I wasn't going to respond to Wilktone again, but I feel like he's the kind of person that would take my silence as a win.
Is this a forum for the exchange of ideas or is it contest to see who wins and who loses?
If it's the latter, this thread might go on forever...
That's a fair shot. I apologize for my moment of weakness. But it does make me happy that I did write the rest of the response as I think does have some value on the whole.
I retract the sentiment. But I will leave it for the record.
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2023 7:41 am Post subject:
abontrumpet, I appreciate you finally taking the time to address actual things in the paper. Why did it take you so long to do so?
What is your background in research? It might help if I understand where you're coming from so I can cater my responses to your experience.
Quote:
General: Prime example of wilktone's issues in this paper. He says "a lot of brass players" (above) and "many" when all that are quoted are: Campos, Whitener, Smiley, and Porter (maybe Weast too?). 4 (or 5) people.
Conducting a meta-analysis of literature to see what percentage of brass authors that discuss this and which side they come down on was beyond the scope of the research.
Quote:
The method for his "experiment" was to basically see if amateurs* could hear a difference in placement within a minute.
There were professional that took the survey too. One of the flaws of the experimental design was that participants were not vetted prior. That would need to be addressed in a more robust study. That fact is not misrepresented in the paper.
Quote:
Wilktone has cherry picked a few quotes and made sweeping generalizations which is what he does to me all the time.
The resources I quote are not misrepresented in my literature review. If you have evidence that I misunderstood one of those authors, please cite it.
Quote:
The other GLARING issue is that I suspect that most of these trumpeters he quotes are talking about players not with a "low-setting" embouchure, but rather a type of embouchure that he would classify as a having the "upper lip vibrating with more intensity."
Sound difference between embouchure types was not the research question. One of the trumpet examples (Player C) was an upstream Low Placement embouchure type/Reinhardt IVA. About 48% of the participants successfully identified him as placing the mouthpiece on the vermillion.
This is all in the paper.
Quote:
But he doesn't actually interview any of the sources to examine that point.
By and large, however, it isn't standard practice to contact every single reference while conducting research. It would get too hard anything finished if that was the standard.
Quote:
HE EVEN CALLS IT UNUSUAL in his paper -- "Player D places the mouthpiece just barely right on the red of his upper lip. This player is a little unusual in that he is a 'medium high placement' emouchure type who places on the red of his upper lip." And yet, he is the only one in this line up that "most" (and I'm using most as loosely as wilktone) would call "playing in the red".
The unusual fact here is that he belongs to an embouchure type that always has more upper lip inside the mouthpiece. Due to the large size of that player's upper lip vermilion his placement was such that even with more upper lip inside the rim still contacted his upper lip vermillion.
Quote:
So the one person in his paper that "plays in the red" barely plays in the red, has notably large vermilion which means he/she/they is potentially using more of their upper obicularis than many of us.
Other players in the study used more upper lip inside than Player D. One of the players placed with more vermilion contact on the upper lip than Player D. What does the potential to use more of the upper lip inside have to do with the vermilion?
Quote:
In Wilktone's paper, for some reason, in the section regarding damage, he repeatedly mentions that "no specific mention was made to how rim contact placed on the vermilion correlates with these injuries." So all the evidence he presents are basically saying: they didn't address this point specifically. Which seems to work against him?
If rim contact on the vermilion was inherently damaging to the lips then it's logical to reason that we'll find damage on the vermilion cited in the literature. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence, so that is somewhat up in the air. The examples in the literature that point out damage to other areas of the lip, even outside of the area where the mouthpiece is placed, demonstrate that lip damage happens both in and out of the vermilion.
The point here was to investigate the claims that placement on the vermilion is inherently damaging and I found a lack of evidence. I also found some evidence that it's fine, so while there is room for ambiguity it leans towards the vermilion accepting mouthpiece pressure just fine in comparison with the rest of the lip.
Although not specifically addressed in the paper, I feel that damage to the lips happens when the musician's playing mechanics go against their natural embouchure type and isn't related to placement on the vermilion. That would be an interesting research question.
Quote:
Which is a valid point to make, but just pointing out that "free to vibrate" as he presents it here is different than what the paper aims to clarify.
Some authors claim that placement on the upper lip vermilion is poor technique because it inhibits the amount the upper lip vibrates. This area of the literature review is to show that for some players (upstream/Low Placement/Reinhardt Type IVs) the lower lip vibrates with more intensity and the upper lip has more rim contact. It's actually good embouchure technique for these players to inhibit the upper lip vibrations somewhat with more rim contact.
Quote:
If one reads my previous write-up, you will find that "in the red" players quite often (and in my experience, most of the time) sound very good.
Then why are you arguing that it's wrong? Because some of them have issues? Do players who place the mouthpiece off the vermilion sometimes have issues too?
Your experiences with "in the red" players doesn't mirror mine. Your observations about player's with issues also holds true for musicians who place the rim out of the vermilion. There's no evidence that your observations are accurate. That's why formal data collection is done.
Quote:
My favorite chuckle is that main source of quotations in his paper on the vermilion not being more prone to damage is Wilson (2000). Which is from the H.L. Wilson book titled -- The Clarinet. Not a scientific text as far as I know.
As far as you know? Not a book, a journal article called "Lips." Written by a medical doctor for a clarinet journal. If you want to criticize the references maybe you should read them.
Quote:
You are answering a question nobody really asks.
I did, and since I wrote the paper that's enough.
The research question was asked in order to work out whether those pedagogues who state they can hear the difference is accurate.
Quote:
In my opinion, if you want to wave this paper around like it means something, then the question you might have explored could have been . . .
Again, please clarify your research background. It's not that your suggestions are bad, per se, it's just that you're moving the goalpost beyond the scope of a pilot study. Had the pilot gotten more interesting or unexpected results, then it's possible that a grant committee would green light it and I could have taken more time, gotten great equipment, compensated test subjects to take more time, etc.
If I were advising a student who wanted to follow through on your ideas I would recommend that they pick one and narrow their research questions. All those lines of evidence all at once are too broad and would end up with a very unwieldy experimental design.
