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

Does Chicago lend its self well to Gordon?


Goto page Previous  1, 2
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Chicago School
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
_Don Herman
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3344
Location: Monument, CO, USA

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 10:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

I'll have to disagree with Andrew, if I understand what he is saying about the Chicago concepts applying to players with the mechanics already in working order. My teacher went to see Jacobs because he wasn't playing well (he was embroiled in analysis, was not playing well, and was thinking of giving it up). He was certainly not in good running condition -- quite the opposite. Jacobs provided him with what he needed, physical and mental, to become a fantastic player.

Jacobs, and other good Chicago teachers (not saying I'm one), have as good or better handle on the mechanics as anyone. Nor is the approach always purely "song and wind" -- a brief review of writings by Jacobs and others will prove that they would analyze issues to the physical level, and in painful detail, as appropriate. However, beyond a brief sojourn or two, this level of detail was rarely passed to the student. Instead, a sound model was provided for the student to follow, with concepts to help the student teach him (or her) self. Fixing the mechanical, if need be, through a "song and wind" model which prevents "paralysis by analysis" is a goal of the school. It seems to me, albeit based upon limited direct observation, that frequently the difference between (e.g.) a "good" embouchure and a "bad" one is much smaller (and thus much more subtle) than most people think. So, a sound-based teaching mode which tweaks things into place may be the best thing for fixing it.

Certainly being able to mentally hear a double C won't by itself let you play one, but it can help. And, providing a proper sound model for development can lead you to that double C, whether or not you're thinking about your chops on the way. The Chicago school is about developing your skills via sound. That doesn't mean the physical is ignored -- anybody who's seen a picture of Jacob's studio can attest to that! Rather than trying to have a student manipulate his chops, why not provide a sound for him to emulate, one which will force him to manipulate his chops in the desired way, without thinking about it? We all have to work on technique, dynamics, etc. -- all the things which go into making music. This doesn't obviate the "song and wind" approach, imo; it validates it.

"It's all about wind" is a misconception. Virtually every teacher has written a paragraph or twenty on wind (breathing, air, whatever) development, and how the lips should ride the airstream. Again, just blowing won't alone generate good sound, or guide proper developmnt. Air control, proper breathing, and the like are more important than simple air volume (or, massive airflow). This is not to downplay my observation (mainly in myself) that far too often, far too litle airflow is used to properly support the sound (lips). A sad but true observation is that actual airflow when playing a double C is pretty small; the pressure differential required to generate and sustain the buzz is pretty high at that frequency, so we feel like we're blowing like crazy.

Like many other schools, I tend to think that the "song and wind" concept is presented by some teachers who have no deeper understanding than that of the detail and expertise behind such a seemingly simple concept. I say "like many other schools" because there are several cases I know about, and probably quite a few that others know about, in which an apprentice puts out a card saying "I know and teach XYZ" without truly having the depth of knowledge and experience of the master. Frankly, that's one of the things which makes me very reluctant to teach -- knowing my own lack of knowledge, and fear of causing harm through ignorance.

Finally, of course some students respond better to different modes of instruction. I am forever deviating and asking physical questions, which my teacher answers in a way which moves me back to the "song and wind" concepts. The ability (gift) to address the physical while not (ever) losing the musical is what all great teachers have, and can pass to their students. I hope I'm learning that, if nothing else.

May you never lose your joy in music.

All usual disclaimers apply. - Don
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
johnski25
Veteran Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

nonsense eliminator,

i can see why you are not quite agreeing. what you are a little sceptical about, i think, is the fact that i have suggested that sometimes it is needful to step away from conceptual/artistic aspect of playing, which of course is the 'big picture'. In ideal playing mode, the physical/sensory or mechanical aspect and the conceptual/artistic parts of playing work in a harmonious/equal balance. Now let's say that mechanical side was off, not carrying it's weight, which happens a lot, then the 'ideal' way to deal with it, for Cichowicz and Jacobs, would be through a conceptual based metaphor which would not only stay in the artistic relm but also help and cure what ever was ailing in the mechanical side of things.

