tone production (nope, not a troll)

[k001k47]

Hold on bloke, didn't you say that all tuba playing is 'making fart noises into big swirly cones' ? How would that work analogously?

not a problem, cool cat:

farts:

Generally, are they "pushed", or - mostly - are they "let" ?

Well, I think pushing sometimes yields undesired results.

[tubalex]

I think we are, in part, dealing with confusingly inadequate vocabulary in this discussion. It seems like the discussion so far mostly assumes that embouchure and wind (I will write "wind" instead of "air" because "wind" implies motion) are two separate entities.

However, the most satisfying definition of "embouchure" I have come across is:

"An embouchure is a three-dimensional entity in motion created by the movement of air past lip tissue."

This sentence was written by trombonist (and yes, my colleague) David Vining.

Vibration doesn't come from meat alone, and it doesn't come from wind alone. We can observe these two elements separately, but neither works without the other in brass playing. A concept of an embouchure should include motion. What moves is the lip tissue, which can be manipulated in many ways. What creates the motion is the wind, which can be manipulated in many ways.

Just because a player might have developed enough habits in their wind motion to render their wind motion an unconscious act, that does not mean that wind motion is a non-essential or unchangeable element of their playing.

Just because a player might have an unconsciously-occurring meat set-up which makes the vibration satisfying, doesn't mean that meat set-up is a non-essential or unchangeable element of their playing.

And perhaps for most people through a lifetime playing, elements requiring attention in physical operation of an instrument will, naturally, change.

Also, I have always loved Arnold Jacobs' concept of the "computer level" of the brain. To bring the metaphor up to at least 1990's-era computer terminology; it's graphic user imaging. With GUI, we click on an icon and the computer knows to go through a series of steps which gives us the desired result. We don't have to know how we get our product, we can just know what we want the product to be, and order it. Now, that's the ideal situation, and some people get to it very easily and are called "natural" players. Some people get to it after long explorations and periods of pained development, hopefully guided by competent teachers (that's me, by the way; I am very much a "manufactured" player.) Some people don't get to it, floundering in heavy seas of concepts they only partially understand and/or cannot properly or adequately implement. This last group is the group experiencing "paralysis by analysis" and I have seen it first hand, many times. The paralysis comes not from too much analysis, but from incomplete, poor, misguided, or under-developed analysis.

In my 20 years of observing brass players, it seems to me that if a person plays an instrument long enough, they might possibly at different times fit into each of these categories. A manufactured player can get to the point that their playing is truly effortless and unconscious. A natural player can have something change, leading them to examination and understanding, examination and extreme frustration, or simply putting the horn down for good. A person dealing with conceptual confusion can clear that confusion, sometimes on their own but usually with professional guidance.

As far as priorities, I am satisfied with these thoughts:
According to Brian Fredericksen, Arnold Jacobs wound up preferring the phrase "Song and Wind" over "Wind and Song" because it prioritized musical imagination over physical phenomenon. Another phrase from one of my teachers, who studied with Mr. Jacobs for many years: "Mind over meat". I do not think these catchphrases mean to render unimportant the physical set up in playing brass instruments. I had the good fortune of studying at length with three teachers who studied at length with Mr. Jacobs, and each one of these teachers brought up the physical set-up at some point in my studies. We should consider our physical set-up as needed, but our set-up is just there waiting to do its job; to REACT TO OUR WIND. Our wind is just there waiting to its job; to REACT TO OUR MUSICAL IMAGINATION.

[Ben]

Great post Mr. Lapins! My discussion of embouchure was to clarify something for Mary Ann, and not meant to single out the one element.

To adress an issue Mr. Stryker brought up:

Disclaimer - I'd recommend this student to a few select people and not do this regardless of how adamant the student was: I am not sure I'd ever seek to change a students embouchure unless the student was adamant about it. What makes more sence to me, (and worked for me) was to be show via simple self demonstration (ie the student is the one doing the demonstrating to himself) how my own embouchure works. The rest works itself out with via practice.

tuben: The fuel concept is dead on too. It is definitely a multivariable system, and so darn fun to explore

[toobagrowl]

Years ago at the first college I attended, we had a tuba performer/teacher come give us music students a master class. He was a former Jacobs student and brought all those breathing devices and had some of us come up and use them. He mostly talked about efficiency of air, taking big breaths, filling our lungs to capacity, etc.
Later on, he gave us tuba students "lessons", basically talking about the same thing.
He then proceeded to "demonstrate" for me how to use proper air and play a passage by cacking the first note out of his horn with a crappy unpure didgeridoo-like tone quality.
He had that "this is how it's done, listen to me" look on his face, staring at me as he played. Needless to say, I was not impressed, and I was thinking to myself quietly "ummmm, okayyy" with this look on my face:
Supposedly, this guy played in a well-known civic orchestra decades ago...

