| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
jonas quizman
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 237
|
 Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 10:00 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Jerry Freedman wrote: | | What do expect Goldenhornplayer or Kyle or even Callet to tell you that they haven't already said in this forum? |
Well the entire TCE/Superchops thing hinges on the concept of 'air compression' by the TCE/Superchops specific use of the tongue and lips. From the experts I expect at least some hints at the physical logic of TCE, helping me out if I err. If one does not know about what one is talking about in the terms of physics, one should not use these concepts and should wholly concentrate on teaching the elements of the method and their combination. Such an approach to the method would be less convincing, but certainly not something I would object to.
jonas |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
digs
Veteran Member
Joined: 13 Jan 2006
Posts: 498
Location: Winnipeg, Manitoba
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
I will be the first to admit I know nothing about physics.
I feel that Superchops is more than just air compression or whatever. For me, regarding the air, it is about focus as opposed to spread, and it is about the tongue restricting the airflow instead of the lips having to do all of that (and collapsing into the cup when they can't). I also think the tongue helps provide a more intense buzz (spitbuzz), perhaps by helping to create a longer aperture tunnel (focused, but not spread). If I sustain a spitbuzz off the horn (which I don't recommend practicing by the way) and compare it to a regular old fashioned buzz off the horn, the spitbuzz is louder and more intense to my ears, even though more air is flowing through the regular old buzz. Could that lead to the more powerful focused sound on the horn (while using less air than my non-Superchops sound)??? Perhaps.
Besides all that, I think Superchops is about gaining endurance by keep the lips from being crushed into the teeth, being able to use smaller more shallow mouthpieces (while maintaining a great sound) because the spitbuzz is more focused and not spread, and generally not having to work as hard to project due to the reasons I stated in my prior paragraph. All of these things lead to greater endurance, a more focused and projecting sound, and less air blown through the horn I guess.
Remember, I know nothing about physics...
Dirk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Freedman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 2476
Location: Burlington, Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 11:58 am Post subject: |
|
|
| jonas quizman wrote: | | Jerry Freedman wrote: | | What do expect Goldenhornplayer or Kyle or even Callet to tell you that they haven't already said in this forum? |
Well the entire TCE/Superchops thing hinges on the concept of 'air compression' by the TCE/Superchops specific use of the tongue and lips. From the experts I expect at least some hints at the physical logic of TCE, helping me out if I err. If one does not know about what one is talking about in the terms of physics, one should not use these concepts and should wholly concentrate on teaching the elements of the method and their combination. Such an approach to the method would be less convincing, but certainly not something I would object to.
jonas |
Callet or Gordon or Caruso have no responsiblity to explain what they are doing in a technically correct fashion. Their job is solely produce trumpet players. If they must use imagery or metaphors that have a scientife, or mathematical base and you don't like it, don't read their writings. They can use any means they chose. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3288
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jonas wrote:
| Quote: | | 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, |
That is because the total energy IS decisive, not simply the kinetic energy alone. You are making a major error to disregard it and I will show you why with your own statement that follows here:
| Quote: | | because the aggregate impulse of the gas molecules is transferred to the lip tissue and effects its movement (… dependent on its tension …). |
Surely you are not implying that the "aggregate impulse" is dependent on the kinetic energy alone!
The "aggregate impulse" of the air molecules against a surface is determined by the total energy of the air, not simply the "ram pressure" due to velocity.
Besides, at any surface boundary the net velocity of the air, due to flow, IS zero. So the energy there, acting against a surface, is 100 percent potential energy. And it is the static pressure, what ever it hapens to be, that is acting as force per area normal to (perpendicular to) the surface.
| Quote: | | The value of potential energy (static pressure) is just relevant in regard to limit value of the transformation of potential into kinetic energy. |
Again, this is a false assumption because as the air approaches the boundary, in this case the lip tissue, it's net velocity will again approach zero. The kinetic energy will revert, conserved, to potential energy. And the energy will be completly potential, or simply, static pressure, At the boundary.
So there is no need or requirement to "convert" the energy from potential to kinetic as the air approaches the lips. Because it is all potential once it reaches the lip tissue.
However, in a real system, if one attempts to "speed up" or increase the net velocity of the air BEFORE it reaches the embouchure/apeture by reducing the path area, they will lose a significant amount of energy due to viscosity of air.
The embouchure tissues and the air in the mp cup DO NOT CARE what the velocity of the air is that occured before it reached them. They only react to the TOTAL energy of the air that arrives.
| Quote: | | 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. |
You are sorely mistaken.