But, this cannot always be done in this 'ideal' way. sometimes, if there are time constraint's or the conceptual path is not working, jacobs, and i'm sure cichowicz, would seperate the flawed mechanical problem from the "big picture" and find a simple/seperate approach to dealing with individual problem. for instance, jacobs would often have to deal with the problem, and we all do, of static air. one quick way to solve this without using artistic means would be to work with a breathing bag, or some such. them transfer it to attacks on the mouthpiece or something. if i hadn't just come back from the bar, i could come up with more, but it is NOT uncommon for jacob's student's to have taken one mechenical aspect away from the big picture and figured it out seperatly.

anyways, this might be a little hazy, but mabye you get my point.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
rafterman
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 08 Dec 2002
Posts: 616
Location: Upstate NY

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 2:00 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Someone mentioned that Cichowicz's Flow Studies was out of print. I bought a copy thru Tulsa Band last week. Go to their site and check under sheet music.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nonsense Eliminator
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 5212
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 2:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

John --

I get your point, and I don't have any problem with what you're suggesting, and it seems quite in line with my (admittedly imperfect) understanding of Cichowicz's and Jacobs' teaching. What you seem to be saying (forgive me if I'm screwing this up) is that to address a deficiency, they would prescribe some kind of exercise which would sort out the problem. To me, that is perfectly consistent with a goal-oriented approach. Sometimes the goal is Music, sometimes it's A Decent Sound On The Mouthpiece, sometimes it's just Fill The Bag, but the focus is always on the outcome rather than on the mechanics necessary to achieve this. What I was confused about was that AT, and you by agreement, seemed to be suggesting approaching those issues from a standpoint of muscular manipulation. It seems that I misconstrued you... I think!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
NYCTPT
Veteran Member


Joined: 07 Jan 2003
Posts: 368
Location: New York, NY

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 7:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi guys,

I just thoguht I'd throw in my experience regarding solving mechanical issues (i.e. poor airflow, tongue placement, etc.). In my experience with my teacher most of these problems were solved away from the horn. It's not that he didn't address this sort of thing, but rather that physical excercises were done away from the horn (wind patterns) and while playing the horn you focused on sound and music. This let you get rid of any bad physical habits you may have by ingraining good habits through repetition in a non-threatening setting. The transfer with this method was very quick and efficient.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
dbacon
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 8592

PostPosted: Mon May 05, 2003 8:06 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Substitute new habits.....for the old ones.

You can't break habits.

Just substitute new ones for them.

Dave Bacon
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Atomlinson
Veteran Member


Joined: 21 May 2002
Posts: 327
Location: Somerset England

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2003 12:40 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi everyone, my crazy thoughts on a Monday morning seem to have started a good debate here.

What happened was that I thought I'd post the extract from the article mentioned above and simply leave it at that. But then I got thinking about it and especially the "Song and Wind" concept and I asked myself do I really believe this myself? As I thought about it I started to have a few doubts.

Don Herman mentioned his teacher going to Jacobs. The book edited by M.Dee Stewart "Arnold Jacobs - the Legacy of a Master" has a number of accounts by brass players who were helped by Jacobs. (Well worth reading) A lot of those players were actually already advanced players often members of a symphony orchestra. Some of them heard other players in their orchestra who they admired and later they discovered that they had studied with Jacobs. Others recognized that they had some playing problem that needed sorting out. Still others had a psychological problem. Vincent Cichowicz isn't in the book, but he studied with Jacobs:

"I remember my first experience with Jacobs. He had me blow into a manometer. When my muscles contracted incorrectly, the needle hardly budged. When I got rid of the tension, it went up almost 40% to 50%, with the same effort. It was dramatic for me to recognize that I played with some tension. I was not a bad trumpet player at the time, but I understood the importance of this only after many discussions with Arnold. This approach influences almost all aspects of our playing: development of range, tone, attack, endurance. All depend on proper understanding of this principle. Jacobs was the first to develop this approach to blowing technique. All other theories published in books at the time were not altogether correct." (Vincent Cichowicz-Grandmaster of Trumpet Teaching by W. Guggenberger Brass Bulletin 104 IV-1998)

The points I'm trying to make here are two:

1. Arnold Jacobs was mainly teaching players who had already reached an advanced level of skill.

2. In the early stages it was respiration that was the main topic dealt with. (Physical/Mechanical) because it affects so many other areas of brass playing.


Besides Jacob's breathing exercises and devices, I'm also thinking of Cichowicz's "wind patterns" away from the instrument and Herbert L Clarke practicing his tonguing while walking along to an engagement.

I don't think "Song and Wind" is a quick-fix or miracle cure.

