which should I choose?

Thanks! - Don
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
_PhilPicc
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 15 Jan 2002
Posts: 2286
Location: Clarkston, Mi. USA

PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Don,

You question made me curious so I tried a few different combinations. My trumpet piece is gold and I have the same piece in silver for cornet that I no longer use.

My first test was gold on trumpet silver on cornet. The silver seemed slightly more responsive but there was the difference in the horns.

I then tried gold on trumpet and silver cornet piece with a sleeve on trumpet. Again the silver piece was slightly more responsive but there is the back-bore considerations between the trumpet and cornet pieces.

Both pieces were a Bach 10-1/2C and I used the BE Advanced Lip Slurs #11.

I don't know what any of this means but it did make me play the horn a little more.

Regards,
Phil

P.S. I play on what is probably considered a moist embouchure. I think it is just a matter of getting used to either gold or silver. I use gold on trumpet, cornet and picc.
_________________
Philip Satterthwaite

We cannot expect you to be with us all the time, but perhaps you could be good enough to keep in touch now and again."
- Sir Thomas Beecham to a musician during a rehearsal
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
TXBD
Regular Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2002
Posts: 35
Location: Edna, TX

PostPosted: Mon Jan 12, 2004 7:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don,

I do about 99.9% of my playing on gold. I really like it. I don't, however, dislike silver. Like Phil, I have like-sized mouthpieces, one in silver and one in gold. I'll do some similar experimentation and report back.

Billy Marquis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
TXBD
Regular Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2002
Posts: 35
Location: Edna, TX

PostPosted: Wed Jan 14, 2004 5:57 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Don,

I did my gold vs. silver experiment, & here are my conclusions:
- I did feel a little extra "grip" with the silver as opposed to the gold.
- I did not find that the extra "grip" necessarily gave me better results.
So, I will continue to enjoy my gold plated mpc. Anyway, you will be soaring so high and with such ease after mastering BE, the extra "grip" won't be a factor. Best of luck with BE!

Billy Marquis
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
_dcstep
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 6324
Location: Denver

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 1:10 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I find "grip" to be less important with BE because I'm using less pressure so there's little danger that my gold GR is going to slide off my lips and up my nose.

Dave
_________________
Schilke '60 B1 -- 229 Bach-C/19-350 Blackburn -- Lawler TL Cornet -- Conn V1 Flugel -- Stomvi Master Bb/A/G picc -- GR mpcs
[url=http://www.pitpops.com] The PitPops[/url]
Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
trumpetjunkie
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 622

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey Don,
Isn't BE a direct violation of the Chigaco School theory? How do you manage to do both?
Curious,
~Kaleb
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address MSN Messenger
_dcstep
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 6324
Location: Denver

PostPosted: Fri Jan 16, 2004 7:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"Chicago School theory", isn't that an oxymoron? Chicago School says, "play these slurs and everything will take care of itself" or "don't think about what you're doing, just play music and everything will take care of itself". Didn't work for me...

Dave
_________________
Schilke '60 B1 -- 229 Bach-C/19-350 Blackburn -- Lawler TL Cornet -- Conn V1 Flugel -- Stomvi Master Bb/A/G picc -- GR mpcs
[url=http://www.pitpops.com] The PitPops[/url]
Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
oj
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 06 Jan 2003
Posts: 1699
Location: Norway

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 2:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

If you by "Chicago School" mean the philosophy that we find in books about Arnold Jacobs, you should find several things in common between B.E. and "Song & Wind".

Jacobs talk about different "hats", Jeff (on page 27) talk about left-brained (The Scientist) and right-brained (The Feeler).

Use both!
But as Jacobs say, when walking on stage, you should not bring the "analytical hat". When doing B.E.-exercises you should do them and not analyze too much. Just look at how easy Jeff's students do the exercises, they don't analyze, they just roll-in/roll-out and play!

We could say that B.E. and "Chicago School" both are indirect methods.

A good strategy (and compromise) between them could be:
When you have developed thet basic playing skills through B.E., you can go on and develop the musician in yourself with "Song & Wind". And when you still do some B.E. exercises, like playing lip slurs, you can "think up when going down, and up when going down" (ok - this last one was perhaps more Jimmy Stamp, but still)....

