Some thoughts on the Chicago School

trpt-master · Veteran Member Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Posts: 352

Pops the ASS (as you would put it) on here is you. Your ship on this forum is sinking faster than the Titanic and you recent barrage of posts has been a feeble attempt
to patch the hole made by the iceberg. I’m sure you will still sell plenty of books that according to you "everyone is talking about" but no one really is, and at the same time keep $ cashing in $ on the naive members of this board. But I must say it looks like the party is winding down for you. You contacted me first by email and I respected the privacy of your messages but I see you have no respect for private communication so now I will post a bit of what you had to say. Some of this may leave people with more questions than answers. The kitchen is very hot Pops and I just turned on the broiler.
You can better believe that I will be finishing this meal.

Pops via email:

Sorry but physical approaches accomplish in weeks what the sound model
sometimes does in years.

Always has.

Ohh really Pops?

Actually
Several colleges have adopted my texts and many professors have come for
lessons.

I want to know what colleges use your texts Pops. I never got an answer
to that one.

Folks that was just a teaser. I'm more than happy to play the -lets post the private email in public game- Pops seems to be so fond of.

In Peace,

trptmaster

tcutrpt · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:08 am Post subject:

It sounds like this thread is much past due to be moved to the argument forum. NE started this to provide valuable information and it has turned badly away from that. Take it somewhere else so those of us wanting to learn from this site can. Thank you.
_________________
Matt Cyr
trumpetmc@gmail.com

EBjazz · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 11:29 am Post subject:

Irving · Heavyweight Member Joined: 11 Feb 2003 Posts: 1888

I would have loved to take lessons from ALL of the teachers mentioned here so far. I only took 3 lessons with Jacobs, but I'm glad I did. I am still kicking myself for never having studied with Caruso. God knows I could have...I used to hear his students when I was over at Giardinelli's trying horns. Pops sounds like he has a lot to offer also, but I live too far away from Texas to take lessons with him. I would be open to all approaches, and adopt what I find useful, and disguard the rest.

If you were to put all of the famous teachers mentioned in a room, they would probably be in agreement much more than you might think about what goes on physically while playing. What would differ would be their approach on how to achieve the greatest efficiency and ease in playing.

_bugleboy · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:11 pm Post subject:

Eric,

Of the items listed, "aperture, embouchure, stomach muscles, or whatever" the only time Claude mentioned them was to tell the student not to think about them.

It seems to me, I recall a former CG student poster on the TH making multiple references to breathing and breath support that CG professed PLUS the tongue arching and ah to ee (as in sea) when going high.

Are you therefore taking the position that Claude Gordon NEVER focussed on how to breathe, as in how to inhale and how to exhale, AND that he NEVER directed a student to position the tongue a certainin way in the mouth for low notes and a different way for high notes?

I don't have to have studied with CG to read about his pedagogical style, as written by his students. So, what is the purpose of the remark,

When did you study with Claude, Charley?

You know I didn't study with CG. So from that it would follow that you believe that ONLY those who have studied directly with someone, e.g. Claude Gordon, are qualified to make any statement whatsoever about that teacher's pedagogy. Is that your position?

_________________
Charles Raymond

[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2003-04-15 16:25 ]

EBjazz · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 1:29 pm Post subject:

<Eric,

Of the items listed, "aperture, embouchure, stomach muscles, or whatever" the only time Claude mentioned them was to tell the student not to think about them.

It seems to me, I recall a former CG student poster on the TH making multiple references to breathing and breath support that CG professed PLUS the tongue arching and ah to ee (as in sea) when going high.

Are you therefore taking the position that Claude Gordon NEVER focussed on how to breathe, as in how to inhale and how to exhale, AND directing a student as to the positioning of the tongue in the mouth a certain way for low notes and a different way for high notes? >

I'm not going to take any position because debating about trumpet is a waste of my time.
I'm simply stating that Claude never spoke of "aperture, embouchure, stomach muscles" even if Charley Raymond says he did or read it somewhere.
Of course Claude spoke of toungue level and breathing, but you mentioned neither in the original quote.

Eb
_________________
Eric Bolvin
http://bolvinmusic.com/product/the-modern-jazz-trumpet-method/
www.bolvinmusic.com

_bugleboy · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 2:20 pm Post subject:

Robert,

Let's not pursue any more inflammatory lines of argument.

My question to you was,

"Are you saying that the aforementioned approaches very rarely produce players who have "a professional standard of overall playing?"

This question was inspired by your statement,

Thus, I submit that methods that stress what to do with your aperture, embouchure, stomach muscles, or whatever may help you achieve this or that feat on the trumpet. But they will very rarely carry you onward towards a professional standard of overall playing.

As written, your statement asserts that methods that employ willful manipulation of the embouchure or stomach muscles will very rarely carry you onward towards a professional standard of overall playing.

These are your words, Robert, not mine.

So where are the flames? I haven't made any baiting or derogatory remarks to you on this thread. I posted a civil question that was ignored by you in your first post. When I reposted the same question you became accusatory in your second post.

What I'm saying is that there are more professionals who "try not to think about that stuff" (chops, air, etc) than those who do.

