| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
lubonv
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 787
Location: Paris - France
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 26, 2007 11:42 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| Quote: | | I think most would be surprised how most great players keep their toungues out of the way not adding additional resistance. Which is completely unnecessary. |
  When they don't get it they don't get it!  
_________________
"For if the trumpet has an uncertain sound who will prepare himself for the battle?" Paul, Ch.
Custom Made Slide Trumpet & Slide Flugelhorn
SC3
Myspace |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
jonas quizman
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| goldenhornplayer wrote: | | On the other hand, I also believe it is an increased degree of air compression that creates great power and sound so it's becomes more an argument of how a great player compresses air. In TCE, the tongue is the main focus of how this is done... |
Ken, in the Superchops/TCE context there is so much talk about air compression, but the term has not been clearly defined yet. Do you mean that if you compress the air properly by the TCE-like use of the tongue, you literally increase the density of the air? Or is air compression just another term for raising the kinetic energy of the gas molecules by speeding up the gas flow which would be done by what Mr. Callet calls the tongue aperture and the contact between upper lip and tongue surface?
A few hints would be very helpful. Thanks in advance.
jonas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
healey.cj
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 1:46 am Post subject: |
|
|
To put it simply for everyone (i like simple):
The air flow through the horn is of a secondary nature - If our lips could buzz/vibrate without the air flow no air movement would be needed (bar the movement due to compressional sound waves)
However, a certain amount of air is needed to make the lips vibrate and hence get a tone.
BUT what most people don't realise is that the air is moving through the horn very slowly - the sound waves will leave the bell a long time before the inital input of air makes it to the bell.
Hence, getting a note on the horn is about getting the lips to vibrate fully at the correct pitch - Different airflow is required to make that happen.
But very efficent plays (and you can pick them because they play easily) probably move very little air through the horn.
Our goal as trumpet players is to get the lips to vibrate fully with the least possible airflow. Now this will never approach anything in the realm of Zero (0) but it is a considerable amount less than most think or conceptualise.
I'm not a TCE user, nor do i have or claim to have any real knowledge into how it works, but i would say if you are getting a good spit-buzz without a whole lot of air then you are on the RIGHT track.
Hope this helps,
Chris 
p.s nor do i claim to be a scientist or expert on the matter. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonas quizman
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 2:26 am Post subject: |
|
|
| healey.cj wrote: | To put it simply for everyone (i like simple):
The air flow through the horn is of a secondary nature - If our lips could buzz/vibrate without the air flow no air movement would be needed (bar the movement due to compressional sound waves)
However, a certain amount of air is needed to make the lips vibrate and hence get a tone.
BUT what most people don't realise is that the air is moving through the horn very slowly - the sound waves will leave the bell a long time before the inital input of air makes it to the bell.
Hence, getting a note on the horn is about getting the lips to vibrate fully at the correct pitch - Different airflow is required to make that happen.
But very efficent plays (and you can pick them because they play easily) probably move very little air through the horn.
Our goal as trumpet players is to get the lips to vibrate fully with the least possible airflow. Now this will never approach anything in the realm of Zero (0) but it is a considerable amount less than most think or conceptualise.
I'm not a TCE user, nor do i have or claim to have any real knowledge into how it works, but i would say if you are getting a good spit-buzz without a whole lot of air then you are on the RIGHT track.
Hope this helps,
Chris
p.s nor do i claim to be a scientist or expert on the matter. |
Chris, there is nothing wrong with putting things simple as long as you 'approximately' nail the truth by doing so. My question concerned the term 'air compression' and you responded to it by 'simply' ignoring its precise content. I would guess that such theoretical simplicity is going a bit too far.
jonas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
healey.cj
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 2011
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 4:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
i was answering the original question...
| Quote: | | This left me wondering, about how much air should be traveling through the trumpet when playing the TCE way? |
I'm going to leave your question to Darryl (Kalijah) as he'd probably tear anything i say to shreads and point out countless flaws  
Sorry about the confusion,
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3287
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:28 am Post subject: |
|
|
c.j.,
You have a "simple" understanding of how you think this works. And I don't think you bothered to attempt to understand, or read what I have written above.
