the Tounge!

[_bugleboy]

I made a post. You misrepresented statements made in that post. Since you won't respond to my post that followed, any one may read all three posts and judge, ascertain, determine, conclude, decide (take your pick) whether or not misrepresentations were made by you. For someone who has a pretty casual attitude about the words you throw around, you have suddenly got very fussy about mine.

[Quadruple C]

[ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2003-12-18 14:14 ]

[brnt99]

Quad C you should cut the melodramatic B.S. I think that all Bugleboy is trying to have is an intelligent, logical debate on an issue.If you want to enter the debate you have to be prepared to backup your statements with coherant, thought-through, logical,arguments that have intellectual integrity.Each preposition in your logical argument needs to be supported and defended.His tone can be a little curt and irritable but i wouldn't take that too personally. Probably has something to do with hormones and chemical imbalances that as we age cause us to be irritable,impatient, and crabby old men.

[PH]

I have my own feelings about the tongue and its role (or roll) in trumpet playing. However, at this point we have turned this into a discussion of politics/theology and are deadlocked.

Why don't we...

1) ...reexamine exactly what was said, not what we think was said. Emotional is the muddying factor here.

2) ...be extremely clear with our semantics.

3) ...take this discussion (the theologica/political one) offline, or...

4) ...move it from "The Tounge" to "The Lounge" (I couldn't resist! I'm so tired of seeing that typo in the thread title.)

[comebackkid]

This forum, when functioning ideally, is a place where people can draw from each others experiences. We can learn from each others failures, and successes. I would hope that everyone would feel free to discuss what they feel is responsible for their breakthroughs. Others can then decide if this information is useful to them, or whether it is not.

I also think that criticism should be welcome on this board. However, It is important to distinguish between criticism that is constructive, and that which is destructive. I have tried not to let mine fall into the latter category (I truly hope I haven’t failed too many times ).

Jeff,
You point out that there have been occasions when some of us have chosen to "dive out" of a debate. I do not deny that I have done this. I believe the following: if it becomes clear that there is no argument that will be persuasive to the person you are debating, it is not productive to continue. I do not wish to waste their time, or my own. This does not mean that I am unable to support my position; Nor does it mean that I am unwilling to change my position should someone elses argument be persuasive enough. I just recognize that sometimes debates become altercations. And sometimes these altercations will clearly not end somewhere positive.

Some people seam to think that this is a battle zone; And that the last man standing is the winner. I think in some cases, the "last man standing" is the one who had nothing better to do than wait for everyone else to leave. If we try harder to not let this become a battle zone, no one will have reason to leave. This is what I would like to work towards. I would hope that you would to.

You also stated the following, Jeff:
"Im not going to debate in length with posters who won't use their real names or provide their real identity on the board."

My identity is not concealed. I think it is odd that anyone would have an issue with this anyway. Never the less, If you read my previous posts, you would know the following:

- My name is Ed Gabriel
- I live in Placentia, CA
- My e-mail address is egabriel5@yahoo.com
- I am an Engineer
- I am a comeback player
- I feel that I am making uncommon progress, and hope that sharing how will help other players do the same.

If you look hard enough, you will find comparable information on "Quadruple C." Although his is FAR more impressive than mine.

So.....I say lets back to the fun. Lets share, discuss, and enjoy each other here on the TrumpetHerald. Some people will want to engage in debate. Some offer their perspectivesand let others decide the merits of their position. Hopefully we will all joke a little and laugh a lot. I just hope we all get better at doing it respectfully (myself included).

[comebackkid]

johannes,

Your awesome! how do you do those smilies? The four I did are all I have figured out. are there more?

[_bugleboy]

Quadruple C wrote in 2 posts on page 1,

1. "There are many schools of thought on this topic as we have seen in all the forum topics. One commonality is forward movement of the front of the tongue in either a rolling motion or lifting motion."

QC then concedes that "forward movement of the front of the tongue in either a rolling motion or lifting motion" MAY not have been taught by Caruso, so now we have one school of thought (Caruso) that DOESN'T advocate the "forward movement of the front of the tongue in either a rolling motion or lifting motion."

