Some thoughts on the Chicago School

[Nonsense Eliminator]

On a thread in the High Register forum, there has been some discussion about the validity of what (around here) is called the "Chicago" approach. I would like to address what I perceive as the crux of this particular argument. I do not intend this as a "proof" of anything, just a (probably futile) attempt to drag this particular point out of the gutter.

Fundamentally, there are two ways to approach the trumpet. You can approach it from a standpoint of conscious control of the muscles involved, or you can approach it from a standpoint of deliberately avoiding conscious control and instead relying on training your subconscious. There are infinite subdivisions of both groups. On the conscious side, we have tongue-level people (Gordon, etc.), aperture people, SuperChoppers, and what have you. On the subconscious side, there are three main distinct kinds of approach: Jacobs/Cichowicz/Adam/etc. (there are some surface differences but they are philosophically virtually identical); Caruso (much more drill-focussed, but according to my limited understanding definitely on this side of the fence); and the "I dunno I just sort of blow into it" school.

Now that I have defined what I'm talking about, I would like to address the debate that prompted me to start this thread. Most of the time, when people argue against a subconscious approach, they make the same kind of argument: "How can you just say 'hear it and blow'? That doesn't tell me anything."

That is absolutely, unequivocally, without a doubt, 100% correct.

Yes, that's what I said. And I would suggest that while most teachers of a subconscious approach might not SAY that, they demonstrate it in their teaching. While in many cases, the problem is simply that the individual is not imagining the music properly, simply visualizing the desired result is not a magic wand. It takes practice.

And that is why every teacher of a subconscious approach prescribes drills. Adam routine, Cichowicz flow studies, Caruso exercises -- they are all designed to PRACTICE the skill of auralization, and to TEACH the muscles to respond to that auralization. Simply saying, "Take a deep breath and play it better next time," isn't "Chicago School" teaching. Unless the student is already at a very high level, that's just plain bad teaching.

A good teacher, regardless of philosophy, is capable of identifying the causes of problems in a student's playing. It's not that Bill Adam doesn't know when your aperture is too narrow or that Vince Cichowicz doesn't know your when tongue is too low. Rather than dwell on the problem, they choose to focus on the solution: play certain kinds of exercise with a certain kind of sound, and you will HAVE to solve the problem. It's that simple.

It is absolutely true that there are occasions where a physical adjustment can make an immediate, significant impact. However, in virtually all instances, that initial insipiration is followed by a long period of adjusting to the new setup. (And those instances where the change "takes" are equally common in students adjusting their mental processes.) In most cases, a subconscious approach will work much more gradually. This is not a weakness -- slow and steady wins the race. (I am prepared to further elaborate on this point if anybody cares, but I'd like to hit "Submit" before Easter...)

To make a long story short, a lot of the "anti-Chicago" people mistake the approaches of Jacobs and others for the "I dunno, I just blow into it" school. No sane person would accuse Jacobs of ignorance. His approach, and similar approaches, are founded on a solid understanding of how brass instruments work, how the human body works, and -- most importantly -- how the human mind works.

The point I am trying to make here is that while many "Chicago" adherents may SAY, "Hey, just pick it up and blow into it," that is a gross oversimplification. While the phrase "Song and Wind" captures the simplicity and elegance of the approach, it does not mean that you aren't allowed to practice double tonguing or slurs or intervals. It is simply a means of approaching these exercises.

Not every approach works for every person. However, what I have seen all too often around here is the bizarre leap from "This didn't work for me" to "This method is crap." There are a lot of reasons why a certain kind of subconscious approach may not work for a certain individual -- it may be the method, it may be the teacher, and it may very well be the student. To suggest, however, that a subconscious approach "only works" for certain kinds of players is to ignore the hard, cold facts: It has worked -- and worked WELL -- for a lot of people. Not just symphony players. Not just people who are already good players. Not just meatheads who don't think analytically.

And certainly not just tuba players.

[Edited to correct typos.]

[ This Message was edited by: Nonsense Eliminator on 2003-04-13 22:00 ]

[allofyougetalife]

Nonsense,

Good post. There is a lot of misconception and confusion about the "Chicago school" and what it really means. While I never studied with Jacobs, I have studied with former and current members of the CSO trumpet section.

I've even heard some say that "the worst thing that ever happened to trumpet players was when Arnold Jacobs started teaching them" - shocking I know, but this isn't because of "Wind and Song," but because of trumpet players trying to apply lowbrass air concepts to the trumpet. "More air" is not the answer.

It's easy enough to confuse brassplaying concepts when you study with these people directly, not to mention when you hear about these concepts from others 2nd hand, or even on the Trumpet Herald.

Recording can also be deceptive, since engineers screw with the levels. The only way to really hear and see what these people are doing is to go to live concerts, or hear them play when you take a lesson from them.