Air is important, for sure, but I think embouchure strength & efficiency and just having a good buzz is MUCH more important to good tone production

[Jay Bertolet]

To be honest, students that have to work at it achieve the best success for me. While it would be nice to have a student come in and be able to do everything, it never happens. So then, the next most important question is whether or not the student is willing to work. In my experience, the ones that have to work at it more than others (and usually have a way better developed work ethic) always make great, steady progress. All of my successful students (the ones that have landed good playing jobs) have had exceptional work ethics. At least one didn't start out that way and nearly flunked out as my student. Those experiences have taught me that working hard is really the key, and having more "natural ability" at the start can sometimes be harder in the long term.

Having a great buzz is not always the best way to look at results either. We may be talking semantics here but if I take that point literally, I have had students that make a way better buzz on the mouthpiece than I do. I do not advocate buzzing exercises unless the student feels they would benefit from the process. Buzzing exercises have never done much for me personally so my teaching doesn't really focus on them. I've had students that do feel buzzing is really important and work a lot on it. They make the most amazing buzz away from the horn that you ever hear. That does not always translate into a great tuba sound though, at least in my experiences.

It almost seems to me like the whole mouthpiece buzzing thing is a metaphor for the question of embouchure function in playing. Everyone knows you need to buzz, very few agree on the best path to get there, and ultimately everyone decides for themselves how far to go in refining it or even if they do it at all. I feel like acoustical science still hasn't figured out all there is to the equation yet, which leaves me still searching and being careful in giving advice for fear of doing any harm. My hope is that more work will be done to quantify the specifics of what makes a great sound. I think we'd all benefit from more knowledge and clear, causal relationships between known embouchure techniques and tuba sound/playing.

I sometimes wonder if we don't know more because of the relative young age of our instrument. Then I see more folks studying Strads to see if they can reproduce them, watch them fail, and figure that we're still a long way off from really understanding how things work. Which leaves us back in the practice room, working things out as best we can.

[Roger Lewis]

A lot of people fall back on the line that "we play a wind instrument, not a lip instrument". But when you look at it from a different perspective, we have an embouchure and we have air. Neither one, by itself, produces the sound. Both have to be involved BUT they are not equal. As stated by others, the air is the fuel for the embouchure. This is the principal behind the "spit valve drill", an old Arnold Jacobs trick that I use for the first two minutes on the horn every day. It re-establishes, for me, the importance of the air OVER the embouchure, but the embouchure is still important.

I used to build race cars for a living and I could put a crappy motor in a car and great fuel and it had the potential to win if it held together. On the other hand I could put a great motor in a car and contaminated fuel and it wouldn't get out of it's own way. So the fuel is important.

When playing we also need to factor in the resonating chambers of the body as they will also add color and depth to the sound. Try playing with your teeth together, tongue up and your jaw closed and see what happens to the sound. The oral cavity, the sinuses and the lungs all are resonating chambers that will affect the sound depending on how open or closed they are. Finding YOUR own personal balance will help you find YOUR sound.

Many people struggle with lip slurs (as I did when learning them 'way back when), but there is a trick to them and they can be learned very quickly if you understand the trick. I taught a very fine player how to do lip trills in 5 minutes a few years ago. He believed that he would never be able to do them. It's not embouchure strength that helped him as much as just understanding the simple underlying physics of the process.

I go back to my standard saying:
Babies and monkeys can buzz their lips. I can teach a monkey how to push the buttons. But I can't teach the monkey how to play a beautiful melody. What does this mean? You only have to be a little smarter than a monkey to be a brass player. It actually is easier than you think to get a good sound but mastering the music is really the hard part.

Just my ramblings.

Roger

[Jay Bertolet]

Great fuel and a crappy engine - as Roger recalls - can work for a while. Many tuba players whisper amongst themselves about eminent/monumental players who have "blown out their faces" (perhaps...??) by using too much "fuel" (combined with too-large capillary fuel lines) - expecting the facial "engine" to supply extraordinary quantities of artificial resistance, and expecting this set-up to continue to work that way forever. Apparently, it doesn't.

An interesting hypothesis. My guess was exactly the opposite. My guess was too much pressure, bad embouchure technique, whatever the specific embouchure problem was that simply wore out the muscles to the point of dysfunction. It never occurred to me that over-using the air might be the issue. As I'm aging as a player, I'm noticing physical limitations in my own playing. At first this really bothered me but then I realized that what was really happening was that my younger self was able to correct improper technique that my older self (and older, less pliant muscles) could not correct. Once I recognized the wealth of information being revealed, I was able to correct some smaller issues in my production that had been going on for quite some time.