Do you not understand that the "aggregate impulse" of the air molecules is due to pressure? Total pressure? Not simply flow velocity.
There is NO kinetic energy pressure at a boundary,.. ever.
It is all potential. The same potential energy that the air had in the lungs (discounting viscousity).
| Quote: | | 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. |
Ah, now it is quite clear that you don't quite understand the nature of a gas such as air.
Just because the air molecules have no net velocity, (velocity due to flow), that does NOT mean that the velocity of the molecules is zero.
The molecular velocity of static air at atmospheric pressure is approximately 500 meters per second.
Now if you "move" these moving molecules in a "flow" fasion. The molecular velocity will remain constant, regardless of the flow velocity.
So the "aggregate impulse" as you like to say, against a surface, is due to the molecular velocity. And the molecular velocity, ideally, is constant regardless of the velocity due to flow.
| Quote: | | 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. |
You most certainly did not increase the value of the agregate impulse.
Because,..
need I say again:
The impulse of the molecules acting on the lip tissue are due to the total pressure that survived the restriction.
| Quote: | | 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. |
Because this highly increased velocity of the "layers" is when viscousity losses are greatly increased. Due to the geometry of the flow path.
It would be erroneous also to assume that you have the same flow through a "narrowed" path, because if you had all other pressure factors being equal, you would have less flow , not the same.
| Quote: | | 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?? |
Absolutely.
| Quote: | | 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?? |
I never said one could not play sucessfully using a tongue to lip embouchure. I only would care to point out that the claims of increased air compression (over a more conventional playing method) are misleading and bogus.
Also if you want to include "ease" as a factor, you must include the lung pressure required to play. Having to use more than is required for a more conventional embouchure would not equte with "ease" in my opinion.
Darryl
Last edited by kalijah on Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:23 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3288
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 12:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jonas wrote:
| Quote: | | Well the entire TCE/Superchops thing hinges on the concept of 'air compression' by the TCE/Superchops specific use of the tongue and lips. From the experts I expect at least some hints at the physical logic of TCE, helping me out if I err. If one does not know about what one is talking about in the terms of physics, one should not use these concepts and should wholly concentrate on teaching the elements of the method and their combination. Such an approach to the method would be less convincing, but certainly not something I would object to. |
well said! And I agree!
That fact is that there are several "methods" that attempt to borrow from science that is completely misunderstood and passed off as truth to the unsuspecting. Sometimes with dire results.
They include:
-Tongue arch for air speed.
-Oral resonance.
-Lots of air.
If one MUST use visualizations it would be helpful if they qualified them as such before attempting to support (or enforce) their methods with the same "visualizations" being passed-off as actual science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Jerry Freedman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 29 Jan 2002
Posts: 2476
Location: Burlington, Massachusetts
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| If teacher's approach works and if they communicate their ideas effectively to the students who cares what they use for visualization aids. The bottom line is what works and if Gordon followers think tongue arch and play well or if Callet students think air compression and play well or Leon Merian students think cold air and play well, how those images and metaphors relate to good science is completely irrelevant. There is no other obligation |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
tptguy
Jerome Callet Forum Moderator
Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3380
Location: Philadelphia, Pa
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 1:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Jonas, I'm sorry, but I couldn't even begin to follow this. My eyes glazed over several pages ago. I'm just skimming now in order to see if anything needs moderating.
I do know this: by very precisely following Jerry Callet's instructions my playing, in every regard, has improved exponentially. I've reached levels of tone, range, power, control, intonation, ease, security, and endurance that I never thought possible. And, my jazz playing has improved comparably as my ease and endurance have grown so greatly.
I am very happy to give what assistance I can to others working to follow Jerry's instructions. But, I would never proclaim to know what scientifically makes any of this work. As Jerry F. suggests, I'm a seat-of-the-pants player. The physics makes me want to go back and just play my horn (full forward tongue, of course!).  Best regards, Kyle |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobList
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 09 Nov 2002
Posts: 1104
Location: Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 3:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yea, the physics thing is getting to be a load of BS...every forum has an expert in physics...but how many of these experts can REALLY play the horn? It's all talk, and I suspect it just compensates for lack of ability to PLAY.
