range using Chicago school?

sean007r · Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 7:45 am Post subject:

I'll start by telling you that this my first post in this forum and if this subject is already covered I am SORRY.

I still have a lot of research to do on the Chicago method but was just wondering if someone could give me an overview of how RANGE is incorporated into the Chicago school?

I just have sooooooooo many things that I'm working on and I'd like to really fous on one at a time.

I did the CG studies and a couple others if I remember correctly, with little to no change after many months of each.

Thanks in advance!
Sean

FTee · Veteran Member Joined: 30 Dec 2003 Posts: 455

To the best of my knowledge, the real essence of the Chicago "method" is that there is no method. You must have a strong concept of how you want the note to sound, and then make it happen. Plus, as Bud might say, you practice your ass off.

Needless to say, the only way to develop a reliable upper register is to spend time up there. That, and listen to any Conrad Gozzo material that you can get your hands on.

[ This Message was edited by: FTee on 2004-03-17 16:35 ]

_Don Herman · Posted: Wed Mar 17, 2004 1:53 pm Post subject:

Hmmm... I'll try to fill in more later, but for starters the (or, rather, "my") answer is that range is tackled like anything else: develop the sound in your head, then play to it. Practice an etude (Getchell is good for this) down low so you know how it sounds, then take it up (a third, an octave, whatever). Certainly FTee nailed it when he says (more or less) that "to play up there, you have to practice up there" (said by many, of course). One trick is to not overextend the mental sound, at least at first. If your stuck at G over the staff, "hearing" a double C won't instantly give you one -- you'll have to work to it. "Hear" a high C and go there first. OTOH, I was amazed at how how quickly I was able to move from high C into the double and triple range once I got the mental sound (and air support) going. Mind you, I am not a lead player by any means (my performance range is about high G -- the one over high C, second over the staff) and don't practice "up there" all that often because I don't eed it. But, it's fun to squeal out trippa-Q every now and then just to see the bats bouncing off the belfry.

Or something like that.

I'll have to come back on how my teacher and I worked on it, but basically he provided a sound to follow and I played to it. IOW, he used sound to guide my development. He also went physical for a bit to explain all it all worked, and to clear up some misconceptions I had.

One other comment: I wouldn't be too quick to focus on only one area. To really develop, you have to learn everything well, and a balanced practice session is better than one hitting upon just one area, imho. Instead, work on everything, every session, but pick what to emphasize on a given day and/or session. In other words, run through a routine that touches upon everything, then play your focus area for the day, then finish off with some music just to keep it all in perspective.

Final comment: It can take months to develop range, but you should have seen some improvement by then. Do you have a teacher? It's very difficult to assess your sound and suggest things to help via the internet.

HTH - Don
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley

thelurker · Veteran Member Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 257

I think it comes back to using sound to measure efficiency, not feel.

By practicing for sound and not feel, and then practicing many hours a day over time, the body find what works best and that will lead you to range.

With that said:

Spend time playing melodies that you can transpose higher once mastered(buzzing them works great too) and spend 45 minutes a day on the Clarke book…establish your norms before you work your extremes.

[ This Message was edited by: thelurker on 2004-03-17 17:06 ]

Derek Reaban · Posted: Thu Mar 18, 2004 9:19 am Post subject:

Sean,

Good to see you posting again! I hope all is well on your end.

I like what the other posts have mentioned so far:

From FTEE: “the real essence of the Chicago "method" is that there is no method”
From All: “You must have a strong concept of how you want the note to sound, and then make it happen”
thelurker: “By practicing for sound and not feel, and then practicing many hours a day over time, the body finds what works best and that will lead you to range

Let’s take those items one at a time with a little more detail.

Point 1

From MANY discussions with MANY different players (online and in person) who have worked with Mr. Herseth, “he never said to do anything in particular, but to do everything and explore every possibility. There is never ‘a’ right way to so something, but there are many wrong ways to do it.”

So, from these comments you can gather that exploration is vitally important from the Chicago School to find what works best for you. I found breath attacks, playing the mouthpiece/leadpipe combination, and the Caruso 6-Note drill to be effective in my own playing. This could easily fit the "explore every possibilty" idea from the Chicago School.

