SC vs CC

_Don Herman · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 7:41 am Post subject:

Ken -- I'm not an SC (or CC) student, but I am (eternally) curious... Your description above of the "pucker towards the center" has me wondering. Previous SC posts said that Mr. Callet advocated essentially no lip curl. However, if I try to pucker towards the center without puckering outwards as (I think) you described, I am forced to slightly curl my lips to prevent puckering outwards. Is this the way it works, and perhaps another difference between SC and the current Callet teachings? (CC to me is Carmine Caruso, sorry...)

Thanks for your descriptions, and for fueling the fires without fanning the flames. - Don
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley

goldenhornplayer · Posted: Fri Feb 08, 2002 3:19 pm Post subject:

Hi Don and welcome. There's certainly nothing wrong with being curious. Your statement as follows:

"However, if I try to pucker towards the center without puckering outwards as (I think) you described, I am forced to slightly curl my lips to prevent puckering outwards."

The idea of puckering the lips, from the sides and toward the center, is Jerome's way of simply thickening the lips in the center. He is also thinking primarily about the top lip and he's after getting the top lip to be nice and "fleshy" in the center. This is as opposed to pulling back the corners and stretching the lips and making them thinner. In the lower register, the lips can be very relaxed and even allowed to pucker outward slightly but, as you ascend, the top and bottom lips come inward on the top of the beveled tongue. Of course, we're mainly concentrating on the top lip and tongue relationship and making sure the top lip, not only comes down on the tongue, but inward on the tongue as well. In that sense, the top lip is not "curling" but simply gripping or pressing against the tongue. That's why you'll hear about the buzzing being between the soft inner tissue of the top lip and the tongue. If you curl too much, you get on the firmer part of the top lip and that's not good for CC. I realize these ideas are very different from how most folks play but this is what Jerome has come up with and it seems to work exceedingly well.
_________________
Psalm 98:6

_Don Herman · Posted: Sat Feb 09, 2002 1:51 pm Post subject:

Think I got it -- thanks!

The whole tounge bit is curious (to me anyway). The times in the past (take with large block of salt) anything advocating such a tounge position (or anywhere close) was pretty much a "learning" tool to help set the lips, like Caruso's and Callet's "spit a seed off the tounge" advice. Once lip position was learned, the tounge was allowed (encouraged, usually) to drop down and allow a more open (resonant) oral cavity and stimulate a larger airflow. This newest CC material may not follow that trend, since it seems to exaggerate it more than most (again, "most" being a pretty small number of comparisons for me).

Very interesting, nonetheless, and it certainly seems to be helping people. Like most things, it takes a bit to figure out if it will help or hurt. Certainly having a good teacher is far and away the best thing to do, but at least there are plenty of souls on TH willing to do all they can for long distance learning.

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

Wtrager · Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2002 6:38 pm Post subject:

"Is this the way it works, and perhaps another difference between SC and the current Callet teachings? (CC to me is Carmine Caruso, sorry...)"
Don,
You bring up a very good point. Frankly, I'm getting confused with the use of the initials CC. We have a Carmine Caruso forum, and so I keep thinking Caruso everytime the term CC is mentioned. Perhaps we can collectively come up with terms to define each technique being discussed. i.e.- Caruso(CC), SuperChops(SC), Callet's present teachings as (JC), Callet's early trumpet yoga as either (TY, or BE, or something). Jerry lives fairly close to me, and I have had the opportunity to meet with him on several occasions. I have a lot of respect for the man, but the problem that I see is that Trumpet Yoga is juxtiposed to Super Chops, and what Ken is describing as current Callet is somewhat juxtiposed to Super Chops. Frankly, I find it all very confusing. Maybe that's why I love Caruso so much.
Sincerely,
Wayne
http://communities.msn.com/TragerTrumpetTalk

_bugleboy · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 12:14 am Post subject:

I agree completely. Plus I already referred to Carmine Caruso in the old forum as CC, and since CC are his initials they ought to be reserved as an abbreviated reference to him. Much more logical.

Maybe something like JC2 or JCC would be better for the current Callet approach.

