Physics

The bulk of the musical talk
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Post by Rick Denney »

The Impaler wrote:..."paralysis by analysis"

Here's what I need to know (physically speaking) about making my horn work:

AIR = BUZZ = SOUND
Yes, but...

Who put the requirement that a knowledge of the relevant physics was needed to play better? I don't remember seeing that. It's a different subject, worthy of discussion in its own right to those who are interested in the topic.

Understanding and analysis do not automatically lead to paralysis. Arnold Jacobs was the first to use that term in relation to tuba playing (or so he claimed), and he preached the warning you quote at every opportunity. But I guarantee you that he had a very deep understanding of both the physics and the physiology of the tuba and its players. I just listened, again, to that 1973 master class recording, and there was no shortage of discussion of "primary shape change" and "palpating frontal regions", etc.

Rick "who does NOT think about physics when playing the instrument" Denney
User avatar
Chuck(G)
6 valves
6 valves
Posts: 5679
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 12:48 am
Location: Not out of the woods yet.
Contact:

Post by Chuck(G) »

The Impaler wrote:
Here's what I need to know

AIR = BUZZ = SOUND
Horsepucky! This is a trite saying whose only purpose is to remind you to breathe and use a good embouchure.

How about keeping an open throat or tongue low in the mouth to make better use of the bronchial resonances? How about the instrument itself? How do you tune it? What makes a good instrument the way it is?

By your logic, you just throw enough air at it and forget about tuning and tonguing and what goes on behind the lips.

When we say "All I need to know is <fill in a trite saying>", we do a great disservice to those who used simple sayings to make a complex topic understandable. Arnold Jacobs, who used the above saying quite a bit, dedicated a lot of his own gray matter to the subject of physics and physiology to better understand how musical sounds are produced.

You could scarcely do better than to emulate his example. Not all musicians are idiots.

(sorry for the rant)
User avatar
The Impaler
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 312
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:28 am
Location: Carrollton, GA
Contact:

Post by The Impaler »

When we say "All I need to know is <fill in a trite saying>", we do a great disservice to those who used simple sayings to make a complex topic understandable. Arnold Jacobs, who used the above saying quite a bit, dedicated a lot of his own gray matter to the subject of physics and physiology to better understand how musical sounds are produced.
Where do you think I got that little equation? Who do you think that Pat Sheridan got it from? Isn't it just slightly possible that I'm doing the same thing that you mentioned above?
How about keeping an open throat or tongue low in the mouth to make better use of the bronchial resonances?
Yes, I utilize both of those techniques. However, I think the vowel "O" when I play and accomplish both without overanalyzation. In my current line of work, I get brass (and woodwind) players to play with more open, resonant sounds by simply working shape (O), and air. For me, to tell a student to open their throat would be, well............
Horsepucky!
Cale Self

Assistant Professor of Music
Acting Director of Bands & Instructor of Low Brass
University of West Georgia
Carrollton, GA
Tubadan
bugler
bugler
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Apr 03, 2004 11:10 am
Location: Temple, TX

Post by Tubadan »

The Impaler wrote:Just to throw something different in here, and probably something that'll get some negative responses, I'd like to drop everyone a line that seriously helped me that I got from Patrick Sheridan:

"paralysis by analysis"

Here's what I need to know (physically speaking) about making my horn work:

AIR = BUZZ = SOUND

By that equation, if I work my air, my buzz will get better, and therefore, my sound will get better. Being someone who has studied and 'analyzed' the more intricate physical workings of how we make music, I've found that overly-involved analytical thinking can negatively affect playing. When I'm playing, I'm not thinking about exactly what makes my horn work. What I'm thinking about is blowing inspired chunks of air that will allow me to communicate to whomever my audience at the time is, be it in recital or in a classroom with beginners.

I know this might not be terribly popular, but I just thought I'd throw a lifeline out to anyone who might be stuck where I was once.
I think this equation would be more accurate as:

If air, then buzz.
If buzz, then sound.

I think this because, yes, when you improve your air, your buzz will improve. And when you improve your buzz, your sound will improve. However if you improve your sound, it doesn't necessarily mean that your air improved... or your buzz. Compare this to "It is raining, therefore the ground is wet." and "The ground is wet, therefore it is raining." Just because the ground is wet doesn't mean that is raining, but when it rains the ground gets wet.


