Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2023 6:07 am Post subject:
delano wrote:
Some thoughts:
What they call ‘educational science’ is in the end more a collection of opinions than real science;
You're painting a whole field of study with a pretty broad brush. I will say that you have some good points.
Quote:
IF there is some science in it it has to do with education to big groups like schoolclasses in some form;
It depends on the methodology of any particular study. In general, the more test subjects you use the more reliable your results. In order to get the biggest bang for their research buck, many educational studies will do the teaching in group settings, but assessments are done by testing the individuals. Many studies necessarily need to do the teaching in individual settings. It really depends.
Many music students learn to play their instruments (at least at first) in group settings, so that's certainly a relevant setting for our discussion here. I would think that the application of many principles discovered through teaching large groups should also apply to small group or one on one teaching. Some, maybe not so much.
Regardless, if you want to invalidate the approaches as not relevant for music teaching you will need to be more specific. Otherwise I think we're going to throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Quote:
I have 40 years of experience in handling ‘experts’ in educational science in endless sessions, the results are seldom proven let alone beneficiary;
Even serious products of what they call educational science are often abused by managers who us selective shopping out of those writings for mostly financial purposes;
If I understand the scenario you're describing, this is not a problem with educational science or educational psychology. There are many companies who push their junk science on school systems in order to sell curriculum or whatever the company promotes. The learning styles hypothesis is one example, as you can find all sorts of tests, curriculum, and lesson plans that one company or another is all too willing to sell to your school.
Quote:
Teaching to individuals, especially teaching a craft is completely different from teaching in a more collective form;
As someone who teaches in both group settings and private lessons all the time, I agree that there are big differences. But I think there are also many similarities. You'll have to be more specific as to how you feel it is different. For example, positive reinforcement will be better in the long term in both settings. Taking the time to test an individual student for their learning preference is still going to be a waste of time if you're going to teach to the subject matter anyway.
Quote:
Posts on this forum are often products of well-meant hobbyisme but lack often background, knowledge and relevant experience;
So IMO those posts are in the end based on a serious lack of responsibility.
Experienced members on this forum know which posters here have good understanding and knowledge in this field. I am more worried about new members with serious problems who take all the answers here seriously.
I prefer to call out the good and the bad, rather than accuse someone of posting irresponsibly. Ultimately it's the ideas themselves that are worth the discussion, not the person who said them. Online misinformation is a thing, of course, but it seems like forum members here are all too willing to call out bad ideas. I wouldn't lose any sleep over your concerns.
Billy B., I am genuinely curious about your answers to my above questions. I feel that if we are to move beyond the current back and forth we need to understand where you're coming from. Rather than quote back someone else's post without comment, can you please add your input?
Quote:
As I recall you prefer to help students with embouchure issues without actually telling them do do anything with their embouchures. Fair enough. What I am curious is your opinion on what teachers need to know about embouchure mechanics. Shouldn’t a good brass teacher be able to visually recognize both good and poor embouchure technique? If you agree, at what point in a music student’s studies would you address playing mechanics?
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2023 6:39 am Post subject:
Bill, if you want to participate and offer your insights in a pedagogy thread then it makes sense to keep the topics together. I understand wanting to go over to your home court (as if this is a competition, which it's not), but good pedagogy is good teaching, regardless of who said it.
That's one issue I take with the state of brass pedagogy - the over reliance on one particular teacher's approach. When we separate what we want to discuss into "schools" then we end up locking ourselves into a single approach and risk stagnation. There are good ideas all over (even non-professionals have some!). _________________ wilktone.com
Joined: 24 Dec 2018 Posts: 3306 Location: Endwell NY USA
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2023 6:41 am Post subject:
Wilktone wrote:
...
Quote:
... help students with embouchure issues without actually telling them do do anything with their embouchures. ...
...
-------------------------------------
I think much of that is addressed in an older thread beginning at this post -
https://www.trumpetherald.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=1586622#1586622 _________________ Most Important Note ? - the next one !
KNOW (see) what the next note is BEFORE you have to play it.
PLAY the next note 'on time' and 'in rhythm'.
Oh ya, watch the conductor - they set what is 'on time'.
