TubeNet

My personal view is tht it IS a useful reference which, like any other, is a source of information which may or may not work for any particular person. Read it, try what is suggested and take what works for you and add it to your bag of tricks then set the rest aside. Of the "greats" I studied with or discussed playing with - including Harvey, Jake, Rex Conner, Bill Bell - all offered that view as a good approach.

Farkas, late in his career was experiencing some problems with his playing and on one occassion was at Jake's studio for a "lesson", or as some would call it , coaching session, and was able to correct problems by finding simple solutions.There is nothing like having someone else analyse your problems and lead you to solutions. Books like this one DO serve a purpose.

I have only recently purchased a new copy as I feel it very worthwhile. Brian frederiksen would be happy to supply a new copy through Windsong Press.

hrender wrote:Some recent threads have touched on proper formation of the embouchure, and it pinged a memory of reading and using (or trying to use) Philip Farkas's The Art of Brass Playing back when I was in school many years ago. My copy has long since disappeared, but I found it's still in print. I'm curious: To what degree is it still considered valid/useful? I know as far as some researchers/theorists/practitioners it's passe' (ref. http://www.wilktone.com/?p=12), but is there any general consensus? If it's passe' , is there another person's work that's considered more definitive? Reinhardt? Someone else? Or is it all ATMO?

It was "passe" to Farkas himself. He retracted most of his commentary on how the embouchure worked, after the book had come out.

My personal opinion is, that if the author himself no longer believed himself, we probably shouldn't either.

Thanks for the plug of my blog post.

To what degree is it still considered valid/useful?

Taken in context with our current understanding of brass embouchure form and function, there's some in "The Art of Brass Playing" that is just plain wrong. Farkas himself discovered that embouchures function as downstream and upstream, not blowing straight down the shank as he wrote in TAOBP. Some of it is accurate when placed into the context of certain embouchure types (for example, Farkas's recommendations about mouthpiece placements), but not others. This information isn't wrong, per se, just incomplete. Other things in it are quite good, in my opinion. Farkas's recommendations about the position of the mouth corners and how to hold the chin work great for all embouchure types.

My main gripe with TAOBP isn't that there is inaccurate information in there. Farkas did the best he could based on his understanding at the time and to his credit he continued to study brass embouchures and published the results. The ultimate problem is that too many of us continue to blindly follow Farkas's earlier recommendations without bothering to dig just a little deeper and put them into a more accurate context.

If it's passe' , is there another person's work that's considered more definitive? Reinhardt? Someone else? Or is it all ATMO?

I do think Reinhardt's writings are probably the most complete and accurate description of brass embouchure form and function, but he's certainly not the last word. For one thing, his "Encyclopedia of the Pivot System" is written in such a way that is more conducive if you were taking lessons from Reinhardt and is hard to follow for the curious average brass player. There are also some internal inconsistencies with his terminology that make for a lot of confusion when misinterpreted. His recommendations and descriptions are golden, but it needs a drastic update to communicate more effectively. And there is always more that can be learned and added.

A truly definitive source would need to take a critical look at all the conflicting beliefs out there and sort out the wheat from the chaff. In scientific fields this is done routinely, but the field of brass pedagogy has a different culture that doesn't lend itself well to this. There's always something more to learn, but we musicians tend to spend our time creating music more than engaging in research. Having conflicting pedagogy is going to be an occupational hazard we have to deal with, I'm afraid.

Someone once told me he knows a university brass pedagogy instructor who uses TAOBP in his course, but from the point of view that it's wrong and the goal of the course is to understand why. It sounds to me like a good approach because it not only teaches the students about brass pedagogy, but also how to think critically and judge information more accurately.


Dave

Wilktone,

Do you have any plans to create such a study/book. I think your videos are a great resource and I have to thank you for them, because not only did they help me become a better tuba player. They helped me understand how my dystonia ( as a horn player ) came to be. I am still trying to fix my horn playing and your videos and playing the tuba have helped me understand embouchure formation much better. I've had some success and hope it continues.