The idea ("Song") is to concentrate on the product not the process. Instead of trying to consciously control things like tongue level, fingers, embouchure etc, you focus on the music and let the subconscious look after all the physical functions. But my point is that those functions need to be working automatically in the first place.

If your breathing is faulty, if your tongue speed is sluggish, if your fingers are not equally strong, if your range is not adequate for the piece you are playing I don't see how hearing the tuba/trumpet/Herseth in your head is going to help.

I don't want people to think I am anti-Jacobs, quite the opposite, but I do believe it is an advanced technique.

For beginners and intermediate players I like the ideas of "concept of sound" and "musicality" (Cichowicz & Adam).

Andrew Tomlinson



[ This Message was edited by: Atomlinson on 2003-05-06 07:49 ]

[ This Message was edited by: Atomlinson on 2003-05-06 09:55 ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
_Don Herman
'Chicago School' Forum Moderator


Joined: 11 Nov 2001
Posts: 3344
Location: Monument, CO, USA

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2003 6:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hi Andrew -- I'll throw out a couple of comments, then leave it. I think I've said pretty much all I can or should anyway!)

On 2003-05-06 03:40, Atomlinson wrote (and I carved down to):
1. Arnold Jacobs was mainly teaching players who had already reached an advanced level of skill.

I'll have to review, but I'm pretty sure there were some younger players. I don't know that he taught any true beginners (or not), but it may have been more that he was not offered any due to his position and stature rather than a lack of ability to apply his teachings to younger students. My teacher claims (ok, I wonder...) that he was where I was a couple of years back, when I started with him, when he went to Jacobs. I can't argue that his progress since has far exceeded mine, however!

I don't think "Song and Wind" is a quick-fix or miracle cure.

Nor anything else. We agree 100% here! It takes time and effort to learn.

The idea ("Song") is to concentrate on the product not the process. Instead of trying to consciously control things like tongue level, fingers, embouchure etc, you focus on the music and let the subconscious look after all the physical functions. But my point is that those functions need to be working automatically in the first place.

Here I deviate slightly (story of my life). Certainly a wealth of off-horn exercises have been suggested and applied. However, by and large, my idea is to use musical/sound models to steer development when playing. Why does that conflict with getting them automatic? If I have a problem wth a passage, say double-tonguing, there are all sorts of exercises I can do both on and off the horn. However, if I can, I'll find a musical way to practice technique. My mind is on that perfect sound, light articulations, fast and clear, crisp and clean, no caff* -- well, you get the idea! How do you get those functions to be automatic? Why not use a "sound" approach, perhaps in addition to other ways? If something is not working, my teacher will look into the physical, work out a fix (which may involve exercises with or without horn and music), then get back to the music to supplement the nonmusical exercises and get the skills into my sound concept (automatically).

For beginners and intermediate players I like the ideas of "concept of sound and "musicality" (Cichowicz & Adam).

No argument from me. But, my teacher plays a sound for me to follow, good or bad, and I do the same with my students. I don't see that "song and wind" isn't suitable for younger players, or rank beginners -- quite the opposite! These (imo) most need to get the idea that it's all about the music into their heads (works for me, too). And, these are least likely to understand, or correctly apply the knowledge of, a physical approach. PH and others have posted some great "starter" exercises which are meant to guide a student's development without a lot of anatomical stuff. I've a student with a bit of a timing problem, and an airy tone at times. Soft practice, metronome work, and some off-horn stuff (e.g., counting/singing in time, whistling and listening for a clear tone instead of an airy whistle, etc.) will help (I hope!) to supplement the basic "song and wind" concepts I'm trying to teach. By playng a sound for the student, I let him find his own way. If he can't, I try something else, whether it's another sound or another type of exercise. You use what works, and I think here we are back in agreement, yes?

Great thread, Andrew! - Don
_________________
Don Herman/Monument, CO
"After silence, that which best expresses the inexpressible, is music." - Aldous Huxley
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Atomlinson
Veteran Member


Joined: 21 May 2002
Posts: 327
Location: Somerset England

PostPosted: Tue May 06, 2003 7:06 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thanks for your kind comments, Don and Pat.

An interesting topic, I hope more folk will join in the DEBATE. (We don't want any verbal fisticuffs in this forum!)

Andrew Tomlinson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nonsense Eliminator
Heavyweight Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2003
Posts: 5212
Location: Toronto

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2003 8:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

AT has hit on one of the "standard" complaints about these kinds of teaching approaches: That the students who have succeeded by applying them were pretty good to start off with, and that the approach doesn't work for less skilled players or players with problems..