Last edited by JayKosta on Wed Jan 18, 2023 6:47 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 12 Feb 2004 Posts: 6130 Location: Des Moines
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2023 6:46 am Post subject:
Wilktone wrote:
Bill, if you want to participate and offer your insights in a pedagogy thread then it makes sense to keep the topics together. I understand wanting to go over to your home court (as if this is a competition, which it's not), but good pedagogy is good teaching, regardless of who said it.
That's one issue I take with the state of brass pedagogy - the over reliance on one particular teacher's approach. When we separate what we want to discuss into "schools" then we end up locking ourselves into a single approach and risk stagnation. There are good ideas all over (even non-professionals have some!).
There is no competition, only the will to learn. If you want to learn about Bill Adam, come on over. If not, that’s fine too. _________________ Bill Bergren
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Wed Jan 18, 2023 9:37 am Post subject:
I promise to get back on topic.
Billy B wrote:
There is no competition, only the will to learn. If you want to learn about Bill Adam, come on over. If not, that’s fine too.
Billy, it's not that I'm disinterested in Adam's pedagogy. I lurk in the dedicated forums all the time, but only post if I have something to contribute. I tend to find them echo chambers and that's not interesting to me.
What I am very interested in is how YOU teach.
If I may offer some observations and netiquette suggestions, when you reply to someone else's quote, please only quote the relevant portion or enough so that the reader understands what you're responding to. More than a couple sentences or so clutters up the post and makes it harder to follow the thread. Furthermore, you frequently quote entire posts without adding any additional content. It's ok to voice your agreement with someone, but please don't repost without comment. It's not only more clutter, but it also makes it seem like you're just trying to keep score.
Jay, I'd ask you to similarly take what you want to comment on, copy it, and then post it in this thread.
Now, back on topic.
From Basic Principles-Pat's Take (https://www.trumpetherald.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=28030):
Quote:
1. The imagination is the driving force behind music making. Hearing the desired result vividly in your imagination will activate whatever physical activity it takes to make that sound.
Let me first make it clear that there is value in this approach. In fact, I argue that it's essential for a teacher to work on this with students and students need to learn how to practice with this in mind. However, the strict adherence to this principle not only robs the student of alternative approaches that also are helpful, but it perpetuates a culture of ignorance where future music teacher don't have the skills to assess how well this actually works.
Strict adherence to this is, at best, like throwing spaghetti on the wall to see what sticks. At the end you're going to have some mess to clean up. That's not to say that this is always a bad thing, but it needs to be done in the context of understanding what good playing technique is. Students can improve at playing wrong.
At worst, it's the Harold Hill "Think Method." Students deserve better than a teaching method that is less about strategy and more about hope.
I've used some video examples from research I've done before, so some of you have already seen this tubist.
This tubist needed an embouchure change. While the exact change he needed isn't obvious from the above clip, you should be able to see and hear what his issue is and what's causing it.
Imagining the sound and using that to guide his embouchure did not work for him at all. Frankly, I find it hard to believe that this approach would work for this situation at all, but if it did it would take much longer to fix than simply telling him what to do and how to practice with that change.
But if you feel differently, I'd like to hear how you would approach his problem. First, can you spot what's not working right with his embouchure? How are assignments of music or certain exercises while mentally modeling the sound you want going to have any effect on this specific area of embouchure mechanics?
Joined: 18 Jan 2009 Posts: 3118 Location: The Netherlands
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2023 4:26 am Post subject:
Mr. Dave. There may be some interesting studies in the field of educational science but that is probably scientific interesting but not without doubt applicable in a real educational environment. There are structural problems between outcomes of those studies, the possibility of implementation, how to implant them, financial consequences and a lot more. I can write pages about this but I’m not sure that we all will be happy with that. Another structural problem is the immense gap between probably honest scientific conclusions and the wishes of the management of educational institutions. And: educational scientist are not teachers. They are not in the playing field but give recommendations from the sidelines. So at least don’t expect to much from this discipline.
I have a 40 year educational experience at the law departments of university and business schools, teaching , developing, organising but of course that’s quite different stuff than teaching the playing of a musical instrument. Personally I’m afraid the teaching of instrument playing will still be done for a long time in the same way as Amadeus learned to play the piano and the violin from Leopold. Not necessarily a bad thing.
But true, in my job the educational ‘experts’ considered me as hopeless oldfashioned.
Joined: 24 Dec 2018 Posts: 3306 Location: Endwell NY USA
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2023 5:35 am Post subject:
delano wrote:
... Personally I’m afraid the teaching of instrument playing will still be done for a long time in the same way as Amadeus learned to play the piano and the violin from Leopold. Not necessarily a bad thing.