Simple does not mean accurate or correct.
| Quote: | | - If our lips could buzz/vibrate without the air flow no air movement would be needed (bar the movement due to compressional sound waves) However, a certain amount of air is needed to make the lips vibrate and hence get a tone. |
If you could get the lips to vibrate the way they do without pulsed air flow into the mp on each "open" aperture cycle there would be very little sound produced. I mean VERY little. Because there would be very little energy or power aplied to the sound.
| Quote: | | BUT what most people don't realise is that the air is moving through the horn very slowly - the sound waves will leave the bell a long time before the inital input of air makes it to the bell. |
c.j. , friend, think before you write.
Yes, the resonance propogates at near the speed of sound. But the air blown into the mp does not have to "reach" the bell for sound to happen. The horn already has air in it. Air does have to enter the mouthpiece in pulses for there to be power to the sound. And when this happens the air will begin flowing from the bell at the same instant.
| Quote: | | But very efficent plays (and you can pick them because they play easily) probably move very little air through the horn. |
It is true that efficiency is about using less air flow, and pressure for that matter. But the BEST one can approach is the minimum flow for the volume they wish to play. This minimum, as I stated before, is a requirement of the horn acoustics , not simply to make the lips vibrate.
Besides, it is air pressure, not flow, that causes the lip vibrations, or "pulses".
Last edited by kalijah on Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:49 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3287
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
jonas wrote:
| Quote: | | Ken, in the Superchops/TCE context there is so much talk about air compression, but the term has not been clearly defined yet. Do you mean that if you compress the air properly by the TCE-like use of the tongue, you literally increase the density of the air? Or is air compression just another term for raising the kinetic energy of the gas molecules by speeding up the gas flow which would be done by what Mr. Callet calls the tongue aperture and the contact between upper lip and tongue surface?
|
jonas,
You have now delved into questions about the science of air flow. There are few here that can accurately discuss the topic. You will get plenty of opinions about what people "believe" or "feel", just beware that they will attempt to pass it off as "science".
The air can not be appreciably "compressed" in the ranges of pressure we use.
They are speaking of "pressure".
| Quote: | | Or is air compression just another term for raising the kinetic energy of the gas molecules by speeding up the gas flow |
The total energy, or pressure, of the air is not defined by the kinetic energy alone. As a matter of fact for a closed system, any increases in kinetic energy are balanced by a drop in static pressure.
The problem is that if you reduce a segment of the flow path you have very drastic and immediate losses of the total air energy or pressure through this "reduced" path due to the viscousity of air. That is, friction. These losses can not be recovered, regardless of the "kinetic" energy or air velocity.
It would be like paying a dollar for a dime's worth of air speed.
TCE is an "embouchure" method. It does not, any any way, increase the air pressure, or reduce the air flow requirements of the horn. Don't be confused.
Darryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
razeontherock
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 05 Jun 2004
Posts: 10609
Location: The land of GR and Getzen
|
| Posted: Tue Mar 27, 2007 3:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kalijah wrote: |
I fail to see the connection between the "experiment" and your claims of TCE.
|
The connection is that the experiment proves playing trpt is not all about moving large quantities of air. This is perhaps the most integral, and controversial aspect of Callet's methods in, say the last decade. It also 100% clashes with his previous findings.
I also agree with the above post, and bet many could benefit from absorbing it.
Personally, Kalijah's insight has helped me develop my SC. (or TCE if you still prefer) Before exploring his view I failed to see that part of this system depends on dropping the tongue as much as possible behind the wedge. I still don't really know why that helps, but it is necessary for me to get a tone that pleasant.
I can tell you that my body seems to be hard wired, so that my corners, my jaw and the middle and back part of my tongue all seem to function as one. IF I can drop the mid and back of my tongue, I can also loosen my corners and my jaw opens better. THEN I have unlimited endurance.