In my opinion, the finest "Chicago style" trumpet player doesn't even play in the CSO, he's principal of the New York Philharmonic, Philip Smith.

I feel fortunate to have grown up on the east coast, hearing Phil Smith perform with the NY Phil, and now that I live in Chicago, I can go hear the CSO on a weekly basis.

People can label things however they want, but in my opinion, good playing is good playing - end of story.

aoygal



[ This Message was edited by: allofyougetalife on 2003-04-13 22:24 ]

[PH]

Amen!!!!!

NE just summed up the reason I never had a problem reconciling my studies with Caruso with my work with Adam. That is a brilliant summation of the essence of musical brass playing, study, and teaching.

Thanks.

[trptsbaker]

I studied the trumpet w/Ren Schilke, for many years. Now we're talkin Chicago school. One lesson, in particular, stands out as far as this Chicago school discussion goes. I think this may apply, and prove enlightening, at least it has to me. Ren played a note on the piano, and said. "Play that note on your mouthpiece." I did, same pitch, same octave, nailed it. Ren said, "how did you do that, you didn't have a trumpet or a valve to press down, how did you know where the pitch was? Was it in your head? Your ear? How can you produce that tone without a mechanical reference point?" I said "I don't know". Ren said, "I don't know either, but you did. Now let's work on your tone on the mouthpiece." That's when I thought, "this is Zen." T.

[RGale]

NE, great post. I studied with some of those CSO guys, and you explained it very well indeed. Jacobs- I only got a few lessons- was a true master. Something almost mystical about the way those guys see everything in so short a time. Chris Leuba was another CSO teacher and very underrated. I got a lot from him, and his booklets are well worth getting. He does get more into mechanics than Jacobs, but they agreed on most things.

[trpt-master]

Gorgeous post Nonsense Eliminator. Thank You!

In Peace,

trptmaster

[Nonsense Eliminator]

I'm not going to change my original post (sheer laziness, plus I'm reluctant to mess with a post that's actually gotten a postive reaction...), but I do want to add one thing, prompted by a message from Bugleboy (whose knowledge of Caruso certainly greatly exceeds mine). Caruso did NOT emphasize sound concept, but rather focussed on timing. Nonetheless, the point is that muscular control is achieved through training a subconscious response, rather than learning a conscious manipulation. To me, that is the critical point of demarcation between a conscious and subconscious approach. (As an aside, I'm pleased and flattered but not entirely surprised that PH liked my post -- his ideas got me thinking about the similarities between Caruso and Adam in the first place, and there are few people, if any, better-qualified than he to address that issue.)

Another point which I think deserves attention is the idea of making music all the time. My own personal take on applying a subconscious approach has been that there are two distinct parts: formulating a good sound concept, and learning to apply it consistently and reliably. For me, having a strongly musical intent has been instrumental (pardon the pun) in successfully applying it to the trumpet, and I insist on it in my own teaching. However, I know lots of people who are very "successful" in applying a completely unmusical concept, and get the trumpet to operate pretty well -- not that you'd particularly want to hear it. With practice, you can get whatever's in your head to come out of the bell. Again, the question is not the content of the message, it is simply the presence or absence of that message.

One last item, regarding aoygal's post. I think it is pretty evident that using "low brass air" isn't going to work on the trumpet. However (and I'm definitely splitting hairs on this one), I would say that using low brass air "concepts" is a subtly but significantly different matter. The idea of a freely flowing, unconstricted, and continuous stream of air is universal to all brass instruments, and while our definition of "lots of air" must obviously be different from theirs, I believe that the underlying "concept" is more or less the same. "Song" must come before "Wind", and once a good inhalation has been made, the "Song" will regulate the "Wind" -- regardless of how much tubing you're holding.

[ This Message was edited by: Nonsense Eliminator on 2003-04-14 00:13 ]

[dbacon]

This is truly exceptional, Nonsense!! (OK, pun intended!!)

Thanks for your perspective.

How do you see the "Inner Game of Tennis" fitting in? Whenever I get into trouble, I find it's approach very helpfull in getting my playing back on track.

Dave Bacon

[allofyougetalife]

[Irving]

I made the pilgramge to Chicago to take a few lessons with Jacobs. It was without question well worth the trouble. I was having a physical problem that Jacobs managed to diagnose. He also saw, or heard what was causing the problem, and gave me excersises to help me improve my breathing. I remember him speaking about "thick air" rather than using vast quantities of air. When playing softly he would mention using a thick airstream, of slow moving air. He was a very fine teacher, and I wish that I had studied with him regularly.

[_Don Herman]

Some nice posts (thanks for starting the thread, NE). As I'm just a little biased, and y'all can go check out the Chicago forum for my views and more info anyway, I'm going to throw out something on a slightly different track.