...
----------------------------------------------
Speaking of instruments such as piano and violin, for which a large part of the 'playing function' (physical actions and positions) is easily visible - is there a significant difference in the 'teaching style' for those instruments compared to the style(s) used for teaching brass? _________________ Most Important Note ? - the next one !
KNOW (see) what the next note is BEFORE you have to play it.
PLAY the next note 'on time' and 'in rhythm'.
Oh ya, watch the conductor - they set what is 'on time'.
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Fri Jan 20, 2023 7:25 am Post subject:
delano wrote:
There are structural problems between outcomes of those studies, the possibility of implementation, how to implant them, financial consequences and a lot more. I can write pages about this but I’m not sure that we all will be happy with that. Another structural problem is the immense gap between probably honest scientific conclusions and the wishes of the management of educational institutions. And: educational scientist are not teachers. They are not in the playing field but give recommendations from the sidelines. So at least don’t expect to much from this discipline.
Delano, I still think you're lumping an entire field of study. There's definitely good and bad, just like in anything. Implementation of ideas can indeed be expensive, difficult, or not worth the effort. There's also been quite a bit that has improved the quality of education.
Rather than debate the discipline as a whole, let's discuss specific details and judge them on their own. For example, the learning styles hypothesis is one example where I think your point above is valid. Implementing the testing, redesigning the curricula (and the expense if you're purchasing materials) is a lot of work. If it doesn't have the desired effect (and it doesn't), then well-intentioned administrators who insist their teachers use it are part of the problem. In other words, it's not the science that's bad, it's the implementation of the science (or lack of awareness of the science).
Quote:
Personally I’m afraid the teaching of instrument playing will still be done for a long time in the same way as Amadeus learned to play the piano and the violin from Leopold. Not necessarily a bad thing.
I do think that this is a bad thing, but probably you're not aware of how severely Leopold treated Amadeus and how their relationship ended up.
JayKosta wrote:
Speaking of instruments such as piano and violin, for which a large part of the 'playing function' (physical actions and positions) is easily visible - is there a significant difference in the 'teaching style' for those instruments compared to the style(s) used for teaching brass?
You don't need to look at other instruments to see that, just look at another aspect of trumpet technique. Think about how ridiculous it would be to teach a trumpet student about which valves to use by imagining the desired sound in their head and allowing their fingers to figure out how to play a particular note without conscious thought. Brass pedagogy tends to only discourage discussion of how to play when it comes to embouchure technique.
Other instruments, like strings and piano, don't appear to teach playing technique with as much focus on mental imagery as brass embouchure pedagogy. It's still present (and useful), but it seems to be more balanced, in my experience.
Historically, brass pedagogy tends to focus on letting the sound alone guide the body and encourages music students to remain ignorant of how we actually play the instrument in an efficient way. This idea has been shifting slowly, but it's still quite prevalent. Much like the learning styles hypothesis, there are some parts of this approach that have value, but when taken to their full conclusion don't help with teaching and learning as much as proponents feel.
I am always surprised when I read this reductive take on "end result teaching." No good teacher solely relies on the sound alone guiding the body even those from schools-of-teaching that have that phrase as a core value. There are many BAD teachers that espouse that philosophy and I think what you are saying is essentially: there are bad teachers out there. No surprise there. But those that attack this essential pedagogical concept are probably bad teachers themselves. (You address the nuance in what you said before, this is more for the original brad goode statement).
Wilktone wrote:
Other instruments, like strings and piano, don't appear to teach playing technique with as much focus on mental imagery as brass embouchure pedagogy. It's still present (and useful), but it seems to be more balanced, in my experience
String and piano have essentially ready made sound. They can get right into technique because there is not a massive need for understanding what a trumpet should sound like. I hit a key I know what I'm getting.
Embouchure pedagogy, as I said, is too complicated for a beginning 10 year old kid to actively understand and engage with. The teacher should be guiding the situation without burdening the student with the knowledge. It's not that hard to get a good embouchure from the start.
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2023 8:28 am Post subject:
abontrumpet wrote:
I am always surprised when I read this reductive take on "end result teaching." No good teacher solely relies on the sound alone guiding the body even those from schools-of-teaching that have that phrase as a core value.
