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

Tounge arch and air speed


Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Fundamentals
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
tpter1
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 1194

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 12:59 pm    Post subject: Tounge arch and air speed Reply with quote

Try this: take the aerator out of your faucet. Turn on the water. Turn off the water and replace the aerator. Turn the water back on. What happens to the water speed?

Does this happen with the tongue inside the mouth when playing?

Does this help or hinder the player?

Does this have any impact on sound?

This became a rather heated topic on another thread.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
_dcstep
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 05 Jul 2003
Posts: 6323
Location: Denver

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:19 pm    Post subject: Re: Tounge arch and air speed Reply with quote

tpter1 wrote:

This became a rather heated topic on another thread.


Yes indeed, and just why are we bringing it up again in this local??

Dave
_________________
Schilke '60 B1 -- 229 Bach-C/19-350 Blackburn -- Lawler TL Cornet -- Conn V1 Flugel -- Stomvi Master Bb/A/G picc -- GR mpcs
[url=http://www.pitpops.com] The PitPops[/url]
Rocky Mountain Trumpet Fest
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Umyoguy
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 1726
Location: Baltimore

PostPosted: Tue Dec 14, 2004 2:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

If it became quite heated, why repeat it here?

It's not quite clear to me what your question is...Doesn't an aerator in a faucet introduce air into a liquid stream to diffuse or spread the water out? I don't see how this would be analogous to trumpet playing...

Could you provide a little clarification?

Jon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
LeeC
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Posts: 5730

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 8:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

The connection is useful though a little ambiguous. The similarity is that anything that constricts a tube (be it mouth cavity or faucet) increases resistance and lowers pressure in the exit side of the tube.

In the case of the faucet aeration the water comes out more diffuse and at a slower rate. In brass playing the tongue constriction causes air pressure to be built up inside the throat (inducing tendency for the neck puff!) and reduced at the embouchure. This is counter productive to high range production though very commonly prescribed for just that by much of the trumpet world.

And you wondered why there are so few really good high note players?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
JoeCool
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 13 Nov 2001
Posts: 2231
Location: Wimberley, TX

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 9:11 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There are too many variables to list in what goes into efficient trumpet playing. The tongue is just another part of the equation. I would concentrate more on developing a strong embouchure with a perpensity for a range of motion. In other words a flexible aperture. I know I'll get flamed by some camps, but it really is air speed that fuels the high notes. You need a robust embouchure to harness that air. Ultimately tho, you need balance throughout the act of playing the trumpet.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pops
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2027
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 10:07 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well I finally got the engineer to admit this


Quote:
The velocity over the fixed tongue arch will be, relatively, greater for a high arch and less for a lower tongue arch.



A tongue arch can speed up the air.

It took forever because he constantly switched conditions in the questions he was asked.
_________________
(My Posting Rule: No time for shouting matches.)
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
45 years Teaching. Teaching and writing books is what I do.
Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
LeeC
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Posts: 5730

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 11:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes the velocity will be greater but the overall energy will be less in an arched tongue practicioner. A bullet has less energy than a cannon shell. So any increase in velocity will be negated as soon as the traveling air mass hits the closed lips of the embouchure.

Essentially what the tongue arch has done is reduce available energy prior to release. That and bottle up air unecessarily in the throat.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Pops
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2027
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:19 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

LeeC wrote:
Yes the velocity will be greater but the overall energy will be less in an arched tongue practicioner. A bullet has less energy than a cannon shell. So any increase in velocity will be negated as soon as the traveling air mass hits the closed lips of the embouchure.

Essentially what the tongue arch has done is reduce available energy prior to release. That and bottle up air unecessarily in the throat.




Unless one was to completely close the mouth in such a way that no air CAN escape; HOW can it bottle the air up in the throat?


I have NEVER seen or heard of any teacher telling a student to completely close off the airflow.


????cannonball size air molecules and smaller bullet sized air molecules for tongue arch users????



Each air particle is the SAME size regardless of which you do.
So same size and faster means MORE energy.


To date there has NEVER been a scientific study done that contradicts this.
When there is I will GLADLY embrace it.


The ones in the Instrumentalists in the 60's support it. The one in 76 in British Columbia supports it. The one in Japan doesn't address this issue at all but rather jaw and lip movement that is ALSO caused by tongue arch.
_________________
(My Posting Rule: No time for shouting matches.)
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
45 years Teaching. Teaching and writing books is what I do.
Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
tpter1
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 17 Jun 2004
Posts: 1194

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 12:43 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Pops- You make some great points. How does TCE fit into the picture?