Maybe using the word efficiency is a bad choice in this context. Generally, people see efficiency as a better use of something. In this specific context, the implication is that I make my embouchure more efficient so that it can do more with less. But in reality, I make my embouchure more efficient so that it doesn't wear out prematurely. There seems to be a fine line between improvement versus dysfunction.

Thanks for the interesting and spirited discussion!

[tubalex]

Everything Roger wrote +1

[Jay Bertolet]

For me, the mouthpiece is a very hard thing to choose. I have spent of a lot of time trying to figure out any yardsticks for the process and have decided that there is no easy way. But I have reached some conclusions:

Choose rim for comfort
Choose cup for sound
Choose backbore (shank) for intonation

Those three things are a great place to start. Unfortunately, unless you are ready to start cutting up mouthpieces to mix and match, this process can be very difficult. The other problem is that choosing the rim and backbore are very easily quantifiable things, deciding on a cup for the sound you want is really a big part of this thread's discussion. Of course, the wildcard is you. How well you play, how solid you are with your embouchure, how you change over time, all these things affect all three option.

What seems to work best for me is trying to keep the cup/sound relationship centered on the concept of a "characteristic" sound. For example, I know how different tubas sound based on their designs, at least as much as I understand things at this point. I won't choose a mouthpiece that attempts to make one horn try to sound like another. So many students I teach choose the biggest mouthpiece they can find to make their mid size BBb sound like a BAT. Usually, this process also produces many intonation problems along with a poor approximation of the intended sound. My best luck has come doing everything I can to choose a mouthpiece that makes sense with the horn I use.

After that, it's all about making the production process easier. If I feel I'm working really hard, I might have chosen poorly. When I find the right combination, it is usually very obvious. Then the real work begins in making sure that all my production technique is proper and sustainable. Unfortunately, that step of the process is always ongoing....

[Jay Bertolet]

It can be frustrating but there are some things you can do to make it easier. First, consider a modular design. Doug Elliot makes a great line of mouthpieces and you can mix and match the three elements you're searching. Usually retailers that sell these types of mouthpieces will send you a few choices for each slot and then you mix and match, choose what you want, and send back the rest. I've also found Doug to be a wealth of information and very helpful to work with. You can also consider buying used mouthpieces off eBay. I frequently see an auction for several older mouthpieces, some scratched and dented, for around $25. That's a pretty small investment for getting to try a bunch of mouthpieces. Also, you can turn around and resell them if you don't like them. If you do find one one you like, it is an easy matter to find a new one and purchase it or have the one you have replated. You could also find someone in your community that has a mouthpiece collection like I do. I have gathered and kept mouthpieces over the years specifically so that students can try different ones without having to buy them. Panama City is relatively close to Tallahassee so there might be someone there who can help you. Also Pensacola might have a player or two nearby.

Those are just some ideas to work with, I'm sure others will chime in with more suggestions.

[Jay Bertolet]

The best place I know of for plating mouthpieces is Anderson Plating in Indiana. They have a website:

http://www.andersonsilverplating.com/" target="_blank

Every mouthpiece I have sent them has come back looking new. I have found they are very sensitive about not overbuffing your used mouthpiece which can change or ruin a perfectly good mouthpiece. Also, they were relatively inexpensive and have a quick turnaround time. I haven't sent them anything in years but I would still trust them first. Good luck!

[toobagrowl]

Whenever I play/sound like dogsh!t, it is because of:

- lack of preparation
- or -
- lack of concentration

Only occasionally is lack of air (fuel) the cause for sounding like crap. The majority of the time it is a 'miscalculation' in my embouchure

[Roger Lewis]

Is it a "miscalculation"? Or was it because you didn't have enough fuel behind it? Think about it a bit. When I miss a note by being above the note I give myself a little pat on the back and then back off my air a bit. If I miss low then I kick myself in the pants and get more air going. I see this happening when I get tired in a long rehearsal or after several tough gigs in the same day.

I'm pretty sure that if you look back you may find this to be the case when you miss.

Roger

[tubalex]

It's not about "not enough" air. It's about proper manipulation of the air informing the vibrating tissue. They are not separate entities, and do not function apart from one-another in brass playing. Training your breathing is part of preparation, whether you realize that's what you are doing or not.

Generating the proper vibration is the whole thing. You can't have whatever you might consider to be a perfect embouchure and get a sound, without the wind engaging the lip tissue. It doesn't matter if you have the world's most perfect strings on a cello, unless you use a bow to get them vibrating.