Just my thoughts.
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Post by Rick Denney »

The Impaler wrote:Where do you think I got that little equation? Who do you think that Pat Sheridan got it from? Isn't it just slightly possible that I'm doing the same thing that you mentioned above?
I don't think it was the equation that annoyed Chuck, but rather the "all I need to know" part, or more likely, the implied extension of that to "all YOU need to know". The equation gets the thinking in the right direction, but as we progress, we surely learn more, and that knowledge helps us.

Permit me what seems an unrelated story. A few years back, I was involved in triathlon. This was a foolish enterprise at first, because I could not swim aerobically and would be gasping for air after one length of the pool. So, I took swimming lessons and swam four times a week with a master's swim program. I learned how to swim aerobically enough to swim the 2.4 miles of the swim portion of Ironman USA three years later with a solidly average time. I did better in the swim relative to other participants than I did on the bike or in the marathon, which is a bit surprising given that I came to triathlon from a cycling background.

The point of this story is that the best swimmers never really thought about technique. I'm talking about the Olympic-class swimmers (one of whom was my coach when I lived in Dallas). They jump in the water and just swim. They know what going fast feels like, and they make a myriad of unconscious adjustments to go fast. The key word there is "unconscious". They are focused on the result. They know that if they turn their hand a particular way, their catch will grab a bit more water, and if they can stretch their shoulder ligaments with a bit more flexibility, they can make a smaller hole in the water. They just do it without thinking about it, right from the start.

But what about the rest of us? How do we learn that, even though we have no feel for the water as do the greats? We can't use trial and error, because we don't know what a successful trial feels like.

The good coaches study those few remarkable swimmers, and understand for the rest of us what it is that they do that makes their greatness possible. Then, they teach it to us. And they teach it the same way we learn music, by focusing on the feel we have in the water. But they still drill us on specific physical activities that will position our bodies in the water so we can experience that feel. Some swimmers, once they experience that feel, will go on to become great swimmers, perhaps. Most won't, but they will get good enough to enjoy it. But even they will have to drill the elements of a good swim stroke until it becomes automatic. While they are drilling, they are not thinking about going fast in the water, but rather they are thinking about making sure they turn their hand the way they've been taught, and so on, until they do it out of habit. Then, they turn their minds to the feel of the water.

That's exactly how most of us learn to play music. Yes, we get in our own way when we think too much about the process of technique when we are trying to play music. But we must build those processes into our subconscious one way or another if we are to succeed. We are either born with it, or someone teaches it to us and we learn. Once we learn the move, we have to go beyond the move to bury it into our subconscious so we can focus our intelligence on the music. There is absolutely nothing about this process that is antithetical to the way Jacobs taught or the way Sheridan teaches, based on the examples that I have seen.

I took lessons with Mike Sanders, who was himself a long-time student of Jacobs, many years ago, and he tried to get me to start moving air. He didn't do it with simple equations. He did it using three methods: 1.) he demonstrated what moving lots of air looked like and sounded like (and the sound of that is still in my head nearly 20 years later), 2.) he drilled me on air movement outside the domain of melody ("tu-tu-tu-tu-tu-tu-to-tu-tu-tuuuu-inhale-tu-tu-tu-tu-tu-tu-tu-tu-tu-tuuuu...), and 3.) he had me buzz on the mouthpiece (which eliminates the helping resonance of the instrument and thus requires more air). These techniques go far beyond your simple equation.

But I still don't think about them when I play, any more than I think about how I turn my hand during the catch portion of my swim stroke.

Rick "eschewing the obfuscation of being simplistic" Denney
User avatar
Rick Denney
Resident Genius
Posts: 6650
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2004 1:18 am
Contact:

Post by Rick Denney »

Fortissimosca wrote:In ideal phyisics conditions the textbook is true. If we had that fifty-something valved tuba (I know all of you have seen the picture) we would just have to find the perfect buzz and hold it pressing down the valves to make the column longer or shorter to make sure the standing waves produced by the buzz end on an antinode after completing the required harmonics to produce a note.
The pulse from the lips must coincide with the returning vacuum between successive compression waves reflecting back from the end of the bell to get resonance and a reinforcing pattern. Without that, maintaining that frequency is very difficult. Even without friction, we must buzz our lips at the correct basic frequency to resonate with the instrument.