I have never met a "physics" expert who could really play. They CAN'T...they have too much analyzation involved. The guys who during the day work at Bell Labs, are doctors, lawyers, physics experts usually suck in the section. I Have been playing for 31 years, and am no Severinsen, but I'm no slouch, either. I am an automobile technician ten hours a day, and can still play the lead book on a gig that night for 4 hours. I hear a lot of guys who have high tech gigs daytime, and can design a piece and leadpipe, but can't play a note.
I'm sorry, but I am new to TCE, and this BS discussion is NOT what I would believe Jerry would want to hear. Me either.
Physics, schmizics..
Blow thru your emb setting ... no buzz, no mp., no horn. Keep your tongue plastered to the bottom of your mouth. Note the airflow. Now,while still blowing the same speed.. put your tongue in the spitbuzz position, and .... well I'll be damned...the air just got FASTER.
Compression is behind the tongue arch...the airstream narrowed and sped up after the tongue arch...same flow faster air..get over the crap as to WHY it did...( for the physics experts, it's considered a VENTURI...look it up....)
Who needs the scientific explanation for this?..NO ONE...just do it, and it works....Jeez..If it doesn't work, then DONT do it!!....funny how laymen have more common sense than the experts sometimes..
This whole thread went sour..reminds me of the Mohan/Kalijah/Bugleboy/TrickG days..tongue arch wars.
....TPTGUY, I met you at Westchester, you're a cool guy....if I just overstepped my bounds....lemme know, but this thread is NOT a TCE discussion anymore, as far as I'm concerned. So get'em to move it elsewhere....like another forum...... they seem to like these arguments over there.
Bob List
_________________
http://www.JMB-MUSIC.COM
http://gregblackmouthpieces.com/personal.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Andiroo
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 18 Feb 2006
Posts: 711
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I see no problem in discussing the "physics" of TCE. In reality yes you could work the physics out, but it is useless. As it is impossible to apply. It can only be taught through exercises.
I'm a mathematical thinking guy hence i liked the physics in this thread. BobList you are right the thread vaguely resembles TCE, however people come to this forum to enjoy it, it just so happens we have some physicists who enjoy discussing the physics. Although i've not read the thread in depth, all discussions are based on a series of propositions, and there are people who agree or disagree with those propositions. In my opinion the thread hasn't turned sour/or into malice. It's merely a discussion.
_________________
Dizzy kicks brass!
Talent isn't natural, its hard work... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
goldenhornplayer
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 22 Nov 2001
Posts: 1123
Location: Winston-Salem, NC
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Some of this scientific overkill, while interesting to a few, is not all that helpful to those who want to learn to play with Superchops. Maybe it is true that air resistance is a technically more accurate description for what we do than air compression and to make that distinction is fine. But to go into all this other "stuff" is totally useless in my opinion and really has no place on this forum. Proof of that point is that you will never get that type of discussion out of Jerry and yet, he can make you a better player regardless of how good you already are. -Ken B. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
BobList
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 09 Nov 2002
Posts: 1104
Location: Baltimore, MD
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 4:58 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Yea, call me Francis, and I'll lighten up/\..lol
I'm new to TCE, and EVERY forum almost turns into a physics discussion...it doesn't help the artists ONLY...the mathematical types DO like it..you all can get into it pretty good sometimes; quite entertaining, at that...... but the bottom line, is jerry wouldn't discuss it in these terms, and probably cringes at it.. heh heh...
In all seriousness....there should be a new forum developed... "The Physics of Trumpet Playing"......these discussions would be welcome and very interesting in that area....nothing wrong with a taste of it in the general forums......but it should have examples that the normal guy could relate to...not shop talk from the engineer's lab...
I check here for TCE info....not aerospace info...I'm just a trumpet player for heaven' s sake...Miles, Dizzy, Maynard, Harry James didn't talk all this trash.....they just tried something, and if it worked, it worked....sure, I wanna know WHY it works...but educated guesses are just that...guesses....and there's always another guy who disputes that guess......turns into a private forum between the two eggheads arguing physics....99% of the members don't give a hoot at that point..
Just do it, or don't.......why sometimes messes you up more...OVERTHINKING!!!!
Ok...I'm cool now....I was just looking here for some neat tips on TCE...tptguy, lubonv...they tell it like it is....just do it....their posts are more valuable than say, .... velocity=C divided by B (pressure) X flow rate at a 30c temperature drop (after the venturi) at the apex point at which time the extreme decrease of compression causes a velocity increa
BOOM!!!... brains just exploded, and not one bit of trumpet playing advice was offered.. LOL
Seriously..who would want to create a Physics of trumpet Playing Forum?.... it would work...and be interesting....