Lee-If what you say is true, how does TCE work? Why does TCE work for those players who have experienced success with it?

My analogy to an aerator I now see was rather poor. I'll try another. Please forgive the last one.

If we allow water to run out of a water faucet unconstricted, it flows at one velocity. If we stop down the faucet with our finger, it sprays all over the place, at (what seems to be) a greater velocity. OR, if we dam a river, and open the dam slightly, the water coming through the gate is moving faster than the water on the other side. If we compare this to tonue arch and air flow, it would seem that the air should behave similarly, and move faster with more stopping down. To what degree does this help, and when does it begin to hinder?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
Pops
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2027
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 1:20 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

How does TCE fit into the picture?



I would guess that 3 things work here to help the chops.


1. Working like the arch with air speed.
I use a forward tongue to teach high notes But I don't go through the teeth.
http://www.bbtrumpet.com/arch.html
shows how the regular arch compares to the forward arch.

2. The tongue pushing on the lip helps to maintain compression and endurance. The lip has to do less of the work.

3. Impeadence. (Reflecting waves back to the lips.)
This is why shallow mouthpieces help our upper register. They support the lips (in a manner) from the front. The tongue both in TCE and in my forward arch support in the same way (impeadence) from the back of the lips.


Trumpet playing isn't a Science YET.

They still disagree over many basic things because One law of science supports this but a different one can support that idea. There are a few that 95% support but still nothing that EVERYONE agrees on.


A lot of what we do REALLY know was by accident when different trumpet makers or mouthpiece makers would just try something to see what happened. So we know why some leadpipe/bell tapers play out of tune... And this kind of info is helpful. But it still leaves a lot of not completely answered questions.


There just haven't been enough well funded experiments done. And I really doubt that anyone will ever put up enough money to do them. It isn't important to National defense, the global economy......
_________________
(My Posting Rule: No time for shouting matches.)
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
45 years Teaching. Teaching and writing books is what I do.
Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
LeeC
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 25 Feb 2003
Posts: 5730

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:28 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Many questions... Am a little hampered by this computer which tends to crash if i type while online. So excuse if i forget anything.

I don't know much about TCE other than the tongue seems to reinforce some kind of upper lip foundation through direct physical contact (tongue to lip). I tried it a bit to see if it would facilitate some kind of increased physical advantage in my own upper register. Sorry to say i couldn't even emit one note with a musical sound that way. Fortunately I'm not especially "high range challenged" anyway. So at least as far as i went TCE didn't appeal to me, but others are successful with it so that seems to make sense. For THEM anyway.

Tongue arch for increased range? Here's why i think this is a false avenue to go down:

You can significantly increase the air velocity in the mouth cavity with a tongue arch only if the lips are open or not closed very tightly. You'll notice this when you whistle. The pitch can vary according to how you place your tongue in most cases. But the lips of a whistler are always slightly open. Not so with brass players!

Once the air (passing through an arched tongue) hits the closed embouchure this airspeed increase is much negated. A tongue arch COULD help bring up the air speed if done when the embouchure isn't tightly pinched together like say in the low and middle registers. But after a high C or so the embouchure must be compressed so tight that the a tongue arch can't make the air increase in speed. Why? Because there's nowhere for it to go. The air then hits the pinched lips of the embouchure which are closed as tight as a bull's rear end...

And yes, anytime you constrict the air passage with the tongue it puts uneccessary additional internal pressure on the inside of the body. This includes the mouth & throat. Further, the abdominal muscles must then work harder to push the air through the more closed system to do the job thereby creating even MORE uneccessary internal air pressure. In turn this WILL definately contribute to neck puffing.

You may still get a neck puff anyway if you blow a lot of high notes, but at least you won't be contributing to this matter by intentionally bottling up air for no purposeful reason. Neck puffing is curable by the way. Requires learning to activate certain throat, and jaw muscles that prevent the neck from expanding.

A tongue arch may have a use in some players. I'm not really sure it's all that important though. It seems that the jaw closing is probably the main factor in facilitating an efficient rise in pitch, helped a tad by the tongue. However the emboucure MUST still have that higher note in the bag first. It can be a little confusing to the player because when you close the throat the tongue rides up in the mouth too. But the cause is confused with the effect.

It is the embouchure, supplied with enough air pressure from the lungs/abdominal muscles that ultimately allows the note's production. You just MAY get the note to respond a little quicker by using a tongue arch.


Last edited by LeeC on Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:37 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
kalijah
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 2495
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
LeeC wrote:
Yes the velocity will be greater but the overall energy will be less in an arched tongue practicioner. A bullet has less energy than a cannon shell. So any increase in velocity will be negated as soon as the traveling air mass hits the closed lips of the embouchure.