_________________
"And this is life: that you know the Son, and the One who sent Him." The rest is just details |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
healey.cj
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 2011
|
| Posted: Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
Darryl,
| Quote: | | You have a "simple" understanding of how you think this works. And I don't think you bothered to attempt to understand, or read what I have written above. |
I am probably one of the few people who do bother (no offense meant), admittedly i only skimmed over what you said.
| Quote: | | Simple does not mean accurate or correct. |
Simple means easy to comprehend. Most people when asked what gravity is will respond something like:
"a force that attracts objects towards the ground"
Now that is FAR from being the answer! and most people wouldn't have any idea of 'wells' and curvature in spacetime and how they create gavitational force, but they know enough to understand that an object will fall.
And if all they are trying to do is know what will happen to a ball if they let go of it, then they know sufficent information.
SOMETIMES, simple is enough. Sometimes LESS is MORE.
| Quote: | Quote:
BUT what most people don't realise is that the air is moving through the horn very slowly - the sound waves will leave the bell a long time before the inital input of air makes it to the bell.
...
c.j. , friend, think before you write.
...
Yes, the resonance propogates at near the speed of sound. But the air blown into the mp does not have to "reach" the bell for sound to happen. |
We are in total agreement on this one!? That was my exact point. I was trying to point out that air moves through the horn only because we need air flow to establish the vibration of the lip (which is the result of pulsation)
Oh, and I did think about it, you just interpreted what i said slightly differently to what i meant.
| Quote: |
But the BEST one can approach is the minimum flow for the volume they wish to play. This minimum, as I stated before, is a requirement of the horn acoustics , not simply to make the lips vibrate. |
And i am pursuming the airflow and pressure will be less when you add the acoustic feedback of the horn?
This is why lip buzzing is not the exact same as the on-horn setup. Because when playing you have continually varying degrees of feedback which do not exist when lip-buzzing. Hence, the lip buzzing formation will be slightly 'tighter' then the on horn formation for the same note (pursuming you want good sound hehe) (???)
Nice Talking with you!
Chris
p.s. I saw in one of your posts something that implied you had written a method book... have you? (i think it was your post...) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonas quizman
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Thu Mar 29, 2007 5:33 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kalijah wrote: | | Quote: | | Or is air compression just another term for raising the kinetic energy of the gas molecules by speeding up the gas flow |
The total energy, or pressure, of the air is not defined by the kinetic energy alone. As a matter of fact for a closed system, any increases in kinetic energy are balanced by a drop in static pressure. |
You are right, but I wonder why you mention it, since I did not say or imply the opposite anywhere. I simply requested an explanation of the term 'air compression' that has been used by the TCE/Superchops expert 'goldenhornplayer' and is also used by Mr. Callet himself.
| kalijah wrote: | The air can not be appreciably "compressed" in the ranges of pressure we use.
They are speaking of "pressure". |
Darryl, since I agree with you that in the context of trumpet playing, it would be no false simplification to consider the air as incompressible gas, my guess was that then air compression must refer to the transformation of potential energy in kinetic energy by narrowing the path the gas has to travel through. In TCE/Superchops this is accomplished by the application of the tongue aperture and the contact of the upper lip with the tongue surface. You objected to this idea by saying:
| kalijah wrote: | The problem is that if you reduce a segment of the flow path you have very drastic and immediate losses of the total air energy or pressure through this "reduced" path due to the viscousity of air. That is, friction. These losses can not be recovered, regardless of the "kinetic" energy or air velocity.
It would be like paying a dollar for a dime's worth of air speed. |
What you state here is conflicting with two premises you made and at least needs further clarification. First, you based your argument on the Bernoulli Principle that can be derived from the law of the conversation of energy. But this principle is based on the assumption that the fluid considered is inviscid! Why do you drop this assumption without giving any reason when the flow path is narrowed?
Second, you emphasized that air should be considered incompressible in regard to playing brass instruments. But you also claim that due to the viscousity of air in an 'reduced' flow path all gain in kinetic engergy is at least cancelled out. But why should the viscousity of air that travels along the same surface be any different in a reduced flow path if the density of air is not changed (because air is approximately incompressible)?
| kalijah wrote: | | TCE is an "embouchure" method. It does not, any any way, increase the air pressure, or reduce the air flow requirements of the horn. Don't be confused. |
My initial question as to the explanation of 'air compression' in the TCE/Superchops context remains without a correct answer. I wonder why the TCE experts Ken and Kyle do not jump in here to fill the gaps of lacking knowledge?
jonas |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andiroo
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 711
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3287
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 8:56 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Notice how NO AIR is going down the trumpet. |
How do you gather that? From the live shot or the animation?