I hope someday to write such a book, but I have put it off so as not to do what Farkas did, and regret it later. Maybe I'll have time next year.

I prefer to work with players individually... ANY descriptions in writing, or even videos, can be misinterpreted.

Doug Elliott wrote:I hope someday to write such a book, but I have put it off so as not to do what Farkas did, and regret it later. Maybe I'll have time next year.

I prefer to work with players individually... ANY descriptions in writing, or even videos, can be misinterpreted.

Where can I pre-order this Thank you Mr. Elliott!

Do you have any plans to create such a study/book.

I will occasionally pester Doug with that same question, NDSP. The more I learn, the more I understand how daunting a task that is.

I think your videos are a great resource and I have to thank you for them, because not only did they help me become a better tuba player. They helped me understand how my dystonia ( as a horn player ) came to be.

Thank you. In case it isn't apparent on the videos you've seen, Doug has been my main embouchure teacher and most of my stuff is based on things he taught me. Any misinformation you can find in there is my own fault, though. See below.

I am still trying to fix my horn playing and your videos and playing the tuba have helped me understand embouchure formation much better. I've had some success and hope it continues.

I hope things continue to get better for you. Probably the best thing you can do is get together in person with someone who has a good understanding of brass embouchure form and function to look carefully at your embouchure and see what's going on. I've had some success helping some players with this (I live in western NC), but suggest Doug Elliott if you can make it out to his neck of the woods or if he's on tour near you. Doug is more experienced than me with this and I've sent some players with particularly challenging issues to him after trying to help them myself.

I hope someday to write such a book, but I have put it off so as not to do what Farkas did, and regret it later.

Wouldn't you also say that this could apply to Reinhardt's books? His descriptions changed over time too, and a lot of people still misinterpret his writing. I have before, and I suspect that some other people who should know better sometimes do as well.

I should also add that I feel similarly with many of my video resources. Looking back at some of them I would like to reword some things, make a few corrections, add new information, get rid of other things, etc. One of the troubles there is that with YouTube links you can't simply update the video and keep the same link/rankings/comments/etc. Videos that are split up into multiple parts due to time limitations imposed by YouTube also lead to confusion.

That said, I think the video option is the best way to communicate this information. It has a lot of advantages over just text. Have you ever considered redoing your embouchure film, Doug?

One of my goals/wishes is to have a professionally produced DVD in conjunction with a textbook for the brass pedagogy courses required by most colleges for a Music Ed degree. Anyone offering grants for funding?

Where can I pre-order this Thank you Mr. Elliott!

Me too.


Dave

All of this takes a lot of thought, time, and unfortunately, money too.

Doug Elliott wrote:All of this takes a lot of thought, time, and unfortunately, money too.

A conference/summit would take thought, time, and money... but if you had enough people involved there would be no overhead because the registration fees would pay for the event.

I'd definitely sign up.

Looking forward to doing exactly that sometime, maybe in 2012.

As the conversation is getting more and more diverted into pedagogical styles, I will comment on Bloke's statement of air and vibration. Can I suggest that "air" and "vibration" are related, but not the same? It may be more accurate to think vibration is enforced via buzzing, product begin instantaneous tone and pitch. Air would be merely one part of the equation to achieving the buzz. One can further disect embrechure into upstream/downstream/nozzle/tightness/relazedness concepts that need to be appropriately calibrated to a specific frequency of vibration. This is far from the Jacobs mentality of play by sound, but can be adequate an informative to people willing to use both aproaches. I have studied with people from different sides of the pedagogical divide, and both sides are working towards the same goal, and students of these methods respond differently to both styles.

On topic: Seminar on this subject - very interested.

hrender wrote:

Ben wrote:On topic: Seminar on this subject - very interested.

Ditto.

DItto here.

I also used to do work in the even sphere (still do occaisionally), I'd be more than happy to help planning for the event.