Upstream or Downstream?

[Donn]

What I said is that the closer to 50-50 that you can get, the longer your embouchure can be. I also said that a longer embouchure is to be encouraged. But, I emphatically stated that each person is an individual and must do what works best for them.

Anyone that will actually take a few minutes to carefully read my posts in their entirety could not misconstrue that I said 50-50 is best and take it as Gospel.

I take a lot of time to write and edit my posts, and am especially careful when talking about anything Mr. Jacobs said. Please try to take as much time and care to read my posts as I took to write them.

To be fair ... I think hardly any of us are reading this, with the intention to apply it to our own practice. The original question was of course put in those terms, and the original poster even participated to the extent that he wrote back the next day, which is kind of unusual here, but past that it's Tubenet regulars doing what we do, talking about talk.

At that level, as much time as you may put into these posts, it's not so much a question of understanding what you probably mean, but as he's pointing out, there's an interest in how other people might understand what they're reading, both from you or from anyone else who may have heard AJ say stuff like that. Your insight and clarifications on that are welcome, you don't have to get mad about it.

The point about lip rolling vs. downstream embouchure for high range is another very good example. You can repeat that you emphatically state that it's about what works for the individual, but it sounds like someone thinks the way do the right thing for high range is by going downstream, and people could reasonably take issue with that, whatever you may have emphatically stated elsewhere.

[happyroman]

You know what Tim, reading is a skill you need to brush up on.

No one, not me or anyone else in this thread, said that 50-50 is BEST.

What I said is that the closer to 50-50 that you can get, the longer your embouchure can be. I also said that a longer embouchure is to be encouraged.

Trying to stay polite. This thread could use more grownups.

I don't question that we should play where we get the best sound.

I do question your belief 50/50 would be better, for the simple fact that it is the rarest embouchure to be found on any good player (as any photo study of embouchure will quickly show. See Farkas, Reinhardt, anybody else.) Since hardly anybody uses 50/50, and some of the best players are 70/30 or more in either direction, there seems no support for your claim that longer embouchures are inherently better.

One last time. I never said 50-50 was either best or better than anything else.

Let me put it this way. The player should strive for the longest embouchure that works for them.

Other than that, the only thing I was trying to say is the obvious point that the longest possible embouchure is found at the "equator." As one moves away from the equator, the width of the cup becomes narrower, which means that there is less space for the length of the embouchure.

But the place where the embouchure could be longest may not work at all for a particular individual. What each player needs to do is find the placement of the mouthpiece where they get their best results, and try to play with the longest embouchure that works for them as an individual.

[happyroman]

You know what Tim, reading is a skill you need to brush up on.

No one, not me or anyone else in this thread, said that 50-50 is BEST.

What I said is that the closer to 50-50 that you can get, the longer your embouchure can be. I also said that a longer embouchure is to be encouraged.

Trying to stay polite. This thread could use more grownups.

I don't question that we should play where we get the best sound.

I do question your belief 50/50 would be better, for the simple fact that it is the rarest embouchure to be found on any good player (as any photo study of embouchure will quickly show. See Farkas, Reinhardt, anybody else.) Since hardly anybody uses 50/50, and some of the best players are 70/30 or more in either direction, there seems no support for your claim that longer embouchures are inherently better.

It is not MY claim. I am sharing information that Mr. Jacobs taught. He encouraged his students to play with a long embouchure. If I understand his point correctly, the more tissue that is vibrating, due to the increased length of the embouchure, the more resonant the sound will be.

You seem to be quoting a lot of horn examples to make your points, which may be comparing apples to oranges. The OP stated he is a tuba player (this is a tuba forum after all), and my responses to his question are from the standpoint of being a tuba player. Since you mention the Farkas book, if you look at Jacobs' embouchure (with the characteristic S curve), it is pretty darn close to the equator.

[Ace]

The OP says he is (or will be) a student of a big time tuba pro, Craig Knox. Why doesn't he ask Craig about the upstream/downstream issue? That would save all the verbiage in this thread.

Ace

[Ace]

The OP says he is (or will be) a student of a big time tuba pro, Craig Knox. Why doesn't he ask Craig about the upstream/downstream issue? That would save all the verbiage in this thread.

Ace

meh
How could anyone possibly resist seeking the astonishingly invaluable collective wisdom of the TNFJ ?

Ace

[windshieldbug]

The OP says he is (or will be) a student of a big time tuba pro, Craig Knox. Why doesn't he ask Craig about the upstream/downstream issue? That would save all the verbiage in this thread.

Ace

meh
How could anyone possibly resist seeking the astonishingly invaluable collective wisdom of the TNFJ ?

Ace

By swimming upstream or downstream

[windshieldbug]

"WWTNFJ do?"

[Doug Elliott]

Now you know what happens when you look for a "collective view."

Of course the same thing will happen when you "draw from as many people as possible."

[MaryAnn]

The two suggestions of Doug Elliot and Wilktone should be taken seriously. But be aware that there are beliefs going on there too, that should be approached and interpreted with intelligence. Nobody knows everything, and most of us know very little.

[royjohn]

Well, this whole thread goes to show that knowledge of what is actually happening with the brass embouchure is still in the Dark Ages. I agree with the poster who said that if you look at real embouchures, you will not find any functional ones that are 50-50. They are, as Doc Reinhardt specified, either 2/3 upper, 1/3 lower, or higher than that (both placements downstream) or 2/3 or more lower (upstream). Nobody in the middle. Having the longest vibrating length is nice in theory, but it isn't that way in practice. Your dental/jaw makeup tells how you play and you ignore it at your peril. Same goes for whether you pivot (or whatever you call that movement). You pivot, a little or a lot, whether you realize it or not, you pivot. If Mr. Jacobs said some do not pivot, he was wrong. You can see it in about any brass player you watch and I defy you to find someone who plays well who does not. Or to show such in serious research.

As to "song and wind" it is a nice concept and perhaps works for some. Certainly I wouldn't counsel anyone to stop listening to how they sound! But a personal experience convinced me that this just isn't all there is to it. I went to see Dave Wilken for an embouchure consult and after watching me for a few minutes, he said, (paraphrase here) "I think your movement is up and to the left and down and to the right." I was completely flummoxed by this observation, but a little more experimentation and practice proved that Dave was right. I needed to watch to pivot slightly NNW to SSE. Between that and quitting my efforts to squash all my lower lip into the mpc so as not to play "in the red," Dave cured most of my technical issues in three easy lessons over a few months (this was when I was playing mostly trumpet).

So my personal experience is that "song and wind" is a nice concept, but that sometimes a more technical approach is necessary for some people. I spent over five years trying to solve my technical problem on my own until I was fortunate enough to meet Dave. The fact that people like Mr. Jacobs or Raphael Mendez played like gods doesn't necessarily mean that they knew how they did it or were great teachers. Inspirational figures and great musicians, but technical gurus, no. Science appears to prove this. As to the shift between upstream and downstream, Wilkens has a very instructive video of a tuba student attempting to do that and coming to grief and the fix to it.

I'm sorry to adopt such a doctrinaire tone, but I've studied on this for years and I can't deny what I've found to be the truth. I guess we need another 50 years until these things become more common currency. Until then the advice to consult Dave Wilken or his teacher, Doug Elliot, or some other Reinhardt teacher is well taken.
HTH,
royjohn