Quote:
We do not actually see the embouchures of the players so we cannot see whether he has properly identified playing in the red (I'm sure he can...well, maybe ... but it's not good to omit that for a research paper).
In my paper I wrote, "At the end of the survey a link to the video was provided." I can't embed a video in the paper, but I think the links inside the paper are valid now (I moved my web page to another server a while back and *think* I've got stuff fixed, but every once in a while I find another bug).
He defines lips properly in his definitions but then says "Player E does not place the mouthpiece with rim contact on the upper or lower lip." Which makes it sound like he does not put the mouthpiece on his lips...so where is it going?
Player F does not place the mouthpiece so the rim contacts the red of the lips" when wilktone often says something like -- well everybody puts their mouthpiece on the red. So which is it?
Yes, it should have probably been written more clearly. You understand the context, though, and it doesn't change the results.
Quote:
On his website he says "Medical experts typically have an insufficient background in brass technique to understand how improper playing mechanics may contribute to injuries." but then quotes medical experts in his paper.
Cherry picking - Pointing to specific points or data to argue a particular position neglecting to put those points into the correct context or ignoring data that contradicts that position.
The citations provided at that point in the paper were to references demonstrating known areas where medical experts misunderstood playing mechanics. This was in the section of my paper concerning further research where I argued that more collaboration between medical experts and musicians would be beneficial. It doesn't invalidate the results.
Quote:
THE BIGGEST one -- is that he is basically invalidating the complaints of the "victims." In my ANECDOTAL experience we see in my most previous statement, all the trumpeters sounded great and but had the same poor physical experience. We must take into account the complaint of the person which he doesn't even attempt to do.
This is different research question. Your anecdotal experience shouldn't be fully discounted, but assertions without evidence can be dismissed without evidence. Not all players who place on the vermilion feel like victims (I don't). Some brass musicians who don't place on the red also struggle. Some brass students have had their mouthpiece placements changed to off the vermilion who play best there, and those players will have issues.
I don't know the context of those players you keep referring to, but just as you can think of further questions beyond the scope of my paper, I can think of a lot of things that would affect your observations. Correlation doesn't equal causation and you haven't established a correlation yet.
Quote:
If someone can chime in on this, I'd be happy to be proven that I indeed used a fallacy here.
Ad hominem - Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself.
abontrumpet wrote:
I'm sure he will still be baffled at the end of this response but he does struggle with logic.
Your statement that I "struggle with logic" is an ad hominem. It implies that my argument is poor, but you don't address the logic you insult my ability to understand it.
Hasty generalization - Basing a conclusion without considering all the variables or evidence.
Begging the question - When the arguments premises assume the truth of the conclusion.
abontrumpet wrote:
SOME trumpeters can play in the red. They are very few and nearly nonexistent in the professional world.
We have no idea what the percentage of professional brass musicians who place on the vermilion. We can't assume that they are very few. We do know that they exist. How does the percentage of professional players with rim contact on the vermilion compare with non-professionals? Unless you can provide some evidence, we can't assume your conclusions are true.
False equivalence- When one shared trait between two items is claimed to have equivalence when that is not necessarily the logical result.
abontrumpet wrote:
Your basic argument is obicularis oris is the same on lip versus vermilion therefore placement doesn't matter. That argument can easily be struck down with "well, the lip vs vermilion is inherently different, so placement should matter. Not saying your argument isn't correct, just pointing out the bad logic.
These two arguments aren't equal. I provided evidence for mine.
Argument from fallacy - Inferring that a point that contains a fallacy must have a false conclusion.
abontrumpet wrote:
I am not trying to invalidate your argument, I am trying to show leaps in logic and research.
I'll give you half points for stating that you're not trying to invalidate my argument, but if that's the case what is your point? You've implied many times that placement on the vermilion is bad, but you're not trying to invalidate my argument by attempting to show alleged leaps in logic and research? That is starting to get close to acting like a "concern troll."
(note - I meant to click "Preview" to clean up my response and make it more succinct and accidentally clicked "Submit." Apologies if you responded and quoted something I delete after the fact.)
I think much of the response you wrote is addressed in my ** section. So please reread. Or maybe you did read it and just chose not to address it?
Wilktone wrote:
Then why are you arguing that it's wrong?
I'm not.
Wilktone wrote:
As far as you know? Not a book, a journal article called "Lips." Written by a medical doctor for a clarinet journal. If you want to criticize the references maybe you should read them.
That's my bad! If you have that available, I'd love to read it.
abontrumpet wrote:
You are answering a question nobody really asks.
Wilktone wrote:
I did, and since I wrote the paper that's enough.
The research question was asked in order to work out whether those pedagogues who state they can hear the difference is accurate.
As far as I can tell, you did not accomplish that task. You determined that forum users (not pedagogues) could not hear the difference.
These two arguments aren't equal. I provided evidence for mine.
Correct, because I am not the one authoring a paper on it. It would take many months to amass the proper evidence, but I'm sure I could accomplish a counter adequately. I presented the avenues I would pursue so that you can see that it would be well rounded and so we could avoid this conversation.
As for the rest of your response regarding fallacies, what you're not understanding is that you seem to present your paper in this forum AS IF it says something other than "people on trumpetherald really can't hear placement in a minute." All of what I am saying is for the purpose of engendering thought because somebody COULD read what you wrote and determine you've proved that it is perfectly acceptable to play in the red, when you have not adequately determined it to be so. From where I stand, what I wrote is enough to shed enough doubt that there isn't sufficient research presented in your paper to validate or invalidate playing in the red; that further study is necessary to make that claim. If I am guilty of any of them, it is because I am mounting an argument, off the cuff, skimming stuff, and stream of conscious-ing this, in a short time to shed light on something that I'm sure took much longer to pen. Mine is a forum post, yours is published.
I guess I'll gladly wear the badge of concern troll -- but not the urban dictionary definition which is disgusting behavior -- but my own definition: I am vested (concerned) in the success of the brass players on this forum and want everybody to experience the joy of great brass playing. I take each individual as they come and do not determine any course of action based on any dogmatic views but rather after deep observation. If I thought somebody could have professional success in the red, you bet I'd keep them there. But I haven't had that happen yet. Looking forward to it!