Point 2

This is an area that I have focused on in great detail in my own playing, and through exploration, I think I have discovered what works best for me. When you focus on sound, what sound exactly are you trying to conceive in your mind? Is it the sound that you hear when listening to CDs or the sound of a fine performer in a live performance in a fantastic hall? Or is it the sound that the player is hearing from behind the bell to create that great sound that we all experience?

Through exploration and scrutiny, I have recently been refining my own mental sound concept (the one that I hear from behind the bell). This new model is definitely smaller and more focused than what I used to consider to be my ideal sound. However, this sound (vibrant, resonant, ringing), has tremendous carrying power. The difference between what you need to hear versus what comes out of your bell (what other’s perceive) is the real essence to this idea of a strong personal sound concept. You can only find this though focused awareness when you are playing with great players. Really think about how you would generate that same sound (behind the bell), and then compare that new sound model with the sound that you are currently generating from behind the bell. I’ll bet you’ll discover that there is a BIG difference between the two. Your perceived current sound model is probably much louder and heavier and you wonder how a smaller, more focused sound can get the job done out in the hall.

Another corollary to this approach would be to record yourself and compare your recorded sound to that of your personal sound models (their recorded sound). After you have done this, modify your sound concept behind the bell (smaller, more focused) to see how it impacts your recorded sound.

In an article on Musical and Brass Playing Insights at http://www.midwestclinic.org/clinicianmaterials/2001/hagstrom.pdf , here’s what John Hagstrom has to say:

JeffoBTrbn · Posted: Fri Mar 26, 2004 9:16 am Post subject:

One word I was very surprised to not see on this thread is RELAX.

thelurker · Veteran Member Joined: 04 Aug 2003 Posts: 257

Read between the lines.

If you are not relaxed you will not have a good sound.

dbacon · Heavyweight Member Joined: 11 Nov 2001 Posts: 8592

Relaxed does not work if you become flacid. Some students of the Chicago School go farther than any of the Symphony greats ever did. Isometric tension (muscle fighting muscle) is the sound killer. Energized air flow fuels the machine and gives us tremendous freedom to make music. Mr. Jacobs used lots of positive energy to play. Mr. Herseth is a powerhouse trumpet player (at all dynamics!). It's the system vs system that will cause all sorts of physical trouble. Inhale muscles fighting exhale muscles etc.

Keeping your focus on making great music, that really allows you to play effortlessly.

Nails · Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 8:14 pm Post subject:

After studying with Larry Knopp up in Vancouver I found that there must be a balance between staying relaxed and keeping the intensity going. I think the most important thing is to be sure the wind pipe is not closed off, then airspeed can be controlled via the diaphragm. While working on things like the Brandenburg and Magnificant Larry would stress the importance of keeping the wind speed up during high passages. This has been my experience, not saying this is the end all way to go. Ah ya, and tongue like a mo fo.

Nathan

dbacon · Heavyweight Member Joined: 11 Nov 2001 Posts: 8592

The diaphragm has no role in the exhale process. It must relax or fight the blowing muscles. During exhale (to provide a constant and energized flow of energy, air) this membrane relaxes back to it's dome shape. If it maintains a state of contraction you press down against the exhale system. Classic Valsalva action, isometric tension instead up freedom and movement.

Nails · Posted: Tue Apr 20, 2004 9:42 pm Post subject:

Sorry, what I ment was that if the wind pipe is obstructed then you have no chance in the upper register.