I happen to agree with you on this statement, but, in your first post there was no mention regarding how professionals think, or don't think, about chops, air, etc.

If one is unable to do this, .....(at a certain point you have to be able to put every bit of knowledge you have aside and JUST PLAY.) ......... one will never operate as a professional musician at the very highest level; where the horn is an extension of yourself. I strongly believe this and would stand by it under any circumstances.

This is fine. But, it has nothing to do with my question that derived from your statement about teachers who stress "what to do with your aperture, embouchure, stomach muscles, or whatever."

So please, bugleboy, don't try to set me up as a jackass by baiting me into saying "so-and-so isn't any good" or "no good players studied with so-and-so" because I won't say those things.

Now you're rewriting what you originally posted. You didn't say (and I never implied that you did) that ALL players who study ... methods that stress what to do with your aperture, embouchure, stomach muscles, or whatever ............ (will never get carried) onward towards a professional standard of overall playing. You said,
... very rarely produce players ...

So why the accusation that I am baiting you into saying that "so-and-so isn't any good" or "no good players studied with so-and-so"

"Very rarely" means that these methods WOULD work for some, albeit, "very raely."

Now, from what you are saying, it appears that you didn’t mean what your words said in your first post, even though you’re not willing to say so.

I was merely seeking a clarification on your part.

Pops · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 2:26 pm Post subject:

[ This Message was edited by: Pops on 2003-05-13 11:58 ]

_bugleboy · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 2:51 pm Post subject:

Eric,

Of course Claude spoke of toungue level and breathing, but you mentioned neither in the original quote.

The original quote by Robert was "aperture, embouchure, stomach muscles, or whatever."

"Embouchure" covers the tongue, but if you don't think so, than "or whatever" certainly does. It would be absurd to not categorize CG as a teacher who espoused willful manipulation of certain muscles.

_________________
Charles Raymond

[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2003-04-15 18:43 ]

Pops · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:09 pm Post subject:

[ This Message was edited by: Pops on 2003-05-13 11:58 ]

Nonsense Eliminator · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 3:43 pm Post subject:

Bugleboy --

For what it's worth, I thought Robert's post was well-reasoned, clear, concise and to the point. Perhaps it was not your intent to "bait" him, but it certainly looked that way to me. I suspect I would have reacted in much the same way, although probably with something longer and more rambling. I think by repeating yourself, and mentioning names, your post gave the impression that you were hectoring him and accusing him of "dissing" Gordon and Reinhardt. (I, for one, can live with being accused of dissing SuperChops

) It seems to me that you got the clarification you were looking for, and I don't see at all where Robert contradicted himself. In his response to you, he said, "If one is unable to [just play], one will never operate as a professional musician at the very highest level." I think it is pretty clear from his posts on this thread what he feels is the best route to that goal, and, implicitly, what kind of teaching is more likely to be successful.

trpt-master · Veteran Member Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Posts: 352

You are not the only one NE.

In Peace,

trptmaster

trpt-master · Veteran Member Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Posts: 352

trpt-master · Veteran Member Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Posts: 352

I think you are one more advertisement on your signature away from an infomercial Pops. My personal favorite is the $50 taped lessons you provide. Is that audio tape or video? You have mentioned your two projects twice now on different threads. Please tell us what these projects are before you have to go for three weeks. Is it a new book on chops? Or maybe a super pencil made out of an exotic metal for the pencil exercises?
I'll be looking for you in May

In Peace,

trptmaster

allofyougetalife · Veteran Member Joined: 19 Mar 2003 Posts: 207

_bugleboy · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:08 pm Post subject:

NE,

OK. Robert's reasoning goes something like this.

Premise #1
one of the central points to teaching with these so-called "Chicago" approaches is the idea that giving a student a lot of explanation of what's going on physically is counter-productive IN THE LONG RUN and especially when one needs to perform at a high level.

I never challenged that this is a fair estimation of the so-called Chicago approaches. It could be.
Premise #2
Explaining things as "this" or "that" simply appeases the frustrated student's search for ...(a solution that will deal with .... some specific feat on the horn: playing a double C, for instance ....

This could be true for many, not necessarily for all frustrated students, though. Or if it is there hasn't been any evidence offered to support that statement. So it is Robert's opinion. Fair enough.
Corollary to Premise #2
At any rate, a player so zeroed in on doing that feat will naturally want some "how to".

Again, opinion. May or may not be true.

The analogy to learning a foreign language doesn't add anything to the argument that is being constructed. And rather than adding more credibility to his position, the reference to unnatural accents seemed irrelevant.

Finally, Robert concludes that,
Thus, I submit that methods that stress what to do with your aperture, embouchure, stomach muscles, or whatever...

In other words, methods that preach willful manipulation of the muscles of the embouchure and respiratory system

.... will very rarely carry you onward towards a professional standard of overall playing.

This clearly states that it is rare for the methods that stress willful manipulation to succeed at the pro level. Some of these methods are Gordon, Reinhardt and Callet. So Robert is implying that it would be rare to find students of CG, DSR and JC succeeding at the pro level. This is such an outrageous statement, that I asked for a clarification.