Yes, I agree. From a practical standpoint I don't believe that most (good) teachers teach purely through coaching mental imagery, but there are plenty of highly regarded teacher's whose own writings do explicitly state that. Sometimes I think the real genius in some of these pedagogues was to tell a student how to play while convincing them that they weren't telling them how to play.
But there are definitely adherents to the "think system" approach who will always teach brass embouchure technique that way.
Quote:
Embouchure pedagogy, as I said, is too complicated for a beginning 10 year old kid to actively understand and engage with. The teacher should be guiding the situation without burdening the student with the knowledge. It's not that hard to get a good embouchure from the start.
Yes, but I'm not talking about working with a 10 year old student here, I'm discussing this assuming that everyone who is interested in this topic is a teaching colleague (this is, after all, the Pedagogy section of the forum). One of the reasons brass embouchure technique seems so mysterious and unknowable is because too many teachers ignore it or discourage any sort of embouchure analysis. Keeping students uninformed on purpose only leads to the next generation of teachers keeping their students ignorant, and so on.
At what point should we be giving our students descriptions of good embouchure form? If we acknowledge that many students who earn a college degree in music end up doing some teaching, should brass embouchure pedagogy be treated differently then "imagine the sound and let the chops work themselves out?" If a 15 year old has the intellectual capability to understand this (and I think they do) is it OK to introduce it then?
I'll post this Youtube link here again and ask the same questions.
Can you recognize the embouchure issue this tubist has? What sort of correction does he need to make to fix his embouchure technique? I don't doubt that many of you caught this right away, but I suspect that many of us have no idea.
If we know the answer we can at the very least evaluate the effectiveness of any strategy we use to help in a similar situation.
Can you recognize the embouchure issue this tubist has? What sort of correction does he need to make to fix his embouchure technique? I don't doubt that many of you caught this right away, but I suspect that many of us have no idea.
If we know the answer we can at the very least evaluate the effectiveness of any strategy we use to help in a similar situation.
Dave
I'll put myself out there: for me, the tubist has so many issues with his sound, air, articulation (combo of both the previous), and I suspect that he isn't hearing those pitches perfectly that I wouldn't touch the embouchure function until he is making significant strides in those areas. Chances are things would resolve themselves. I'm not a tubist don't know what the acceptable levels of movement are around the mouthpiece, but playing it at half speed a lot of the inefficient embouchure positions he employs would be fixed if he played with a better sound. IMO the area under the mouthpiece is kind of pointless to evaluate visually.
As far as the question about whether I would give him embouchure to think about, no. He's got a lot of work to do to employ repeatable habits in terms of air, sound, and pitch before he can take that on, IMO
Joined: 26 May 2006 Posts: 1808 Location: Toronto, Canada
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:40 am Post subject:
abontrumpet wrote:
String and piano have essentially ready made sound. They can get right into technique because there is not a massive need for understanding what a trumpet should sound like. I hit a key I know what I'm getting.
Serious question - have you ever played a violin? The very beginning of holding and playing a violin is both very uncomfortable and really horrendous sounding. It's only a ready made sound in the sense that it's easy to produce a noise of some kind. Making a musical tone is every bit as difficult as it is for us, especially considering that the valves guide us onto true pitches in a way that beginner violins (and their teachers) would dearly love to have. Violin teachers don't hesitate to tell students directly about changing bow pressure, bow speed, and bow hold and placement (at the frog, over the bridge, etc.). They have a ton of subtle physical cues to coordinate to make a good sound, just like we do, and no one suggests that it's impossible to give useful physical directions, and that instead, they should just listen to Heifetz and engage their imaginations until they sound like him.
There is absolutely a critical place for sound based instruction, but that doesn't mean that it's always the only appropriate solution to every problem. Other instrumental families (whose teaching traditions are waaaay broader, deeper, and older than ours) balance both of these considerations. We should learn from their example.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 1172 Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:42 am Post subject:
abontrumpet wrote:
...
As far as the question about whether I would give him embouchure to think about, no. He's got a lot of work to do to employ repeatable habits in terms of air, sound, and pitch before he can take that on, IMO
That is exactly the opposite of the point Dave is trying to make.
I'm sure the player has already spent years working on air, sound, and pitch but in vain because of the embouchure issue that didn't resolve itself.