The wave shown on the animation is actually imposed over the slow steady flow of the air thru the horn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3287
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Fri Mar 30, 2007 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | First, you based your argument on the Bernoulli Principle that can be derived from the law of the conversation of energy. But this principle is based on the assumption that the fluid considered is inviscid! Why do you drop this assumption without giving any reason when the flow path is narrowed? |
An inviscid fluid or gas would give the "best case". So even if there were no friction losses due to viscocity. The BEST case of the total energy of the air will be the same energy as the air had when it was in the lungs at full static pressure and zero velocity.
| Quote: | | Second, you emphasized that air should be considered incompressible in regard to playing brass instruments. But you also claim that due to the viscousity of air in an 'reduced' flow path all gain in kinetic engergy is at least cancelled out. |
That is not what I said. Disregarding viscousity (invicsid), that is, BEST case:
The gains in ram pressure due to increased (average) air velocity are exactly balanced with an equal reduction in the static pressure. So the total pressure (energy of the air) is constant. Regardless of the velocity.
The erroneous assumption made by tonge-compressionists is that air at zero velocity has zero energy and that air at high velocity has high energy. That is they consider ONLY the kinetic energy of the air's relative flow and hang their claims on that. Which is misrepresentation and ignorance. (Ignoring the static pressure of the air and the total pressure of the air).
| Quote: | | But why should the viscousity of air that travels along the same surface be any different in a reduced flow path if the density of air is not changed (because air is approximately incompressible)? |
I never said it was different.
The viscousity is not simply due to the surface/air contact. It is due to the laminar flow of the air. The velocity of the air at the flow boundary is essentially zero regardless of the average velocity.
Losses of pressure through segments of air flow are inversely proportional to the radius of that path to the 4th power. So the loss of pressure increases very very rapidly as you reduce segments of the flow path.
Also, for most very small flow paths of significant length, turbulence will occur and the pressure losses are even greater.
Now TCE users describe having to increase the air pressure of the lungs to play due to the resistance (restriction) of the tongue. The misconception is that they are increasing the pressure of the air that enters the mouthpiece when in fact the increased lung pressure is required due to pressure losses in the restriction and to maintain flow, flow that IS required to apply power to the sound. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andiroo
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 711
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 5:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
kalijah watch the video again. He is playing his trumpet like a flute, the trumpet is perpendicular to his face, he is buzzing on a cut off MPC where the air stream doesn't go down the trumpet.
_________________
Dizzy kicks brass!
Talent isn't natural, its hard work... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lubonv
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 787
Location: Paris - France
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 6:32 am Post subject: |
|
|
Andiroo, very interesting videos, thank you for pointing that out.
Watching closely the trombone video and the trombone video from the side is evident that there is a glass surface in front of the lips closing the embouchure (and also for the trumpet piece) and a hole going to the instrument on the side, so some exalation air will go through (anyway vibrating waves need matter {air} to move on) the instrument.
Anyway the concept is clear: the air is not 'blown' into the instrument.
It would be great to talk to that guys to learn more and understand more, and apply just what is necessary to our playing (TCE).
Lb
_________________
"For if the trumpet has an uncertain sound who will prepare himself for the battle?" Paul, Ch.
Custom Made Slide Trumpet & Slide Flugelhorn
SC3
Myspace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3287
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 8:34 am Post subject: |
|
|
andiroo:
| Quote: | | kalijah watch the video again. He is playing his trumpet like a flute, the trumpet is perpendicular to his face, he is buzzing on a cut off MPC where the air stream doesn't go down the trumpet. |
No, the far side of this rim is a "window" it is not simply an "open" rim.