Now, if you believe that Robert's post is

... well-reasoned,

Show me how his conclusion follows from his premises. He seems to be concluding that if it doesn't comport with Chicago then it is very unlikely to succeed. The other premise, even if left unchallenged, in no way, that I can see, supports his conclusion. So all that is left is the first one which is untenable.

clear,

No comment.

concise and to the point.

Concise, but I question that he made his point. His point was that,

Thus, I submit that methods that stress what to do with your aperture, embouchure, stomach muscles, or whatever may help you achieve this or that feat on the trumpet. But they will very rarely carry you onward towards a professional standard of overall playing.

That is his stated point ("Thus, I submit .....") and at this point, I say he didn't make it at all.

your post gave the impression that you were hectoring him and accusing him of "dissing" Gordon and Reinhardt.

His words, not mine. I was only trying to show where his words logically followed. When you diss methods that employ willful manipulation of muscles, those methods have names. Where's the mystery to that?

It seems to me that you got the clarification you were looking for,

Negative on that. He never answered the question I asked of him.

In his response to you, he said, "If one is unable to [just play], one will never operate as a professional musician at the very highest level." I think it is pretty clear from his posts on this thread what he feels is the best route to that goal, and, implicitly, what kind of teaching is more likely to be successful.

Yes he did say all of that. But, what he didn't say was the answer to my question, which was,

"Are you saying that the aforementioned approaches (CG, DSR, and JC) very rarely produce players who have "a professional standard of overall playing?"

Simple question. Really. A "Yes" or a "No" would do it.

_________________
Charles Raymond

[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2003-04-15 21:10 ]

Nonsense Eliminator · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 6:58 pm Post subject:

Bugleboy --

Here's how I see the argument:

1) Players who are fixated on mechanical manipulation rarely achieve professional success.
2) Teachers who focus on mechanical manipulation are much more likely to have such students.

Part 1 was quite explicit. I think the second part is self-evident. Now, it seems that Robert and I see pretty eye-to-eye on this, so something that may be a logical leap to an unbiased (or differently-biased) reader doesn't particularly register with me -- although I don't see that here.

I am prepared to take your word that you honestly weren't trying to bait Robert. However, I guess you'll have to take mine that I honestly thought you were -- and, given the tone this discussion has been taking, that's not an unreasonable assumption.

trpt-master · Veteran Member Joined: 02 Apr 2003 Posts: 352

Folks what we have just witnessed in the previous post is a - master debater- at the top of his game! This is the kind of stuff legends are made out of on the TH. Bravo BugleBoy.

Bravo!

In Peace,

trptmaster

_bugleboy · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:17 pm Post subject:

DE,

Here's how I see the argument:

1) Players who are fixated on mechanical manipulation rarely achieve professional success.

2) Teachers who focus on mechanical manipulation are much more likely to have such students.

Agreed.

Now, it seems that Robert and I see pretty eye-to-eye on this, so something that may be a logical leap to an unbiased (or differently-biased) reader doesn't particularly register with me

This has nothing to do with bias on the part of the reader. Even without challenging the merits of his statements and whether or not the conclusion follows, the statement that Robert made that began "Thus, I submit ...." is a very clear and unambiguous statement. It was a general statement and therefore would apply to any particular example that would fall within the statement's meaning. Hence my question to him.

I am prepared to take your word that you honestly weren't trying to bait Robert.

My post to Robert was totally an "if such and such then it follows that something else is true and therfore something else is true, etc.," kind of post. You call that baiting??!! With the innuendos, slurs and derogatory remarks that have been rampant lately by others (some directed at me), and you call my post baiting? Really?

given the tone this discussion has been taking, that's not an unreasonable assumption.

Yes, it is unreasonable, because my tone has never once been anything other than that which is seeking an answer to a logical or reasonable question posed by me.

_________________
Charles Raymond

[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2003-04-15 23:20 ]

[ This Message was edited by: bugleboy on 2003-04-16 00:51 ]

DSR · Posted: Tue Apr 15, 2003 8:40 pm Post subject:

Here is some evidence to support that at least one mechanical approach has helped developed fine players. It may be the same for other mechanical methodologies. This is a list of SOME of the famous performers Doc Reinhardt taught:

"Lead trumpet players: Bernie Glow, Ray Wetzel, Alec Fila, Art Depew, Buddy Childers, Stan Mark, Don Paladino, Bud Brisbois, Lin Biviano, Johnny Madrid and Lyn Nicholson. Jazz trumpet players: Nick Travis, Red Rodney, Jimmy McPartland, John Swanna, Doc Cheatham and Wallace Roney. Lead trombone players: Billy Rauch, Dick Noel, Milt Bernhardt, Tommy Pederson, Warren Covington and Randy Purcell. Jazz trombone players: Trummy Young, Quentin Jackson and the two most famous of all, Bill Harris and Kai Winding. "

This is not VERY FEW players. This is a long list, and it doesn't even cover players professional players in the classical field.

Draw your own conclusions,

-Brendan

[ This Message was edited by: DSR on 2003-04-15 23:42 ]