Again, a real time phone conversation would have made this go much quicker so we could clarify points in real time and had a productive and perhaps illuminating convo. But for some reason you prefer my petty internet bickering (haha); it's only seemed to exhaustingly entrench our positions rather than move anything forward. Also, FYI my written word demeanor is wildly different than my conversational demeanor (I've been told). I've said my piece on your paper, this as far as I'll go. I'll gladly link to it in the future and stand by what I wrote.
For the viewers: Ultimately, the paper accomplishes 1 thing with any kind of authority -- it determines that Forum Users cannot tell lip placement within a minute. If you have been playing in the red and have experienced the notable characteristic I mentioned in this thread, you're not alone.
Joined: 24 Dec 2018 Posts: 3330 Location: Endwell NY USA
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:12 am Post subject:
Wilktone wrote:
...
The point here was to investigate the claims that placement on the vermilion is inherently damaging and I found a lack of evidence. I also found some evidence that it's fine, so while there is room for ambiguity it leans towards the vermilion accepting mouthpiece pressure just fine in comparison with the rest of the lip. ...
-------------------------------------
I'm addressing this section only to mention that the ability of the vermilion to accept rim pressure (and to function well) probably varies quite a bit from person to person.
I know that much more detail and explanation is provided in the quoted post, and also in many others - but some reader might blindly latch onto the idea that vermilion pressure is fine for them.
Playing with substantial rim pressure on the vermilion apparently can work fine for some players, but it would be a mistake to assume that it will work for you (who ever is reading this) without some careful testing and evaluation. _________________ 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: Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:40 am Post subject:
abontrumpet wrote:
I think much of the response you wrote is addressed in my ** section. So please reread. Or maybe you did read it and just chose not to address it?
Sorry, I'll take a stab at that.
Quote:
**This is to notate that I do not have the sufficient bandwidth to determine whether or not wilktone makes a distinction of "playing in the red" as a phenomenon that requires being coupled with the primary vibrating lip.
The size of a player's vermilion is separate from the ratio of upper to lower lip inside the cup, and is also influenced by the size of the mouthpiece (e.g., trumpet or trombone mouthpiece). There are upstream players (more lower lip inside, more rim contact on the upper lip) who place with the rim on their upper lip vermillion (such as Player C). This is most common for players belonging to this embouchure type compared to the downstream type (more upper lip inside, more rim contact on the lower lip). Some downstream players place the rim with contact on the upper lip (Player D). Some downstream players have rim contact on the lower lip vermilion (Player B). Some players don't have a significant amount of rim contact on the upper or lower lip.
In other words, the vermilion is an arbitrary feature when it comes to embouchure type (which is in part defined by with lip predominates inside the mouthpiece and is the primary vibrating surface). My doctoral dissertation investigated the size of the vermilion as a factor and didn't find any statistical relationship, but that's a different paper.
Quote:
Just as there is more acceptance of playing in the red of the bottom lip (in fact in some cases encouraged -- Clevenger), it is probably because it is more common that the upper lip is the primary vibrator (39/40 examples used more upper according to the paper).
Yes, that is probably accurate to say that the downstream embouchure types are more common. In Farkas's book, "A Photographic Study..." there were 39 downstream and one upstream horn players. I don't believe that the percentages we get from this particular book are representative, but to my knowledge no one has yet conducted a study to look at this. Anecdotally, I think there's more, but I can't offer any evidence.
Quote:
I have not met a person IN PERSON that plays in the red on the top lip and vibrates primarily with the bottom lip (which potentially might be the source of their complaints?).
Argument from incredulity - Asserting that an argument is incorrect because it contradicts one's own experiences or beliefs.
I have. One of them is one of the players used in the study. I embedded a video of him blowing changes earlier, I think on my first post here. I also play with my mouthpiece rim set on my top lip vermilion. I've taught other students who also do and have performed with other brass musicians who do. Because of my interest in brass embouchure technique and pedagogy, I tend to look for these things "in the wild" out of habit, so perhaps I see it more often because I'm looking for it more often.
Quote:
So Player C could be bottom vibrator and red upper lip and Player B their inverse (top vibrator, red bottom).
Yes, Player C places the mouthpiece so that the lower lip vibrates with more intensity. Player B does the reverse. In many ways, these two embouchure types are upside-down versions of each other. The embouchure type that Player B has is much more common, as you point out, but if a musician like Player C is instructed to play this way they are working against their anatomy. This is, I speculate, a more likely reason why upstream players often struggle or even end up with injuries - they aren't getting advice that fits their embouchure type.
Quote:
In my view, that has potential to bypass the issues as the "many" have come to understand them. I recognize my lack of knowledge in this area but it should have been addressed in the paper, IMO
I did address the embouchure types of these players and included citations and references. Embouchure types and their descriptions was already established by that research, so I didn't feel the need to be more explicit in the paper.
Quote:
That's my bad! If you have that available, I'd love to read it.
I figured I'd saved all the papers, but if I still have this one it's either hidden in my research folder or it was a hard copy and I'm not sure where I put it. The journal requires you to be a member of the International Clarinet Association to log in and read it online. You can go to your college or university library and get it through interlibrary loan, if you're that interested. If I find it I'll let you know.
Quote:
As far as I can tell, you did not accomplish that task. You determined that forum users (not pedagogues) could not hear the difference.
Right, but some of those participants were indeed professional teachers. Some of them contacted me directly to discuss and some posted in the forums where I originally asked for volunteers, so I know at least those subject's identities.
But again, this was a pilot study. Overall, musicians (regardless of amount of experience) who participated were not able to hear a difference in sound. It wasn't misrepresented in the paper, it was a way to test the feasibility of collecting data this way and to see if there was enough in the results to warrant the effort.
Quote:
I stand by my original thoughts on this.
Which part?
"We do not actually see the embouchures of the players so we cannot see whether he has properly identified playing in the red (I'm sure he can...well, maybe ... "
or:
"but it's not good to omit that for a research paper)."