Rick "who may have missed the point" Denney
User avatar
Anterux
pro musician
pro musician
Posts: 331
Joined: Thu Dec 30, 2004 6:43 am
Location: Portugal
Contact:

Post by Anterux »

maybe it's my english but reading this in a book is not right or at least ambiguous.
“If you have ever used just the mouthpiece of a brass or reed instrument, you know that the vibration of your lips or the reed alone does not make a sound with any particular pitch.
because the vibration of the lips in a mouthpiece alone (or even just the lips) DOES MAKE a sound with any particular pitch. (at least in a given range).
User avatar
DonShirer
4 valves
4 valves
Posts: 571
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:08 am
Location: Westbrook, CT

Post by DonShirer »

As a physics teacher for over 40 years (now retired) and a reviewer of quite a few elementary texts, I have found to my chagrin that there are some which contain not only misleading, but sometimes downright erroneous statements. Sometimes this is the result of an honest effort to oversimplify for the (presumed) audience. Luckily, this is the exception, not the rule, so please do not judge all scientific authors by one unfortunate example.

In this case, even such a so-so player as I can produce recognizable tunes by buzzing, so there is obviously enough fundamental in the output for definite pitch recognition. Perhaps Salieri's summary in Amadeus is appropriate: "Mediocrities everywhere...I absolve you all!"

Don S.
User avatar
MaryAnn
Occasionally Visiting Pipsqueak
Occasionally Visiting Pipsqueak
Posts: 3217
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:58 am

Post by MaryAnn »

Well, the rest of the discussion aside....nobody seems to have mentioned the "other" part that was quoted, that a reed mouthpiece acts as he says it does. I dunno about you, but when I squawk on a double reed, it's just that, pretty much...a squawk. Without the instrument I cannot play tunes. On a clarinet or sax (ICK) mouthpiece...pretty much the same; no instrument, no tune.
I think the guy just had no idea what a "brass instrument" is...probably thinks saxophone is a brass instrument! and just decided to throw his theory in an incorrect direction.
MA, who thinks "analysis is paralysis" is the mantra of someone who is completely unable to show anyone how to play an instrument, but who wants to get money for his time anyway. If nobody had told me to curl my lower lip in to go high, I might have figured it out, but most likely I would have pinched my lips together and squashed my face with the rim and complained about my lack of high range.
Ryan_Beucke
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Potsdam, NY

Re:

Post by Ryan_Beucke »

"Well, the rest of the discussion aside....nobody seems to have mentioned the "other" part that was quoted, that a reed mouthpiece acts as he says it does. I dunno about you, but when I squawk on a double reed, it's just that, pretty much...a squawk. Without the instrument I cannot play tunes. On a clarinet or sax (ICK) mouthpiece...pretty much the same; no instrument, no tune.
I think the guy just had no idea what a "brass instrument" is...probably thinks saxophone is a brass instrument! and just decided to throw his theory in an incorrect direction."


Well actually a reed mouthpiece does have a pitch. It is just really harsh, and high sounding. When I took sax tech last semester, we learned what the pitch of just a mouthpiece and then just a mouthpiece and neck of a saxaphone is, but I don't remember what they are...

I think the thing to know here is that a mouthpiece, regardless of what instrument it's for, as well as most instruments, is going to be sounding generally one pitch at a time. It may have some overtones that make it hard to distinguish that pitch, but there is a predominant pitch and you cannot just buzz into a mouthpiece and into an instrument and push down buttons and get the correct pitches without changes in embochure. Even percussion instruments have distinguishable pitches, like snare drums, toms and timpanis. Cymbals and gongs are the only instruments I can think of offhand that actually do not have a distinguishable pitch, as they often vibrate about equally for a large number of frequencies.
User avatar
MaryAnn
Occasionally Visiting Pipsqueak
Occasionally Visiting Pipsqueak
Posts: 3217
Joined: Fri Mar 19, 2004 9:58 am

Post by MaryAnn »

I don't see how you disagree....I can only get "a" pitch out of either a double reed or a single-reed mouthpiece, with some variation with manipulation, but certainly not a tune. With a brass instrument mouthpiece, I can play at least the range I can play on the instrument, although tone quality added by the instrument is not be there. How are we disagreeing? I'm saying the guy was basically on base with double and single reeds, but seems to have a missing page on what a "brass instrument" is.
MA
Ryan_Beucke
3 valves
3 valves
Posts: 256
Joined: Tue Sep 21, 2004 6:31 pm
Location: Potsdam, NY

Re:

Post by Ryan_Beucke »

Ahh, I understand what you meant now MaryAnn. I thought you meant the mouthpiece alone on a reed will not produce a descernable pitch, whereas you meant that it produces pretty much only ONE pitch. My mistake.
Post Reply