Last edited by Doug Elliott on Sat Jan 21, 2023 12:53 pm; edited 2 times in total
Joined: 24 Dec 2018 Posts: 3306 Location: Endwell NY USA
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2023 11:43 am Post subject:
abontrumpet wrote:
... He's got a lot of work to do to employ repeatable habits in terms of air, sound, and pitch before he can take that on, IMO
---------------------------------------
My understanding of your words, is that he should DO some things (repeatable habits) differently; so the 'teaching / learning' issue becomes how is he to understand / feel / imagine / etc. 'where he is now ' and 'where he should be going'.
late edit: it is about the DOing of the 'now' and 'be going'. _________________ Most Important Note ? - the next one !
KNOW (see) what the next note is BEFORE you have to play it.
PLAY the next note 'on time' and 'in rhythm'.
Oh ya, watch the conductor - they set what is 'on time'.
Last edited by JayKosta on Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:23 pm; edited 1 time in total
String and piano have essentially ready made sound. They can get right into technique because there is not a massive need for understanding what a trumpet should sound like. I hit a key I know what I'm getting.
1. Serious question - have you ever played a violin?
2. There is absolutely a critical place for sound based instruction, but that doesn't mean that it's always the only appropriate solution to every problem. Other instrumental families (whose teaching traditions are waaaay broader, deeper, and older than ours) balance both of these considerations. We should learn from their example.
3. . . .they should just listen to Heifetz and engage their imaginations until they sound like him.
1. Yes, through college I had plenty of string friends and to make a pro tone on the instrument took me and friends about 2-5 minutes. One tone, not Tchaikovsky.
2. I think you misunderstood my post. I was illuminating why technique is so quickly talked about with string and piano, not that sound based instruction is the only appropriate solution.
3. I don't think you're reading my posts carefully at all. But also, the physics of the trumpet and the way a violin are played are massively different. In both cases, physical cues must be viewed in the context of "how do those things facilitate my sound."
You can be technically correct and still sound bad. You can be technically incorrect and sound great.
On the violin, all the bits are out in the open. On trumpet so much is hidden from the viewer. I think if you reread what you posted you'll see exactly how different beginning trumpet and beginning violin are.
Last edited by abontrumpet on Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:27 pm; edited 1 time in total
...
As far as the question about whether I would give him embouchure to think about, no. He's got a lot of work to do to employ repeatable habits in terms of air, sound, and pitch before he can take that on, IMO
That is exactly the opposite of the point Dave is trying to make.
I'm sure the player has already spent years working on air, sound, and pitch but in vain because of the embouchure issue that didn't resolve itself.
(This next paragraph will assume a few things): Here's the deal, if the student doesn't know what a pro tuba is supposed to sound like and is just listening to his peers in class then he "hasn't spent years working on air, sound, and pitch" Or maybe a better way to put it is: " he has spent years" working on exactly the result he is achieving because he has been striving for mediocrity. So, in some sense, he has actually achieved as great as he can possibly imagine. He has reached the top of HIS mountain.
My job as his teacher would be to illuminate what exactly he should be listening for. Only then can real progress happen in air, SOUND, and pitch. It is a FUNDAMENTAL part of professional music making (to know what a pro should sound and play like). If you disagree with that, then we cannot fundamentally agree.
Last edited by abontrumpet on Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:28 pm; edited 1 time in total
... He's got a lot of work to do to employ repeatable habits in terms of air, sound, and pitch before he can take that on, IMO
---------------------------------------
My understanding of your words, is that he should DO some things (repeatable habits) differently; so the 'teaching / learning' issue becomes how is he to understand / feel / imagine / etc. 'where he is now ' and 'where he should be going'.
Great question!
If I played the same instrument as them I would demonstrate how they sound and then demonstrate the pro version. First ask if they hear a difference. If they can then they have the audio context for "where they are now." Then I would work simply to have the student experience* the improved or (as is often the case) the pro version. Then they have the audio context intertwined with the experiential context. *A variety of cues can be used -- initially I'll continue to demonstrate them vs. me and point out audio cues which usually does the bulk of the work because ultimately, the student will have that to rely on when they leave for the week. For advanced players i'll use more sensation and physical based cues if necessary.
When a student knows that they can go from 70% pro quality to 90% pro quality in a short period (a few minutes in a lesson), ideally they are motivated to bring all their playing up to the 90% level over the course of the week. Then they come back at 75% and so-on. When they record themselves and experience easier playing with improved quality it should be self-evident "where is he now" and "where is he going."