You can now see the embouchures of those players. Are you arguing that my characterization of their mouthpiece placement is inaccurate? I dunno about that, but maybe I need to upload higher resolution video? Or are you arguing that the link to the video should have been more prominently listed in the paper? That would be fair to point out, but it would be accessible to anyone who wanted to look for it. Heck, all one needs to do is ask. Assuming one agrees with the descriptions of the embouchures involved, it wouldn't change around the results or conclusions.
Quote:
It would take many months to amass the proper evidence, but I'm sure I could accomplish a counter adequately. I presented the avenues I would pursue so that you can see that it would be well rounded and so we could avoid this conversation.
Yet you argue that because I didn't take those months my logic and research is questionable. It's not a fair criticism to insinuate sloppy research by assuming that, with time, you'd come up with different results unless you take the time. My methodology is in the paper and you have all the same tools available to make a similar effort.
Until you do so, it's not a logical criticism to say that you *think* it would be different if you haven't done the work. THAT is illogical and poorly researched.
Quote:
As for the rest of your response regarding fallacies, what you're not understanding is that you seem to present your paper in this forum AS IF it says something other than "people on trumpetherald really can't hear placement in a minute."
The paper does say more. The experiment and results are part of the overall evidence that states that there is no good rational that placing the rim on the vermilion makes the player more prone to injuries, is mechanically incorrect, or sounds bad.
My discussion of logical fallacies is a direct response to your accusations of me using faulty logic. The criticisms you provide are often more fallacious than the ones you're accusing me of making. If you can find a specific example of a formal or informal logical fallacy I've made, I will try to address it or concede your point.
Quote:
All of what I am saying is for the purpose of engendering thought because somebody COULD read what you wrote and determine you've proved that it is perfectly acceptable to play in the red, when you have not adequately determined it to be so.
I still don't fully grasp your concern. The preponderance of evidence that the vermilion is an arbitrary feature suggests that placement on the vermilion is not "to be avoided at all costs." The arguments that it is bad are either inaccurate or don't seem to stand up to scrutiny. I stand by my statement that it's perfectly acceptable to place on the red of the lips when the player's anatomy makes that setting work best.
Quote:
From where I stand, what I wrote is enough to shed enough doubt that there isn't sufficient research presented in your paper to validate or invalidate playing in the red; that further study is necessary to make that claim.
Then we're drawing different conclusions using the same set of evidence, although you've been moving the goalpost in order to demand more evidence beyond what I dealt with in my paper. It's your turn to do the research if you want to debate that point, I'm not going to do the homework for you.
Quote:
I am vested (concerned) in the success of the brass players on this forum and want everybody to experience the joy of great brass playing.
We share similar motivations. One of my concerns is that brass students are often told to move their placement by a well-intentioned, but ignorant teacher. A lot of the lessons I teach are because by the time they come to me they are trying to play in a way that works against their anatomy. The specific situation of a student being instructed to move their placement higher on the lips is quite common, in my experience. Maybe not so much for you, but based on what you wrote earlier about your school's trumpet studio, maybe it was common there too.
Quote:
If you have been playing in the red and have experienced the notable characteristic I mentioned in this thread, you're not alone.
And what about the players experiences the same characteristics who don't play in the vermilion? What about those of us who place on the red and don't have the same characteristics? Those folks are not alone either.
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Tue Aug 15, 2023 9:43 am Post subject:
JayKosta wrote:
Playing with substantial rim pressure on the vermilion apparently can work fine for some players, but it would be a mistake to assume that it will work for you (who ever is reading this) without some careful testing and evaluation.
Yes, that is worth pointing out, Jay. I often forget to raise that point, but I do believe it is also covered in the paper.
The following point best summarizes my opinions here.
Doug Elliott wrote:
When there's a problem, it's virtually always caused by playing contrary to the individual's natural embouchure type. Correct or incorrect may be either in or out of the red. That's not an indication of anything. If you don't understand embouchure types this will mean nothing to you.
I have not met a person IN PERSON that plays in the red on the top lip and vibrates primarily with the bottom lip (which potentially might be the source of their complaints?).
Argument from incredulity - Asserting that an argument is incorrect because it contradicts one's own experiences or beliefs.
Maybe I'm mistaken, but in order for it to be a fallacy, I would have had to assert that you were somehow incorrect because I had not experienced it. Which I did not. The whole section was saying "I don't know what I don't know." I was just letting the reader know my experience. If you hadn't experienced what you had experienced, it's likely you wouldn't have pursued this topic for your paper and my experience has shaped my world view.
Wilktone wrote:
abontrumpet wrote:
I stand by my original thoughts on this.
Which part?
I think up-close still photo on the visualizer and the remaining ring left on the lips would have been useful. We cannot see exact inner rim placement from these vids. In this case "exact" was easy to achieve.
Wilktone wrote:
Yet you argue that because I didn't take those months my logic and research is questionable. It's not a fair criticism to insinuate sloppy research by assuming that, with time, you'd come up with different results unless you take the time. My methodology is in the paper and you have all the same tools available to make a similar effort.
Until you do so, it's not a logical criticism to say that you *think* it would be different if you haven't done the work. THAT is illogical and poorly researched.
Hmm, compelling argument. I think the way you present your paper on this forum isn't congruent with the actual substance in the research, but I suppose I will concede that the logic is sound. But I do *think* that I could make an equally sound counter. I *think* it would still achieve the same as you did -- which is not answering (almost) anything conclusively.
But I think when I am talking about your "faulty" logic I am talking about the authority you think your paper has. You're focusing on fallacies and fallaciousness (lol) and I'm focusing on the overall presentation of talk vs. walk; which includes* and goes beyond the scope of the paper and includes your interactions here on the forum; i.e., the inductive conclusion not the steps leading up to it. Your deductive experiment I can't fault. (This paragraph is the first time I think you can accurately accuse me of moving the goalpost -- see more below -- but your words have helped me identify that we have been arguing about two slightly different things). (Star is below)
Wilktone wrote:
The paper does say more. The experiment and results are part of the overall evidence that states that there is no good rational that placing the rim on the vermilion makes the player more prone to injuries, is mechanically incorrect, or sounds bad.