Nathan

dbacon · Heavyweight Member Joined: 11 Nov 2001 Posts: 8592

tcutrpt · Posted: Wed Apr 21, 2004 9:28 am Post subject:

Dave, would you agree though that the abs must be firm in order to support that energized air flow? To me, this is creating resistance. I'm just curious about your thoughts.
_________________
Matt Cyr
trumpetmc@gmail.com

dbacon · Heavyweight Member Joined: 11 Nov 2001 Posts: 8592

Ricetrpt · Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 1:51 pm Post subject:

I couldn't agree more with what people have been saying. Here's my two cents. A fast airstream is needed in the upper register. I don't think anyone would disagree with that. However, too often people think that for the air speed to be high, it must be forced out of the body. This creates the isometric tension that has been referred to earlier. Think about when you sigh, the air is coming out very naturally, and the body is incredibly relaxed. But, you can sigh and let the air out at several different speeds without it sounding compressed or forced. This relaxation in the body spreads to everything, and helps the sound come out naturally. I think that there needs to be a differentiation between a fast airstream, and a tight fast airstream. You can make the airstream fast, but still relaxed, and I think this is a big part of the Chicago approach. Again, just my two cents.

MisterE · Posted: Tue Jun 01, 2004 3:26 pm Post subject:

One thing Cichowicz would stress in lessons is that the upper register is actually further away, not higher up. In other words, the air only has one direction: straight out, not up and down. One thing he would do help instill this idea was to flatten out the music stand (like a table) and have you play reading the music horizontally. By doing this the higher notes actually LOOK further away and would help visually reinforce this idea of "out" not "up". Another important caveat was that the upper register should always be approached in a musical fashion, not as mere notes or calisthenics. Playing simple songs transposed into the upper register, approached with the same sense of ease and musical intent as a Rochut etude is far preferable to squealing out arpeggios. Whatever one chooses to do it must always be within the framework of a musical application. I am not saying exercises are without merit. They are excellent for developing and reinforcing aspects of technique when approached in a thoughtful manner. Too often, however, we get lost on the path (the exercises) and lose sight of the destination (playing music).
One thing I like to do personally is take an excerpt or passage and transpose it up little by little maintaining the same concept as the middle register. Play Concone #1, for example, in as many keys as possible: C, Eb, F#, A, and up the octave. Do this with passages in many styles. Play the Telemann 1st movement on the big horn starting in the middle register (starting on 2nd line G for example) and work your way up bt 1/2 steps and you'll have a real workout! In the end, it's just a beatiful song that happens to be in the upper register!
Cheers

Tpt_Guy · Posted: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm Post subject:

It's quite interesting. I did a search on Cichowicz and found this thread and I just have to comment on some of my own playing experiences as of late.

I study with Scott Macomber whenever I can. He's a freelance player in the Bay Area here in California, and he studied at Northwestern with Cichowicz for 4 years at Northwestern. One thing he told me about Cichowicz is he demanded that everything be a song, or at leas be musical. His first lesson, Cichowicz had him playing a concert B flat scale the whole time so he could make it as musical as possible. Scott has me focus on the same thing in my own studies. His idea is "making technical demands a priority is putting the cart before the horse" - don't focus on the technical demands of the piece as an end, but rather focus on the end and the means will find themselves (if that makes any sense).

Lately I've been having trouble with range - getting up to at most a squealy High E (three lines up) and my sound above the staff has been suffering. In my frustration, I would just remember what Scott had me do - just relax and make the best possible sound I can. So I would do that, but in the middle and lower registers. I would work on single and multiple tonguing slowly to make sure I got the fattest sound on each note, I would play Art of Phrasing melodies from the Arban book as well as some of his other studies (intervals, turns, etc.), play the Russian Etudes, Brodogni Etudes...whatever I could that was more musical but not too demanding of range, but still pushed me to about High A or B flat. My sound did improve - especially on my C trumpet - and I was able to acquire a more relaxed approach.

Well, my endeavor is paying off. Last night while practicing, something clicked and suddenly I was playing Double High G's and A's with little more effort that it would take to play a High C. I was amazed. Granted, the sound is not as fat and rich as it could be, the notes are there, and they'll only get better now.

Anyone have any similar experiences to share?
_________________
-Tom Hall-

"A good teacher protects his pupils from his own influence."
-Bruce Lee

ChemistryComesAlive · Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 11:24 am Post subject: Combining Chicago with Callet

When I was about 20 (I am now 65), I had the opportunity to take some lessons from Arnold Jacobs. He made an interesting remark BEFORE we started. He said that he expected (without hearing a note) that I had a strong range (probably looked at my facial structure) and expected that I wanted help with tone/sound. The lessons were similar to what has been frequently reported elsewhere. After a few lessons, I gave up. Indeed, I completely gave up all hope of becoming a musician/trumpet player. The reason was that I was making absolutely no progress. I had no range, I had no strength or endurance, and could not do the simple things that he assigned, at least to my satisfaction.