Failure with a teacher ain't failure with a method. Nor does it always imply the teacher is a bad one. It may be that something just didn't "click" with "that" teacher for "this" student. I have had students (EE, not tpt) who've seen somebody else come back and say they now understand what I was trying to say, and how well I presented it, now they understood and wished they could take my class/lecture again, etc. For whatever reason, my initial approach didn't "catch" with them. Hopefully this happens less often in a one-on-one than in a classroom setting, but I'm sure it does happen. Sometimes an outside source provides the "aha effect" (thank you, Clyde Hunt) to get everything on track, and your student finds the groove with you. Or not.

We depend a LOT upon our teachers, but as an engineer I'm used to doing a little research and expereimenting on my own, and it has helped my trumpet playing. My teacher (a fantastic player and teacher, a rare blend) appreciates my little treks off the beaten path, I think, and often will redirect my efforts back to the music while incorporating my new knowledge.

My very limited exposure to the "method/teacher" controversy leads me to believe that:

1. Many great teachers will have students who don't "get" their approach;
2. Some teachers lack the depth of understanding required to truly teach a given method;
3. Some students expect too much of their teacher, failing to do their required "homework";
4. Instant fixes don't; and
5. As a student and sometimes teacher, I know durn few answers.

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

[JGulyas]

Since this topic is about the Chicago School, I wanted to ask a question.

My undergrad teacher studied with Vacchiano primarily but also with Ghitalla. It's my understanding these two gurus are New England school. My current teacher was one of Chicowickz's kids, obviously Chicago School. My question is, what's the difference between the two schools? The one thing that really pops into my head is the overall sound of the two. Chicago sound being much brighter than New England. Many years back I realized I was getting taught both schools at the about the same time. New England during the school year and Chicago during the summers at Brevard Music Cetner. I ended up taking bits and pieces from both and using them all the time.

Now I have no idea what I'm doing! My lessons now deal with using more air, etc and blowing "down" into the center creating a very vibrant sound. When I take the occasional lesson with my undergrad teacher, I get comments stating I sound too bright and we do exercises to darken the sound. Basically, what I'm understanding is that in Chicago School, center is pased on pitch but in NE it's based on mouth cavity or something like that.

What's the deal??

John
_________________
All the Best,

John

US Navy Bandsman 1996-2010 (Trumpet; Audio Engineer)
Mpc - Kanstul/Monette B6, Hammond Design custom "JG"
Bb - Yamaha 6335HGSII
C - Eastman ETR530
Picc - NoName Chinese

[1B]

NE,
Thank you for such an insightful post. I always enjoy your special ability to clear the air. You make the TH a great place to hang and learn.
1B

[trptczar]

Bravo NE, Bravo.

tc

[Pops]

And for those students that you ALL admit don't get it. How long before they should look for another approach? I spent a year with a student of Bill Adam and 2 with a student of both Jacobs and Ghitalla. AND I do use some of what they did with every student. But I had chop problems and THOSE 3 years didn't fix them. I don't include those guys normally in my bio because I consider a year to be a short time. BUT Jacoby fixed my embouchure in 4 weeks. (I studied with him longer than that.) So what was the difference? I NEEDED MORE EXPLANATION.


BTW Ghitalla was an EMBOUCHURE teacher he often got very physical with his approach.


Even your discription of the Chicago use of air got grumbles, grunts and flames on the other thread.

Like Smith said to use (shouting air) or Jacobs himself said (thick air) or (slow air), plus (playing softly)....

Those EXACT ideas WERE expressed on the other thread (punching the air) written by a student I would have said it differently, (faster air, slower air), (playing softly) and those ideas were said by Master to be wrong and TOO PHYSICAL but now that a Chicago guy says them (Same damn ideas) they are right.

NOBODY said that Chicago never worked. We said some people needed MORE explanation. Ignored those posts entirely didn't you Nonsense. Doesn't exactly fit todays agenda.




_________________
Come see the book everyone is talking about; "The Pros Talk Embouchure" . Plus my other 4 books A-Z, FAQs, Next Level & Air on the Move at http://www.bbtrumpet.com




[ This Message was edited by: Pops on 2003-04-14 19:44 ]

[weekendwarrior]

Look out........ Pops in da House!!!!!!!

[allofyougetalife]

[robert_white]

[ This Message was edited by: robert_white on 2003-04-17 14:36 ]

[robert_white]

[ This Message was edited by: robert_white on 2003-04-17 14:36 ]

[trpt-master]

Thank you aoygal! It's nice to hear some info about Ghitalla from a person who actually studied with him. I was very fortunate to have had the chance to hear him perform many - many times with the Boston Symphony. Those were the days (wheew!) Some times I think we have alot of people around here missing the big picture. Music! Do you ever hear people say in regards to great players - he was one of the finest EMBOUCHURE guys/gals to ever play the trumpet.... - ?

In Peace,

trptmaster