Wilktone wrote:
The point here was to investigate the claims that placement on the vermilion is inherently damaging and I found a lack of evidence.
*I don't think you met the burden of proof on all those points sufficiently. Not that you're wrong, just that it needs more substance to speak with authority. The problem is that there is so little professional/medical/scientific research for us musicians to pull from. It's not your fault!
P.S. if you're going to force me in to fallacious boxes (lol) then I'll play too. En garde! Appeal to Ignorance
Wilktone wrote:
I stand by my statement that it's perfectly acceptable to place on the red of the lips when the player's anatomy makes that setting work best.
Which I'm not trying to invalidate! I am simply asking -- "how often does that person, who's only option is placing the rim in the red, succeed in the big leagues?" Bolded because this is the primary driver of my engagement in this conversation. I'm not moving the goalpost here, just to be clear! I'm simply asking a question separate from your paper.***
Wilktone wrote:
Then we're drawing different conclusions using the same set of evidence, although you've been moving the goalpost in order to demand more evidence beyond what I dealt with in my paper. It's your turn to do the research if you want to debate that point, I'm not going to do the homework for you.
I do not think I've moved the goalposts at any point. But maybe I'm wrong. I think you're taking me saying -- I think you need more evidence as moving the goal post. But there are things that I am not convinced by and I think need more research to make conclusive claims. If that's moving the goalpost, then isn't anybody seeking a second opinion from a doctor on viable treatment also moving the goalpost? I'm genuinely asking because maybe I'm just being dense here. Like, the way I understand it, if I had said "well, if you prove this, then I'll concede" then you prove it and I say "well yeah but, that's not good enough." Or if I had told a student -- play this like phil smith and you'll get a cookie, then he does and I say, well, it I think it could have been better...no cookie. I have been steadfast in my estimation of "burden of proof" goalposts and that you did not successfully score as much as you think you had. Your previous mention of the fallacy had to do with a hypothetical thought-experiment, not something you OUGHT to have done. I try to be very careful with word choice, so read that one again "might have; could have been". I never set goals for you and then subsequently moved them.
(Comedic relief) It's like you're walking into the room like you were Brazil in the 2014 World Cup and I'm saying, well I think you were actually Germany. (Think of the analogy as a lighthearted aside for the audience rather than anything substantive).
Wilktone wrote:
We share similar motivations. One of my concerns is that brass students are often told to move their placement by a well-intentioned, but ignorant teacher. A lot of the lessons I teach are because by the time they come to me they are trying to play in a way that works against their anatomy. The specific situation of a student being instructed to move their placement higher on the lips is quite common, in my experience. Maybe not so much for you, but based on what you wrote earlier about your school's trumpet studio, maybe it was common there too.
My same concerns. Please do not draw conclusions about any of my trumpet studios based on what I wrote (I was in many studios for a long time, lots of schooling and absolutely phenomenal exposures to the greats, very lucky -- also drawing conclusions is what got us here!). My teachers are their own people and I do not speak for them nor am I a carbon copy of any of them. That being said, of my 5 classmates, only 1 student had their embouchure moved and there were 2 red players in that particular studio. It was done on a per basis situation. The rest were let be. None are pros but the one that was moved achieved the highest level of "trumpet success" so to speak. Not drawing conclusions, just sharing! I'm always on the look out and unfortunately, at the summer festivals I attended, there wasn't a case of playing in the red so I couldn't explore there. It's hard to find as the cream rises, in my experience.
Wilktone wrote:
1. And what about the players experiences the same characteristics who don't play in the vermilion? 2. What about those of us who place on the red and don't have the same characteristics? Those folks are not alone either.
1. I don't think I've ever heard this particular complaint from any non-red players. Which makes me wonder why it's the case. If you find people that do, I'd be curious. But I don't think you grasp the experience I'm explaining?
2. More power to you guys!
Ultimately all I am trying to do is not to invalidate people's experience. I'm saying -- anybody who is reading, if you resonate with my one characteristic, there are others who share that. Those that don't experience it, I'm not talking to them. I think you have done plenty in defense of the red, I am just in defense of the struggling.
***Also, how often do you place down stream players in the red of their upper lip? Those are the "in the red" players to whom I am referring.
Last edited by abontrumpet on Tue Aug 15, 2023 1:42 pm; edited 6 times in total
As a fun exercise I thought I could bend some of the facts to my confirmation bias:
Background of the problem
While there is a . . . mouthpiece upon the lips. ManySome popular texts disagree on mouthpiece placement. One . . . is J.B. Arban’s Complete Conservatory Method for Cornet (1982). . . “The mouthpiece should be placed in the middle of the lips, two-thirds on the lower lip, and one-third on the upper lip” (1982, p. 7). Philip Farkas (1962) . . . two-thirds be placed on the upper lip and one-third on the lower lip. He stated, “I have never met a really accomplished French horn player who used more lower lip than upper.” (p. 32). Eight years after publishing this statement in The Art of Brass Playing Farkas published A Photographic Study of 40 Virtuosi . . . David Vining (2010) somewhat confusingly wrote that trombonists need to place the mouthpiece with “at least one half top lip and one half bottom lip in order to achieve a good sound” (p. 62). Donald Reinhardt (1973) felt that the best mouthpiece placement was determined by the individual player’s anatomy and divided embouchure patterns into nine different types with placements including more upper lip and more lower lip inside.
While the specific mouthpiece recommendations regarding mouthpiece placement are contradictory, there is more consensus regarding how high or low upon the lips the mouthpiece
Based on a review of the literature, it seems that there is very strong evidence that shows that a mouthpiece position in which the upper lip vibrates with more intensity is the most common type of mouthpiece setting. In fact, 39/40 photos of the virtuosi in Farkas' book show this to be the case. Therefore it is possible that for the majority of players, placing the mouthpiece too low, easily identified by the inner rim resting in the red of the upper lip, that issues might arise as it won't generally be the "best mouthpiece placement as determined by a player's anatomy."