That is a correct analogy. Very well stated. But rather than saying a canonball vs a bullet what if we said:

100 bullets moving at 100 mph vs. 50 bullets moving at 200 mph

Which case has more energy?

Pops says:

Quote:


????cannonball size air molecules and smaller bullet sized air molecules for tongue arch users????

Each air particle is the SAME size regardless of which you do.


You are distorting his point. He never said that air molecules have different sizes. But a large amount of air molecules has more mass than a small amount, just as a canonball contains a larger mass than a bullet does based on their size (or volume) because their density is the same if they are both steel.


Quote:

So same size and faster means MORE energy.


Just as HALF THE SIZE (volume) AND twice as fast means NO CHANGE in energy. Which is the actual case if you doubled the air velocity by cutting the flow path by half with the tounge arch. And IF the arch recedes to a more open mouth before the embouchure the velocity will begin to decrease. But either way the energy is constant. (Neglecting frictional losses) If we include frictional losses energy is lost from the exit of the lungs all the way up to the embouchure.

Quote:

To date there has NEVER been a scientific study done that contradicts this.
When there is I will GLADLY embrace it.


There have been lots of studies, so many and so long ago that this is now readily accepted as scientific fact.

Here are some links that contradict you:

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/mflow.html

http://www.lerc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/fluden.html

These are provided by a NASA research center. So I would think that they are reliable.

Embrace them!


Last edited by kalijah on Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
dbacon
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 8443
Location: North Scottsdale, AZ.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 3:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

For a more commercial sound I'll notice the front of the tongue being arched up a bit. I try for a relaxed tongue position, especially towards the back so the air's not blocked. Let the sound determine the tongue position. Think a little more projection, maybe a little brighter and the tongue seems to know what to do.
_________________
Dave Bacon
Trumpet, Jazz Studies Faculty
Grand Canyon University
trumpetbacon@gmail.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
_bugleboy
Carmine Caruso Forum Moderator


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 2865

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

To all the readers who are perplexed by all of this tongue talk, be aware that it is very feasible to approach embouchure development (musical control from low F# to G above high C and beyond) without giving the tongue any consideration whatsoever, other than functioning as a valve to release and stop the air. Where the tongue ends up and in what state of flex while playing can just as easily be determined by the facial muscles as it can by focusing on the tongue, which would in turn cause the facial muscles to set in a certain way so as to allow the lips to vibrate.

Instead of pursuing tongue levels and shapes, pursue getting the lips to buzz. That's what the embouchure muscles need to be doing to play efficiently. Following this prescription, the tongue will just fall into place automatically and not have to be concerned with.

I'm not saying that being proactive (willful) regarding the tongue is wrong (it apparantly works for some if not many) only that it is unnecessary. To me it just seems like a back door approach to the problem, while training the lips to buzz/vibrate is more to the point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
kalijah
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 2495
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I agree Charles.

Set your embouchure, the tougue will react becase of the muscular link..., apply pressure from the lungs, where the tounge stops will not increase the air energy from the lungs, so don't consider that or be confused by it.

Nor will where the tounge stops color the sound. The embouchure alone does that as well.

I wouild say that the TCE technique of using the tounge to support the rear bottom lip , similarly to how the mp rim supports the front of the lips, might have some merrit. Personally I don't think I would do it.

Hey Charles, you should re-post that text you wrote about the muscular link between embouchure and the tounge here!


Last edited by kalijah on Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:37 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pops
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2027
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

bugleboy wrote:
To all the readers who are perplexed by all of this tongue talk, be aware that it is very feasible to approach embouchure development (musical control from low F# to G above high C and beyond) without giving the tongue any consideration whatsoever, other than functioning as a valve to release and stop the air. Where the tongue ends up and in what state of flex while playing can just as easily be determined by the facial muscles as it can by focusing on the tongue, which would in turn cause the facial muscles to set in a certain way so as to allow the lips to vibrate.

Instead of pursuing tongue levels and shapes, pursue getting the lips to buzz. That's what the embouchure muscles need to be doing to play efficiently. Following this prescription, the tongue will just fall into place automatically and not have to be concerned with.

I'm not saying that being proactive (willful) regarding the tongue is wrong (it apparantly works for some if not many) only that it is unnecessary. To me it just seems like a back door approach to the problem, while training the lips to buzz/vibrate is more to the point.



I have actually never used the tongue as a valve. Nor did any of my teachers. I have seen it done but IT seems more problematic to me than the tongue arch issue.