These are not separate, independent aspects of playing. We can observe and discuss them separately, but they are useless without one-another.

[tubalex]

I think the post this text is replacing was worded poorly. If it came off as dismissive, I saw it that way too after rereading it, and that's why it's gone.

[Roger Lewis]

Another aspect to examine is all the different things that change depending on the range of the note and the dynamic of the note.

When playing a C in the staff, you have a pretty specific jaw setting, tongue arch, air flow, etc. for each dynamic. If you play the C at pianissimo level you have one setting, but if you play it fortissimo you have a completely different setting. The same is true for all the dynamic levels in between.

This is the hardest thing (in my opinion) to master and we do it unconsciously for the most part. But if you were to put it into a matrix, you have, say, 6 dynamic levels (pp, p, mp, mf, f and ff) and a 3 octave range (Pedal F to F above the staff for example) you have 216 different "settings" to learn and have on hand when needed.

That's a lot to juggle IMO, but we don't (for the most part) even realize that that is what we are doing.

Just my Friday ramblings.

Roger

[tubalex]

Look, I've studied brass playing across the globe, and very extensively in the US of A. Where are you seeing the "chops" part of playing dismissed, Bloke? I've never seen that, not even in Chicago.

[PMeuph]

This board (as would be predicted) speaks much to hardware, speaks a bit to air, and speaks VERY little to "beautiful sound"/"beautiful tone". The mouthpiece and/or reeds (the point at which the vibration is set up) are overwhelming foci of woodwind players. I'm certain that an artist-level oboist would prefer to walk on stage with an amazing reed and a slight malfunction in their instrument than an amazing instrument and a slight malfunction in their reed...

A little off topic....

Several years ago, my roommate at the time got a last minute call to fill in with the local orchestra. The second oboist had had an emergency dental surgery the night before and was out for the week. My roommate showed up to rehearsal with very little notice but without any stress as he knew the orchestra well and the first oboist was his teacher. As soon as he sat down in his chair, his teacher explained that he didn't have a reed that worked well and asked to borrow one. For reasons that most people would understand, my roommate felt compelled to give his teacher the best reed he had. After the teacher received the reed and played with it, he turned to his student and said "this is a great reed, much butter than any reed I use regularly." His teacher made him a reed the next week to compensate him and to give him back his tube.

Later that year, I told an oboist in a band* that I played in that my roommate made great reeds. (She was a law school student and didn't have the time or the will to make good reeds) She bought a couple reeds from him. Instantly, he tone improve, he tuning improved tenfold and she became a much better player. (Of course, this had to be repeated 2 months later)

My point is that it is easier for double-reed players to have someone else make the reed that works for them than it us for brass players to have the same kind of work done.* While I understand the necessity of our vibration apparatus to work effectively, I think that people here don't talk about it much because it a complex issue, probably more complex and more unique than reed making is given that we all have different facial structures.

______
*It was a paying gig, she needed to improve if she wanted to keep her job.

*There seem to be several knowledgeable board members on the issue of embouchure. I am not one of them. I would also say that my former teacher, who had a job with a pro symphony wasn't one of them. In my 6 years of lessons, I think our discussion of embouchure was mostly focused on the old axiom that one has to keep the corners of the mouth firm. Nothing more. I don't believe he knew much more than that, he is a stellar musician but I think he got by his whole career without knowing exactly how he worked to get the tone he had.

[toobagrowl]

Is it a "miscalculation"? Or was it because you didn't have enough fuel behind it? Think about it a bit.

It is usually a "miscalculation", just like I said. For example, I played a concert a while back and chipped a mid-line 'D'. Had plenty of air (fuel) behind it, but chipped it due to a slight miscalculation in my embouchure. That note happens to be where I have a slight shift in my embouchure too. The 'miscalculation' comment was meant for ALL things 'embouchure' - sound, intonation, attacks, etc - not just missed notes.
For another example - I have had 'air balls' (usually in practice), where there was air, but the note did not come out. Those get on my nerves as much or more than chipped notes In those instances, I did not calculate the embouchure correctly or manipulate the air flow correctly.

I guess Alex describes it very well by talking about the manipulation of the air by the embouchure. The embouchure and air must work together well to get good results.

But bloke is right - there are many teachers who put more emphasis on 'big air' than anything else, even when the embouchure itself is every bit as important...

[GC]

I wholeheartedly agree. However, one of the biggest problems with instruction in embouchure is that there are few true scholars on the subject. Most teachers teach embouchure from the example of their own or from a few photographs, and all too often it just doesn't work for someone with a specific problem. I wish there were more Roger Lewises or Doug Elliots out there.