Look at the straight-on video of the same type device, you can see the moisture actually accumulating on the window. (Look under videos)
http://iwk.mdw.ac.at/TRP/
The full 100 percent of the air pressure pulses, and the net flow, flow goes into the instrument through the port.
This also demonstrates that the pressure pulses or "flow" need not be "aimed" at the mp throat only that the pressure enter the mouthpiece.
lubonv wrote:
| Quote: | | Watching closely the trombone video and the trombone video from the side is evident that there is a glass surface in front of the lips closing the embouchure (and also for the trumpet piece) and a hole going to the instrument on the side, |
he noticed it too.
| Quote: | | so some exalation air will go through |
Not some,... ALL!
ALL of the expelled air goes through. And the full power of each pulse is applied to the standing wave in the instrument.
If the rim was open, the air pressure pulses would have alternate paths available. Thru the very open, low impedance rim opening or through the high impedance resonant horn path.
If you could get a buzz going on that rim some sound would go through the horn but it would be very weak and not a full trumpet sound as most of the air power would chose the alternate "easy" path through the open rim. Most of the sound you would get would be a "buzzing-on-rim" sound, from the rim.
Also the reflected wave of the horn would not be able to influence the opening/closing of the aperture as when playing the "closed" resonance.
| Quote: | | Anyway the concept is clear: the air is not 'blown' into the instrument. |
Actually it is quite clear that air is most certainly "blown" into the instrument. Specifically it is "pulsed" into the mp cup.
And these "pulses" are of such high frequency that it feels like a simle "blow" to players.
There are also other reasons why the pulses feel like a simple steady "blow" against a fixed resistance.
Darryl |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
lubonv
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 27 Jun 2005
Posts: 787
Location: Paris - France
|
| Posted: Sat Mar 31, 2007 2:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| lubonv wrote: | TCE gave me the full understanding that the idea of pushing air through the instrument is only an imagery that helps to create pressure in order to create the necessary vibration at the level of the embouchure: if the embouchure becomes perfectly efficient (sealed ) all the air pressure becomes vibration (and it doesn't need much air) at the level were the forward tongue is against both inner lips. Of couse there is a residual air coming out of the vibrating zone: in fact it should just be quiet 'warm' air escaping, enough to warm up the brass and create water condensation.
Best regards,
Lb |
_________________
"For if the trumpet has an uncertain sound who will prepare himself for the battle?" Paul, Ch.
Custom Made Slide Trumpet & Slide Flugelhorn
SC3
Myspace |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
healey.cj
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 26 Jul 2006
Posts: 2011
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
Sigh, Science vs. Conceptualisation
One without the other is lame and incomplete... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonas quizman
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:21 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kalijah wrote: | Disregarding viscousity (invicsid), that is, BEST case:
The gains in ram pressure due to increased (average) air velocity are exactly balanced with an equal reduction in the static pressure. So the total pressure (energy of the air) is constant. Regardless of the velocity.
The erroneous assumption made by tonge-compressionists is that air at zero velocity has zero energy and that air at high velocity has high energy. That is they consider ONLY the kinetic energy of the air's relative flow and hang their claims on that. Which is misrepresentation and ignorance. (Ignoring the static pressure of the air and the total pressure of the air). |
You keep on repeating the law of the conservation of energy from which one can derive the Bernoulli principle in the context of fluid dynamics. It is true that any increase of dynamic pressure is balanced with an equal reduction in static pressure - or gravitational energy, just to be very precise. In regard to the idea I introduced to explain what one gains by using the tongue in the TCE-specific manner your emphasis on the energy balance is no refutation of my point, but just misleading. Even if we take into account the viscosity of air and therefore keep in mind that the transfer of static pressure in dynamic pressure is therefore not completely balanced, you disregard that as far as playing brass instruments is concerned it is not the total energy of the air (potential energy + kinetic energy = constant) that is decisive, but just the kinetic energy of the flow, because the aggregate impulse of the gas molecules is transferred to the lip tissue and effects its movement (… dependent on its tension …). The value of potential energy (static pressure) is just relevant in regard to limit value of the transformation of potential into kinetic energy.