I played trumpet off and on all my life and last year I made a last ditch attempt to give it my best shot. I got a great horn, a great teacher, and am practicing a lot. But now I have the strength and the endurance. What made the difference? It had nothing to do with mental sound, or with wind and song, or anything like this. It was discovering SC/TCE through the TH forums about 9 months ago. You can read about it elsewhere in the Jerome Callet forums.

Now, with a strong foundation, I am able to apply all I have learned from Jacobs' lessons, books and recordings, and from the postings in this Chicago forum. I can see very rapid progress using the exercises he assigned 45 years ago. Everything I read in this and other Chicago forums can now be applied effectively. My range is increasing a note or two per month.

I now believe that Jacobs had (incorrectly) assumed, when I first came to him, that I had a foundation that could be built on. I am sure he would not have suggested such a radical change in embouchure, which works well on trumpet but not as well on other brass instruments.

Tpt_Guy · Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 12:47 pm Post subject:

As a former professional trombonist in my area pointed out, the 'Chicago' school is a rather advanced school in that you have to at least have some technical command of the instrument before focusing on the musicality alone will make much of a difference. However, the point these guys are making is not "if you focus on just the music, everything will fall into place." The idea is "if you play in the most musical way possible, then you will get results."

Another thing, and I think this is a big one, is the embochure needs a healthy amount of air (for a given dynamic) to function properly. No air = no sound, plain and simple. You can focus on sound all you want, but if there's no air going through the horn, nothing will happen.

I stumbled on this in the middle of the recent crisis I was in. I was getting pissed, then realized, among other things, that loud practice MUST be a part of our routine because that's the only to get the chops accustomed to resisting the air stream, and I had been neglecting that area of practice. I started practicing LOUD long tones in the lower/middle register and moved up into the middle register only - didn't even touch the high register - and then my range jumped a half an octave from High C to Double High G. My range increased and became more open because my chops learned, and are still learning, how to better control the air stream.

Anyway, this seems go to into a ramble, but my take on it is this: even when practicing something that seems technical, make it a song and give it the most musical interpretation and sound you can give it. If you don't, it's just notes. If you want to play music, then play music; don't play exercises.

To quote Bud Herseth: "Never practice, always perform."

BTW, I don't particularly subscribe to any set embouchures (i.e. BE, SC/TCE, Reinhardt, etc.) - I just close my lips and blow. I might be classified as one of these, but I have no idea which...

_________________
-Tom Hall-

"A good teacher protects his pupils from his own influence."
-Bruce Lee

_Don Herman · Posted: Tue Sep 07, 2004 1:17 pm Post subject:

Hi Tpt-Guy,

Hmmm... I disagree that the Chicago School is advanced for the student. However, it sometimes takes a very good, and knowledgeable, teacher to apply the sound models needed to guide proper development. One of the things which makes me shy away from teaching -- that great fear that I'll do harm. I like this statement of yours, though: "However, the point these guys are making is not "if you focus on just the music, everything will fall into place." The idea is "if you play in the most musical way possible, then you will get results." As for the air issue, it's been covered in great detail before. It takes more air support than most beginners or amateurs (I'm in both to some extent) realize. And less... Too many people overblow on the high stuff, not relaxing and letting the chops and air work together. My teacher is very good at figuring out mechanics, but puts his analyses and "fixes" in musical, or least sound (oriented), concepts. Guiding development through sound -- that's what we're about.

ChemistryComesAlive -- I could well be wrong, but I have to wonder if a few more lessons wouldn't have made things click for you and Mr. Jacobs. Everything I know about the man leads me to believe that he would work overboard to keep a student from failing to progress. OTOH, different strokes... Glad you came back to us!
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley