Problematic attack: how to master?

[hubert]

Recently I have changed tubas. Now I am playing etudes to get used to the new instrument.
Sometimes (of course, too often for my feeling) there pops up an irritating problem with my attacks: tongued attacks (TA) sometimes appear to start with a little "burr" or rattle at the very start. Of course I want them to be as smooth and direct as can be.
Any suggestions how to manage/improve this?

(By the way: 1. I use a mouthpiece that I have used before, and then without any problems. 2. I did not play for 2 weeks, embouchure is a bit weakened, but not bad 3. The last 2 months I have played far more euphonium than I normally do; perhaps there is the source of the problem???).

Thanks a lot in advance.
Hubert

[hup_d_dup]

Whatever anyone suggests may or may not work.

But here is something to consider. Work a few minutes each day on air attacks. The goal is to get the pitch to sound as soon as you blow, which can be difficult at first. If you can get a good air attack you will have a good foundation for articulated attacks.

Hup

[peterbas]

Deleted

[UDELBR]

If the problem started with a new instrument, I'd make darn sure the new instrument isn't the cause. Have someone else play it for their opinion, have it checked for leaks and bad porting, have it scoped for "stuff" in the windway (blobs of solder, foreign objects, etc. The "new instrument" part is an important clue.

[hubert]

Thanks, all, for your suggestions.
Yes, I will have checked the instrument anyway, just to be sure.
After a few hours of experimenting (with an eye on the suggestions above) I feel I am on track again. After playing euphonium for some time and a very easy blowing F tuba it looks like I really have to adapt (my embouchure) to the new (4/4) C tuba. A bit stronger (warm) airflow, somewhat more protruding and "opened" lips seem to work very well to get rid of the "burr". Next days will tell....
Thanks again,
Hubert

[hubert]

Reason understood. And now some extra miles to get rid of the "excuse"....
Hubert

[hbcrandy]

How can anyone really know?

Here is a really general comment that may have nothing to do with your problem:

A common problem with attacks is that people move their tongue and then begin to blow, instead of properly already having air pressure behind their tongue when they release their tongue.

Bloke is saying what Mr. Torchinsky said to me in a lesson in different words, "Randy, don't attack the note, release the note". This prompted me to do exactly what Bloke said and it worked like a charm.

[peterbas]

Deleted

[peterbas]

Deleted

[peterbas]

Deleted

[peterbas]

Deleted

[tbonesullivan]

I found that learning the feeling of the "threshold" when the vibration starts really helps with getting a faster articulation. It also helps a lot with low volume playing and air control.

You pick a note, and without using your tongue, try to play as softly as you can. When you get the note going, fade out to that "threshold" of vibration, and then go to silence with just a small amount of air. Then try it the other way around: start blowing air with a set embouchure, and then try to make your lips vibrate without having a large sound when the vibration starts. You learn how to control the vibration. Once you have this, then you can use the tongue to hold back the air behind your ready to vibrate lips.

[peterbas]

Deleted

[CaptainNemo]

It is possible to win golf tournaments with ugly/spastic swings, as the only goal is to minimize the number of strokes.

It’s more difficult to coax smiles (as well as donations and ticket sales) from music patrons - when producing ugly sounds, just because someone producing those sounds feels certain that they are going about it technically and physiologically correctly, via research/analysis/statistics/etc.

Yet others seem more fascinated in posting debate rhetoric than in achieving the ability to produce a marketable and aesthetically pleasing product.

This is a horrendous comparison between two fields with entirely different metrics of success.

A golfer does not care about aesthetics and thus can win a tournament without much regard for them.
A tubist does, and because tuba playing is a physical activity, it follows that there are technical, physical, and anatomical factors that go into the creation of a decent sound. (This isn't to say that a beautiful sound leads to beautiful playing, as understanding of the music and the audience are also critical).

This is similar to a painter choosing just the right paints, and ensuring that the paints are empirically of a high quality. There is no subjectivity in the quality of paints and their ability to endure, which is largely the debate going on in this thread - technical knowledge which serves to expand the facility for musical expression. The painter still needs to have vision, and the tubist still needs to have musicality, but the technical aspects make the end product easier to achieve and more reliable.

Just because YOU personally do not approach tuba playing in a technical-before-musical way does mean that it is an invalid method of playing. I'd argue that patrons are more likely to notice a technical mistake than they are an artistic decision.

For players trying to develop their sound and technique, "technical talk" can make all the difference in the world as a means to clearly discuss differences in technique. Sure, there isn't a 1-1 correspondence of "I keep my teeth 3mm apart so you should too", but the ideas of teeth together/separate, more upper/lower lip, etc are all things that must be discussed, in order that they become something with which young students experiment.

If you try and suppress all technical discussion, you suppress the sharing of information that may lead young players to discover their own sound faster than blind experimentation.

That said, I agree that just because someone THINKS their technique is right does not mean they are creating their best sound. But without the ability to discuss technique clearly and objectively, there is little hope for correcting their technique.

[timothy42b]

bloke " 'golf swing over-analysis' ↔ 'musical articulation over-analysis'...a superb analogy, and judged to be so - by peer review "

Agree.

But.

Some of us cannot improve without the indepth analysis, it's the way we're built. The natural athlete and the natural musician will always outplay us. That's life.

[peterbas]

Deleted

[MaryAnn]

Well, after all the hoo-hah and falerol above, I had a similar problem when I went from F to CC. F and euph were fine, CC was bleah. I was not using the thicker, slower, more abundant air column needed for the CC. I figured it out eventually.

[timothy42b]

IMHO (inherent value notwithstanding ), in-depth analysis is good, but NOT while we're actually playing. The focus while playing should be on the message. Sure, you are aware of how the message sounds (that's part of the deal), but over-analysis while playing is counter-productive. .

I almost completely agree. We focus on details and drills in the practice room, and this is where analysis counts, but when we play we trust ourselvbes and make music.

Where I quibble is in calling it analysis when we get in trouble playing. It isn't. I firmly believe there is no such thing as "paralysis by analysis." The athlete's "choke" is never analysis, it is over self consciousness, over awareness, and so is our problem as musicians. We suddenly pay attention to something we shouldn't, and then we focus on it, and then we doubt, and then we're screwed up and never get back.

I did not mean to say the natural athlete or natural musician doesn't work hard. They do, they put in the hours to build their skills. But they have often don't have a clue what they're actually doing, just that it works. I meant natural in the sense that they are goal oriented, like inner tennis, and don't worry much about the mechanics on the way.

[Leland]

this...

My "naturally and freely" golf swing looks WAY different from his.

Meaning that I wasn't given the correct mechanics to begin with.

[hbcrandy]

' wanna screw up a performance?

Just start thinking about what you're doing.

+1