While this is still up I dare elaborate on or better say clarify my original post taking into account Robin's reply #17. Maybe I have better luck this time. (Robin, sorry that I talk about you in third person if you read this - I don't want to assume you will reply for sure... meanwhile hoping so ). Anyone is welcome to extend the knowledge. So, is it correct to say that the procedure outlined in my original post with some corrections by Rowuk (excluding the lead pipe which I assigned by mistake to Rowuk's method while he never teaches it - Sorry!) and which is largely long tones, slurs and some scales played *softly* in the beginning of the practice session is nothing more than a "smart" warm-up? With further Rowuk's notes I can see that this in general sense falls into his often suggested first 1/3rd of the paractice session organized as 'warm up - tunes - technique' trinity which is fair enough. What I probably was asking about originally is whether the "smart" of the first part in which "soft" is a key word translates directly to the second and third parts. I see in order to play tunes in the second part we need to add a little of "animal" to our blowing approach to make certain notes happen and sound full and lively. So, what happens in the second and third parts? Do we become "less smart" or do we use another "smart" method here? In other words does "smart" which is "soft" belongs to the first part only and what "smart" is more applicable to other parts?