Ole

[ This Message was edited by: oj on 2004-01-17 06:03 ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
_Don Herman
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3344
Location: Monument, CO, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 10:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hmmm... Never expected a Chicago School debate in BE! Nor a BE debate in Chiacgo, I guess...

OJ said it pretty well. As for me, I tend to start with a few BE exercises, then Caruso, then move on to music. Probably my biggest issue is trying to make BE and Caruso sound good -- I have to constantly resist the urge to make ugly, chop building stuff pretty. I have no problem reconciling the two. Jacobs handed his students quite a few exercises, some very similar to BE and Caruso. My teacher has no problem with what I do, and if it helps, he'll do it too! And, he's a direct Jacobs student. The ultimate goal is to make music, and at the end after the exercises that's the focus of every system.

I do want to, with Jeff's permission, address Dave's comments. I have heard statements like that from others, and I believe they are rooted in bad, or at least incomplete, teaching and/or poor learning. The Chiago School is anti-analytic -- see Jacobs' works! -- but seeks to guide physcial development through sound images. Rather than telling somebody to work their chops "this" way, give them a sound to copy that makes them work their chops "this" way while they are thinking about copying your sound, not physically manipulating the chops. The result is the same, but the path is different. Some may respond well, some may not, to such an approach. Some who do not likely feel they need to analyze their playing and want to hear exactly what to do from their teacher. Instead, a Chicago teacher will focus on music, or sound, and lead the student using a sound model instead of physical descriptions. A student looking for physical descriptions may not get them.

The flip side is that some teachers may apply the sound model concept without really understanding what's needed. Telling a player to use more air doesn't necessarily help any, and playing a double C isn't magically going to give one to a student. Instead, a series of sound models can be used to develop these concepts, while guiding physical development such that the student eventually uses more air, and gets that double C.

Lots more, but I'm "out of forum!" Hopefully this will resolve the BE vs. Chicago issue for some of you, and help debunk a myth or two...

Later - Don
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
_dcstep
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 6324
Location: Denver

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 5:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

On 2004-01-17 13:54, Don Herman wrote:


I do want to, with Jeff's permission, address Dave's comments. I have heard statements like that from others, and I believe they are rooted in bad, or at least incomplete, teaching and/or poor learning. The Chiago School is anti-analytic -- see Jacobs' works! -- but seeks to guide physcial development through sound images. Rather than telling somebody to work their chops "this" way, give them a sound to copy that makes them work their chops "this" way while they are thinking about copying your sound, not physically manipulating the chops. The result is the same, but the path is different. Some may respond well, some may not, to such an approach.


With all due respect, this is where we differ. I always had a good sound concept and image. (When just 10, I heard Don Jacoby live from about 30 feet away and sound is still in my head). Unfortunatley I was self-taught for my first four years and made first chair all district (junior high) before my first lesson. My sound was big and I had plenty of range for that repretoire, BUT my embouchure was open and I played with my head down and horn up (like I'd seen some greats do on TV). My first teacher immediately made me pull the horn down and started me slurring and playing all kinds of excercises to "fix" my "problem". Because I had a great sound concept (the instructor was always complementing my tone and ear and I made first chair as a sophomore at a five-A high school) I played well IN SPITE of my open embouchure because I always found a way to make a good sound no matter how I was told to hold my horn. I'm a physical person and played multi-sports and knew how to endure pain (played games with broken hands and nose). If I needed to play higher I just pulled a little harder. Our highest music only went to E above high C and I was playing several hours daily, so I could always make the needed note.

A little analysis would have been really nice when I was 14. My ex-Goldman Band soloist instructor had no clue what I was doing wrong. Occasionally he'd say, use less pressure, BUT he gave me no tool to achieve that goal. You cannot just pull the horn away from your face. I'd never heard of the "Chicago School" back in the 1960s, but I'm certain it's the school of thought that instructor belongs in.

One one-hour lesson with Pops fixed my open embouchure and ended decades of suffering and freed me to really enjoy trumpeting. My range and endurance increased dramatically in a few weeks.