Y'all would have a six month argument on who would moderate it...but it really would be a benefit to this site in general...
Francis, errr
Bob List, Baltimore
_________________
http://www.JMB-MUSIC.COM
http://gregblackmouthpieces.com/personal.htm |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Eddie Severn
Veteran Member
Joined: 16 Jan 2004
Posts: 202
Location: Pennsylvania USA
|
| Posted: Sun Apr 01, 2007 6:27 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| How much air is supposed to travel through the trumpet?......Enough to cause a sympathetic vibration of the lips. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrpPro
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 1471
Location: Riverview, FL
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 4:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
Didn't someone do an experiment with a mouthpiece that had a membrane over the end and a hole drilled on the side of the cup to allow air to escape as the piece was being played into?
Didn't this show that NO air needs to travel through the horn? The air that is already in the horn is all that is necessary for playing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
jonas quizman
Veteran Member
Joined: 11 Apr 2005
Posts: 237
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kalijah wrote: | jonas wrote:
| Quote: | | 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, |
That is because the total energy IS decisive, not simply the kinetic energy alone. You are making a major error to disregard it. |
You tear my quotes apart which leads to misreading them. I did not disregard total energy. I said that it matters in regard to how much energy you can transfer into kinetic energy that is decisive in creating sonic waves via brass instruments. Let me cite myself:
| Quote: | | The value of potential energy (static pressure) is just relevant in regard to the limit value of the transformation of potential into kinetic energy. |
| kalijah wrote: | Besides, at any surface boundary the net velocity of the air, due to flow, IS zero. So the energy there, acting against a surface, is 100 percent potential energy. And it is the static pressure, what ever it hapens to be, that is acting as force per area normal to (perpendicular to) the surface.
Again, this is a false assumption because as the air approaches the boundary, in this case the lip tissue, it's net velocity will again approach zero. The kinetic energy will revert, conserved, to potential energy. And the energy will be completly potential, or simply, static pressure, At the boundary.
So there is no need or requirement to "convert" the energy from potential to kinetic as the air approaches the lips. Because it is all potential once it reaches the lip tissue.
There is NO kinetic energy pressure at a boundary,.. ever.
It is all potential. The same potential energy that the air had in the lungs (discounting viscousity). |
You simply claim that at the boundary the lips will be just exposed to static pressure and that the energy will be completely potential energy, but this depends on the tension of the lips. If the tension of the lips stops the flow, all kinetic energy is reverted to potential energy. If it were true that the transfer of potential energy into more kinetic energy would not matter in changing pitches and at every boundary of the gas it is just potential and no more kinetic energy, then we would have great tone by just keeping the air in the lungs and mouth ... all potential energy:
| kalijah wrote: | | The embouchure tissues and the air in the mp cup DO NOT CARE what the velocity of the air is that occured before it reached them. They only react to the TOTAL energy of the air that arrives. |
| kalijah wrote: | | Quote: | | 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. |
Ah, now it is quite clear that you don't quite understand the nature of a gas such as air.
Just because the air molecules have no net velocity, (velocity due to flow), that does NOT mean that the velocity of the molecules is zero.
The molecular velocity of static air at atmospheric pressure is approximately 500 meters per second. |
Nowhere I said that the velocity of the molecules is zero, if there is no air flow!
| kalijah wrote: | Now if you "move" these moving molecules in a "flow" fasion. The molecular velocity will remain constant, regardless of the flow velocity.
So the "aggregate impulse" as you like to say, against a surface, is due to the molecular velocity. And the molecular velocity, ideally, is constant regardless of the velocity due to flow. |
The velocity of the molecules compared with each other is not altered, but that does not mean that the velocity of these molecules is not changed when their flow is sped up!
| kalijah wrote: | | The impulse of the molecules acting on the lip tissue are due to the total pressure that survived the restriction. |
If your take on the matter was correct, we could say the less tongue in the way of the air, the better for creating the higher frequencies. Apart from questions of articulation and sound manipulation, one could best play the trumpet without the tongue: No restriction of the air flow, less viscosity and therefore more energy (all potential because of your boundary theory!) acting on the lips ...