This valve usage is the reason arch isn't useful to you. But you are the exception rather than the rule here.



In regards to tongue arch. I felt EXACTLY like you did.

It is mentioned that way in the older versions of A-Z and there were many discussions with John Mohan on TPIN about this.

He took the side I'm on now and I took your side.

I actually teach BOTH ways.

Who I teach it to depends on WHAT embouchure they use.

Arch is detrimental if you are rolled in with both lips AND use compression.

However if you lip buzz as I do (I use no curl in my personal set) then arch is VITAL.
If you use an open set (roughly 70% of all players) then it is vital.

Those that are adversely affected are out numbered by about 8 to 1.

I am always ready to discuss either side of this because BOTH are valid.

But when someone goes so far as to say it HAS to be done or it CAN'T be done then I have to point out that isn't true.
_________________
(My Posting Rule: No time for shouting matches.)
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
45 years Teaching. Teaching and writing books is what I do.
Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Pops
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2027
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

Here are some links that contradict you:

These are provided by a NASA research center. So I would think that they are reliable.

Embrace them!




Interesting


I posted a URL with a diagram showing the tongue moving forward and making an ever decreasing oral cavity all of the way to the lips. (IT kept getting smaller.)

And YOU respond with a diagram that showed a medium cavity that decreased a little and then EXPANDED to at least 50% bigger than it started out.

YOU don't see any difference between
this
>
and this
><


Just like the other thread you change the circumstances to suit your needs.

The 2 have absolutely nothing in common.

Had you in fact bothered to LOOK at the URL you would have seen that YOUR NASA point was mentioned as the reason that the arch needed to go forward.


I put that page up over a year ago and it has been posted here several times.


Thanks for being civil today.
_________________
(My Posting Rule: No time for shouting matches.)
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
45 years Teaching. Teaching and writing books is what I do.
Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
kalijah
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 2495
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:46 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

pops writes

Quote:
I have actually never used the tongue as a valve. Nor did any of my teachers. I have seen it done but IT seems more problematic to me than the tongue arch issue.


I believe he is talking about articulation. As in an ON-OFF valve.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
kalijah
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 06 Nov 2003
Posts: 2495
Location: Alabama

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 4:56 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:

YOU don't see any difference between
this
>
and this
><


Does not matter, and I stated so. The energy is still the same. take the time to read the links carefully. Cut the shape shown in half so that the small part is now the end. The principles still apply.

And they apply because the laws of physics for gasses are not suspended somehow for trumpet playing.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Pops
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 14 Sep 2002
Posts: 2027
Location: Dallas (Grand Prairie), Texas

PostPosted: Wed Dec 15, 2004 5:22 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

kalijah wrote:
Quote:

YOU don't see any difference between
this
>
and this
><


Does not matter, and I stated so. The energy is still the same. take the time to read the links carefully. Cut the shape shown in half so that the small part is now the end. The principles still apply.

And they apply because the laws of physics for gasses are not suspended somehow for trumpet playing.



Your link says this
Quote:

The conservation of mass (continuity) tells us that the mass flow rate through a tube is a constant.


You said this
Quote:

Just as HALF THE SIZE (volume) AND twice as fast means NO CHANGE in energy. Which is the actual case if you doubled the air velocity by cutting the flow path by half with the tounge arch.




AND LeeC even went so far as to be incorrect and your links prove that.
he said
Quote:

Yes the velocity will be greater but the overall energy will be less in an arched tongue practicioner.


This was proven wrong by your link and your statement.

I said it was wrong too.

I only mentioned speed. And I took exception to LeeC who said the energy would be less and even you now say was wrong.

Your links even show that I am RIGHT about speed.


You backed me up here. Even by your link and post that says at worst the increased speed would have the SAME energy.



So is there really something wrong with having the SAME energy at a faster speed.

You admitted it is the same energy and at a faster speed.

So then at worst nothing changes.



But if speed really does or can matter then wouldn't it be better?
WE WANT the lips to vibrate faster. Couldn't having faster moving particles (with NO loss of energy) hitting them help?



Anyway I am done here.

The appointments for the rest of the week are coming in.


It's been fun guys.

Catch you later when I have time again.

Take care and I hope you have a GREAT Holiday.
_________________
(My Posting Rule: No time for shouting matches.)
Clint 'Pops' McLaughlin
You can always Google me.
45 years Teaching. Teaching and writing books is what I do.
Books, Skype Lessons: www.BbTrumpet.com
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Fundamentals All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page 1, 2, 3  Next
Page 1 of 3

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group