N.B. Since most in depth surveys of length lower lip include the length from the lip opening to the chin, i couldn't find something showing that 1/3 upper lip and 2/3 bottom lip would actually still be a predominantly upper lip placement. But it's not reasonable to say that in general, for a middle of the road placement, it occupies a greater percentage of the bottom lip (if we stop the measurement at the mentolabial sulcus instead of the mandible*. That's wholly unscientific, just thought it was an avenue of exploration to explore.
AN EXAMINATION OF THE ANATOMICAL AND TECHNICAL ARGUMENTS AGAINST PLACING THE MOUTHPIECE ON VERMILLION
Your argument was essentially that obicularis is orbicularis, so I'll use basically one source to paint a different picture -- *Also, is seems a number medical sources define the lower lip to the mandible, not to the mentolabial sulcus.
"The vermilion of the lips is comprised of a modified mucous membrane composed of hairless, highly vascularized, nonkeratinized stratified squamous epithelium. This membrane is three to five cellular layers in thickness, in contrast to the 16-layer facial skin. Additionally, the vermilion lacks the typical skin appendages seen in the cutaneous lip, bearing no hair follicles or salivary, sweat and sebaceous glands." (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK507900/)
Blah blah blah, skin is significantly thinner the red (sometimes 3-5 times thinner) in and inherently has different properties than the "adjacent normal skin"
Then copy paste your section on "lack of evidence"
blah blah blah, there is a lack of evidence on particular placement in these meta analysis of injury so no conclusions can be drawn
More vermilion considerations
"The upper lip is characterized by a symmetrical pair of paramedian vertical philtral ridges bordering the central depression known as the philtrum, directly below the nasal septum. The philtral ridges and the philtrum are formed by a unique collection of dermal collagen and dense elastic tissue.
Outlining the vermilion borders of the upper and lower lips is a 2 to 3 mm pale convexity known as the white roll [also known as "lip roll" in other sources], formed by the bulging of the orbicularis oris muscle laying beneath.
The principal muscle of the lips is the circumferential orbicularis oris, functioning primarily as a sphincter for the oral aperture. Rather uniquely, the orbicularis oris bears no direct bony attachments but is appended by the other oral muscles that attach to it. Specifically, the nasolabial folds are formed by the insertion of the muscles responsible for lip elevation into the orbicularis oris. At the philtrum, the fibers of the orbicularis oris decussate to insert into the opposite philtral ridge. Interdigitation of the muscle’s fibers at the commissures allows for a scissor-like closure."
Blah blah blah as we can see there are considerable differences and topographical considerations between the adjacent normal skin and vermilion and there are a greater number of muscle insertions that happen in the adjacent normal skin of the lip, so consideration must be made to low placement embouchure in the vermilion for the "majority" of trumpet players.
Also let's correct Porter's quote --
On pulling the inner rim into the red of the upper or lower lip: "That's gonna lead, in my opinion, to endurance issues because whatever pressure you do have to apply to the lips is better suited to this part of the lip than this softer membrane right here in the middle. Some people will argue to that fact, but the facts speak for themselves: if you look at the majority of players in the world, especially the ones that are the best players that have the best range and endurance, they don't play on the red of the lips. I'm not saying there aren't exceptions out there, but the exceptions don't make the rule. Right? The majority makes the rule in this case. So again, I'm teaching you guys middle of the road embouchure that applies to most of the best players in the world. So I'm not trying to be dogmatic and say there aren't other possibilities, but by in large, the way that I'm showing you is what I've observed the best players in the world doing."
Last edited by abontrumpet on Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:44 am; edited 2 times in total
Lol, I thought the quotation marks was good enough to indicate the imprecise language. But thanks for keeping me honest. Changed to "normal adjacent skin." The thread should also be renamed because "the vermilion ranges in color from reddish-pink to brown, depending on ethnicity." Generally if we are talking colloquially about "in the red" it is most likely white normal-adjacent-skin.
"White roll" is left there as it is the accepted scientific colloquial term.
Last edited by abontrumpet on Thu Aug 17, 2023 5:41 am; edited 1 time in total
“Although some call it the ‘white roll’, it is not white in dark-skinned individuals; therefore, we prefer the term ‘lip roll’. It is a three-dimensional, hill-like structure with adnexal structures of specialized glands and fat underlying the surrounding tissue that imparts a roll to the lip.”
“Although some call it the ‘white roll’, it is not white in dark-skinned individuals; therefore, we prefer the term ‘lip roll’. It is a three-dimensional, hill-like structure with adnexal structures of specialized glands and fat underlying the surrounding tissue that imparts a roll to the lip.”
Lol. Ok that one wasn't even me, I was quoting it. Call up the source. But I amended it nonetheless.
An important goal of lip reconstruction is to maintain the competence of the oral seal to allow for mastication and phonation. Surgical repair of lesions of the lips poses a specific challenge as significant aesthetic defects are possible with even minor disruptions of the natural vermilion border, cupid’s bow, and white roll. All incisions should be limited to within a single cosmetic unit to minimize the appearance of scars. The cosmetic units of the lips include a single unit comprising the lower lip and 1 medial and 2 lateral units of the upper lip.
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2023 8:32 am Post subject:
Thanks again, abontrumpet, for taking the time to post some specific thoughts.
abontrumpet wrote:
I do not think I've moved the goalposts at any point.
I went through our past discussions about this topic and compared with what you're saying now. I have to admit that my worry that you're playing a "concern troll" is based, to a degree, on what you'd written there. In the past you've been much more adamant that placement on the vermilion is a bad thing. You've either been consistently hyperbolic in the past, leading me to misunderstand you, or you've softened your opinion. For now, I'll assume the later.
There's a lot to unpack in your last couple of detailed posts. I'm just going to hit the ones that I think matter. If there's something I didn't comment on that you feel makes enough of a difference then please remind me and I'll see if I can either clarify my viewpoints or logic better.
Quote:
We cannot see exact inner rim placement from these vids.
Try watching them on 50% or 25% speed and look closely as those players set the mouthpiece and take it off the lips. Sorry if not all initial placements made it into the clip, but when I look closely at these players I see obvious mouthpiece settings on the vermilion for those three above noted players. Maybe others can chime in on their thought and see if we come to a consensus.
Quote:
I am simply asking -- "how often does that person, who's only option is placing the rim in the red, succeed in the big leagues?"
How often do players of any level find that a mouthpiece setting on the vermilion is correct for them? How does that compare with highly successful players overall? How often are players who require a mouthpiece setting in the vermilion discouraged by teachers (or internet resources) from placing the mouthpiece where it needs to be? Are players who are taught to move their placement off the vermilion as successful as players who are allowed to place on the red?
If the crux of your argument is that you're "just asking questions," then I would ask you to try a different tact. We'll just go back and forth and never get anywhere.
Quote:
The most notable characteristic is that everyday felt as if they were starting from scratch, that endurance didn't build over time.
Quote:
I don't think I've ever heard this particular complaint from any non-red players.
The first complaint is pretty subjective. You've never heard someone feel like they were "starting from scratch" everyday who didn't place the mouthpiece on the vermilion? Players who don't place no the vermilion definitely can have range and endurance issues too.
Quote:
Therefore it is possible that for the majority of players, placing the mouthpiece too low, easily identified by the inner rim resting in the red of the upper lip, that issues might arise as it won't generally be the "best mouthpiece placement as determined by a player's anatomy."
The mouthpiece can be set incorrectly for the individual player (too high, too low, too far to one side, or not far enough to one side) irrespective of how large the player's vermilion is and where the mouthpiece happens to be placed. I prefer to work out a student's best mouthpiece placement based on how it's working, not on how it looks based on the student's vermilion.
Quote:
Since most in depth surveys of length lower lip include the length from the lip opening to the chin, i couldn't find something showing that 1/3 upper lip and 2/3 bottom lip would actually still be a predominantly upper lip placement..
It wouldn't be. A mouthpiece placement with more lower lip inside would not be a downstream embouchure. It's not about the entire length of the individual's lips, it's based on the ratio of upper to lower lip inside the mouthpiece. 2/3 lower lip is a predominantly lower lip embouchure (upstream).
Important caveat, it's quite rare to find a player who has one lip predominate inside the mouthpiece but because of lip texture the air stream direction will be the opposite of what you'd expect, but it can happen.
Quote:
Your argument was essentially that obicularis is orbicularis, so I'll use basically one source to paint a different picture...
My argument is that the vermillion does not consist of "fatty tissue," so using that misinformation as a basis for avoiding placing the mouthpiece on the vermilion is wrong.
Quote:
Blah blah blah, skin is significantly thinner the red (sometimes 3-5 times thinner) in and inherently has different properties than the "adjacent normal skin"
I had only encountered this "the vermilion has a thinner epidermal layer" argument after writing the paper, so I didn't cover it there. Best I can tell, we're talking about a difference that might be .36 millimeters, but I wouldn't trust that. Regardless, it's a comparatively small amount. Is it your belief that the difference in the layers of skin make for a cushion for the muscles underneath? I seriously doubt this, but sure, I guess you could use this as a jumping off point to investigate that possibility. But that's pretty thin (see what I did there, yuk, yuk).
Quote:
blah blah blah, there is a lack of evidence on particular placement in these meta analysis of injury so no conclusions can be drawn
We could draw the conclusion that if the vermilion was more sensitive to pressure that this should be evident in the literature. As I wrote in the paper and earlier here, absence of evidence is not evidence of evidence, but it is another line that suggests those who say the vermilion is more prone to injuries don't have the evidence to back up their conclusion.
Quote:
Also let's correct Porter's quote --
I've looked a bit, but can't find the source for this quote. If it's from one of his YouTube videos, then maybe it's one of the ones he posted after I wrote my paper. The quotes I gave of him were from a YouTube conversation that began on my channel. Be aware that Porter happened to delete those comments after I had already responded to him. I think that the quotes from his paper were from that discussion. He stated that he deleted his comments because "it wasn't going anywhere."
But I'll address some of those points here.
Quote:
That's gonna lead, in my opinion, to endurance issues because whatever pressure you do have to apply to the lips is better suited to this part of the lip than this softer membrane right here in the middle.
It's still not established that the vermillion is "softer" than the rest of the lip, I don't think Porter investigated this point seriously, he just assumes it's true. Even if we can point to the thickness of the epidermis there or maybe even that there are fewer muscle connections there, it's definitely not established that mouthpiece pressure on the vermilion is more prone to damage and some evidence that it's not.
Porter seems to be repeating something he heard without looking deeper into it, or just stating what he believes as fact.
Quote:
Some people will argue to that fact, but the facts speak for themselves: if you look at the majority of players in the world, especially the ones that are the best players that have the best range and endurance, they don't play on the red of the lips.
If we look at the majority of players, not even the best ones, we find they don't play on the red or the lips. That just means that the majority of players require a placement that happens to be off the vermilion. Placement is personal and based on where it happens to work best, not by how much vermilion happens to get rim contact.
If we look at the majority of players with range and endurance problems, they also don't play on the red of the lips. Range and endurance issues happen for a lot of reasons. Sometimes it's because of an unideal placement, and sometimes (like in my case) the range and endurance issues go away when the placement is moved on the vermilion. Sometimes it gets fixed by moving it off, but the vermilion is an arbitrary consideration in these cases. Quite often the range and endurance issues are caused by something else entirely.
Quote:
I'm not saying there aren't exceptions out there, but the exceptions don't make the rule. Right?
I hope it's clear by now that I feel placement on the vermilion is an exception, but an arbitrary one. Right?
In the past you've been much more adamant that placement on the vermilion is a bad thing. You've either been consistently hyperbolic in the past, leading me to misunderstand you, or you've softened your opinion. For now, I'll assume the later.
For sure. I think both! I know my flaws and that is one of them. In a debate I tend to lead explosively and hyperbolically then soften my position. Not purposefully, FYI. So you've nailed it.
Wilktone wrote:
Try watching them on 50% or 25% speed and look closely as those players set the mouthpiece and take it off the lips.