Now we have several people that use the tongue as presribed by Mr. Callet with great success! Even if your theroretical draft grasped the matter much better than mine, you have not given any account of how TCE works. A few decisive hints would suffice, but it seems that you cannot explain it either. My question addressed at you remains and you evade it.
jonas
Last edited by jonas quizman on Mon Apr 02, 2007 11:22 am; edited 2 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
crzytptman
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 03 Sep 2003
Posts: 10124
Location: Escondido California
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 7:04 am Post subject: |
|
|
I always enjoy watching these debates that Darryl gets into. So, just to put some wood on the fire:
Go to the Smith-Watkins web sit and read the article by Richard Smith that describes the experiment they did with the trombone mpc. Briefly, they cut the mpc in half, stretched a piece of Latex over the bottom half, and rejoined the top an bottom halves. They put an air exit hole in the top half. They got a symphony trombonist to try this contraption in his horn, and guess what? No change in sound or response. As a side benefit, he got more accurate "tonguing" by covering and uncovering the vent hole!
Also, I'd like to see a technical description of the term "power in the sound" . . .
_________________
Crazy Nate - Fine Yet Mellow Fellow
"so full of it I don't know where to start"
Horn: "just mismatched Kanstul spare parts"
- TH member and advertiser (name withheld) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3288
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
jonas wrote:
| Quote: | | The velocity of the molecules compared with each other is not altered, but that does not mean that the velocity of these molecules is not changed when their flow is sped up! |
The velocity of the molecules relative to each other IS reduced as they begin flowing at some velocity. The more velocity they flow with, the less their velocity compared to each other is. (This accounts for the loss of static pressure with movement)
The velocity of the air molecules relative to a fixed point, including the lips, is NEVER more than it was in the lungs, regardless of the flow velocity.
Perhaps this graphic from Mark Mitchell's website will help you understand visually:
http://home.earthlink.net/~mmc1919/venturi_discuss_nomath.html
| Quote: | | If your take on the matter was correct, we could say the less tongue in the way of the air, the better for creating the higher frequencies. |
I never mentioned frequency, nor did you up to now.
But yes, the less the restriction before the embouchure the more pressure you will have available and the louder the sound will be, regardless of frequency. Or, alternatively, the less lung pressure you will have to provide for a given volume.
Frequency is determined by the disposition of the embouchure to open/close at a certain frequency. Air pressure, velocity, and flow are related to the volume of sound one is producing once the embouchure is established.
| Quote: | | Apart from questions of articulation and sound manipulation, one could best play the trumpet without the tongue: No restriction of the air flow, less viscosity and therefore more energy (all potential because of your boundary theory!) acting on the lips ... |
And also apart from embouchure formation (especially for TCE players)..
but yes, more energy and more (surviving) lung pressure.
But the tongue (along with the changing size of the oral space) actually is involved in a secondary role as a pressure control and sometimes, weakly, as a pressure generator, but it has nothing to do with air flow or velocity or restrictions.
| Quote: | | Now we have several people that use the tongue as presribed by Mr. Callet with great success! Even if your theroretical draft grasped the matter much better than mine, you have not given any account of how TCE works. A few decisive hints would suffice, but it seems that you cannot explain it either. My question addressed at you remains and you evade it. |
I answered that question.
If one can form an efficient and musically functioning embouchure, whether they use their lips, the top lips/tongue or whatever, they can get a good sound.
It just happens to be a fact that the VAST majority of players do not use TCE and the vast majority of good, great and awsome players do not use TCE.
If YOU decide to use TCE and it helps YOU get a better sound. Then GREAT! I am happy for you! Go for it!
But if you claim that your air "compression" is better than that of a conventional method player, then you are making bogus claims. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3288
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 6:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
goldenhornplayer wrote:
| Quote: | | Some of this scientific overkill, while interesting to a few, is not all that helpful to those who want to learn to play with Superchops. Maybe it is true that air resistance is a technically more accurate description for what we do than air compression and to make that distinction is fine. But to go into all this other "stuff" is totally useless in my opinion and really has no place on this forum. |
It is interesting that "science" is touted by all kinds of teachers, students and posters to make "claims", false ones at that, regarding their methods.
But bad science is always given a free pass. And that is because (some)players and teachers are enamored with the grandiose "trumpetspeak" and love to tout the marvelous "benefits" of their method in regard to <insert scientific term here>.
Then if someone shows, with some actual knowlege of the subject at hand that the "claims" and "explanations" are misunderstood or just plain wrong, then, all of a sudden, science, in a correct understanding is dismissed, ridiculed and deemed "paralysis".
Or as Bob list has done, deemed me a poor player since I understand some science as it relates or anyone that has chosen another proffesion as insufficient as a player.