2. "Caruso may not have taught this Charly,"

QC then goes on to assert that,

3. "but the tongue's role is the same no matter what a player practices or teaches. Take away semantics as Dave Bacon stated {{he didn't happen to say it in this thread, though......CR}} or Dogma as I like to call it and you have laws of physics, not a religion. Set laws of physics are there and do not change."

In other words, even though his first statement has been found to be incorrect (by QC's own admission)
he asserts that it doesn't matter, because the tongue MUST be in the movement described by, "forward movement of the front of the tongue in either a rolling motion or lifting motion" in all methods of playing due to the "laws of physics." I suggested that he step up and share something this important with the whole forum. QC has declined, however, to specify exactly what these "laws of physics" are that are in control of our tongue while playing.

From this paragraph QC followed with,

4. "Well to deny the importance and roll of the tongue no matter what a player uses for results is denying the laws of physics,"

First of all, it would seem that QC is using the term "roll" when it should be "role" (observe quote #3). IF this is true it adds more confusion (careless and unnecessary) to his post than it already has. Further observe that NO WHERE in my post do I deny the roll or role of the tongue. I point out that tongue movement is not something to be willed by the student. As he did with everything, Mr. Caruso assigned exercises to give Mother Nature the final say on how the tongue was to perform. If the final manner in which the tongue is employed is similar to QC's, I don't have any problem with that. Which is exactly what I said in my post. From all of this, QC accuses me of denying the laws of physics!!!!!!!!!! This, is blatantly untrue. No where have I denied the importance of the tongue in my quote and consequently denied the laws of physics. Not one word or statement in that quote supports QC's accusation. You would think that he would leap at the opportunity to correct such a misrepresentation or defend it against my challenge. I mean, if QC is flagrantly going to misquote text, how can anything he says be taken seriously. He goes on to say,

5. "You guys {{presumably meaning Jeff Lambordino and myself}} just prefer not to give the tongue as much importance, but to dismiss my way of thinking is unfair to myself and others."

BUT WHERE HAVE I DISMISSED QC'S "WAY OF THINKING????" WHERE OH WHERE???? Here is the relevant part of my original post from which this accusation was made.

"To say that ".......forward movement of the front of the tongue in either a rolling motion or lifting motion" is part of the Caruso is a misrepresentation. It is not. In all the years I studied with Carmine, he never once prescribed a particular tongue movement to achieve success as a player. Mother Nature should be allowed to decide the best positioning and movement of the tongue. The actual resting place of the tongue (in a developed embouchure) and its movement during sound production may have characteristics that are described by the above quote. But to imply that these characteristics are achieved in a volitional or intended way is to misrepresent the Caruso approach."

I hope someone else can find what the heck QC is talking about, because I sure can't. Where, in this paragraph have I dismissed QC's way of thinking........ Where is it? ............ Anyone??? ........QC???

This was my original issue with QC. Saying things that are not supported by the evidence. The evidence in this case being my above quoted paragraph. For emphasis, I guess, we also have the following,

6. "If someone is truly secure in their belief structure they do not have to make a point of finding fault with others beliefs."

While everyone, who choose to, is looking for words that I used to dismiss QC's way of thinking, see if you can find the words or statements that find fault with his beliefs.

And finally the quote,

7. "Even if we had a fluoroscope study it would not matter because people like yourself will choose to believe what you wish anyway,"

SCHEEEESCH !!!!! Look who's throwing innuendoes now, "people like yourself." If this isn't denial than we all need to get reacquainted with the English language, because words have lost their objectivity. This was my original issue.

QC MISREPRESENTED MY POST AND THEN USED THOSE FALSEHOODS TO ACCUSE ME OF,

1. DENYING THE LAWS OF PHYSICS
2. DISMISSING HIS WAY OF THINKING
3. FINDING FAULT WITH HIS BELIEFS

NONE OF THE ABOVE ACCUSATIONS ARE TRUE AND ARE EASILY DEBUNKED BY READING THE POST FROM WHICH THEY WERE DERIVED.

[Quadruple C]

[ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2003-12-18 14:16 ]

[Quadruple C]

[ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2003-12-18 14:16 ]

[Quadruple C]

[ This Message was edited by: Quadruple C on 2003-12-18 14:19 ]