I get it, it's "close enough" but something really exact was really easy to grab here.
Wilktone wrote:
How often do players of any level find that a mouthpiece setting on the vermilion is correct for them? How does that compare with highly successful players overall? How often are players who require a mouthpiece setting in the vermilion discouraged by teachers (or internet resources) from placing the mouthpiece where it needs to be? Are players who are taught to move their placement off the vermilion as successful as players who are allowed to place on the red?
I'm so glad to see these questions! It puts me at ease with this whole conversation. I thought you seriously weren't considering these lines of thought! One defense, I do believe I have been consistently asking the same question as a challenge. The rest were out of curiosity, not argument. So, again, I don't think I fall in that fallacious box.
Wilktone wrote:
abontrumpet wrote:
The most notable characteristic is that everyday felt as if they were starting from scratch, that endurance didn't build over time.
I don't think I've ever heard this particular complaint from any non-red players.
The first complaint is pretty subjective. You've never heard someone feel like they were "starting from scratch" everyday who didn't place the mouthpiece on the vermilion? Players who don't place no the vermilion definitely can have range and endurance issues too.
Yeah its a very particular sensation I only experience when I slipped into the red. It's not range and endurance issues, which I have obviously had at periods when not "in the red" but for the most part, when I end my day, I know based on today's level of fatigue, with 8 hours sleep I KNOW my chops will fell like x,y,z tomorrow. That confidence never occurred in the red. It was a 100% craps shoot. But if I try to come up with alternate reasons, it could be attributing that to potentially some slight shifting day to day, I dunno!
Wilktone wrote:
abontrumpet wrote:
i couldn't find something showing that 1/3 upper lip and 2/3 bottom lip would actually still be a predominantly upper lip placement..
It wouldn't be. A mouthpiece placement with more lower lip inside would not be a downstream embouchure. It's not about the entire length of the individual's lips, it's based on the ratio of upper to lower lip inside the mouthpiece. 2/3 lower lip is a predominantly lower lip embouchure (upstream).
I understand what you're saying, and I agree, but I'm talking about a different ratio. I'm talking surface area ratios.
If I look from the outside, I do not know how much lip is inside the cup. For example, on a bach blank, you could be playing a 1C or a 10 1/2C and there are different AMOUNTS of lip in the cup. Now put that sentence aside. So, I think that we cannot know the ratio of lips in the mouthpiece just on the percentage of surface area of upper lip covered and bottom lip covered (using your definition of lip) from the outside visual. If I were to put my mouthpiece to my lips, it would appear that 2/3 of the surface area of my bottom lip is covered (visually) and only 1/3 of the surface area of my top lip is covered (more skin is showing above it). But in the cup I am probably 60% upper/40% lower.
For example. Lets say I had a 10 inch upper lip and a 2 inch bottom lip. If I play with a 2 inch diameter blank with 51% upper/49% lower lips INSIDE the cup, on the outside I might be covering roughly 10% of the surface area of the upper lip visually, and like 50% of the surface area of the bottom lip visually on the outside. It would look low as heck! I HOPE you get what I'm saying because I'm not explaining it well. Basically my point here is that Arban could have been describing the surface area covered, not the area inside the cup. (In my hypothetical Arban would have written 1/10 and 1/2 respectively instead of 1/3 2/3)
The rest I think are ALL fair points and I have no rebuttal.
Wilktone wrote:
abontrumpet wrote:
Also let's correct Porter's quote --
I've looked a bit, but can't find the source for this quote.
You're right, it did come out after you paper! It's from his embouchure video. I wasn't trying to use that as any point of discussion, just as a correction, but it appears to have been unnecessary.
Wilktone wrote:
I hope it's clear by now that I feel placement on the vermilion is an exception, but an arbitrary one. Right?
This is actually news to me haha! Turns out WE AGREED after all.
Joined: 25 Aug 2002 Posts: 727 Location: Asheville, NC
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2023 11:54 am Post subject:
abontrumpet wrote:
Wilktone wrote:
I hope it's clear by now that I feel placement on the vermilion is an exception, but an arbitrary one. Right?
This is actually news to me haha! Turns out WE AGREED after all.
Wilktone wrote:
There is no inherent reason why the mouthpiece needs to be "off the red." Most brass players won't be able to play well with such a high or low placement, but many do and they can be very fine players.
Joined: 10 Oct 2006 Posts: 1182 Location: Silver Spring, MD
Posted: Thu Aug 17, 2023 3:23 pm Post subject:
abontrumpet wrote:
Yeah its a very particular sensation I only experience when I slipped into the red. It's not range and endurance issues, which I have obviously had at periods when not "in the red" but for the most part, when I end my day, I know based on today's level of fatigue, with 8 hours sleep I KNOW my chops will fell like x,y,z tomorrow. That confidence never occurred in the red. It was a 100% craps shoot. But if I try to come up with alternate reasons, it could be attributing that to potentially some slight shifting day to day, I dunno!
That is a VERY common phenomenon for IIIA players. slipping to a lower placement and getting those symptoms.
It has absolutely NOTHING to do with whether it's "in the red." It's simply a placement that has slipped down below the ratio that is efficient for that embouchure type. It can happen when you get tired, or when you're sweating and too slippery, or if your mouthpiece is too small, or when you get too happy with a big fat sound in the low range.
The exact same thing can happen to trombone players who are nowhere near the red. For exactly the same reasons.
=========================
That's the end of my contribution to this discussion.
That is a VERY common phenomenon for IIIA players. slipping to a lower placement and getting those symptoms.
. . .
That's the end of my contribution to this discussion.
There you go! Thanks for chiming in.
Wilktone wrote:
If the crux of your argument is that you're "just asking questions," then I would ask you to try a different tact. We'll just go back and forth and never get anywhere.
Basically my point here is that Arban could have been describing the surface area covered, not the area inside the cup. (In my hypothetical Arban would have written 1/10 and 1/2 respectively instead of 1/3 2/3)
Also I did want some feedback on this for whoever is reading!
All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous1, 2, 3, 4Next
Page 3 of 4
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