| kalijah wrote: | | So even if there were no friction losses due to viscocity. The BEST case of the total energy of the air will be the same energy as the air had when it was in the lungs at full static pressure and zero velocity. |
Although your statement is correct that the best case as to the value of the total energy (the constant) would be when the air was just in your lungs at full static pressure and zero dynamic pressure, there would 'hardly' be a standing longitudinal wave created that transfered into sonic waves that would reach our ears! For that you would need the aggregate impulse of the gas molecules. In the 'best case' scenario, at full static pressure this aggregate impulse would be zero because of velocity being zero as you state above correctly. Now if it is true, that the viscosity of the air enters into the equation (though at low speeds the air comes pretty close to an ideal gas), so that we loose energy (compared to the sum of pot E and kin E) by narrowing the flow path of the air in a TCE/Superchops like manner, 'nevertheless', we increase the value of the aggregate impulse of the gas molecules that act on the lip tissue.
| kalijah wrote: | The viscousity is not simply due to the surface/air contact. It is due to the laminar flow of the air. The velocity of the air at the flow boundary is essentially zero regardless of the average velocity.
Losses of pressure through segments of air flow are inversely proportional to the radius of that path to the 4th power. So the loss of pressure increases very very rapidly as you reduce segments of the flow path. |
Laminar flow simply means that a fluid flows in parallel layers, with no disruption between the layers (in more precise terms: High momentum diffusion, low momentum convection …).
If the velocity of air at the flow boundary is essentially zero regardless of the average velocity, why then would that speak against narrowing the flow path since the other layers would still gain velocity adding to the increase in the aggregate impulse of the air molecules. If this were not the case we would already have left the realm of an ideal gas and the applicability of the Bernoulli Principle.
| kalijah wrote: | | Also, for most very small flow paths of significant length, turbulence will occur and the pressure losses are even greater. |
Do you think that the tongue aperture or the upper lip/tongue surface aperture is of significant length to turn the laminar flow into a turbulent one??
Darryl, in case my argument is flawed and you can refute it, I would like to ask you what’s your take (in terms of physics!) on the specific use of the tongue and lips in the Superchops method that explains the great sound and ease of people like Mac Gollehon in Jazz oder Peter Masseurs in Classical Music that consciously apply the method as taught by Mr. Callet??
jonas
P.S. My initial question was addressed to Goldenhornplayer and later on to Kyle - another TCE-expert. They base their Superchops argument on the idea of ‘air compression’ as Mr. Callet does, who has unfortunately never set forth what he meant by it in scientific terms. Why don’t Ken & Kyle comment on the ongoing discussion that is so relevant in the TCE/Superchops context? Do they simply agree with my version of the physics of the Superchops/TCE use of the tongue? If not, why don't they correct me? Don’t they know what they are talking about? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Freedman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 2476
Location: Burlington, Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 5:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | P.S. My initial question was addressed to Goldenhornplayer and later on to Kyle - another TCE-expert. They base their Superchops argument on the idea of ‘air compression’ as Mr. Callet does, who has unfortunately never set forth what he meant by it in scientific terms. Why don’t Ken & Kyle comment on the ongoing discussion that is so relevant in the TCE/Superchops context? Do they simply agree with my version of the physics of the Superchops/TCE use of the tongue? If not, why don't they correct me? Don’t they know what they are talking about?
Back to top |
Jeez, I have a significant background in math with some physics to go along with it and your arguments are right on the edge of my comprehension. If I had the time, I would go back to my books. Expecting this from Kyle et al is a bit much.
Trumpet playing is a very complicated and ill understood endeavor and most teachers' understanding consists of music and their own, possibly erroneous or incomplete, sense of what the muscles are doing in their respective embouchures. They are reduced to communicating in unavoidable vague metaphors and similes. Hopefully with enough demonstrations and repetitions they can convey to their students a non-verbal understanding of what they are trying to teach. Caruso didn't even try, Smiley and Odneal have extensive sound and video demonstrations. What do expect Goldenhornplayer or Kyle or even Callet to tell you that they haven't already said in this forum? |
|
| 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
|
