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

BE vs. Maynard embouchure



 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> The Balanced Embouchure
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
VintageFTW
Veteran Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Posts: 130
Location: Somewhere in the mountains of North Georgia

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:18 am    Post subject: BE vs. Maynard embouchure Reply with quote

Quote:
Not knowing anything about the Balanced Embouchure approach, this is sounding an awful lot like the Maynard embouchure... Am I wrong?


I made this post just moments ago after reading a summary of BE. From a pragmatic point of view, knowing only what I gathered from that summary, this embouchure sounds almost exactly like that of Maynard's. All I'm doing is making a connection that may or may not have been made in the past. What are your thoughts on this?
_________________
1880's Thompson & Odell Boston
1880's L&H "Henry Gunckel" Sole Agent Cornet
1903 L&H "Improved Own Make"
Early 1900's Marceau Cornet *B&F Stencil
1922 Holton-Clarke Cornet
1954 Elkhart built by Buescher 37b
...And many more
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kehaulani
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 23 Mar 2003
Posts: 2971
Location: Texas, by way of Germany and Hawaii

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:33 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

My understanding is that BE is not an embouchure, it is a process. If true, better read and comprehend again.
_________________
If you haven't lived it, you can't blow it.

"Even if I could play like Wynton Marsalis, I wouldn't play like Wynton Marsalis." Chet Baker

Benge 3X
Martin Committee (1956)
Connstellation 38B (1959)
Hans Hoyer G10 French Horn
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trumpetteacher1
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 2923
Location: Garland, Texas

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 8:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The Balanced Embouchure method is a well-defined approach to embouchure development, with a 17 year history of success stories (see the website for testimonials). The term "the Maynard embouchure," as far as I know, is pretty vague. There are several people from differing camps who claim to be using "the Maynard embouchure."

Perhaps you can define what you mean by the term?

Jeff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
VintageFTW
Veteran Member


Joined: 21 Apr 2016
Posts: 130
Location: Somewhere in the mountains of North Georgia

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 2:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Ahh. Well, the summary I read (in a different thread) seemed to describe something quite similar to this if applied correctly:


Link


The summary was this:

Quote:
BE decomposes the complex embouchure movement into two muscle groups, that can be separately trained: the Roll Out exercises for the inner mouth funnel (mouthcorners, cheeks) and the Roll In exercises for the outer circular muscles (the lips). For both: completely forget about your regular embouchure settings. Just try to produce the sound conform the instructions.

Furthermore, BE offers two (series of) exercises to balance/coordinate these complementary muscle groups, namely the Advanced (Snapping) Slurs, and Tongue-On-Lips. By the way, both muscle groups (RO and RI) are equally needed in all registers, low and high. But they must be used in coordination, hence the name Balanced Embouchure.


What my logic says is that this Maynard-type embouchure of relaxed rolled out lips (the part inside the mouthpiece) with rolled in corners (the part of the lips not covered by the mouthpiece) and forward cheek muscles, compared to rolled in lips and rolled out corners, such as a French horn type embouchure, is a form of the Balanced Embouchure. Where the traditional variation appears (to me) to regulate the airstream by creating compression within the oral cavity by way of resistance from the lips acting like a hinged gate, pressing the vibrating surfaces closer together, the Maynard variation appears to control the airflow like a jet or nozzle, utilizing (relatively) firm, not flexed, forward corners, good air support, and compression from the outer muscles (the "doughnut") to resist the airstream by forcing the lips, which are completely relaxed, together from all sides as the aperture is trying to be blown apart, thus forcing the internal compression to be located in the lungs via the diaphragm resisting air pressure.

Since the Maynard type is the inverse of the one that this system seems to promote, would that not make the Maynard embouchure a balanced one? Also, if the BE is a system of exercises to build strength for related muscle groups, promote a solid foundation for the chops, and coordinate said muscle groups to balanced each other out, then couldn't one just simply use these for developing the embouchure, and then revert to whatever type of system he/she prefers?

Also, I do realize that later on in the summary it says to not use these settings in normal playing, but if one were to it seems an awful lot like this would be the resultant embouchure.
_________________
1880's Thompson & Odell Boston
1880's L&H "Henry Gunckel" Sole Agent Cornet
1903 L&H "Improved Own Make"
Early 1900's Marceau Cornet *B&F Stencil
1922 Holton-Clarke Cornet
1954 Elkhart built by Buescher 37b
...And many more
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Trumpetingbynurture
Veteran Member


Joined: 18 Nov 2015
Posts: 481

PostPosted: Fri Dec 01, 2017 5:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well, you could say that any embouchure that does what you need it too is, by definition, a balanced embouchure. It's just that the physical appearance and position changes depending on a player's physiology, equipment and playing demands. ?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
trumpetteacher1
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 2923
Location: Garland, Texas

PostPosted: Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:04 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

VintageFTW wrote:
What my logic says is that this Maynard-type embouchure of relaxed rolled out lips (the part inside the mouthpiece) with rolled in corners (the part of the lips not covered by the mouthpiece) and forward cheek muscles, compared to rolled in lips and rolled out corners, such as a French horn type embouchure, is a form of the Balanced Embouchure. Where the traditional variation appears (to me) to regulate the airstream by creating compression within the oral cavity by way of resistance from the lips acting like a hinged gate, pressing the vibrating surfaces closer together, the Maynard variation appears to control the airflow like a jet or nozzle, utilizing (relatively) firm, not flexed, forward corners, good air support, and compression from the outer muscles (the "doughnut") to resist the airstream by forcing the lips, which are completely relaxed, together from all sides as the aperture is trying to be blown apart, thus forcing the internal compression to be located in the lungs via the diaphragm resisting air pressure.


You have obviously thought about this subject a great deal. I would classify what you say here as "reasonable speculation." And that is not a put-down. It's more along the line that there is no reliable way to prove your assertion.

VintageFTW wrote:
Since the Maynard type is the inverse of the one that this system seems to promote, would that not make the Maynard embouchure a balanced one?


I don't believe that an inverse of something makes it balanced or unbalanced. I don't view balance in that way. Rather, there are degrees of balance in any approach. The "traditional embouchure" that you describe - which indeed is not a separate entity, but more like a part of a whole - has its own type of internal balance, and is used successfully by many players. My goal with BE was to expand the capabilities of average players (discover the greater whole), not to replace everything they had developed with something completely different.

The BE style of transition to greater balance is typically much smoother and more successful than, for example, the well-documented difficulties of the Stevens approach. And I am not picking on Stevens here. It worked for Don Ellis. But the success rate is typically low. There are other methods which claim similar benefits, which also have high-reward/high risk ratios.

VintageFTW wrote:
Also, if the BE is a system of exercises to build strength for related muscle groups, promote a solid foundation for the chops, and coordinate said muscle groups to balanced each other out, then couldn't one just simply use these for developing the embouchure, and then revert to whatever type of system he/she prefers?


Excellent! Yes, that is exactly the purpose of BE. BE works well within most "traditional" methods.

VintageFTW wrote:
Also, I do realize that later on in the summary it says to not use these settings in normal playing, but if one were to it seems an awful lot like this would be the resultant embouchure.


For most advanced BE students, steady practice of the material does result in embouchure changes into a setup that resemble the exercises. But when this is done gradually, the success rate is much higher than if changes are attempted "cold turkey."

Thanks for your thoughtful post. I hope that my explanations have helped to clarify the BE approach.

Jeff
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
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