I think there are at least three things wrong with that reasoning. The first problem is that EVERY famous teacher mostly works/worked with reasonably talented and/or motivated students. Nobody gets the kind of attention and respect Arnold Jacobs and Vince Cichowicz have by teaching fourth-graders. There are very few success stories on the trumpet that involve players who didn't have a certain "knack" for it from the beginning. So I don't think it's fair to single out certain kinds of approaches as only working for players who already "get it."

The second problem is related. It is specious to say that because an approach has had its most visible success with "talented" players, it is not valid for less talented players. One doesn't follow from the other. The only way to demonstrate that an approach doesn't work for certain kinds of players, is to apply it to those players and see what happens. Which brings me to my third point:

Lots of less-skilled players have had success with this approach. Whether or not Cichowicz and Jacobs applied the approach with beginning to intermediate players, loads and loads of their students have, with pretty good results. There is no reason why these approaches couldn't work with a beginner. It is clearly possible to learn to play the trumpet without any explicit instruction in how to operate it (beyond which buttons to push). Not only have lots of people taught themselves to play with no instruction other than a record player, many people have been fortunate enough to begin with teachers who didn't concern themselves with physical concerns.

When I teach a student who hasn't had much instruction, my first task is usually to deprogram them of all the bad advice about pushing and squeezing they've gotten from their band teachers. Without exception, the ones who make the best and fastest progress are the ones who either forget all that nonsense, or never heard it in the first place. I had a student (a college-age beginner) go from zero to high C in six months -- without ever doing anything other than playing lyrical things and doing some flow studies and long tones. I think it is all but impossible to overestimate what the subconscious can do, if you let it.

I have lots more to say on this subject -- but it's time for lunch!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Atomlinson
Veteran Member


Joined: 21 May 2002
Posts: 327
Location: Somerset England

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2003 1:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Hey! You're taking a rather long lunch break.

Andrew Tomlinson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnski25
Veteran Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2003 7:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

You know, I keep thinking of what to say about all this and my thoughts always come back to one of the articles in "Arnold Jacobs, The legacy of a Master" book. A lot of this book I find annoying because it's just people saying 'ya i loved jacob's teaching'. but the one article that I gained a lot from reading is the one by Richard Erb. His writing on the subject, which we've been discussing, sums everything up which I would want to post. so if you have that book, take a look at page 13 on. I've had the pleasure of playing in brass ensembles with Mr. Erb and he is an inspiring teacher with a lot of knowledge.

john
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Atomlinson
Veteran Member


Joined: 21 May 2002
Posts: 327
Location: Somerset England

PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2003 8:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Sorry John, I can't agree with your general assessment of the book. Yes, they praise Arnold to the skies, but they often say how they were helped by him, and there is a lot of the Arnold Jacobs Philosopy in there, and don't forget that article on The Dynamics of Breathing, interview with and two lectures by Arnold Jacobs at the back of the book. The whole book is Pure Gold in my opinion. And if you have Brian Frederiksen's book "Arnold Jacobs:Song and Wind" as well, then they compliment each other very well.

Andrew Tomlinson

[ This Message was edited by: Atomlinson on 2003-05-08 11:55 ]
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Atomlinson
Veteran Member


Joined: 21 May 2002
Posts: 327
Location: Somerset England

PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2003 11:09 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Getting back to the original question - this is what Vincent Cichowicz had to say in an interview in the Instrumentalist Magazine of August 1985:

What about the systems or methods of Caruso and Claude Gordon?

VC: "I am not much for specific methods. Any can be effective if one has the patience to do these somewhat ritualistic exercises. If your basic playing habits are faulty, no system will improve your playing. Very often, players with the most serious problems gravitate to these approaches and, without guidance, expect them to work miracles."

Andrew Tomlinson
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
johnski25
Veteran Member


Joined: 08 Mar 2003
Posts: 108

PostPosted: Mon May 12, 2003 3:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

AT,

i'm not saying there isn't valuable info in the book, i even pointed out the part i like the best. and articles in the back are not students reflections so my comments can't apply to them. but i still think there is a lot of stuff you have to wade through to get to the valuable info. i'm not attacking the messages and info in the book at all, i guess my beef is with the format. i definatly like 'song and wind' better.

ya dig?

john
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    trumpetherald.com Forum Index -> Chicago School All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2
Page 2 of 2

 
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