By the same token. Being a great player does not give one an instant uderstanding of the physics involved. So to attempt to make claims in that realm, and basically perpetuate lies, is irresponsible.
Last edited by kalijah on Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:29 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3288
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
as for Bob List:
| Quote: | | Yea, the physics thing is getting to be a load of BS...every forum has an expert in physics...but how many of these experts can REALLY play the horn? It's all talk, and I suspect it just compensates for lack of ability to PLAY. |
have you heard me play Bob?
| Quote: | | I have never met a "physics" expert who could really play. They CAN'T...they have too much analyzation involved. |
A bad player is so because he lacks playing and performing skills.
Some people can have knowlege and intellect and be accomplished musicians.
| Quote: | | The guys who during the day work at Bell Labs, are doctors, lawyers, physics experts usually suck in the section. |
They suck because they lack playing skills and have not spent the time developing. It has nothing to do with their profession or education in other matters.
| Quote: | | Blow thru your emb setting ... no buzz, no mp., no horn. Keep your tongue plastered to the bottom of your mouth. Note the airflow. Now,while still blowing the same speed.. put your tongue in the spitbuzz position, and .... well I'll be damned...the air just got FASTER. |
I did, it didn't.
The reason is that for you to maintain the same flow in this example you also must increase the lung pressure concurrently with the increased tongue restriction or reduced aperture size.
You would get the same faster speed by doing the increase in lung pressure alone. Actually you will get the faster air speed and increased air flow since you did not introduce more restriction.
And if you do your "spitbuzz" position while actually holding the lung pressure constant you will get the exact same speed as before but less flow. (And less flow means less power)
So basically you have introduced an "experiment" that you can manipulate to suit the results you seek. Talk about "BS science"...!
| Quote: | | Compression is behind the tongue arch...the airstream narrowed and sped up after the tongue arch...same flow faster air..get over the crap as to WHY it did |
But it is not the same flow. And SO WHAT ! if the air is faster? Faster means nothing other than more losses, less flow, less pressure, less energy.
| Quote: | | ...( for the physics experts, it's considered a VENTURI...look it up....) |
oh,... so now you are giving advice to the physics experts?
Wow, you must, by your own evaluations, really suck as a player. Since you know more than the physics geeks.
But personally I would rather judge your playing on hearing you play. 
I would ask that you do the same for me.
There is some sound clips here of ONE of the bands I am part of. We are covering a couple of tunes by a band you may have heard of. Tower of Power?
The other trumpet player is a Dentist by proffession. I hope he also does not suck too much for your taste.
http://horndogsband.com/
look under "media" for links to three demos we did.
NOTE: No TCE was used in the recording, nor were any animals harmed or carbon credits wasted.
Enjoy!
Last edited by kalijah on Tue Apr 03, 2007 8:38 am; edited 3 times in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TrpPro
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 1471
Location: Riverview, FL
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| BobList wrote: | | I have never met a "physics" expert who could really play. They CAN'T...they have too much analyzation involved. The guys who during the day work at Bell Labs, are doctors, lawyers, physics experts usually suck in the section. |
I've never heard him play, but I have a feeling that kalijah does not fall into this category of not being able to play. And it seems that everyone misses a huge point where he is concerned. Although he seems able to scientifically analyze every last molecule involved in playing the trumpet, he has never, to my knowledge, professed using this type of complex analysis and knowledge in the learning process.
But he does dispel erroneous statements/concepts that could easily be stumbling blocks for a student who is trying to learn. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kalijah
Heavyweight Member
Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 3288
Location: Alabama
|
| Posted: Mon Apr 02, 2007 8:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Well, now you can hear,
and thanks, T-pro, for giving be the benefit of the doubt, and a fair shake.
The myths abouund, and I will be willing to drop the correct science in an instant. As soon as the TCE, Gordon, etc. proponents drop their junk science.
Then we can all be happy!
Oh, by the way, in the band on the site. The tenor and alto sax players are computer programmers full time, the bari player is an instrument repair technician. The guitar player is an engineering piping designer. The bass player is a recording studio owner. The singer here had to leave the band because he is working on oil drilling platforms. (No drilling jokes about musicians please) The drummer has a degree in percussion from JSU but does not play full time,is a delivery manager.
Wow this band MUST suck! Especially the horns.
here is another project I played on a few years back.
http://www.allaboutjazz.com/php/musician.php?id=14385
I had to supress the fact that I knew something about air science. Otherwise they would never have let me into the studio, I would have sucked the air outa the place. |
|
| 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
|