_________________
Charles Raymond

[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2002-02-11 03:21 ]

Lee Adams · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 6:26 am Post subject:

A few weeks ago I set up a thread for Ken Barnes and others to use in the SC Forum.
I named it Callet's Continuing Works because I knew that CC was already being used in the forum for Carmine Caruso.
Anyway the thread had to be removed because of controversy and negativity but maybe the initials based on that thread where Callet's newest incarnation was first discussed could be used?

Callet's Continuing Works= CCW

Just an idea to prevent any further confusion.

As always AAtozhvac@cs.com 706-347-2429

Lee Adams

goldenhornplayer · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 6:29 am Post subject:

Charles and Wayne--Good points. Obviously, this is something I had not considered when I came up with CC (Current Callet) designation. Jerome still calls what he is currently teaching Superchops but, as you know, there was a need to differentiate between the old and new approaches. Maybe we need to use CCSC for Current Callet Superchops. I certainly don't have a problem with that and, if it will reduce confusion, we probably should make that change. Thanks for the suggestion.
_________________
Psalm 98:6

_bugleboy · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 7:41 am Post subject:

Why not SC2 (as in SC also). The fewer letters the better. Just a thought. Trying to keep the two Cs from being together.

goldenhornplayer · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 7:57 am Post subject:

Charles- I sure do want to come up with something to accomodate you and, apparently, it needs to be something without 2 C's together. How about CSC for Current Superchops? Do you see any conflict there? The reasoning behind CSC is that SC is Callet anyway so putting a C for Callet is redundant. I think it is important to have the C for current because as long as Jerome is around, his approach is likely to continue to evolve. By using CSC, we'll always be referring to what he is currently teaching. Thanks-Ken.

_bugleboy · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 8:31 am Post subject:

Ken,

Whatever you decide will accomodate me. The important thing is that it accomodate you. If you use abbreviations that get confused with another method, sometimes the perceptions get muddled. For example, I would have thought this thread was a discussion pitting Super Chops against Carmine Caruso.

Also, the weakness in using the term "current" to define an approach by Jerry Callet is that the current today may not be the current tomorrow. Maybe his initials need to be dated, something like JC01, JC02, etc. Then, for example, JC02 would always mean the way Jerry callet was teaching in 2002. It does get confusing though if he refers to two different approaches by the same name. Maybe the SC abbreviation needs to be dated to be more precise.

Whatever you guys figure out will be fine with me.

_________________
Charles Raymond

[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2002-02-11 11:32 ]

goldenhornplayer · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 8:49 am Post subject:

Charles--My immediate concern, that you first raised, is to remove any confusion caused to your forum by using the letters CC. It sounds like using CSC for now, for current Superchops, will be fine as far as you're concerned. You're right that we may need to come up with some way of dating current teachings from Jerome but that's our problem. We can certainly address that as we go along. Thanks for bringing this to my attention. Sincerely, Ken Barnes.

edtaylor · Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2002 8:02 pm Post subject:

I have discovered that I have a problem with either approach. Even though I thought I was making progress with a closed embouchere I find that I am puffing. It's hard to describe but I am blowing the lips open slightly as I articulate. I am now trying to concentrate on closed and my tone is ratty.
By His love, Ed Taylor

airegin · Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2002 4:27 am Post subject:

Hi Ed,

Could it be that with a "closed" lip setting that your lips feel "open"?

My OPINION is that in a "closed" embouchure, without blowing air causing the lips to open, they are closed........while in an "open" setting, without blowing air, the lips are open in the middle (not touching each other).

Rob
_________________
Rob Lauderdale

goldenhornplayer · Posted: Tue Feb 12, 2002 5:26 am Post subject:

Attention to all: Based on the previous posts, I am starting a new thread under Pedagogy. This is to remove the CC reference since some felt we might be referring to Carmine Caruso. The new thread will be called CSC for Current Superchops. I would ask everyone to cooperate by not making any further posts under this SC vs CC thread. Thanks-Ken Barnes.

[ This Message was edited by: goldenhornplayer on 2002-02-12 08:27 ]