BE give tools to make changes or, better yet, start out right. BE is taking my closed embouchure and enhancing it. It's amazing how you can study BE and continue with your other routines. (Pops doesn't teach BE and I'm finding BE to enhance the direction that Pops started me toward).

Sorry to drag Chicago into BE. I probably should have just kept my mouth shut. I should forgive and forget the incompetence of my early instructors (there was more than one culprit, but I just singled out the first guy that made me pull the horn down). I'm over it and promise to resist zinging the Chicago School ever again. Cross my heart.

BTW, after I make my ugly noises with BE, I move onto music.

Dave
_________________
Schilke '60 B1 -- 229 Bach-C/19-350 Blackburn -- Lawler TL Cornet -- Conn V1 Flugel -- Stomvi Master Bb/A/G picc -- GR mpcs
[url=http://www.pitpops.com] The PitPops[/url]
Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
_Don Herman
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3344
Location: Monument, CO, USA

PostPosted: Sat Jan 17, 2004 8:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Dave,

My teacher, as Chicago as they come, has no problem analyzing things if needed. I've seen him become somewhat incensed at another local teacher who told his student to "keep trying and it will come, listen to the sound" when the student was struggling with range and endurance. My teacher fixed the problem, not all that gradually, using sound models. And, pushing the student! He will get down to physical details if pressed, but will ALWAYS go back to the music, and lead you to it. And yes, he can play into the double range. And yes, he's a symphony player, and a darned good one. I'm sorry your teacher didn't match you, or you he, or was unable to apply the principles as they should be applied, but I have seen it work in myself and others. FWIW, I have also witnessed, and heard, the results of others' failings due to inadequate (to avoid the word "incompetent") guidance. From any number of schools of thought.

Rather than rant away at the drawbacks of inadequate teaching, which I have experienced though long ago, or teachers, a fear which makes me very hesitant to "teach" anyone besides myself, let me bring this back to BE. It seems BE worked for you, and has worked for most everybody who has tried it. That's what I meant when I mentioned that some people "respond" to certain teachings, and some do not. (I'm not saying your teacher was at fault, or you -- I can not know that, and it's not relevant to my point, as if I have one!) Ultimately, we are our own teachers. Couple that with a desire to UNcouple the analytic side of brain (very tough for me, as an analog IC designer), and hopefully that will explain why I like BE, and Caruso, and the Chicago school. One thing they all share is a focus on making things work without too much analysis, or trying to micro-control every muscle in my face. In exercises, maybe, in music, no. I'm for anything which helps me make music, and that helps others do the same. I could undoubtedly generate a long list of supporters and detractors for any school (method, whatever) I could think about. I try very hard not to malign any other school of thought, mainly because I don't feel competent, or just don't feel the need. I love to play, and I love to learn. What greater joy than to find something which helps me do both! BE can unlock the "key" for many people, as has been proven. Doesn't mean there aren't other keys for the door, and other doors...

Direct approaches work great for some. There are many such methods.

Indirect methods work for others. There are a few of these, too.

All methods lead toward making music, and increasing our ability to share our joy in music with others, whether players and audience members.

I bet we don't differ on that at all.

Lest I've wandered too far off, I'll close with the comment that Jeff has personally waged a battle to bring a method forward which all players can use, and has devoted himself to fighting for every one of us whom has ever struggled to make music with our trumpets. To my mind, BE is a continuation of the evolution, if not revolution, in modern trumpet pedagogy. An approach that promises to let everybody who wants to play trumpet, do it, and as a musician, not a trumpet player. One that helps us teach ourselves. Heck, what engineer could resist an approach that encourages experimentation!

Share the music!

Peace - Don

*edit* Reread this post. Geez, all this from a curiousity about whether gold slip versus silver grip works better for BE! I did mean NOT mean it to sound like such a whining riot act. Sorry for such ranting -- I've a massive headache, a sore back, and an early morn. Excuses, I know. Please take nothing personally! I suspect I'll be, or Jeff will be, wiping all my babbling in this thread in the calmer morning light. Until then, I feel better for the post. Until tomorrow - Don

_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley

[ This Message was edited by: Don Herman on 2004-01-17 23:19 ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> The Balanced Embouchure All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
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