Repeatable habits have to be coded into the sound and experiential production of that sound in order to become a low-conscious effort (low-conscious is akin to how an F1 driver can drive like they do and still chat with their crew, it requires less bandwidth for them to just drive the car than it would take us). If we try to encode trumpet playing solely into the physical sensation of the embouchure function, we are working with a moving target.
All instruments must encode what they do physically within the sound and music they are trying to achieve. Otherwise it's an uphill battle.
NB: That is not to say that physical cues are not useful. It is to say that physical cues are temporary to achieve or unlock a "sound" result. Once the sound is repeatable with the physical cue, we discard the physical cue because we have encoded it into the sound.
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Sat Jan 21, 2023 1:55 pm Post subject:
Quote:
I'll put myself out there: for me, the tubist has so many issues with his sound, air, articulation (combo of both the previous), and I suspect that he isn't hearing those pitches perfectly that I wouldn't touch the embouchure function until he is making significant strides in those areas. Chances are things would resolve themselves.
...
(This next paragraph will assume a few things)
Just to give a little additional background about this tubist, he had attended an arts magnet school (one of the top in the state) and had been studying with a well-regarded tubist prior to participating in my research. You'll have to trust me when I say his ear is outstanding. He had plenty of instruction on breathing too. He had heard excellent tubists live many times and had high musical standards.
Of course you can't know all these things from the short clip I posted, but what you're missing is the actual embouchure problem. There is a specific thing that is happening that you can both see and hear in the video. And once you know what that is, and understand how this embouchure characteristic works for different players, you'll have a good idea of what you need to try with him to fix it.
And that is the main point I'm trying to make here. If you don't know about the basic brass embouchure patterns, you're going to have to resort to working on breathing, ear training, musical expression, mental imagery, or anything but the real issue. Even if working on those things can help, I think it's mostly just going to help cover up the problem and make it harder to fix down the road. Sometimes players disguise their embouchure problems even from themselves - until it finally catches up to them and starts breaking down completely.
If you don't know what's wrong you can't evaluate whether or not your suggestions are fixing the problem.
Quote:
I think you misunderstood my post. I was illuminating why technique is so quickly talked about with string and piano, not that sound based instruction is the only appropriate solution.
...
On the violin, all the bits are out in the open. On trumpet so much is hidden from the viewer. I think if you reread what you posted you'll see exactly how different beginning trumpet and beginning violin are.
Yes, the analogy of strings to brass is imperfect. However, I think the main takeaway from the comparison in pedagogy is that instruction about technique on other instruments doesn't treat it with mental imagery to the same extent that brass pedagogy does regarding the embouchure. While there are differences that matter, the development of motor skills and what the best way of teaching those skills is probably similar whether we're talking about bowing technique or embouchure mechanics. A violinist isn't usually taught to not think about their bowing because it will cause "paralysis by analysis."
And let's not get too hung up on teaching beginning students. Of course we don't dump loads of information on students who don't have a background (or intellectual capability) to understand and put it in context. I'm talking about what teachers need to know.
Yes, because much of brass technique is hidden from view, compared with other instruments, it is harder to assess playing mechanics. But it's still possible and helpful.
You'll have to trust me when I say his ear is outstanding. He had plenty of instruction on breathing too. He had heard excellent tubists live many times and had high musical standards.
Of course you can't know all these things from the short clip I posted, but what you're missing is the actual embouchure problem.
__
However, I think the main takeaway from the comparison in pedagogy is that instruction about technique on other instruments doesn't treat it with mental imagery to the same extent that brass pedagogy does regarding the embouchure.
And let's not get too hung up on teaching beginning students.
I will have to blindly trust you. I've met DMA students studying with great teachers that still don't know when they aren't sounding great, even those with a very fine embouchure.
Like I said, I'm not a tuba player so I don't have a reference for low brass embouchure and their limits.
Mental imagery in what sense? Can you give an example?
I think that teaching beginning students is the genesis for pedagogy in general, as brass playing is relatively simple so the most useful and most foundational techniques tend to work across the gamut. Beginning bow technique goals are the same from beginner to pro etc.
Last edited by abontrumpet on Sat Jan 21, 2023 2:11 pm; edited 1 time in total
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
